Critical Thinking

The Square of Opposition

 The Square of Opposition

• The square of opposition:

represents the logical relationships • A……….Contraries…………….E
that can hold between any two
corresponding standard form • . .(cannot both be true) . .
categorical claims. • . . . .
• . Contradictories .
• For any two standard form . (Never the same t-value) .
claims to correspond to each • . . . .
other: • . . . .
• . . . .
• I…………Subcontraries……….O
• The square of opposition: • (cannot both be false)
depicts a variety of logical
relationships that hold between
corresponding A, E, I and O claims.
 Contraries &
Subcontraries
• Corresponding A and E claims • Corresponding I and O claims are
are contraries: subcontraries.
– Both claims can be false or – Both claims can be true or
– One can be false while the other is – One can be false while the other is true,
true, or vice versa. or vice versa.

• Contraries cannot both be true. • Subcontraries cannot both be false.

– For example – For example

A- ALL JUDGES ARE LAWYERS I- SOME POLITICIANS ARE HONEST

E- NO JUDGES ARE LAWYERS O-SOME POLITICIANS NOT HONEST

 Contradictory claims

• Contradictories:
– Corresponding A and O claims are contradictories.
– And corresponding I and E claims are contradictories.

• One true, the other false: For any two contradictory claims, one must be true
and the other false.

• Never the same T-value:

• A- ALL AIRCRAFT USE FOSSIL FUEL

• O- SOME AIRCRAFT DON’T USE FOSSIL FUEL

• E- NO AIRCRAFT USE FOSSIL FUEL

• I- SOME AIRCRAFT USE FOSSIL FUEL
 Using the square

• Inferring truth values using the square:

– Using the square of opposition and given the truth value of any standard
form categorical claim one can always infer the truth value of at least one of
the other corresponding three standard form claims.

• Say the A-claim All monkeys are mammals is true. The square tells us:
 superalterns
superalterns
 At least one is false
Can both be false
Cannot both be true

Truth goes down

Truth goes down

Falsehood goes up
Falsehood goes up

Superaltern
Superaltern

At least one is true

Can both be true
Cannot both be false
 What can be inferred
from the square
• If A is True E is false, I is true, O is false
• If E is True A is false, I is False, O is true
• If I is True E is false, A and O are Undetermined
• If O is true A is false, E and I are Undetermined

• If A is false, O is True, E and I are Undetermined

• If E is false, I is True, A and O are Undetermined
• If I is false, A is False, E is True and O is true
• If O is False, A is True, E is False and I is True
 CONTRADICTORIES

• Two propositions are contradictories if one is in denial or negation of the

other- that is if they cannot both be true and cannot both be false.

• Thus the A proposition “All cats are mammals” and the O proposition
“Some cats are not mammals” are contradictories.
• They are opposed both in quality (one affirms and the other denies) and
quantity (one refers to all and the other to some)
 CONTRARIES

• Two propositions are contraries if they cannot both be true-that is if the

truth of the other entails falsity of the other.
• AT LEAST ONE IS FALSE

• Thus the A proposition “All square are rectangles” and the E proposition
“No squares are rectangles” are contraries.
• They are opposed in quality (one affirms and the other denies) but the
same in quantity (one refers to all)
 SUBCONTRARIES

• Two propositions are said to be subcontraries if they cannot both be false,

• AT LEAST ONE IS TRUE although they may both be true.

• Thus the I proposition “Some diamonds are precious stones” and the O
proposition “Some diamonds are not precious stones” are subcontraries.
• They are opposites in quality (one affirms and the other denies) but the
same in quantity
 SUBALTERNATION

• When two propositions have the same subject and the same predicate
terms, and agree in quality (both affirming or denying) but differ in
quantity, they are called corresponding propositions.

• This opposition between a universal proposition and its corresponding

particular proposition is called subalternation.
• The Universal proposition is called superaltern and the particular
proposition is called subaltern.

