LECTURE NO 8

MRS.Irum Fakhar
Standard Forms Categorical Syllogisms

A categorical syllogism said to be in standard

form when its premises and conclusion are all
standard form categorical proposition. (A, E, I
and O) and are arranged in a specified standard
order.
Major, Miner and Middle terms

Major: The term that occurs as the predicate of the

conclusion is called the major term of the syllogism.
Miner:
The term that
occurs as the subject of the conclusion is called the
minor term of the syllogism.
Middle:

The third term of the syllogism, which does not occur in

the conclusion, appearing in its place in both premises,
is called the middle term.
 Major premise: The premise containing in the major term is called the major premise.

Miner premise: The premise containing in the minor term is called the minor premise.

Example of all:
Middle T
Major premise:
Major T
Major T
No heroes are cowards
Miner premise:
Miner T
Some Soldiers are not cowards
Conclusion: Some Soldiers are heroes.

Miner T Major T
Mood
Mood: ()
The mood of a standard form syllogism is determined
by the types (identified by letter (A, E, I, and O) of the
standard form categorical proposition it contains. The
mood of every syllogism is represented by three letters,
in a specific order.
The first letter names the type of the syllogisms major
premise.
The second letter names the type of its minor premise.
And the third letter names the type of its conclusion.
 For example, the categorical syllogism: EIO
E: No geese are felines. ()
I: Some birds are geese.
O: Therefore, some birds are not felines.
Clearly, "Some birds are not felines" is the conclusion of
this syllogism. The major term of the syllogism is "felines"
(the predicate term of its conclusion), so "No geese are
felines" (the premise in which "felines" appears) is its
major premise. Similarly, the minor term of the syllogism is
"birds and Some birds are geese" is its minor premise.
"Geese" is the middle term of the syllogism.
Total 64 kinds of Mood are shown in the below table.

EAA IAA O
AAA EAE IAE O
AAE EAI IAI O
AAI EAO IAO O
AAO

EEA IEA OEA

AEA EEE IEE OEE
AEE EEI IEI OEI
AEI EEO IEO OEO
AEO

EIA IIA OIA

AIA EIE IIE OIE
AIE EII III OII
AII EIO IIO OIO
AIO

EOA IOA OOA

AOA EOE IOE OOE
AOE EOI IOI OOI
AOI EOO IOO OOO
AOO
 Figure:
The logical
shape of a syllogism as determined by the position of the
middle term in its premises. There are four figures.
The middle term is the subject term of the major premise
and predicate term of the minor term.
The middle term is the predicate term of both premises.
The middle term is the subject term of both premises.
The middle term is the predicate term of the major
premise and subject term of the minor term.
First Figure Second Figure Third Figure Fourth Figure

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

M ---- S M ---- S
S ---- M
S ---- M

:- S ---- P :- S ---- P :- S ---- P :- S ---- P

 Middle term
First Figure: All men are mortal. Middle term

Zahid is a man.

Therefore, Zahid is mortal

Second Figure:
All men are mortal. Middle
term
Zahid is mortal.

Therefore, Zahid is a man.

 Third Figure:
All men are human being.

All men are mortal.

Therefore, all human being are mortal

 Fourth Figure:
All men are human being.

Some human being are Muslims.

Therefore, some men are Muslims

The Formal Nature of Syllogistic Arguments

The mood and figure of a syllogism uniquely

determine its form and the form of a syllogism
determines whether the syllogism is valid or
invalid. Since each of the 64 moods may appear
in all four figures. There are exactly 256 standard
form categorical syllogisms of which only a few
are valid.
Thus any syllogism of the form AAA-1 is a valid
argument, no matter what terms we substitute for
the letters S, P, and M.
 Valid Example: AAA-I
A: All Greeks are humans.
A:
All Athenians are Greeks.
A: Therefore,
all Athenians are humans.
In other words, in syllogisms of this and other
valid forms, if the premises are true, then the
conclusion must also be true. The conclusion
could be false only if one or both premises were
 Invalid Example: AII-II
Conversely, any argument in an invalid syllogistic form is
invalid, even if both its premises and its conclusion happen
to be true.
All rabbits are very fast runners.
Some horses are
very fast runners.
There fore, some horses are rabbits.
A syllogistic form is invalid if it is possible to construct an
argument in that form with true premises and a false
conclusion.
 Thus a powerful way to refute ( )an argument in an
invalid form is to counter it with an analogous (
)argumentan argument in the same formwith
obviously true premises and an obviously false conclusion.
Although this method of logical analogy can demonstrate
that a syllogistic form is invalid, it is a cumbersome tool for
identifying which of the 256 possible forms is invalid.
Whats more, the inability to find a refuting analogy does
not conclusively demonstrate that a valid form is valid. The
rest of the chapter is devoted to an explanation of more
effective methods for testing syllogisms.
Valid and invalid Examples from 64 forms.

