Syllogistic Logic

A term is any word or phrase (an arrangement of words) that can serve as the subject of a
proposition.

Singular Terms
Proper Nouns: Napoleon, North Dakota, The United States, The Senate, Toni Morrison.
Definite Descriptions: the president of the United States, the author of Hamlet.
General Terms
Common Nouns: animal, Greek, mortal, restitution, house, activity, person.
Other Descriptive Phrases: books in my library, blue things, those who study hard.

An argument is a series of propositions in which one group of propositions (the premises) are
claimed to support some other proposition (the conclusion).
A syllogism is an argument consisting of exactly two premises and one conclusion; and a
categorical syllogism is a syllogism that contains only categorical propositions as its premises
and conclusions.

A categorical proposition is a proposition about a class (e.g. general terms).

Example: All humans are mortal.
This asserts that all members of the class of humans are members of the class of
mortals.
A singular proposition is a proposition about an individual (e.g. singular terms).
Example: Socrates is mortal.
This asserts that the individual Socrates is a member of the class of mortals.
Drill 1: Identify whether or not the following are categorical or singular propositions.
1.
2.
3.
4.

Napoleon was a fascist.

Everyone is human.
Any student enrolled in this class is smart.
Mr. T is angry.

5. Some books are fun to read.

Aristotle (384-22 B.C.E.) was the first to systematize correct forms of reasoning. His formal
system remained dominant for two thousand years, until it was extended in the late nineteenth
and early twentieth century by Gottlob Frege.
Aristotles system is picked out by many names: Aristotelian logic (for obvious reasons),
syllogistic logic (since its limited to syllogisms), traditional logic (because it was the standard
form for two thousand years), and term logic (because its variables only range over terms).
Our concern (as was Aristotles) is primarily with categorical syllogisms. Categorical propositions
have two important properties: quantity and quality.

Quantity
Universal: Universal propositions are those propositions that quantify over (i.e. are
about) every member of the class denoted by the subject term.
Particular: Particular propositions are those propositions that quantify over some
members of the class denoted by the subject term.
Quality
Affirmative: Affirmative propositions are those propositions that affirm an attribute of
the class denoted by the subject term.
Negative: Negative Propositions are those propositions that deny an attribute of the
class denoted by the subject term.
This engenders four possible combinations:
A

Universal Affirmative

All A are B

Particular Affirmative

Some A are B

Universal Negative

No A are B

Particular Negative

Some A are not B

The designations A, E, I, and O come from the Latin AffIrmo (I affirm) and nEgO (I deny).
Thus the only quantifiers are All, No, and Some, and all propositions in syllogistic logic
contain either of the copula forms is or are.

Drill 2: Identify the quantity and quality of the following categorical propositions.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.

Everybody is happy.
Any student enrolled in this class is smart.
Some books are fun to read.
No animals are fast.
Some Greeks are not mortal.
Some billionaires are ugly.
No tests are easy.
All tests are not easy.
Some people are Italians.

There are many expressions in English (or any other natural language) that translate into the
same proposition, as expressed in syllogistic logic.
Example: All A are B.
All sins are lies.
Sins are lies.
The one who sins, lies.
Sinning is lying.
To sin is to lie.
Anyone who sins, lies.
Whoever sins, lies.

Drill 3: Translate the following sentences into equivalent A, E, I, or O propositions.

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.

Whoever is rich is a sinner.

The poor are lazy.
Most children arent naughty.
Albino crows are known to exist.
Amateurs arent professionals.
There are plenty of immodest failures.
Most prescription drugs are harmful.
Humans beings are omnivorous.
Most movie stars arent happy.
Omnivores occassionally are vegetarians.
None who have dry wits drink.
Some drinkers have wet whistles.
Those who forget the past suffer from amnesia.
Omnivores usually are not vegetarians.

15.
16.
17.
18.

Show me an officer and Ill show you a dandy.

Vanity is a universal condition.
The gods have no mercy.
Lots of rivers have wide mouths.

A proposition (usually A or E propositions) has existential import if and only if its subject and
predicate terms denote classes that are nonempty. Assume existential import for

All angels are without moral blemish.

This thereby entails that there are such things as angels. Aristotles logic assumes that all the
propositions to be dealt with have existential import. This severely limits its application. For
consider that, whereas Aristotelian logic can capture (1), it cannot capture (2):

(1) All pheasants are birds.

