7.

6 Sorites
Sorites is an argument whose conclusion is inferred from its premises by a chain of syllogistic
inferences in which the conclusion of each inference serves as a premise for the next, and the
conclusion of the last syllogism is the conclusion of the entire argument (Copi & Cohen). It is
also defined by Mark Thorsby as chain of categorical syllogisms without intermediate
conclusion.
There are two kinds of categorical sorites. The first one is the Aristotelian or progressive sorites
where in the predicate of each premise is the subject of the following premise and the subject of
the first premise is the subject of the conclusion like the example given below.
All A is B;

All B is C;
All C is D;
All D is E;
Therefore, All A is E
The other kind of sorites is the Goclenian or regressive sorites where the same premises occur,
but their order is reversed like the example given below.
All A is B;

All C is A;
All D is C;
All E is D;
Therefore, All E is B.
Sorites arguments can be solved by putting first in standard form. Steps in putting the sorites in
standard form are: 1.) identify the conclusion, 2.) re-order in standard form, 3.) supply any
missing premises or conclusions; and 4.) Test for validity.
We will introduce two techniques for testing a sorites for validity. The first technique involves
three steps: 1.) put the sorites into standard form, 2.) introduce the intermediate conclusions, and
3.) test each component syllogism for validity. If each component is valid, the sorites is valid.
The second technique is by using the five rules: 1) each middle term must be distributed at least
once, 2) if a term is distributed in the conclusion, it must be distributed in the premise, 3) two
negative premises are not allowed, 4) a negative conclusion requires a negative premise and a
positive conclusion requires a positive premise, and finally 5) if all the premises are universal,
the conclusion cannot be particular.
Consider the following example.
No B are C.
Some E are A.
All A are B.
All D are C._____
42

Some E are not D

To put the sorites into standard form, the premises must be rearranged. To do this find the
premises that contains the predicate of the conclusion and write it first. Then find the premise
that contains the other term in the first premise and write it second. Continue in this way until all
the premises are listed:
All D are C
No B are C
All A are B
Some E are A___
Some E are not D
Next step is to supply any missing premises or conclusions. We will get the conclusion of the
first and second premises. The conclusion will be used as the major term for the third premise
and so on until we arrive at the final conclusion. Let us see the example below.
I

II

III

All Dare C
No B are D
No B are C

No A are D
All A are B

Some E are not D

Some E are A

The final step is to check for validity by using the venn diagram.
I

II

III

D
Valid

Valid

D
Valid

43

Exercises
All bloodhounds are dogs.
All dogs are mammals.
No fish are mammals.
Therefore, no fish are bloodhounds
All philosophers are wide readers;
All wide readers are intelligent;
All intelligent people are creative;
All creative people are producers of great ideas
Therefore, All philosophers are producers of great ideas.
One who will not sacrifice truth for power is a responsible person.
One who is a paragon of honesty will not sacrifice truth for power;
One who is worth emulating is paragon of honesty;
A model of decency is worth emulating;
Therefore, a model of decency is a responsible person.
Some enthusiasts show poor judgment.
All who show poor judgment make frequent mistakes.
None who makes frequent mistakes deserves implicit trust.
Therefore, some enthusiasts do not deserve implicit trust.
An animal is a substance;
A quadruped is an animal;
A horse is a quadruped;
Bucephalus is a horse:
Bucephalus is a substance.
The more you exercise, the hungrier you get;
The hungrier you get, the more you eat;
The more you eat, the fatter you get;
The fatter you get, the less you move around;
Therefore, the more you exercise, the less you move around.

44

7. 7 Disjunctive and Hypothetical Syllogism

Disjunctive Syllogism
Disjunctive syllogism is a syllogism in which one of the premise is a disjunction, the other
premise is the denial or the contradictory of one of the two disjuncts in the first premise, and the
conclusion is the statement that the other disjunct in that first premise is true.
There are two types of disjunctive syllogism. The inclusive and the exclusive sense .In inclusive
sense the major premise presents alternatives that cannot be denied but can be affirmed of one
and the same subject at the same time. For this reason, there is only one valid mood for an
argument in this type, and this is the sublating mood wherein the minor premise negates one
alternative and the conclusion accepts or affirms the other. We can represent it as p or q or both.
Example:
Major Premise: Either A or B
minor premise: Not B
Therefore
:A
In exclusive disjunctive syllogism, the alternatives presented in the major premise are such that
they cannot be both affirmed or denied. We can represent it as p or q but not both. Under this
kind of disjunctive syllogism, two valid forms were presented. First is the positing mood where
in a minor premise posits or accepts one member of the disjunction and the conclusion sublates
or rejects the other. The second is the sublating mood where a minor sublates or rejects on of the
members of the disjunction and the conclusion affirms or posits the other.
Example:
Positing mood
This argument is either valid or invalid.
This argument is valid.
Ergo, it is not valid.
Sublating mood
Example: You are either a Catholic or not.
You are not a Catholic.
Ergo, you are a non- Catholic.
An argument that denies a disjunct is valid in either case, but an argument that affirms a
disjunct is valid only if "or" is used in the exclusive sense.

