Question
Answered step-by-step
MajorIronMouse30
7. The Existential Fallacy The existential fallacy is committed…
7. The Existential Fallacy
The existential fallacy is committed when an argument is invalid merely because the premise or premises are interpreted as lacking existential import. With regard specifically to the Aristotelian standpoint and the traditional square of opposition, the existential fallacy occurs whenever the contrary relation, the subcontrary relation, or the subalternation relation is used with a proposition about nonexistent things (as long as the relation is used properly otherwise).
The existential fallacy cannot be committed in a correct use of the contradictory relation (even if the subject term does not denote anything that actually exists) because the contradictory relation does not depend on the assumption of existential import. This is why the contradictory relation is the only relation that appears both on the traditional square of opposition and on the modern square of opposition.
Use the selection lists to indicate whether each of the following immediate inferences commits the existential fallacy. Also indicate which relation is being used to link the premise with the conclusion in an otherwise correct way.
Argument 1
All hockey fans are season ticket holders.
Therefore, it is false that no hockey fans are season ticket holders.
In Argument 1, the immediate inference makes use of the relation.
The subject term in these categorical propositions denote something that actually exists.
Therefore, Argument 1 commit the existential fallacy.
Argument 2
Some forms of unleaded gasoline are not high-octane fuels.
Therefore, it is false that all forms of unleaded gasoline are high-octane fuels.
In Argument 2, the immediate inference makes use of the relation.
The subject term in these categorical propositions denote something that actually exists.
Therefore, Argument 2 commit the existential fallacy.
Argument 3
No headless horsemen are rivals of Ichabod Crane.
Therefore, some headless horsemen are not rivals of Ichabod Crane.
In Argument 3, the immediate inference makes use of the relation.
The subject term in these categorical propositions denote something that actually exists.
Therefore, Argument 3 commit the existential fallacy.
Argument 4
All unicorns are racehorses for elves.
Therefore, it is false that no unicorns are racehorses for elves.
In Argument 4, the immediate inference makes use of the relation.
The subject term in these categorical propositions denote something that actually exists.
Therefore, Argument 4 commit the existential fallacy.
Argument 5
It is false that some cyclopes are giant creatures.
Therefore, some cyclopes are not giant creatures.
In Argument 5, the immediate inference makes use of the relation.
The subject term in these categorical propositions denote something that actually exists.
Therefore, Argument 5 commit the existential fallacy.
Argument 6
All meteorites are iron-nickel metal fragments.
Therefore, some meteorites are iron-nickel metal fragments.
In Argument 6, the immediate inference makes use of the relation.
The subject term in these categorical propositions denote something that actually exists.
Therefore, Argument 6 commit the existential fallacy.
Argument 7
It is false that some commercial airliners are not ticking time bombs.
Therefore, some commercial airliners are ticking time bombs.
In Argument 7, the immediate inference makes use of the relation.
The subject term in these categorical propositions denote something that actually exists.
Therefore, Argument 7 commit the existential fallacy.
Argument 8
It is false that some griffins are lions with wings.
Therefore, no griffins are lions with wings.
In Argument 8, the immediate inference makes use of the relation.
The subject term in these categorical propositions denote something that actually exists.
Therefore, Argument 8 commit the existential fallacy.
4.5