• THE TWO PROPOSITIONS CAN BOTH BE TRUE OR FALSE

• Thus the A proposition “All whales are fishes” and corresponds to the I
proposition “Some whales are fishes”. Similarly, the E proposition “No
whales are fishes” and corresponds to the O proposition “Some whales
are not fishes”.
 Examples

• All successful executives are intelligent people- TRUE

• No successful executives are intelligent people- FALSE
• Some executives are intelligent people- TRUE
• Some executives are not intelligent people- FALSE

• All politicians are honest.- FALSE

• No politicians are honest.- UNDETERMINED
• Some politicians are honest.-UNDETERMINED
• Some politicians are not honest.-TRUE
 Examples
• What is the contrary of all artists are non- • False
conformists?
• What is the contradictory of some women • False
are high achievers?
• What is the superaltern of some • Undetermined
politicians are honest people?
• What is the subcontrary of some cats are • Undetermined
not mammals?
• What is the subcontrary of all cars are
• False
gas guzzlers?
• What is the subaltern of no logic students
are con artists? • True
• What is the contrary of some horses are • Undetermined
not spotted animals?
• What is the subaltern of no sharks are • True
mammals?
• What is the superaltern of some actors • Undetermined
are not college graduates?
• What is the subaltern of all bats are • True
blind?
• What is the subcontrary of no college
• True
graduates are criminals?
• What is the contrary of some CEOs are
not accountants? • Undetermined
 Examples
• What is the contrary of all painters are • False
not singers?
• What is the contradictory of some • False
runners are good swimmers?
• What is the superaltern of some • Undetermined
diamonds are precious stones?
• What is the subcontrary of some • Undetermined
mushrooms are not edible?
• What is the subcontrary of all bankers
• False
are good investors?
• What is the subaltern of no medical
students are good chemists? • True
• What is the contrary of some stars are • False
not visible at night?
• What is the subaltern of no insects are • True
mammals?
• What is the superaltern of some • Undetermined
scientists are not good orators?
• What is the subaltern of all birds could • True
fly?
• What is the subcontrary of no airplanes
• False
are made of wood?
• What is the contrary of some salesmen
are not good planners? • False
 Boolean Logic
• Named after the nineteenth-century
mathematician George Boole, Boolean logic
is a form of algebra in which all values are
reduced to either TRUE or FALSE.
• In Boolean logic, the argument is valid if the
conclusion and the premise say the same
thing.
• Example
• All good citizens are law-abiding people.
Therefore, all people who are not law-abiding
are not good citizens.
 Three Operations of Logical Equivalence

• Conversion, Obversion & Contraposition:

– 3 operations that can be performed on any standard form categorical claim.
– The operations help us find a new truth value for a new claim…

• Conversion:
– Finding the converse: find the converse by simply switching the positions of the
subject and predicate term (of any standard form cat. claim).
• Example:

– For any E or I claim, it’s converse is logically equivalent to it.

– A and O claims are not logically equivalent to their converses.

 Conversion
• Conversion: is an inference that proceeds by interchanging the subject
and predicate in terms of the proposition.

• Find the converse by:

Interchanging the subject and predicate in terms of that other
proposition.
One standard-form categorical proposition is therefore said to be the converse
of another when we derive it by simply interchanging the subject and predicate
terms of that other proposition.

The proposition from which it is derived is called convertend.

Thus, “No idealists are politicians” is the converse of “No politicians are
idealists”, which is its convertend.
 Conversion
• The conversion of an O proposition is not, in general, valid.

• Example the O proposition “Some animals are dogs” is plainly true; its
converse is the proposition, “some dogs are not animals”, is plainly false.
• Thus, an O proposition and its converse are not, in general, logically
equivalent.

• The A proposition also presents a problem here because its converse does
not follow from its convertend.

• So if we are given the A proposition that “All dogs are animals”, we first infer
that “some dogs are animals” by subalternation, and then from that subaltern
can validly infer by conversion that “some animals are dogs”.

• Hence, by a combination of subalternation and conversion, we advance validly

from “All is P” to “Some is P”. This pattern of inference, called conversion by
limitation proceeds by interchanging subject and predicate terms and
changing the quantity of the proposition from universal to particular.
 Valid Conversion
• CONVERTEND CONVERSE
• A: All S is P. I: Some P is S. (by
limitation)

• E: No S is P. E: No P is S.

