CHAPTER 8 Hypothetical syllogisms Inference need not be elaborated in the syle peculat = the time. Sometimes, arguments come as theore' Co tain aire or conjectural. This is because we are sometimes | eran S veracity of our claims. We need to consider som ee oar mere possibilities. There are instances when WE must eXxP: eas hypothetically rather than categorically: I. HYPOTHETICAL PROPOSITIONS Hypothetical propositions are statem’ possibilities, options or speculative relations OF facts. It comes as conditional, disjunctive or cony ents of conditions, of facts or supposed junctive. A. Conditional Propositions 4 ‘A conditional proposition states 4 relationship of fact and its necessary condition. It is distinctively marked by the “if” and ‘“then” clauses. The “4g” clause, which is referred to as the antecedent, contains the condition’ to, a fact. The “then” clause, which is referred to as the consequent clause, states the possibility given the antecedent. For example: [fyouare ‘playwright, then you are an artist. (Antecedent)' (Consequent) Here, the fact that “you are'a playwright” ; : He ay wright” is a condition to the fact that “you are an artist.” The relationship of the antec a ‘ nd consequent will be discussed further later in this apie? lent al Other examples: a. If itis night, then it is dark. b. Ifyou are a teacher, then you are educated. ed. c. Ifyou are a Filipino, then you are Asi sian. 88da. ithe is an Olympi 7 ; trained. ympic gold medallist, then he must be well- e If i the downpour is heavy, then it is not safe to drive. B. Disjunctive Propositions Disjunctive propositi re positions present alternative ibiliti ihe ‘ ossibilities or varieties of choices, marked by the “either” and vor’ clauses. There are two types of these. These are either strict or broad. 1. Strict Disjunctive Propositions are cena Propositions present possibilities or options that exclude each other. The occurrence of one possibility or option directly denies the other simply because they are incompatible with each other. For example: Either you will be absent or attend the class tomorrow. The possibility of one’s being present in class cannot come alongside one’s absence. Absence and presence are incompatible with each other. Other examples: You either run or walk or be motionless. a. b. You either watch a movie with me tonight or not. 2 Either they sign the treaty or not. d. Either we help each other or not. e. Wecan either join the labor union or not at all. 2. Broad Disjunctive Propositions Broad disjunctive propositions present possibilities or options that may possibly include each other. The occurrence of one possibility or option need not deny the others as they are possibly compatible with each other. For example: Fither he is good in math or science oF in philosophy. ‘An individual may be good in either math alone, or solely in the sciences, or just with philosophy. However, on€ can possibly be good in both math and science, or with math and philosophy, 89or perhaps with philosophy, science, and so on. Here, one of the Possibilities need not exclude all the others. Other examples: a. Either Rose, or Dennis, or Marianne will join ys tonight. b. _Heeither knows how to speak French, or English, or Filipino. c. He found the test difficult, He either did not study for'it, or did not listen to the professor during the discussions or is simply dim-witted. d. . He is so talented. He knows either how to play the piano, the violin, or the guitar. It must be noted that a disjunctive proposition makes use of the “either-or” clause. This is because the very concept of this type of Proposition relates to alternative possibilities or varieties of choices, Hence, the “neither-nor” clause cannot be used for this type of Proposition as this denotes the absence of any feasible alternatives, The concept of disjunctives will be discussed extensively later in ‘this chapter. C.° Conjunctive Propositions A conjunctive proposition speaks of Possibilities that cannot be both true at the same time, marked by the article “and,” which combines in the. proposition the conflicting ‘and incompatible possibilities. As an example: You cannot be sane and insane at the same time, “Sanity” and its privative “insanity” cannot Possibly occur at the same time. A mentally defective person may have moments of lucidity. However, at such moments, his mind is clear and logical. Other examples: a. You cannot be here and somewhere else at the same - time. b. You cannot be healthy and sick at the same time. You cannot be asleep and awake at the same time. 90d. One cannot be sinful and sinless at the same time. e. No person can be alive and dead at the-same time. i. HYPOTHETICAL SYLLOGIsms Hypothetical, syllogisms