Categorical syllogism, its definition and composition

The categorical syllogism is called a deductive inference, in which both

conclusions are categorical judgments. Example:
 Categorical syllogism consists of three judgments: two conclusions and a
conclusion. Conclusions and conclusion, in turn, consist of concepts. These
concepts are called the terms of syllogism. In categorical syllogism distinguish
three terms: smaller, larger and medium.
The term, which takes the place of the subject in the conclusion, is called a
shorter term. The smaller term is denoted by the letter S. In our example, the lesser
term is the term bribe.
The term, which takes the place of the predicate in the conclusion, is called a
longer term. It is denoted by the letter P, In the given syllogism a longer term - the
notion of "an act is socially dangerous".
Larger and smaller terms are called extreme terms.
An average term is a concept that is included in both of the conclusions and
is not in the conclusion. The middle term is indicated by the letter M. In the above
example, the term "crime" is an average term.
 The middle term (M) serves as a link between bigger and smaller terms,
thanks to which it becomes possible from the two judgments of the conclusions to
deduce the third judgment (conclusion), which is new knowledge.
The ratio S-P, as seen from the scheme, is not available in the conclusions, it
is established only in the conclusion. The conclusion about the existence of a
certain relationship between S and P is made on the grounds that both of these
terms are related to the same term (middle term) in the statements. From the fact
that S relates to M, and M, in turn, is associated with P, conclude that there is a
relationship between S and P. In the absence of the same medium term, to establish
a connection between the concepts included to the conclusions, it is impossible.
For example, from the following two judgments: "Any crime is an act socially
dangerous", "Right is an add-on" - you can not get a conclusion, because in these
constitutions there is no general notion (the middle term).
 To each conclusion categorical syllogism includes two terms: medium and
one extreme. Depending on which of the extreme terms (greater or lesser) is
included in the conclusion, distinguish between larger and smaller objects.
The conclusion, in which there is a longer term of P, is called a larger
provision. In our example, the proposition is the judgment: "Any crime is an act
socially dangerous."
The conclusion, in which there is a shorter term S, is called a lower
endpoint. In the example that follows, it is the judgment "Khabar is a crime".
A larger provision of categorical syllogism is the usual general rule or rule,
and less is judgment of a particular subject. By extending the general situation to a
partial case, we acquire new knowledge about it - the conclusion.
Axiom of syllogism
The axiom of syllogism is a position that justifies the validity of the
conclusion of the categorical syllogism. She has two following words:
1. All that is affirmed (or denied) about the class of objects, can assert (or
deny) about each item of this class. The Latin formula for its rules is as follows:
dictum de omni et de nullo (literally - said about everything and nothing), or
shorter: dictum de omni.
2. The sign of a sign of a thing is a sign of the thing itself; what contradicts
the sign of a thing contradicts the very thing (nota note est nota rei).
The content of these sentences is as follows. If it is known that the class of
objects M has the sign P, then it follows that any particular subject S of this class
has a sign of R. For example, if it is known that all citizens are obliged to observe
the laws of the state, then this means that Petrenko is obliged to adhere to the laws
of the state.
 The relationship between the terms S-M-R categorical syllogism is taken to
reproduce by circles as a relation between the scope of concepts included in the
conclusion. The ratio of the volume of concepts will be as follows: if the volume of
the concept of M falls within the scope of the concept of P, and the volume of the
concept of S is included in the scope of the concept of M, the volume of concept 5
is included in the scope of the concept of P (Fig. 21).
Accordingly, if it is known that the class of objects M does not contain the
signs of P, then every separate subject S included in the class M has no signs of R.
Thus, if it is known that no one can be prosecuted except as the court decision, this
means that the citizen Petrenko can not be prosecuted otherwise than by a court
order.
The relation between the terms S-M-P in terms of volume is as follows: if
the scope of the concept of M is completely excluded from the scope of the
concept of R a and the volume of the concept of S is included in the scope of the
concept of M, then the scope of the notion S is completely excluded from the scope
of the concept of P.
