Talk:Illicit minor

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Logic

Why is this considered too technical? Same with Illicit major. Seems straight forward to me...

Universal implying an existential

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The article used to say that "Some pets are mammals" is a valid conclusion that can be drawn from the two premises. I say this is an error; it implies existence when the premises only use the universal. For such a conclusion to be drawn, it would also have to be shown that at least one poodle actually exists. In this case it's true, but consider the following argument, which is clearly invalid:

All unicorns are animals.
Therefore, some animals are unicorns.

GeorgeRu (talk) 09:49, 24 September 2022 (UTC)::It is valid syllogism as long as you made valid that 'All unicorns are animals' which is not clearly validReply

Add topic