SYLLOGISM

 Is a method of reasoning by drawing a conclusion from

two premises.
 The particular pattern of a syllogism is that the first
major premise shares something with a second, minor
premise, which in turn leads to a conclusion.
 Major Premise – general statement, assumed true.
 Minor Premise – specific statement, assumed true.
 Leading to a logical conclusion based on the premises.
SYLLOGISM
 The mental product of inferential thinking is
Argument

 The external expression of an argument is called

Syllogism.
Two kinds of syllogism:
1. Categorical- is an inferential thinking that draws the
conclusion in an absolute manner.

Example:
Punishing the guilty restores order in the country;
But, putting criminals behind the bars is a form of
punishing the guilty;
.: Putting criminals behind the bars restores order in the
country.
2. Hypothetical- is an inferential thinking which concludes with certainty,
affirming, or denying a statement, form the affirmation or denial of
another.
Examples:
If the students plagiarize, then they should be punished;
But the students plagiarize;
.: They should be punished.

One cannot be in Manila and Quezon City at the same time;

But, you are in Manila;
.: You are not in Quezon City.

Either you pass the test or you fail;

But, you pass;
.: You didn’t fail.
The Nature of Categorical syllogism
 A syllogism is considered valid when it is impossible to have a false
conclusion if the premises are true.
 False premises can have either a true or false conclusion. If a true
conclusion is drawn from false premises, its truth is not due to
consequence from the false premises but is merely accidental to such
inferential consequence.
 Therefore, if a conclusion is true, is does not necessarily follow that its
premises are true.
 Example: (False premises but seemingly true conclusion)
Money makes man live comfortably;
But, man’s goal is money;
.: Man’s goal is to live comfortably.
 Example: ( True premises but false conclusion)
A square is a geometrical figure;
But, a circle is a geometrical figure
.: A circle is a square
The Constituents of a Categorical Syllogism
 Three components of a categorical syllogism:
 Major term (P) – which is the predicate term of the
conclusion and is contained in the major premise
 Minor term (S) – which is the subject term of the conclusion
and is contained in the minor premise
 Middle term (M) – which is common to, and found in, both
premises

The major term and the minor term are also called extremes.

Example:
All animals are substances;
But, a dog is an animal;
.: A dog is a substance.
COMPONENTS OF CATEGORICAL
SYLLOGISM
Rules of Categorical Syllogism
The first four rules pertain to rules governing the terms, and
the last four refer to rules governing the proposition.
1. The middle term must always be taken on the same
sense.
2. The major term and the minor term cannot have a greater
extension in the conclusion than in the premise.
3. The middle term should not occur in the conclusion.
4. The middle term must be distributed universally, at least
once, in the premises.
5. Two affirmative premises cannot give a negative
conclusion.
6. From two negative premises, nothing follows.
7. From two particular premises, nothing follows.
8. The conclusion follows the weaker premise.
1. The middle term must always be taken on
the same sense.
 If this rule is not followed, the Fallacy of Equivocation or
the Fallacy of Four Terms will be committed.
 Examples:
 Head is the upper division of the human body;
But a leader is a head;
.: A leader is the upper division of the human body
 A father is a male parent;
But, the Holy Pope is a father;
.: The Holy Pope is a male parent
 A tablet is a compressed solid material for writing;
But paracetamol is a tablet;
.: Paracetamol is a compressed solid material for writing.
2. The major term and the minor term
cannot have a greater extension in the
conclusion than in the premise.
 If the term has a greater extension in the conclusion than in the
premise, then it cannot be formally the same term that has been
compared in the premise as it should be. If any of the extremes is
particular in the premise, it means that only a part of its
extension is compared with the middle term. The fallacy
committed here is the Fallacy of Illicit Process which is of two
kinds: Illicit Major and Illicit Minor.

 Illicit Major means the predicate is universal in the conclusion

not in the major premise.

 Illicit Minor means that the subjects is universal in the

conclusion but not in the minor premise.
 It also has to be noted that the predicate of an affirmative
proposition has a particular extension, while that of a
negative proposition has a universal extension. These rules
are applicable regardless of the quantity of the conclusion.

