The Traditional Square of Opposition:

In the system of Aristotelian logic, the square of opposition is a diagram representing the different ways in which each of the four propositions of the system are logically related ('opposed') to each of the others. The system is also useful in the analysis of syllogistic logic. The Traditional Square of Opposition is a diagram specifying logical relations among the four types of Categorical Propositions we just learned about in the preceding section. I think nothing makes it more clear that deductive categorical arguments deal with equivalences than the Traditional Square. As noted in the Categorical Propositions section, these propositions can be referred to as: A and I (based on the word Affirmo, we refer to the affirmative Universal and particular propositions as A and I and based on the term Nego, we refer to the the Negative universal and particular propositions as E and O. (A) All S are P (E) No S are P (I) Some S are P (O) Some S are not P Standard form categorical propositions having the same subject and same predicate terms may differ from each other in quantity or quality, or both. For example: All men are poets (A) Some men are not poets (O) Differ in both quantity and quality. This kind of differing was given the technical name of opposition by classic logicians and certain important truth relations were correlated with various kinds of opposition. The square of opposition is a diagram that of the four types of opposition, and it was held by classical logicians that these four types of oppositions allowed the truth value of one categorical proposition to be determined on the basis of the truth value of another of the categorical propositions. We call this type of argument an immediate argument, because we can refer immediately or directly from one type of categorical proposition to another to determine truth value! (When we come to the section on categorical syllogistic arguments, we will see that we need two premises to reach a conclusion, making these sort of arguments mediate arguments.)

Immediate Arguments:
There are four types of immediate arguments, or oppositions: Contradictories, Contraries, Subcontraries and Subalterns.

Contradictories:
Two propositions are contradictory if one is the denial or negation of the other: that is, they cannot both be true and cannot both be false. A and O propositions are contradictory, as are I and E... one of the pair MUST be true and the other MUST be false. If the statement "All S are P",(A) is true, then the statement "some S are not P", (O) must be false. Example: If "All dogs are animals" is true, then "Some dogs are not animals" must be false. Or vice versa.

Contraries:
Two propositions are contrary if they cannot both be true but they might both be false. A and E are contrary. It can't be that "all dogs are animals" and "no dogs are animals" at the same time, but it may be that only some dogs are animals (and others are stuffed toys) making both Universal statements false. Cool, huh? (Note: recall from above that the traditional square contains errors discovered by modern logicians. The case of contraries will be revealed to include an unjustified presupposition in the section concerning the modern square of opposition. Take heed!)

Subcontraries:
Two propositions are subcontrary if they cannot both be false but they might both be true. The particular statements: I and O are subcontrary: "Some S are P" and "Some S are not P" can be true , but both cannot be false. (Note: recall from above that the traditional square contains errors discovered by modern logicians. The case of subcontraries will be revealed to include an unjustified presupposition in the section concerning the modern square of opposition. Take heed!)

Subalterns:
A and I propositions are related by subalteration. Subalterns are a different sort of 'opposition', because a subalternation does not imply a contradiction at all. The truth of I may be inferred by the truth of A. If "All S are P" is true, then we can be certain that "Some S are P" must be true. The reverse, from I to A, is invalid. The same goes for the negative propositions E and O . One can infer the truth of O from the validity of E, but not vice versa. (Note: recall from above that the traditional square contains errors discovered by modern logicans. The case of subalterns will be revealed to include an unjustified presupposition in the section concerning the modern square of opposition. Take heed!) So, Remembering that, (A) All S are P, (E) No S are P, (I) Some S are P, and (O) Some S are not P,Aristotle's Square of opposition states authoritatively: If A is true, E is false - I is true, and O is false If E is true, then A is false, I is false and O is true If I is true, then E is false, but O and A are undetermined If O is true, then A is false, but E and I are undetermined. If A is false, then O is true, but E and I are undetermined If E is false, then I is true, but A and O are undetermined If I is false, then A is false, E is true and O is true If O is false, then A then is true, E is false, and I is true

Immediate inferences:
Now that we have at least a shakey grasp on this, lets muddle things up a bit by introducing the concepts of Conversion, Obversion and Contraposition. The operations of conversion, obversion, and contraposition are applied to categorical propositions to yield new categorical propositions - these can become immediate arguments. Again.. (A) All S are P (E) No S are P (I) Some S are P (O) Some S are not P.

