Introduction to logic

Submitted By: Alishbah Akbar

Submitted To: Mam Iqra
Reg. No: 19-ARID-3458
Assignment topic: Categorical syllogisms.

Barani Institute of Science Sahiwal

2021
Assignment Topic:
Categorical syllogisms
Syllogism
A syllogism is a deductive argument consisting of two premises and one conclusion.
Provisionally we will define a categorical syllogism as a syllogism consisting of three
categorical propositions and containing a total of three different terms, each of which appears
twice in distinct propositions.

For Example:
 All soldiers are patriots.
 No traitors are patriots.
 Therefore, no traitors are soldiers

Major Term.
Syllogistic. …the conclusion is called the major term,
Major premise.
The premise in which it occurs is called the major premise.

Minor term
The subject of the conclusion is called the minor term

Minor premise
The premise in which it occurs is called the minor premise.

Standard-form Categorical Syllogism.

A standard-form categorical syllogism is one that meets the following four conditions:
1. All three statements are standard-form categorical propositions.
2. The two occurrences of each term are identical.
3. Each term is used in the same sense throughout the argument.
4. The major premise is listed first, the minor premise second, and the conclusion last.

Venn Diagram.
Venn diagrams provide the most intuitively evident and, in the long run, easiest to remember
technique for testing the validity of categorical syllogisms. The technique is basically an
extension of the one developed content of categorical propositions. Because syllogisms contain
three terms, whereas propositions contain only two, the application of Venn diagrams to
syllogisms requires three overlapping circles.
The use of Venn diagrams to evaluate syllogisms usually requires a little practice at first. Perhaps the best way
of learning the technique is through illustrative examples, but a few pointers are needed first:

1. Marks (shading or placing an X) are entered only for the premises. No marks are made for the conclusion.

2. If the argument contains one universal premise, this premise should be entered first in the diagram. If there
are two universal premises, either one can be done first.

3. When entering the information contained in a premise, one should concentrate on the circles corresponding
to the two terms in the statement. While the third circle cannot be ignored altogether; it should be given only
minimal attention.

4. When inspecting a completed diagram to see whether it supports a particular conclusion, one should
remember that particular statements assert two things. “Some S are P” means “At least one S exists and that S
is a P”; “Some S are not P” means “At least one S exists and that S is not a P.”

5. When shading an area, one must be careful to shade all of the area in question.

Examples:

6. Th e area where an X goes is always initially divided into two parts. If one of these parts has already been
shaded, the X goes in the unshaded part. Examples:

If one of the two parts is not shaded, the X goes on the line separating the two parts. Examples:

This means that the X may be in either (or both) of the two areas—but it is not known which one.

7. An X should never be placed in such a way that it dangles outside of the diagram, and it should never be
placed on the intersection of two lines.

Boolean Standpoint
Because the Boolean standpoint does not recognize universal premises as having existential import, its
approach to testing syllogisms is simpler and more general than that of the Aristotelian standpoint. Hence, we
will begin by testing syllogisms from that standpoint and later proceed to the Aristotelian standpoint. Here is
an example:
1. No P are M. EAE-2

All S are M.

No S are P.

Since both premises are universal, it makes no difference which premise we enter first in the diagram. To enter
the major premise, we concentrate our attention on the M and P circles, which are highlighted with color:

Aristotelian Standpoint. For the syllogistic forms tested thus far, we have adopted the Boolean
standpoint, which does not recognize universal premises as having existential import. We now shift to the
Aristotelian standpoint, where existential import can make a difference to validity.

Rules and Fallacies. The idea that valid syllogisms conform to certain rules was first
expressed by Aristotle. Many such rules are discussed in Aristotle’s own account, but logicians
of today generally settle on five or six. * If any one of these rules is violated, a specific formal
fallacy is committed and, accordingly, the syllogism is invalid. Conversely, if none of the rules is
broken, the syllogism is valid. These rules may be used as a convenient cross-check against the
method of Venn diagrams.

Boolean Standpoint
Of the five rules presented in this section, the first two depend on the concept of distribution, the
second two on the concept of quality, and the last on the concept of quantity. In applying the fifi
rest two rules, you may want to recall either of the two mnemonic devices presented in Chapter
4: “Unprepared Students Never Pass” and “Any Student Earning B’s Is Not On Probation.”
Here is the first rule
Rule 1: The middle term must be distributed at least once.
Fallacy: Undistributed middle.
Example:
 All sharks are fish.
 All salmon are fish.
 All salmon are sharks.
Rule 2: If a term is distributed in the conclusion, then it must be distributed in a premise.
Fallacies: Illicit major; illicit minor

Example

All horses are animals

Some dogs are not horses.
——————————
Some dogs are not animals.
All tigers are mammals.
All mammals are animals.
——————————
All animals are tigers.
In the first example the major term, “animals,” is distributed in the conclusion but not in the
major premise, so the syllogism commits the fallacy of illicit major, or, more precisely, “illicit
process of the major term.” In the second example the minor term, “animals,” is distributed in
the conclusion but not in the minor premise. Th e second example therefore commits the fallacy
of illicit minor, or “illicit process of the minor term.”
Rule 3: Two negative premises are not allowed.
Fallacy: Exclusive premises.
Example:
 No fish are mammals.
 Some dogs are not fish.
 Some dogs are not mammals.
This syllogism may be seen as invalid because it has true premises and a false conclusion. Th e
defect stems from the fact that it has two negative premises. On reflection, Rule 3 should be
fairly obvious. Let S, P, and M once again designate the minor, major, and middle terms. Now, if
the P class and the M class are separate either wholly or partially, and the S class and the M class
are separate either wholly or partially, nothing is said about the relation between the S class and
the P class. These two classes may be either distinct or identical in whole or in part. Venn
diagrams may be used effectively to illustrate the fact that no conclusion can be validly drawn
from two negative premises.
Rule 4: A negative premise requires a negative conclusion, and a negative conclusion
requires a negative premise.
Fallacy: Drawing an affirmative conclusion from a negative premise.

or

Drawing a negative conclusion from affirmative premises.

