Explain the strength of Statically Syllogism with examples?

When we say 100% of ‘K’s’ are ‘L’s’ it expresses a universal general proposition like ‘All K’s are L’s’ The conclusion derived from this premise with the help of the second premise, which is a particular proposition, is certainly true.

In case of statistical syllogism the reference class of the statistical generalization is not 100%. Hence the strength of the statistical syllogism is judged by the closeness of the members of reference class to 100% having the characteristic of the members of the at­tributive class. For example, the statistical syllogism,

90% of all men are theists

Sidhartha is a man

.’. Sidhartha is a theist

is obviously stronger than the following statistical syllogism.

5% of all girls are vegetarians Maya is a girl Maya is vegetarian

Similarly if the reference class is closer to 0% having the characteristic mentioned in the attributive class of the statistical generalization, then the individual(in the second premise) is very less likely to possess the property of the members of the attributive class. For example.

2% of the politicians are communists Sidhartha is a politician /. Sidhartha is not a communist. We may mark that his statistical syllogism is stronger than the example given below- 40% of the men are bald Rahul is a man .•. Rahul is bald.

A statistical syllogism may not always have as its first premise of the form x% of K’s are L’s. In the first premise there may not be given any specific percentage of the reference

class. In many cases the words like some, most, almost all, many, usually, few, very few, a few etc. are used to quantify the reference class. It is also not the fact that the argument is always in the present tense.

Look to the following example: Example A : Most K’s are L’s X is a k .v X is an L

Example B

Usually senior students do better than the juniors in games. Lata is a senior student and Maya is a junior student. Lata will (probably) do better than maya in games.

Example C

Few birds are bright coloured

Sparrows are birds

Sparrows are not bright coloured.

Sometimes a fallacy occurs in statistical syllogism. The syllogism is fallacious when all available relevant evidences are not taken into consideration in the first premise. This is called the fallacy of incomplete evidence.

The fallacy of incomplete evidence is committed if and only if some available relevant informations which would reduce the probability of the conclusion are ignored.

For example :

Most intellectuals are not politicians. The finance minister of India is an intellectual .•. The finance minister of India is not a politician.

The’above statistical syllogism commits the fallacy of incomplete evidence by ignoring the relevant information that almost all of the finance ministers of India are intellectuals.

Let us consider another example:

Most of the Oriyas are poor

The District Magistrate of Cuttack is an Oriya.

The District Magistrate of Cuttack is poor.

Here the fallacy of incomplete evidence occurs by ignoring the fact that the job of district magistrate is a highly paid job.

Thus by taking note of the available relevant evidences. The degree of probability can be assessed. But by ignoring the available evidences the above fallacy will be commited.