Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 34

Written Report on

CATEGORICAL SYLLOGISM

A written report submitted in partial fulfilment


Of the requirements of the subject Legal Technique and Logic

Submitted by:

Dyan Gapay
Introduction
Chapter 6.1: Standard-Form Categorical Syllogisms
Chapter 6.2: The Formal Nature of Syllogistic Argument

Jara Dela Cruz


Chapter 6.3: Venn Diagram Technique for Testing Syllogisms
Chapter 6.4: Syllogistic Rules and Syllogistic Fallacies

Leah Pinkihan
Chapter 6.5: Exposition of the Fifteen Valid Forms of the Categorical Syllogism
Appendix: Deduction of the Fifteen Valid Forms of the Categorical Syllogism

College of Law
University of the Cordilleras
Gov. Pack Rd, Baguio, Benguet

1
Introduction

The famous 18th century logician, Immanuel Kant, once said, “Everything in nature,
whether in the animate or inanimate word, takes place according to rules, although we do not
always know these rules. Water falls according to laws of gravity; and in animals locomotion
takes place according to rules. The fish in the water, the bird in the air, move according to rules.
All nature indeed is nothing but a combination of phenomena which follows rules; and nowhere
is there any irregularity” (Kant, 1963). People likewise follow certain rules in the exercise of
their own faculties. A person may behave as governed by law or he may speak freely according
to the rules of grammar, although he may not be fully aware of such laws or grammar rules.
Hence, people unconsciously follow rules at first until they become knowledgeable with them
through continued use.

Understanding a concept or argument is likewise governed by several rules. There can be


several reasons or premises to prove a point, but one defect may likewise disprove it. A defect in
reasoning can lead to a fallacious argument. These defects are not easily discovered but only
upon careful analysis of each premise presented. Hence, in order to govern the understanding of
a concept or argument, one must apply logic.

In any argument, conclusions can be easily inferred in a given proposition or set of


premises. Any statement or proposition can be true or false, but nonetheless may sometimes
produce incoherent, improbable, and irrational argument. Such argument is a common error in
reasoning that results from reliance on an invalid logical form. Thus, in probing any argument as
to its validity, logical analysis should be applied in the relation between the structure and
language of reasoning as expressed in each proposition.

An argument is considered valid if it would be contradictory to have all premises all true
and the conclusion false. This simply implies that the conclusion follows from the premises and
has nothing to do whether the premises are in fact true. Hence, an argument is considered valid
because of its logical form – its arrangement of logical notions and content phrases (Gensler,
2010).

Perhaps one of the most popular and widely used tests to analyse the validity of an
argument is through categorical syllogism, wherein the premises are divided into classes or
categories and identified which belongs or does not belong to that class. Syllogisms also follow
certain rules and forms. These standard rules help ascertain that any argument that does not
comply with the syllogistic forms is considered an invalid argument, hence, a formal fallacy.

2
CATEGORICAL SYLLOGISM

I. STANDARD-FORM CATEGORICAL SYLLOGISM

A proposition that relates two classes, or categories, is called a categorical proposition;


and a deductive argument in which a conclusion is inferred from two premises is called a
syllogism. Thus, a conclusion inferred from two premises of different categories or classes
constitutes a categorical syllogism. Categorical Syllogism is defined as a deductive argument
consisting of three categorical propositions that together contain exactly three terms, each of
which occurs in exactly two of the constituent propositions.

In order to have a better analysis of categorical syllogism, the premises and conclusion
must be in the standard form categorical proposition, as in the following:

Universal affirmative propositions or A propositions: All lawyers are charming.


Particular affirmative propositions or I propositions: Some lawyers are charming.
Universal negative proposition or E propositions: No lawyers are charming.
Particular negative propositions or O propositions: Some lawyers are not charming.

Sentences that do not appear to be categorical can be adjusted with little or no change in
meaning to fit the accepted standard categorical forms. One of the most common techniques for
analysis is paraphrasing. For example, the proverb ‘When it rain, it pours’, can be paraphrased
into ‘Every time of raining is a time of pouring’, which is a standard A proposition (Salmon,
2013).

Another example is the sentence: ‘Anyone who committed a crime will be prosecuted’,
which can be paraphrased into the following:

a. All criminals are persons who will be prosecuted.


b. Criminals will be prosecuted.
c. If anyone committed a crime, that person will be prosecuted.
d. No criminal will fail to be prosecuted.
e. It is false that some criminals will not be prosecuted.
f. All persons who will not be prosecuted are not criminals.

The sentences are all equivalent to one another in a logical sense that each statement implies
that the class of criminals in included in the class of those who will be prosecuted.

3
The following are also logically equivalent E propositions for : “Whales are not fish.”

a. No whales are fish.


b. Nothing that is a whale is a fish.
c. None but non-fishes are whales.
d. If anything is a whale, then it is not a fish.
e. All whales are non-fish.
f. It is false that some whales are fish.

In sentence ‘e’ above, the quality of the sentence is changed from negative to affirmative,
and the predicate term is replaced by its complement. Thus, the method of obversion is applied to
achieve the equivalent A proposition (Wei-Ming, 2008).

Hence, in establishing a standard-form categorical syllogism, different techniques of analysis


such as paraphrasing and immediate inferencing can be resorted to when presented with an
argument that is not syllogistic in form.

A. Terms of the Syllogism: Major, Minor, and Middle

A categorical syllogism in the standard form must also have all its proposition and
conclusion in a specified standard order. The standard order of a syllogism comprises the major,
the minor and the middle terms. Take for example:

All citizens are entitled to due process.


All men are citizens.
Therefore, all men are entitled to due process.

By looking at the conclusion of the syllogism above, the three terms can be classified into the
following:

Major term: due process


Minor term: men
Middle term: equal citizens

Hence, the major term is one that occurs as the predicate term of the conclusion in a
standard-form categorical syllogism (due process). The minor term is one that occurs as the
subject of the conclusion (men), and the middle term is one that appears in both premises but
does not appear in the conclusion (citizens). It must also be noted that a categorical syllogism
must only have three terms.

