Your Article Library

Syllogism: It’s Definition, Types, Mood (with Six Formal Fallacies Rules) | Philosophy

Article shared by : 

ADVERTISEMENTS:

Useful notes on Syllogism: It’s Definition, Types, Mood with Six Formal Fallacies Rules!

A syllogism is a form of deductive inference, in which the conclusion is drawn from two premisses, taken
jointly. It is a form of deductive inference and therefore in it, the conclusion cannot be more general than
the premisses.

Image Courtesy : media.nola.com/crime_impact/photo/opsb-meeting-post-katrina-1024jpg-

33bc587650d3bfb5.jpg

ADVERTISEMENTS:

It is a mediate form of inference, the conclusion being drawn from two premisses and not from one
premiss only as in the case of Immediate Inference. For example:

All men are mortal.

All kings are men.

ADVERTISEMENTS:
All kings are mortal.

A syllogism, therefore, presents the following characteristics, which distinguish it from other kinds of
inference:

(a) Firstly, the conclusion of syllogism follows from the two premisses taken jointly, and not from any one
of them, by itself. The conclusion is not merely the sum of the two premisses but follows from them
taken together, as a necessary consequence. In the example given above, the conclusion ‘All kings are
mortal’ is drawn not from any of the two premisses singly, but it follows from them conjointly.

(b) Secondly, the conclusion of a syllogism cannot be more general than the premisses. The syllogism is a
form of deductive inference, and in no form of deductive inference, can the conclusion be more general
than the given premisses.

ADVERTISEMENTS:

In the example given above the conclusion “All kings- are mortal” is obviously less general than the
premiss “All men are mortal” — which is applicable to a much larger number of individuals.

(c) Thirdly, the conclusion is true, provided the given propositions are true.

In a syllogism, as in other forms of deductive inference we are not concerned with the question as to
whether the premisses, i.e., the given propositions are, as a matter of fact, true or false. In deductive
forms of inference, the truth of the premisses is taken for granted and hence, it is clear that the truth of
the conclusion depends on the truth of the premisses, which are presumed to be true.

Kinds of Syllogism:

ADVERTISEMENTS:
Syllogisms have been classified into Pure and Mixed. Pure syllogisms are of three kinds — Categorical,
Hypothetical and Disjunctive. Mixed syllogisms are of three kinds — Hypothetical – Categorical,
Disjunctive – Categorical and Dilemma.

The following Table shows the different kinds of syllogism:

In a pure syllogism, all the constituent propositions are of the same relation. If all of them are
categorical, the syllogism is pure categorical; if all hypothetical the syllogism is pure hypothetical; and
lastly, if all of them are disjunctive, the syllogism is pure disjunctive.

ADVERTISEMENTS:

In a mixed syllogism the constituent propositions are of different relation. Mixed syllogisms are of three
kinds—Hypothetical-Categorical, Disjunctive- Categorical, Dilemma. In Hypothetical-Categorical
syllogism, the major premiss is hypothetical, the minor is categorical and the conclusion is categorical.

In Disjunctive-Categorical, the major premiss is disjunctive, the minor is categorical and” the conclusion
is categorical. In Dilemma, the major premiss is a compound hypothetical, the minor premiss is
disjunctive, and the conclusion is either categorical or disjunctive.

Figures:

Figure is the form of a syllogism as determined by the position of the middle term in the premisses.

There are four possible arrangements of the middle term in the two premisses ; and, therefore, there are
four figures of syllogism.
1. First Figure:

In the first figure, the middle term is the subject in the major premiss, and the predicate is the minor
premiss; thus

Pure Mixed

P—M

S—M

S—P

2. Second Figure:

In the second figure, the middle term is the predicate in both the premisses; thus

P—M

ADVERTISEMENTS:

S—M

S—P
3. Third Figure:

In the third figure, the middle term is the subject in both the premisses; thus

ADVERTISEMENTS:

M —P

M— S

S —P

4. Fourth Figure:

In the fourth figure, the middle term is the predicate in the major premiss, and the subject in the minor;
thus,

P —M

M —S

S —P

Mood of Syllogism:

The word ‘Mood’ has been used in different sense.

Firstly, ‘Mood’ has been defined as the form of a syllogism, as determined by the quality and quantity of
the constituent premisses.

