CATEGORICAL SYLLOGISM

Etymologically speaking , syllogism means connected thought. It is a deductive argument consisting of two premises and a
conclusion. A Categorical Syllogism is a syllogism in which all three of the statements that make up the syllogism, i.e., the two
premises and the conclusion – are categorical statements. In order to easily analyze the validity of a categorical syllogism, the
categorical syllogism must be placed in a standard – form categorical syllogism in which the premises and the conclusion are
arranged in a certain prescribed order, such as:

Major Premise
Minor Premise
Conclusion

It is understandable that there are categorical syllogism that may not follow the prescribed order. We take for example the
standard – form categorical syllogism:

All person are intellectual beings.

But Plato is a person.
Therefore, Plato is an intellectual being.

However, it is not always the case that the categorical syllogism is arranged in its standard – form. For instance,

In as much as all persons have dignity

It follows that all Filipinos have dignity.
Since all Filipinos are persons.

In order to arrange this into a standard – form categorical syllogism, it is important that we know some important particles,
which will indicate whether a proposition is a premise or a conclusion. In such a case, it is important that we know some
examples of a premise – indicator and a conclusion indicator.

The premise – indicator are: because, since, but, on account of, for in as much as, insofar as, for the reason that, etc.

The conclusion indicator are: therefore, thus, hence, so ergo, consequently, it follows that, we may conclude that, etc.

Basing ourselves on the premise indicators and the conclusion indicator in the given syllogism, we can say that the premise “it
follows that all Filipinos have dignity” because of its conclusion indicator. When we find that a conclusion – indicator or a
premise – indicator is present in a non-standard form syllogism, we can already arrange the syllogism into its standard – form.

However, in as much as there are two types of premises, it will therefore be a question now of whether such premise is a major
premise or a minor premise. In order to know whether the premise is a major premise or a minor premise, we have first to
understand the Terms of the Categorical Syllogism.

The Categorical Syllogism has three terms:

1.The Major Term (P). This is the predicate of the conclusion that is also to be found in the major premise.

2.The Minor Term (S). This is the subject of the conclusion and is found in the minor premise.

3.The Middle Term (M). This is found in the two premises but not in the conclusion. It is the term that mediates or that which
essentially relate or connect the two premises.

In constructing a standard – form categorical syllogism (SFC), we have to follow the following methods:

1.Determine the proposition is a premise or a conclusion through its premise – indicator or conclusion – indicator.

2.If the premise contains the subject of the conclusion – to – be, then the premise is the minor premise. But if the premise
contains the predicate of the conclusion – to – be, then the premise is the major premise.

3.Ask or look for a reason why the conclusion – to - be can be true.

VALIDITY AND SOUNDNESS OF AN ARGUMENT

To understand the concept of validity in the sense in which logicians use the term, we must bear in mind the distinction
between the form and the content of an argument. The content of an argument is what we might call its subject matter in as
much as it is what the argument is all about. The form is the structure, or pattern, of the argument.

Validity can be determined by analyzing the form of an argument. This means that validity concerns only the form of an
argument but not its content. To say that an argument is valid is to say that if the premises are true, then the conclusion must
be true. An invalid argument occurs when the premises are false. Only deductive arguments may be valid or invalid.

Soundness, too, is a characteristic that can be attribute only to deductive arguments. Unlike validity, soundness concerns both
the form and the content of the argument. A sound argument is a valid argument that contains only true premises. Thus an
argument is said to be sound argument if the conclusion is found to be true since it follows necessarily from true premises. To
claim that an argument is valid is to make the weaker claim that the conclusion is true if the premises are true.

FIGURES OF STANDARD – FORM CATEGORICAL SYLLOGISM

The relative positions of the three terms, i.e., the major term, the minor term and the middle term, constitute the figure of the
syllogism. Since there are two premises in an SFC syllogism and two terms in each premise, there are four possible patterns in
which these terms may occur. Because the major term always occurs in the major premise and the minor term in the minor
premise, we therefore should pay attention only of the position of the middle term in the premises. The four figures in which
the middle term may occur in the premises are as follows:

FIRST FIGURE
This is otherwise as the scientific figure. In this figure, the middle term takes the position of the subject of the major premise
and the predicate of the minor premise (sub-pre).

M – P Example: Every person has dignity.

S - M But, a muchacha is a person.
S – P Ergo, a muchacha has dignity.

SECOND FIGURE
In this figure, the middle term takes the position of the predicate of both the major premise and the minor premise (pre-pre).

P - M Example: Every man in creative;

S – M but no ape is creative.
S – P Ergo, no ape is a man.

