Sorites

SORITES
An argument whose conclusion is inferred
from its premises by a chain of categorical
syllogisms or enthymemes in which the
conclusion of each inference serves as the
premise for the next, and the conclusion of
the last syllogism is the conclusion of the
entire argument. 2
2 KINDSSORITES
ARISTOTELIAN SORITES
GOCLENIAN SORITES

3
ARISTOTELIAN SORITES

Aristotelian sorites is an abridged polysyllogism

in which the predicate of the preceding premise
becomes the subject of the following. It has this
form:

4
ARISTOTELIAN SORITES

All A is B;
All B is C;
All C is D;
All D is E;
∴ All A is E
5
ARISTOTELIAN SORITES
All philosophers are wide readers;
All wide readers are intelligent;
All intelligent people are creative;
All creative people are producers of good ideas;
∴ All philosophers are producers of good ideas.
6
GOCLENIAN SORITES

Goclenian sorites is an abridged polysyllogism in

which the subject of the preceding premise
becomes the predicate of the following. It has
this form:

7
GOCLENIAN SORITES
All A is B;
All C is A;
All D is C;
All E is D;
∴ All E is B
8
GOCLENIAN SORITES
One who will not sacrifice truth for power is a
responsible person;
One who is a paragon of honesty will not sacrifice truth
for power;
One who is worth emulating is a paragon of honesty;
A model of decency is worth emulating;
∴ A model of decency is a responsible person.
9
 Goal

Identify intermediary
conclusion to establish a
complete categorical
syllogism that can be tested.
10
 Step 1
Translate the propositions into standard form sorites

Standard form sorites is when all its

propositions are in standard form, when each term
occurs exactly twice, and when every proposition
(except the last) has a term in common with the
proposition that immediately follows it.
 Example

All bloodhounds are dogs

All dogs are mammals
No fish are mammals
Therefore, no fish are bloodhounds.

12
 Example

All b are d
All d are m
No f are m
Therefore, no f are b.

13
 Translate in to standard form Sorites

Every cat is a mammal, All C is M

Every mammal is an animal, All M is A
Every animal is God’s creation, All A is G
Therefore every cat is God’s All C is G
creation.

14
Babies are illogical
Nobody is despised who can manage crocodile
Illogical persons are despised
Therefore babies cannot manage crocodiles

15
Standard-form translation

All babies are illogical persons

No persons who can manage crocodile are despised persons
All illogical persons are despised persons
Therefore, no babies are persons who can manage crocodiles

16
Re-order in to Standard-form

All babies are illogical persons

All illogical persons are despised persons
No persons who can manage crocodile are despised persons
Therefore, no babies are persons who can manage crocodiles

17
No B are C All D are C
Some E are A No B are C
All A are B All A are B
All D are C Some E are A

Some E are not D Some E are not D

18
 Step 2
Provide for Intermediary conclusion
In evaluating sorites keep in mind these requirement
Rule 1: If a conclusion is negative, then one
and only one of the premises must be
negative.
Rule 2: If the conclusion is affirmative, all of
the propositions must be affirmative.
Rule 3: If the conclusion is universal all of
the premises must be universal.
20
Example

ALL Diplomats are tactful

Some Government officials are diplomats
All government officials are people in public life
All government officials are people in public life

21
Find the intermediate conclusion

ALL Diplomats are tactful individuals

Some Government officials are diplomats
Therefore some government officials are tactful individuals
All government officials are people in public life
All government officials are people in public life

22
Example:
All A is B;
All B is C;
All C is D;
All D is E;
∴ All A is E
23
 Find the intermediate conclusion
All A is B;
All A is B;
All B is C;
All B is C;
All C is D; All A is C
All D is E; All C is D
∴ All A is E All A is D
All D is E
∴ All A is E
24
All D are C All D are C
No B are C No B are C
All A are B No B are D
Some E are A Test for validity
C
Some E are not D

B D

VALID
25
All D are C No B are D
No B are C All A are B
All A are B No A are D
Some E are A Test for validity
B
Some E are not D

A D

VALID
26
All D are C No A are D
No B are C Some E are A
All A are B Some E are not D
Some E are A
Test for validity A
Some E are not D

E D

VALID
27
The rule in evaluating a sorites is based on the idea
that a chain is only as strong as its weakest link.