4
Each premise is also named after the term that appears both in that particular premise and
in the conclusion. Thus, the premise containing the major term is the major premise and the
premise containing the minor term is the minor premise. The assumption of the major or minor
premise is not derived from the order or position in which it is written in an argument but
because of the major and minor terms as found in the premises.

The example above can be identified as follows:


middle term major term

Minor premise: All citizens are entitled to due process.


minor term middle term

Major premise: All men are citizens.


minor term major term

Conclusion: Therefore, all men are entitled to due process.

Hence, in the standard order of a standard-form categorical syllogism, the major premise
is always written first, followed by the minor premise and the conclusion. If this standard order is
violated, an argument can still be valid but further analysis of a syllogism can be difficult or
impossible.

B. Mood of the Syllogism

Mastery of the standard form and order of a categorical syllogism is essential in


determining the different moods of a categorical syllogism. The mood refers to the combination
of the standard-form categorical propositions (A, E, I, and O) as presented in the standard-order
form of a syllogism. Since a syllogism is comprised of only two premises and a conclusion, the
three letters that represent the categorical proposition for the three statements characterize the
mood of a syllogism. Take for example:

No lawyers are liars. - E Proposition


Some liars are politicians. - I Proposition
Therefore, some politicians are not lawyers. - O Proposition

In the example above, the major premise is a universal negative (E proposition), the
minor premise is a particular affirmative (I Proposition), and the conclusion is a particular
negative (O proposition). Hence, the mood of the syllogism is EIO, and it is considered a valid
form of a categorical syllogism.

5
In the example earlier:

All citizens are entitled to due process. - A Proposition


All men are citizens. - A Proposition
Therefore, all men are entitled to due process. - A Proposition

All the premises and the conclusion are in the universal affirmative proposition, thus the
mood is: AAA, and it is also considered a valid form of a categorical syllogism.

There are 64 possible moods that can be derived from the categorical propositions, but
only a number of these can be considered as valid in syllogism. The position of the major, the
minor, and specially, the middle term must always be taken in consideration.

C. Figure of the Syllogism

Aside from the mood, the logical form of a categorical syllogism is also determined by
the position of the Middle Term in each premise. Although arguments may be presented in
different moods, what differentiates a valid from an invalid syllogism can be inferred from the
four figures that are originally devised by Aristotle.

The four exclusive figures of a syllogism are as follows:

1. The middle term may be the subject term of the major premise and the predicate term
of the minor premise; or
2. The middle term may be the predicate term of both premises; or
3. The middle term may be the subject term of both premises; or
4. The middle term may be the predicate term of the major premise and the subject term
of the minor premise.

This can be illustrated as:

FIGURE 1 FIGURE 2 FIGURE 3 FIGURE 4

M–P P–M M–P P–M


S–M S–M M–S M–S
S–P S–P S–P S–P

Where : M = middle term


P = major term; predicate of the conclusion
S = minor term; subject of the conclusion

6
For easier recall, it can also be represented by:
Example 1: “flying brick” (imagine a brick with wings)

Example 2. “collar flap” (imagine lines passing through M’s)

M–P P–M M–P P–M


S–M S–M M–S M–S
S–P S–P S–P S–P

In the example earlier, the mood is AAA:

All citizens are entitled to due process. - All M is P.


All men are citizens. - All S is M.
Therefore, all men are entitled to due process. - All S is P.

The middle term is the subject term of the major premise and the predicate term of the
minor premise; thus, it falls under Figure 1. The logical form is AAA-1, or also known as
‘bArbArA’.

No lawyers are liars. - No P is M.


Some liars are politicians. - Some M is S.
Therefore, some politicians are not lawyers. - Some S is P.

The example above shows that the middle term is the predicate term of the major premise
and the subject term of the minor premise, which falls under Figure 4. Thus, the logical form is
EIO-4, or also known as ‘frEsIsOn’.

Now take for example:


All smart people are gluttons.
All law students are smart.
Therefore, all gluttons are law students

7
At first glance, it may look like a valid form because the middle term is the subject term
of the first premise and the predicate term of the second premise. It inconspicuously resembles
AAA-1 or ‘Barbara’, but upon close look, the minor premise is written before the major premise.
Hence, it is considered invalid.

In sum, a categorical syllogism is characterized by standard form or order, mood, and


figure. These factors are essential in determining the validity of an argument in a syllogism.
There are 64 possible moods in each figure which gives a total of 256 distinct forms, but with the
proper analysis of the characteristics of a syllogism, there are only about 15 valid forms that can
be derived. These 15 valid forms that are given unique names (such as Barbara and Fresison)
will be discussed further.

Testing the Validity of an Argument

As discussed, there can only be three terms in a syllogism and the premises must be in a
standard categorical proposition but most of the arguments in real life are not syllogistic in form
and otherwise verbose. In order to reduce the number of words or terms in an argument and
establish a standard syllogistic argument, the methods of paraphrasing, conversion, obversion or
contraposition may be applied. These methods are all important in analysing the validity or
invalidity of an argument.

For example:

“Not all criminals are morally evil. If one is morally evil, then one is unprejudiced, but some
criminals are prejudiced.”

Using categorical syllogism, we can probe the validity or invalidity of the above argument by
following these steps:

First. The passage must be paraphrased into categorical sentences, and the major and minor
premises must be identified. We can say:

1. All morally evil people are non-prejudiced. (major premise)


2. Some criminals are prejudiced. (minor premise)
3. Some criminals are not morally evil. (conclusion)

Second. The premises and the conclusion still have four terms, namely: morally evil, non-
prejudiced, criminals, and prejudiced. Obversion must be applied here to reduce it into three
terms.