45

The problem is that nothing in the logical form of the argument tells us which sense is
being used. To make it clear that p and q are exclusive alternatives, people sometimes say,
"p, or else q." But, in most cases, we have to decide from the context which sense is
intended. For logical purposes, therefore, we assume that "or" is used inclusively, so that
affirming a disjunct is fallacious.

Hypothetical Syllogism
Hypothetical or conditional is a syllogism which contains one or more compound, hypothetical
propositions, each affirming that if one of its component is true then the other of its components
is true. (Copi & Cohen). The two component propositions of are the antecedent, the one
following the if word, and the consequent which follows the word then.
Example:
If the first native is a politician, then the first native lies.
antecedent
consequent
Conditional Syllogism has two subtypes namely pure hypothetical and mixed hypothetical. Pure
hypothetical is a syllogism that contains only conditional propositions. The Mixed hypothetical
contains one conditional premise and one categorical premise. The following are examples of the
two subtypes.
Pure hypothetical
If P is true, then Q is true.
If Q is true, then R is true.
Therefore if P is true, then R is true.
Mixed hypothetical
If P is true, then Q is true.
P is true.
Therefore, Q is true.
We also have to take note of the rules in hypothetical syllogisms which provides that the major
premise is always the hypothetical, and the minor premise must either affirm the antecedent or
deny the consequent.
There are two valid conditional syllogisms, the modus ponens and the modus tollens. Modus
ponens is a mixed hypothetical syllogism in which the first premise is a conditional proposition,
the second premise affirms the antecedent of that conditional and the conclusion affirms the
consequent of that conclusion (Copi & Cohen).
Example:
46

If logic is important, then students should study it.

Logic is important.
Therefore, students should study it.
Modus tollens is a mixed hypothetical syllogism in which the first premise is conditional
proposition, the second premise is the denial of the consequent of that conditional, and the
conclusion is the denial of the antecedent of that conclusion (Copi & Cohen).
Example:
If logic is important, then students should study it.
Students should not study it.
Therefore, logic is not important.
On the other hand, there are also invalid conditional syllogisms. These are the fallacy of denying
the antecedent and the fallacy of affirming the antecedent. Fallacy of denying the antecedent is a
fallacy in which from the negation of the antecedent of a conditional proposition, the conclusion
is reached that the consequent of that condition is false (Copi & Cohen).
Example:
If logic is important, then the students should study it.
Logic is not important.
Therefore, students should not study it.
Fallacy of affirming the consequent is a fallacy in which, from the bottom of the consequent of a
conditional proposition the conclusion is reached that the antecedent of that conditional is true.
Example:
If logic is important, then students should study it.
Students should study it.
Therefore, logic is important.
7. 8 The Dilemma
Dilemma is a common form of argument in ordinary discourse in which it is denied that a choice
must be made between two alternatives, both of which are usually bad. It contains a major
premise which is the conjunctive with two conditional statements as conjuncts; the minor
premise which is the disjunctive proposition in which either of the antecedent of the major
premise are affirmed or denied; and the conclusion in which it follows logically from the
premises.(Copi & Cohen)
Dilemma is classified according to its quantity and quality. Under quantity are the simple
dilemma which is an argument designed to push the adversary to choose between two
47

alternatives, the conclusion in either case being a single categorical proposition, and the complex
dilemma which is an argument consisting of a disjunct, two conditional premises linked by a
conjunction, a conclusion that is not a single categorical proposition but a disjunction, a pair of
alternatives. In qualitative dilemma, we have the constructive dilemma where in the disjunctive
propositions posits the antecedent of the conditional propositions; the conclusion posits their
consequents and the destructive dilemma where in the disjunctive proposition sublates the
consequents of the conditional propositions; the conclusion subltes their antecedents.
We can now draw kinds of dilemma basing from their quantity and quality. The following are the
four kinds and their corresponding examples.
1. Simple Constructive
Either A or B
But if A then Z; if B then Z
Therefore, Z
2. Complex Constructive
Either A or B.
But, if A, then X; if B, then Y.
Therefore either X or Y.
3. Simple Destructive
If A, then X and Y
But, either not X or not Y.
Therefore not A.
4. Complex Destructive
If A then X; and if B, then Y.
But, either not X or not Y.
Therefore either not A or not B.

