Categorical Syllogisms (revised 9/19/05)

Instructor: Gil Yoder

Standard Form Categorical Syllogisms
In order to understand standard form categorical syllogisms it will be helpful to define
several words and phrases:

• Syllogism – a deductive argument in which the conclusion is drawn from two

premises.
• Categorical syllogism – a deductive argument consisting of three categorical
propositions with exactly three shared terms, two terms per proposition.
• Standard form categorical syllogism – a categorical syllogism consisting of
standard form categorical propositions arranged in a specific order, with the major
premise stated first, then the minor premise, and then the conclusion.
• Major term – the term occurring in the predicate of the conclusion in a standard
form categorical syllogism.
• Minor term – the term occurring in the subject of the conclusion in a standard
form categorical syllogism.
• Middle term – the term occurring in both the major and minor premises of a
standard form categorical syllogism, but not in the conclusion.
• Major premise – the premise of a categorical syllogism that contains an instance
of the major term.
• Minor term – the premise of a categorical syllogism that contains an instance of
the minor term.

Note: the major and minor premises are not determined by their placement in a
categorical syllogism, but by terms that are contained within them. Both premises of a
syllogism contain the middle term, but only the major premise and the conclusion contain
the major term, and only the minor premise and the conclusion contain the minor term.

In the following argument the minor premise is stated first, then the major premise, and
then the conclusion:

All disciples are Saints.

Some disciples are preachers.
Therefore some saints are preachers.

The major term in this argument is “preachers,” because it is the term in the predicate of
the conclusion. The minor term is “saint,” because it is the term in the subject of the
conclusion. The first premise contains the minor term, so it is the minor premise. The
second premise contains the major term, so it is the major premise.

This is a valid categorical syllogism, but it is not a standard form syllogism, because the
premises are not stated in the standard order with the major premise being stated first. It
 2

should be noted that “standard form” is simply a matter of convention or definition.

There is nothing that makes a standard form syllogism “better” than a non-standard form
syllogism, and in fact arguments that are not in standard form are sometimes seen to be
more persuasive, because they can be written or spoken in a more natural format.
Consider the standard form syllogism below,

Some disciples are preachers.

All disciples are Saints.
Therefore some saints are preachers.

With this more natural statement of the same argument:

It must be true that some saints are preachers, since all disciples are saints, and
some disciples are preachers.

Even in this form the argument is a bit stilted, since it still conforms to the rigors of
standard form categorical propositions, but most would prefer the latter to the former in
everyday language.

However, it is easier to work with standard form categorical syllogisms, so for this
purpose it is to be preferred over the less rigorous arguments.

Mood and Figure

All standard form categorical syllogisms can be described in terms of their mood and
figure. The mood of a syllogism is represented by the three letters that represent the type
of each proposition in the syllogism. So a standard form syllogism with three universal
affirmative propositions has a mood of AAA. However, the mood of a syllogism does not
fully characterize its form. For example consider these two arguments each of which has
a mood of AAA.

Major premise: All men are mortal.

Minor premise: All preachers are men.
Conclusion: All preachers are mortal.

Major premise: All Christians are men.

Minor premise: All preachers are men.
Conclusion: All preachers are Christians.

Both of these arguments have a mood of AAA, but they differ in how the middle term is
placed. The first argument places the middle term in the subject of the major premise, and
the predicate of the minor premise, but the second argument places the middle term in the
predicate of both major and minor premises. So, although both have the same mood, they
differ in form.
 3

We call differences based on the placement of the middle term the figure of an argument.
There are four different figures that an argument can have as illustrated in this table:

M–P P–M M–P P–M

S–M S–M M–S M–S
∴S–P ∴S–P ∴S–P ∴S–P
First Figure Second Figure Third Figure Fourth Figure

The form of a standard form categorical syllogism can be represented by noting the
argument’s mood and figure. In the two arguments given above the first argument is AAA
in the first figure (or AAA-1) and the second is of the form AAA in the second figure
(AAA-2).

If we were to list all of the possible moods that an argument could have, we would find
that sixty four moods are possible (43). Then if we add the figures to the number (64
arguments of the first figure, 64 for the second figure, and so on), we find that there are
256 possible argument forms which are possible (44). Most of these forms, however, are
invalid forms.

The form of an argument is the most important aspect of an argument when considering
its validity, because validity and invalidity depend exclusively on the argument’s form. In
general if an argument’s form is valid, the argument is valid, and if an argument’s form is
invalid, the argument will be invalid.

For example any argument with the form AAA-1 is a valid argument. So the first
argument we introduced above is valid:

Major premise: All men are mortal.

