Compound Epichereme

~Anything emotionally hurting kills for it can break a heart.Parting from a loved-one is emotionally hurting since it is paralyzing;Parting from a loved-one kills

This is an example of a compound epichereme for the two premises are supported by proofs.

Compound Epichereme

Polysyllogism- is a series of syllogisms connected together, in which the conclusion of the preceding syllogism becomes the Major Premise of the following syllogism. Polysyllogism is also called prosyllogism; its conclusion forms a premise of that syllogism which follows. If there are only two syllogisms that are joined, the second one is called episyllogism.

Polysyllogism

The more one is close to God, the more one suffers;The more one suffers, the more one understands life;∴The more one is close to God, the more one understands life.The more one understands life, the more one relates to people;∴The more one is close to God, the more one relates to people.The more one relates to people, the more one understands himself;…………………………………………………………………………………………………….∴ The more one is close to God, the more one understands himself.

Example:

Sorites is an abridged form of polysyllogism wherin the intermediate conclusions are left out. It is an argument which states the premises and a main conclusion but conceals conclusions in between. There are two kinds of sorites: Aristotelian sorites and Goclinian sorites

Sorites

Aristotelian sorites is an abridged polysyllogism in which the predicate of the preceding premise becomes the subject of the following. In the conclusion, the subject of the first premise is united with the predicate of the last. It has this form:

All A is BAll B is C;All C is DAll D is E_________________∴ All A is E.

Aristotelian Sorites

All philosophers are wide readers;All wide readers are intelligent;All intelligent people are creative,All creative people are producers of great ideas;_______________________________________All philosophers are producers of great ideas.

Example:

* It has to be made clear that sorites, like polysyllogism, has inverted premises. Thus, the first premise is the true minor premise and the intermediate premises are the true major premises of the component syllogisms.

Goclenian sorites is an abridged polysyllogism in which the subject of the preceding premise becomes the predicate of the following. In the conclusion, the subject of the last premise is united with the predicate of the first. It has this form:

All A is B;All C is A;All D is C;All E is D;___________∴ All E is B

Goclenian Sorites

One who will not sacrifice truth for power is a responsible person.One who is a paragon of honesty will not sacrifice truth for power;One who is worth emulating is a person of honesty;A model of decency is worth emulating;______________________________________________∴ A model of decency is a responsible person.

Example

* There is no essential difference between the Aristotelian sorites and the Goclinean sorites except the manner of the arrangement of the premises. To construct the Aristotelian sorites from Goclinean and vice-versa, we start with the last premise and end with the first. The conclusion remains the same.

We know when a sorites is valid by testing the validity of the syllogisms it contains. All reconstructed syllogisms must be valid for the sorites to be valid.

It is said that ethymeme and sorites is simply that what remains unstated in an argument is often crucial. Form the viewpoint of the persons persuading us, it is not a problem. But form the viewpoint of those who made targets of persuasive techniques, it is. If we want to be free from being manipulated, we have to be equipped with useful techniques for determining some hidden pitfalls.

Testing the validity of a sorites.

The word dilemma comes form the Greek dis (twice) and lemma (assumption or premise). This is also known as horned argument. It is a form of argument whose major premise is a disjunctive proposition (the disjuncts are the “horns” of the dilemma) and whose minor premises shows that whichever alternative the opponent chooses, is conclusively against him.

Dilemma

The form of structure may be reversed. Once can have a major premise consisting of two conditional propositions and then the disjunction as the minor premise. The conclusion follows from the two conditional propositions. It may be another disjunction offering alternatives (complex dilemma) or it may be categorical proposition ( simple dilemma)the purpose of a dilemma is to give your opponent an alternative or choice with which to pin him down. You attack him with two choices from which he cannot escape. You are sure to get him by either choice. These two choices are the “horns” intended to pierce him. If he accepts either he will be pierced by the other.

Either you were asleep or you were not;If you were, you deserve punishment for dereliction of duty;If you were not, you deserve punishment for being incompetent,Ergo, in either case, you deserve punishment. (simple dilemma)

Example: The beach resort manager addressed the following argument to a lifeguard who allowed the bather to go beyond the safety ropes.

The minor premise is a conjunction of the antecedent of the conditional propositions in the major premise, while the conclusion (both which seem bad) is a disjunction of the consequents of the conditionals in that premise. This is a valid argument form, and it may either be sound or unsound depending on whether all of its premises are true or some of them are false.

The parts of the disjunction must all be expressed; otherwise, the opponent may take a third alternative or a possibility to escape or evade the consequent and “go between the horn”

Example:

Either the weather is cold or sunny;If it’s cold, then I can’t go out because I can’t bear the coldness; If it’s sunny, I can’t go out because I can’t bear the heat;In either case, I won’t be able to go out.

Rules for Dilemma

Notice that parts of the disjunction, “either the weather is cold or sunny” are not complete. There is a third possibility: a weather that is neither cold nor sunny. The adversary may take this middle course to “go between the horns”

Example:

If I take up medicine, I will not be able to earn soon;If I take up a two-year course, I will not be able to earn a lot;But, if I take up medicine and a two-year course;∴ Either I won’t be able to earn soon or I won’t be able to earn a lot

The consequents of the conditional propositions should necessarily follow from the antecedents. If the consequents in the conditional propositions do not necessarily follow from the antecedents, then the dilemma can be refuted by ejecting one or both of its “horns”

The consequent “I will not be able to earn soon” does not necessarily follow the antecedent “if I take up medicine”. Why? Because you can take up medicine and still earn by being a working student. The consequent “I will not be able to earn a lot” does not follow from the antecedent “if I take a two-year course”. Why? Because you can take a two-year course and still earn a lot if you only have the right strategy.