171 views

Uploaded by Gladys Hernandez

Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

- Syllogism
- Syllogism
- Moods of the Categorical Syllogism
- Syllogisms
- Handbook of Philosophical Logic Second Edition 9
- Hypothetical Syllogism (Full version)
- Utilization and Metaphor
- Legal Technique and Logic Notes
- the art of persuasion - part 2 (writing)
- Ample Task
- Logic Cheat Sheet
- Washell1974 Aristotle's Syllogistic_A Medieval View
- Answers and Explanations
- Survey Diagramming
- problems
- Critical Thinking 10e Ch01
- Fetac fiveunit2.ppt
- Position Paper
- Critical Reading Skills
- Abstract

You are on page 1of 13

The Structure of Syllogism Now, on to the next level, at which we combine more than one categorical proposition to fashion logical arguments. A categorical syllogism is an argument consisting of exactly three categorical propositions (two premises and a conclusion) in which there appear a total of exactly three categorical terms, each of which is used exactly twice. One of those terms must be used as the subject term of the conclusion of the syllogism, and we call it the minor term of the syllogism as a whole. The major term of the syllogism is whatever is employed as the predicate term of its conclusion. The third term in the syllogism doesn't occur in the conclusion at all, but must be employed in somewhere in each of its premises; hence, we call it the middle term. Since one of the premises of the syllogism must be a categorical proposition that affirms some relation between its middle and major terms, we call that the major premise of the syllogism. The other premise, which links the middle and minor terms, we call the minor premise. Consider, for example, the categorical syllogism:

No geese are felines. Some birds are geese. Therefore, Some birds are not felines. Clearly, "Some birds are not felines" is the conclusion of this syllogism. The major term of the syllogism is "felines" (the predicate term of its conclusion), so "No geese are felines" (the premise in which "felines" appears) is its major premise. Simlarly, the minor term of the syllogism is "birds," and "Some birds are geese" is its minor premise. "geese" is the middle term of the syllogism.

Standard Form In order to make obvious the similarities of structure shared by different syllogisms, we will always present each of them in the same fashion. A categorical syllogism in standard form always begins with the premises, major first and then minor, and then finishes with the conclusion. Thus, the example above is already in standard form. Although arguments in ordinary language may be offered in a different arrangement, it is never difficult to restate them in standard form. Once we've identified the conclusion which is to be placed in the final position, whichever premise contains its predicate term must be the major premise that should be stated first. Medieval logicians devised a simple way of labelling the various forms in which a categorical syllogism may occur by stating its mood and figure. The mood of a syllogism is simply a statement of which categorical propositions (A, E, I, or O) it comprises, listed in the order in which they appear in standard form. Thus, a syllogism with a mood of OAO has an O proposition as its major premise, an A proposition as its minor premise, and

another O proposition as its conclusion; and EIO syllogism has an E major premise, and I minor premise, and an O conclusion; etc. Since there are four distinct versions of each syllogistic mood, however, we need to supplement this labelling system with a statement of the figure of each, which is solely determined by the position in which its middle term appears in the two premises: in a firstfigure syllogism, the middle term is the subject term of the major premise and the predicate term of the minor premise; in second figure, the middle term is the predicate term of both premises; in third, the subject term of both premises; and in fourth figure, the middle term appears as the predicate term of the major premise and the subject term of the minor premise. (The four figures may be easier to remember as a simple chart showing the position of the terms in each of the premises:

1 M S \ P M 2 P S M | M 3 M | M P S 4 P M / M S

All told, there are exactly 256 distinct forms of categorical syllogism: four kinds of major premise multiplied by four kinds of minor premise multiplied by four kinds of conclusion multiplied by four relative positions of the middle term. Used together, mood and figure provide a unique way of describing the logical structure of each of them. Thus, for example, the argument "Some merchants are pirates, and All merchants are swimmers, so Some swimmers are pirates" is an IAI-3 syllogism, and any AEE-4 syllogism must exhibit the form "All P are M, and No M are S, so No S are P." Form and Validity This method of differentiating syllogisms is significant because the validity of a categorical syllogism depends solely upon its logical form. Remember our earlier definition: an argument is valid when, if its premises were true, then its conclusion would also have to be true. The application of this definition in no way depends upon the content of a specific categorical syllogism; it makes no difference whether the categorical terms it employs are "mammals," "terriers," and "dogs" or "sheep," "commuters," and "sandwiches." If a syllogism is valid, it is impossible for its premises to be true while its conclusion is false, and that can be the case only if there is something faulty in its general form. Thus, the specific syllogisms that share any one of the 256 distinct syllogistic forms must either all be valid or all be invalid, no matter what their content happens to be. Every syllogism of the form AAA-1 is valid, for example, while all syllogisms of the form OEE3 are invalid. This suggests a fairly straightforward method of demonstrating the invalidity of any syllogism by "logical analogy." If we can think of another syllogism which has the same mood and figure but whose terms obviously make both premises true and the conclusion false, then it is evident that all syllogisms of this form, including the one with which we began, must be invalid.

