DILEMMA AND HYPOTHETICAL

SYLLOGISM
MARCH 25, 2019, MONDAY
YSAGUN, MADAYAG, OJENDRAS, PUENTE, VICENTE
 DILEMMA
DILEMMA, IN SYLLOGISTIC, OR TRADITIONAL, LOGIC, ANY ONE OF SEVERAL FORMS
OF INFERENCE IN WHICH THERE ARE TWO MAJOR PREMISES OF HYPOTHETICAL FORM AND A
DISJUNCTIVE (“EITHER . . . OR”) MINOR PREMISE. FOR EXAMPLE:

IF WE INCREASE THE PRICE, SALES WILL SLUMP.

IF WE DECREASE THE QUALITY, SALES WILL SLUMP.
EITHER WE INCREASE THE PRICE OR
WE DECREASE THE QUALITY.
T HEREFORE, SALES WILL SLUMP.
 IN LOGIC ⊃ SIGNIFIES “IF . . . THEN”;
∨ SIGNIFIES “EITHER . . . OR”. SYMBOLICALLY,
THEREFORE, A DILEMMA IS AN ARGUMENT OF THE
FORM A ⊃ C, B ⊃ C, A ∨ B, THEREFORE C.
(HTTPS://WWW.BRITANNICA.COM/TOPIC/DILEMMA-LOGIC)
 RULES FOR DILEMMA
• CONSTRUCTIVE DILEMMA • DESTRUCTIVE DILEMMA
(P⊃Q) & (R⊃S) (P⊃Q) & (R⊃S)
P V. R ~Q V. ~S
∴ Q V. S ∴ ~P V. ~R

• IF P, THEN Q AND IF R, THEN S • IF P, THEN Q AND IF R, THEN S

• P OR Q • NOT Q OR NOT S
• THEREFORE, Q OR S • THEREFORE, NOT P OR NOT R
 WAYS OF REFUTING A DILEMMA
When the dilemma is of the form first stated:

A implies B, and C implies D

A or C is true.
Therefore B or D is true.

The counter-dilemma can always be constructed as:

A implies the opposite of D, and C implies the opposite of B.

A or C is true.
Therefore either the opposite of D is true, or the opposite of B is true.
UNFORTUNATELY, SOMETIMES THE COUNTER-DILEMMA WILL NOT BE HELPFUL, AS IN
THE MOTHER/MOTHER-IN-LAW DILEMMA, OR THE FIRST PREMISE OF IT WILL NOT BE
TRUE. SUPPOSE, FOR EXAMPLE, THERE IS A BOMB ABOUT TO GO OFF AND IS
CONSTRUCTED IN SUCH A WAY THAT IF YOU TAMPER WITH IT, THAT WILL ALSO SET
IT OFF, SO THAT YOU HAVE THE FOLLOWING DILEMMA:

• IF WE DO NOTHING THE BOMB WILL GO OFF, AND IF WE DO SOMETHING TO

THE BOMB IT WILL GO OFF.
• WE MUST EITHER DO NOTHING OR WE MUST DO SOMETHING TO THE BOMB.
• THEREFORE THE BOMB WILL GO OFF.
(
ACTUALLY THE FIRST STATEMENT OF THE ORIGINAL BOMB DILEMMA COULD BE
STATED AS:
IF WE DO NOTHING THE BOMB WILL GO OFF ON ITS OWN, AND IF WE DO
SOMETHING TO THE BOMB IT WILL GO OFF BY BOOBY TRAP.
WHICH WOULD BE COUNTERED BY:
IF WE DO NOTHING, THE BOMB WILL NOT GO OFF BY BOOBY TRAP; AND IF WE
DO SOMETHING, THE BOMB WILL NOT GO OFF ON ITS OWN.

WHILE THAT IS MORE PRECISE, AND LEADS TO A TRUE PREMISE, IT IS STILL NOT
PARTICULARLY HELPFUL IN SUCH A SITUATION BECAUSE THE BOMB WILL STILL
GO OFF.
( HTTP://WWW.GARLIKOV.COM/PHILOSOPHY/DILEMMA.HTML)
(
 HYPOTHETICAL SYLLOGISM
IT IS A SYLLOGISM THAT HAS A HYPOTHETICAL PROPOSITION AS ONE OF ITS
PREMISES.

