LP ITL LECTURE 5 MY ESSENTIALS

Aristotle’s Syllogism: Deductive Argument Consisting Only of Categorical

Constituents. Two Categorical Premises and a Categorical Conclusion.

Only Four Types of Categorical Statements.

Subject (S) – That About Which the Statement Talks/States.

Predicate (P) – That Which Says Something About the Subject, Relates To the
Subject.

Categorical Statement: All (S) is (P).

Categorical Statement: No (S) is (P).

Categorical Statement: Some (S) is (P).

Categorical Statement: Some (S) is not (P).

Every Categorical Statement has a Subject and a Predicate. Subject is

Whatever One Talks About, Predicate is Whatever Class One Relates to the
Subject, Whether Affirmative or Negative Relationship.

Either One Talks About Every Member of the Subject Class or About Some.

Quantity of a Statement – Amount of the Subject Class that it Refers to. Only
Two Choices, Universal or Particular.

Universal Quantity – A Statement Which Refers to Every Member of the

Subject Class.

Particular Quantity – A Statement Which Refers to Some Member of the

Subject Class, But Not All.

“All (S) is (P)” and “No (S) is (P)” are Universal Statements. “Some (S) is
(P)” and “Some (S) is not (P)” are Particular Statements.

Quality of a Statement – Type of Relation Established Between the Subject

and the Predicate. Only Two Choices, Affirmative or Negative.

“All (S) is (P)” – Quantity Universal, Quality Affirmative. “No (S) is (P)” –
Quantity Universal, Quality Negative. “Some (S) is (P)” – Quantity Particular,
Quality Affirmative. “Some (S) is not (P)” – Quantity Particular, Quality
Negative.

Why Only Four Categorical Statements are Possible? Either One Talks About
All of the Subject Class Or Some. If About All, Either One Says It Is Or Isn't In
The Predicate Class, And the Same About Some. Either It Is Or Isn't,
Therefore No Other Possibilities.
In Terms of Subject Included or Excluded in the Predicate, “All (S) is (P)” is
Complete Inclusion, “No (S) is (P)” is Complete Exclusion, “Some (S) is (P)”
is Partial Inclusion, “Some (S) is not (P)” is Partial Exclusion.

Diagrams of Four Categorical Statements.

“All (S) is (P)” – “A” Proposition, Universal Affirmative. “No (S) is (P)” – “E”
Proposition, Universal Negative. “Some (S) is (P)” – “I” Proposition,
Particular Affirmative. “Some (S) is not (P)” – “O” Proposition, Particular
Negative.

Quantifier – the Word, Right Before the Subject, that Indicates Quantity of
the Statement. “All / No” Universal, “Some” Particular.

Terms of a Statement – Subject Term (S) and Predicate Term (P).

Copula – A Word or Two Between Subject and Predicate Whose Sole Function
is to Link or Join the Terms to Make a Complete Statement. Some Form of
the Verb “To Be” – “is”, “are”, “is not”, “are not”.

Structure of a Categorical Statement: Quantifier, Subject, Copula, Predicate.

“Some” in a Categorical Statement Means “Any Number Less Than All.”

Anything that Isn’t “All” is “Some”.

The Statement “Some (S) is (P)” Does Not Imply Any Commitment / Does
Not Say Anything At All About the Rest of (S), the Rest is Left Wide Open.
Interpreted as “Some (S), Maybe All, Maybe Not All, Not Committing to the
Rest of (S), But Only “Some (S) is (P)”.

Form “All (S) is not (P)” is Invalid, Because It’s Amphibolous Fallacy, Can
Mean Either “Some (S) is not (P) and some is” Or “No (S) is (P)”.

Singular Statement, One That Represents Single Individual/Thing as Subject,

Treated as Universals, Quantifier “All” or “No”. Therefore They are Either
“A” or “E” Propositions.

Distribution – A Term is Distributed If the Proposition in Which It Occurs

Gives One Some Information About Every Member of the Class Designated
By That Term.
Distributed (d) Tells Something About All of the Class, Undistributed (u) Tells
Something Only About Some of the Class. Applies to Subject and Predicate
of a Statement.

Subject of “A” Proposition {All (S) is (P)} is Distributed (d). Predicate of “A”
Proposition is Undistributed (u).

Both Subject and Predicate of “E” Proposition {No (S) is (P)} are Distributed
(d).

Both Subject and Predicate of “I” Proposition {Some (S) is (P)} are
Undistributed (u).

Subject of “O” Proposition {Some (S) is not (P)} is Undistributed (u).

Predicate of “O” Proposition Distributed (d).

Mediate Inference – Anytime Having More than One Premise, the Second
Premise Mediates the Inference (Passing from Premises to Conclusion).

Immediate Inference – the Process of Inferring a Conclusion from One

Premise, By Changing the Statement’s Form or Mode of Expression But
Keeping its Meaning Same. Go Straight from the Premise to its Restatement
Without Any Intermediate Link.

Immediate Inference – Obversion – Process of Changing a Proposition into a

Logically Equivalent One, Having a Different Quality.

Logically Equivalent Statements Have the Same Meaning, Implications, All

Same, Only Linguistic Form is Varied.

In Obversion Rewrite Affirmative Statement to Negative or Negative

Statement to Affirmative, But Keep The Meaning Exactly Same.

Obversion of “All (S) is (P)” is “No (S) is (non-P)”.

Obversion of “No (S) is (P)” is “All (S) is (non-P)”.

Obversion of “Some (S) is (P)” is “Some (S) is not (non-P)”.

Obversion of “Some (S) is not (P)” is “Some (S) is (non-P)”.

Immediate Inference – Conversion – Process of Changing a Proposition into a

Logically Equivalent One by Reversing the Order of the Subject and
Predicate.

Conversion of “No (S) is (P)” is “No (P) is (S)”.

Conversion of “Some (S) is (P)” is “Some (P) is (S)”.

Conversion of “All (S) is (P)” Must Be Avoided Because “Some (P) is (S)”
Gives Us Less Information, We Lose Information By Conversing “A”
Proposition. Converse By Limitation.

“O” Proposition, “Some (S) is not (P)”, Does Not Converse At All.
Immediate Inference – Contraposition – Process of Changing a Proposition
into a Logically Equivalent One by Obverting, then Converting, then
Obverting.

Contrapositive of an A Proposition. “All (S) is (P)” to “No (S) is (non-P)” to

“No (non-P) is (S)” to “All (non-P) is (non-S)”.

Rule for Contrapositive of “A” Proposition, One can Always Reverse and
Negate Both the Terms. Same as Contrapositive of “IF-THEN” Statement.

Categorical Argument: All (M) is (P), all (S) is (M), therefore all (S) is (P).
Aristotelian Syllogism.

Minor Term (S) – the Subject of the Conclusion, Usually the Least Broad
Term, the Narrowest Term.

Major Term (P) – the Predicate of the Conclusion.

Major Premise – the Premise that Contains the Major Term.

Minor Premise – the Premise that Contains the Minor Term.

Major Term Occurs Twice, Once Predicate of Conclusion and Once in Major
Premise. Minor Term Occurs Twice, Once Subject of Conclusion and Once in
Minor Premise.

Middle Term (M) – One that Facilitates the Connection Between the Minor
and Major Terms. Occurs in Both the Premises but Not in the Conclusion.

Aristotelian Syllogism – a Deductive Argument Containing Two Premises and

Three Terms, Two of Which are Linked in the Conclusion as a Result of the
Linking of Each of Them with the Third or Middle Term in the Premises.

Rule One of the Five Rules of Validity of a Syllogism. Must Have Three and
Only Three Terms (Used in the Same Sense Throughout the Argument), Each
of Them Appearing Twice.

More than Three Terms Violates Rule One and Called the Fallacy if Four
Terms. Equivocation, Using One Word in Two Different Senses.

Second Rule of Syllogistic Validity: the Middle Term Must Be Distributed At

Least Once, in At Least One of the Premises. That Ensures that the Middle
Term Functions as the Linking Term Between the Minor and Major Terms.

Violation of Rule Two of Syllogistic Validity is Called Fallacy of Undistributed

Middle.

In Deduction, One Cannot Have in Conclusion Something That Was Not

Already Contained in the Premise. Conclusion Makes Explicit What’s Implicit
in Premises.

Rule Three of Syllogistic Validity: If a Term is Distributed in the Conclusion,

Then It Must Be Distributed in the Premises.
Violation of Rule Three, Fallacy of Illicit Minor When Minor Term Distributed
in Conclusion but Undistributed in the Premise, and Fallacy of Illicit Major
When Major Term Distributed in Conclusion but Undistributed in the
Premise.

Perfectly Okay if Term Distributed in Premise and Distributed in Conclusion,

or if Term Undistributed in Premise and Undistributed in Conclusion, or if
Term Distributed in Premise and Undistributed in Conclusion. But Term
Cannot Be Undistributed in Premise and Distributed in Conclusion.

Rule Four of Syllogistic Validity: No Conclusion Follows From Two Negative

Premises. No Valid Argument From Two Negative Premises.

Violation of Rule Four of Syllogistic Validity Called the Fallacy of Two

Negatives. Fallacy Because No Relation Between Minor and Major Terms Can
Be Established If Both The Premises Give Negative Information.

Rule Five of Syllogistic Validity: If One Premise Negative, Then Conclusion

Must Be Negative. If Conclusion Negative, Then One Premise Must Be
Negative.

From Two Affirmative Premises, an Affirmative Conclusion Follows. If

Conclusion Negative, Then One Premise Must Be Negative.

If Both Premises Affirmative Then Conclusion Affirmative. If One of the

Premises Negative Then Conclusion Negative. If Both Premises Negative
Then Argument Invalid So No Conclusion. If Conclusion Negative Then One of
the Premises Must Be Negative.

Shorthand Rules of Syllogism: Must Have Only Three Terms; Middle Term
Must be Distributed At Least Once; If Minor/Major Term Distributed in
Conclusion, Then Must be Distributed in Premise; Only One of the Premises
Can Be Negative, Then Conclusion Must Be Negative; Invalid Argument If
Both Premises Negative.

Main Function of Obversion or Conversion or Contraposition: In some cases

Rewrite a Seemingly Invalid Syllogism into a Statement that is a Perfectly
Valid Syllogism.

Obversion Only Negates the Predicate, it Never Touches the Subject. So First
Convert the Subject in cases where Two Negative Terms are In the Subject.

Once Syllogism is of Three Identical Terms, Then No Further Function of

Obversion, Conversion or Contraposition.

Steps to Solve Categorical Syllogism: First Find the Conclusion, Then

Rewrite in Standard Form (Only 4 Possible), Then Check Whether the Three
Terms are of the Same Sense and No Equivocation Involved, Then Symbolize,
Then Insert the Distributions, Finally Follow the Rules of Syllogistic Validity.

CATEGORICAL SYLLOGISMS 1-6 from ITL Workbook

 Introduction to Logic by Dr. Leonard Peikoff LECTURE 5
Good evening ladies and gentlemen. Tonight we are going to continue our discussion
of validity, deductive validity.

