A disjunctive syllogism requires mutually exclusive and collectively exhaustive alternatives
Evidence
The indispensable prerequisite to a valid conclusion in the case of a disjunctive syllogism is that the major premise express a complete disjunction in the sense that its alternative terms be mutually exclusive and collectively exhaustive. They admit of no third possible alternative. — Ruggero J. Aldisert, Agatha D. Aldisert, Logic for Lawyers- A Guide to Clear…, 945
Categorization
- corroborated: 2 independent passages support this claim — Ruggero J. Aldisert, Agatha D. Aldisert, Logic for Lawyers- A Guide to Clear…, 945
- XREF: connects to: A valid categorical syllogism requires its middle term distributed once — Ruggero J. Aldisert, Agatha D. Aldisert, Logic for Lawyers- A Guide to Clear…, 851; Fallacies in missing disjuncts stem from omitting alternative possibilities — Ruggero J. Aldisert, Agatha D. Aldisert, Logic for Lawyers- A Guide to Clear…, 976; Categorical, hypothetical, and disjunctive propositions differ by how they present conditions — Ruggero J. Aldisert, Agatha D. Aldisert, Logic for Lawyers- A Guide to Clear…, 951 (+7 more)
Broader Connections
- Disjunctive fallacies occur through missing disjuncts or nonexclusivity of options.
#expands(0.85) — Ruggero J. Aldisert, Agatha D. Aldisert, Logic for Lawyers- A Guide to Clear…, 783 - Fallacies in missing disjuncts stem from omitting alternative possibilities
#expands(0.80) — Ruggero J. Aldisert, Agatha D. Aldisert, Logic for Lawyers- A Guide to Clear…, 976 - Categorical, hypothetical, and disjunctive propositions differ by how they present conditions
#qualifies(0.65) — Ruggero J. Aldisert, Agatha D. Aldisert, Logic for Lawyers- A Guide to Clear…, 951