The combination of simple syllogisms, in which the conclusion of the previous syllogism (prosyllogism) becomes the premise of the subsequent syllogism (episyllogism), is called a complex syllogism, or polysyllogism.

There are progressive and regressive polysyllogisms.

In progressive polysyllogism, the conclusion of the proslogism becomes the larger premise of the episyllogism.

Socially dangerous act (A) punishable (B) Crime (C) - socially dangerous act (A)

Crime (C) is punishable (B) Giving a bribe (D) is a crime (C)

Giving a bribe (D) is punishable (B)

In a regressive polysyllogism, the conclusion of the requestlogism becomes the lesser premise of the episyllogism. For example:

Economic crimes (A) - socially dangerous acts (B)

Illegal business (C) - economic crime (A)

Illegal entrepreneurship (C) - socially dangerous act (C)

Socially dangerous acts (B) are punishable (D) Illegal business (C) is a socially dangerous act (B)

Illegal business (C) punishable (D)

Both of the above examples are a combination of two simple categorical syllogisms built according to the AAA modus of the 1st figure. However, a polysyllogism can be a combination of a larger number of simple syllogisms built according to different modes of different figures. A chain of syllogisms can include both a progressive and a regressive connection.

Purely conditional syllogisms that have a scheme can be complex:

(p->d)l(d->r)A(r-»5)l...l(G1->51)

It can be seen from the diagram that, as in a simple purely conditional inference, the conclusion is an implicative connection between the basis of the first premise and the consequence of the latter.

In the process of reasoning, a polysyllogism usually takes an abbreviated form;

some of his parcels are omitted. A polysyllogism in which some

parcels, is called soritam. There are two types of sorites: program polysyllogism with omitted major premises of episyllogisms and per ny polysyllogism with omitted minor premises. Here is an example of a progressive polysyllogism:

Socially dangerous act (A) punishable (B) Crime (C) - socially dangerous act (A) Giving a bribe (D) - a crime (C)

Giving a bribe (D) is punishable (B)

Epicheirema also belongs to complex abbreviated syllogisms. Epich is a complex abbreviated syllogism, both premises of which are;

memes. For example:

1) Dissemination of deliberately false information that discredits the honor and dignity of another person is criminally punishable, since it is slander i.

2) The actions of the accused constitute the dissemination of

3) The actions of the accused are criminally punishable

Let us expand the premises of the epicheireme into complete syllogisms. To do this, we restore) the full syllogism, first the 1st enthymeme:

Defamation (M) is a criminal offense (P)

Dissemination of deliberately false information discrediting honor

and the dignity of another person (S), is slander (M)

Dissemination of knowingly false information that discredits the honor and dignity of another person (S) is a criminal offense (P)

As we can see, the first premise of the epicheireme is the conclusion and the minor premise of the syllogism.

Now let's restore the 2nd enthymeme.

Deliberate distortion of facts in a statement against citizen P. (is the dissemination of knowingly false information, i slandering the honor and dignity of another person (P) The actions of the accused (S) were expressed in a deliberate distortion of facts in a statement against citizen P. (M)

The actions of the accused (S) represent the dissemination of knowingly false information that discredits the honor and dignity of another person (P)

From the Greek "heap" (heap of parcels).

The second premise of the epicheirema also consists of the conclusion and the minor premise of the syllogism.

The conclusion of the epicheirema is derived from the conclusions of the 1st and 2nd syllogisms:

Dissemination of knowingly false information that discredits the honor and dignity of another person (M) is a criminal offense (P) The actions of the accused (S) constitute the dissemination of knowingly false information that discredits the honor and dignity of another person (M)

The actions of the accused (S) are criminally punishable (P)

Expanding the epicheireme into a polysyllogism makes it possible to check the correctness of the reasoning, to avoid logical errors that may go unnoticed in the epicheireme.

Complex inferences are those that consist of two or more simple inferences. Most often, this kind of complex reasoning, or, as they are also called in logic, chains of reasoning, are used in evidence. Consider such types of complex inferences as: a) polysyllogism; b) litters; c) epicheirema.

Polysyllogism is called chaining, a chain of syllogisms connected in such a way that the conclusion of the previous syllogism (prasyllogism) becomes one of the premises of the subsequent syllogism (episyllogism).

For example:

No one capable of self-sacrifice is not an egoist.

All generous people are capable of self-sacrifice.

Not a single magnanimous person is an egoist.

All cowards are selfish.

No coward is generous.

