M ediate Inference/

Syllogism
Syllogism

Syllogism is a rhetorical device that starts anargument

with a reference to something general and from this it
draws conclusion about something more specific.

Major premise: A general statement.

Minor premise: A specific statement.
Conclusion: based on the two premises.
CategoricalSyllogism

. Acategorical syllogismis an argument consisting of

exactly three categorical propositions (two premises and
a conclusion) in which there appear a total of exactly
three categorical terms, each of which is used exactly
twice.
Basic Proposition in a CategoricalSyllogism

1. Major premise
The major premise (the first statement) is a general
statement of the form 'All/none/some A are B', for example:
All men are mortal.
This statement is not challenged and is assumed to be true.
2. Minor premise
The minor premise (the second statement) is also a
statement about inclusion and is also assumed to be true. It
is usually a specific statement, for example:
 Socrates is a man.
It may also be a general statement with a reduced
scope. Thus, for example, when the major premise takes
the format of 'all', the minor premise may be 'some'. T
The minor premise is also assumed to be true.
3. Conclusion
The conclusion is a third statement, based on a
combination of the major and minor premise.
Socrates is mortal.
 From the truth of the first two statements, a truth is
created in this third statement. The trouble is that this
'truth' is not always true -- yet it often appears to be
quite a logical conclusion.
Basic Term s in CategoricalSyllogism

1. Major Term - it is the predicate of the conclusion

and is found in the major premise. It is usually
designated by "P" which means the predicate of the
conclusion.
2. Minor Term - it is the subject of the conclusion and
is found in the minor premise. It is usually designated
by "S" which the subject if the conclusion.
3. Middle Term occurs in each of the premises but
not in the conclusion.
Exam ple

Consider, for example, the categorical syllogism:

No geese are felines.

Some birds are geese.
Therefore, Some birds are not felines.
Clearly, "Some birds are not felines" is the conclusion of this
syllogism. The major term of the syllogism is "felines" (the
predicate term of its conclusion), so "No geese are felines" (the
premise in which "felines" appears) is its major premise.
Similarly, the minor term of the syllogism is "birds," and "Some
birds are geese" is its minor premise. "geese" is the middle
term of the syllogism.
There are six rules that categorical
syllogism s m ust obey:

1. All syllogisms must contain exactly three terms, each

of which is used in the same sense.
2. The middle term must be distributed in at least one
premise.
3. If a major or minor term is distributed in the
conclusion, then it must be distributed in the premises.
4. No syllogism can have two negative premises.
5. If either premise is negative, the conclusion must be
negative.
6. No syllogism with a particular conclusion can have two
ConditionalSyllogism

The basic form of the conditional syllogism is: If A is true

then B is also true. (If A then B). It appears through a
major premise, a minor premise and a conclusion.
Basic Proposition in a ConditionalSyllogism

1. Major premise
The major premise (the first statement) for example:
Ladies prefer Xanthos.
This statement is not challenged and is assumed to be
true.
The 'A', the 'if' part of the statement ('adding sugar to
coffee' in the example) is also called the antecedent.
The 'B', the 'then' part of the statement ('tastes better')
is also called the consequent.
2. Minor premise
A minor premise, which may not be spoken, gives
further detail about the major premise. For example:
Xanthos smells great.
The minor premise is also assumed to be true. In
adverts, it often appears as the secondary line to the
main strapline of the major premise.
3. Conclusion
The conclusion is a third statement, based on a
combination of the major and minor premise.
If you use Xanthos cologne, you will attract women.

In adverts, this may well not be mentioned, but it is

most clearly what you are intended to conclude.
Exam ple

Here is the bones of many the proposition of many therapists:

You are sad.

I am qualified to help people who are sad.
I can make you happy.
Thus, when the therapist says 'You are sad', the patient gets the
idea that the therapist can make them happy. The qualifications
of the therapist may be framed on the wall or on the brass plate
outside. This principle is also used by many professions, which
is why it is ok for hairdresser to criticize your hair (in fact it
provides a contrast with what your hair will soon look like).
D iscussion

Conditional syllogisms are seldom completed with all three

sentences -- often only the major and minor premises are
needed and sometimes only the major premise is enough.
The conclusion of the conditional syllogism is often
unspoken and it is intended that the listener infers it for
themselves.
Advertisers love conditional syllogisms because this gives
them a way around laws that prevent advertisements from
telling direct lies. Lies such as 'use cologne, attract women'
are also a bit obvious, and people who will believe the
syllogism would not necessary believe the direct lie of the
conclusion.
D isjunctive Syllogism

The basic form of the disjunctive syllogism is: Either A is

true or B is true. (A exclusive-or B). Thus, if A is true, B
is false, and if B is true, A is false. A and B cannot both
by true.
Basic Proposition in a D isjunctive Syllogism

1. Major premise
. The major premise is given in the form of a choice between
alternatives, with the assumption that one out of two or
more alternative choices is right and that the rest are wrong.
. This may appear in a single sentence:
. Either Jim, Fred or Billy did it.

2. Minor premise
. The minor premise either selects or rejects alternatives, thus
leading to the conclusion.
 Jim was in the bar. But Fred had the motive.

3. Conclusion
The conclusion may be spoken, although often it is not,
as it is intended that the target of the major premise
concludes this by his or herself. For example:
Fred killed Julius.
Exam ple

Politicians love disjunctive syllogisms, as they offer stark

choices:

Either you vote for me or you vote for disaster.

Advertisers love them too. Note here how an

airline uses unspoken scare tactics about driving or
going by train.

Flying is the safest way to travel.

