TRADITIONAL LOGIC II

TRADITIONAL LOGIC II
What is a figure in In a syllogism, what do the
syllogism terms P, S, and M mean?

TRADITIONAL LOGIC II

TRADITIONAL LOGIC II
What is the location of terms What is the location of terms
in sub-prae (first figure)? in prae-prae (second figure)?
TRADITIONAL LOGIC II

TRADITIONAL LOGIC II
What is the location of terms What is the location of terms
in sub-sub (third figure)? in prae-sub (fourth figure)?
TRADITIONAL LOGIC II

TRADITIONAL LOGIC II
What is William of Shyreswood's
What is mood in syllogisms? mnemonic verse for the 19
valid syllogisms?
TRADITIONAL LOGIC II

TRADITIONAL LOGIC II

What do the vowels represent in

Why do we reduce syllogisms
William of Shyreswood's mnemonic
to the first figure?
for the 19 valid syllogisms?
P is the major term which is the
predicate of the conclusion.

CHAPTER 1

CHAPTER 1
S is the minor term, which is the subject The disposition (location) of the terms in
of the conclusion. the premises.
M is the middle term, which is the term
that appears in both premises but not the
conclusion.

CHAPTER 1

CHAPTER 1
Prae-prae (praedicatum-praedicatum) Sub-prae (subjectum-praedicatum)
PM MP
SM SM
SP SP
CHAPTER 1

CHAPTER 1
Prae-sub (praedicatum-subjectum) Sub-sub (subjectum-subjectum)
PM MP
MS MS
SP SP

BARBARA, CELARENT, DARII, FERIO

que prioris
CESARE, CAMESTRES, FESTINO,
CHAPTER 2

CHAPTER 2
BAROCO secundae; The disposition of the premises
tertia; DARAPTI, DISAMIS, DATISI,
according to quantity and quality (A, I,
FELAPTON, BOCARDO, FERISON
habet; E, and O statements).
quarta insuper addit; BRAMANTIP,
CAMENES, DIMARIS, FESAPO,
FRESISON
CHAPTER 3

CHAPTER 2

The vowels represent the mood by

Validity is easiest to recognize in first indicating whether each proposition is an
figure syllogisms. A, I, E, or O statement.
 TRADITIONAL LOGIC II

TRADITIONAL LOGIC II
How do we use the first
consonant in the William of
What are the two methods of
Shyreswood mnemonic to
reducing a syllogism?
reduce a syllogism to
the first figure?

TRADITIONAL LOGIC II

TRADITIONAL LOGIC II
How do we use the subsequent
consonants in the William of In directly reducing
Shyreswood mnemonic to syllogisms, how do we perform
reduce a syllogism to S: Simple Conversion?
the first figure? TRADITIONAL LOGIC II

TRADITIONAL LOGIC II
In directly reducing
In directly reducing
syllogisms, how do we
syllogisms, how do we
perform M: Mutatio
perform P: Per Accidens or
or Transposition of
Partial conversion?
the Premises?
TRADITIONAL LOGIC II

TRADITIONAL LOGIC II
In reducing syllogisms, How do we perform an
what is C: Reduction indirect reduction on
by Contradiction? a syllogism in BAROCO?
TRADITIONAL LOGIC II

TRADITIONAL LOGIC II

How do we perform an
What must a statement include
indirect reduction on
to be a logical statement?
a syllogism in BOCARDO?
The first consonant indicates the 1st

CHAPTER 3

CHAPTER 3
figure mood each valid syllogism will
Direct Reduction and
reduce to. For example, any 2nd, 3rd, or
Indirect Reduction
4th figure syllogism that begins with "B"
will reduce to BARBARA.

CHAPTER 3

CHAPTER 3
The letters S, P, M, and C indicate which
Switch the subject and predicate. For
type of reduction procedure to use on
example, "No P is M" becomes "No M
the proposition signified by the preceding
is P."
vowel.
CHAPTER 3

CHAPTER 3
Swith the subject and predicate and
Make the minor premise the major, and
change the quantity. For example,"All M
the major premise the minor.
are S" becomes "Some S are M."

1. Retain the original major premise.

2. Use the contradiction of the original
CHAPTER 4

CHAPTER 4
This is the indirect method of reduction
conclusion as the new minor premise.
through (rather than to) BARBARA.
3. Derive the new conclusion, which if
It is applied only to BAROCO and
the original syllogism is valid, should be
BOCARDO.
the contradiction of the original minor
premise.

1. Retain the original minor premise.

2. Use the contradiction of the original
CHAPTER 4
CHAPTER 5

conclusion as the new major premise.

quantifier, subject, copula, 3. Derive the new conclusion, which, if
and predicate. the original syllogism is valid, should be
the contradiction of the original major
premise.
 TRADITIONAL LOGIC II

TRADITIONAL LOGIC II
What is a quantifer in a
What is a copula?
logical statement?