Conversion:
We create a conversion by switching the Subject with the Predicate. - the converse. One standard form categorical proposition is said to be the converse of another when it is formed by simply interchanging the subject and predicate terms. Thus: "No pigs are dogs" becomes "No dogs are pigs." The converses of E and I propositions are automatically true and logically equivalent. The converse of A propositions usually are not, unless the Subject and predicate are synonyms. There is however, another way: An A proposition can be made converse through limitation. Recall from the square of opposition that we can create subalterns. The subaltern of an A propositon is an I propositon, and we can always create a converse of an I proposition. So we can create a converse of an A proposition through limitation.

Obversion:
The next type of immediate inference is called obversion. To best understand an obversion, I will again make the point that categorical propositions deal with categories, or classes of entities. And each class, in theory, has a complimentary class of entities that do not belong to that class. For example, the class of all books has a

complimentary class: the class of all nonbooks. So, an obversion is a proposition makes a reference to this complimentary class, in a negative fashion. We create an obversion by changing the quality of the proposition (from affirmative to negative, or vice versa) and then negating the predicate term. To negate the predicate, one attaches the prefix "NON" to it. Oberversion is an easy rule to remember, because the obverse of ANY categorical proposition is equivalent to its original form. "Some fish are not bass" becomes "Some fish are non-bass"

Contraposition:
We create a contrapositive by switching the subject term with the predicate term while negating both terms. The contraposition of "All dogs are mammals" becomes "all non-mammals are non-dogs". The contrapositives of A and O are logically equivalent to the originals, while E and I are usually not. We can make a contrapositive of an E proposition through limitation - by using the sub altern of an E proposition: an O propositon, but again recall that the O propostion, as a particular proposition, is not equivalent to the orignial universal categorical statment.

three basic uses of language in logic:

Logic deals with the analysis and evaluation of arguments. Since arguments are expressed in language, the study of arguments requires that we should pay carefully attention to language in which arguments are expressed. If you reflect on how language is used are everyday life, you can notice that our ordinary language has different uses. Language has a variety of functions. By using language we do various things like stating facts, reporting events giving orders, singing songs, praying God, making requests, cutting jokes, asking questions, making promises, greeting friends and so on. These are wide varieties of language uses. We will not make any attempt to provide an exhaustive list of language uses. Rather we shall discuss here a broad classification of some of the important uses of language. There are three important uses of language that we shall discuss here. These are: (a) Descriptive, (b) Emotive, and (c) Direc-tive uses of language.

Descriptive Use of Language:

Language is often used to describe something or to give information about something. So the descriptive use of language is also called informative use of language. When a sentence is used descriptively it reports that something has some feature or that something lacks some feature. Consider the following two sentences: 1. Birds have feather. 2. Birds are not mammals. The first sentence reports that having feather is a feature of birds. The second sentence reports that birds do not have some essential qualities found in mammals. In, either case it provides information about the world. Both affirmation and denial about things in the world are examples of descriptive use of language. The following are some more examples of language functioning descriptively. 1. Crows are black. 2. Mumbai is not the capital of India 3. A spider has eight legs. 4. Logic is the study of correct reasoning. 5. The 15th of August is Indian Independence Day. All these above statements happen to be true statements. However, it should be noted that only true sentences are instances of informative use of language, but also false sentences are instances of informative use of language. "A spider has six legs" is a false statement since spiders in fact have eight legs. Yet the statement "A spider has six legs", even though false, is nonetheless an example of descriptive use of language. When language functions informatively we can sensibly ask whether what is asserted is or false. In other words, the question "Is it true?" can be meaningfully asked of all such instances. When language is used to affirm or deny any proposition, its function is informative; Language used to present arguments serves informative function. All descriptions of things, events, and their properties and relations consist of informative discourse. The language of science is a clear instance of descriptive use of language.

Emotive Use of Language:

Language is often used to express our feelings, emotions or attitudes. It is used either to express one's own feelings, emotions or attitudes, or evoke certain feelings, emotions or attitudes someone else, or both. When one expresses feelings while alone, one is not expressing it to evoke feelings in others. But very often we attempt to move others by our expressions of emotions, in all such cases language is used emotively. Consider the following utterances: 1. Jai Hind! 2. Cheers! 3. it s disgusting! 4. it s too bad! 5. it s wonderful! 6. Let's win this game! In appropriate contexts all these can count as instances of language functioning emotively. If a sentence is followed by an exclamation mark, then very likely it is used emotively. The language of poetry also provides an example of language serving the expressive function Emotive use is different from descriptive use of language. Emotive or expressive discourse is neither true nor false. When language is used emotively, it cannot be characterized as true or false. We can, however, respond to it by asking questions such as "Is the person sincere?" and "How should I feel?" Expressive use of language is also different from directive use of language.