Depending on which premise - greater or lesser - of the episyllogism becomes the conclusion of the prasyllogism, progressive and regressive chains of syllogisms are distinguished, respectively.

The example we have given is a progressive chain of syllogisms. In it, our thought goes from the more general to the less general.

Another example of a progressive chain of syllogisms.

All vertebrates have red blood.

All mammals are vertebrates.

All mammals have red blood.

All carnivores are mammals.

All carnivores have red blood.

Tigers are predatory animals.

Tigers have red blood.

In the regressive chain of syllogisms, the conclusion of the prasyllogism becomes the lesser premise of the episyllogism. In such a polysyllogism, thought moves from less general to ever more general knowledge.

For example:

Vertebrates are animals.

Tigers are vertebrates.

Tigers are animals.

Animals are organisms.

Tigers are animals.

Tigers are organisms.

Organisms are destroyed.

Tigers are organisms.

Tigers are destroyed.

In order to check the logical consistency of a pollysyllogism, it is necessary to break it down into simple categorical syllogisms and check the consistency of each of them.

A sorite (translated from the Greek “heap”) is a complex abbreviated syllogism in which only the last conclusion from a series of premises is given, and intermediate conclusions are not explicitly formulated, but only implied.

Sorit is built according to the following scheme;

All A is B.

All B is C.

All C is D.

Therefore, all A are D.

As you can see, the conclusion of the prasyllogism is missing here: "All A is C", which should also act as a major premise of the second syllogism - episyllogism.

For example:

Socially dangerous acts are immoral.

Crime is an essentially dangerous act.

Theft is a crime.

Theft is immoral.

Here the conclusion of the first syllogism (prasyllogism) is missing - "The crime is immoral", which is the second, lesser premise of the second syllogism (episyllogism). This episyllogism in its entirety would look like this:

The crime is immoral.

Theft is a crime.

Theft is immoral.

There are two types of sorites - Aristotelian and Goclenian. They got their name from the authors who first described them.

Aristotle described a sorite that omits the conclusion of the prasyllogism, becoming the lesser premise of the episyllogism:

The horse is a quadruped.

Bucephalus is a horse.

A quadruped is an animal.

The animal is a substance.

Bucephalus is a substance.

In its full form, this polysyllogism will be as follows:

The horse is a quadruped.

Bucephalus is a horse.

Bucephalus is a quadruped.

A quadruped is an animal.

Bucephalus is a quadruped.

Bucephalus is an animal.

The animal is a substance.

Bucephalus is an animal.

Bucephalus is a substance.

Gokleniy (Professor of the University of Marburg, lived 1547-1628) describes the sorite, which omits the conclusion of the prasyllogism, which becomes the first, larger premise of the episyllogism. He cited this litter:

The animal is a substance.

A quadruped is an animal.

The horse is a quadruped.

Bucephalus horse.

Bucephalus is a substance.

In its full form, this polysyllogism looks like this:

1. An animal is a substance.

A quadruped is an animal.

The quadruped is a substance.

2. The quadruped is a substance.

The horse is a quadruped.

The horse is a substance.

3. Horse substance.

Bucephalus is a horse.

Bucephalus is a substance.

Epicheirema (translated from Greek "attack", "laying on of hands") is a syllogism in which each of the premises is an enthymeme.

For example:

All students of the Institute of International Relations are engaged in logic, as they must think correctly.

We, students of the Institute of International Relations, study at this institute.

That's why we do logic.

It can be seen that each of the premises of this epicheireme is an abbreviated syllogism - an enthymeme. Thus, the first premise in its entirety will be the following syllogism:

All those who have to think correctly are engaged in logic.

All students of the Institute of International Relations should think correctly.

All students of the Institute of International Relations are engaged in logic.

The restoration of the second premise to a complete syllogism and the entire chain of syllogisms is left to the reader.

Epicheirema quite often used by us in the practice of thinking and in oratory. The Russian logician A. Svetilin noted that epicheirema is convenient in oratorical speech in that it makes it possible to arrange a complex conclusion according to its constituent parts with greater convenience and makes them easily visible, and, consequently, the whole reasoning is more conclusive.

Exercise

Determine the type of inference and check its consistency

A. 3 is an odd number.

All odd numbers are natural numbers.

All natural numbers are rational numbers.

All rational numbers are real numbers.

Therefore, 3 is a real number.

B. Everything that improves health is useful.

Sport improves health.

Athletics is a sport.

Running is a type of athletics.

Running is helpful.