TRADITIONAL LOGIC II

TRADITIONAL LOGIC II
How do we change an
How do we change a sentence
exclusive sentence beginning with
into a logical statement?
only into a logical statement?
TRADITIONAL LOGIC II

TRADITIONAL LOGIC II
How do we change a negative
How do we change an exceptive
sentence beginning with
sentence beginning with except into
nothing, none, or no one
a logical statement?
into a logical statement?
TRADITIONAL LOGIC II

TRADITIONAL LOGIC II
How do we change a sentence How do we translate a sentence
containing anyone, anything, containing someone, something,
whoever, the, if…then, or whatever there is, or there are into a
into a logical statement? logical statement?
TRADITIONAL LOGIC II

TRADITIONAL LOGIC II

What is a first order

What is an enthymeme?
enthymeme?
 CHAPTER 5

CHAPTER 5
a word that shows the quantity of the a to be verb (is, am, are) that links the
statement, such as all, no, some, and subject and predicate together in a logical
some...not statement

Change exclusive sentences into A

CHAPTER 5

CHAPTER 5
Find the subject and predicate and
statements by replacing only with all
add the quantifier (all, no, some),
and switching the subject and predicate.
complement (noun) if needed,
For example, "Only S are P" becomes
and copula (is, am, are).
"All P are S."

Use only one of the exceptive statements

and change it into an E or A statement. Replace nothing, none, or no one with the
CHAPTER 5

CHAPTER 5
For example, "Everyone except children word no. Add the copula. Complement
may attend." may become "No children the predicate. For example, "No one
are people who are able to attend" or "All frightens me." becomes "No persons are
who are not children are people who may persons who frighten me."
attend."

Translate into an I statement. For

CHAPTER 5

CHAPTER 5
Translate into an A statement. For
example, "Someone is looking at me"
example, "Anyone who has eyes can see."
becomes "Some persons are persons
becomes "All persons with eyes
who are looking at me."
are persons who can see."
CHAPTER 6

CHAPTER 5

A syllogism that does not contain both

An enthymeme that is missing the of the necessary premises or contains
major premise both of its premises but is missing a
conclusion
 TRADITIONAL LOGIC II

TRADITIONAL LOGIC II
What is a second order What is a third order
enthymeme? enthymeme?

TRADITIONAL LOGIC II

TRADITIONAL LOGIC II
In an argument or debate
with another person, what What is a hypothetical
do we do when we syllogism?
encounter an enthymeme?
TRADITIONAL LOGIC II

TRADITIONAL LOGIC II
What are the three kinds of What is a conditional
hypothetical syllogisms? syllogism?
TRADITIONAL LOGIC II

TRADITIONAL LOGIC II
What are the antecedent and
What are the two valid moods
consequent in a conditional
of conditional syllogisms?
proposition?
TRADITIONAL LOGIC II

TRADITIONAL LOGIC II

What are the two invalid moods of What is a pure

conditional syllogisms? conditional syllogism?
 CHAPTER 6

CHAPTER 6
An enthymeme that is missing An enthymeme that is missing the
the conclusion minor premise

CHAPTER 6
CHAPTER 7
A syllogism that studies the relationship Point out the missing premise yourself
between propositions instead of between or ask your opponent to state the
terms missing premise.

A syllogism that contains a conditional

statement (if…then) as its major premise
and categorical statements affirming

CHAPTER 5
CHAPTER 7

or denying parts of the conditional

conditional, disjunctive, and
statement as its minor premise and
conjunctive
conclusion. For example,
If P, then Q
P
Therefore, Q

Mood 1: affirming the antecedent

CHAPTER 7

CHAPTER 7
(constructive mood, or modus ponens) The antecedent is the part of the
Mood 2: denying the consequent proposition that comes after the if and
(destructive mood, or modus tollens) the consequent comes after the then

A syllogism where both premises and the

CHAPTER 7

CHAPTER 7

conclusion are conditional statements.

For example, Mood 3: affirming the consequent
If P, then Q Mood 4: denying the antecedent
If R, then P
Therefore, if R, then Q
 TRADITIONAL LOGIC II

TRADITIONAL LOGIC II
What is a disjunctive What are the alternants in a
syllogism? disjunctive syllogism?

