A syllogism (Greek: syllogism "conclusion," "inference") is a kind of logical argument in which one proposition (the conclusion) is inferred from

rom two or more others (the premises) of a certain form. In antiquity, there were two rival theories of the syllogism: Aristotelian syllogistic and Stoic syllogistic. In the Prior Analytics, Aristotle defines the syllogism as "a discourse in which, certain things having been supposed, something different from the things supposed results of necessity because these things are so." (24b1820) Despite this very general definition, in the Prior Analytics, Aristotle limits himself to categorical syllogisms, which consist of three categorical propositions .These included categorical modal syllogisms. From the Middle Ages onwards, "categorical syllogism" and "syllogism" were mostly used interchangeably, and the present article is concerned with this traditional use of "syllogism" only. The syllogism was at the core of traditional deductive reasoning, where facts are determined by combining existing statements, in contrast to inductive reasoning where facts are determined by repeated observations. The syllogism was superseded by first-order predicate logic following the work of Gottlob Frege, in particular

his Begriffsschrift (Concept Script) (1879).

Basic structure A categorical syllogism consists of three parts: the major premise, the minor premise and the conclusion. Each part is a categorical proposition, and each categorical proposition contains two categorical terms. In Aristotle, each of the premises is in the form "All A are B," "Some A are B", "No A are B" or "Some A are not B", where "A" is one term and "B" is another. "All A are B," and "No A are B" are termed universal propositions; "Some A are B" and "Some A are not B" are termed particular propositions. More modern logicians allow some variation. Each of the premises has one term in common with

the conclusion: in a major premise, this is the major term (i.e., the predicate of the conclusion); in a minor premise, it is the minor term (the subject) of the conclusion. For example: Major premise: All men are mortal. Minor premise: All Greeks are men. Conclusion: All Greeks are mortal. Each of the three distinct terms represents a category. In the above example, "men," "mortal," and "Greeks." "Mortal" is the major term; "Greeks", the minor term. The premises also have one term in common with each other, which is known as the middle term; in this example, "man." Both of the premises are universal, as is the conclusion. Major premise: All mortals die. Minor premise: Some men are mortals. Conclusion: Some men die. Here, the major term is "die", the minor term is "men," and the middle term is "mortals". The major premise is universal; the minor premise and the conclusion are particular. A sorites is a form of argument in which a series of incomplete syllogisms is so arranged that the predicate of each premise forms the subject of the next until the subject of the first is joined with the predicate of the last in the conclusion. For example, if one argues that a given number of grains of sand does not make a heap and that an additional grain does not either, then to conclude that no additional amount of sand will make a heap is to construct a sorites argument.

Types of syllogism

Relationships between the four types of propositions in the square of opposition

(Black red areas are nonempty.)

areas

are

empty,

Although there are infinitely many possible syllogisms, there are only a finite number of logically distinct types. We shall classify and enumerate them below. Note that the syllogism above has the abstract form: Major premise: All M are P. Minor premise: All S are M. Conclusion: All S are P.

(Note: M Middle, S subject, P predicate. See below for more detailed explanation.) The premises and conclusion of a syllogism can be any of four types, which are labeled by letters as follows. The meaning of the letters is given by the table: code quantifier subject copula predicate type universal affirmatives universal negatives example All humans

All

are

are mortal. No humans

No

are

are perfect. Some humans healthy. Some humans not clever. are are

Some

are

particular affirmatives

Some

are not

particular negatives

In Analytics, Aristotle mostly uses the letters A, B and C (actually, the Greek letters alpha, beta and gamma) as term place holders, rather than giving concrete examples, an innovation at the time. It is traditional to use is rather than are as the copula, hence All A is B rather than All As are Bs. It is traditional and convenient practice to use a, e, i, o as infix operators to enable the categorical statements to be written succinctly thus:

Form

Shorthand

All A are B

AaB

No A is B

AeB

Some A are B

AiB

Some A are not B AoB This particular syllogistic form is dubbed BARBARA (see below) and can be written neatly as BaC,AaB -> AaC. The letter S is the subject of the conclusion, P is the predicate of the conclusion, and M is the middle term. The major premise links M with P and the minor premise links M with S. However, the middle term can be either the subject or the predicate of each premise where it appears. The differing positions of the major, minor, and middle terms gives rise to another classification of syllogisms known as the figure. Given that in each case the conclusion is S-P, the four figures are: Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Figure 4 Major premise: MP Minor premise: SM P M S M MP MS P M MS

