Unit 5: MEDIATE INFERENCE

5.1. On MEDIATE INFERENCE

Mediate Inference is also known as reasoning. It is a mental process by which from certain
truths already known the intellect passes to another truth, distinct from these but necessarily
following from them.
It is by way of Argument by which the process of reasoning is expressed be it in writing or
verbal. An argument is a discourse, which proves something (that is the conclusion) on the basis of
certain facts or propositions (these are the premises). Argument is being presented by way of using
Syllogism.
A syllogism is a form of discourse, which logically deduces one proposition from two others. A
syllogism is the oral expression of an inference. The term syllogism is also called “Argumentation”.
The concept of argumentation deals with the process of how “to argue, or to discuss to prove; hence,
the concept of Argumentation is the process of proving a statement.”

Syllogism has Two (2) General Forms:

1. Categorical Syllogism
This form of syllogism uses categorical proposition in its argumentative demonstration.
2. Hypothetical Syllogism
This form of syllogism uses categorical proposition in its argumentative demonstration.

Types of Arguments
a. Deductive Argument
This is a form of argument, which concludes from a general law to a particular instance.
Example: All misbehavior is punishable.
Stealing is misbehavior.
Therefore, Stealing is punishable.

*Categorical and Hypothetical syllogism are forms of deductive argument. These

syllogisms will be discussed in the succeeding chapter.

b. Inductive Argument
This is the form of reasoning which concludes from (sufficiently number of) particular instances
to a general law.
Example: Child A of the Dela Cruz family is intelligent.
Child B is also intelligent.
Child C is likewise intelligent.
Therefore, all the six children in the Dela Cruz family are intelligent.
2.2. CATEGORICAL SYLLOGISM and Its NATURE

Nature of Categorical Syllogism

A mediate inference is a syllogism that is basically composed of, at least, two premises prior to
the conclusion. Likewise, it is inherent in this kind of inferential thinking to rely on the mediation of
a common third thing that affords the mind a judgment that either connects or separates the terms in
the conclusion.
One of the forms of mediate inferential thinking is known as the simple categorical syllogism. As
most authors say, this is the most fundamental form of reasoning that a student of logic should not
just disregard.

2.2.1. Syllogism: Basic Structure / Parts

A simple categorical syllogism is consisted of premises and three important terms.

1. Major Premise 4. Major Term
2. Minor Premise 5. Minor Term
3. Conclusion 6. Middle Term

1
Major Premise
This is the proposition that pronounces the general law and it contains the major and the middle
term.

Minor premise
The proposition pronouncing the particular instance and it contains the minor and the middle
term.

Conclusion
The conclusion is the proposition containing the result of reasoning. It contains the minor and
major term. This is the statement being proved.

Major Term
The major term is found in the conclusion as its predicate (a constant assumption as to its position
in the conclusion). But it is also a part of the major premise (the uppermost proposition in a
categorical syllogism) either as a subject or a predicate.

Minor Term
The minor term is located in the conclusion as the subject (a constant assumption as to its location
in the conclusion). However, it can also be arranged in the minor premise (the middlemost
proposition of a categorical syllogism where a turning point of an argument occurs) either as subject
or as predicate.

Middle Term
The middle term is the only term that is excluded from the conclusion since it is only found in both
major and minor premises to mediate or act as a common third thing for the major and minor terms.
The following example will throw light into the issue at hand. The terms that are italized are the
major, minor, and middle terms.

Every financial statement is a source of economic information;

But, a balance sheet is a financial statement;
Therefore, a balance sheet is a source of economic information.

The proposition whose subject is financial statement is known as the major premise. In this
example, the middle term is financial statement (complex term) and the major term is source of
economic information (complex term).
The proposition whose subject is balance sheet is known as the minor premise. In the given
example, the minor term is balance sheet and the middle term is still financial statement.
The proposition introduced by the conjunction therefore is called the conclusion. The conclusion’s
subject is the minor term and, in this example, it is balance sheet. On the other hand, the predicate is
the major term and here in this example, it is source of economic information.

