Categorical Syllogisms Since there are four distinct versions of each syllogistic mood,

however, we need to supplement this labelling system with a

The Structure of Syllogism 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
Now, on to the next level, at which we combine more than one premise and the predicate term of the minor premise; in second
categorical proposition to fashion logical arguments. A categorical figure, the middle term is the predicate term of both premises; in
syllogism is an argument consisting of exactly three categorical third, the subject term of both premises; and in fourth figure, the
propositions (two premises and a conclusion) in which there appear a middle term appears as the predicate term of the major premise and
total of exactly three categorical terms, each of which is used exactly the subject term of the minor premise. (The four figures may be
twice. easier to remember as a simple chart showing the position of the
terms in each of the premises:
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 M P P M M P P M
syllogism as a whole. The major term of the syllogism is whatever is 1 \ 2 | 3 | 4 /
employed as the predicate term of its conclusion. The third term in S M S M M S M S
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. 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
Since one of the premises of the syllogism must be a four relative positions of the middle term. Used together, mood and
categorical proposition that affirms some relation between its middle figure provide a unique way of describing the logical structure of
and major terms, we call that the major premise of the syllogism. The each of them. Thus, for example, the argument "Some merchants are
other premise, which links the middle and minor terms, we call pirates, and All merchants are swimmers, so Some swimmers are
the minor premise. 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."
Consider, for example, the categorical syllogism:
Form and Validity
No geese are felines.
Some birds are geese. This method of differentiating syllogisms is significant
Therefore, Some birds are not felines. because the validity of a categorical syllogism depends solely upon
Clearly, "Some birds are not felines" is the conclusion of this its logical form. Remember our earlier definition: an argument
syllogism. The major term of the syllogism is "felines" (the predicate is validwhen, if its premises were true, then its conclusion would also
term of its conclusion), so "No geese are felines" (the premise in have to be true. The application of this definition in no way depends
which "felines" appears) is its major premise. Simlarly, the minor upon the content of a specific categorical syllogism; it makes no
term of the syllogism is "birds," and "Some birds are geese" is its difference whether the categorical terms it employs are "mammals,"
minor premise. "geese" is the middle term of the syllogism. "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.
Standard Form
Thus, the specific syllogisms that share any one of the 256
In order to make obvious the similarities of structure shared by distinct syllogistic forms must either all be valid or all be invalid, no
different syllogisms, we will always present each of them in the same matter what their content happens to be. Every syllogism of the
fashion. A categorical syllogism in standard form always begins with form AAA-1 is valid, for example, while all syllogisms of the
the premises, major first and then minor, and then finishes with the form OEE-3 are invalid.
conclusion. Thus, the example above is already in standard form.
Although arguments in ordinary language may be offered in a This suggests a fairly straightforward method of demonstrating
different arrangement, it is never difficult to restate them in standard the invalidity of any syllogism by "logical analogy." If we can think
form. Once we've identified the conclusion which is to be placed in of another syllogism which has the same mood and figure but whose
the final position, whichever premise contains its predicate term must terms obviously make both premises true and the conclusion false,
be the major premise that should be stated first. then it is evident that all syllogisms of this form, including the one
with which we began, must be invalid.
Medieval logicians devised a simple way of labelling the
various forms in which a categorical syllogism may occur by stating Thus, for example, it may be difficult at first glance to assess
its mood and figure. The mood of a syllogism is simply a statement the validity of the argument:
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, All philosophers are professors.
an A proposition as its minor premise, and another O proposition as All philosophers are logicians.
its conclusion; and EIO syllogism has an E major premise, Therefore, All logicians are professors.
and I minor premise, and an O conclusion; etc. 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:
Page 1 of 18
 All terriers are dogs.
All terriers are mammals.
Therefore, All mammals are dogs.
First, we draw and label the
Both premises of this syllogism are true, while its conclusion is false, three overlapping circles needed to
so it is clearly invalid. But then all syllogisms of the AAA-3 form, represent all three terms included in the
including the one about logicians and professors, must also be categorical syllogism:
invalid.

This method of demonstrating the invalidity of categorical

syllogisms is useful in many contexts; even those who have not had Second, we diagram each of the premises:
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 Since the major premise is a
true premises and a false conclusion. If I have tried for an hour to universal proposition, we may begin
discover such a case, then either there can be no such case because with it. The diagram for "No M are P"
the syllogism is valid or I simply haven't looked hard enough yet. must shade in the entire area in which
the M and P circles overlap. (Notice
that we ignore the S circle by shading
Diagramming Syllogisms on both sides of it.)

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 Now we add the minor premise to our drawing. The diagram
syllogism's premises. for "Some M are S" puts an inside the area where the M and S
o Always begin with a universal proposition, no circles overlap. But part of that area (the portion also inside the P
matter whether it is the major or the minor circle) has already been shaded, so our must be placed in the
premise. remaining portion.
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
Third, we stop drawing and merely look at our result. Ignoring
(shading or ) straddles it.
the M circle entirely, we need only ask whether the drawing of the
conclusion "Some S are not P" has
already been drawn.

3. Finally, without drawing anything else, look for the Remember, that drawing would
drawing of the conclusion. If the syllogism is valid, then be like the one at left, in which there is
that drawing will already be done. an in the area inside the S circle but
outside the P circle. Does that already
Since it perfectly models the relationships between classes that appear in the diagram on the right above? Yes, if the premises have
are at work in categorical logic, this procedure always provides a been drawn, then the conclusion is already drawn.
demonstration of the validity or invalidity of any categorical
syllogism. But this models a significant logical feature of the syllogism
itself: if its premises are true, then its conclusion must also be true.
Consider, for example, how it could be applied, step by step, to Any categorical syllogism of this form is valid.
an evaluation of a syllogism of the EIO-3 mood and figure,

No M are P. Here are the diagrams of several other syllogistic forms. In

Some M are S. each case, both of the premises have already been drawn in the
Therefore, Some S are not P. appropriate way, so if the drawing of the conclusion is already drawn,

Page 2 of 18
the syllogism must be valid, and if it is not, the syllogism must be Categorical Syllogisms
invalid.
Categorical syllogisms are sets of three categorical propositions. The
AAA-1 (valid) first two are given and presumed to be true. These first two
All M are P. categorical propositions are called premises. The third categorical
All S are M. proposition is the conclusion. The third categorical proposition is in
Therefore, All S are P. the form _____ S is (___) P.

The first categorical proposition is called the major premise and

introduces P and a term that will be called M, the middle term. The
second categorical proposition is called the minor premise and
includes S and M.

A categorical proposition is termed "valid" if the premises are

sufficient support to prove the conclusion true. The premises are
always presumed to be true. To avoid confusing oneself, the use of
factually true premises is useful when examining a syllogism.

