Unit 1 Types of Categorical Propositions: A, E, I, O and Square of Opposition

Types of Categorical
UNIT 1 TYPES OF CATEGORICAL Propositions: A,E,I,O and

Square of Opposition
PROPOSITIONS: A, E, I, O AND
SQUARE OF OPPOSITION
Contents
1.0 Objectives
1.1 Introduction
1.2 Terms and their Kinds
1.3 Denotation and Connotation of Terms
1.4 Meaning and Supposition of Terms
1.5 Propositions
1.6 Square of Opposition
1.7 Let Us Sum Up
1.8 Key Words
1.9 Further Readings and References
1.0 OBJECTIVES
First objective of this unit is to introduce you to the elements of categorical proposition.
This is intended to be achieved through the introduction of the nature of terms and
their distinction from words. The second objective is to establish an important
distinction between sentence and proposition. The last, but not the least, objective
is to familiarize you with certain forms of logical relations called immediate inference
which should in turn enable you to establish and discover certain other important
logical relations.
1.1 INTRODUCTION
As a form of critical thinking, logic has its origin in several ancient civilizations, like
Indian, Chinese, Greek, etc. In the Western tradition, logic was systematized by
Aristotle and hence he is credited with its origin. Logic, ‘the tool for distinguishing
between the true and the false’ (Averroes), examines the general forms which
arguments may take, and distinguishes between valid and invalid arguments. An
argument consists of two sets of statements called premise or premises, on the one
hand, and the conclusion on the other. The premises are designed to support the
conclusion. The presence of this complex relation (also called inference) makes a
group of statements an argument and with which logic is concerned. Thus mere
collection of propositions does not constitute an argument when this relation is absent.
In this unit we shall confine ourselves to an analysis of terms and propositions which
are basic to our study of logic and postpone a detailed study of inference to the next
unit.
1.2 TERMS AND THEIR KINDS

Logic makes a sharp distinction between ‘word’ and ‘term’. All words are not
terms, but all terms are words. Terms refer to specific classes of objects or qualities
whereas words refer to none of them. Further, a term may consist of more than one 5
Classical Logic word. Table, planet, etc. are terms which consist of one word only. The author of
Hamlet is a term which consists of four words. Words in different languages may
express the same term; e.g. tree, vriksha etc. While there is only one term in this
example, there are two words. Traditional logic has recognized different kinds of
terms. A brief description of kinds of terms throws some light on the way in which
traditional logic understood ‘term’.
Positive and negative: Positive terms signify the presence of desirable qualities e.g.,
light, health, etc.; negative terms signify, generally, undesirable qualities or qualities
not desired, rightly or wrongly. The clearest negative terms are those with the negative
prefix ‘in’ (or ‘im’), dis, etc. Inefficient, dishonest, etc. are negative terms. However,
it is not always the case. For example, immortal, invaluable, discover, to name a
few, surely, are not negative. Therefore what constitutes a negative term is, essentially,
our attitude in particular and custom in general. In other words, the distinction is not
really logical, but it has something to do with value judgment. That is why some
words without such prefixes are regarded as negative since they too imply negation:
e.g. darkness (absence of light).
Concrete and abstract: Concrete terms are those which refer to perceptible entities;
abstract terms are those which do not; e.g. man, animal, tall etc., are concrete terms;
mankind, animalism, etc., are abstract terms. However, this classification depends
upon use. For example, the word ‘humanity’ is used not only to mean individual men
but also the quality of man. Hence use or meaning determines the class.
Relative and absolute: Relative terms are those which express a relation between
two or more than two persons or things, e.g. father, son, etc. Absolute terms do not
express such relation, e.g. nationality, cone, etc. Comparative terms are obviously
relative: e.g., larger, prettier, etc.
Singular and General: Singular terms denote specific objects. It points to one object
only. All proper names are singular terms. Russellian proper names are also counted
among singular terms. ‘The author of Principia Mathematica, The farthest planet
from the sun’, etc. are singular terms. General terms are just class names. Vegetable,
criminal, politician, etc., are examples for general terms.
Univocal, and Equivocal terms: Univocal terms carry only one meaning. Entropy is
an example for univocal terms. Equivocal terms are burdened with at least two
meanings. Gravity is equivocal; so is astronomical. When natural language becomes
the medium of expression, equivocal terms pose hurdles in determining the validity
of arguments because such terms cause ambiguous structure of statements. Therefore
in our study of logic we must ensure that the arguments consist of only unambiguous
terms. Later we will come to know that symbolic logic became indispensable precisely
for this reason.
1.3 DENOTATION AND CONNOTATION OF TERMS

By denotation of a term we mean the number of individuals to which the term is
applied or extended. For example, ‘society’ denotes the human society, a
philanthropic society, the Society of Jesus, a political society (or a State), etc. Another
word used for ‘denotation’ is extension. By connotation or intension of a term we
mean the complete meaning of a term as expressed by the sum total of its essential
as opposed to accidental characteristics. For example, consider the same term;
‘society’ connotes (a) an association of persons and (b) united by a common interest.
Crowd does not mean the same as society because it lacks these characteristics.
6
Complete meaning, therefore, excludes accidental and figurative characteristics. The Types of Categorical
latter is misleading in the sense that it is not a characteristic at all in the strict sense of Propositions: A,E,I,O and
the term. Denotation and connotation together determine what is called class or set
of objects. Therefore every term stands for one class or the other.
In Scholasticism, connotation and denotation are reserved for terms and
comprehension and extension for concepts of which terms are signs, or
expressions. Note that the word ‘connotation’ may vary in meaning from time
to time. For example, ‘politician’ may acquire a different meaning in different
societies at a given point of time or in the same society at different points of
time. Therefore connotation is only conventional.
It is clear that greater the connotation (intension) of a term smaller the denotation
(extension) and, conversely, greater the denotation smaller the connotation. For
example, the term ‘being’ connotes simply ‘existence’ and can be extended to
everything that exists (man, animal, plant, stone, etc.). But as soon as I say ‘human
being’, thus increasing the connotation (i.e. ‘human’ and ‘being’), the term includes
only human beings; not others. ‘Oriental human being’ is still less extensive, for the
term cannot be applied to Westerners. This is called the law of inverse variation.
1.4 MEANING AND SUPPOSITION OF TERMS

There is a subtle difference between meaning and supposition. Meaning is what
convention accepts. Therefore many words have more than one meaning because
convention is always inaccurate. Xystus is one such word which has several meanings
like covered portico used for exercise by the athletes in antiquity, a garden walk on
terrace, etc. Likewise, ‘Supposition’ of a word is the function or the use of a word
which depends upon the intention of the speaker. Therefore meaning is objective
whereas supposition is subjective. The Scholastics understood ‘supponit’ as the
one which stands for the concept.
Check Your Progress I

Note: Use the space provided for your answer.
1) Critically examine various classes of terms.
....................................................................................................................
....................................................................................................................
....................................................................................................................
....................................................................................................................
....................................................................................................................
2) Analyse the meaning of connotation and denotation.
....................................................................................................................
....................................................................................................................
....................................................................................................................
....................................................................................................................
....................................................................................................................
7
Classical Logic
1.5 PROPOSITIONS
In the previous section we came to know that all terms are words, but all words are
not terms. Similarly, all propositions are sentences, but all sentences are not
propositions. Only those sentences are propositions which grammar regards as
assertive. A proposition is always either true or false, but not both; and no proposition
is neither true nor false. This means to say that a proposition is a declarative sentence
which gives certain information and it is this information which makes a proposition
true or false. It is equally important to note that there is no need to know whether a
given proposition is true or false. Further, several sentences may express one
proposition. Consider these groups of sentences.
A) 1) Jealousy thy name is woman.
2) What is wrong with your car?
3) Copper sulphate is an organic compound.
4) Newton wrote Optiks.
B) 1) Cogito Ergo Sum.
2) I think, therefore I am.
In group A, first two sentences are not assertive sentences (the first sentence is
misleading. It appears to be an assertive sentence, but in reality, it is not. Sentences
which express emotional outburst are, more or less, exclamatory). The third sentence
is false whereas the fourth sentence is true. Group B consists of two sentences
which belong to different languages but give the same meaning. Within the same
language also it is possible to have two sentences which give the same meaning.
Consider this group.
C) 1) Rama killed Ravana.
2) Ravana was killed by Rama.
Sentences in B and C groups show that a proposition is the meaning of a sentence.
Although several sentences can give one meaning, it is impossible in an unambiguous
system to have one sentence with more than one meaning.
A new word is introduced at this point. The truth-value of true proposition is said
to be true and that of a false proposition is said to be false. Here afterwards we
frequently employ this term in our study.
Let us turn to Aristotelian analysis of proposition. A proposition consists of two
terms in his system. The term (class) about which the proposition asserts something
is called ‘Subject’ (S) and what is said about it is called ‘Predicate’ (P). S and P are
to be regarded as S-class and P-class respectively. In a proposition these are
related using the verb of the form ‘to be’ called ‘Copula’, which must be always in
present tense. According to Aristotle a sentence becomes a proposition only when
it meets all these requirements, not otherwise. It is obvious that only the first example
considered above (A3) falls within the limits of Aristotelian system. This sort of
restriction severely thwarted further progress of logic.
Traditional logic considers two kinds of propositions; categorical (unconditional)
and conditional. Assertion is of two types; affirmation and negation. Affirmation or
negation is made in the former without stating any condition, whereas in the latter it
is stated with condition or conditions. Initially, we shall restrict ourselves to the former
8 kind. Affirmation or negation is possible in this category in two ways; total or partial.
If P is affirmed or negated of the whole class of S, then it is total. On the other hand, Types of Categorical
if affirmation or negation applies to only a part of the class, then it is partial. Propositions: A,E,I,O and
Consequently, we obtain four kinds of categorical proposition.
1) Universal affirmative (total affirmation)
2) Universal negative (total negation)
3) Particular affirmative (partial affirmation)
4) Particular negative (partial negation)
For the sake of simplicity and brevity (in logic these two are very important) these four
kinds are represented symbolically. From Affirmo, a Greek, word we choose A and
I to represent first and third kinds respectively and similarly, from Nego, another Greek
word, we choose E and O to represent second and fourth kinds respectively. It is a
mere convention to prefix S and suffix P to A, E, I and O. In modern parlance the first
letters of S-term and of P-term are used in place of S and P.
Each kind is illustrated below.
S Copula P
1) All (scientific theories) are (improvable). Universal Affirmative SAI
2) No (celestial bodies) are (static). Universal Negative CES
3) Some (fruits) are (bitter). Particular Affirmative FIB
4) Some (chemicals) are not (toxic). Particular Negative COT
The distinction between universal and particular depends upon what is called quantity
and the one between affirmative and negative on what is called quality. Not much
discussion is needed to know what quality is. If any negative word like no, not, etc.,
occurs in the proposition (2 and 3), then quality is negative. Otherwise, it is affirmative.
A word of caution is required. Sometimes predicate carries negative force. But it
does not make the quality of proposition negative. For example ‘dishonest’, non-
natural, etc. constitute terms in their own right. They have nothing to do with the
quality of proposition. Consider these two propositions.
5) Shakuni is dishonest.
6) Telepathy is a non-natural phenomenon.
These propositions are affirmative only. It means that a proposition is negative only
when negative word is a part of copula. However, quantity of proposition needs
elaborate explanation which becomes intelligible only after explication of what is
called the distribution of term.
Distribution of terms is an indispensible concept in Aristotelian logic. A term is said
to be distributed if the proposition in which it occurs, either includes or excludes the
said term completely. Inclusion or exclusion is complete provided the proposition
refers to every member of the class. If so, when is it said to be undistributed? Suppose
that n is the number of members in a given class. If the proposition includes or
excludes (n- – 1) members of that particular class, say S, then S is said to be
undistributed.
Let us turn to the pattern of distribution in categorical proposition. Quantity of any
proposition is determined by the extension or magnitude of S, i.e., the number of
elements in the given set and a term acquires magnitude only when it is a component 9
Classical Logic of a proposition. Only sets have magnitude (this is so as far as logic is concerned). A
set is defined as the collection of well-defined elements as its members. A null set or
an empty set does not have any element. Let us assume that term is synonymous
with set. Then we can accept that a term has magnitude. If magnitude of any term is
total in terms of reference, then it is said that the term is distributed. If magnitude is
incomplete, then that term is undistributed. It shows that any term is distributed only
when the entire set is either included or excluded in such a way that not a single
member is left out. This is another way of explicating what complete magnitude
means.
All universal propositions distribute S whereas particular propositions do not. Just
as distribution is explicated, undistribution also must be explicated. A term is
undistributed only when inclusion or exclusion is partial. The meaning of partial
inclusion or exclusion is, again, repeated, but in a very different manner. Let us
attempt a formal explication of the same. Let the magnitude of S be x. Let S* (to be
read s-star) denote that part of S, which is included in or excluded by a proposition.
Now the formula, which represents the undistribution of S can be represented as
follows:
|x|>S* > 1 ………….(1)
This is the way to read (1): ‘The modulus of x ( |x| ) is greater than S* greater than
or equal to 1’. It is highly rewarding to use set theory here. (1) indicates that S* is
a proper subset of S. Therefore its magnitude must be smaller than that of x which
is the magnitude of S. However, S* is not a null set. (1) shows that there exists at
least one member in S*. In the case of undistribution, therefore, the magnitude of S*
varies between 1 and | x-1|. Now it is clear that in A and E, S is distributed while in
I and O it is undistributed. Just to complete this aspect, let us state that all affirmative
propositions undistribute P whereas all negative propositions distribute P.
A far better way of presenting the distribution of terms was invented by Euler, an
18th C. Swiss mathematician and later, John Venn, a 19th C. British mathematician
improvised the representation further. An understanding of the techniques adopted
by them presupposes some aspects of set theory.
Let S and P be non-null (non-empty) sets with elements as mentioned below (it is
important that the status of set must be mentioned invariably, i.e., null or non-null).
The following pairs shall be considered.
1) S = {a,b,c,d,e,f}, P = {g,h,i,j,k}
All letters within parentheses are elements of respective sets. In the first grouping
there is no common element. Now, consider following groupings.
2) S = {a,b,c,d,e,f}, P = {a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i}
3) S = {a,b,c,d,e,f}, P = {b,c,d,g,h}
4) S = {a,b,c,d,e,f}, S* = {a,b,c}, P = {m,n,g,h}
5) S = {a,b,c,d,e}, P = {a,b,c,d,e}
Fifth group is unique in the sense that these two sets possess exactly the same
elements. Therefore the magnitude of these sets also remains the same. Such sets
are called identical sets. Identity of elements and also the equality of magnitude
make sets identical. In 1908, Zermelo proposed what is called ‘Axiomatic Set
10 Theory’. One of the principal axioms of this theory is known as the Axiom of
Extension or Extensionality. This Axiom helps us to understand the structure of Types of Categorical
identical sets. This theory was modified later by A Fraenkal and T. Skolem. Let us Propositions: A,E,I,O and
call this theory Zermelo – Fraenkel – Skolen theory (ZFS theory). This theory
states the above mentioned axiom as follows.
ZFS1: If a and b are non-null sets and if, for all x, x ∈ a iff x ∈ b, then a ≡ b
[Note ‘∈’ is read ‘element of’; ‘iff’ is read ‘if and only if’ and ‘≡’ is read identical.]
Symbolically, it is represented as follows:
{Sa ^ Sb} ^ { x (∀x ∈ A <=> x ∈ b) => a ≡ b
This is the way to read:
Sa = a is a set
^ = and
∀ = for all values of
<=> = if and only if
=> = if …then
The summary of this formula is very simple. Whatever description applies to S
(here a) also applies to P (here b). When distribution of terms is examined, the
magnitude and elements of sets also are examined. Therefore it is wrong to assert
that when S and P are identical sets, P is undistributed in A. Let us designate this
type of proposition as A+ (read A cross). Consider these two propositions:
7 All bachelors are unmarried men. (BAU)
8 All spinsters are unmarried women. (SAU)
Knowledge of English is enough to accept that B ≡ U and S ≡ U
These five groups are explained in terms of set theory. First group corresponds to
‘E’ whereas second, third, fourth and fifth groups correspond respectively to A, I,
O and A+. A brief description will suffice. It is obvious that the first group differs
from all other groups because in this group nothing is common to ‘S’ and ‘P’.
S = {a,b,c,d,e,f}
P = {g,h,I,j,k}
No element of P is an element of S and no element of S is an element of P. The
reader must be in a position to notice that there is symmetric difference between S
and P (What we have in this case is, evidently, difference and nothing else), symbolized
by:
S Δ P (‘Δ
Δ’ reads del)
The second group corresponds to A. Here S is a proper subset of P or P includes S,
which is symbolized as follows:
S ⊂ P or P ⊃ S
The third group corresponds to ‘I’. Here S and P intersect. So we have
S ∩ P = {b,c,d}
11
Classical Logic ∩ reads ‘intersect’)
(∩
Before we consider the fourth group, let us directly proceed to Euler’s diagrams
through which he represented the extension – status of terms in proposition.
1) SAP
a,b,c,
S = {a,b,c,d,e,f}
S d,e,f P = {a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i}
∴ S ⊂ P or P ⊃ S
g,h,i P
2) SEP
S = {a,b,c,d,e,f}
S a,b,c, g,h, P P = {g,h,i,j,k}
d,e,f I,j,k
∴SΔP
3) SIP
S = {a,b,c,d,e,f}
S a b g P P = {b,c,d,g,h,i}
e c h
∩P = {b,c,d}
∴ S∩
f d i
4) SOP
m P
S* a S* = {a,b,c}
n
b s
g P = {m,n,g,h}
c h
Now we are in a position to examine the fourth group. It requires a little explication
to understand the status of O with regard to distribution. In this instance S* is
incomplete, i.e., undistributed and P is completely excluded by S*. It shows that P
is distributed. Let us see how this happens.
1) Let S = {a,b,c,d,e,f}
2) Let S* = {a,b,c}; there is no information on d, e and f.
3) S*⊆S or (S* ≥ S); S* is smaller than or equal to S. It also means that S* is

