Part I: Introduction of the Terms of the Syllogism Let us evaluate the following argument offered by Councilman William Meyers:

"University students should have the right to graduate, if they dress decently. When you accept the responsibility of graduation into our society, you should look like a citizen." As we analyze Councilman Meyers' argument, we will introduce the nomenclature of syllogistic arguments. In order to evaluate this casual argument with charity, we need to be able to translate the argument reliably into standard-form categorical propositions.
1. The first step is to find the conclusion: "University students should have the

right to graduate, if they dress decently." a. The conclusion has the form: p if q, where p and q stand for different statements. Such conditional statements are often best handled with symbolic logic, but here we want to analyze the argument in terms of categorical form. b. Let's step back and see what "p if q" means. Suppose pstands for "the bird is black" and q stands for "the bird is a raven." Our statement form, "p if q," in this case, would be, "The bird is black, if it is a raven." In standard categorical form, we could translate, "All ravens are black." c. Using this model, we can translate Meyers' conclusion as "All decently dressed persons are persons with the right to graduate." i. ii. The subject of the conclusion is called the minor termof the syllogism: "decently dressed students." The predicate of the conclusion is called the major term of the syllogism: "persons with the right to graduate."

2. The second step is to find the premisses and put the syllogism into standard order and form. a. Standard form indicates that all the statements are standard-form categorical propositions (A, E, I, or O).

b. Standard order indicates that the statements are put in the sequence of the major premiss first, the minor premiss second, and the conclusion third. Thus, to find the standard order of a syllogism, we need to first find out what the major and minor premiss are. i. Not surprisingly, the major premiss is the premiss containing the major term. The major premiss is conventionally labeled with the letter 'P." Likewise, the minor premiss is the premiss containing the minor term. The minor term is labeled by convention with the letter "S."

ii.

c. Mr. Meyers gives only one premiss: "When you accept the responsibility of graduation, you should look like a citizen." i. The first part of the premiss, "When you accept the responsibility of graduation..." is meant to represent the same class as "persons with the right to graduate." Since "persons who have the right to graduate" is the predicate term of Mr. Meyers' conclusion, this premiss is our major premiss. We can now translate the premiss to read in categorical form: "All persons with the right to graduate are persons who look like citizens."

ii. iii.

d. Mr. Meyers' argument can now be put as follows: All persons with the right to graduate are persons who look like citizens. ....{no minor premiss present yet}.... ___________________________________ All decently dressed people are persons with the right to graduate. i. ii. Since, his premiss contains the major term, it is called the major premiss and is put first in the argument. Mr. Meyers is assuming his listeners will supply the missing premiss. When an argument is elliptical in this manner (i.e., with a missing statement), the argument is called an enthymematic argument.

iii. iv.

The missing premiss is the minor premiss and thus contains the minor term, "decently dressed students." So the only statement which makes sense as the minor premiss is the statement, "all decently dressed students are persons who look like citizens." (By the principle of charity, we suppose Mr. Meyers is assuming the most reasonable premiss.)

e. The term occurring in both premisses, but not in the conclusion is called the middle term and is symbolized by the letter "M." f. The categorical syllogism can now be put as follows.

P--MAJOR TERM

M--MIDDLE TERM

All

[persons with the right to graduate]

S--MINOR TERM

are

[persons who look like citizens].

M--MIDDLE TERM

All

[decently dressed students]

are

[persons who look like citizens].

S--MINOR TERM

P--MAJOR TERM

All

[decently dressed students]

are

[persons with the right to graduate].

g. The form of the syllogism can be conveniently put as All P is M. All S is M. All S is P. h. Two more terms are worth noting in our analysis of this syllogism. Logicians call the order of the names of the statements the mood of the syllogism. Mr. Meyers' syllogism is an AAA syllogism. Note that the mood does not uniquely describe the form of the syllogism, even though, by convention, the conclusion has the S and P term and the premisses contain the M term.

i.

In other words, if all we knew about Mr. Meyers' syllogism was that it was an AAA syllogism, we can conceive of the following possibilities for the position of the middle term.
Figure 1 **M -- P **S -- M **S -- P Figure 2 **P -- M **S -- M **S -- P Figure 3 **M-- P **M-- S **S -- P Figure 4 **P -- M **M -- S **S -- P

ii.

Figure: The position of the middle term is described by the figure of the syllogism. The figures are named "1," "2," "3," and "4." They are easily remembered because they form the shape of a flying brick.