3 KINDS OF HYPOTHETICAL SYLLOGISM:

A. CONDITIONAL SYLLOGISM
B. DISJUNCTIVE SYLLOGISM
C. CONJUNCTIVE SYLLOGISM
 CONDITIONAL SYLLOGISM

IT IS A SYLLOGISM WHOSE MAJOR PREMISE IS A CONDITIONAL

PROPOSITION. THE MAJOR PREMISE IS COMPOSED OF TWO PARTS:
ANTECEDENT (ANTE = BEFORE) AND CONSEQUENT (SEQUI =
FOLLOW). THE ANTECEDENT IS THE COMPONENT WHICH STATES THE
CONDITION WHILE THE CONSEQUENT IS THE RESULT WHICH
FOLLOWS FROM THE ANTECEDENT.
 EXAMPLE
1. IF YOU ARE WORTHY (ANTECEDENT), THEN YOU CAN HAVE MY BLESSING (CONSEQUENT).
BUT YOU ARE NOT WORTHY.
THEREFORE, YOU CANNOT HAVE MY BLESSING.

2. IF THE STUDENT IS RESPONSIBLE ENOUGH (ANTE.), HE CAN PASS THIS SUBJECT (CONS.).
BUT HE CAN PASS THIS SUBJECT.
THEREFORE, HE IS RESPONSIBLE ENOUGH.

3. IF THE CLOUD IS DARK (ANTE.) , THEN IT WILL RAIN (CONS.).

BUT THE CLOUD IS DARK.
THEN, IT WILL RAIN.
 EXAMPLE
4. IF THE BLUE LITMUS PAPER TURNS RED (ANTE), THEN THE CHEMICAL IS ACID (CONS).
BUT THE CHEMICAL IS NOT ACID.
THEN THE BLUE LITMUS PAPER WILL NOT TURN RED.

5. IF THE TOOLS ARE HERE (ANTE.), THEN WE CAN START PLANTING (CONS.).
IF THEY ARRIVED EARLY, THEN THE TOOLS ARE HERE.
THEREFORE, IF THEY ARRIVED EARLY, THEN WE CAN START PLANTING.

6. IF AUGUST IS YOUR BIRTHDAY (ANTE.), THEN YOU MIGHT BE A VIRGO (CONS.).

BUT IF WE ARE NOT COMPATIBLE, THEN YOU ARE NOT A VIRGO.
THEREFORE, IF WE ARE NOT COMPATIBLE, THEN AUGUST IS NOT YOUR
BIRTHDAY.
 RULES IN CONDITIONAL SYLLOGISM
1. TO AFFIRM THE ANTECEDENT IS TO AFFIRM THE CONSEQUENT, BUT TO DENY THE ANTECEDENT DOES NOT
MEAN DENIAL OF THE CONSEQUENT. EXAMPLE 1 ABOVE IS A VIOLATION OF THIS RULE. THERE ARE MANY WAYS IN
WHICH YOU CAN HAVE MY BLESSING. IT DOESN’T MEAN THAT BECAUSE YOU ARE NOT WORTHY, THEN YOU
CANNOT HAVE MY BLESSING.

OTHER EXAMPLES OF VIOLATION OF THIS RULE:

HE WILL ATTEND IF SHE IS THE PRESENTOR.
BUT SHE IS NOT THE PRESENTOR.
THEREFORE, HE WILL NOT ATTEND.

IF THE OPERATION IS NOT SUCCESSFUL, THEN HE WILL DIE.

BUT THE OPERATION IS SUCCESSFUL.
THEREFORE, HE WILL NOT DIE.

A VIOLATION OF THIS RULE IS CALLED FALLACY OF DENYING THE ANTECEDENT.

 RULES IN CONDITIONAL SYLLOGISM
2. TO DENY THE CONSEQUENT IS TO DENY THE ANTECEDENT, BUT TO AFFIRM THE
CONSEQUENT DOES NOT MEAN AFFIRMATION OF THE ANTECEDENT. EXAMPLE 2 ABOVE IS A
VIOLATION OF THIS RULE. IT DOESN’T MEAN THAT BECAUSE HE CAN PASS THE SUBJECT THAT HE
IS ALREADY A RESPONSIBLE STUDENT.

OTHER EXAMPLES OF VIOLATION OF THIS RULE:

IF THE BOOK IS THICK, THEN IT CONTAINS A LOT OF IDEAS.
BUT THIS BOOK CONTAINS A LOT OF IDEAS.
THEREFORE, IT IS THICK.

A VIOLATION OF THIS RULE IS CALLED FALLACY OF AFFIRMING THE CONSEQUENT.

