LESSON 12

THE CATEGORICAL
SYLLOGISM
TOPIC OUTLINE

I. TERMS OF CATEGORICAL SYLLOGISM

II. GENERAL RULES OF CATEGORICAL SYLLOGISM
III.FIGURES AND MOODS
IV. HYPOTHETICAL SYLLOGISM
V. KINDS OF HYPOTHETICAL STLLOGISM
VI. ENTHYMEME, EOICHEREME, POLYSYLLOGISM, SORITES, AND DILEMMA.

MEMBERS

1. Apolinario, Clarinel.
2. Chiong, Stephanie.
3. Echiverre, Althea Trixie.
4. Garcia, Lemuel Darius.
5. Larios, Angelica Barbara.
6. Mayot, Mark Benedict.
7. Rio, Jomica.
8. Sarmiento, Ysabella.
 LESSON 12
CATEGORICAL PROPOSITION
TERMS OF CATEGORICAL SYLLOGISM

 Judgment expresses the mutual agreement or disagreement between two ideas.

A mere analysis of the subject and predicate or direct observation will not disclose their agreement or
disagreement. In such cases, the mind is in a state of doubt whenever it cannot perceive the agreement or
disagreement between two ideas.

The mind compares the two uncertain ideas with a third idea with which it is familiar. If these two ideas
agree with the third idea, then they agree with each other. If one only agrees with the third, and the other does
not, then they disagree among themselves. This is known as mediate inference.

Mediate inference is defined as a process of the mind in which from the agreement or disagreement of two
ideas with a third idea, we infer their agreement or disagreement with each other.

EXAMPLE:
All plants are insentient
But the makahiya is a plant.
Therefore, the makahiya is insentient.

THE SYLLOGISM
Syllogism is defined as an argumentation in which, from two known propositions that contain a common
idea, and one at least of which is universal, a third proposition, different from the two categorical syllogisms:
The categorical syllogism which consists of three categorical propositions; and the hypothetical
syllogism whose major premises is a hypothetical proposition but its minor and conclusion are categorical
propositions.
CATEGORICAL SYLLOGISM
A categorical syllogism is an argument consisting of three categorical propositions. Each syllogism
consists of two premises and a conclusion. Each of the premises and conclusion is a categorical proposition.
EXAMPLE:
Major premise – All Filipinos are Malayans
Minor premise – All Visayans are Filipinos
Conclusion – Therefore, all Visayans are Malayan.
 LESSON 12
STRUCTURES OF A CATEGORICAL SYLLOGISM
Three propositions: Three terms:
1. major premise 1. major term (P)
2. minor premise 2. minor term (S)
3. conclusion 3. middle term (M)

 Major premise - major term (P) is compared with the middle term (M); it usually contains the more
universal class.
 Minor premise - minor term (S) is compared with the middle term (M); it usually contains the less
universal class.
 Conclusion - new truth arrived at, the result of reasoning, wherein the agreement or disagreement
between the minor term (S) and the major term (P) is enunciated or expressed.
 Major term (P) - middle term (M) is compared in the major premise; it usually stands for the more
universal class
 Minor term (S) - middle term (M) is compared in the minor premise; it usually stands for the less
universal class.
 Middle term (M) - term of comparison between the minor term (S) and the major term (P) in the
premises; hence, it appears twice in the premises but it is not found in the conclusion.
 The major term (P) is found in the major premise and it is the predicate of the conclusion. The minor
term (S) is found in the minor premise and it is the subject of the conclusion. Only the middle term (M)
appears twice in the premises.

The symbols S-M-P used to signify that the three terms are purely arbitrary. Other logicians use different letters
or symbols to signify the same.

Major premise - All Tagalogs (M) are Filipinos (P).

Minor premise - All Batangueños (S) are Tagalogs (M).

Conclusion - Therefore, all Batangueños (S) are Filipinos (P).

The syllogism may be expressed thus:

All M is P - Major premise

All S in M - Minor premise

 LESSON 12

Therefore, all S is P - Conclusion

General Axioms (Principles| of the Syllogism)

Every categorical syllogism expresses the agreement or disagreement between the minor term (S) and the major
term (P) because of their agreement or disagreement with the middle term (M). This process is grounded upon
four logical axioms or principles. A principle is something that is first and from which something else either
becomes or is known.
1. The Principle of Reciprocal Identity: If two terms agree (or are identical) with a third term, then they are
identical with each other
EXAMPLES:
M is P M agrees with P.
S is M S agrees with M.
∴S is P ∴S agrees with P.

