Logic: Deductive and Inductive by Carveth Read M.A.

CHAPTER XII
Conditional Syllogisms
Section 1. Conditional Syllogisms may be generally described as
those that contain conditional propositions. They are usually
divided into two classes, Hypothetical and Disjunctive.
A Hypothetical Syllogism is one that consists of a Hypothetical
Major Premise, a Categorical Minor Premise, and a Categorical
Conclusion. Two Moods are usually recognised the Modus ponens,
in which the antecedent of the hypothetical major premise is
affirmed; and the Modus tollens, in which its consequent is denied.

(1) Modus ponens, or Constructive.

If A is B, C is D;
A is B:
.‘. C is D.

If Aristotle’s reasoning is conclusive, Plato’s theory of Ideas is

erroneous;_Aristotle’s reasoning is conclusive:
.‘. Plato’s theory of Ideas is erroneous.

Rule of the Modus ponens: The antecedent of the major premise

being affirmed in the minor premise, the consequent is also
affirmed in the conclusion.
(2) Modus tollens, or Destructive.
If A is B, C is D;
C is not D:
.‘. A is not B.

If Pythagoras is to be trusted, Justice is a number;

Justice is not a number:
.‘. Pythagoras is not to be trusted.

Rule of the Modus tollens: The consequent of the major premise

being denied in the minor premise, the antecedent is denied in the
conclusion.

By using negative major premises two other forms are obtainable:

Created for Lit2Go on the web at etc.usf.edu

 Logic: Deductive and Inductive by Carveth Read M.A.

then, either by affirming the antecedent or by denying the

consequent, we draw a negative conclusion.
Thus (Modus ponens): (Modus tollens):
If A is B, C is not D; If A is B, C is not D;
A is B: C is D:
.‘. C is not D. .‘. A is not B.

Further, since the antecedent of the major premise, taken by itself,

may be negative, it seems possible to obtain four more forms, two
in each Mood, from the following major premises:

(1) If A is not B, C is D;
(2) If A is not B, C is not D.

But since the quality of a Hypothetical Proposition is determined

by the quality of its consequent, not at all by the quality of its
antecedent, we cannot get from these two major premises any
really new Moods, that is to say, Moods exhibiting any formal
difference from the four previously expounded.
It is obvious that, given the hypothetical major premise–

If A is B, C is D–

we cannot, by denying the antecedent, infer a denial of the

consequent. That A is B, is a mark of C being D; but we are not
told that it is the sole and indispensable condition of it. If men read
good books, they acquire knowledge; but they may acquire
knowledge by other means, as by [Pg 149]observation. For the
same reason, we cannot by affirming the consequent infer the
affirmation of the antecedent: Caius may have acquired
knowledge; but we cannot thence conclude that he has read good
books.

To see this in another light, let us recall chap. v. Section 4, where it

was shown that a hypothetical proposition may be translated into a
categorical one; whence it follows that a Hypothetical Syllogism
may be translated into a Categorical Syllogism. Treating the above
examples thus, we find that the Modus ponens (with affirmative
major premise) takes the form of Barbara, and the Modus tollens
the form of Camestres:

Created for Lit2Go on the web at etc.usf.edu

 Logic: Deductive and Inductive by Carveth Read M.A.

Modus ponens. Barbara.

If A is B, C is D; The case of A being B is a
case of C being D;
A is B: This is a case of A being
B:
.‘. C is D .‘. This is a case of C
being D.
Now if, instead of this, we affirm the consequent, to form the new
minor premise, This is a case of C being D, there will be a
Syllogism in the Second Figure with two affirmative premises, and
therefore the fallacy of undistributed Middle. Again:
Modus tollens. Camestres.
If A is B, C is D; The case of A being B is a
case of C being D:
C is not D: This is not a case of C
being D:
.‘. A is not B. .‘. This is not a case of A
being B.

But if, instead of this, we deny the antecedent, to form the new
minor premise, This is not a case of A being B,
there arises a syllogism in the First Figure with a negative minor
premise, and therefore the fallacy of illicit process of the major
term.