Mood

AAA-3 (invalid) There are four types of categorical proposition, the universal
All M are P. affirmative A, the universal negative E, the particular affirmative I,
All M are S. and the particular negative O.
Therefore, All S are P.
A: All rocks are hard things.
E: No rocks are hard things
I: Some rocks are hard things
OAO-3 (valid) O: Some rocks are not hard things [Not every rock is a hard thing]
Some M are not P.
All M are S.
Therefore, Some S are not P. Syllogisms consist of three of these, any three. The order in which the
three occur specifies the mood of the syllogism. Consider the
following EAO syllogism

E: No women named Sepe are outer island Yapese women

A: All outer island Yapese women are weavers of the gulfoy
O: Some weavers of the gulfoy are not women named Sepe.

In the above syllogism the subject S is weavers of the gulfoy, the

predicate P is women named Sepe and the middle term M is outer
island Yapese women.

When analyzing a syllogism, always remember that the premises are

taken to be true, whether or not they are factually true.

EOO-2 (invalid) The above syllogism is term an EAO syllogism. Note the the middle
No P are M. term is the predicate of the major premise and the subject of the
Some S are not M. minor term. This could be abstracted in the following notation.
Therefore, Some S are not P.

Major premise: No P is M
IOO-1 (invalid) Minor premise: All M is S
Some M are P. Conclusion: Some S is not P
Some S are not M.
Therefore, Some S are not P. As long as there are women named Sepe, outer island women,
and gulfoy weavers, the above syllogism is indeed valid. In modern
logic, the particular proposition imply the existence of actual
members of the class, while the universal propositions do not imply
the existence of members of the class. In simplified terms, the issue is
what happens when no one knows how to make the gulfoy. When that
knowledge is lost, then there the conclusion, which demands existing
members, is false because there are no weavers.

Page 3 of 18
Figure PM

Categorical syllogism have four possible figures depending on the Diagramming the minor premise
position of the middle term. The "flying brick" is a good way to
remember the four figures. The flying brick refers to the possible The third circle added is the subject circle S. In the diagram below
positions of the middle term without regard to quantity. The the S circle has been temporarily laid "on top" to show the full circle.
following is a picture of the flying brick.
SPM
MM MMMM MM
"All S is M" is diagrammed by "erasing" or blacking out all areas of
Seen more abstractly: S that are not inside the M circle.

SPM
M MM M
\ /
MMMM Note that the areas of M blacked out by the major premise remain
blacked out. This results in a section of S also being blacked out - the
lower left "triangle" where S and M intersect outside of the P circle.
Now with the predicate and subject terms introduced.
Look at the Venn diagram and consider whether the diagram supports
the conclusion that All S is P. The only area of S that remains is the
M-P P-M M-P P-M center triangle of the three circles. And this triangle is wholly inside
\ / of P. All S is indeed P.
S-M S-M M-S M-S
S-P S-P S-P S-P
First Second Third Fourth EEE-1
Figure Figure Figure Figure
Venn diagrams Note that the three categorical syllogisms can be a mixture from any
of the four types. There are three categorical propositions in each
syllogism and four types or 43 = 64 possible combinations (moods).
AAA-1 With four figures possible for each of 64 moods there are 256 total
possible arrangements of mood and figure. For no particular reason
Mood is AAA, figure I. these examples first consider triplets of identical types of categorical
propositions in figure 1.

Major premise: All M is P

Minor premise: All S is M Major premise: No M is P
Conclusion: All S is P Minor premise: No S is M
Conclusion: No S is P
All Micronesians are Pacific Islanders
All Kosraens are Micronesians [Minor pre] No bats are cats
All Kosraens are Pacific Islanders [Major pre] No rats are bats
[Therefore] No rats are cats
When reading a syllogism, think of the statements this way:
Given that "All Micronesians are Pacific Islanders" is true and This sounds reasonable. Yet consider the EEE-1 syllogism;
Given that "All Kosraens are Micronesians" is true, [Minor pre] No fish are birds
Therefore "All Kosraens are Pacific Islanders" is true. [Major pre] No golden plovers are fish
[Therefore] No golden plovers are birds
In the above example the middle term M, the term in common to the
major and minor premise, is Micronesians. The predicate P is Pacific Both premises are factually true, yet the conclusion is not true.
Islanders. The subject S is Kosraens. Golden plovers are birds is the true statement. The syllogism at first
appeared to be valid, but a second example shows that EEE-1 is not
Diagramming the major premise valid for all possible S, P, and M. This failure means that EEE-1 is
invalid.
To diagram this syllogism start by laying out the major premise All
Micronesians are Pacific Islanders or All M is P. Thinking of all the possible examples is difficult, this is where Venn
diagrams help.
PM
Diagramming the major premise for EEE-1
Since all M is P, there is no M that is not P. Thus the part of M
outside of P can be "erased" or marked out. There are no fish (M) that are birds (P).
PM

Page 4 of 18
Diagramming the minor proposition This sounds reasonable. Yet consider the III-1 syllogism:

No S is M Some people who wear blue jeans are men

SPMjk Some women are people who wear blue jeans
[Therefore] Some women are men.
For the first example involving bats (M), cats (S), and rats (P) the
area where the k is located above is empty: there are no rats that are One appears to be valid, the other appears to be invalid. A Venn
cats. For the second example involving fish (M), birds (S), and diagram helps sort out the cause of this contradiction visually. The
golden plovers (P), golden plovers are birds, so there are elements at major premise, Some M is P is diagrammed below.
k. The result is that either j or k might be empty of elements. When
there are elements at k, then the conclusion that No S is P is false. PMX
This means the whole EEE-1 categorical syllogism is considered
invalid.
The minor premise, Some S is M is diagrammed below.
SPMXX
Although for the purposes of this discussion the English language
common sense presumption of existential import is being retained, in
modern logic there is the possibility that S and P lack existential Note that the X's are placed on the line. This is intentional. The X
import and thus both j and k could be empty. being on the line signifies that the "some" things could be on either
side of the line. In one arrangement the result appears to be a valid
syllogism, in the other arrangement the result is an invalid syllogism.
Note that if No S is P then No P is S. That is, the universal negative That we cannot decide between the two possibilities will mean that
categorical proposition is valid when the subject and predicate are that syllogism is considered invalid.
interchanged. The interchange of the subject and predicate is called
conversion. Only the universal negative E and the particular
affirmative I convert. This conversion for E means that all possible In the diagram on the left below, coral is a rock in the water, hence
positions of S, P, and M reach the same result for EEE. In all four the "X" is placed in the intersection of all three circles. On the right
figures the syllogism is invalid. below the diagram has been altered with additional information. The
additional proposition is the reality that No women are men. This
removes the possibility of "some" elements in the common
This will later be given as a general and broader rule that includes the intersection, thus the minor and major premise have to marked in the
particular negative O: no syllogism with two negative premises is lower left intersection of S and M but not P, and in the lower right
valid. intersection of P and M but not S.

