THE CATEGORICAL SYLLOGISM

- is an argumentation in which we infer the conclusion ( third proposition)

from two premises or propositions. It consists of categorical, or attributive
propositions so put together that the subject and predicate of the conclusion are
united or separated through the intermediacy of a middle term. (Bachhuber:
Intro to logic p. 89 ) The syllogism is a verbal expression of an inference. The
premises stand for the truths that serve as the basis for the conclusion.
Basic Structure
Major Premise:
Every A is B
Minor Premise:
But every C is A
Conclusion:
Therefore, every C is B
A. The Major Term ( T ) is the predicate of the conclusion. It is
also found in the major premise.
B. The Minor Term ( t ) is the subject of the conclusion. It is found
in the minor premise.
C. The Middle Term ( M ) occurs in both premises but not in the
conclusion. It is the medium through which the major and minor
terms are compared with each other to determine if agreement /
unity (in the affirmative syllogism) or disagreement / separation
( in the negative syllogism) can be established.
Affirmative Syllogism:
1.
Every man is mortal;
But every Filipino is a man;
Therefore, every Filipino is mortal.

M
t
t

Filipino
MAN
MORTAL
(beings)

is
is
is

T;
M;
T.

Categorical Syllogism - 2
Negative Syllogism:
2.

No angel is an animal;
But every dog is animal;
Therefore, no dog is an angel.

DOG

T
t
t

is
is
is

M;
M;
T.

ANGEL

ANIMAL

A syllogism must conform to the rules of logic. The premises must express
truth or are consistent with objective reality. It must also follow the correct form.
Hence, it is both materially true and formally correct.

RULES OF THE CATEGORICAL SYLLOGISM:

A. RULES ON TERMS:
1. There must only be three terms the major term, the minor
term and the middle term.
2. The middle term must not appear in the conclusion.
3. The major and minor term may not be universal in the
conclusion unless they are universal in the premises.
4. The middle term must be universal at least once.
B. RULES ON PROPOSITIONS:
5. If both premisses are affirmative, the conclusion must be
affirmative.
6. If one premiss is negative, the conclusion must be negative.
7. If both premises are negative, there must be no conclusion.
8. At least one premiss must be universal.
9. If one premise is particular, the conclusion must be particular.
10. The actual real existence of a subject may not be asserted in
the conclusion unless it has been asserted in the premises.

Categorical Syllogism - 3
RULE 1: THERE MUST ONLY BE THREE TERMS THE MAJOR, MINOR
AND MIDDLE TERMS. The terms must have exactly the same meaning and
must be used in the exactly the same way. There are four terms if the middle
term is not univocal, or have a different application. ( See Section on Univocal,
Analogous and Equivocal Terms. )
Rule 1 is violated in the following cases:
1. A ruler has 12 inches;
2. Every student is rational;
But a king is a ruler;
But some plants are trees;
Therefore a king has 12 inches.
(No conclusion)
No middle term here. There are four terms.
3. Man has three letters;
But you are a man;
Therefore you have three letters.
RULE 2 THE MIDDLE TERM MUST NOT APPEAR IN THE CONCLUSION.
Rule 2 is violated in this example:
Every child is a human being;
But a human being is rational;
Hence some human being is a child.

T
M
M

M
t
T

It is no longer necessary to mention the middle term in the conclusion since it

already served as the medium for uniting the major and minor terms.
RULE 3 THE MAJOR AND MINOR TERMS MAY NOT BE UNIVERSAL IN
THE CONCLUSION UNLESS THEY ARE UNIVERSAL IN THE PREMISES.
Violation of this rule means either extending a term of an illicit process of a
term. We are not to conclude about all of the inferiors or members of the term if
the truth of the premises involves only some of them. What is true of some
need not be true of all.
U
P
A. Illicit Minor: All television sets are objects;
M
T
P
P
But some appliances are television sets;
t (P) M
U
P
Therefore all appliances are objects.
t (U) T

Categorical Syllogism - 4
U
P
B. Illicit major : All cats are fourlegged animals
U
U
But no men are cats;
U
U
Therefore, no men are four- legged animals.

T (P)

T (U)

RULE 4 - THE MIDDLE TERM MUST BE UNIVERSAL AT LEAST ONCE.

These two examples violate this rule:
U
P
1. All trees are plants;
U
P
But all vegetables are plants;
U
P
Therefore, all vegetables are trees.