If we are to be presented with dilemmas, it is best for us to know the ways on how to solve them.
These tactics are escaping between the horns of dilemma, taking the dilemma by horns, and
counter dilemma.
Escaping between the horns of dilemma: Two consequents mentioned may be incomplete. If it
is possible to show that they are incomplete, we can avoid facing dilemma. This is what known
as escaping between the horns of dilemma. It should be noted that even when third consequent
is suggested it does not mean that this new consequent is actually true. In other words, the new
consequent also is hypothetical.
48

Example:
If Luke is right, then the last words of Jesus on the cross were Father, unto my
hands I commend my spirit.
If John is right, then the last words of Jesus on the cross were It is finished.
Luke is right or John is right.
Therefore, the last words of Jesus on the cross were Father, unto my hands I
commend my spirit or It is finished.
In the bible, we also have the gospel of Mathew which gives different account of what Jesus last
words were. If Mathew was right, then Luke and John is not right or it is also possible that
neither Luke, nor John nor Mathew got it right. So in fact there are contradictions in the bible
which undermine the reliability of the bible. So we cant be sure that every particular book in the
bible is correct. We cant ascertain then that this premise is true.
Taking the dilemma by horns: In this method of avoiding dilemma, attempts are made to
contradict the hypothetical propositions, which are conjoined. A hypothetical proposition is
contradicted when antecedent and negation of consequent are accepted. However, in this case
this particular acceptance is missing. Instead, third component is offered to shield the antecedent
after denying the consequent. Therefore contradiction is missing.
Example:
If God exists, atheist will not go to Heaven.
If God does not exist, atheist will not go to Heaven.
God exists, or God does not exist.
Therefore, atheists will not go to Heaven.
Applying the universalism concept of religion, God bless everyone so much that everyone will
eventually get to go to heaven. Even the people who do not believe in God will go to heaven.
This idea makes more sense than the idea that the non-believers will be sent and be burnt to hell.
Counter Dilemma. In counter dilemma, we change either the antecedents or the consequents of
the conjunctive premise while leaving the disjunctive premise as it is, so as to obtain a different
conclusion.
Example:
If you eat meat, you will contribute to the killing of the animals.
If you dont eat meat, you will risk poor nutrition.
You either eat meat or dont eat meat.
Therefore, you will contribute to the killing of animals, or you will risk poor
nutrition.

49

If we counter this dilemma, the result would be:

If you eat meat, you will increase the demand for farm animals, which benefits the
species by leading to more being born.
If you dont eat meat, you will reduce your risk of cancer, heart disease, and
diabetes.
You either eat meat or dont eat meat.
Therefore, you will increase the demand for farm animals, which benefits the
species by leading to more being born, or you will reduce your risk of cancer,
heart disease, and diabetes.
We have not refuted the previous dilemma but we have shown that there are other issues
involved besides those that the original dilemma was shown to us. In here, we are showing the
upside of eating meat and the upside of not eating meat where at the previous dilemma, we are
looking at the downside.
Exercises:
I must either jump or stay there is no other alternative.
But if I jump, I shall die immediately from the fall.
And if I stay I shall die immediately from the fire.
Therefore I shall die immediately.
If I win a million dollars, I will donate it to an orphanage.
If my friend wins a million dollars, he will donate it to a wildlife fund.
I win a million dollars or my friend wins a million dollars.
Therefore, either an orphanage will get a million dollars, or a wildlife fund will get a million
dollars.
If I am to pass the examination, I must do two things: I will study all night and I must also be
mentally alert as I write.
But either I will not study all night or I will not be mentally alert as I write.
Therefore I will not pass the examination.
If it rains, we will stay inside.
If it is sunny, we will go for a walk.
Either we will not stay inside, or we will not go for a walk, or both.
Therefore, either it will not rain, or it will not be sunny, or both.

50

References:
Copi, Irving. Introduction to Logic. 14th ed. Pearson, 2010.
Copi, Irving; Cohen Carl. Introduction to Logic. 13th ed. Prestice Hall. 2008
http://dhavaria.com/discuss-in-detail-various-types-of-dilemmas-present-possible-ways-appliedto-avoid-them/
https://peterkrey.wordpress.com/2009/01/18/refuting-dilemmas/
http://www.garlikov.com/philosophy/dilemma.html
http://academic.csuohio.edu/polen/LC9_Help/5/Sorites.htm
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hJs3SABjPjY
https://logicalgal.com/category/aristotelian-sorites/
http://www3.abu.edu/naugle/pdf/2302-handouts/hypothetical_syllogisms.pdf

51