Aristotle’s Syllogism: Deductive Argument Consisting

Only of Categorical Constituents. Two Categorical
Premises and a Categorical Conclusion. Error: Reference source
not found
Recall that we're using validity in a specific sense. An argument is said to be valid if
the Conclusion follows Logically from the premises. So when we say that an argument
is valid, we are not yet saying that the premises are true or that the Conclusion is
true. Merely that the premises of that argument in fact necessitate the Conclusion.
The argument we are going to start this evening is an argument containing only
Categorical statements: Two Categorical premises and a Categorical Conclusion.
Remember last week we looked at Hypothetical arguments, pure and mixed, and
Alternative arguments, which had Hypothetical premises and Alternative premises
mixed in with Categoricals in most cases. The one we're starting tonight has only
Categorical premises and a Categorical Conclusion.
This type of argument is known as a Syllogism, a deductive argument consisting only
of Categorical constituents. Now the Syllogism is entirely Aristotle's discovery. The
Mixed and Pure Hypotheticals and the Alternatives were worked out by Logicians later
than Aristotle. But the one we're doing tonight and next week, since we'll spend two
weeks on it, is Aristotle's discovery.
Now I want to warn you in advance that there is a very large terminology associated
with this particular argument, which you will have to get used to, and which I will
introduce you to little by little as we go along tonight. You'll build up a whole arsenal
of impressive sounding terms. I would like to ask you not to become panicked by the
sheer quantity of these distinctions and terms. Each point by itself is perfectly simple.
The trick is just to keep the accumulation, without it all suddenly disintegrating in your
mind. Tonight, I should warn you, will be therefore the most technical of the entire
course. Not difficult, but simply technical in terms of the number of terms and
distinctions I will introduce, and the number of symbols I will give you. So that if you
get through tonight, you're definitely through the worst.
One other preliminary. There are a great many introductory points that you need by
way of analysis of Categorical statements before we can turn to the argument. And at
several points, you're going to think, well, now I finally must know everything, that
you could conceivably think of to say, about a Categorical statement. Now let's get to
the argument, and I will say, “not yet, there's still another one.” If you can hold on, I
guarantee that by the end of this evening, all of the distinctions and equations, etc.,
that we work out at the beginning, will finally prove invaluable in actually working out
the Validity of Categorical arguments. But you will have to have patience until we get
to the end of this evening. I will cash in on it. Now tonight, we're only going to work
out the basic theory of the Categorical argument. The higher complexities of how you
translate from ordinary speech into the standard form that we work out tonight, we
will do next week.
 Diagrams of Four Categorical Statements. Error: Reference
source not found

Only Four Types of Categorical Statements Error: Reference

source not found
All right, take a deep breath and let us plunge in. Get out your booklets on page 11.
And you will see there under the heading for Lecture 5, number 1, four simple
statements.
Let's just look at the first one. These represent simple examples of the only four types
of Categorical statement that there are.

Categorical Statement: All (S) is (P). Error: Reference source not

found
You see there number 1A is “all voters are citizens.”
The first thing to observe about this simple statement is a fact which is true of every
Categorical statement: It is about something. All these statements talk about
something.
And usually, they talk about Classes, i.e., about groups of things which have
something in common.
In this case, obviously, the statement is talking about the Class of “voters.” Now what
would be a good name for the Subject of the statement, that about which it talks, the
Class of which is its Subject? That is called the Subject. Error: Reference source not
found
Therefore we put parentheses around it. As you see, they're all around the word
“(voters).” And we choose the letter “S”. You see the first letter of “Subject” to stand
for that.
Now if you simply said “voters” and sat down, that would not yet be a statement. You
have to relate “voters” to something, usually to some other Class. You have to say
something about “voters”, ascribe some other Class or characteristic to them.
In this case, we are relating “voters” to the group or Class “citizens”.
What would be a good name for the term at the end of the statement, which is what
we're relating the Subject to? That is called the Predicate. Error: Reference source
not found
And we put parentheses around it. And we have the letter “P” symbolize that.
Therefore, right underneath that statement, I have given you this symbolic structure
of the statement: All S is P.
Obviously you could have an unlimited number of statements with exactly this
structure, simply altering the content of the S and P. All men are mortal, all dogs are
four-legged, et cetera. You can use your own imagination in multiplying examples. All
of those would be examples of this type of statement, the structure being all S is P.

Categorical Statement: No (S) is (P). Error: Reference source not

found
I ignore the diagrams on the right for the moment and go to the next one.
“No dogs are moralists.”
Here again, there is something we are talking about, some Class which is the Subject,
in this case “dogs,” so we've symbolized it by “S”. And again, a Class to which we are
relating the Subject, something we are saying about the Subject, in this case it's a
negative relationship, but that we'll leave aside for the moment.
The Predicate in this case is “moralists,” the structure: no S is P.
And again, there could be innumerable examples of this type of structure, no angels
are sex maniacs, et cetera, et cetera. You can make them up as many as you want.

Categorical Statement: Some (S) is (P). Error: Reference source

not found
Look at the next one.
“Some men are six-footers.”
Again, we have a Subject, something we're talking about, “men,” and a Predicate to
which we are relating it, in this case “six-footers,” and therefore by symbolizing, we
get some S is P as the structure.

Categorical Statement: Some (S) is not (P).

“Some women are not geniuses.”
In the last possibility, our Subject, what we're talking about is “women,” and the Class
to which we are relating them is “genius,” in this case, again, a negative relation, but
we'll leave that aside for the moment.
The Predicate is simply the Class “geniuses” and the abstract structure: some S is
not P.

Every Categorical Statement has a Subject and a

Predicate. Subject is Whatever One Talks About,
Predicate is Whatever Class One Relates to the Subject,
Whether Affirmative or Negative Relationship. Error:
Reference source not found
Now from this, you can see that every Categorical statement has a Subject and a
Predicate.
The Subject is, by definition, whatever you are talking about.
As I say, it's in most cases, a Class of things.
The Predicate is, by definition, whatever Class you are relating to the Subject, whether
it is an affirmative or a negative relationship.
Do not be misled by the simplicity of these statements. The Subject or the Predicate
may be very, very long phrases. There's no reason why simply one word must
designate them. If I utter the following statement, don't take it down because it's
deliberately long, but if I say to you, “Are men with blue eyes and long heads are men
admired by Nazi anthropologists?” Then you would say to yourself, what am I talking
about? “Men with blue eyes and long heads,” and that whole phrase is the Subject,
and to what Class am I relating that Subject? What am I saying about it? I'm relating
it to “men admired by Nazi anthropologists,” and so that whole business is the
Predicate.
In other words, Subject and Predicate are used here in a Logical, not a grammatical
sense.
We do not mean by Subject simply a noun, and we do not mean by Predicate a verb,
and you will find therefore that by the time we symbolize these, just about everything
goes into either the Subject or the Predicate, with the exception, as we'll come to in a
moment, of one little word before the Subject and one or two little words between the
Subject and the Predicate, but the vast bulk of the sentence will have to be
apportioned to either the Subject or the Predicate.

Either One Talks About Every Member of the Subject

Class or About Some. Error: Reference source not found
Now let's see why these are the Only four possibilities.
Obviously we're gonna talk about some Subject. We have only got two possibilities.
We're either talking about every member of the Subject Class, about all of the Subject,
or we are talking about less than all of the Subject, about simply some of the Subject.
If we're not talking about any of the Class at all, we're simply not talking about it, so
that doesn't qualify as a possibility. This leads us therefore to say that these
Categorical statements differ in their Quantity.
So write down the word “Quantity.”
The Quantity of a statement designates the amount of the Subject Class that it refers
to. And obviously you've got only two choices. Error: Reference source not found
Either you refer to every member of the Subject Class, in which case the quantity is
said to be Universal, “Universal” means a statement which refers to every member
of the Subject Class.
Or you refer to some members of the Subject Class, but not all, in which case the
statement is said to be Particular in Quantity.
“Particular” means it refers to some members of the Subject, but not all.

“All (S) is (P)” and “No (S) is (P)” are Universal

Statements. “Some (S) is (P)” and “Some (S) is not (P)”
are Particular Statements. Error: Reference source not found
Now in the four examples we have, the first two are Universal in Quantity. The first
one tells you about “all voters,” and the second one tells you something about “all
dogs.” Don't worry about the fact that it's negative, it still tells us something about
“all dogs,” namely that “they're not moralists.” So, the first two are both examples of
Universal Statements.
The last two are obviously examples of Particular Statements that tell us
information about “some men” and about “some women,” respectively.
So our statement would have to be, if it's a Categorical statement, Universal or
Particular.

Quality of a Statement – Type of Relation Established

Between the Subject and the Predicate. Only Two
Choices, Affirmative or Negative. Error: Reference source not
found
And within each category we have got Only two choices. Either the Statement is
Affirmative and establishes a Positive relation between the Subject and the Predicate,
or it is Negative and establishes a Negative relation between the Subject and the
Predicate.
Now the first one here, “all voters are citizens,” is obviously Universal and Affirmative.
It tells us something about “all voters” and something Positive, that “all voters” are in
the Class of “citizens.”
By the way, whether it is Affirmative or Negative, can you guess what that's called? If
whether it's Universal or Particular is called its Quantity, then when you talk about
whether it's Affirmative or Negative that’s called its Quality.

“All (S) is (P)” – Quantity Universal, Quality Affirmative.

“No (S) is (P)” – Quantity Universal, Quality Negative.
“Some (S) is (P)” – Quantity Particular, Quality
Affirmative. “Some (S) is not (P)” – Quantity Particular,
Quality Negative. Error: Reference source not found
So this first statement is Universal in its Quantity and Affirmative in its Quality. It tells
us: all S is P.
The second one, no S is P, is Universal in its Quantity. It tells us about “all dogs,” but
in this case it tells us that they are all outside of the Class of “moralists,” or putting it
more obviously, Negatively, none of them are in the Class of “moralists.” So it is a
Universal Negative, Universal in Quantity, Negative in Quality.
The third one is obviously Particular Affirmative. It tells us something about only some
“men,” so it's Particular in its Quantity, and it tells us something Positive, that “some
men” are in the Class of “six-footers,” so it is Particular Affirmative.
And the last one is obviously Particular Negative. It tells us about only some “women,”
and it tells us something negative about them, that they are “not geniuses.”

Why Only Four Categorical Statements are Possible?

Either One Talks About All of the Subject Class Or Some.
If About All, Either One Says It Is Or Isn't In The Predicate
Class, And the Same About Some. Either It Is Or Isn't,
Therefore No Other Possibilities.
Now these are, as I think you can see obviously, the only four possibilities. Either
you're talking about all of the Class or some. If about all, you're either saying it is or
isn't in the Predicate Class, and the same about some. Either it is or isn't, and
therefore you have no other possibilities.

In Terms of Subject Included or Excluded in the

Predicate, “All (S) is (P)” is Complete Inclusion, “No (S) is
(P)” is Complete Exclusion, “Some (S) is (P)” is Partial
Inclusion, “Some (S) is not (P)” is Partial Exclusion. Error:
Reference source not found
If you want you can look at it this way, to see why these are the only four theoretical
possibilities. Either your Subject is included in the Predicate, that would be Affirmative,
or it is excluded from the Predicate. That would be Negative. If it is included, it's
either completely included or partly included. That's the Universal and the Particular.
And the same for the Negative. If it's excluded, it's either completely excluded or it
is partly excluded.
So if you want you could say that the first one is Complete Inclusion, and the
second one is Complete Exclusion, and the third one is Partial Inclusion, and the
fourth one is Partial Exclusion.
Now you see, I have diagrammed these four for you if you need those diagrams to
help you. The little circle on the right there, the S includes all the S's, and you see I
have it inside the bigger circle, the P. And that means Complete Inclusion. All S is P.
And then the next, Complete Exclusion, the two circles are completely outside each
other. All the “dogs” are in the S circle and all the “moralists” are in the P circle, and
they completely exclude each other.
And then the next one, we have to diagram by two overlapping circles with a little “X”
at the point of overlap, and that little “X” tells us there is something there in that
overlapping segment. There are some men which are also in the six-footer circle.
And then in the fourth one, we have the “X” outside the P circle to indicate that there
are some women out there outside of the “genius” circle.
“All (S) is (P)” – “A” Proposition, Universal Affirmative.
“No (S) is (P)” – “E” Proposition, Universal Negative.
“Some (S) is (P)” – “I” Proposition, Particular Affirmative.
“Some (S) is not (P)” – “O” Proposition, Particular
Negative.
Now this is all perfectly straightforward, except we're going to want to make reference
to these types constantly, and we do not want to have to say this is a Universal
Affirmative statement, this is a Particular Negative statement because those are a
mouthful. Consequently, it has been customary for many centuries to simply choose
one letter to stand for each of these four types. Now these letters are actually derived
originally from various Latin verbs, but you can ignore that fact and think of it, and it
works out, it's simply the first four vowels in English in order. Thus, the Universal
Affirmative, All S is P, is called an A proposition or an A statement. And A means
Universal Affirmative. Now since I told you that it works out to be the vowels in order,
the Universal Negative is called an E statement or an E proposition. And an E
proposition is “No S is P.” The Particular Affirmative is called an I proposition,
“Some S is P.” And a Particular Negative is called an O proposition, “Some S is
not P.”

