Categorical Syllogisms

The Structure of Syllogism

Now, on to the next level, at which we combine more than one categorical proposition to fashion
logical arguments. A categorical syllogism is an argument consisting of exactly three categorical
propositions (two premises and a conclusion) in which there appear a total of exactly three
categorical terms, each of which is used exactly twice.
One of those terms must be used as the subject term of the conclusion of the syllogism, and we
call it the minor term of the syllogism as a whole. The major term of the syllogism is whatever is
employed as the predicate term of its conclusion. The third term in the syllogism doesn't occur in
the conclusion at all, but must be employed in somewhere in each of its premises; hence, we
call it the middle term.
Since one of the premises of the syllogism must be a categorical proposition that affirms some
relation between its middle and major terms, we call that the major premise of the syllogism.
The other premise, which links the middle and minor terms, we call the minor premise.
Consider, for example, the categorical syllogism:
No geese are felines.
Some birds are geese.
Therefore, Some birds are not felines.
Clearly, "Some birds are not felines" is the conclusion of this syllogism. The major term of the
syllogism is "felines" (the predicate term of its conclusion), so "No geese are felines" (the
premise in which "felines" appears) is its major premise. Simlarly, the minor term of the
syllogism is "birds," and "Some birds are geese" is its minor premise. "geese" is the middle term
of the syllogism.

Standard Form
In order to make obvious the similarities of structure shared by different syllogisms, we will
always present each of them in the same fashion. A categorical syllogism in standard
form always begins with the premises, major first and then minor, and then finishes with the
conclusion. Thus, the example above is already in standard form. Although arguments in
ordinary language may be offered in a different arrangement, it is never difficult to restate them
in standard form. Once we've identified the conclusion which is to be placed in the final position,
whichever premise contains its predicate term must be the major premise that should be stated
first.
Medieval logicians devised a simple way of labelling the various forms in which a categorical
syllogism may occur by stating its mood and figure. The mood of a syllogism is simply a
statement of which categorical propositions (A, E, I, or O) it comprises, listed in the order in
which they appear in standard form. Thus, a syllogism with a mood of OAO has
an O proposition as its major premise, an A proposition as its minor premise, and
another O proposition as its conclusion; and EIO syllogism has an E major premise, and I minor
premise, and an O conclusion; etc.
Since there are four distinct versions of each syllogistic mood, however, we need to supplement
this labelling system with a statement of the figure of each, which is solely determined by the
position in which its middle term appears in the two premises: in a first-figure syllogism, the
middle term is the subject term of the major premise and the predicate term of the minor
premise; in second figure, the middle term is the predicate term of both premises; in third, the
subject term of both premises; and in fourth figure, the middle term appears as the predicate
term of the major premise and the subject term of the minor premise. (The four figures may be
easier to remember as a simple chart showing the position of the terms in each of the premises:
M P P M M P P M
1 \ 2 | 3 | 4 /
S M S M M S M S
All told, there are exactly 256 distinct forms of categorical syllogism: four kinds of major premise
multiplied by four kinds of minor premise multiplied by four kinds of conclusion multiplied by four
relative positions of the middle term. Used together, mood and figure provide a unique way of
describing the logical structure of each of them. Thus, for example, the argument "Some
merchants are pirates, and All merchants are swimmers, so Some swimmers are pirates" is
an IAI-3 syllogism, and any AEE-4 syllogism must exhibit the form "All P are M, and No M are
S, so No S are P."
Form and Validity
This method of differentiating syllogisms is significant because the validity of a categorical
syllogism depends solely upon its logical form. Remember our earlier definition: an argument
is validwhen, if its premises were true, then its conclusion would also have to be true. The
application of this definition in no way depends upon the content of a specific categorical
syllogism; it makes no difference whether the categorical terms it employs are "mammals,"
"terriers," and "dogs" or "sheep," "commuters," and "sandwiches." If a syllogism is valid, it is
impossible for its premises to be true while its conclusion is false, and that can be the case only
if there is something faulty in its general form.
Thus, the specific syllogisms that share any one of the 256 distinct syllogistic forms must either
all be valid or all be invalid, no matter what their content happens to be. Every syllogism of the
form AAA-1 is valid, for example, while all syllogisms of the form OEE-3 are invalid.
This suggests a fairly straightforward method of demonstrating the invalidity of any syllogism by
"logical analogy." If we can think of another syllogism which has the same mood and figure but
whose terms obviously make both premises true and the conclusion false, then it is evident that
all syllogisms of this form, including the one with which we began, must be invalid.
Thus, for example, it may be difficult at first glance to assess the validity of the argument:
All philosophers are professors.
All philosophers are logicians.
 Therefore, All logicians are professors.
But since this is a categorical syllogism whose mood and figure are AAA-3, and since all
syllogisms of the same form are equally valid or invalid, its reliability must be the same as that of
the AAA-3syllogism:
All terriers are dogs.
All terriers are mammals.
Therefore, All mammals are dogs.

