Special Types

of Syllogism
Chapter 9
1. ENTHYMEME

A syllogism in which one of the

premises or the conclusion is omitted.
There three orders of enthymemes. The
first order is when the major premise is
omitted. The second is when the minor
premise is omitted. The third is when
the conclusion is omitted.
 Example: Major: What is spiritual is immortal.
Minor: But the human soul is spiritual.
Concl: Therefore the human soul is
spiritual.

1st order major premise is omitted

Minor: The human soul is spiritual
Concl: and therefore immortal.
 Example: Major: What is spiritual is immortal.
Minor: But the human soul is spiritual.
Concl: Therefore the human soul is
spiritual.

2nd order minor premise is omitted

Major: What is spiritual is immortal.
Concl: For this reason the human
soul is immortal.
 Example: Major: What is spiritual is immortal.
Minor: But the human soul is spiritual.
Concl: Therefore the human soul is
spiritual.

3rd order conclusion is omitted

Major: The human soul is spiritual,
Minor: and whatever is spiritual is
immortal
1. ENTHYMEME

This is not a distinct form of

syllogism, but an incomplete statement
of any of the forms we have already
studied. It is generally hypothetical if
neither the subject nor the predicate of
the conclusion occurs in the antecedent.
1. ENTHYMEME

It can be recognize as categorical as

soon as we discover three syllogistic
terms. Thus, “A is B; therefore A is C”
is obviously categorical, for it has the
three syllogistic terms A, B, and C.
1. ENTHYMEME

For instance, “It is raining; therefore

Peter is not working” is obviously
hypothetical, the unexpressed member
being “If it is raining, Peter is not
working.”
1. ENTHYMEME

It is most natural way of applying a

general principle to a particular case
and the most commonest expression of
syllogistic reasoning.
1. ENTHYMEME

Its weakness is sometimes concealed

by the suppression of false/ doubtful
premises. Often the only way to test the
validity and truth of an this is to express
the omitted member. It has no special
rule since it is not a distinct form of
syllogism.
1. ENTHYMEME

Notice that many “because” clauses

are not intended to be a proof that a
thing took place but an explanation of
why it took place. The same is true of
the antecedents of many “therefore”
clauses.
2. EPICHIREME

A syllogism in which a proof is

joined to one or both premises. It is
often expressed by a casual clause (for,
because, since and so on). The premise
to which the proof is annexed is an
enthymeme.
2. EPICHIREME

We must be careful to distinguish the

main syllogism from the proof of a
premise. The given example (to be
found at the next slide) shows the
proofs of premise in italic.
 2. EPICHIREME

Major: if man has spiritual activities, he

has a spiritual soul, because every activity
requires an adequate principle.
Minor: But since man knows immaterial
things, man has spiritual activity.
Concl: Therefore man has a spiritual
soul.
2. EPICHIREME

The next example shows that the

antecedent is a proof of the unexpressed
minor premise. The major premise of
the main syllogism of this argument is
also unexpressed because it is
considered too obvious to require
statement.
2. EPICHIREME

The next example shows that the

antecedent is a proof of the unexpressed
minor premise. The major premise of
the main syllogism of this argument is
also unexpressed because it is
considered too obvious to require
statement.
2. EPICHIREME

Example:
“What atrophies those national traits
which make America big, virile and
wealthy is bad; hence, we oppose all
additions to federal power.”
Fully expressed, this argument is as
follows(the original argument is written in
the capital letters):
 2. EPICHIREME

Major: We opposed whatever is bad.

Minor: WHAT ATRROPHIES THOSE
NATIONAL TRAITS WHICH MAKE
AMERICA BIG, VIRILE AND WEALTHY
ARE BAD; but all aditions to federal power
atrophy those national trait which make
America big, verile, and wealthy;
Concl: HENCE, WE OPPOSE ALL
ADDITIONS TO FEDERAL POWER
 3. POLYSYLLOGISM

As the name suggests (poly is Gk. word

for many) is a series of syllogisms so
arranged that the conclusion of one is the
premise of the next. Each individual
syllogism must adhere to the rules of the
simple syllogism.
 4. SORITES