TRADITIONAL LOGIC II

TRADITIONAL LOGIC II
What are the two valid moods What are the two invalid moods
of a disjunctive syllogism? of a disjunctive syllogism?
TRADITIONAL LOGIC II

TRADITIONAL LOGIC II
What is an inclusive What is an exclusive
disjunction? disjunction?
TRADITIONAL LOGIC II

TRADITIONAL LOGIC II
How can we reduce a
What is a conjunctive
disjunctive syllogism to a
syllogism?
conditional syllogism?
TRADITIONAL LOGIC II

TRADITIONAL LOGIC II

What are the conjuncts in a What are the two valid moods
conjunctive proposition? of a conjunctive syllogism?
 A syllogism in which the major premise
is a disjunctive proposition (either…or)
and the minor premise is a categorical

CHAPTER 8

CHAPTER 8
proposition that either affirms or denies
The two elements after either and or. one of the alternants in the major
For example, "Either P or Q." premise. Example:
Either P or Q
Not P
Therefore, Q

Both valid moods are examples of

Both invalid moods are examples of

CHAPTER 8

CHAPTER 8
tollendo ponens, affirming by denying:
ponendo tollens, denying by affirming:
denying the first alternant, thereby
the fallacy of affirming the first alternant or
affirming the second or
the fallacy of affirming the second
denying the second alternant, thereby
alternant.
CHAPTER 8 affirming the first.

CHAPTER 8
A disjunctive statement in which only one A disjunctive statement in which both
of the alternants can be true, but not both. alternates could be true. Only the first
All four moods are valid when using an two moods are valid when using an
exclusive disjunction. inclusive statement.

A syllogism in which the major premise

is a conjunctive proposition (both…and)

CHAPTER 8
CHAPTER 9

1. Place the disjunct denied in the minor

which denies that the two propositions premise in the place of the consequent
can be true at the same time. Example:
Not both P and Q 2. Place the denial of the other conjunct
P in the place of the antecedent
Therefore, not Q
CHAPTER 9

CHAPTER 9

Both valid moods are examples of

ponendo tollens, denial by affirming: The elements before and after the and.
Affirming the first conjunct and For example, Not both P and Q
affirming the second conjunct
 TRADITIONAL LOGIC II

TRADITIONAL LOGIC II
What are the two invalid moods What is a formally
of a conjunctive syllogism? perfect conjunction?

TRADITIONAL LOGIC II

TRADITIONAL LOGIC II
How can we reduce a
conjunctive syllogism to a What is a polysyllogism?
conditional syllogism?
TRADITIONAL LOGIC II

TRADITIONAL LOGIC II
How do we determine the validity
What is an Aristotelian sorite?
of a polysyllogism?
TRADITIONAL LOGIC II

TRADITIONAL LOGIC II
How do we extrapolate How do we determine the
Aristotelian sorites? validity of a sorite?
TRADITIONAL LOGIC II

TRADITIONAL LOGIC II

What types of statements can

What is a Goclenian sorite?
be used in sorites?
A conjunctive statement in which the two

CHAPTER 9

CHAPTER 9
Both invalid moods are examples of
conjuncts are contradictory propositions tollendo ponens, affirmation by denial:
(they cannont both be true or both be denying the first conjunct
false). All four moods are valid when denying the second conjunct
using a formally perfect conjunction.

A chain argument that links together

several syllogisms so that a conclusion of
one is the premise for the next one. For 1. Place the conjunct affirmed in the

CHAPTER 10

CHAPTER 9
example: minor premise in the place of the
All A is B antecedent.
All C is A 2. Place the denial of the other conjunct
Therefore, all C is B in the place of the consequent.
All D is C
Therefore, all D is B

A series of fourth (or indirect first) figure

syllogisms with all of the conclusions
CHAPTER 10

CHAPTER 10
unexpressed except the last. For Test each of the component syllogisms
example: for validity. The validity of the
All A is B polysyllogism depends on the validity of
All B is C each component.
All C is D
Therefore, all A is D

Provide the missing conclusions by

converting the fourth figure syllogisms to
Test each of the component syllogisms
CHAPTER 10

CHAPTER 10
first figure.
for validity. The validity of a sorite
1. Switch the first two premises
depends on the validity of each
2. Derive a conclusion and use it as
component.
the minor premise of the next simple
syllogism
3. Continue step 2 until the end

A series of first figure syllogisms with all

of the conclusions unexpressed except
CHAPTER 10

CHAPTER 10

1. Only the premise which contains the

the last. For example: minor term may be particular (I and O)
All C is D
All B is C 2. Only the premise which contains the
major term may be negative (E and O)
All A is B
Therefore, all A is D
 TRADITIONAL LOGIC II

TRADITIONAL LOGIC II
How do we extrapolate a
What is a conditional sorite?
Goclenian sorite?

TRADITIONAL LOGIC II

TRADITIONAL LOGIC II
What are the valid forms of
What are epicheirema?
conditional sorites?
TRADITIONAL LOGIC II

TRADITIONAL LOGIC II
What is a first order
What is a causal proposition?
epicheireme?
TRADITIONAL LOGIC II

TRADITIONAL LOGIC II
What is a second order What is a third order
epicheireme? epicheireme?
TRADITIONAL LOGIC II

TRADITIONAL LOGIC II

How do we extrapolate an How do we determine the

epicheireme? validity of an epicheireme?
A sorite made up of a series of
conditional statements, each of which
(except the first) has as its antecedent Provide the missing conclusions.