are inferences that contain a hypo- thetical proposition as a major premise, and simple categorical propositions as its minor premise and a conclusion. Such can be * conditional, disjunctive or conjunctive. A. Conditional Syllogisms An inference is a Conditional Syllogism if the same presents a fact with its corresponding condition and the necessary implication with the affirmation (occurrence) or denial (non-occurrence) of one or the other. It is composed of a conditional proposition as a major premise and a minor premise that is categorical in character. “In symbolic logic, the components of a categorical syllogism are represented the following manner: P as the antecedent qas the consequent ~ as negation or denial AA The Two Rules for Conditional Syliogisms Conditional syllogisms are covered by two exclusive rules. Any such other form constitutes a fallacy. Rule 1: The affirmation of the antecedent necessitates the affirmation of the consequent or Pp q__ Ifp,theng P But p q— Thenq For example: If it is nighttime, then the sky is dark. Tt is nighttime. Then, the sky is dark. 91it is dark. Heng : that it is : e, The fact that it is nighttime necessitate ition occurring. e fact c darkness is a necessitated fact due to the itates the denia| o, Rule 2: The denial of the consequent necess? : the antecedent or Pq Ifp,theng ~q Butnotq ~p Then not p For example: ‘ ida If it is nighttime, then the sky is dar! The sky is not dark. ’ Then, it is not nighttime. 4 i titi The fact that the sky is not dark implies necegearily a aa nighttime. The fact does not occur in the absence , A.2 Violations of the Two Exclusive Rules Since the rules for conditional syllogi[Link] all others, any other such forms of denial or affirmation are not acceptable, Absurdity in substance may result, aside from the defect in form, For example: P 4q [fit is nighttime, then the sky is dark, q: Itis dark, P Itis nighttime, (Affirming the consequent) Ifitis nighttime, then the sky is dark, Itis not nighttime, Then, by night. A solar eclipse may of nighttime. Either the fallacies of “Denying the Antecedent” The fallacy of affirming the consequent j, f the consequent is affirmed in the minor mei The uted ier likewise possibly affirmed in the Conclusion, © COMSequent is “Affirming 'e Consequent” or are committed,The fallacy of denying the antecedent-is committed when the antecedent is denied in the minor premise. Here, the consequent is similarly possibly denied in the conclusion. i In both fallacies, the error emanates from the erroneous affirmation or denial of the antecedent and consequent in the minor premise, regardless of their affirmation or denial in the conclusion. B. Disjunctive Syllogisms Disjunctive syllogisms contain a disjunctive proposition as a major premise and a categorical minor premise. This type of syllogism presents alternative possibilities or varieties of choices and the implication of the affirmation or denial of a possibility or choice. This has two types, depending on the kind of disjunctive proposition consisting the major premise. B.1_ Broad Disjunctive Syllogisms Abroad disjunctive syllogism has for its major premise a broad disjunctive proposition and a categorical minor premise. This has a very simple rule. Deny one or some, but not all, of the disjunct in the minor premise, and affirm the remainder in the conclusion. For example: He knows either the Cebuano or the Ilonggo dialect. He does not know the Cebuano dialect. Hence, he knows how to speak Ilonggo. Another example: Either Rose, or Dennis, or Marianne will join us tonight. Rose and Marianne will not join us tonight. Hence, only Dennis will be joining us. Jf there is an affirmation in the minor premise, in violation of the rule, the fallacy of “Affirming a Disjunct” is committed. For example: He knows either the Cebuano or the Ilonggo dialect. -He knows the Cebuano dialect. Hence, he does not know how to speak Ilonggo. 93gisms ch that has for its major gorical minor B.2. Strict Disjunctive Syo ism is su strict disjunctive syllogi A strict disjunctive syllog' position and. 8 cate premise a strict disjunctive pro premise. ‘Affirm one or some, but not all, is has one exclusive Rule. “ a This has one exclusive Ru Fee, and deny the remainder in of the disjunct in the minor prem the conclusion. For example: You either run or walk or be motionless. But you will run. Hence, you will be either walking or be motionless. Another example: Either they will help each other or refuse to do so. They will help each other. Therefore, they will not refuse to do so. C. Conjunctive Syllogisms A syllogism is conjunctive if its major premise is a conjunctive proposition, although its minor premise is categorical. In essence, it is