Negative conclusion from affirmative premises is a syllogistic fallacy committed when a categorical syllogism has a negative conclusion yet both premises are affirmative. The inability of affirmative premises to reach a negative conclusion is usually cited as one of the basic rules of constructing a valid categorical syllogism.
Statements in syllogisms can be identified as the following forms:
 a: All A is B. (affirmative)
 e: No A is B. (negative)
 i: Some A is B. (affirmative)
 o: Some A is not B. (negative)
The rule states that a syllogism in which both premises are of form a or i (affirmative) cannot reach a conclusion of form e or o (negative). Exactly one of the premises must be negative to construct a valid syllogism with a negative conclusion. (A syllogism with two negative premises commits the related fallacy of exclusive premises.)
Example (invalid aae form):
 Premise: All colonels are officers.
 Premise: All officers are soldiers.
 Conclusion: Therefore, no colonels are soldiers.
The aao4 form is perhaps more subtle as it follows many of the rules governing valid syllogisms, except it reaches a negative conclusion from affirmative premises.
Invalid aao4 form:
 All A is B.
 All B is C.
 Therefore, some C is not A.
This is valid only if A is a proper subset of B and/or B is a proper subset of C. However, this argument reaches a faulty conclusion if A, B, and C are equivalent.^{[1]}^{[2]} In the case that A = B = C, the conclusion of the following simple aaa1 syllogism would contradict the aao4 argument above:
 All B is A.
 All C is B.
 Therefore, all C is A.
YouTube Encyclopedic

1/3Views:1 3923 9961 176

✪ Rule IV (Categorical Syllogisms)

✪ Universal Particular Affirmative Negative

✪ Exclusive Premises (Logical Fallacy)
Transcription
See also
 Affirmative conclusion from a negative premise, in which a syllogism is invalid because an affirmative conclusion is reached from a negative premise
 Fallacy of exclusive premises, in which a syllogism is invalid because both premises are negative
References
 ^ Alfred Sidgwick (1901). The use of words in reasoning. A. & C. Black. pp. 297–300.
 ^ Fred Richman (July 26, 2003). "Equivalence of syllogisms" (PDF). Florida Atlantic University: 16. Archived from the original (PDF) on June 19, 2010. Cite journal requires
journal=
(help)
External links
 Gary N. Curtis. "Negative Conclusion from Affirmative Premisses". Fallacy Files. Retrieved December 20, 2010.