Categorical Syllogisms

CHAPTER 6

Overview

6.1 Introduction

A. Standard-Form Categorical Syllogisms

B. Standard Order of the Propositions

C. Mood and Figure of Syllogisms

6. 2. The Formal Nature of Syllogistic Argument

Overview

6.3 Venn Diagram in Syllogism

A. Venn Diagram Technique for Testing Syllogisms

B. Application of Venn diagram test

6.4 Syllogistic Rules and Syllogistic Fallacies

6.5 Exposition of the Fifteen Valid Forms of the

Categorical Syllogism

Categorical Syllogisms
Categorical Syllogism
- 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.

Categorical propositions

Categorical Syllogisms

Categorical Syllogism 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.

Example 1:
All cars are a form of transportation.
All Honda Civic are cars
Therefore, all Honda Civic are a form of transportation.

To analyze an argument accurately

Must be in standard form

A. Premises and
conclusion

B. propositions

Standard-form categorical
propositions
(A, E, I, or O)
Standard order

Standard Order of Propositions

terms
To identify the terms by name, the
looked into first.

conclusion of the syllogism should be

Major

Term The predicate (P) term of the conclusion

Minor

Term The subject (S) term of the conclusion

Middle

Term (M) The term that appears in both premises but

not in the conclusion

Major Premise

The premise containing the major term.

Minor Premise The premise containing the minor term

Example 1:
All cars are a form of transportation.
All Honda Civic are cars
Therefore, all Honda Civic are a form of transportation.

Example

C. Mood and Figure of the Syllogism

Mood

Figure
-has four figures

Identified by
Standard-form categorical
propositions
(A, E, I, or O)
Refers to location of the
middle term (M) in its
premise

Figures location of middle term

Examples
identifying the mood and figure

EIO-3
Ex. 2.
No man is perfect.
Some men are presidents.
Therefore some presidents are not perfect

6.2. The Formal Nature of Syllogistic Argument

Note:
A valid

syllogism

is a formally

valid argument

valid by virtue of its form alone (e.g. AAA-1).

If a given syllogism is valid (in its form), 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.

AAA-1 or Barbara always valid

6.2. The Formal Nature of Syllogistic Argument

sodium salts water-soluble substances

So, if we substitute the terms soaps, water-soluble substances, and sodium salts
for the letters
in the same form, we obtain

S,

P, and

Important

Note: However, it is important to note that when

the
the

premises, in an argument, are known to be true

conclusion

is known to be

and

false, the argument is invalid.

Any fallacious argument can be proved to be invalid by:

a.

b. known to be invalid by the fact that its premises are known to be

true while its conclusion is known to be false.

finding a second argument that has exactly the same

form; and is

Example of invalid argument

very fast runners

cheetahs,

Example, if the terms horses, cheetahs, and very fast runners

are substituted for letters
S,
P,
and
M
in the same form

how about

Substituting the terms me( I am), good for you, and

protein
for letters
S,
P,
and
M
in AAA-1 syllogism

Protein is good for you.

I am mostly protein.
I am good for you.

Venn Diagram in Syllogism

Figure 1 shows the eight classes

from the overlapping of three circles S,
P, and M.

Venn Diagram in Syllogism

Venn Diagram in Syllogism

Classe
s

Representation

is the product of the first and the

complements of the others:

Example

the class of all single who are

neither picky nor musicians
is the product of the first two and the
the class of all single and picky
complement of the third
who are not musicians
is the product of the second class with
the class of all picky who are
the complements of the other two:
neither single nor musician
product of the first and third and the
the class of all single musicians
complement of the second
who are not picky.
is the product of these three classes is
is the class of all single, picky
the class of all Swedish peasant musicians musicians
is the product of the second and third
the class of all picky musicians
classes with the complements of the
who are not single.
first:
is the product of the third class and the
complements of the first two:

the class of all musicians who are

neither single nor picky
is the product of the complements of the the class of all things that are
three original classes
neither single nor picky nor
musicians.

Venn Diagram in Syllogism

Figure 1 shows the eight classes

from the overlapping of three circles S,
P, and M.
To illustrate, we will substitute the
terms single, picky and musicians
for S, P, and M respectively.

Application of Venn Diagram Test

AAA-1 Syllogism

All M is P

All S is M

All

S is P

The only area that can be called S at this point is

area 5. And area 5 is entirely inside the P circle:

Application of Venn Diagram Test

In this diagram,

AAA-2 Syllogism

segment 1, 2 and 3
have been shaded out.
However, the

conclusion (All
turkeys are chicken)
has not been
diagrammed, because
to diagram the
conclusion,

both

segment 4 and 6
AAA-2
doesout.
not suffice
must
be shaded

to diagram its
conclusion.

C. Syllogism with one universal premise and one

particular premise AII-3 and AII-2
one universal premise and one particular
premise, it is important to diagram the universal premise first.

Note: In syllogism with

AII-3 Syllogism

All M is P

Some M is S

Some S is P

Since there is an x in the region SPM, there is an X in overlapping part of SP.

The statement of the conclusion has already been diagrammed by diagramming
the premises; therefore the syllogism is valid.