Thus, for example, it may be difficult at first glance to assess the validity of the argument:

All philosophers are professors. All philosophers are logicians. Therefore, All logicians are professors.

But since this is a categorical syllogism whose mood and figure are AAA-3, and since all syllogisms of the same form are equally valid or invalid, its reliability must be the same as that of the AAA-3 syllogism:

All terriers are dogs. All terriers are mammals. Therefore, All mammals are dogs.

Both premises of this syllogism are true, while its conclusion is false, so it is clearly invalid. But then all syllogisms of the AAA-3 form, including the one about logicians and professors, must also be invalid. This method of demonstrating the invalidity of categorical syllogisms is useful in many contexts; even those who have not had the benefit of specialized training in formal logic will often acknowledge the force of a logical analogy. The only problem is that the success of the method depends upon our ability to invent appropriate cases, syllogisms of the same form that obviously have true premises and a false conclusion. If I have tried for an hour to discover such a case, then either there can be no such case because the syllogism is valid or I simply haven't looked hard enough yet. Diagramming Syllogisms The modern interpretation offers a more efficient method of evaluating the validity of categorical syllogisms. By combining the drawings of individual propositions, we can use Venn diagrams to assess the validity of categorical syllogisms by following a simple threestep procedure: 1. First draw three overlapping circles and label them to represent the major, minor, and middle terms of the syllogism. 2. Next, on this framework, draw the diagrams of both of the syllogism's premises. o Always begin with a universal proposition, no matter whether it is the major or the minor premise. o Remember that in each case you will be using only two of the circles in each case; ignore the third circle by making sure that your drawing (shading or ) straddles it.

3. Finally, without drawing anything else, look for the drawing of the conclusion. If the syllogism is valid, then that drawing will already be done.

Since it perfectly models the relationships between classes that are at work in categorical logic, this procedure always provides a demonstration of the validity or invalidity of any categorical syllogism. Consider, for example, how it could be applied, step by step, to an evaluation of a syllogism of the EIO-3 mood and figure,

No M are P. Some M are S. Therefore, Some S are not P.

First, we draw and label the three overlapping circles needed to represent all three terms included in the categorical syllogism:

Second, we diagram each of the premises: Since the major premise is a universal proposition, we may begin with it. The diagram for "No M are P" must shade in the entire area in which the M and P circles overlap. (Notice that we ignore the S circle by shading on both sides of it.) Now we add the minor premise to our drawing. The diagram for "Some M are S" puts an inside the area where the M and S circles overlap. But part of that area (the portion also inside the P circle) has already been shaded, so our must be placed in the remaining portion. Third, we stop drawing and merely look at our result. Ignoring the M circle entirely, we need only ask whether the drawing of the conclusion "Some S are not P" has already been drawn. Remember, that drawing would be like the one at left, in which there is an in the area inside the S circle but outside the P circle. Does that already appear in the diagram on the right above? Yes, if the premises have been drawn, then the conclusion is already drawn. But this models a significant logical feature of the syllogism itself: if its premises are true, then its conclusion must also be true. Any categorical syllogism of this form is valid.

Here are the diagrams of several other syllogistic forms. In each case, both of the premises have already been drawn in the appropriate way, so if the drawing of the conclusion is already drawn, the syllogism must be valid, and if it is not, the syllogism must be invalid. AAA-1 (valid)

All M are P. All S are M. Therefore, All S are P.

AAA-3 (invalid)

OAO-3 (valid)

Some M are not P. All M are S. Therefore, Some S are not P.

EOO-2 (invalid)

IOO-1 (invalid)

Some M are P. Some S are not M. Therefore, Some S are not P.

Practice your skills in using Venn Diagrams to test the validity of Categorical Syllogisms by using Ron Blatt's excellent Syllogism Evaluator.