By thus reducing the Hypothetical Syllogism to the Categorical

form, what is lost in elegance is gained in intelligibility. For, first,
we may justify ourselves in speaking of the hypothetical premise
as the major, and of the categorical premise as the minor; since in
the categorical form they contain respectively the major and minor
terms. And, secondly, we may justify ourselves in treating the
Hypothetical Syllogism as a kind of Mediate Inference, in spite of
the fact that it does not exhibit two terms compared by means of a
third; since in the Categorical form such terms distinctly appear: a
new term (‘This’) emerges in the position of the minor; the place
of the Middle is filled by the antecedent of the major premise in
the Modus ponens, and by the consequent in the Modus tollens.
The mediate element of the inference in a Hypothetical Syllogism
consists in asserting, or denying, the fulfilment of a given
condition; just as in a Categorical syllogism to identify the minor
term with the Middle is a condition of the major term’s being

Created for Lit2Go on the web at etc.usf.edu

 Logic: Deductive and Inductive by Carveth Read M.A.

predicated of it. In the hypothetical proposition– If A is B, C is D–

the Antecedent, A is B, is the conditio sufficiens, or mark, of the
Consequent, C is D; and therefore the Consequent, C is D, is a
conditio sine qua non of the antecedent, A is B; and it is by means
of affirming the former condition, or else denying the latter, that a
conclusion is rendered possible.

Indeed, we need not say that the element of mediation consists in

affirming, or denying, the fulfilment of a given condition: it is
enough to say ‘in affirming.’ For thus to explain the Modus tollens,
reduce it to the Modus ponens (contrapositing the major premise
and obverting the minor):
Celarent.
If A is B, C is D: The case of C being
not-D is
.‘. If C is not-D, A is not B; not a case of A being
B;
C is not-D: This is a case of C
being not-D:
.‘. A is not B. .‘. This is not a case
of A being B.

The above four forms commonly treated of as Hypothetical

Syllogisms, are called by Ueberweg and Dr. Keynes ‘Hypothetico-
Categorical.’ Ueberweg restricts the name ‘Hypothetical’ simply
(and Dr. Keynes the name ‘Conditional’) to such Syllogisms as the
following, having two Hypothetical Premises:

If C is D, E is F;
If A is B, C is D:
.‘. If A is B, E is F.

If we recognise particular hypothetical propositions (see chap. v.

Section 4), it is obvious that such Syllogisms may be constructed
in all the Moods and Figures of the Categorical Syllogism; and of
course they may be translated into Categoricals. We often reason
in this hypothetical way. For example:_If the margin of cultivation
be extended, rents will rise;_If prices of produce rise, the margin of
cultivation will be extended:

Created for Lit2Go on the web at etc.usf.edu

 Logic: Deductive and Inductive by Carveth Read M.A.

.‘. If prices of produce rise, rents will rise.

But the function of the Hypothetical Syllogism (commonly so

called), as also of the Disjunctive Syllogism (to be discussed in the
next section) is to get rid of the conditional element of the
premises, to pass from suspense to certainty, and obtain a decisive
categorical conclusion; whereas these Syllogisms with two
hypothetical premises leave us still with a hypothetical conclusion.
This circumstance seems to ally them more closely with
Categorical Syllogisms than with those that are discussed in the
present chapter. That they are Categoricals in disguise may be seen
by considering that the above syllogism is not materially
significant, unless in each proposition the word ‘If’ is equivalent to
‘Whenever.’ Accordingly, the name ‘Hypothetical Syllogism,’ is
here employed in the older usage.

Section 2. A Disjunctive Syllogism consists of a Disjunctive Major

Premise, a Categorical Minor Premise, and a Categorical
Conclusion.

How many Moods are to be recognised in this kind of argument

depends on whether the alternatives of the Disjunctive Premise are
regarded as mutually exclusive or possibly coincident. In saying
‘Either A is B, or C is D,’ do we mean ‘either, but not both,’ or
‘either, it may be both’? (See chap. v. Section 4.)

When the alternatives of the Disjunctive are not exclusive, we have

only the Modus tollendo ponens.

Either A is B, or C is D;
A is not B (or C is not D):
.‘. C is D (or A is B).

Either wages fall, or the weaker hands are dismissed;

Wages do not fall:
.‘. The weaker hands are dismissed.

But we cannot argue–

Wages fall:
.‘. The weaker hands are not dismissed;

Created for Lit2Go on the web at etc.usf.edu

 Logic: Deductive and Inductive by Carveth Read M.A.

since in ‘hard times’ both events may happen together.

Rule of the Modus tollendo ponens: If one alternative be denied,
the other is affirmed.
When, however, the alternatives of the Disjunctive are mutually
exclusive, we have also the
Modus ponendo tollens.

Either A is B, or C is D;
A is B (or C is D):
.‘. C is not D (or A is not B).

Either the Tories or the Whigs win the election;

The Tories win:
.‘. The Whigs do not win.