Implies the existence of pheasants.

(2) All unicorns are one-horned animals.

Does not imply the existence of unicorns.

As well see later, modern logic does not assume existential import. Since were on the topic of
discussing the limitations of Aristotelian logic, consider this syllogism:

1. Socrates is taller than Plato.

2. Plato is taller than Aristotle.
3. Therefore, Socrates is taller than Aristotle.

Aristotelian logic cannot capture the validity of syllogisms of this sort (namely, those involving
relations). According to Aristotelian logic, the arguments form is:

1. S (Socrates) is T (taller than Plato).

2. P (Plato) is A (taller than Aristotle).
3. Therefore, S (Socrates) is A (taller than Aristotle).

This form is invalid, but our original argument is clearly valid. Modern logic (namely, predicate
logic) can properly capture the validity of this argument.

Drill 4: Which of the following have existential import (as used in everyday language):

1.
2.
3.
4.

All of the students in this room are smart.

Elvis was the king.
Some of Stephen Colberts children are not funny.
No decent people are lawyers.

The square of opposition illustrates a number of fundamental relationships between A, E, I, and

O propositions.

Two propositions are contradictories if and only if both propositions cannot be true at the same
time, and both propositions cannot be false at the same time. For instance:

All humans are mortal

Some humans are not mortal

and

are contradictories. They cannot both be true (it cannot be the case that every human is mortal
and that some humans are not mortal), and they cannot both be false (it cannot be false that all
humans are mortal and false that some humans are not mortal, since the falsity of All humans
are mortal entails that some humans are not mortal).
A and O propositions are contradictories. As are E and I propositions.
Two propositions are contraries (or inconsistent) if and only if both propositions cannot be true
at the same time, but both can be false at the same time.

All scientists are philosophers

No scientists are philosophers

and

are contraries. Both happen to be false, but they cannot both be true.
Only A and E propositions are contraries.
Two propositions are subcontraries if and only if both propositions cannot be false at the same
time, but both can be true at the same time.

Some scientists are philosophers

Some scientists are not philosophers

and

are subcontraries. Both of these propositions happen to be true, but both cannot be false. If
Some scientists are philosophers is false, then No scientists are philosophers must be true.
But, if No scientists are philosophers is true, then Some scientists are not philosophers must
be true. This is just our second proposition above (and thus cannot be false when the first is
false).
Only I and O propositions are subcontraries.
Two propositions are subalternates if and only if one of these propositions is a universal
proposition that, if true, entails the truth of the second (particular) proposition.

All humans are mortal

Some humans are mortal

and

are subalternates. This is because A, if true, entails that I is true. But observe that if A is false, this
does not entail that I is true or false.
A and I propositions are subalterns. As are E and O propositions.

Drill 5: Determine whether or not the following pair of A, E, I, and O propositions are
contradictories, contraries, subcontraries, or subalterns.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.

All men are mortal and Some men are mortal.

All men are mortal and No men are mortal.
All men are mortal and Some men are not mortal.
Some men are mortal and Some men are not mortal.
All Bluths are crazy and Some Bluths are not crazy.
No politician is honest and Some politicians are honest.
Some hobbits are not hairy and All hobbits are hairy.
Some celebrities are people and Some musicians are not people.

Drill 6: Complete the following exercises.

(1) Suppose that All wars are hellish is true. What can you infer about the following:
1. No wars are hellish.
2. Some wars are hellish.
3. Some wars are not hellish.
(2) Suppose that All wars are hellish is false. What can you infer about the following:
1. No wars are hellish.
2. Some wars are hellish.
3. Some wars are not hellish.
(3) Suppose that Some congressmen are gluttons is true. What can you infer about the
following:
1. No congressmen are gluttons.
2. Some congressmen are not gluttons.

3. All congressmen are gluttons.

(4) Suppose that Some congressmen are gluttons is false. What can you infer about the
following:
1. No congressmen are gluttons.
2. Some congressmen are not gluttons.
3. All congressmen are gluttons.
The square of opposition tells you what you can correctly infer from the kind of categorical
proposition that you are dealing withA, E, I, or O.
In addition, there are certain operations one can perform on A, E, I, or O propositions so as to
infer other propositions: namely, conversion, obversion, and contraposition.