only a subset, not a proper subset, of S.
12
4) Let S - S* = S** (S** ≥ Φ) or S = S* + S** Types of Categorical
Propositions: A,E,I,O and
‘ Φ’ reads phi which stands for null set. Square of Opposition
5) S** ⊆ P
6) S* || S**Φ || means that elements of subsets S* and S** are different.
∴ S* || P
∴ Elements of S* and P are different.
John Venn followed a very different method. We shall begin with this proposition.
9 All rabbits are herbivorous - RAH.
Since rabbits are animals, the universe of discourse is, obviously, 'animals'. Venn
represents the universe of discourse with a rectangle. If rabbits are the elements of
the set R, then all other animals than rabbits constitute the complement of the set R.
Complement of R is represented by R and the same explanation holds good for all
classes. Now a new term is introduced, viz., 'product class'. Any product class is
an intersection of two or more than two sets (as far as logic is concerned, the number
is restricted to three). {RH} is the product class of R and H. Such product classes
may or may not be null sets. But {R R }, {H H } (for example, the set of animals
which are rabbits and other than rabbits at the same time) are invariably null sets.
When there are two terms, we get four product classes, which are as follows.
1) { RH} Set of rabbits, which are herbivorous.

2) { RH} Set of rabbits, which are not herbivorous.
3) { RH} Set of animals other than rabbits, which are herbivorous.
4) { RH} Set of animals which are neither rabbits nor herbivorous.
It is pertinent to note that if there are three terms, then there are not six product
classes, but eight product classes. If x is the number of terms, then 2x is the number
of product classes. Now the time is ripe to introduce Venn's diagrams.
13
Classical Logic The statement (proposition is also called statement), 'All rabbits are herbivorous',
does not really mean that there are rabbits and all those rabbits are herbivorous. On
the other hand, the statement really means that if there are rabbits, then, they are
herbivorous. Clearly, it means that in the set of non-herbivorous not a single rabbit
can be found. Therefore is a null set. Similarly, the statement 'No rabbits are
herbivorous' - (REH) indicates that in the set of herbivorous not a single rabbit can
be found. Therefore {RH} is a null set. In Figures 1 and 2, those parts of the circle
or circles which represent null sets are shaded. RAH and REH only demonstrate
that there are null sets, but they are silent on non-null sets. Therefore an important
conclusion is imminent; universal propositions do not carry existential import.
It is widely held that all scientific laws are universal. An important fall-out of this
assumption is that if universal propositions do not carry existential import, then it
also means that scientific laws do not carry existential import in which case they
apply only to non-existing entities. Therefore all physical objects only approximate
to these laws. A scientific law, when stated in absolute terms, has to be construed as
a limiting point.
The case of particular proposition is different. The statement 'Some rabbits are
herbivorous - RIH' is true only when 'there exists at least one rabbit which is
herbivorous, not otherwise. Therefore the product class {RH} is a non-null set.
On the same lines, it can be easily shown that ROH shows that {RH} is also a non-
null set. Therefore particular propositions carry existential import.
Let us proceed on a different line. Verbal description makes room for symbolic
representation because this method proves to be a boon at a later stage.
RAH: ( ∀ x) {x ∈ R) => (x ∈ H)}

REH: ( ∀ x) {x ∈ R) => (x ∉ H)} ∉ is read 'not an element of'
RIH: ( ∃ x) ∋{(x ∈ R) (x ∈ H)} ∃x is read 'there exists at least one x;∋ is read
'such that'.
ROH: ( ∃x) ∋ {(x ∈ R) (x ∉ H)}
∀ is known as universal quantifier and ∃ is known as existential quantifier. (x) can

also be used in place of ( ∀x).
1.6 SQUARE OF OPPOSITION

This is one type of immediate inference because in this type of inference conclusion
is drawn from one premise only. Eduction is another word used for immediate
inference Opposition is a kind of logical relation wherein propositions 'stand against'
one another in terms of truth-value when they have the same subject and the same
predicate, but differ in quantity or quality or both. Traditional logic called this relation
square of opposition because these relations are represented by a square. Four
such relations are discussed in Aristotelian system.
1) Contradiction: When two propositions differ in both 'quantity' and 'quality', the
relation is called contradiction, e.g. 'All men are wise' (A) - 'Some men are not
wise' (O). It is the most complete form of logical opposition because they are
neither true nor false together. If one is true, the other is necessarily false and
vice versa. This sort of self - contradiction is due to incompatibility between
respective statements. Similarly, the statements, 'No men are wise' (E) - 'Some
14 men are wise' (I) are contradictory.
2) Contrariety: When two universal propositions differ only in 'quality', the opposition Types of Categorical
is called contrary; e.g. 'All men are wise' (A) - 'No men are wise' (E). By Propositions: A,E,I,O and
definition, both contraries can be false - precisely as in the example given - but
they cannot be true at the same time. If one of them is true, the other must
necessarily be false, but if one is false, the other may be true or false. One kind
of proposition called singular proposition (also called simple), whose S is proper
name, has no contrary and its contradiction differs only in quality. One example
is 'Jo is bad - Jo is not bad'. Another example is 'The author of Hamlet, is an
Englishman and 'The author of Hamlet' is not an Englishman.
3) Subcontrariety: When two particular propositions differ only in 'quality', the
opposition is called subcontrariety. E.g. 'Some men are wise' (I) - 'Some men
are not wise' (O). Subcontrary propositions can be true together - as in the
example given, but they cannot be false at the same time. If one of them is true,
the other may be true or false, but if one of them is false, the other must necessarily
be true. The inverse order of 'contrary' and 'subcontrary' propositions is evident.
4) Subalternation: When two propositions differ only in 'quantity' (one is universal
and the other is particular), the opposition is called subalternation, e.g. 'All men
are wise' (A) - 'Some men are wise' (I). Notice that 'subaltern' propositions can
be true together or false together. And this is to say that though from the truth of
the universal, one can infer the truth of the particular the reverse order does not
hold, namely that from the truth of the particular, one cannot infer the truth of the
universal. On the other hand, though from the falsity of the particular, one can
infer the falsity of the universal, one cannot infer the falsity of the particular from
the falsity of the universal.
This type of relation is expressed in the form of a square.
The following two schemes and one diagram offer visual aid to retain more easily in
mind what we have just said about the 'opposition' of propositions:
For the sake of simplicity the truth - relation which holds good between various
relations is provided in a nutshell.
Inferences in Subalternation
From truth of universal → truth of particular
From truth of particular /→ truth of universal
15
Classical Logic From falsity of particular → falsity of universal
From falsity of universal /→ falsity of particular
→ : Can infer
→ : Cannot infer
/→
II) Mnemonic Device for remembering the Square of Opposition (Lander
University, Greenwood).
A) If you picture God at the top of the square of opposition and the Devil at the
bottom of the square and remember the phrase 'both cannot be ...' for contraries
and subcontraries, the following mnemonic device might be helpful.
B) The big 'X' across the center of the Square represents contradictories with
opposite truth - values. This should be very easy to remember.
C) Since God (or truth) is at the top of the diagram, both contraries 'cannot be
true.'
D) Since the Devil (or falsity) is at the bottom of the diagram, both subcontraries
'cannot be false'.
E) With subalternation, God can send truth down, but we cannot know what it
means for God to send falsity down (hence this would be indeterminate).
But, the Devil can send falsity up (since this is what Devils are good at), and we
cannot know what it means for the Devil to send truth up. So this relation is
indeterminate.
III) 'Bouncing Around the Square of Opposition.'
Suppose we know that O (Some S is not P) is false. In how many ways can we
determine the truth - value of I ('Some S is P')?
There are four ways of determining the truth-value. These four ways consist in
travelling between different points (here the propositions are points). The four routes
are as follows.
(Notice that we could set an itinerary of our journey along the selected four routes.
The 'reason,' given below, is, so to speak, our 'inference ticket' for travel Cf. Lander
University, Greenwood).
Originating Point Through Terminating Point
1) SOP Direct SIP
2) SOP SEP SIP
3) SOP SAP to SEP SIP
4) SOP SEP and SAP SIP
A 3 E
4 2
I 1 O
Route 1: O to I
16
Statement of Reason Truth -Value Types of Categorical
1) Some S is not P. Given false Square of Opposition
2) Some S is P. subcontrariety true
Route 2: O to I through E
Statement Reason Truth - Value
1) Some S is not P. given false
2) No S is P. subalternation false
3) Some S is P. contradictory true
Route 3: O to I through A and E
Statement Reason Truth - Value
2) All S is P. contradictory true
3) No S is P. contrariety false
4) Some S is P. contradictory true
One would think that if our logic were consistent, all possible routes from the false O
to I would result in a false truth - value for the I. But consider the following case--
Route 4.
Route 4: O to I through E and A
Statement Reason Truth -Value
2) No S is P. subalternation false
3) All S is P. contrariety indeterminate
4) Some S is P. subalternation indeterminate
Variance of truth-value in the fourth instance of I proposition indicates a hidden part
of the nature of immediate inferences. There is no technique to determine the truth-
value of the conclusion when the premise is indeterminate. The logical relations involve
deduction but not reflection. Change in quantity or quality affects logical force. The
logical force, consequently, differs from one proposition to another. Further, the
truth - value of the conclusion depends upon the logical force of the given proposition.
These factors explain variance in truth - value in the above mentioned instance.
Traditional logic ignored asymmetry involved in universal - particular relation which
was pointed out by Susan Stebbing. On this ground, she replaced square by a
figure:
17
Classical Logic Gaps at four corners point to asymmetry in this interpretation. The truth of A (or E)
implies the truth of I (or O), but the reverse order does not hold good. On the other
hand, the falsity of I (or O) implies the falsity of A (or E), but the reverse order does
not hold good. This is what precisely asymmetry is. These gaps, distinct lines for
superaltern and subaltern relations and unequal lines make this figure of opposition.
At this stage, it is important to become familiar with two other types of relation
called conversion and obversion. They are also known as equivalent relation because
the truth-value of both the premise and the conclusion remains the same, i.e. if the
premise is true, the conclusion is true and if the premise is false, the conclusion is
also false. When there is a change in the structure of sentences, on some occasions
meaning remains unchanged. It only means that the very same information is provided
in different ways. Recognition of this simple fact helps us in testing accurately the
validity of arguments and also in avoiding confusions. There are two primary forms
of equivalent relation; conversion and obversion. The conclusion in conversion is
called converse and in obversion obverse. The processes of conversion and obversion
are quite simple. These operations deserve a close scrutiny.
Conversion: This is governed by three laws.
1st Law: S and P must be transposed.
After transposition P becomes subject and S becomes predicate. This is the 1st
stage.
2nd Law: Quality of propositions should remain constant. If the premise is affirmative,
the conclusion must be affirmative. If the premise is negative, the conclusion must
be negative.
3rd Law: A term, which is undistributed in the premise, should remain undistributed in
the conclusion. It can be stated in another way also. A term can be distributed in the
conclusion only if it is distributed in the premise. However, a term, which is distributed
in the premise, may or may not be distributed in the conclusion. The following examples
illustrate these rules.
10) All philosophers are kings PAK
Converse: ∴ Some kings are philosophers. KIP
11) No vegetables are harmful. VEH
Converse: ∴ No harmful things are vegetables. HEV
12) Some women are talkative. WIT
Converse: ∴ Some talkative people are women. TIW
There are three aspects to be noted. Conversion of A is conversion by limitation
because the quantity is reduced from universal to particular after conversion. Secondly,
conversion of E and I is simple because in these cases S and P are just transposed
and no other change takes place. Thirdly, while A, E and I have conversion, O does
not have conversion. What happens when A undergoes simple conversion and O is
converted? In these cases conversion leads to a fallacy called fallacy of illicit
conversion. Fallacy in formal logic arises when a rule is violated. In both these cases
conversion violates a rule or rules.
Consider these statements.
13) All Europeans are white.
∴ All white people are Europeans.
18
14) Some gods are not powerful. Types of Categorical
∴ Some powerful beings are not gods. Square of Opposition
Conversion in these two cases is invalid because the terms, 'white' and 'gods' are
distributed in the respective conclusions while they are undistributed in the respective
premises. This type of conversion violates the third law. The terms 'white' and
'gods' remain undistributed in the premises since the former is the predicate of an
affirmative premise while the latter is the subject of a particular premise. If we
obtain affirmative converse from a negative premise in order to undistibute predicate
term, then we violate the second law of conversion. It only means that when A
undergoes simple conversion and when O is converted, in the case of A the third law
is violated and in the case of O second or third law of conversion, as the case may
be is violated. Therefore A becomes I after conversion and 'O' has no conversion.
Obversion: This is one technique of preserving the meaning of a statement after
effecting change of quality. The procedure is very simple; change the quality of the
premise and simultaneously replace the predicate by its complementary. We apply
this law to the premises (A, E, I, and O) to obtain the conclusions. The conclusion is
called obversion.
15) All players are experts. PAE
∴ No players are non-experts. PEE
16) No musicians are novelists. MEN
∴ All musicians are non-novelists. MAN
17) Some scholars are women. SIW
∴ Some scholars are not non-women. SOW
18) Some strangers are not helpful. SO H
∴ Some stranger are non-helpful. SIH
Check Your Progress II
Note: Use the space provided for your answers.
1) Give symbolic representation of propositions? What do the symbols stand for?
....................................................................................................................
....................................................................................................................
....................................................................................................................
....................................................................................................................
....................................................................................................................
2) Determine all possible product classes of the following terms and their
complements.
....................................................................................................................
....................................................................................................................
....................................................................................................................
....................................................................................................................
....................................................................................................................
19
Classical Logic a) players and experts b) philosophers and kings c) fruits and vegetables d)
actors and directors
1.7 LET US SUM UP