We may also, of course, argue as above in the Modus tollendo

ponens–

The Tories do not win:

.‘. The Whigs do.

But in this example, to make the Modus tollendo ponens materially

valid, it must be impossible that the election should result in a tie.
The danger of the Disjunctive Proposition is that the alternatives
may not, between them, exhaust the possible cases. Only
contradictory alternatives are sure to cover the whole ground.
Rule of the Modus ponendo tollens: If one alternative be affirmed,
the other is denied.

Since a disjunctive proposition may be turned into a hypothetical

proposition (chap. v. Section 4,) a Disjunctive Syllogism may be
turned into a Hypothetical Syllogism:
Modus tollendo ponens. Modus ponens.
Either A is B, or C is D; If A is not B, C is D;
A is not B: A is not B:
.‘. C is D. .‘. C is D.

Similarly the Modus ponendo tollens is equivalent to that kind of

Modus ponens which may be formed with a negative major
premise; for if the alternatives of a disjunctive proposition be

Created for Lit2Go on the web at etc.usf.edu

 Logic: Deductive and Inductive by Carveth Read M.A.

exclusive, the corresponding hypothetical be affirmative or

negative:
Modus ponendo tollens. Modus ponens.
Either A is B, or C is D; If A is B, C
is not D;
A is B: A is B:
.‘. C is not D. .‘. C is not D.

Hence, finally, a Disjunctive Syllogism being equivalent to a

Hypothetical, and a Hypothetical to a Categorical; a Disjunctive
Syllogism is equivalent and reducible to a Categorical. It is a form
of Mediate Inference in the same sense as the Hypothetical
Syllogism is; that is to say, the conclusion depends upon an
affirmation, or denial, of the fulfilment of a condition implied in
the disjunctive major premise.

Section 3. The Dilemma is perhaps the most popularly interesting

of all forms of proof. It is a favourite weapon of orators and wits;
and “impaled upon the horns of a dilemma” is a painful situation in
which every one delights to see his adversary. It seems to have
been described by Rhetoricians before finding its way into works
on Logic; and Logicians, to judge from their diverse ways of
defining it, have found some difficulty in making up their minds as
to its exact character.

There is a famous Dilemma employed by Demosthenes, from

which the general nature of the argument may be gathered:_If
Aeschines joined in the public rejoicings, he is inconsistent; if he
did not, he is unpatriotic; But either he joined, or he did not
join:_Therefore he is either inconsistent or unpatriotic.
That is, reduced to symbols:

If A is B, C is D; and if E is F, G is H:
But either A is B, or E is F;
.‘. Either C is D or G is H (Complex Constructive).

This is a compound Conditional Syllogism, which may be analysed

as follows:
Either A is B or E is F.
Suppose that E is not F: Suppose that A is not

Created for Lit2Go on the web at etc.usf.edu

 Logic: Deductive and Inductive by Carveth Read M.A.

B:
Then A is B. Then E is F.
But if A is B, C is D; But if E is F, G is H;
(A is B): (E is F):
.‘. C is D. .‘. G is H.
.‘. Either C is D or G is H.

A Dilemma, then, is a compound Conditional Syllogism, having

for its Major Premise two Hypothetical Propositions, and for its
Minor Premise a Disjunctive Proposition, whose alternative terms
either affirm the Antecedents or deny the Consequents of the two
Hypothetical Propositions forming the Major Premise.
The hypothetical propositions in the major premise, may have all
four terms distinct (as in the above example); and then the
conclusion is a disjunctive proposition, and the Dilemma is said to
be Complex. Or the two hypothetical propositions may have a
common antecedent or a common consequent; and then the
conclusion is a categorical proposition, and the Dilemma is said to
be Simple.

Again, the alternatives of the disjunctive minor premise may be

affirmative or negative: if affirmative, the Dilemma is called
Constructive; and if negative, Destructive.
Using, then, only affirmative hypothetical propositions in the
major premise, there are four Moods:

1. The Simple Constructive–

If A is B, C is D; and if E is F, C is D:
But either A is B, or E is F:
.‘. C is D.

If the Tories win the election, the Government will avoid

innovation; and if the Whigs win, the House of Lords will prevent
them innovating:_But either the Tories or the Whigs will win:

.‘. There will be no innovation.

If A is B, C is D; and if E is F, G is H:
But either A is B, or E is F:
.‘. Either C is D or G is H.

