Examples Of Categorical Syllogism

In a front-page article found in The New York Times, Betsy DeVos makes several statements that could be summed up within a categorical syllogism. DeVos states, “Schools must continue to confront these horrific crimes and behaviors head on… the process must also be fair and impartial…” The categorical syllogism could go as follows; All horrific crime and behavioral related trials are fair and impartial processes. Some horrific crime and behavioral related trials are sexual assault trials. So, some sexual assault trials are fair and impartial processes. Since the first premise is an A statement, the subject term, horrific crime and behavioral related trials, is distributed, and the predicate term, fair and impartial processes, is undistributed. The second premise is an I statement. So, the subject term, horrific crime and behavioral related trials, and the predicate term, sexual assault trials, are undistributed. The conclusion is also an I statement so the subject term,
For starters the middle term needs to be distributed in at least one of the premises. This is fulfilled by the first premise. Secondly, if either term is distributed in the conclusion, it also needs to be distributed in a premise. Since neither term is distributed in the conclusion, neither term is distributed in a premise. Third, the syllogism cannot contain two negative premises. This syllogism does not. Finally, if a premise is negative, then the conclusion is negative and visa versa. Since neither premise is negative this is not a problem. So, this syllogism appears to be valid. I would like to add that the ambiguity of “fair and impartial” is relative. The definition of these terms is dependent of who one is. Fair and impartial might have a different meaning from one person to the next. That might determine if one believes that the first premise is true, but for the purpose of this exercise, we suppose that it