Syllogism Types

Why This Matters

Syllogisms form the backbone of deductive reasoning—they're the formal structures that let you move from premises to conclusions with certainty. In Formal Logic I, you're being tested on your ability to recognize these argument forms, identify their components, and evaluate whether they're valid. Understanding syllogism types means understanding how logical inference actually works, from the categorical relationships Aristotle identified to the conditional reasoning that powers modern logic.

Don't just memorize the names and definitions here. For each syllogism type, know what logical relationship it exploits, what makes it valid, and how it differs from similar forms. Exam questions will ask you to identify argument forms in natural language, construct valid syllogisms, and explain why certain inference patterns work while others fail.

---

Categorical Syllogisms: Reasoning About Classes

These syllogisms work by establishing relationships between categories or classes of things. The underlying principle is that if we know how two categories relate to a middle term, we can deduce how they relate to each other.

Categorical Syllogism

• Three categorical statements—a major premise, minor premise, and conclusion that connect three terms through class membership
• Quantifiers determine validity: uses "all," "some," or "no" to express universal or particular claims about category relationships
• Middle term links the argument—appears in both premises but not the conclusion, serving as the logical bridge between subject and predicate terms

Sorites

• Chain of categorical syllogisms—the predicate of one statement becomes the subject of the next, building toward a final conclusion
• Eliminates middle terms progressively: each step drops an intermediate category until only the first subject and last predicate remain
• Tests your ability to track term relationships across multiple inferential steps—common in exam questions asking you to identify implicit premises

Polysyllogism

• Multiple linked syllogisms—where the conclusion of one syllogism serves as a premise for the next
• Differs from sorites in that each component syllogism is complete and explicit, not compressed into a chain
• Useful for complex arguments involving several distinct inferential moves—you may be asked to break these into their component syllogisms

---

Conditional Syllogisms: If-Then Reasoning

These forms exploit the logical relationship between antecedents and consequents in conditional statements. The key principle: a conditional creates a one-way logical dependency that constrains what we can validly infer.

Hypothetical Syllogism

• Chains conditional statements—if $P \rightarrow Q$ and $Q \rightarrow R$, then $P \rightarrow R$
• Transitivity of implication: the consequent of one conditional becomes the antecedent of the next, preserving the logical connection
• Pure form uses only conditionals—no categorical claims, just relationships between hypothetical scenarios

Conditional Syllogism

• Mixes conditional and categorical premises—one premise states an if-then relationship, another asserts something about the condition
• Foundation for modus ponens and modus tollens: the specific way you interact with the conditional determines which inference rule applies
• Focus on cause-effect reasoning—often appears in arguments about consequences or implications

Modus Ponens

• Affirms the antecedent—given $P \rightarrow Q$ and $P$, conclude $Q$
• The "positive" conditional inference: if the sufficient condition holds, the necessary condition must follow
• Most intuitive valid form—but watch for the fallacy of affirming the consequent, which reverses the logic incorrectly

Modus Tollens

• Denies the consequent—given $P \rightarrow Q$ and $\neg Q$, conclude $\neg P$
• Contrapositive reasoning: if the necessary condition fails, the sufficient condition cannot have held
• Powerful for falsification—shows how one false prediction can invalidate an entire hypothesis

---

Disjunctive Syllogisms: Eliminating Alternatives

These syllogisms work by process of elimination. The underlying logic: when alternatives are exhaustive, ruling out one confirms the other.

Disjunctive Syllogism

• Exploits "or" statements—given $P \lor Q$ and $\neg P$, conclude $Q$
• Requires true disjunction: the "or" must be genuinely exhaustive—if alternatives are incomplete, the inference fails
• Elimination reasoning—commonly used when you can definitively rule out one possibility to establish another

---

Incomplete and Extended Forms: Real-World Reasoning

Formal logic meets practical argumentation in these forms, which either compress or expand the standard syllogistic structure. Understanding these helps you analyze arguments as they actually appear in texts and speech.

Enthymeme

• Syllogism with a missing premise—one statement is implied rather than explicitly stated
• Context supplies the gap: the unstated premise is assumed to be obvious or shared knowledge
• Critical for argument analysis—exam questions often ask you to identify the hidden premise that makes an enthymeme valid

Epicheirema

• Syllogism with built-in support—one or both premises include their own justification or evidence
• Premises come with reasons attached: rather than asserting "All A are B," it says "All A are B because..."
• Strengthens persuasive force—shows how formal logic structures can accommodate evidential reasoning

---

Quick Reference Table

---

Self-Check Questions

1. What logical feature do modus ponens and modus tollens share, and what distinguishes their inference patterns?

2. You encounter an argument that states: "Either the system is consistent or it is complete. It is not complete. Therefore, it is consistent." Which syllogism type is this, and what must be true about the disjunction for the inference to be valid?

3. Compare sorites and polysyllogism: how does each handle the connection between multiple syllogistic inferences?

4. An editorial argues: "Democracies don't go to war with each other, so expanding democracy will bring peace." What type of syllogism is this, and what unstated premise does it rely on?

5. If an FRQ presents the argument "If inflation rises, interest rates will increase; interest rates have not increased," which inference rule should you apply, and what conclusion follows?