The two terms S and P are shown to be identical with the third term M. Therefore, it follows that they are
identical with
each other (i.e., S is P).

2. The Principle of Reciprocal Non-Identity: If two terms, one of which is identical with a third term and the
other of which is not identical with the same third term, then they are not identical with each other

EXAMPLES:
P agrees with M. P is M.
S is not M S does not agree with M.
∴ S is not P. ∴S does not agree with P.

The two terms are S and P. It is shown in the major premise that P is identical with the term M; but in the minor
premise S is not identical with the same M. Therefore, S is not identical with the same P. Note that if two terms
(S and P) are both non-identical with the third term (M), we have no way to find out whether they (S and P) are
identical or non-identical with each other.

EXAMPLE:
P is not M.
 LESSON 12
S is not M.
∴ (?) (We cannot determine whether agrees or disagrees with P).
This will be further explained under the 6th syllogistic rule.

3. The Dictum de Omni (The Law of All): What is affirmed of a logical class may also be affirmed of its logical
member.
In logical other words, what is affirmed of a given term may also be affirmed of every term that comes
under that term. Let us take the logical class of man and affirm something of it: Every
man is mortal. Thus mortal is affirmed of the logical class of man. Now, Pedro is a logical member of the
logical class of man. Hence mortal may also be affirmed of Pedro. The syllogism will appear as follows:
Every man is mortal.
Pedro is a man.
Therefore, Pedro is mortal

Mortal is affirmed of the term man, Since Pedro is a term that comes under the term man, mortal may also be
affirmed of Pedro

The same principle may be illustrated by means of concentric circles to show the strict necessity of its
consequential relationship.

Every man (M) is mortal (P).

Pedro (S) is a man (M).
Therefore, Pedro (S) is mortal (P).

The formula may be read thus:

1. P is affirmed of M.
But M is affirmed of S.
Hence, P may also be affirmed of S.

2. Circle M is inside circle P.

But circle S is inside circle M.
Therefore, circle S is inside circle P.
 LESSON 12

3. M isa part of P.
But S is a part of M.
Therefore, S is also a part of P.

4. Circle P contains circle M.

But circle M contains circle S.
Therefore, circle P also contains circle S.

4. The Dictum de Nullo (The Law of None): What is denied of a logical class is also denied of its logical
member.
In other words, what is denied universally of a term is also denied of each of all referents of that term.
Let us take the logical class of Filipinos and deny something of it: No Filipinos are Eskimos. Now, Tagalogs are
members of
the class Filipinos. Hence, Eskimos must also be denied of Tagalogs. The syllogism will thus appear:
No Filipinos are Eskimos.
All Tagalogs are Filipinos
Therefore, no Tagalogs are Eskimos.

Eskimos is denied entirely of the term Filipinos. Since Tagalogs are the referents of the term Filipinos, Eskimos
must also be denied of Tagalogs.
Let us illustrate it by means of concentric circles:
The logical class of Filipinos is excluded entirely from the logical class of Eskimos. Now, Tagalogs are the
logical members of the logical class of Filipinos. Therefore, Tagalogs must aIso be excluded from the logical
class of Eskimos. To put it differently, the circle Filipinos is outside (not part of) the circle of Eskimos.) But the
circle Tagalogs is inside the circle Filipinos. Therefore, the circle of Tagalog is also outside (not part) of the
circle of Eskimos

GENERAL RULES OF CATEGORICAL SYLLOGISM

Rules On The Terms
1. There must be only three terms in the syllogism.
2. Neither the major nor the minor term may be distributed in the conclusion if it is undistributed in the
premises.
 LESSON 12
3. The middle term must not appear in the conclusion.
4. The middle term must be distributed at least once in the premises.
Rules On The Premises
1. Only an affirmative conclusion can be drawn from two affirmative premises.
2. No conclusion can be drawn from two negative premises.
3. If one premise is particular, the conclusion must also be particular, if one premise is negative, the
conclusion must also be negative.
4. No conclusion can be drawn from two particular premises.

PROOFS OF THE EIGHT GENERAL RULES

RULE 1: There must be only three terms in the syllogism.
They are the minor, major, middle terms.
Example: All men (S) are rational (P), or all S is P.
This is only a proposition.
Rule 2: Neither the major nor the minor term may be distributed in the conclusion, if it is undistributed
in the premises.
Ex: All Visayans are Malayans
No Tagalogs are Visayans
Therefore, no Tagalogs are Malayans.