( Pre Pre )

P
P
2 . Some flowers are cattleya;
P
P
But some flowers are roses;
P
P
Therefore, some roses are cattleya. ( Sub Sub )

CATTLEYA

FLOWERS

ROSES

Categorical Syllogism - 5
When the middle term is particular in both premises it may stand for
different portion of its extension and hence does not really unite nor separate the
major and minor terms. The conclusion is ambiguous. This error is often called as
the fallacy of the undistributed middle.

RULE 5 - IF BOTH PREMISES ARE AFFIRMATIVE, THE CONCLUSION

MUST BE AFFIRMATIVE
This rule is consistent with the principle of identity: that two things which are
identical to a common third ( the middle term ) are identical with each other.
When both premises are affirmative, the major term and minor term are united
with each other, hence there is no reason why they should be separated in the
conclusion.
Sample violation:
(A)
All animals are living things;
(A)
But all butterflies are animals;
(E)
Therefore all butterflies are not living things.

BUTTERFLIES
ANIMALS

LIVING THINGS

When the premises are As and or Is, we must not have an E or O in the
conclusion.
RULE 6 IF ONE OF THE PREMISE IS NEGATIVE, THE CONCLUSION
MUST BE NEGATIVE.
The conclusion cannot affirm what is already denied in the premises. A negative
premise (either major or minor) separates the middle term from either the major
or minor term. Two terms are not identical with each other when one is identical
with the middle term (affirmative proposition) and the other is different from the
middle term (negative proposition).

Categorical Syllogism - 6
This example is invalid:
(E)
No tree is animal;
(A)
But every narra is a tree;
(A)
Every narra is an animal.

TREES
ANIMALS
NARRA

RULE 7 - IF BOTH PREMISES ARE NEGATIVE, THERE IS NO CONCLUSION

AT ALL.
When both premises are negative, the middle term is denied of both major and
minor terms. Hence no relation is established between the two terms with each
other. No conclusion is possible.
Sample violation:
1.

TREE

A jeepney is not a plant;

But a tree is not a jeepney;
Hence a tree is not a plant.

JEEPNEY

TREE
PLANT

2.

A bus is not a faucet ;

But a faucet is not a stove;
Therefore a stove is not a bus.

The conclusion of the example 2 is true only by accident. Example 1 is obviously

inconsistent with facts.

Categorical Syllogism - 7

3. What is not material is not mortal;

But the human soul is not material;
Therefore the human soul is not mortal. (the human
soul is immortal)
Example 3 illustrates an apparent but not real violation of rule 7. Example 3 is
a valid syllogism which can be rephrased as:
No B is not C;
( Every B is a C; )
But no A is not a B;
( Every A is a B; )
Therefore no A is not a C. ( Every A is a C. )

RULE 8 - AT LEAST ONE PREMISE MUST BE UNIVERSAL.

Two particular premises will violate either rule 3 or 4. Consider the following
combinations:
1.

I: Some women are queens;

I: Some women are maids;
I: Therefore some maids are queens.

P
P
P

is
is
is

P ( Sub Sub )
P
P

When both premises are affirmative, rule 4 is violated. Middle term is not
universal.
2.

I: Some men are beggars;

O: Not all beggars are atheists;
O: Some atheists are not men.

P
P
P

is
is
is

P
U
U

When one premise is negative, rule 3 is violated. ( Illicit Major )

3. If both particular premises are negative, rule 7 is violated.
Therefore, no valid conclusion can be reached when both premises are
particular.

Categorical Syllogism - 8

RULE 9- IF A PREMISE IS PARTICULAR THE CONCLUSION MUST BE

PARTICULAR.
This example is invalid:
All trees are plants;
Some living things are trees;
Therefore, all living things are plants.

A: M
I: t(P)
A: t ( U )

T
M
T

The conclusion must not declare what cannot be supported by the premises. The
strength of the evidence must not exceed those that were asserted to be valid
only to particular cases.
The example also violates rule 3. (illicit minor ) Note the increase in extension of
the minor term.
The minor term must remain particular in the conclusion as its subject.
RULE 10 THE ACTUAL REAL EXISTENCE OF A SUBJECT MAY NOT BE
ASSERTED IN THE CONCLUSION UNLESS IT HAS BEEN ASSERTED IN
THE PREMISES.
Nothing may be asserted in the conclusion that has not been asserted implicitly
in the premises. Any new subject brought in the conclusion that was never
mentioned in the premises cannot be accepted as a valid conclusion. This rule is
no longer properly in logic but is a necessary aid to argumentation.

Reference: Bachhuber, Andrew H. Introduction to Logic. Pp. 89 136.

JOSEPH ABRAHAM V BIBAL
( revised july 16, 1998, August 21, 2001 )