Introduction to logic categorical proposition

CHAPTER FOUR
CATEGORICAL PROPOSITIONS
4.1 The Components of Categorical Propositions

What is a Categorical Proposition?

A proposition is a sentence that is either true or false. A proposition that relates two classes or categories
is known as categorical proposition. The classes in question are denoted respectively by the subject
term and predicate term.
 Subject term –a word or a phrase that names a class and that serve as the grammatical subject of
a sentence.
 Predicate term – a word or phrase that names a class and that serve as the subject complement of
a sentence.
A categorical proposition asserts that either all or part of the class denoted by the subject term is included
in or excluded from the class denoted by the predicate term. Some examples of categorical proposition
are:
Light rays travel at a fixed speed.
Radical ideologues do not find it easy to compromise.
Not all convicted murderers get the death penalty.
The first statement asserts that the entire class of light rays is included in the class of things that travel at
a fixed speed, the second that the entire class of radical ideologues is excluded from the class of persons
who find it easy to compromise, and the third asserts that part of the class of convicted murderers are
excluded from the class of persons who get the death penalty.
Since any categorical proposition asserts that either all or part of the class denoted by the subject term is
included in or excluded from the class denoted by the predicate term, it follows that there are exactly four
types of categorical propositions.
1. Those that asserts that the whole subject class is included in the predicate class (All S are P).
Example: All university students are familiar with internet face book.
2. Those that asserts that part of the subject class is included in the predicate class (Some S are P).
Example: Some college students are known in smuggling chat.
3. Those that assert that the whole subject class is excluded from the predicate class (No S are P).
Example: No cats are dogs.
4. Those that asserts that part of the subject class is excluded from the predicate class (Some S are
not P).

Example: Some felines are not tigers.

Page 1
Introduction to logic categorical proposition

These four types of categorical propositions are standard form. A categorical proposition is in standard
form if and only if it is a substitution instance of one of the above forms. However, not all categorical
propositions are in standard form because, among other things, they do not begin with the words “all,”
“no,” or “some.” The words “all,” “no” and “some” are called quantifiers because they specify how
much of the subject class is included in or excluded from the predicate class. Stated in another way,
quantifiers are words which used to express a quantity or number. In a formal deductive logic the word
“some” always means at least one. The letters “S” and “p” stand respectively for the subject and predicate
terms and the words “are” and “are not” are the copula because they link (or couple) the subject term
with the predicate term.
Example: Some college students are avid devotees of soap operas. This standard form categorical
proposition is analyzed as follows:
Quantifier: some Subject term: college students Copula: are
Predicate term: avid devotees of soap operas.
In resolving standard form categorical propositions in to their four components, one should note three
things. First, “subject term” and “predicate term” do not mean the same thing in logic that “subject” and
“predicate” mean in grammar. Second, the form “All S are not P” is not a standard form. This form is
ambiguous and can be interpreted as either “No S are P” or “Some S are not P,” depending on the
content. Third, there are exactly three forms of quantifiers and two forms of copulas.
Quantity, Quality, and Distribution
Quantity and quality are attributes of categorical propositions. In order to see how these attributes pertain,
it is useful to rephrase the meaning of categorical propositions in class terminology:
Proposition meaning in class notation
All S are P. Every member of the S class is a member of the P class; that is,
the S class is included in the P class.
No S are P. No members of the S class is a member of a P class; that is, the S class
is excluded from the P class.
Some S are P. At least one member of the S class is a member of the P class.
Some S are not P. At least one member of the S class is not a member of the P class.
The quality of a categorical proposition is either affirmative or negative depending on whether it affirms
or denies a class membership. Accordingly, “All S are P” and “Some S are P” have affirmative quality,
and “No S are P” and “Some S are not P” have negative quality.
The quantity of a categorical proposition is either universal or particular depending on whether the
statement makes a claim about every member or just one members of the class denoted by the subject
term. “All S are P” and “No S are P” are universal because each assert something about every member of

