Rules For the Validity

of Categorical
Syllogisms
Syllogism - a deductive argument
composed of exactly two premises and
one conclusion.
Categorical Syllogism - a syllogism
composed of categorical propositions
with exactly three distinct terms.
Rules For the Validity of Categorical
Syllogisms

Rule 1: A syllogism must contain exactly three

terms, each of which is used in the same
sense.
Rule 1: A syllogism must contain exactly three terms, each of
which is used in the same sense.

Example that violates Rule 1:

All rare things are expensive things.
All great novels are rare things
Therefore, all great novels are expensive things.

(Note: This syllogism SEEMS to be a valid AAA-1, 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.
Fallacy: Fallacy of Four Terms (Quaeternio Terminorum)
 Rules For the Validity of Categorical
Syllogisms

Rule 2: The middle term must be distributed in

at least one premise
Rule 2: The middle term must be distributed in at least one
premise
Example that violates Rule 2:
All Popes are Catholics.
Some Catholics are not pious people.
Therefore, some pious people are not Popes.

(Note: This AOO-4 is invalid because the MIDDLE TERM,

Catholics is not distributed in EITHER premise. And since
nothing is claimed about ALL members this category,
Catholics, then no NECESSARY inference can be related to
the other two terms, Popes and pious people.)

Fallacy: Fallacy of the Undistributed Middle Term

 Rules For the Validity of Categorical
Syllogisms

Rule 3: If MAJOR or MINOR term is distributed

in the conclusion, then it must be distributed
in the premises
 Rule 3: If MAJOR or MINOR term is distributed in the
conclusion, then it must be distributed in the premises
Example that violates Rule 3
All conservatives are mean-spirited people.
All mean-spirited people are Republicans.
Therefore, all Republicans are conservatives.

(Note: In this AAA-4 syllogism the MINOR term,

Republicans, is distributed in the CONCLUSION, yet it is not
distributed in the MINOR PREMISE. And since the premise
does not tell us something about ALL Republicans, then
the conclusion cannot tell us something about ALL
Republicans either.

Fallacy: Fallacy of the Illicit Minor

• Example that violates Rule 3
• Some mean-spirited people are conservatives.
• All mean-spirited people are Republicans.
• Therefore, Some Republicans are not conservatives

For similar reasons the following IAO-3 syllogism is an example

of the ILLICIT MAJOR violation of Rule 3, since it applies to the
MAJOR term and premise
Rules For the Validity of Categorical
Syllogisms

Rule 4: No syllogism can have two negative

premises.
 Rule 4: No syllogism can have two negative premises.

Example that violates Rule 4:

No citizens are people that need to own a hand gun.
Some women are not people that need to own a hand gun.
Therefore, some women are not citizens.

(Note: From the two negative premises of this EOO-2

syllogism, no NECESSARY conclusion can be inferred about
'some women' not being people that need to own a hand
gun. If you try to Venn Diagram this argument, then you
will see that there is no clear UNAMBIGUOUS area to put
the 'x' for the MINOR premise.)
Fallacy: Fallacy of Exclusive Premises ( Two negative
premises)
Rules For the Validity of Categorical
Syllogisms

Rule 5: If either premise is negative, the

conclusion must be negative
 Rule 5: If either premise is negative, the conclusion must be
negative

Example that violates Rule 5

(and violates Rule 4 as well):
No pornographers are decent people.
Some film producers are not pornographers
Therefore, some film producers are decent people.

(Note: This EOI-1 violates Rule 5 in that it improperly infers a

AFFIRMATIVE conclusion from two NEGATIVE premises, and it
violates Rule 4 that stipulates that no valid syllogism can have
two negative premises.)
Fallacy: Fallacy of Affirming a positive conclusion from a
negative premise
Sources:
Philosophy 2302 Intro to Logic Dr. Naugle
“NB: This material is taken from several logic
texts authored by N. Geisler, H. Kahane, and
others”
Rules For the Validity of Categorical
Syllogisms

Rule 6: No syllogism with a particular conclusion

can have two universal premises.
Rule 6: No syllogism with a particular conclusion can have two
universal premises.

Example that violates Rule 6:

All people who write about flowers are inhabited by
fairies.
All poets are people that write about flowers.
Therefore, some poets are inhabited by fairies.
(Note: Neither UNIVERSAL premise of this AAI-1 syllogism
establishes the existence of a single, individual poet, the
MINOR term. Yet the conclusion asserts that "There exists
at least one poet, such that, this poet is inhabited by
ferries". Hence, this syllogism commits the EXISTENTIAL
FALLACY.)
THANK YOU SO MUCH
AND

GOD BLESS US ALL;-)