D iscussion

When comparing two or more items, you are using the contrast
principle in highlighting the differences between a target item and
the other items.
A fallacy happens here when it is assumed that the choices offered
are the only choices. By offering alternatives, the listener is given
the impression that this is all there is, and that other choices do
not exist. This is the basis of the sales person's alternative close.
Another fallacy occurs where it is assumed that the two
alternatives are mutually exclusive. So if one has a particular
characteristic, the other is assumed not to have any of this
characteristic. For example, you can cast yourself and your ideas
as good by criticizing others as bad. The other guy is bad, which
means I am good.
Syllogistic Fallacies

A syllogism is an argument that has a major premise, a

minor premise and a conclusion, and often appears in
the form 'A is B, C is D, therefore E is F'. This is a
specific form of argument with very specific rules that
are easy to break. In many ways, syllogistic fallacies are
the 'classic' form of fallacy.
Syllogism may also be used to form incorrect
conclusions that are odd. For instance, All crows are
black and the bird in my cage is black. So, the bird in
my cage is a crow. This is a false argument as it implies
a conclusion all blackbirds are crows is incorrect. It is
known as SyllogismFallacy.
Af f
rm ing the Consequent
i

If A is true then B is true. B is true. Therefore A is true.

If B follows A, then you can assume you can go back the

other way also.
Exam ple

I am in London, England. I am in England, therefore I am

in London.

If you are cheating on me, you will be out of the house a

lot. You are out of the house a lot, so you must be
cheating on me.
 This assumes that an if...then... statement is
commutative, that given 'If A then B', you can also
reverse it to 'If B then A'. The B, or 'then' part of the
statement is called the 'consequent' (the A is the
antecedent).

Affirming the Consequent is one of Aristotle's 13

fallacies.
D enying the Antecedent

If A is true then B is true. A is not true, therefore B is not

true.

To disprove something, show how it can be caused by

something else. Then show that the cause does not
happen (then assume that this proves the antecedent is
also false).
Exam ple

If you give a man a gun, he may kill someone. If he has

no gun, then he will not kill anyone.

If you work hard, you will get a good job. If you do not
work hard you will not get a good job.

I am in London, England. I am not in London, therefore I

am not in England.
 In an 'If A then B' statement, A is the antecedent and B
is the consequent.

When you know that 'If A is true then B is true', this

statement is only valid for truth of A and B. If A is false,
then it does not necessarily follow that B is also false. A
place where this is true is in Boolean logic, where A and
B are binary variables and can only be true or false. In
life, there are often situations where A and B can have
many other states.
Four Term s

All A are B. All C are D. So All A are D.

Make two statements and make an unspoken leap that

connects these statements to allow a third, conclusive
statement to be made.
Exam ples

All dogs are mammals. All fish are animals. So all dogs
are animals. [true, but not proven by the first two
statements]

Man is an intelligent animal. No woman is a man.

Therefore no women are intelligent animals. ['man' has
two different meanings]
 Syllogisms should have only three terms, with one term
being the bridge between the major and minor premise
that forms the conclusion. So where four terms appear
in the major and minor premises, these two statements
are logically disconnected and no logical conclusion
may be drawn.

Sometimes it may appear that there are three terms, as

in the second example above. This can still cause
problems where one term actually has different
meanings (equivocation) in either term. For example,
'man' can mean 'humanity' or 'male'.
Illicit M ajor

All X is Y. No P (which is a subset of Y) is X. Therefore no

P is Y.

Unspoken assumption: All Y is X.

Exam ple

All Londoners are European. No Parisiens are Londoners.

Therefore no Parisiens are European.
 This is a particular case of a categorical syllogism, where overlaps of
sets are taken to be different in each statement. Thus the fallacy in
the example occurs when the first statement is assumed to be
reversible (that if all Londoners are European, then all Europeans are
Londoners).

More formally, the predicate (Y) of the conclusion (no P is Y) refers to

all members of that set. Yet the same term (Y) in the major premise
(All X is Y) refers only to some of the members (X) of that set.

The 'Major' in the name is the major premise, the first statement in
the syllogism.
Illicit M inor

All X are Y. All X are P. Therefore all P are Y.

Unspoken assumption: All P are X.

Exam ple

All New Yorkers are beautiful. All New Yorkers are

intelligent. Therefore all intelligent people are beautiful.
 This is a particular case of categorical syllogism, where the second
statement is assumed to be reversible. In the example, it is
assumed that the statement about New Yorkers and intelligence is
reversible (all intelligent people live in New York).

More formally, the subject (P) in the conclusion (All P are Y) refers
to all members of at category, but the same term (P) in the minor
premise (All X are P) refers only to some members of that category.

The 'Minor' in the name is the minor premise, the second

statement in the syllogism.
U ndistributed M iddle

All A is B. All C is B. Therefore all C is A.

B is assumed to cover all items in its category.

Exam ple

All Californians are beautiful. All women are beautiful.

Therefore all women are Californian.

All fools act stupid. You acted stupid. Therefore you are
a fool.

All elephants are big. Some boys are big. Therefore

some boys are elephants.
 The problem here is that the middle term (that connects
the first two statements) is assumed to refer to the
same thing -- typically all of the members in its
category, yet this is seldom true. Thus, in the first
example above, neither all Californians nor all women
cover all of the beautiful people in the world (some
British men are beautiful).

In effect, the 'reasonable' assumption is that the first

two statements are of the form A=B and C=B, from
which the mathematically sound conclusion is that C=A.
Unfortunately, syllogisms deal with sets, not
mathematical variables.