8
All morally evil people are non-prejudiced. No morally evil people are prejudiced.
Some criminals are prejudiced. Some criminals are prejudiced.
Some criminals are not morally evil. Some criminals are not morally evil.

Third. The mood and figure can now be easily identified since it is in the standard form.

No morally evil people are prejudiced. (E proposition)


Some criminals are prejudiced (I proposition)
Some criminals are not morally evil. (O proposition)

Through paraphrasing and obversion, the standard-form categorical syllogism is achieved


here in the form EIO-2, or also known as ‘fEstInO’. Hence, the argument is valid.

II. FORMAL NATURE OF SYLLOGISTIC ARGUMENT

In analysing a syllogistic argument, it is assumed that the propositions are not necessarily
true or false, or otherwise sound or unsound. What makes a categorical syllogism valid or invalid
is dependent on its form- that is, if the argument is in the standard form or order and if the mood
and figure are properly complied with. Thus, if given an argument such as:

All apples are bananas.


All oranges are apples.
Therefore, all oranges are apples.

It is in the AAA-1 form or ‘Barbara’ so it is a valid argument. In a ‘Barbara’ form, as


long as the argument is presented as: All M is P. All S is M. Therefore, all S is P – it is
considered valid regardless of the content of M, P, and S. It can also be stated that the premises
can be both false but the conclusion is nevertheless true. It can also be:

All law students are sleep-deprived. - All P are M


Some monkeys are not sleep-deprived. - Some S are not M
Therefore, some monkeys are not law students. - Some S are not P

The mood is AOO and it falls under Figure 2; hence it is AOO-2, or also known as
‘bArOkO’. Although the content does not make a sound argument, this is still considered a valid
syllogistic argument.

9
A valid syllogism is valid in virtue of its form alone, and so it is called formally valid.
Hence, any other syllogism having that same form will also be valid; and if a syllogism is
invalid, any other syllogism having that same form will also be invalid. For example:

All drug users are victims of extra-judicial killings. - All P are M.


All drug pushers are victims of extra-judicial killings. - All S is M.
Therefore, all drug pushers are drug users. - All S is P.

Assuming that the premises are both true, this argument does not satisfy the definition of
a valid argument that an argument in which, if its premises are true, its conclusion must also be
true. The conclusion does not necessarily follow from its premises. The major premise makes it
impossible for a victim of extra-judicial killing to be non-drug users, but it also makes it possible
to be a victim of extra-judicial killing if a victim is a non-drug user. The minor premise only
provides the fact that all drug pushers are victims of extra-judicial killings, but it cannot be
concluded that they are also drug users. The middle term is neither distributed in at least one
premise, nor does it link the two premises to each other. Thus, the argument is fallacious or what
logicians call “fallacy of the undistributed middle term” (Granberg). The form is AAA-2 and any
argument presented with the same syllogistic form is fallacious.

III. VENN DIAGRAM TECHNIQUE FOR TESTING SYLLOGISMS

The technique of Venn diagrams for categorical syllogisms is based on the fact that in a
valid syllogism, the conclusion asserts no more than what is already contained, implicitly, in the
premises. If the conclusion asserts more than that, it does not follow from the premises, and the
syllogism is invalid. The technique is to diagram the premises, and then see whether anything
would have to be added in order to diagram what the conclusion asserts. If so, the syllogism is
invalid; if not, it is valid.

Example:

No M is P No horned animal is a carnivore

All S is M All moose are horned animals

No S is P No moose is a carnivore

The first step is to diagram the major premise, using the circles representing M (horned
animals) and P (carnivores). So we shade out the area of overlap between M and P.

10
The second step is to add the minor premise to our diagram, using the circles
representing S and M. Since this is an A proposition, we shade out the region of S outside M.

The final step is to examine the completed diagram of the premises and determine
whether it contains the information asserted by the conclusion. The conclusion asserts that
no S is P. Thus it requires that the overlap between S and P be shaded out, and the premises
taken together do shade out that region. So the syllogism is valid.

For a syllogism to be valid, the combined diagram must contain all the information
asserted by the conclusion. It may contain more information, but it cannot omit anything.

Now let's try a syllogism with a particular premise.

Example:

No M is P
Some M are S
___________
Some S are not P

First we diagram the major premise.

11
Second we diagram the minor premise.

Notice that we diagrammed the major premise first. This is not required logically, but
whenever there is a particular and a universal premise, it is best to diagram the universal one
first. By diagramming the universal premise first, we have shaded out one of the subregions, so
now we know that the X for the other premise must go outside the P circle. And that's useful
information, it means that at least one S is not P. Since that is what the conclusion asserts, the
argument is valid.

If a syllogism is invalid, a Venn diagram will reveal that fact in one of two ways. The
combined diagram for the premises will either fail to shade out an area excluded by the
conclusion, or it will fail to put an X where the conclusion requires one.

Example:

All P are M
All S are M

All S are P

The Venn diagram reveals the invalidity by failing to shade out the right areas.

In the combined diagram, the area of P outside M has been shaded to represent the major
premise, and the area of S outside M has been shaded to represent the minor. But one area in the
region of S outside P--the one indicated by the arrow--has not been shaded. Thus, the premises
leave open the possibility that some S are not P; they do not guarantee that all S are P. So the
conclusion does not follow; the syllogism is invalid.

12
Now let's examine another case in which the invalidity is revealed by the placement of Xs.

All P are M
Some S are M

Some S are P

Notice that the X is on the line between two subregions of the overlap between S and M.
Locating the X on the line means: I know something is both an S and an M, but I don't know
whether it is also a P or not. But the conclusion does assert that some S are P. For the premises to
justify this assertion, they would have to give us an X in the area of overlap between S and P.
But all they tell us is: there's an S that may or may not be a P. The conclusion doesn't follow.

