Types of

Syllogisms

1. Categorical Syllogisms
2. Hypothetical Syllogisms
Categorical It is a statement that directly

Statement asserts something or states a

fact without any conditions. Its
subject is simply affirmed or
denied by a predicate.
Examples of Categorical Statements
1. Senators are elected public officials.
2. The Philippines is not a communist state.
3. Some crimes are against national security.
4. The Supreme Court has the sole power to admit individuals in the
practice of law.
5. Some offenses are not public wrongs.
 It is a compound statement
which contains a proposed or
tentative explanation.
Hypothetical
Statement Compound statement
composed of at least two (2)
is

clauses connected by
conjunctions, adverbs, etc.
which expresses the relationship
between the classes as well as
our assent to it.
Example of Hypothetical Statements
1. If the country is in serious danger due to invasion or rebellion, the
President can declare martial law.
2. If a party to a contract fails to perform its obligation in the contract, then
there is a breach of contract.
3. The breach of contract is either actual or anticipatory.
Categorical It is a deductive argument
consisting of three categorical
Syllogism statements that together contain
exactly three terms, each of
which occurs in exactly two of
the constituent statements.
Examples of Categorical Syllogisms
1. City councilors are elected public officials. (Categorical Statement)

Jeremy is not an elected public official. (Categorical Statement)

Therefore, Jeremy is not a city councilor. (Categorical Statement)

Hypothetical
Syllogism It includes both categorical and
hypothetical statements.
Example of Hypothetical Syllogism
1. If a false statement is not intended to deceive or mislead anyone, the
statement is not fraudulent. (Hypothetical Statement)

Mrs. Lim had no intention of deceiving her supervisor. (Categorical

Statement)

Therefore, Mrs. Lim’s statement, though false, was not fraudulent.

(Categorical Statement)
Categorical Syllogism
Properties of a Categorical Statement
Quality
- The quality of a statement may be
affirmative or negative.
- The terms “no”, “not”, “none”, and
“never” denotes a negative statement.
- In the absence of such qualifiers, the
statement is affirmative.
Quantity
- The quantity of a statement is either
universal or particular.
- It is universal when what is being
affirmed or denied of the subject term
is its whole extension. The keywords
are “all”, “every”, “each”, “no”, “none”.
- It is particular when what is being
affirmed or denied of the subject is just
a part of the extension. The keywords
are “some”, “most”, “several”, “few”,
“almost all”, “not all”, “many”.
Properties of a Categorical Statement
Quality
Examples:
1. Some crimes are punishable by
imprisonment. (Affirmative)
2. The accused is not guilty of the crime.
(Negative)
Quantity
Examples:
1. All law students are holder of a
bachelor’s degree. (Universal)
2. No statutes that are in conflict with the
Constitution are valid. (Universal)
3. Not all senatorial candidates are
eligible to run. (Particular)
4. Some criminal offenses are heinous
crimes. (Particular)
Rules in Determining the Quantity of the
Predicate
1. Predicate of an affirmative statement is generally particular.

Example: The Philippines is a democratic country.

1. Predicate of a negative statement is always universal.

Example: Some senators are not lawyers.

Three Kinds of Statements in a Categorical
Syllogism
1. Minor premise - It is the premise which contains the minor term (subject
term). Usually, this is the second proposition.
2. Major premise - It is the premise which contains the major term
(predicate term). Generally, this premise has greater extension than
other proposition in the syllogism (i.e. General statements).
3. Conclusion - It is the statement that the premises support.
Three Kinds of Terms in Categorical
Syllogism
1. Minor Term (S) - It is the subject of the conclusion. It appears in the
minor premise, which is usually the second premise. It is otherwise
known as “subject term”.
2. Major Term (P) - It is the predicate of the conclusion. It appears in the
major premise, which is usually the first premise. It is also called as
“predicate term”.
3. Middle Term (M) - It is the term found in both premises and serves to
mediate between minor and the major terms. It connects or separates
other terms completely or partially.
Illustration of the different terms and statements of
categorical syllogisms:
1. All torts are civil wrongs. (major premise)

Negligence is a tort. (minor premise)

Therefore, negligence is a civil wrong. (conclusion)

Major term (P) - civil wrongs (predicate of the conclusion)

Minor term (S) - Negligence (subject of the conclusion)

Middle term (M) - tort

 2. All contracts with vague terms are void. (major premise)

This contract is not void. (minor premise)

Therefore, this contract does not contain vague terms. (conclusion)

Major term (P) - vague terms (predicate of the conclusion)

Minor term (S) - This contract (subject of the conclusion)

Middle term (M) - void

Rules for the Validity of Categorical
Syllogisms
Rule No. 1: The syllogism must not contain two negative premises.