 Similarly, the second formula of the axioms can be explained: if the thing A
has the sign B, and the sign of the I, in its turn, has the sign C, it means that A also
has a sign of S.
General rules for categorical syllogism
In order to make a true conclusion from the truths of the truth, one must
adhere to such rules of syllogism.
1. In each syllogism, there should be only three terms - no more and no less.
This rule follows from the essence of the categorical This rule follows from
the essence of categorical syllogism as an inference, in which the relation between
the two extreme terms S and P is established on the basis of their connection with
the third term, the middle term M.
If in the foundations there are not three but two terms, for example: "Any
crime is an act of social danger", "Some socially dangerous acts do not contain
signs of a crime", then there is no concept that one of the terms of syllogism. In
such a case, one can not deduce from the provisions of the third judgment, which
would be different from the conclusion, without being a tautology, and would not
contradict any conclusion.
 If there are four terms in syllogism, then there will not be an average term in
it, and, consequently, it is impossible to establish a relationship between the
concepts included in the conclusions. The conclusion drawn from such conclusions
will be false: we will assume a logical error that will be called quaternary terms
(quaternio terminorum). This error is often observed in cases where, in the medium
term, they take the same sounds or spellings (homonyms) of different meanings.
Example:
 In this syllogism, not three, but four terms, because the word "law" is taken
in the constitutions with different meanings. In a larger article under the law, we
understand the "law of science", and in the smaller "legal law". Consequently, the
average term in this syllogism is absent, so the conclusion is false.
2. The average term should be distributed at least in one of the conclusions.
If the average term is distributed, that is, taken in full, then a single relation
between S and P is established. Some other relationship between the extreme terms
(S and P) is impossible.
If the average term is not distributed in any of the foundations, then between
S and P can be established not one, but several relationships, depending on which
part of the volume include the extreme terms. Example:
 Here the average term ("social norms") is not distributed in both
foundations, so there may be a different relation between S and P:
1) it can be such that when S enters M, it is completely excluded from the
volume P. Then from the above conclusions one should conclude: "Norms of
morality are not legal norms" ("None S is not R);
2) the relationship between S and P can also be the case when M is
completely included in P. In this case, from our conclusions one should conclude:
"All norms of morality are legal norms" ("All S is P");
3) the relationship between S and P can be the same as reproduced in Fig.
25. Then two conclusions can be made: "Some moral norms are legal" ("Some are
S is R") and "Some norms of morality are not legal norms" ("Some S is not R").
 
 Obviously, with the non-distribution of the middle term from the
conclusions one can deduce not one but a few conclusions. Consequently, the true
conclusion can not be obtained.
3. The term, not allocated in the statement, can not be divided into a
conclusion.
This rule means that in the conclusion, the term syllogism can not be taken
in full, if in the conclusion he took part of his volume. Take an example:
 Here, the smaller term S ("social phenomenon") in the founding is not
distributed, since it takes place in the predicate in the affirmative judgment,
therefore, it should remain unpublished and in the conclusion. In conclusion, we
can say: "Some social phenomena are not superstructures" ("Some S is not R") and
one can not say: "No social phenomenon is a superstructure" ("None S is not R").
This is what this is about. The relation between S i and P, as already mentioned, is
established in M. In our example, the volume M is a part of the volume of R.
Therefore, a stable position to the volume of P will occupy only a portion of
volume in, which comprised the volume M. The last part of the volume S can be in
the most varied relation to the volume of P.
Here both grounds are contradictory. It is impossible to draw a conclusion
from them because the average term (M) is not related to either the shorter term (S)
or the larger (P). None of the deadlines in its volume does not coincide in any part
with the volume (M). In this case, it is impossible to establish a certain relationship
between S and P (Fig. 27). This means that two of the opposite conclusions can be
drawn from the above conclusions equally:
1) "Ivanenko did not know the victim" and 2) "Ivanenko knew the victim".
True, as it was said, there will only be such a conclusion, which follows from the
conclusions as the only possible.