C. Syllogism with one universal premise and one

particular premise AII-3 and AII-2

AII-2 Syllogism

All P is M

Some S is M

Some S is P

6.4 Syllogistic rules

and Syllogistic Fallacies

Syllogistic fallacy

is a special kind of mistake which arises when there is a

violation of any of the syllogistic rules, and as such, it
renders the syllogism invalid.

Formal fallacy

is a mistake in the form of the argument.

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.

Fallacy committed for violation of this rule:

fallacy of four terms.

Example 1:
All Greek gods are mythical.
T1

T2

All modern day gods are real.

T3

T4

Therefore, all Greek gods are real.

T1

T4

The fallacy of four terms occurs most frequently by equivocation.

Equivocation
using the same word or phrase but with a different meaning each time,
creating a fourth term even though only three distinct words are used.

Example 2:

Nothing is better than eternal happiness.

T1

T2

A ham sandwich is better than nothing.

T3

T4

A ham sandwich is better than eternal happiness.

T3

T2

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.

Example:
All Russians were revolutionists.
All anarchists were revolutionists.
Therefore, all anarchists were Russians.

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 that 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.

Fallacy committed for violation of this rule: fallacy of

illicit process.

The conclusion may overreach with respect to either the

minor term (its subject), or the major term (its
predicate). So there are two different forms of illicit
process, and different names have been given to the two
formal fallacies involved. They are:

A.

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

Example:

All dogs are mammals.

No cats are dogs.
Therefore, no cats are mammals.

B.

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

Example:

All traditionally religious people are fundamentalists.

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

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.

Fallacy committed for violation of this rule: fallacy of exclusive

premises.

Example:

No mammals are fishers.

S M
No fishes are whales.
M

Therefore, no mammals are whales.

S

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.

Fallacy committed for violation of this rule: fallacy of drawing

an affirmative conclusion from a negative premise.

Example:
No poets are accountants.
Some artists are poets.
Therefore, some artists are accountants.

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

In the bolean interpretation of categorical propositions,

universal propositions have no existential import, but
particular propositions do have such import.

Wherever the bolean interpretation is supposed, as in this

book, a rule is needed that precludes passage from premises
that have no existential import to a conclusion that does have
such import.

Fallacy committed for violation of this rule: existential

fallacy.

Example:

All household pets are domestic animals.

No unicorns are domestic animals.
Therefore, some unicorns are not household pets.

The Fifteen Valid Forms of the Standard-Form

Categorical Syllogism

BARBARA, AAA-1
All M are P.
All S are M.
Therefore, All S are P.

BAROCO, AOO-2
All P are M.
Some S are not M.
Therefore, Some S are not P.

BOCARDO, OAO-3
Some M are not P.
All M are S.
Therefore, Some S are not P.

CAMENES, AEE-4
All P are M.
No M are S.
Therefore, No S are P.

CAMESTRES, AEE-2
All P are M.
No S are M.
Therefore, No S are P.

CELARENT, EAE-1
No M are P.
All S are M.
Therefore, No S are P.

CESARE, EAE-2
No P are M.
All S are M.
Therefore, No S are P.

DARII, AII-1
All M are P.
Some S are M.
Therefore, Some S are P.

DATISI, AII-3
All M are P.
Some M are S.
Therefore, Some S are P.

DISAMIS, IAI-3
Some M are P.
All M are S.
Therefore, Some S are P.

DIMARIS, IAI-4
Some P are M.
All M are S. Therefore,
Some S are P.

FERIO, EIO-1
No M are P.
Some S are M.
Therefore, Some S are not P.

FESTINO, EIO-2
No P are M.
Some S are M.
Therefore, Some S are not P.

FRESISON, EIO-4
No P are M.
Some M are S.
Therefore, Some S are not P.

FERISON, EIO-3
No M are P.
Some M are S.
Therefore, Some S are not P.

Valid Syllogistic Forms

Insyllogistic

logic, there are 256 possible ways to construct

categorical syllogismsusing theA,E,I, andOstatement forms. Of the
256, 24 are valid forms. Of the 24 valid forms,only 15 are unconditionally
valid forms

Unconditionally valid
Figure 1

Figure 2

Figure 3

Figure 4

AAA
BARBARA-1

EAE
CESARE-2

IAI
DISAMIS-3

AEE
CAMENES-4

EAE
CELARENT-1

AEE
CAMESTRES-2

AII
DATISI-3

IAI
DIMARIS-4

AII
DARII-1

EIO
FESTINO-2

OAO
BOCARDO-3

EIO
FRESISON-4

EIO
FERIO

AOO
BAROCO-2

EIO
FERISON

Valid Syllogistic Forms

Conditionally valid
Figure 1

Figure 2

AAI
BARBARI-1
EAO
CELARONT-1

AEO
CAMESTROS-2
EAO
CESARO-2

Figure 3

AII
DARAPTI-3
EAO
FESAPO

Figure 4

Required
Condition

AEO
CALEMOS-4

S exists

EAO
FESAPO-4

M exists

AAI
BAMALIP

P exists