Page 2
Introduction to logic categorical proposition

the S class. “Some S are P’’ and “Some S are not P” are particular since each assert something about
one or more members of the class.
Since the early Middle Ages the four kinds of categorical propositions have commonly been designated
by letter names corresponding to the first four vowels of the Roman alphabet: A, E, I, O. The universal
affirmative is called an A proposition, the universal negative an E proposition, the particular affirmative
an I proposition, and the particular negative an O proposition. Tradition has it that these letters were
derived from the first two vowels in the Latin words affirmo (“I affirm”) and nego ( “I deny”) .
Summary about quantity and quality
Proposition letter name Quantity Quality
All S are P. A universal affirmative
No S are P. E universal negative
Some S are P. I particular affirmative
Some S are not P. O particular negative
Unlike quality and quantity, which are attributes of propositions, distribution is an attribute of the terms
(subject and predicate) of propositions. A term is said to be distributed if the proposition makes an
assertion about every member of the class denoted by the term; otherwise it is undistributed. To put it
differently, a term is distributed if and only if the statement assigns (or distributes) an attribute to every
member of the class denoted by a term. Thus, if a statement asserts something about every member of the
S class, then S is distributed; if it asserts something about every member of the P class, then P is
distributed; otherwise S and P are undistributed.
Let us imagine the members of the class denoted by the subject and predicate terms of a categorical
proposition are contained respectively in circles marked with the letters “S” and “P.” Accordingly, the
meaning of the statement “All S are P” may be represented by the following diagram:

P
The S circle is contained in the P circle, which represents the fact that every member of S is a member of
P. This proposition makes a claim about every member of the S class, since the statement says that every
member of S is in the P class. But the statement does not make a claim about every member of the P class
since there may be some members of P that are outside of S. Thus, for any universal affirmative ( A)
proposition, the subject term is distributed, and the predicate term is undistributed.
Let us now consider the universal negative(E) proposition; that is, “No S are P” states that the S and P
classes are separate, which may be represented as follows:

Page 3
Introduction to logic categorical proposition

S P

This statement makes a claim about every member of S and every member of P. It asserts that every
member of S is separate from every member of P, and also that every member of P is separate from every
member of S. Accordingly, both the subject and predicate terms of universal negative (E) propositions
are distributed.
The particular affirmative (I) proposition states that at least one members of S is a member of P. If we
represent this one member of S that we are certain about by an asterisk, the resulting diagram looks like
this: S
*

P
Since the asterisk is inside the P class it represents something that is simultaneously an S and P. In other
words, it represents a member of the S class that is also a member of P the class. Thus, the statement
“Some S are P” makes a claim about one member (at least) of S and also one member (at least) of P, but
not about all members of either class. Hence, by definition of distribution, neither S nor P is distributed.
The particular negative (O) proposition asserts that at least one members of S is not member of P. If we
represent this one member of S by an asterisk, the resulting diagram is as follows:

*S

Since the other members of S may P or may not be outside P, it is clear that the statement “Some S are not
P” does not make a claim about every member of S, so S is not distributed. But the statement does assert
that the entire P class is separated from this one member of S that is outside; that is, it does make a claim
about every member of P. Thus in particular negative (O) proposition, P is distributed and S is
undistributed.
Summary on distribution
Letter Terms
Proposition name Quantity Quality distributed
All S are P. A universal affirmative S
No S are P. E universal negative S and P
Some S are P. I particular affirmative none
Some S are not P. O particular negative P