Now, there are four kinds of propositions A, E, I and O; and a syllogism has got two premisses. Hence we
may have sixteen possible moods in each thus

AA EA IA OA

AE EE IE OE

AI EI II 01

AO EO IO OO

Now, there are four figures, so that in all, we have 16 × 4 = 64 possible moods.

Thus, if we take into account the quality of the premisses only, leaving out the account of the conclusion,
we have 16 possible moods in each figure, and 64 possible moods in all the four figures.

Secondly, the word ‘Mood’ has been used, in a wider sense, to mean the form of a syllogism, as
determined by the quality and the quantity of all the three constituent propositions, taking into account
not merely the two premisses but also the conclusion.

In this sense, each of the 64 combinations mentioned above may have four forms. For example, the
combination of AA in the First figure may have forms, thus:

AAA

AAE

AAI
AAO

Thus, in this sense there are 64 x 4 i.e. 256 moods, in all the four figures.

Thirdly, mood is defined in a highly restricted sense to mean only valid moods—combinations which
yield valid conclusions. There are only 19 valid moods in all the four figures, if we take into account the
premisses only: viz

AA, EA, AI, EI — first figure

EA, AE, AI, AO — second figure

AA, IA, AI, EA, OA, EI — third figure

AA, AE, IA, EA, EI — fourth figure

It should be noted that out of these nineteen valid moods the moods EA and EI are common to all the
figures. In other words, the EA and EI yield valid conclusions in all the figures.

If, however, we take into account all the three constituent propositions, there are 24 valid moods, thus:

AAA AAI EAE EAO All EIO — First figure

EAE EAO AEE AEO EIO AOO — Second figure

AAI IAI AD EAO OAO EIO —Third figure

AAI AEE AEO IAI EAO EIO — Fourth figure

Determination of Valid Moods:

Valid Moods of the First Figure:

In the first figure, the middle term is the subject in the major premiss, and the predicate in the minor
premisses.

(1) AA.

A. All M is P All men are mortal

A. All S is M All kings are men

A. All S is R All kings are mortal

Here, both the premisses are affirmative, therefore, the conclusion, if any, must be affirmative. The
middle term is distributed in the major premiss. By drawing an A proposition in the conclusion, we do
not violate any of the rules of syllogism, because, the minor term which is distributed in the conclusion is
also distributed in the minor premiss. Hence, AA gives A as its conclusion, in the first figure. The valid
mood is called BARBARA.

(2) AE. A. All M is P.

E. No S is M.
No conclusion follows, because the conclusion, if any must be negative, and as such, the major term P
which is not distributed in the major premiss, will be distributed in the conclusion. Hence AE is not a
valid mood in the first figure.

(3) AI. A. All M is P. All men are rational

I. Some S is M. Some animals are men

.’. I. Some S is P. .’. Some animal rational.

Here, as both the premisses are affirmative, and one premisse is particular, the conclusion must, must be
a particular affirmative, i.e., I proposition. The middle term is distributed in the major premiss, and no
term is distributed in the conclusion. Here, AI gives I as its conclusion in the first figure. This valid mood is
called DARII.

(4) AO. A. All His P.

O. Some S is not M.

From this combination no conclusion follows in the first figure. As one premiss is negative the
conclusion, is any, should also be negative, distributing its predicate, the major term. But the major term
is not distributed in the major premiss. Hence AO is not a valid mood in the first figure. are

(5) EA. E. No M is P.

A. All S is M. E. No. S is P.
Here, one of the propositions being negative the conclusion must be negative. If we draw an E
proposition in the conclusion we do not violate any of the rules of syllogism, because the middle term is
distributed in the major premiss, and the major and minor terms which are distributed in the conclusion
are also distributed in their respective premisses. Thus AE yields E as its conclusion in the first figure. This
valid mood is called CELARENT.

(6) EI. E. No M is P. No quadrupeds are men

I. Some S is M. Some animals are quadrupeds

 O. Some S is not P. Some animals are not men

One premiss being negative, and another being particular the conclusion, if any, must be a particular
negative, i.e., O. In drawing on O proposition in the conclusion we do not violate any of the rules of
syllogism, because the middle term is distributed in the major premiss, and the major term, which is
distributed in the conclusion, is also distributed in the major premiss. Thus, EI gives O as its conclusion,
in the first figure.. This valid mood is called FERIO.

(7) IA. I. Some M is P

A. All S is M

No conclusion follows, because, the middle term is not distributed in either of the premisses. Thus IA is
not a valid mood in the first figure.