• I: Some S is P. I: Some P is S.

• O: Some S is not P. (conversion not valid)

• Only the converse and convertend of E and I propositions are “logically equivalent”.
• Example:
• No people who are considerate of others are reckless drivers who pay no attention to
traffic regulations.

• Converse: No reckless drivers who pay no attention to traffic regulations are people
who are considerate of others. Logically Equivalent.
 Complementary terms

• A complementary term:
– refers to or picks out a complementary class of things.
– The word complement is used in two senses. In one sense, it is the complement of a
class, in the other it is the complement of a term.
– A sort of “double negative” rule is involved here to avoid strings of “non” prefixed to a
term. Thus, the complement of the term “voter” is “nonvoter”, but the complement of a
“nonvoter” should be written simply as “voter” rather than “nonnonvoter”.

– Likewise, the complement of the term “winner” is not “loser” but “nonwinner”
 Obversion
• Obversion: is retaining the quantity of the original proposition or
obvertend is unchanged without affecting its quantity. It is a method of
showing logical equivalence by changing the quality of the copula so
that the affirmative is rendered negative and the negative is rendered
affirmative. The original proposition is called obvertend, while the
resulting re-statement is called the obverse.

• Find the obverse by:

– 1) changing it from affirmative to negative or vice versa
– To change an A claim to negative:
– To change an E claim to affirmative:
– To change an I claim to negative:
– To change an O claim to affirmative:

– 2) replacing the predicate term with its complementary term.

 Valid Obversion
• Thus,
• The E proposition, “No umpires are partisans”, has as its obverse the
logically equivalent A proposition “All umpires are nonpartisans”.
• The I proposition, “Some metals are conductors”, has its obverse the O
proposition “Some metals are not nonconductors”.
• The O proposition, “Some nations were not belligerents” has its
obverse the I proposition, “Some nations were nonbelligerents”.
• * Every categorical proposition is logically equivalent to its obverse.

• OBVERTEND OBVERSE

• A: All S is P. E: No S is non-P.
• E: No S is P. A: All S is non-P.
• I: Some S is P. O: Some S is not non-P.
• O: Some S is not P. I: Some S is non-P.
 Valid Obversion
• Examples:
• A-Proposition
• All men are mortal.
• Therefore, no men are non-mortal.
• E- Proposition
• No men are mortal.
• Therefore, all men are non-mortal.
• I- Proposition
• Some men are mortal.
• Therefore, some men are not non-mortal.
• O-Proposition
• Some men are not mortal.
• Therefore, some men are non-mortal.

Find the obverse:

• All philosophers are searchers for knowledge.
• No candidates in the Presidential Election are capable of running the country.
• All dolphins are sea creatures.
• Some students are technologically inclined.
• No patriots are secessionists.
 Contraposition
• Contraposition is a combination of conversion and obversion. It has an
interchangeable subject and predicate, and it presents contradictories of terms.

• Find the Contraposition by:

– 1) Interchanging the subject and predicate of the proposition.

– 2) Replacing its subject term with the class of its complement, and

– 3) Replacing its predicate term with the complement of its subject.

• Examples:

• All members are voters.

• Therefore, all nonvoters are nonmembers.

• No swans are ducks.

• Therefore, some non-ducks are not non-swans. –by Limitation

Double negative
 Valid Contraposition
• Contraposition is a valid form of immediate inference in the A and O
propositions because both their contrapositives are logically equivalent.

• PREMISE CONTRAPOSITIVE

• A: All S is P. A: All non-P is non-S.

• E: No S is P. O: Some non-P is not

non-S.
(by limitation)
• I: Some S is P. Contraposition is not valid.

• O: Some S is not P. Some non-P is not non-S.

Examples:
All journalists are reporters.
Therefore, all non-reporters are non-journalists.

Some students are not idealists.

