Theories Logic and legal

reasoning
srb
Syllogism:

A syllogism is a form of deductive inference, in which the

conclusion is drawn from two premises, taken jointly.
It is a form of deductive inference and therefore in it, the
conclusion cannot be more general than the premises.

It is a mediate form of inference, the conclusion being

drawn from two premises and not from one premises only
as in the case of Immediate Inference.
cont...

For example:
All men are mortal.
All kings are men.
All kings are mortal.
A syllogism, therefore, presents the following characteristics,
which distinguish it from other kinds of inference:
cont...
(a) Firstly, the conclusion of syllogism follows from the two
premises taken jointly, and not from any one of them, by itself.
The conclusion is not merely the sum of the two premises but
follows from them taken together, as a necessary consequence.
In the example given above, the conclusion ‘All kings are mortal’
is drawn not from any of the two premises singly, but it follows
from them conjointly.
cont...
(b) Secondly, the conclusion of a syllogism cannot be more general
than the premises. The syllogism is a form of deductive inference,
and in no form of deductive inference, can the conclusion be more
general than the given premises.

In the example given above the conclusion “All kings- are mortal” is
obviously less general than the premises “All men are mortal” —
which is applicable to a much larger number of individuals.
cont...
(c) Thirdly, the conclusion is true, provided the given propositions are
true.

In a syllogism, as in other forms of deductive inference we are not

concerned with the question as to whether the premises, i.e., the given
propositions are, as a matter of fact, true or false. In deductive forms
of inference, the truth of the premises is taken for granted and hence,
it is clear that the truth of the conclusion depends on the truth of the
premises, which are presumed to be true.
Kinds of Syllogism

Syllogisms have been classified into Pure and Mixed. Pure syllogisms are of
three kinds — Categorical, Hypothetical and Disjunctive.

Mixed syllogisms are of three kinds — Hypothetical – Categorical, Disjunctive

– Categorical and Dilemma.

The following Table shows the different kinds of syllogism:

cont...
In a pure syllogism, all the constituent propositions are of the
same relation.
If all of them are categorical, the syllogism is pure categorical; if
all hypothetical the syllogism is pure hypothetical; and lastly, if
all of them are disjunctive, the syllogism is pure disjunctive.
cont...
In a mixed syllogism the constituent propositions are of different
relation. Mixed syllogisms are of three kinds—Hypothetical-
Categorical, Disjunctive- Categorical, Dilemma. In Hypothetical-
Categorical syllogism, the major premises is hypothetical, the
minor is categorical and the conclusion is categorical.
cont...
In Disjunctive-Categorical, the major premises is disjunctive, the minor
is categorical and” the conclusion is categorical.

In Dilemma, the major premises is a compound hypothetical, the minor

premiss is disjunctive, and the conclusion is either categorical or
disjunctive.
cont...
Figures:
Figure is the form of a syllogism as determined by the position of
the middle term in the premises.

There are four possible arrangements of the middle term in the

two premises ;and, therefore, there are four figures of syllogism.
cont...
1. First Figure:

In the first figure, the middle term is the subject in the major premises, and the
predicate is the minor premises; thus

Pure Mixed

P—M

S—M

S—P
cont...
2. Second Figure:
In the second figure, the middle term is the predicate in both the
premises; thus

P—M

S—M
S—P
cont...
3. Third Figure:
In the third figure, the middle term is the subject in both the
premises; thus

M —P

M— S
S —P
cont...
4. Fourth Figure:
In the fourth figure, the middle term is the predicate in the major
premises, and the subject in the minor; thus,

P —M

M —S
S —P
Mood of Syllogism:

The word ‘Mood’ has been used in different sense.

Firstly, ‘Mood’ has been defined as the form of a syllogism, as

determined by the quality and quantity of the constituent premises.

Now, there are four kinds of propositions A, E, I and O; and a

syllogism has got two premises. Hence we may have sixteen
possible moods in each thus
cont...

Thus, if we take into account the quality of the premises only,

leaving out the account of the conclusion, we have 16 possible
moods in each figure, and 64 possible moods in all the four figures.
cont...
Secondly, the word ‘Mood’ has been used, in a wider sense, to mean
the form of a syllogism, as determined by the quality and the quantity
of all the three constituent propositions, taking into account not merely
the two premises but also the conclusion.