(8) OA. O. Some M is not P

A. All S is M
No conclusion follows, because the middle term is not distributed even once in the premisses. Thus OA is
not a valid mood in the first figure.

Thus in the first figure, only four combinations yield valid conclusions, viz., AA (Barbara), EA (Celarent), AI
(Darii) and EI (Ferio).

The special rules of the first figure are the following:

1. The major premiss must be universal.

2. The minor premiss must be affirmative.

Valid Moods of the Second Figure

In the second figure, the middle term is the predicate in both premisses.

(1) AA. A. All P is M

A. All S is M

No conclusion follows, because the middle term is not distributed even once in the premisses. Thus,

AA does not yield any valid conclusion in the second figure.

(2) AE. A. All P is M All metals are elements

E. No S is M. No compounds are elements

 E. No S is P. No compounds are metals

One premiss being negative, the conclusion must- be negative. If we draw an E proposition in the
conclusion, no syllogistic rule is violated, because the middle term is distributed in the minor-premiss,
and the major and the minor terms, which are distributed in the conclusion, are also distributed in the
respective premisses. Thus AE gives E as its conclusion in the second figure. This valid mood is called
CAMESTRES.

(3) AI. A. All P is M

I. Some S is M

No conclusion follows, because the middle term is undistributed in both premisses. Hence AI does not
yield any valid conclusion in the second figure.

(4) AO. A. All P is M. All horses are quadrupeds

O. Some S is Some animals are not not M. quadrupeds

 O. Some S is Some animals are not P. horses

One premiss being both particular and negative, the conclusion, if any, must be also particular and
negative. In drawing an O proposition as the conclusion, we do not violate any of the rules of syllogism
because the middle term is distributed in the minor premiss, and the major term which is distributed in
the conclusion is also distributed in the major premiss. Hence OA gives O as its conclusion in the second
figure. The valid mood is BAROCO.
(5) EA. E. No P is M. No perfect beings are mortal

A. All S is M All men are mortal

E. No S is P. No men are perfect beings

The conclusion must be negative, because one premiss is negative. In drawing an E proposition in the
conclusion, we do not violate any of the rules of syllogism, because the middle term is distributed in the
major premiss, and the major and the minor terms which are distributed in the conclusion are also
distributed in the respective premisses. Thus EA gives E as its conclusion in the second figure. This valid
mood is called CESARE.

(6) EI. E. No P is M. No men are perfect.

I: Some S is M. Some beings are perfect

O. Some S is not P.  Some beings are not men

One premiss is negative, and the other premiss is particular. Therefore, the conclusion, if any, must be O.
In drawing an O proposition, as the conclusion, we do not violate any of the rules of syllogism, because
the middle term is distributed in the major premiss, and the major term, which is distributed in the
conclusion, is also distributed in the major premiss. Therefore, EI gives O in the second figure. This valid
mood is called FESTINO.

(7) IA. I. Some P is M

A. All S is M

This middle term being undistributed in both the premisses no conclusion follows.
(8) OA. O Some P is not M

A. All S is M

The conclusion, if any, must be particular and negative, because one premiss is particular and negative.
The negative conclusion will distribute its predicate, the major term, which however, is not distributed in
the major premiss. Hence no conclusion follows from OA in the second figure.

Thus, in the second figure, only four combinations yield valid conclusions, viz., EA (Cesare), AE
(Camestres), EI (Festino) and AO (Baroco).

The special rules of the second figure are the following:

1. The major premiss must be universal.

2. One of the premisses must be negative.

3. In the third figure, the middle term is the subject in both the premisses.

(1) AA. A. All M is P. All men are rational

A. All M is S. All men are mortal

I. Some S is P. Some mortals are rational

Both premisses being affirmative, the conclusion must be affirmative. If we draw an A proposition in the
conclusion, we shall have to distribute the minor term therein, though it is undistributed in the minor
premiss. Hence an A proposition cannot be the conclusion in this case. But if we draw an I proposition,
no rule of syllogism is violated, because, the middle term is distributed in both the premisses, and there
is no improper distribution of terms in the conclusion. Thus AA gives I as its conclusion in the third figure.
Valid mood is called DARAPATI

(2) AE. A. All M is P

E. No M is S

No conclusion follows, because, the conclusion, if any, must be negative, one premiss being negative.
The negative conclusion would distribute its predicate, the major term, which, however, is not
distributed in the major premiss.