B. All organisms are bodies.

All plants are organisms.

All bodies have weight.

All plants are bodies.

All plants have weight.

D. Noble work deserves respect, since noble work contributes to the progress of society.

The work of a lawyer is a noble work, as it consists in protecting the legal rights and freedoms of citizens.

Therefore, the work of a lawyer deserves respect.

D, What is good, that should be desired.

What is to be desired is to be approved.

And what is to be approved is commendable.

Therefore, what is good is commendable.

(Example of M.V. Lomonosov)

Ways to check the correctness of a simple categorical syllogism can be demonstrated in the following example (second figure, mode AAA):

According to the general rules of the syllogism: the rules of the terms of the syllogism are violated: there is a quadrupling of terms, since in the larger premise the term M 1 -"materially support each other", and in a smaller premise M 2 - "support each other", the middle term is not distributed in any of the premises.

According to the special rules of the figures of the syllogism, the rule of the second figure of the syllogism is violated, namely: according to the rules of the second figure, one of the premises is a negative judgment, and in this example both premises are affirmative judgments.

With a counterexample: if instead of the concept "G and F"substitute the concept of" true friends ", then a false conclusion will be obtained from true premises.

According to the modes of figures: mode AAA- the wrong mode of the second figure of the syllogism.

With the help of diagrams: for this we write the structure of premises and conclusions as follows:

Based on this entry, we will depict the relationship between terms using circular diagrams (Fig. 8.8, 8.9).

Rice. 8.8

Rice. 8.9

As can be seen from the diagrams, the conclusion does not necessarily follow from the premises, i.e. necessary connection between S And R cannot be set, because in our example the middle term M is not distributed in any of the premises and there is a quadrupling of terms.

Violation of at least one of the rules means: the syllogism is incorrect (the conclusion does not necessarily follow from the premises).

Inference from Judgments with Relationships

An inference whose premises and conclusion are judgments with relations is called an inference with relations.

The most important logical properties of relations are reflexivity, symmetry, transitivity, functionality (uniqueness).

reflective This relationship between objects is called A And IN in which the object is in the same relation to itself. If R has the property of reflexivity, then it is expressed by the formula

A R B → A R A∩B R B.

For example: "If A ≡ IN, That A ≡ A And IN ≡ IN".

symmetrical is a relationship that takes place both between objects A And IN, as well as between objects IN And A. The logical property of symmetry can be written as a formula

A R B → B R A.

For example, the property of symmetry is possessed by the relation "to be a relative": if A relative IN, That IN- relative A.

transitive such a property of relations is called when, in the presence of this relation between objects A And IN, IN And WITH it is possible to establish this relationship between A And WITH, i.e. A R C. The logical property of transitivity can be expressed by the formula

(A R B) ∩ (B R C) → A R C.

For example:

A > B 6 > 4

B > C 4 > 2

A > C 6 > 2

functional(unique) a relation is called if and only if each value of the relation at relationship x R y matches only one value X . For example: " x father at ", because every person (at) there is only one father.

The logical property of functionality can be symbolically written as the following axiom:

(A R B ∩ C R B) → A ≡ WITH.

Abbreviated, complex compound abbreviated syllogisms

The varieties of simple categorical syllogism formed from simple judgments also include abbreviated syllogism (enthymeme), complex syllogism (polysyllogism) and compound abbreviation (epicheirema).

Enthymeme

Enthymeme is an abbreviated categorical syllogism. Translated from Greek, enthymeme means "in the mind, in thoughts." This name indicates that one or another part of the syllogism is implied, and not expressed. In the process of thinking, we often do not express all parts of the syllogism, but think in terms of enthymemes.

An enthymeme is a syllogism in which either one of the premises or the conclusion is omitted.

There are the following types of enthymemes:

a) with a missed larger parcel, for example:

b) with a missed smaller parcel, for example:

All chemical elements (M) have an atomic weight (P); (implied)

Hence, helium (5) has an atomic weight (P).

c) with a missing conclusion, for example:

All chemical elements (M) have an atomic weight (P)

Enthymeme structure:

The restoration of enthymemes to a complete syllogism is of great educational value. Sophistic tricks, false premises, as a rule, are veiled in the missing part of the enthymeme. This psychological feature is actively used by the enemy when deliberately misleading. For example, the following false conclusions can be found in enthymemes: "He is a pianist, because he has long flexible fingers", "All monkeys like bright things, and all women do too."

Restoring the missing part of the syllogism allows you to check both the truth and the correctness of enthymemes.

