SILOGISM / CONCLUSION

Daniel, Tarshan Hana

Syllogism is a deductive process of drawing

conclusions.

Syllogism is composed of two propositions

(statements) and a conclusion (conclusion).
There are two types of syllogism:
>Categorical syllogism
>Hypogesis Hypothesis
SILOGISM: CATEGORIES AND
HYPOTHETICS
>Categorical syllogism:
Every human can die (major premise)
Ali is a human (premise inor)
So Ali can die (conclusion)

>Hypothetical syllogism:
If it's raining, then I'm not leaving.
DEFINITION
A complete understanding of a term that includes all the
elements that are the main features of the term
4 terms definition:
The properties described cannot be too broad / narrow, for
example: A chair is a seat made of wood
There is no meaningful repetition of words, for example:
Freedom is a free state
Do not use explanations that actually deny, for example: Life is a
struggle
Not using negative words, for example: Poor is a state of not
being rich
KINDS OF DEFINITION

► Demonstrative definition
► Definition of equality
► Definition of painting
► Definition of description

In science, ordinary definitions are given synonyms, limits or

explanations. Called an explanation because it gives information
so that a term can be clear. Called a limitation because it gives
the limits of the meaning of the term to be explained
ANALOGY
The correspondence of the two types of understanding which on one
side are the same, but on the other hand the understanding is
different.
The process of reasoning from one phenomenon to another similar
phenomenon then concluded that what happens in the first
phenomenon will also occur in other phenomena
For each analogy conclusion action, there are 3 elements:
The main event which forms the basis of the analogy
Principal's binding equation
An analogous phenomenon
Example: If we buy shoes (1) and we believe that the shoes will be
nice and durable in use (2), because shoes that were bought with
the same brand (3)
Misleading

Meaning: Errors in reasoning in the form of drawing conclusions

with invalid steps, because it violates the rules of logic or in the
form of misleading conversations intentionally or unintentionally
include things that can lead to invalid conclusions.
E.g.
>When war broke out the price of goods rose. Now the goods go
up. So war broke out.
>None of the good stuff is cheap. Goods in the shop are not
cheap. So all the items in the store are good
>Horses are cows, not horses. So he is not an animal