IV. SYLLOGISTIC RULES AND SYLLOGISTIC FALLACIES

A syllogism may fail to establish its conclusion in many different ways. To help avoid
common errors we set forth rules—six of them—to guide the reasoner; any given standard-form
syllogism can be evaluated by observing whether any one of these rules has been violated.
Mastering the rules by which syllogisms may be evaluated also enriches our understanding of the
syllogism itself; it helps us to see how syllogisms work and to see why they fail to work if the
rules are broken.

A violation of any one of these rules is a mistake, and it renders the syllogism invalid.
Because it is a mistake of that special kind, we call it a fallacy; and because it is a mistake in the
form of the argument, we call it a formal fallacy (to be contrasted with informal fallacies). In
reasoning with syllogisms, one must scrupulously avoid the fallacies that violations of the rules
invariably yield. Each of these formal fallacies has a traditional name, explained below:

Rule 1. Avoid four terms.

A valid standard-form categorical syllogism must contain exactly three terms, each of
which is used in the same sense throughout the argument.

13
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.

In every categorical syllogism, the conclusion asserts a relationship between two terms,
the subject (minor term) and the predicate (major term). Such a conclusion can be justified only
if the premises assert the relationship of each of those two terms to the same third term (middle
term). If the premises fail to do this consistently, the needed connection of the two terms in the
conclusion cannot be established, and the argument fails. So every valid categorical syllogism
must involve three terms—no more and no less. If more than three terms are involved, the
syllogism is invalid. The fallacy thus committed is called the fallacy of four terms.

Example:

Power tends to corrupt


Knowledge is power
Knowledge tends to corrupt

Justification: This syllogism appears to have only three terms, but there are really four since one
of them, the middle term “power” is used in different senses in the two premises. To reveal the
argument’s invalidity we need only note that the word “power” in the first premise means “ the
possession of control or command over people,” whereas the word “power” in the second
premise means “the ability to control things.

Rule 2. Distribute the middle term in at least one premise.

A term is “distributed” in a proposition when the proposition refers to all members of the
class designated by that term. If the middle term is not distributed in at least one premise, the
connection required by the conclusion cannot be made.

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.

14
What underlies this rule is the need to link the minor and the major terms. If they are to
be linked by the middle term, either the subject or the predicate of the conclusion must be related
to the whole of the class designated by the middle term. If that is not so, it is possible that each of
the terms in the conclusion may be connected to a different part of the middle term, and not
necessarily connected with each other.

Example:

All sharks are fish


All salmon are fish
All salmon are sharks

Justification: The middle term is what connects the major and the minor term. If the middle
term is never distributed, then the major and minor terms might be related to different parts of
the M class, thus giving no common ground to relate S and P.

Rule 3. Any term distributed in the conclusion must be distributed in the premises.

To refer to all members of a class is to say more about that class than is said when only
some of its members are referred to. Therefore, when the conclusion of a syllogism distributes a
term that was undistributed in the premises, it says more about that term than the premises did.
But a valid argument is one whose premises logically entail its conclusion, and for that to be true
the conclusion must not assert any more than is asserted in the premises. A term that is
distributed in the conclusion but is not distributed in the premises is therefore a sure mark that
the conclusion has gone beyond its premises and has reached too far. This is called the fallacy of
illicit process.

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 menber 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.

The conclusion may overreach with respect to either the minor term (its subject)V or the
major term (its predicate). So there are two different forms of illicit V process, and different
names have been given to the two formal fallacies involved. They are

Illicit process of the major term (an illicit major).


Illicit process of the minor term (an illicit minor).

15
To illustrate an illicit process of the major term, consider this syllogism:

All dogs are mammals.


No cats are dogs.
Therefore no cats are mammals.

The reasoning is obviously bad, but where is the mistake? The mistake is in the
conclusion’s assertion about all mammals, saying that all of them fall outside the class of cats.
Bear in mind that an A proposition distributes its subject term but does not distribute its predicate
term. Hence the premises make no assertion about all mammals—so the conclusion illicitly goes
beyond what the premises assert. Because “mammals” is the major term in this syllogism, the
fallacy here is that of an illicit major.

To illustrate the illicit process of the minor term, consider this syllogism:

All traditionally religious people are fundamentalists.


All traditionally religious people are opponents of abortion.
Therefore all opponents of abortion are fundamentalists

Again we sense quickly that something is wrong with this argument, and what is wrong is
this: The conclusion makes an assertion about all opponents of abortion, but the premises make
no such assertion; they say nothing about all abortion opponents. So the conclusion here goes
illicitly beyond what the premises warrant. In this case “opponents of abortion” is the minor
term, so the fallacy is that of an illicit minor.

Rule 4. Avoid two negative premises.

Any negative proposition (E or O) denies class inclusion; it asserts that some or all of
one class is excluded from the whole of the other class. Two premises asserting such exclusion
cannot yield the linkage that the conclusion asserts, and therefore cannot yield a valid argument.
The mistake is named the fallacy of exclusive 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

16
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.

Understanding the mistake identified here requires some reflection. Suppose we label the
minor, major, and middle terms of the syllogism S, P, and M, respectively. What can two
negative premises tell us about the relations of these three terms? They can tell us that S (the
subject of the conclusion) is wholly or partially excluded from all or part of M (the middle term),
and that P (the predicate of the conclusion) is wholly or partially excluded from all or part of M.
However, any one of these relations may very well be established no matter how S and P are
related. The negative premises cannot tell us that S and P are related by inclusion or by
exclusion, partial or complete. Two negative premises (where M is a term in each) simply cannot
justify the assertion of any relationship whatever between S and P. Therefore, if both premises of
a syllogism are negative, the argument must be invalid.

Example:

No fish are mammals


Some dogs are not fish
Some dogs are not mammals

Justification: If the premises are both negative, then the relationship between S and P is denied.
The conclusion cannot, therefore, say anything in a positive fashion. That information goes
beyond what is contained in the premises.