Therefore, some non-idealists are not non-students.
 Valid Contraposition
• Find the contrapositions

• Some fruits are sweet

• Therefore,

• All flight instructors are not professional pilots.

• Therefore,

• Some politicians are not rich people.

• Therefore,

• All airplanes are lighter than air craft.

• Therefore,
 CATEGORICAL SYLLOGISMS

 What is a categorical syllogism? It is a valid deductive

argument that uses two premises and a conclusion.
 The first two premises are presumed to be true.
Example
All men are mortal.
No gods are mortal.
Therefore no men are gods.
 PARTS OF A CATEGORICAL SYLLOGISM

 MAJOR TERM- The predicate of the conclusion

 MINOR TERM- The subject term of the conclusion
 MIDDLE TERM- The term that appears in both premises but not in
the conclusion
 MAJOR PREMISE- The premise containing the major term
 MINOR PREMISE- The premise containing the minor term.
 PARTS OF A CATEGORICAL SYLLOGISM

Major term Middle term

 All great scientists are college graduates.

Minor term Middle term

 Some professional athletes are college graduates.

Minor term Major term

 Therefore, some professional athletes are great scientists.

FIGURES OF CATEGORICAL SYLLOGISM

1. The middle term may be the subject term of the major premise and
the predicate term of the minor premise or
2. The middle term may be the predicate term of both premises or
3. The middle term may be the subject term of both premises or
4. The middle term may be the predicate term of the major premise
and the subject term of the minor premise.
FIGURES OF CATEGORICAL SYLLOGISM

M-P M-P P-M P-M

S-M M-S S-M M-S
S-P S-P S-P S-P
First figure Second figure Third figure Fourth figure
 MOOD OF CATEGORICAL SYLLOGISM

 The mood of a categorical syllogism is determined by the

types (A, E, I, O) of standard form categorical propositions it
contains.
 The mood of the categorical syllogism is therefore
represented by three letters and those three letters are
always given in a standard form order.
 Example
 No mammals are birds.
 All mammals are animals.
 Therefore, no animals are birds.
 Mood is EAE
 EXERCISE

Rewrite each of the following syllogisms in standard form and

name its figure and mood. (Note: First identify its conclusion,
second, note its predicate term, third, identify the major
premise and fourth identify its minor premise)

1. No nuclear powered submarines are commercial vessels.

So no warships are commercial vessels
Because all nuclear powered submarines are warships.
2. Some evergreens are objects of worship
Because all fir trees are evergreens
And some objects of worship are fir trees.
 EXERCISE

3. All artificial satellites are important scientific achievements;

Therefore, some important scientific achievements are not US
inventions,
Inasmuch as some artificial satellites are not US inventions.
4. Some conservatives are not advocates of high tariff rates,
because all advocates of high tariff rates are Republicans and
some Republicans are not conservatives.
5. No sports cars are vehicles intended to be driven at
moderate speeds, but all automobiles designed for family use
are vehicles intended to be driven at moderate speeds, from
which it follows that no sports cars are automobiles designed
for family use.
6. All CD players are delicate mechanisms, but no delicate
mechanisms are suitable toys for children; consequently no
CD players are suitable toys for children.
 THE FIFTEEN VALID FORMS OF THE STANDARD FORM CATEGORICAL
SYLLOGISM

First Figure (the Middle Term is the subject of the major premise and the predicate of the
minor premise)
1.AAA-1 Barbara
2.EAE-1 Celarent
3.AII-1 Darii
4.EIO- Ferio
Second Figure (the Middle term is the predicate of both premises)
1.AEE-2 Camestres
2.EAE-2 Cesare
3.AOO-2 Baroko
4.EIO-2 Festino
 THE FIFTEEN VALID FORMS OF THE STANDARD FORM CATEGORICAL
SYLLOGISM

Third Figure (the Middle term is the subject of both premises)

1.AII-3 Datisi
2.IAI-3 Disamis
3.EIO-3 Ferison
4.OAO-3 Bokardo
Fourth Figure (the Middle term is the predicate of the major premise and the subject of
the minor premise)
1.AEE-4 Camenes
2.IAI-4 Dimaris
3.EIO-4 Fresison
 RULES OF CATEGORICAL SYLLOGISM

RULE 1 A valid categorical syllogism will have only three and only three unambiguous
categorical terms. The mistake committed against this rule is equivocation and thereby
commits the fallacy of four terms. Thus, it is important that words should be specifically
defined in the arguments.