The basic units of argument are terms and proposition. All words are not terms; all
terms are words. All sentences are not propositions; all propositions are sentences.
Subject and predicate are the constituents of categorical proposition according to
Aristotle. There are four kinds of categorical proposition. Distribution of a term
means total extension. Euler and Venn interpreted distribution diagrammatically.
Square of opposition, conversion and obversion are three kinds of immediate
inference.
1.8 KEY WORDS

Supposition : A ‘supposition’ of a word is the function or the use
of a word has in a presupposition depending on
the intention of the speaker.
Term : Any word or group of words that stands for the
subject or the predicate of a proposition.
Proposition : A statement affirming or denying something of
somebody.
Categorical proposition : It is a proposition in which the predicate is affirmed
or denied unconditionally of all or part of the
subject.
Copula : A ‘copula’ joins the subject and the predicate of
the preposition. Normally it is the verb ‘is’ or ‘is
not’.
1.9 FURTHER READINGS AND REFERENCES

Azzopardi, Salvino. Logic. Pune: Jnana Deepa Vidyapeeth, [1981].
Copi, Irving M., and Carl Cohen. Logic. 10th ed. New Jersy, 1998.
Copi, Irving M., and Carl Cohen. Essentials of Logic. 2nd ed. Upper Saddle
River, N.J.: Pearson Prentice Hall, 2007.
‘Introduction to Logic,’ University of Lander, http://philosophy.lander.edu/logic
index.html, accessed July, 2010.
Priest, Graham. Logic: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford: OUP, 2001.
Shand, John. Arguing Well. London. Routledge, 2000.
Zegarelli, Mark. Logic For Dummies. New York: Wiley, John & Sons, Incorporated,
2006.
20
UNIT 2 CATEGORICAL SYLLOGISM Propositions: A,E,I,O and
Contents:
2.0 Objectives
2.1 Introduction
2.2 Reason and Inference: Meaning and Objections
2.3 Kinds of Inference
2.4 Deductive Reasoning and Syllogism
2.5 Kinds of Syllogism
2.6 Let Us Sum Up
2.7 Key Words
2.0 OBJECTIVES
This unit introduces you to the essence of Aristotelian logic. Since syllogism is the
most important form of inference, you ought to have a background of the nature
of inference and various issues associated with it. One objective of this unit is to
give a brief explanation of the nature of deductive inference and contrast it with
inductive inference. Another objective is to analyze different kinds of syllogism to
enable you to understand variety in syllogism.
2.1 INTRODUCTION
Categorical syllogism is the essence of traditional logic. This form of inference is
called mediate inference because the conclusion is drawn from two premises. Further,
this is called categorical because all propositions involved are categorical. Since
syllogistic inference is nearly identical with deductive inference, an exhaustive analysis
of inference is required as a prelude to a proper understanding of syllogism.
2.2 REASON AND INFERENCE: MEANING AND

OBJECTIONS
Reasoning consists, essentially, in the employment of intellect, in its ability to ‘see’
beyond, and within as well, what is available to senses. Reasoning, therefore, is a
sort of bridge which connects ‘unknown’ with ‘known’. While reasoning is regarded
so, inference is regarded as the process involved in extracting what is unknown
from what is known. Reasoning is essentially a psychological process which is,
undoubtedly, not the concern of logic. Therefore some logicians thought it proper to
replace reasoning with inference. However, this replacement did not improve matters
much. The reason is obvious. If all human beings stop thinking, then there will be
nothing like inference. This dependence shows that inference is as much a
psychological activity as reasoning is. What is psychological is necessarily subjective.
Logic, in virtue of its close association with knowledge, has nothing to do with
anything that is subjective. Therefore it was imperative for logicians to discover an
escape route.
21
Classical Logic Cohen and Nagel for this particular reason chose to use ‘implication’ instead of
‘inference’. The difference in kind can be understood easily when we look at the
usage. Statements always ‘imply’ but do not ‘infer’. Therefore implication is in the
nature of relation between statements. On the other hand, I ‘infer’, but I do not
‘imply’. This clearly shows that inference is an activity of mind. Salmon fell in line
with Cohen and Nagel when he said that the very possibility of inference depends
upon reasoning. Despite the fact that inference is subjective, logicians like Copi,
Carnap, Russell, etc., chose to retain the word inference. But, all along, they only
meant implication. Therefore keeping these restrictions in our mind let us use freely
the word ‘inference’.
Though the use of the word ‘reason’ is not much rewarding, the word
‘reasonableness’ has some weight. We often talk about reasonableness of the
conclusion. In this context reasonableness means ‘grounds of acceptability’. Surely,
in this restricted sense, reasonableness is objective just as inference is.
2.3 KINDS OF INFERENCE

In a broad sense, there are two kinds of inference; deductive and inductive. Deductive
inference regards the form or structure as primary and therefore it is called formal
logic (inference and logic are interchangeable). It remains to be seen what form
means. Inductive logic regards matter or content of argument as primary. Some
logicians, like Cohen and Nagel, did not regard induction as logic at all. Without
considering the merits and demerits of their arguments, let us consider briefly the
characteristics of these two kinds.
Our study of formal logic begins with the distinction between truth and falsehood on
the one hand, and validity and invalidity on the other. This particular distinction is
very prominent. Only statements are true (or false) whereas only arguments are
valid (or invalid). This distinction will take us to this table.
Table 1:
Statements Arguments
1) True Valid
2) True Invalid
3) False Valid
4) False Invalid
This table helps us to understand the following possibility. a) A valid argument (1 and
3) may consist of completely true statements or completely false statements. b) An
invalid argument (2 and 4), similarly, may consist of statements in exactly the same
manner mentioned above. It shows that truth and validity, on the one hand, and
falsity and invalidity, on the other, do not coincide always. Similarly, we have to
distinguish between material truth and logical truth. Material truth is what characterizes
matter of fact. Logical truth is determined by the structure of argument. We shall
consider examples which correspond to four combinations (see table1). Let us call
premises p1, p2, etc. and conclusion q.
Arg1:
p1 : No foreigners are voters.
p2 : All Europeans are foreigners.
q : ∴No Europeans are voters.
22
Arg2: Categorical Syllogism
p1 : Some poets are literary figures.

p2 : All play writers are literary figures.
q : ∴Some play writers are poets.
Arg3:
p1 : All politicians are ministers.
p2 : Medha Patkar is a politician.
q : ∴Medha Patkar is a minister.
Arg4:
p1 : 3 is the cube root of 27.
p2 : 27 is the cube root of 729.
q : ∴ 3 is the cube root of 729.
These four arguments apply to arguments 1, 2, 3, and 4 of Table 1 respectively.
First and third arguments have a definite structure in virtue of which they are held to
be valid. Second and fourth arguments have a different structure which makes them
invalid. When an argument is valid, the premise or premises imply the conclusion. If
there is no implication, then the argument is invalid. Validity is governed by a certain
rule which is represented in a tabular form. [Let us designate ‘true’ by ‘1’ and ‘false’
by ‘0’ as a matter convention].
p q
1) T(1) T(1) Valid
2) F(0) F(0) Valid
3) F(0) T(1) Valid
4) T(1) F(0) Invalid
We can also say that the premises necessitate the conclusion and when they necessitate
the conclusion there is implication. In this case, necessity is of a particular kind, viz.,
logical necessity. Therefore, when there is implication, conclusion is necessarily true
and vice versa. Very often, deductive logic is identified with mathematical model. It
is generally admitted that in both these disciplines information provided by the
conclusion is the same as the one provided by the premises. It means that both are
characterized by material identity. Deductive logic, therefore, is an example for
tautology. This characterization is highly significant and is in need of some elaboration.
If, one can ask, the conclusion does not go beyond premises (it may go below or
well within) and no new information is acquired in the process, then why argue and
what is the use of arguments? The answer is very simple. Knowledge is not the same
as mere acquisition of information. In other words novelty is not a measure of
knowledge. The legend is that Socrates extracted a geometrical theorem from a
slave purported to be totally ignorant of mathematics. The moral is that knowledge
is within, not in the sense in which brain or liver is within. Knowledge is the outcome
of critical attitude. It is discovered, not invented and so goes an ancient Indian maxim:
eliminate ignorance and become enlightened. If what is said is not clear, then consider
this path. Deductive argument helps us to know what is latent in the premises, i.e.,
the meaning of the premises. It is an excursion into the analysis of their meaning or
meanings. And the conclusion is an expression of the same. If so, it is easy to see 23
Classical Logic how the denial of the conclusion in such a case amounts to denying the meaning or
meanings of the premises which were accepted earlier. What is called self-contradiction
is exactly the same as the combination of the denial of the conclusion and the
acceptance of the premises. Therefore we say that a valid deductive argument is
characterized by logical necessity. If so a deductive argument is always true. This is
the meaning of tautology.
At this stage, two terms are introduced: analytic and a priori. Consider this example:
‘all men with no hair on their heads are bald’. We know that this statement is true in
virtue of the meaning of the word ‘bald’; not otherwise. Such a statement is called
analytic. In such statements the predicate term (here ‘bald’) is contained in the subject
term (here ‘men with no hair on their heads’). Knowledge obtained from an analytic
statement is necessarily a priori, meaning knowledge prior to sense experience. In
philosophical parlance, all analytic statements are necessarily a priori. Deductive
logic provides knowledge a priori, though the premises and the conclusion considered
independently are not analytic. It is the knowledge of the relation between the premises
and the conclusion which is a priori. Therefore deductive argument and analytic
statement share a common characteristic; in both the cases the denial leads to self-
contradiction.
How can we say that deductive logic provides a priori knowledge? Consider an
example.
Arg. 5: All saints are pious.
All philosophers are saints.
∴All philosophers are pious.
Evidently, there is no need to examine saints and philosophers to know that the
conclusion is true. Indeed, it is not even necessary that there should be saints who
are pious as well as philosophers. This being the case, arg. 5 takes the following
form without leading to any distortion of meaning.
Arg. 5a: If all saints are pious and all philosophers are saints, then all philosophers
are pious.
The argument is transformed into a statement which involves relation. Implication
(the present relation is one such) is such that without the aid of sense experience, but
with the laws of formal logic alone, it enables us to derive the conclusion. Thus like
an analytic statement, a valid deductive argument provides a priori knowledge and
hence it is devoid of novelty. It is this sort of relation that precisely describes the
relation between the premises and the conclusion in deductive inference. This does
not mean that deductive argument is absolutely certain. This is because necessity is
a logical property whereas certainty is a psychological state. The former is objective
and the latter is subjective.
When sense experience takes back seat, reason becomes the prime means of
acquiring knowledge. Following the footsteps of Descartes, who is regarded as the
father of rationalism, we can conclude, somewhat loosely, that deductive logic is
rational. So we have sketched three characteristics; logical necessity, a priori and
rational. There is a thread which runs through these characteristics. Therefore one
character presupposes another.
Deductive argument is characterized by qualitative difference in opposition to
quantitative difference, i.e. the difference between valid and invalid arguments is
24 only in kind but not in degree. Further, validity is not a matter of degree. Let us make
matters clear: a valid argument cannot become more valid in virtue of the addition of Categorical Syllogism
premise or premises. On the other hand, if any one premise is taken out of a valid
argument, then the argument does not become ‘less valid’; it simply becomes invalid.
So an argument is either valid or invalid. A valid argument is always satiated. In other
words, the premises in a valid argument constitute the necessary and sufficient
conditions to accept the conclusion. An argument is invalid due to a ‘missing link’ in
the class of premises. Deductive argument, therefore, is regarded as demonstrative
argument. Acceptance of premises leaves no room for any reasonable or meaningful
doubt.
We have learnt that validity is an important facet of deductive logic. Any account of
validity is incomplete without considering Strawson’s analysis of the nature of
deductive logic. Strawson lists three aspects of formal logic: generality, form and
system. Generality is distinguishable, clearly, from matter. Generality means that
individual is not the subject matter of logic. Formal logic concerns only with the
relation between statements, but not objects. It is futile to embark upon a study
involving objects because such a study has only beginning but no end. Consider two
examples,
Arg. 6:
p1 : The author of Abhijnana Shakuntala was in the court of king Bhoja.
p2 : Kalidasa is the author of Abhijnana Shakuntala.
q : ∴Kalidasa was in the court of king Bhoja.
Arg. 7:
p1 : The author of Monadology was in the court of the queen of Prussia.
p2 : Leibniz is the author of Monadology.
q : ∴Leibniz was in the court of the queen of Prussia.
It is easy to decide prima facie that the structure of these arguments is identical. The
difference consists in subject matter only and it is possible to construct, at least
theoretically, countless arguments having an identical structure. Obviously, this is not
a profitable exercise. The essence of formal logic consists in saying that p1 & p2
together imply q or that q follows from or entails p1 and p2 together. Only implication
and entailment are relevant here. Strawson has made this aspect very clear. Implication
or entailment is independent of subject matter. Therefore it is impossible to identify
the subject matter in virtue of recognition of implication. This point can be further
clarified with the help of variables. Let us represent Abhijnana Shakunthala or
Monadology with x, Kalidasa or Leibniz with y and queen of Prussia or King Bhoja
with z. Now the argument takes this form.
Arg 7a : p1 : The author of x was in the court of z.
p2 : y is the author of x.
q : ∴y was in the court of z.
In this particular context, without knowing the contents of x, y, and z we can know
that p1 and p2 together imply q. Therefore it is possible to determine the validity or
invalidity of an argument without knowing the contents of the argument.
Let us call such forms logical forms. A logical form has two components: variables
and constants. x, y, z etc are variables. In the case of categorical proposition the
words all, some, no and not are constants. In the final analysis, the structure of an 25
Classical Logic argument is determined by constants, but not variables. The dependence of the laws
of an argument on constants is illustrated in this way. In life science the classification
of animals is an important topic. The anatomical features of birds and aquatic creatures
differ and there is difference in the function of those organs. Just as birds have some
organs in common, aquatic creatures have certain other organs in common. These
common organs correspond to constants and individual creatures correspond to
variables. Similarly, every class of argument has definite constants. Just as the structure
of birds is different from the structure of aquatic creatures, the structure of one class
of arguments is different from the structure of some other class of arguments. The
laws which explain the function of the organs of birds are different from the laws
which explain the function of the organs of aquatic creatures. Similarly, in the case of
arguments when the structure of an argument differs from that of another, the
corresponding laws also differ from one another.
Integration of rules is another characteristic of formal logic. The structures of argument
and rules are mutually dependent. If it is possible to decide the structure of an argument
and also different classes of arguments, then is possible to achieve what is called
formalization or systematization because formalization enables us to make a complete
list of rules and also classify them so as to correlate them with respective arguments..
On the contrary, induction, in the first place, stands for any non-demonstrative
argument where the premises, irrespective of their number, do not and cannot constitute
conclusive evidences for the conclusion. The word ‘induction’ is the translation of
what Aristotle called ‘epagoge’. C.S. Peirce used the term ‘ampliative’ for epagoge
because in this type of argument the conclusion always goes beyond the premises
and the premises offer, at best, reasonable grounds to ‘believe’ such conclusion.
Belief is not the same as proof, a distinction which was, more often than not,
completely ignored by the protagonists of induction. Nor is it a measure of proof.
This is one difference. Secondly, uncertainty and sense experience characterize
inductive argument. Let us consider the latter first. Inductive inference begins with
sense experience. The premises, therefore, can be called ‘observation-statements’
which directly result from experience. However, the conclusion is not an observation-
statement because it overshoots the material provided by observation– statements,
which is why they cannot justify the conclusion. No matter how many black crows
I have seen, they cannot prove that ‘all crows are black.’
At the stage, it is necessary to dispel a widespread and deep-rooted misconception.
It is claimed erroneously that inductive argument always produces universal statement.
On the contrary, what it provides is a statement which simply depends upon experience
for further verification, but in itself is not an experiential statement. On some occasions,
experience vouches for the conclusion, but on some other occasions, it does not.
For example, considering the fact that, today I observed 5384 black crows, I may
conclude that ‘tomorrow I will observe the same number of black crows’. This type
of conclusion is characterized by a sort of leap, leap from ‘observed to unobserved
or unobservable’. This is called inductive leap or simply generalization. But this is
not a universal statement as understood by traditional logic. It shows that induction
is just inconceivable in the absence of generalization though universal proposition is
not necessary for an inference to become inductive. It is possible to construct a
universal statement within the limits of sense experience without involving
generalization, for example, when I conclude after close scrutiny that every book in
the library is a hardback edition. This has nothing to do with induction. Therefore
inductive inference may or may not yield universal proposition though it has to yield
necessarily generalization.
26
The examples considered above are future-oriented and in principle, they are Categorical Syllogism
verifiable. However, inductive inference need not be so always. It can also be past-
oriented which is surely, ‘unverifiable’. History, Anthropology, Geology, etc. consist
of arguments which are past-oriented. But the mechanism, involved in both the cases
is exactly the same. Therefore the prime characteristic of induction is that the
conclusion does not necessarily follow from the premises and that experience precedes
inference which means that inductive inference is dubitable and a posteriori. Whatever
knowledge we acquire ‘after experience’, or whatever depends upon experience is
called a posteriori as opposed to a priori.
Uncertainty or dubious nature and a posteriori knowledge provided by inductive
logic entitle it to be called empirical- again loosely- a characteristic disputed by
Popper. The uncertainty of inductive conclusion brought in another term basic to the
philosophy of science, viz. ‘probability’. According to some inductivists all inductive
conclusions are only probable. It is important to distinguish validity and probability.
As mentioned earlier, validity is not a matter of degree, whereas probability is a
matter of degree. Therefore an inductive inference may be less probable or highly
probable.
2.4 DEDUCTIVE REASONING AND SYLLOGISM