Think of the M's being solid in the center with no other terms between them. Mr. Meyer's syllogism is anAAA-2 syllogism since the M term is in the predicate of both premisses. j. The mood and figure uniquely describe the form of the syllogism. Any syllogism of this form will have the same degree of validity or invalidity. I.e., if Mr. Meyer's AAA-2 syllogism is invalid, then any other syllogism of the same form is invalid. 3. The third step is to test the syllogism by means of Venn Diagrams or the rules for validity. This might be a good time to review the symbols used to diagram the standard-form propositions. . The idea is to look at the logical geography of the premisses. If the argument is valid, the premisses should mark out the conclusion beyond doubt, without further markings.

a. . The major premiss, "All P is M" would be diagrammed as the picture below. The diagram has been slanted so that it can be superimposed on the diagram for all three classes later.

b. c. The minor premiss, "All S is M" would be diagrammed as the picture below. It also has been slanted so it can be superimposed in the diagram above.

d. e. Putting both diagrams together on the representation of the S,P, and M classes would give a picture like the one below. Can we "read off" the conclusion without further markings? Is there any possibility of an S not being a P? Do diagramming the premisses without additional marking produce a diagram of the conclusion?

f. Since there is the possibility of an "S" being in the area marked, and it is outside of the P-area, the syllogism is invalid. Mr. William Meyer's syllogism is invalid. He might have a false premiss as well.

I.

Let us review the foregoing terms and the procedures by evaluating another argument in summary fashion. A. While Mary Chaney was changing a flat tire, the car rolled forward off the jack bending the axle. The estimate to fix the car was $1,580. Mary's car was insured, so she filed a claim. The insurance adjuster said the claim could not be paid because the vehicle only had three wheels at the time of the accident and so was not an "auto." An "auto" is defined in the insurance policy as "a land motor vehicle with at least four wheels designed for use on public roads." Is the claim adjuster's argument valid? We will follows the rules of thumb described above to analyze the argument. 1. First, find the conclusion. The adjuster concludes, "Miss Chaney's vehicle is not an insured auto." This is asingular statement and is, in effect, an E statement because it is universal negative with the subject and predicate undistributed. Usually singular statements are left as such rather than awkwardly translating into something like the following: "No things which are Miss Chaney's vehicle are insured autos." We will follow the former practice here. 2. Second, put the syllogism into standard order and form. a. The reasons given for the conclusion are the statements taken from the insurance adjuster's claims that an automobile must have at least four wheels and Miss Chaney's didn't.

B.

b.

The first premiss, the major premiss, has to have the predicate term of the conclusion. It would be "All insured autos are land vehicles with at least four wheels. The second premiss, the minor premiss, has the subject term of the conclusion. It would be "Miss Chaney's vehicle is not a land vehicle with at least four wheels. In sum, we have the following syllogism:
M--MIDDLE TERM

c.

P--MAJOR TERM

All

[insured autos]
S--MINOR TERM

are

[land vehicles with at least four wheels.]

M--MIDDLE TERM

[Miss Chaney's vehicle]

S--MINOR TERM

is not

[a land vehicle with at least four wheels.]

P--MAJOR TERM

[Miss Chaney's vehicle]

is not

[an insured auto.]

d. A moment's reflection gives us the following summary of the major parts of the argument and the common terms used to describe our two-premiss argument. (When analyzing syllogisms, one usually identifies the terms in the order sequenced here.) Categorical syllogism: The argument contains two premisses and a conclusion, and the argument contains three terms, each of which is used twice in the argument. Conclusion: "Miss Chaney's vehicle is not an insured auto. Major term: "insured autos. Minor term: "Miss Chaney's vehicle. Middle term: "land vehicles with at least four wheels. Major premiss: All insured autos are land vehicles with at

least four wheels. Minor premiss: Miss Chaney's vehicle is not a land vehicle with at least four wheels. Mood: AEE Figure: 2 Form: AEE-2 3. Test the syllogism for validity. The Venn Diagram representation of the insurance adjuster's argument could be presented in the following manner. The form of the syllogism is All P is M. No S is M. No S is P.

The major premiss, "All P is M," by itself can be diagrammed, as before separately.

The minor premiss, "No S is M," by itself can be diagrammed, separate from the whole, as well.

Putting both diagrams together, if the syllogism is valid, we ought to be able to read off the conclusion, NoS is P." Especially note that we do not diagram the conclusion.