III-1 coralinthewaterrocksXwomenmenblue jeansXX

When diagramming I and O propositions, the X's are placed on the

Major premise: Some M is P appropriate line to remind us that the X could be on either side of the
Minor premise: Some S is M line. If placing the X on one of the sides leaves the conclusion
Conclusion: Some S is P unsupported, then the syllogism is invalid.

[Minor pre] Some rocks are in the water OOO-1

[Major pre] Some coral are rocks
[Therefore] Some coral are in the water.
Major premise: Some M is not P
Note that the particular affirmative I proposition converts. That is, if Minor premise: Some S is not M
some S is P, then it is also true that some P is S. If some rocks are in Conclusion: Some S is not P
the water, then it is also the case that some in the water [things] are
rocks. Thus whether III-1 is valid or invalid will also hold for III-2,
III-3, and III-4. [Minor pre] Some rocks are not in the water
[Major pre] Some wood are not rocks
[Therefore] Some wood are not in the water.
Note that where a predicate is an adjective or adjective phrase, this
course uses the approach of attaching the implicit [things] to convert
the proposition. In modern logic there are problems of existential Diagram the major premise
import and the empty class to be considered.
PMinthewaterrocksX
III-2
Diagram the minor premise. Be very careful. Some wood are not
rocks means placing the X outside of the rocks circle but inside of the
Some in the water [things] are rocks wood circle. This is not easy or obvious to either the beginner nor
Some coral are rocks sometimes the more experienced Venn diagrammer. Think about
[Therefore] Some coral are in the water where the X should go if there was no predicate P circle. Imagine
only the S and M circles being present.
The other two figures are left to the reader.
SMwoodrocksX

Page 5 of 18
Then combine the two preceding Venn diagrams into a single Venn
diagram. that contains the major term, and the minor premise is the premise
that contains the minor term.
SPMwoodinthewaterrocksXX

For some wood to not be in the water there would have to be an X in The mood of a standard categorical syllogism is determined by the
the lower left triangle at the intersection of wood and rocks. The X on
the line at the bottom of the triangle, could be either in the wood types of categorical statements it contains. In the following example,
circle or outside the wood circle in the rocks circle. In the abstract the major premise is an E statement and the minor premise is
where Some M is not P and Some S is not M, there is no way to assure
validity. OOO-1 is not valid. an I statement. The conclusion is an O statement. So its mood is EIO.

Under Construction
The figure of a standard categorical syllogism is determined by the
SPMXXXXXXXXX positions of the two appearances of the middle term. In the above

example, the middle term is spiders. The relative positions of its

Twiddle dee | Twiddle dum | Fee fi fo fumSubject Predicate Middle
term two appearances show that its figure is 4.

The following is a reproduction at twice the scale of the above. This

proved useful in determining that the version of Amaya for Fedora By combining mood and figure together, we can give the argument
Core 5 in late December 2006 was not supporting scale and rotate
transforms, only translate transformations. Note that Amaya 9.52 for form of each standard categorical syllogism a unique name. In the
windows does support these transforms.
above example, the argument form is EIO-4.

Amaya on Fedora Core 5 supports MathML despite the apparent lack

of the Mathematica fonts. How Amaya accomplishes this while Quite often, categorical syllogisms are not presented in the standard
FireFox 1.5.0.9 fails to do so is a puzzle as of 07 January 2007.
form. To use the Venn Diagram method to decide their validity, we

2.4 Categorical Syllo gisms need to first change them into the standard form. This process may
involve two steps:
In this section, we study categorical syllogisms and learn how to

identify their argument forms. A syllogism is an argument with two 1. Paraphrase sentences into categorical sentences.

premises and one conclusion.

2. Reduce the number of terms to three.

2.4.1 Standard Categorical Syllogisms

2.4.2 Paraphrasing Categorical Sentences

A standard categorical syllogism is a syllogism that consists of

The following are some formulas to help you paraphrase sentences.
three categorical sentences, in which there are three terms, and each
The symbol is used here to stand for ... is paraphrased as ....
term appears exactly twice.
A few and Few

The three terms in a standard categorical syllogism are the major,

the minor and the middleterms. The major term is the predicate term

of the conclusion. The minor term is the subject term of the A few S are P. Some S are P

conclusion. The middle term is the term that appears twice in the
premises.
For example, the sentence

A categorical syllogism is presented in standard form when its

A few soldiers are heroes. (A few S are H.)
statements are arranged in the order of the major premise, the minor

premise and the conclusion. Here the major premise is the premise
is paraphrased as
Page 6 of 18
 Some soldiers are heroes. (Some S are H.)

Not all S are P. Some S are not P.

It is important not to confuse A few with Few.

Not all S are P. is a variation of Not every S is a P. The sentence

Few S are P. Some S are P and some S are

not P. Not all apples are red. (Not all A are R.)

is rewritten as

The key point of the sentence Few tigers are white lies in the fact

that white tigers are rare. We need two categorical sentences to Some apples are not red things. (Some A are not R.)

capture its meaning:

Notice that the next formula is different from the previous two.

Some tigers are white animals, but most tigers are not
white animals.
Not an S is a P. No S are P.

But since in Categorical Logic we can use only the universal

quantifier all or the particular quantifier some, we have to

The sentence
replace most with some, and rewrite the sentence further as

Not a penguin can fly.

Some tigers are white animals and some tigers are not
white animals.
emphasizes that no penguin can fly, and thus is paraphrased as

Granted that these two categorical sentences together do not capture

No penguins are flyers. (No P are F.)
all the meanings in the original sentence, but this is the best we can
do in Categorical Logic. If , then and if

Not every , Not all and Not a

Conditional sentences are fairly common in logic. Here we learn how
to paraphrase them as the Astatements.

Not every S is a P. Some S are not P.

If it is an S, then it is a P. All S are P.

The sentence

For example,
Not every swan is white. (Not every S is W.)

If a driver is drunk, then he is dangerous.

is paraphrased as

is paraphrased as an A statement
Some swans are not white birds. (Some S are not W.)

Page 7 of 18
 All drunk drivers are dangerous drivers. All the persons who can bear children are women.
(All D1 are D2.) (All B are W.)

Here D1 stands for drunk drivers and D2 stands for It would be a mistake to paraphrase the sentence as All W are B. It
dangerous drivers. Subscripts are used to distinguish the two terms. is not true that all women can bear children. So we can clearly see
that it is not logically equivalent to Only W are B.
Sometimes, the conditional sentences are written with if in the
middle of the sentence. None except S are P and None but S are P are just other ways of
saying Only S are P.