Directive Use of Language:

Language is often used to give direction to do or not to do something. Commands, requests, instructions, questions are instances of directive use of language. Consider the following examples: 1. Finish your homework. 2. Wash your clothes. 3. You should wear helmet when riding a scooter. 4. Don't smoke. 5. Are you feeling well? 6. Will you please help me?

Symbolism:
The use of one object or action (a symbol) to represent or suggest something else.

Diagrams for Categorical Propositions:

I. One way to view the "logical geography" of the standard-form categorical propositions is to use diagrams invented by John Venn, a friend of Lewis Carroll. A. Perhaps, you have been introduced to diagrams used in set theory; the Venn Diagrams are somewhat different. B. Most descriptions of Venn Diagrams introduce the three symbols used as follows. 1. An empty circle is used to represent a subject class or a predicate class and is generally so labeled with an S or a P. Putting the name of the actual subject or predicate class next to the circle is preferred. The area inside the circle represents members of the class in question, if there are any. The area outside the circle represents all other individuals (the complementary class) if there are any. Note that the label "things" is written outside the circle, even though "things," if there are any, would be inside the circle. 2. Shading or many parallel lines are used to indicate areas which are known to be empty. I.e., there are no individuals existing in that area. E.g., the diagram to the right represents the class of "Yeti." 3. The third symbol used is an "X" which represents "at least one" or "some" individual exists in the area in which it is placed. The diagram to the right indicates "some thing." C. Perhaps the most important symbol of all is the blank area where no marks of any kind are made. If an area is not shaded or has no "X," then it is not considered empty, but the blank area represents "no information is known." In other words, a blank area represents the possibility of something existing in that area, nothing more. It is also worth noting, that if an "X" is drawn on a line, the "X" represents only the possibility of being "on either side," but where it is exactly is not known. II. Given this interpretation, the four standard-form categorical propositions are diagrammed as follows.

1. The A form, "All S is P," is shown in the diagram to the right. Notice that all of the S's are pushed out, so to speak, into the P class. If S's exist, they must be inside the P circle since the left-hand lune of the diagram is shaded and so is empty.

2. The E form, "No S is P," is shown in the diagram to the right. Notice that the lens area of the diagram is shaded and so no individual can exist in this area. The lens area is where S and P are in common; hence, "No S is P." All S, if there are any, are in the left-hand lune, and all P, if there are any, are relegated to the right-hand lune.

3. The I form, "Some S is P," is much more easily seen. The "X" in the lens, as shown in the diagram to the right, indicates at least one individual in the S class is also in the P class. Note that the blank lunes indicate that we do not know whether or not there are individuals in these areas. In fact, we have no information.

4. The O form, "Some S is not P," is also easily drawn. The S that is not a P is marked with an "X" in the S-lune. This area is not within the P circle and so is not a P. It is worth while to note, that from this diagram we cannot conclude that "Some S is P" because there is no "X" in the lens area. Thus, studying this diagram will explain why "Some S is not P" does not entail "Some S is P."

Syllogism:
In the general sense of the term, a syllogism is a deductive argument consisting of two premises and one conclusion. Provisionally we shall de ne a categorical syllogism as a syllogism consisting of three categorical propositions and containing a total of three different terms, each of which appears twice in distinct propositions. (We will give a more precise de nition shortly.) The following argument is a categorical syllogism: All soldiers are patriots. No traitors are patriots. Therefore, no traitors are soldiers. The three terms in a categorical syllogism are given names depending on their position in the argument. The major term, by de nition, is the predicate of the conclusion, and the minor term is the subject of the conclusion. The middle term, which provides the middle ground between the two premises, is the one that occurs once in each premise and does not occur in the conclusion. Thus, for the argument above, the major term is soldiers, the minor term is traitors, and the middle term is patriots. The premises of a categorical syllogism are also given names. The major premise, by de nition, is the one that contains the major term, and the minor premise is the one that contains the minor term. Thus, in the syllogism above, the major premise is All soldiers are patriots, and the minor premise is No traitors are patriots. Now that we are supplied with these de nitions, we may proceed to the idea of standard form. A categorical syllogism is said to be in standard form when the following four conditions are met: 1. All three statements are standard-form categorical propositions. 2. The two occurrences of each term are identical. 3. Each term is used in the same sense throughout the argument. 4. The major premise is listed rst, the minor premise second, and the conclusion last. The rst condition requires that each statement have a proper quanti er, subject term, copula, and predicate term. The second condition is clear. The third rules out the possibility of equivocation. For example, if a syllogism containing the word men used that term in the sense of human beings in one statement and in the sense of male human beings in another statement, the syllogism would really contain more than three terms and would therefore not be in standard form. Finally, the fourth condition merely requires that the three statements be listed in the right order.

