- Using what you know about traditional categorical logic (syllogisms, immediate inference, and the square of opposition), explain (informally) why the following must be true. Hint: assume each is false, and show why this cannot be the case.
- In a valid syllogism of the first figure, the minor premise must be affirmative.
The minor premise should be specific to the major premise. As such, the minor premise takes the voice of a major premise, but in a more specific way. If the major premise is negative, the minor premise will be negative
- In a valid syllogism of the third figure, the conclusion must be particular.
The conclusion should follow the minor and the major premise. It should be a particular statement derived from the two. As such, the conclusion should be particular.
- If either premise of a valid syllogism is particular, the conclusion must be particular.
The conclusion is derived from the premises. If the premises are particular, then the conclusion should be particular too. In most cases, the conclusion comes out as a particular stamen of the premises.
- Using what you know about traditional categorical logic (syllogisms, immediate inference, and the square of opposition), demonstrate (informally) whether the following claims are either true or false. Hint: try to find counterexamples.
- Every valid syllogism with an E-claim for a premise must have an E-claim for a conclusion.
A syllogism is valid only when the conclusion it makes follows from its premises. As such, the E-claim from the premise should result to E-claim for conclusion.
- Every valid syllogism with an E-claim for a conclusion must have an E-claim for a premise.
Conclusions are derived from premises in valid argument, conclusion with E-claim should have a E-claim premise.