It is a P if it is an S. All S are P.

None except S are P. All P are S.

The sentence

A driver is dangerous if he is drunk. None but S are P. All P are S.

is just a variation of

The sentence
If a driver is drunk, then he is dangerous.

None but club members can vote. (None but C are V.)
and hence is also rewritten as

is transformed as
All drunk drivers are dangerous drivers.
(All D1 are D2.) All the persons who can vote are club members.
(All V are C.)
Only , None except and None but

The only
Sentences begin with only are paraphrased using the following
formula. Some sentences start with the phrase the only. The only S are P
is another way of saying Only Pare S.

Only S are P. All P are S.

The only S are P. All S are P.

When paraphrasing the sentence

The sentence
Only women can bear children. (Only W are B.)

The only persons who can bear children are women.

it is important to reverse the order of the two terms, and rewrite it as
(The only B are W.)

Page 8 of 18
says the same thing as
All kind people are considerate people.

All unkind people are mean people.

Only women can bear children. (Only W are B.)

we have five terms because both kind people and its complement
and is paraphrased as
unkind people appear in the syllogism. So do the terms

All the persons who can bear children are women. considerate people and inconsiderate people. When this happens,

(All B are W.) we need to use the three operations (conversion, obversion or

contraposition) to reduce the number of terms to three. First, we

All except and All but
replace each term with a capital letter or its complement.

It takes two categorical sentences to paraphrase sentences beginning

with all except or all but All M are non-C.

All K are C.

All non-K are M.

All except S are P. No S are P and all non-

S are P. Afterwards, we apply contraposition to the minor premise and change

it to All non-C are non-K.

All M are non-

All but S are P. No S are P and all non-S are P. All M are non-C.
C.

Contrapos. All non-C are non-

All K are C.
For example, it is clear that K.

All non- All non-K are M.

All except freshmen are eligible players.
K are M.

excludes freshmen from eligibility. But in addition, it also says that

As a result, we have three terms: M, non-K and non-C. The argument
all non-freshmen (that is, sophomores, juniors and seniors) are
form is AAA-4.
eligible. Therefore, it needs to be rewritten as two categorical
sentences.
The following example shows how a categorical syllogism is

transformed from a written passage into the standard form through

No freshmen are eligible players and all non-freshmen
paraphrasing and reducing the number of terms.
are eligible players. (No F are Eand all non-F are E.)

Not all religious people are spiritual. If one is spiritual,

2.4.3 Reducing the Number of Terms
then one is unprejudiced, but some religious people

As discussed early, there can only be three terms in a categorical are prejudiced.

syllogism. However, in the following argument

First of all, we paraphrase each sentence into a categorical sentence,
and identify the major and the minor premises.
All mean people are inconsiderate people.

Page 9 of 18
 The mood and figure of the argument form is OAO-4.
All S are non-P.

Some R are P. 2.5 Venn Diagrams

Some R are not S.

In this section, we study how to use Venn diagrams to determine the

Afterwards, we apply obversion to the major premise to reduce the validity of a categorical syllogism.

number of terms to three.

2.5.1 Basic Setup for Venn Diagrams

All S are non-P. Obv. No S are P. In using Venn diagrams to determine the validity of a categorical

Some R are P. Some R are P. syllogism, we draw three overlapping circles to represent the minor,

middle and major terms. The three circles are divided into seven
Some R are not S. Some R are not S.
areas.

The resulting standard form is EIO-2.

A categorical syllogism is valid if its two premises together imply the

When we try to reduce the number of terms by applying an operation conclusion. That is, if the two premises are true, then the conclusion

to a sentence, we need to choose an operation so that the resulting must be true. Visually in terms of Venn diagrams, this means that if

sentence is logically equivalent to the original sentence. This way, we we combine the basic diagrams of the two premises, we would get

make sure we do not change the argument and turn it into a different the basic diagram of the conclusion. To combine the basic diagrams

argument. The following operation is incorrect because of the premises, we place them on top of the three overlapping

contraposition is applied to an E statement. The resulting statement circles.

No H are D is not logically equivalent to No non-D are non-H.

For example, to determine whether the form AOO-2 is valid, we first

place the Venn diagram of the major premise, the blue pair of circles,
Some H are B. Some H are B.
on top of the three circles. Next, we place the Venn diagram of the
No non-
Contrapos. No H are D. minor premise, the green pair, on top of the three circles. Click on the
D are non-H.
play button to view the illustration.
Some D are Some D are

not B. not B. The animation shows how the blue pair and the green pair are placed

on top of the three circles. Now click the above play button again to
We thus need to use different operations to reduce the number of see the resulting diagram in black and white.
terms. One way to do so is to apply conversion and then obversion to
both the premises. Next, we try to see if the Venn diagram of the conclusion, the red

pair, is already present in the completed diagram. If it is, the

Conv. & Some B are argument form is valid; if not, then it is invalid. Click on the play
Some H are B.
Obv. not non-H. button of the next illustration. You will see that a portion of the Venn

diagram gradually turns red to illustrate that the red pair is already
No non- Conv. &
All non-H are D. there in the diagram. This shows that we get the red pair from the
D are non-H. Obv.
blue and the green pairs. This in turn means that we have derived the
Some D are not B. Some D are not B.
conclusion from the two premises. As a result, the argument form

Page 10 of 18
AOO-2 is valid. Notice we did not superimpose the red pair on the the part of the diagram in the three circles that is highlighted in red
three circles. does not match the red pair. This means that the conclusion may not

be true given that the premises are true. Consequently, the form is
2.5.2 Rules for Venn Diagrams
invalid.

We can also view drawing Venn diagrams as a matter of shading

The form AAA-1 is one of the most commonly used form in
some areas and placing Xs within the three circles. In the above
Categorical Logic. The Venn diagram clearly shows that it is valid.
example, the Venn diagram for the argument form AOO-2 is

completed by shading Area 6 and Area 7, and placing an X in Area 5. The next few examples illustrate how to apply the two rules when
Superimposing the blue and the green pairs over the three circles is drawing the Venn Diagram.
an easy way to see which areas are shaded and where the X is placed.