Figures Valid Invalid Total

1 4 12 16

2 4 12 16

3 6 10 16

4 8 8 16

Total 22 42 64
Venn Diagram Techniques for Testing
Syllogisms
Venn diagram: The iconic representation of
categorical prepositions and of arguments, to
display their logical forms using overlapping.
S: Swedes P: Peasants
M: Musicians
 Some Detail about Venn diagram:
Two-circle Venn Diagrams represent the relationship
between the classes designated by the subject and predicate
terms in standard-form categorical propositions. If we add a
third circle, we can represent the relationship among the
classes designated by the three terms of a categorical syllogism.
We use the label S to designate the circle for the minor term
(the subject of the conclusion), the label P to designate the
circle for the major term (the predicate of the conclusion), and
the label M to designate the circle for the middle term. The
result is a diagram of eight classes that represent the possible
combinations of S, P, and M.
 With this diagram we can represent the propositions in
a categorical syllogism of any form to determine
whether or not that form yields a valid deductive
argument.
To do this, we diagram the premises and then examine
the result to see if it includes a diagram of the
conclusion. If it does, we know that the premises entail
the conclusionthat together they say what is said by
the conclusionand that the form is valid. If not, we
know that the conclusion is not implied by the
premises, and the form is invalid.
Syllogistic Rules and Syllogistic Fallacies
Since the validity of a categorical syllogism depends solely
upon its logical form, it is relatively simple to state the
conditions under which the premises of syllogisms succeed
in guaranteeing the truth of their conclusions.
Here is
provided a list of six rules, each of which states a necessary
condition for the validity of any categorical syllogism.
Violating any of these rules involves committing one of the
formal fallacies, errors in reasoning that result from reliance
on an invalid logical form. Here is concentrated on the
rules required for a standard-form of categorical syllogism
and the fallacies created for violating these rules
 Rule: 1:
A valid
categorical syllogism will have three and only three
unambiguous categorical terms. Or avoid four
terms.
The use of exactly three categorical terms is part of the
definition of a categorical syllogism, and we saw earlier that
the use of an ambiguous term in more than one of its senses
amounts to the use of two distinct terms. In categorical
syllogisms, using more than three terms commits the fallacy
of four terms. The syllogism appears to have only three terms,
but because one term plays two roles, it actually has four
 Fallacy: Four terms OR the fallacy of equivocation
Example: 1
Power tends to corrupt
Knowledge is power
Knowledge tends to corrupt
Explanation:
There are really four since one of
them; the middle term power is used in different senses in the
two premises. To reveal the arguments invalidity we need only
note that the word power in the first premise means the
possession of control or command over people, whereas
the word power in the second premise means the ability to
control things.
 Example: 2
All rare things are expensive things.
All great novels are rare
things.
Therefore, all great novels are expensive things.
Explanation:
This syllogism seems to be
a valid AAA-1, Barbara, but because the middle term is used in
the major premise in one meaning and then the meaning of
the middle term is shifted in the minor premise, you actually
have FOUR terms and not THREE as required by the very
definition of any standard form categorical syllogism
Rule: 2:

In a valid categorical syllogism the middle

term must be distributed in at least one of the
premises. OR Distribute the middle term in at least one
premise
In order to effectively establish the presence of a genuine connection
between the major and minor terms, the premises of a syllogism must
provide some information about the entire class designated by the middle
term. If the
middle term were undistributed in both premises, then the two
portions of the designated class of which they speak might be completely
unrelated to each other.
The term "philosopher" is distributed in the proposition "All
philosophers are thinkers," but the term "thinkers" is not. Because it
is the middle term that links the terms of the conclusion, a syllogism
cannot be valid unless either the subject or the predicate of the conclusion
is related to the whole of the class the middle term designates.hat violate
this rule are said to commit the fallacy of the undistributed middle.
 Fallacy: Undistributed middle
Example:
All sharks are fish
All salmon are fish
All salmon are sharks
Explanation:
The middle term is what
connects the major and the minor term. If the middle term is
never distributed, then the major and minor terms might be
related to different parts of them (Middle) class, thus giving
no common ground to relate S (Subject) and P (Predicate).
Rule: 3:
In a valid
categorical syllogism if a term is distributed in the conclusion, it
must be distributed in the premises. OR any term distributed
in the conclusion must be distributed in the premises. OR If MAJOR
or MINOR term is distributed in the conclusion, then it must be
distributed in the premises.
A premise that refers only to some members of the class
designated by the major or minor term of a syllogism cannot be
used to support a conclusion that claims to tell us about every
member of that class, depending which of the terms is misused in
this way; syllogisms in violation commit either the fallacy of the
illicit major or the fallacy of the illicit minor.
Illicit(illegel) process of the major term (illicit major)
occurs when the major term is distributed in the conclusion but
not in the premises.
Illicit process of the minor term (illicit minor) occurs when
the minor term is distributed in the conclusion but not in the
premises.
 Fallacy: Illicit major; illicit minor
Examples:
All horses are animals
Some dogs are not horses
Some dogs are not animals

And:
All tigers are mammals
All mammals are animals
All animals are tigers
 When a term is distributed in the conclusion, lets
say that P is distributed, then that term is saying
something about every member of the P class. If
that same term is NOT distributed in the major
premise, then the major premise is saying
something about only some members of the P class.
Remember that the minor premise says nothing
about the P class. Therefore, the conclusion
contains information that is not contained in the
premises, making the argument invalid.
Rule: 4:
A
valid categorical syllogism may not have two negative premises.
OR