Putting it all together, there are 256 possible types of syllogisms (or 512 if the order of the major and minor premises is changed, although this

makes no difference logically). Each premise and the conclusion can be of type A, E, I or O, and the syllogism can be any of the four figures. A syllogism can be described briefly by giving the letters for the premises and conclusion followed by the number for the figure. For example, the syllogism BARBARA above is AAA-1, or "A-A-A in the first figure". The vast majority of the 256 possible forms of syllogism are invalid (the conclusion does not follow logically from the premises). The table below shows the valid forms. Even some of these are sometimes considered to commit the existential fallacy, meaning they are invalid if they mention an empty category. These controversial patterns are marked in italics. Figure 1 Figure 2 Barbara Cesare Figure 3 Figure 4 Datisi Calemes

Celarent Camestres Disamis Dimatis Darii Ferio Festino Baroco Ferison Fresison Bocardo Calemos Felapton Fesapo

Barbari Cesaro

Celaront Camestros Darapti Bamalip The letters A, E, I, O have been used since the medieval Schools to form mnemonic names for the forms as follows: 'Barbara' stands for AAA, 'Celarent' for EAE, etc. Next to each premise and conclusion is a shorthand description of the sentence. So in AAI-3, the premise "All squares are rectangles" becomes "MaP"; the symbols mean that the first term ("square") is the middle term,

the second term ("rectangle") is the predicate of the conclusion, and the relationship between the two terms is labeled "a" (All M are P). The following table shows all syllogisms that are essentially different. The similar syllogisms share actually the same premises, just written in a different way. For example "Some pets are kittens" (SiM in Darii) could also be written as "Some kittens are pets" (MiS is Datisi). In the Venn diagrams, the black areas indicate no elements, and the red areas indicate at least one element.

Terms in syllogism We may, with Aristotle, distinguish singular terms such

as Socrates and general terms such as Greeks. Aristotle further distinguished (a) terms that could be the subject of predication, and (b) terms that could be predicated of others by the use of the copula (is are). (Such a predication is known as a distributive as opposed to non-distributive as in Greeks are numerous. It is clear that Aristotle's syllogism works only for distributive predication for we cannot reason All Greeks are animals, animals are numerous, therefore All Greeks are numerous.) In Aristotles view singular terms were of type (a) and general terms of type (b). Thus Men can be predicated of Socrates but Socrates cannot be predicated of anything. Therefore to enable a term to be interchangeable that is to be either in the subject or predicate position of a proposition in a syllogism the

terms must be general terms, or categorical terms as they came to be called. Consequently the propositions of a syllogism should be categorical propositions (both terms general) and syllogisms employing just categorical terms came to be called categorical syllogisms. It is clear that nothing would prevent a singular term occurring in a syllogism so long as it was always in the subject position however such a syllogism, even if valid, would not be a categorical syllogism. An example of such would be Socrates is a man, All men are mortal, therefore Socrates is mortal. Intuitively this is as valid as All Greeks are men, all men are mortal therefore all Greeks are mortals . To argue that its validity can be explained by the theory of syllogism it would be necessary to show that Socrates is a man is the equivalent of a categorical proposition. It can be argued Socrates is a man is equivalent to All that are identical to Socrates are men, so our non-categorical syllogism can be justified by use of the equivalence above and then citing BARBARA.

Existential import If a statement includes a term so that the statement is false if the term has no instances (is not instantiated) then the statement is said to entail existential import with respect to that term. In particular, a universal statement of the form All A is B has existential import with respect to A if All A is B is false if there are no As.

