0% found this document useful (0 votes)

93 views18 pages

Test The Validity of This Argument

This document discusses testing the validity of categorical syllogisms using Venn diagrams. It provides an example of a valid categorical syllogism: Some bulldogs are terriers. No terriers are timid. Therefore, some bulldogs are not timid. The document outlines the steps to diagram this syllogism using a three-circle Venn diagram and determine that it is valid because the conclusion is shown to be true based on how the premises populate the diagram.

Uploaded by

Gayatri Ramesh Sutar

We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.

Available Formats

Download as PPS, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd

0% found this document useful (0 votes)

93 views18 pages

Test The Validity of This Argument

Uploaded by

Gayatri Ramesh Sutar

We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.

Available Formats

Download as PPS, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd

You are on page 1/ 18

Test the validity of this argument:

Some lawyers are judges.

Some judges are politicians.
Therefore, some lawyers are politicians.

A. Valid
B. Invalid
Part 2 Module 4
Categorical Syllogisms and Diagramming
Categorical Syllogisms
Some lawyers are judges.
Some judges are politicians.
Therefore, some lawyers are politicians.

This is an example of a CATEGORICAL SYLLOGISM,

which is an argument involving two premises, both of which
(along with the conclusion) are categorical statements.

Categorical statements are propositions of the form "all are...,"

"none are..., ” “some are..,” or “some aren’t…”
Invalid
Some lawyers are judges.
Some judges are politicians.
Therefore, some lawyers are politicians.

Remember that the validity of an argument has nothing to do with whether the conclusion
sounds true or reasonable according to your everyday experience.
The argument above is invalid, even though the conclusion “sounds true.”
One way to see that the argument has an invalid structure is to replace “lawyers” with
“alligators,” replace “judges” with “gray (things),” and replace “politicians” with
“cats.” Then, the argument does not sound too convincing:
Some alligators are gray.
Some gray things are cats.
Therefore, some alligators are cats.

We will introduce a formal technique to deal with categorical syllogisms.

Categorical Syllogisms
During the middle ages, scholastic philosophers developed an
extensive literature on the subject of categorical syllogisms.

This included a glossary of special terms and symbols, as well

as a classification system identifying and naming dozens of
forms.

This was hundreds of years before the birth of John Venn and
the subsequent invention of Venn diagrams. Through the use
of Venn diagrams, analysis of categorical syllogisms
becomes a process of calculation, like simple arithmetic.
Diagramming categorical syllogisms
Here is a synopsis of the diagramming method that will be demonstrated in detail
in the following exercises. It is similar to the method of diagramming
Universal-Particular arguments.

1. To test the validity of a categorical syllogism, use a three circle Venn diagram.
2. Mark the diagram so that it conveys the information in the two premises.
Always start with a universal premise.
(If there is not at least one universal premise, the argument is invalid, and no
further work is needed.)
3. If the marked diagram shows that the conclusion is true, then the argument is
valid.
4. If the marked diagram shows that the conclusion is false or uncertain, then the
argument is invalid.
Diagramming a categorical syllogism

We will use the following categorical syllogism to

introduce the step-by-step diagramming
process:

Some bulldogs are terriers.

No terriers are timid.
Therefore, some bulldogs are not timid.

A. Valid
B. Invalid
Step 1: Is there a universal premise?

Some bulldogs are terriers.

No terriers are timid.
Therefore, some bulldogs are not timid.

1. A valid categorical syllogism must have at least

one universal premise. If both premises are
existential statements (“Some are…,” “Some
aren’t…”) then the argument is invalid, and
we are done.
Step 2: mark universal premises first

No terriers are timid.

“No terriers
2. Assuming that one premise is are timid”
universal and one premise is means that
existential, draw a three-circle these two
Venn diagram and mark it to regions are
convey the information in the empty.
universal premise. This will
always have effect of shading
out two regions of the diagram,
because a universal statement
will always assert, either directly
or indirectly, that some part of the
diagram must contain no
elements.

We mark our diagram according to

the premise “No terriers are
timid.”
Step 3: Mark the other premise
Some bulldogs are terriers.

3. Now mark the diagram so that it

conveys the information in the X
“Some bulldogs
other premise. are terriers”
Typically, this will be an existential means that there
statement, and it will have the must be at least
effect of placing an “X” one element in
somewhere on the diagram, the regions
because an existential statement where bulldogs
always asserts that some part or and terriers
the diagram must contain at overlap. The “x”
least one element. must go here.
Pay attention to whether the “X” sits
directly in one region of the
diagram, or on the border
between two regions.
Step 4: Is the conclusion shown to be true?

Therefore, some bulldogs are not

timid. X
“Therefore, some
bulldogs are not
4. Now that we have marked timid.”
the diagram so that it In order for this
conveys the information in conclusion to be
the two premises, we check true, the diagram
to see if the marked diagram should show an
shows that the conclusion is “X” in the region
that is inside
true. “bulldogs” but
outside “timid.”
If the marked diagram shows that Since that ias
the conclusion is true, then what the diagram
the argument is valid. shows, the
argument is
VALID.
If the marked diagram shows that
the conclusion is false or
uncertain, then the argument
is invalid.
Other points

5. In presenting this technique, we have assumed

that one premise is a universal statement, and
the other premise is an existential statement.
The technique works in the case where both
premises are universal statements, too.
Example

Use diagramming to test the validity of this

argument.

Some useful things are interesting.

All widgets are interesting.
Therefore, some widgets are useful.

A. Valid
B. Invalid
Solution

First, diagram the “All widgets are

interesting”
universal premise means these
“All widgets are regions are empty.

interesting.”
The crescent-shaped
region that is inside
“widgets but outside
“interesting things”
must be empty, so
we shade it.
Solution, page 2
Next, place an “X” on the
diagram according to the X
“Some useful things are
premise “Some useful interesting” means that
either of these two regions
things are interesting.” could have at least
one element.
The “X” belongs in the part of
the diagram where
“useful things” and
“interesting things”
overlap.
Since the “X” could go in
either of two regions, we
place it on the boundary
between those two
regions.
Solution, page 3
Now that the marked diagram X order for the argument to
In
conveys the information in be valid, the “X” must be
the two premises, check to here. Because this is
uncertain, the argument is
see if the conclusion (“Some INVALID.
widgets are useful”) is shown
to be true.
In order for the conclusion to be
true, the X must be in the
unshaded part of the diagram
where “widgets” overlaps
“useful things.” That is not
what the diagram shows.
Since the diagram shows that
the conclusion is uncertain,
the argument is invalid.
A categorical syllogism with two universal
premises