4. Since the lens area in common between the S and Pclasses is

completely shaded, we can read off the conclusion from the completed diagram. The insurance adjuster gave a valid argument. It is now up to Miss Chaney to question its soundness if she wishes to pursue her claim. Is there a false premiss in the argument? If so, even though the argument is valid, the argument does not prove the conclusion true.
A logical analogy is useful to show the invalidity of a given argument to someone untrained in logic. Often a logical analogy is more rhetorically effective in everyday life than a demonstration of invalidity. A. An argument is valid if and only if its conclusion follows with certainty from its premisses. Since validity is established by the form of an arguments, all arguments of the same form will have the same status of validity or invalidity. B. The effectiveness of a logical analogy depends upon this characteristic of arguments. If an invalid argument is offered, a logical analogy can be constructed as follows: 1. Invent classes so that the conclusion is clearly false. For our purposes, we will generally start with the classes "dogs," "cats," and "animals." 2. Substitute the appropriate minor and major terms in the major and minor premisses. 3. Choose a middle term which will make the premisses clearly true. C. In this manner, we will create an argument of the same form with true premisses and a false conclusion. As you remember, this is the only combination of truth values which cannot occur in a valid argument. 1. The inter-related topics of truth, validity, and soundness are the heart of deductive logic and form the central concepts of the course. 2. If these concepts are somewhat hazy to you, please feel free to review them now: Truth, Validity, and Soundness. For more information, see also these notes on

the concepts. 3. The important point to remember here is that true premisses and a false conclusion can never occur in a valid argument. If we can construct an analogy with true premisses and a false conclusion, then the given argument is invalid. a. If a syllogism is invalid, then any other syllogism of the same form is invalid. b. If a syllogism is valid, then any other syllogism of the same from is valid. D. If the syllogism we are trying to refute is valid, we cannot, of course, construct a refutation of that argument by means of a logical analogy. A refutation would be logically impossible. (If a refutation by means of a logical analogy were possible for a valid argument, then logic would be useless to prove any conclusion.) II. Let us consider the following argument proposed by a humanistic psychologist: "Since some procrastinators are lazy and no self-actualized persons are lazy, it follows then that at least some self-actualized persons are not procrastinators." A. Our first task is to set up the syllogism in standard form and order and label our terms.

Some [procrastinators] are [lazy persons.]

No [self-actualized people] are [lazy persons.]

Some [self-actualized persons] are not [procrastinators.] B. The argument was composed by performing these steps. 1. Identify the conclusion. 2. Identify the minor and major terms. 3. Identify the major premiss. 4. Identify the minor premiss. 5. Label the middle term. 6. Complete our labeling as we write out the syllogism in standard form and order. C. It's a good idea to sketch out a Venn Diagram of the argument ahead of constructing the analogy for two reasons. The procedure for doing Venn Diagrams is explained here: Venn Diagrams.

1. The Venn Diagram will show us whether the argument is valid or not. If the argument is valid, we cannot construct a logical analogy no matter how long and hard we work. 2. The diagram reveals the logical structure of the argument graphically, so, frequently, the choices for the analogical classes are more easily chosen. 3. Just inventing any false conclusion from which to substitute into the form of an invalid syllogism might not involve classes which can be used to mirror the form of the original argument. D. The diagram for ourIEO-4 syllogism is as follows. It is clearly invalid since we cannot find an "X" in the S-lune. Until we explain Venn Diagrams more fully, please accept this analysis for the moment. E. Now that we know the argument is invalid, we can proceed with our logical analogy. 1. Invent a false conclusion. Let's try "Some dogs are not animals." 2. Substitute the minor and major terms in the minor and major premiss. Since "dogs" is our minor term and "animals" is our major term, we obtain the following schema. Some [animals] are [__________.] No [dogs] are [__________.] Some [dogs] are not [animals.] 3. Invent a middle term so that the premisses are true. The class "cats" naturally suggests itself. The analogy is completed. 4. Rhetorically then a response to the psychologist's argument could be put in this manner. "You have argued that some self-actualized persons are not procrastinators because some procrastinators are lazy, and no self-actualized persons are lazy. But this is just like arguing that some dogs are not animals because some animals are cats, and no dogs are cats." III. Although logical analogies are useful and effective, we want to develop more reliable ways to test the validity of syllogisms. The two methods developed later are the Venn Diagram technique and the Rules of Validity for Standard Form Categorical Syllogisms.

