In a conditional syllogism, what must the minor premise do to draw a conclusion?

In a conditional syllogism, the structure typically involves a major premise that presents a conditional statement (if-then), and a minor premise that relates to that conditional statement. For a valid conclusion to be drawn from a conditional syllogism, the minor premise must affirm the antecedent or deny the consequent.

When the minor premise affirms the antecedent (the "if" part of the conditional), it logically leads to the conclusion presented in the major premise. For example, if the major premise is "If it rains, then the ground will be wet," affirming the antecedent by stating "It is raining" allows us to conclude that "the ground is wet."

Alternatively, if the minor premise denies the consequent (the "then" part), it supports a valid conclusion that the antecedent cannot be true. For example, if the major premise is again "If it rains, then the ground will be wet," and the minor premise states "The ground is not wet," then it logically follows that "It is not raining."

This understanding solidifies why affirming the antecedent or denying the consequent is essential for drawing a logical conclusion in a conditional syllogism, making it the correct choice in this scenario.