(3) AI. A. All M is P. All diseases are painful

I. Some M is S. Some diseases are preventible

I. Some S is P. Some preventible things are painful

One premiss being particular, and both premisses being affirmative, the conclusion, if any, must be I. In
drawing an I proposition, no rule is violated, because the middle term is distributed in the major premiss,
and there is no improper distribution of terms in the conclusion. Thus All gives I as its conclusion in the
third figure. This valid mood is called DATIAI.

(4) AO. A. All M is P

O. Some M is not S
No conclusion follows, because, if there is a conclusion, it must be negative distributing its predicate, the
major term, which however is not distributed in major premiss.

(5) EA. E. No M is P. No men are perfect

A. All M is S. All men are rational

O. Some S is . Some rational beings not P are not perfect

One premiss being negative, the conclusion must be negative. If, however, we draw an E proposition in
the conclusion, we would be distributing the minor term in the conclusion, without distributing it in the
minor premiss. But if we draw an O proposition in the conclusion, no rule is violated, the middle term
being distributed in both the premisses, and the major term, which is distributed in the conclusion, is
also distributed in the major premiss. Thus, EA gives O in the third figure. This valid mood is called
FELAPTON.

(6) EI. E. No M is P. No aggressive war is justifiable

I. Some M is S. Some aggressive wars are successful

O. Some S is Some successful not P. things are not justifiable

One premiss being negative, and another being particular, the conclusion, if any, must be a particular
negative. In drawing an O proposition, in the conclusion, no rule of syllogism is violated, because, the
middle term is distributed in the major premiss, and the major term, which is distributed in the
conclusion, is also distributed in the major premiss. Therefore, EI gives 0 in the third figure. This valid
mood is called FERISON.
(7) I A. I. Some M is P. Some men are wise

A. All M is S. All men are mortal

I. Some S is P. Some mortals are wise

One premiss being particular, and both premisses being affirmative, the conclusion, if any, must be I. In
drawing an I proposition, in the conclusion, we do not violate any of the syllogistic rules. Therefore IA
gives I in the third figure. This valid mood is called DISAMIS.

(8) OA. O. Some M is not P. Some men are not wise

A. All M is S. All men are mortal

0. Some S is not P.  Some mortals are not wise

One premiss being particular negative, the conclusion must be 0. In drawing an O conclusion, no rule of
syllogism is violated. Thus OA gives O in the third figure. This valid mood is called BOCARDO.

Thus in the third figure, six combinations yield valid conclusions, viz., AA (DARAPTI), IA (DISAMIS), AI
(DATISI), EA (FELAPTON), OA (BOCARDO) and EI (FERISON).

The Special Rules of the third figure are the following:

1. The minor premiss must be affirmative.

2. The conclusion must be particular.

Valid Moods of the Fourth Figure:

In the fourth figure, the middle term is the predicate in the major premiss, and the subject in the minor
premiss.

(1) AA. A. All P is M. All men are animals

A. All M is S. All animals are mortal

1. Some S is P.  Some mortals are men

Both premisses being affirmative, the conclusion must be affirmative. If, however, we draw an A
proposition, the minor term would be distributed in the conclusion without being distributed in the
minor premiss. But if we draw an I proposition, no rule would be violated. This AA gives I in the fourth
figure. This valid mood is called BRAMANTIP.

(2) AE. A. All P is M. All men are animals

E. No. M is S. No mortals are perfect

E. No S is P. No perfect beings are men

One premiss being negative, the conclusion must be negative. In drawing an E proposition in the
conclusion, no syllogistic rule is violated. Thus AE gives E in the fourth figure. This valid mood is called
CAMENES.

(3) AI. A. All P is M.

I. Some M is S.

The middle terms being undistributed in both the premisses, no conclusion can be drawn.

(4) AO. A. All P is M

O. Some M is not S.

No conclusions can be drawn, because the middle term has been distributed even one in the premisses.

(5) EA. E. No P is M. No quadrupeds are men

A. All M is S. All men are animals

O. Some S is P. Some animals are not quadrupeds

One premiss being negative, the conclusion, if any, must be negative. If, however, we draw an E
conclusion, we shall have to distribute the minor term which is undistributed in the minor premiss. But if
we draw an O proposition in the conclusion, no syllogistic rule is violated. Therefore, EA gives O in the
‘fourth figure. This valid mood is called FESPO.