A. These other techniques are used because sometimes it is difficult to construct a logical analogy quickly. B. Also, of course, we cannot refute a valid argument by means of devising a logical analogy, and we need methods to determine ahead of time whether a logical analogy can be constructed. I. One good method to test quickly syllogisms is the Venn Diagram technique. This class assumes you are already familiar with diagramming categorical propositions. You might wish to review these now: Venn Diagrams. A. A syllogism is a two premiss argument having three terms, each of which is used twice in the argument. B. Each term ( major, minor, and middle terms) can be represented by a circle. C. Since a syllogism is valid if and only if the premisses entail the conclusion, diagramming the premisses will reveal the logical geography of the conclusion in a valid syllogism. If the syllogism is invalid, then diagramming the premisses is insufficient to show the conclusion must follow. D. Since we have three classes, we expect to have three overlapping circles.

1. The area in the denoted circle represents where members of the class would be, and the area outside the circle represents all other individuals (the complementary class). The various area of the diagram are noted above. 2. Shading represents the knowledge that no individual exists in that area. Empty space represents the fact that no information is known about that area. 3. An "X" represents "at least one (individual)" and so corresponds with the word "some." II. Some typical examples of syllogisms are shown here by their mood and figure. A. EAE-1 1. The syllogism has an E statement for its major premiss, an Astatement for its minor premiss, and an E statement for its conclusion. By convention the conclusion is labeled with S (the minor term) being the subject and P (the major term) being the predicate. The position of the middle term is the "left-hand wing."

2. The form written out is No M is P. All S is M No S is P. 3. Note, in the diagram below, how the area in common between S and P has been completely shaded out indicating that "No S is P." The conclusion has been reached from diagramming only the two premisses. All syllogisms of the form EAE-1 are valid.

B. AAA-1 1. This syllogism is composed entirely of "A" statements with the M-terms arranged in the "left-hand wing" as well. 2. Its form is written out as All M is P. All S is M. All S is P. 3. Note, in the diagram below, how the only unshaded area of S is in all three classes. The important thing to notice is that this area of S is entirely within the P class. Hence, the AAA-1 syllogism is always valid. In ordinary language the AAA-1 and the EAE-1 syllogisms are by far the most frequently used.

C. AII-3 1. The AII-3 syllogism has the M-terms arranged in the subject position--the right side of

the brick. 2. This syllogism sets up as All M is P. Some M is S. Some S is P. 3. When diagramming the syllogism, notice how you are "forced" to put the "X" from the minor premiss in the area of the diagram shared by all three classes. The "X" cannot go on the P-line because the shading indicates this part of the SM area is empty. This "logical" forcing enables you to read-off the conclusion, "Some S is P." 4. This syllogism is a good example why the universal premiss should be diagrammed before diagramming a particular premiss. If we were to diagram the particular premiss first, the "X" would go on the line. Then, we would have to move it when we diagram the universal premiss because the universal premiss empties an area where the "X" could have been.

D. AII-2 1. The AII-2 has the M terms in the predicate of both premisses. 2. The syllogism is written out as All P is M. Some S is M. Some S is P. 3. The diagram below shows that the "X" could be in the SMP area or in the SPM area. Since we do not know exactly which area it is in, we put the "X" on the line, as shown. When an "X" is on a line, we do not know with certainty exactly where it is. So, when we go to read the conclusion, we do not know where it is. Since the conclusion cannot be read with certainty, the AII-2 syllogism is invalid.

E. The final syllogism described here, the EAO-4 raises some interesting problems. 1. Notice that in this syllogism there are universal premisses with a particular conclusion. 2. Its form is written out as No P is M. All M is S. Some S is not P. 3. And its diagram is rather easily drawn as

4. When we try to read the conclusion, we see that there is no "X" in the SMP class. We must conclude that the syllogism is invalid because we cannot read-off "Some S is not P." 5. However, if we know that M exists, all the members of M have to be in the SMP class. These M's are S's as well. Hence, we know that some S's are not P's! In other words, the EOA-4 syllogism is valid if we know ahead of time the additional premiss "M exists." 6. Most contemporary logicians have concluded that we should not assume any class exists unless we have evidence. a. We want to talk about theoretical entities without assuming their existence. b. For example, in science and mathematics, our logic will apply when talking about circles, points, frictionless planes, and freely falling bodies even though these entities do not physically exist. c. This diagram illustrates the contemporary topic called the problem of existential import. When can we reasonably conclude something exists? How does this conclusion affect our theory of logical validity?

