KXEX2167

Thinking and Communication Skills

Categorical
Reasoning
INTRODUCTION

Arguments generally are divided into two
types: deductive and inductive.

Deductive arguments? Valid or invalid?

Inductive arguments? Strong or weak?
 Valid or invalid DR?

If Flipper is a dolphin, then Flipper is a mammal.
Flipper is a dolphin. So Flipper is a mammal.

If Bigfoot is human, then Bigfoot has a heart.
Bigfoot is not human. So Bigfoot doesn’t have a
heart

Bill: I guess some of the seniors were late to
practice this morning. Diane: how do u know? Bill:
Because the coach said that anyone late to
practice this morning would’ve to do sprints and I
just saw some of the seniors doing sprints. That’ll
teach them.
 Categorical
Reasoning
Getting deeper into logic
CATEGORICAL REASONING

A form of deductive argument.

Also called syllogism.

Consists of two or more premises that
precede the conclusion.

Reasoning conclusions about the properties
of individuals from more general premises
that concern all the members of the relevant
categories.
CATEGORICAL REASONING

Example:

All whales live in water (Premise)

All fish live in water, too (Premise)
All fish must be whales. (Conclusion)
CATEGORICAL REASONING

If the conclusion of an argument is not

guaranteed by the truth of the premises then
the syllogism is not valid.

An invalid argument involving categories is
called a categorical fallacy.
CATEGORICAL REASONING

Example:
All German cars are reliable
All BMW are German cars
All BMW will be reliable

In this case, the conclusion is valid
because the premises are true and the
conclusion follows necessarily from the
premises.
CATEGORICAL REASONING

Generally, the paradigms for a valid

universal syllogism are as follows:
All X are Y.
Z is X.
Therefore, Z is Y.
Or
All X are Y.
No Z is Y.
Therefore, no Z is X.
CATEGORICAL REASONING

From the general form of categorical reasoning in the

previous slide, notice that:

Each argument has 3 terms which are X, Y and Z.

Each term occurs exactly twice in exactly two

different claims. Example:
All X are Y.
Z is X.
Z is Y.
CATEGORICAL REASONING

A syllogism is a two premise deductive argument

which are:

Major premise

Minor premise

The parts of a categorical syllogisms are labeled
as follows:

Major term – the term that occurs as a predicate term
of the syllogism’s conclusion
(cont)
CATEGORICAL REASONING

Minor term – the term that occurs as the subject term of

the syllogism’s conclusion

Middle term – the term that occurs in both of the premises
but not at all in the conclusion.

The most frequently used symbols for these three
terms are:

P –> major term

S –> minor term

M –> middle term
CATEGORICAL REASONING

In a categorical syllogism, each of the

premises states a relationship between the
middle term and one of the others.

M
premise premise

S P
conclusion
CATEGORICAL REASONING

Categorical syllogism features:

Every proposition is in standard categorical form

There are three terms.

The major premise is listed first, the minor is
listed second.

Each term is used in the same sense throughout
the argument.
CATEGORICAL REASONING

Example:

All German cars are reliable (major premise)

All BMW are German cars (minor premise)
All BMW will be reliable (conclusion – derived from
relationship between minor premise and major
premise)
 CATEGORICAL REASONING

Explanation:

Reliable is the major term since it is the predicate of the
conclusion

BMW is the minor term since it is the subject of the
conclusion

German cars is the middle term since it is the term which
occurs in both of the premises but not in the conclusion

All German cars are reliable (major premise)

All BMW are German cars (minor premise)
All BMW will be reliable (conclusion – derived from
relationship between minor premise and major premise)
CATEGORICAL REASONING

When is a categorical arguments said to be sound

and valid?

When the conclusion follows necessarily from the
premises

When the form of the argument guarantees that the
conclusion will follow, the argument is considered valid.

When the premises can be assumed to be telling the truth,
the argument is said to be true.

If an argument is both true and valid, that argument is said
to be sound.
Let’s think…
1. What can you conclude from the following premises:
“All Communication and Thinking Skill classes are full. Marina
found a class that wasn’t full.”

A. Not all Communication and Thinking Skill classes are full.

B. Marina didn’t find all the classes.
C. Marina found a class that wasn’t Communication & Thinking
Skill..
D. All Communication and Thinking Skill classes were not
found.
(cont)
Exercises
2. Which of the following major premises forms a valid argument
with the minor premise, “Malaysians invented the first written
language," and the conclusion, “Malaysians created the modern
world.“

A. The inventors of written language created the modern world.

B. The Malaysian created the modern writing.
C. Written language is the foundation of the modern world.
D. The argument is invalid.
(cont)
Exercises
3. Consider the following chain argument: "All libraries
are quiet. Only quiet places are restful. The places
where I like to study are restful."
What can you conclude from the minor premise, "My
bedroom is a place where I like to study"?