In Aristotelian sense, syllogism is the kind of logical form to which every deductive
inference is reducible. On most of the occasions, when people reason, they reason
in methods in which some logical pattern runs as undercurrent. It is only logicians
who discover these undercurrents because they are capable of critical examination
of these undercurrents. The so-called logical pattern is extracted from a lay-man’s
method. A system is evolved by formalizing apparently disparate arguments. The
difference in these methods is clearly perceptible. The difference is that a logician
determines the standard-form which such argument or arguments take whereas a
lay-man is unaware of such standard-form. A logician’s method generalizes various
arguments and it helps in discovering the common form to which all such arguments
subscribe. It is important remember that the process of generalization is an important
characteristic of formal logic. Otherwise, logic will be looked upon as a mere rhetoric
and therefore with no practical value. If this is the way logic is evaluated, then anyone
will conclude that it is far removed from the way people, as a matter of fact, talk and
argue which is, no doubt, far from truth.
Logical analysis of syllogism
To make clear what we have just said, let us contrast these methods.
A) Lay-man’s method: ‘Does God exist? Of course, he does not! No one has
ever seen him, heard him, talked to him; has any one?’
B) Logician’s method:
Arg. 8: All bodies which exist are perceivable. BAP
God is not perceivable. GEP
∴ God is not a body which exists. ∴G E B
A) Lay-man’s method: ‘Was the Neanderthal a man? Yes he was. In fact we have
proof to assert that he made tools, could paint, lived in groups etc.’
B) Logician’s method:
27
Classical Logic Arg. 9: All beings who make tools, can paint,
live in groups, etc. are men. BAM
The Neanderthal was a being who made tools,
could paint, lived in groups, etc. NAB
∴The Neanderthal was a man. NAM
What do we notice in these arguments? We notice that these arguments consist of
three propositions (each with an S and a P). The statement to be proved is found in
the last place in logical sense, and hence its technical name is ‘conclusion’; the
other two propositions function as reasons. Hence their logical name is ‘premise’.
Premises are found at the very beginning, again in logical sense. The order of the
statements, therefore, is immaterial. Suppose that the conclusion appears at the end,
as it happens generally. Then the conclusion is immediately preceded by words like
therefore, as a result, hence, consequently, etc. It indicates that the ‘consequentia’
(the inference itself, as distinct from the ‘consequence’ which is another word for
‘conclusion’) is valid. The conclusion can as well appear at the very beginning in
which case it is immediately succeeded by words like because, for etc. Any of
these words in italics functions as a bridge connecting the premises with the conclusion.
Further, we notice that at least one evidence is in the form of general principle which
is invariably a universal proposition (‘For somebody to exist….. in the first example
and ‘A man is one…’ in the second example) and also that it is applied it to a
particular case. Consequently, syllogism is invalid in the absence of universal
proposition.
A close look at arguments considered above reveals an interesting aspect. Though
there are three propositions, there are only three terms. Each term occurs twice in
the arguments. These terms are named as follows. S and P of the conclusion are
called the minor term (S) (or simply minor) and major term (P) (or simply major)
respectively. The premise in which the minor occurs is called the minor premise and
the premise in which the major occurs is called the major premise. One term is
common to both the premises. This is called the middle term (M). In the first example
‘God’ is minor , ‘bodies which exist’ is major and ‘perceivable’ is middle and in the
second example ‘Neanderthal’ is minor, ‘man’ is major and ‘beings who…groups’
is middle. Again, order of premises does not matter though, generally, major finds
the first place.
Aristotle had convincing reason to choose these names. While the major has maximum
extension, minor has minimum extension. The middle is so called because its extension
varies between the limits set by the minor and the major. Aristotle argued that our
inference proceeds from minor to major through middle. This explains the meaning
of mediate inference.

Note: Use the space for your answers.
1) Compare and contrast deduction and induction..
...........................................................................................................
...........................................................................................................
...........................................................................................................
...........................................................................................................
28
Categorical Syllogism
2) In a syllogism how do you relate the major, minor and middle terms?
...........................................................................................................
...........................................................................................................
...........................................................................................................
...........................................................................................................
...........................................................................................................
...........................................................................................................
2.5 KINDS OF SYLLOGISM

Syllogism is a class name with several subclasses. The classification is determined
by constants. The types of constants vary from one class of syllogism to another
class. Categorical syllogism is an important subclass. In this subclass propositions
with their constituent terms are variables and quality and quantity of propositions are
constants. Variables, i.e., propositions and their constituent terms do not determine
the logical status, i.e., validity or invalidity of arguments because change of propositions
does not affect the logical status as long as quality and quantity remain the same.
Only the latter determine the logical status of arguments. This is an important aspect
of formal logic. Let us first assume that every letter stands for a unique term and then
examine the following arguments.
1) Categorical syllogism:
10. All X are Y. 11. All P are Q. 12. All M are N.
All Y are Z. All Q are S. All N are O.
∴ All X are Z. ∴ All P are S. ∴ All M are O.
The logical status of 10, 11, and12 remains unchanged though terms differ. If terms
are different, then propositions also are different. In these arguments ‘All’ and ‘are’
are constants. Suppose that ‘All’ is replaced ‘No’ in both the premises of 10. Then
the argument becomes invalid though variables remain unchanged. Even when the
argument remains valid, its structure may vary. This will become evident in the
following example.
Arg.13: Some X are Y.
All Y are Z.
∴ Some X are Z.
The structure of 10 and 13 are different. It shows that the axioms which determine
the logical status of syllogism deal with quantity and quality of propositions and in
turn distribution of terms. ‘Some’ and ‘not’ are other constants. Constants mentioned
above determine the structure of categorical syllogism.
Before we turn to other subclass of syllogism called conditional syllogism we should
consider an important aspect. Modern logic makes a distinct classification of
propositions; simple, general and compound. If a grammatical sentence expresses
one and only one proposition, then it is simple. Categorical proposition is called
general in modern logic and conditional proposition, which is called compound in
modern logic, is a combination of two or more than two propositions of any kind.
29
Classical Logic Those propositions which constitute a compound proposition are components of
such proposition. Several propositions are compounded using constants. Each
constant determines the species which belongs to this subclass. Let us restrict ourselves
to conditional syllogism and postpone further discussion of categorical syllogism to
a later stage.
There are three kinds of conditional syllogisms which are discussed briefly.
2) Pure Hypothetical Syllogism (P. H. S.): In this subclass of syllogism all
propositions are hypothetical. They are called hypothetical because they express
a condition. The words if …. then constitute the condition and also constant
because in the absence of this particular constant the proposition ceases to be
hypothetical. The statement which appears immediately after if is called
antecedent and the statement which appears immediately after then is called
consequent. P. H. S. is governed by one rule which says that one statement
must be common to two premises. If quality is constant, then it should appear
in one premise as antecedent and in another as consequent. The common
statement can appear as antecedent in one and as consequent in another provided
it is affirmative in one and negative in another. In the latter case the conclusion
becomes negative.
P. H. S. is illustrated below.
Arg.14: If this party wins, then we shall have a good government. If A, then C.
If we shall have a good government, then we shall prosper. If C, then B.
∴Ιf this party wins, then we will prosper. ∴ If A, then B.
A and C constitute the components of the first premise, C and B constitute the
components of second and A and B constitute the components of the conclusion.
3) Mixed Hypothetical Syllogism (M. H. S.): If the major premise (usually
the first one) alone is hypothetical, then the syllogism is called M. H. S.. Second
premise and the conclusion are simple or general. M. H. S. is illustrated below.
Arg. 15: If I do my duty, then I shall be happy. If A, then B.
I do my duty. A
∴ I shall be happy. ∴B
In these kinds, there is no ‘middle term’. However, middle term is replaced by a
proposition which is common to both the premises. In 14 ‘we shall have a good
government’ is common to both the premises and in 15 ‘I do my duty’ is common to
both the premises. Hence we shall introduce a new word; middle proposition. An
important limitation should be noted at this stage itself. It is fallacious to affirm B, in
the minor premise instead of A and thereby affirm A in the conclusion instead of B. It
is a fallacy because it violates a rule of M. H. S. which states that antecedent and
consequent must be affirmed in the minor and the conclusion respectively. The only
legitimate alternative is to deny the consequent and the antecedent in the minor and
the conclusion respectively. In terms of prohibition it only means that the consequent
and the antecedent should not be affirmed in the minor and the conclusion respectively.
When antecedent and consequent are affirmed in the legitimate manner, the structure
(technically known as mood) of the argument is identified as Modus Ponendo Ponens
(in brief Modus Ponens). When the consequent and the antecedent are denied in
the minor and the conclusion respectively, then the structure is identified as Modus
Tollendo Tollens ( in brief Modus Tollens). When we undertake a study of symbolic
logic, we will come to know the importance of these moods which are called the
30 Rules of Inference. If antecedent is denied in the minor instead of affirming, then the
fallacy committed is called the fallacy of denying the antecedent. If the consequent Categorical Syllogism
is affirmed in the minor instead of denying, then the fallacy committed is called, the
fallacy of affirming the consequent. Modus Ponendo Ponens is illustrated by
Arg. 15: The rest of the structures (both valid and invalid) are given below.
Modus Tollendo Tollens
Arg. 16: If C, then D.
not-D
∴ not-C
Fallacy of denying the antecedent Fallacy of affirming the consequent
Arg. 17: If E, then F. 18 If G, then H.
not- E. H.
∴ not-F. ∴ G.
4) Disjunctive Syllogism (D.S.): In this subclass of syllogism the major premise
(usually the first one) expresses alternatives connected by connectives, ‘either…
or’. So they are constants too. Such a proposition is called disjunctive
proposition. In disjunctive proposition the connective either is implicit many
times. Therefore its presence or absence does not alter the structure of the
proposition. Second premise and the conclusion are simple or general. In D.S.
itself there are two types. While regarding these two types the emphasis is on
the connective or because as mentioned above either is implicit many times.
One use of or is called inclusive and another is called exclusive. Or is used in
inclusive sense if both alternatives are admissible and it is used in exclusive
sense when the alternatives are mutually exclusive and totally exhaustive and
the acceptance of one alternative excludes the other. In the proposition ‘either
he is stupid or stubborn’ or is used in inclusive sense because the same person
may be both stupid and stubborn. However, in the proposition ‘either he is
generous or miser’ or is used in exclusive sense because no one can be both
generous and miser at the same time. In order to bring both usages under one
class a rule is devised which says that one of the alternatives must be denied in
the minor so that the remaining alternative is affirmed in the conclusion. The
following argument illustrates the explanation.
Arg. 19: Either he is stupid or stubborn. Either A or B .
He is not stupid. Not A.
∴ He is stubborn. ∴ B.
Here again there is no middle term. However, one component (A) appears in the
first premise in affirmative mode and in the second in negative mode. This occurrence
corresponds to the affirmative mode of common component in one premise and its
negative mode in another in PHS. A disjunctive argument with this structure is identified
as Modus Tollendo Ponens.
In a disjunctive proposition the components are commutable, i.e., ‘either A or B’
means the same as ‘either B or A’. Therefore in the minor premise any component
can be denied. Affirming of a component in the minor premise is not permissible. If
this rule is violated, then the fallacy committed is called the fallacy of Modus
Ponendo Tollens. The following example illustrates this fallacy.
Arg. 20: Either I or J
I
∴ not-J 31
Classical Logic However, this is not a fallacy if the alternatives are mutually exclusive and totally
exhaustive.

