Solved

If We Assume the Modern View of Existential Import, Why

Question 217

Multiple Choice

If we assume the modern view of existential import, why is the following syllogism invalid? All finger paints are paints.
No finger paint is a condiment.
All condiments are paints.


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

Correct Answer:

verifed

Verified

Unlock this answer now
Get Access to more Verified Answers free of charge

Related Questions

Q212: Is this syllogism valid? <img src="https://d2lvgg3v3hfg70.cloudfront.net/TB4390/.jpg" alt="Is

Q213: Can a valid syllogism have false premises?<br>A)Yes,

Q214: Which terms are distributed in an A

Q215: Is this syllogism valid? <img src="https://d2lvgg3v3hfg70.cloudfront.net/TB4390/.jpg" alt="Is

Q216: If two categorical syllogisms have the same

Q218: Is this syllogism valid? <img src="https://d2lvgg3v3hfg70.cloudfront.net/TB4390/.jpg" alt="Is

Q219: A categorical syllogism is a syllogism in

Q220: Which terms are distributed in an I

Q221: A categorical syllogism is valid if:<br>A)the Venn

Q222: If we were given a list of