But to draw Venn Diagrams accurately we need to follow the In the form OAO-3, we have a pair with a shaded area and another
following two important rules: pair with an X. According to Rule #1, we need to draw the shading

first. This is why we start with the green pair. We do the shading first
1. Shading always goes before placing an X. to find out which of the seven areas are empty. In this case, we know

2. If one of the two areas in which an X should be placed after the shading that Area 1 and Area 4 are empty. This tells us that

is shaded, place the X in the other area that is not we cannot place the blue X (that is, the X in the blue pair) in these

shaded. If none of the two areas are shaded, put two areas. To find out where to put the blue X, we first recognize that

the X on the line between the two areas. it is inside the area of the blue pair (from now on, we will call the

area Blue for short). In the three circles, Blue amounts to Area 1
A shaded area means that the area is empty, and no X can be in the and Area 2. But according to Rule #2, since Area 1 is shaded, X has
area. This is why shading is done first to determine which areas are to be placed in Area 2. This is why in the animation, the
empty. Placing an X on the line between two unshaded areas means blue X shows up in Area 2. As a result, the part highlighted in red
that all we know is that the X is in either of the two areas, but we do matches the red pair (that is, we have an X in Red ). So the form is
not know for sure which one. valid.

Use the following interactive illustration to become familiar with In the next example, to decide whether the form AII-1 is valid, we
these two rules. start with the blue pair because it is the pair with a shaded area.

You will also learn more about how to apply these two rules by going After the shading, we know that Area 1 and Area 2 are empty. The
over examples. Let us first look at the argument form EAE-1. green X is inside the area (that is, Green ). In the three circles,

Green is equivalent to Area 2 and Area 3. Since Area 2 is shaded,

From the animation, we can see that after shading Area 3 and Area 4
we have to place X in Area 3. Consequently, the red pair is present in
according to the blue pair, and shading Area 5 and Area 6 based on
the three circles (that is, we have an X in Red ), and the form is thus
the green pair, the Venn diagram of the conclusion is already present
valid.
in the three circles, as shown by the part of drawing gradually

highlighted in red. Since the diagram in red matches the red pair, the Now, compare AII-1 with the form AII-2.
form EAE-1 is valid.
Since neither Area 2 nor Area 3 is shaded, according to Rule
In the next form EAE-3, #2, X needs to be placed on the line between the two areas. The
Page 11 of 18
resulting drawing highlighted in red does not match the red pairwe The form AEO-3 also has two universal sentences as premises, but a
do not have an X in Red . This tells us that AII-2 is invalid. particular sentence as the conclusion. So we need to check to see if it
is conditionally valid.
If both of the premises of a categorical syllogism are particular

sentences (that is, either I or Ostatements), then there is no shading in If the set M is not empty, then Area 4 cannot be empty. However,
the Venn diagram. even after we place a brown X in Area 4, the resulting diagram

highlighted in red does not match the red pair. So the form is simply
The Blue is equivalent to Area 3 and Area 4 of the three circles. So invalid.
the blue X needs to be placed on the line between these two areas.

The Green is equivalent to Area 2 and Area 3, and the 2.5.4 Evaluating Categorical Syllogisms

green Xshould be placed on the line between them. The resulting

In section 2.4, we learned how to turn a categorical syllogism into the
diagram shows that we have two Xs on the lines, but not in
standard form. In this section, we have learned how to use the Venn
Red (Area 3 and Area 6 combined). So the form is invalid.
Diagram to determine if a standard form is valid or not. By

2.5.3 Conditional Validity combining these two sections, we have a process that enables us to

assess the validity of categorical syllogisms written in everyday

Some categorical syllogisms with two universal sentences language. Here is an example that shows how the whole process
(i.e., A or E sentences) as premises, but a particular sentence (i.e., works.
an I or O sentence) as the conclusion are conditionally valid. They

are valid if a certain set is not empty. For example, the form AAI-1 Some voter-approved propositions are not
and EAO-3 are conditionally valid. constitutional. All laws that are unconstitutional

should be overturned. So some voter-approved

After the shading is done, notice that in the circle S, three out of four propositions should be over-turned. (V: voter-
areas (that is Area 2, 5 and 6) are shaded and only Area 3 remains approved propositions, C: laws that are constitutional,
unshaded. Now if the set S is not empty, this would mean that Area 3 O: laws that should be overturned)
cannot be empty. So under the condition that S is not empty we can

infer that Area 3 cannot be empty. Consequently, we can place First of all, we paraphrase the argument as

an X in Area 3. (I use a brown X to show that this X does not come

from the blue and the green pairs.) As a result, the part of the diagram All non-C are O.
in red matches the red pair, and the form AAI-1 is valid if the set S is
Some V are not C.
not empty (S ).
Some V are O.

In the form EAO-3,

We then reduce the number of terms to three by applying obversion

to the minor premise.

after the blue and the green pairs are superimposed on the three

circles we can see that in the circle Mthree areas (Area 1, 3 and 4) are

shaded. Now if the set M is not empty, then Area 2 cannot be empty. All non-C are O. All non-C are O.

We indicate this by placing a brown X in Area 2. The resulting Some V are not C. Obv. Some V are non-C.
diagram highlighted in red matches the red pair, and the form is valid
Some V are O. Some V are O.
if M .

Page 12 of 18
The resulting standard form is AII-1. To determine its validity, we
All S are non-T.
draw the Venn Diagram. Notice that the minor term is V, the major
Some P are not S.
term is O and the middle term is non-C.
Some P are S.

The diagram shows that AII-1 is valid. After completing the whole Some P are not T.
process, we find out that the written argument is valid.

The argument form has three premises. To decide whether it is valid

We saw in section 2.4 that some sentences need to be paraphrased as we need to break it apart as two argument forms:
two categorical sentences. Arguments contain such sentences need to
be evaluated using two forms. In the next example
All S are non-T. All S are non-T.

Few politicians are not spin doctors. All spin doctors Some P are not S. and Some P are S.

are untrustworthy. Therefore, not all politicians are Some P are not T. Some P are not T.
trustworthy. (P: politicians, S: spin doctors, T: people
who are trustworthy) We then reduce the number of terms to three and get two standard
forms:
The sentence

All S are non-T. Obv. No S are T.

Few politicians are not spin doctors.
Some P are not S. Some P are not S.

needs to be paraphrased as Some P are not T. Some P are not T.

Some politicians are not spin doctors, EOO-1

but most politicians are spin doctors.

and

Recall that we cannot use the quantifier most, so we need to

replace it with some. We thus end up with the sentence All S are non-T. Obv. No S are T.

Some P are S. Some P are S.

Some politicians are not spin doctors,
Some P are not T. Some P are not T.
but some politicians are spin doctors.

EIO-1
After paraphrasing all the sentences we have the argument form:

The Venn Diagram of EOO-1 tells us that it is invalid.

All S are non-T.

Some P are not S and some P are S. But the next diagram shows that EIO-1 is valid.

Some P are not T.

This means that the original argument is valid because we can get

EIO-1 from the original argument by simply tossing out the second
If we write Some P are not S and some P are S as two sentences,
premise.
the form would then looks like this:

Page 13 of 18
 the Major Term and the Middle Term is called the Major
All S are non-T. Obv. No S are T. Premise and it is always stated as the first premise.

