Categorical Syllogism, Essay Example

Syllogism per se notes the utilization of inference. It is the creation of propositions based from two separate elements noted as the variables that affect the emergence of a particular element. Relatively, the utilization of these inferences often affects how the people think about the emergence of particular situations and elements in the society. Categorical syllogism on the other end is considered as the manner by which the utilization of elements is specifically measured according to the occurrence of a particular variable in a specific statement of reason. Notably, the more presence an element has in a specific statement of reason gives it a rather specific source of becoming the likely conclusion of the reason being formulated.

Relatively, this process involves the manner of deduction through inference. Herein, the reasoning [based on variables] is deduced through seeking how an element affects the other. The times of occurrence that the variable is noted to appear in a statement of reason renders its position in the discussion of emergence of the specific reason being formulated. This then will denote what position it is taking in the process of reasoning. For instance, a variable that appears more than twice in a statement is considered as the major premise. The major premise plays the largest role in introducing the overall reason that defines the situation concerned. On the other end, the variable that usually appears in the mid-section of the statement becomes notably known as the minor premise. It is treated as an important element in the statement yet is assumed as the support idea to the main thought being suggested through the said aspect of reasoning. The variable that appears more than twice in the statement becomes the basis of the conclusion being formulated for defining the condition of reasoning that is being introduced through the said logical form of inference.

In each statement of syllogism, there exists the mood, the form and the figure. In the statement:

All P are M

Some S are not M

Some S are P

….It could be noted that all variables have equal occurrences in the statement. Nevertheless, it could also be realized that the conclusion is based on the variables “S” and “P” which indicate that variable “M” simply supports their emergence. Notably, the form of this statement suggests that proposition “S” and “M” in the second line of the presentation of logic is largely dependent on how much the said relationship of variables defines the emergence of “P”. Relatively though, because of such anomaly in not properly insisting on the separation of the major from the minor premise of the statement, it could be assumed that such logical statement is invalid. Nothing this particular fact, it should be realized that there are at least four possible forms that this specific statement could be assumed into:

M   P        P   M        M   P        P   M     1    \       2      |     3  |         4    /        S   M        S   M        M   S        M   S

Basing from these specific forms of presentation, it could be analyzed how “M” appears to be the major premise while “S” is the supporting element that provides indication on how “M’s” role in the statement is defined. Undeniably, it could be understood that the condition of conclusion being formulated from such variables depend on how much occurrence either of the said variables appear in the statement. The logical definition of P becoming the primary element in the conclusion is an unlikely occurrence as suggested in the last line of the statement saying “Some S are P”. In this statement, it could be realized how the variable S simply supports the emergence of P which is an unlikely manner to happen based from the forms presented above.

If the logic of reasoning based on categorical syllogism is then used, the proper statement would be:

All P are M

Some S are not M

Therefore, Some S are not P

Observably, this statement invokes that the conclusion should be based on the major premise, which is that of “S”. The inference from “P” in this particular statement is specifically demanding on the distinctive consideration on the role that “S” takes in defining the emergence of “P” in the process of creating and defining the reason being formulated.

Basing the distinction of categorical syllogism from the example given herein, it could be analyzed that this form of logical reasoning is more based on ‘emergence’ of variables. The condition by which an element appears more than twice in a statement shows its role in defining the reason that is being produced through the said logical formulation. The connective utilization of the elements based on their relation towards each other creates a massive distinction on how forms of reasoning are being rendered strongly to identify the condition on how a particular reason should define the specificity of a matter. In this case, variables M, P and S were used to define the connection between S and P. The first statement however is considered invalid because of the basis that it has in reference to the role of variable S against the value of P which was fixed in the second statement which clearly defines the role and position of variable S in the statement. Its role of being the major premise in the statement insists on the manner by which the formulation of reasoning becomes dependent on how the variables are used in a logical distinction of value that determines the role of one variable from another.