📚 Help & User Guide

👋 Welcome

Welcome to the Statement and Syllogism Venn Diagram Visualiser! This educational platform helps you learn and understand categorical logic through interactive Venn diagrams. Whether you're studying basic propositions or complex syllogistic arguments, this tool provides visual representations to enhance your understanding.

🔄 Two Operating Modes

The platform offers two modes accessible via the toggle switch at the top:

  • Statement Mode: For analyzing single categorical propositions (A, E, I, O types) with two-circle Venn diagrams
  • Syllogism Mode: For analyzing categorical syllogisms with three-circle Venn diagrams, including validity checking and formal proving

💡 Tip: Start with Statement Mode to understand basic propositions before moving to Syllogism Mode.

📝 Categorical Proposition Types

There are four standard forms of categorical propositions:

Type Name Form Subject Predicate
A Universal Affirmative All S are P Distributed Undistributed
E Universal Negative No S are P Distributed Distributed
I Particular Affirmative Some S are P Undistributed Undistributed
O Particular Negative Some S are not P Undistributed Distributed

Distribution: A term is distributed when the proposition makes a claim about ALL members of that category. Badges show D for distributed and xD for undistributed.

📐 Syllogistic Figures

A syllogism's figure is determined by the position of the Middle Term (M) in the premises:

Figure Major Premise Minor Premise Pattern
Figure 1 M - P S - M Middle is subject of major, predicate of minor
Figure 2 P - M S - M Middle is predicate of both
Figure 3 M - P M - S Middle is subject of both
Figure 4 P - M M - S Middle is predicate of major, subject of minor

đŸŽ¯ How to Use the Platform

Step 1: Enter Propositions

  • In Statement Mode: Enter subject and predicate terms for a single premise
  • In Syllogism Mode: Enter terms for both premises (the system requires exactly 3 unique terms)
  • Select quantifiers (ALL/SOME) and copulas (IS/IS NOT) from dropdowns
  • The conclusion terms are automatically populated from your premises

Step 2: Select Conclusion Terms

  • Choose the subject and predicate for your conclusion from the dropdown menus
  • The system will automatically identify Major, Minor, and Middle terms
  • Premise labels update to show which is the Major Premise and which is the Minor Premise

Step 3: Check Validity (Syllogism Mode)

  • Click "Check Validity" to determine if your syllogism is valid
  • Results show the mood-figure code (e.g., AAA-1), traditional name (e.g., Barbara), and validity status
  • Green = Unconditionally Valid, Yellow = Conditionally Valid (Aristotelian), Red = Invalid

Step 4: Use the Proving Table

  • Manually test each validity rule by selecting YES/NO in the Answer column
  • Or click "System Proving" to have the system automatically check all rules
  • Any NO answer indicates a fallacy (shown in the Fallacy column)

🎨 Using the Venn Diagram Canvas

  • Select color and drag to regions for coloring (shading represents empty areas)
  • Drag circles to reposition them
  • Drag circle edges to resize circles
  • Add Existence markers (X) to indicate that members exist in a region
  • Toggle Boolean/Aristotelian to switch between logical systems
  • Use the color palette to select different colors for shading
  • Use "Clear All Colors" to reset the diagram

âš ī¸ Note: The Premises Diagram and Conclusion Diagram are separate canvases. Changes to one do not affect the other.

✅ Syllogism Validity Rules

A valid syllogism must satisfy ALL of the following rules:

Rule Requirement Fallacy if Violated
Three Terms Exactly three distinct terms used consistently Fallacy of Four Terms
Middle Term Distribution Middle term must be distributed at least once Undistributed Middle
Conclusion Distribution Terms distributed in conclusion must be distributed in premises Illicit Major/Minor
Exclusive Premises Cannot have two negative premises Fallacy of Exclusive Premises
Negative Matches Negative premise requires negative conclusion; affirmative premises require affirmative conclusion Drawing wrong quality conclusion
Existential Rule Particular conclusion from universal premises requires existential assumption Existential Fallacy

🔎 Web Search Feature

The Web Search section allows you to quickly search for more information about syllogistic forms:

  • The search query automatically updates based on the current validity check result
  • Click "Search" to open a Google search in a new tab
  • You can modify the search query before searching

âŒ¨ī¸ Tips & Best Practices

  • Use consistent terminology when entering terms (case-insensitive)
  • The system automatically detects E-type propositions and shows the alternative "No S is P" notation
  • Resize the left panel by dragging the divider for more workspace
  • Use the Reset button to clear all inputs and start fresh
  • Check the Knowledge Table at the bottom for quick reference to proposition types and figures

â„šī¸ About

Designer
LAM Wai Ip 林č‘Ļ葉 (HKU)
Developer
Claude-Opus 4.5 (Anthropic)
Date
January 31, 2026
Version
18

📜 License & Citation

This application is provided free of charge for educational and research purposes.

If you use this application in your research or teaching, please cite:

Lam, W. I. (2026). Statement and Syllogism Venn Diagram Visualiser.

📧 Feedback & Support

For questions, bug reports, feature requests, or collaboration opportunities, please contact:

📧 Official: jwilam@hku.hk

📧 Personal: jwilam@gmail.com

We welcome your feedback to improve this platform! Report bugs, suggest features, or share your use cases.

Statement and Syllogism Venn Diagram Visualiser

Statement
Syllogism

Propositions

TERM QUANTIFIER SUBJECT COPULA PREDICATE
PREMISE 1
PREMISE 2
CONCLUSION

âš ī¸ Validation Warnings

    ✓ All validation rules passed.
    Premise 1 Type
    A
    Premise 2 Type
    A
    Conclusion Type
    A
    ?
    Is it Valid?
    Click to Check
    Fill in the syllogism and click "Check Validity" to determine if it's a valid form.

    📋 Proving

    Rules Proof Answer Fallacy for NO
    Three Terms Does the argument have exactly three distinct terms used consistently, or is there a "four-term" ambiguity? Fallacy of Four Terms (Quaternio Terminorum)
    Middle Term Distribution Is the Middle Term distributed (covering its entire category) in at least one of the premises? Undistributed Middle
    Conclusion Distribution If a term (Major or Minor) is distributed in the conclusion, was it also distributed back in the premise? Illicit Major or Illicit Minor
    Exclusive Premises Are the premises NOT both negative? (Two negative premises cannot establish any valid conclusion) Fallacy of Exclusive Premises
    Negative Matches Does the quality of the conclusion match the premises? (Negative premise → Negative conclusion; All affirmative premises → Affirmative conclusion) Drawing Affirmative Conclusion from Negative Premise / Drawing Negative Conclusion from Affirmative Premises
    Existential Rule If the conclusion is particular (starts with "Some"), is there at least one particular premise, or are you assuming something exists that isn't stated? Existential Fallacy

    🔎 Web Search

    Proposition Types Syllogistic Figures
    A (Universal Affirmative):
    All S are P
    S: Distributed, P: Undistributed
    E (Universal Negative):
    No S are P
    S: Distributed, P: Distributed
    I (Particular Affirmative):
    Some S are P
    S: Undistributed, P: Undistributed
    O (Particular Negative):
    Some S are not P
    S: Undistributed, P: Distributed
    Figure 1:
    Middle term is subject of major premise and predicate of minor premise.
    Pattern: M-P, S-M
    Figure 2:
    Middle term is predicate of both premises.
    Pattern: P-M, S-M
    Figure 3:
    Middle term is subject of both premises.
    Pattern: M-P, M-S
    Figure 4:
    Middle term is predicate of major premise and subject of minor premise.
    Pattern: P-M, M-S
    Boolean
    Boolean