Syllogisms

DETERMINING THE VALIDITY OF A LOGICAL ARGUMENT

A typical syllogism is an argument that contains three parts: a major premise, a minor premise, and a
conclusion (see example 1 below). Our task is to determine whether the logic applied to the argument is
valid or not. It is valid only if the conclusion follows logically from the premises. A sound argument
occurs when all the premises are unequivocally true, as well.

For 2000 years the syllogism was the principle topic of logical studies. The ancient Greek philosopher,
Aristotle, the founder of formal logic, restricted his attention almost exclusively to the syllogism. Today
it is just a small part of the study of logic.
Example #1:





The first step is to translate the syllogism into logical notation:
Let p = the given figure is a square p q (MAJOR PREMISE)
Let q = it is a rectangle P (MINOR PREMISE)
q (CONCLUSION)

The next step is to analyze the form of the argument.

Note that the major premise is in the form of an implication: p q

This is followed by the minor premise and the conclusion, which, when combined, has the form p q,
which is just another way to write p q. Thus this syllogism can be view as saying If pq then pq,
which is obviously true and therefore a VALID means of arguing. History has given this form of arguing a
special name MODUS PONENS, which is Latin for method of affirming (i.e., the conclusion is an
affirmation). This is just one way to construct a valid logical argument. It is one of many RULES OF
INFERENCE that yield valid argumentative forms. See the box at the top of page 3 for a listing of several
rules of inference.



If the given figure is a square, then it is a rectangle. (This is the MAJOR PREMISE)
The given figure is a square. (This is the MINOR PREMISE)
Therefore, it is a rectangle. (This is the CONCLUSION)
2

Another, though less elegant, way to determine the validity of such an argument is to construct a truth
table of its logical structure. To set this up, collect the premises, connected conjunctively, onto the left
side of an implication, while placing the conclusion by itself on the right side.

Here is the logical expression for which the truth value need be found:

[(p q) q] [q]

It is under implication symbol that we find the truth value. If this expression is shown to be a
TAUTOLOGY (i.e., all values are True), then the argument is valid. Here is a display of the truth table:

p q pq (pq) q [(pq) q] q
Already knowing that this form of arguing is valid, it
is no surprise that the arguments truth value is a
tautology.



Example #2:

Translating: p = I pass math
q = I graduate





Note that the major premise is again in the form of an implication: p q

But this time it is followed by a minor premise and conclusion, which has the form p q, which is just
another way to write p q. Thus this syllogism can be view as saying If pq then pq. Note
that given the statement p q, the statement p q is the inverse of the given statement. Recall
that p q and pq are not logically equivalent. (Verify this!) Therefore this is an INVALID means of
arguing. This can be labeled as in INVERSE ERROR due to its structure and is just one of many ways to
construct an invalid logical argument the kind of arguing we wish to expose and avoid.

Consider this arguments truth value:

p q p q pq (pq) p [(pq) p] q Note that in some cases the
argument is true and in at
least one case it is false.
Hence, the argument, not
being a tautology, is invalid as
already determined above.



T T T T T
T F F F T
F T T T T
F F T F T
T T F F T F T
T F F T F F T
F T T F T T F
F F T T T T T
If I pass math, then I will graduate.

I did not pass math.

Therefore, I did not graduate.
p q
p
q
3

Some Rules of Inference Some Fallacies


Modus Ponens Modus Tollens

p q p q
P q
q p


Elimination Transitivity

p q p q
p q r
q p r





Note how Modus Tollens says
that p q implies its
contrapositive, the two of
which are logically equivalent.
Think about each of these to
gain insight into why these
two rules of inference are also
good reasoning skills.

Inverse Error

p q
p
q

Converse Error

p q
q
p

Can you explain how
these errors got their
names?
Now you try some:

For each given syllogism, determine whether the argument is valid or invalid. Explain your reasoning
for each by stating the rule of inference used or by indicating the error. If not rule of inference can be
determined, use truth tables to determine the validity/invalidity of the argument.

1. If I study math then I will have fun.
I do not have fun.
Therefore I do not study math.

2. If I make a big fuss, then I will not have any new friends.
I do not have any new friends.
Therefore I have made a big fuss.

3. I will major in either physics or music.
I do not major in music.
Therefore I will major in physics.

4. If the coffee is too hot, it will burn my stomach.
The coffee I drink is not too hot.
Therefore my stomach will not be burned.

5. If I dont learn to fly, then I must learn to bounce.
I did not learn to fly.
Therefore I learned to bounce.

6. If my hair is too messy, then I will never get married.
If I never get married, then I will begin to lose more weight.
Therefore, If my hair is too messy, I will lose weight.

7. If my eyes begin to spin, then my eyebrows get tangled.
If my eyebrows get tangled, then I nose starts to droop.
Therefore, If I my nose doesnt droop, then my eyes are not spinning.
4


Solutions
1. Valid; Modus Tollens
2. Invalid; Converse Error
3. Valid; Elimination
4. Invalid; Inverse Error
5. Valid; Modus Ponens
6. Valid; Transitivity
7. Valid; Transitivity (with a little bit of Modus Tollens thrown in!)