Asked by Ashley Schernecker on Jun 24, 2024
Verified
If we assume the modern view of existential import, why is the syllogism III-2 invalid?
A) undistributed middle
B) illicit major or minor term
C) two negative premises
D) negative premise with affirmative conclusion, or negative conclusion with no negative premise
E) universal premises with particular conclusion
Modern View
Contemporary or current perspectives and interpretations in various fields such as art, literature, science, and philosophy.
Existential Import
The implication that a categorical proposition presupposes the existence of the subject about which it makes a statement.
- Learn to identify and remedy defects in reasoning regarding undistributed middle, illicit major or minor terms, and the erroneous formulation of conclusions from premises of opposing natures.
- Identify the variances between antediluvian and avant-garde opinions on existential import and its function in logical assessment.
Verified Answer
BV
Bharathi VarshaJun 27, 2024
Final Answer :
A
Explanation :
Syllogism III-2 is invalid because it commits the fallacy of undistributed middle. The middle term "animal" is not distributed in either premise, and therefore cannot properly relate the two other terms, "dog" and "horse", in the conclusion.
Learning Objectives
- Learn to identify and remedy defects in reasoning regarding undistributed middle, illicit major or minor terms, and the erroneous formulation of conclusions from premises of opposing natures.
- Identify the variances between antediluvian and avant-garde opinions on existential import and its function in logical assessment.
Related questions
How Many Rules of Validity Are There If We Adopt ...
Suppose That a Syllogism Has Four Terms: Uncommunicative People, Communicative ...
If We Assume the Modern View of Existential Import, Why ...
If We Assume the Traditional View of Existential Import, Why ...
Can Every Syllogism with a Missing Conclusion Be Completed in ...