1) Describe the structure of Pure Hypothetical Syllogism with an example.
...........................................................................................................
...........................................................................................................
...........................................................................................................
...........................................................................................................
...........................................................................................................
2) Describe the structure of Disjunctive Syllogism with an example.
...........................................................................................................
...........................................................................................................
...........................................................................................................
...........................................................................................................
...........................................................................................................
2.6 LET US SUM UP

Inference and implication are the essence of logic. Inference is psychological and
implication is logical. Deduction and induction are two forms of logic. Deduction is
formal and induction is material. Logical necessity characterizes the former and
uncertainty characterizes the latter. Categorical syllogism, P. H. S., M. H. S. and
D.S. are the kinds of syllogism accepted by traditional logic.
2.7 KEY WORDS

Inference : It is an operation of reason by which from some known
truth we arrive at unknown truth.
Major term : The term occurring in the predicate of the conclusion in a
categorical syllogism.
Middle term : The term occurring in both the major and the minor premises
of a standard-form categorical syllogism.
Minor term : is the subject of the conclusion.
Major premise : The premise of a categorical syllogism that contains an
instance of the major term and in conditional syllogism the
conditional proposition.
Minor premise : The premise of a categorical syllogism that contains the
minor term.
32
Categorical Syllogism
Azzopardi, Salvino. Logic. Pune: Jnana Deepa Vidyapeeth, 1981.
Baronett, Stan. Logic. New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 2008.
Copi, Irving M., and Carl Cohen. Essentials of Logic. 2nd ed. Upper Saddle River,
N.J.: Pearson Prentice Hall, 2007.
Priest, Graham. Logic. New York: Sterling Publishing. 2010.
Yoder, Gil ‘Categorical Syllogisms’ http://www.oabs.org/classes/logic/
categorical%20syllogisms.pdf accessed August 2, 2010.
33
Classical Logic
UNIT 3 FIGURE, MOOD AND THE
POSSIBLE TYPES OF
SYLLOGISMS
Contents
3.0 Objectives
3.1 Introduction
3.2 Moods of Categorical Syllogism
3.3 Figures of Syllogism
3.4 Incomplete Syllogism and Compound Syllogism
3.5 Dilemma
3.6 Avoiding Dilemma
3.7 Let Us Sum Up
3.8 Key Words
3.0 OBJECTIVES
This unit proposes to introduce a very interesting aspect of syllogism, viz. figures
and moods. Through a study of figures and moods you will be in a position to gain
an insight into the intricacies of categorical syllogism. This is the main objective of
this unit. Second objective is to introduce you to the abridged and extended versions
of syllogism.
Another equally important objective is to bring out the features of dilemma which is
a sort of pseudo- syllogism so that you will be in a position to contrast a genuine
argument like syllogism with a pseudo-argument. Thereby another objective is also
served. Your acumen to evaluate the logical significance is further sharpened. This is
the most invaluable gift of logic.
3.1 INTRODUCTION
Arguments are of complex nature. It is not possible to bring all arguments, even
arguments of one class, under a common head. A detailed analysis of syllogism
reveals the hidden complexities of the same. Such a study consists in the discussion
of the structure of syllogism which leads to figures and moods. A clear understanding
of the structure of syllogism exposes the wealth of syllogistic argument. As usual, the
premises have to be taken as true, whether or not they are factually true.
3.2 MOODS OF CATEGORICAL SYLLOGISM

In the previous unit a brief reference was made to what is known as ‘mood’. It is
not possible to fully appreciate the role played by moods in the study of syllogism
without prior discussion of what is known as figure. Figure and mood together
determine the structure of syllogism. An appraisal of the significance of structure in
34
deductive inference in general and syllogism in particular is made much easier when Figure, Mood and the
we deal with ‘figures and moods’ of syllogism. An analysis of the structure of argument Possible Types of
Syllogisms
in deductive inference is a pre-requisite to the classification of arguments into good
(valid) and bad (invalid). Since the very function of logic is to distinguish arguments
in the aforesaid manner, a study of figure and mood occupies an important position
in our study of syllogism. In order to simplify the task, let us state the arguments in
what is called standard-form. Accordingly, the major premise is stated first followed
by the minor premise and ending with the conclusion. The following example illustrates
what standard-form means:
1) All humans are mortal.
Joseph is a human.
∴ Joseph is mortal.
Although arguments in ordinary language appear in several forms, it is not at all
difficult to restate them in standard-form. First we identify the conclusion which is to
be placed in the final position. Whichever premise contains the predicate term of the
conclusion automatically occupies the first place because the major premise should
be stated first (Kemerling 2010). We notice that ‘mortal’ is the predicate of the
conclusion which appears in the first place in the argument followed by the minor
premise. Therefore this type of arrangement subscribes to standard-form.
The Mood of a Syllogism
As mentioned earlier, there are four types of categorical proposition; universal
affirmative (A), universal negative (E), particular affirmative (I), and particular negative
(O). Since a syllogistic argument consists of three categorical propositions, they
may occur in any order in the arguments. What is more interesting is the fact that the
very same type of proposition may occur thrice. There is no restriction on the number
of occasions on which a particular type of proposition occurs in an argument. For
example, all three propositions in an argument may be A only. Or they may be I only.
Briefly said, the mood of a syllogism is simply a combination of categorical
propositions (A, E, I, or O) which the argument comprises of. Suppose that only O
proposition comprises of an argument, then the mood of the argument is said to be
OOO. Similarly, a syllogistic argument with a mood of OAO has an O proposition
as its major premise, an A proposition as its minor premise, and another O proposition
as its conclusion; and EIO has an E as its major premise, and an I as the minor
premise, and an O as the conclusion; etc. (Kemerling 2010).
Let us consider another example.
2) A : All rocks are hard things.
E : No rocks are liquid.
I : ∴ Some liquid things are not hard.
The mood of this argument is AEI. This shows that every letter states symbolically
the quantity and quality of propositions and every letter occurs in the very same
order in which the propositions occur in the argument. Therefore the order in which
the three letters occur specifies the mood of the syllogism. Consider the following
syllogistic argument.
3) E : No women named Deepti are outer island Yapese women.
A : All outer island Yapese women are weavers of the baskets.
O : ∴ Some weavers of the baskets are not women named Deepti.
35
Classical Logic In the above syllogism the minor term (subject of the conclusion) is ‘weavers of the
baskets’, the major term (predicate of the conclusion) is ‘women named Deepti’
and the middle term is ‘outer island Yapese women’. Therefore the first premise is
the major, second is the minor and the third is the conclusion.
The structure of these arguments is considered for the purpose of illustration. While
symbolizing the propositions, let us use the first letter of the term. The letter which
appears in the middle stands for the quality and quantity of propositions.
1) Major premise: All H are M. HAM 2. All R are H. RAH
Minor premise: J is H. JAH No R are L REL
Conclusion ∴ J is M. JAM ∴ Some L are not H.∴LOH
3) Major premise: No W is Y. W EY
Minor premise: All Y is B. Y AB
Conclusion ∴ Some B is not W. ∴B OW
One question remains to be answered. How many moods can we list? For the time
being, let us restrict ourselves to an incomplete answer. Accordingly, we can list 64
Moods. (At this stage, let us not restrict ourselves to valid Moods). There is no
need to list all these 64 Moods. But what is needed is to know how we arrive at this
figure because the number is not fixed arbitrarily. There are four kinds of propositions
which have to take three positions in such a manner that any proposition can occur
in any one of the four different ways; 0, 1, 2 and 3. When we compute all possible
arrangements, we arrive at 64. There are two important aspects. First, we have
discovered a certain number of structures in which syllogistic arguments can be
constructed, and secondly, which we notice later, not all structures to which arguments
subscribe are valid. It is in this sense that the logical status of an argument is determined
by the structure of that particular argument.
3.3 FIGURES OF SYLLOGISM:

It is easy to understand the meaning and significance of figure. The ‘figure’ of a
syllogism is determined by the position of ‘middle term’. We have said that the
‘middle term’ appears both in the major and in the minor premises. Therefore its
possible positions in premises result in four different configurations. A schematic
representation is preferable to verbal description.
Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Figure 4
M–P P–M M–P P–M
S–M S–M M–S M–S
S–P S–P S–P S–P
From this scheme it is clear that neither P nor S determines the figure of syllogism.
History has recorded that Aristotle accepted only the first three figures. The origin of
the fourth figure is disputed. While Quine said that Theophrastus, a student of Aristotle,
invented the fourth figure, Stebbing said that it was Gallen who invented the fourth
figure. This dispute is not very significant. But what Aristotle says on the first figure
is significant.
Aristotle regarded the first figure as most ‘scientific’. It is likely that by ‘scientific’ he
meant ‘satisfactory’. One of the reasons, which Aristotle has adduced in defence of
his thesis, is what the nature of laws of mathematics and physical sciences suggest.
36
According to him these sciences establish laws in the form of the first figure. Second Figure, Mood and the
reason is that reasoned conclusion or reasoned fact is generally found, according to Possible Types of
Syllogisms
Aristotle, in the first figure. Aristotle believed that only universal affirmative conclusion
can provide complete knowledge and universal affirmative conclusion is possible
only in the first figure. Aristotle quotes the fundamental principle of syllogism. ‘One
kind of syllogism serves to prove that A inheres in C by showing that A inheres in B
and B in C’. This principle can be expressed in this form:
Minor: A inheres in B
Major: B inheres in C
∴ A inheres in C
Evidently, this argument satisfies transitive relation. This is made clear with the help
of this diagram:
Let us consider four examples, which correspond to four figures.
I
M P
Major Premise: All artists are poets. AAP
S M
Minor Premise: All musicians are artists. MAA
Conclusion: ∴ All musicians are poets. MAP
S P
II
P M
Major Premise: All saints are pious. SAP
S M
Minor Premise: No criminals are pious. CEP
Conclusion: No criminals are saints. CES
S P
III
M P
Major Premise: All great works are worthy of study. GAW
M S
Minor Premise: All great works are epics. GAE
Conclusion: ∴ Some epics are worthy of study. EIW
S P
37
Classical Logic IV
P M
Major Premise: No soldiers are traitors. SET
M S
Minor Premise: All traitors are sinners. TAS
Conclusion: ∴ Some sinners are not soldiers. SOS
S P
We will consider figures in conjunction with moods. Then only knowledge of the
‘figure of syllogism’ permits us to compute the total number of possible moods.
Mood is determined by quality and quantity of propositions, which constitute
syllogism. Since there are four figures, in all two hundred and fifty six ways of arranging
categorical propositions is possible. These are exactly what we mean by moods.
However, out of two hundred and fifty-six, two hundred and forty-five moods can
be shown to be invalid by applying the rules and corollaries. So we have only
eleven valid moods. Even this is not sufficient to have a clear picture. There is no
figure in which all eleven moods are valid. Within the framework of traditional logic,
in any given figure only six moods are valid. They are as follows:
I AAA, AAI, EAE, EAO, EIO and AII
II AEE, AEO, EAE, EAO, EIO and AOO
III AAI, AII, IAI, EAO, EIO and OAO
IV AAI, IAI, AEE, AEO, EAO, and EIO
In all these cases, first letter stands for the major premise, second for the minor and
third for the conclusion. Moods are represented above in three ways. Moods in
italics and bold form are called strengthened moods, and moods in mere italics are
called weakened moods. All other moods are represented in normal form. It is
important to know the difference between the first two types. When the laws of
syllogism permit two universal premises to yield logically only particular conclusion,
then such moods are called strengthened moods. On the other hand, if we deduce
particular conclusion from two universal premises, even when the laws of syllogism
permit two universal premises to yield logically a universal conclusion, then such
moods are called weakened moods.
In this scheme, we notice that EIO is valid in all the figures. Interestingly, IEO is
invalid in all the figures. The only difference between EIO and IEO is that the minor
and the major premises are only transposed which clearly shows that the position of
premises, which is a part of the structure, determines the validity of argument. Though
EIO is valid in more than one figure it is one mood in one figure and some other in
another figure. Likewise, AEE is valid in the second and the fourth figures. But it is
one mood in the second figure and a different mood in the fourth figure.
Since Aristotle argued that the first figure is the perfect figure, he felt the need to
transmute all valid arguments in II and III figures to I figure so that if the transmuted
mood is valid in I figure, then the corresponding mood in any figure other than the
first is also valid. Transmutation from fourth figure to the first figure must have been
evolved by the inventor of the former. Reduction is the tool to test the validity of
arguments. In the thirteenth century, one logician by name Pope John XXI, devised
a technique to remember the method of reducing arguments from other figures to the
first figure. This technique is known as mnemonic verses. Accordingly, each mood,
excluding weakened moods, was given a special name:
38
I) Fig: AAA BARBARA III. Fig: AAI DARAPTI Figure, Mood and the
Possible Types of
EAE CELARENT IAI DISAMIS Syllogisms
AII DARII AII DATISI
EIO FERIO EAO FELAPTON
OAO BOCARDO
EIO FERISON
II) Fig: EAE CESARE IV. Fig: AAI BRAMANTIP
AEE CAMESTRES AEE CAMENES
EIO FESTINO IAI DIMARIS
AOO BAROCO EAO FESAPO
EIO FRESISON
The method is like this. If the names begin with C, then the syllogism has to be
reduced to the first figure which begins with a C. For example, CESARE (a syllogism
of the second figure) has to be reduced to CELARENT. Other consonants of the
name have also their significance; ‘s’ (like in CESARE) signifies that the preceding
‘E’ needs to undergo simple conversion; ‘p’ signifies that the preceding proposition
has to be converted by ‘limitation’; ‘t’ signifies that the order of the premises has to
be changed; ‘st’ indicates that two operations, viz., simple conversion and
transposition of the proposition represented by the preceding vowel are required to
be carried out. BAROCO and BOCARDO are reduced in a different manner. O
propositions in both the moods have to be obverted first and then follow the relevant
path to effect reduction.
However, the situation in modern logic is very different. The logicians proved that
from universal propositions alone particular proposition cannot be derived and vice
versa. Accordingly, both strengthened and weakened moods become invalid. Thus
in the new scheme the number of valid moods reduces to fifteen.

1) What are the factors which determine the mood of a syllogism?
...........................................................................................................
...........................................................................................................
...........................................................................................................
...........................................................................................................
...........................................................................................................
2) Discuss the significance of the ‘figure’ of categorical syllogism.
...........................................................................................................
...........................................................................................................
...........................................................................................................
...........................................................................................................
...........................................................................................................
39
Classical Logic
3.4 INCOMPLETE SYLLOGISM AND
COMPOUND SYLLOGISM
1) Enthymeme: Enthymeme is called an incomplete syllogism in which one or
the other proposition is not stated explicitly. As a matter of fact, such an
incomplete syllogism is closer to the way we generally argue in everyday life. If
standard–form is the criterion, then it is not logically valid unless what is implicitly
understood is taken into consideration. That is, it must be formally completed.
Examples: 1. You have hurt your neighbour.
Therefore you have sinned against God.
(Major premise implicitly understood: Those who hurt their neighbours sin
against God).
2. Those who hurt their neighbours sin against God.
Therefore you have sinned against god.
(Minor premise implicitly understood: You have hurt your neighbour).
3. Those who hurt their neighbour sin against God.
And you have hurt your neighbour.
(Conclusion implicitly understood: Therefore you have sinned against God).
When the major premise is implicitly understood, enthymeme is regarded as the
first-order enthymeme. When the minor premise is implicitly understood, enthymeme
is regarded as the second-order enthymeme. When the conclusion is implicitly
understood, enthymeme is regarded as the third-order enthymeme. A question may
arise in this context. If two propositions are adequate to convey the information,
where is the need to have full-fledged syllogism? This question can be answered in
two ways. When we deal with learned or well-informed persons or with ourselves,
enthymeme will surely serve the purpose. A full – fledged syllogism is needed when
we have to educate not so well – informed, if not ill – informed persons. We should
not fail to notice close similarity between enthymeme and svarthaanumana and
paraarthaanumana (inference for self and inference for others). The question can
be answered in this way also. Syllogism is formal and enthymeme is informal. Choice
is subjective.
2) Sorites: If an argument consists of three or more than three premises, then such
an argument is called sorites. It is also called polysyllogism. There are two
kinds of sorites: Aristotelian sorites and Goclenian sorites. The primary rules
which govern sorites are the rules of the categorical Syllogism only.
Let us begin with the structure of sorites. In Aristotelian sorites the first premise is
minor and the last premise is major. In consecutive premises M is predicate in the
first premise and in the next premise subject. In sorites there are two or more than
two conclusions which are implicit. Every such hidden conclusion functions as the
premise. Therefore a sorites consists of at least three syllogistic arguments and hence
it consists of a chain of syllogisms which are interrelated. In order to arrive at the
final conclusion these hidden conclusions also must be reckoned.
40
Consider this example. Figure, Mood and the
Possible Types of
1. Premises Hidden conclusions (a and b) Syllogisms
1. All A are B. a. All A are C.
2. All B are C.
3 All C are D. 3. All C are D.
——————
b. All A are D.
4. All D are E All D are E
All A are E.
It is easy to understand this structure. From (1) and (2) we have derived (a). This is
hidden because at no point of time is this expressed. When this is conjoined with
(3), (a) becomes a premise. So is the case with b. This shows that every hidden
conclusion is, in fact, the premise of next argument. In this argument ‘a’ and ‘b’ are
hidden conclusions which become premises at subsequent stages. In Aristotelian
sorites, the subject of the first premise is also the subject of the conclusion and the
predicate of the last premise is also the predicate of the conclusion. In the set of
hidden conclusions also the same pattern can be noticed. This pattern shows that in
Aristotelian sorites the first premise is the minor and the last premise is the major.
Let us consider the rules of Aristotelian sorites.
1) Only major premise (last premise) can be negative.
2) Only minor premise (first premise) can be particular.
In Goclenian sorites the order is reversed. Consider this example.
2)
Premises Hidden conclusion (a and b)
1 All A are B. a All C are B.
2 All C are A.
3 All D are C. 3 All D are C.
b All D are B.
4 All E are D. 4 All E are D.
All E are B.
In this kind the predicate of the conclusion is the predicate of the first premise.
Therefore the first premise is major. The subject of the conclusion is the subject of
the last premise. Therefore the last premise is the minor. The rules of this kind are as
follows.
1) Only the first premise (major) can be negative.
2) Only the last premise (minor) can be particular.
One point should become clear at this stage. One kind of sorites is the reversal of
the other. If we disregard the positions of premises, then the difference between
these two kinds becomes insignificant.
3.5 DILEMMA
The dilemma consists of three propositions of which two constitute premises and
third one is the conclusion. One of the premises is a conjunction of two hypothetical
41
Classical Logic propositions and the other one is disjunctive. The conclusion is either disjunctive or
simple. Since the dilemma consists of two hypothetical propositions conjoined by
the word ‘and’, it is possible that two different propositions are found in place of
antecedents and two different propositions are found in place of consequents. But
it is not necessary that it should be so. It is likely that both propositions have a
common consequent. If such consequent becomes the conclusion, then, the
conclusion is a simple proposition.
Let us consider its so-called value before we proceed further with our analysis. The
dilemma, in the strict sense of the word validity, is neither valid nor invalid. This is so
because in this particular pattern there is no way of fixing the truth-value of the
propositions. The dilemma does not contribute to the growth of knowledge. Nor
does it help in testing what is in need of testing. Its significance is only restricted to
rhetoric. The dilemma is an example of misuse or abuse of logic. Such a situation
arises when a person, who is ignorant of logic, is confronted by an unscrupulous
logician. It is most unlikely that the dilemma was ever seriously considered by any
professional committed to logic. It, then, means that the dilemma has only negative
significance, i.e., to know how not to argue.
The Structure of Dilemma:
Let us begin with the structure of dilemma. Its uniqueness is quite interesting.
a) The first premise (p1) consists of two hypothetical propositions conjoined
together.
b) The second premise (p2) is a disjunctive proposition. Its alternatives either
affirm or deny the consequents of the hypothetical major premise.

