No one held for murder is given bail

Smith isn't held for murder

Hence Smith is given bail

no M is B

s is not M

s is B

What's wrong with the conclusion?


The syllogism has two negative premises. The fallacy is “exclusive premises“. Also, the syllogism draws an affirmative conclusion from a negative premise. See, e.g., Wikipedia > Syllogism.

| improve this answer | |
  • thanks for clarifying that this is committing two fallacies like denying the antecedent and exclusive premises, I think you should edit ur post to reflect that it'll be helpful – LazyJoe Show Jul 2 at 0:25
  1. no M is B
  1. s is not M
  1. s is B

Observe that #1 is equivalent to "If x is M, then x is not B."

So, #1 and #2 do not imply #3.

| improve this answer | |
  • it's denying the antecedent – LazyJoe Show Jul 2 at 0:33
  • @LazyJoe Show Smith not being held for murder says nothing about other possible rules for bailing. For all you know people named Smith are specifically not given bail because the mayor hates the name Smith. – Novicegrammer Jul 3 at 1:19

Given statements,

no M is B

S is not M

Drawing Venn's diagrams for the above:

Possibility 1:


Possibility 2:


S being B is a possibility. S not being B is also a possibility. Smith given bail is a possibility. But also, Smith not given bail is a possibility.


| improve this answer | |
  • Why the downvote? This was meant to be a supplementary example. – Madhurjya Jul 3 at 13:55
  • This isn't how Venn diagram syllogism is used that's why you're being downvoted. – LazyJoe Show Jul 11 at 18:45
  • 🙄The academic method of Venn diagram syllogism is surely tougher to understand than this one. Show this to any layman and he will understand it instantly. Show them the bookish Venn diagram and he won't have a clue. – Madhurjya Jul 13 at 2:01

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.