If appearance is all that exists, reality is a delusion; and if there is a

Created for Lit2Go on the web at etc.usf.edu

 Logic: Deductive and Inductive by Carveth Read M.A.

substance beyond consciousness, knowledge of reality is

impossible:
But either appearance is all, or there is a substance beyond
consciousness:
.‘. Either reality is a delusion, or a knowledge of it is impossible.
The Complex Constructive–
3. Simple Destructive–
If A is B, C is D; and if A is B, E is F:
But either C is not D, or E is not F:
.‘. A is not B.

If table-rappers are to be trusted, the departed are spirits; and they

also exert mechanical energy: But either the departed are not
spirits, or they do not exert mechanical energy:
.‘. Table-rappers are not to be trusted.

4. Complex Destructive–
If A is B, C is D; and if E is F, G is H:
But either C is not D, or G is not H:
.‘. Either A is not B, or E is not F.

If poetic justice is observed, virtue is rewarded; and if the mirror is

held up to Nature, the villain triumphs:

But either virtue is not rewarded, or the villain does not triumph:
.‘. Either poetic justice is not observed, or the mirror is not held up
to Nature.

Such are the four Moods of the Dilemma that emerge if we only
use affirmative hypotheticals for the major premise; but, certainly,
it is often quite as natural to employ two negative hypotheticals
(indeed, one might be affirmative and the other negative; but waive
that); and then four more moods emerge, all having negative
conclusions. It is needless to intimidate the reader by drawing up
these four moods in battle array: they always admit of reduction to
the foregoing moods by obverting the hypotheticals. Still, by the
same process we may greatly decrease the number of moods of the
Categorical Syllogism; and just as some Syllogisms are most
simply expressed in Celarent or Cesare, so some Dilemmas are

Created for Lit2Go on the web at etc.usf.edu

 Logic: Deductive and Inductive by Carveth Read M.A.

most simply stated with negative major premises–e.g., The

example of a Simple Constructive Dilemma above given would
run more naturally thus: If the Tories win, the Government will not
innovate; and if the Whigs, the Lords will not let them: and
similarly Demosthenes’ Dilemma–If Aeschines joined, he is not
consistent; and if he did not, he is not patriotic. Moreover, the
propriety of recognising Dilemmas with negative major premises,
follows from the above analysis of the Dilemma into a
combination of Conditional Syllogisms, even if (as in Section 1 of
this chapter) we take account of only four Moods of the
Hypothetical Syllogism.

In the rhetorical use of the Dilemma, it may be observed that the

disjunction in the minor premise ought to be obvious, or (at any
rate) easily acceptable to the audience. Thus, Either the Tories or
the Whigs will win; Either Aeschines joined in the rejoicings, or he
did not; such propositions are not likely to be disputed. But if the
orator must stop to prove his minor premise, the smacking effect of
this figure (if the expression be allowed) will be lost. Hence the
minor premises of other examples given above are only fit for a
select audience. That Either ghosts are not spirits, or they do not
exert mechanical energy, supposes a knowledge of the principle,
generally taught by physical philosophers, that only matter is the
vehicle of energy; and that Either appearance is all, or there is
substance beyond consciousness, is a doctrine which only
metaphysical philosophers could be expected to understand, and
upon which they could not be expected to agree. However, the
chief danger is that a plausible disjunction may not be really such
as to exclude any middle ground: Either the Tories or the Whigs
win, is bad, if a tie be possible; though in the above argument this
is negligible, seeing that a tie cannot directly cause innovations.
Either Aeschines joined in the rejoicings, or he did not, does not
allow for a decent conformity with the public movement where
resistance would be vain; yet such conformity as need not be
inconsistent with subsequent condemnation of the proceedings, nor
incompatible with patriotic reserve founded on a belief that the
rejoicings are premature and ominous.

Another rhetorical consideration is, that the alternatives of the

disjunctive conclusion of a Complex Dilemma should both point

Created for Lit2Go on the web at etc.usf.edu

 Logic: Deductive and Inductive by Carveth Read M.A.

the same way, should be equally distasteful or paradoxical. ‘Either

inconsistent or unpatriotic’: horrid words to a politician! ‘Either no
reality or no possible knowledge of it’: very disappointing to an
anxious inquirer! Thus the disjunctive conclusion is as bad for an
opponent as the categorical one in a Simple Dilemma.

Logicians further speak of the Trilemma, with three Hypotheticals

and a corresponding triple Disjunction; and of a Polylemma, with
any further number of perplexities. But anyone who has a taste for
logical forms may have it amply gratified in numerous text-books.

Created for Lit2Go on the web at etc.usf.edu