The following problems arise: (a) In natural language and normal use, which statements of the forms All A is B, No A is B, Some A is B and Some A is not B have existential import and with respect to which terms? (b) In the four forms of categorical statements used in syllogism, which statements of the form AaB, AeB, AiB and AoB have existential import and with respect to which terms? (c) What existential imports must the forms AaB, AeB, AiB and AoB have for the square of opposition be valid? (d) What existential imports must the forms AaB, AeB, AiB and AoB have to preserve the validity of the traditionally valid forms of syllogisms? (e) Are the existential imports required to satisfy (d) above such that the normal uses in natural languages of the forms All A is B, No A is B, Some A is B and Some A is not B are intuitively and fairly reflected by the categorical statements of forms Ahab, Abe, Ail and Alb? For example, if it is accepted that AiB is false if there are no As and AaB entails AiB, then AiB has existential import with respect to A, and so does AaB. Further, if it is accepted that AiB entails BiA, then AiB and AaB have existential import with respect to B as well. Similarly, if AoB is false if there are no As, and AeB entails AoB, and AeB entails BeA (which in turn entails BoA) then both AeB and AoB have existential import with respect to both A and B. It follows immediately that all universal categorical statements have existential import with respect to both terms. If AaB and AeB is a fair representation of the use of statements in normal natural language of All A is B and No A is B respectively, then the following example consequences arise: "All flying horses are mythological" is false if there are not flying horses.

If "No men are fire-eating rabbits" is true, then "There are fire-eating rabbits" is false.

and so on. If it is ruled that no universal statement has existential import then the square of opposition fails in several respects (e.g. AaB does not entail AiB) and a number of syllogisms are no longer valid (e.g. BaC,AaB->AiC). These problems and paradoxes arise in both natural language statements and statements in syllogism form because of ambiguity, in particular ambiguity with respect to All. If "Fred claims all his books were Pulitzer Prize winners", is Fred claiming that he wrote any books? If not, then is what he claims true? Suppose Jane says none of her friends are poor; is that true if she has no friends? The first-order predicate calculus avoids the problems of such ambiguity by using formulae that carry no existential import with respect to universal statements; existential claims have to be explicitly stated. Thus natural language statements of the forms All A is B, No A is B, Some A is B and Some A is not B can be exactly represented in first order predicate calculus in which any existential import with respect to terms A and/or B is made explicitly or not made at all. Consequently the four forms AaB, AeB, AiB

and AoB can be represented in first order predicate in every combination of existential import, so that it can establish which construal, if any, preserves the square of opposition and the validly of the traditionally valid syllogism. Strawson claims that such a construal is possible, but the results are such that, in his view, the answer to question (e) above is no.

Syllogism in the history of logic Main article: History of Logic The Aristotelian syllogism dominated Western philosophical thought from the 3rd Century to the 17th Century. At that time, Sir Francis Bacon rejected the idea of syllogism and deductive reasoning by asserting that it was fallible and illogical. Bacon offered a more inductive approach to logic in which experiments were conducted and axioms were drawn from the observations discovered in them. In the 19th Century, modifications to syllogism were incorporated to deal with disjunctive ("A or B") and conditional ("if A then B") statements. Kant famously claimed, in Logic (1800), that logic was the one completed science, and that Aristotelian logic more or less included everything about logic there was to know. (This work is not necessarily representative of Kant's mature philosophy, which is

often regarded as an innovation to logic itself.) Though there were alternative systems of logic such as Avicennian logic or Indian logic elsewhere, Kant's opinion stood unchallenged in the West until 1879 when Frege published

his Begriffsschrift (Concept Script). This introduced a calculus, a method of representing categorical statements and statements that are not provided for in syllogism as well by the use of quantifiers and variables. This led to the rapid development of sentential logic and first-order predicate logic, subsuming syllogistic reasoning, which was, therefore, after 2000 years, suddenly considered obsolete by many. The Aristotelian system is explicated in modern fora of academia primarily in introductory material and historical study. One notable exception to this modern relegation is the continued application of Aristotelian logic by officials of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, and the Apostolic Tribunal of the Roman Rota, which still requires that arguments crafted by Advocates be presented in syllogistic format.