Avoid two negative premises. OR No syllogism can have two

negative premises.
A negative (E or O) categorical proposition denies that a certain term applies
to a class, in whole or in part. Suppose now that we are dealing with two
negative premises in a categorical proposition. One would say that the middle
term M does not apply to the subject term S (or vice versa). The other premises
would say that M does not apply to P (or vice versa). Together, they tell us
nothing about the relationship between P and S. As a result, all syllogisms with
two negative premises must be invalid.
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 terms of the propositions are exclusive (restricted)
of one another. In an argument consisting of two negative propositions the
middle term is excluded from both the major term and the minor term, and
thus there is no connection between the two and no inference (conclusion) can
be drawn. A violation of this rule is called the fallacy of exclusive premises.
 Fallacy(a mistaken belief, especially one based on unsound
arguments ): Exclusive premises
Example:
No fish are mammals
Some dogs are not fish
Some dogs are not mammals
Explanation:
If the premises are both
negative, then the relationship between S and P is denied. The
conclusion cannot, therefore, say anything in a positive
fashion. That information goes beyond what is contained in
the premises.
 Rule: 5:
If either
premise of a valid categorical syllogism is negative,
the conclusion must be negative.
An affirmative proposition asserts that one class is included
in some way in another class, but a negative proposition that
asserts exclusion cannot imply anything about inclusion. For
this reason an argument with a negative proposition cannot
have an affirmative conclusion. An argument that violates
this rule is said to commit the fallacy of drawing an
affirmative conclusion from a negative premise.
 Fallacy: Drawing an affirmative conclusion from a negative premise,
or drawing a negative conclusion from an affirmative premise.
Example:
All crows are birds
Some wolves are not crows
Some wolves are birds
Explanation:
Two directions, here. Take a positive conclusion from one
negative premise. The conclusion states that the S class is either wholly or
partially contained in the P class. The only way that this can happen is if the S
class is either partially or fully contained in the M class (remember, the middle
term relates the two) and the M class fully contained in the P class. Negative
statements cannot establish this relationship, so a valid conclusion cannot follow.
Take a negative conclusion. It asserts that the S class is separated in whole or in
part from the P class. If both premises are affirmative, no separation can be
established, only connections. Thus, a negative conclusion cannot follow from
positive premises.
Note:
These first four rules working together indicate that any
syllogism with two particular premises is invalid.
 Rule: 6:
In valid categorical syllogisms particular
propositions cannot be drawn properly from universal premises.
OR
From two universal premises no particular conclusion may be drawn.
. OR No syllogism with a particular conclusion can have
two universal premises.

This rule is based on the modern Boolean interpretation of categorical

propositions according to which particular propositions have existential
import but universal propositions do not. Following this interpretation, a
particular conclusion cannot follow from universal premises. In traditional,
Aristotelian logic, this rule did not apply.
These six rules are jointly sufficient to distinguish between valid and
invalid syllogisms.
To violate this rule is to commit the existential fallacy.
 Fallacy: Existential fallacy
Example:
All mammals are animals
All tigers are mammals
Some tigers are animals
Explanation:
On the Boolean model, Universal
statements make no claims about existence while particular ones
do. Thus, if the syllogism has universal premises, they necessarily
say nothing about existence. Yet if the conclusion is particular, then
it does say something about existence. In which case, the
conclusion contains more information than the premises do,
thereby making it invalid.
Reducing the Number of Terms in Categorical Syllogism
Explanation:
when an argument in ordinary language has an apparently syllogism
form yet also appears more than three terms, we should not reject it, it is not the
fallacy of four term. It is possible to translate in an argument in to a student form.
Two techniques for accomplishing this goal must be described.
By eliminating synonyms:
For Example: EAE-I
No wealthy persons are vagrants.
All lawyers are rich people.
Therefore no Attorneys are tramps.
Synonymous:
Wealthy = Rich
Lawyers = Attorneys
Vagrants = Tramps
Solution:
No wealthy persons are vagrants.
All lawyers are wealthy persons.
Therefore no lawyers are vagrants.
 By eliminating Compliments:

For Example: AEA-II

All mammals are warm-blooded animals.
No lizards are warm-blooded animals.
Therefore, all lizards are
non mammals.

Note: 1:
We can reduce the
number of terms to three simply by Obverting the conclusion.
 AEE-II
All mammals are warm-blooded animals.
No lizards are warm-blooded
animals.
Therefore, no lizards are mammals.

Note: 2:
We can reduce the
number of terms to three simply by Contraposition of
the first and Obverting the second, leaving the
conclusion unchanged.
 First Premise: No non-residents are citizens.
Conversion: No
citizens are non-residents.
Obversion: All citizens are residents.
Second Premise: All non-citizens are non-voters.

Contraposition: All voters are citizens.

Then: AAA-I
All citizens are residents.
All voters are citizens.
Therefore, all
voters are residents.