www.philosophypages.com/lg/e08a.htm -
Categorical
Syllogisms
Now, on to the next
level, at which we combine more than one categorical proposition to fashion logical arguments. A categorical syllogism is 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.
One of those terms
must be used as the subject term of the conclusion of the syllogism, and we call it the minor term of the syllogism as a whole. The major term of the syllogism is whatever is employed as the predicate term of its conclusion. The third term in the
syllogism doesn't occur in the conclusion at all, but must be employed in somewhere in each of its premises; hence, we call
it the middle term.
Since one of the premises
of the syllogism must be a categorical proposition that affirms some relation between its middle and major terms, we call
that the major premise of the syllogism. The other premise, which links the middle and minor terms, we call the minor premise.
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. Simlarly, 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.
In order to make obvious
the similarities of structure shared by different syllogisms, we will always present each of them in the same fashion. A categorical
syllogism in standard form always begins with the premises, major first and then minor, and then finishes with the conclusion. Thus,
the example above is already in standard form. Although arguments in ordinary language may be offered in a different arrangement,
it is never difficult to restate them in standard form. Once we've identified the conclusion which is to be placed in the
final position, whichever premise contains its predicate term must be the major premise that should be stated first.
Medieval logicians
devised a simple way of labelling the various forms in which a categorical syllogism may occur by stating its mood and figure. The mood of a syllogism is simply a statement of which categorical propositions (A, E, I, or O) it comprises,
listed in the order in which they appear in standard form. Thus, a syllogism with a mood of OAO has an O proposition as its
major premise, an A proposition as its minor premise, and another O proposition as its conclusion; and EIO syllogism has an
E major premise, and I minor premise, and an O conclusion; etc.
Since there are four distinct
versions of each syllogistic mood, however, we need to supplement this labelling system with a statement of the figure of
each, which is solely determined by the position in which its middle term appears in the two premises: in a first-figure syllogism,
the middle term is the subject term of the major premise and the predicate term of the minor premise; in second figure, the
middle term is the predicate term of both premises; in third, the subject term of both premises; and in fourth figure, the
middle term appears as the predicate term of the major premise and the subject term of the minor premise. (The four figures
may be easier to remember as a simple chart showing the position of the terms in each of the premises:
M P
P M
M P
P M 1 \
2 |
3 |
4 /
S M
S M
M S
M S
All
told, there are exactly 256 distinct forms of categorical syllogism: four kinds of major premise multiplied by four kinds
of minor premise multiplied by four kinds of conclusion multiplied by four relative positions of the middle term. Used together,
mood and figure provide a unique way of describing the logical structure of each of them. Thus, for example, the argument
"Some merchants are pirates, and All merchants are swimmers, so Some swimmers are pirates"
is an IAI-3 syllogism, and any AEE-4 syllogism must exhibit the form "All P are M, and
No M are S, so No S are P."
This method of differentiating
syllogisms is significant because the validity of a categorical syllogism depends solely upon its logical form. Remember our earlier definition: an argument is valid when, if its premises were true, then its conclusion would also have to be true. The application of this
definition in no way depends upon the content of a specific categorical syllogism; it makes no difference whether the categorical
terms it employs are "mammals," "terriers,"
and "dogs" or "sheep," "commuters," and "sandwiches." If a
syllogism is valid, it is impossible for its premises to be true while its conclusion is false, and that can be the case only
if there is something faulty in its general form.
Thus, the specific
syllogisms that share any one of the 256 distinct syllogistic forms must either all be valid or all be invalid, no matter
what their content happens to be. Every syllogism of the form AAA-1 is valid, for example, while all syllogisms of the form
OEE-3 are invalid.
This suggests a fairly
straightforward method of demonstrating the invalidity of any syllogism by "logical analogy." If we can think of another syllogism
which has the same mood and figure but whose terms obviously make both premises true and the conclusion false, then it is
evident that all syllogisms of this form, including the one with which we began, must be invalid.
Thus, for example,
it may be difficult at first glance to assess the validity of the argument:
All philosophers are professors.
All philosophers are logicians. Therefore,
All logicians are professors.
But since this is a categorical syllogism whose mood and figure are AAA-3, and since all syllogisms
of the same form are equally valid or invalid, its reliability must be the same as that of the AAA-3 syllogism:
All terriers are dogs.
All terriers are mammals. Therefore,
All mammals are dogs.
Both premises of this syllogism are true, while its conclusion is false, so it is clearly invalid.
But then all syllogisms of the AAA-3 form, including the one about logicians and professors, must also be invalid.
This
method of demonstrating the invalidity of categorical syllogisms is useful in many contexts; even those who have not had the
benefit of specialized training in formal logic will often acknowledge the force of a logical analogy. The only problem is
that the success of the method depends upon our ability to invent appropriate cases, syllogisms of the same form that obviously
have true premises and a false conclusion. If I have tried for an hour to discover such a case, then either there can be no
such case because the syllogism is valid or I simply haven't looked hard enough yet.
The modern interpretation
offers a more efficient method of evaluating the validity of categorical syllogisms. By combining the drawings of individual
propositions, we can use Venn diagrams to assess the validity of categorical syllogisms by following a simple three-step procedure:
- First draw three overlapping
circles and label them to represent the major, minor, and middle terms of the syllogism.
- Next,
on this framework, draw the diagrams of both of the syllogism's premises.
- Always
begin with a universal proposition, no matter whether it is the major or the minor premise.