Dilem ma
Con structive Distructive
Sim ple Com plex Sim p le Com plex
c) The conclusion is either simple or disjunctive. It either affirms the consequents

or denies.
Kinds of Dilemma:
The kinds of dilemma are represented in the form of a table.
1) In a complex constructive dilemma (CCD) antecedents and consequents are
different. In the second premise antecedents are affirmed disjunctively and in
the conclusion the consequents are affirmed in similar fashion. In a simple
constructive dilemma (SCD), both hypothetical propositions have common
consequents, though antecedents differ. These antecedents are affirmed
disjunctively in the second premise and the consequent is affirmed in the
conclusion. Since there is only one consequent, the conclusion is a simple
proposition.
42
2) The structure of complex destructive dilemma (CDD) differs slightly from the Figure, Mood and the
first kind. The difference is that the consequents and antecedents are denied Possible Types of
Syllogisms
respectively in the minor premise and the conclusion disjunctively. However,
the structure of the first premise remains the same.
3) 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.
Now, we can make a list of common features of different kinds of dilemma.
Dilemma Common Features
1) Constructive Different antecedents
2) Destructive Different consequents
3) Complex Disjunctive conclusion
4) Simple Simple conclusion
3.6 AVOIDING DILEMMA

Use of dilemma is restricted to some situations. When neither unconditional affirmation
of antecedent nor unconditional denial of consequent is possible, logician may use
this route. It indicates either ignorance or shrewdness. When we face dilemma, we
only try to avoid, but not to refute. There are three different ways in which we can
try to avoid dilemma. All these ways only reflect escapist tendency. Only an escapist
tries to avoid a problematic situation. Therefore, in logic they do not carry much
weight.
1) Escaping between the horns of dilemma: Two consequents mentioned may
be incomplete. If it is possible to show that they are incomplete then we can
avoid facing dilemma. This is what is known as ‘escaping between the horns
of dilemma’. It should be noted that even when third consequent is suggested
it does not mean that this new consequents is actually true. In other words,
the new consequent also is questionable.
2) Taking the dilemma by horns: In this method of avoiding dilemma, attempts
are made to contradict the hypothetical propositions, which are conjoined. A
hypothetical proposition is contradicted when antecedent and negation of
consequent are accepted. However, in this particular case it is not attempted
at all. Moreover, since the major premise is a conjunction of two hypothetical
propositions, the method of refutation is more complex. (The negation of
conjunction will be introduced at a later stage. For the time being it is enough
to know that in this particular instance there is no such attempt.)
3) Rebuttal of dilemma: It appears to be the contradiction of dilemma. But, in
reality, it is not. In all these cases, the dilemma becomes a potent weapon to
mislead the opponent in debate. Therefore none of these methods amounts to
the contradiction of opponent’s view.
We will consider examples for four kinds, which can be used to illustrate
these methods.
43
Classical Logic i) Complex Constructive Dilemma (CCD):
p
p1: If (any government wages war to acquire wealth), then (it becomes a
q r
rogue government) and if (it wages war to expand its territory), then (it
s
becomes colonial).
p r
p2: (Any government wages war either to acquire wealth) or (to expand its
territory)
q s
q: It (becomes a rogue government) or (colonial).
ii) Simple Constructive Dilemma (SCD):
p q
p1: If (taxes are reduced to garner votes), then (the government loses
revenue).
r
and if (taxes are reduced in order to simplify taxation), then (the
q
government loses revenue).
p r
p2: (Taxes are reduced either to garner votes) or (to simplify taxation)
q
q : ∴ (The government loses its revenue).
iii) Complex Destructive Dilemma (CDD):
p q
p1: If (the nation wages war), then (there will be no problem of
r
unemployment) and if (the nation does not revise her industrial policy),
s
then (it will lead to revolution).
not- q not - s
p2: The (problem of unemployment remains unsolved) or (there will not be
any revolution).
not - p not - r
q : (The nation does not wage war) or (the nation will revise her
industrial policy).
iv) Simple Destructive Dilemma (SDD):
p q
p1: If (you are in the habit of getting up early), then (you are a
p r
theist) and if (you are in the habit of getting up early), then (you are a labourer).
not - q not - r
p2: (you are not a theist) or (you are not a labourer).
not - p
q : ∴ (you are not in the habit of getting up early).
44
The first way of avoiding the dilemma, i.e., escaping between the horns of dilemma Figure, Mood and the
can be illustrated using 1 (CCD). It is possible to argue that, when the government Possible Types of
Syllogisms
wages war, the motive is neither to acquire wealth nor to expand its territory in
which case, the government is neither rouge nor colonial. The motive may be to
spread its official religion or personal vendetta or it may be to protect its interests. If
the last one is the motive, then, it becomes difficult to find fault with such government.
Any one of the proposed alternatives or all alternatives to disjuncts may be false.
There is no way of deciding what the situation is. The reader can select remaining
examples to illustrate this method. Likewise, consider fourth argument to illustrate
the second method. I may concede that a person gets up early only because he
wants to maintain health. So the purpose is not to worship God. Nor is he a
labourer. Again, this is also an assumption.
Rebutting of dilemma requires a different type of example. Consider this one:
i) p ¬q
p1: If (teacher is a disciplinarian), then (he is unpopular among students)
and
¬p ¬r
if (he is not a disciplinarian), then (his bosses do not like him).
p ¬p
p2: (Teacher is a disciplinarian) or (he is not a disciplinarian).
¬q ¬r
q: ∴ (Teacher is unpopular among students) or (his bosses do not
like him).
A witty teacher may respond in this way.
ii) ¬p q
p1 : If (teacher is not a disciplinarian), then (he is popular among students)
p r
and if (he is a disciplinarian) then (his bosses will like him.)
¬p p
p2 : (Teacher is not a disciplinarian) or (he is a disciplinarian)
q r
q : ∴ (Teacher is popular among students) or (his bosses will like him)
Only a student of logic discovers that these conclusions of i and ii are not
contradictories (you will learn about it in the forthcoming units) in the strict sense of
the term. Hence, there is really no rebuttal.
Further, the dilemma, which an individual faces in day-to-day life, is very different.
For example, moral dilemma has nothing to do with the kinds of dilemma which
we have discussed so far.
Since the dilemma is a medley of both types of conditional propositions, i. e.,

hypothetical and disjunctive, it should follow the basic rules of hypothetical and
disjunctive syllogisms. It should affirm disjunctively the antecedents in the minor or
deny disjunctively the consequents in the minor. The dilemma is powerful if in the
major there is a strong cause-effect relationship between the antecedent and the
consequent and in the minor the alternatives are exhaustive and mutually exclusive.
Again, the former is debatable.
45
Classical Logic
1) What are the characteristics of dilemma?
...........................................................................................................
...........................................................................................................
...........................................................................................................
2) What are the methods of avoiding dilemma?
...........................................................................................................
...........................................................................................................
...........................................................................................................
...........................................................................................................
...........................................................................................................
3.7 LET US SUM UP

The structure of syllogism is determined by figures and moods. The position of the
middle term determines the figure to which syllogism belongs. There are four figures
and eleven valid moods. Strengthened and weakened moods are not valid according
to modern logic. The dilemma is a shrewd way of getting out of trouble. Escaping
between the horns of dilemma, taking the dilemma by horns and rebuttal of dilemma
are the ways of avoiding dilemma. Dilemma is not a sound logical way of arguing.
3.8 KEY WORDS

Figure : ‘figure’ of a syllogism is determined by ‘middle term’.
Mood : ‘mood’ of a syllogism is determined by the ‘quantity’ and ‘quality’
of the three propositions.
Dilemma : A dilemma in logic means an argument that presents an antagonist
with a choice of two or more alternatives, each of which appears
to contradict the original contention and is inconclusive. The
dilemma is a powerful instrument of persuasion and a devastating
weapon in controversy.

Azzopardi, Salvino. Logic. Pune: Jnana Deepa Vidyapeeth, [1981].
Kemerling, Garth Categorical Syllogisms’ Philosophy Pages, http http://
www.philosophypages.com/lg/e08a.htm 2001. Accessed on July 2, 2010.
‘Introduction to Logic,’ University of Lander, http://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/
index.html, accessed July, 2010.7
Ling, Lee ‘Categorical Syllogisms’ http://www.comfsm.fm/~dleeling/geometry/
categorical_syllogisms.xhtml
Mathew, E.P., and Augustine Perumalil. Critical Thinking and Planned Writing.
46 Chennai: Satya Nilayam Publications, 2008.
UNIT 4 VALIDITY, INVALIDITY AND LIST Propositions: A,E,I,O and
OF VALID SYLLOGISMS
Contents
4.0 Objectives
4.1 Introduction
4.2 The Rules of Categorical Syllogism
4.3 Special Applications of General Rules
4.4 Reduction of Arguments to I Figure
4.5 Antilogism or Inconsistent Triad
4.6 Venn Diagram Technique
4.7 Boolean Analysis
4.8 Let Us Sum Up
4.9 Key Words
4.0 OBJECTIVES
This unit brings out the most important part of your study of categorical syllogism.
You will be introduced to the rules which determine the validity of arguments. While
this is the most important objective, the icing on the cake is the variety of the methods
of determining the validity of arguments. Both traditional and modern methods of
testing the validity receive due recognition in this unit. Therefore contribution of both
John Venn and George Boole find place in this unit. This particular study enables
you to grasp the relation between logic and set theory which is brought to the fore in
this unit.
4.1 INTRODUCTION
In the second and third units we learnt two important aspects of categorical syllogism,
viz., figures and moods. However, we did not develop the technique of distinguishing
valid from invalid arguments. Consequently, we could not know under what conditions
a mood becomes valid and what is still worse, we could not understand why a
certain arrangement or configuration of propositions in one figure is legitimate (only
a legitimate combination of propositions yields valid mood) and in some other figure
illegitimate yielding only invalid moods, and conversely, why a certain configuration
of propositions is illegitimate in some figures and legitimate in some other figure or
figures. In other words, the question what makes an argument valid was not raised
at all. The point is that the validity of an argument depends on whether or not the
conclusion is a conclusion in the strict sense of the word, i.e. whether or not it
logically follows from the premises. This brings us to the vital aspect of our study.
Just as application or non-application of rules makes a game legitimate or illegitimate,
mere application or non-application of rules makes an argument valid or invalid.
Application of rules demands knowledge of rules. Therefore we must focus on the
question what rules are there which determine the validity of syllogism.
47
Classical Logic
4.2 THE RULES OF CATEGORICAL SYLLOGISM
Classical Logic lists eight rules of valid categorical syllogism; four of them concern
the terms, and four of them concern the propositions. These rules are not provable.
They have to be either accepted or rejected. If they are rejected, syllogism is not
possible. Therefore what is given is only an explication of the rules. Classical logic
classified these rules under rules of structure, rules of distribution of terms, rules
of quality, and rules of quantity.
I) Rules of structure
1) Syllogism must Contain Three, and Only Three, Propositions
Syllogism is defined as a kind of mediate inference consisting of two premises
which together determine the truth of the conclusion. This definition shows
that if the number of propositions is more than two, then it ceases to be
syllogism. Therefore by definition syllogism must consist of two premises
and one conclusion. Therefore together they make up for three propositions.
2) Syllogism must Consist of Three Terms Only
A proposition consists of two terms. However, three propositions consist
of only three terms because each term occurs twice. Suppose that there are
four terms. Then there is no middle term, a term common to two premises.
In such a case the violation of rule results in a fallacy called fallacy of four
terms. Such a fallacy is never committed knowingly because knowing fully
well the fixed number of terms, we do not choose four terms. But we do it
unknowingly. It happens when an ambiguous word is used in two different
senses on two different occasions. Then there are really four terms, not
three terms. If an ambiguous word takes the place of middle term, then the
fallacy committed is known as fallacy of ambiguous middle. Similarly, if an
ambiguous term takes the place of the major or the minor term, then the
fallacy of ambiguous major or ambiguous minor, as the case may be, is
committed. The following argument illustrates the fallacy of ambiguous middle.
Fallacy of Ambiguous Middle
All charged particles are electrons.
Atmosphere in the college is charged.
∴Atmosphere in the college is an electron.
The word in italics is ambiguous. The other two fallacies are hardly committed.
Therefore there is no need to consider examples for them. The moral is that all
sentences in arguments must be unambiguous. This is possible only when all terms
are unambiguous in the given argument. We must also consider the inversion of
ambiguous middle. Suppose that synonymous words are used in place of middle
term. Then apparently there are four terms. But, in reality, there are three terms. For
example starry world and stellar world are not two terms. Such usages also are
uncommon. Hence they deserve to be neglected.
II) Rules of Distribution of Terms
1) Middle term must be distributed at least once in the premises. If this rule is
violated, then the argument commits the fallacy of undistributed middle. One
example will illustrate this rule.
48
2 All circles are geometrical figures. Validity, Invalidity and List
of Valid Syllogisms
All squares are geometrical figures.
∴ All circles are squares.
2) In the conclusion, no term may be taken in a more ‘extensive’ sense than in
the premises. It also means that a term which is distributed in the conclusion
must remain distributed in the respective premise. This rule can be stated
this way also. A term which is undistributed in the premise must remain
undistributed in the conclusion. However, it is not necessary that a term,
which is distributed in the premise, must be distributed in the conclusion.
Suppose that the major term violates this rule. Then the argument commits
the fallacy of illicit major. When the minor term violates this rule, fallacy
illicit minor is committed. The following arguments illustrate these fallacies.
3) All philosophers are thinkers.
No ordinary men are philosophers.
∴ No ordinary men are thinkers.
4) All aquatic creatures are fish.
All aquatic creatures swim.
∴ All those which swim are fish.
First argument illustrates the fallacy of undistributed middle; second illustrates the
fallacy of illicit major and the third illustrates the fallacy of illicit minor.
III) Rules of Quality
1) From two negative premises, no conclusion can be drawn. It only means
that at least one premise must be affirmative.
2) If both premises are affirmative, the conclusion cannot be negative.
Negatively, it only means that a negative conclusion is possible only when
one premise is negative.
IV) Rules of Quantity
If both premises are particular, no conclusion can be drawn or the conclusion must
always follow the weaker part. Here weaker part is particular. This rule shows that
at least one premise must be universal.
If one premise is particular, then the conclusion must be particular only. It means that
universal conclusion is possible only when both premises are universal. In practice,
last three sets of rules play an important role in determining the validity of categorical
syllogism.
Examine the following arguments.
1) All kings are thinkers.
Some ordinary men are not kings.
∴ No ordinary men are thinkers.
...........................................................................................................
...........................................................................................................
49
Classical Logic ...........................................................................................................
...........................................................................................................
...........................................................................................................
2) All stars are bright.