NOTE: The following symbols will be used:

M – Middle Term (universal)
P – Major Term (universal)
S – Minor Term (universal)
p – major term (particular)
s – minor term (particular)
+ - affirmative proposition
- - negative proposition
• Example:
All hammer are tools; (affirmative) M+p
But, no chisels are hammer; S+M
Therefore, no chisels are tools. (negative) S+P

The major term “tools” in the major premise being the predicate of an
affirmative proposition is particular in extension. Since the conclusion
is negative, the extension, therefore, of “tools” is universal. Hence, the
Fallacy of Illicit Major Term.

 Example;
All birds have wings; M+p
But, all birds are animals; M+s
Therefore, all animals (universal) have wings. S+p

The minor term “animals” in the minor premise being the predicate of
an affirmative proposition is particular in extension. “All animals” is
universal in extension. The conclusion overstates the premises, saying
more than the evidence allows. Hence, the Fallacy of Illicit Minor
Term.
3. The middle term should not occur in the
conclusion.
 The middle term is the point of comparison between the two
extremes. The comparison should lead us to a new truth which is
expressed in the conclusion. In the conclusion, the minor term
becomes the subject and the major term the predicate.
 Example:
A goddess is a female; M+p
But, a goddess is a deity; M+s
Therefore, a goddess is a female deity. M + ps

Today is Friday; M+p

Today is fine; M+s
Today is a fine Friday. M + sp
4. The middle term must be distributed
universally, at least once, in the premises.
 If the two extremes are compared with two different parts of the middle
term, then there will be two different suppositions of the middle term
giving rise to four-term syllogism which is against Rule # 1.
 Example:
All sharks are fish P+m
But, all mudfish are fish S+m
Therefore, all mudfish are sharks. S+p

The middle term is the one that appears in both premises – in this case, it
is the class of “fish” which is the predicate of affirmative propositions
and is, therefore, twice particular. It is undistributed because neither of
its uses applies to the fish. It cannot, therefore, be used to connect
sharks and mudfish – both of them could be separate and
unconnected divisions of the class of fish.
5. Two affirmative premises cannot give a
negative conclusion.
 Since the major term and the minor term are identified
with the same middle term, then the conclusion should
express this identity. A negative conclusion would express
something that is not contained in the premises. Violation
of this rule is called Fallacy of a Negative Conclusion
drawn from affirmative Premises.
 Example:
All stones are hard; M+p
Some diamonds are stones; s+m
some diamonds are not hard. s+p
6. From two negative premises, nothing
follows.
 Since the middle term is predicable of neither the major not the
minor term, there can be no relationship that is established
between this two terms, and therefore no conclusion can be
inferred. Hence, one premise must be affirmative.
 Example:
A chair is not a table; P–M
But, a table is not a pen; M–S
.: A pen is not a chair. S–P

We cannot logically draw a conclusion because the subject “pen”

and the predicate “chair” are excluding from their classes the
middle term “table”. As a result, the premises allow us no way to
relate the classes “pen and “chair” as this conclusion premises,
we commit the Fallacy of Negative Premises.
7. From the two particular premises,
nothing follows.
 One of the premises must be universal for the middle term to validly
connect the major and the minor terms. If the doctor concludes that,
“This vegetable contains Vitamin A; therefore, it is good for the eyes.”
He reasons from the general premises, “Anything that contains Vitamin
A is good for the eyes.”

a. If both particular premises are affirmative, then the subjects

and the predicates are particular.
Example:
Some men are gays; p+m
But, some gays are artists; m+s
.: Some artists are men. s+ p

In this example, the middle term “gays” is twice particular and, therefore,
commits the Fallacy of Undistributed Middle Term.
b. If both particular premises are negative, then the syllogism violates
Rule # 6.
Example:
Some wives are not naggers;
Some wives are not mature;
.: then what?

c. If one particular premises is affirmative, and the other negative, then

we have the following fallacious syllogism:
Some cats are pets; m+p
But, some pythons are not cats; s+M
.: Some pythons are not pets. s +P

Some horse back-rider are not males; m–P

But, some drivers are horse back-riders; s+m
.: Some drivers are not males. S–P

In the first example, the syllogism commits the Fallacy of Illicit Major Term; in
the second, it is the Undistributed Middle Term.
8. The conclusion follows the weaker
premise.
 If one premise is universal and the other particular, the
conclusion should be particular; otherwise, the syllogism
commits the Fallacy of Universal conclusion drawn from a
Particular Premise.
 Example:
All Mongoloids are mentally-retarded; M+p
But, some mongoloids are special children; m + s
.: All special children are mentally-retarded. S + p

The minor premises, in this example, is particular; therefore, the

conclusion must be particular; otherwise, it commits the Fallacy
of Illicit Minor Term as in the example above.
 Or if one of the premises is negative, and the other affirmative, the
conclusion should be negative; otherwise, the syllogism commits the
Fallacy of Affirmative conclusion drawn from the Negative
Premise.
 Example:
All swimmer are athletes; P+m
But, some scholars are not athletes; s+M
.: Some scholars are swimmers. s+p
The minor premise, in this example, is negative; therefore, the conclusion
must be negative.