“If any of the component syllogisms in a sorites is

invalid, the entire sorites is invalid."

28
 Disjunctive Syllogisms

A syllogism in which one of the premises is a

Disjunction, the other premise is the denial or
contradictory of one of the two disjuncts in the first
premise, and the conclusion is the statement that the
other disjunct in that first premise is true.

29
 Forms of the disjunctive
syllogism
Inclusive Or Exclusive Or
Either A or B Either A or B Not both A and B
Not A Not B A
B A Not B

30
Example
You may get a puppy or guppy

Inclusive or- You may get a puppy ,or you

may get a guppy, or you can get both.

Exclusive or- You may get a puppy ,or you

may get a guppy, but you can’t get both.

31
Either A or B
Not A
B

The cake has either chocolate or vanilla frosting.

The cake does not have vanilla frosting.
Therefore, the cake has chocolate frosting.

32
 Premise 1

The cake has either chocolate or

vanilla frosting.

“DISJUNCTS”
33
 Premise 2

The cake does not have vanilla

frosting.
“Denial or contradictory of one of the two disjuncts
in the P1 ”
34
 Third Premise

Therefore, the cake has

chocolate frosting.
“Statement that the other disjunct in that first
premise is true”
35
Either A or B
Not B
A
The food has beef or chicken
The food does not have beef
Therefore, it has chicken
36
Example
Either the meeting is in room
702, or it is in room 703.
It is not in room 702.
Therefore, it is in room 703.
37
Example
I own a cat or I own a dog
I don’t own a cat
Therefore I own a dog

38
Invalid disjunctive syllogism

I own a cat or I own a dog

I own a cat
Therefore I don’t own a dog

39
 Non-standard form: Not both
Not both A and B
A
Not B

In general, sentences of the form,

“Not both A and B.”
can be translated as
“Either not A or not B.” 40
 Non-standard form (Not both)

“You can’t both go to the movies and see the

football game.”
Translated
“Either you won’t go to the movies or you
won’t go to the football game.”

41
 Not both A and B
A
Not B
Example
Either Cyrus is in Baguio or Cyrus is in Manila
Cyrus is in Baguio
Therefore Cyrus is not in Manila
42
Either Cyrus is in Baguio or Cyrus is in Manila
Translated
Either Cyrus is not in Baguio or Cyrus is not in
Manila

43
Not both A and B
A
Not B
Example

Either Cyrus is not in Baguio or Cyrus is not in Manila

Cyrus is in Baguio
Therefore Cyrus is not in Manila
44
hypothetical
Syllogism

45
 Hypothetical syllogisms
Which contain one or more compound,
hypothetical or conditional propositions, each
affirming that if one of its components
(the antecedent) is true then the other of its
components (the consequent) is true.

46
 Two subtypes

A. Pure hypothetical syllogisms

A syllogism that contains only hypothetical
propositions.
IF= Antecedent
Then= Consequent
47
Basically, the argument states a chain of
reasons, where the first thing is
connected to a second, and the second
to a third, so the first is ultimately also
connected to the third.

48
 If p is true, then q is true.
If q is true , then r is true.
Therefore, if p is true, then r is true

49
Example

If Socrates is a man, then Socrates is mortal.