Conversion: Switch the subject and predicate terms.

This works only on E and I propositions.

No humans are mortals

converts to (entails)

No mortals are humans.

The latter is sometimes called the converse of the former (and vice versa). If it is true that no
humans are mortals, one can immediately infer that it is true that no mortals are humans.
Similarly, from the truth of the I proposition Some humans are mortals, one can immediately
infer that it is true that some mortals are humans.
This does not work for A or O propositions. All humans are mortals does not entail that All
mortals are humans (since bears, e.g., are mortal), nor does Some mortals are not humans
entail Some humans are not mortals.

Conversion by Limitation: Switch the subject and predicate terms of an A proposition,

and then change the quantity of the proposition from A to I.

Thus take

All humans are mortal

and, first, switch subject and predicate

All mortals are human

and then, second, change to an I proposition

Some mortals are human.

Thus one can validly infer from All humans are mortal to Some mortals are human. Note
that this is not subalternation. A and I propositions are subalterns only when they share the same
subject and predicate terms; they do not in conversion by limitation.

Obversion: Switch the quality and replace the predicate with its complement.

The complement of a predicate is simply adding non- to it. Thus the complement of entities
is nonentities. Thus take

Some shadows are entities

and, first, change the quality

Some shadows are not entities

and then, second, replace the predicate with its complement

Some shadows are not nonentities.

Thus one can validly infer Some shadows are not nonentities from Some shadows are
entities. Note that switching the quality just means that, depending upon whether or not
youre starting from an affirmative or negative proposition, switching to the opposite (e.g.
affirmative to negative or negative to affirmative).
This is applicable to A, E, O, and I propositions.

Contraposition: Replace the subject and predicate terms with their complements, and
then switch them.

Thus
A

All humans are mortals

has the contrapositive

All nonmortals are nonhumans.

Contraposition only works for A and O propositions. (As well see when we get to propositional
logic, contraposition works when applied to entire propositions as well.)

Contraposition by Limitation: Take the subaltern of an E proposition and then perform

contraposition (always end with an O proposition).

Thus
E

No hems are mended

has the subaltern

Some hems are not mended

and, then, by contraposition

Some unmended things are hems (not nonhems).

So No hems are mended entails Some unmended things are hems.

Note that conversion, obversion, and contraposition are equivalence inference rules: they work
in both directions; but that conversion by limitation and contraposition by limitation are
implicational inference rules: they work in only one direction.

Drill 7: Perform any possible operation (conversion, conversion by limitation, obversion,

contraposition, or contraposition by limitation) on the following propositions.
1. No quitters are winners.
2. No monkey wrenches are left-handed.
3. Some SS men were not involved in atrocities.

Drill 8: Assume that the first sentence in each set is true. What can be said about the truth values
of the remaining sentences in the set?

(1)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

No quitters are winners.

All winners are nonquitters.
Some quitters are not winners.
Some winners are quitters.
Some winners are nonquitters.
(2)

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

No monkey wrenches are left-handed.

Some left-handed things are not monkey wrenches.
No left-handed things are monkey wrenches.
All monkey wrenches are left-handed.
Some monkey wrenches are left-handed.
(3)

1. Some SS men were not involved in atrocities.

2.
3.
4.
5.

Some who were involved in atrocities were SS men.

No SS men were involved in atrocities.
All SS men were involved in atrocities.
Some who were not involved in atrocities were SS men.

Recall that, in explicating the above operations (conversion, obversion, contraposition, etc.),
some of these operations only applied to certain kinds of categorical propositions. Thus, applying
these operations to any proposition that does not fall under one of these kinds is a fallacy.
The fallacy of illicit conversion is the application of conversion to A or O propositions.

All A are B.
Therefore, no B are A.
Some A are not B.
Therefore, some B are not A.

The fallacy of illicit contraposition is the application of contraposition to E or I propositions.

Some A are B.
Therefore, some non-B are non-A.
No A are B.
Therefore, no non-B are non-A.

There are also fallacies corresponding to illegitimate inferences based on the square of
opposition.
The fallacy of illicit subcontrary is the kind of inference that infers that the subcontrary of a true
proposition is either true or false. But, since subcontraries can both be true but not both false,
this is invalid.

