Somewhere (?) in the writings of Gian-Carlo Rota, I recall a statement that old-fashioned Aristotelean syllogisms are not used in modern mathematics. I know of one gaudy counterexample, and wondered whether there are others.
The major premise is Matiyasevich's theorem, proved in 1970:
All recursively enumerable sets are Diophantine.
The minor premise is a discovery in the 1930s, I think by several people including maybe, Kleene, Turing, and Church:
Some recursively enumerable sets are non-recursive.
(Matiyasevich built on work of Julia Robinson, Hillary Putnam, and Martin Davis, done over a couple of decades.)
The conclusion crosses the 10th item off of Hilbert's famous list of problems:
Some Diophantine sets are non-recursive.
Today, they take on the form of theorems in predicate logic.
From Wiki:
'"In Aristotle, each of the premises is in the form 'All A are B,' Some A are B', 'No A are B' or 'Some A are not B,' where 'A' is one term and 'B' is another."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syllogism
Translated into the notation of predicate logic, they are (respectively):
$\forall x: A(x) \rightarrow B(x)$
$\exists x: A(x) \wedge B(x)$
$\forall x: A(x) \rightarrow \neg B(x)$
$\exists x: A(x) \wedge \neg B(x)$
Here is a link to proofs of three classical syllogisms using predicate logic in my DC Proof system:
http://www.dcproof.com/ClassicalSyllogisms.htm
EDIT: To resolve the syllogistic fallacies, you will need to use the set-theoretic equivalents to construct counterexamples. See, for example, my resolution of the existential fallacy at:
http://www.dcproof.com/ExistentialFallacy.htm