Today, one of the students in my introductory logic course brought a letter in your paper to my attention.  We have been studying argument forms, so he immediately recognized the letter’s headline as a syllogism: “An article is satiric; an article is racist; so then satire is racist.”   

Unfortunately, not everything that can be placed in the form of a syllogism is a valid argument, and this particular argument form, known as “AAA-3,” is invalid.  Nor is this a superficial problem.  If you analyze the true point the writer wishes to support, it manifests in the form “No satires are racist; this article is satire; this article is not racist” (EAE-1).  While this second argument is valid, it is unfortunately unsound.  

It is perfectly possible to classify something as both a satire and racist without believing that all satire is intrinsically racist.  Indeed, having read the original Yonker article, I would classify it as both clearly satirical and genuinely racist — two separate but not incompatible characteristics.

I note that the writer of the letter is a political science / pre-law major.  If he wishes to use logical argument accurately, I would suggest he consider enrolling in Philosophy 120.

Christopher Sunami is a graduate teaching associate in the philosophy department.