- Remember
that in each case you will be using only two of the circles in each case; ignore the third circle by making sure that your
drawing (shading or × ) straddles it.
- Finally,
without drawing anything else, look for the drawing of the conclusion. If the syllogism is valid, then that drawing will already
be done.
Since
it perfectly models the relationships between classes that are at work in categorical logic, this procedure always provides
a demonstration of the validity or invalidity of any categorical syllogism.
Consider, for example,
how it could be applied, step by step, to an evaluation of a syllogism of the EIO-3 mood and figure,
No M are P.
Some M are S. Therefore, Some S are
not P.
First,
we draw and label the three overlapping circles needed to represent all three terms included in the categorical syllogism:
Second,
we diagram each of the premises:
Since
the major premise is a universal proposition, we may begin with it. The diagram for "No
M are P" must shade in the entire area in which the M and P circles overlap. (Notice that we ignore the S circle
by shading on both sides of it.)
Now we add the minor
premise to our drawing. The diagram for "Some M are S" puts an × inside the
area where the M and S circles overlap. But part of that area (the portion also inside the P circle) has already been shaded,
so our × must be placed in the remaining portion.
Third,
we stop drawing and merely look at our result. Ignoring the M circle entirely, we need only ask whether the drawing of the
conclusion "Some S are not P" has already been drawn.
Remember,
that drawing would be like the one at left, in which there is an × in the area inside the S circle but outside the P circle.
Does that already appear in the diagram on the right above? Yes, if the premises have been drawn, then the conclusion is already
drawn.
But
this models a significant logical feature of the syllogism itself: if its premises are true, then its conclusion must also
be true. Any categorical syllogism of this form is valid.
Here
are the diagrams of several other syllogistic forms. In each case, both of the premises have already been drawn in the appropriate
way, so if the drawing of the conclusion is already drawn, the syllogism must be valid, and if it is not, the syllogism must
be invalid.
AAA-1
(valid)
All M are P.
All S are M. Therefore, All S are
P.
AAA-3
(invalid)
All M are P.
All M are S. Therefore, All S are
P.
OAO-3
(valid)
Some M are not P.
All M are S. Therefore, Some S are not P.
EOO-2
(invalid)
No P are M.
Some S are not M. Therefore, Some S are
not P.
IOO-1
(invalid)
Some M are P.
Some S are not M. Therefore, Some S are
not P.
Practice your skills
in using Venn Diagrams to test the validity of Categorical Syllogisms by using Ron Blatt's excellent Syllogism Evaluator.
©1997-2002 Garth Kemerling.
Introduction
This script is a syllogisms tutor. It will train
you in recognizing valid categorical syllogisms, as well as in identifying the mood and figure of a syllogism and the various
formal fallacies that can make a syllogism invalid. A syllogism is an argument with two premises and a conclusion. A categorical
syllogism is one whose premises and conclusion are all categorical statements. A categorical statement is a statement about
the relationship between categories, and there are four basic relationships two categories can have. One category can be a
subset of the other or not, and they can intersect or not. The four types of categorical statements that represent these four
relationships are normally designated as A, E, I, and O.
|
A |
All S
is P |
One category
is a subset of another |
|
E |
No S
is P |
The two
categories do not intersect |
|
I |
Some
S is P |
The two
categories intersect |
|
O |
Some
S is not P |
One category
is not a subset of another |
A valid syllogism is one whose conclusion logically
follows from its premises. To emphasize the difference between a valid argument and a sound argument, all premises and conclusions
are randomly generated, such that many will be false. The validity of an argument does not depend upon whether its premises
or conclusions are true. It merely depends on the formal relation between the premises and conclusion. Valid syllogisms can
have false premises or false conclusions. An argument is sound when it is valid and has true
premises. Validity is only part of what it takes to make an argument sound. Very few of the randomly generated syllogisms
will be sound, but a fair number will be valid.
Instructions
For each syllogism, fill in the fields for mood,
figure, validity, and fallacies. When you're finished, press "Check Answers" to find out what the correct answers are. Press
"New Syllogism" to do a new syllogism.
Definitions
Major Premise
The first premise in a categorical syllogism
Minor Premise
The second premise in a categorical syllogism
Major Term
The category mentioned in both the major premise
and the conclusion. The second term in the conclusion.
Minor Term
The category mentioned in both the minor premise
and the conclusion. The first term in the conclusion.
Middle Term
The category mentioned in both premises but not the
conclusion. It is what links major term and minor term together in the syllogism.
Mood
The mood of a categorical syllogism is a matter of
what kind of categorical statement each statement is, and it is represented by a three letter acronym. The first letter represents
the form of the first premise; the second represents the form of the second premise; and the third represents the form of
the conclusion. The letters used are A, E, I, and O, as described above.
Figure
The figure of a categorical syllogism is the position
of its major, minor, and middle terms. There are four figures. The major and minor terms have standard positions in the conclusion,
which are the same for all figures. Each figure is ditinguished by the placement of the middle term.
|
Position of Middle Term |
|
Figure |
Major Premise |
Minor Premise |
|
First |
Subject |
Predicate |
|
Second |
Predicate |
Predicate |
|
Third |
Subject |
Subject |
|
Fourth |
Predicate |
Subject |
Fallacy
A mistake in reasoning which makes an argument invalid.
Distribution
A category is distributed in a statement when the
statement refers to every members of the category. The first term is distributed in A statements; the second is distributed
in O statements; both are distributed in E statements; and none are distributed in I statements.