The syllogism about soldiers is in standard form because all four conditions are ful lled. However, the following syllogism is not in standard form because the fourth condition is violated: All watercolors are paintings. Some watercolors are masterpieces. Therefore, some paintings are masterpieces. Now that we have a de nition of standard form, we can give a more precise de nition of categorical syllogism. A categorical syllogism is a deductive argument consisting of three categorical propositions that is capable of being translated into standard form. For an argument to qualify as a categorical syllogism it is not necessary that all three statements be standard-form categorical propositions, but if they are, the analysis is greatly simpli ed. For this reason, all of the syllogisms presented in the rst four sections of this chapter will consist of statements that are in standard form. In later sections, techniques will be developed for translating non-standard-form syllogisms into equivalent arguments that are in standard form.

After a categorical syllogism has been put into standard form, its validity or invalidity may be determined through mere inspection of the form. The individual form of a syllogism consists of two factors: mood and gure. The mood of a categorical syllogism consists of the letter names of the propositions that make it up. For example, if the major premise is an A proposition, the minor premise an O proposition, and the conclusion an E proposition, the mood is AOE. To determine the mood of a categorical syllogism, one must rst put the syllogism into standard form; the letter name of the statements may then be noted to the side of each. The mood of the syllogism is then designated by the order of these letters, reading the letter for the major premise rst, the letter for the minor premise second, and the letter for the conclusion last.

The gure of a categorical syllogism is determined by the location of the two occurrences of the middle term
in the premises. Four different arrangements are possible. If we let S represent the subject of the conclusion (minor term), P the predicate of the conclusion (major term), and M the middle term, and leave out the quanti ers and copulas, the four possible arrangements may be illustrated as follows:

In the rst gure the middle term is top left, bottom right; in the second, top right, bottom right, and so on. Example: No painters are sculptors. Some sculptors are artists. Therefore, some artists are not painters. This syllogism is in standard form. The mood is EIO and the gure is four. The form of the syllogism is therefore designated as EIO-4.

Venn Diagrams for Categorical Syllogisms: I. One good method to test quickly syllogisms is the Venn diagram technique. This class assumes you are
already familiar with diagramming categorical propositions 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 A statement 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. EAO-4:
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?

RULES AND FALLACIES FOR CATEGORICAL SYLLOGISM:

The following rules must be observed in order to form a valid categorical syllogism: Rule-1. A valid categorical syllogism will have three and only three unambiguous categorical terms. The use of exactly three categorical terms is part of the definition of a categorical syllogism, and we saw earlier that the use of an ambiguous term in more than one of its senses amounts to the use of two distinct terms. In categorical syllogisms, using more than three terms commits the fallacy of four terms. Fallacy: Four terms Example: Power tends to corrupt Knowledge is power Knowledge tends to corrupt Justification: This syllogism appears to have only three terms, but there are really four since one of them, the middle term power is used in different senses in the two premises. To reveal the argument s invalidity we need only note that the word power in the first premise means the possession of control or command over people, whereas the word power in the second premise means the ability to control things. Rule-2. In a valid categorical syllogism the middle term must be distributed in at least one of the premises. 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. Syllogisms that violate this rule are said to commit the fallacy of the undistributed middle. Fallacy: Undistributed middle Example: All sharks are fish All salmon are fish All salmon are sharks Justification: The middle term is what connects the major and the minor term. If the middle term is never distributed, then the major and minor terms might be related to different parts of the M class, thus giving no common ground to relate S and P. Rule-3. In a valid categorical syllogism if a term is distributed in the conclusion, it must be distributed in the premises. A premise that refers only to some members of the class designated by the major or minor term of a syllogism cannot be used to support a conclusion that claims to tell us about every menber of that class. Depending which of the terms is misused in this way, syllogisms in violation commit either the fallacy of the illicit major or the fallacy of the illicit minor. Fallacy: Illicit major; illicit minor Examples: All horses are animals Some dogs are not horses Some dogs are not animals Justification: When a term is distributed in the conclusion, let s say that P is distributed, then that term is saying something about every member of the P class. If that same term is NOT distributed in the major premise, then the major premise is saying something about only some members of the P class. Remember that the minor premise says nothing about the P class. Therefore, the conclusion contains information that is not contained in the premises, making the argument invalid. Rule-4. A valid categorical syllogism may not have two negative premises. The purpose of the middle term in an argument is to tie the major and minor terms together in such a way that an inference can be drawn, but negative propositions state that the terms of the propositions are exclusive of one another. In an argument consisting of two negative propositions the middle term is excluded from both the major term and the minor term, and thus there is no connection between the two and no inference can be drawn. A violation of this rule is called the fallacy of exclusive premises.