Or, if the premise is particular and negative, the conclusion must be

particular and negative.
Example:
All moody persons are cranky; P+m
But, some old-maids are not cranky; s–M
.: All old-maids are moody persons. S+p
FIGURES AND MOODS OF CATEGORICAL
SYLLOGISM
 The figure of syllogism is determined by the location
of the middle term, the term that appears in both
premises.
 Moods are the given configuration of the premises
and conclusion according to quantity and quality.
Figures of the Categorical syllogism
 The figure of a syllogism has something to do with the position of the middle term in
the premises. In figure 1, the middle term is subject in the major, predicate in the minor.
In figure 2, it is predicate in both premises. In figure 3, it is subject in both premises. In
figure 4, it is predicate in the major, subject in the minor.
 Illustration:
First Figure M P The middle term is the subject of
(SUB-PRE) S M the major premise and predicate
S P of the minor premise.
Rules:
a. The minor premise must be affirmative.
b. The Major premise must be universal.

Valid:
Prisoners are law-offenders; M +p
But, some criminals are prisoners; s+m
.: Some criminals are law-offenders. s+p

 The minor premise must be affirmative.

 A negative minor premise would have a negative conclusion, and would require
an affirmative Major premise. Because the conclusion is negative, the predicate
would be universal. We will commit the fallacy of Illicit Major Term in the
conclusion in the case the minor premise in negative.

Invalid:
All surgeons are doctors; M+p
But, no anesthesiologists are surgeon; S–M
.: No anesthesiologists are doctors. S–P

 The Major Premise must be universal.

Since the minor premise is affirmative, its predicate (middle term) is particular.
The Major premise must be universal. If not, the syllogism will commit the
fallacy of Undistributed Middle Term, like this argument:

Invalid:
Some males are married; m+p
But, all priests are males; S+m
.: some priests are married. S+p
 Second Figure P M The middle term is the predicate
(PRE-PRE) S M of both premises.
S P
Rules:
a. One premise must be negative.
b. The Major premise must be universal.
Valid:
A square is a four-sided polygon; P+m
But, a circle is not a four-sided polygon; S – M
.: a circle is not a square. S–P

 One premise is negative.

If both premises are affirmative, then the predicates (middle term) would
be particular. This commits the fallacy of undistributed Middle Term.
Thus, the middle term must be distributed universally at least once in
the premises (as per Rule # 4). In this case, one premises must be
negative.
Invalid:
All triangles are polygon; P+m
But, all squares are polygon; S+m
.: All squares are triangles. S +p

 The Major Premises must be universal.

A negative premise would have a negative conclusion. Because the

conclusion is negative, the predicate (Major Term) would be universal.
This, therefore, requires a universal Major Term. Hence, a universal
Major Term premise. If not, we will commit the fallacy of Illicit Major
Term in the conclusion in the case the Major premise is particular.

Invalid:
Some lawyers are liars; p +m
But, no honest citizen is a liar; S–M
Therefore, no honest citizen is a lawyer. S-p
THIRD FIGURE M P The middle term is the subject
(SUB-SUB) M S of both premises.
S P
Rules:
a. The minor premise must be affirmative.
b. The conclusion must be particular.
Valid:
Some that glitter are not gold; m–P
But, all that glitter are precious; M+s
Some precious things are not gold. s–p
 The minor premise must be affirmative.

A negative minor premise would have a negative conclusion. Because the

conclusion is negative, the predicate would be universal. As predicate
of the affirmative Major premise, it would be particular. Thus we will
commit the fallacy of Illicit Major Term. If the Major premise will also
be negative, Fallacy of Negative Premises. Hence, an affirmative minor
premise.
Invalid:
All murderers are criminals; M+p
But, no murderers are saint; M-S
.: No saints are criminals. S -P

 The conclusion must be particular.