THIRD FIGURE
In the third figure, the middle term takes the position of the subject in both the major premise and the minor premise (sub-
sub).

M – P Example: All bananas are sweet.

M – S But all bananas are fruits.
S – P Ergo, some fruits are sweet.

FOURTH FIGURE
In this figure, the middle term takes the position of the predicate of the major premise and the subject of the minor premise
(pre-sub).

P – M Example: All cheaters are sinners.

M – S But no sinners are saints.
S – P Ergo, no saints are cheaters.

MOODS OF A STANDARD – FORM CATEGORICAL SYLLOGISM

The Mood of an SFC syllogism is the external patterns of a syllogism with respect to the kinds or types of propositions (A, E, I
and O – propositions) of the premises and the conclusion. There are 19 valid moods, each corresponding to the type of figure of
an SFC syllogism:

Figure 1: bArbArA, cEIArEnt, dArII, fErLO or AAA,EAE,AII,EIO

Figure 2: cEsArE; cAmEstrEs, fEstInO,or EAE,AEE,EIO,AOO

bArOcO

Figure 3: dArAptI, dIsAmIs, dAtIsI or AAI,IAI,AII,EAO,OAO,EIO

fELAptOn, bOcArdO, fErIsOn

Figure 4: brAmAntIp, cAmEnEs, dImArls, or AAI,AEE,IAI,EAO,EIO

fEsApO, frEsIsOn
Examples:

Every material effect is physical. (A)

But every force is a material effect. (A)
Ergo, every force is physical. (A)
Figure 1 – Barbara

No lazy persons study every night. (E)

But some students study their lessons every night. (I)
Therefore, some students are not lazy. (O)
Figure 2 – Festino

All men are animals. (A)

But all men are living things. (A)
Therefore, some living things are animals. (I)
Figure 3 – Darapti

A categorical syllogism is said to be valid if the figure of the given categorical syllogism corresponds to the moods is the said
figure. If the figure of the given syllogism does not correspond to the moods designated in such figure, then the syllogism may
be considered invalid and therefore, has violated a rule or two in a categorical syllogism. Such rules will be discussed in the next
topic.

Example:
All bananas are sweet.
But all bananas are fruits.
Then, all fruits are sweet.
Figure 3 – Invalid

Many logic students are intelligent.

But many politicians are not intelligent.
Therefore, many politicians are not logic students.
Figure 2 – invalid

The two given syllogisms are both invalid in as much as the first example has an AAA pattern while the second example has an
IOO pattern. In as much as figure 3 has no AAA and figure 2 has no IOO, they are therefore invalid, i.e., illogical.

TESTING THE VALIDITY OF CATEGORICAL SYLLOGISM

In order to determine the validity of a categorical syllogism, it is important for us to study first the general rules governing
reasoning in order to fully understand the axioms of validity of the said categorical syllogism.

GENERAL RULES OF REASONING:

1. Dictum de Omni / Dictum de Nullo.

Dictum de Omni is also known as the Law of All. This states that whatever is affirmed universally, or in a formal manner, of a
logical whole or class, should also be affirmed of its logical individuals.

Example:
All of us in this room are Filipinos.
Therefore, I am a Filipino, you are a Filipino, etc.

Consequently, the negative aspect of this rule is known as the Dictum de Nullo, which is also known as the Law of None. This
rule states that whatever is denied universally, or in a formal manner, of a logical whole or class, should also be denied of its
logical individuals.

Example:
No angel is mortal.
Therefore, Michael, the archangel who defeated
Lucifer was not mortal.

2. The principle of identity

This rule states that “if one and the same third concept agrees to both the first and the second concept, then the first and the
second concept agree with each other. This law is used in education and in affirmative categorical propositions. This follows the
formula:

If A is equal to C (C here being the third concept)

And B is equal to C,
Then, A is equal to B.

Example:
Every dog is man’s best friend.
But a Doberman is a dog.
Therefore, a Doberman is man’s best friend.
3. The Principle of Contradiction
This rule states that “if one and the same third concepts agrees to a first concept, but disagrees to another second concept,
then the first and the second concept are said to disagree with each other. This principle follows the formula:

If A is equal to C
But B is not equal to C,
Then, A is not equal to B.

In the metaphysical principles of contradiction, it is formulated that “a thing cannot BE and NOT BE at the same time.” It is not
possible for example that I am in this room and at the same time outside this room.

