CHAPTER 10 Formal Fallacies three proposi- . The categorical sy rgument in the la t is. so-called because its propositions are absolute and posi- tive without qualifications or conditions. In this sense we can refer tu them as simple syiiogisms. But we have in the law compound syllogisms as well. We refer to one as the hypothetical syllogism because it imposes a condition as necessary to the resuit. The syllogism is the other compound disjunctive syllogism, so-called because it contains alternative propositions. FALLACIES IN CATEGORICAL SYLLOGISMS : Our inquiry into formal fallacies begins with the cate- gorical syllogism. We have previously set forth the six rules of the categorical syllogism. We repeat them here to empha- size that they form guidelines upon which a deductive or —.__inductive argument in proper logical form may be based. Conversely stated, to-depart-from any of-these rules:is-to—— , commit the logical fallacy of-form;-it-is-to-commit-what-is.— known as a formal fallacy. ‘ These then are the rules that you must follow to avoid the pitfalls of fallacy of for:LOGIC FOR LAWYERS Rule 1: A valid categorical syllogism must contain ex- actly three terms, each of which is used in the same sense throughout the argument. Rule 2: In a valid categorical syllogism, the middle term must be distributed in at least one prem- ise. Rule 3: Ina valid categorical syllogism, no term can be distributed in the conclusion which is not dis tributed in the premise Rule 4: No categorical syllogism is valid which has two negative premises. Rule 5: If either premise of a valid categorical syllo- gism is negative, the conclusion must be nega- uve. Xo valid categoricai syllog tha particular aC ave two universal pr a that follows, you will learn that the jogicians have fashioned particular labels for vi i thy 1 Fallacy of Four Terms (Quaternio Terminorum) This is a breach of the first rule of’ syllogi sists that a categorical syllogism must. contain only three terms. By definition, such a syllogism (e.g., all men are mor- tal, etc.) consists of comparing two terms, the minor (Socra- -tes) with the-major (mortal) by means of a middle term (all men), to reach a conclusion. If there were four terms (e.g, ail men are mortal, Socrates plays baseball) there would be no way to reach a conclusion. A fourth term (baseball) would not only be superfluous, but would destroy the com- parison. When an argument has more than three terms, we call it a logical quadruped. When such an argument has, in effect, two middle terms, it lacks any basis of comparison for its minor-and ‘major-terms, so that it is imposible tern draw a legitimate conclusion. From the example: “Every ru- minant is cloven-footed; every cow is multi-stomached,” we ‘can’t move to a logical conclusion. The proper method is to use multiple syllogisms: : which in-FORMAL FALLACIES All A is C: Every ruminant is cloven-footed. Bis A: Every cow is a ruminant. Therefore, Bis C: Therefore, every cow is cloven- footed. All B is D: Every cow is multi-stomached. E is B: This is a cow. Therefore, Eis D: Therefore, this cow is multi- stomached United States y. Berrigan 482 F.2d 171, 183 (8d Cir. 1973) Appellants’ contention tha 3 founded on the generai x tainted ifthe conduct it prohibits inelur 3 protected tivity as well as criminal conduct. “In every case the power to regulate must be so e: das not, in attain- ing a permissible end, unduly to infringe the protected s ’ The miner premise proceeds that certain communications cannot constitutionally be excluded from prisons. [Cases have upheld] a prisoner’s right to send and recei dence and prisoners enjoy the right to send appellants conclude that this statute is overbroad because it makes criminal certain acts protected by the First Amendment. it hardly deserves extended discussion to observe that appellants’ syllogism strains toa conclusion which is invalid and illict. [Note 16) Perhaps appellants’ argu- ment can best be described as a logical (or, more appro- priately, illogical) quadruped because it excludes the additional minor premise that a prisoner’s mail was de- nied him. the statute is over- ule that a statute i s types of corres: and receive m ——_——Fallacy_of the U: distributed-Middle—____ One who violates syllogism ‘Rule-2-commits the fallacy —- of the undistributed middle. Rule 2 states that in a valid cat. egorical syllogism, the middle term must be distributed in at least one of the Premises. _