 TWO VALID CONDITIONAL SYLLOGISM
A. MODUS PONENS – (PONENS = AFFIRM)
- A CONDITIONAL SYLLOGISM IN WHICH THE ANTECEDENT IS AFFIRMED IN
THE MINOR PREMISE AND THE CONSEQUENT IS AFFIRMED IN THE
CONCLUSION. EXAMPLE 3 ABOVE IS A MODUS PONENS.
B. MODUS TOLLENS – (TOLLENS = DENY)
- A CONDITIONAL SYLLOGISM IN WHICH THE CONSEQUENT IS
DENIED IN THE MINOR PREMISE AND THE ANTECEDENT IS DENIED IN THE
CONCLUSION. EXAMPLE 4 ABOVE IS A MODUS TOLLENS.
 DISJUNCTIVE SYLLOGISM

IT IS A HYPOTHETICAL SYLLOGISM IN WHICH THE

MAJOR PREMISE IS A DISJUNCTIVE PROPOSITION.
 EXAMPLE
1. EITHER HE IS A CRIMINAL OR HE IS A NON-
CRIMINAL.
BUT HE IS A CRIMINAL.
THEREFORE, HE IS NOT A NON-CRIMINAL.
2. EITHER THE FLAG IS WHITE OR IT IS RED.
BUT THE FLAG IS NOT RED.
THEREFORE, IT IS WHITE.
3. SHE MIGHT BE IN THE LIBRARY OR SHE IS
READING BOOK.
BUT SHE IS NOT IN THE LIBRARY.
THEREFORE, SHE IS READING BOOK.
4. EITHER THEY WILL LOSE OR MAKE A
COMPROMISE.
BUT THEY WILL NOT MAKE A COMPROMISE.
THEREFORE, THERE IS NO OTHER OPTION
BUT FOR THEM TO LOSE.
 TWO KINDS OF DISJUNCTIVE SYLLOGISM

a. STRICT DISJUNCTIVE – WHEN ONE, AND ONLY ONE, IS

TRUE AMONG THE DISJUNCTS (PARTS OF DISJUNCTIVE
SYLLOGISM).

b. BROAD DISJUNCTIVE – AT LEAST ONE DISJUNCT IS TRUE

BUT BOTH DISJUNCTS CAN BE TRUE.
 CONJUNCTIVE SYLLOGISM

IT IS A SYLLOGISM WHOSE MAJOR PREMISE IS A CONJUNCTIVE

PROPOSITION.
 EXAMPLE
CONJUNCTIVE PROPOSITION:
ONE CANNOT BE WEALTHY AND POOR AT THE SAME TIME.
YOU CANNOT SERVE BOTH GOD AND MONEY.
YOU CANNOT BE BOTH IN COTABATO AND MANILA AT THE SAME TIME.
CONJUNCTIVE SYLLOGISM:
ONE CANNOT BE WEALTHY AND POOR AT THE SAME TIME.
BUT YOU ARE WEALTHY.
THEREFORE, YOU ARE NOT POOR.
 RULE IN CONJUNCTIVE SYLLOGISM

IN A CONJUNCTIVE PROPOSITION, ONLY ONE OF THE

COMPONENTS CAN BE TRUE, BUT BOTH CAN BE FALSE.

HENCE IF ONE IS AFFIRMED, IT NECESSARILY ENTAILS THAT

ONE MUST BE DENIED. HOWEVER, IF ONE IS DENIED, IT DOES
NOT NECESSARILY ENTAIL THAT ONE MUST BE AFFIRMED,
FOR BOTH OF THEM CAN BE DENIED WITHOUT
CONTRADICTION.
 EXAMPLES OF VIOLATION OF THIS RULE
ONE CANNOT BE WEALTHY AND POOR AT THE SAME TIME.
BUT YOU ARE NOT WEALTHY.
THEREFORE, YOU ARE POOR.
- INVALID
IT DOESN’T MEAN THAT BECAUSE YOU ARE NOT WEALTHY THAT YOU ARE ALREADY POOR.

YOU CANNOT SERVE BOTH GOD AND MONEY.

BUT YOU DON’T SERVE MONEY.
THEREFORE, YOU CAN SERVE GOD.
- INVALID
IT DOESN’T MEAN THAT BECAUSE YOU DON’T SERVE MONEY YOU CAN SERVE GOD.
(HTTP://LOGICWRENDOLF.BLOGSPOT.COM/2014/03/HYPOTHETICAL-SYLLOGISM.HTML)