Logic Exercises

Indicate a) whether the following arguments are valid or invalid by checking the appropriate square. Also, if the syllogism is invalid indicate which rule of logic was violated. To make this easier, use the following steps:

Step 1: Circle the middle term. Step 2: Determine what kind of statement (i.e., A, I, E, or O) is the first premise. Then do the same for the second premise. Finally, determine what kind of statement is the conclusion. Step 3: Highlight all the distributed terms using a colored highlighter. Step 4: Check to see if the middle term is distributed at least once. If it is not, no need to proceed further, the syllogism is invalid. Step 5: If there are any distributed terms in the conclusion, check to see if those very terms are distributed in the premises. Step 6: Check the rest of the rules. If no rules are violated, the syllogism is valid.

1. All C is P. J is P. Ergo, J is C. Valid [ ] Invalid [ ] Reason for Invalidity: 2. Some Lifeissues.net readers are philosophers. Sean is a philosopher. Ergo, Sean is a Lifeissues.net reader. Valid [ ] Invalid [ ] Reason: 3. No man is perfect Some men are presidents. Ergo, some presidents are not perfect. Valid [ ] Invalid [ ] Reason: 4. All matter obeys wave equations. All waves obey wave equations. Ergo, all matter is waves. Valid [ ] Invalid [ ] Reason: 5. All human action is conditioned by circumstances. All human action involves morality. Ergo, all that involves morality is conditioned by circumstances (moral relativism). Valid [ ] Invalid [ ] Reason: 6. All that is good is pleasant. All eating is pleasant.

Ergo, all eating is good. Valid [ ] Invalid [ ] Reason 7. All patriots are voters. Some citizens are not voters. Ergo, some citizens are not patriots. Valid [ ] Invalid [ ] Reason: 8. All potatoes have eyes. Frank's head has eyes. Ergo, Frank is a potato head. Valid [ ] Invalid [ ] Reason: 9. All A are B Some C are not B. Ergo, some C are not A. Valid [ ] Invalid [ ] Reason: 10. All a priori categories are conditions for the possibility of knowing anything. Some a posteriori imperatives of an a-cosmic ethics are not conditions for the possibility of knowing anything. Ergo, some a posteriori imperatives of an a-cosmic ethics are not a priori categories. Valid [ ] Invalid [ ] Reason: 11. No oak trees bear fruit. No maple trees bear fruit. Therefore, no oak trees are maples. Valid [ ] Invalid [ ] Reason: 12. All socialists favor higher taxes. Some Liberals favor higher taxes. Ergo, some Liberals are Socialists. Valid [ ] Invalid [ ] Reason:

13. All educated people have worked hard. Some students are not educated. Ergo, some students have not worked hard. Valid [ ] Invalid [ ] Reason: 14. Mathematicians know what mathematics is. No philosopher is a mathematician. Ergo, no philosopher knows what mathematics is. Valid [ ] Invalid [ ] Reason: 15. All scientific knowledge is a work of reason. All scientific knowledge is true. Ergo, all that is true is a work of reason. Valid [ ] Invalid [ ] Reason: 16. All married people know about marriage problems. No priests are married people. Ergo, no priests know about marriage problems. Valid [ ] Invalid [ ] Reason: 17. All C are B All T are B Ergo, all T are C Valid [ ] Invalid [ ] Reason: 18. All chickens are born from eggs. All turkeys are born from eggs. Ergo, all turkeys are chickens. Valid [ ] Invalid [ ] Reason: 19. Nothing easy is worthwhile. Nothing good is easy.

Ergo, nothing good is worthwhile. Valid [ ] Invalid [ ] Reason: 20. All contraceptives acts are for avoiding pregnancy. All use of NFP is for avoiding pregnancy. Ergo, All use of NFP is contraceptive. Valid [ ] Invalid [ ] Reason: 21. All Germans despise Judaism. All of the people reading this text are German. Ergo, all of the people reading this text despise Judaism. Valid [ ] Invalid [ ] Reason: 22. All parts of a living organism are inside the body. The fetus is inside the (mother's) body. Therefore, the fetus is a part of the living organism (mother's body) Valid [ ] Invalid [ ] Reason:

Answer Sheet

1. All Canadians are people. John is a person. Ergo, John is Canadian. Invalid. Undistributed Middle Term. 2. Some Lifeissues.net readers are philosophers. Sean is a philosopher. Ergo, Sean is a Lifeissues.net reader. Invalid. Undistributed Middle Term. 3. No man is perfect

