Major Term

Jump to navigation Jump to search

A Major Term is a term that is the predicate of a syllogistic argument's conclusion.



  • (Wikipedia, 2018) ⇒ Retrieved:2018-11-10.
    • A syllogism (syllogismos, "conclusion, inference") is a kind of logical argument that applies deductive reasoning to arrive at a conclusion based on two or more propositions that are asserted or assumed to be true.

      In its earliest form, defined by Aristotle, from the combination of a general statement (the major premise) and a specific statement (the minor premise), a conclusion is deduced. For example, knowing that all men are mortal (major premise) and that Socrates is a man (minor premise), we may validly conclude that Socrates is mortal. Syllogistic arguments are usually represented in a three-line form:

      All men are mortal.

      Socrates is a man.

      Therefore, Socrates is mortal.



1. The Subject of a conclusion will be the Minor Term of the syllogism.
2. The Predicate of a conclusion will be the Major Term of the syllogism.
A syllogism is made up of 2 premises and 1 conclusion. So how do we differentiate between one premise from the other? Simple, take a look at that following two rules:
3. The Premise where the Minor Term appear in, will be called the Minor Premise.
4. The Premise where the Major Term appear in, will be called the Major Premise.
But that's not all. A syllogism is actually made up of 3 terms. The third term, or the Middle Term, can be thought of as a term used to link the two premises together in forming the conclusion (...)
This brings us to a fifth and final rule.
5. The Middle Term will appear in both premises but not in the conclusion.


A holds of B. B holds of A. A holds of B.
B holds of C. B holds of C. C holds of B.
A is also called the major term, C the minor term. Each figure can further be classified according to whether or not both premises are universal. Aristotle went systematically through the fifty-eight possible premise combinations and showed that fourteen have a conclusion following of necessity from them, i.e. are syllogisms. His procedure was this: He assumed that the syllogisms of the first figure are complete and not in need of proof, since they are evident. By contrast, the syllogisms of the second and third figures are incomplete and in need of proof. He proves them by reducing them to syllogisms of the first figure and thereby ‘completing’ them.