CHAPTER 11

CHAPTER 11
the consequent of the preceding premise. 1. Use the conclusion of the firt two
For example: premises as the major premise of the next
If A, then B simple syllogism.
If B, then C 2. Repeat step one to the end.
If C, then D
Therefore, if A then D

There are four valid forms:

Pure conditional sorities (concludes with

CHAPTER 11

CHAPTER 11
...Therefore if A, then E and ...Therefore, if
Syllogisms in which at least one of the
not E, then not A)
premises contains causal propositions.
Mixed Conditional Sorites (concludes
with…But A Therefore, E and …But not E
therefore, not A)

Contains a causal proposition in the

CHAPTER 12

CHAPTER 12
A proposition which includes the proof
major premise:
for the proposition or the reason for
All M is P, since r
believing the proposition to be true. For
All S is a M
example, All M is P, since r
Therefore, S is P

Contains a causal proposition in the both Contains a causal proposition in the

CHAPTER 12

CHAPTER 12
premises: minor premise:
All M is P, since r1 All M is P
All S is a M, since r2 All S is a M, since r
Therefore, S is P Therefore, S is P

After extrapolating the causal

CHAPTER 12

CHAPTER 12

Create a BARBARA syllogism from

proposition(s), test each of the the causal proposition. Use the first
component syllogisms for validity. The statement (All M is P) as the conclusion
validity of the epicheireme depends on and use the reason or proof (r) as the
the validity of each component. middle term.
 TRADITIONAL LOGIC II

TRADITIONAL LOGIC II
What are the four types
What is a dilemma?
of dilemma?

TRADITIONAL LOGIC II

TRADITIONAL LOGIC II
What is the form of a simple What is the form of a simple
constructive dilemma? destructive dilemma?
TRADITIONAL LOGIC II

TRADITIONAL LOGIC II
What is the form of a complex What is the form of a complex
constructive dilemma? destructive dilemma?
TRADITIONAL LOGIC II

TRADITIONAL LOGIC II
What are the three rules that
How do we respond to a
must be followed for a
dilemma by "grasping it
dilemma to be properly
by the horns?"
constructed?
TRADITIONAL LOGIC II

TRADITIONAL LOGIC II

How do we respond to a How do we respond to a

dilemma by "escape dilemma by offering
between the horns?" a counter-dilemma?
 A compound syllogism in which
1. The major premise is a complex
conjunctive proposition in which each of

CHAPTER 13

CHAPTER 13
simple constructive dilemma the conjuncts (the horns) is a conditional
simple destructive dilemma statement, and
complex constructive dilemma 2. the minor premise is a disjunctive
complex destructive dilemma proposition in which either the
antecedents of the major premise are
confirmed or its consequents are denied.

CHAPTER 13

CHAPTER 13
If P, then Q, and if P, then R If P, then Q; and if R, then Q
Either not Q or not R Either P or R
Therefore, not P Therefore, Q
CHAPTER 13

CHAPTER 13
If P, then Q; and if R, then S If P, then Q; and if R, then S
Either not Q or not S Either P or R
Therefore, not P or not R Therefore, either Q or S

1. Major premise – must follow

legitimately from the antecedents (must
CHAPTER 13

CHAPTER 13
be true)
If the dilemma violates rule #1, question
2. Minor premise – disjunction must be
the truth of either of the conditional
complete (no third possibility)
statements (the "horns").
3. Conclusion – must be exclusive
(should be the only one that can be
inferred)

If the dilemma violates rules #3,

CHAPTER 13

CHAPTER 13

rearrange the proposition to point out If the dilemma violates rule #2, propose
that there is another conclusion that can another alternative than the two offered
be derived from the same truths assumed in the disjunction.
in the premises.
 Arguments?
What are A Fortiori
What is an oblique syllogism?

TRADITIONAL LOGIC II TRADITIONAL LOGIC II TRADITIONAL LOGIC II TRADITIONAL LOGIC II TRADITIONAL LOGIC II
syllogism?
validity of an oblique
How do we determine the

TRADITIONAL LOGIC II TRADITIONAL LOGIC II TRADITIONAL LOGIC II TRADITIONAL LOGIC II TRADITIONAL LOGIC II
Test for validity in form and content. A syllogism in which, instead of a middle
Follow the same rules as in a normal term, a certain relation is inferred

CHAPTER 14

CHAPTER 14
categorical syllogism, and determine between the major and minor terms. For
whether there is a legitimate transitive example:
rlationship between relevant terms (can Peter is a philosopher
the relationship be transferred from one This man is the son of a philosopher
concept to the other). Therefore, this man is the son of Peter

CHAPTER 14
Arguments that are formally invalid but
their conclusions obviously follow from
the premises