Some P are not S. In any Standard Form Categorical Syllogism, the premise
proposition that expresses the 'distribution of terms' between
the Minor Term and the Middle Term is called the Minor
Some P are S. Some P are S. Premise, and it is always stated as the second premise.

Some P are not T. Some P are not T. Using the example here are the major and minor premises with
the conclusion all Type A standard form categorical propositions
from the Aristotelian Square of Opposition.

Example:
All light bulbs are human. (MAJOR PREMISE = Type A)
The Formal Structure of Syllogistic Reasoning:
All Bostonians are light bulbs. (MINOR PREMISE = Type A)
Therefore, All Bostonians are human. (CONCLUSION = Type
In its most general meaning a 'syllogism' is a formal deductive
A)
argument consisting of just two premises, one called the 'major'
(NOTE THE POSITION OF THE MIDDLE TERM, SUBJECT
premise, and the other called the 'minor' premise, claiming that a
OF MAJOR PREMISE AND PREDICATE OF MINOR
'conclusion' follows if the premises are true. Since the 'form' of
PREMISE )
the four types of categorical propositions, A E I & O, express
either category inclusion or exclusion of members in one class
with members of another class, it is possible to harness this
4. Mood & Figure of Standard Form Categorical
power of 'distribution' to formulate a conclusion from only
Propositions:
two premises with absolutely certain validity.
Obviously, using just the three categorical terms in the example (
Thus, 'validity' is understood as a purely 'formal' deduction of a
'humans', 'Bostonians', & 'light bulbs') it is possible to formulate
new truth claim from the distribution of terms contained in two
literally hundreds of Standard Form Categorical Syllogisms using
other truth claims. Validity of deductive categorical arguments
all four types of standard form categorical propositions AND
does not rely on the factual truth of the premises from which the
MOVING THE MIDDLE TERM in four different permutations
conclusion is drawn. Validity of deductive categorical arguments
in the Major and Minor premises.
relies solely on the 'form' of the argument and not it's content. It
is absolutely essential to understand this in order to proceed in
mastering the power of syllogistic reasoning.

Consider this permutation of the three categorical terms:

1. Precise Definition of a Standard Form Categorical No humans are light bulbs. (MAJOR PREMISE = TYPE E)
Syllogism: Some Bostonians are light bulbs. (MINOR PREMISE = TYPE I )
Therefore, some Bostonians are not human. (CONCLUSION =
A Standard Form Categorical Syllogism is any formal argument TYPE O)
consisting of exactly three categorical propositions (two (NOTE: THE MIDDLE TERM 'LIGHT BULBS' OCCUPIES A
premises and one conclusion) containing exactly three DIFFERENT POSITION IN THIS SYLLOGISM, PREDICATE
categorical terms, each of which is used exactly twice in OF BOTH MAJOR AND MINOR PREMISE)
exactly two categorical propositions.
Clever Medieval monks formulated a simple way to label the
many permutations and combinations of a syllogisms possible
2. Major, Minor and Middle Categorical Terms in a configuration by propositional TYPE and POSITION OF THE
Categorical Syllogism: MIDDLE TERM as subject or predicate in each of the premise
propositions. Thus, of the hundreds of possible configurations by
To identify the Major Term, look at the conclusion and find type and middle term position each can by labeled by
the predicate term. To find the Minor Term, look at the its MOOD ( the propositional TYPES of the premises and
conclusion and find the subject term. The remaining term of the conclusion propositions) and its FIGURE( the FOUR possible
three categorical terms is the Middle Term. (NOTE: The Middle positions the middle term might occupy in the premises)
term never appears in the conclusion) Consider that any MIDDLE TERM may be in one of four
positions in the premises of any Standard Form Categorical
Example: Syllogism as the following demonstrates:
All light bulbs are human.
All Bostonians are light bulbs.
Therefore, All Bostonians are human.
(Major term = 'human', Minor term = 'Bostonians', Middle term =
'light bulbs')

3. Major Premise & Minor Premise:

In any Standard Form Categorical Syllogism, the premise

proposition that expresses the 'distribution' of terms' between Figure 1: Middle term is SUBJECT of the MAJOR PREMISE
Page 14 of 18
and PREDICATE of the MINOR PREMISE.
All drag queens are impersonators of the opposite sex. (Type A)
Figure 2: Middle term is PREDICATE of the MAJOR All drag queens are mammals. (Type A)
PREMISE and PREDICATE of the MINOR PREMISE. Therefore, all mammals are impersonators of the opposite sex.
(Type A)
Figure 3: Middle term is SUBJECT of the MAJOR PREMISE Figure = 3
and SUBJECT of the MINOR PREMISE.
This obviously absurd counter example to the original AAA-
Figure 4: Middle term is PREDICATE of the MAJOR 3 syllogism about professors of Philosophy sufficiently proves
PREMISE and SUBJECT of the MINOR PREMISE. that any AAA-3 is invalid on the grounds that: the MINOR
TERM is NOT DISTRIBUTED in EITHER major or minor
With 64 different permutations of syllogistic MOODS and 4 premise. Yet the conclusion asserts that the MINOR TERM is
different permutations of FIGURES for each MOOD, doing distributed. Since the conclusion claims more distribution than
the math results in exactly 256 combinations of MOOD AND the premises logically entail, then this argument is invalid. And
FIGURE that embrace and exhaust all possible forms of since the FORM of this argument is invalid, then any argument
Standard Form Categorical Syllogisms. As will be with the same FORM, including the one about professors of
demonstrated, ALL BUT 15 are INVALID. Philosophy above, will also be invalid. It should also be noted
that since no rational zoologist would advance the second absurd
argument, it is a neat 'reductio ad absurdum' refutation of the
5. The Relation of Logical Form and Validity: first argument.

