Pfeifer, Niki (2006): Contemporary syllogistics: Comparative and quantitative syllogisms. In: Kreuzbauer, Günther; Dorn, Georg (Hrsg.): Argumentation in Theorie und Praxis: Philosophie und Didaktik des Argumentierens. Salzburger Beiträge zu Rhetorik und Argumentationstheorie, Bd. 1. Wien: LIT. S. 57-71
Volltext auf 'Open Access LMU' nicht verfügbar.


Traditionally, syllogisms are arguments with two premises and one conclusion which are constructed by propositions of the form “All… are…” and “At least one… is…” and their respective negated versions. Unfortunately, the practical use of traditional syllogisms is quite restricted. On the one hand, the “All…” propositions are too strict, since a single counterexample suffices for falsification. On the other hand, the “At least one …” propositions are too weak, since a single example suffices for verification. The present contribution studies algebraic interpretations of syllogisms with comparative quantifiers (e.g., “Most… are…”) and quantitative quantifiers (e.g., “n/m… are…”, “all, except n… are…”). This modern version of syllogistics is intended to be a more adequate framework for argumentation theory than traditional syllogistics.