Quantifier – the Word, Right Before the Subject, that

Indicates Quantity of the Statement. “All / No” Universal,
“Some” Particular. Error: Reference source not found
Now a few more terms. Observe that each of these statements have four constituents
and every Categorical statement has four constituents. To begin with, there is a word
at the very outset, as soon as you open your mouth, the first word in the statement ,
whose function is to tell you the Quantity of the statement, to tell you whether it is
Universal or Particular. In the first proposition, in the A proposition, that word is the
word “all,” which is not part of the Subject. That simply tells us how much of the
Subject we're talking about. In the second proposition, the E, that word which
indicates the Quantity is “no,” and therefore the same price, you get not only the
Quantity but the Quality. In English, the one word “no” tells you it's Universal and
Negative. And in the third and fourth, the I and the O, the word indicating the Quantity
is “some.” Now what would be a good name for the word that tells you the Quantity?
It's called the Quantifier. That's the word that indicates the Quantity. And it is always
either “all” or “no” or “some.” “All” and “no” being Universal Quantifiers, “some”
being “Particular.” That's the first ingredient.
Now sometimes in ordinary English, we leave it out, in which case we're going to have
to work out rules later on next week, thankfully, how to tell what Quantity is implied.
But for instance, if I walk in and say “dogs like bones,” you can guess that I am not
restricting myself to “some dogs” and you would imply an “all.” But when we get it in
Logical standard form, it must have a Quantifier.

Terms of a Statement – Subject Term (S) and Predicate

Term (P). Error: Reference source not found
Then, of course, there is a Subject and a Predicate. And those are referred to as the
two Terms of the statement, the Subject term and the Predicate term.

Copula – A Word or Two Between Subject and Predicate

Whose Sole Function is to Link or Join the Terms to Make
a Complete Statement. Some Form of the Verb “To Be” –
“is”, “are”, “is not”, “are not”.
And then there is a word or two between the Subject and the Predicate whose sole
function is to link or join the Subject and the Predicate in order to make a complete
statement. It is always some form of the verb “to be,” like “are” or “is.” Logicians
prefer “is” for the obvious reason that it's one letter shorter than “are.” It can be
singular or plural. It can be present, past, or future tense, that doesn't make any
difference. And it can be Negative, as in the case of the O, it's “are not” or “is not.”
Now that little linking verb, which is just a form of the verb “to be,” is called the
Copula.

Structure of a Categorical Statement: Quantifier, Subject,

Copula, Predicate. Error: Reference source not found
So your structure will always be Quantifier, Subject, Copula, which will be “is” or
“are” or something, or “are not” in the O case, and then the Predicate term.

There are a few points of clarification. Some students are bothered by the following,
so let me just raise it to get rid of it at this point. Take down these two statements and
look at them.
“Some men are not intelligent.”
“Some men are unintelligent.”
I put that in here only because my experience is that this is exactly the kind of thing
that bothers everybody at exactly this point. So let's clarify it. Whereby
“unintelligent,” I don't mean anything other than the negation of “intelligent,” “non-
intelligent.” So, how do we analyze these two?
The first thing to notice is that these two statements mean exactly the same thing.
“Some men are not intelligent.” “Some men are non-intelligent or unintelligent,” but
they are analyzed differently, which is a matter of the way we symbolize it, and I want
to indicate that at the outset.
The meaning is exactly the same, and in fact, later tonight I'll give you rules about
how to go from one to the other and back, but just for now so you're not worried about
it. The statement “some men are unintelligent,” we will, for now, say let's just
symbolize it as it comes.
“Some” is the Quantifier, “men” is the Subject, “are” is the Copula, and “unintelligent
or non-intelligent” is the Predicate. In other words, don't be bothered by the fact of a
negative Predicate. Predicate might be negative, it might be affirmative. So if you
came to that, you put a parenthesis, (unintelligent or non-intelligent,) close
parenthesis, and just call that P, in which case that statement would be an I
proposition, right?
On the other hand, if I give you the other statement, “some men are not intelligent,”
we say “some” is the Quantifier, “men” is the Subject, “are not” is the Copula, and
“intelligent” is the Predicate, in which case we would symbolize “some S is not P,” and
that is an O proposition.
So as a general rule, if your Negative indicator is built right into the Predicate, like
“unintelligent or non-intelligent,” feel free to put your parentheses before and after
the thing, including the Negative element, and call that whole business the Predicate.
If your negative element is a separate, virgin word, “not,” standing all by itself as a
free unit in an O proposition, then regard that as part of the Copula, and treat it as
“some S is not P,” as a O proposition.

“Some” in a Categorical Statement Means “Any Number

Less Than All.” Anything that Isn’t “All” is “Some”. Error:
Reference source not found
Now, have we done all the preliminary clarifications? No. Have to say a few words
about how we interpret the word “some” in these statements. Now, to begin with,
“some” in these statements means “any number less than all.” Any number. The
validity of the inference doesn't make any difference how close it is to “all,” as long as
it's “less than all,” it comes out as “some.” So for instance, if I say, “a few men are
geniuses,” that becomes “some men.” And the same was true if I say “an occasional
man.” “Many men,” “the vast Majority of men,” “most men,” “a number of men,”
anything that isn't “all” is “some,” because that's the only distinction that the validity
turns on, whether it's “all” or “less than all.”

The Statement “Some (S) is (P)” Does Not Imply Any

Commitment / Does Not Say Anything At All About the
Rest of (S), the Rest is Left Wide Open. Interpreted as
“Some (S), Maybe All, Maybe Not All, Not Committing to
the Rest of (S),” But Only “Some (S) is (P)”. Error: Reference
source not found
Now, what do we interpret “some S is P” to mean? The answer to that is very simple if
you get it. All we take it to mean is “some S is P.” In other words, we take it as not
implying any commitment at all about the rest of S. We leave wide open. What about
the rest of S? Now, sometimes you have other knowledge, which you brought in from
your general experience of life or your other education, that will tell you about the rest
of S.
So if I say to you, for instance, “some men are liars,” you immediately think, “oh yes,
but some men aren't.” But the statement itself didn't say that. The statement by itself
simply said “some men are.” It left the question open.
Other cases, for instance, if I come in and say, “some men are mortal,” you say, “well,
yes, certainly that's true. Some men are mortal, all men are mortal, and therefore,
certainly some men are mortal.” But again, the statement didn't tell you that. The
statement by itself simply said “some.”
And of course, if you don't have any outside knowledge, you don't know about the rest
from the statement itself.
So if I come in and say, “some crows are black,” you don't know whether I mean to
say and the rest of them are or the rest of them aren't, or I have no idea one way or
the other about the rest.
Now, the rule we therefore take is – in the absence of any special knowledge that's
communicated by the person, the statement by itself is to be interpreted as: Some S,
maybe all, maybe not all, we don't know and we're not committing ourselves, but
simply “some S is P.” That's the bare minimum that the statement must mean. We
leave open about the rest of S.
The same is true in interpreting “some S is not P.” We make no commitment by that
statement. What about the rest of the S? Are they P or not P? We're simply saying we
know that some S isn't.

Form “All (S) is not (P)” is Invalid, Because It’s

Amphibolous Fallacy, Can Mean Either “Some (S) is not
(P) and some is” Or “No (S) is (P)”.
I also want to remind you of a point that I made in discussing the Common Fallacies
and I deliberately planted it there to cash in on it at this moment. And that is there is
no such form as “All S is not P.” If you look at those four forms, you will see that no
such form appears.
There's “all S is P,” “no S is P,” “some S is P,” “some S is not P,” but there is no “all S
is not P.”
Now what is wrong with “all S is not P?” That represents a Fallacy. What Fallacy? That's
an Amphibulous utterance if you remember. “All S is not P” could be taken to mean
“some S is not P and some is,” or it could be taken to mean “no S is P.” In other words,
it could be Particular or Universal Negative. And therefore, when you come across it in
an argument, the first thing you do is underline it and decide is this intended as a
Universal or a Particular and rewrite it accordingly. But if you ever symbolize “all S is
not P,” you have to quit right there because your statement is Amphibulous, there is
no such form, and your whole argument disintegrates. And if you try to apply the
rules, you simply can't because there is no such form.

Singular Statement, One That Represents Single

Individual/Thing as Subject, Treated as Universals,
Quantifier “All” or “No”. Therefore They are Either “A” or
“E” Propositions. Error: Reference source not found
I have another point to make. At this point, people usually ask, “what do you do if
you're talking about Socrates?” Socrates is not a Class. Suppose I say, “Socrates is
mortal.” He is a single individual. Or suppose you were talking about New York City,
which is not a Class, a single locality. Or about the Red Cross, which is not a Class, but
a single organization. What would be a good name for statements whose Subjects
represent something which is single? A single individual, a single locality, a single
organization. Those are called Singular Statements.
Now, we have to fit Singular Statements into one of our four forms. The tradition of
Aristotelian Logic is that Singular Statements are treated as Universals. The reasoning
behind that is fairly simple. If I say Socrates is mortal, I don't mean just his liver is
mortal or his big toe is mortal or his small intestine is mortal. I mean all of them is
mortal. And so therefore, he is entitled in that statement of the Quantifier “all.”
Now this will do violence to your literary sensibilities. And you are gonna have to find
yourself writing a sentence like “all Socrates is mortal.” Where the “all” there stands
for the Quantifier and tells you to treat it as an aid proposition. Now, if you have a
Singular which is Negative, you will start with a “no.” So if I tell you, “New York City is
not cheap,” how do you think that will come out in standard form? “No New York City
is cheap.”
Now you just get used to that. It sounds weird at the beginning, but I guarantee it'll
sound more weird when we get some more examples later on tonight. But it's simply a
way of indicating that we're treating it for purposes of the inference. It functions just
like a Universal. And consequently, Singulars are always given the Quantifiers of
Universal, either “all” or “no,” therefore they come out either as an A or an E,
depending on whether it's Affirmative or Negative.

Distribution – A Term is Distributed If the Proposition in

Which It Occurs Gives One Some Information About Every
Member of the Class Designated By That Term. Error:
Reference source not found
Now, I introduce the idea which you can write down entitled “Distribution.” I promise
it'll be relevant because the rules of Validity are formulated in terms partly of this
concept. But I think the best way to explain this idea is to give you an unintelligible
definition which I'll dictate to you. It will be unintelligible and then I'll explain it, but
you'll have it down. So just take this down.
This is the definition of Distributed. A term is Distributed if the proposition in which it
occurs gives you some information about every member of the Class designated by
that term.

Distributed (d) Tells Something About All of the Class,

Undistributed (u) Tells Something Only About Some of
the Class. Applies to Subject and Predicate of a
Statement. Error: Reference source not found
Now what does that mean in English? A term “Distributed” and its negative –
“Undistributed” – applies to the Subject and the Predicate of a statement.
If the statement tells you something about every member, for instance, of the
Subject, it's said to be Distributed. If it tells you only about some members, it's said
to be Undistributed.
And the same is true of the Predicate. If in a given statement you know something
about every member of the Predicate, it's said to be Distributed. And if you know
something only about some members of the Predicate, it's said to be Undistributed.
The two letters we use to stand for “Distributed” or “Undistributed,” are the letters
“D” and “U” respectively.
Now let's work out the rules. You want to think of it for short. “Distributed” is like “all.”
You know something about all of the Class. “Undistributed” is just like “some.” It tells
you only about some.

Now you know that there are two terms in each statement, a Subject and a Predicate,
and there are four types of statements. Therefore, that gives us to work out eight
terms. All right, now write down the Eight propositions in your notes.
Doesn't make any difference what the content of the Subject and Predicate is. The
rules for Distribution remain the same. Now, I promise you will get rules that use this
term, Distributed. So if we work this out now, the rules will be intelligible.