In this sense, each of the 64 combinations mentioned above may have

four forms. For example, the combination of AA in the First figure may
have forms, thus:
cont...
cont...
cont...
Determination of Valid Moods

Valid Moods of the First Figure:

In the first figure, the middle term is the subject in the major premises, and the predicate in the minor premises.

(1) AA.

A. All M is P All men are mortal

A. All S is M All kings are men

A. All S is R All kings are mortal

Here, both the premises are affirmative, therefore, the conclusion, if any, must be affirmative. The middle term is distributed
in the major premises. By drawing an A proposition in the conclusion, we do not violate any of the rules of syllogism,
because, the minor term which is distributed in the conclusion is also distributed in the minor premises. Hence, AA gives A
as its conclusion, in the first figure. The valid mood is called BARBARA.
cont...
(2) AE. A. All M is P.

E. No S is M.

No conclusion follows, because the conclusion, if any must be negative, and

as such, the major term P which is not distributed in the major premises, will
be distributed in the conclusion. Hence AE is not a valid mood in the first
figure.
cont...
(3) AI. A. All M is P. All men are rational

I. Some S is M. Some animals are men

.’. I. Some S is P. ’. Some animal rational.

Here, as both the premises are affirmative, and one premise is particular, the
conclusion must, must be a particular affirmative, i.e., I proposition. The
middle term is distributed in the major premises, and no term is distributed in
the conclusion. Here, AI gives I as its conclusion in the first figure. This valid
mood is called DARII.
cont….
(4) AO. A. All His P.

O. Some S is not M.

From this combination no conclusion follows in the first figure. As one

premises is negative the conclusion, is any, should also be negative,
distributing its predicate, the major term. But the major term is not
distributed in the major premises. Hence AO is not a valid mood in the
first figure. are
cont...
(5) EA. E. No M is P.

A. All S is M. E. No. S is P.

Here, one of the propositions being negative the conclusion must be negative.
If we draw an E proposition in the conclusion we do not violate any of the
rules of syllogism, because the middle term is distributed in the major
premises, and the major and minor terms which are distributed in the
conclusion are also distributed in their respective premises. Thus AE yields E
as its conclusion in the first figure. This valid mood is called CELARENT.
cont...
(6) EI. E. No M is P. No quadrupeds are men

I. Some S is M. Some animals are quadrupeds

O. Some S is not P. Some animals are not men

One premises being negative, and another being particular the conclusion, if any, must
be a particular negative, i.e., O. In drawing on O proposition in the conclusion we do
not violate any of the rules of syllogism, because the middle term is distributed in the
major premises, and the major term, which is distributed in the conclusion, is also
distributed in the major premises. Thus, EI gives O as its conclusion, in the first figure..
This valid mood is called FERIO.
cont...
(7) IA. I. Some M is P

A. All S is M

No conclusion follows, because, the middle term is not distributed in either of the premises.
Thus IA is not a valid mood in the first figure.

(8) OA. O. Some M is not P

A. All S is M

No conclusion follows, because the middle term is not distributed even once in the premises.
Thus OA is not a valid mood in the first figure.
cont...
Thus in the first figure, only four combinations yield valid
conclusions, viz., AA (Barbara), EA (Celarent), AI (Darii) and EI
(Ferio).
The special rules of the first figure are the following:
1. The major premises must be universal.
2. The minor premises must be affirmative.
cont...
Rules of Syllogism:
There are many ways in which a syllogism may fail to establish its
conclusion. Just as travel is facilitated by the mapping of highways
and the labeling of otherwise tempting roads as ‘dead ends’, so
cogency of argument is made more easily attainable by setting
forth certain rules that enable the reasoner to avoid fallacies. Any
given standard-form syllogism can be evaluated by observing
whether the rules are violated or not.
 cont...
Rule 1:

Every syllogism must have three and only three terms.

It there be less than three terms, we cannot get a mediate form of inference, but we may at best construct an immediate
inference, and not a syllogism. When there are more than three terms in a statement it is either not an inference at all or it
is a train of reasoning.

Three terms must be involved in every valid categorical syllogism—no more and no less. Any categorical syllogism that
contains more than three terms is invalid and is said to commit the fallacy of four terms.

All crows are black.

All cranes are white.

No cranes are crows.

cont...
Rule 2:
The middle term must be distributed in at least one premises.

In a standard-form categorical syllogism,

All Russians were revolutionists.