Like any conclusion, an enthymeme can be correct (correct) or incorrect (incorrect).

Enthymeme with missed parcel counts correct , if it is restored to a correct syllogism and the missing premise is not false.

Enthymeme with omitted conclusion counts correct if the conclusion is derived from the premises.

To restore the enthymeme to a full syllogism, one should be guided by the following rules.

• 1. Find a conclusion and formulate it in such a way that the larger and smaller terms are clearly expressed.
• 2. When finding premises and conclusions, one should proceed from the fact that the conclusion is usually placed after the words "means", "therefore", etc. or before the words "because", "because", "because". Another judgment, of course, will be one of the premises.
• 3. If one of the premises is omitted, but the conclusion is present, then it is necessary to establish which of them (larger or smaller) is present. This is done by checking which of the extreme terms is contained in the given premise. If the term is larger, then there is a larger premise; if there is a smaller term in the premise, then there is a smaller premise.
• 4. Knowing which of the premises is omitted, and also knowing the middle term, it is possible to determine both terms of the missing premise.

For example: "Jupiter, you are angry, so you are wrong." In this entisms, the big premise is implied, and therefore omitted: "Whoever gets angry is wrong." Let's restore the whole syllogism in full:

Inferences can also take the form of enthymemes, the premises of which are conditional and disjunctive judgments.

For example, let's check the enthymeme: "He must be an educated person, because he competently answers all the questions that he is asked."

Let us determine whether a premise or conclusion is missing in it and write down the conclusion, if it is, under the line, the premise (or both) above the line.

The presence of a conclusion in an enthymeme is usually indicated by the words: "since", "because", "because", etc. or "means", "therefore", "thus". The words of the first group show that the conclusion is in front of them, and after them comes the premise, the words of the second group show that they are followed by the conclusion. If there are no such words, then the conclusion is missing in the enthymeme. This etyme has a conclusion. The judgment, "He must be an educated man," is a conclusion, as it comes before the word "because." Let us define the structure of this judgment, i.e. find in it a subject and a predicate. The subject is "he", the predicate is "an educated person".

According to the subject and predicate of the conclusion, we establish the nature of the existing premise: "He competently answers all the questions that he is asked." It contains the subject of the conclusion: "he", therefore, is a minor premise. According to the predicate of the conclusion and the middle term, which is included in the minor premise, we restore the major premise missing in the enthymeme: "Everyone who correctly answers all the questions that are asked of him is an educated person."

The result is a complete syllogism:

Let's check the correctness of the resulting syllogism. It is built according I figure, both rules of this figure (see above) are observed. So this syllogism is correct. It can also be tested using a circular diagram (Fig. 8.10), which corresponds to the axiom of the syllogism.

Rice. 8.10

Polysyllogisms, sorites, epicheirema

In the process of thinking, syllogisms are interconnected, forming chains of syllogisms - complex syllogisms and polysyllogisms.

Polysyllogisms

A chain of syllogisms in which the conclusion of the preceding syllogism becomes the premise of the next is called a polysyllogism.

A syllogism that precedes another in a chain of syllogisms is called askedlogism .

A syllogism that follows another in a chain of syllogisms is called episyllogism .

There are progressive and regressive polysyllogisms.

progressive polysyllogism called polysyllogism, in which the conclusion of the previous polysyllogism (prosyllogism) becomes the larger premise of the episyllogism.

For example:

Regressive polysyllogism is called a polysyllogism, in which the conclusion of the prologism becomes the lesser premise of the episyllogism.

All counterfeiters (E) - criminals (D)

All criminals(D) – offenders (C)

Hence,

All counterfeiters (E)– offenders (C)

A)

Hence,

All counterfeiters (E) - People ( A)

All people ( A) are mortal ( IN)

(E) - mortal (IN)

All E There is D

AllD There is WITH

All E There is WITH

All WITH There isA

All E There is A

All A There is IN

All E There is IN

In each case, we fixed the conclusion by adding the word "therefore" to it. True, in the regressive polysyllogism we changed the usual arrangement of premises, placing the minor premise first.

sorite

A polysyllogism in which some premises are omitted (greater or lesser) is called a sorite (Greek. soros- heap, heap of parcels), or an abbreviated polysyllogism.

There are two types of sorites: progressive, or Goklenevsky, by the name of the author - the German logician R. Goklen (1547-1628) and regressive, or Aristotelian.

Sorit, in which, starting from the second syllogism, a large premise is omitted in the chain of syllogisms, is called progressive (goklenevsky) .