2.2.2. Categorical Syllogism and Its General Rules

The categorical syllogism has rules that serve as practical guide in its formulation.
The general rules for valid categorical syllogism are divided in two parts:
A) The Rules for the Terms (Rules Number 1 to 4) and the
B) Rules for the Propositions (Rules Number 5 to 9)

A) RULES for the TERMS

Rule #1: There must only be three terms - major, minor, and middle terms in the syllogism.

Example:
Gasoline is liquid;
But, kerosene is inflammable;
Therefore, gasoline is inflammable.

2
 Obviously, the syllogism has four terms already; gasoline, liquid, kerosene, and inflammable.

Every ruler is twelve inches long;

But, Charlemagne is a ruler;
Therefore, Charlemagne is twelve inches long.

A term whose function and use in a syllogism differs is equivalent to two terms. The syllogism
above clearly demonstrates that the term ruler is first used in the major premise to mean an
instrument of measurement. However, in the minor premise it already refers to a leader. Hence,
there are four terms in the syllogism already.

RULE#2: The middle term must not occur in the conclusion but only in the premises.

RULE#3: The terms (minor and major term) in the conclusion should not be universal unless they are
also universal in their respective premises.

Example:
All financial institutions are sources of funds;
But, no schools are financial institutions;
Therefore, no schools are sources of funds.

In the example, the major term, sources of funds, violates the third rule because in the major
premise it is particular being a predicate of an affirmative proposition, while it is shown as universal
in the conclusion as a predicate of a negative proposition. Such invalid process is called “Illicit Process
of the Major Term.”

Example:
Cash is unrestricted in its use for current operations;
But, cash is a current asset;
Therefore, every current asset is unrestricted in its use for current operations.

The syllogism is also invalid in so far as this rule is concerned because the minor “current asset”
is only particular in the premise but has been extended to universal in the conclusion.

RULE #4: The middle term must be universal at least once.

Example:
Some leaders are economists;
But all politicians are leaders;
Therefore, some politicians are economists.

The argument is invalid since the middle term is particular in both premises. The middle term in
an argument is known as a common third thing, which is the reason for uniting (in the case of
affirmative conclusion) or separating (in the case of negative proposition) the major and minor in the
conclusion. Reasonably, a middle term, which is universal, even in one premise alone, can act as a
common third thing and is the basis for the mind to consider in its final judgment in the conclusion.
But, if it is only particular in both premises, it will difficult for the mind to come up with a reasoned
conclusion because of the limited extension of the middle term.

B) RULES for the PROPOSITIONS

Rule#5: A negative conclusion can only flow from one negative premise.

An Argument may have strong and weak side. The strong sides of the argument are universal and
affirmative premises, while the weak sides are particular and negative premises. The general rule
suggests that when a syllogism contains both sides of the argument, the conclusion will follow the weaker
side.

3
Rule#6: No conclusion can be drawn from two negative premises.
Example:
No stone is mortal;
But no man is a stone;
Therefore, no man is mortal.

By merely looking at the conclusion, one can judge the argument as invalid. Similarly, by analyzing
the rule will already reveal that a negative conclusion is only drawn validly from one negative
premise. Thus, the case of a categorical syllogism with two negative premises cannot validly have a
conclusion.

Rule#7: Only an affirmative conclusion can be drawn from two affirmative premises.

Rule#8: A particular conclusion must be drawn if one premise is particular.

Example:
Some immutable realities are universal;
But truth is immutable;
Therefore, truth is universal.

The argument might appear to be valid because the conclusion is true by accident (which
means its truth is not drawn from the premises with logical necessity but by virtue of its own nature).
In the syllogism the major premise is particular and expectedly the conclusion must also be particular
so that it can be considered a valid argument.
Again, the general rule suggests that when a syllogism contains both sides of the argument, the
conclusion will follow the weaker side.