Since we know that an argument is VALID, if and only if, its

conclusion follows from its premises by logical NECESSITY, 6. Testing, Proving and Verifying Validity with Venn
then if any of the 256 permutations of Standard Form Diagrams:
Categorical Syllogisms are demonstrably and verifiably
VALID then ANY ARGUMENT OF THAT PARTICULAR There is a purely graphical way to test the validity of any
FORM will also be valid, regardless of the truth or falsity of Standard Form Categorical Syllogism that was not available to
the premises. When a syllogism is VALID it is not logically the clever monks of the Middle ages. In the mid-nineteenth
possible for its conclusion to be factually false while its century, John Venn (1834-1923), a mathematician at Cambridge
premises are factually true. In any Standard Form University, invented a graphical scheme for visualizing logical
Categorical Syllogism, the factual truth of the premises 'distribution' of categorical terms in categorical propositions.
entails the factual truth of the conclusion by logical necessity. While Venn made no significant contribution to mathematics, his
single invention of the Venn Diagram has made it much easier
By use of Venn Diagrams below, it will be proven that any for logic and math students to understand term 'distribution'.
syllogism of the Mood & Figure AAA-1 is valid regardless of
term content, while all syllogisms of the Mood & Figure AAA- CAUTION: There are several other versions of Venn Diagrams,
3 are invalid regardless of term content. especially in mathematics classes, that look quite different from
the original. In philosophy courses of Logic and Critical
Clever students of syllogistic reasoning quickly realize how to Thinking, the original is the standard to be followed as it will be
use this to refute arguments in debate. They can demonstrate an here.
opponent's argument to be invalid simply by formulating another
argument with precisely the same MOOD and FIGURE of their A Venn Diagram is simply a field within which overlapping
opponent's argument yet contains an obviously FALSE circular areas represent categorical terms that either share
conclusion. This method of 'refutation by logical analogy' is a members between categories or exclude members between
powerful tool in debate with stunning results when used with categories. Hence, the diagram graphically illustrates
great skill and art. DISTRIBUTION among the categories members. Areas of the
overlapping circles where no members exist are SHADED.
Here is a classic example of a debatable argument that might Areas where there is at least one member have a single 'X" in
seem valid, but it commits a FORMAL FALLACY: that area.

All professors of Philosophy are educated people. (Type A) Here are examples of single categorical propositions with two
All professors of Philosophy are respected members of society. overlapping circles graphing the distribution (or lack of
(Type A) distribution) between the categorical terms expressed in the
Therefore, all respected members of society are educated people. propositions.
(Type A)
Figure = 3 This is a Venn Diagram of any Type
A proposition: All S is P. The
Note that this particular form AAA-3 has the MIDDLE TERM as shaded blue area graphically
SUBJECT in both premises, Major and Minor. Note also that the indicates that; If something is a
MINOR TERM is NOT DISTRIBUTED in EITHER major or member of the category 'S'
minor premise. Yet the conclusion asserts that the MINOR (whatever 'S' might be) then that
TERM is distributed. Since the conclusion claims more something must also be a member
distribution than the premises assert, then the argument is invalid. of the category 'P' (whatever 'P'
And if this argument is invalid, then ANY ARGUMENT OF might be). Another way to say the logically equivalent thing
THIS FORM, AAA-3 will also be INVALID. Here's one that (by via negative) is; "It is not the case that something is a
refutes the original argument by logical analogy: member of the category 'S' without at the same time being a

Page 15 of 18
member of the category 'P'." Or, "There are no members of Step 2. Using the Venn technique
the category 'S' outside the category 'P'." Thus, S is above, graph each premise
distributed and P is not. proposition, starting with the
UNIVERSAL premise.
This is a Venn Diagram of any Type
I proposition: Some S is P. The 'X' in (Note: In any syllogism that has a
the overlapping area graphs the universal and a particular in the
lack of distribution for both S and premises, always graph the
P. The logical import of this graph UNIVERSAL FIRST. In syllogisms
is; There exists at least one with TWO UNIVERSAL
member of the category 'S' that is PREMISES, it does not matter which one you graph first.)
also a member of the category 'P'.
Or, (again using via negativa); It is not the case that there
exists at least one member of the category 'S' that is outside Since the major premise is a universal proposition, we may
the category 'P'. It also states the converse of the original begin with it. The diagram for "No M are P" must shade in the
Some S is P. There exists at least one member of the category entire area in which the M and P circles overlap.
'P' that is a member of the category 'S'.
(Note: Ignore the S circle by shading on both sides of it.)
Using the same Venn technique, here
is an example of any Type E Step 3: Using the Venn technique
categorical proposition No S is P above, graph the minor premise. The
diagram for "Some M are S" puts an
inside the area where the M and S
circles overlap.

(Note that this area (the portion also

inside the P circle) has already been
Lastly, using the same Venn shaded, so the must be placed in
technique, here is an example of any the only remaining portion.)
Type O categorical proposition Some
S is not P.

Step 4: Stop drawing and merely look

at our result. Ignoring the M circle
entirely, we need only ask whether
the drawing of the conclusion "Some
Now that the Venn technique has been mastered to graph single S are not P" has already been drawn.
categorical proposition, it is simple to apply this technique to the
three categorical propositions found in any Standard Form (Note that the graph will be like the
Categorical Syllogism in four easy steps to test the validity of one at left, in which there is an in
those syllogisms. the area inside the S circle but outside the P circle. Does that
already appear in the previous graph above in Step 3? Yes, if the
For example, how it could be applied, step by step, to an premises have been drawn correctly, then the conclusion is
evaluation of a syllogism of the EIO-3 mood and figure: already drawn and validity has been proven for this syllogism
No M are P. and for any standard form categorical syllogism of the mood and
Some M are S. figure EIO-3.)
Therefore, Some S are not P.

Step 1. First draw three overlapping 7. Venn Diagram Examples

circles and label them to represent the
major, minor, and middle terms of Here are the diagrams for several other syllogistic forms. Some
the syllogism. are VALID forms, some are INVALID. In each case, both of the
premises have already been drawn in the appropriate way, so if
(Note: Right mouse-click on this the drawing of the conclusion is already drawn, the syllogism
image and download it for use in must be valid, and if it is not, the syllogism must be invalid.
your term paper for this course)
AAA-1 (valid)

All M are P.
All S are M.
Therefore, All S are P.

Page 16 of 18
 If we get wet, we will get cold.
AAA-3 (invalid)
Therefore, if we go out we will get cold.
All M are P. Sorites
All M are S. A sorites is a specific kind of polysyllogism in
Therefore, All S are P. which the predicate of each proposition is the
subject of the next premise. Example:

All big cats are predators.

All predators are carnivores.
Therefore, all lions are carnivores.
OAO-3 (valid) The word "sorites" comes
from Ancient Greek: , "heaped
Some M are not P. up", from "heap" or "pile". In
All M are S. other words, a sorites is a heap of
Therefore, Some S are not P. propositions chained together. A sorites
polysyllogism should not be confused
with the sorites paradox, a.k.a. fallacy of
the heap.

Lewis Carroll uses sorites in his

book Symbolic Logic (1896). Here is an
EOO-2 (invalid) example:[1]

No P are M. Jenkins is always blundering;

Some S are not M. No competent person is always blundering.
Therefore, Some S are not P.
Jenkins is inexperienced.
Carroll's example may be
translated thus

No competent persons are blunderers.