Rule 5. If either premise is negative, the conclusion must be negative.

If the conclusion is affirmative—that is, if it asserts that one of the two classes, S or P, is
wholly or partly contained in the other—it can only be inferred from premises that assert the
existence of a third class that contains the first and is itself contained in the second. However,
class inclusion can be stated only by affirmative propositions. Therefore, an affirmative
conclusion can follow validly only from two affirmative premises. The mistake here is called the
fallacy of drawing an affirmative conclusion from a negative premise.

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.

17
Example:

All crows are birds


Some wolves are not crows
Some wolves are birds

Justification: Two directions, here. Take a positive conclusion from one negative premise. The
conclusion states that the S class is either wholly or partially contained in the P class. The only
way that this can happen is if the S class is either partially or fully contained in the M class
(remember, the middle term relates the two) and the M class fully contained in the P class.
Negative statements cannot establish this relationship, so a valid conclusion cannot follow. Take
a negative conclusion. It asserts that the S class is separated in whole or in part from the P class.
If both premises are affirmative, no separation can be established, only connections. Thus, a
negative conclusion cannot follow from positive premises. Note: These first four rules working
together indicate that any syllogism with two particular premises is invalid.

Rule 6. From two universal premises no particular conclusion may be drawn.

In the Boolean interpretation of categorical propositions, universal propositions (A and


E) have no existential import, but particular propositions (I and O) do have such import.
Wherever the Boolean interpretation is supposed, as in this text, a rule is needed that precludes
passage from premises that have no existential import to a conclusion that does have such
import.

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.

This final rule is not needed in the traditional or Aristotelian account of the categorical
syllogism, because that traditional account paid no attention to the problem of existential import.
However, when existential import is carefully considered, it will be clear that if the premises of
an argument do not assert the existence of anything at all, the conclusion will be unwarranted
when, from it, the existence of some thing may be inferred. The mistake is called the existential
fallacy.

18
Example:

All mammals are animals


All tigers are mammals
Some tigers are animals

Justification: On the Boolean model, Universal statements make no claims about existence
while particular ones do. Thus, if the syllogism has universal premises, they necessarily say
nothing about existence. Yet if the conclusion is particular, then it does say something about
existence. In which case, the conclusion contains more information than the premises do, thereby
making it invalid.

The six rules given here are intended to apply only to standard-form categorical
syllogisms. In this realm they provide an adequate test for the validity of any argument. If a
standard-form categorical syllogism violates any one of these rules, it is invalid; if it conforms to
all of these rules, it is valid.

V. EXPOSITION OF THE FIFTEEN VALID FORMS OF


CATEGORICAL SYLLOGISM
This lesson is a comprehensive explanation and elaboration of the test of validity of the
fifteen valid forms of categorical syllogism. There is great challenge in learning how to prove
that these fifteen forms are the only valid forms of categorical syllogism. The lesson includes the
naming of the moods in which the researcher adopts the most obvious among the sophisticated
guides in forming the mnemonic syllogistic names that mediaeval logicians and philosophers
formulated.

The confidence in determining valid arguments is achievable when one has mastered the
intricate deduction of the fifteen forms. A clear understanding of the moods and figures and the
strict compliance to the rules of standard-form syllogism are the key behind every successful
deduction. Here, every categorical proposition is tried as taking all possible roles such as being
the conclusion or to being the premises. Thus, by diligently studying the moods of the fifteen
standard-forms syllogism, analyzing their characteristics and their applications as well as the
principle of deduction, we will be able to determine their logical forms realize them as the only
valid categorical syllogism.

19
Valid Forms

Valid forms of syllogism may also be said as logical forms of syllogism. In categorical
syllogism, the logical form is determined by both the mood and figure of the categorical
syllogism.

Mood of Syllogism

It has been said that every syllogism has a mood which is its character given by the
standard categorical propositions. To recall, standard categorical propositions are the following:

1. A - universal affirmative proposition;

Example: All merchants are swimmers

2. E - universal negative proposition;

Example: No heroes are cowards

3. I - particular affirmative proposition;

Example: Some soldiers are cowards

4. O - particular negative proposition

Example: Some soldiers are not heroes

The mood of a categorical syllogism is a string of three of the four letters above
corresponding to the type of categorical proposition the major premise, the minor premise, and
the conclusion adopts. Through the combinations of these categorical propositions, standard
forms of categorical syllogism are attained such as the mood or form E I O. From the examples
above, if we take down E and combine to I, then to O, we get this mood of syllogism:

Figure of Syllogism

Figure is defined as the logical shape of a syllogism determined mainly by the placement
of the middle terms of the premises. The middle term can be thought of as a term used to link the
two premises together in forming the conclusion. We recall that the middle term is that which is

20
common to the major premise and the minor premise or that which is stated in both premises but
not in the conclusion.

In the above example, there are three terms which are monkeys, tail, and Bernard. Among these
three terms, tail is repeatedly stated in the premises; therefore, tail is the middle term of the
syllogism.
There are four figures in syllogism where the placements of the middle terms are shown
in the major and minor premise.

In the figures, M represents the middle term, P and S are the predicate and subject in the
conclusion, respectively. The collar-flap image by passing lines through the middle terms is
representing the logical shape of the syllogism. It may also aide for a faster mastery of the
figures of syllogism. The middle terms have their own places in each figure.

Figure 1: 1. The middle term is the subject in the major premise.

2. The middle term is the predicate in the minor premise.

21
Figure 2:
1. The middle term is the predicate of both premises.

Figure 3:
1. The middle term is the subject of both premises.

Figure 4:
1. The middle term is the predicate of the major premise.
2. The middle term is the subject of the minor premise.

