Written Report

Conditional Syllogism and Its Fallacies

Group: 6
Argel Oliquiano Christian P. Salazar Stephen Tan Ryan Go Ochangco Angelo Ocampo
Introduction:

Mrs. Ibasco-

A hypothetical syllogism is one whose major premise is a hypothetical proposition while its minor premise and conclusion are categorical propositions. There is no major, minor or middle term proper in the hypothetical proposition. Conditional syllogism A conditional syllogism is one whose major premise is a conditional proposition consisting of an antecedent and consequent, while the minor premise affirms or denies either the antecedent or consequent of the major premise, and the conclusion merely expresses whatever follows from its affirmation or denial. Both the minor premise and the conclusion are categorical propositions. RULES: 1. Posit the antecedent, posit the consequent. 2. Sublate the consequent, sublate the antecedent. 3. Posit the consequent, no conclusion 4. Sublate the antecedent, no conclusion.

Posit the antecedent, posit the consequent.

In classical logic, modus ponendo ponens (Latin for mode that affirms by affirming; [1] often abbreviated to MP or modus ponens) is a valid, simple argument form sometimes referred to as affirming the antecedent or the law of detachment. The argument form has two premises. The first premise is the "ifthen" or conditional claim, namely that P implies Q. The second premise is that P, the antecedent of the conditional claim, is true. This is known, in the symbolic logic, as Modus Ponens. If the antecedent is affirmed in the minor premise, the consequent must also be affirmative in the conclusion. This simply means: "If X is true, then Y must be true. We know that X is in fact true. So Y must be true as well." Writing it symbolically, X Y. X true, \ Y true. (where means "implies" and \ means "therefore"). Modus ponens is a very common rule of inference, and takes the following form: If P, then Q. P. Therefore

Example: 1. If today is Tuesday, then I will go to work.

Today is Tuesday. Therefore, I will go to work. 2. If someone is not healthy; But Dominic is not healthy; Dominic becomes sick.

Sublate the consequent, sublate the antecedent.

This is known in symbolic logic, as Modus Tollens. If the consequent is rejected in the minor premis, the antecedent must also be rejected in the conclusion. This is the flip-side of modus ponens: "If X is true, then Y must be true. We know that Y is not in fact true. So X can't be true either." Symbolically, X Y. Not Y, \ not X. It can also be referred to as denying the consequent, and is a valid form of argument (unlike similarly-named but invalid arguments such as affirming the consequent or denying the antecedent). (See also modus ponens or "affirming the antecedent".) The argument has two premises. The first premise is the conditional "if-then" statement, namely that P implies Q. The second premise is that Q is false. From these two premises, it can be logically concluded that P must be false. In classical logic, modus tollens (or modus tollendo tollens)[1] (Latin for "the way that denies by denying")[2] has the following argument form: If P, then Q. Q Therefore, P.[3]

Example: 1. If an intruder is detected by the alarm, the alarm goes off. The alarm does not go off. Therefore, no intruder is detected. 2. If I am the axe murderer, then I used an axe. I cannot use an axe. Therefore, I am not the axe murderer.

Posit the consequent, no conclusion

This rules give rise to the Fallacy of Affirming the Conseuent which is committed when the consequent is affirmed in the minor premise. An argument of this form is invalid, i.e., the conclusion can be false even when statements 1 and 2 are true. Since P was never asserted as the only sufficient condition for Q, other factors could account for Q (while P was false). Affirming the consequent, sometimes called converse error, is a formal fallacy, committed by reasoning in the form:

1. If P, then Q. 2. Q. 3. Therefore, P. Example: One way to demonstrate the invalidity of this argument form is with a counterexample with true premises but an obviously false conclusion. For example: 1. If Bill Gates owns Fort Knox, then he is rich. Bill Gates is rich. Therefore, Bill Gates owns Fort Knox. Owning Fort Knox is not the only way to be rich. There are any number of other ways to be rich. Arguments of the same form can sometimes seem superficially convincing, as in the following example: 2. If I have the flu, then I have a sore throat. I have a sore throat. Therefore, I have the flu. But having the flu is not the only cause of a sore throat since many illnesses cause sore throat, such as the common cold or strep throat.

Sublate the antecedent, no conclusion.

This rule gives rise to the Fallacy of Rejecting the Antecedent/ denying the antecedent which committed when the antecedent is rejected in the minor premise. Arguments of this form are invalid. Informally, this means that arguments of this form do not give good reason to establish their conclusions, even if their premises are true.

The name denying the antecedent derives from the premise "not P", which denies the "if" clause of the conditional premise. Denying the antecedent, sometimes also called inverse error, is a formal fallacy, committed by reasoning in the form: If P, then Q. Not P. Therefore, not Q.

Example: One way to demonstrate the invalidity of this argument form is with a counterexample with true premises but an obviously false conclusion. For example: 1. If Queen Elizabeth is an American citizen, then she is a human being. Queen Elizabeth is not an American citizen. Therefore, Queen Elizabeth is not a human being. It is possible that an argument that denies the antecedent could be valid, if the argument instantiates some other valid form. For example, if the claims P and Q express the same proposition, then the argument would be trivially valid, as it would beg the question. In everyday discourse, however, such cases are rare, typically only occurring when the "ifthen" premise is actually an "if and only if" claim (i.e., a biconditional). For example: 2. If I am President of the United States, then I can veto Congress. I am not President. Therefore, I cannot veto Congress.

Exemptions: There are few cases in which on can conclude with certainty (a) from the truth of consequent to the truth of the antecedent, and (b) from the falsity of the antecedent to the falsity of the consequent. Example: 1. If today is Tuesday, tomorrow is Wednesday; But, today is not Tuesday; Tomorrow is not Wednesday.

This syllogism is valid syllogism. The major premise involves sequential correlatives.

2. I you lose the contest, you did not win; But, you did not win ; You lose.

5 Items Exercise:
1.Is one whose major premise is a conditional proposition consisting of an antecedent and consequent - Conditional syllogism 2.Is one whose major premise is a hypothetical proposition while its minor premise and conclusion are categorical propositions -Hypothetical syllogism 3. What are the 2 kinds of mention above? -Fallacy of Affirming the Consequent - Fallacy of denying the Antecedent 4. If the antecedent is affirmed in the minor premise the consequent must also be affirmed in the conclusion. This is known in symbolic logic as ? -Modus Ponens 5.If the consequent is rejected in the minor premise the antecedent must also be rejected in the conclusion. . This is known in symbolic logic as ? -Modus Tollens