Hypothetical Syllogisms

Critical Thinking and Logic

At the end of the course, the students are expected to:
1. Analyze the difference between categorical syllogisms
and hypothetical syllogisms
2. Evaluate between valid and invalid inferences and the
rationale behind them
3. Translate ordinary language into syllogistic form in order
to evaluate their validity
A hypothetical syllogism uses a hypothetical proposition as
one of its premises. Hypothetical propositions are compound
propositions since it contains more than one component or
propositions. There are three types:

1. Conditional Syllogisms
2. Disjunctive Syllogisms
3. Conjunctive Syllogisms
 Part I
Conditional Syllogisms
 P→Q
If P then Q
P implies Q

Two statements or clauses that serve as conditions for the

truth each other expressed as “if-then statements.”
• Given the truth of P, the truth of Q follows.
• It is impossible for P to be true and Q to be false.
 If it’s raining … … then the ground is wet
• If P … • … then Q.
• hypothesis • conclusion
• antecedent • consequent
• sufficient condition • necessary condition
 If it’s raining, then the ground is wet.

If I know that it’s raining (P), that is enough information to

know that the ground is wet (Q)

• If P is true, then Q is also true

 If it’s raining, then the ground is wet.

we are required to admit that the ground is wet (Q) if we

know that it is raining (P)
• Since Q is a requirement for P, then without Q, there’s no
P
• If not Q, then not P
• We’ll be using the symbol “~” to denote “not”
• Not Q = ~Q
 P → Q = ~Q → ~P

“If P, then Q” is equivalent to “If ~Q, then ~P”

 P → Q = ~Q → ~P

If it’s raining, then the ground is wet.

If the ground is not wet, then it’s not raining.
 Sufficient Necessary
Raining Ground is wet
Winning the elections Running for office
Passing the Board Exam Taking the Board Exams
Being an Engineer Passing the Board Exams
Get pregnant Being female
Which of these pairs of statements serve as the
sufficient/necessary condition of the other?
Being in the Philippines Being in Manila
Passing a required subject Graduating
Being the President of the Phils. Being a Filipino
Being male Being a Catholic priest
Full stomach Consuming food
Breathing underwater Having gills
Drunk Consuming alcohol
Which of these pairs of statements serve as the
sufficient/necessary condition of the other?
Being in the Philippines (N) Being in Manila (S)
Passing a required subject (N) Graduating (S)
Being the President of the Phils. (S) Being a Filipino (N)
Being male (N) Being a Catholic priest (S)
Full stomach (S) Consuming food (N)
Breathing underwater (S) Having gills (S)
Drunk (S) Consuming alcohol (N)
The logical form of a conditional statement is:
P→Q

The statement “If it’s raining, then the ground is wet.”

can be translated to
R→W
1. Mark will go the party if Joan goes.
2. If Joan goes to the party, Mark will go as well.
3. Mark will go to the party only if Joan goes.
4. Mark will go to the party unless Joan goes.
5. Mark will go to the party if and only if Joan is going.

Clue: Which serves as the requirement?

1. Mark will go to the party if Joan goes.

Look for the word “if”, always on the left side of the
arrow!

If Joan goes → Mark will go

J→M
2. If Joan goes to the party, Mark will go as well.

If Joan goes → Mark will go

J→M
3. Mark will go to the party only if Joan goes.

What serves as the requirement in this case?

Requirement = necessary

Joan going to the party is the requirement for Mark to

go, so
Mark will go → only if Joan goes
M→J
3. Mark will go to the party only if Joan goes.

If = sufficient condition
Only if = necessary condition

Mark will go → only if Joan goes

M→J
4. Mark will go to the party unless Joan goes.
M unless J

What does “unless” mean?

Mark will go to the party if Joan is not going.

If Joan is not going → Mark will go

~J → M
5. Mark will go to the party if and only if Joan is going
Combination of two statements:
a. Mark will go to the party if Joan goes. J→M
b. Mark will go to the party only if Joan goes. M→J

M↔J
1. If P then Q 3. P unless Q
P→Q ~Q → P

2. P only if Q 4. P if and only if Q

P→Q P↔Q
 Determining Valid
Conditional Syllogisms
A syllogism in which one of the premises is a conditional
statement:

P1: P→Q If I study, I will pass.