It is a polysyllogism consisting of a
series of simple syllogisms whose
conclusions except for the last, are omitted.
It is either categorical or conditional.
 4.1 CATEGORICAL SORITES

It consists of a series of simple

categorical syllogisms of the first figure
whose conclusions except for the last are
omitted. It links or separates the subject or
the predicate of the conclusion through the
intermediacy of the middle term
4.1.1 TWO CATEGORICAL SORITES

Aristotelian(progressive)- the predicate of

each premise is the subject of the following
premise and the subject of the first premise
is the subject of the conclusion.
4.1.1 TWO CATEGORICAL SORITES

Gocleanian(regressive)- the same

premises occur, but their order is reversed.
Its difference from the first is only
accidental.
4.1.1 TWO CATEGORICAL SORITES
Diagram 1.1
Aristotelian Goclean
(Some) C is D
A is B D is
(not) E
B is C
Therefore C is D
D is
(some ) A
(not)
is (not) E. (some)
E B is C
A is B

Therefore (some ) A is (not) E.

4.1.1 TWO CATEGORICAL SORITES

The diagram displays the arrangement of

the premises and indicates which of may
be particular and which negative.
4.1.1 TWO CATEGORICAL SORITES
Diagram 1.2

Aristotelian

AFFIRMATIVE
B C

C B
Gocleanian
4.1.1 TWO CATEGORICAL SORITES
Diagram 1.3

Aristotelian

NEGATIVE
C

C B
Gocleanian
4.1.1 TWO CATEGORICAL SORITES

The diagrams 1.2 and 1.3 indicates the

quantitative relation of the terms. Observe
how the colors transient and the sizes
changes. It indicates the term from
particular to universal (Aristotelian) and
from universal to particular (Goclenian)
4.1.1 TWO CATEGORICAL SORITES
Diagram 1.4

A is B
B is C
(therefore A is C)
C is D
(therefore A is D)
D is E
Therefore A is E
4.1.1 TWO CATEGORICAL SORITES

Diagram 1.4 shows how all the

conclusions except the last are suppressed.
The diagram we supply the missing
conclusion in the parentheses. Each simple
syllogism is of the first figure, but the
major and minor premises are reversed.
4.1.1 TWO SPECIAL RULES FOR THE
CATEGORICAL SORITES
Aristotelian Sorites
1. All but the last premise must be
affirmative. If a premise is a negative, the
conclusion must be negative.
2. All but the first premise must be
universal. If the first premise is particular,
the conclusion must be particular.
4.1.1 TWO SPECIAL RULES FOR THE
CATEGORICAL SORITES
Goclenian Sorites
The reverse of the Aristotelian Sorites is
to be follow and only the first premise may
be negative and only the last particular.
4.1 TWO SPECIAL RULES FOR THE
SORITES

If the first rule is violated, there is an

illicit process of the major term. As the
predicate of an affirmative proposition the
term “E” is particular in the premise; but as
the predicate of a negative proposition it is
universal in the conclusion. Refer on the
diagram 1.5.
4.1.1 TWO SPECIAL RULES FOR THE
CATEGORICAL SORITES Diagram 1.5

A is B
B is C
C is not D
D is E (p)
____________
Therefore A is not E (u)
4.1 TWO SPECIAL RULES FOR THE
CATEGORICAL SORITES Diagram 1.6

If the second rule is violated, there is an

undistributed middle.

A is B
B is C
some C (p) is D
D is E
4.1.1 TWO SPECIAL RULES FOR THE
CATEGORICAL SORITES Diagram 1.6

The above mentioned rules are

corollaries of the rules of the first figure of
the categorical syllogism.
4.2 CONDITINAL SORITES

Is one whose premises contain a series of

conditional propositions, each of which
(except the first) has as its antecedent the
consequent of the preceding premise.
4.2 CONDITINAL SORITES

Sometimes all the premises, including

the last, are conditional proposition.
Sometimes it is a categorical proposition.
4.2 CONDITINAL SORITES

To posit an antecedent is to posit not

only its proximate consequents but also its
remote consequents and to sublate a
consequent is sublate not only its
proximate antecedents but also its remote
antecedents.
4.2 CONDITINAL SORITES