Subject of “A” Proposition {All (S) is (P)} is Distributed

(d). Predicate of “A” Proposition is Undistributed (u).
Error: Reference source not found
A Proposition: “All S is P.” For instance, “all men are animals.” Does that statement tell
me something about every S? For instance, about every “man”? Yes, obviously. So you
can put a “D” above the “S”, and that'll let you know that the Subject of an A, i.e.,
Universal Affirmative, is always Distributed. It always tells you about “all” of its
Subject, and therefore that's okay. It's always Distributed. Gets a D.
Now what about the Predicate of an A? “All S is P.” “All men are animals.” Does that
statement tell me something about every “animal”? Obviously not. It tells me only
about “some” animals. What does it tell me about some “animals” if I say “all men are
animals?” That tells me that “some animals are men, but that's all.” It doesn't tell me
something about every animal. Therefore, you can put a U above the Predicate of an
A, and conclude that the Predicate of an A Proposition is Undistributed.
Now of course, sometimes you might, from extracurricular knowledge, know
something. For instance, if I say “all men are rational,” you'd come back and say, “oh
yes, and all rational beings are men.” But the statement didn't tell you that. The
statement said “all S is P.” It did not say “all P is S.” That was extra information you
brought in. Therefore, by itself the statement does not give us information about
every member of the Predicate Class. The Predicate of an A Proposition is
Undistributed.

Both Subject and Predicate of “E” Proposition {No (S) is

(P)} are Distributed (d). Error: Reference source not found
E Proposition: “No S is P.” Example, “no dogs are rational beings.” Does that tell me
something about every “dog”? Obviously Yes. Namely that it's “not a rational being.”
So you can put a D over the Subject of an E. It is Distributed.
Does it tell me something about every “rational being”? Now remember, we got two
circles, and all the “dogs” are in one circle, and all the “rational beings” are in
another. Does that tell me something about every “rational being”? Yes, that not a
single one of them is a “dog.” And therefore the Predicate of an E is Distributed. So an
E Proposition gets two Ds.
So far we have A – the Subject is Distributed, the Predicate is Undistributed. E – both
of them are Distributed.

Both Subject and Predicate of “I” Proposition {Some (S)

is (P)} are Undistributed (u). Error: Reference source not found
Now, I Proposition: “Some S is P.” Example, “some men are tall.” Does that tell me
something about every “man”? Obviously not, only about “some men”. Consequently
the Subject of an I is Undistributed.
Does it tell me something about every “tall being”? When I say “some men are tall,”
does that tell me something about every “tall entity”? Obviously not. Simply that the
two circles intersect, and therefore we know something about some “tall beings”, that
they're “men”. Therefore, the Predicate of an I is Undistributed.
So if you're making a column, you'd have for A, D, U; for E, D, D; and for I, U, U.

Subject of “O” Proposition {Some (S) is not (P)} is

Undistributed (u). Predicate of “O” Proposition
Distributed (d). Error: Reference source not found
Now if you have an I for symmetry, you can guess what's coming for the O. “Some S is
not P.” Does that tell me something about every member of the Subject Class?
Obviously not. So the Subject is Undistributed.
Now we come to the climax. Now here you have to think, because this is sometimes
regarded as tricky by people. Does the O proposition tell you something about every
member of the Predicate Class? Now remember, I defined Distribution in such a way
that the Predicate has to give you some information about every member of the Class.
I didn't say it had to be exciting information. It didn't have to be earth-shaking
information. It could seem utterly unimportant, as long as you can eke out some
information about every member, it's Distributed. Now with that preface, you can
gather that I'm driving toward the point that the Predicate of an O is Distributed.
Take the example, “some voters are not socialists.” Does that tell me something about
every socialist? Yes. It, to be sure, is very, very indirect information. I concede that.
But it does tell you something. The best way to see what it tells you is this. In order to
say “some voters are not socialists,” you had to know that at least one voter is not
socialist. Let's call him Mr. X. And perhaps you knew even two or three. Mr. X, Y, and Z
are not socialists. Well, if that's what the statement tells me, Mr. X, Y, and Z, say, are
not socialists, what do I know about every socialist in the whole universe? He's not Mr.
X. He's not Mr. Y. He's not Mr. Z, right? In other words, I know something negative, but
something universal about every socialist. He is not those particular members of the
Subject Class which are excluded from the Predicate.
Got it? I'll give you one more example. The Predicate of an O always bothers people.
Take this statement. “Some mountains are not American.” Now, to say that, you have
to have information about some mountains, for instance, the Alps and the Pyrenees.
Well, what do you know right away about all American mountains? They're not the
Alps, they're not the Pyrenees. And consequently, the statement gives you
information negative and indirect, but nevertheless, information about every member
of the Predicate Class.
So the Predicate of an O is Distributed.

So you've got nice symmetrical column.

D U,
D D,
U U,
U D.
Or putting it the other way, you know about all and some, respectively the Subject
and Predicate of an A Proposition.
And then about all and all, respectively the Subject and Predicate of an E Proposition.
Then about some and some, respectively the Subject and Predicate of an I Proposition.
And finally about some and all, respectively the Subject and Predicate of an O
Proposition.

Now let's have a quick little exercise to familiarize you with this much. Write down
this sentence, and then I'll fire questions at you, and you see if you can answer them.
This is a review. Just to make this much stick before we go on. Let's take a simple one.
“Some pigs are fat.”
Now look at that, and just call out the answers as soon as you know.
What is the Subject? “Pigs.” Not “some pigs”. “Some” is not part of the Subject. The
Subject here is just “pigs.”
What is the Quantity? Quantity means is it Universal or Particular. This is a Particular.
What is the Predicate? “Fat.”
What is the Copula? “Are.”
What is the letter? I.
What is the Quality? Quality, affirmative or negative? Affirmative.
What is the Quantifier? “Some.”
Is the Predicate term Distributed? No, Predicate of an I.
Is the Subject term Distributed? No.
Now, the idea is to get to the point where you've just had three martinis and it's four
o'clock in the morning and somebody comes and utters a Categorical proposition, you
could just rattle off Quantity, Quality, Distribution, Subject, Predicate, Quantifier,
Copula, et cetera, without batting an eye. And once that is deeply instilled, you never
forget it. It's like riding a bicycle.

All right, now are we ready to go on to the argument? No. We have another topic
which we have to look at. Now, you remember when we did Pure Hypotheticals and
we found that an argument could look like it was invalid, but if you manipulated the
statements according to certain rules, you could make it look valid. Well, the same
thing is true of Syllogisms. So we now need to study a series of rules on how you
translate from one Categorical form to another, keeping exactly the same meaning,
which will prove invaluable when you come to working these out. This general topic is
known as Immediate Inference.

Mediate Inference – Anytime Having More than One

Premise, the Second Premise Mediates the Inference
(Passing from Premises to Conclusion). Error: Reference source
not found
Let me first explain what is meant by Immediate Inference. You remember Inference is
passing from premises to a Conclusion. In the typical case of Inference, you have
several premises, at least two. Any time where you have more than one premise, that
is called Mediate Inference, the idea being the second premise mediates the
inference.
If I say “all men are mortal,” I can't conclude from that “Socrates is mortal,” except
through the medium of the second premise, “Socrates is a man.” Therefore, that's
called Mediate Inference.
Immediate Inference – the Process of Inferring a
Conclusion from One Premise, By Changing the
Statement’s Form or Mode of Expression But Keeping its
Meaning Same. Go Straight from the Premise to its
Restatement Without Any Intermediate Link. Error: Reference
source not foundError: Reference source not foundError: Reference source
not found
But there are many cases where you can draw a Conclusion from only one premise. In
that case, what you're really doing is rewriting the statement, keeping the same
meaning but changing its form, changing its mode of expression. And when you go
directly from one statement to the same meaning in a different form that is called
Immediate Inference.
Immediate inference technically means the process of inferring a Conclusion from one
premise.
In other words, you need no second premise to Mediate the Inference.
Doesn't mean immediate in the sense that you do it right away like lightning. It's not a
temporal concept. It's Logically immediate. You can go straight from the premise to its
restatement without any intermediate link.

Now you'll be happy to know that there are a great number of types of Immediate
Inference that have been developed by Logicians. And I will only look at three different
types tonight, saving many more for next week. We will take only the bare three that
you have to get to get off the ground. And even there I'll skimp a bit. As a general
value I may say, although it's not the kind of value that's worth spending hours drilling
it into you so that it becomes part of you, but this topic has a modest value, I should
say. From the point of view that sometimes you hear a statement and it sounds to you
bizarre or unplausible, and yet that exact same content rewritten in a different form
will strike you as completely plausible. Therefore, if you know when a statement does
imply another one and when it doesn't, you have all this worked out, you are not left
at the mercy of, “well, this one sounds okay and this one doesn't.” You know exactly
when two statements are equivalent and when they're not. When you can get one
from the other and when you can't.

Immediate Inference – Obversion – Process of Changing a

Proposition into a Logically Equivalent One, Having a
Different Quality. Error: Reference source not found
The first type of Immediate Inference is called Obversion.
Again I'll give you a definition that will not be intelligible and then explain. Obversion
is the process of changing a proposition into a Logically equivalent one, having a
different Quality.

Logically Equivalent Statements Have the Same Meaning,

Implications, All Same, Only Linguistic Form is Varied.
Error: Reference source not found
By Logically equivalent, we mean two statements are said to be Logically equivalent
when they have the same meaning, the same implications, they are actually the same
statement, only the linguistic form has varied.

In Obversion Rewrite Affirmative Statement to Negative

or Negative Statement to Affirmative, But Keep The
Meaning Exactly Same. Error: Reference source not found
When we say that two statements differ in Quality, we mean one is Affirmative and
the other is Negative or vice versa. In other words, in Obversion, all you do is take an
Affirmative statement and rewrite it in a Negative form, keeping the meaning exactly
the same. Or you take a Negative statement and rewrite it in an Affirmative form,
keeping exactly the same meaning.
It's all you do in Obversion. You go from Affirmative to Negative or Negative to
Affirmative, but you must keep the meaning exactly the same.

Obversion of “All (S) is (P)” is “No (S) is (non-P)”. Error:

Reference source not found
There's four types of statements, so that'll give us four different equations. Let's do
them one at a time.
Write down – “All S is P.”
We want to write that exact same meaning, but we want it in a Negative form.
“All S is P,” example, “all men are mortal.” Now if I want to write that in a Negative
form, keeping the same meaning, I'm obviously going to start with the word “No”. So
shall I write “no men are mortal”? Obviously not. That doesn't have the same meaning
as “all men are mortal.”
So here we invoke the rule that two Negatives cancel each other out and give us back
our original meaning.
So all we do, having gone from “all” to “no”, we write “No S is non-P.” I don't say “not-
P.” There is no form, “no S is not-P.” I say “non-P” is your new Predicate. So if I say, “all
men are mortal,” and I want to obvert it, it would become “no men are non-mortal.”
Where “non-mortal” is your Predicate and if you want to put that in literary English,
you'd say, “no men are immortal.”
You got that? We went from “all” to “no” and negated the Predicate. And what we
ended up with, that glorious statement, “no S is non-P” is called the Obverse of the
Original Statement.

Obversion of “No (S) is (P)” is “All (S) is (non-P)”. Error:

Reference source not found
Now let's go to “no S is P.” We want to obvert that. For instance, “no dogs are
rational.”
Then “no S” will become “all S”. Again, in order to keep the original meaning, we will
negate the Predicate so we will end up with “all S is non-P.”
And again, our parentheses go around “non-P,” that is our new Predicate. “No dogs
are rational,” is same as “all dogs are non-rational.” So the Obverse of “No S is P” is
“all S is non-P.”
Obversion of “Some (S) is (P)” is “Some (S) is not (non-
P)”. Error: Reference source not found
Let's look at, “some S is P.” Now here's, you're going to get a glorious Obverse to this
one. We want to go from Affirmative to Negative so we're going from an I to an O. So
the “some S is” becomes “some S is not.” And then we want to introduce the other
change in order that the two cancel each other out so the “P” becomes “non-P”. And
your final statement is, “some S is not non-P.” Now that statement is the Obverse. And
notice it's an O, “some S is not non-P,” where “non-P” is the Predicate.