5. If one conclusion is negative, then the conclusion must be negative.
 The content of this rule consists in the fact that one can not make a negative
conclusion from the affirmative conclusions, and, conversely, if one of the
conclusions is negative, then the conclusion can not be affirmative. Example:
  
The presence in a syllogism of one objectionable conclusion means, even the
volume of the average term is excluded from the scope of one of the extreme
terms. Then, from the volume of one extreme term, the volume of the second
extreme term included in the middle term will be excluded. In our example, the
volume M is excluded from the volume of R. Consequently, the volume S, which
is part of the volume M, is necessarily excluded from the volume P (Fig. 28).
Therefore, the conclusion can only be negative, but not affirmative.
6. From two partial conclusions one can not Shapes and mods of categorical
syllogism
A. The concept of the figures of syllogism
Categorical syllogism has different types that have acquired the names of the
figures of syllogism.
Figures of syllogism are called forms of syllogism, differing from each other
by the arrangement of the middle term in the foundations. There are four figures of
syllogism.
In the first figure, the middle term takes the place of the subject in a larger
field and the predicate - in the smaller one. Scheme of the first figure:
MR
S-M
S-P
In the second figure, the middle term takes the place of the predicate in both
of the foundations. Scheme of the second figure:
P-M S-M
S-P
In the third figure, the average term takes the place of the subject in both of
the foundations. Scheme of the third figure:
 B. The concept of modus syllogism
Each shape of the syllogism of the masses has certain modes (from the Latin
modus, which means "mode", "kind").
 Modusions of syllogism are called varieties of figures, which differ in
quantity and quality of judgments, which form their conclusions and conclusion.
Moduses of categorical syllogism are indicated by the three capital letters of
those judgments, from which syllogism was constructed. If larger and smaller
conclusions and conclusions are total-affirmation judgments, this mode is denoted
as follows: AAA. Letters represent a larger conclusion, a lower conclusion and
conclusion.
Since each conclusion theoretically can be general allegiance (A),
commonly (E), partially inferior (I) and partially contradictory (O), it is natural to
assume that each figure of the syllogism has 16 modes. However, not every
combination of findings gives a true conclusion. The actual, correct mods of
syllogism is much smaller. In order to determine which modes each shape has, it is
necessary to follow the general rules of categorical syllogism and special rules of
figures.
B. The first figure, These special rules and mods
The first figure of syllogism has the following special rules: 1. A larger
clause should be general judgment; 2. The lesser conclusion is the affirmative.
These rules derive from the structure of the first figure. They say so. If the
lower conclusion is to be rejected, then the conclusion will be negative. In the
negative conclusion, the predicate (P) is distributed, therefore, it must be
distributed and in the conclusion. In order for P to be distributed, a larger margin of
mass must be negative, but, as you know, the conclusion is impossible with two
opposing conclusions. With a smaller negative statement, the larger one should be
affirmative. But then the conclusion becomes impossible because of the non-
distribution of P, since in the affirmative judgment, P is not distributed.
Consequently, a lower conclusion can not be taken as negative, it should only be
affirmative.
The larger conclusion should be general. If the larger conclusion is partial,
then the average term occupying the subject's place in it will be undivided. In a
lesser assertion, which is to be assertive, the average term, occupying the place of
the predicate, is also unallocated. Consequently, if the larger conclusion is partial,
then the average term will not be distributed in any of the statements. But if the
average term in both assumptions is not distributed, then the conclusion can not be
obtained. Consequently, the larger conclusion should be general.
Knowing the special rules of the first figure, it is not difficult to derive its
moduses. The larger conclusion, according to this rule, can be a general assertion
(A), or general-proximal (E); A smaller subset - general-solid (A) or partial-
invariant (/).
 Guided by the general rules of categorical syllogism, we will indicate what
conclusion follows from each combination of findings. If both assumptions are
general-solid (AA), then the conclusion will be general-allele (A). If the larger
conclusion is general, and the less partly-affirmative (AI), then the conclusion is
partially invariable (I). If the larger conclusion is contradictory, but less general-all
(EA), then the conclusion will be contradictory (E). If the larger conclusion is
contradictory, and the lower is partially inverse (EI), the conclusion will be
partially negative (O).