All bright objects are attractive.
∴ All attractive objects are stars.
...........................................................................................................
...........................................................................................................
...........................................................................................................
...........................................................................................................
...........................................................................................................
3) Some radicals are good men.

Some good men are honest.
∴ Some radicals are honest.
...........................................................................................................
...........................................................................................................
...........................................................................................................
...........................................................................................................
...........................................................................................................
4) The monkey is nonhuman.

Some of those who are of capable of laughter are humans.
∴ The monkey is not capable of laughter.
...........................................................................................................
...........................................................................................................
...........................................................................................................
...........................................................................................................
...........................................................................................................
4.3 SPECIAL APPLICATIONS OF THE

GENERAL RULES
In the previous unit we learnt that a certain arrangement of categorical propositions
is legitimate in one figure and illegitimate in some other figure, the only exception
being EIO. For the purpose of contrast we should recognize that its reversal, IEO,
is invalid in all the figures. One way of recognizing valid or invalid arguments is the
use of rules listed above. We have another method known as ‘special rules of figures’.
50
These rules are called special rules because they apply to only that particular figure Validity, Invalidity and List
but not to others. These rules are dependent upon general rules. Therefore it is of Valid Syllogisms
possible to give proofs to these rules.
I) Figure
a) The minor must be affirmative.
b) The major must be universal.
M–P
S-M
S–P
a) If the minor is negative, then the conclusion must be negative. In negative
conclusion P is distributed while it is undistributed in the major premise. This
goes against the rule which asserts that a term undistributed in the premise
should remain undistributed in the conclusion. Therefore minor must be
affirmative.
b) That the major must be universal is clear from the fact that if the minor is
affirmative, M in it is undistributed and therefore the major must be universal if
M must be distributed in it.
Now we shall apply these special rules to know how or why a certain mood is valid
and certain other moods invalid in a figure, a point which we discussed in the previous
unit. Let us omit weakened moods.
The valid moods of I figure are listed below.
I) Fig: AAA BARBARA
EAE CELARENT
AII DARII
EIO FERIO
II) Figure:
a) One premise must be negative.
b) The major must be universal.
P–M
S–M
S- P
a) One premise must be negative. Otherwise, M remains undistributed in both the
premises. b) The major must be universal because P is distributed in negative
conclusion and hence it must be distributed in the major.
The valid moods of II figure are listed below.
EAE CESARE
AEE CAMESTRES
EIO FESTINO
AOO BAROCO
51
Classical Logic III) Figure:
a) The ‘minor’ must be affirmative.
b) The conclusion must be Particular.
M–P
M–S
S–P
a) Minor must be affirmative because negative minor gives only negative conclusion
in which case P is distributed in the conclusion. P can be distributed in major
only if it is negative. Negative minor results in negative major which is not
allowed. Therefore minor must be affirmative.
b) The conclusion must be particular. Otherwise S becomes distributed in the
conclusion while it remains undistributed in affirmative minor.
The valid moods are listed below.
III) Fig: AAI DARAPTI
IAI DISAMIS
AII DATISI
OAO BOCARDO
EIO FERISON
EAO FELOPTON
IV) Figure:
a) If the ‘major’ is affirmative, the ‘minor’ must be universal.
b) If the minor is affirmative, the conclusion must be particular.
c) If the conclusion is negative, the major must be negative.
P–M
M–S
S–P
The valid moods are listed below.
AAI DARAPTI
AEE CAMENES
EAO FESAPO
IAI DIMARIS
EIO FRESISON
It would be good logical exercise for the student to take up these special rules and
try to deduce them from the general ones. This is the reason why we have left the
special rules of figure 4 unexplained.
4.4 REDUCTION OF ARGUMENTS TO I FIGURE

Reducing arguments from other figures to the first figure is one of the techniques
developed by Aristotle and one of his followers to test the validity of arguments.
After reduction, if the argument is valid in the first figure, then it means that the
52
original argument in the corresponding figure is valid. This technique is quite mechanical. Validity, Invalidity and List
So we are only required to know what exactly is involved in this method. We will of Valid Syllogisms
learn this only by practice. Strengthened moods are included for the sake of exercise
though they are not required from the point of view of modern logic. There is no
need to consider weakened moods separately when the technique involved is
reduction. What is required is replacement of universal by its corresponding subaltern
in the conclusion.
II Figure
II Figure I Figure
CESARE CELARENT
PEM → Conversion→ MEP
SAM SAM
SEP SEP
No politicians are poets. → Conversion → No poets are politicians.
All girls are poets. All girls are poets.
∴No girls are politicians. ∴No girls are politicians
In CESARE ‘S’ after ‘E’ indicates simple conversion. It shows that ‘E’ (major
premise) must undergo simple conversion.
II Figure
II Figure I Figure
CAMESTRES CELARENT
PA M MES
S E M → conversion M E S PA M
SEP P E S conversion→S E P
‘S’ and ‘T’ after ‘E’ show that ‘E’ (minor premise) should undergo simple conversion
and both premises be transposed. ‘S’ after second ‘E’ shows that this ‘E’ (conclusion)
also should undergo simple conversion. [The student is advised to construct arguments
for this and subsequent reductions.]
II Figure
II Figure I Figure
FESTINO FERIO
PEM → Conversion → MEP
SIM SIM
SOP SOP
FESTINO becomes FERIO when the major premise undergoes simple conversion.
The kind of reduction of the above mentioned moods is known as direct reduction.
BAROCO becomes FERIO through the process of indirect reduction. Indirect
reduction includes, in addition to conversion, obversion also.
II Figure
II Figure I Figure
BAROCO FERIO
P A M → obversion P E M → Conversion → MEP
S O M → obversion S I M SIM
SOP SOP
53
Classical Logic III Figure
III Figure I Figure
DARAPTI DARII
MAP MAP
MAS → Conversion → SIM
SIP SIP
DATISI DARII
MAP MAP
MIS → Conversion → SIM
SIP SIP
FELAPTON FERIO
MEP MEP
MAS → Conversion → SIM
SOP SOP
‘P’ which follows ‘A’ in DARAPTI and FELAPTON shows that conversion by
limitation applies to ‘A’.
FERISON FERIO
MEP MEP
MIS → Conversion → SIM
SOP SOP

DISAMIS → Conversion → DARII

M I P MAS
MAS MIP → Conversion → PIM
SIP PIS
↓ Conversion
SIP
While the reduction of the above-mentioned moods is direct, next one is indirect.
BOCARDO
MOP → Obversion → M I P → Conversion → P I M M A S
MAS
M AS MAS PIM
SOP PIS
↓Conversion
SIP
↓Obversion
SOP
When BOCARDO undergoes reduction, conversion, obversion and transposition
are required to complete the process. Here OAO becomes AII. Further, when we
consider obverted conclusion of AII, we obtain AIO. This is, surely, a paradox.
54
IV Figure Validity, Invalidity and List
of Valid Syllogisms
IV Figure I Figure
BRAMANTIP Weakened mood
PA M MAS
MAS PAM
SIP P A S → Conversion →S I P
CAMENES CELARENT
PA M MES
MES PAM
SEP SEP
DIMARIS DARII
PIM MAS
MAS PIM
SIP SIP
FESAPO FERIO
P E M → Conversion→ MEP
M A S → Conversion→ SIM
SOP SOP
As usual ‘S’ stands for simple conversion of ‘E’ (major Premise) and ‘P’ stands for
conversion by limitation of ‘A’ (minor premise). This process is similar to the one
applied for first and third moods of III figure.
FRESISON FERIO
P E M → Conversion→ MEP
M I S → Conversion→ SIM
SOP SOP
From reduction technique one point becomes clear. Originally, there were twenty-
four valid moods. Later weakened and strengthened moods were eliminated on the
ground that particular proposition (existential quantifier) cannot be deduced from
universal propositions (universal quantifier) only, and the number was reduced to
fifteen. Now after reduction to first figure the number came down to four. Strawson
argues that reduction technique is superior to axiomatic technique to which he referred
in the beginning of his work ‘Introduction to Logical Theory’. He regards the moods
as inference-patterns. He argues that the path of reduction should be an inverted
pyramid. Strawson also maintains that in addition to equivalence relation, we require
opposition relation also to effect reduction. What we gain in the process is economy
in the number of moods.
4.5 ANTILOGISM OR INCONSISTENT TRIAD

This technique was developed by one lady by name, Christin Lad Franklin. This
technique applies only to fifteen moods. The reason is, again, impropriety of deriving
55
Classical Logic existential from universals only. The method is very simple. Consider Venn’s results
for all propositions. Replace the conclusion by its contradiction. This arrangement
constitutes antilogism. If the corresponding argument should be valid, then antilogism
should conform to certain structure. It must possess two equations and one
inequation. A term must be common to equations. It should be positive in one equation
and negative in another. Remaining two terms ought to appear only in inequation.
Consider one example for a valid argument.
Venn’s Results Antilogism

All Indians are Asians. IÂ=¨ IÂ=¨
All Hindus are Indians. HÎ = ¨ HÎ =¨
All Hindus are Asians. HÂ=¨ HÂ=¨
In this case, antilogism satisfies all the requirements. ‘I’ is common to equations; in
one equation it is positive and in another negative. There is only one inequation.
Remaining terms appear in inequation. In all cases, this is the method to be followed.
If any one of these characteristics is absent in antilogism, then the corresponding
mood is invalid.
Now antilogism can be easily constructed for the remaining fourteen moods.
I Fig.
1) CELARENT
Contradiction
MEP MP= Ø
SAM SM = Ø
SEP → SIP SP ≠ Ø
2) DARII
MAP M P =Ø
SIM SM≠Ø
SIP → SEP SP=Ø
3) FERIO
MEP MP=Ø
SIM SM≠Ø
SOP → SAP S P =Ø
II Fig.
4) CESARE
PEM PM=Ø
SAM S M =Ø
56 SEP → SIP SP≠Ø
5) CAMESTRES Validity, Invalidity and List
of Valid Syllogisms
PAM P M =Ø
SEM SM=Ø
SEP → SIP SP≠Ø
6) FESTINO
PEM PM = Ø
SIM SM ≠ Ø
SOP → SAP S P =Ø
7) BAROCO
PAM P M =Ø
SOM S M ≠Ø
SOP → SAP S P =Ø
III Fig.
8) DISAMIS
MIP MP≠ Ø
MAS M S =Ø
SIP → SEP SP=Ø
9) DATISI
MAP M P =Ø
MIS MS≠Ø
SIP → SEP SP=Ø
10) BOCARDO
MOP MP ≠ Ø
MAS M S =Ø
SOP → SAP S P =Ø
11) FERISON
MEP MP=Ø
MIS MS≠Ø
SOP → SAP S P =Ø
57
Classical Logic IV Fig.
12) CAMENES
PAM P M =Ø
MES MS=Ø
SEP → SIP SP≠Ø
13) DIMARIS
PIM PM≠Ø
MAS M S =Ø
SIP → SEP SP=Ø
14) FRESISON
PEM PM=Ø
MIS MS≠Ø
SOP → SAP S P =Ø
Now consider a weakened mood.
II Fig.
Weakened mood:
PAM P M =Ø
SEM SM=Ø
SOP → SAP S M =Ø
There is no inequation in this antilogism. Hence, corresponding argument is invalid.

It can be shown that any other strengthened or weakened mood is invalid.
4.6 VENN DIAGRAM TECHNIQUE

Let us extend our knowledge of Venn diagram to the testing of arguments. If two
terms yield four product classes, then three terms should yield eight product classes
according to the formula 2x = n, where x stands for the number of terms and n stands
for the number of product classes. Since syllogism consists of three terms, we have
eight product classes. Let us begin with a valid mood and list these product classes.
BARBARA
p1: All M are P. MP = Φ
p2 : All S are M. SM = Φ
q : ∴ All S are P
The product classes are as follows: -
58
Validity, Invalidity and List
of Valid Syllogisms
While listing product classes, sufficient care should be taken to ensure that no product
class is repeated. It is always advisable to make a list of product classes with diagrams
and mark classes accurately to avoid confusion.
Now let us use diagram to represent the propositions. The procedure is as follows.
null sets are shaded and non-null sets are starred. We should also note that product
of null set and non-null set is a null set. It is like saying that 4 x 0 = 0. But the union,
i.e., addition of a non-null set and null set is a non-null set. Remember 4 + 0 = 4.
Since M P is a null set, not only SM P , but also S M P is a null set. It does not
mean that there are two null sets. There is only one null set. S M is also a null set.
Therefore not only the product of S M & P, but also S M and P is a null set.
Now we shall shade relevant subsets, which are null.
Fig. 2.
p1 and p2 show that: S M P = SM= S= SP = Ø. The conclusion shows that S also is

a null set. We did not specially shade S. Shading of M and S included naturally the
shading of S segment. This is what actually happens in the case of valid arguments.
Marking of premises naturally includes the conclusion. It is not marked separately.
In other words marking, of conclusion is inclusive. When we adopt Venn diagram
technique, this important condition should be borne in mind. Secondly, when any
premise is particular, the segment, which corresponds to the universal premise, should
be shaded first. This is the initial step to be followed. Now we shall consider some
59
Classical Logic moods. Others are left for the student as an exercise. [In all cases all product classes
should be identified by the student even if there is no need. This is a good exercise.]
2 BAROCO
p1: All P are M. PM = Ø

p2: Some S are not M. SM ≠ Ø
____________________________________ ______________
q: Some S are not P. SP ≠ Ø
3 DATISI
p1: All M are P. MP = Ø

p2: Some M are S. M S≠ Ø
______________________________ ______________
q: Some S are P. S P≠ Ø
60
4 DISAMIS of Valid Syllogisms
p1: Some M are P. MP≠Ø

p2: All M are S. M S= Ø
______________________________ ______________
q: Some S are P. S P≠ Ø
5 FERISON
p1: No M are P. MP=Ø
p2: Some M are S. MS≠Ø
________________ ______________
q: Some S are not P. S P ≠Ø
61
Classical Logic
7 CAMENES

p2: No M are S. MS=Ø
_________________________________ ______________
q: No S are P. SP=Ø
S P
p1
p2
62
of Valid Syllogisms
8 DIMARIS
p1: Some P are M. PM≠Ø

p2: All M are S. M S=Ø
______________________________ ______________
q: Some S are P. SP≠Ø
S P
*
p1
p2
9 FRESISON
p1: No P are M. PM=Ø

p2: Some M are S. MS ≠Ø
______________________________ ______________
q: Some S are not P. S P ≠Ø
S P
p2
*
p1
Let us examine a few weakened and strengthened moods using Venn’s diagram.
63
Classical Logic
10 BRAMANTIP

p2: All M are S. M S=Ø
______________________________ ______________
q: Some S are P. SP≠Ø
S P
p1
?
p2
No information on S M and SMP is available after the premises are diagrammed.

