# 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 ? Jul 9, 2018 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, 2018 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. Aug 17, 2018 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. Aug 17, 2018 at 23:01
• Thw author of the article doesn't know much about rules or principles of deductive reasoning. There is only one conclusion to derive from the example. Once we have NO artist see bookkeepers we can apply other inference rules to the only conclusion to derive another true proposition. The process here in the article is named SUBALTERNATION. That is, if an E proposition holds true the. The corresponding O proposition will hold ro be true. This is taught on the original square of Opposition. Why is it not explicitly stated should be part of your question. It is not magic or a mystery. Dec 3, 2021 at 20:56

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

The name of the syllogism is AEE in the first figure. Is that label the term you were looking for?

Here, the general form is: All Bs are Cs; No As are Bs; therefore No As are Cs. This general form transposes the two premises; it states first the major premise, because the major premise contains the predicate of the syllogism’s conclusion.

• That doesn't follow. An A could be a C, since we aren't given anything to the contrary. All Bs are Cs, no As are Cs implies that no As are Bs. Aug 17, 2018 at 21:18
• "Is that label the term you were looking for?" No. I'm asking about this method of listing Terms, not what the Syllogism is called.
– user8572
Aug 24, 2018 at 2:22
• all men are mortal. no women are men. no women are mortal. doesn't follow, surely? you should include reference to that
– user38026
Apr 15, 2019 at 1:49
• @another_name The syllogism is invalid. A term (C) distributed in the conclusion is not distributed in the premise. Apr 16, 2019 at 1:09
• @DavidThornley Sorry for the delayed reply. See my reply to another _name. Apr 16, 2019 at 1:11