P2: P I studied.
C: ∴Q Therefore, I will pass.
An inference is valid only if the truth is guaranteed by the
premises.

There are only 2 valid inferences for Conditional Syllogisms.

1. Modus Ponens
2. Modus Tollens
A conditional syllogism in which the first premise is a
conditional proposition, the second premise affirms the
antecedent of the conditional, asserting the truth of the
consequent.

P→Q If it’s raining, then the ground is wet.

P It’s raining.
∴Q Therefore, the ground is wet.
P→Q If peace talks fail, there will be a war.
P The peace talks failed.
∴Q Therefore, there will be a war.

P→Q If a speaker is nervous, he will stutter.

P The speaker is nervous.
∴Q Therefore, the speaker will stutter.
A conditional syllogism in which the first premise is a
conditional proposition, the second premise is the denial
(negation) of the consequent of that conditional, which
in turn denies the truth of the antecedent.

P→Q If it’s raining, then the ground is wet.

~Q The ground is not wet.
∴ ~P Therefore, it’s not raining.
P→Q If peace talks fail, there will be a war.
~Q There is no war.
∴ ~P Therefore, the peace talks did not fail.

P→Q If a speaker is nervous, he will stutter.

~Q The speaker did not stutter.
∴ ~P Therefore, he was not nervous.
There are two common invalid inferences when
analyzing conditional syllogisms. They are common
because they seem to mirror the structure of either
Modus Ponens or Modus Tollens, but commits a mistake
upon closer inspection. These are:

1. Affirming the consequent

2. Negating the antecedent
A fallacy (or mistake in inference) in which, from the
truth of the consequent of a conditional proposition, the
conclusion is reached that the antecedent is also true.
• Modus Tollens affirms the antecedent, not the
consequent

P→Q If it’s raining, then the ground is wet.

Q The ground is wet.
∴P Therefore, it is raining.
P1: P→Q If it’s raining, then the ground is wet.
P2: Q The ground is wet.
C: ∴P Therefore, it’s raining.

A conditional statement gives us a one-directional implication

from the antecedent to the consequent. Just because the
consequent is true does not mean that the antecedent is also
true.
A fallacy (or mistake in inference) in which, from the
negation of the antecedent of a conditional proposition,
the conclusion is reached that the consequent is false.
• Modus Tollens negates the consequent, not the
antecedent

P→Q If it’s raining, then the ground is wet.

~P It’s not raining.
∴ ~Q Therefore, the ground is not wet.
P1: P→Q If I study, I will pass.
P2: ~P I did not study.
C: ∴ ~Q Therefore, I will not pass.

A conditional statement only guarantees us what happens is

P is true. It does not say anything about when P is not true.
Modus Ponens Modus Tollens
𝑃→𝑄 𝑃→𝑄
𝑃 ~𝑄
∴𝑄 ✓ ∴ ~𝑃 ✓

Negating the Antecedent Affirming the Consequent

𝑃→𝑄 𝑃→𝑄
~𝑃 𝑄
∴ ~𝑄 ✗ ∴𝑃 ✗
 Part 2
Disjunctive Syllogisms
 P or Q

Either P is true, or Q is true, or both are true, but we are

guaranteed that at least one of them is true.

Examples:
A child is born either male or female.
Either Parasite or The Irishman will win Best Picture.
 P or Q

“Either Parasite or The Irishman will win Best Picture.”

This is TRUE if:

1. Parasite will win but not The Irishman.
2. Parasite will not win but The Irishman will win.
3. Parasite will win and The Irishman will win.
 P or Q

“Either Parasite or The Irishman will win Best Picture.”

This is FALSE if:

1. Parasite will not win and The Irishman will not win.
A syllogism which has for its first premise a disjunctive
statement.

P1: P or Q
P2: P
C: ∴~Q

P1: A child is born male or female.

P2: Sam was born male.
C: Therefore, Sam was not born female.
In case of complete disjunction (whose parts are
mutually exclusive, i.e. they contradict one another), two
valid moods are possible

1. Ponendo Tollens

2. Tollendo Ponens
1. Ponendo Tollens: Posit (accept, affirm) one disjunct in
the minor and sublate (reject, deny) the other disjunct
in the conclusion.