Example 1 Power tends to corrupt.

But, knowledge is power;
Therefore, knowledge tends to corrupt.

Example 2 Lapu-Lapu is the killer of Magellan.

Lapu-Lapu is a fish.
Therefore, a fish is the killer of Magellan.
 RULES OF CATEGORICAL SYLLOGISM

RULE 2 In a valid categorical syllogism the middle term must be distributed in at least
one of the premises. It means the middle term (M) must be universal at least once,
meaning, one of the major and minor premises must necessarily be universal, if not both
of them. The middle term is what connects the major and the minor term. If the middle
term is undistributed (particular) in both premises, there will arise the fallacy of the
undistributed middle.

Example 1 All lions are animals.

All men are animals.
Therefore, all men are lions.
In this example, both lions and men are mutually exclusive, meaning they cannot be
both at the same time.
Example 2 All trees are plants.
All Kamagongs are trees.
Therefore, all Kamagongs are plants.
The middle term is trees and it is distributed in both premises. The minor term
Kamagong is a subset of trees and therefore shares characteristics with it. Therefore the
syllogism is valid.
 RULES OF CATEGORICAL SYLLOGISM

RULE 2.1 In a valid categorical syllogism, there must not be two particular premises,
one premise must at least be universal.
Example 1 Some priests are holy.
Some nuns are holy.
Therefore, some nuns are priests.
Both the major and minor premises in the example are undistributed. As a result, the
middle term is never distributed, therefore the syllogism is invalid.
RULE 2.2 If one premise is particular, the conclusion must be particular. What is true of
a particular class is not necessarily true of the whole class. Thus the statement: “what is
true to one is not true to all”.
Example All men are philanderers.
Some pilots are men.
Therefore, all pilots are philanderers.

Example All lawyers are professionals.

Some criminals are lawyers.
Therefore, all lawyers are criminals.
 RULES OF CATEGORICAL SYLLOGISM

RULE 3 In a valid categorical syllogism, if a term is distributed in the conclusion, then it

must be distributed in the premises. This rule requires that the major and minor terms
are not universal in the conclusion if they are not both universal in the premises.
This means that for an argument to be valid, its premises must necessarily imply its
conclusion.
If the minor term that appears in the conclusion is universal when it is particular in the
minor premise, the argument commits the fallacy of illicit minor. If, on the other hand, it is
the major term that violates this rule, the violation is called the fallacy of illicit major.
Example 1 Some politicians are holy.
No criminals are holy.
Therefore, no criminals are lawyers.
The major term lawyer is universal in the conclusion but particular in the major premise.
So this violates the rule and commits the fallacy of illicit major since the major term must
not be universal in the conclusion if it is not major in the premise.

Example 2 All horses are animals.

But, some dogs are not horses.
Therefore, some dogs are not animals.
 RULES OF CATEGORICAL SYLLOGISM

RULE 4 A valid categorical syllogism may not have two negative premises. The purpose
of the middle term in an argument is to tie the major and minor terms together in such a
way that an inference can be drawn, but negative propositions state that the said terms
are exclusive of each other. Hence, if premises are both negative, then the relationship
between S and P are denied. This mistake is called the fallacy of exclusive premises.
Example 1 No fish are animals.
But some dogs are not fish;
Therefore, some dogs are not animals.

Example 2 No animals are insects.

No insects are dogs.
Therefore, no dogs are animals.
 RULES OF CATEGORICAL SYLLOGISM

RULE 5 In a valid categorical syllogism if either premise is negative, the conclusion is

negative. An affirmative proposition asserts that one class is included in some way in
another class, but a negative proposition asserts exclusion. For this reason, a negative
proposition cannot an affirmative conclusion. This mistake is called fallacy of drawing an
affirmative conclusion from a negative premise.
Example 1 No poets are accountants
Some artists are poets;
Therefore, some artists are accountants.