Page 4
Introduction to logic categorical proposition

4.3 Venn Diagrams and the Modern Square Of Opposition

There is an ambiguity in the meaning of A-type and E- type categorical propositions. For instance, when
we say, “All S are P,” do we assume that S denotes something that actually exists or do we make no such
assumptions? In response to these questions, logicians have developed two different interpretations of
categorical propositions. The first is developed by Aristotle and he restricted his theory to things that
actually exist. Thus, according to Aristotelian interpretation, the statement form “All S are P” asserts that
all members of the S class are included in the P class, and it is assumed that members of S actually exist.
The second interpretation is developed by logician George Boole that was neutral about existence.
According to Boolean interpretation, the statement form “All S are P” asserts that all members of the S
class are included in the P class and it is not assumed that members of S actually exist. The difference
between the Aristotelian and Boolean interpretation also extends to E-type propositions. Thus, under the
Aristotelian interpretation, “No S are P” asserts that no members of S class are included in the P class,
and it is assumed that members of S actually exist. Under the Boolean interpretation, however, it asserts
that no members of the S class are included in the P class, and it is not assumed that members of S
actually exist.
But the two interpretations are in agreement with regard to the particular (I and O) propositions. Thus,
for both interpretations, “Some S are P” asserts that at least one member of the S class exists, and it is
also a member of the P class. And “Some S are not P” asserts that at least one member of the S class
exists, and it is not a member of the P class. Thus, under both the Aristotelian and Boolean
interpretations, I and O statements make positive claims about existence.
Boolean interpretation of the four kinds of categorical propositions:
All S are P. = No members of S are outside of P.
No S are P. = No members of S are inside P.
Some S are P. = At least one S exists and, and that S is a P.
Some S are not P.= At least one S exists, and that S is not a P.
Adopting this interpretation of categorical propositions, the nineteenth- century logician John Venn
developed a system of diagrams to represent the information they express. These diagrams have come to
be known as Venn diagrams. A Venn diagram is an arrangement of over lapping circles in which each
circle represents the class denoted by a term in a categorical proposition. Because a categorical
proposition has exactly two terms, (subject and predicate), the Venn diagram for a single categorical
proposition consists of two overlapping circles. Such a diagram looks like this:

S P

Page 5
Introduction to logic categorical proposition

The members of each class denoted by each term should be thought of as situated inside the
corresponding circle. Thus, the members of the S class are situated inside the S circle, and the members
of the P class are situated in the P circle.
Suppose, for instance, that the S circle is the class of republicans and the P circle is the class of
democrats. Then, if we select R and D to label the two circles and if we use numerals to identify the four
possible areas, the diagram looks like the following:

1 2 3 4
R D
Anything in the area marked “1” is a republican but not a democrat, anything in the area marked “2” is
both a democrat and a republican, and anything in the area marked “3” is a democrat but not republican.
The area marked “4” is the area outside both circles. Thus, anything in this area is neither a republican
nor a democrat.
Then we use Venn diagrams to represent the information expressed by the four kinds of categorical
proposition. To do this two kinds of marks are needed: shading an area (which means that the shaded area
is empty), and placing an “X” in an area (which means at least one thing exists in that area). If no mark
appears in the area, this means that nothing is known about this area; it may contain members or it may
be empty. Shading is always used to represent the content of universal (A and E) propositions, and
placing an “X” in an area is always used to represent the content of particular (I and O) propositions.
The content of the four kinds of categorical proposition is represented as follows:
A: All S are P.

S P

E. No S are P.
S P
I: Some S are P.
X

S P

O: Some S are not P.

S X P

Page 6
Introduction to logic categorical proposition

From the above analysis, A- proposition asserts that no members of S are outside P. This is represented
by shading the part of the S circle that lies outside the P circle. The E- proposition asserts that no
members of S are inside the P circle. This is represented by shading the part of the S circle that lies inside
the P circle. The I - proposition asserts that at least one S exists and that S is also a P. This is represented
by placing an “X” where the S and P circle overlap. This “X” represents an existing thing that is both an
S and P. Finally, the O- proposition asserts that at least one S exists and that S is not a P. This is
represented by placing an “X” in the part of the S circle that lies outside the P circle. This “X” represents
an existing thing that is an S and not a P. Because there is no “X” in the diagrams that represent the
universal propositions, these diagrams say nothing about existence.
Comparing the diagrams of the four types of categorical propositions:
The diagram for the A- propositions asserts that the left- hand part of the S circle is empty where as the
diagram for the O- proposition asserts that this same area is not empty. The two diagrams make
assertions that are the exact opposite of each other. As a result their corresponding statements are said to
contradict to each other. Similarly, the diagram for the E- proposition asserts that the area where the two
circles overlap is empty, where as the diagrams for the I- proposition asserts that the area where the two
circles overlap is not empty. Accordingly, their corresponding propositions are also said to contradict
each other. This relationship of mutually contradictory pairs of propositions is represented in a diagram
called the Modern Square of Opposition. This diagram is represented as follows:
A E