Obversion of “Some (S) is not (P)” is “Some (S) is (non-

P)”. Error: Reference source not found
And then finally the O, “some S is not P,” how would you Obvert that? Well, the “is
not” becomes “is,” so we write “some S is,” and the “P” is again negated, so we end
up with “some S is non-P.”
And this was the example I mentioned about “some men are not intelligent” and
“some men are non-intelligent.” Those were the Obverse of each other.
The general rule is you change the Quality of the original.
So if you had an A, you end up with an E. If you had an E, you end up with an A. If you
had an I, you end up with an O. If you had an O, you end up with an I. You keep the
Subject untouched.
In Obversion, you do not touch the Subject. It remains untouched, and you negate the
Predicate.

Immediate Inference – Conversion – Process of Changing

a Proposition into a Logically Equivalent One by
Reversing the Order of the Subject and Predicate. Error:
Reference source not found
Now next Immediate Inference is called Conversion, defined as the process of
changing a proposition into a Logically Equivalent one by Reversing the Order of the
Subject and Predicate.
In other words, when you convert, the thing that was the Subject in the original case
ends up as the Predicate, and the thing that was the Predicate ends up as the Subject.
Now, here, for a reason which you'll see in a moment, I'm gonna pass by the A
proposition for a moment because that causes problems.

Conversion of “No (S) is (P)” is “No (P) is (S)”. Error:

Reference source not found
So we'll start with the E proposition. The E is a smooth Converter. It doesn't cause any
trouble. If you have – “no S is P – “no dogs are moralists,” what would you write to
keep exactly the same meaning? We want the “moralists” in the Subject and the
“dogs” in the Predicate. Here, there's no trouble at all. Keep everything the same and
just switch them. You're certainly entitled to say “no moralists are dogs.” Or to
generalize, “no S is P,” you can always write “no P is S,” which is the Converse of the
original.
Conversion of “Some (S) is (P)” is “Some (P) is (S)”. Error:
Reference source not found
Let's look at the I proposition. That also is simple and straightforward. “Some men are
tall.” I wanna have a new statement where “tall” is the Subject and “men” are the
Predicate. And I can say, “Some tall things are men.” Simply reverse the two and keep
everything the same. So “some S is P” Converts to “some P is S,” which is called the
Converse of the original.

Conversion of “All (S) is (P)” Must Be Avoided Because

“Some (P) is (S)” Gives Us Less Information, We Lose
Information By Conversing “A” Proposition. Converse By
Limitation. Error: Reference source not found
Now the A proposition. “All S is P.” “All men are mortal.”
Can I just convert that simply and say “all mortal beings are men?” Obviously you
cannot. You do not know something about all mortal beings. Remember the Predicate
of an A is Undistributed, you only know about some of it. So when you convert “all S is
P,” “all men are mortal,” what do you have to say? “Some mortal beings are men.”
“All women are smart” converts to “some smart entities are women.” In general, “all S
is P,” converts to “some P is S.”
I warn you that when you convert an A proposition, you lose some information. The
proposition that you ended up with, the “some P is S,” is not really the same as the
original. It gives you less information. You can see that because the “all S is P” gave
you information about the entire Subject Class. The S was Distributed in the original A
statement, “all S is P.” In the converse, “some P is S,” we only have information about
some of the S Class. So we have lost a Distribution. We lost some information. And
therefore, we make a general rule. If you're working an argument, do not convert an A
proposition unless you are desperate. I mean, if you have to do it to work the
argument, but if there's any way out of converting an A, don't do it. Because
converting an A, you throw out certain information and that may be just the
information that the validity of the argument depends upon.

“O” Proposition, “Some (S) is not (P)”, Does Not

Converse At All. Error: Reference source not found
And now the O proposition, “some S is not P.” That doesn't convert at all. “Some
human beings are not socialists.” You cannot say, “some socialists are not human
beings.” You cannot say anything. So there's no Converse at all.

By the way, note that the Converse of an A proposition is not really the Converse you
see because it doesn't have the same meaning. It's lost information. It is called the
Converse By Limitation.
And in an O proposition, there's no Converse at all, not even a limited one. So if you
ever have to convert an O, that's it. It's over.
Immediate Inference – Contraposition – Process of
Changing a Proposition into a Logically Equivalent One
by Obverting, then Converting, then Obverting. Error:
Reference source not found
All right, one last process of Immediate Inference and then we will actually be ready to
look at these arguments. This process of Immediate Inference is called
Contraposition. And the thing you get at the end is called the Contrapositive.
Contraposition is defined as the process of changing a proposition into a Logically
equivalent one by Obverting, then Converting, then Obverting. In other words, the
Contrapositive is the Obverse of the Converse of the Obverse of the original.

Contrapositive of an A Proposition. “All (S) is (P)” to “No

(S) is (non-P)” to “No (non-P) is (S)” to “All (non-P) is
(non-S)”. Error: Reference source not found
Now, this obviously sounds insane. But it is actually very useful. Now, I'm not gonna
work it out for all four because the only one we really need to know is how to take the
Contrapositive of an A proposition. So let's restrict ourselves to that.
Write down “all S is P.” Now, to get the Contrapositive, first write down the Obverse of
that. The obverse of “all S is P” is “no S is non-P,” where the whole Predicate is non-P.
Now, I want the Converse of that statement. “No S is non-P,” that's an E. It Converts
simply. So you simply take the present Predicate and make it the Subject, and the
present Subject can make it the Predicate. So the Converse of that statement will be
“no non-P is S.”
And now I want the Obverse of that statement. This time also we have an E, “No non-P
is S.” And we Obvert it. We go from “no” to “all.” The Subject stays the same, so it's
still “non-P.” The “is” remains the same, but we negate the Predicate. So our new
Predicate is “non-S.” And therefore, the triumphal Conclusion, the Contrapositive of
the original statement is “all non-P is non-S.”

Rule for Contrapositive of “A” Proposition, One can

Always Reverse and Negate Both the Terms. Same as
Contrapositive of “IF-THEN” Statement. Error: Reference
source not found
If you look back at the original statement, you will see that this is identical to the
original statement, except that the two terms in the original statement, the S and the
P, have been reversed and negated. That will remind you of something we did last
week, when we said that when you have P implies Q, you can always reverse and
negate. Actually, that was last week, without introducing the terminology, I was
introducing you to the Contrapositive of the “IF-THEN” statement. Here is now the
contrapositive of an A.
So the general rule is, whenever you have an A proposition, you're always entitled to
interchange, reverse, and negate both terms.

Now, the “A” is the only one worth knowing for practical purposes. Even here, you
don't have to know it. So if you find that you are hostile to Contrapositives, you can
get along without them if you are patient and do enough Obverting and Converting.
But this will allow you to short-circuit it when you work in arguments.
I just want to tell you that you cannot make as a general rule that you can do this with
any Categorical statement. In the case of an E, for instance, you run in this process of
Obverting, Converting, and Obverting, you run in at a certain point to an A, which
when you Convert, you lose some information. And therefore, you don't end up with a
real Contrapositive, but a thing which is called a Contrapositive By Limitation,
which is not worth knowing or having.
In the case of an I, when you try to go through this process you run into an O, which
you have to Convert, and there is no Converse, and therefore there's no
Contrapositive at all. And therefore, you can throw out an I as far as Contrapositives
are concerned.
And the case of an O it works out nicely so that you can go from “some S is not P.” If
you go through all these steps, you'll end up with some “non-P is not non-S.” But
again, that's not too crucial a piece of information.
The only one I'll ask you to remember is the A proposition. When you have an A, you
can always reverse and negate. That comes in handy.

All right, now you can forget about Immediate Inference. Forget all about Obversion,
Conversion, Contraposition for about half an hour or so. And let us actually look at a
Categorical argument. And then we'll bring in Immediate Inference and tie it all up in a
little while.

Categorical Argument: All (M) is (P), all (S) is (M),

therefore all (S) is (P). Aristotelian Syllogism. Error:
Reference source not found
Now look at the sheet, the very bottom of page 11, number two. There is a specimen
of a real Categorical argument.
“All living beings are mortal.” A Proposition.
“All men are living beings.” A Proposition.
“Therefore, all men are mortal.” A Proposition.
Now, obviously, there's a huge quantity of different arguments I could have chosen. I
could have all kinds of different Subjects and Predicates in these statements. There's
no reason why it has to be three A propositions. So this one happens to be A, A, A. But
there's no reason in the world why you can’t have them all mixed up such as A, E, I, I,
O.
Now, the medievals actually worked out names for every valid argument, depending
in part on the order of, like it's A, A, A. This particular one is called BARBARA
because it's B, A, R, B, A, R, A, see, three A's, the vowels. And at a certain point, the
medievals got to the stage where any valid argument had its name. So as soon as the
person uttered it, they'd say FESEO, BRAM, TERRY, DARIO, BARBARA, et cetera. I will
not Subject you to that. “BARBARA” happens to be very common. That's the only
reason I mentioned it. But you do not have to know that. Take this just as an
argument.
Now, unfortunately, we cannot begin to work out the rules until I give you some
terminology.
Look at the Conclusion. “All men are mortal.” And you will see that the Conclusion has
a Subject.
Obviously, it must have.

Minor Term (S) – the Subject of the Conclusion, Usually

the Least Broad Term, the Narrowest Term. Error: Reference
source not found
The term which is the Subject of the Conclusion, in this case, the word “man,” is called
by definition the Minor term. That means Subject of the Conclusion. It gets the name
Minor because usually the Minor term is the least broad term, the narrowest term.
For instance, “man” is a much narrower term than “living being.”

Major Term (P) – the Predicate of the Conclusion. Error:

Reference source not found
Now look at the term which is the Predicate of the Conclusion, in this case, “mortal.”
The Predicate of the Conclusion is called the Major term.

Major Premise – the Premise that Contains the Major

Term. Error: Reference source not found
Now if you look at the premises, you will see that in one premise, the Major term
occurs, namely the premise “all living beings are mortal.” That has the Major term and
another term that we didn't mention yet. The premise that contains the Major
term is called the Major Premise.

Minor Premise – the Premise that Contains the Minor

Term. Error: Reference source not found
Then if you look at the next premise, you will see that it contains the Minor term along
with another term. The premise which contains the Minor term is called the
Minor Premise. In this case, it's “all men are living beings.”

Major Term Occurs Twice, Once Predicate of Conclusion

and Once in Major Premise. Minor Term Occurs Twice,
Once Subject of Conclusion and Once in Minor Premise.
Error: Reference source not found
So the Major term occurs twice, once by Definition it's the Predicate of the Conclusion
and once in one of the Premises. The Minor term occurs twice, once by definition it's
the Subject of the Conclusion, and once linked to another term in the Minor premise.

Middle Term (M) – One that Facilitates the Connection

Between the Minor and Major Terms. Occurs in Both the
Premises but Not in the Conclusion.
And then notice we have one term left over which appears twice. Once it's linked to
the Major term and once it's linked to the Minor term and it doesn't show up in the
Conclusion at all. Now this is the term, you can think of it as the one in the Middle that
greases the connection between the Minor and the Major. The term in the Middle is
called the Middle term. The Middle term, in this case, it's “living beings.”
Now what letters are we going to use to symbolize? Conventionally it is decided that
the Minor term being the Subject of the Conclusion will be symbolized by S.
The Major term being the Predicate of the Conclusion will be symbolized by P.
That leaves us with a free M to stand for the Middle term.

And you will see that this is appropriately symbolized, the parentheses are around the
terms. And we have M, P; S, M; S, P. And then over on the right there I have written
the symbolic structure of this argument. All M is P, all S is M, therefore all S is P.