Rules and Fallacies for Categorical Syllogisms The following rules must be observed in order to form a valid categorical syllogism: Rule-1. A valid categorical syllogism will have three and only three unambiguous categorical terms. The use of exactly three categorical terms is part of the definition of a categorical syllogism, and we saw earlier that the use of an ambiguous term in more than one of its senses amounts to the use of two distinct terms. In categorical syllogisms, using more than three terms commits the fallacy of four terms. Fallacy: Four terms Example: Power tends to corrupt Knowledge is power Knowledge tends to corrupt Justification: This syllogism appears to have only three terms, but there are really four since one of them, the middle term power is used in different senses in the two premises. To reveal the arguments invalidity we need only note that the word power in the first premise means the possession of control or command over people, whereas the word power in the second premise means the ability to control things. Rule-2. In a valid categorical syllogism the middle term must be distributed in at least one of the premises. In order to effectively establish the presence of a genuine connection between the major and minor terms, the premises of a syllogism must provide some information

about the entire class designated by the middle term. If the middle term were undistributed in both premises, then the two portions of the designated class of which they speak might be completely unrelated to each other. Syllogisms that violate this rule are said to commit the fallacy of the undistributed middle. Fallacy: Undistributed middle Example: All sharks are fish All salmon are fish All salmon are sharks Justification: The middle term is what connects the major and the minor term. If the middle term is never distributed, then the major and minor terms might be related to different parts of the M class, thus giving no common ground to relate S and P. Rule-3. In a valid categorical syllogism if a term is distributed in the conclusion, it must be distributed in the premises. A premise that refers only to some members of the class designated by the major or minor term of a syllogism cannot be used to support a conclusion that claims to tell us about every member of that class. Depending which of the terms is misused in this way, syllogisms in violation commit either the fallacy of the illicit major or the fallacy of the illicit minor. Fallacy: Illicit major; illicit minor Examples: All horses are animals Some dogs are not horses Some dogs are not animals

And: All tigers are mammals All mammals are animals All animals are tigers

Justification: When a term is distributed in the conclusion, lets say tha t P is distributed, then that term is saying something about every member of the P class. If that same term is NOT distributed in the major premise, then the major premise is saying something about only some members of the P class. Remember that the minor premise says nothing about the P class. Therefore, the conclusion contains information that is not contained in the premises, making the argument invalid.

Rule-4. A valid categorical syllogism may not have two negative premises. The purpose of the middle term in an argument is to tie the major and minor terms together in such a way that an inference can be drawn, but negative propositions state that the terms of the propositions are exclusive of one another. In an argument consisting of two negative propositions the middle term is excluded from both the major term and the minor term, and thus there is no connection between the two and no inference can be drawn. A violation of this rule is called the fallacy of

exclusive

premises.

Fallacy: Exclusive premises Example: No fish are mammals Some dogs are not fish Some dogs are not mammals Justification: If the premises are both negative, then the relationship between S and P is denied. The conclusion cannot, therefore, say anything in a positive fashion. That information goes beyond what is contained in the premises. Rule-5. If either premise of a valid categorical syllogism is negative, the conclusion must be negative. An affirmative proposition asserts that one class is included in some way in another class, but a negative proposition that asserts exclusion cannot imply anything about inclusion. For this reason an argument with a negative proposition cannot have an affirmative conclusion. An argument that violates this rule is said to commit the fallacy of drawing an affirmative conclusion from a negative premise. Fallacy: Drawing an affirmative conclusion from a negative premise, or drawing a negative conclusion from an affirmative premise. Example: All crows are birds Some wolves are not crows

Some wolves are birds

Justification: Two directions, here. Take a positive conclusion from one negative premise. The conclusion states that the S class is either wholly or partially contained in the P class. The only way that this can happen is if the S class is either partially or fully contained in the M class (remember, the middle term relates the two) and the M class fully contained in the P class. Negative statements cannot establish this relationship, so a valid conclusion cannot follow. Take a negative conclusion. It asserts that the S class is separated in whole or in part from the P class. If both premises are affirmative, no separation can be established, only connections. Thus, a negative conclusion cannot follow from positive premises. Note: These first four rules working together indicate that any syllogism with two particular premises is invalid.