(6) EI. E. No P is M. No man is perfect

I. Some M is S. Some perfect beings are rational beings

O. Some S is P. Some rational beings not are not men
One premiss being negative, and the other being particular, the conclusion, if any, must be O. By drawing
an O conclusion, we do not violate any syllogistic rule. Therefore, EI gives O in the fourth figure. This valid
mood is called FRESISON.

(7) AI. I. Some P is M. Some animals are men

A. All M is S. All men are mortal

I. Some S is P.  Some mortals are animals

One premiss being particular, and both premisses, being affirmative, the conclusion must be I. Drawing
an I proposition in the conclusion, we do not violate any syllogistic rule. Therefore IA gives I in the fourth
figure. This valid mood is called DIMARIS.

(8) OA. O. Some P is not M.

A. All M is S.

No conclusion follows, because one premiss being negative, the conclusion, if any, must be negative,
distributing the major term, which is undistributed in the major premiss.

Thus in the fourth figure, five combinations yield valid conclusions, viz., AA (Bramantip), AE (Camenes) IA
(Dimaris), EA (Fesapo), EI (Fresison).

The special Rules of the fourth figure are the following:

1. If the major premiss be affirmative, the minor premiss must be universal.

2. If the minor premiss be affirmative, the conclusion must be particular.

3. If either premiss be negative, the major premiss must be universal.

Rules of Syllogism:

There are many ways in which a syllogism may fail to establish its conclusion. Just as travel is facilitated
by the mapping of highways and the labeling of otherwise tempting roads as ‘dead ends’, so cogency of
argument is made more easily attainable by setting forth certain rules that enable the reasoner to avoid
fallacies. Any given standard-form syllogism can be evaluated by observing whether the rules are
violated or not.

Rule 1:

Every syllogism must have three and only three terms.

It there be less than three terms, we cannot get a mediate form of inference, but we may at best
construct an immediate inference, and not a syllogism. When there are more than three terms in a
statement it is either not an inference at all or it is a train of reasoning.

Three terms must be involved in every valid categorical syllogism—no more and no less. Any categorical
syllogism that contains more than three terms is invalid and is said to commit the fallacy of four terms.

All crows are black.

All cranes are white.

 No cranes are crows.

Rule 2:

The middle term must be distributed in at least one premiss.

In a standard-form categorical syllogism,

All Russians were revolutionists.

All anarchists were revolutionists.

 All anarchists were Russians.

the middle term, ‘revolutionists’ is not distributed in either premiss, and the syllogism violates Rule 2.
Any syllogism that violates Rule 2 is said to commit the fallacy of the undistributed middle. It should be
clear by the following considerations that any syllogism that violates this rule is invalid. The conclusion of
any syllogism asserts a connection between two terms.

The premisses justify asserting such a connection only if they assert that each of two terms is connected
with a third term in such a way that the first two are appropriately connected with each other through or
by means of the third. For the two terms of the conclusion really to be connected through the third, at
least one of them must be related to the whole of the class designated by the third or middle term.
Otherwise, each may be connected with a different part of that class, and the two are not necessarily
connected with each other at all.

Rule 3:

A term which is distributed in the conclusion, must be distributed in the premisses.

A valid argument is one whose premisses logically imply or entail its conclusion. The conclusion of a valid
argument cannot go beyond or assert any more than is (implicitly) contained in the premisses. If the
conclusion does illegitimately ‘go beyond’ what is asserted by the premisses, the argument is invalid. It is
an ‘illicit process’ for the conclusion to say more about its terms than the premisses do.

A proposition that distributes one of its terms says more about the class designated by that term than it
would if the term were undistributed by it. To refer to all members of a class is to say more about it than
is said, when only some of its members are referred to. Therefore when the conclusion of a syllogism
distributes a term that was undistributed in the premisses, it says more about it than the premisses
warrant, and the syllogism is invalid. Such an illicit process can occur in the case of either the major or
the minor term.

When a syllogism contains its major term undistributed in the major premiss but distributed in the
conclusion, the argument is said to commit the fallacy of illicit process of the major term or the illicit
major.

When a syllogism contains its minor term undistributed in its minor premiss but distributed in its
conclusion, the argument commits the fallacy of illicit process of the minor term or the illicit minor.