Example.

All people (A) mortal (IN)

All offenders (WITH) - People (A)

All criminals D) – offenders (WITH)

All counterfeiters E) - criminals(D)

Therefore, all counterfeiters (E) - mortal (IN)

All A There is IN

All WITH There is A

All D There is WITH

All E There isD

All E There is IN

Sorit, in which, starting from the second syllogism, the minor premise is omitted in the chain of syllogisms, is called regressive (Aristotelian).

Example.

All counterfeiters E) - criminals (D)

All criminals (D)– offenders (C)

All offenders (C) are people ( A)

All people (A) mortal (IN )

Therefore, all counterfeiters (E) mortal (IN)

All E There is D

All D There is WITH

All WITH There is A

All A There is IN

All E There is IN

Epicheirema

Epicheirema (gr. epiheirema- conclusion) - this is such a complex abbreviated syllogism in which premises are enthymemes.

Example.

All diamonds ( A) are parallelograms ( WITH), since they (rhombuses) ( A) have pairwise parallel sides (IN)

All squares ( D) – rhombuses ( A), since they are (squares) (ABOUT) have mutually perpendicular diagonals that bisect at the point of their intersection ( E)

Therefore, all squares (D)- parallelograms (C).

All A is C, because A There is IN - enthymeme

AllD There isA, sinceD There is E - enthymeme

All D There is WITH

40. Complex and complex abbreviated syllogisms.

Compound and compound abbreviated syllogisms

In the process of reasoning, simple syllogisms appear in a logical connection with each other, forming a chain of syllogisms in which the conclusion of the previous syllogism becomes the premise of the next one. The previous syllogism is called askedlogism, subsequent - episyllogism

The combination of simple syllogisms, in which the conclusion of the previous syllogism (prosyllogism) becomes the premise of the subsequent syllogism (episyllogism), is called a complex syllogism, or polysyllogism

Distinguish between progressive and regressive polysyllogisms

In progressive polysyllogism the conclusion of the previous syllogism (prosyllogism) becomes the larger premise of the subsequent one (episyllogism). For example:

A socially dangerous act (A) is punishable (B)

Crime (C) - socially dangerous act (A)

Crime (C) punishable (B) -conclusion of syllogism 1 (large premise in syllogism 2)

Giving a bribeD) - crime (C)

Giving a bribe (D) is punishable (B) - conclusion 2 syllogism

In regressive polysyllogism the conclusion of the previous syllogism (prosyllogism) becomes the lesser premise of the subsequent one (episyllogism). For example

Economic crimes (A) - socially dangerous acts (B)

Illegal business (C) - economic crime (A)

Illegal entrepreneurship (C) - socially dangerous act (C) -

Socially dangerous acts (B) are punishable (D)

Illegal entrepreneurship (C) - socially dangerous act (C) - conclusion of syllogism 1 (minor premise in syllogism 2)

Illegal business (C) punishable (D)

Both of these examples are a combination of two simple categorical syllogisms built according to the AAA modus of the 1st figure. However, a polysyllogism can be a combination of a larger number of simple syllogisms built according to different modes of different figures. A chain of syllogisms can include both progressive and regressive connections.

Varieties of polysyllogism - sorit and epicheirema.

A sorite is an abbreviated polysyllogism that omits the conclusions of the previous syllogisms and one of the premises of the subsequent syllogism. There are two types of sorites: progressive polysyllogism with omitted major premises of episyllogisms and regressive polysyllogism with omitted minor premises.

Progressive sorite scheme:

All A is B

All C is A

AllDhave C

All D is B

Scheme of regressive sorite:

All A is B

All B is C

All C isD

All A are D

Here is an example of a progressive polysyllogism:

A socially dangerous act (A) is punishable (B).

Crime (C) - socially dangerous act (A)

Giving a bribeD) - crime (C)

Giving a bribe (D) is punishable (B)

Epicheirema also belongs to complex abbreviated syllogisms.

An epicheirema is a complex abbreviated syllogism, both premises of which are enthymemes.

For example:

1) Dissemination of deliberately false information that discredits the honor and dignity of another person is criminally punishable, as it is slander

2) The actions of the accused represent the dissemination of deliberately false information that discredits the honor and dignity of another person, as they were expressed in a deliberate distortion of facts in a statement against citizen P.

3) The actions of the accused are criminally punishable.