Both premises of this syllogism are true, while its conclusion is false, so it is clearly invalid. But
then all syllogisms of the AAA-3 form, including the one about logicians and professors, must
also be invalid.
This method of demonstrating the invalidity of categorical syllogisms is useful in many contexts;
even those who have not had the benefit of specialized training in formal logic will often
acknowledge the force of a logical analogy. The only problem is that the success of the method
depends upon our ability to invent appropriate cases, syllogisms of the same form that obviously
have true premises and a false conclusion. If I have tried for an hour to discover such a case,
then either there can be no such case because the syllogism is valid or I simply haven't looked
hard enough yet.
Diagramming Syllogisms
The modern interpretation offers a more efficient method of evaluating the validity of categorical
syllogisms. By combining the drawings of individual propositions, we can use Venn diagrams to
assess the validity of categorical syllogisms by following a simple three-step procedure:
1. First draw three overlapping circles and label them to represent the major, minor, and
middle terms of the syllogism.
2. Next, on this framework, draw the diagrams of both of the syllogism's premises.
o Always begin with a universal proposition, no matter whether it is the major or the
minor premise.
o Remember that in each case you will be using only two of the circles in each
case; ignore the third circle by making sure that your drawing (shading or )
straddles it.

3. Finally, without drawing anything else, look for the drawing of the conclusion. If the
syllogism is valid, then that drawing will already be done.
Since it perfectly models the relationships between classes that are at work in categorical logic,
this procedure always provides a demonstration of the validity or invalidity of any categorical
syllogism.
 onsider, for example, how it could be applied, step by step, to an evaluation of a syllogism
of the EIO-3 mood and figure,

No M are P.
Some M are S.
Therefore, Some S are not P.

First, we draw and label the three overlapping circles needed to

represent all three terms included in the categorical syllogism:

Second, we diagram each of the premises:

Since the major premise is a universal proposition, we may

begin with it. The diagram for "No M are P" must shade in the entire
area in which the M and P circles overlap. (Notice that we ignore the S
circle by shading on both sides of it.)

Now we add the minor premise to our drawing. The diagram for
"Some M are S" puts an inside the area where the M and S circles
overlap. But part of that area (the portion also inside the P circle) has
already been shaded, so our must be placed in the remaining portion.

Third, we stop drawing and merely look at our result. Ignoring the M circle entirely, we need
only ask whether the drawing of the conclusion "Some S are not P" has
already been drawn.

Remember, that drawing would be like the one at left, in which there
is an in the area inside the S circle but outside the P circle. Does that
already appear in the diagram on the right above? Yes, if the premises
have been drawn, then the conclusion is already drawn.

But this models a significant logical feature of the syllogism itself: if its premises are true,
then its conclusion must also be true. Any categorical syllogism of this form is valid.

Here are the diagrams of several other syllogistic forms. In each case, both of the premises
have already been drawn in the appropriate way, so if the drawing of the conclusion is already
drawn, the syllogism must be valid, and if it is not, the syllogism must be invalid.
AAA-1 (valid)
All M are P.
All S are M.
Therefore, All S are P.

AAA-3 (invalid)
All M are P.
All M are S.
Therefore, All S are P.

OAO-3 (valid)
Some M are not P.
All M are S.
Therefore, Some S are not P.

EOO-2 (invalid)
No P are M.
Some S are not M.
Therefore, Some S are not P.

IOO-1 (invalid)
Some M are P.
Some S are not M.
Therefore, Some S are not P.