If Socrates is mortal, then Socrates can be killed
by poison.
Therefore, if Socrates is a man, then Socrates
can be killed by poison.
50
B. Mixed Hypothetical Syllogisms

A syllogism that contains one

conditional or hypothetical premise,
and one categorical premise.
51
Two valid forms of the mixed hypothetical syllogism

Modus Ponens
A mixed hypothetical syllogism in
which the first premise is a conditional
proposition, the second premise affirms the
antecedent of that conditional, and the
conclusion affirms the consequent of that
conditional. 52
If A then B
A is True
Thus, B is also True

53
Example

If Hermay wins a ten-million –peso lottery,

then her husband will quit his job .
Hermay wins a ten-million-peso lottery.
Therefore, her husband will quit his job.
54
If there is design in the universe ,then
there must have been a Designer.
There is design in the universe .
Therefore, there must have been a
designer .
55
If I am Chinese, I am human.
I am Chinese.
Therefore, I am human

56
Fallacy of affirming the consequent:

A Fallacy in which, from the truth of the

consequent of a conditional proposition,
the conclusion is reached that the
antecedent of that conditional is true.
57
Example

If Bacon wrote Hamlet, Then Bacon was a

great writer.
Bacon was a great writer.
Therefore, Bacon wrote Hamlet.

58
If my name is Jared, I am male.
I am male
Therefore, my name is Jared.

59
If reincarnation is true, then past life regression
therapy will work.
past life regression therapy works.
Therefore, reincarnation is true.

60
 Second valid form of the mixed hypothetical
syllogism:
Modus tollens
A mixed hypothetical syllogism in which the
first premise is a conditional proposition, the second
premise is the denial of the consequent of that
conditional, and the conclusion is the denial of the
antecedent of that conditional.
61
If p is true, Then q is true.
q is false,
Therefore, p is false.

62
Example

If I have a cash, I will loan you money

I am not loaning you money
Therefore, I do not have cash.

63
Example
If the one-eyed prisoner saw two red hats, then he could tell
the color of the hat on his own head.
The one-eyed prisoner could not tell the color of the hat on
his own head.
Therefore the one-eyed prisoner did not see two red hats.

64
If the cake is made with sugar,
then the cake is sweet.
The cake is not sweet.
Therefore, the cake is not made
with sugar.
65
If Nikki was born in the Philippines,
then she is a Filipino.
Sam is not Filipino.
Therefore, Sam was not born in the
Philippines.

66
Fallacy of denying the antecedent
A fallacy in which, from the negation of
the antecedent of conditional
proposition, the conclusion is reached
that the consequent of that conditional is
false.
67
Example

If Carl embezzled the college funds, then

Carl is guilty of a felony.
Carl did not embezzle the college funds.
Therefore Carl is not guilty of a felony.

68
If abortion is murder, then it is
wrong.
But abortion isn't murder.
Therefore, it is not wrong.

69
If I am Chinese, I am human.
I am not Chinese.
Therefore, I am not human.

70
Conclusion: When you spot a conditional
argument, you can test its validity very
easily. First, make sure you know what the
conditional or major premise is. Second, see
whether the minor premise affirms or denies
the antecedent or consequent in the major
premise. If it affirms the antecedent or denies
the consequent, a conclusion can be drawn
and it is valid. Otherwise not.
71
Dillema
Dillema is a form of argument
intended to put one’s oponent
in the position of choosing
between two alternatives, both
which are bad and unpleasant.

73
In debate, one uses dillema to offer
alternative positions to one’s adversary,
from which a choice must be made, and
then to prove that no matter which choice
is made, the adversary is committed to an
unacceptable conclusion.

74
 DILLEMMA

CONSTRUCTIVE DESTRUCTIVE

SIMPLE COMPLEX SIMPLE COMPLEX

75
◈ Constructive Dillema IF P then Q and if R then S
Is a valid argument form Either P or R
that consists of conjunctive
premise made up of two Therefore Q or S
conditional statements, a
disjunctive premise that
asserts the antecedents in
the conjunctive premise and
disjunctive conclusion that
asserts the consequents the
conjunctive premise. 76
DESTRUCTIVE DILLEMA IF P then Q and if R then S
Includes a conjunctive made Not Q or Not S
up of two conditional Therefore Not P or Not R
statements and disjunctive
premise. However the
disjunctive premise denies
the consequents of the
conditionals and the
conclusion denies the
antecedents.
77
◈ Simple Constructive
In a simple constructive dilemma (SCD), both
hypothetical propositions have common consequents,
though antecedents differ. These antecedents are
affirmed disjunctively in second premise and
consequent is affirmed in the conclusion. Since there is
only one consequent the conclusion is a simple
proposition. The structure of this kind can be
represented as follows
78
(IF P THEN Q) and (IF R THEN Q)
P or R
Therefore Q