Consequently, the first figure of syllogism has such mods AAA, AІI, EAE,
EIO.
The first figure of syllogism is the most typical, classical form of deductive
inference, its mods AAA and EAE, expressing in the pure form the axiom of
syllogism, are typical forms of bringing a partial case under the general position.
Therefore, in the practice of thinking, we use the first figure more often than the
second and especially the third figure. To the first figure, we resort every time we
say about the class of objects to a separate, single subject of this class, when we
conclude the individual on the basis of knowledge of the general situation or rule.
Of great significance is the first figure of syllogism in judicial practice. The
first figure is a legal assessment (qualification) of legal phenomena and facts. A
larger provision, which has a general provision, is the norm of law, the article of
the code. Lesser grounds - judgments about a particular case. The conclusion is the
conclusion of this concrete on the basis of the general provision. Example:
  
The first figure of categorical syllogism is the application of the rule of law
to a particular case and the imposition of a punishment for a specific crime. In a
larger article, the sanction, visa is indicated In judicial practice, the second figure is
a logical form of justification of the crime in a particular case, proof of the
wrongness of the qualification committed, a means of refuting various provisions
that are not consistent with the general rule, etc.
D. The third figure, its rules and modes
The third figure has the following rule: the lower ending should be
affirmative. The conclusion in the third figure is always partial.
This proves this rule: if a lower conclusion is to be rejected, then the
conclusion will be negative. In the opposite judgment, the predicate P is always
distributed, therefore, it must be distributed in the conclusion. In the statement, P
will be distributed only when the larger conclusion in which it occupies the place
of the predicate will be negative. But two negative statements can not be
concluded. Therefore, the lower ground should be affirmative.
The conclusion should be partial because the lesser term S takes the place of
the predicate. The predicate in the affirmative judgment is not distributed,
therefore, in the conclusion we can speak only about some S, and not about all S.
The third figure has the following six modes: AAI, EAOt IAI, JSC, AII,
EIO. The third figure of syllogism in the practice of thinking happens less often
than the first and second. It is accepted to refute the general provisions.
B. Fourth figure, its rules and mods
In the fourth figure, the following rules apply: 1. If the larger conclusion is
affirmative, then the smaller must be general. 2. If one of the findings is negative,
then the larger conclusion will be general.
Indeed, if the larger conclusion is affirmative (judgments A or I), then the
average term (M) in it will not be distributed because it occupies the place of the
predicate. Then the average term should be distributed in a lesser margin. The
smaller conclusion in which M takes the place of the subject must be general.
 If one of the findings is negative, then the conclusion will be negative. In the
negative conclusion, the predicate is distributed, therefore, it must be distributed
and in the conclusion. And since the longer term occupies the place of the subject
in the foundation, it will be distributed only if the larger conclusion is a general
judgment.
Applying the general rules of categorical syllogism and the rules of the
fourth figure, we will obtain the following five modes: AAI, AEE, IAI, EAO, EIO.
The first three figures were discovered and described by Aristotle. The
fourth figure is isolated 500 years later by Cl, Galen. For all external features, the
fourth figure is a legitimate form of categorical syllogism. However, due to the fact
that the movement of thought in the fourth figure is unusual, in practice, thinking is
quite rare. An example of the inference of the fourth figure can be as follows:
 Categorical syllogisms with highlights
We already know that distinguish two types of highlighting judgments: 1)
judgments with a distinguishing subject and 2) judgments with a distinguishing
predicate.
In categorical syllogisms, in which the greater basis is the judgment of the
emitting subject, the special rules of the figures stop the action.
1. In the syllogisms of the first figure, the basis of which is the judgment of
the distinguishing subject, a lower conclusion may be not only affirmative, but also
negative.  This statement is constructed according to the first figure. The lesser
conclusion ("The accused Petrenko is not an official") is objectionable here, but the
conclusion ("The accused Petrenko can not be the subject of negligence") is true,
the syllogism is constructed correctly. This is due to the fact that in judgments with
a distinguishing subject the predicate P is distributed.
