Categorical Syllogism

Categorical Syllogism
In general a syllogism is a deductive argument consisting of two premises and one conclusion. A categorical syllogism is a special type of syllogism in which all three statements are categorical propositions.
Example:
1 2 No wealthy individuals are paupers.
1 3 All civic leaders are wealthy individuals.

3 2 Therefore, no civic leaders are paupers.
Standard Form of Syllogism
1. Quantifier 2. Quantifier 3. Quantifier Minor Term
copula
copula copula
Major Term
{ Minor premise { (contains minor term ) { Conclusion
Major premise (contains major term )
NOTE: The requirements that premises and conclusion contain exactly three terms, each of which appears twice, need two qualifications:
(1) Argument containing more than three terms may qualify as a categorical syllogism if it can be translated into an equivalent argument having exactly three terms.
Example:
1 2 No wealthy individuals are paupers.
4 3 All civic leaders are well to do individuals.

3 2 Therefore, no civic leaders are paupers.
Well to do = wealthy Hence, this qualifies as categorical syllogism.
NOTE: The requirements that premises and conclusion contain exactly three terms, each of which appears twice, need two qualifications:
(2) Each of the three terms must be used in the same sense throughout the argument
Example:
1 2 Love is blind. 3 4 God is love. 1 4 Therefore, God is blind.
There are four terms in the argument: love has two meanings. Hence, this does not qualify as categorical syllogism.
A categorical syllogism is said to be in a standard form when the following three conditions are met.
(1) All three statements are standard-form categorical propositions.
(2) The two occurrences of each term are identical. (3) The major premise is listed first, the minor premise second, and the conclusion last.
Example:
1 2 All water colors are paintings. 1 3 Some water colors are masterpieces. 2 3 Hence, some paintings are masterpieces. Some water colors are masterpieces. All water colors are paintings. Hence, some paintings are masterpieces.
Not in standard form because premises are not listed in the right order.
Standard form because premises are listed in the right order.
Figures: Attribute of the categorical syllogism that specifies the location of the middle term.
Figure. 1 --M --P -- S --M --S --P Figure. 2 --P --M -- S --M --S --P Figure. 3 --M --P -- M --S --S --P Figure. 4 --P --M --M --S --S --P
Figures
RULES AND FALLACIES
Rule 1. A valid standard form categorical syllogism must contain exactly three terms each of which is used in the same sense through out the argument.
Fallacy: Four terms

Example: All criminal actions are wicked deeds All prosecutions for murder are criminal actions. Hence, all prosecutions for murder are wicked deeds.
COPI AND COHEN: In every categorical syllogism the conclusion asserts the relationships between two terms, the subject (minor term) and the predicate (major term)Such a conclusion can be justified only if the premises assert the relationship of each of those two terms to the same third term (middle term). If the premises fail to to do this consistently, the needed connection of the two terms in the conclusion cannot be established, and the argument will fail. So every valid categorical syllogism must involve three termsno more no less. If more than three terms are involved the syllogism is invalid.
RULES AND FALLACIES
Rule 2. The middle terms must be distributed at least once.
Fallacy: Undistributed middle

Example: All sharks are fish. All salmon are fish. All salmon are sharks.
COPI AND COHEN:

A term is distributed in a proposition when the proposition refers to all members of the class designated by the term. If the middle term is not distributed in at least one premise, the connection required by the conclusion cannot be made.
RULES AND FALLACIES
Rule 3. If a term is distributed in the conclusion, then it must be distributed in the premise
Fallacy: Illicit major; illicit minor

Example: All horses are animals Some dogs are not horses. Some dogs are not animals
COPI AND COHEN: To refer to all members of the class is to say more about the class than is said when only some of its members are referred to. Therefore, when a conclusion of a syllogism distributes a term that was undistributed in the premises, it says more about the term than the premises did. But a valid argument is one whose premises logically entails its conclusion, and for that to be true the conclusion must not assert any more than is asserted in the premises. A term that is asserted in the conclusion that is not distributed in the premises is therefore a sure mark that the conclusion has gone beyond its premises, has reached too far. The fallacy is that of illicit process.
All tigers are mammals All mammals are animals All animals are tigers
RULES AND FALLACIES
Rule 4. Two negative premises are not allowed.
Fallacy: Exclusive premises

Example: All fish are not mammals Some dogs are not fish. Some dogs are not mammals
COPI AND COHEN:

Any negative proposition (E or O) denies class inclusion; it asserts that all or some members of one class are excluded from the whole other class. But two premises asserting such exclusion cannot yield the linkage that the conclusion asserts, and therefore cannot yield a valid argument.
RULES AND FALLACIES
Rule 5. A negative premise requires a negative conclusion, and a negative conclusion requires a negative premise.
Drawing an affirmative conclusion from a negative premise Fallacy: or drawing a negative conclusion from affirmative premises Example:
All crows are birds.

Some wolves are not crows. Some wolves are birds.
COPI AND COHEN:
All triangles are three-angled polygon All three-angled polygons are three-sided polygons
Some three-sided polygons are not triangles.
If the conclusion is affirmative, that is, if it asserts that one of the two classes, S and P, is wholly or partly contained in the other, it can only be inferred from premises that assert the existence of a third class that contains the first and is itself contained in the second. But class inclusion can only be stated by affirmative propositions. Therefore an affirmative conclusion can only follow from two affirmative premises.
RULES AND FALLACIES
Rule 6. If If both premises are universal, the conclusion cannot be particular.
Fallacy: Existential fallacy

Example: All mammals are animals All tigers are mammals. Some tigers are animals
COPI AND COHEN:
All unicorns are mammals All mammals are animals Some unicorns are animals.
In the Boolean interpretation of categorical propositions, universal propositions (A and E) have no existential import, but particular propositions (I and O) do have such import. Wherever the Boolean interpretation is supposed , a rule is needed that precludes the passage from premises that have no existential import to a conclusion that does have such import.

Categorical Syllogism

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Categorical Syllogism

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Categorical Syllogism

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Categorical Syllogism

1 3 All civic leaders are wealthy individuals.

{ Minor premise { (contains minor term ) { Conclusion

Major premise (contains major term )

4 3 All civic leaders are well to do individuals.

Well to do = wealthy Hence, this qualifies as categorical syllogism.

Standard form because premises are listed in the right order.

Fallacy: Four terms

Fallacy: Undistributed middle

COPI AND COHEN:

Fallacy: Illicit major; illicit minor

Fallacy: Exclusive premises

COPI AND COHEN:

All crows are birds.

Fallacy: Existential fallacy

You might also like