Abstract
Previous research on syllogistic reasoning has identified two bases of error on this task. One basis is the illicit conversion of universal affirmative and particular negative propositions. The second basis is the selection of propositional conclusions on indeterminate nonconversion syllogisms. The present study explores possible explanations for these phenomena. Data are presented that cast doubt on the explanation of conversion based upon the similarity between syllogistic premises and definitional statements. Even when the premises are modified so that they no longer resemble definitional statements, conversion still occurs. Bias toward symmetrical relations is discussed as an alternative explanation. Data are also presented to show that poor performance on indeterminate nonconversion syllogisms in large part reflects the failure of subjects to differentiate between possible and necessary conclusions. When this issue is clarified, performance significantly improves.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