Fallacy: Exclusive premises Example: No fish are mammals Some dogs are not fish Some dogs are not mammals Justification: If the premises are both negative, then the relationship between S and P is denied. The conclusion cannot, therefore, say anything in a positive fashion. That information goes beyond what is contained in the premises. Rule-5. If either premise of a valid categorical syllogism is negative, the conclusion must be negative. An affirmative proposition asserts that one class is included in some way in another class, but a negative proposition that asserts exclusion cannot imply anything about inclusion. For this reason an argument with a negative proposition cannot have an affirmative conclusion. An argument that violates this rule is said to commit the fallacy of drawing an affirmative conclusion from a negative premise. Fallacy: Drawing an affirmative conclusion from a negative premise, or drawing a negative conclusion from an affirmative premise. Example: All crows are birds Some wolves are not crows Some wolves are birds Justification: Two directions, here. Take a positive conclusion from one negative premise. The conclusion states that the S class is either wholly or partially contained in the P class. The only way that this can happen is if the S class is either partially or fully contained in the M class (remember, the middle term relates the two) and the M class fully contained in the P class. Negative statements cannot establish this relationship, so a valid conclusion cannot follow. Take a negative conclusion. It asserts that the S class is separated in whole or in part from the P class. If both premises are affirmative, no separation can be established, only connections. Thus, a negative conclusion cannot follow from positive premises. Note: These first four rules working together indicate that any syllogism with two particular premises is invalid. Rule-6. In valid categorical syllogisms particular propositions cannot be drawn properly from universal premises. Because we do not assume the existential import of universal propositions, they cannot be used as premises to establish the existential import that is part of any particular proposition. The existential fallacy violates this rule. Although it is possible to identify additional features shared by all valid categorical syllogisms (none of them, for example, have two particular premises), these six rules are jointly sufficient to distinguish between valid and invalid syllogisms. Fallacy: Existential fallacy Example: All mammals are animals All tigers are mammals Some tigers are animals Justification: On the Boolean model, Universal statements make no claims about existence while particular ones do. Thus, if the syllogism has universal premises, they necessarily say nothing about existence. Yet if the conclusion is particular, then it does say something about existence. In which case, the conclusion contains more information than the premises do, thereby making it invalid.

Enthymemes:
An enthymeme, in its modern sense, is an informally stated syllogism (a three-part deductive argument) with an unstated assumption that must be true for the premises to lead to the conclusion. In an enthymeme, part of the argument is missing because it is assumed. In a broader usage, the term enthymeme is sometimes used to describe an incomplete argument of forms other than the syllogism. Enthymeme s three parts The following quotation is an example of an enthymeme (used for humorous effect).

There is no law against composing music when one has no ideas whatsoever. The music of Wagner, therefore, is perfectly legal. Mark Twain. The three parts: There is no law against composing music when one has no ideas whatsoever. (Premise) The music of Wagner, therefore, is perfectly legal. (Conclusion) Wagner has no ideas. (Implicit premise) Further examples: Socrates is mortal because he s human. The complete syllogism would be the classic: All humans are mortal. (Major premise assumed) Socrates is human. (Minor premise stated) Therefore, Socrates is mortal. (Conclusion stated) Hidden premises are often an effective way to obscure a questionable or fallacious premise in reasoning. Typically fallacies of presumption (fallacies based on mistaken assumptions, such as ad hominem or two wrongs make a right) are attracted to enthymeme.

