Negative conclusion from affirmative premises is a syllogistic fallacy committed when a categorical syllogism has a negative conclusion yet both premises are affirmative. The inability of affirmative premises to reach a negative conclusion is usually cited as one of the basic rules of constructing a valid categorical syllogism.

Statements in syllogisms can be identified as the following forms:

  • a: All A is B. (affirmative)
  • e: No A is B. (negative)
  • i: Some A is B. (affirmative)
  • o: Some A is not B. (negative)

The rule states that a syllogism in which both premises are of form a or i (affirmative) cannot reach a conclusion of form e or o (negative). Exactly one of the premises must be negative to construct a valid syllogism with a negative conclusion. (A syllogism with two negative premises commits the related fallacy of exclusive premises.)

Example (invalid aae form):

Premise: All colonels are officers.
Premise: All officers are soldiers.
Conclusion: Therefore, no colonels are soldiers.

The aao-4 form is perhaps more subtle as it follows many of the rules governing valid syllogisms, except it reaches a negative conclusion from affirmative premises.

Invalid aao-4 form:

All A is B.
All B is C.
Therefore, some C is not A.

This is valid only if A is a proper subset of B and/or B is a proper subset of C. However, this argument reaches a faulty conclusion if A, B, and C are equivalent.[1][2] In the case that A = B = C, the conclusion of the following simple aaa-1 syllogism would contradict the aao-4 argument above:

All B is A.
All C is B.
Therefore, all C is A.

See also

References

  1. ↑ Alfred Sidgwick (1901). The use of words in reasoning. A. & C. Black. pp. 297–300.
  2. ↑ Fred Richman (July 26, 2003). "Equivalence of syllogisms" (PDF). Florida Atlantic University. p. 16. Archived from the original (PDF) on June 19, 2010.
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.