All mammals are animals.

All dogs are mammals.

Therefore, all dogs are animals.

There are eight rules for the simple categorical syllogism. These rules help us to reason correctly. I will first list
them down, then explain in more detail with examples.

1. Only three terms may appear in the syllogism: the major term, the minor term, and the middle term.

2. Neither the major nor the minor term may be universal in the conclusion if it was only a particular term in the
premises.

3. The middle term may not occur in the conclusion.

4. The middle term must be universal in at least one of the premises.

5. If both premises are affirmative, the conclusion must also be affirmative.

6. Both premises may not be negative; one at least must be affirmative.

7. If one of the premises is negative, the conclusion must be negative. If one of the premises is a particular
proposition, the conclusion must be a particular proposition.

8. No conclusion can be drawn from two particular premises; one at least must be a universal proposition.

You might ask: how does one know if a term is universal or particular? That is a very important question. It requires
us to recall the four types of proposition: A, E, I and O.

A: Every man is mortal./All men are mortal.

E: No man is an angel./All men are not angels.

I: Some humans are male.

O: Some humans are not male.

Here are six rules a standard-form categorical syllogism must meet in order to be valid. If it fails to meet any one of
these rules, it is invalid. Each rule has an accompanying fallacy that alerts us to the specific way in which a
categorical syllogism can be invalid.
The middle term must be distributed at least once.
If a term is distributed in the conclusion, it must also be distributed in its corresponding premise.
A categorical syllogism cannot have two negative premises.
A negative premise must have a negative conclusion.
A negative conclusion must have a negative premise.
Two universal premises cannot have a particular conclusion.

Rule 1: We understand the concept of distribution, from Chapter 5, as referring to the entirety of a class being
included in, or excluded from, another class. We know that universal propositions distribute the subject term, while
negative propositions distribute the predicate term. When the middle term is not distributed in either premise, the
argument commits the fallacy of undistributed middle.
Rule 2: A term does not have to be distributed in the conclusion, but if it is, find its corresponding premise. The
corresponding premise is the one that contains the term or terms (minor or major—or both) distributed in the
conclusion. For example, if the conclusion is an E-proposition, both the subject and predicate terms are distributed.
These terms must also be distributed in their respective premise in order for the rule to be met. If the rule is broken,
the argument commits the fallacy of illicit major or the fallacy of illicit minor.
Rule 3: If the premises are both negative, there is no way to establish a relation between the major and minor terms.
When this rule is broken, the argument commits the fallacy of exclusive premises.
Rule 4: Rule 3 tells us that we cannot have two negative premises and still have a valid argument. This does not
mean, however, that we can never have a negative premise. The only requirement in this case is that the conclusion
also be negative, so that the relation between major and minor terms can be established. When this rule is broken,
the argument commits the fallacy of affirmative conclusion/negative premise.
Rule 5: This rule is the converse of Rule 4. Rule 3 tells us that we cannot have two negative premises and still have a
valid argument. This does not mean, however, that we can never have a negative conclusion The only requirement in
this case is that one premise also be negative, so that the relation between major and minor terms can be established.
When this rule is broken, the argument commits the fallacy of negative conclusion/affirmative premise.
Rule 6: Recall that, in the modern interpretation, a universal categorical proposition does not assume a member of
the subject class exists. Therefore, if a categorical syllogism’s conclusion is particular, we have no way of
establishing the member of the subject class. An argument that breaks this rule commits the existential fallacy.
(Note: In the traditional interpretation, the argument is provisionally valid. If the subject class in the conclusion does
not denote actually existing objects, the syllogism is invalid.)
F. Ordinary Language Arguments
Ordinary language arguments can be analyzed either by Venn diagram or the rules of the syllogism. First, however,
several guidelines must be followed:
1. If there are more than three classes of objects (three terms) in the argument, the terms must be reduced.
2. Eliminate superfluous words to reveal the categorical structure, quantity, and quality of the argument.
3. Identify synonyms and replace them with the terms appearing elsewhere in the argument.
4. Use conversion, obversion, and contraposition to begin the process of rewriting the argument in standard-form.
5. Eliminate prefixes as needed.
G. Enthymemes
We saw in Section F that some categorical arguments contain too many terms. There are also arguments,
called enthymemes, which are incomplete. That is, the argument may contain only one premise and a conclusion, or
only two premises, and so forth. In these cases, the goal is to make the argument complete, so that it can be rewritten
as necessary in standard-form.
H. Sorites
Still another type of incomplete argument (enthymeme) is the sorites. This is a chain* of premises that lack
intermediate conclusions. Here again, the goal is to establish a complete categorical syllogism that can be tested for
validity. If any syllogism in the chain is invalid, the sorites is invalid.
The first step in the process is to rewrite the argument so that the premises appear one on top of another, with a line
demarcating the chain of premises from the conclusion:
Premise1
Premise2
Premise3
Conclusion
The first two premises are used to yield an intermediate conclusion, which then becomes a premise in the next
sequence:
Premise1 Premise2 Intermediate Conclusion Premise3 Conclusion
Rule 1. There should only be three terms in a categorical syllogism. They are the Major Term, the Minor Term, and
the Middle Term.

Rule 2. A categorical syllogism is composed of only three categorical propositions. Each term must occur in two
propositions in the syllogism.

Rule 3. The terms in the conclusion may only be universal if they are universal in the premises.

Rule 4. The middle term must occur as universal at least once.

Rule 5. If both the premises are positive, the conclusion is positive.

Rule 6. If one of the premises is negative, the conclusion is negative.

Rule 7. One of the premises must be positive, otherwise, the syllogism is invalid.

Rule 8. One of the premises must be universal.

Rule 9. If one of the premises is particular, the conclusion is particular.

Rule 10: Nothing may be asserted in the conclusion which has not been asserted in the premises.