Deductive Logic...or is it?

For most people, logic comes when they don't even try. We figure out our daily problems or help a friend out with reasoning that helps us or our loved ones overcome the obstacles of life. Like a wise man said today in third period (cough cough, Mr. Basinger), "common knowledge is actually uncommon". I disagree. I think that all of us know the right things to do and have good morals, it's just theres always that devil on your shoulder that tempts you into stupid stuff like stealing or tagging. There is a such thing as common sense, and we all have it, it's just uncommon to be in touch with your concious that tells you the moral thing to do.

Technically, there are three main ways of using deductive logic. First, there is the syllogism. As the most confusing of the three, it is the most precise. It must have three statements: the major premise, the minor premise, and the conclusion. This form of logic is viewed as the most difficult because of it's structure. An example is:

Major Premise:All athletes eat healthy.
Minor Premise:Michelle is an athlete
Conclusion: Michelle eats healthy

A good way to model this is by using the 'transitive property':

A=B
B=C
A=C

The above syllogism can be labeled as followed: A=Healthy, B=athlete, C=Michelle
If the terms are labeled properly, the syllogism should read as the formula does.

The second form of deductive logic is called Modus Ponens. This fairly straightforward way of thinking goes as follows:

If p, then q
p
therefore, q

If I have a million dollars, then I am rich.
I have a million dollars.
Therefore, I am rich.

The next form of logic, Modus Tollens, is extremely similar to Modus Ponens, but has one slight difference.
It's formula is:

If p, then q
not q
therefore, not p

If I have green eyes, I am pretty
I do not have green eyes.
Therefore, I am not pretty.

As you can see, it is the negative form of the Modus Ponens.

Yet, as observed, these examples of the three types of deductive logic seem a little...off. Just because someone eats healthy doesn't mean they are athletes! Or just because someone doesn't have green eyes doesn't mean they're ugly. As mentioned before, a more reasonable source of logic comes from within us. These forms seem to just have the sole purpose of adding structure to thinking, although the thought process is purely unstructured in itself. Most of the examples I saw or heard in class have been valid in the sense of the way they are formed, yet they are not the truth. Why even bother learning how to think logically when the conclusions made are rarely ever what is really true?