Because the minor premise is affirmative, its predicate
(minor term) is particular. If the conclusion is universal, we
will commit the Fallacy of Illicit Minor Term.
Invalid:
Some movies are violent; m+p
But, all movies are works of art; M+s
All works of art are violent. S+p
FOURTH FIGURE P M The middle term is the
(PRE-SUB) M S predicate of the major premise
S P and the subject of the minor
premise.
Rules:
a. If the Major premise is affirmative, the minor
premise must be universal.
b. If the minor premise is affirmative, the
conclusion must be particular.
c. If one premise is negative, the Major premise
must be universal.

 If the Major premise is affirmative, the minor premise must be

universal.
Should the Major premise be affirmative, the minor premise must
be universal because if not, the syllogism will commit the Fallacy
of Undistributed Middle Term.
Invalid:
Some males are criminals; p+m
But, some criminals are females; m+s
.: Some females are males. s+ p
 If the minor premise is affirmative, the conclusion must be particular.

 An affirmative minor premises gives a particular minor term. Therefore, the conclusion
must be particular in order not to commit the Fallacy of Illicit Minor Term.
Invalid:
All postman are workers; P+m
But, some workers are professors; m+s
.: All professors are postman. S+p
 If one premise is negative, the Major premise must be universal.
Since one premise is negative, the conclusion must be negative. The conclusion being
negative, the predicate (Major Term) becomes universal. This requires a universal Major
Term to avoid the Fallacy of Illicit Major Term. Therefore, Major premise must be
universal.

Invalid:
Some criminals are rapist; p+m
But, no rapist is a woman; M–S
.: No women are criminals. S-P
Moods of Categorical Syllogism
 The mood of the categorical syllogism refers to the different
arrangement of the four types of the proposition (A, E, I, O) in the
syllogism.
 Since we have four types of propositions in each figure having three
proposition (4 squared 3), there will be 64 possible combinations.
 Now, there are four figures each having 64 possible combinations (4 x
64). This will therefore, give us a total of 256 possible combinations.
Of this given number, only 19 follow the rules of correct deduction and
are thus considered valid. The rest are invalid.
 The 19 valid moods are presented in mnemonic verses canvassed in the
Prior Analytics, so structured that instructions for reducing the
syllogism in question to the First Figure were included. Each mood has
three vowels indicating the three prepositions in the syllogism.
First Figure: Barbara, Celarent, Darii, Ferio
Second figure: Cesare, Camestres, Festino, Baroco
Third Figure: Darapti, Disamis, Datisi, Felapton,Bocardo, Ferison
Fourth Figure: Bramantip, Camenes, Dimaris, Fesapo, Fresison

If the syllogism has the mood Felapton, it means that the Major
premise is an E-proposition, the minor premise is an A-
proposition, and the conclusion is O. But, how do we get the
mood of the categorical syllogism?

Follow the steps:

a. Identify the figure of the syllogism by determining the
position of the middle term in the premises.
b. Identify the type of proposition of each premise.
c. Look for the mood under the identified figure that has the
given arrangement of premises.
Some deadly weapons are grenades;
But, all grenades are explosives;

Therefore, some explosives are deadly weapons .

I – Some deadly weapons are grenades;
A – But, all grenades are explosives;
I – Therefore, some explosives are deadly weapons.

In this example, the middle term is “grenade”. It is the predicate

of the major premise and the subject of the minor. Here, we
have Figure 4. The major premise is an I - proposition; The
minor A and the conclusion I. The mood under the fourth
figure that has this arrangement is DIMARIS. Can the mood
be DASAMIS? No! Disamis is in the third figure, and the
syllogism in question is in the fourth.
Example:
No beggars are millionaires;
But, some beggars are homeless;
Therefore, some homeless are not millionaires.

E – No beggars are millionaires;

I – But, some beggars are homeless;
O – Therefore, some homeless are not millionaires.

The middle term “beggars”. It is the subject of the minor and

minor premise. Here, we have Figure 3. The major premise is
an E-proposition; the minor I and the conclusion O. The
mood under the third figure that has this pattern is FERISON.
It can’t be Fresison, neither can it be Ferio.
Thank you for Listening!
PERFORMANCE TASK
Make (5) examples to each figures
and identify moods of categorical
syllogism.