79
(If taxes are reduced to garner votes, then the government loses
revenue) and (if taxes are reduced in order to simplify taxation,
then the government loses revenue)
Taxes are reduced either to garner votes or to simplify taxation
Therefore the government loses its revenue

80
◈ Simple Destructive
The structure of simple destructive dilemma (SDD)
differs slightly from the second kind. In this type,
also the conclusion is a simple proposition, but
negative. The second premise has structure similar to
that of p2 of CDD. The form of SDD is as follows:

81
(If P then Q) and (If P then R)
Not Q or Not R
Therefore Not P

82
if (you are in the habit of getting up early), then (you
are theist) and
if (you are in the habit of getting up early), then (you
are labourer)
You are not a theist or you are not a labourer
Therefore you are not in the habit of getting up early.

83
Simple Constructive Simple Destructive

(IF P THEN Q) and (If P then Q) and

(IF R THEN Q) (If P then R)
P or R Not Q or Not R
Therefore Q Therefore Not P

84
Complex constructive
The conditional premise infers a different
consequent from each of the antecedents presented
in the disjunctive proposition. If any antecedent is
true, its consequent is likewise true. But since the
antecedents are posited disjunctively and, since
different consequent flows from each of them, the
consequents must likewise be posited
disjunctively. 85
(IF P then Q)and (If R then S)
P or R
Therefore,Q or S

86
If (any government wages war to acquire wealth),
then (it becomes a rogue government) and
If (it wages war to expand its territory), then (it
becomes colonial).
Any government wages war either to acquire
wealth or to expand its territory
Therefore, It becomes a rogue government or
colonial.
87
If (this punch contains lemon), then (Vince
will like it), and
if (this punch contains lime), then (Steve will
like it).
This punch contains either lemon or lime.
Therefore, either Vince or Steve will like it.

88
Complex destructive
The structure of complex destructive dilemma
(CDD) differs slightly from the first kind. The
difference is that the disjunctive propositions
in premise and conclusion negate
disjunctively the components of respective
propositions. However, the structure of the
other premise remains the same. The form of
CDD is mentioned below:
89
(If P then Q) and (If R then S)
Not Q or not S
Therefore, Not P or Not R

90
If (this punch contains lemon), then (Vince will like it),
and
if (this punch contains lime), then (Steve will like it).
Either Vince will not like it or Steve will not like it.
Therefore, either this punch does not contain lemon or
this punch does not contain lime.

91
Complex Constructive Complex Destructive
(IF P then Q)and (If R then S) (If P then Q) and (If R then S)
P or R Not Q or not S
Therefore, Q or S Therefore, Not P or Not R

92
Three ways to
avoid Dillema

93
First, when you find you own views put on the
horns of a dilemma, you can "take the dilemma
by the horns," that is, you can dispute the
implications of either of the hypotheticals in the
first or major premise.
Second, you can "go between the horns" by showing
that there is a valid third alternative to the two
options specified in the minor or second
premise. If a third alternative can be found, then
neither of these disjuncts need be true. 94
Third, you can "counter the dilemma" by
answering a dilemma with another
dilemma. So you can either deny the
conjunction, or the disjunction, or the
conclusion overall!

95
Going between the horns
1. If God willed the moral law arbitrarily, then he is not
essentially good.
2. If God willed the moral law according to an ultimate
standard beyond himself, then He is not God (because
there is something beyond Him).
3. But God willed the moral law either arbitrarily or
according to a standard beyond him.
4. Therefore, either He is not good, or He is not God.