Examples:
 All crows are birds.
 Some wolves are not crowing.
 Some wolves are birds.
 All triangles are three-angled polygons.
 All three-angled polygons are three-sided polygons.
 Some three-sided polygons are not triangles.
These arguments may be seen as invalid because each has true premises and a false conclusion.
The first draws an affirmative conclusion from a negative premise, and the second draws a
negative conclusion from affirmative premises. Th e logic behind Rule 4 may be seen as follows.
If S, P, and M once again designate the minor, major, and middle terms, an affirmative
conclusion always states that the S class is contained either wholly or partially in the P class. Th
e only way that such a conclusion can follow is if the S class is contained either wholly or
partially in the M class, and the M class wholly in the P class. In other words, it follows only
when both premises are affirmative. But if, for example, the S class is contained either wholly or
partially in the M class, and the M class is separate either wholly or partially from the P class,
such a conclusion will never follow. Th us, an affirmative conclusion cannot be drawn from
negative premises.

Rule 5: If both premises are universal, the conclusion cannot be particular.

Fallacy: Existential fallacy.

Example:
 All mammals are animals.
 All tigers are mammals.
 Some tigers are animals
The example has two universal premises and a particular conclusion, so it violates Rule 5. It
commits the existential fallacy from the Boolean standpoint. The reason the syllogism is invalid
from the Boolean standpoint is that the conclusion asserts that tigers exist, whereas the premises
make no such assertion. From the Boolean standpoint, universal premises have no existential
import. In applying Rule 5, keep in mind that the existential fallacy is a fallacy that occurs when
a syllogism is invalid merely because the premises lack existential import. Thus, if a syllogism is
invalid for some other reason (that is, if it commits some other fallacy), it does not commit the
existential fallacy. Hence, before deciding that a syllogism breaks Rule 5, make certain that no
other rule is violated. If a syllogism does break one of the other four rules, Rule 5 does not apply

Aristotelian Standpoint
Any categorical syllogism that breaks one of the first four rules is invalid from the Aristotelian
standpoint. However, if a syllogism breaks only Rule 5, it is valid from the Aristotelian
standpoint on condition that the critical term denotes at least one existing thing. (The critical
term is the term listed in the farthest right-hand column of the table of conditionally valid
syllogistic forms presented in Section 5.1.) In the example given in connection with Rule 5, the
critical term is “tigers,” and the syllogism breaks no other rules, so it is valid from the
Aristotelian standpoint. Th e conclusion asserts that tigers exist, and from the Aristotelian
standpoint the premises imply their existence. On the other hand, consider the following
example:
 All mammals are animals.
 All unicorns are mammals.
 Some unicorns are animals.
In this example, the critical term is “unicorns.” Since unicorns do not exist, the premises have no
existential import from the Aristotelian standpoint. Thus, the syllogisms invalid from the
Aristotelian standpoint, and it commits the existential fallacy from that standpoint. Of course, it
also commits the existential fallacy from the Boolean standpoint.
Reducing the number of terms.
Categorical syllogisms, as they occur in ordinary spoken and written expression, are seldom
phrased according to the precise norms of the standard-form syllogism. Sometimes quantifiers,
premises, or conclusions are left unexpressed, chains of syllogisms are strung together into single
arguments, and terms are mixed together with their negations in a single argument. Th e final
four sections of this chapter are concerned with developing techniques for reworking such
arguments in order to render them testable by Venn diagrams or by the rules for syllogisms.
 All photographers are non-writers.
 Some editors are writers.
 Therefore, some non-photographers are not non-editors.

Ordinary language Arguments.

Many arguments that are not standard-form categorical syllogisms as written can be translated
into standard-form syllogisms. In doing so we often use techniques developed in the last section
of Chapter 4—namely, inserting quantifiers, modifying subject and predicate terms, and
introducing copulas. Th e goal, of course, is to produce an argument consisting of three standard-
form categorical propositions that contain a total of three different terms, each of which occurs
twice in distinct propositions. Once translated, the argument can be tested by means of a Venn
diagram or the rules for syllogisms. For example:
Whenever people put off marriage until they are older, the divorce rate decreases. Today, people
are putting off marriage until they are older. Therefore, the divorce rate is decreasing today.

Enthymemes:
An enthymeme is an argument that is expressible as a categorical syllogism but that is missing a
premise or a conclusion.

Sorties:
A sorties is a chain of categorical syllogisms in which the intermediate conclusions have been
left out. The name is derived from the Greek word Soros, meaning “heap,” and is pronounced
“sorties,” with the accent on the second syllable. Th e plural form is also “sorties.”

 Here is an example:
 All bloodhounds are dogs.
 All dogs are mammals.
  No fish are mammals.
Therefore, no fish are bloodhounds. A standard-form sorties is one in which each of the
component propositions is in standard form, each term occurs twice, the predicate of the
conclusion is in the first premise, and each successive premise has a term in common with the
preceding one. * The sorties in the example is in standard form.