Državna Matura Logic study plan

Define the five standard connectives (negation, conjunction, disjunction, conditional, biconditional) and write their truth tables from memory without consulting notes.

Translate ten short Croatian sentences into propositional formulas, choosing sentence letters consistently and stating the translation key.

Construct full truth tables for at least six formulas of two and three variables and mark each as tautology, contradiction, or contingent.

Explain in writing why the material conditional is false in exactly one case, using a concrete everyday example.

Test five pairs of formulas for logical equivalence using truth tables and justify each verdict in one sentence.

Classify ten pairs of formulas as contradictory, contrary, subcontrary, or independent by comparing their truth tables.

Apply the formal definitions of tautology, contradiction, and contingent formula to sort a mixed list of fifteen formulas correctly.

Derive the negation of a conditional and of a biconditional using equivalence laws rather than guesswork.

State and apply the truth-table test for validity to ten short arguments in propositional form.

Identify the valid argument forms modus ponens, modus tollens, hypothetical syllogism, and disjunctive syllogism in disguised wording.

Distinguish validity from truth of premises by constructing two arguments with true premises and a false conclusion versus false premises and a true conclusion.

Use the short truth-table (indirect) method to show invalidity by assigning values that make all premises true and the conclusion false.

Translate fifteen sentences with 'all', 'some', 'no', and 'only' into predicate formulas using correct quantifier scope and variables.

Distinguish universal from particular quantification and write the negation of each quantifier form correctly.

Draw the square of opposition for categorical statements and label contradiction, contrariety, subcontrariety, and subalternation.

Detect scope ambiguity in at least three sentences where word order changes the meaning of the formula.

Test five quantified arguments for validity using interpretation and countermodel reasoning on a small domain.

Apply universal instantiation and existential generalization correctly in short derivations.

Explain why a single countermodel refutes validity and construct countermodels on a domain of two objects.

Combine propositional and quantifier steps to evaluate three mixed arguments.

Define the terms argument, premise, conclusion, validity, soundness, and enthymeme in your own words and match each to an example.

Identify and name eight fallacies, including ad hominem, straw man, false dilemma, begging the question, and equivocation, in a set of passages.

Distinguish formal from informal fallacies and give one original example of each type you name.

Repair three flawed arguments by adding the missing premise or removing the ambiguity.

Explain the difference between necessity, possibility, and contingency and evaluate five modal statements for truth under a stated reading.

Translate sentences with 'must', 'may', and 'cannot' into modal notation and state the interdefinability of the modal operators.

Describe in writing one non-classical system (for example intuitionistic or many-valued logic) and one respect in which it departs from classical logic.

Critique two arguments that misuse modal language, such as inferring actuality from possibility.

Complete a full timed mock paper across all seven domains under exam conditions and record the score per domain.

Re-derive the truth-table verdicts for every item missed on the mock and write the corrected reasoning.

Rank your three weakest domains by error count and drill twenty targeted items from those domains.

Rehearse a fixed exam routine: translate first, test validity second, check fallacy labels last.