It is true that some A are B.

Therefore, it is true that some A are not B.
It is true that some A are B.
Therefore, it is false that some A are not B.

The fallacy of illicit contrary is the kind of inference that infers that the contrary of a false
proposition is either true or false. Since contraries can both be false but both true, this is invalid.

It is false that no A are B.

Therefore, it is true that all A are B.
It is false that no A are B.
Therefore, it is false that all A are B.

The fallacy of illicit subalternation is the kind of inference that infers the truth of a universal
proposition from the truth of its subalternate particular proposition, or the falsity of a
subalternate particular proposition from the falsity of its corresponding universal proposition.

It is true that some A are not B.

Therefore, it is true that no A are B.
It is false that all A are B.
Therefore, it is false that some A are B.

It is time to start looking at some syllogisms. Take the following as our example:
1. All humans are mortal.
2. All Greeks are humans.
3. Therefore, all Greeks are mortal.
The major term of the syllogism refers to the predicate of the conclusion (mortal in this case),
and the minor term of the syllogism is the subject of the conclusion (Greeks).
Lastly, the middle term is that term which occurs once in each premise, but not in the
conclusion (humans in this case). Every syllogism has exactly three terms, each used twice (but
never twice in the same proposition).
Drill 9: Identify the major, minor, and middle terms in the following syllogisms.

(1)
1. Some Greeks are mortals.

2. All Greeks are humans.

3. Therefore, some humans are not mortals.

(2)
1. No mortals are Greeks
2. Some humans are Greeks.
3. Therefore, some humans are not mortals.

(3)
1. No Greeks are mortals.
2. No Greeks are humans.
3. Therefore, no humans are mortals.

The mood of a syllogism is determined by the kind of propositions it contains. For example, the
syllogism given as an example above:

1. All humans are mortal.

2. All Greeks are humans.
3. Therefore, all Greeks are mortal.

contains all A propositions (the quantifier all occurs in all of the propositions). In syllogistic
logic, its mood is said to be AAA. An example of a syllogism with mood AII is:

1. All morticians are philosophical.

2. Some sadists are morticians.
3. Therefore, some sadists are philosophical.

The figure of a syllogism is the particular arrangment of its middle terms in the premises. Given
this definition (and given that there are always two premises in a syllogism), a syllogism is always
one of four possible figures.

I:

1. M P
2. S M
3. S P

S minor term.
M middle term.
P major term.

II:

1. P M
2. S M
3. S P

III:

1. M P
2. M S
3. S P

IV:

1. P M
2. M S
3. S P
The order of the premises is important in determining the mood and figure of a syllogism. The
rule is that the major term must occur in the first premise. A syllogism with its premises in the
proper order (and that contains only three terms) is said to be in standard form.

Drill 10: Identify the mood and figure of the following syllogisms.

(1)
1. All mortals are Greeks.
2. No Greeks are humans.
3. Therefore, no humans are mortals.

(2)
1. All Greeks are mortals.
2. Some humans are Greeks.
3. Therefore, no humans are mortals.

(3)
1. No Greeks are mortals.
2. Some humans are Greeks.
3. Therefore, some humans are not mortals.

Finally, the form of a syllogism is the combination of mood and figure. Thus for instance:

1. All Greeks are mortals.

2. No Greeks are humans.
3. Therefore, no humans are mortals.

has the form AEE-II, because its mood is AEE and its figure is II. (This syllogisms also happens
to be invalid, but it is no less of a syllogism on that account. Aristotles next step is to determine
which forms, rigorously understood as that above, are valid and which invalid.) To summarize:

Mood: The kind of propositions that constitute the syllogisms premises and conclusion.
Figure: The particular arrangement of middle terms in the syllogisms premises.
Form: The combination of mood and figure of a given syllogism.

Drill 11: Symbolize the following arguments and put them into standard form. Then determine
their mood and figure (and thus form).

(1)
1. Some Beatles are musicians.
2. All musicians are rhythmic.
3. Therefore, Some Beatles are rhythmic.

(2)
1. No Republicans are donkeys.
2. Some politicians are not Republicans.
3. Therefore, some politicians are not donkeys.

(3)
1. All Democrats are donkeys.
2. Some politicians are Democrats.
3. Therefore, some donkeys are politicians.

