3.

The term in the conclusion may only be universal if they are universal in the
premises.
This rule refers to the deductive concept that the consequent of no greater generally than the
antecedent, or at least equivalent to it.
Biodegradable materials can be safely disposed of;
As a consequence, some of our refuse can be easily disposed of.
The antecedent is of a greater scope here than the conclusion. The latter can easily be drawn
out from the premise.

What is not exact is the following:

Some common household refuse are biodegradable
Biodegradable materials can be safely disposed of.

The truth thereof has not been established clearly.

Proceeding from a universal truth, the particular or equally universal conclusion is acceptable.
What is true to the whole must be true to the parts thereof. What may be true to the parts may
not be true to all the members of the whole.

Third rule. The major term must not be universal in the conclusion unless it is universal in the
premise where it appears when it appears. Violating this rule "extends" the major term in the in
the conclusion.
Example:
Computer viruses are data anomalies:
Some computer viruses are not intentionally created by hackers;
Hence, some program intentionally created by hackers are not data anomalies.

The major term "data anomalies" appear to be particular in the major premise. By analysis, the
same appears to be universal in the conclusion. The major term here is "extends" and becomes
illicit. This is an example of what is referred to in logic as the fallacy of the illicit major.
While the minor term must not be universal in the conclusion unless it is universal in the
premises, Violating this rule "extends" the minor term in the conclusion.
Anything that is of much violence and gore is negatively influential;
 Some online computer games are of much violence and gore;
Hence, all online computer games are negatively influential.
The minor term " online computer games" appears as particular in the minor premise,.
However, it becomes universal in the conclusion. This is an "extension" of the minor term in the
conclusion and results to its absurdity. This type of error is referred to in the study of logic as
the Fallacy of the illicit minor.
SUMMARY: To avoid violating the third rule, remember that:
A. a term in the conclusion may be universal of and only if it is universal in the premises;
B. a term in the conclusion must be particular even it if is universal in the premises; and
C. a term in the conclusion may be particular even if it is universal in the premise.

4. The middle term must occur as universal at least once.

The middle term must be universal at least once, in either the major or minor premise. The
failure to do so results to the failure of the distribution of the middle term. The middle term
must be distributed in the premises to allow the establishment of the necessary relation of both
the minor and major terms in the conclusion.
As an example:
Some birds are endangered species;
All pigeons are birds;
Hence, some pigeons are endangered species.
In this example, middle term "birds" appears to be particular in both the premises. Because of
this, the middle term becomes undistributed in the premises. The fallacy of the undistributed
middle results from such,
We can explicate this rule through the following:
1. The middle term may be universal in the major premises and particular in the other;
2. The middle term may be universal in the minor premises and particular in the other;
3. The middle term may be universal in both the premises; and
4. The middle term cannot be particular in both the premises at the same time.

GUIDE QUESTIONS
1. Why must there be three and only three terms in a syllogism?
2. What does a fourth term do in a syllogism?
3. Why must a term in the conclusion be particular if it is particular in the premises?
4. Why must the middle term be universal at least once?