I O

If two propositions are related by the contradictory relation, they necessarily have opposite truth value.
Thus, if a certain A- proposition is given as true, the corresponding O proposition must be false and vice
versa. Similarly, if a certain I- proposition is given as false, the corresponding E- proposition must be
true and vice versa. However, given the truth value of an A- or O- proposition, nothing can be
determined about the truth value of the corresponding E or I propositions. These propositions could be
either true or false depending on whether their subject terms denote actually existing things. Thus, from
the Boolean stand point, which is neutral about existence, they are said to have logically undetermined
truth value. Similarly, given the truth vale of an E or I proposition, nothing can be determined about the
truth value of the corresponding A or O propositions. Hence, they too, are said to have logically
undetermined truth value.
Because the contradictory relationship is logically necessary, it can provide the basis for evaluating
certain arguments as valid or invalid. Consider the following argument:

Page 7
Introduction to logic categorical proposition

Some word processors are not complicated devices. Therefore, it is false that all word processors are
complicated devices.
Arguments of this sort are called immediate inferences because they have only a single premise, and so
there is no transition in thought from one premise to another and to the conclusion. To evaluate this
argument using the modern square of opposition, we begin by assuming that the premise, which is an O
proposition, is true. According to the modern square, if an O- proposition is true, the It follows
necessarily that its corresponding A- proposition is false. But this is precisely what the conclusion asserts.
Therefore, the argument is valid.
4.4 The Traditional Square Of Opposition
The traditional square of opposition, which depends on the Aristotelian interpretation, is an
arrangement of lines that illustrates logically necessary relations among the four kinds of categorical
propositions. Unlike the Boolean interpretation, the Aristotlean assumes that the subject terms of
universal (A and E) propositions denote things that actually exist. Because of this existential
assumption, the traditional square contains more relations than the modern square. The traditional
square is represented as follows:
A Contrary E
F T
Subalternation Subalternation
T F
I O
subcontrary
The four relations in the traditional square of opposition may be characterized as follows:
Contradictory = opposite truth value
Contrary = at least one is false (not both true)
Subcontrary = at least one is true (not both false)
Subalternation = truth flows down ward, falsity flows upward.
The contradictory relation is the same as that found in the modern square. Thus, if a certain A
proposition is given as true, the corresponding O proposition is false, and vice versa, and if a certain A
proposition is given as false, the corresponding O proposition is true, and vice versa. The same relation
holds between the E and I propositions. Thus, the contradictory relation expresses complete opposition
between propositions.
Unlike contradictory relation, the contrary relation expresses only partial opposition. Thus, if a certain
A proposition is given as true, the corresponding E proposition is false, and if an E proposition is given
as true the corresponding A proposition is false. But if an A proposition is given as false the

Page 8
Introduction to logic categorical proposition

corresponding E proposition could be either true or false without violating the “at least one is false “rule.
In this case, the E proposition has undetermined truth value. Similarly, if an E proposition is given as
false, the corresponding A proposition has logically undetermined truth value.
Thus, if we are given the actually true A proposition “All cats are animals” the corresponding E
proposition “No cats are animals” is false, and if we are given the actually true E proposition “No cats are
dogs,” the corresponding A proposition “All cats are dogs” is false. Thus, the A and E propositions
cannot both be true. However, they can be both false. “All animals are cats “and “No animals are cats”’
are both false.
The subcontrary relation also expresses a kind of partial opposition. If certain I proposition is given as
false, the corresponding O proposition is true, and if an O proposition is given as false, the corresponding
I proposition is true. But if either an I or O is given as true, then the corresponding proposition could be
either true or false without violating the “at least one is true” rule. Thus, in this case the corresponding
proposition would have logically undetermined truth value.
Thus, if we are given the actually false I proposition “some cats are dogs,” the corresponding O
proposition “some cats are not dogs’’ is true, and if we are given the actually false O proposition “some
cats are not animals,” the corresponding I proposition “some cats are animals “is true. Thus, the I and O
propositions cannot both be false, but they can both be true. “Some animals are cats” and “some animals
are not cats” are both true.
The subalternation relation is represented by two arrows: a downward arrow marked with the letter “T”
(true), and an upward arrow marked with an “F” (false). These arrows can be thought of pipelines
through which truth values “flow.” The downward arrow “transmits” only truth and the upward arrow
only falsity. Thus, if an A proposition is given as true, the corresponding I proposition is true also, and if
an I proposition is given as false, the corresponding A proposition is false. But if an A proposition is
given as false, this truth value cannot be transmitted downward, so the corresponding I proposition will
have logically undetermined truth value. Conversely, if an I proposition is given as true, this truth value
cannot be transmitted upward, so the corresponding A proposition will have logically undetermined truth
value.
These four relations discussed above can be used together to determine the truth value of the
corresponding propositions. The first rule of thumb that we should keep in mind when using the
traditional square to compute more than one truth value, is always to use contradiction first. Now we are
told that the nonsensical proposition “All adlers are bobkins” is true. Suppose further that adlers actually
exist, so we are justified in using the traditional square of opposition. By the contradictory relation,
“some adlers are not bobkins” is false. Then by the contrary or the subalternation relation, “No adlers are
bobkins” is false. Finally, either by contradictory, subalternation, or subcontrary, “some adlers are
bobkins” is true.
Next, let us see what happens if we assume that “All adlers are bobkins” is false. By the contradictory
relation, “some adlers are not bobkins” is true but nothing more can be determined. In other words given
a false A proposition, both contrary and subalternation yields undetermined results, and given a true O