Example 2 All crows are birds,

But some wolves are not crows.
Therefore, some wolves are birds.
 RULES OF CATEGORICAL SYLLOGISM

RULE 6 In a valid categorical syllogism no particular conclusion may be drawn from two
universal premises. The reasoning behind this fallacy becomes clear when you use
whole classes, only to state in the conclusion that only some members belong to the
whole class -- which is wrong. This mistake is called fallacy of existential fallacy.
Example 1 All forest creatures live in the woods.
All leprechauns are forest creatures.
Therefore, some leprechauns live in the woods.

Example 2 All WCC students study aviation.

All Comfly students are WCC students.
Therefore, some Comfly students study aviation.
Source: Copi etl al., 2016
 EXERCISE

Identify the rule that is broken by any of the following syllogisms. (Note: First
identify its conclusion, second, note its middle term, and third, identify the major and minor
premises)
1.Allopponents of basic economic and political changes are outspoken critics of the liberal
leaders of Congress, and all right –wing extremists are opponents of basic economic and political
changes. It follows that all outspoken critics of the liberal leaders of Congress are right-wing
extremists.
2.All
people who live in London are people who drink tea, and all people who drink tea are people
who like it. We may conclude then, that all people who live in London are people who like it.
 ENTHYMEMES

Arguments occur regularly. However, some premises or arguments are not stated explicitly. In
some cases, the premises are left to the open interpretation or understanding of the recipient of
the argument. An argument that is stated incompletely, part being “understood” or only “in the
mind,” is called an enthymeme. An incompletely stated argument is characterized as being
enthymematic (Copi et al, 2016).

Came from the Greek word EN-THYMOS- which literally means a missing premise or conclusion.

In Thought
 ENTHYMEMES

Thus, one may come up with the conclusion that “Peter is celibate” by mentioning only one
premise, “Peter is a priest.”

Obviously, the argument is not complete but the missing premise is easily supplied by one’s
knowledge of the vocation of priesthood. If it were stated in full, the argument will be stated as
All priests are celibate.
Peter is a priest.
Peter is celibate.

In lay terms, enthymemes are also known as “implications”.

Thus, the premise of “Peter is a priest” implies that “All priests are celibate”.
 THE IMPORTANCE OF ENTHYMEMES

In order to make a persuasive argument, you have to assume

certain things about your reader. You have to assume, at the most
fundamental level, that they speak your language and understand
certain basic facts about the world. Without such assumptions, we
could hardly communicate, let alone persuade one another of
anything. Moreover, if we constantly had to pause to specify each
and every one of those assumptions, then even the must
rudimentary arguments would be painfully long and repetitive. So
enthymeme is more or less inevitable, and it helps make arguments
more efficient and readable. (Copi, 2016)
 TYPES OF ENTHYMEMES

 is one in which the syllogism’s

1. FIRST ORDER ENTHYMEME
major premise is not stated.
 is one in which only the major
2. SECOND ORDER premise and the conclusion
ENTHYMEME are stated, the minor premise
being suppressed.
 is one in which both premises
3. THIRD ORDER ENTHYMEME
are stated, but the conclusion is
left unexpressed.
 TYPES OF ENTHYMEMES
 FIRST ORDER ENTHYMEMES
 Example 1
 Drunk driving hurts innocent people.
Therefore, drunk driving is wrong.

 In the above example the major premise was not explicitly stated but it
was assumed that readers/ audiences already know or accepted this
fact.
 Thus, if the argument was to be stated completely it would appear this
way:
 Hurting innocent people is wrong.
 Drunk driving hurts innocent people.
 Therefore, drunk driving is wrong.
 TYPES OF ENTHYMEMES
 FIRST ORDER ENTHYMEMES
 Example 2
 That team has won the coin toss for the last three games.
 So, they are definitely going to lose the coin toss tonight.

