Conditional syllogism

Description The basic form of the conditional syllogism is: If A is true then B is also true. (If A then B). It appears through a major premise, a minor premise and a conclusion. Major premise The major premise (the first statement) for example: Ladies prefer Xanthos. This statement is not challenged and is assumed to be true. The 'A', the 'if' part of the statement ('adding sugar to coffee' in the example) is also called theantecedent. The 'B', the 'then' part of the statement ('tastes better') is also called the consequent. Minor premise A minor premise, which may not be spoken, gives further detail about the major premise. For example: Xanthos smells great. The minor premise is also assumed to be true. In adverts, it often appears as the secondary line to the main strapline of the major premise. Conclusion The conclusion is a third statement, based on a combination of the major and minor premise. If you use Xanthos cologne, you will attract women. In adverts, this may well not be mentioned, but it is most clearly what you are intended to conclude. Example Here is the bones of many the proposition of many therapists: You are sad. I am qualified to help people who are sad. I can make you happy. Thus, when the therapist says 'You are sad', the patient gets the idea that the therapist can make them happy. The qualifications of the therapist may be framed on the wall or on the brass plate outside. This principle is also used by many professions, which is why it is ok for

hairdresser to criticize your hair (in fact it provides a contrast with what your hair will soon look like). Conditional Syllogism a syllogism whose major premise is a conditional proposition. It is a mixed conditional syllogism if the minor premise is a conditional proposition or a pure conditional syllogism if both premises are conditional propositions. a.The mixed conditional syllogism is governed by the two laws that governed relationship between the antecedent and the consequent. 1.If the antecedent is true and the sequence valid, the consequent is true. 2. If the consequent is false and the sequence valid, the antecedent Is false. When applied to the mixed conditional syllogism, these general rules are Discussion Conditional syllogisms are seldom completed with all three sentences -- often only the major and minor premises are needed and sometimes only the major premise is enough. The conclusion of the conditional syllogism is often unspoken and it is intended that the listener infers it for themselves.

Advertisers love conditional syllogisms because this gives them a way around laws that prevent advertisements from telling direct lies. Lies such as 'use cologne, attract women' are also a bit obvious, and people who will believe the syllogism would not necessary believe the direct lie of the conclusion.

Disjunctive syllogism
Description The basic form of the disjunctive syllogism is: Either A is true or B is true. (A exclusive-or B). Thus, if A is true, B is false, and if B is true, A is false. A and B cannot both by true. Major premise

The major premise is given in the form of a choice between alternative. The choice is that one out of two or more alternatives is right and that the rest are wrong. It may appear in a single sentence: Either Jim, Fred or Billy did it. Minor premise The minor premise either selects or rejects alternatives, thus leading to the conclusion. Jim was in the bar. But Fred had the motive. Conclusion The conclusion may be spoken, although often it is not, as it is intended that the target of the major premise concludes this by his or herself. For example: Fred killed Julius. Example Politicians love disjunctive syllogisms, as they offer stark choices: Either you vote for me or you vote for disaster. Advertisers love them too. Note here how an airline uses unspoken scare tactics about driving or going by train. Flying is the safest way to travel. Discussion When comparing two or more items, you are using the contrast principle to use each one to highlight the differences between it and the other. A fallacy that happens here is when it is assumed that the choices offered are the only choices. By offering alternatives, the listener is given the impression that this is all there is, and that other choices do not exist. This is the basis of the sales person's alternative close. Another fallacy occurs where it is assumed that the two alternatives are mutually exclusive. Thus if one has a particular characteristic, the other is assumed not to have any of this characteristic. Thus you can cast yourself and your ideas as good by criticizing others as bad. The other guy is bad, which means I am good.

The components of a disjunctive proposition--p and q--are called disjuncts. Such a statement does not actually assert that p is true, or that q is, but it does say that one or the other of them is true. Example: If we know independently that one of the disjuncts is not true, we can infer that the other must be true. If you know that the meeting will be either in room 302 or 306, and you find that it is not in 302, you can infer that it is in 306. A disjunctive syllogism has the following structure: Either the meeting is in room 302, or it is in room 306. It is not in room 302. Therefore, it is in room 306. So long as we eliminate all the disjuncts but one, that one must be true--assuming, of course, that the disjunctive premise is true to begin with. The disjunctive syllogism proceeds by denying one of the disjuncts. Is it equally valid to argue by affirming a disjunct? Is the following inference valid? Either p or q. p. Therefore, Not-q. The answer depends on how we are using the conjunction "or." We sometimes use it in what is called the exclusive sense to mean, "p or q but not both," as in, "Tom is either asleep or reading." We also use "or" in the inclusive sense to mean, "p or q or both," as in, "If she's tired or busy, she won't call back." An argument that denies a disjunct is valid in either case, but an argument that affirms a disjunct is valid only if "or" is used in the exclusive sense. The problem is that nothing in the logical form of the argument tells us which sense is being used. To make it clear that p and q are exclusive alternatives, people sometimes say, "p, or else q." But, in most cases, we have to decide from the context which sense is intended. For

logical purposes, therefore, we assume that "or" is used inclusively, so that affirming a disjunct is fallacious. In cases where such an argument seems valid intuitively, it is easy to translate the argument into a different form that makes the validity clear.

Comprehension Questions 1. Determine whether the following disjunctive syllogism is valid or invalid. Either I will graduate in 1998 or in 1999 I will graduate in 1999

I will not graduate in 1998 a) b) It is valid. It is is invalid.

2. Determine whether the following disjunctive syllogism is valid or invalid. Either the next Olympics will be held in Atlanta, Georgia or in Athens, Greece. It won't be held in Athens, Greece.

It will be held in Atlanta, Georgia. a) b) It is valid. It is is invalid.

Conjunctive Syllogism
A syllogism whose major premise is a conjunctive proposition, the minor premise posits one member of the major, and whose conclusion sublates the other member of the major. There is only one valid procedure: to posit one member in the minor premise and sublate the other in the conclusion. The criminal could not be in Manila and Baguio at the same time; But he was in Manila; Therefore he could not be in Baguio. [The criminal could not be in Manila and Baguio at the same time; But he was not in Manila; Therefore he was in Baguio. A conjunctive syllogism is one whose major premise is a conjunctive proposition consisting of alternatives( conjuncts ), while the minor premise affirms or denies any of the conjuncts , and the conclusion merely expresses whatever follows from its affirmation or denial. Both the minor premise and the conclusion are categorical propositions. It was mentioned that a true conjunctive proposition is one whose alternatives are incompatible. Rules : There are two rules for conjunctive syllogism: -Posit one alternate, sublate the other. ( Ponendo-tollens ) -Sublate one alternative, no conclusion.

-Posit one alternative, sublate the other.(Ponendo-Tollens) The minor premise affirms one conjunct and the conclusion rejects the other. Example : The passenger cannot be in the tricycle and in the bus at the same time; But, he is in the tricycle; (affirmed) He is not in the bus.(rejected) From the truth of one conjunctive follows the fallacy of the other. The fact that the passenger is in the tricycle means that he could not be in the bus at the same time. It is impossible for him to be in the two vehicles at the same time. -Sublate on alternate , no conclusion . But from the falsity of one conjunct , the truth of the other does not necessarily follow. The passenger cannot be in the tricycle and in the bus at the same time; But, he is not in the tricycle; (affirmed) He is in the bus.(rejected) The conclusion, he is in the bus does not follow from the premise. There are vehicles other than the bus that he can take. This fallacy is called the fallacy of Tollendo-Ponens.