Rule-6. In valid categorical syllogisms particular propositions cannot be drawn properly from universal premises. Because we do not assume the existential import of universal propositions, they cannot be used as premises to establish the existential import that is part of any particular proposition. The existential fallacy violates this rule. Although it is possible to identify additional features shared by all valid categorical syllogisms (none of them, for example, have two particular premises), these six rules are jointly sufficient to distinguish between valid and invalid syllogisms. Fallacy: Existential fallacy Example:

All mammals are animals All tigers are mammals Some tigers are animals Justification: On the Boolean model, Universal statements make no claims about existence while particular ones do. Thus, if the syllogism has universal premises, they necessarily say nothing about existence. Yet if the conclusion is particular, then it does say something about existence. In which case, the conclusion contains more information than the premises do, thereby making it invalid.

|||| Summary Rule 1: There must be exactly three unambiguous categorical terms Fallacy = Four terms Rule 2: Middle term must be distributed at least once. Fallacy = Undistributed Middle Rule 3: All terms distributed in the conclusion must be distributed in one of the premises. Fallacy = Illicit major; Illicit minor HINT: Mark all distributed terms first Remember from Chapter 1 that a deductive argument may not contain more information in the conclusion than is contained in the premises. Thus, arguments that commit the fallacies of illicit major and illicit minor commit this error. Rule 4: Two negative premises are not allowed. Fallacy = Exclusive premises The key is that "nothing is said about the relation between the S class and the P class."

Rule 5: A negative premise requires a negative conclusion, and a negative conclusion requires a negative premise. Fallacy = Drawing an affirmative conclusion from a negative premise. OR Drawing a negative conclusion from affirmative premises. OR Any syllogism having exactly one negative statement is invalid. Note the following sub-rule: No valid syllogism can have two particular premises. The last rule is dependent on quantity.

The Structure of Syllogism 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. 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.

Standard Form 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 1 \ S M 2 P M | S M 3 | M P 4 M S / M S P M

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." Form and Validity 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 AAA3, 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. Diagramming Syllogisms 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:

1. First draw three overlapping circles and label them to represent the major, minor, and middle terms of the syllogism. 2. Next, on this framework, draw the diagrams of both of the syllogism's premises.
o

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.

3. 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-3mood 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.

The Figures of the Syllogism

As described by Petrus Hispanius.

II Cesare

II Camestres all P is m; no S is M: no S is P II Festino II Baroko Fakofo no P is M; some S is M: some S is not P all P is M; some s is not M: some S is not P all M is P; all M is S: some S is P some M is P; all M is S: some S is P all M is P; some M is S: some S is P no M is P; all M is S: some S is not P some M is not P; all M is S: some S is not P no M is P: some M is S: some S is not P

III Darapti III Disamis III Datisi III Felapton III Bocardo Dokamok

III Ferison

IV Bramantip all P is M; all M is S: some S is P IV Camenes all P is M; no M is S: no S is P IV Dimaris IV Fesapo IV Fresison some P is M; all M is S: some S is P no P is M; all M is S: some S is not P no P is M; some M is S: some S is not P

The A E I O

vowels -

indicate

the

type

of

statements: affirmative negative affirmative negative

Universal Universal Particular Particular

Conversions S P M

of

II,

III, -

IV

to

corresponding

I:

simple per transpose accidens premises

N - reductio ad absurdum Daniel Seely Gregory's "Practical logic: or, The art of thinking" (1881) says: "The initial consonant, B, C, D or F, in the last three Figures indicates the mood in the first Figure to which the syllogism reduces. Thus, a syllogism in the mood Cesare, reduces to Celarent. The inserted consonants, s, p, k, f, m, indicate the various processes in reduction. S indicates that the proposition symbolized by the vowel preceding it is to be converted simply; p, by limitation or per aociden; k, by contraposition; f, by infinitation or obversion. The letter m (mutari) indicates that the premises of the preceding judgment are to be transposed. The p in Bramantip shows that, after converting simply, the premises warrant a universal conclusion. The other consonants, b, d, l, n, r, t, are not significant, but are inserted for the sake of euphony, or of the metre in the mnemonic hexameters invented, to keep the moods and figures in mind, by Petrus Hispanus, who died in 1277 as Pope John XXII."

#32 Salvador, Steven Jim A. Logic 003

Syllogism