Question

Standard-Form Categorical Syllogisms

In order to employ the conventional techniques for properly identifying and analyzing categorical syllogisms, you must first make sure that the syllogism is a standard-form categorical syllogism. To be in standard form, a categorical syllogism must meet all of the following four conditions:

1.	All three of the statements in the syllogism must be standard-form categorical propositions.
2.	The two occurrences of each term in the syllogism must be identical.
3.	Each term in the syllogism must be used in the same sense throughout the argument.
4.	The major premise must be listed first, the minor premise second, and the conclusion last.

The first condition requires that each statement have a proper quantifier, subject term, copula, and predicate term. The second condition requires that terms are expressed in the same words throughout the argument, and that alternative wording is not used to express the same meaning. The third condition rules out the possibility of equivocation. And finally, the fourth condition simply specifies a standard order for listing a syllogism's statements.

When conditions 1, 2, and 4 are violated, corrections to the argument usually can be made so that it is easily rewritten in standard form. For example, if condition 2 is violated, you simply choose one wording for each term, then use that wording consistently throughout the argument. However, when condition 3 is violated, the argument cannot be rewritten in standard form because when a term takes on a different sense within an argument, it actually represents a different term. In other words, when an argument violates condition 3, it in fact contains more than three terms and, consequently, it is not a categorical syllogism at all (because, by definition, categorical syllogisms employ exactly three terms).

Each of the following arguments fails to meet one of the conditions required for standard-form categorical syllogisms. Inspect each argument and determine which of the four conditions is violated. Then determine which (if any) of the proposed reconstructions would succeed in putting the original argument into standard form.

Given Argument 1

No warm-blooded creatures are reptiles. All lizards are reptiles. Therefore, no warm-blooded creatures are lizards.

Proposed Reconstructions of Given Argument 1

Syllogism A:

All lizards are reptiles.

No warm-blooded creatures are reptiles.

Therefore, no warm-blooded creatures are lizards.

Syllogism B:

No warm-blooded creatures are reptiles.

Therefore, no warm-blooded creatures are lizards.

Because, all lizards are reptiles.

Syllogism C:

No warm-blooded creatures are lizards.

Because, no warm-blooded creatures are reptiles.

And, all lizards are reptiles.

Which of the following best describes the reason that Given Argument 1 fails to be in standard form?

The terms in this argument are not used in the same sense throughout the argument.

The premises in this argument are not listed in the order required for standard form.

The two occurrences of each term in this argument are not identical.

The statements in this argument are not standard-form categorical propositions.

Which of the proposed reconstructions of Given Argument 1 is a standard-form categorical syllogism?

Syllogism B

Syllogism C

None of these

Syllogism A

Given Argument 2

Deserters are not real patriots. Many deserters are cowards. Therefore, some cowards are not real patriots.

Proposed Reconstructions of Given Argument 2

Syllogism A:

Some cowards are not real patriots.

Because, some deserters are cowards.

And, no deserters are real patriots.

Syllogism B:

No deserters are real patriots.

Some deserters are cowards.

Therefore, some cowards are not real patriots.

Syllogism C:

Some deserters are cowards.

Therefore, some cowards are not real patriots.

Because, no deserters are real patriots.

Which of the following best describes the reason that Given Argument 2 fails to be in standard form?

The terms in this argument are not used in the same sense throughout the argument.

The two occurrences of each term in this argument are not identical.

The premises in this argument are not listed in the order required for standard form.

The statements in this argument are not standard-form categorical propositions.

Which of the proposed reconstructions of Given Argument 2 is a standard-form categorical syllogism?

None of these

Syllogism A

Syllogism B

Syllogism C

Given Argument 3

Some rakes are things made of plastic. Some young men are rakes. Therefore, some young men are things made of plastic.

Proposed Reconstructions of Given Argument 3

Syllogism A:

Some young men are things made of plastic.

Because, some rakes are young men.

And, some rakes are things made of plastic.

Syllogism B:

Some rakes are young men.

Some rakes are things made of plastic.

Therefore, some young men are things made of plastic.

Syllogism C:

Some rakes are things made of plastic.

Therefore, some young men are things made of plastic.

Because, some rakes are young men.

Which of the following best describes the reason that Given Argument 3 fails to be in standard form?

The two occurrences of each term in this argument are not identical.

The terms in this argument are not used in the same sense throughout the argument.

The statements in this argument are not standard-form categorical propositions.

The premises in this argument are not listed in the order required for standard form.

Which of the proposed reconstructions of Given Argument 3 is a standard-form categorical syllogism?

Syllogism B

Syllogism A

Syllogism C

None of these

Answer 1

Argument 1

The premises in this argument are not listed in the order required for standard form.

The statement starts with "No warm-blooded creatures are reptiles. All lizards are reptiles. Therefore, no warm-blooded creatures are lizards." indicating that no creatures with warm blood are reptiles then all lizards are reptiles, and lastly that no warm-blooded creature are lizards

As per Syllogism A, it should have been in this way "All lizards are reptiles. No warm-blooded creatures are reptiles. Therefore, no warm-blooded creatures are lizards."

Argument 2

The premises in this argument are not listed in the order required for standard form.

"Deserters are not real patriots. Many deserters are cowards. Therefore, some cowards are not real patriots."

As per Syllogism A, Some cowards are not real patriots. Because some deserters are cowards. And, no deserters are real patriots

Argument 3.

The statements in this argument are not standard-form categorical propositions.

"Some rakes are things made of plastic. Some young men are rakes. Therefore, some young men are things made of plastic."

As per Syllogism A, Some young men are things made of plastic. Because some rakes are young men. And, some rakes are things made of plastic.