Now I call to your attention that I have D's and U's there. These are all A's and so I just
filled in the Distributions. You see the D's mean those terms are Distributed and the
U's that they're Undistributed.
When you finally get to working out these arguments that's what I want you to do. But
for now, ignore the D's. I couldn't go around at the right point and fill in everybody's
booklets so I had to put them in here. I mean you see them now prematurely, but
ignore them for now.

Just look at the argument. Now, this is a perfect representative of a Categorical

argument. A Categorical argument always has three different terms, each of which
occurs twice.
A term in the Conclusion, which is the Subject, the Minor which appears once in the
Conclusion linked to the Major and once in the premise linked to the Middle. The Major
which appears once in the Conclusion and once linked to the Middle, and the Middle
which appears once in each premise and not in the Conclusion. And which is of course
the Linking term, the Middle term, which grounds the Inference.

Aristotelian Syllogism – a Deductive Argument Containing

Two Premises and Three Terms, Two of Which are Linked
in the Conclusion as a Result of the Linking of Each of
Them with the Third or Middle Term in the Premises. Error:
Reference source not found
Now we can introduce the term that Aristotle used, the word that he used to stand
for this type of argument with this type of structure. This is what he called a
Syllogism. So we no longer have to talk about a Categorical argument. We can now
simply say a Syllogism.
Syllogism in Greek means “connected discourse,” a technical definition of
Syllogism is a deductive argument containing two premises and three
terms, two of which are linked in the Conclusion as a result of the linking of
each of them with the third or Middle term in the premises.
This one that we have down here is a simple example. Three terms – “man,” “mortal,”
“living beings,” two of them are linked in the Conclusion as a result of the fact that in
each of the premises we connect them to the same third or Middle term, “living
beings.”
That's all a Syllogism is. Now all we have to do is work out when is a Syllogism valid
and when it is not – the Rules of Validity for Syllogisms.
This is much more complex than the Rules of Validity for the arguments we took last
week.
As a matter of fact, there are five Rules of Syllogistic Validity. Five rules that a
Syllogism must fulfill. If it violates any one, even if it comes through with flying colors
on all the other four, it's out, it's invalid.
Therefore what you have to do is learn the five rules and to test a Syllogism, you
simply take the rules in order, you look at it and you say, is it okay on rule one? Yes,
okay, what about rule two?
Yes, okay, and so on. At any point you strike a violation, that's it, it's out. It might have
more than one Fallacy, but once you find one Fallacy, it's already lost, you may as well
quit. If it gets through all five rules, it's okay, else it's invalid.

Rule One of the Five Rules of Validity of a Syllogism.

Must Have Three and Only Three Terms (Used in the
Same Sense Throughout the Argument), Each of Them
Appearing Twice.
Let's start with Rule Number One. These were all of course worked out by Aristotle.
A valid Syllogism must have three and only three terms. Each of them, of
course, appearing twice. Now the reason for this rule is obvious, that's the essence
of what a Syllogism is. It comes straight from the definition of a Syllogism.
And it should be obvious to you that if someone tried to introduce a fourth term, no
Conclusion would follow. If I say to you, “what follows from these premises – “all men
are mortal” and “all pigs are animals?” Obviously nothing follows at all, because
there's no term to function as a Middle term, no term that appears twice.

More than Three Terms Violates Rule One and Called the
Fallacy if Four Terms. Equivocation, Using One Word in
Two Different Senses. Error: Reference source not found
And therefore as soon as you see four different terms, “men,” “mortal,” “pigs,”
“animals,” you just throw up your hands, cross it out and say, “out.” Now the name of
that Fallacy is The Fallacy of Four Terms. Sometimes if a person has just escaped
from a lunatic asylum, he might even have five terms or six different terms. You still
call it the Fallacy of Four Terms, because the idea is once it has four, it's lost anyway,
it doesn't make any difference.
Very few people can violate this rule in the bold form that I just indicated. In the
normal course of affairs, the way you violate this rule is by seeming to have three
terms, but actually you are using one word in two different senses.
For instance, if I give you, “some men are pigs,” and I mean by that “they're gross in
their behavior,” and then I say, “all pigs are long snouted creatures.” Now obviously
I'm reverting to a biological concept of “pigs.” And then I conclude, “some men are
long snouted creatures,” that would be the Fallacy of Four Terms, because I'm using
“pigs” in two different senses even though it's the same word. Of course that's the
same Fallacy that we encountered under the common fallacies and there we called it
Equivocation. But when Equivocation shows up in Syllogistic Reasoning, we call it the
Fallacy of Four Terms.
Therefore, the first thing you have to do is check, do you have three terms exactly
used in the same sense? If you don't, you quit right there. There's no use going on to
any other rules because you don't even have a Syllogism to get off the ground with.
The argument is invalid unless there's three and only three terms used in the same
sense throughout the argument. That's Rule One.

Second Rule of Syllogistic Validity: the Middle Term Must

Be Distributed At Least Once, in At Least One of the
Premises. That Ensures that the Middle Term Functions
as the Linking Term Between the Minor and Major Terms.
Error: Reference source not found
Now, for Rule Two, turn the page of the booklet to Page 11 and look at Number 3A.

Now there is a glorious example of a violation of the Second Rule.

“All men are mortal,
all dogs are mortal,
therefore all men are dogs.”
Now that's the Syllogism, it's got three terms, it's used in exactly the same senses,
but its premises are obviously true and the Conclusion is obviously false so we need a
rule to cover that. Now let's figure out what's wrong with it and what is the abstract
rule involved.
First let's identify the terms. The Minor term, the Subject of the Conclusion, is “men.”
The Major term, the Predicate of the Conclusion, is “dogs.” And the Middle term, the
one that appears once in each premise but not in the Conclusion, is “mortal.”
Now where did this argument go wrong? We have a premise connecting “man” and
“mortal,” connecting the Minor and the Middle, and we have a premise connecting
“dogs” and “mortal,” connecting the Major and the Middle.
But something went wrong with our Middle term in this case. The Middle term is
supposed to function as the linking term. The idea is you connect the Minor to the
Middle and the Major to the Middle and thereby you infer a relationship, an
overlapping, a connection between the Minor and the Major.
In this case, however, the linking function of the Middle term broke down. Why?
If you take a look at the diagram just to the right, I've diagrammed the argument for
you, and you can see what went wrong. There is “men”, the little circle, inside the
“mortal” circle, and there is “dogs” inside the mortal circle. But you see that “men”
and “dogs” do not overlap. No relationship is established between them even though
they are both connected to the Middle term, to the “mortal” circle, because each of
them is connected to a different part of the “mortal” circle. Each of them is connected
to a different part of the Middle term. And consequently, there is no connection
established between them.
Each of them goes its own way, so to speak, and the twain does not meet.
Now, what would be required to prevent this kind of situation from happening and to
ensure that our Minor and our Major, in this case, “men” and “dogs” really did
overlap? Imagine, just to continue on this example, that the little circle of “men” were
to expand so that it coincided with the entire “mortal” circle, and the “dogs” remain
just as they are. You would see then that we could establish a relation between men
and dogs. They weren't each connected, in such a case, to separate parts of the
Middle term circle. And what ensured that? One of them is connected to the entire
Middle term circle. Consequently, it must overlap the other if the other has any
connection at all to the Middle term circle.
Putting the point now abstractly, at least one of our terms would have to be
connected to the entire Middle Class. We would have to know something about every
member of the Middle Class in order to ensure that the Minor and Major weren't
connected to different parts. What is the technical terminology to describe a
statement which gives us information about every member of the Middle term? That,
as you know, means the Middle term must be Distributed. You know that Distribution
is the characteristic of a term when we are given information about every member of
the term.
Consequently, now we can state this rule, the Second Rule – the Middle term
must be Distributed at least once. This is the Second Rule of Validity.
In other words, in at least one of the premises, you must be given information
about every member of the Class that is the Middle term.
And that will be the guarantee that the Minor and the Major are not
connected to separate parts of the Middle term, and therefore you will
ensure that the Middle term is functioning as a linking term.
Violation of Rule Two of Syllogistic Validity is Called
Fallacy of Undistributed Middle. Error: Reference source not
found
If you violate this rule the Fallacy is called, very Logically, the Fallacy of
Undistributed Middle.
I emphasize that by this rule, the Middle term has to be Distributed at least once.
There is nothing in this rule to say that the Middle term must be Distributed twice. It
can be Distributed twice, that's perfectly all right. But the minimum is it must be
Distributed at least once, otherwise it commits the Fallacy of Undistributed Middle.

We can take that argument Number 3A, the one on page 11, and adapt it to show you
how we could make it valid by adhering to this rule.
Take the same premise, “all men are mortal,”
and now let's make the second premise, “all mortal beings are organisms,”
and then conclude “all men are organisms.”
In this case our Middle term is “mortal or mortal beings,” and it is now Distributed in
the new second premise which I provided, “all mortal beings are organisms.” And you
see, of course, that is a perfectly valid argument.
“All men are mortal.”
“All mortals are organisms.”
“Therefore, all men are organisms.”
Now “men” and “organisms” do overlap. They can't be connected to different parts of
the Middle term, because “organisms” is now connected to all “mortal beings.”
In other words, here the Middle term is Distributed at least once, and therefore it
functions validly as a linking term.

Now if you want one more example to go through briefly, look at 3B on page 11.
It's another example of the Fallacy of Undistributed Middle.
“Some Texans are women.”
“Some women are Canadians.” Both of which are obviously true, so the person wants
to conclude
“Therefore some Texans are Canadians.”
That is blatantly false.
Here again we have the same Fallacy. The Minor term, the Subject of the Conclusion is
“Texans.” The Major term, the Predicate of the Conclusion is “Canadians.” Those are
the two terms we want to link or combine, to establish a relationship between. And
we're doing it by connecting each of them with the same Middle term, in this case,
“women.”
But as you see from the diagram at the right, again the Middle term is not functioning
properly as a linking term. “Texans” is connected to one section of “women,” you see
that little “x” on the left-hand side, and “Canadians” is connected to another section
of “women,” the little “x” on the right-hand side. Each of the two terms, the Minor and
the Major, are connected to a different portion of the Middle term, and consequently
no link is established.
The Middle term does not connect them in this case. Why? It is Undistributed in each
case.
What would we have to do to correct it? Well, suppose we rewrote the argument or
adapted it as follows. Keep the same first premise, “some Texans are women.”
But now as the second premise, “all women are female.”
Now, from those two premises, I could certainly conclude, “some Texans are female.”
Now my Middle term is Distributed in the second premise. I know something about all
“women.” I know that if it's a “woman,” it's a “female.” The “women” is Distributed in
that premise. Then to the extent that the “Texan” circle overlaps “women,” it must
overlap “female” because “female” is connected to all “women.”
Again, once the Middle term is Distributed, it functions properly as a linking term. And
that's the rule, the Middle term must be Distributed at least once. Again, I say to you,
it can be Distributed twice, but it does not have to be.

Now let us turn to Rule Three in our study of the Syllogism's Rules of Validity.
For an example of a violation of Rule Three, let's look at that before we state the rule
abstractly. Look at 4A on page 11.

You will see there a good example of an argument that violates the Rule Number
Three that I'm about to get to.
“Some men are professors.” That's true.
“All professors are PhDs.” Let's assume that's true.
Conclusion, “all men are PhDs.” That is blatantly false.
Now, we have three terms, so it's not Rule One that went wrong. We have “men,”
“professors,” “PhDs.” What is the Middle term in this case? “Professors.” Is it
Distributed at least once? Yes, in the second premise, “all professors.” Consequently,
it's not the Fallacy of Undistributed Middle.
There's something else that went wrong with this argument. If you look at that, you
will think to yourself, isn't it a strange thing? In the premise, I was given information
about “some men,” that's all. In the Conclusion, I'm suddenly given information about
“all men.”
Where in the world did I get the justification in leaping from what was true of “some
men” to an unrestricted universal Conclusion about “all men”?
Now, there is a type of reasoning where you do that. You go from “some” to “all,” and
that is called “Induction.” But in Deduction, you cannot do that. You cannot pass from
“some” to “all.”