Rule#9: No valid conclusion can be obtained if both premises are particular.

Common sense dictates that when an argument contains only weak premises then no valid conclusion
can be made.

2.3. [SYLLOGISTIC] FIGURES

The Four Syllogistic Figures

Figures
Figures refer to the basic arrangement of terms in a categorical syllogism. The figure of a
categorical syllogism is clearly defined by the arrangement of the middle term in the premises. Since
the middle term is the only term common to the premises, any position it may have in the premises
can already define the arrangement of the other terms in the same premises.

The following are the four possible figures or arrangement of terms in the premises:

1. FIRST FIGURE (Subject-Predicate)

M
M

2. SECOND FIGURE (Predicate - Predicate)

M
M

3. THIRD FIGURE (Subject - Subject)

M
M
4
 4. FOURTH FIGURE (Predicate - Subject)
M
M

Examples:

(FIRST FIGURE)
Every politician is a leader in society;
But, a congressman is a politician;
Therefore, a congressman is a leader in society.

(SECOND FIGURE)
No spirit is material creature;
But, every planet is a material creature;
Therefore, no planet is a spirit.

(THIRD FIGURE)
All CPAs are regulated in their actions;
But, all CPAs are professionals;
Therefore, some professionals are regulated in their actions.

(FOURTH FIGURE)
All machines are man-made objects;
But, some man-made objects are cars;
Therefore, some cars are machines.

2.4. [SYLLOGISTIC] MOODS

Moods refer to the logical disposition of propositions in a categorical syllogism
according to both quality and quantity or extension. In this case, there are only eight valid
moods despite the fact that there are sixteen possible moods.

Valid Moods

The following are the valid moods:

A A A A E E I O
A E I O A I A A
The upper row represents the major premise, while the bottom row represents the minor
premise. The moods reveal the propositions that can be validly used in categorical syllogism.
However, some of them might be valid or invalid in the different figures.

To determine the validity of the moods in the figures, the following rules are helpful guide such as
the following:
1. First Figure.
a. The major premise must be universal (A or E).
b. The minor premise must be affirmative (A or I).
2. Second Figure.
a. The major premise must be universal (A or E).
b. One premise must negative (E or O).
3. Third Figure.
a. The minor premise must be affirmative (A or I).
b. The conclusion must be particular (A or I).
5
 4. Fourth Figure.
a. If the major premise is affirmative, the minor premise must be universal.
b. If the minor premise is affirmative, the conclusion must be particular.
c. If a premise (and the conclusion) is negative, the major premise must be universal.

LIST of REFERENCES

Adams, Elis Maynard. The Fundamentals of Logic. New York: Longmans, Green and Company, 1954.

Agdalpen, Renato, et. al. Basic Logic. Novaliches, Quezon City: Jollence Publishing. 1998.

Ardales, Venancio B. Introductory Text to Philosophy. Quezon City: Great Books, 1987.

Bachhuber, Andrew H. Introduction to Logic. New York: Appleton-Century Crofts, Inc., 1957.

Bittle, Celestine N. The Science of Correct Thinking. Milwaukee: The Bruce Publishing Company, 1950.

Brennan, Joseph Gerard. A Handbook of Logic. Harper and Brothers, 1974

Copeland, B., Logic and Reality: Essays on the Legacy of Arthur Prior, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1996.

Copi, Irvin M. Introduction to Logic. New York: Macmillan Publishing Company, 1986.

Corcoran, J., ‘Categoricity’, History and Philosophy of Logic 1, 1980.

Gansewinkel, Albert Van. SVD. Outlines of Logic. Manila: Catholic Trade, Inc. 1979.

Jayme, Virginia L. An Introduction to Logic. Cebu City: ABC Publications, 1994.

Piñon, Manuel. Logic Primer. Quezon City: Rex Printing Company, 1979.

Reyes, Edgardo A. Logic Simplified and Integrated. Manila: National Bookstore Inc., 1988.