## Logically Valid Arguments

Posted by allzermalmer on April 8, 2013

**Categorically Valid Syllogisms**

M stands for Middle Term; P stands for Major Term; S stands for Minor Term

**Figure 1**

(1) **Barabara**:If all M are P and all S are M,** **then all S are P

P. All M are P

P. All S are M

C. All S are P

(2) **Celarent**: If no M are P and all S are M, then no S are P

P. No M are P

P. All S are M

C. No S are P

(3)** Darii**: If all M are P and some S are M, then some S are P

P. All M are P

P. Some S are M

C. Some S are P

(4) **Ferio**: If no M are P and some S are M, then some S are not P

P. No M are P

P. Some S are M

C. Some S are not P

**Figure 2**

(1) **Camestres**: If all P are M and no S are M, then no S are P

P. All P are M

P. No S are M

C. No S are P

(2) **Cesare**: If no P are M and all S are M then no S are P

P. No P are M

P. All S are M

C. No S are P

(3) **Baroko**: If all P are M and some S are not M, then some S are not P

P. All P are M

P. Some S are not M

C. Some S are not P

(4) **Festino**: If no P are M and some S are M, then some S are not P

P. No P are M

P. Some S are M

C. Some S are not P

**Figure 3**

(1) **Datisi**: If all M are P and some M are S, then some S are P

P. All M are P

P. Some M are S

C. Some S are P

(2) **Disamis**: If some M are P and all M are S, then some S are P

P. Some M are P

P. Some M are S

C. Some S are P

(3) **Ferison**: if no M are P and some M are S, then some S are not P

P. No M are P

P. Some M are S

C. Some S are not P

(4) **Bokardo**: If some M are not P and all M are S, then some S are not P

P. Some M are not P

P. All M are S

C. Some S are not P

**Figure 4**

(1)** Camenes**: If all P are M and no M are S, then no S are P

P. All P are M

P. No M are S

C. No S are P

(2) **Dimaris**: If some P are M and all M are S, then Some S are P

P. Some P are M

P. All M are S

C. Some S are P

(3)** Fresison**: If no P are M and some M are S, then some S are not P

P. No P are M

P. Some M are S

C. Some S are not P

**Propositional Logic**

**Modus Ponens**: Given the conditional claim that the consequent is true if the antecedent is true, and given that the antecedent is true, we can infer the consequent.

P. If S then P

P. S

C. Q

**Modus Tollens**: Given the conditional claim that the consequent is true if the antecedent is true, and given that the consequent is false, we can infer that the antecedent is also false.

P. If S then P

P. Not P

C. Not S

**Hypothetical Syllogism: **Given two conditional such that the antecedent of the second is the consequent of the first, we can infer a conditional such that its antecedent of the first premise and its consequent is the same as the consequent of the second premise.

P. If S then M

P. If M then P

C. If S then P

**Constructive Dilemma: **Given two conditionals, and given the disjunction of their antecedents, we can infer the disjunction of their consequents.

P. If S then P P. If S then P

P. If M then N P. If M then P

P. S or M P. S or M

C. P or N C. P or P

**Destructive Dilemma: **Given two conditionals, and given the disjunction of the negation of their consequents, we can infer the disjunction of the negation of their antecedents.

P. If S then P P. If S then P

P. If M then N P. If S then N

P. Not P or Not N P. Not P or Not N

C. No S or Not M C. Not S or Not S

**Biconditional Argument: **Given a biconditional and given the truth value of one side is known, we can infer that the other side has exactly the same truth value.

P. S<–>P P. S<–>P P. S<–>P P. S<–>P

P. S P. P P. Not S P. Not P

C. P C. S C. Not P C. Not S

**Disjunctive Addition: **Given that a statement is true, we can infer that a disjunct comprising it and any other statement is true, because only one disjunct needs to be true for the disjunctive compound to be true.

P. S

C. S or P

**Disjunctive Syllogism: **Because at least one disjunct must be true, by knowing one is false we can infer tat the other is true.

P. S or P P. S or P

P. Not P P. Not S

C. S C. P

**Simplification: **Because both components of a conjunctive argument are true, it is permissible to infer that either of its conjuncts is true.

P. S & P P. S & P

C. S C. P

**Adjunction: **Because both premises are presumed true, we can infer their conjunction.

P. S

P. P

C. S & P

**Conjunctive Argument: **Because the first premise says that at least one of the conjuncts is false and the second premise identifies a true conjunct, we can infer that the other conjunct is false.

P. ~(S & P) P. ~(S & P)

P. S P. P

C. Not P C. Not S

This entry was posted on April 8, 2013 at 9:23 PM and is filed under Philosophy. Tagged: Adjunction, Affirmation, Barabara Syllogism, Baroko Syllogism, Biconditional, Biconditional Argument, Bokardo Syllogism, Camenes Syllogism, Camestres Syllogism, Categorical Syllogism, Categorical Syllogisms, Celarent Sllogism, Cesare Syllogism, Conjunctive Argument, Darii Syllogism, Datisi Syllogism, Deduction, Deductive, Dimaris Syllogism, Disamis Syllogism, Disjunctive Syllogism, Ferio Syllogism, Ferison Syllogism, Festino Syllogism, Fresison Syllogism, Hypothetical Syllogism, Hypothetical Syllogisms, Inference, Logic, Modus Ponens, Modus Tollens, Negation, Rules of Inference, Simplification, Syllogism, True, Truth, Truth Preserving, Valid, Validity. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

## Leave a Reply