Rule 4:

From two negative premisses no conclusion can be drawn.

Any negative proposition (E or O) denies class inclusion, asserting that all or some of one class is
excluded from the whole of the other. Where S, P and M are the minor, major, and middle terms,
respectively, two negative premisses can assert only that S is wholly or partially excluded from all or part
of M and that P is wholly or partially excluded from all or part of M.

But these conditions may very well obtain no matter how S and P are related, whether by inclusion or
exclusion, partial or complete. Therefore from two negative premisses, no relationship whatever
between S and P can validly be inferred. Any syllogism that breaks Rule 4 is said to commit the fallacy of
exclusive premisses.

No beasts are immortal.

No cats are immortal.

No cats are beasts.

Rule 5:

If one of the premisses be negative the conclusion must be negative.

An affirmative conclusion asserts that one class is either wholly or partly contained in a second. This can
be justified only by premisses that assert the existence of a third class that contains the first and is itself
contained in the second. In other words, to entail an affirmative conclusion, both premisses must assert
inclusion. But class inclusion can be stated only by affirmative propositions. So an affirmative conclusion
logically follows only from two affirmative premisses. Hence if either premiss is negative, the conclusion
cannot be affirmative but must be negative also. Any syllogism that breaks Rule 5 may be said to commit
the fallacy of drawing an affirmative conclusion from a negative premiss.

Rule 6:

If one premiss be particular the conclusion must be particular.

To break this rule is to go from premisses having no existential import to a conclusion that does. A
particular proposition asserts the existence of objects of a specified kind, so to infer it from two universal
premisses that do not assert the existence of anything at all is clearly to go beyond what is warranted by
the premisses. For example,
All household pets are domestic animals.

No unicorns are domestic animals.

Therefore some unicorns are not household pets.

This syllogism is invalid because its conclusion asserts that there are unicorns (a false proposition),
whereas its premisses do not assert the existence of unicorns (or of anything) at all. Being universal
propositions, they are without existential import. The conclusion would follow validity if to the two
universal premisses were added the additional premiss ‘There are unicorns’. Any syllogism that violates
Rule 6 may be said to commit the existential fallacy.

Venn diagram Technique for Testing Syllogism:

To test a categorical syllogism by the method of Venn diagrams it is necessary to represent both its
premisses in one diagram. Here we are required to draw three overlapping circles, for the two premisses
of a standard-form syllogism contain three different terms, minor term, major term, and middle term
which we abbreviate as S, P, and M, respectively. We first draw two circles just as for the diagramming of
a single proposition, and then we draw a third circle beneath, overlapping both of the first two.

We label the three circles S, P, and M, in that order. Just as one circle labelled S diagrammed both the
class S and class Sand as two overlapping circles labeled S and P diagrammed four classes (SP, SP, SP and
SP), so three overlapping circles labeled S, P, and M diagram eight classes: SPM , SPM, SPM, SPM, SPM,
SPM, SPM, and SPM. These are represented by the eight parts into which the three circles divide the
plane, as shown in the following figure.

This can be interpreted in terms of the various different classes determined by the class of all Swedes (S),
the class of all peasants (P), and the class of all musicians (M). SPM is the product of these three classes,
which is the class of all Swedish peasant musicians. SPM is the product of the first two and the
complement of the third, which is the class of all Swedish peasants who are not musicians.

SPM is the product of the first and third and the complement of the second: the class of all Swedish
musicians who are not peasants. SPM is the product of the first and the complement of the others: the
class of all Swedes who are neither peasants nor musicians. Next, SPM is the product of the second and
third classes with the complement of the first: the class of all peasant musicians who are not Swedes.

SPM is the product of the second class with the complements of the other two: the class of all peasants
who are neither Swedes nor musicians. SPM is the product of the third class and the complements of the
first two: the class of all musicians who are neither Swedes nor peasants. Finally, SPM is the product of
the complements of the three original classes: the class of all things that are neither Swedes nor
peasants nor musicians.