All anarchists were revolutionists.

All anarchists were Russians.

cont...
The middle term, ‘revolutionists’ is not distributed in either premises, and the syllogism
violates Rule 2. Any syllogism that violates Rule 2 is said to commit the fallacy of the
undistributed middle. It should be clear by the following considerations that any syllogism
that violates this rule is invalid. The conclusion of any syllogism asserts a connection
between two terms.

The premises justify asserting such a connection only if they assert that each of two terms is
connected with a third term in such a way that the first two are appropriately connected with
each other through or by means of the third. For the two terms of the conclusion really to be
connected through the third, at least one of them must be related to the whole of the class
designated by the third or middle term. Otherwise, each may be connected with a different
part of that class, and the two are not necessarily connected with each other at all.
cont..
Rule 3:

A term which is distributed in the conclusion, must be distributed in the

premises.

A valid argument is one whose premises logically imply or entail its

conclusion. The conclusion of a valid argument cannot go beyond or assert
any more than is (implicitly) contained in the premises. If the conclusion does
illegitimately ‘go beyond’ what is asserted by the premises, the argument is
invalid. It is an ‘illicit process’ for the conclusion to say more about its terms
than the premises do.
cont...
A proposition that distributes one of its terms says more about the class designated by that term
than it would if the term were undistributed by it. To refer to all members of a class is to say more
about it than is said, when only some of its members are referred to. Therefore when the
conclusion of a syllogism distributes a term that was undistributed in the premises, it says more
about it than the premises warrant, and the syllogism is invalid. Such an illicit process can occur in
the case of either the major or the minor term.

When a syllogism contains its major term undistributed in the major premises but distributed in the
conclusion, the argument is said to commit the fallacy of illicit process of the major term or the
illicit major.

When a syllogism contains its minor term undistributed in its minor premises but distributed in its
conclusion, the argument commits the fallacy of illicit process of the minor term or the illicit minor.
cont...
Rule 4:

From two negative premises no conclusion can be drawn.

Any negative proposition (E or O) denies class inclusion, asserting that all or some of one class is excluded from the whole
of the other. Where S, P and M are the minor, major, and middle terms, respectively, two negative premises can assert only
that S is wholly or partially excluded from all or part of M and that P is wholly or partially excluded from all or part of M.

But these conditions may very well obtain no matter how S and P are related, whether by inclusion or exclusion, partial or
complete. Therefore from two negative premises, no relationship whatever between S and P can validly be inferred. Any
syllogism that breaks Rule 4 is said to commit the fallacy of exclusive premises.

No beasts are immortal.

No cats are immortal.

No cats are beasts.

cont...
Rule 5:

If one of the premises be negative the conclusion must be negative.

An affirmative conclusion asserts that one class is either wholly or partly contained in
a second. This can be justified only by premises that assert the existence of a third
class that contains the first and is itself contained in the second. In other words, to
entail an affirmative conclusion, both premises must assert inclusion. But class
inclusion can be stated only by affirmative propositions. So an affirmative conclusion
logically follows only from two affirmative premises. Hence if either premises is
negative, the conclusion cannot be affirmative but must be negative also. Any
syllogism that breaks Rule 5 may be said to commit the fallacy of drawing an
affirmative conclusion from a negative premises.
cont...
Rule 6:

If one premises be particular the conclusion must be particular.

To break this rule is to go from premises having no existential import to a conclusion that does. A particular proposition asserts the
existence of objects of a specified kind, so to infer it from two universal premises that do not assert the existence of anything at all is
clearly to go beyond what is warranted by the premises. For example,

All household pets are domestic animals.

No unicorns are domestic animals.

Therefore some unicorns are not household pets.

This syllogism is invalid because its conclusion asserts that there are unicorns (a false proposition), whereas its premises do not assert
the existence of unicorns (or of anything) at all. Being universal propositions, they are without existential import. The conclusion would
follow validity if to the two universal premises were added the additional premises ‘There are unicorns’. Any syllogism that violates Rule 6
may be said to commit the existential fallacy.
cont...
Formal Fallacies:

We have already explained the six essential rules for standard-form syllogisms and named the fallacy that
results when each of these rules is broken.

Rule 1:

A standard-form categorical syllogism must contain exactly three terms, each of which is used in the
same sense throughout the argument. Violation: Fallacy of four terms.