Let us expand the premises of the epicheireme into complete syllogisms. To do this, we restore the first enthymeme into a complete syllogism:

Defamation (M) is a criminal offense (P)

Dissemination of deliberately false information discrediting the honor and dignity of another person (S), is slander (M)

Dissemination of knowingly false information discrediting the honor and dignity of another person (S) is a criminal offense (P)

As we can see, the first premise of the epicheirema is the conclusion and the minor premise of the syllogism.

Now let's restore the 2nd enthymeme.

Deliberate distortion of facts in an application against citizen P. (M) is the dissemination of deliberately false information that discredits the honor and dignity of another person (R).

The actions of the accused (S) were expressed in a deliberate distortion of facts in a statement against citizen P. (M)

The actions of the accused (S) represent the dissemination of knowingly false information that discredits the honor and dignity of another person (P)

The second premise of the epicheirema also consists of the conclusion and the minor premise of the syllogism.

The conclusion of the epicheirema is derived from the conclusions of the 1st and 2nd syllogisms:

Dissemination of knowingly false information discrediting the honor and dignity of another person (M) is a criminal offense (P)

The actions of the accused (S) represent the dissemination of knowingly false information that discredits the honor and dignity of another person (M)

The actions of the accused (S) are criminally punishable (P)

The term "enthymeme" in Greek means "in the mind", "in thoughts".

Enthymemoi, or abbreviated categorical syllogism, A syllogism is called a syllogism in which one of the premises or conclusion is omitted.

An example of an enthymeme is the following conclusion: “All sperm whales are whales, therefore, all sperm whales are mammals.” Let's restore the enthymeme:

All whales are mammals.

All sperm whales are whales

All sperm whales are mammals.

There's a big package missing here.

The enthymeme "All hydrocarbons are organic compounds, so methane is an organic compound" misses a minor premise. Let's restore the categorical syllogism:

All hydrocarbons are organic compounds.

Methane is a hydrocarbon.

Methane is an organic compound.

The enthymeme “All fish breathe with gills, and the perch is a fish” misses the conclusion.

When restoring the enthymeme, it is necessary, firstly, to determine which judgment is the premise, and which is the conclusion. The premise usually comes after the unions “because”, “because”, “because”, etc., and the conclusion comes after the words “therefore”, “therefore”, “because”, etc.

Students are given an enthymeme: "This physical process is not evaporation, since there is no transition of matter from liquid to vapor." They restore this enthymeme, that is, they formulate a complete categorical syllogism. The judgment after the words "because" is a premise. The enthymeme misses a big premise that students formulate on the basis of knowledge about physical processes:

Evaporation is the process by which a substance changes from liquid to vapor.

This physical process is not a process of transition of a substance from a liquid to vapor .

This physical process is not evaporation.

This categorical syllogism is built according to figure II; its special rules are observed, since one of the premises and the conclusion are negative, the big premise is the general one, which is the definition of the concept of “evaporation”.

Enthymemes are used more often than full categorical syllogisms.

§ 6. Complex and complex abbreviated syllogisms:

(polysyllogisms, sorites, epicheirema)

In thinking, there are not only individual complete abbreviated syllogisms, but also complex syllogisms consisting of two, three or more simple syllogisms. Chains of syllogisms are called polysyllogisms.

polysyllogism(complex syllogism) are called D1 or several simple categorical syllogisms connected with each other in such a way that the conclusion of one of them becomes the premise of the other. There are progressive and regressive polysyllogisms.

In progressive polysyllogism the conclusion of the previous polysyllogism (prosyllogism) becomes the larger premise of the subsequent syllogism (episyllogism). Let us give an example of a progressive polysyllogism, which is a chain of two syllogisms and has the following scheme:

Scheme:

Sport (A) improves health (B) All A are B.

Gymnastics (C) - sport (A). All C are A.

So, gymnastics (C) improves health (B). So all C are B.

Aerobics (D) - gymnastics (C). All D are C.

Aerobics (D) improves health (B). All D are B.

IN regressive polysyllogism the conclusion of the askedlogism becomes the lesser premise of the episyllogism. For example:

All planets (A) - space bodies (IN).

Saturn (C) - planet (A).

Saturn (C) - cosmic body (IN).

All cosmic bodies (IN) have mass (D)

Saturn (WITH) - cosmic body (IN).

Saturn (C) has mass (D).

Putting them together and not repeating twice the judgment "All WITH essence IN", we get a scheme of regressive polysyllogism for general affirmative premises:

All A essence IN.

Everything C is the essence A.

All IN essence D.

Everything C is the essence IN.