Some men are presidents. Ergo, some presidents are not perfect. Valid 4. All matter obeys wave equations. All waves obey wave equations. Ergo, all matter is waves. Invalid. Undistributed Middle Term. 5. All human action is conditioned by circumstances. All human action involves morality. Ergo, all that involves morality is conditioned by circumstances (moral relativism). Invalid. Any term which is distributed in the conclusion must also be distributed in the premises (All that involves morality is distributed in the conclusion, but not in the second premise). 6. All that is good is pleasant. All eating is pleasant. Ergo, all eating is good. Invalid. Undistributed Middle Term. 7. All patriots are voters. Some citizens are not voters. Ergo, some citizens are not patriots. Valid. The logic is valid, even though the conclusion may be false. For the first premise might be false. In other words, one may have false premises and a false conclusion, while the logic remains valid. It is also possible to have true premises and a true conclusion but false logic (the conclusion simply does not follow from the premises). 8. All potatoes have eyes. Frank's head has eyes. Ergo, Frank is a potato head. Invalid. Undistributed Middle Term.

9. All A are B Some C are not B. Ergo, some C are not A. Valid. 10. All a priori categories are conditions for the possibility of knowing anything. Some a posteriori imperatives of an a-cosmic ethics are not conditions for the possibility of knowing anything. Ergo, some a posteriori imperatives of an a-cosmic ethics are not a priori categories. Valid. *This syllogism means absolutely nothing. But in order to determine its validity, one need not know the meaning of the terms. 11. No oak trees bear fruit. No maple trees bear fruit. Therefore, no oak trees are maples. Invalid. One cannot conclude anything from two negative premises. The role of the Middle Term is to join the Major and Minor Terms. The Middle Term cannot do this if both premises are negative. 12. All socialists favor higher taxes. Some Liberals favor higher taxes. Ergo, some Liberals are Socialists. Invalid. Undistributed Middle Term. 13. All educated people have worked hard. Some students are not educated. Ergo, some students have not worked hard. Invalid. The term not worked hard is distributed in the conclusion, but it is undistributed in the first premise. 14. Mathematicians know what mathematics is. No philosopher is a mathematician. Ergo, no philosopher knows what mathematics is. Invalid. Knows what mathematics is is distributed in the conclusion, but is

undistributed in the first premise. 15. All scientific knowledge is a work of reason. All scientific knowledge is true. Ergo, all that is true is a work of reason. Invalid. All that is true is distributed in the conclusion, but is undistributed in the second premise. 16. All married people know about marriage problems. No priests are married people. Ergo, no priests know about marriage problems. Invalid. Know about marriage problems is distributed in the conclusion, but is undistributed in the first premise. 17. All C are B All T are B Ergo, all T are C Invalid. Undistributed Middle Term. 18. All chickens are born from eggs. All turkeys are born from eggs. Ergo, all turkeys are chickens. Invalid. Undistributed Middle Term. 19. Nothing easy is worthwhile. Nothing good is easy. Ergo, nothing good is worthwhile. Invalid. No conclusion can be drawn from two negative premises. 20. All contraceptives acts are for avoiding pregnancy. All use of NFP is for avoiding pregnancy. Ergo, All use of NFP is contraceptive. Invalid. Undistributed Middle Term.

21. All Germans despise Judaism. All of the people reading this text are German. Ergo, all of the people reading this text despise Judaism. Valid. The premises are false, and the conclusion is false, but the logic is valid. No rules are broken. 22. All parts of a living organism are inside the body. The fetus is inside the (mother's) body. Therefore, the fetus is a part of the living organism (mother's body) Invalid. Undistributed Middle Term.

- SyllogismUploaded byjonathan calilong
- SyllogismUploaded bycomscisaneu
- Moods of the Categorical SyllogismUploaded byjonathan calilong
- SyllogismsUploaded byCharlotte Kinloch
- Handbook of Philosophical Logic Second Edition 9Uploaded byobwohl
- Hypothetical Syllogism (Full version)Uploaded byroy_dubouzet
- Utilization and MetaphorUploaded byerstine.carter
- Legal Technique and Logic NotesUploaded byVan John Magallanes
- the art of persuasion - part 2 (writing)Uploaded byapi-240720654
- Ample TaskUploaded byfelahikhan
- Logic Cheat SheetUploaded byjc1838
- Washell1974 Aristotle's Syllogistic_A Medieval ViewUploaded byGrossetestis Studiosus
- Answers and ExplanationsUploaded byakash
- Survey DiagrammingUploaded byBea Urbán
- problemsUploaded byapi-239243343
- Critical Thinking 10e Ch01Uploaded byBrainy12345
- Fetac fiveunit2.pptUploaded byBreda Hayes
- Position PaperUploaded bycocopitlabmix
- Critical Reading SkillsUploaded byDina Adlong
- AbstractUploaded byCristineJoyLustan
- Reviewer Logical Philo.Uploaded byJovanieDaclizon
- Logic1 Notes Logic1notes Chapter 2Uploaded byedu_alquimista
- Filchers HandoutUploaded byEamon Barkhordarian
- syllabusLogicUploaded byLance Quialquial
- FunctionUploaded bysuba
- jenniferhuerta acheivemntUploaded byapi-372792850
- daily diary entryUploaded byapi-450923344
- Essay WritingUploaded bycgarmonr
- Types of ClaimsUploaded byVictor Sen
- giselleUploaded byapi-215088561

