SUBMITTED BY ; ANJANA V A

REG NO ; AB21CON029
DEPARTMENT ; B.COM TAX (REGULAR)
SYLLOGISM ;
Syllogism derives from the Greek word syllogismos,
meaning conclusion or inference. A simple syllogism
definition is that it's a form of deductive reasoning where
you arrive at a specific conclusion by examining premises or
ideas.

For example:

All roses are flowers.

This is a rose.
I'm holding a flower.
Many syllogisms contain three components.

Major premise - All roses are flowers.

Minor premise - This is a rose.
Conclusion - I'm holding a flower.

MIXED SYLLOGISM ;
A syllogism may contain propositons of that are not
categorical. There are syllogism in which the propostions
are not same kind , is known as Mixed Syllogism.

Ø Hypothetical Syllogism
Ø Disjunctive Syllogism
Ø Dilemma
1.HYPOTHETICAL SYLLOGISM ;
A hypothetical syllogism is built around a hypothetical
statement which takes the form: "IF . . . THEN."
Hypothetical syllogisms are not entirely hypothetical, but
one of its premises is. Three hypothetical statements
would not lead to any conclusion .
Rather, this kind of syllogism must be constructed of a
conditional major premise, and an unconditional minor
premise leading to an three terms as categorical syllogisms
do, a hypothetical syllogism has only two terms. Instead of
talking about subjects and predicates, here we will be talking
about antecedents and consequents.

Fallacies of the Hypothetical Syllogism

A valid hypothetical syllogism either denies the consequent
(modus tollensm.t.d.c.) or affirms the antecedent (modus
ponens-m.p.a.a.) of the major premise; it does not deny the
antecedent or affirm the consequent.

A. Denying the Antecedent:

That a particular condition is not fulfilled is not any proof

that the consequent has not occurred since some other
condition with which the consequent may be connected
may be the cause of its fulfillment.
1. If abortion is murder, then it is wrong.
2. But abortion isn't murder.
3. Therefore, it is not wrong.
B. Affirming the Consequent:

The connection of a consequent with a condition (or

antecedent) does not preclude the possibility that there are
other conditions upon which the same consequent may
follow. To affirm the consequent is no guarantee that the
specified condition produced it. The fact that the
consequent may have occurred is no proof or guarantee of
that particular condition or antecedent.

2.DISJUNCTIVE SYLLOGISM ;
A disjunctive syllogism is a syllogism whose major premise is a
disjunctive prepositionwhile its minor premise and conclusion
are categorical proposition.
Eg ; The man is either honest or dishonest.
But, he is honest.
Therefore, he is not dishonest .
RULES ;
1.Affirm one alternative in the minor premise and deny the
other in the conclusion. Or deny one alternative in the
minor premise and affirm other in the conclusion.
2. The two alternatives must be exclusive of each other, i.e.
the presence of one implies the absence of the other.
3. The two alternatives must be exhaustive, i.e. the two
alternatives taken together
must cover the whole subject without omitting any part of it.
FALLACY OF IMPROPER DISJUNCTION ;
Errors occur in disjunctive arguments also. Sometimes the
alternatives are neither exclusive nor exhaustive.

E.g. Students are either intelligent or hardworking.

X is intelligent.
X is not hard working.
This argument is invalid because the alternatives are not
exclusive. There are students who are both intelligent and
hard working.
Men are either rich or poor.
He is not rich.
He is poor.
This is invalid. Here the alternatives are not exhaustive.
There are average men, neither rich nor poor.
THANK YOU