I. One good method to test quickly syllogisms is the Venn Diagram technique. This class assumes you are already familiar with diagramming categorical propositions. You might wish to review these now: Venn Diagrams. A. A syllogism is a two premiss argument having three terms, each of which is used twice in the argument. B. Each term ( major, minor, and middle terms) can be represented by a circle. C. Since a syllogism is valid if and only if the premisses entail the conclusion, diagramming the premisses will reveal the logical geography of the conclusion in a valid syllogism. If the syllogism is invalid, then diagramming the premisses is insufficient to show the conclusion must follow. D. Since we have three classes, we expect to have three overlapping circles.

1. The area in the denoted circle represents where members of the class would be, and the area outside the circle represents all other individuals (the complementary class). The various area of the diagram are noted above. 2. Shading represents the knowledge that no individual exists in that area. Empty space represents the fact that no information is known about that area. 3. An "X" represents "at least one (individual)" and so corresponds with the word "some." II. Some typical examples of syllogisms are shown here by their mood and figure. A. EAE-1 1. The syllogism has an E statement for its major premiss, an Astatement for its minor premiss, and an E statement for its conclusion. By convention the conclusion is labeled with S (the minor term) being the subject and P (the major term) being the predicate. The position of the middle term is the "left-hand wing." 2. The form written out is No M is P.

All S is M No S is P. 3. Note, in the diagram below, how the area in common between S and P has been completely shaded out indicating that "No S is P." The conclusion has been reached from diagramming only the two premisses. All syllogisms of the form EAE-1 are valid.

B. AAA-1 1. This syllogism is composed entirely of "A" statements with the M-terms arranged in the "left-hand wing" as well. 2. Its form is written out as All M is P. All S is M. All S is P. 3. Note, in the diagram below, how the only unshaded area of S is in all three classes. The important thing to notice is that this area of S is entirely within the P class. Hence, the AAA-1 syllogism is always valid. In ordinary language the AAA-1 and the EAE-1 syllogisms are by far the most frequently used.

C. AII-3 1. The AII-3 syllogism has the M-terms arranged in the subject position--the right side of the brick. 2. This syllogism sets up as

All M is P. Some M is S. Some S is P. 3. When diagramming the syllogism, notice how you are "forced" to put the "X" from the minor premiss in the area of the diagram shared by all three classes. The "X" cannot go on the P-line because the shading indicates this part of the SM area is empty. This "logical" forcing enables you to read-off the conclusion, "Some S is P." 4. This syllogism is a good example why the universal premiss should be diagrammed before diagramming a particular premiss. If we were to diagram the particular premiss first, the "X" would go on the line. Then, we would have to move it when we diagram the universal premiss because the universal premiss empties an area where the "X" could have been.

D. AII-2 1. The AII-2 has the M terms in the predicate of both premisses. 2. The syllogism is written out as All P is M. Some S is M. Some S is P. 3. The diagram below shows that the "X" could be in the SMP area or in the SPM area. Since we do not know exactly which area it is in, we put the "X" on the line, as shown. When an "X" is on a line, we do not know with certainty exactly where it is. So, when we go to read the conclusion, we do not know where it is. Since the conclusion cannot be read with certainty, the AII-2 syllogism is invalid.

E. The final syllogism described here, the EAO-4 raises some interesting problems. 1. Notice that in this syllogism there are universal premisses with a particular conclusion. 2. Its form is written out as No P is M. All M is S. Some S is not P. 3. And its diagram is rather easily drawn as

4. When we try to read the conclusion, we see that there is no "X" in the SMP class. We must conclude that the syllogism is invalid because we cannot read-off "Some S is not P." 5. However, if we know that M exists, all the members of M have to be in the SMP class. These M's are S's as well. Hence, we know that some S's are not P's! In other words, the EOA-4 syllogism is valid if we know ahead of time the additional premiss "M exists." 6. Most contemporary logicians have concluded that we should not assume any class exists unless we have evidence. a. We want to talk about theoretical entities without assuming their existence. b. For example, in science and mathematics, our logic will apply when talking about circles, points, frictionless planes, and freely falling bodies even though these entities do not physically exist. c. This diagram illustrates the contemporary topic called the problem of existential import. When can we reasonably conclude something exists? How does this conclusion affect our theory of logical validity?

Syllogistic Fallacies: Four Term Fallacy

Abstract: The Four Term Fallacy or Fallacy of Equivocation is explained. Strictly speaking, an argument which commits this fallacy cannot be a syllogism by definition because the argument contains more than three terms.

