click below
click below
Normal Size Small Size show me how
2 be logical
Introductory logic lessons 25-26
| Question | Answer |
|---|---|
| counterexamples | can only show a syllogism to be invalid - they cannot show a syllogism to be valid |
| distributed term | a term that, within a statement, refers to ALL members of its category |
| the subjects of universal statements & the predicates of negative statements | distributed terms |
| All S are P | the Subject is distributed |
| No S are P | the S and P are both distributed |
| Some S are P | neither of the terms are distributed |
| Some S are not P | the P is distributed |
| To establish the validity of a syllogism beyond doubt, | test it with the five rules of validity. |
| Having an undistributed middle term basically means that a syllogism is | making no necessary connection between its premises. |
| A term distributed in the conclusion must be distributed in a premise because | a conclusion cannot "go beyond," or make a more general statement than its premises. |
| A syllogism cannot be valid unless | at least one premise affirms something. |
| In syllogisms, affirmative conclusions require | all affirmative premises. |
| A negative conclusion in a syllogism requires | one negative premise. |
| If a syllogism breaks 1 of the 5 rules, then it is | invalid. |
| If a syllogism passes all of the 5 rules, then it is | necessarily valid. |
| When Rule 1 (in at least 1 premise, the middle term must be distributed) is broken, it is called | the Fallacy of the Undistributed Middle. |
| When Rule 2 (If a term is distributed in the conclusion, it must also be distributed in its premise) is broken, it is called | the Fallacy of the Illicit Major (if it's the major term) or the Fallacy of the Illicit Minor (if it's the minor term). |
| When Rule 3 (A valid syllogism cannot have 2 negative premises) is broken, it is called | the Fallacy of 2 Negative Premises. |
| When Rule 4 (A valid syllogism cannot have a negative premise and an affirmative conclusion) is broken, it is called | the Fallacy of a Negative Premise and an Affirmative Conclusion. |
| When Rule 5 (A valid syllogism cannot have 2 affirmative premises and a negative conclusion) is broken, it is called | the Fallacy of 2 Affirmative Premises and a Negative Conclusion. |