Example:
The prisoner is either sane or insane. P1: P or Q
But he is sane. (posited) P2: P
Therefore, he is not insane. (sublated) C: ∴~Q
1. Ponendo Tollens: Posit (accept, affirm) one disjunct in
the minor and sublate (reject, deny) the other disjunct
in the conclusion.

Example:
The prisoner is either sane or insane. P1: P or Q
But he is insane. (posited) P2: Q
Therefore, he is not sane. (sublated) C: ∴~P
2. Tollendo Ponens: Sublate one disjunct in the minor and
posit the other disjunct in the conclusion.

Example:
The househelper is either honest or dishonest. P1: P or Q
But he is not honest (sublated)
Therefore, he is dishonest. (posited)
P2: ~P
C: ∴Q
2. Tollendo Ponens: Sublate one disjunct in the minor and
posit the other disjunct in the conclusion.

Example:
The househelper is either honest or dishonest. P1: P or Q
But he is not dishonest (sublated)
Therefore, he is honest. (posited)
P2: ~Q
C: ∴P
In case of incomplete disjunction (whose parts are not
mutually exclusive, i.e., they do not contradict each
other), there is only one valid mood possible.

1. Ponendo Tollens
Ponendo Tollens: Posit one disjunct in the minor and
sublate the other in the conclusion.

Example:
Your cup of coffee is either hot or cold. P1: P or Q
But it is hot. (posited)
Therefore, it is not cold. (sublated)
P2: P
C: ∴ ~Q
Ponendo Tollens: Posit one disjunct in the minor and
sublate the other in the conclusion.

Example:
Your cup of coffee is either hot or cold. P1: P or Q
But it is cold. (posited)
Therefore, it is not hot. (sublated)
P2: Q
C: ∴ ~P
This mood follows the rule of contrariety. Hot and cold are
contraries. If one is true, the other must be false. But if one
is false, the other may be false, too.

Example: P1: P or Q
Your cup of coffee is either hot or cold.
But it is not hot. (posited) P2: ~P
Therefore, it is cold. (sublated) C: ∴Q
This mood follows the rule of contrariety. Hot and cold are
contraries. If one is true, the other must be false. But if one
is false, the other may be false, too.

Example: P1: P or Q
Your cup of coffee is either hot or cold.
But it is not cold. (posited) P2: ~Q
Therefore, it is hot. (sublated) C: ∴P
 Part 3
Conjunctive Syllogisms
 P and Q
Both P and Q must be true at the same time.

P: Jesus is human.
Q: Jesus is divine.
P and Q: Jesus is both human and divine.
 P and Q
“Jesus is both human and divine.”

This is TRUE if:

1. Jesus is human and Jesus is divine.
 P and Q
“Jesus is both human and divine.”

This is FALSE if:

1. Jesus is human but Jesus is not divine.
2. Jesus is not human but Jesus is divine.
3. Jesus is not human and Jesus is not divine.
A syllogism which has for its first premise a conjunctive
statement. Yields two conclusions, since a conjunctive
statement, to be true, requires both components to be
true at the same time.

P and Q Jesus is both human and divine.

∴P Jesus is human.
∴Q Jesus is divine.
A conjunctive syllogism is one whose major premise is a conjunctive
proposition, while its minor premise and conclusion are categorical
propositions. Recall that a conjunctive proposition is one which denies that
two contrary predicates can be true of the same subject at the same time.

Example:
Water cannot be hot and cold and lukewarm at the same time.
But this water is cold.
Therefore, it is not hot or lukewarm.
There is only one valid mood for a conjunctive syllogism:
Ponendo Tollens- posit one conjunct in the minor and sublate the other(s)
in the conclusion.

Example:

The accused could not have been in Baguio and in Manila at the same
time.
But he was in Baguio. (posited)
Therefore, he was not in Manila. (sublated)
From the truth of one conjunct follows the falsity of the other. The fact
that the accused was in Baguio means that he could not be in Manila at
the same time. It would be impossible for him to be in two places at the
same time.

Example:

The accused could not have been in Baguio and in Manila at the same
time.
But he was not in Baguio. (sublated)
Therefore, he was in Manila. (posited)