 In the above example the major premise was not explicitly stated in the
argument but readers/ audiences already assume that the conclusion is
supported by an implied or assumed premise.
 Thus, if the argument was to be stated completely it would appear this way:
 Teams that win coin toss games three in a row always lose on the next
game.
 That team has won the coin toss for the last three games.
 So, they are definitely going to lose the coin toss tonight.
 After completing the argument it is necessary to evaluate its validity.
 TYPES OF ENTHYMEMES

 FIRST ORDER ENTHYMEMES

 Example 3
 Abortion takes an innocent human life.
 Therefore, abortion is wrong.
 What is the missing or implied premise?

 Taking an innocent human life is wrong.

 Abortion takes an innocent human life.
 Therefore, abortion is wrong
 TYPES OF ENTHYMEMES

 SECOND ORDER ENTHYMEMES

 Example 1
 See this adorable, laughing baby?
 This is the baby you murder when you have an abortion.

 In the above example the minor premise was not explicitly stated in the
argument but readers/ audiences already assume that the conclusion is
supported by an implied or assumed premise.
 Thus, if the argument was to be stated completely it would appear this
way:
 Abortion of babies is murder.
 See this adorable, laughing baby?
 This is the baby you murder when you have an abortion.
 TYPES OF ENTHYMEMES

 SECOND ORDER ENTHYMEMES

 Example 2
 Soldiers are brave.
 Therefore, Ferdinand is brave.

 Again, the minor premise was not explicitly stated in the argument but
readers/ audiences already assume that the conclusion is supported by
an implied or assumed premise.
 Thus, if the argument was to be stated completely it would appear this
way:
 Ferdinand is a soldier.
 Soldiers are brave.
 Therefore, Ferdinand is brave.
 TYPES OF ENTHYMEMES

 SECOND ORDER ENTHYMEMES

 Example
 The students who are performing poorly in my class are smokers.
 So the conclusion is inevitable that heavy smoking has negatively impacted
the performance of my students in class.

 Again, the minor premise was not explicitly stated in the argument but
readers/ audiences assume that there is a premise that supports the
conclusion.
 Thus, if the argument was to be stated completely it would appear this way:
 Surveys have shown that students who are heavy smokers consistently
perform poorly in class.
 The students who are performing poorly in my class are smokers.
 So the conclusion is inevitable that heavy smoking has negatively impacted
the performance of my students in class.
 TYPES OF ENTHYMEMES

 THIRD ORDER ENTHYMEMES

 Example 1
 Saints are holy people.
 Lorenzo Ruiz is a saint .

 Here the conclusion was not explicitly stated in the argument but it is
already implied to conclude that Lorenzo Ruiz is holy due to the build up
of the previous premises on this fact.
 Thus, if the argument was to be stated completely it would appear this
way:
 Saints are holy people.
 Lorenzo Luis is a saint.
 Therefore Lorenzo Ruiz is holy.
 TYPES OF ENTHYMEMES

 THIRD ORDER ENTHYMEMES

 Example 2
 The building that they are referring to is sturdy and stable.
 The engineer and the designers themselves assured me of its ability to
withstand earthquakes.

 Thus, if the argument was to be stated completely it would appear this

way:
 The building that they are referring to is sturdy and stable.
 The engineer and the designers themselves assured me of its ability to
withstand earthquakes.
 Therefore, I am confident that the building has the ability to withstand
earthquakes.
 STEPS IN SOLVING ENTHYMEMES

1. Determine what is missing, is it a premise or the conclusion?

2. Find or identify the conclusion first if possible. Look for clues.
3. Reintroduce the missing statement.
4. Arrange in a standard categorical format.
5. Then, test the validity of the argument.

1. Mr. Romanov is a gypsy. You can forget about asking for his
mailing address.
2. Benjamin is in the beerhouse. People drink beer in the
beerhouse.
 SORITES

Sometimes a single categorical syllogism is not enough for us to

adequately draw a valid conclusion from a pair of premises. Therefore, an
argument is not just a syllogism but a series of syllogisms.

