In figure two the middle occupies the predicate or consequent side of both premises. The source example uses animality as the common notion.
Human ⇒ animal.
Stone ⇒ animal is denied as a conditional relationship.
Conclusion: the human and stone descriptions cannot jointly hold in the intended respect.
Merely counting occurrences of “human,” “stone,” and “animal” misses the logical positions and the affirmative/negative contrast.
Opening interactive controls...
Conjunctive Syllogisms with Conditional Propositions
In figure two the middle occupies the predicate or consequent side of both premises. The source example uses animality as the common notion.
Human ⇒ animal.
Stone ⇒ animal is denied as a conditional relationship.
Conclusion: the human and stone descriptions cannot jointly hold in the intended respect.
Merely counting occurrences of “human,” “stone,” and “animal” misses the logical positions and the affirmative/negative contrast.