2. If in a syllogism of the second figure a larger conclusion is a judgment
with a distinguishing subject, the true conclusion is also possible from two
affirmative conclusions. Example:
 
 In this reasoning, the conclusion is legitimate because the average term (M)
in the larger object, which is judgments with the distinguishing subject, is
distributed. This allows you to establish the only possible relationship between S
and P.
From the above we can conclude: in categorical syllogisms, in which the
greater conclusion is judging by the distinguishing subject, a lower conclusion on
the quality can be any - affirmative or negative - regardless of the way in which the
figure of the syllogism we build the inference.
This provision does not apply to syllogisms, in which the judgment of the
highlighting predicate is the greater basis. With respect to such inferences, the
special rules of the figures of the syllogism remain valid.
Categorical syllogisms, in which the judgment of the definition is the
greatest basis
In the forensic study, widespread use of inferences, in which the judgments-
definition are the greater basis. These inferences are resorted, in particular, with the
qualification of a crime, which in logical terms is a substitute for a separate, single
case in the general situation - an article of the law.
Judgment-definition are characterized by the fact that the volume of the
subject and the predicate in them completely coincide, both terms S and P in these
judgments are distributed. Therefore, in the inferences, constructed from
judgments-definitions, the special rules of the figures of the syllogism, as well as
in the inferences with highlighting conclusions, interrupt the action.
According to the first figure, the true conclusions give a syllogism with a
smaller negative basis.
 Here the average term (M) in both foundations takes place n Categorical
syllogisms, constructed from judgments of opportunity
We consider categorical syllogisms, the basis of which is the judgment of
reality and necessity. But in the practice of thinking, and in particular in the
judicial investigation, it is often necessary to construct inferences from judgments
of opportunity. Such inferences are used, for example, during an investigative
experiment, by which the possibility or impossibility of a particular fact or
phenomenon is established. If the investigator experiment determines that the
phenomenon under study is as possible, for example: "While at Ivanenko's house
gate, you can see a person standing under the window of the house of Petrenko,"
then the investigator (judge) on the basis of this provision then concludes that
concrete a phenomenon that is of interest to the investigator.
 A larger conclusion in this syllogism is the judgments of the possibility, in it
the subject and the predicate are combined with the link "can".
Terms, constructed from judgments of opportunity, have such features.
1. If the larger conclusion is a positive statement of the possibility, and the
smaller one is a positive statement of reality, then from such conclusions there may
be twofold conclusions: reliable and probable. The conclusion is that mass
judgments will be credible, and the conclusion, which is the judgment of reality, is
probable.
 The first conclusion, which has the possibility of judging, is true, the second
conclusion, which is the judgment of reality, is only probable. This is what this is
about. The judgment of opportunity reflects the objectively existing, known to us
possibility, what may be. Judgment of reality reproduces what is already
accomplished. Opportunity becomes reality. Therefore, the fact of the existence of
any possibility is the basis for a dual conclusion.
The conclusion about the possibility will be credible, since what is possible
at all, as possible, is possible in each individual case. If, for example, an
investigator experiment found that in this room you can hear a cry that sounded in
the next room, it would be credible that Petrenko, who was at the time of
committing a crime in this room, could hear a cry that interests the investigator.
The conclusion about the real, that, perhaps, will become (or become) a
reality will be only probable, since it may be realized, but may not be realized.
From the fact that a phenomenon (or a connection between phenomena) "may be",
it does not follow the inalienability that it "must be". The conclusion that Petrenko
heard a cry that sounded in the next room would not be credible, but only probable.
 2. In conclusions with a negative conclusion, the conclusion will be reliable,
regardless of whether it is judging the possibility or judgments of reality. Example:
 Here, the larger conclusion is a negative judgment of the possibility, the
smaller is the affirmative judgment of reality. From these conclusions one can
draw two conclusions: 1) "Petrenko could not see ..." and 2) "Petrenko did not
see ..." Both of these conclusions are reliable.