Sorites (polysyllogism, chain argument, )- comes from the Greek word

“soros”, which means pile or heap of piles.

“An argument whose conclusion is inferred from its premises by a chain of

syllogistic inferences in which the conclusion of each inference serves as a
premise for the next, and the conclusion of the last syllogism is the
conclusion of the entire argument”. (Copi, 2016)
 EXERCISE FOR ENTHYMEMES

Find out the enthymemes of the following arguments and arrange them in
the Standard Categorical Syllogism Form.

1.Younever lose respect for a man who is a vicious competitor, and you
never hate a man you respect.
2. No enthymemes are complete, so this argument is incomplete.
3.Productivity is desirable because it betters the condition of the vast
majority of the people.
4.No internal combustion engines are free from pollution; but no internal
combustion engine is completely efficient.
5.A nation without a conscience is a nation without a soul. A nation without
a soul is a nation that cannot live.
 SORITES
All diplomats are tactful.
Some government officials are diplomats.
All government officials are people in public life.

With the syllogism above, one cannot draw the conclusion

Some people in public life are tactful.

To derive the conclusion requires two syllogisms.

All diplomats are tactful individuals.

Some government officials are diplomats.
Therefore some government officials are tactful individuals.
All government officials are people in public life.
Therefore some people in public life are tactful individuals.
 SORITES
Sorites can have at least 3 or more premises in order to come up with a
conclusion.
The following example is drawn from the Monadology of the philosopher
Gottfried Leibniz (Copi et al, 2016):
The human soul is a thing whose activity is thinking. A thing whose activity
is thinking is one whose activity is immediately apprehended, and without
any representation of parts therein. A thing whose activity is immediately
apprehended without any representation of parts therein is a thing whose
activity does not contain parts. A thing whose activity does not contain parts
is one whose activity is not motion. A thing whose activity is not motion is
not a body. What is not a body is not in space. What is not in space is
insusceptible of motion. What is insusceptible of motion is indissoluble (for
dissolution is a movement of parts). What is indissoluble is incorruptible.
What is incorruptible is immortal. Therefore the human soul is immortal.
Philosophers use sorites to make their cases to persuade people to agree to
their line of thinking. The apostle St. Paul also used sorites to illustrate the
interlocking premises that come from the Christ’s resurrection:

“But if there be no resurrection from the dead, then is Christ not risen: and if
Christ be not risen, then is our teaching vain, and if our preaching is vain, your
faith is also vain" (I Cor. 15:12-14)”

If we break it down into categorical syllogisms, we get this:

1. Christ was dead / The dead never rise / Therefore Christ did not rise; 2.
That Christ did rise is not true / We preach that Christ is risen / Therefore we
preach what is not true. 3. Preaching what is not true is preaching in vain / We
preach what is not true / Therefore we preach in vain. 4. Our preaching is vain /
Your faith comes from our preaching / Therefore your faith is vain.
To solve Sorites is to put them into standard form sorites.

“A standard form sorites 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.” (Hurley, 2016)

Example

All bloodhounds are dogs.

All dogs are mammals.
No fish are mammals.
Therefore, no fish are bloodhounds.
STEPS
1.Identify the conclusion
2.Reorder into standard form
3.Supply any missing premises
4.Test validity

2 Tests for Validity

TEST A
1.Put the sorites into standard form
2.Introduce the intermediate conclusions
3.Test each component for validity
TEST B
1. Use the 5 rules of categorical syllogisms.
No B are C
Some E are A
All A are B
All D are C
Some E are not D.

To put the sorites into standard form, the premises must be rearranged. To do this, find the
premise that contains the predicate of the conclusion and write it first. Then find the premise
that contains the other term in the first premise and write it second. Continue this way until all
premises are listed:

No B are D
All D are C
No B are C
All A are B No A are D
Some E are A
Some E are not D.
 DYSJUNCTIVE SYLLOGISMS

 What is a categorical syllogism? It is a valid deductive

argument that uses two premises and a conclusion.
 The first two premises are presumed to be true.
Example
All men are mortal.
No gods are mortal.
Therefore no men are gods.