Page 9
Introduction to logic categorical proposition

proposition, subcontrary and subalternation yield undetermined results. Thus, the corresponding E and I
propositions have logically undetermined truth value.

4.5 Conversion, Obversion, and Contraposition

Many statements expressed in ordinary English contain negated terms that may obscure the meaning of
the statements. Accordingly, there are three operations, (conversion, obversion and contraposition), in
this regard.
Conversion consists in switching the subject term with the predicate term. For example, the converse of
the statement “No foxes are hedgehogs” is “No hedgehogs are foxes.” To see how the four types of
categorical propositions relate to their converse compare the following sets of Venn diagrams: The
content of the four kinds of categorical proposition is represented as follows:
Given statement form Converse
A: All A are B. All B are A.

A B A B

E. No A are B. No B are A.

A B B
A

I: Some A are B. X Some B are A X

A B
A B

O: Some A are not B. O: Some B are not A.

X X
A B A B
If we examine the diagram for the E statement, we see that it is identical to that of its converse. Similarly
the diagram for the I statement is identical to that of its converse. This shows that the E statement and its
converse are logically equivalent, and the I statement and its converse are logically equivalent. Two
statements are said to be logically equivalent when they necessarily have the same truth value. On the
other hand, the diagram for A and O statement is not clearly identical to the diagram of its converse.
Also, these pairs of diagrams are not the exact opposite of each other. This means that an A statement and
its converse are logically unrelated as to truth value, and an O statement and its converse are logically
unrelated as to truth value.

Page 10
Introduction to logic categorical proposition

Since conversion yields necessarily determined results for E and I statements, it can be used as the basis
for immediate inferences having these types of statements as premises. The following argument forms are
valid:

I. No A are B. II. Some A are B.

Therefore, no B are A. Therefore, some B are A.
Since the conclusion of each argument form necessarily have the same truth value as the
premise, if the premise is assumed to be true, it follows necessarily that the conclusion is true.
On the other hand, the next two argument forms are invalid. Each commits the formal fallacy
of illicit conversion.
I. All A are B. II. Some A are not B.
Therefore, no B are A. Therefore, some B are A.
To sum, conversion: switch subject and predicate terms.
Given statement Converse Truth value
E: No S are P. No P are S. Same truth value as
I: Some S are P. Some P are S. given statement.

A: All S are P. All P are S. Undetermined

O: Some S are not P. Some P are not S. truth value.
Obversion, on the other hand, involves two steps: (1) changing the quality (without changing
the quantity), and (2) replacing the predicate with its term complement. The first step involves
in changing “No S are P” to “All S are P” and vice versa and changing “Some S are P” to
“Some S are not P and vice versa.
The second step requires understanding the concept of class complement. The complement of
a class is a group consisting everything outside the class. For example, the complement of the
class of dogs is the group that includes everything that is not a dog (cats, fish, trees, horses,
and so on). But the term complement is the word or group of words that denotes the class
complement. For terms consisting of a single word, the term complement is usually formed by
simply attaching the prefix “non” to the term.
If we are given the statement “All horses are animals,’’ then the obverse is “No horses are
non- animals,” and if we are given the statement “Some trees are maples”, then the obverse is
“Some trees are not non- maples.” To see how the four types of categorical propositions relate
to their obverse, compare the following sets of diagrams:

Page 11
Introduction to logic categorical proposition

Given statement form Obverse

A: All A are B. No A are non-B.

