Valid Argument – is an argument in which the
conclusion must be true if the premises are true.
Invalid Argument – may have true premises and
a true conclusion.
Types of Syllogism
Categorical Syllogism – a syllogism composed
of categorical statements alone.
Hypothetical Syllogism – includes both
categorical and hypothetical statements.
Categorical Statement – is a statement that
directly asserts something or states a fact
without any conditions.
Hypothetical Statement – is a compound
statement which contains a proposed or
tentative explanation.
Compound Statement – consists of at least two
clauses connected by conjunctions, adverbs,
etc.
Clause – simple statement that contain one
subject and one predicate.
Properties of a Categorical Statement
Quality – the statement may be affirmative or
negative. A statement that has the terms “no”,
“not”, “none” and “never” is negative.
Quantity – the statement is either universal or
particular.
Universal Statement – when what is being
affirmed or denied of the term is its whole
extension.
Particular Statement – when what is being
affirmed or denied of the subject is just a part of
its extension.
Parts of a Categorical Syllogism
Minor term (S) – the subject of the conclusion
(also called the subject term)
Major term (P) – the predicate of the conclusion
(also called the predicate term)
Middle term (M) – the term found in both
premises and serves to mediate between the
minor and the major terms
Statements in a Categorical Syllogism
Minor premise – which contains the minor term
Major premise – the premise which contains the
minor term
Conclusion – the statement the premises
support
Rules for the Validity of Categorical
Syllogisms
.
Rule 1: The syllogism must not contain two
negative premises.
Rule 2: There must be three pairs of univocal
terms.
Rule 3: The middle term must be universal at
least once.
Rule 4: If the term in the conclusion is universal,
the same term in the premise must also be
universal
Fallacy of exclusive premises – violation of Rule
1; when the premises are both negative, the
middle term fails to serve its function of
mediating between the major and minor
terms.
Fallacy of equivocation – violation of Rule 2;
Equivocation usually occurs in the middle term.
Fallacy of particular middle – violation of Rule 3,
where the middle terms are particular in both
premises.
 Inductive Argument – give us truth or information
Fallacy of illicit minor – when the minor term is more than what the premises are saying. Claims
universal in the conclusion but particular in the that its conclusion, based on the premises, is
premise. likely or probably true.

Fallacy of illicit major – when the major term is
universal in the conclusion but particular in the
premise.
Kinds of Hypothetical Syllogism
Deductive Argument – draws out truth or
information already contained in the premises.
It’s not applicable in cases where there is no
established law, or binding precedent, or clear
statute to provide the major premise of legal
argument.

Conditional Syllogism Inductive Generalization – is an argument that

Disjunctive Syllogism
Conjunctive Syllogism
Conditional Syllogism - is a syllogism in which
the major premise is a conditional statement.
Conditional Statement - is a compound
statement which asserts that one member is true
on condition that the other member is true.
Antecedent – is the “if…” clause in a statement.
relies on characteristics of a sample population
to make a claim about the population as a
whole.
Sample – a representative of a group which is
an essential factor in determining whether the
conclusion about the population as a whole is
justified or not.
Random sample – is one in which all members
of the target have an equal opportunity to be in
the sample.
Analogy – is a comparison of things based on
similarities those things share.

Consequent – is the “then...” clause in a

statement.

Modus Ponens – when the minor premise

affirms the antecedent, the conclusion must
affirm the consequent.

Modus Tollens – when the minor premise denies

the consequent, the conclusion must deny the
antecedent.

Fallacy of denying antecedent – if minor premise

denies the antecedent

Fallacy of affirming the consequent – if the minor

premise affirms the consequent

Enthymemes – a kind of argument that is stated

incompletely, part being understood or only in
the mind.

Polysyllogism – is a series of syllogisms in which

the conclusion of one syllogism supplies a
premise of the next syllogism.