Part III, Lesson Four The Reduction of Syllogisms to the First Figure PCUPR Fil. 207 Prof.

Kathleen Sauder
Introduction The Second and Third Figures of the syllogism are less perfect than the First Figure because they do not use the middle term in the most logical arrangement and because they do not as perfectly respect the function of the middle term as a link between the major and minor terms. This is why a syllogism in the First Figure is much more evident to us than one in either of the other Figures. Fig. I No B is A. Some C is B. Some C is not A. Fig. II No A is B. Some C is B. Some C is not A. Fig. III No B is A. Some B is C. Some C is not A. Fig. I No healthy person has cancer. Some Puerto Ricans are healthy. Some Puerto Ricans do not have cancer. Fig. II No one with cancer is healthy. Some Puerto Ricans are healthy. Some Puerto Ricans do not have cancer.

Elementary Logic, Part III, L. 4: Reduction of Syllogisms Prof. Kathleen Sauder

Page 1

Fig. III No healthy person has cancer. Some healthy persons are Puerto Ricans. Some Puerto Ricans do not have cancer.

By comparing the two syllogisms in Fig. I and Fig. II, it is easy to see that the only difference between them is the major premise. Furthermore, the second is the conversion of the first. So to change the syllogism in Fig. II to one in Fig. I, all we have to do is to convert its major premise. Fig. I No B is A. Some C is B. Some C is not A. Fig. II No A is B. Some C is B. Some C is not A.

Fig. I No B is A. Some C is B. Some C is not A. Fig. III No B is A. Some B is C. Some C is not A.

These are two examples of the reduction of syllogisms in the Second and Third Figures to a syllogism in the First Figure, demonstrating their equivalence. Elementary Logic, Part III, L. 4: Reduction of Syllogisms Prof. Kathleen Sauder

Page 2

The process is sometimes more complicated than in these examples, but can be done in every case. All the valid but imperfect moods in the Second and Third Figures are reducible to valid moods in the First Figure. Example: All tigers are mammals. No reptile is a mammal. Therefore, no reptile is a tiger. Mood: A E E Figure: Second We need to have the middle term, mammal, as the subject of the major premise in order to have a syllogism in the First Figure. All tigers are mammals. No reptile is a mammal. No reptile is a tiger. The easiest way to achieve this would be to convert the major premise. All tigers are mammals since it is a universal affirmative proposition, converts only accidentally to: Some mammals are tigers. Some mammals are tigers. No reptile is a mammal. No reptile is a tiger. Unfortunately, although the syllogism is now in the First Figure, it is not a valid mood. The major term tiger is distributed in the conclusion but undistributed in the major premise. Furthermore, the conclusion is universal, but one of the premises is particular, which violates Rule 5. So we need to find another way to reduce it to the First Figure. The minor premise converts simply: Elementary Logic, Part III, L. 4: Reduction of Syllogisms Prof. Kathleen Sauder

Page 3

All tigers are mammals. No reptile is a mammal. No reptile is a tiger. All tigers are mammals. No mammal is a reptile. No reptile is a tiger. But this syllogism is not in the First Figure since the terms are out of order. We could fix this by switching the premises: All tigers are mammals. No reptile is a mammal. No reptile is a tiger. All tigers are mammals. No mammal is a reptile. No reptile is a tiger. No mammal is a reptile. All tigers are mammals. No tiger is a reptile. By switching the premises, however, we have also switched the major and minor terms. The conclusion that follows is No tiger is a reptile, which is the valid conversion of No reptile is a tiger, the original conclusion. So the two are indeed equivalent. Names of the Valid Moods A system of names to remember how to convert the valid moods of the Second and Third Figures to the First Figure has been developed that will prove very useful for remembering all the valid moods of the syllogism. Each name has three vowels to represent the letters of the mood. First Figure A - A - A : Barbara Elementary Logic, Part III, L. 4: Reduction of Syllogisms Prof. Kathleen Sauder

Page 4

E - A - E : Celarent A - I - I : Darii E - I - O : Ferio Second Figure E - A - E : Cesare A - E - E : Camestres E - I - O : Festino A - O - O : Baroco

Third Figure A - A - I : Darapti E - A - O : Felapton I - A - I : Disamis A - I - I : Datisi O - A - O : Bocardo E - I - O : Ferison

These names also tell us how to reduce the moods of the Second and Third Figures to the First. The initial consonant of the name indicates to which of the four valid moods the syllogism is reducible. Thus, Cesare in the Second Figure reduces to Celarent in the First. Disamis in the Third Figure reduces to Darii in the First. The names also contain a key that indicates precisely how to reduce them. The following consonants mean: s means simple conversion of the proposition; p (per accidens) means accidental conversion; m (mutatio) means the premises must be interchanged; c means the reduction is accomplished through a process of contradiction. These consonants refer to the vowel that precedes them. Reduction of Cesare to Celarent Celarent (I) No A is B. All C is B. No C is A.

Cesare (II) No B is A. All C is B. No C is A.

Elementary Logic, Part III, L. 4: Reduction of Syllogisms Prof. Kathleen Sauder

Page 5

Reduction of Camestres to Celarent Camestres (II) All A is B. No C is B. No C is A. Reduction of Festino to Ferio Festino (II) No A is B. Some C is B. Some C is not A.

Reduction of Baroco to Barbara This is a more complicated and indirect reduction than the others we have seen so far. It must be done by means of contradiction, which is to say that we start out assuming the contradictory of what we want to prove, seeing that this leads to an impossible conclusion, which therefore permits us to conclude that if one contradictory is false, the other must be true by process of elimination. Another way to look at it is to think that our imaginary opponent wishes to admit the truth of the premises but deny the truth of the conclusion, in other words, he wishes to hold that the contradictory of the conclusion is true. We must demonstrate to him that this leads to a contradiction, and that therefore our original conclusion must follow from the premises (which is to prove that the syllogism is valid.) Baroco (II) All A is B. Some C is not B. Some C is not A. But this contradicts the original minor premise Some C is not B. Therefore, since to assume the contradictory of the original conclusion results in a contradiction, the original conclusion must be true, and the Baroco syllogism is valid.

Elementary Logic, Part III, L. 4: Reduction of Syllogisms Prof. Kathleen Sauder

Page 6

Reduction of Darapti to Darii Darapti (III) All B is A. All B is C. Some C is A. Reduction of Felapton to Ferio Felapton (III) No B is A. All B is C. Some C is not A.

Reduction of Disamis to Darii Disamis (III) Some B is A. All B is C. Some C is A. Reduction of Datisi to Darii Datisi (III) All B is A. Some B is C. Some C is A. Reduction of Bocardo to Barbara Bocardo (III) Some B is not A. All B is C. Elementary Logic, Part III, L. 4: Reduction of Syllogisms Prof. Kathleen Sauder

Page 7

Some C is not A. With this and the original minor premise, we can construct a Barbara syllogism:

Reduction of Ferison to Ferio Ferison (III) No B is A. Some B is C. Some C is not A.

Elementary Logic, Part III, L. 4: Reduction of Syllogisms Prof. Kathleen Sauder

Page 8