Minor premise: All preachers are men.
Conclusion: All preachers are mortal.

However, any argument with the form AAA-2 is invalid. The second argument we gave
above is of this form:

Major premise: All Christians are men.

Minor premise: All preachers are men.
Conclusion: All preachers are Christians.

Because any argument with an invalid form is an invalid argument, it is sometimes useful
to draw analogies between an argument which is asserted as a proof and another
argument of the same form with an obviously false conclusion. For example the
following argument has the same form as the argument immediately above:

Major premise: All trees are plants.

Minor premise: All flowers are plaints.
Conclusion: Therefore all flowers are trees.
 4

The fact that this argument has true premises and an obviously false conclusion proves
that the argument form is invalid. Since it is of the same form as the previous argument,
the previous argument is proven also to be invalid, and any argument of the form AAA-2
is invalid.

It is important to know that proving that an argument is invalid is not the same thing as
proving that the conclusion of an argument is false. Invalid arguments can have true
conclusions. Proving that an argument is invalid merely shows that the premises of the
argument do not prove that the conclusion is true.

Disproving the validity of an argument by analogy is an effective way to dislodge a

fallacious argument in debate, but it has its limitations. It may not always be possible to
come up with an analogy on the spur of the moment. This does not mean that an
argument is necessarily valid; it may only reflect our inability to think quickly. Other
methods for determining the validity or invalidity of an argument are needed.

Venn Diagrams
Venn diagrams introduced by John Venn (1834-1923) provide one means for testing the
validity of categorical syllogisms. We will start by looking at how Venn diagrams can
illustrate categorical propositions, and then move on to diagrams that represent
categorical arguments.

A proposition can be represented symbolically by diagramming the classes to which it

refers. A class can be represented by a circle labeled with the term it represents. The S
class can be represented thus:

In this representation everything within the circle represents the members of the S class,
and everything outside the circle represents the complement of the S class, which we can
represent by the letter S with a bar over the letter (see below for an example).

To diagram a class that has no members we shade the interior to indicate that the class is
empty, and to diagram a class that has at least one or more members we place an x
anywhere within the circle. For example:

These diagrams are diagrams of terms. Two circles are needed to diagram a proposition.
The skeleton for diagramming a standard form proposition consists of two
interconnecting circles as in the following illustration:
 5

There are actually several classes represented in this diagram. The two circles represent
the S and the P classes. Where the circles intersect that class of things belonging to both S
and P is represented. In the left circle on the left of the intersection the class of things
belonging to S, but not to P is represented, and in the right circle to the right of the
intersection, the class of things belonging to P, but not to S is represented. Outside of all
circles the class of all things not belonging to either S or P is represented. And although
these classes are not labeled, outside of the S circle represents the compliment of the S
class, and outside the P circle represents the compliment of the P class.

However, we still have do not have a diagram of a proposition, because this diagram says
nothing about the members of the classes represented within it.

The standard form categorical propositions are diagramed by shading or adding the letter
x into some part of the diagram. The standard form propositions are diagramed in these
ways:

All S is P. No S is P.

Some S is P. Some S is not P.

It is useful to note that several other relationships are apparent within these diagrams. For
example in the diagram representing the A proposition, the E proposition, “No S is non-
P” is also represented (as illustrated by the intersection of the circle for the S class with
the outside of the P class circle being shaded). The E proposition diagram for “No S is P”
also represents the E proposition “No P is S.” The I proposition diagram representing
 6

“Some S is P” also represents “Some P is S.” And finally the O proposition diagram for
“Some S is not P” also represents the equivalent I proposition “Some S is non-P.”

Diagramming a categorical syllogism requires the addition of a third circle in order to

represent the three categories in the three terms of such syllogisms.

In the diagram on the left three circles are used to represent

the three categories of a standard form categorical syllogism.
The letters label the terms of the syllogism, and in this case
the S, P, and M terms which stand for the minor term (the
subject of the conclusion), the major term (the predicate of
the conclusion) and the middle term.

Just as the two circle diagram represents more than two

categories, the three circle diagram represents much more
than three categories. (1) S, (2) P, (3) M, (4) SP, (5) SM (6)
PM, (7) SMP, (8) non-S, (9) non-P, (10) non-M, (11) S non-P, etc.

Such a diagram as that above says nothing about the categories represented. In order to
represent the propositions of a syllogism we use shading to represent empty classes, and
the letter “x” to represent where at least one member of a class exists. It is important to
follow a certain order when representing the propositions, especially when one of the
premises of a syllogism is a particular proposition.