In Deduction, One Cannot Have in Conclusion Something

That Was Not Already Contained in the Premise.
Conclusion Makes Explicit What’s Implicit in Premises.
Error: Reference source not found
Putting the explanation more generally before I dictate to you the rule, in Deduction,
you cannot have in your Conclusion something that was not already
contained in the premise. The Conclusion makes explicit what is implicit in
the premises. And consequently, you would see that, for instance, if my Conclusion
with the same premises were, “therefore, Napoleon lost the Battle of Waterloo,” you'd
say, where did you get “Napoleon” out of those premises?

The same principle is applicable here. If my premise only gives me information about
“some” men, I cannot come to a Conclusion about “all men.” You're going beyond the
information contained in the premise. We, therefore, formulate Rule Three as follows.

Rule Three of Syllogistic Validity: If a Term is Distributed

in the Conclusion, Then It Must Be Distributed in the
Premises. Error: Reference source not found
If a term is Distributed in the Conclusion, then it must be Distributed in the
premises.
Distributed remember means you're told information about all the Class,
about every member.
If your Conclusion contains information about every member, then you could only do it
on the basis of a premise which told you about every member. That's the Rule.
If it's Distributed in the Conclusion, it must be Distributed in the premise.

Violation of Rule Three, Fallacy of Illicit Minor When

Minor Term Distributed in Conclusion but Undistributed
in the Premise, and Fallacy of Illicit Major When Major
Term Distributed in Conclusion but Undistributed in the
Premise. Error: Reference source not found
In this case, we committed this Fallacy on the Minor term. It was “men,” that is
Undistributed in the premise. We only know about “some” of it. And that is Distributed
in the Conclusion. We committed an illicit process. “Illicit” here means “illegal, bad,
wicked, unjustified.” Actually, it means “Invalid.” An illicit process on the Minor term.
That Fallacy is called the Fallacy of Illicit Minor. That means in the premise your
Minor term was Undistributed, in the Conclusion, it was Distributed.
People could commit the same Fallacy on the Major term instead of the Minor term.
Exact same Fallacy. That is called Fallacy of Illicit Major. And 4B is an example of
Illicit Major.
“All teachers are unionized.” Let's assume it's true.
“Some women are not unionized.”
“Therefore, no teachers are women.”
Obviously, it doesn't fall.
Here again, what is the Middle term? The Middle term, “unionized.” And it is
Distributed in the second premise. The Predicate of an “all.” So it's not Undistributed
Middle. The Minor term is “teachers.” It's Distributed in the premise and in the
Conclusion, so there's no problem. So where does the Fallacy come in? The term
“women.” The premise tells us about “some women.” The term “woman” there is
Undistributed. In the Conclusion, we have information about “every woman,” namely
that “she's not a teacher.” So we've gone on the term “woman or women” from
Undistributed to Distributed. We have committed this Illicit process on the Major term.
Therefore, in connection with the Rule 3, there are two different fallacies. If you do it
on the Minor term, it's Illicit Minor. If you do it on the Major term, it's Illicit Major.

Perfectly Okay if Term Distributed in Premise and

Distributed in Conclusion, or if Term Undistributed in
Premise and Undistributed in Conclusion, or if Term
Distributed in Premise and Undistributed in Conclusion.
But Term Cannot Be Undistributed in Premise and
Distributed in Conclusion. Error: Reference source not found
I'd like to stress this before we leave Rule 3, that there's nothing wrong with any other
combination. In other words, if a term is Distributed in the premise and Distributed in
the Conclusion, that's perfectly okay. That simply means your premise told you about
“all” of it, and your Conclusion tells you about “all” of it. That's okay. If your term is
Undistributed in the premise and Undistributed in the Conclusion, perfectly okay. That
means your premise tells you about “some,” and your Conclusion tells you about
“some.” If your term is Distributed in the premise and Undistributed in the Conclusion,
that's perfectly okay. That means your premise tells you about “all.” Then you're
certainly entitled to conclude about “some” in your Conclusion. If you know about all,
you know about some.
The only one thing you cannot do is go from Undistributed to Distributed. From
“some” to “all.” If you do that, you commit the Fallacy, depending upon which one you
do it on, of Illicit Minor or Illicit Major. And that's why the rule is worth it.
If it's Distributed in the Conclusion, it must be in the premises.

All right, let's look at Rule 4. 5A and 5B of Page 12 are examples of Rule 4.
Look at 5A.
“No ideas are edible.” You can't eat them.
“No edibles are Logical.”
“Therefore, no ideas are Logical.”
Now, something is badly wrong with this argument. But it's not that there's three
terms, more than three terms. It's okay on that Rule. Now, what's the Middle term
here? “Edible.” And that's Distributed in both premises, so you're safe there. Is it Illicit
Minor? No, because the Minor term is Distributed in the premise and the Conclusion. Is
it Illicit Major? No, because the Major term is Distributed in both cases. In fact, these
are three Es, and everything is Distributed in an E proposition, so the whole business
is Distributed, all six of them.
And therefore, it's none of the rules, mentioned so far, that is violated, and yet there's
obviously something wrong. What's wrong? Let me give you a statement of the Rule.

Rule Four of Syllogistic Validity: No Conclusion Follows

From Two Negative Premises. No Valid Argument From
Two Negative Premises. Error: Reference source not found
Rule 4. No Conclusion follows from two Negative Premises.
A Negative Premise is either an E or an O. And if you have any combination of
Negatives in your Premises, two Es, two Os, or an E and an O, it's out.

Violation of Rule Four of Syllogistic Validity Called the

Fallacy of Two Negatives. Fallacy Because No Relation
Between Minor and Major Terms Can Be Established If
Both The Premises Give Negative Information. Error:
Reference source not found
This is called the Fallacy of Two Negatives.
Now, why is this a Fallacy?
Well, you will see it by trying to diagram 5A. Put down two mutually exclusive circles,
one for “ideas” and one for “edible,” and look at it. And that tells you, “no ideas are
edible.”
The next one tells you “no edibles are Logical.” Now, where are you going to put the
“Logical” circle? All it tells you is it's outside the “edible” circle. Does it coincide with
the “ideas” circle? Is it entirely separate from the “ideas” circle? Does it partly overlap
the “ideas” circle? Who knows? The premises don't tell you.
In other words, if one premise tells you the Minor is outside the Middle, and the other
premise tells you and the Major is outside the Middle, you've got no clue what's the
relation between the Minor and the Major.
You know that each of your two terms are not connected to the Middle, but that leaves
wide open what the relationship between the two of them is.
If you want to infer a relationship between the Minor and the Major you would have to
know, at minimum, one positive piece of information.
If I say “no ideas are edible,” “all foods are edible,” I give you something positive,
then you could say, “well, no ideas are food,” and that's okay. But if I have two
negative pieces of information, I have no idea what's the relation between Minor and
Major.
I've simply been told the S is outside of the M and the P is outside of the M, but where
the S and P are in relation to each other I have no way of knowing.

5B is another example of that, only this time I used an O and an E instead of two Es.
“No healthy men are invalids.”
“Some invalids are not free of infection.”
“Some healthy men are not free of infection.” It does not follow.
Again, to diagram it put down two circles for “healthy men” and “invalids,” and now
where will you put the “free of infection” circle?
It tells you that “some invalids” are not “free of infection.” Well, where does that leave
for the relationship between “free of infection” and a “healthy man”? They might
coincide, they might be completely apart, there might be many relationships, all
compatible with this information.
So as a general rule, you cannot have a valid argument from two negative
premises.
If you do, it's a Fallacy of Two Negatives.

Rule Five of Syllogistic Validity: If One Premise Negative,

Then Conclusion Must Be Negative. If Conclusion
Negative, Then One Premise Must Be Negative. Error:
Reference source not found
Now finally, Rule 5. Rule 5 is put in only for theoretical completeness. Virtually nobody
ever violates this rule because the examples of violating this rule are so bizarre that
people have no temptation to commit them. So we put it in just to cover the last
outside ditch possibility, but that's all. This rule has two parts which I will dictate to
you.
If one premise is Negative, then the Conclusion must be Negative.
And if the Conclusion is Negative, then one premise must be Negative.
Now, there's no name to the Fallacy if you commit it, because nobody commits it. But
if you should run across it, which depends on the ingenuity of Logicians to make up an
example, just recite the entire Rule and pinpoint the Fallacy. There's no name because
it's almost never committed.
6A of Page 12 is an example of the violation of the first half of this rule.
“All communists are revolutionists.”
“Some Americans are not revolutionists.”
“Therefore, some Americans are communists.”
It has a Negative premise and an Affirmative Conclusion.
The first half of the rule says if a premise is Negative, the Conclusion must be
Negative.
You can see just that it has no plausibility on the face of it, and yet none of the other
things we've mentioned are wrong with this rule. It doesn't have two Negatives. It has
three terms. Middle term is Distributed, etc. It's all fine, but obviously it doesn't follow.

The diagram on the right there makes blatantly clear why it doesn't follow. There's the
“communists” inside the “revolutionists.” “All communists are revolutionists.” Then it
says, “some Americans are not revolutionists,” so I put a little “x” outside the
“revolutionists,” and that stands for “those particular Americans”, the ones that aren't
revolutionists. You can see by inspection that the only Conclusion you could come to is
then “some Americans are not communists,” obviously.
Therefore, in other words, if your premise is Negative, you would have to come to a
Negative Conclusion.

Now the last half of Number 6 is even more rare. You have to torture yourself to find
an example of this one. And there it is.
6B of Page 12.
“All humans are rational beings.”
“All rational beings are responsible beings.”
“Therefore, some responsible beings are not human.”
This is the only example that there is of this rule. And it happens that you violate only
this half of this rule and nothing else because we chose here three terms, “humans,”
“rational beings,” and “responsible beings,” which are exactly coextensive. Everything
which is “human is rational.” Everything which is “rational is responsible.” You can
only get a violation of this half of this rule if the three terms are exactly coextensive.
And it's obvious on the face of it that if so, you cannot conclude “some responsible
beings are not human.” You could have to conclude “some responsible beings are
human.” In fact, in that case, you could conclude “all of them are human.”

From Two Affirmative Premises, an Affirmative Conclusion

Follows. If Conclusion Negative, Then One Premise Must
Be Negative. Error: Reference source not found
In other words, from two Affirmative premises, you have to have an Affirmative
Conclusion. Or as the rule puts it, if the Conclusion is negative, one premise must be
negative.
I don't make a big production about Rule 5. You have to watch for it. But in real life,
almost nobody ever violates it.

If Both Premises Affirmative Then Conclusion Affirmative.

If One of the Premises Negative Then Conclusion
Negative. If Both Premises Negative Then Argument
Invalid So No Conclusion. If Conclusion Negative Then
One of the Premises Must Be Negative. Error: Reference source
not found
Now, we can summarize our Negative Rules, that is Rules 4 and 5, our Rules of Quality
like this.
You've got two choices in a Valid argument. Either all of its constituents are
Affirmative, that is, A's and I's, or if there is any negative at all, anywhere, there's only
one permissible pattern, and that is one negative premise, in which case there must
be a negative Conclusion. That's your only two patterns.
You're prohibited from having two negatives and an affirmative Conclusion by the Two
Negative Rule.
You're prohibited from having two Negatives and a negative Conclusion by the Two
Negatives Rule.
You're prohibited from having a Positive and a Negative and a positive Conclusion by
the first half of Rule 5. If a premise is Negative, the Conclusion must be Negative.
And you're prohibited from having two positives leading to a Negative by the last half
of Rule 5. If the Conclusion is Negative, one premise must be Negative.
You can put it like this. If there are Negatives, and that means E or O, then only one
premise can be Negative, in which case the Conclusion must be Negative.