Therefore BRAMANTIP is invalid. Now consider a weakened mood.
AAI
p1: M A P. MP = Ø
p2: S A M. SM= Ø
______________________________ ______________
q: S I P. SP≠Ø
S ? P
p2
p1
In this case also no information is available on S P and S M P after the premises

are diagrammed. Hence AAI is invalid.
4.7 BOOLEAN ANALYSIS

George Boole published his work The Mathemaical Analysis of Logic in 1847.
This work provided not only the required breakthrough to logic but also a new
direction to its development. This analysis is known as The Boolean Algebra of
Classes. It is a rewarding exercise to understand this approach.
Boolean analysis presupposes some axioms. Basson and O’connor list thirteen axioms
while Alexander considers seven. However, for our purpose only four of them are
sufficient to understand this analysis. Let us begin with these axioms.
1) Law of multiplication: a) the product of a universal set and a non-null set(S) is
64 a non-null set. b) The product of null set and a non-null set is null set.
1 × S =S (where 1 is the universal set.) 1a Validity, Invalidity and List
of Valid Syllogisms
.
×S= 1b
2) Law of addition: The addition of complementary sets is universal set.
S S 1 2
3) Law of Commutation for a) addition and b) multiplication: Transposition of two

or more than two sets is equivalent to original structure.
a) (S+ P + M) = (S+ M +P) = (P + M + S) = (M+ S +P) ….. 3a
b) (S PM) = (SMP) = (MSP) = (MPS)……… 3b
(Instead of addition and multiplication we can also use union and product respectively.)
4) Law of distribution: The multiplication of a l set on the one hand and the addition
of two non-null sets on the other is equivalent to the addition of the product of
two sets.
S(P+M) = SP+PM……. 4
Some valid moods are worked out and the rest are left as exercises for the student.
1) BARBARA
p1: All M are P. MP

p2 : All S are M. SM
q: All S are P SP
Boolean analysis begins with the expansion of statements. The first stage of the
expansion of major premise is as follows.
MPMP 1 Rule 1b
M P S S MP Rule 2
MP S M P S M P Rule 4
Now we shall pass on to the second stage.
S M P SM P
a) Rule 1
S MP S MP
M P SM P S MP
The last line corresponds to the expansion of major premise. While expanding these
lines, we must obtain the addition or union of the product of all relevant sets and
their complements as well. On these lines, we shall expand remaining lines.
P SM PSM
b) Rule 1b
P SM PSM
PSM S MP
Rule 3b
PSM SM P
S M S MP S M P
65
Classical Logic The last line corresponds to the expansion of minor premise.
⎫
S P × M = SP M = Φ
c) ⎬ Rule 1b
SP × M = SPM = Φ ⎭
SP M = SM P = Φ ⎫
⎬ Rule 3b
S P M = SM P = Φ ⎭
S P = SM P + S M P = Φ
a + b = SM P + S M P + SMP + SM P = Φ
Since the union of four product classes is null set any set in this group is null set.
Consider the union of relevant sets.
SM P + SM P = Φ
Since this is equivalent to what we have obtained from the conclusion, the argument
is valid. This shows that the expansion of conclusion must be equal to or less than
the union of premises if the argument is valid. Hence this conclusion is not repeated
further while dealing with some arguments which are valid. Since we follow this
method throughout, we should bear in our mind all these details.
2) CELARENT
p1 : No M are P. MP = Φ
p2 : All S are M. SM = Φ
q : ∴ No S are P. SP = Φ
Expansion of major premise:
a : SMP + S MP = Φ
Expansion of minor premise:
b : SM P + S M P = Φ
Expansion of conclusion:
c : SMP + SM P = Φ
SP M = SMP
∴ SMP + SPM = SMP + SMP = Φ
a+b ⇒ SMP + S MP + SM P + S M P = Φ
c = SMP + SMP = Φ
a+b=c
3) DARII
p1 : All M are P. MP= Φ
p2 : Some S are M. SM ≠ Φ
q : ∴Some S are P. SP≠Φ
66
Expansion of minor premise: Validity, Invalidity and List
of Valid Syllogisms
b: SM P S M P
c: SMP SM P
SPM SMP
SMP SPM SMP SM P
a b SMP S MP S MP S M P
c SMP SM P
a b c
Since SMP is a non-null set, its union with null set yields a non-null set.
4) FERIO
p1 : No M are P. MP=
p2 : Some S are M. SM
q: Some S are not P. SP
a: SMP S MP
b: SMP SMP
c: SMP SM P
a b SMP S MP SMP SMP

SMP
SM P
SM P SM P
c SM P S M P
a+b=c
5) CESARE
p1: No P are M. PM
q: No S are P.. SP

a: SMP S MP
b: S MP S M P
c: SMP SM P
67
Classical Logic
a b SMP S MP S MP SM P
SMP SMP
c SMP SMP
a b c
6) CAMESTRES
p1 : All P are M. PM
p2 : No S are M. SM
q: No S are P. SP
a: SMP S MP
b: SMP SMP
c: SMP S M P
a b S M P S M P SMP SMP
SMP SM P
c SMP S M P
a+b = c
7) FESTINO
p1 : No P are M. PM
p2 : Some S are M. SM

a: SMP S MP
b: SMP SMP
c: SM P S M P
a b SMP S MP SMP SM P
SM P
SMP
c SM P SM P
a b c
68
8) BAROCO Validity, Invalidity and List
of Valid Syllogisms
p2 : Some S are not M. SM
a: SMP S MP
b: SM P S M P
c: SM P S MP
a b S M P S M P S MP S M P
SM P
SM P
SM P SM P
a b c
9) DISAMIS
p1: Some M are P. MP
p2 : All M are S. MS
q: Some S are P. SP

a: SMP S MP
b: S MP S MP
c: SMP SMP
a b SMP S MP S MP S MP
SMP
SMP
SMP SMP
a b c
10) DATISI
p1: All M are P.. MP
p2 : Some M are S. MS
q: Some S are P. SP
69
Classical Logic Expansion of major premise:

b : SMP + SM P ≠ Φ
c : SMP + SM P ≠ Φ
a + b ⇒ SM P + S MP + SMP + SMP ≠ Φ
= Φ + SMP ≠ Φ
∴SMP ≠ Φ
∴ SMP + SM P ≠ Φ
a+b = c
11) BOCARDO
p1 : Some M are not P. M P ≠ Φ
p2 : All M are S. M S = Φ
q : ∴ Some S are not P. S P ≠ Φ

a : SM P + S M P ≠ Φ
b : S MP + S M P = Φ
Expansion of conclusion.:
c : SM P + S M P ≠ Φ
a+b ⇒ SM P + S MP + SMP + SM P ≠ Φ
= Φ + SMP ≠ Φ
∴ SMP ≠ Φ
∴ SMP + SM P ≠ Φ
a+ b= c
12) FERISON
p1 : No M are P.
p2 : Some M are S. MS ≠ Φ
Some S are not P. S P ≠ Φ

a : SMP + S MP = Φ
b : SMP + SM P ≠ Φ
70
c : SM P + S M P ≠ Φ
a b SMP SMP SMP SMP Validity, Invalidity and List
of Valid Syllogisms
SMP
SM P
SM P S M P
a+b = c
13) CAMENES
p2 : No M are S. MS
q: No S are P.. SP
a: SMP S MP
b: SMP SM P
c: SMP S M P
a b S MP S MP SMP SMP
S M P SMP
a+b =c
14) DIMARIS
p1 : Some P are M. PM
p2 : All M are S. MS
q: Some S are P.. SP

a: SMP S MP
b: S MP S M P
c: SMP S M P
a b SMP SMP S MP S MP
SMP
SMP
c SMP S M P
a+b = c
15) FRESISON
p1 : No P are M. PM
p2 : Some M are S. MS
q: Some S are not P.. SP 71
Classical Logic Expansion of major premise:
a: SMP S MP
b: SMP SM P
c: SM P S M P
a b SMP S MP SMP SM P
SMP
SM P
SMP SM P
a+b = c
Let us examine an invalid mood which is regarded as valid in traditional framework.
16) AAI
p1 : All M are P. MP
q: Some S are P. SP Ø

a: SM P S MP
b: S MP S MP
c: SMP S MP
a b SM P S M P S MP SM P
a+b c
This is so because from equations alone it is not possible to obtain inequation.

Antilogism, Venn Diagram Technique and Boolean Analysis have one distinct
advantage. They do away with the concept of distribution of terms which is a
cumbersome to apply. What is required is only the application of some elements of
set theory.
Apply these techniques for the following arguments to test their validity.
1) All dogs have four legs.

All animals have four legs.
All dogs are animals.
2) All dogs have four legs.

All chairs have four legs.
All dogs are chairs.
3) No bats are cats.

No rats are bats.
No rats are cats.
72
4) No fish are birds. Validity, Invalidity and List
No golden plovers are fish. of Valid Syllogisms
∴No golden plovers are birds.
5) All Indians are people.

John is a person.
∴John is an Indian.
6) Some readers are philosophers.

Chanakya is a philosopher.
∴Chanakya is a reader.
7) No human being is perfect.

Some human beings are presidents.
∴Some presidents are not perfect.
8) All matter obeys wave equations.

All waves obey wave equations.
∴All matter is waves.
9) All human action is conditioned by circumstances.

All human action involves morality.
∴All that involves morality is conditioned by circumstances.
10) All that is good is pleasant.

All eating is pleasant.
∴All eating is good.
11) All patriots are voters.

Some citizens are not voters.
∴Some citizens are not patriots.
12) All potatoes have eyes.

John’s head has eyes.
∴John is a potato head.

1) EIO is valid and IEO is invalid in all the figures. Explain.
...........................................................................................................
...........................................................................................................
...........................................................................................................
...........................................................................................................
2) If both premises are universal, then the conclusion must also be universal.
Explain.
...........................................................................................................
...........................................................................................................
...........................................................................................................
...........................................................................................................
73
Classical Logic
4.8 LET US SUM UP
General rules apply to all figures whereas special rules apply to specific figures.
Special rules indirectly depend upon general rules only. Antilogism, Venn diagram
technique and Boolean analysis do away with the concept of distribution of terms.
According to the last three methods weakened and strengthened moods become
invalid though traditional logic regards them as valid.
4.9 KEY WORDS

Mood : By the ‘mood’ of a syllogism is meant that kind of a syllogism
which is determined by the ‘quantity’ and ‘quality’ of the three
propositions.
Figure : By the ‘figure’ of a syllogism is meant that kind of syllogism which
is determined by the function the ‘middle term’ plays in the syllogism.

Azzopardi, Salvino. ‘Logic.’ Pune: Jnana Deepa Vidyapeeth, n.d.
Copi, Irving M. and Carl Cohen. Introduction to Logic. 12th ed. Upper Saddle
River, N.J.: Pearson/Prentice Hall, 2005.
Essentials of Logic. 2nd ed. Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Pearson Prentice Hall,
2007.
‘Introduction to Logic.’ University of Lander, http://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/
index.html, accessed July, 2010.
Kemerling, Garth. ‘Categorical Syllogisms’ Philosophy Pages. http://
www.philosophypages.com/lg/e08a.htm 2001. Accessed on July 2, 2010.
Ling, Lee ‘Categorical Syllogisms’ http://www.comfsm.fm/~dleeling/geometry/
categorical_syllogisms.xhtml
Mathew, E.P. and Augustine Perumalil. Critical Thinking and Planned Writing.
Chennai: Satya Nilayam Publications, 2008.
74

Unit 1 Types of Categorical Propositions: A, E, I, O and Square of Opposition

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Unit 1 Types of Categorical Propositions: A, E, I, O and Square of Opposition

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Unit 1 Types of Categorical Propositions: A, E, I, O and Square of Opposition

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Types of Categorical

UNIT 1 TYPES OF CATEGORICAL Propositions: A,E,I,O and

1.2 TERMS AND THEIR KINDS

1.3 DENOTATION AND CONNOTATION OF TERMS

1.4 MEANING AND SUPPOSITION OF TERMS

Check Your Progress I

2) Let S* = {a,b,c}; there is no information on d, e and f.

3) S*⊆S or (S* ≥ S); S* is smaller than or equal to S. It also means that S* is

1) { RH} Set of rabbits, which are herbivorous.

RAH: ( ∀ x) {x ∈ R) => (x ∈ H)}

∀ is known as universal quantifier and ∃ is known as existential quantifier. (x) can

1.6 SQUARE OF OPPOSITION

1.7 LET US SUM UP

1.8 KEY WORDS

1.9 FURTHER READINGS AND REFERENCES

2.2 REASON AND INFERENCE: MEANING AND

2.3 KINDS OF INFERENCE

p1 : Some poets are literary figures.

2.4 DEDUCTIVE REASONING AND SYLLOGISM

Check Your Progress I

2.5 KINDS OF SYLLOGISM

Check Your Progress II

2.6 LET US SUM UP

2.7 KEY WORDS

3.2 MOODS OF CATEGORICAL SYLLOGISM

3.3 FIGURES OF SYLLOGISM:

Let us consider four examples, which correspond to four figures.

Check Your Progress I

Con structive Distructive

Sim ple Com plex Sim p le Com plex

c) The conclusion is either simple or disjunctive. It either affirms the consequents

3.6 AVOIDING DILEMMA

Since the dilemma is a medley of both types of conditional propositions, i. e.,

3.7 LET US SUM UP

3.8 KEY WORDS

3.9 FURTHER READINGS AND REFERENCES

2) All stars are bright.

3) Some radicals are good men.

4) The monkey is nonhuman.

4.3 SPECIAL APPLICATIONS OF THE

4.4 REDUCTION OF ARGUMENTS TO I FIGURE

DISAMIS → Conversion → DARII

4.5 ANTILOGISM OR INCONSISTENT TRIAD

Venn’s Results Antilogism

All Hindus are Asians. HÂ=¨ HÂ=¨

SEP → SIP SP≠Ø

Now consider a weakened mood.

There is no inequation in this antilogism. Hence, corresponding argument is invalid.

4.6 VENN DIAGRAM TECHNIQUE

p1 and p2 show that: S M P = SM= S= SP = Ø. The conclusion shows that S also is

p1: All P are M. PM = Ø

q: Some S are not P. SP ≠ Ø

p1: All M are P. MP = Ø

p1: Some M are P. MP≠Ø

p1: All P are M. PM = Ø

p1: Some P are M. PM≠Ø

q: Some S are P. SP≠Ø

p1: No P are M. PM=Ø

q: Some S are not P. S P ≠Ø

3) S⊆S or (S ≥ S); S* is smaller than or equal to S. It also means that S* is