4. The principle of Identifying Third

This principle is a more particularized form of the principle of identity. This states that “if one the same third concept does not
agree with both the first and the second concept, then nothing follows from the premises.” This principle follows the formula:

If A is equal to C
And B is not equal to C,
Then, nothing follows from the premises.

THE AXIOMS OF VALIDITY OF A CATEGORICAL SYLLOGISM

Basing ourselves from the general rules stated above, we may therefore derive from this the particular rules governing the
structure of a standard – form categorical syllogism. It is therefore a fact that the syllogism will be valid if and only if it satisfies
all of the following axons of rules:

1. Fallacy of Equivocation
This is also known as the fallacy of 4, 5, 6 or simply known as the fallacy of four terms. This rule states that a syllogism must
contain three and only three terms, no more nor less. The very structure of categorical argument demands that such syllogism
must only have three terms.

Example: Love is blind.

But God is love.
Ergo, God is blind.

The example stated above would seem to appear that the syllogism contains only three terms and therefore, valid. But in
deeper analysis the syllogism indeed has committed the fallacy of equivocation because the term love in the major premise is
of different meaning as that of the term love in the minor premise. In the major premise, love pertains to an erotic love while in
the minor premise, love pertains to the agapeic love. Therefore, the syllogism is a fallacy.

2. Fallacy of Extending a Term

The rule states that “no term in the conclusion can have a greater extension that it had in the premises”. In this rule, it is stated
that the effect cannot become greater than the cause. There are two types of this rule:

2.1 Fallacy of Illicit Major term – This fallacy is committed when the major term, (i.e., the predicate of the conclusion), is
universal in the conclusion while it is particular in the major premise.

Example: Some saints are martyrs.

But no sinners are saints.
Therefore, Some sinners are not martyrs.

The predicate of the major premise, “martyrs”, is particular because the proposition is affirmative while it is universal in the
conclusion in as much as the conclusion is a negative proposition. In this case, it commits the fallacy of illicit major term.

2.2. Fallacy of Illicit Minor Term – This fallacy is committed when the minor term (i.e., the subject of the conclusion) is
particular in the minor premise while it is universal in the conclusion.

Example: All bananas are sweet.

But all bananas are fruits.
Therefore, All fruits are sweet.

Since the minor term “fruits” is particular in the minor premise because the proposition is affirmative. However, it is universal
in the conclusion. In this case, it commits the fallacy of illicit minor term.

3. Fallacy of Misplaced Middle term

The rule states that “ the middle term should not be found in the conclusion”. Since the middle term is the point of connection
between the premises, therefore, it should not be any more placed in the conclusion; otherwise, it would only be a repetition of
what has been stated in the premises.

Example:
Pedro Penduko is a college student.
But Pedro Penduko is studious.
Therefore, Pedro Penduko is a studious college student.
The middle term in this syllogism is Pedro Penduko because it is the term that connects between two premises. Since Pedro
Penduko is still found in the conclusion, it therefore commits the fallacy of misplaced middle.

4. Fallacy of Undistributed Middle Term

It is a rule that the middle term should be taken as universal or distributed at least once in the premises or it may be taken
universal twice.

Example:
All philosophers are lovers of wisdom.
But some lovers of wisdom are Filipinos.
Therefore, Some Filipinos are philosophers.

5. Fallacy of a Negative Conclusion taken from Affirmative Premises

The rule states that from two different premises, the conclusion should also be affirmative. If both premises are affirmative and
a negative conclusion is drawn, it commits then the fallacy of a negative conclusion taken from affirmative premises.

Example:
All philosophers are lovers of wisdom.
But Jose Rizal is a lover of wisdom.
Therefore, Jose Rizal is not a philosopher.

6. Fallacy of Exclusive Premises

It is stated that from two negative premises, no conclusion should be inferred. This is because negative propositions exclude
some or all members of a class to another class. In this case, if both premises will negate a member of a class to another class,
there will never be connections between premises, and therefore, no possible conclusion can be inferred.

Example: Men are not apes.

But men are not angels.
Therefore, Angels are not apes.

The conclusion “Angels are not apes” does not logically follow from the two negative premises since the middle term men
excludes itself from apes and angels respectively. Therefore, there is no way for us to relate angels with apes.

7. Fallacy of Two Particular Premises

In a valid categorical syllogism, the premises cannot both be particular.

Example: Some lawyers are politicians.
But some politicians are corrupt.
Ergo, some lawyers are politicians.

8. The last rule states that the conclusion should always follow the weaker side, i.e., if one of the premises is negative, then the
conclusion should also be negative. But if one of the premises is particular then the conclusion should also be particular. If one
premise is universal and the other is particular, then the conclusion should be particular, otherwise it will violate the Fallacy of
Universal Conclusion drawn from a Particular Premise.