almost similar to strict disjunctive syllogisms. This being so, it has a rule very similar to that which is set for the latter. Affirm one of the conjuncts in the minor premise, and deny the remainder in the conclusion. This is the sole rule for this type of inference. For instance: : You cannot be here and somewhere else at the same time. But you are here. Hence, you cannot be somewhere else. Another example: One cannot be sinful and sinless at the same time. But you are sinful. : Ergo, you cannot be sinless. This rule, if violated, can possibly result to the commission of the fallacy of “Denying a Conjunct.” This is committed when one 94conjunct is denied in the minor premise, in violation of the rule se! ; ise, the rule set. : in viol: 7 You cannot be here and somewhere else at the same time. But you are not here, Hence, you are somewhere else, It. THE LOGICAL DILEMMA By definition, a dilemma combines both conditional and dis- junctive syllogisms. The major premise consists of two or more con- ditional propositions, The minor premise, a disjunctive proposition, either posits the antecedents in a constructive dilemma, or sublates the consequents in the case of a destructive dilemma. To understand the meaning of positing or sublating, consider this mind teaser: Paris is great or not great; Paris is great; Therefore, Paris is not not great. The minor premise above posits the first member of the premise above, great. The second member, not great, is sublated in the conclusion, by the use of a negative copula. Consider this one: Paris is great or not great; Z Paris is not not great; Paris is great. The minor premise above sublates the second member of the major premise, not great, using the negative copula. The conclusion posits the remaining member. From what we have considered above, to posit which also means to affirm, is done by ‘way of the positive linking verb or copula, while to sublate which also means to deny, is done by using a negative linking verb or copula. A, Forms of the Dilemma The dilemma takes four forms: the simple constructive, the complex constructive, the simple destructive, and the complex 95se variables, i.e. P ANC q. In me real conditions or objects, or alternatives. The dilemma to lay down the conditions destructive, The following forms U the real dilemma, the variables beco each representing actual possibilities is constructed using the given forms : tf or objects, and the possibilities and alternatives they put forward, In real life though, such may not be apparent. Giving them form, however, makes one’s dilemma clear. The following are the forms; 1. Simple Constructive Either p or q; But if p, then x; But if q, then x; Therefore x. 2. Complex Constructive Either p or q; : But if p, then x; But if q, then y; Therefore, either x or y. 3. Simple Destructive If x, then p and q; But either not p or not q; Therefore, not x. 4. Complex Destructive If x, then p; and if y, then q; But either not p or not q; Therefore, either not x or not y. B. Examples of the Dilemma The following are examples of the forms of the dilemma. Take note of how issues and arguments are combined, both negatively and positively, using both the conditional and the disjunctive phrases: 96Simple Constructive Either one believes that God is real or unreal; But if one believes that God is real, still, there will be hardships in life; i But if one believes that God is unreal, still, there will be hardships in life; Therefore, still, there will be hardships in life. Complex Constructive Either humans are absolutely free or relatively free; But if humans are absolutely free, then humans are powerful determinants of world history; But if humans are relatively free, then humans follow the dictates of world history; Therefore, either humans are powerful deter- minants of world history or humans follow the dic- tates of world history. Simple Destructive If charter change pushes through, either con- gress lifts the term limits of elected officials or scrap the next local elections; But either the people do not want congress to lift the term limit of elected officials or scrap the next local elections; Therefore, charter change will not push through. Complex Destructive If we want social change, then people must become mature; And if we want moral recovery, then people must be responsible; 97 :But either people will never be mature o, become responsible; Therefore, never will there be social change o; moral recovery. It is clear from the above examples that a dilemma, formally, consists of several variables, and these variables are really translateq into actual possibilities. By providing the formal structure, the dilemma is made manifest, and its parameters. defined, therefore