Meanwhile, moods are formed in each of the four figures. The possible number of forms
in each figure can be calculated by probability. Take four which are the four forms, A, E, I, O,
then raise it to three which are the needed forms to be combined to produce a mood composed by
the major premise, minor premise, and the conclusion. Mathematically, 4 raised to the power of
three will yield a result of sixty-four or in this permutation:

 4³ = 64; or
Multiply four by four then again by four,
 4× 4 × 4 = 64

22
Each figure has three combinations out of the four categorical propositions; hence, there
are sixty four (64) moods in each figure. In total, there are two hundred fifty-six (256) moods or
forms that can be derived from the figures.

As to validity of forms, although 256 forms are available, not all of them are acceptable.
Out of the 256 forms, 214 forms are invalid and the remainder of 15 forms is the only valid
categorical syllogisms. The invalidation of majority of the forms is due to the strict observance
of the syllogistic rules and of the figures as to the placement of the middle terms. The focus of
this lesson would then be on the fifteen (15) combinations of mood and figure. These 15 valid
forms of categorical syllogism listed below are based on the Boolean standpoint:

FIGURE 1 FIGURE 2 FIGURE 3 FIGURE 4

1. AAA 5. EAE 9. IAI 13. AEE

2. EAE 6. AEE 10. AII 14. IAI

3. AII 7. EIO 11. OAO 15. EIO

4. EIO 8. AOO 12. EIO

Names and Structures of The Fifteen Valid Forms of Categorical Syllogism

For easy recall and mastery of the valid categorical syllogisms, medieval or classical
logicians including students gave a unique name to every valid syllogism. They are regarded as
the most famous logic mnemonics which originated in the 13th century textbooks. There are
elements these logicians used in the names such that the vowels represent the moods and the
consonants the figures and reduction of syllogisms. However, the system in constructing the
names using these elements is sophisticated. The simplest way is by the use of the vowels which
corresponds to the mood of the syllogism.

Below are the names or the logic mnemonics with the corresponding valid forms they
represent under each figure. The vowels in the name BARBARA are A, A, and A which
corresponds to the first valid form in figure 1. The same is true for all the other forms.

Figure 1

1. B A R B A R A - AAA-1

2. D A R I I - AII-1

3. C E L A R E N T - EAE-1

4. F E R I O - EIO-1

23
Figure 2

5. C A M E S T R E S - AEE-2

6. B A R O K O - AOO-2

7. C E S A R E - EAE-2

8. F E S T I N O -EIO-2

Figure 3

9. D A T I S I -AII-3

10. D I S A M I S - IAI-3

11. B O K A R D O - OAO-3

12. F E R I S O N - EIO-3

Figure 4

13. C A M E N E S - AEE-4

14. D I M A R I S -IAI-4

15. F R E S I S O N - EIO-4

To satisfy validity of the names laid above, they are now placed under each figure. It is
shown that each figure has its own valid moods so when a mood, though in a standard form, is in
another figure, one can infer that it is invalid.

FIGURE 1 FIGURE 2 FIGURE 3 FIGURE 4

1. AAA-BARBARA 5. AEE-CAMESTRES 9. AII-DATISI 13. AEE-CAMENES

2. AII- DARII 6. AOO-BAROKO 10. IAI-DISAMIS 14. IAI-DIMARIS

3. EAE-CELARENT 7. EAE-CESARE 11. OAO-BOKARDO 15. EIO-FRESISON

4. EIO-FERIO 8. EIO-FESTINO 12. EIO-FERISON ***************

Inspecting the examples under each of the figures above as to the moods and figures will
prove their validity.

Example 1:

All birds are animals with feathers. ----------- Major premise


All doves are birds. ----------- Minor premise
∴ All doves are animals with feathers. ----------- Conclusion

24
First, check which figure does this categorical syllogism belong by the placements of the
middle terms. Looking at it, the middle term in the major proposition is the subject while in the
minor premise; it is used as the predicate. Hence, it is belonging to figure 1.

Second, identify the mood of each categorical proposition then name it. If it is valid, the
resulting mnemonic name must be one that is also belonging to figure 1. The major premise
expresses a universal affirmative proposition (A). The minor premise is also a universal
affirmative proposition (A) and the conclusion follows to be a universal affirmative proposition
(A). The mood is then an AAA which is corresponding to the name BARBARA.

The mood of categorical syllogism is a BARBARA and its figure is Figure 1. Thereafter,
one may conclude that the categorical syllogism is valid.

For the other examples, use the same method of checking as follows:

Example 2:

E - No accident is mean.

I - Some homicides are mean. EIO-2


O - ∴ Some homicides are not accidents

The mood of this categorical syllogism is EIO named as FESTINO and it is in Figure 2, so it is
valid.

The other examples are also valid as shown here:

Example 3 with the mood EIO (FERISON) and Figure 3:

E - No reptile is a mammal.
I - Some reptiles are carnivorous EIO-3
O - ∴ Some carnivorous animals are not mammals.

Example 4 with mood EIO (FRESISON) and figure 4:

No insects are spider.


Some spiders are poisonous animals. EIO-4
∴ Some poisonous animals are not spiders.

Emphasizing examples 3 and 4, they have the same mood but different names and figures
but both are valid. A way to know their figures and names with which they differ is the
placement of the middle terms as shown.

25
As a rule for validity, the middle term in figure 3 shall be the subject in the major
premise; likewise, in the minor premise. Figure 4 on the other hand has the middle term as the
predicate in the major premise and the subject in the minor premise. In the said examples, these
rules are satisfied.

Appendix: DEDUCTION OF THE FIFTEEN VALID FORMS OF THE


CATEGORICAL SYLLOGISM

One may wonder how the classical logicians downloaded the fifteen moods as the valid
syllogisms out of the vast 256 possible syllogistic forms derived by combining the 4 categorical
propositions. Proving that these are the only valid categorical syllogisms is by the method of
deduction. To precisely do deduction, careful understanding of two things is imperative. They
are:

1. The six basic rules of standard-forms syllogism.

Rule 1. A standard-form categorical syllogism must contain exactly three terms, each of
which is used in the same sense throughout the argument.

