“Teach a child WHAT to THINK and

you make him a slave of knowledge;

But, teach a child HOW to THINK and
you make knowledge his slave.”
 Module 3c: Mediate
Inference

Prepared by Mr. Roland Lorenzo M. Ruben

Philosophy section, SSD
De La Salle University - Dasmariñas
Review of the Categorical
Propositions:
 Mediate Inference
• a process of reasoning in which from
one proposition, with the aid of another
proposition or a third term, called
medium, we infer not only a new
proposition but also a new truth.
• e.g. All bar passers are lawyers.
Peter St. John is a bar passer.
Therefore, Peter St. John is a lawyer.
2 kinds
1. Categorical syllogism – an
inferential thinking that draws the
conclusion in an absolute manner.
2. Hypothetical syllogism – an
inferential thinking which concludes
with certainty, affirming or denying a
statement from the affirmation or
denial of another.
What is a categorical
syllogism?
• A categorical syllogism is an argument consisting of exactly
three (3) categorical propositions (two premises and a
conclusion).  In the entire syllogism there appears only and
exactly three (3) univocal terms with each being used twice. 

All politicians are good in

rhetoric.
All councilors are politicians.
Therefore, all councilors are
good in rhetoric.
The constituents of categorical syllogism
• It is composed of 3 univocal terms:
• the major term (P) which is the predicate term of
the conclusion and is contained in the major
premise;
• the minor term (S) which is the subject term of the
conclusion and is contained in the minor premise;
and
• the middle term (M) which is common to, and
found in, both premises. The middle term does not
appear in the conclusion.
• It is also composed of 3 categorical
propositions. It appears in this order:
• major premise
• minor premise
• conclusion
8 RULES
• For the categorical syllogism the logicians have
formulated eight rules, but these may be considered most
conveniently under the following three general headings:
a) Terminological Rules. These follow immediately from
the definition of the categorical syllogism as the
verbal expression of an inference concerning the
identity or non-identity of two terms by reason of
their relations to a third term. Two (2) rules.
b) Rules Respecting the Quantity of Terms. These also
follow from the definition of the categorical
syllogism, but not so immediately. They may be said
to follow from the definition, considering the
quantitative properties of the terms involved. Three
(3) rules.
c) Rules Regarding Quality. These rules govern the
affirmative or negative character of the propositions
involved in the syllogism, particularly the conclusion.
Three (3) rules.
 Terminological 1
• Rule 1:
1 There must be three
univocal terms and only three
terms.
• The middle term must always be
taken in the same sense. One must
make sure that terms are not used
equivocally.
• If middle term is vague or has
multiple meanings, the syllogism is
invalid.
 Terminological 1
• Invalid syllogism:
• e.g. A fatheris a male parent.
But, the Holy Pope is a .
father
Therefore, the Holy Pope is a male parent.

(Fallacy of Equivocation or Fallacy of

Four Terms.)
 Terminological 2
• Rule 2:
2 The middle term must not
occur in the conclusion.
conclusion

• The middle term is the point of comparison

between the major and minor terms. The
comparison should lead us to a new truth.
• Should it be found in the conclusion, it will
only repeat what has already been stated in
the premises in which case nothing is inferred
at all.
 Terminological 2
• Invalid syllogism:
• e.g. A goddess is a female,
But, a is a deity;
goddess
Therefore, a is a female deity.
goddess

(Fallacy of misplaced middle term)

Quantitative 1
• Rule 3:
3 No term may have a greater
distribution or extension in the
conclusion than it had in the
premises.

• Otherwise, the effect (conclusion) is

greater than the cause (premises)
which is impossible.
The following symbols
will be used:
M – Middle Term (U);
m – middle term (p)
P – Major Term (U);
p – major term (p)
S – Minor Term (U);
s – minor term (p)
+ affirmative prop;
- negative prop
 Quantitative 1
• when the minor term is universal in the conclusion
but not in the minor premise. (Fallacy of Illicit
Minor)
• when the predicate of the conclusion is universal but
not in the major premise. (Fallacy of Illicit Major)

Invalid syllogism:
e.g. All hammers are tools; M+p
But, no chisels are hammers; S - M
Therefore, no chisels are tools. S –

All birds have wings; M + p

The following symbols
will be used: But, all birds are animals; M+s
M – Middle Term (U);
m – middle term (p) Therefore, all animals have wings. +p
P – Major Term (U);
p – major term (p)
S – Minor Term (U);
s – minor term (p)
+ affirmative prop;
- negative prop
• If a term is distributed in the
conclusion, it makes a claim about
every member of the class it
denotes. 
• If the term is not distributed in the
premises, it makes an assertion
about only part of the class. 
• Hence the conclusion would go
beyond what is justified by the
premises, and the syllogism would
be invalid.
Quantitative 2
• Rule 4: The middle term must be taken
universally (distributed), at least once.
• 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.
Quantitative 2
• Invalid syllogism:
• All mothers are females; P+ m
But, some females are barren; m+ s
Therefore, some barren persons are mothers.
s+p

(Fallacy of undistributed middle)

Quantitative 3
• Rule 8: If one premise is particular,
the conclusion is particular; if both
premises are particular, there is no
conclusion.
 Some gamblers are cheaters.
Some Filipinos are gamblers.
Some Filipinos are cheaters.
There is a possibility
that the middle term is
not the same.