Let’s note a few examples first involving only universal propositions. The first example
will diagram an argument of the form AAA-1. This argument has the following format:

All M are P.
All S are M.
∴ All S are P.

First we shade the part of M that does not overlap P

(yellow). This says that there are no members of M that exist
outside of P. This represents the major premise of the
argument.

Next we shade the part of S that does not overlap M (blue).

Again this represents that there are no members of S that are
not M. This represents the minor premise.

Now we can ask if the premises of the proposition justify the

conclusion, “All S are P,” and we can see that it does. The only non-shaded part of S is
within the P circle, and that represents the conclusion that all S are indeed P.

Because we have shown with this example that the AAA-1 syllogism is valid in this
argument, we know that AAA-1 syllogisms are valid in for all arguments where it occurs.
 7

Now let us look at an argument of the form AAA-2, which as this form:

All P are M.
All S are M.
∴ All S are P.

As before we start with the major premise. This is not necessary now, but to prevent
confusion, it is a good place to start when it is allowed. We
shade out all parts of P that are not part of M (green).

Next we represent the minor premise by shading all parts of

S which are not M (grey). In this case part of S was already
shaded when we represented the major premise.

Now we can see if the conclusion, “All S are P,” is

represented in the diagram, and we see that it is not. There is
still a part of S that falls outside of P, so we are not justified
in drawing the stated conclusion.

The diagram represents categories in which the major premise and the minor premise are
true, but the conclusion is false. No valid argument can have true premises and a false
conclusion, so the argument format AAA-2 is invalid wherever it is found.

It is important to note that proving that an argument is invalid is not the same thing as
proving that the conclusion is false. It proves only that the truth of the premises do not
justify the conclusion. Note this example AAA-2 argument:

All Priests are Men.

All Saints are Men.
∴ All Saints are Priests.

This argument has a true conclusion, but the conclusion is not proven from the premises
given.

In the next example we will examine an argument with a negative premise of the type
AEE-2

All P are M.
No S are M.
∴ No S are P.

We start as we did in the preceding example by shading all of P that is not a part of M
(green). Again this represents the proposition that “All P are M.”

The minor premise states that no part of S is a part of M, so we shade out the part of S
that intersects with the circle that represents M.
 8

Now we can see if we can correctly infer the conclusion of

the proposition, and it is easy to see that no part of S can be
part of P, so the diagram proves that the argument is valid,
and that the argument form AEE-2 can be properly used
with other arguments.

For our last example with only universal propositions, let’s

consider a proposition of the type EEE-3. This is an
example of such an argument:

No M are P.
No M are S.
∴ No S are P.

Starting with the major premises we shade out all of P that

intersects with M (burnt orange).

Next we shade out the part of S that intersects with M to

represent the minor premise (light blue).

Then we note if the conclusion is represented in the diagram.

The conclusion says that no part of S could be part of P, but
that is not represented in the diagram, so the syllogism is
invalid.

A little extra care is necessary when diagramming categorical syllogisms with particular
propositions within them. When doing so, diagram universal propositions before the
particular propositions. For example let’s diagram an AII-1 proposition first.

All M are P.
Some S are M.
∴ Some S are P.

In this case the major premise is universal, and the minor

premise is particular, so we start by diagramming the major
premise which states that there is no M which is not P. To
indicate this on the diagram we shade out all of M which is
not P (yellow).

The minor premise indicates that there is at least one thing

that is both S and M. This is indicated in the diagram by
placing an “x” in the white space that is shared by S and M.
Don’t place the “x” in the shaded area, because the other
proposition says there is nothing there.
 9

Now we can check to see if the conclusion is justified. The conclusion says that there is at
least one thing that is both S and P, and we can see that the diagram confirms that
conclusion. The argument is a valid argument.

How would an invalid argument with particular propositions appear in a diagram?

Consider this AII-2 argument:

All P are M.
Some S are M.
∴ Some S are P.

Again we start with the universal proposition (we would do

this whether or not it was the major premise) which says that
there is no P that is not M, so we shade out the part of P that
is not M (grey).

The minor premise states that there is at least one S that is

also an M. To indicate this we need to put an “x” in the
white area that is shared by S and M, but should it go in the
area within P or without P? The propositions do not tell us,
so we avoid saying more than the propositions by placing
the letter on the line between the two areas.

The next thing to do is to check to see if the diagram indicates that the conclusion has
been proven true. The conclusion says that there is at least one S that is also a P, but the
diagram does not say that! We cannot tell where the “x” should go relative to P, so the
conclusion does not follow from the premises, and the argument form is invalid.