Jenkins is a blunderer.
IOO-1 (invalid)
Jenkins is not an experienced person.
Some M are P.
Some S are not M.
Therefore, Some S are not P.
The Six Necessary Conditions For Valid Categorical Syllogisms:

With the purely formal nature of logical validity now understood, and
with the precise technology of Venn idagramming readily at hand in
both Essentials of Logic and Reason, Argue, Refute texts, we can
formulate yet another way to check the validity of any standard form
A polysyllogism (also called multi-premise categorical syllogism. This is done by making valid inferences after
syllogism, sorites, climax, or gradatio) is a string of any number Venn diagramming each of the 15 known valid syllogistic forms. By
of propositions forming together a sequence of syllogisms such that looking at the Venn diagrams of the 15 valid forms and comparing
the conclusion of each syllogism, together with the next proposition, them to the Venn diagrams of the remaining 241 INVALID forms of
is a premise for the next, and so on. Each constituent syllogism is syllogisms a set of six necessary conditions (The Six Rules) for all
called a prosyllogism except the very last, because the conclusion of the 15 valid forms is easily inferred.
the last syllogism is not a premise for another syllogism.
For writing argumentative essays and term papers in this course and
Example for your life of ideas mastery of the 15 valid forms of standard form
An example for a polysyllogism is: categorical syllogisms is indispensable. As already demonstrated, the
Venn diagram technique gives you a handy tool to quickly check
If we go out while it is raining we will get wet. ANY syllogism across the academic disciplines. But what if you
don't have paper and pen at the ready to evaluate any given
If we get wet, we will get cold. syllogism? By formulating the six rules for validity in any standard
Therefore, if we go out we will get cold. form syllogism both texts give you a purely mental process to
Examination of the structure of the argument reveals the demonstrate either validity or invalidity for any categorical syllogism
following sequence of constituent (pro)syllogisms: you may encounter. It all starts with establishing the list of necessary
conditions under which ANY standard form categorical syllogism is
If we go out while it is raining we will get wet. valid.
Therefore, if we go out we will get wet. In our list of 20 distinctions for Critical Thinkers it will be recalled:
Page 17 of 18
"Any list of required elements for something to take place is known
as a list of its necessary conditions." Example that violates Rule 3 (ILLICIT MINOR): All conservatives
are mean-spirited people. All mean-spirited people are Republicans /
As a direct result of finding the necessary conditions for all valid Therefore, all Republicans are conservatives.
syllogistic forms, it can also be inferred that any use of a syllogistic
form outside the 15 valid forms, will constitute a formal fallacy That (Note: In this AAA-4 syllogism the MINOR term, Republicans, IS
is, quite literally, a breech of the proper form of reasoning distributed in the CONCLUSION, yet it is not distributed in the
syllogistically. MINOR PREMISE. And since the premise does not tell us something
about ALL Republicans, then the conclusion cannot tell us something
The most common of these formal fallacies are: about ALL Republicans either. This violation of Rule 3 is called the
1. Fallacy of Four Terms (Quaeternio Terminorum) ILLICIT MINOR. For similar reasons the following IAO-3 syllogism
2. Fallacy of the Undistributed Middle Term is an example of the ILLICIT MAJOR violation of Rule 3, since it
3. Fallacy of the Illicit Major Term or Fallacy of the Illicit Minor applies to the MAJOR term and premise.)
Term
4. Fallacy of Exclusive Premises ( Two negative premises)
5. Fallacy of Affirming a positive conclusion from a negative Rule 4: No syllogism can have two negative premises.
premise
6. Fallacy of a Particular conclusion inferred from two Universal Example that violates Rule 4: No citizens are people that need to own
premises ( Existential Fallacy) a hand gun. Some women are not people that need to own a hand gun
/ Therefore, some women are not citizens.
For each of these formal fallacies there is corresponding necessary
condition for validity that has been violated. Copi, Cohen stipulate (Note: From the two negative premises of this EOO-2 syllogism, no
the six rules. ANY standard form categorical syllogism that meets NECESSARY conclusion can be inferred about 'some women' not
these necessary conditions is VALID, and ANY that violate any one being people that need to own a hand gun. If you try to Venn
of these necessary conditions is INVALID. Knowing the six rules Diagram this argument, then you will see that there is no clear
means that you can demonstrate validity or invalidity in your head UNAMBIGUOUS area to put the 'x' for the MINOR premise.)
without drawing any Venn Diagram.

Here are the six rules and examples of arguments that commit a Rule 5: If either premise is negative, the conclusion must be
FORMAL FALLACY by violating a given rule: negative.

Example that violates Rule 5 (and violates Rule 4 as well): No

Rule 1: A syllogism must contain exactly three terms, each of pornographers are decent people. Some film producers are not
which is used in the same sense. pornographers / Therefore, some film producers are decent people.

Example that violates Rule 1: All rare things are expensive things. (Note: This EOI-1 violates Rule 5 in that it improperly infers a
All great novels are rare things / Therefore, all great novels are AFFIRMATIVE conclusion from two NEGATIVE premises, and it
expensive things. violates Rule 4 that stipulates that no valid syllogism can have two
negative premises.)
(Note: This syllogism SEEMS to be a valid AAA-1, Barbara, but
because the middle term is used in the major premise in one meaning
and then the meaning of the middle term is shifted in the minor Rule 6: No syllogism with a particular conclusion can have two
premise, you actually have FOUR terms and not THREE as required universal premises.
by the very definition of any standard form categorical syllogism.
THIS IS A COMMON MISTAKE FOR BEGINNING STUDENTS Example that violates Rule 6: All people who write about flowers are
IN LOGIC AND CRITICAL THINKING WHEN FORMULATING inhabited by fairies. All poets are people that write about flowers /
ESSAY AND TERM PAPER ARGUMENTS.) Therefore, some poets are inhabited by fairies.

(Note: Neither UNIVERSAL premise of this AAI-1 syllogism

Rule 2: The middle term must be distributed in at least one establishes the existence of a single, individual poet, the MINOR
premise. term. Yet the conclusion asserts that "There exists at least one poet,
such that, this poet is inhabited by ferries". Hence, this syllogism
Example that violates Rule 2: All Popes are Catholics. Some commits the EXISTENTIAL FALLACY.)
Catholics are not pious people / Therefore, some pious people are not
Popes.
Although it is possible to identify additional features shared by all
(Note: This AOO-4 syllogism is not one of the 15 valid forms, The valid categorical syllogisms (none of them, for example, have two
reason it is invalid is that the MIDDLE TERM, Catholics is not particular premises), these six rules are individually NECESSARY
distributed in EITHER premise. And since nothing is claimed about and jointly SUFFICIENT to distinguish between all valid and invalid
ALL members this category, Catholics, then no NECESSARY syllogisms in the complete set of 256 permutations and combinations
inference can be related to the other two terms, Popes and pious of MOOD and FIGURE for standard form categorical syllogisms.
people.)

Rule 3: If MAJOR or MINOR term is distributed in the

conclusion, then it must be distributed in the premises.

Page 18 of 18