3.3.3.

Mediate Inference

Where there is more than one premise involved, the inference is said to be
mediate.

Example:

SYLLOGISM
- a deductive argument in which a conclusion is inferred from two premises
- a three-argument composed of the Major premise, Minor premise and the Conclusion.

INVALID deductive arguments – those where the conclusion does not follow
necessarily from their premises.
 This is a fallacious reasoning known as argument "non sequitur”
which means that the conclusion/s does/do not follow from the
premise or premises

VALID deductive argument - is an argument in which the conclusion really does

follow necessarily from the premises.

Types of Syllogisms: Categorical and Hypothetical

3.3.3.1. Categorical Syllogism

a deductive argument in which the conclusion and the two premises are all categorical
proposition – (statements that show how one set relates to another set). It is a
complex logical unit made up of terms and proposition.

Parts of a Categorical Syllogism

1. Minor Term(S) – the subject of conclusion
2. Major Term(P) – predicate of conclusion
3. Middle Term(M) – term found in both premises

Three kinds of statements in a categorical syllogism:

1. Minor premise – contains of minor term; usually this is the second proposition and is
preceded by the conjunction “but”.
2. Major premise -contains major term; this premise has greater extension than other
proposition of the syllogism
3. Conclusion – the last proposition which has been necessarily derived from the
premises
SAMPLES:
All torts (M) are civil wrongs (P). (major prem)
Negligence (S) is a tort (M). (minor prem)
Therefore, negligence (S) is a civil wrong (P) (conclusion).”

“All contracts with vague terms (P) are void (M). (major prem)
This contract (S) is not void (M). (minor prem)
Therefore, this contract is not vague. (
 RULES OF TERMS:
 RULE No. 1
o There must only be THREE (3) TERMS. No more, no less.
 Fallacy Committed: (Equivocation & Amphiboly)
 RULE No. 2
o The major term cannot become universal in the conclusion unless it
is universal in the premise.
 Fallacies committed: (Illicit Major)
 RULE No. 3
o The minor term cannot become universal in the conclusion unless it
is universal in the premise.
 Fallacies Committed: (Illicit Minor)
 RULE No. 4
o The middle term must not appear in the conclusion
 Fallacies Committed: (Illicit Middle Term)
 RULE No. 5
o The middle term must be universal at least once
 Fallacies Committed: (Undistributed Middle Term)
 RULE No. 6
o If both premises are affirmative, the conclusion must also be
affirmative.
 Fallacies Committed: (Negative Conclusion)
 RULE No. 7
o If one premise is affirmative and the other premise is negative, the
conclusion is negative
 Fallacies Committed: (Affirmative Conclusion)
 RULE No. 8
o If both premises are negative, no conclusion follows.
 Fallacies Committed: (Negative Premises)
 RULE No. 9
o At least one of the premises must be universal. If both premises
are particular, then no conclusion follows.
 Fallacies Committed: (Universal Conclusion)

3.3.3.1.1. Rules for Formal Validity

Rule 1: The syllogism must not contain 2 negative premises.

Rule 2: There must be three pairs of univocal terms.

-The terms in the syllogism must have exactly the same meaning and must be used
exactly the same way in each occurrence.

Note: Violation of this rule is referred to as the Fallacy of Equivocation

Rule 3: The middle term must be universal at least once.

Rule 4: If the term in the conclusion is universal, the same term in the premise must be also
universal
3.3.3.1.2. Corresponding Formal Fallacies

FORMAL FALLACIES - are those that may be identified through mere inspection of the form and
structure of the argument.

“All turtles are reptiles.

All frogs are not turtles.
Therefore, all frogs are not reptiles.”

Through mere inspection, one can see that the argument is illogical

Fallacy – purpose is to deceive, taken from the word “falio” which means “I deceive you”.