96
1.If students are fond of learning, they need
no stimulus, and
2. If they dislike learning, no stimulus will be
of any avail.
3.But any student either is fond of learning or
dislikes it .
4.Therefore a stimulus is either needless or of
no avail. 97
(a) Escaping/ Going between the horns:
In this method, one refutes a given dilemma
by showing that the alternatives given in
the minor premise are not exhaustive and
there is a third alternative which goes in
favour of the opponent.

98
Let us take the example of the dilemma
presented by an Athenian mother to
restrain her son from going outside the
house in the following manner.

99
1.If the day is hot, you should not go out to avoid
exhaustion and
2 if the day is cold, you should not go out to avoid
exposure to cold.
3.Either the day is hot or cold.
4.Therefore, you should not go outside to avoid
exhaustion or exposure.

100
The son could escape between the horns by showing a
third possibility. Since some parts of the day are
neither hot nor cold and during that period he
could go out, which will not be harmful for his
health.

101
2.Taking the dilemma by the horns (from Albert Camus' The
Plague in which a priest declares that the sickness is a
judgment of God upon the people and chooses not to
help them).
1. If one helps the sick, then he is fighting against
God who sent the plague.
2. If one does not help the sick, then he is being
cruel and inhumane.
3. One must either help the sick or not help them.
4. Therefore, one must either fight against God, or
be cruel and inhumane. 102
Taking by the horns:
Here we may point out that either one
consequent or both consequents do
not follow from their antecedents.
Thus the dilemma is wrong and the
conclusion cannot be established.

103
1.If the son is efficient, then the father's saving is unnecessary
2.and if the son is misfit, then the father's saving is unnecessary.
3. Either the son is efficient or is a misfit.
4.Therefore, in any case the father's saving is unnecessary.

In the above dilemma, both the alternatives in the major premise are
weak. There is no justification in comparing the father's saving
with the efficiency or misfitness of the son. Furthermore, it is not
justified to say that father's saving is only meant for son's benefit.
Thus both the horns of the dilemma are weak and it will be easier
to take the dilemma by horns.

104
3.Countering the dilemma This is typically done by changing either
the antecedents or the consequents of the conjunctive premise
while leaving the disjunctive premise as it is, so as to obtain a
different conclusion.

1. If taxes increase, the economy will suffer.

2. If taxes decrease, needed governmental services will be
curtailed.
3. Taxes must either be increased or decreased.
4. Therefore, if follows that the economy will either suffer or that
needed governmental services will be curtailed.

105
1. If taxes increase, needed government services will be
extended.
2. If taxes decrease, the economy will improve.
3. Taxes must either increase or decrease.
4. Therefore, it follows that needed government services will
be extended or the economy will improve

106
If we encourage competition, we will have no peace.
If we do not encourage competition, we will make no
progress.
We must either encourage competition or not encourage
competition.
Therefore, we will either have no peace or make no
progress.

107
1. If we encourage competition, we will make
progress.
2. If we do not encourage competition, we will
have peace.
3. Either we must encourage competition or not
encourage it.
4. Therefore, we will either make progress, or
we will have peace.
108
 Rebutting a dilemma by a counter dilemma:
It is one of the most ingenious method by which
a dilemma can be rebutted by constructing
another counter dilemma whose conclusion is
opposed to the original conclusion. Let us
take a classical example of an Athenian
mother persuading her son not to join politics
in the following manner.

109
If you say what is just, men will hate you and
if you say what is unjust, Gods will hate you.
But you must either say the one or the other.
Therefore, your will be hated.

110
The son rebutted the dilemma in the following manner:

If I say what is just, the Gods will love me and

if I say what is unjust, men will love me.
I must say either the one or the other.
Therefore, I shall be loved.

The conclusion of the first dilemma (by the mother) is

changed in the conclusion of the rebutted dilemma.
111