A B
A B

E. No A are B. All A are non- B.

A B A B

I: Some A are B. X Some A are not

X
A B non-B
A B

O: Some A are not B. O: Some A are non- B. X

X
A B
A B
Now if we examine these pairs of diagrams, we see that the diagram for each given statement form is
identical to the diagram for its converse. This means that each of the four types of categorical proposition
is logically equivalent to (and as the same meaning as) its obverse. Thus, if we obvert an A statement that
happens to be true, the resulting statement will be true; if we obvert an O statement that happens to be
false, the resulting statement will be false, and so on.
To sum, obversion: change quality; replace the predicate with term complement
Given statement Obverse Truth value
A: All S are P. No S are non-P. Same truth value
E: No S are P. All S are non-P. as given
I: Some S are P. Some S are not non-P. statement
O: Some S are not P. Some S are non-P.
As is the case with conversion, obversion can be used to supply the link between the premise and the
conclusion of immediate inferences. The following argument forms are valid:
I. All A are B. II. No A areB.
Therefore, no A are non- B. Therefore, all A are non- B.
II. Some A are B. IV. Some A are not B.
Therefore, some A are not non- B. Therefore, some A are non- B.
Because the conclusion of each argument form necessarily have the same truth value as its premises, if
the premise is assumed true, it follows necessarily that the conclusion is true.
Page 12
Introduction to logic categorical proposition

Contraposition also requires two steps: (1) switching the subject term and predicate terms and (2)
replace the subject and predicate terms with their term complements. For example, the contrapositive of
the statement “All goats are animals” is “All non-animals are non- goats.” To see how all four types of
categorical propositions relate to their contrapositive compare the following sets of diagrams:
Given statement form contrapositive
A: All A are B. All non-B are non- A.

B
B A
A

E. No A are B. No non-B are non-A.

A B
A B

I: Some A are B. X Some non-B are

X
A B non-A
A B

O: Some A are not B. O: Some non- B are

X X
not non-A.
A B A B
Inspection of the diagram for the O and A statements reveals that they are identical to the diagrams of
their contrapositive. This means that the A statement and its contrapositive are logically equivalent, and
the O statement and its contrapositive are logically equivalent. On the other hand, the diagrams of the E
and I statements are neither identical to nor the exact opposite of the diagrams of their contrapositives.
This means that contraposing an E or I statement gives a new statement whose truth value is logically
undetermined in relation to the given statement.
As conversion and obversion, contraposition may provide the link between the premise and the
conclusion of an argument. The following argument forms are valid:
I. All A are B. II. Some A are not B.
Therefore, all non-B are non-A. Therefore, some non-B are not non-A.
On the other hand, the following argument forms are invalid. Each commits the fallacy of illicit
contraposition.

I. Some A are B. II. No A are B.

Therefore, some non-B are non-A. Therefore, no non-B are non-A.

Page 13
Introduction to logic categorical proposition

Contraposition: switch subject and predicate terms, and replace each with its term complement.

Given statement contrapositive Truth value

A: All S are P. All non-P are non-S. Same truth value
O: Some S are not P. Some non-P are not non- S. as given statement.

I: Some S are P. Some non-P are non- S. Undetermined

E: No S are P. No non-P are non-S. truth value.

4.5 Testing Immediate Inferences

The traditional square of opposition can be used to test immediate inferences for validity. Consider the
following example:
All Swiss watches are true works of art.
Therefore, it is false that no Swiss watches are true works of art.
To evaluate this argument, we begin by assuming the premise is true. Since the premise is an A
proposition, by the contrary relation the corresponding E proposition is false. But this is exactly what the
conclusion says, so the argument is valid. Here is another example:
Some viruses are structures that attack T- cells.
Therefore, some viruses are not structures that attack T-cells.
Here the premise and conclusion are linked by the subcontrary relation. According to that relation, if the
premise is assumed true then the conclusion has logically undetermined truth value, and so the argument
is invalid. It commits the formal fallacy of illicit subcontrary. Similarly, arguments that depend on an
incorrect application of the contrary relation commit the formal fallacy of illicit contrary, and arguments
that depend on an illicit application of subalternation commit the formal fallacy of subalternation. Since
incorrect application of the contradictory relation are infrequent, an “illicit contradictory” fallacy is not
usually recognized.

Page 14