 In this reasoning, the larger conclusion is the affirmative judgment of the
possibility, and the less the contrary statement of reality. Both conclusions of
judgments and possibilities ("Petrenko could not hear ...") and judgments of reality
("Petrenko did not hear ...") are also reliable.
The validity of the conclusions in these inferences is as follows: 1. If any
phenomenon is not possible at all, then it is impossible and in each individual case;
2. If any phenomenon as possible, but in this case there is no condition without
which the possibility can not become a reality, then it is possible in general in this
case becomes impossible.
Double conclusions (reliable and probable) from the same objects can also
be made in syllogisms, constructed of exclusion judgments. Example:
 The first conclusion is judging the possibility, so it is reliable. The second
conclusion is the validity of reality. This conclusion can not be credible, it is only
probable.
Categorical syllogisms with probable conclusions
Conclusions in categorical syllogism may not only be reliable, but also
probable.
 In conclusions with probable conclusion, the conclusion may be only
probable.
The syllogisms constructed from the probable foundations play a significant
role in the forensic study. Here they happen quite often. They can not be a form of
proof, since their conclusions are not reliable, but such inferences are used to
highlight versions of the case and various suggestions. For example, in one
criminal case, due to the review of the crime scene, it was assumed that the
victim's attacks were left-handed. By interviewing the villagers, the investigator
found that in the village where the crime was committed, Mr. X. lives, in which his
right hands are missing. This served as the basis for a version of the claim that the
victim's strikes were probably done by Mr. X. This is the conclusion of such a
syllogism:
Logical mistakes that occur in categorical syllogisms
In the practice of thinking, sometimes such logical errors are allowed.
1. The condition for the first figure with a negative lower conclusion.
Example;
 The conclusion is erroneous, since a special rule of the first figure has been
violated, according to which the lower conclusion should be affirmative. Why a
lesser source can not be objectionable, we have already been considered.
The said mistake usually occurs in cases where a larger clause is interpreted
as a distinctive judgment in the sense: "Only theft is a crime."
2. Terms for the second figure of two affirmative articles. Example:
 The conclusion here is erroneous, since the rule of the second figure is
violated, according to which one of the conclusions should be negative. This
mistake also occurs in cases where the larger conclusion is based on a
distinguishing judgment: "Only contracts are agreements."
3. Quarterly terms. This error lies in the fact that the conclusion is drawn
from the conclusions, which include not three, but four terms (see 4.11).
4. The most common type of error is the inferences with hidden false errors.
The conclusion becomes hidden false when the logical form of judgment is
misinterpreted. This occurs in the following cases:
a) When a general uncertain (unpredictable) judgment is a big cause, it is
conceived in syllogism as a judgment of the quantifier of "all". Example:
 The resulting conclusion is not necessarily true, it may be false, although
the syllogism is constructed correctly. This is explained by the fact that the larger
conclusion here is uncertain (unpredictable) judgment. In these judgments, as is
known, the predicate (P) refers to the class as a whole, and it may not belong to the
individual objects of the class. Therefore, if the tax statements are interpreted in the
inference in the sense of "everyone," the conclusion of syllogism may turn out to
be false.
b) When judgments are possible logically expressed as judgments of
reality. This statement is constructed according to the first figure (modus AAA),
the rules of the syllogism are met, but the conclusion is not reliable. This is due to
the fact that the larger conclusion contains such knowledge, which can be correctly
expressed only in the form of judgments ability ("Lack can be formed as a result of
embezzlement") or reality - ("Lack is formed as a result of embezzlement").
Therefore, the conclusion in the inference was wrong.
From the above conclusions one can get the true conclusion only if the larger
conclusion is judging the possibility.
 c) If the greater conclusion is the judgments of opportunity, and the
conclusion make in the form of judgments of reality and consider him not as
probable, but reliable.
 Here the bigger conclusion is the judgment of the possibility, therefore the
conclusion is probable. In practice, the same thinking often takes the conclusion to
be credible, which leads to a miscarriage.