Syllogistic Rules and Syllogistic Fallacies

Rule 1. Avoid four terms.

A valid standard-form categorical syllogism must contain exactly three terms,
each of which is used in the same sense throughout the argument.
The three terms are:
1. Subject (Minor term) – subject of the conclusion and is found in the
minor premise
2. Predicate (Major term) – predicate of the conclusion and is found in the
major premise
3. (Same) Third term (Middle term) – found in both premises but not in
the conclusion
Where: the first two terms are those whose relationship we assert (subject and
predicate), while the third term is that to which the relationship is asserted.
Categorical syllogisms must involve three terms-no more and no less.
When the rule is not followed, the Fallacy of four terms arises. Where there are
four terms instead of three and having four terms does not anymore establish a
relationship between the subject and the predicate, instead shows either’s relationship
to the fourth term.

Rule 2. Distribute the middle term in at least one premise.

A term is distributed in a proposition when the proposition refers to all members
of the class designated by that term. If the middle term is not distributed in at least one
premise, the connection required by the conclusion cannot be made.
The middle term is the link between the minor and major terms. Therefore, when
the middle term is not distributed, the link between the two terms are missing, called the
Fallacy of Undistributed Middle.

Rule 3. Any term distributed in the conclusion must be distributed in the

premises.
A valid argument is one whose premises logically entail its conclusion, and for
that to be true, the conclusion must not assert any more than is asserted in the
premises.
The Fallacy of Illicit Process arises when the term that is distributed in the
conclusion is not distributed in the premises, therefore the conclusion has gone beyond
its premises and has reached too far.
May either be: Illicit Major or Illicit Minor.

Rule 4. Avoid two negative premises.

Two premises asserting such exclusion cannot yield the linkage that the
conclusion asserts, and therefore cannot yield a valid argument because two negative
premises will not be able to establish a link between the terms.
When two premises are negative, it gives rise to the Fallacy of Exclusive
Premises.
Rule 5. If either premise is negative, the conclusion must be negative.
An affirmative conclusion can follow validly only from two affirmative premises.
The mistake of deriving an affirmative conclusion when one of the premises is
negative is called the Fallacy of Drawing an Affirmative Conclusion from a Negative
Premise.

Rule 6. From two universal premises, no particular conclusion may be drawn.

The Existential Fallacy arises when the premises of an argument do not assert
the existence of anything at all but the conclusion infers the existence of something.
Flowchart for Applying the Six Syllogistic Rules
EXPOSITION OF THE FIFTEEN VALID FORMS OF THE CATEGORICAL
SYLLOGISM

Mood of a Syllogism – the character of the syllogism, determined by the forms

(A,E,I,O) of the three propositions it contains.
Figure of a Syllogism – the logical shape of the syllogism, determined by the position
of the middle term in its premises. (The Four Figures)

The names of the forms of Categorical Syllogisms are formulated in a way that
the vowels are properly placed showing the mood of the premises, while the consonants
are placed in a way that one would know that the same form may be found in another
figure.

The Fifteen Valid Forms of the Standard-Form Categorical Syllogism

First Figure
1. AAA-1 Barbara
2. EAE-1 Celarent
3. AII-1 Darii
4. EIO-1 Ferio
Second Figure
5. AEE-2 Camestres
6. EAE-2 Cesare
7. AOO-2 Baroko
8. EIO-2 Festino
Third Figure
9. AII-3 Datisi
10. IAI-3 Disamis
11. EIO-3 Ferison
12. OAO-3 Bokardo
Fourth Figure
13. AEE-4 Camenes
14. IAI-4 Dimaris
15. EIO-4 Fresison