# Why isn't the method of listing Terms in syllogisms widespread?

From: Philip Johnson-Laird BA PhD Psychology (UCL), Stuart Professor of Psychology Emeritus at Princeton. (Author isn't a logician.) How We Reason (1st edn 2008). p. 145.

1. Is there a term for the type of solution beneath, where one lists the Terms?

2. Why don't Logic textbooks teach this method? They only use Venn Diagrams or Truth Tables.

In contrast, other syllogisms are so difficult that hardly anyone makes a correct response to them. If you want to test yourself, try this problem:

None of the artists is a beekeeper.
All the beekeepers are chemists.
What, if anything, follows?

The solution is on p. 147:

• Three thoughts. (1) As written, the answers will be primarily opinion-based. (2) on that, my opinion is that there's no benefit to doing this over using contemporary quantified logic and it's harder to follow (at least glancing at it) than a venn diagram. (3) did you create a new username ? – virmaior Jul 9 '18 at 4:20
• Also because the use of syllogisms themselves is not widespread. Math took over from Aristotle long ago, with simpler rules and more adequate descriptions and depictions for an equivalent logic. – user9166 Jul 18 '18 at 19:53
• The conclusion only follows if there exists at least one beekeeper, which depends on how statements imply existence. Using standard first-order predicate calculus, "for all" does not imply "there exists". The system in Lewis Carroll's "Game of Logic" assumes that "All B are C" means "some B are C" and "no B are not-C", and thus there would have to be at least one beekeeper in existence. – David Thornley Aug 17 '18 at 21:25
• Fundamentally... This method of reasoning will always lead to fallacy, unless the data is finite and fully qualified. Great in rules based big data analysis... Not so good in general argument. – Richard Aug 17 '18 at 23:01