“ALL” Gamblers

Filipinos Some Some

Cheaters
gamblers gamblers
Quantitative 3
• Invalid syllogism:
• All roses are flowers; M+p
But, some roses are fragrant; m+s
Thus, all fragrant things are flowers. S + p

 Some charities represent religious groups.

 Some religious groups represent extremist groups.
 Therefore, some extremist groups represent charities.

(Fallacy of Universal Conclusion drawn

from a particular premise)
 Qualitative 1
• Rule 5: Two negative premises
yield no conclusion.

• If both major and minor terms are non-

identical with the middle we know
nothing about their identity or non-
identity with each other.
 Qualitative 1
• Invalid syllogism:
• This chair is not a table; P-M
But, this table is not a pen; M-S
Thus, this pen is not a chair. S-P

(Fallacy of Negative premises)

 Qualitative 2
• Rule 6: Two affirmative
premises yield an affirmative
conclusion.

• If two terms are identical with a

third, they must be identical with
each other.
 Qualitative 2
Invalid syllogism:
• All writers are creative; M+p
But, William Chan is a writer; S+m
Thus, William Chan is not creative. S - P

(Fallacy of a Negative conclusion

drawn from affirmative premises)
 Qualitative 3
• Rule 7: If one premise is negative,
the conclusion must be negative.

• If one term (say the minor) is identical

with a third term (the middle), and
another term (the major) is non-
identical with that same third term, then
the two terms (major and minor) are
non-identical with each other.
 Qualitative 3
• Invalid syllogism:
• All rebels are terrorists; P+m
But, some students are not terrorists; s-M
Therefore, some students are rebels. s+p

(Fallacy of Affirmative conclusion

drawn from a negative premise)
 Summary of the Rules
1. There must be three and only three terms.
2. The middle term must not occur in the conclusion.
3. No term may have a greater distribution or extension in
the conclusion than it had in the premises.
4. The middle term must be taken universally
(distributed), at least once.
5. Two negative premises yield no conclusion.
6. Two affirmative premises yield an affirmative
conclusion.
7. If one premise is negative, the conclusion must be
negative.
8. If one premise is particular, the conclusion is particular;
if both premises are particular, there is no conclusion.
SUMMARY OF THE FALLACIES
1. Equivocation or fallacy of four terms
2. Fallacy of misplaced middle term
3. Fallacy of illicit minor or major term
4. Fallacy of undistributed middle term
5. Fallacy of universal conclusion drawn from a
particular premise
6. Fallacy of negative premises
7. Fallacy of a negative conclusion drawn from
affirmative premises
8. Fallacy of affirmative conclusion drawn from a
negative premise
 RULES FALLACIES
1. There must be three and 1. Equivocation or
only three terms.
fallacy of four terms
2. The middle term must not
occur in the conclusion. 2. Fallacy of misplaced
3. No term may have a middle term
greater distribution or 3. Fallacy of illicit
extension in the conclusion minor or major term
than it had in the
premises. 4. Fallacy of
4. The middle term must be undistributed middle
taken universally term
(distributed), at least once.
 RULES FALLACIES
5. Two negative premises yield 5. Fallacy of universal
no conclusion. conclusion drawn from a
6. Two affirmative premises particular premise
yield an affirmative 6. Fallacy of negative
conclusion. premises
7. If one premise is negative, 7. Fallacy of a negative
the conclusion must be conclusion drawn from
negative. affirmative premises
8. If one premise is particular, 8. Fallacy of affirmative
the conclusion is particular; conclusion drawn from a
if both premises are negative premise
particular, there is no
conclusion.
MAG-EXERCISE TAYO!
Module 3c: MEDIATE INFERENCE

ɸ
 Argument 1
• Some snakes are • Valid or Invalid?
poisonous
• No mammals are
poisonous
• Therefore, no
mammals are snakes

•Answer: Invalid. Illicit

major
 Argument 2
• All left-handers are
• Valid or Invalid?
more prone to
occupational injuries. Answer: Valid.
• Jake is left-handed.
• Therefore, Jake is more
prone to occupational
injuries.
 Argument 3
• All students who • Valid or Invalid?
study hard get good
grades •Answer: Invalid.
• Loretta gets good Undistributed middle
grades term
• Therefore, Loretta
studies hard.
 Argument 4
• All cats like fish
•Valid or invalid?
• No dog likes cats
• Therefore, no dog
Invalid
likes fish
 Argument 7
• Some chimpanzees • Valid or invalid?
can be potty-trained.
• Bonzo is a Invalid: Undistributed
chimpanzee middle term:
• Therefore, Bonzo chimpanzees, isn’t
universal or unqualified
can be potty-trained.
in the major premise.
 DIRECTIONS: On the given blank, write the fallacy/ies committed by
the following syllogisms. Translate the syllogisms into symbols.

1. All addicts are social outcasts;

But, all addicts are persons with dignity;
Ergo, all persons with dignity are social outcasts.
2. All athletes are physically fit;
But, some physically fit persons are basketball players;
Ergo, some basketball players are athletes.
3. Some fruits are sweet;
But, no kalamansi are sweet;
Ergo, no kalamansi are fruits.
4. Lotto is a game of chance;
But, bingo is a game of chance;
Ergo, bingo is lotto.
5. Books are reading materials;
But, novels are books;
Ergo, novels are not reading materials.