Mu Pp
A - All Visayans are Malayans.
Su Mu
E - No Tagalog are Visayans
Su Pu
E- Therefore, no Tagalogs are Malayans.

Rule 3: The middle term must not appear in the conclusion.

Ex: Every man can laugh.
Every man can feel.
Therefore, man can feel and laugh.
This is not really a syllogism, because there is no new truth arrived at in the conclusion.
Rule 4: The middle term must be distributed at least once in the premises.
 LESSON 12
Ex: Dogs have tails
Cats have tails.
Therefore, cats are dogs.
Pu is Mp
Su is Mp = Su is Pp.
Rule 5: Only an affirmative conclusion can be drawn from two affirmative premises.
Ex: Every animal is sentient. (Affirmative)
Every cat is an animal. (Affirmative)
therefore, every cat is sentient. (Affirmative)
Rule 6: No conclusion can be drawn from two negative premises.
Ex:
Marcos is not happy.
Juan is not Marcos.
Therefore, Juan is not happy.
Rule 7: If one premise is particular, the conclusion must be particular, if one premise is negative, the
conclusion must be negative.
Ex:
All Filipinos are Asians
Sp
Some men are Filipinos.
Su
Therefore, all men are Asians.
Rule 8: No conclusion can be drawn from two particular premises.
Three possibilities:
a. either both are affirmative.
b. both are negative.
c. one is affirmative and the other negative.
Ex: The fallacy of illicit major is committed.
Some politicians are Filipinos. I-Mp is Pp.
Some Tagalogs are not politicians. O-Sp is not Mu.
Therefore, some Tagalogs are not Filipinos. O-Sp is not Pu.
 LESSON 12
The fallacy of undistributed middle is committed.
Some politicians are not Filipinos. O-Mp is not Pu.
Some Tagalogs are politicians. I-Sp is Mp.
Therefore, some Tagalogs are not Filipinos. O-Sp is not Pu.

FIGURES AND MOODS OF THE CATEGORICAL SYLLOGISM

There are four possible arrangements which gives rise to four different syllogistic figures:
1st Figure: The middle term is the subject of the major premise and the predicate of the minor premise.
M-P All Filipinos are Malayans.
S-M All Bicolanos are Filipinos.
S-P Therefore, all Bicolanos are Malayans.
2nd Figure: The middle term is the predicate of both premises.
P-M All Filipinos are Malayans
S-M No Eskimos are Malayans
S-P Therefore, no Eskimos are Filipinos
3rd Figure: The middle term is the subject of both premises.
M-P Some Filipinos are Pampangos
M-S All Filipinos are Asians
S-P Therefore, some Asians are Pampangos.
4th Figure: The middle term is the predicate of the major premise and the subject of the minor premise.
P-M All Ivatans are Filipinos
M-S No Filipinos are Thais
S-P Therefore, no Thais are Ivatans.

THE VALID MOODS IN THE FOUR FIGURES:

1st: AAA, EAE, AII, EIO
2nd: EAE, AEE, EIO, AOO
3rd: AAI, EAO, IAI, AII, OAO, EIO
4th: AAI, AEE, IAI, EIO

Example
 LESSON 12
1. All mammals are creatures that have hair.
2. All dogs are mammals.
3. Therefore, all dogs are creatures that have hair.
When determining the mood of categorical syllogism, you need to figure out which of the four forms of
categorical proposition each line of the argument is. For instance, in the argument above, all THREE statements
are A propositions, so the mood of argument would be AAA.
Figure: the figure of categorical syllogism is a number which corresponds to the placement of two middle term.
1. All mammals are creatures that have hair.
2. All dogs are mammals.
3. Therefore, all dogs are creatures that have hair.