Rationale:

When the premises are both negative, the middle term fails to serve its
function of mediating between the major and minor terms.

The violation of this rule is called the Fallacy of Exclusive Premises.

Rule No. 1: The syllogism must not contain two negative premises.

Statement No. 1: Invalid

No socialist country is capitalist. (negative)

The Philippines is not socialist. (negative)

Therefore, it is a capitalist country.

Rule No. 1: The syllogism must not contain two negative premises.

Statement No. 2: Valid

No military action whose harmful effects cannot be controlled is morally
permissible. (negative)
All military uses of biological weapons are military actions whose harmful
effects cannot be controlled. (affirmative)
Therefore, no military uses of biological weapons are morally permissible.
Rule No. 2: There must be three pairs of univocal terms.
Fallacy of Equivocation

Univocal term is a term that has the same meaning

in different occurrences.

Equivocal term is a term that has different meanings

in its occurrences.
Rule No. 2: There must be three pairs of univocal terms.

Statement No. 1: Invalid

What is natural is good. (“natural” means something pure or not artificial)

To make a mistake is natural. (“natural” means something normal or usual)

Therefore, to make a mistake is good.

Rule No. 2: There must be three pairs of univocal terms.

Statement No. 2: Valid

Selling cigarettes to a person below 18 years of age is unlawful.

That store sold cigarettes to a student below 18 years of age.

Therefore, the store has violated the law.

Rule No. 3: The middle term must be universal at least once.

Rationale:

When the middle term is particular in both premises it might stand for a different portion of
its extension in each occurrence and, thus, be equivalent to two terms, and, therefore, fail
to fulfill its function of uniting or separating the minor and major terms.

The violation of this rule is called the Fallacy of Particular Middle.

Rule No. 3: The middle term must be universal at least once.

Statement No. 1: Invalid

Most mayors have political parties. (particular)

Mr. Herras is a mayor. (particular)

Therefore, Mr. Herras has a political party.

Rule No. 3: The middle term must be universal at least once.

Statement No. 2: Valid

No military actions that intentionally kill innocent civilians are just.
(universal)
Some Malaysian military actions in Sabah intentionally killed innocent
civilians. (particular)
Therefore, some Malaysian military actions were not just.
Rule No. 3: The middle term must be universal at least once.

Exception to the rule:

Even if the middle term is particular in both premises, but it is quantified by

“most” in both premises and the conclusion is quantified by “some”, the
syllogism does NOT violate the third rule. This is so because the combined
extension of the middle term is more than a universal.
Rule No. 3: The middle term must be universal at least once.

Exception to the rule:

Most mayors are corrupt.

Most mayors have political parties.

Therefore, some people who have political parties are corrupt.

Rule No. 4: If the term in the conclusion is universal, the same term in the
premise must also be universal.

Rationale:
In a deductive argument, the conclusion should not go beyond what the
premises state. Thus, conclusion should not be wider in extension than the
premises.
Fallacy of Illicit Major
Fallacy of Illicit Minor
Rule No. 4: If the term in the conclusion is universal, the same term in the
premise must also be universal.

Statement No. 1: Invalid - Fallacy of Illicit Minor

All lawyers read the Philippine Daily Inquirer. (particular)
All lawyers are literate.
Therefore, all who read the Philippine Daily Inquirer are literate.
(universal)
Rule No. 4: If the term in the conclusion is universal, the same term in the
premise must also be universal.

Statement No. 2: Invalid - Fallacy of Illicit Major

Felonies are criminal offenses. (particular)

Misdemeanor are not felonies.

Therefore, misdemeanors are not criminal offenses. (universal)

Rule No. 4: If the term in the conclusion is universal, the same term in the
premise must also be universal.

Statement No. 3: Valid

All acts that inflict more harm than good are unjust.

All terrorist acts inflicts more harm than good. (universal)

Therefore, all terrorist acts are unjust. (universal)