Iguico, Maria Sofia A.

3rd yr. /BSTM

BLOG
Prof. Alan Tauro

1. Definition of categorical syllogism

-A categorical syllogism is an argument consisting of exactly three categorical propositions (two
premises and a conclusion) in which there appear a total of exactly three categorical terms, each
of which is used exactly twice. A categorical syllogism infers a conclusion from two premises. It is
defined by the following four attributes. Each of the three propositions is an A, E, I, or O
proposition.
2. Defined and discuss the valid formal rules for valid categorical syllogism.
- Since the validity of a categorical syllogism depends solely upon its logical form, it is relatively
simple to state the conditions under which the premises of syllogisms succeed in guaranteeing
the truth of their conclusions. Relying heavily upon the medieval tradition, Copi & Cohen provide
a list of six rules, each of which states a necessary condition for the validity of any categorical
syllogism. Violating any of these rules involves committing one of the formal fallacies, errors in
reasoning that result from reliance on an invalid logical form.In this lesson we will concentrate on
the rules required for a standard-form of categorical syllogism and the fallacies created for
violating these rules.
3. Discuss the valid rules of categorical syllogism.
Rule 1.
A valid categorical syllogism will have three and only three unambiguous categorical terms. The
use of exactly three categorical terms is part of the definition of a categorical syllogism, and we
saw earlier that the use of an ambiguous term in more than one of its senses amounts to the use
of two distinct terms. In categorical syllogisms, using more than three terms commits the fallacy
of four terms.
Rule 2.
In a valid categorical syllogism the middle term must be distributed in at least one of the
premises. In order to effectively establish the presence of a genuine connection between the
major and minor terms, the premises of a syllogism must provide some information about the
entire class designated by the middle term. If the middle term were undistributed in both
premises, then the two portions of the designated class of which they speak might be completely
unrelated to each other. Syllogisms that violate this rule are said to commit the fallacy of the
undistributed middle.
Rule 3.
In a valid categorical syllogism if a term is distributed in the conclusion, it must be distributed in
the premises. A premise that refers only to some members of the class designated by the major
or minor term of a syllogism cannot be used to support a conclusion that claims to tell us about
every member of that class. Depending which of the terms is misused in this way, syllogisms in
violation commit either the fallacy of the illicit major or the fallacy of the illicit minor.

Rule 4.
A valid categorical syllogism may not have two negative premises. The purpose of the middle
term in an argument is to tie the major and minor terms together in such a way that an inference
can be drawn, but negative propositions state that the terms of the propositions are exclusive of
one another. In an argument consisting of two negative propositions the middle term is excluded
from both the major term and the minor term, and thus there is no connection between the two
and no inference can be drawn. A violation of this rule is called the fallacy of exclusive premises.
Rule 5.
If either premise of a valid categorical syllogism is negative, the conclusion must be negative. An
affirmative proposition asserts that one class is included in some way in another class, but a
negative proposition that asserts exclusion cannot imply anything about inclusion. For this reason
an argument with a negative proposition cannot have an affirmative conclusion. An argument that
violates this rule is said to commit the fallacy of drawing an affirmative conclusion from a negative
premise.
Rule 6.
In valid categorical syllogisms particular propositions cannot be drawn properly from universal
premises. Because we do not assume the existential import of universal propositions, they
cannot be used as premises to establish the existential import that is part of any particular
proposition. The existential fallacy violates this rule. Although it is possible to identify additional
features shared by all valid categorical syllogisms (none of them, for example, have two particular
premises), these six rules are jointly sufficient to distinguish between valid and invalid syllogisms.
4. Discuss the 4 figures of categorical syllogism.
-Syllogisms are divided into four figures, according to the placing of the middle term in the two
premises. In the first figure the middle term is subject in the major premise and predicate in the
minor. In the second figure the middle term is predicate in both. In the third figure the middle term
is subject in both. In the fourth figure the middle term is predicate in the major premise and
subject in the minor.
The following schemata, with P for the major term, S for the minor, and M for the middle, sum up
these distinctions:
Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Figure 4
M-PP-MM-PP-M
S-MS-MM-SM-S
----- ----- ----- ----S-PS-PS-PS-P
Within each figure, syllogisms are further divided into moods, according to the quantity and
quality of the propositions they contain. Not all of the theoretically possible combinations of
propositions related as above constitute VALID syllogisms, sequences in which the third
proposition really follows from the other two.

For example:

Every man is an animal some horse is an animal Therefore, No man is a horse

(mood AIE in figure 2)

The above is completely inconsequent, even though all three propositions happen in this case to
be true. During the Middle Ages, those syllogistic moods that are valid acquired certain short
names, with the mood indicated by the vowels, and all of them were put together in a piece of
mnemonic doggerel, of which one of the later versions is the following:
Barbara, Celarent, Darii, Ferioque prioris;
Cesare, Camestres, Festino, Baroco secundae;
Tertia Darapti, Disamis, Datisi, Felapton,
Bocardo, Ferison habet. Quarta insuper addit
Bramantip, Camenes, Dimaris, Fesapo, Fresison.
So, Bocardo, for example, means the mood OAO in figure 3, of which an illustration would be:
Some patriarch is not mortal;
Every patriarch is a man;

Therefore,

Some man is not mortal. Without the cute words, the valid moods for each figure are:

Figure 1
AAA, EAE, AII, EIO
Figure 2
EAE, AEE, EIO, AOO
Figure 3
AAI, IAI, AII, EAO, OAO, EIO
Figure 4
AAI, AEE, IAI, EAO, EIO

There is also a group of moods (Barbari and Celaront in Figure 1, Cesaro and Camestrop in
Figure 2, and Camenop in Figure 4) in which a merely particular conclusion is drawn although

the premises would warrant our going further and making the conclusion universal
(the"subaltern" moods). The Ramists added special moods involving singulars (if we write S and
N for affirmative and negative singulars, we have ASS and ESN in Figure 1, ANN and ESN in
Figure 2 and SSI and NSO in Figure 3).
It may be noted that every syllogism must have at least one universal premise, except for SSI and
NSO in Figure 3 -- the so-called "expository syllogisms".
Example:
Enoch is not mortal
Enoch is a patriarch,

Therefore,

Not every patriarch is mortal.

Moreover, every syllogism must have at least one affirmative premise, and if either premise is
negative or particular, the conclusion must be negative or particular, as the case may be. "The
conclusion follows the weaker premise", as Theophratus put it; negatives and particulars are
considered weaker than affirmatives and universals.