Rule 2:

In a valid standard-form categorical syllogism, the middle term must be distributed in at least one
premises.

Violation: Fallacy of the undistributed middle.

cont...
Rule 3:

In a valid standard-form categorical syllogism, if either term is distributed in the conclusion, then it must be distributed in the premises.

Violation: Fallacy of the illicit major, or fallacy of the illicit minor.

Rule 4:

No standard-form categorical syllogism having two negative premises is valid. Violation: Fallacy of exclusive premises.

Rule 5:

If either premises of a valid standard- form categorical syllogism is negative, the conclusion must be negative. Violation: Fallacy of drawing an
affirmative conclusion from a negative premises.

Rule 6:

No valid standard-form categorical syllogism with a particular conclusion can have two universal premises.

Violation: Existential fallacy.

Hindu method of syllogism
The Nyaya syllogism, however, has five propositions: theorem, reason, major premise, minor premise
and conclusion. E.g.:

(i) Socrates is mortal,

(2) For he is a man

(3) All men are mortal;

(4) Socrates is a man;

(5) Therefore Socrates is mortal.( like another James or Dewey)

cont...
The Vaisheshika-sutras give five propositions as constituting a syllogism
but give them different names. Gautama also supports a five-membered
syllogism with the following structure:
cont...
1. This hill is fiery (pratijna: a statement of that which is to be proved).

2. Because it is smoky (hetu: statement of reason).

3. Whatever is smoky is fiery, as is a kitchen (udaharana: statement of a general rule

supported by an example).

4. So is this hill (upanaya: application of the rule of this case).

5. Therefore, this hill is fiery (nigamana: drawing the conclusion).

Fallacies
Fallacies are mistaken beliefs based on unsound arguments. They derive from
reasoning that is logically incorrect, thus undermining an argument's validity.
Fallacies are difficult to classify, due to their variety in application and
structure. In the broadest sense possible, fallacies can be divided into two
types: formal fallacies and informal fallacies.
Let's take a look at the variations that exist within these categories.
Formal Fallacies

Formal (or deductive) fallacies occur when the conclusion doesn't

follow the premise. These are often referred to as non-sequiturs, or
conclusions that have nothing to do with initial claims. In formal
fallacies, the pattern of reasoning seems logical but is always wrong. A
deductive argument often follows the pattern: (1) All dogs have legs. (2)
Tiny is a dog. Therefore: (3) Tiny has legs.
Appeal to Probability - This is a statement that takes something for
granted because it is probable or possible.
cont...
· I see a dark cloud on the horizon. Dark clouds mean rain. It’s going to rain here today.

Bad Reasons Fallacy - Also known as Argumentum ad Logicam, in this type of fallacy, the conclusion is
assumed to be bad because the arguments are bad.
· Her new boyfriend drives an old car. He must be poor. She should break up with him.

Masked Man Fallacy - Also known as the Intentional Fallacy it involves a substitution of parties. If the two
things that are interchanged are identical, then the argument is assumed to be valid.
· Jeremy's private investigator reported that a man with a beard was having dinner with his wife. Jeremy's
best friend, Ronnie, has a beard. Therefore, Ronnie is having an affair with Jeremy's wife.

Non Sequitur - A fallacy wherein someone asserts a conclusion that does not follow from the propositions.
· All Dubliners are from Ireland. Ronan is not a Dubliner, therefore, he is not Irish.
Informal Fallacies

Informal (or inductive) fallacies abound. Not only are we more likely to come
across them than formal fallacies, their variations are endless. While formal
fallacies are identified through an examination of the statement or claim,
informal fallacies are identified through supporting evidence.
In these instances, the statement or claim is not supported with adequate
reasons for acceptance. A strong inductive argument follows this pattern: (1)
The sun has not exploded for all its existence. Therefore: (2) The sun will not
explode tomorrow.
Subcategories of Informal Fallacies

There are so many varieties of informal fallacies they can be broken

down into subcategories. Let’s examine some of those subcategories.
Fallacies of Presumption
Presumption of truth without evidence can also cause fallacious
reasoning. Examples of these fallacies include:
Complex Question Fallacy - This involve questionable assumptions.
cont...
·“Are you going to admit that you’re wrong?” Answering yes proves
you’re wrong. Answering no implies you accepts you are wrong, but
won’t admit it. This question presumes guilt either way.