Shorthand Rules of Syllogism: Must Have Only Three

Terms; Middle Term Must be Distributed At Least Once; If
Minor/Major Term Distributed in Conclusion, Then Must
be Distributed in Premise; Only One of the Premises Can
Be Negative, Then Conclusion Must Be Negative; Invalid
Argument If Both Premises Negative. Error: Reference source
not found
Now these are the Rules of the Syllogism.
Does it have three terms?
Are the Distributions okay? The Middle term must be Distributed at least once. If the
Minor term is Distributed in the Conclusion, it must be in the premise, and so for the
Major term.
And are there any Negatives in it? If so, there can only be one, in which case the
Conclusion must be Negative.

So all you do is take the argument, look at it, count up the terms, check the
Distributions according to Rules 2 and 3, check the Negatives according to Rules 4 and
5.
If it comes through unscathed on all the rules, it's Valid.
If it violates any one rule, it's immediately Invalid. And as I say, it doesn't make any
difference if it violates more than one rule, once you know it's Invalid, it's like
pregnancy. It's over, and there's no use, there's no degrees of it, so there's no point
finding out that there's more Invalidity.

Main Function of Obversion or Conversion or

Contraposition: In some cases Rewrite a Seemingly
Invalid Syllogism into a Statement that is a Perfectly
Valid Syllogism. Error: Reference source not found
One more last point before we conclude for this evening. I don't want to leave you
wondering where did Obversion, Conversion, and Contraposition come in. Now we've
finished the Rules. This is not a Rule anymore. That's the end of the rules. But I want
to show you where these processes of Obversion, Conversion, and Contraposition
come in. Because the way they come in, putting it abstractly first, is like this.
Sometimes you will have a Syllogism. It will seem blatantly Invalid. No good. Out. And
then you simply do one little thing. You rewrite one statement as its Obverse, or your
Convert, or you take a Contrapositive, and lo and behold, the argument stands
revealed as perfectly Valid all the time. And it was just simply its Validity was masked.
Now this is the exact parallel to what you did with the Pure Hypotheticals, where it
looked like it was an Invalid chain, but sometimes by mixing around with the premises,
you can reveal that it really is Valid.
But you cannot always do it. Obviously there are invalid Syllogisms that could not be
saved if you Obverted till you turned blue. But there are Syllogisms that can be saved
because they really were Valid all the time, but it simply is disguised.
Look at number seven on page 17 as an example.
“No unhealthy beings are strong.”
“No alcoholics are healthy.”
“Therefore, no strong people are alcoholics.”
Now if you look at this and go over the rules, you will say to yourself immediately that
this violates two different rules. So it looks like it's twice damned. What two rules does
it violate? Two Negatives. Seems obvious that it's two negatives.
“No unhealthy beings are strong” is an E.
“No alcoholics are healthy” is an E.
So it looks like it's lost on that rule. Can anybody see another rule that it seems to
violate? Four terms. Count up the terms. “Unhealthy beings,” “strong,” “alcoholics,”
and “healthy.”
“Healthy” is not the same term as “unhealthy.” That should be obvious to you if you
went to a doctor and he said you are healthy, that is not the same as you are
unhealthy. It is the exact negation of “unhealthy.” Two terms are the negative of each
other, but they're not the same term. So we have four terms. And so it looks like this
is the Fallacy of Four terms and the Fallacy of Two Negatives.
And yet, if you take one of the premises and do one little thing to it, you get rid of
both of those violations in one stroke.
So what to do to what premise to show the validity of this particular Syllogism? We
have a very simple thing to do here, just Obvert the second premise, “no alcoholics
are healthy.” The “no” becomes “all,” and “healthy” becomes “unhealthy or non-
healthy.”
We rewrite it, “all alcoholics are unhealthy.” And now, if you work that out, you would
see that as a perfectly valid argument.
“No unhealthy beings are strong.”
“All alcoholics are unhealthy.”
“Therefore, no strong people are alcoholics.”
It does not have two negatives. It has only three terms, “alcoholic,” “strong,” and
“unhealthy.” And if you check the other rules, you'll see it's perfectly Valid.

Obversion Only Negates the Predicate, it Never Touches

the Subject. So First Convert the Subject in cases where
Two Negative Terms are In the Subject. Error: Reference source
not found
So, before you say an argument is Invalid, you must see whether or not you can save
it by Obversion.
Now, you might say, “where does Conversion come in?”
Well, I didn't work out an example here. You have some for homework, but abstractly,
Conversion comes in when the two terms which are the Negative of each other, like
“unhealthy” and “healthy,” are both in the Subject, for instance, of each premise.
In a case like that, Obversion won't help you because all Obversion does is negate the
Predicate. In the Obversion, you never touch the Subject. You only negate the
Predicate.
So, in order to get the term in the Predicate, what would you have to do? First,
Convert. And then when it's in the Predicate, Obvert.

And you might say, “where does Contraposition come in?” To put it abstractly,
sometimes the thing has got five terms, two of which are the negatives of the others.
And you can kill off two in one shot by simply reversing and negating, reversing and
negating. And that's your Contraposition. You'll see that in the homework if it's not
perfectly clear now.

Once Syllogism is of Three Identical Terms, Then No

Further Function of Obversion, Conversion or
Contraposition. Error: Reference source not found
Now, you might ask, “when do you stop? How do you know that you can't save it
anymore?” Because there's no use tinkering with it indefinitely.
The answer is, once you are down to three terms, nothing will help you any further. All
that Obversion and Conversion, etc., will do will get you down to three terms, when
one or more of the terms is simply the Negative of the other, like if you have a
“healthy” and “unhealthy.” Well, you can reduce those by the appropriate Obversion,
etc. If you had “strong” and “non-strong,” you could get that down to one term. If you
had “alcoholics” and “non-alcoholics.”
Once you're down to three terms, however, three identical terms, then there's nothing
that Obversion, Conversion, or Contraposition will do for you.

Now, I would like to work out one with you right now before we stop. The first one for
homework, and this homework is on page six. Turn to page six. Now, the only
homework I'm assigning so far is the exercise beginning Categorical Syllogisms. You're
not ready for that one on Immediate Inference yet because that includes Immediate
Inferences that we will take next week, so we'll leave that for now. All we're ready to
do is the section on Categorical Syllogisms numbers one through six. One through six.
The rest of them will require a little more theory next week.

Steps to Solve Categorical Syllogism: First Find the

Conclusion, Then Rewrite in Standard Form (Only 4
Possible), Then Check Whether the Three Terms are of
the Same Sense and No Equivocation Involved, Then
Symbolize, Then Insert the Distributions, Finally Follow
the Rules of Syllogistic Validity. Error: Reference source not found
Let me dictate to you the steps to follow in working these. These first six are very
simplified ones just to acquaint you with the theory. Then they get more and more
complex, and as you see near the end, we start quoting from Schiller and Bishop
Berkeley, et cetera, the way these arguments actually come up in real life. But here
we have just baby textbook examples.
I want to first give you the steps to follow.
1. Step one, find the Conclusion. The Conclusion is not necessarily the last
statement. That's the same rule as we had last week.
2. Second, rewrite the Premises and Conclusion in standard form. That means you
are restricted absolutely through four choices. All something is something, no
something is something, some something is something, some something is not
something. That's the only four standard form.
3. Third, and this is before you symbolize, check and make sure that you have
three terms used in the same sense. Because once you symbolize, you have lost
the content of the terms. You're working just with symbols, and there's no way
to check anymore whether there's an Equivocation. So be sure there's no
Equivocation.
4. Four, now you can symbolize. Put S around the Minor term, P around the Major
term, M around the Middle. Collect your symbols on the side, the way we did.
5. Next, stick in the Distributions above each of the terms, the Ds and Us.
6. And now, just read off the rules. Go down the rules. Do you have a D over the
M? Okay, fine. You don't on either M? Then Undistributed Middle. Do you have a
D over the S in the Conclusion and not in the Premise? It's illicit Minor, and so
on. Are there two negatives? Etc. If you get through all the rules, you say
“Valid,” if not, you say “Invalid,” and you say what Fallacy it commits.

CATEGORICAL SYLLOGISMS 1-6 from ITL Workbook Error:

Reference source not found

[1 No baby is tall. Many babies are not healthy. Therefore, those who are healthy are
tall.

[2 All materialists are atheists. All communists are atheists. So all materialists are
communists.

[3 All dictators use propaganda. No mathematician uses propaganda. Hence, no

mathematician is a dictator.
[4 Since all intelligent men are creative, and all who are creative hold patents, it
follows that all who hold patents are intelligent.

[5 All conventional people are unhappy. All innovators are unconventional. Therefore,
no innovators are unhappy.

[6 Some attractive people are not lacking in energy, and all unpopular people are
unattractive. Thus, some energetic people are popular.

All right, now let us together do Number One.

[1 No baby is tall. Many babies are not healthy. Therefore, those who are healthy are
tall.

Our Conclusion, the first thing we look at is, “those who are healthy are tall.”
Here, no Quantifier is stated, but it obviously intends it as a Universal. So we'll write
“all,” “all healthy are tall.”
Now we look at our premises. “No baby is tall.” That's perfectly fine right in the form
that it's in right now. It's in standard form. “No baby is tall.”
Now let's put the next, “many babies are not healthy.” “Many” has to go into “some.”
Then we will write, “some babies are not healthy.”
All right, so we have,
“No (baby) is (tall).”
“Some (babies) are not (healthy).”
“All (healthy) are (tall).”
Let us look and see, do we have Three Terms in the same sense? We have “healthy,”
and in the premise, we see “healthy.” We have “tall,” and in the first premise there we
see “tall.” And we have “baby or babies.” That doesn't make any difference, the same
plural, because we could have said “no babies are tall.” So we have Three Terms.
All right, put parentheses around the three terms right now.
Now let's stick in the symbols. S over “healthy”, P over “tall”. And that leaves us with
M for “babies”, and the P up there for “tall”, and the S for “healthy” in the second
premise.

Now collect the symbols over on the side, and we will write,
d d
“no M is P.”
u d
“Some M is not S.”
d u
Conclusion is, “All S is P.”
Now you will right away think, “well, what is the point?” You can see what's wrong with
this. But just for the exercise, let's go through the routine.
Take the first premise there. Is the M Distributed or not? The Subject of an E, do we
know something about every M? Yes, Subject of an E is Distributed, so you put a D
over there.
Is the P Distributed in the first premise? Yes. Predicate of an E, you know something
about every P, namely, it's not M. Predicate of an E is Distributed, so you put a D over
that.
Now we go to “some M is not S.” Is that M Distributed? No, Undistributed, a U over
that M. Is that S Distributed? Predicate of an O is Distributed, so you put a D over that
S.
“All S is P.” Is the S Distributed? Yes. Subject of an A. Is the P Distributed? No,
Predicate of an A.
All right, now we've got three terms here that we can't tell from our symbols anymore,
but we checked “babies,” “healthy,” and “tall,” and we saw that those were before we
symbolized.
Now, let's go through the rules painstakingly in order.
Is the Middle term Distributed at least once? Yes, in the first premise you see a D right
over the M, so that's okay. If a term is Distributed in the Conclusion, it must be in the
premise.
Is there any term Distributed in the Conclusion? Yes, the Minor. Is it Distributed in the
premise? Yes. Therefore, that's okay. Don't worry about the P here. Here's a case
where we go from Distributed in the premise to Undistributed. That's perfectly okay. It
simply means we're going from “all” to “some,” and that's your lot.
It's from “some” to “all,” from Undistributed to Distributed you can't go. So it's not
Illicit Minor, it's not Illicit Major.
Now we get to the next rule. No, Conclusion follows from two negative premises. Do
we have two negative premises? Obviously. First is an E and the second is an O.
Consequently, you put it down right there, simply stop, and say, Fallacy of Two
Negatives. And then you go on to number two.
Now, do from 2 through 6 for next time. You will find that 6 may tax your ingenuity
because it has six terms in it. Attractive, unattractive, lacking in energy, energetic,
popular, and unpopular. Three of those terms are the negations of the others, and to
get it down to three terms, you will have to obvert and convert and take
contrapositive, et cetera. So you can play with that, and we will take those up, those
6, next week.