Sorites:
An argument in which a conclusion is inferred from any number of premises through a chain of syllogistic inferences. Example: All babies are illogical persons. All illogical persons are despised person.. No persons who can imagine crocodiles are despised persons. Therefore, No babies are persons who can imgine crocodiles. Solution: This Sorites consists of two syllogisms, as follows: All I is D All B is I Therefore, All B is D No M is D All B is D Therefore, No B is M.

The Dilemma:
A dilemma means double proposition, it is a problem offering at least two solutions or possibilities, of which none are practically acceptable; one in this position has been traditionally described as being impaled on the horns of a dilemma, neither horn being comfortable. The dilemma is sometimes used as a rhetorical device, in the form you must accept either A, or B ; here A and B would be propositions each leading to some further conclusion. Applied in this way, it may be a fallacy, a false dichotomy. Horned dilemmas can present more than two choices. The number of choices of Horned dilemmas can be used in their alternative names, such as two-pronged (two-horned) or dilemma proper , or three-pronged (three-horned) or trilemma, and so on. Constructive dilemmas 1. (If X, then Y) and (If W, then Z). 2. X or W. 3. Therefore, Y or Z. Destructive dilemmas 1. (If X, then Y) and (If W, then Z). 2. Not Y or not Z. 3. Therefore, not X or not W. Informal Fallacy : those dependent upon language i.e., a fallacy that arises from the content of an argument (the what is said, not the how it is said). Formal Fallacy: those outside the content of language i.e., a fallacy that arises from an error in the form of an argument; it is (usually) independent of content.

Translating categorical Propositions into Standard form:

For reasoning in everyday life, as you know, people do not talk in standard categorical form. Categorical form is much too stilted for writing effective discourse. There is a need to develop skills of logical translation to standard form categorical propositions in order to minimize errors in evaluating syllogistic arguments. Very

often translation into standard form reveals fallacies of equivocation and fallacies of amphiboly in the original text.

1. Translation Rules of Thumb:

The subject and predicate terms must be the names of classes. If the predicate term is a descriptive phrase, make it a substantive (i.e., noun phrase). Translation must not (significantly) alter the original meaning of the sentence. Categorical propositions must have a form of the verb to be as the copula in the present tense. The quality and quantity indicators are set up from the meaning of the sentences. Quantity indicators: All, Quality indicators: No, No, are, Some. are not.

The word order is rearranged according to the sense of the sentence. This rule requires special care in some instances, it may well be the most difficult rule to follow. On occasion, we need to divide one sentence into two or more propositions Before we take up some special cases, let s look at some typical examples: The following translations are relatively straightforward. Ships are beautiful translates to All ships are beautiful things. The whale is a mammal translates to All whales are mammals. Whoever is a child is silly translates to All children are silly creatures. Snakes coil translates to All snakes are coiling things. All swans are not white translates to Some swans are not white. Nothing ventured, nothing gained translates to No non-ventured things are gained things. Or the obverse All non-ventured things are non-gained things. 2. Singular propositions are to be treated as (but not usually translated into) a universal proposition (i.e., an A or an E). E.g., Socrates is a man is an A proposition, but Socrates is not a god is an E proposition. 3. Exclusive propositions have the cue words only or none but. The order of the subject and predicate terms must be reversed. E.g., None but A is B translates to All B is A. Only A is B translates to All B is A. None but red trucks are fire engines translates to All fire engines are red things. 4. Exceptive propositions are compound propositions. E.g., All except A is B translates to All non-A is B and No A is B. E.g., All except human beings are nonsymbolic animals translates to All nonhuman beings are nonsymbolic animals and

No human beings are nonsymbolic animals (or, of course the obverse, All human beings are symbolic animals. ) 5. A Compound statement asserts two propositions. E.g., There is a time to sow and a time to reap translates to Some occasions are times to sow and Some occasions are times to reap. 6. Abstract: An inductive strategy for mechanizing translation is illustrated. We have at this time a kind of took kit to work on syllogisms. Our tools include: obversion, conversion, and contraposition Venn diagrams, logical analogies, rules and fallacies various techniques for reducing the number of terms translation strategies. The following inductive technique can be used for mechanizing translation by isolating the steps for testing the validity of a syllogism. The steps can be itemized as follows: Identify the conclusion and premises. Put the syllogism into standard order as best you can. Supply the suppressed statements, if any. Reduce the number of terms to three per syllogism. Translate the statements to standard form.