I.. Consider the following argument: "A poor lesson is better than a good lesson because a poor lesson is better than nothing, and nothing is better than a good lesson." A. Note how in the following argument we have an uncomfortable feeling that the argument seems good with true premisses, but the conclusion is obviously false. Often, we smile at arguments like these because we know something is drastically wrong, but it is not initially intuitively obvious what it is. Knowing that a valid argument cannot have true premisses and a false conclusion, and yet the argumentappears to be perfectly valid, is a tip-off for the presence of the fallacy of equivocation. Nothing is better than a good lesson. A poor lesson is better than nothing. A poor lesson is better than a good lesson. B. Obviously, there is something wrong with this syllogism; this is evident from its humorous appearance. When we sketch a diagram, without attending to the meaning of the classes, it is clear that the diagram would appearvalid. How is this possible?

C. Although the argument does not translate very well into standard form categorical propositions, if we attempt to do so, we can see that the classes do not match. The word "nothing" is being used in two different senses. One attempt at translation yields: No [lessons] are [things better than good lessons.] All [poor lessons] are [things better than no lessons at all.] All [poor lessons] are [things better than good lessons.]

Notice that we have more than three terms--our middle term does not match. Hence, we cannot get a valid diagram:

D. Fallacy of Four Terms occurs when a categorical syllogism contains more than three

terms. More commonly, the fallacy of four terms is called from the point of view of informal logic, the fallacy of equivocation. 1. Rule: A valid standard from categorical syllogism must contain exactly three terms, each of which is used in the same sense throughout the argument.

2. With more than three terms, no connection can be established from which a conclusion can be drawn. Informally, the idea of the syllogism is that two things related to the same thing ought to be related to each other.

3. If, for example, the M term is being used in two different senses, then the M term denotes two different classes and so cannot link together the S and Pterms. Note: Not just the middle term is subject to equivocation, as in this example; any of the terms in a syllogism might have be used in two different senses. 4. Before testing any syllogism, be sure to read and understand what is being adduced; otherwise, the four term fallacy could possibly be overlooked.

Philosophy 103: Introduction to Logic Fallacy of the Undistributed Middle Term

Abstract: The Fallacy of the Undistributed Middle Term is discussed and illustrated.

I. We continue our study of the syllogistic fallacies with a second common fallacy. A. Note, how in the following argument, about the only persons likely to be sympathetic are those who dislike Senator Jones. (Notice that singular statements are treated as universal affirmative propositions.) All [Communists] are [believers in heavy taxes]. [Senator Jones] is a [believer in heavy taxes]. [Senator Jones] is a [Communist].

The Venn Diagram would be sketched like this:

B. It is fairly evident that for the conclusion to follow logically, one would have to presuppose instead that "All believers in heavy taxes are Communists," not "All Communists are believers in heavy taxes." Notice that the former statement would distribute the term "believers in heavy taxes." But this distribution is not what is asserted in the original argument. In the original argument, the middle term is undistributed in both premisses. C. Fallacy of the Undistributed Middle Term occurs when the middle term is undistributed in both premisses. 1. Rule: In a valid standard form categorical syllogism, the middle term must be distributed in at least one premiss. 2. Reason: for the two terms of the conclusion to be connected through the third, as in the mechanism sketched below, at least one of them must be related to the whole of the class designated by the middle term. Otherwise, the connection might be with different parts of the middle term, as illustrated below, and no connection can be made.

3. Note: Remember for the Fallacy of the Undistributed Middle Term to occur, the middle term must be undistributed in bothpremisses, not just one premiss.

Philosophy 103: Introduction to Logic Syllogistic Fallacies: Fallacy of the Illicit Minor Term and Fallacy of the Illicit Major Term
I. We continue our discussion of the syllogistic fallacies with the third and fourth fallacies on our list. Consider the following argument. All [subversives]D are [radicals]U. No [Republicans]D are [subversives]D. No [Republicans]D are [radicals]D.

A. We can see from the Venn Diagrams corresponding to this argument that this argument is fallacious.

B. When we plug in the distribution statuses for the classes in each argument from the chart learned when we studied categorical propositions, we notice something interesting.