HYPOTHETICAL SYLLOGISM
Hypothetical syllogisms are short, two-premise deductive arguments, in which at least one of the premises is
a conditional, the antecedent or consequent of which also appears in the other premise.
I. “Pure” Hypothetical Syllogisms:
In the pure hypothetical syllogism (abbreviated HS), both the premises as well as the conclusion are
conditionals. For such a conditional to be valid the antecedent of one premise must match the consequent of the
other. What one may validly conclude, then, is a conditional containing the remaining antecedent as antecedent
and the remaining consequent as consequent. (You might simply think of the middle term – the proposition in
common between the two premises – as being canceled out.)
If p, then q.
If q, then r.
(So) If p, then r
or
If p, then not r.
If not r, then not q.
(So) If p, then not q

II. “Mixed” Hypothetical Syllogisms:

In mixed hypothetical syllogisms, one of the premises is a conditional while the other serves to register
agreement or disagreement with either the antecedent or consequent of that conditional. There are thus four
possible forms of such syllogisms, two of which are valid, while two of which are invalid.

THE VALID FORMS ARE:

 LESSON 12
(AA) Affirming the Antecedent or “Modus Ponens”
If p, then q.
p.
q
(DC) Denying the Consequent or “Modus Tollens”
If p, then q.
Not q.
Not p.
And the INVALID forms (or “pretenders”) are:
(AC) Affirming the Consequent
If p, then q.
q.
p.
(DA) Denying the Antecedent
If p, then q.
Not p.
Not q.
CONDITIONAL SYLLOGISM
minor premise and conclusion are categorical propositions. Conditional proposition expresses a relation
of dependence between two clauses (antecedent and consequent). The truth of a hypothetical judgement lies in
the truth of this dependence, of this logical relation, between then one statement (antecedent) and the other
(consequent).

Major premise
·The major premise (the first statement).
·This statement is not challenged and is assumed to be true.
Example: If illegal loggers continue cutting trees, then the forest will be devastated.

Minor premise
·A minor premise, which may not be spoken, gives further detail about the major premise.
·In adverts, it often appears as the secondary line to the main strapline of the major premise.
Example: Illegal loggers continue cutting trees
 LESSON 12

Conclusion
·The conclusion is a third statement, based on a combination of the major and minor premise.
Example: Therefore, the forest will be devastated.
VALID MOODS OF A CONDITIONAL SYLLOGISM
1. Modus Ponens - Affirming the Antecedent
If the antecedent is accepted in the minor, the consequent must also be accepted in the conclusion. The
truth of the antecedent implies the truth of the consequent.
Example: Valid Mood (accepting the antecedent)
If a person has cancer, he is seriously ill.
But Mario has cancer.
Therefore, he is seriously ill.
Another example:
If I am Chinese, I am human.
I am Chinese.
Therefore, I am human.
Example: Invalid Mood (rejecting the antecedent)
If an individual has AIDS, he is gravely ill.
But Mario has no AIDS.
Therefore, he is not gravely ill.

Another example:
If Evonne is shy, she cannot speak publicly.
But Evonne is not shy.
Therefore, she can speak publicly.

2. Modus Tollens – Denying the consequent

If the consequent is rejected in the minor premise, the antecedent must also be rejected in the conclusion.
The falsity of the consequent implies the falsity of the antecedent.
Example: Valid Mood (rejecting the consequent)
If a person has cancer of the bones, he is seriously ill.
 LESSON 12
But Lyka is not seriously ill.
Therefore, she has no cancer of the bones.
Another example:
If anyone is born of God, then she loves her brothers.
Jarmagne does not love her brothers.
Therefore, Jarmagne is not born of God.
Example: Invalid Mood (accepting the consequent)
If a person is in love, she has a boyfriend.
But Cleince Lee has a boyfriend.
Therefore, she is in love.
Another example:
If a person is farsighted, she needs eyeglasses.
But Laila Mae needs eyeglasses.
Therefore, she is farsighted.
DISJUNCTIVE SYLLOGISM
A disjunctive syllogism is one whose major premise is a disjunctive proposition, while its minor premise and
conclusion are categorical propositions. Recall that a disjunctive proposition is one whose subject or predicate
consists of parts which exclude each other.

EXAMPLE:
It is either raining or not raining. (major premise)
But it is raining. (minor premise)
Therefore, it is not not raining. (conclusion)

MOODS OF DISJUNCTIVE SYLLOGISM

1. In the case of complete disjunction (whose parts are mutually exclusive, i.e., they contradict each other),
two valid moods are possible:
A.) Ponendo Tollens - Posit (accept, affirm) one disjunct in the minor and sublate (reject, deny) the other
disjunct in the conclusion.
EXAMPLE:
The prisoner is either sane or insane
But he is sane (posited)
 LESSON 12
Therefore, he is not insane. (sublated)

The prisoner is either sane or insane.