Kinds of Fallacies:
1. Fallacy of Expression
a. Equivocation - leading an opponent to an unwarranted conclusion by using a
term in its different senses and making it appear to have only one
meaning; in equivocation the ambiguity comes from changing the
meaning of the word while in amphiboly,

b. Amphiboly – presenting a claim or argument whose meaning can be

interpreted in two or more ways due to its grammatical construction,
ambiguity comes from the way the sentence is constructed

c. Composition

d. Division
2. Non-sequential Fallacy
a. Ignorantia elinchi
i. Argumentum ad hominem
ii. Argumentum ad misericordiam
iii. Argumentum ad baculum

3.3.3.2. Hypothetical Syllogism

– includes both categorical and hypothetical statements. A compound statement which contains
a proposed or tentative explanation. Usually contains a hypothetical statement in the first
premise. TYPES: (conditional, disjunctive and conjunctive)

“If the country is in danger due to invasion or rebellion, the Pres can declare Martial
Law.”

“The breach of contract is either actual or anticipatory.”

3.3.3.2.1. Conditional Syllogism

 – (if-then relationship) but can also be expressed in a wide variety of different sentences. If you
write these statements in if-then forms, their meaning will be the same.

Conditional Syllogism can be symbolized by:

A – antecedent
C – consequent
~ - negation of the statement
> - implies - for therefore

Rules for Conditional Syllogisms

3.3.3.2.1.1. Modus Ponens (Addition)

1. When the minor premise affirms the antecedent, conclusion must affirm the
consequent. (modus ponens)
“If it rains, then the ground will be wet. A>C
It rained. A
Therefore, the ground is wet. C

3.3.3.2.1.2. Modus Tollens (Simplification)

2. When minor premise denies the consequent, conclusion must deny the antecedent.
(modus Tollens)
“If it rains, then the ground will be wet. A>C
The ground is not wet. ~C
Therefore, it did not rain. ~A

3. A conditional syllogism is invalid if the minor premise denies the antecedent.

(fallacy of denying the antecedent)
“If it rains, then the ground will be wet. A>C
The ground is wet. C
Therefore, it rained.

3.3.3.2.2. Disjunctive Syllogism (Resolution)

A logical argument of the form that if there are only two possibilities, and one of
them is ruled out, then the other must take place.
If P is true or Q is true and P is false, then Q is true.
The reason this is called "disjunctive syllogism" is that, first, it is a syllogism, a
three-step argument, and second, it contains a logical disjunction, which simply
means an "or" statement. "

3.3.3.2.3. Conjunctive Syllogism

- consists of the denial of a conjunction for the first premise and a premise which either
affirms or denies a conjunct.
- are the only kind that yield two conclusions. (or more) from only one premise. By
simply joining together two. propositions or terms in the first premise, we can separate
them. and affirm each as a separate conclusion.

Mediate Inference/Syllogisms

1. MEDIATE INTERFERENCE/SYLLOGISMS

SYLLOGISM

Aristotle define syllogism as a "prepositional expression in which for certain things

which have been laid down (premises), something other than what has been laid down
follows of necessity from being so (conclusion).

CATEGORICAL SYLLOGISM

Is a syllogism in which the propositions are all categorical. It is complex logical unit made
up of terms and propositions.

STRUCTURAL ELEMENTS OF CATEGORICAL SYLLOGISM BASIC PROPOSITION IN A CATEGORICAL

SYLLOGISM

1. Major Premise - the premise which contains the major term. Generally, this premise
has greater extension than other propositions of the syllogism.

2. Minor Syllogism – thepremise which contains the minor term. Usually, this is the
second proposition and is preceded by the conjunction but.

3. Conclusion - the last proposition which has been necessarily derived from the
premises.

BASIC TERMS IN A CATEGORICAL SYLLOGISM

1. Major Term - it is the predicate of the conclusion and is found in the major premise. It
is usually designated by "P" which means the predicate of the conclusion.

2. Minor Term - it is the subject of the conclusion and is found in the minor premise. It is
usually designated by "S" which the subject if the conclusion.