If we focus our attention on just the two circles labelled P and M, it is clear that by shading out or
inserting an x we can diagram any standard-form categorical proposition whose two terms are P and M,
regardless of which is the subject term and which the predicate. Thus, to diagram the proposition “All
Mis P” (MP = 0), we shade out all of A/that is not contained in (or overlapped by) P. This area, it is seen,
includes both the portions labelled SPM and SPM. Then the diagram becomes:

And if we focus our attention on just the two circles S and M, by shading out or inserting an x we can
diagram any standard-form categorical proposition whose terms are S and M, regardless of the order in
which they appear in it. To diagram the proposition “All S is M” (SM = 0), we shade out all of S that is not
contained in (or overlapped by) M. This area, it is seen, includes both the portions labelled SPM and
SPM. The diagram for this proposition will appear as:

Now the advantage of having three circles overlapping is that it allows us to diagram two propositions
together—on condition, of course, that only three different terms occur in them. Thus diagramming both
“All M is P” and “All S is M” at the same time gives us this figure:


This is the diagram for both premisses of the syllogism AAA — 1:

All M is P.

All S is M

All S is P.

Now this syllogism is valid if and only if the two premisses imply or entail the conclusion, that is, if
together they say what is said by the conclusion. Consequently, diagramming the premisses of a valid
argument should suffice to diagram its conclusion also, with no further marking of the circles needed.

To diagram the conclusion “All S is P” is to shade out both the portion labelled SPM and the portion
labeled SPM. Inspecting the diagram that represents the two premisses, we see that it does diagram the
conclusion also. And from this fact we can conclude that AAA — 1 is a valid syllogism.

Let us now apply the Venn diagram test to an obviously invalid syllogism:

All dogs are mammals.

All cats are mammals.

Therefore all cats are dogs.

Diagramming both premisses we find this figure

In this diagram, where S designates the class of all cats, P the class of all dogs, and M the class of all
mammals, the portions SPM, SPM, and SPM have been shaded out. But the conclusion has not been
diagrammed, because the part SPM has been left unshaded, and to diagram the conclusion both SPM
and SPM must be shaded.

Thus we see that diagramming both the premisses of a syllogism of form AAA—2 does not suffice to
diagram its conclusion, which proves that the conclusion says something more than is said by the
premisses, which shows that the premisses do not imply the conclusion. But an argument whose
premisses do not imply its conclusion is invalid, and so our diagram proves the given syllogism to be
invalid.

The general technique of using Venn Diagrams to test the validity of any standard-form syllogism may be
summarily described as follows. First, label the circles of a three-circle Venn Diagram with the syllogism’s
three terms.

Next, diagram both premisses, diagramming the universal one first if there is one universal and one
particular, being careful in diagramming a particular proposition to put an x on a line if the premisses do
not determine on which side of the line it should go. Finally, inspect the diagram to see whether or not
the diagram of the premisses contains a diagram of the conclusion: if it does, the syllogism is valid; if it
does not, the syllogism is invalid.

Formal Fallacies:

We have already explained the six essential rules for standard-form syllogisms and named the fallacy
that results when each of these rules is broken.

Rule 1:
A standard-form categorical syllogism must contain exactly three terms, each of which is used in the
same sense throughout the argument. Violation: Fallacy of four terms.

Rule 2:

In a valid standard-form categorical syllogism, the middle term must be distributed in at least one
premiss.

Violation: Fallacy of the undistributed middle.

Rule 3:

In a valid standard-form categorical syllogism, if either term is distributed in the conclusion, then it must
be distributed in the premisses.

Violation: Fallacy of the illicit major, or fallacy of the illicit minor.

Rule 4:

No standard-form categorical syllogism having two negative premisses is valid. Violation: Fallacy of
exclusive premisses.

Rule 5:

If either premiss of a valid standard- form categorical syllogism is negative, the conclusion must be
negative. Violation: Fallacy of drawing an affirmative conclusion from a negative premiss.
Rule 6:

No valid standard-form categorical syllogism with a particular conclusion can have two universal
premisses.

Violation: Existential fallacy.

Related Articles:

Logic: It’s Truth and Validity (1141 Words) | Philosophy

Difference between Emotion and Mood | Psychology

Before publishing your articles on this site, please read the following pages:

1. Content Guidelines 2. Prohibited Content 3. Plagiarism Prevention 4. Image Guidelines 5. Content

Filtrations 6. TOS 7. Privacy Policy 8. Disclaimer 9. Copyright 10. Report a Violation

ADVERTISEMENTS

LATEST

Importance of Advertising

Barriers To Delegation of Authority

Career Development in HRM: Meaning, Need, Stages and Methods

Employee Training: Objectives, Process, Steps and Methods

Controlling Function of Management: Meaning, Importance, Process and Need