resulting to a logical couise of action from the’ point of view of practicality.CHAPTER EXERCISES 1. Complete where possible. If it is invalid, cite the violation. A. If pis q, then xis y; 1. SPXNaAnewn 10. But p is q; therefore But x is y; therefore But p is not q; therefore But x is not y; therefore But no p is a q; therefore But no x is a y; therefore But all p is a q; therefore But all x is a y; therefore But x is always a y; therefore__ But x is never a y; therefore. B. . Ifais b, then c is‘d; 1. oP ND A PF oN _ S But c is not d; therefore _But no ais a b; therefore But rio cis a d; therefore But cis always a d; therefore But c is riever.a d; therefore. But a is b; therefore But cis d; therefore But a is not b; therefore But all ais a b; therefore : But all c is a d; therefore . 99CHAPTER 6 The Figures and Moods of Categorical Syllogisms With the traditional ten rules for categorical syllogisms in view, we can now proceed to consider them in their varied figures and moods. |. THE EIGHT VALID MOODS OF CATEGORICAL SYLLOGISMS ‘ The moods of standard categorical syllogisms refer to the combinations of categorical propositions, with their varied quanti- ties and qualities, as comprising the premises and the conclusion thereof. u There are several moods that can be possible for categorical syllogisms. However, not all these are valid. Some combinations of categorical propositions, as components of a categorical syllogism, may, turn out to violate one or even more of the Ten Formal Syllogistic Rules. Y : To identify which of the moods are valid, we may consider the _ following: : [Major Premises | A | A Minor Premises | A | E Rules Violated Categorical syllogisms whose premises are both negative are invalid for violating Rule 7. Hence, the moods EE, EO, OE and OO are definitely not valid as the antecedents of this type of inference. 63i 1. Theref, Also, one of th sges must at least be universal. Therefo,, the’ moods 1,10, Of and (again) OO cannot be considered a, logically acceptable as far as Rule 6 is concerned. The mood IE is likewise invalid. This mood will unavoidab violate Rule 3, and result to an illicit major Consider the following: 7 Subj particular + Pred particular E (minor premise) ‘Subj universal - Pred universal Conclusion Subj particular - Pred universal I (major premise) Since the terms in the major premise are both particular, there is an unavoidable occurrence of an illicit major. It is apparent that the major term in the conclusion is universal. There is no way that such term will find itself to be universal in the major premise. This is regardless of the fact that the major term acts as the subject or predicate therein. 4 Having stricken out the invalid moods, we can therefore find that only the remaining eight are GENERALLY valid. They are generally valid as, although they may be useful as premises for categorical syllogisms, each of them may only be used for specific figures of the inference. This is except for the moods EA and EI which are valid for all the four figures. In summary, the [Link], AE, AI, AO, EA, EI, IA and OA are the generally valid moods. " Il... THE FOUR FIGURES OF CATEGORICAL SYLLOGISMS The figures of categorical syllogisms refer to the arrangement of the major and minor terms in the premises. . Unavoidably though, inclusive here is the positioning of the middle term in the antecedents. The concept of the figures of categorical syllogisms finds its source in Rule 2. Revisiting Rule 2, we find that although the arrangement of the major and minor terms in the conclusion is fixed and comes as constant, such cannot be said for these terms in the premises.es the minor term is the subject of the conclusion, the same may either be subject or predicate in the minor premise. Similarly, as the major term is the predicate of the conclusion, the same may either be subject‘or predicate in the major premise. With these in view, the middle term may alternately either be subject or predicate in the premises. It can likewise be possible that it may be the subject of both the premises, or be the predicates therein. We therefore come to a familiar concept. Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Figure 4 M T TM M T T M t M t M Mt Mist t rT t T t T t ay (Sub-Pre) (Pre-Pre) (Sub-Sub) (Pre-Sub), It is noticeable that the major and minor terms may either be the subject or the predicate in the premise where they appear respectively. Combining the possible arrangements of these terms altogether, we derive the Four Figures of Categorical Syllogisms. Figure 1 is casually referred to as the Sub-Pre Figure. This is, as the middle term appears, first as subject in the major premise, and as predicate in the minor premise. , Similarly, Figure 2 is referred to more popularly as the Pre-Pre Figure for the similarly applied idea. The middle term appears as the predicates of both the premises. The Sub-Sub Figure is the causal term for Figure 3. Themiddle term appears as subject twice in the premises. Finally, Figure 4 is known as the Pre-Sub Figure as the middle term appears in the first instance as predicate of the major premise and as subject in the second instance with the minor premise. lll THE FIGURES AND MOODS Each valid categorical syllogism is a combination of any of the eight different valid moods properly applied to any of the four 65ication of these beg, : ji for the prope" ape four figures a eo sd abe 4 for just any oft mall 100K ‘a times. swith the figures may resy The improper fusion of the ait formally défective one ; ical to an absurd syllogism or a practic violation of at ieast one of the Ten Rules. arent. How, " The-errors may become materially Mey appear a sometimes, by chance, the conclusions ee isms itself. Deg i although the error lies in the form of the syllog a this, the syllogism remains illogical. Let us try to find out which of the eight moods finds vai, application for each of the four figures. it n 1. Figure 1 (Sub-Pre) i i i ith Figure 1, we cay By applying all the eight valid moods with Figu have a first impression of what may be valid for this figure. We may find that only the moods AA, Al, EA, and EI, are Possible for the sub-pre figure. An illustrative elaboration wil show this, AA AI EA EI Mu + Tp Mu+Tp- = Mu-Tu Mu-Tu tu + Mp tu;Mp — tu+Mp te + Mp” ‘tut Tr te+Tp tu-Tu tp—Tu The other four of the ei f ight generally valid moods find no valid application for Figure 1, The AE mood violates Rule 3, if applied to the Sub-Pre Fig- ure. Mu +{Tp) Science is|fopical] tu_-\Mu Philosophy isnot science; tu -(T%) Thus, Philosophy is not[logical] 66In AE categorical syllogisms, the major term in the premise appears as Particular. It however appears inevitably as universal in the conclusion. In the example given, the major term “logical,” as the predicate of the conclusion, is universal. However, the same is not true in the premise, An A proposition has a particular predicate. The major premise then has a predicate major term that is particular. This violates, Rule 3, and results to the occurrence of the fallacy of the illicit major. The AO mood likewise violates Rule 3, if used in Figure 1. To explain, consider the following: Mu All states are[sovereign; tr_-|Mu_~ Some societies are not states; tp — Therefore, some societies are not|sovereign. ~The AO mood, as the premises of the first figure unavoidably necessitates the occurrence of the fallacy of the illicit major. In the example, the major term “sovereign” is universal in the conclusion albeit it’s being particular in the major premise. Rule 3 does not sanction this. The IA mood, as the premises for Figure 1, violates Rule 4. To explicate, we have the example below: Tp [Some birds] are endangered species; tp +@P) All pigeons are[birds; tp + TP Ergo, some pigeons are endangered species. The IA mood, as premises of Figure 1 categorical syllogism, contains a middle term that never occurs as universal. An I proposition has a particular subject. An A proposition likewise hasrequires that the middle term should be universal at least once jy the premises. Also, the OA mood as the premises of a Sub-Pre figure similarly violates Rule 4. As an example: -Tu [Some cartoons] are not suitable for very young viewers; tu +@)_—_ All animés are [eartoons; tp - Tu Hence, some animés are not suitable for very young viewers. Here, the middle term occurs as particular in both instances of its occurrence in the premises. While “some cartoons” is particular in the major premise, the same is true in the minor. Hence, the fallacy of the undistributed middle. 2. Figure 2 (Pre-Pre) For the Pre-Pre figure, we find the moods AE, AO, EA and EI as valid. AE AO EA EL Tu + MP Tu+Mp Tu-Mu Tu-Mu tu-Mu te-— Mu tu + Mp te + Mp tu-Tu te-Tu. tu-Tu te-Tu The other moods cannot be the premises for~ Figure 2 syllogisms. ‘The AA mood, as the premises for the Pre-Pre figure, violates Rule 4. An A proposition has a predicate which is particular. Since the predicate of the A proposition is here used as the middle term in . both the premises, a problem occurs. The middle term never occurs as universal in the premises. Alltyrants are [oppressors; All tormenters are[oppressors) Thus, all tormenters are tyrants. 