3. Middle Term – occurs in each of the premises but not in the conclusion.

Examples:
 Every BPSC student is a human being ------- --- Major Premise
Mylene is a BPSC student ---------- Minor Premise
Therefore, Mylene is a human being --------- Conclusion

To indicate the different elements of the categorical syllogism, the following figures are used:
The major term ---------- The minor term ---------- The middle term ---------

To illustrate it:
 All monkeys are animals MP (major premise)
But all chimps are monkeys mp (minor premise)
Therefore, all chimps are animals C (conclusion)

8. RULES GOVERNING THE VALIDITY OF CATEGORICAL SYLLOGISM RULES OF TERMS

Rule No. 1. There must only be three univocal terms. No more, no less.

Example:

All BCCnians are students.

But Jason is a student.
Therefore, Jason is a BCCnians.

FALLACIES COMMITTED ON THIS RULE

 FALLACY OF FOUR TERMS OR FIVE TERMS

It is committed when there are more than three terms which are evident in the
syllogism.

Example:
Every man is a sinner.
But Pope John Paul is a man.
Therefore, the parish priest is a sinner.

 FALLACY OF EQUIVOCATION

It is committed when the term applied to one proposition has a different meaning as
applied to the other proposition in the syllogism.

Example:
Every pen is an instrument for writing.
But a pen is an enclosure for pigs.
Therefore, every enclosure for pigs is an instrument for writing.

 FALLACY OF AMPHIBOLY It is omitted when there is the use of analogous terms.

Example:

God is love.
But love is blind.
Therefore, God is blind.
Rule No. 2. The major term cannot become universal in the conclusion unless it is
universal in the premise.

Example:

Every plant is a living thing.

Stones are not living things.
Therefore, stones are not plants.
 FALLACY OF ILLICIT MAJOR

Example:
All cats are mammal. – particular
But no dogs are cats.
Therefore, no dogs are mammals. – universal

FALLACY COMMITTED ON THIS RULE

Rule No. 3. The minor term cannot become universal in the conclusion unless it is
universal in the premise.

Example:
All singers are musicians.
But every musician is an artist.
Therefore, all singers are artists.

FALLACY OF ILLICIT MINOR

Example:

Every circle is round.

But every circle is a figure. - particular
Therefore, every figure is round. - universal

FALLACY COMMITTED ON THIS RULE

Rule No. 4 The middle term must not appear in the conclusion.

 FALLACY OF ILLICIT MIDDLE TERM

Example:

All cats are animals.

But no dogs are cats.
Therefore, no cats are mammals.

Rule No. 5 The middle term must be universal at least once.

 FALLACY OF UNDISTRIBUTED MIDDLE TERM

 Example:
The earth is a planet.
But the Mars is a planet.
Therefore, the Earth is Mars.

Rule No. 6 If both premises are affirmative, the conclusion must also be
affirmative.
FALLACY ON NEGATIVE CONCLUSION
Example:
Labanos is not a fruit.
But all fruits are delicious.
Therefore, labanos is not delicious.

RULES ON THE QUALITY OF PROPOSITIONS

Rule No. 7 If one premise is affirmative and the other premise is negative, the
conclusion is negative.

FALLACY COMMITTED ON THIS RULE  FALLACY OF AFFIRMATIVE CONCLUSION

Example:
All Americans are not Asians.
But all Filipinos are Asians.
Therefore, all Filipinos are not Americans.

Rule No. 8 If both premises are negative, no conclusion follows.

FALLACY COMMITTED ON THIS RULE  FALLACY ON NEGATIVE PREMISES

Example:
Some insects are not flies.
But some insects are not grasshoppers.
Therefore, some grasshoppers are not flies.

Rule No. 9 At least one of the premises must be universal.

If both premises are particular, then no conclusion follows.

 FALLACY OF UNIVERSAL CONCLUSION

Example:
Some insects are not grasshoppers.
But, all insects are small.
Therefore, all grasshoppers are small.

RULES ON THE QUANTITY OF PROPOSITIONS