But he is insane. (posited)
Therefore, he is not sane. (sublated)

B.) Tollendo Polens: Sublate one disjunct in the minor and posit the other disjunct in the conclusion

EXAMPLE:
The househelper is either honest or dishonest.
But she is not honest. (sublated)
Therefore, she is dishonest. (posited)

The househelper is either honest or dishonest.

But she is not dishonest. (sublated)
Therefore, she is honest. (posited)

2. In the case of incomplete disjunction (whose parts are not mutually exclusive, i.e., they do not contradict
each other), there is only one valid mood possible:

Ponendo Tollens: Posit one disjunct in the minor and sublate the other in the conclusion.

EXAMPLE:
Your cup of coffee is either hot or cold.
But it is hot. (posited)
Therefore, it is not cold. (sublated)

This mood follows the rule of contrariety. Hot and cold are contraries. If one is true, the other must be false. But
if one is false, the other may be false, too.
EXAMPLE:
Your cup of coffee is either hot or cold.
But it is not hot. (sublated)
 LESSON 12
Therefore, it is cold. (posited)
The conclusion Therefore, it is cold does not necessarily follow. It may be lukewarm, in which case it is neither
cold nor hot. Some logicians consider this as the fallacy of sublate-posit or fallacy of tollendo ponens. It is a
fallacy that arises when one part of an incomplete disjunction is sublated in the minor and the other is posited in
the conclusion. Here is another example:
Mary's dress is either black or white.
But it is not black. (sublated)
Therefore, it is black. (posited)
This syllogism is invalid. Mary's dress may be green or any of the other colors.

CONJUCNTIVE SYLLOGISM
A conjunctive syllogism is one whose major premise is a conjunctive proposition, while its minor
premise and conclusion are categorical propositions. Recall that a conjunctive proposition is one which denies
that two contrary predicates can be true of the same subject at the same time.

EXAMPLE:
Water cannot be hot and cold and lukewarm at the same time.
But this water is cold.
Therefore, it is not hot or lukewarm.

There is only one valid mood for a conjunctive syllogism: Ponendo Tollens-Posit one conjunct in the minor and
sublate the other (s) in the conclusion.

EXAMPLE:
The accused could not have been in Baguio and in Manila at the same time.
But he was in Baguio. (posited)
Therefore, he was not in Manila. (sublated)

From the truth of one conjunct follows the falsity of the other. The fact that the accused was in Baguio
means that he could not be in Manila at the same time. It would be impossible for him to be in two places at the
same time. But from the falsity of one conjunct the truth of the other does not necessarily follow.

EXAMPLE:
The accused could not have been in Baguio and in Manila at the same time.
 LESSON 12
But he was not in Baguio. (sublated)
Therefore, he was in Manila. (posited)
The conclusion Therefore, he was in Manila does not always follow. There are a thousand and one places other
than Manila, where he may have been at that particular time. This violation is also called the fallacy of sublate-
posit or fallacy of tollendo ponens.

ENTHYMEME
An ENTHYMEME is a syllogism in which one of the premises of the conclusion is omitted.

3 Orders of ENTHYMEME
FIRST ODER, if the MAJOR PREMISE IS OMITTED
SECOND ORDER, if the MINOR PREMISE IS OMITTED
THIRD ORDER, if the CONCLUSION IS OMITTED

The enthymeme is not a distinct form of syllogism, but an incomplete statement of any of the form we have
already studied.

Major: What is spiritual is immortal

Minor: But the human soul is spiritual
Conclusion: Therefore the human soul is immortal

1. Minor: The human soul is spiritual

Conclusion: and therefore is immortal.
2. Conclusion: The human soul is immortal
Minor: because it is spiritual.
3. Major: What is spiritual is immortal
Conclusion: For this reason the human soul is immortal.
4. Conclusion: The human soul is immortal
Major: since whatever is spiritual is immortal.
5. Minor: The human soul is spiritual
Major: and whatever is spiritual is immortal
 LESSON 12

Syllogism is your typical three-part logical reasoning. For example:

Roses mean love.

I got roses.
Therefore, I am loved.

Now, enthymeme follows the same logic. However, one premise is hidden or implied but not expressed. So in
an enthymeme, you just have the one premise and conclusion. For example:

Roses mean love.

I am loved.