C. Notice how in the argument, the major term "P-radicals" is undistributed in the major premiss, but is distributed in the conclusion. 1. Since a term is said to be "undistributed" when not every member of the class is being referred to, and a term is said to be "distributed" when each and every member of the class is being referred to, we are reasoning from information about part of a class to information about the whole of the class. 2. When reasoning from a few instances to a conclusion involving all instances, we are, metaphorically speaking, committing the fallacy ofconverse accident. That is, in the premiss, we are referring to "some radicals" and then reasoning to "all radicals" in the conclusion. Another way of looking at this fallacy is to compare the process with subalternation on the Square of Opposition. We are moving from a subaltern being true (some radicals) to a superaltern being undetermined (all radicals) in truth value . 3. Since this fallacious reasoning involves the major term in the syllogism, the fallacy committed there is termed the Illicit Process of the Major Term or Illicit Major, for short. D. The Fallacy of the Illicit Major occurs when the major term is undistributed in the premiss but is distributed in the conclusion (but notvice versa!).

E. The second argument is as follows. All [good citizens]D are [nationalists]U All [good citizens]D are [progressives]U All [progressives]D are [nationalists]U

1. We can see from the Venn Diagram for this argument that it is fallacious.

2. When we plug in the distribution statuses for the classes in each argument from the chart learned when we studied categorical propositions, we notice something interesting.

F. Notice how in the argument, the minor term "S-progressives" is undistributed in the minor premiss, but is distributed in the conclusion. 1. As in the first argument above, we are moving from referring to some of the progressives in the premiss to referring to all of the progressives in the conclusion 3. Since this fallacious reasoning involves the minor term in the syllogism, the fallacy committed there is termed the Illicit Process of the Minor Term or Illicit Minor, for short. G. The Fallacy of the Illicit Minor occurs when the minor term is undistributed in the premiss but is distributed in the conclusion (but notvice versa). Rule: In a valid standard form categorical syllogism no term can be distributed in the conclusion unless it is also distributed in the premisses... Reason: ...otherwise the conclusion would assert more than what is contained in the premisses.

Syllogistic Fallacies: Exclusive Premisses

Abstract: The Fallacy of Two Negative Premisses or Exclusive Premisses is illustrated and explained.

I. We continue our study of fallacies with a fifth fallacy. Consider the following argument. "No internal combustion engines are nonpolluting power plants, and no nonpolluting power plants are safe devices. Therefore, no internal combustion engines are safe devices." A. First, let's put the argument in standard form:
M P

No [nonpolluting power plants] are [safe devices].

S M

No [internal combustion engines] are [nonpolluting power plants].

S P

No [internal combustion engines] are [safe devices].

1. The Venn diagram shows this argument to be invalid.

2. Note that both premisses are negative. As most people are intuitively aware, about what a thing is not, do not carry much information about what that thing is. If I say I am thinking of something that is not a tree, you would not know very much about what I am thinking. 3. By referring to the mnemonic of the mechanism of the syllogism sketched here, we can surmise that the basis of the syllogism is captured by noting that two things related to the same thing should be somehow related to each other, if at least one of them is totally related.

4. However, when both premisses are negative, our mnemonic shows the classes are not related in some way to each other, and this information is of no use to see how the terms in the conclusion are related. This state of affairs can be illustrated as follows. B. This Rule of Quality states that no standard form syllogism with two negative premisses is valid. 1. The fallacy is called either the Fallacy of Exclusive Premisses or the Fallacy of Two Negative Premisses. 2. Reason: When a syllogism has exclusive premisses, all that is being asserted is that S is wholly or partially excluded from part or all of the M class, likewise for the P class; but since this statement is true for every possible syllogism, the premisses entail no information. 3. Note that you can detect the fallacy of Exclusive Premisses merely by inspecting the mood of the syllogism. Test yourself on the following examples. EOI-2 OOI-3 IEO2 AAA-2 OEO-1 EEE-2

Syllogistic Fallacies: Affirmative Conclusions from a Negative Premiss

Abstract: The Fallacy of the Affirmative Conclusion From a Negative Premiss is explained and illustrated.

I. The following argument illustrates another one of our syllogistic fallacies. "Some laborites are democrats, because All blue collar workers are laborites, and some blue collar workers are not democrats. A. When we set up this argument in a standard form and order syllogism, we obtain ... Some [blue-collar workers] are not [democrats]. All [blue-collar workers] are [laborites]. Some [laborites] are [democrats].

1. The Venn diagram shows this argument to be invalid.

2. The mnemonic mechanism of the syllogism suggests why this argument is invalid. We can't make the affirmative link between S and P.