A. My bedroom is restful, quiet and a library.

B. My bedroom is restful and quiet.
C. Libraries are restful and my bedroom is quiet.
D. Libraries and my bedroom are places I like to
study.
Categorical reasoning
Argument that makes a claim about the
relationship between two or more classes or
categories of things. The argument has one
of the following standard forms:

All S are P

No S are P STANDARD FORM
CATEGORICAL

Some S are P STATEMENTS

Some S are not P
Examples

All fruits are apples

No fruits are apples

Some fruits are apples

Some fruits are not apples

You may test the validity of these simple categorical

arguments by the use of Venn diagrams.
Our everyday statements lack
explicit categorical reasoning

Koalas are marsupials.

All koalas are marsupials
Men are IT savvy
Some men are IT savvy
Politicians are liars
Some politicians are liars
Variant of “All S are P”

Every S is a P

Whoever is an S is a P

Whatever is an S is a P

If anything is an S, then it is a P

If something is not a P, then it is not an S

Any S is a P

Each S is a P

S are all P

S are always P
Variant of “No S are P”

No P are S

S are not P

Nothing that is an S is a P

Not a single S is P

All S are non-P

If anything is an S, then it is not a P

None of the S are P
Variant of “Some S are P”

Some P are S

A few S are P

There are S that are P

Several S are P

Many S are P

Most S are P

Nearly all S are P
Variant of “Some S are not P”

Not all S are P

S are not always P

Some S are non-P

Most S are not P

Nearly all S are not P

Several S are not P

A few S are not P

There are S that are not P
Is this argument valid?
No sharks are pets, since no barracuda are
pets, and no sharks are barracuda.

No one who is a Nobel Prize winner is a rock

star. A number of astrophysicists are Nobel
Prize winner. Therefore a number of
astrophysicists are not rock stars
Is this argument valid?
Anyone who eats pizza every night is at risk for
heart disease. Some people who are at risk
for heart disease are cab drivers. So, some
cab drivers are people who eat pizza.
General advice:
Always try to restate the speaker’s or writer’s intended
meaning as accurately as possible.

E.g. There are e-mail messages that are not spell-

checked. There are inter-office memos that are e-
mail messages. Therefore there are interoffice
memos that are not spell-checked.

Some e-mail messages are not spell-checked. Some e-

mail messages are inter-office memos. Therefore
some interoffice memos are not spell-checked.
Exercise 1: Translate the following into
standard categorical form
1. Maples are trees
2. Roses are red
3. Each insect is an animal
4. All that glitters is not gold
5. If anything is an igloo, then it is made of ice
6. Success has ruined many a man
7. Only the educated are free
8. The questions that can be answered is not worth
asking
9. There are birds that cannot fly
10. Cheaters never prosper
Answers
1. All maples are trees
2. Some roses are red
3. All insects are animals
4. Some that glitters are gold
5. All igloo is made of ice
6. Some men have been ruined by success
7. All free persons are educated persons
8. No questions that have answers are questions
that worth asking
9. Some birds cannot fly
10. No cheaters are persons who prosper
Categorical Syllogisms

Syllogism – a three-line deductive argument
(A deductive argument that has 2 premises & a
conclusion)

Categorical syllogism – a syllogism in which all
statements in the argument are categorical
reasoning

E.g. No doctors are professional wrestlers
All cardiologists are doctors
So, no cardiologists are professional wrestlers
More example
All painters are artists
Some magicians are artists
So, some magicians are painters

Is this argument valid?

Invalid
The Venn diagram technique
to check validity

Translate arguments into standard-form categorical
statements

Draw & label three overlapping circles, one for each
term

Use shading to represent the information in “all” or
“no” statement. Use Xs to represent the information
in “some statements”

Diagram the two premises. Place X appropriately

Look to see if the completed diagram contains all
information in the conclusion. If it does, argument is
valid. If it does not, argument is not valid.
So….are these arguments
valid?
No sharks are pets, since no barracuda are
pets, and no sharks are barracuda.
Invalid

No one who is a Nobel Prize winner is a rock

star. A number of astrophysicists are Nobel
Prize winner. Therefore a number of
astrophysicists are not rock stars Valid
Is this argument valid?
Anyone who eats pizza every night is at risk for
heart disease. Some people who are at risk
for heart disease are cab drivers. So, some
cab drivers are people who eat pizza.

Invalid
Discuss with friends:
At least one lawyer is not a golfer. Only persons who
have attended law school are lawyers. So, at least
one person who has attended law school is not a
golfer.

Every person who drinks and drives is an irresponsible

person. Not every person who talks on a car phone
is an irresponsible person. Hence not every person
who talks on a car phone is a person who drinks
and drive.