Scribd
Upload
29 views3 pages

Syllogisms

This document analyzes 6 syllogisms by identifying their deductive form, component parts, and validity. Syllogisms 1, 3, and 4 are valid disjunctive or hypothetical syllogisms. Syllogism 2 is invalid due to violating a rule of distribution. Syllogism 5 is invalid for drawing an affirmative conclusion from a negative premise. Syllogism 6 is a valid hypothetical syllogism in modus tollens form.

Uploaded by

angelicajieneespaja
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
29 views3 pages

Syllogisms

This document analyzes 6 syllogisms by identifying their deductive form, component parts, and validity. Syllogisms 1, 3, and 4 are valid disjunctive or hypothetical syllogisms. Syllogism 2 is invalid due to violating a rule of distribution. Syllogism 5 is invalid for drawing an affirmative conclusion from a negative premise. Syllogism 6 is a valid hypothetical syllogism in modus tollens form.

Uploaded by

angelicajieneespaja
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 3

Consider the six syllogisms listed below.

For each of the six syllogisms, be able to 1) identify the


deductive form (hypothetical syllogism: modus ponens, modus tollens; disjuntive syllogism; categorical
syllogism); 2) component parts (where possible) of a) conditional statement (antecedent, consequent); b)
disjunctive statement (left and right disjuncts); and c) categorical proposition (universal affirmative,
universal negative, particular affirmative, particular negative) and terms (major, minor, middle) and
distribution of terms; and 3) rules governing the syllogism's validity/invalidity.

Syllogism 1

Major premise: Either a socialist is an atheist or a capitalist is an evangelical.


Minor premise: A socialist is not an atheist.
Conclusion: Hence, a capitalist is an evangelical.
1.) Disjunctive syllogism
2.) Disjunctive statement
Left: a socialist is an atheist
Right: a capitalist is an evangelical
3.) Valid bc the minor premise denies the left disjunct and the conclusion affirms the right disjunct

Syllogism 2

Major premise: All boxers are athletes. UNIVERSAL AFFIRMATIVE


Minor premise. Some boxers are not wrestlers. PARTICULAR NEGATIVE
Conclusion: Thus, no wrestlers are athletes. UNIVERSAL NEGATIVE
1.) Categorical syllogism- bc it has 3 categorical proposition
2.) Categorical proposition
major term: athletes quantifiers: all, some, no
minor term: wrestlers subject term: boxers, wrestlers
middle term : boxers copula: are, are not
predicate: athletes
3.) Violation: fallacy of illicit process (RULE#3); if a term is distributed in the conclusion,
then it must be distributed in the premise
conclusion is universal negative, both subject & predicate are distributed
subject(minor): wrestlers is particular negative – subject is undistributed; predicate is
distributed
predicate(major): athletes is universal affirmative – subject distributed; predicate is
undistributed
Assessment: Invalid

Syllogism 3 -
Major premise: If nurses are health workers then writers are artists.
Minor premise: nurses are health workers.
Conclusion: It follows that writers are artists.
1. )Hypothetical syllogism:
Modus ponens: affirm the consequent
2. ) Conditional statement
(antecedent) nurses are health workers
(consequent) writers are artists
3.) Valid syllogism: bc it followed the pattern or rule of modus ponens which is basically
major: if anticident then, consequent
minor: affirming the anticident
conc: affirming the consequent

Syllogism 4

Major premise: Either the existence of God is a reality or an illusion.


Minor premise: The existence of God is not an illusion.
Conclusion: Consequently, the existence of God is a reality.
1.) Disjunctive syllogism
2.) Disjunctive statement
Left: the existence of god is a reality
Right: an illusion
3.) Valid bc the minor premise denies the right disjunct and the conclusion affirms the left disjunct

Syllogism 5

Major premise: All diamonds are precious stones. UNIVERSAL AFFIRMATIVE


Minor premise: No precious stones are rocks. UNIVERSAL NEGATIVE
Conclusion: All rocks are diamonds. UNIVERSAL AFFIRMATIVE
1.) Categorical syllogism
major (predicate) term: diamonds
minor (term: rocks
middle term: precious stones
2.) Categorical Proposition
3.) Violation:
- fallacy of drawing an affirmative conclusion from a negative premise (RULE#5)
bc one of the premises, which is the minor premise, is a universal negative but the conclusion is a
universal affirmative
according to rule # 5, if one premise is negative, then the conclusion must also be negative
Assessment: INVALID

Syllogism 6
Major premise: If Sara runs for president then Bato will run for vice president.
Minor premise: Bato will not run for vice president.
Conclusion: So, Sara will not run for president.

1.)Hypothetical syllogism - Modus Tollens: negate the anticident

2.) Conditional statement


(antecedent) sara runs for president
(consequent) bato will run for vise president

3.) Valid syllogism bc it followed to pattern for modus tollens which is basically
major: if anticident then consequent
minor: negating the anticident
conclusion: negating the anticident

You might also like