Establishing Validity

Rules and Fallacies

Since the validity of a categorical syllogism depends solely upon its logical form, it is relatively
simple to state the conditions under which the premises of syllogisms succeed in guaranteeing
the truth of their conclusions. Relying heavily upon the medieval tradition, Copi & Cohen provide
a list of six rules, each of which states a necessary condition for the validity of any categorical
syllogism. Violating any of these rules involves committing one of the formal fallacies, errors in
reasoning that result from reliance on an invalid logical form.

In every valid standard-form categorical syllogism . . .

. . . there must be exactly three unambiguous categorical terms. 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
(quaternio terminorum).
. . . the middle term must be distributed in at least one premise. 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.
. . . any term distributed in the conclusion must also be distributed in its premise. 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.
. . . at least one premise must be affirmative. Since the exclusion of the class designated by the
middle term from each of the classes designated by the major and minor terms entails nothing
about the relationship between those two classes, nothing follows from two negative premises.
The fallacy of exclusive premises violates this rule.
. . . if either premise is negative, the conclusion must also be negative. For similar reasons, no
affirmative conclusion about class inclusion can follow if either premise is a negative proposition
about class exclusion. A violation results in the fallacy of drawing an affirmative conclusion from
negative premises.
. . . if both premises are universal, then the conclusion must also be universal. 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.

Names for the Valid Syllogisms

A careful application of these rules to the 256 possible forms of categorical syllogism (assuming
the denial of existential import) leaves only 15 that are valid. Medieval students of logic, relying
on syllogistic reasoning in their public disputations, found it convenient to assign a unique name
to each valid syllogism. These names are full of clever reminders of the appropriate standard
form: their initial letters divide the valid cases into four major groups, the vowels in order state
the mood of the syllogism, and its figure is indicated by (complicated) use of m, r, and s.
Although the modern interpretation of categorical logic provides an easier method for
determining the validity of categorical syllogisms, it may be worthwhile to note the fifteen valid
cases by name:
The most common and useful syllogistic form is "Barbara", whose mood and figure is AAA-1:
All M are P.
All S are M.
Therefore, All S are P.
Instances of this form are especially powerful, since they are the only valid syllogisms whose
conclusions are universal affirmative propositions.

A syllogism of the form AOO-2 was called "Baroco":

All P are M.
Some S are not M.
Therefore, Some S are not P.
The valid form OAO-3 ("Bocardo") is:
Some M are not P.
All M are S.
Therefore, Some S are not P.
Four of the fifteen valid argument forms use universal premises (only one of which is affirmative)
to derive a universal negative conclusion:

One of them is "Camenes" (AEE-4):

All P are M.
No M are S.
Therefore, No S are P.
Converting its minor premise leads to "Camestres" (AEE-2):
All P are M.
No S are M.
Therefore, No S are P.
Another pair begins with "Celarent" (EAE-1):
No M are P.
All S are M.
Therefore, No S are P.
Converting the major premise in this case yields "Cesare" (EAE-2):
No P are M.
All S are M.
Therefore, No S are P.
Syllogisms of another important set of forms use affirmative premises (only one of which is
universal) to derive a particular affirmative conclusion:

The first in this group is AII-1 ("Darii"):

All M are P.
Some S are M.
Therefore, Some S are P.
Converting the minor premise produces another valid form, AII-3 ("Datisi"):
All M are P.
Some M are S.
Therefore, Some S are P.
The second pair begins with "Disamis" (IAI-3):
Some M are P.
All M are S.
Therefore, Some S are P.
Converting the major premise in this case yields "Dimaris" (IAI-4):
Some P are M.
All M are S.
Therefore, Some S are P.
Only one of the 64 distinct moods for syllogistic form is valid in all four figures, since both of its
premises permit legitimate conversions:

Begin with EIO-1 ("Ferio"):

No M are P.
Some S are M.
Therefore, Some S are not P.
Converting the major premise produces EIO-2 ("Festino"):
 No P are M.
Some S are M.
Therefore, Some S are not P.
Next, converting the minor premise of this result yields EIO-4 ("Fresison"):
No P are M.
Some M are S.
Therefore, Some S are not P.
Finally, converting the major again leads to EIO-3 ("Ferison"):
No M are P & Some M are S. Therefore, Some S are not P.