Enthymeme is used in everyday life. Not only might you use it in common school arguments, but in politics as
well. Explore some common enthymemes along with what is implied.
 Danny lied, so he can’t be trusted. (Liars can’t be trusted)
 I’m not married, so the toilet seat is up. (Married men put the toilet seat down)
 Drugs kill the innocent, so drugs are wrong. (Killing the innocent is wrong)
 A bird has feathers, therefore, it flies. (Animals with feathers fly)
 Drunk drivers take innocent lives. Drunk drivers are bad. (Taking innocent lives is bad)

EPICHIREME
Epichireme is another form of syllogism wherein a proof is joined to one or both premises. The proof is an
explanation of the given premise. It is normally connected to the premise by such causal clauses as for, because,
since, and insofar as. An epichireme makes use of an enthymeme for its premise thus there are actually more
than one argument in an epichireme.

TWO TYPES OF EPICHIREME

1. Simple Epichireme- where one of the premises is accompanied by a proof or an explanation
Example: All human beings are rational
because all men have a soul
But doctors are human beings;
Therefore, doctors are rational.
 LESSON 12

 Compound Epichireme- where both of the premises are accompanied by proofs or explanations.
Actually the syllogism is made up of three arguments; the main syllogism and the two enthymemes that
act as premises.
Example: All research works are beneficial to students
because students learn to look for primary sources of information
But all things beneficial to students are the tasks of education
since education is for total human development of the students
therefore, some tasks of education are research works.

POLYSYLLOGISM
A Polysyllogism is a series of syllogism that are so related that the conclusion of the first becomes the major
premise of the second syllogism and so on. When there are only two syllogism that are connected as such, it is
known as Episyllogism.

Example: 1. Every human being is a rational being;

But students are human beings;
2. therefore, students are rational beings
But All rational beings are free
3.Therefore, some free beings are students;
No slaves are free beings;
Therefore, some slaves are not students.
(1) All good students understand polysyllogisms
(2) All students of logic are good students
(3) Therefore, all students of logic will understand polysyllogisms
(4) But all people who read this book are students of logic
(5) Therefore, all people who read this book will readily understand polysyllogisms

(1) All A is B
(2) All C is A
(3) Therefore, All C is B
(4) All D is C
 LESSON 12
(5) Therefore, all D is B

VALIDITY OF POLYSYLLOGISMS
A polysyllogism is valid if all of its component syllogisms is valid.

SORITE

A Sorite is a shortened polysyllogism wherein the conclusions are suspended or not stated except the last.
2 KINDS OF SORITES
1. Aristotelian Sorites (Progressive)- a sylogism that uses the predicate of the preceding premise as the
subject of the next premise and so on and so forth.
Example: All good students are good learners
But all good learners are rational beings
But all rational beings are responsible beings
But all responsible beings perform are good performers of their civic duties;
But all good performers of their civic duties are good citizens;
Therefore, all good students are good citizens.
2. Goclenian Sorites (Regressive). This employs the opposite form of the Aristotilian sorites. The
subject of the preceding premise becomes the predicate of the next premise and so forth.
Example: All responsible teachers are role models;
But effective teachers are responsible teachers;
But all efficient teachers are effective teachers;
But all awardees are efficient teachers;
Therefore, all awardees are role models.
DILEMMA
A dilemma is a horned argument. This is an argument that gives two alternatives or choices both of
which are detrimental to the one who will make the choice. The structure of the dilemma is so arranged that
both alternatives will result into a conclusion that is both unfavorable to the one choosing thus pinning him
down.
The major premise is a conditional hypothetical proposition and the minor premise is a disjunctive
proposition or vice versa. The conclusion is either a categorical or a hypothetical proposition.
KINDS OF DILEMMA
1. Simple constructive dilemma- where the conclusion is a simple and an affirmative proposition.
 LESSON 12
Example: Either, you give a report or you improve your extra- curricular involvement;
if you give a report you’ll gain additional credit.
if you improve your extra- curricular activities you’ll gain additional credit.
Therefore, in any case, you’ll earn additional credit.
2. Compound constructive dilemma-where the conclusion is a compound and an affirmative
proposition.
Example:
If I continue my studies then I will finish my degree.
and If I work then I will earn money to support my family.
But either I continue my studies or work;
Therefore, either I will finish my studies or I will earn money to support my family.