68As the Fi articular i aoe shows, the middle term “oppressors” appear as aa instances in th i F undistributed. e premises. The middle term then ‘The moods AI and IA similarly commit the errors. To explain, consider this example: Anything that is poisonous is |dangerous} Some snakes are[dangerous; tp-+ Tp Hence, some snakes are poisonous. In this example of an AI Figure 2 syllogism, the middle term “dangerous” appears as particular in both instances of the premises. Both A and I propositions have predicates which are particular. Since these predicates are the middle terms of an AI categorical syllogism, Rule 4 is violated. This error is repeated for IA categorical syllogisms. Some children are[forced to work; All slaves are[forced to work; Hence, some slaves are children. te + TP Both instances of the middle term in the premises show it to be particular. The middle term similarly is undistributed for Figure 2 IA syllogisms. The mood OA, on the other hand, violates ariother rule, which is Rule 3. The major térm falls into an illicit process as shown in the example below. are not easily influenced; Tr}. Mu [Some men in unifo: tu-\Mp All dishonest persons are easily influenced; tr Thus, some dishonest persons are not[men in uniform, The major term “some men in uniform” appears as particular in the major premise. It however appears as universal in the conclusion. The universal major term in the conclusion “men in uniform” requires an equally universal appearance of the term in the major premise. The OA mood fails in this. 693. Figure 3 (Sub-Sub) EA AA Al Tu Mu + Tr Mu + Tr ee +tp Mu + tr Mr +t ta Tp w+ Te potU EI IA OA Mu - Tu Mp + TP Me Mr+te = Mutte = Mu+tr tp-Tu te+TP tp-Tu Both the moods AE and AO cannot be used as penis for Figure 3. Rule 4 is violated if these are applied to the Sub-Sub figure. ] The AE syllogism above which has the major term appears in the predicate of the major premise as particular. It however appears as universal in the conclusion which is an E proposition. All frequent smokers are| likely to get Tung cancer, Mu -{tu All frequent smokers are not health conscious; tu - Mu + Tu) Therefore, all those who are health conscious are not[likely to get lung cancer] The major term “likely to get lung cancer” is universal in the conclusion albeit its being particular in the premise. Similarly, the AO syllogism has a universal major term in the conclusion. However, it appears in the Major premise as particular. Asan example: Mu +(Tr) Women are deserving of respect; Mp -|tu Some women are not well commended. F Ergo, a s who are well commended are not deserving of respect. 70thie nore . 7 . paitoonaacin im deserving of respect” appears as universal pre mise, it occurring as universal in the major Both the moods AE a: 4s AE and AO cannot be premises for the third figure. Rule 3 requires that the major term a the conclusion may only be universal if it appears as uni i if n practically is violated by thetwe ocd Pome Tse 4. Figure 4 (Pre-Sub) eee 4, only five of the eight generally valid moods are acceptable as premises. They are shown to be the following: AA AE | EA Tu + Mp. Tu + Mp Tu -Mu Mu-+ te Mu - tu ‘Mu + tP te+Tp tu-Tu te-Tu EL IA Tu - Mu Tr + Mp Mp + te Mu + te te-Tu tp+Tu “The moods Al and AO are not valid premises for Figure 4 for their violation of Rule 3 of the formal rules. ; For the AI syllogism, the middle term is not distributed. As an example: * Tot (\r] All marriages are |sacred; 2 (Mr). tr [Some sacred matters |are worthy of sacrifice; tp +p Thus, some things worthy of sacrifice are marriages. Inthe major premise, the predicate “sacred” occurs as particular, the same being an A proposition. The minor premise which is an I proposition has a subject that is likewise particular. The middle term occurs as particular in both instances in the premises. 71O mood. As an example: The same also is true for the A' All unrestricted websites ar [publicly accessible} ssible websites} are not decent; acce! Some publ Hence, some decent websites are nO In both instances, the middle term occurs a oe minor and major premises. Hence, the same 1S _ ; The OA mood violates 4 different rule, which is Rule 3 of the formal rules. To explicate: t restricted. are not overseas workers; Te)-Mu {Some nurses ers; Mu\t tr All overseas workers are revenue earn\ tp -(Tu} Therefore, some revenue earners are not |nurses, While the major term “nurses” is universal in the conclusion, it however appears as particular in the major premise. Hence, the illicit process of the major term. IV. PRACTICAL APPLICATION Bearing in mind all the ten formal rules for categorical syllogisms, with the knowledge of the figures and moods, we can then now easily detect whether or not certain inferences are valid. An example: All usurers are insatiable; Some insatiable people are businessmen; Hence, all businessmen are not usurers, At first glance, the example deceitfully shows no error. How- ever, by analyzing the example, we find the following