- Mental Illness Human Rights and LegislationUploaded byGladys Hernandez
- Case Digest.docxUploaded byGladys Hernandez
- Guada Fatima Hernandez_ Remedial Law Review I_Criminal Procedure Digest.pdfUploaded byGladys Hernandez
- Hernandez Guada Fatima A_Special Proceedings_de LimaUploaded byGladys Hernandez
- Implication of Operant ConditioningUploaded byGladys Hernandez
- NANDA InternationalUploaded byGladys Hernandez
- Digital Certificates_price ListUploaded byGladys Hernandez
- BOT Law IRR Amendments 2012Uploaded byey
- UP08 Political LawUploaded byjojitus
- Technical Words With Technical Meaning_rev1Uploaded byGladys Hernandez
- PilaUploaded byGladys Hernandez
- Exercise 1Uploaded byGladys Hernandez
- iLogic_2Uploaded byGladys Hernandez
- FastTrackFBUploaded byDoris Cristina
- DolphinUploaded byGladys Hernandez
- Muhammad AliUploaded byGladys Hernandez
- Criminal Procedure DigestsUploaded byKeng Hernandez
- Legal Writing Exercise 4Uploaded byGladys Hernandez
- Daza v SingzonUploaded byGladys Hernandez
- EDP_1_2007.SampaioUploaded byGladys Hernandez

- Judgement and PerceptionUploaded by1985 production
- theoretical grammar of English languageUploaded byAnastasiya
- Workbook Extension Issues,.XLS,.XLSM,Uploaded bysyedshoebhussaini
- Chest X-ray and Coronary Computed Tomography AngiogramUploaded bykristine_silang
- Common Mistake in Design Use of Ro SystemsUploaded byFadlul Akbar Herfianto
- earthingUploaded byNavin Kumar
- algorithmic information theory1Uploaded byElie Atallah
- Chapter 2 Coulombs Law and Electric FieldUploaded byJohn Eugene Fernandez
- Microphone HandbookUploaded byDiegorila Kong
- Mathematic Model Paper For Medical and Engineering Entrance ExamUploaded byRoshni Mahapatra
- Troubleshooting Performance Issues in a Virtualized EnvironmentUploaded byNicolas Garrido Peralta
- Storytelling and Grammar Learning: A Study among Young - Elementary EFL Learners in ColombiaUploaded byFabián Vergel García
- 06_Screw Fastening 2011_smallest File SizeUploaded byfayas
- Assignment Research MethodologyUploaded bysaheerns
- 5988-9262ENUploaded byAndre Coutinho
- raid linux.docxUploaded byalecsander_008
- AR_dhakaUploaded byMd Imranuzzaman
- Compact Induced Gas FlotationUploaded by1mmahoney
- H TCN 145 Operating InstructionsUploaded byballot
- Chapter 05. Nondeterministic AutomataUploaded bykims3515354178
- Scriptmanual EnUploaded bykeizerpeter
- Camber AngleUploaded byMohamadTalat
- IshanUploaded byRitesh Kesarwani
- Digital Signature Standard and DSA AlgorithmUploaded bySajendra Kumar
- Cisneros - Characterization of Kevlar-29Uploaded byAndrés Mercado
- Cedas Cem Rmap TutorialUploaded byDudu Dudu
- Turbo Fan Engine ThrustUploaded byLidijaSpaseska
- Plasma amyloid-b oligomers level is a biomarker for Alzheimer’s disease diagnosisUploaded byante7markovina7
- When Swans Are GreyUploaded byKashif Kidwai
- Polarisation of Ions (AS)Uploaded byKevin The Chemistry Tutor