B. Intuitively, most of us think that if a conclusion is negative, then one premiss must be negative as well, and if the conclusion is affirmative, neither premiss could be negative in a valid argument. This intuition is correct. II. The second quality rule is if either of the premisses of a valid standard form syllogism is negative, then the conclusion must also be negative. A. Reason: If an affirmative conclusion is entailed, then both premisses must be statements of class inclusion. Since class inclusion is only obtained by affirmative statements, if the conclusion has one class is partly or wholly contained in the other, then the premisses must assert that the middle class is contained by the minor class and contained in the major class. B. The Fallacy of Drawing an Affirmative Conclusion from a Negative Premiss is the resultant fallacy, if the rule does not hold. C. Note: the syllogism does not have to be in standard form for use to be able to spot this fallacy. All that we need to see is the mood. Test your understanding by trying the following problems. AEA-2 IOI-3 IAO-1 EEA-4 EAE-1 OIO-3

Syllogistic Fallacies: Existential Fallacy

Abstract: The Existential Fallacy is illustrated and explained.

I. The final fallacy of the syllogistic fallacies is illustrated in the following argument: "Since no rigid levers are flexible things, Some rigid levers are not elastic bars because all elastic bars are flexible things." A. When set up in standard form and order the syllogism looks like this: All [elastic bars] are [flexible things]. No [rigid levers] are [flexible things]. Some [rigid levers] are not [elastic bars].

1. The Venn Diagram for this argument raises some interesting issues. How would you evaluate the following argument? Is it valid?

2. According to our interpretation of the symbols used in Venn diagrams, we would have to have an "X" in the SMP area, but there is no "X" there. The blank space indicates no information is known about that area. 3. If we had independent information concerning the existence of rigid levers, we would know that at least one rigid lever existed, and this one would have to be in the SMP area of the diagram. 4. However, if we are evaluating the argument as given and we do not assume anything else, we cannot validly get to the conclusion from these premisses. B. On the Boolean interpretation of categorical syllogisms, we cannot assume the existence of individuals mentioned in universal statements. If our language, if we want to assert that individuals exist, we must say so by adding a particular statement. 1. On this convention, the word "some" when used in a particular statement is taken to imply at least one of the individuals exists. 2. In sum, then, universal statements do not imply that the classes exist, whereas particular statements do imply that the classes exist. 3. We take this interpretation in our logic here so that arguments can be presented concerning subjects about ideal or nonexistent objects such as frictionless planes, ideal gasses, and black bodies. II. Rule (Boolean Interpretation): No valid standard form categorical syllogism with a particular premiss can have both premisses universal. A. Reason: If the rule were not followed, then we would go from premisses which have no

existential import to a conclusion that does have existential import. The problem of existential import can be illustrated by Venn Diagrams. B. The Existential Fallacy occurs whenever a standard form syllogism has two universal premisses and a particular conclusion. C. See if you can determine merely by inspection if the following syllogisms are valid or invalid. AAI-3 EAO-1 AE0-1 E00-2 OEO-4 EEO-4 EAI-3 AEA-2 AOI-3 OOO-1

D. Note: If your logic presupposes existence, you cannot simply discard this rule, since the remaining rules would not be complete.

Philosophy 103: Introduction to Logic Syllogistic Fallacies

I. Venn diagrams and logical analogies are two of the three most common methods to test syllogisms. A third method is based on derivedrules of validity. A. We will look at some arguments that might initially seem to be valid, but are not so. B. In each case, an informal explanation of its invalidity is described. C. These six reasons are, in effect, rules of the syllogism. Here, again, we follow Copi's analysis. There are other sets of rules that equally apply to the analysis of the syllogism, and you might want to inquire into some of these other methods. D. Corresponding to each rule of the syllogism is a fallacy (or fallacies) which is applied to all arguments that do not follow that rule. E. Do not memorize the rules (or the rule numbers), but do learn the names of the fallacies. The names of the fallacies describe what it is that is mistaken about the argument. F. One way to think about the way a syllogism works is to conceptualize the general idea that two things related to the same thing might be related to each other. The following mnemonic model might be helpful.

Since S is related to M, and P is related to M, then S ought to be related to P.

II. The Fallacies are explained individually on the following pages.

Fallacy of Four Terms Fallacy of the Undistributed Middle Term Fallacy of the Illicit Process of the Major Tern and the Fallacy of the Illicit Process of the Minor Term. Fallacy of Exclusive Premisses (Fallacy of Two Negative Premisses) Fallacy of Drawing an Affirmative Conclusion from a Negative Premiss Existential Fallacy