(4)
1. All men whose sons are named after them are seniors.
2. No women are men whose sons are named after them.
3. Therefore, no women are seniors.

(5)
1. No skiers are bathing lions.
2. All bathing lions are cool cats.
3. Therefore, no cool cats are skiers.

(6)
1. No rules have exceptions
2. Some rules are exceptional.
3. Therefore, some exceptional things are not exceptions.

We are nearly in a position to discuss whether or not certain syllogism forms (e.g. AAA-I) are
valid or invalid. For, if a syllogism can be represented in at least one valid syllogism form, then the
syllogism itself is valid. In the Middle Ages, students memorized a chant for all valid moods in
each figure. Thus consider mood AAA in the first figure:

1. All turtles are atheletes.

2. All geniuses are turtles.
3. Therefore, all geniuses are atheletes.

This syllogism form is called Barbara and students memorized it by way of a chant (alongside all
of the other valid moods in all figures). The name occurred in the chant for the first figure, and
contains three asbArbArA, representing each of the A propositions in the syllogism.
Thankfully, you dont need to memorize the chant. Instead, well look at five rules for validity
and invalidity. But we need to discuss the concept of distribution first.
A term in a proposition is distributed if (roughly) it says something about all members of the
class designated by the term. The A proposition, for instance:

All scientists are mathematicians

distibutes its subject term (scientists) because it says something about all scientistsnamely, it
claims that they are all mathematicians. However, it does not say something about all
mathematicians (the predicate term), and thus the predicate term is not distributed.
Instead of working out all of the distribution properties for each kind of proposition, we can
simply memorize the following summary:

A propositions distribute the subject term.

E propositions distibute subject and predicate terms.
I propositions distribute neither subject or predicate terms.
O propositions distribute the predicate term.

Drill 12: Identify which term(s) (if there be any) are distributed in the following propositions.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.

Some men are mortal.

All hurricanes are harsh.
Some superheroes are not good-looking.
No poems are funny.
All men are lazy.
Some things worth dying for are not worth dying for.
Some dimes are two-legged.
Nothing is boring.
People are boring. As they say, there are no boring or interesting subjects, only boring or
interesting people.

There are five rules for determining validity and invalidity. All valid syllogisms must meet all of
these rules. Thus, if a syllogism fails just one rule, it is automatically invalid.

Rule #1: The syllogism must have a middle term that is distributed at least once.

1. Some mathematicians are scientologists.

2. All philosophers are mathematicians.
3. Therefore, some scientologists are philosophers.

The middle term in this syllogism is mathematicians. The first premise is an I proposition, and
I propositions do not distribute either of their terms. So this premise does not satify our first rule.
The second premise is an A proposition, and A propositions distribute only the subject term.
However, the middle term (mathematicians) occurs in the predicate of this premise. So this
premise does not satisfy our first rule.
Since neither premise distributes the middle term, our first rule is violated: the syllogism is
invalid.

Rule #2: No term distributed in the conclusion that is not distributed in a premise.

1. All hats in hand are worth two in the closet.

2. All bowlers in hand are hats in hand.
3. Therefore, all things worth two in the closet are bowlers.
The conclusion is an A proposition. And so only the subject term is distributed (things worth
two in the closet); but, this isnt distributed in any of the premises. The syllogism therefore
violates our second rule, and thus is invalid.

Rule #3: At least one affirmative premise.

1. Some umbrellas in hand are not worth two in the closet.

2. No things worth two in the closet are better left there.
3. Therefore, some umbrellas in hand are not better left there.

All of the above propositions are negative (i.e. not affirmative in quality). They therefore violate
our third rule, and the syllogism is therefore invalid.

Rule #4: A negative conclusion if one of its premises is negative, and a negative premise if
the conclusion is negative.

1. Some shrinks are not expansive.

2. All who are expansive are expensive.
3. Therefore, some shrinks are expensive.

One of the premisespremise (1)is negative. Thus the conclusion must be negative, but it is
not. The syllogism is invalid.

Rule #5: One particular premise if the conclusion is particular.

1. No expansive people are shrinks.

2. All shrinks are expensive.
3. Therefore, some expansive people are not expensive.

The conclusion is particular but the premises are both universal. The syllogism is invalid.