Thus in the series “if A then B; if B then

C; if C then D; if D then E,” to posit A is to
posit B, C, D, and E; and to sublate E is to
sublate D, C, B and A. Hence we can argue
that;
4.2 CONDITINAL SORITES

1. If A, then B; 2. If A, then B;
If B, then C; If B, then C;
If C, then D; If C, then D;
If D, then E; If D, then E;
therefore, therefore, If not E, if A,
then E then not A.
4.2 CONDITINAL SORITES

3. If A, then B; 4. If A, then B;
if B, then C; if B, then C;
if C, then D; if C, then D;
if D, then E; if D, then E;
but A; but not E;
therefore, E therefore, not A.
5. DILEMMA

It is a syllogism that is both conditional

and disjunctive. The major premise is
compound conditional proposition
consisting of two or more simple
conditional propositions connected by
“and” or its equivalent.
5. DILEMMA

The minor premise is a disjunctive

proposition that alternatively posits the
antecedent. (constructive dilemma), or
sublates the consequents (destructive
dilemma) of each of these simple
conditional proposition.
5. DILEMMA

Constructive Dilemma- the disjunctive

proposition is commonly placed first.

Destructive Dilemma- the conditional

propositions are commonly placed first.
The conclusion is either a categorical or a
disjunctive proposition.
5.1 FORMS OF DILEMMA

I. Simple Constructive Dilemma

The conditional premise infers the
same consequent from all the antecedents
presented in the disjunctive proposition.
Hence, if any antecedent is true, the
consequent must be true.
5.1 FORMS OF DILEMMA

I.Simple Constructive Dilemm

Either A or B.
if A, then Z;
BUT
if B, then Z;
Therefore Z.
5.1 FORMS OF DILEMMA

II. Complex Constructive Dilemma

The conditional premise infers
different consequent from each of the
antecedents presented in the disjunctive
proposition. If any antecedent is true, its
consequent is true.
5.1 FORMS OF DILEMMA

II. Complex Constructive Dilemma

But since the antecedents are posited
disjunctively and since a different
consequent flows from each of them, the
consequent must likewise be posited
disjunctively.
5.1 FORMS OF DILEMMA

Complex Constructive Dilemma

II.
Either A or B.
if A, then X;
BUT
if B, then Y;
Therefore either X or Y.
5.1 FORMS OF DILEMMA
III. Simple Destructive Dilemma
Conditional premise infers more than
one consequent from the same antecedent. If
any of the consequent is false, the antecedent
is false. Hence, since the disjunctive sublates
the consequents alternatively, at least one of
them must be false and consequently the
antecedent must be false too.
5.1 FORMS OF DILEMMA

Simple Destructive Dilemma

III.
If A, then X and Y.
Either not X;
BUT
Or not Y;
Therefore not A.
5.1 FORMS OF DILEMMA

IV. Complex Destructive Dilemma

Conditional premise infers a different
consequent from each antecedent. The
disjunctive premise sublates these
consequents alternatively.
5.1 FORMS OF DILEMMA

Complex Destructive Dilemma

IV.
If A, then X; and if B, then Y.
Either not X;
BUT
Or not Y;
Therefore not either not A or not B.
5.2 RULES OF THE DILEMMA,
ANSWERING A DILEMMA
1. Disjunction must state all pertinent
alternatives.
“I must either devote myself to the interests
of my soul, or to secular pursuits. If I devote
myself to the interests of my soul, my
business will fail; if I devote myself to
secular pursuits, I shall lose my soul.
Therefore, either my business will fail, or
else I shall lose my soul. “
5.2 RULES OF THE DILEMMA,
ANSWERING A DILEMMA
2. Consequents in the conditional
proposition must flow validly from the
antecedent.
“Bryan is either in conformity with
seminary formation or not. If he does, he will
be good and should stay; if he doesn’t he
needs farther formation and likewise should
stay. Therefore Bryan should stay.”
5.2 RULES OF THE DILEMMA,
ANSWERING A DILEMMA
3. Dilemma must not be subject to rebuttal.

Teacher: Common answer my question there

is no right or wrong answer here.

Student: Even if I give my answer nothing

will change. Since there is no right or wrong
answer. Therefore I will answer you Maam.
THANK YOU!!!

PREPARED BY
Sem. Kent Leary Angelo Silva