Rule 2. In a valid standard-form categorical syllogism, the middle term must be


distributed in at least one premise.

Rule 3. In a valid standard-form categorical syllogism, if either term is distributed in the


conclusion, then it must be distributed in the premises.

Rule 4. No standard-form categorical syllogism having two negative premises is valid.

Rule 5. If either premise of a valid standard-form categorical syllogism is negative, the


conclusion must be negative.

Rule 6. No valid standard-form categorical syllogism with a particular conclusion can


have two universal premises.

26
2. The four figures of categorical syllogism

The deduction simply eliminates the syllogisms which violate one of the basic rules, thus
are invalid. However, the system is quiet complicated. An overview of the deduction is the use of
any of the four categorical syllogisms as the conclusion. It could be A, or E, or I, or O. Begin by
dividing all the possible syllogistic forms into four groups that would contain moods with
conclusions of any of the four forms. So basically, the conclusion is first observed then drawing
back to its premises. For instance, if the conclusion of one syllogism is an A proposition, then its
characteristics with respects to the minor and major premises must be verified. If all conforms,
then that syllogism, being valid should be deducted from the 256 syllogistic forms.

Characteristics of A, E, I, O as Conclusions in Categorical Syllogisms

Case 1. If the conclusion is an A proposition (Universal affirmative)

Characteristics:
1. The major and the minor premises cannot be E or I.

Reason: It is because when the conclusion is affirmative, the premises must have also
been in the affirmative proposition.

Violation: Rule 5. If either premise of a valid standard-form categorical syllogism is


negative, the conclusion must be negative.
- Fallacy of drawing an affirmative conclusion from a negative premise.

2. The minor premise cannot be an I proposition

Reason: Because the minor term which is the subject of the conclusion is distributed in
the minor premise. So where the conclusion is a universal affirmative
proposition but premised with a particular affirmative proposition, the result is a
contradicting thought. Such is when the minor premise states that “Some birds
sing.” (I), and the conclusion is drawn as “All birds sing.”(A), obviously the two
propositions do not agree to each; there is then a disarray of thought.
Violation: Rule 3. In a valid standard-form categorical syllogism, if either term is
distributed in the conclusion, then it must be distributed in the premises.
- Fallacy of the illicit major, or fallacy of the illicit minor

27
3. The two premises cannot be I and A
Reason: Because if they were, the middle term of the syllogism would not be distributed
in either premise.
Violation: Rule 2. In a valid standard-form categorical syllogism, the middle term must
be distributed in at least one premise.
- Fallacy of undistributed middle

With these characteristics, we may infer that the premises must be both in the A form of
categorical propositions to support the A conclusion validly. This means that the only valid mood
is an AAA if the conclusion is A. As to the figure, when they are placed under figures 2, 3, and 4,
there would be improper placements or distribution of the middle terms.

Case 2. If the conclusion is an E proposition (Universal negative)

Characteristics:
1. Only one of the premises is an E proposition.

Reason: Both premises cannot be E or there cannot be two negative premises. Otherwise
the subject and the predicate in the three premises are not distributed.
Violation: Rule 4. No standard-form categorical syllogism having two negative
premises are valid.
-Fallacy of exclusive premises
2. If the other premise is E, then the other premise cannot be an O proposition for the same
reason.

Reason: Both premises cannot be negative.


Violation: Rule 4
3. The other premise cannot also be an I proposition.

Reason: Because the term in the conclusion E would not be distributed in the premises
Violation: Rule 3. In a valid standard-form categorical syllogism, if either term is
distributed in the conclusion, then it must be distributed in the premises.
- Fallacy of the illicit major, or fallacy of the illicit minor

Having eliminated I and O in the premises, what remains allowable are A and E. The

28
premises can then be AE or EA. Therefore, the only valid mood if the conclusion is E is AEE or
EAE.

Characteristics as to figure:
1. AEE cannot be in the first and third figures.

Reason: Because a term distributed in the conclusion would not then be distributed in the
premises. In other words, the required placement of middle terms in those figures
would not be met.
Therefore, the mood AEE can only be in the figures 2 and 4 or AEE-2 and AEE-4 are
valid.

2. EAE cannot be in the third or fourth figure for the same reason on the proper distribution of
terms; hence, they are only valid in the first and second figure or EAE-1 and EAE-2.

Case 3. If the conclusion is an I proposition (Particular affirmative)

Characteristics:
1. The premises cannot be an E or an O.

Reason: If the premises were expressing negative thoughts whether universal or


particular, then the conclusion must not be in the affirmative state or positive
expression. In such case, the relationship of the conclusion to its premises is
invalid.
Violation: Rule 5. If either premise of a valid standard-form categorical syllogism is
negative, the conclusion must be negative.
-Fallacy of drawing an affirmative conclusion from a negative premise.

2.Both the premises cannot be A.

Reason: Because if the conclusion expresses that some of a particular thing is described
positively, the premises cannot express that all of those are also described
positively.
Violation: Rule 6. No valid standard-form categorical syllogism with a particular
conclusion can have two universal premises.

29
-Existential fallacy.

3. Both premises cannot be I.

Reason: The placement of the middle term would be incorrect


Violation: Rule 2. In a valid standard-form categorical syllogism, the middle term must
be distributed in at least one premise.
- Fallacy of undistributed middle

Where the categorical propositions not allowed are, an E, O, AA, II, the only premises
allowed for an I conclusion is the AI and IA; thus the valid forms are AII and IAI.

Case 4. If the conclusion is an O proposition (Particular negative)

Characteristics:
1. The major premise cannot be an I proposition.