violations: a. A violation of Rule 3 is a arent. It i of the illicit mi 'PP: commits the fallacy: icit minor-as the minor term is universal in the conclusion despite its bein; arti minor icula 8 Particular in the 72Tu+Mp All usurers are insatiable; Some insatiable people are[businessmen; (tw Te Hence, fall businessmen] are not usurers. Also, there is a violation of Rule 4. We find the middle term to be particular in both instances in the premises. Hence, the middle term is undistributed. All usurers are[ insatiable; (Mo}} tr tp -Tu Hence, all businessmen are not usurers. Some insatiable people] are businessmen; Likewise, Rule 5 is violated as the conclusion is negative despite the twin positive premises. Hence, the fallacy of drawing a negative conclusion is committed. Tu E]Mp_ All usurers [are Jinsatiable; Mr [#]te Some insatiable people [are] businessmen; tu[EJTu Hence, all businessmen [are not Jusurers. Firially, Rule 9 is likewise violated, as the conclusion is universal despite the existence of a particular premise. Tu+Mp__ Allusurers are insatiable; (Mr+tr) [Some insatiable people are businessmen; (tu + Tv) [Hence, all businessmen are not usurers. In all these, the integrated knowledge of the Ten Rules, the Moods and the Figures become very useful. A seemingly acceptable gism may manifest to a logical mind an error or two, or even more, in an argument. 73Summary: The table below sums up the discus sion for this chapter. [Fiat | Fio2 | Fi 3 | Fig4 | AA |_ VALID VALID | VALID AE VALID VALID Al_| VALID VALID "| Ao | VALID EA | VALID | VALID | VALID | VALID El VALID | VALID | VALID_| VALID al VALID | VALID OA als VALID a Both the moods BA and Elare valid for ALL of the four figures. ie moods AO and OA appear to be valid once each. Others are valid at least twice each. 74CHAPTER EXERCISES j. First, give the figure of the following syllogisms. Then, provide the mood. Lastly, indicate the rules violated, if any. 1 10. Every line is a figure; but every line is finite; thus, every figure is finite. A fox is an animal; but a crocodile is an animal; thus, a crocodile is a fox. All birds are capable of flight; but all airplanes are capable of flight; therefore, all airplanes are birds. Martial law violates human rights; but Marcos declared martial law; thus, Marcos did not violate human rights; All creatures are finite; but all creatures are visible; therefore some finite realities are visible. All metals are perishable; but some metals are light; therefore, some light objects are’perishable. Some men are literate; but all men are changeable; therefore, some literate beings are changeable. ‘Allmenare rational; butevery rational being is reasonable; thus, some men are reasonable. No man is an island; but some island is finite; thus, no man is finite. No man is eternal; but some beings are eternal; therefore, some beings are not men. Il, The following are possible moods of the categorical syllogism. If valid, explain why. If invalid, cite the possible violation. 1 A-A-A 2. O-A-A +3. E-O-E 4. 0-0-0 5. LE-I bed +Ml. 6. LAE 7. iB. _ 9 EEA 10. A-A-E Construct the four figures of the syllogism from the following selection. Excerpts from http:// ‘[Link]| imagazines|fortune/ The Fall of America’s Meanest Law Firm For decades, few things have inspired as much fear and loathing in the executive suites of corporate America as the law firm of Milberg Weiss and the two outsized personalities who ruled the place, Mel Weiss and Bill Lerach. Through creativity and ruthlessness, they transformed the humble securities class-action lawsuit into a deadly weapon. Always, Milberg Weiss cast himself as the champion of the little guy. In media interviews Lerach has spoken evocatively about fighting for the honest, struggling blue-collar worker who, through no fault of his own, had lost his hard-earned savings to corporate perfidy. The firm boasts of having collected $45 billion for'cheated investors since its founding in 1965. But somewhere along the way, the work made its ruling partners a little like the CEOs they sued. In an especially profitable year, both Weiss and Lerach personally made more than $16 million. Weiss, 71, is a high roller at casinos who collects Picassos, owns a five-acre waterfront estate on Oyster Bay, Long Island, and has a vacation condo in Boca Raton. The Brillo-haired Lerach, 60, who bitterly split with Weiss in 2004, taking Milberg’sSan Diego-based West Coast operation along with him in a new firm, owns a home in Rancho Santa Fe, Calif, and vacation properties in Steamboat Springs, Colo., and Hawaii. Lerach travels the country in a chartered jet, says his exercise is drinking Scotch, and wiil be married this month for the fourth time, toa partner at his firm. 76