Example: All heroes are lovers of country.

But students are lovers of country.
Therefore, All students are heroes.

If one premise is negative, and the other is affirmative, then the conclusion should be negative. Otherwise, it will violate the
Fallacy of Affirmative Conclusion drawn from a Negative premise.

Example: Some church-goers are sinners.

But no sinners are saints.
Therefore, Some saints are church-goers.

UNDERSTANDING THE RULES OF EACH PARTICULAR FIGURE

A valid syllogism is a formally valid argument, valid by virtue of its from alone. This means that a given syllogism is valid and
therefore, any other syllogism of the same form will definitely be valid as well. In order to fully understand the validity of a
standard – form categorical syllogism it is necessary to note the different rules that correspond to each particular figure
analyzing the pattern of each figure.

In order for us to easily recall the patters for each figure, we will be using a mnemonic device. Thus,

Let: u = universal A = affirmative

pa = Particular N = negative
j = major premise O = one premise
m = minor premise co = conclusion
Figure 1 – The rules states that in figure 1, the major premise should always be universal and the minor premise should be
affirmative (jumA).

Remember here that in as much as the minor premises is always affirmative, it follows that its predicate, which is the middle
term, will become particular. In this case, the subject of the major premise should be universal. Otherwise, if the subject of the
major premise is particular, then it will commit the fallacy of undistributed middle term.

If in case the minor premise is negative , the conclusion is therefore negative in as much as the rule states that the conclusion
should follow her weaker side. In this regard, the predicate of the conclusion (which is the major term) will become universal
while the major premise will have to be positive because the rule states that from two negative premises, no conclusion can be
inferred. Therefore, this will commit the fallacy of illicit major term because being the predicate of the major premise, the
major term will be particular since the proposition is affirmative.

Figure 2 – In this figure, one premise should at least be negative, but the major premise should always be universal (ONju).

If in case both premise are affirmative, then predicate of both premises (i.e., the middle term) will be both particular. If this is
so, then the syllogism commits the fallacy of undistributed middle. To avoid this, one premise should at least be negative in
order to distribute the middle term properly.

Example
All dogs are animals The middle term are
But all cats are animals both particular
Therefore, All cats are dogs.

In as much as one premise of the second figure should also be negative; since the conclusion should follow the weaker side. In
this , this will require a universal subject in the major premise and, therefore, a universal major premise, otherwise it will
commit the fallacy of illicit major term.

Figure 3 - In the third figure, the minor premise should be affirmative and the conclusion should be a particular (mAcopa).

If we make the minor premise negative, then the conclusion has to be made negative as well. In this case, the major term in the
conclusion will become universal. However, in as much as the major term is the predicate of the major premise, and since the
major premise has to be made affirmative, the major term is therefore particular. Thus, it will commit the fallacy of illicit major
term.

Consequently, if we make the conclusion universal, then the minor term will also be universal. Since the minor premise has to
be affirmative, the minor term in the minor premise has to be made particular. In this case, we will therefore commit the fallacy
of illicit minor term.

Figure 4 – In this figure, if one is negative, then the major premise must be universal ONju); if the minor premise is
affirmative, then the conclusion must be particular (mAcopa); but if the major premise is affirmative, then the minor premise
must be universal (jAmu).

If one premise is negative, and we make the major premise particular, then we will commit the fallacy of illicit major term. Since
the conclusion has to be negative, then the major term in the conclusion will be universal while in the major premise, it is
particular.

If we make the minor premise, then the conclusion has to be made negative as well. In this regard, the major premise has to be
made affirmative so as not to violate the rule “from two negative premises, no conclusion can be inferred”. If this is the case,
then we will commit the fallacy of undistributed middle.

Example:
All teachers are professionals.
But some professionals are not highly-paid.
Therefore, Some highly-paid persons are not teachers.

In this given propositions, both the middle term “professional” are particular.

However, if in case we make the major premise negative, and since it has to be made universal, then the minor premise has to
be made universal and affirmative so as not to violate the fallacy of exclusive premises. If this is the case, then we will be forced
to commit the fallacy of illicit minor term because the minor term in the minor premise is particular, while it is universal in the
conclusion.

Example:
No saints are immoral.
But all immoral persons are priest.
Therefore, No priest are saints.

In this given syllogism, the minor term “priest” in the minor premise is particular, while in the conclusion, the term “priest” is
universal, thereby committing the fallacy of illicit minor.