« Quotation of the week – Main – Moving house »

A syllogism is defined as a formal deductive argument made up of a major premise, a minor premise and a conclusion which follows the two. For example:

All men are mortal [the major premise] and Socrates is a man [minor premise]. Therefore Socrates is mortal [the conclusion].

Common mistakes can occur with syllogisms — mistakes that are created by introducing indefinite or arguable terms ("some", "should" etc.). For example:

Some cats are black [major] and some black things are television [minor]. Therefore some cats are television [conclusion] [1].

In this case, the introduction of the word "some" creates the illogical conclusion.

Although this is interesting in itself, I'm afraid this Friday afternoon discussion of the finer points of syllogisms isn't for its own sake. For whilst reading the letters page in today’s Metro (an admittedly easy target), I came across the following:

I note with interest the remarks by John Reid that we all have a part to play in the fight against the new breed of terrorist. Whilst I am happy to accept my civil responsibilities, I'd like to suggest something a bit radical.

My mind was racing: what could the letter writer (one Ken Levy from NW1) possible go on to suggest? Surely not something as radical as norm? Alas, no:

The Government should bring home all of our troops currently in Iraq.

Ah, I wasn't expecting that. For what Mr Levy has done is provide his very own illogical conclusion to an implied major and minor premise — namely that Britain is currently under threat [major] and the British army can protect us against threats [minor].

Alas, this is not just a common syllogical mistake, but one informed by Mr Levy's clear disagreement with the British government's involvement in Iraq! How do I know this? Because Mr Levy concludes his triumphantly illogical conclusion with the following:

That way the troops could do the job they are supposed to do: protect Britain and its people, rather than protect the ego trip Blair and Bush are on.

That Mr Levy makes a mistake often made by those employing syllogisms is excusable. That he thinks Blair and Bush are simply protecting their egos, by continuing to support the development of civil society and democracy in a country that has suffered at the hands of a disgusting authoritarian dictator, however, is unacceptable.

Unfortunately, only one of these faults can be corrected by a quick lesson in grammar.

[1] — both examples taken from Wikipedia

Tags — Newspapers Politics