3. Simple destructive dilemma- where the conclusion is a simple and negative proposition.
Example: The man trapped at the 20th floor of a burning building will either not jump or he will not stay.
If the man doesn’t jump, he will not survive because of the fire;
If the man doesn’t stays, he will not survive because of the fall;
Therefore, the man will not survive.
4. Compound destructive dilemma-where the conclusion is a compound and negative proposition.
Example:
In politic, if I’ll be honest then my colleagues will not like me
If I’ll be corrupt then people will not vote for me again;
But in politics, either I’ll be honest or I’ll be corrupt
Therefore, either my colleagues will not like me or the people will not vote for me again.

HYPOTHETICAL SYLLOGISM
A hypothetical syllogism is one whose major premise is a hypothetical proposition, while its minor
premise and conclusion are categorical propositions. There are three types of hypothetical syllogisms, based on
three types of hypothetical propositions: (1) the conditional syllogism, (2) the disjunctive syllogism, and (3) the
conjunctive syllogism.

THE CONDITIONAL SYLLOGISM

A conditional syllogism is one whose major premise is a conditional proposition, while its minor premise
and conclusion are categorical propositions. Conditional proposition expresses a relation of dependence
 LESSON 12
between two clauses (antecedent and consequent). The truth of a hypothetical judgement lies in the truth of this
dependence, of this logical relation, between then one statement (antecedent) and the other (consequent).
Major premise
 The major premise (the first statement).
 This statement is not challenged and is assumed to be true.
Example: If illegal loggers continue cutting trees, then the forest will be devastated.

Minor premise
 A minor premise, which may not be spoken, gives further detail about the major premise.
 In adverts, it often appears as the secondary line to the main strapline of the major
premise.
Example: Illegal loggers continue cutting trees

Conclusion
 The conclusion is a third statement, based on a combination of the major and minor
premise.
Example: Therefore, the forest will be devastated.

VALID MOODS OF A CONDITIONAL SYLLOGISM

1. Modus Ponens - Affirming the Antecedent
If the antecedent is accepted in the minor, the consequent must also be accepted in the conclusion. The
truth of the antecedent implies the truth of the consequent.
Example: Valid Mood (accepting the antecedent)
If a person has cancer, he is seriously ill.
But Mario has cancer.
Therefore, he is seriously ill.
Another example:
If I am Chinese, I am human.
I am Chinese.
Therefore, I am human.

Example: Invalid Mood (rejecting the antecedent)

 LESSON 12
If an individual has AIDS, he is gravely ill.
But Mario has no AIDS.
Therefore, he is not gravely ill.

Another example:
If Evonne is shy, she cannot speak publicly.
But Evonne is not shy.
Therefore, she can speak publicly.

2. Modus Tollens – Denying the consequent

If the consequent is rejected in the minor premise, the antecedent must also be rejected in the conclusion.
The falsity of the consequent implies the falsity of the antecedent.

Example: Valid Mood (rejecting the consequent)

If a person has cancer of the bones, he is seriously ill.
But Lyka is not seriously ill.
Therefore, she has no cancer of the bones.

Another example:
If anyone is born of God, then she loves her brothers.
Jarmagne does not love her brothers.
Therefore, Jarmagne is not born of God.
Example: Invalid Mood (accepting the consequent)
If a person is in love, she has a boyfriend.
But Cleince Lee has a boyfriend.
Therefore, she is in love.
Another example:
If a person is farsighted, she needs eyeglasses.
But Laila Mae needs eyeglasses.
Therefore, she is farsighted.
 LESSON 12
Constructive Mood of Conditional Syllogisms: The minor premise accepts the antecedent and the conclusion
accepts the consequent.
1. If A is B, then C is D.
But A is B.
Therefore, C is D (Valid).
2. If A is B, then C is not B.
But A is B.
Therefore, C is not B (Valid)
3. Unless A is B, then C is D. (unless means ’if-not’)
But A is not B.
Therefore, C is D (Valid).
4. Unless A is B, then C is not D.
But A is not B.
Therefore, C is not D (Valid).

Destructive Mood: The minor premise rejects the consequent, and the conclusion rejects the antecedent.
1. If A is B, then C is D.
But C is not D.
Therefore, A is not B(Valid).
2. If A is B, then C is not D.
But C is D.
Therefore, A is not B (Valid).
3. Unless A is B, then C is D.
But C is not D.
Therefore, A is B (Valid).
4. Unless A is B, then C is not D. (unless means ’if-not’)
But C is D.
Therefore, A is B(Valid).
LESSON 12