Reason: Because any term distributed in the conclusion must be distributed in the
premises.
2. If the major premise is an A the minor premise cannot be an A or an E.
Reason: When the premises are universal, either affirmative or negative, the conclusion
drawn cannot of course be a particular negative. Suppose the major premise states
that “All law students read.”(A) and the minor premise states, “Not all law
students read.”(E), it is so wrong to conclude that, “Some law students are
busy.” (A).
3. The minor premise cannot likewise be an I proposition given that A is the major premise

Reason: Failure in the distribution of the middle term.


Violation: Rule 2. In a valid standard-form categorical syllogism, the middle term must
be distributed in at least one premise.

4. When the major premise is an A. As explained, propositions A, E and I cannot be the minor
premises if A is the major premise leaving O as the only valid minor proposition.

The conclusion has been set to an O proposition, the major premise to an A proposition

30
and the minor premise is no other than an O proposition without violating any rule; thus AOO is
the valid syllogism when the conclusion is O.

This valid mood becomes invalid should they be in figure 1, 3,and 4 due to the incorrect
placement of the middle term and the terms distributed in the conclusion would not be
distributed in the premises. It is only valid in figure 2.

It is then concluded that when the major premise is an A and the conclusion is an O, then
the valid categorical syllogism in this case is the form, AOO-2.

5. If the major premise is an E

The minor premise cannot be another E or an O.

Reason: It has been settled that two negative premises is not allowed.
Violation: Rule 4. No standard-form categorical syllogism having two negative
premises is valid.

The minor premise cannot also be an A.

Reason: It is maintained that the conclusion is an O, a particular negative and the major
premise is an E, a universal negative proposition. It is impossible to attain
coherence when the minor premise is also a universal (A).
Violation: Rule 6. No valid standard-form categorical syllogism with a particular
conclusion can have two universal premises.

Therefore, when the major premise is an E, while the conclusion is an O, and the only
allowed minor premise is an I, then the valid form formulated is an EIO. This mood is not
violating any of the four figures; hence in this case, there are four valid forms: EIO-1, EIO-2,
EIO-3, and EIO-4..

6. If the major premise is an O

The minor premise cannot be an E or an O so as not to violate Rule 4.


The minor premise cannot be an I to avoid incorrect distribution of terms in the
conclusion and in the premises.
Thus when the major premise is an O and the minor premise is an A, then the conclusion
shall be an O yielding a valid mood of OAO. To precisely establish its validity, the correct figure
must also be inspected. When the middle term is patterned to the first figure, logic is lost. When

31
the middle term is also the predicate of the major and the minor propositions, there is no
distribution of terms. The second figure is then eliminated. The same is true in figure 4, the mood
OAO cannot be valid when the middle term is not distributed in the premises in such a way that
they support the conclusion. So then the valid form when the major premise is an O, is an OAO-
3.

The method in analyzing the validity of the fifteen categorical syllogisms is demonstrated
in the four cases by elimination of propositions. As shown, the conclusions were presumed and
carefully tested against each of the propositions and any of them gets eliminated when a
violation of the six essential rules of standard-form syllogism is present.

32
REFERENCES:

Brody, B. (2006). Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Detroit: The Macmillan Company & The Free
Press, Macmillan, USA

Copi, I., Cohen, C., McMahon, K. (2014). Introduction to Logi.London: Pearson Education
Limited

Gabbay, D., Woods, J. (2008). Handbook of the History of Logic: Mediaeval and Renaissance
Logic, Vol. 2. North Holland

Garth Kemerling. (2011). Categorical Syllogism. Retrived from


http://www.philosophypages.com/lg/e08a.htm

Gensler, H. J. (2010). Introduction to Logic Second Edition. Retrieved from


https://books.google.com.ph/books?hl=tl&lr=&id=jpteBwAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PR3&
dq=introduction+to+logic&ots=X7TWGVJ3Xn&sig

Granberg, R.S. Legal Reasoning. Retrieved from http://www.granberglaw.com/wp-


content/uploads/2012/07/legal_reasoning.pdf

Jovellanos, C. (2016). Rules of the Valid moods of the figures: Figure 2. Retrieved from
https://prezi.com/zmpgnrzffcb6/rules-of-the-valid-moods-of-the-figures-figure-2/

Kant, I. (1963). Introduction to Logic. Retrieved from


https://books.google.com.ph/books?hl=en&lr=&id=gDZwCgAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PT4
&dq=introduction+to+logic+kant&ots=jLCFgRe-w-&sig

Kemerling, G. (2011). Categorical Syllogisms: The Structure of Syllogism. Retrieved from


http://www.philosophypages.com/lg/e08a.htm

Lee Ling, D. Categorical Sylllogisms. Retrieved from


http://www.comfsm.fm/~dleeling/geometry/categorical_syllogisms.xhtml

Manebog, J. (2013). The Categorical Syllogism: Reasoning and Debate.

Ming, W. (2015). Philosophy and Religious Studies. Butte College. Retrieved from
http://www.butte.edu/resources/interim/wmwu/iLogic/2.4/iLogic_2_4.html

Salmon, M.H. (2013). Introduction to Logic and Critical Thinking Sixth Edition. Retrieved from
https://books.google.com.ph/books?hl=tl&lr=&id=vd8JAAAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PR7
&dq=introduction+to+logic&ots=6ptvXvHbBc&sig

Santa Barbara City College. (2006). Philosophy-111 Critical Thinking And Writing:

33
Santa Barbara City College. (2006). Philosophy-111 Critical Thinking And Writing: Six Rules
Test. Retrieved from http://markmcintire.com/phil/sixrules.html

The 15 Valid Syllogistic Forms. Retrieved from http://markmcintire.com/phil/validforms.html#

W.W.Norton&Co. (2006). Venn Diagram for Categorical Syllogisms. Retrieved from


http://www.wwnorton.com/college/phil/logic3/ch9/venn.htm

Wei-Ming, W. (2008). Philosophy and Religious Studies. Retrieved from


http://www.butte.edu/resources/interim/wmwu/iLogic/iLogic.html

34

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi