Question

Following is an argument from Aristotelian syllogism: it{All moneylenders are misers.
Some capitalists are misers.
Therefore, some capitalists are moneylenders.}
Which one of the following fallacies does the argument commit?

• A. Fallacy of illicit major
• B. Fallacy of illicit minor
• C. Fallacy of undistributed middle
• D. Fallacy of exclusive premises

Hint:

For Aristotelian syllogisms, check the distribution of the middle term in both premises to ensure logical validity.

Answer 1

The Correct Option is C

In the given syllogism:
1. The major premise is: All moneylenders are misers.
2. The minor premise is: Some capitalists are misers.
3. The conclusion is: Some capitalists are moneylenders.
The error lies in the fact that the term “misers” (the middle term) is not distributed in either premise.
- The middle term must refer to all members of its category at least once to establish a valid connection between the major and minor terms.
- In this case, “misers” fails to connect “moneylenders” and “capitalists” properly, leading to the Fallacy of undistributed middle.
Incorrect options:
- (A) Fallacy of illicit major occurs when the major term is distributed in the conclusion but not in the premise, which is not the case here.
- (B) Fallacy of illicit minor involves an error in the minor term, which is not applicable here.
- (D) Fallacy of exclusive premises occurs when both premises are negative, which is not true in this argument.
Thus, the correct answer is (C) Fallacy of undistributed middle.