(i) Give an example of fallacy of illicit minor term.
Example of Fallacy of Illicit Minor Term:
A fallacy of illicit minor term occurs when the minor term (the subject term in the conclusion) is not properly distributed in either of the premises. Hereβs an example:
Premise 1: All cats are animals.
Premise 2: All dogs are animals.
Conclusion: Therefore, all cats are dogs.
In this example, the minor term "cats" is not properly distributed in either premise, leading to the fallacy of illicit minor term.
(ii) Explain how the said example illustrates the fallacy of illicit minor term.
In the given example, "cats" is the minor term. The fallacy occurs because the term "cats" is not distributed in either of the premises. The first premise only states that all cats are animals, but it doesnβt specify anything about the individual nature of cats. Similarly, the second premise refers to dogs but doesn't provide any specific information about the relationship between cats and dogs. Thus, the minor term "cats" is not properly distributed in the premises, which results in an invalid conclusion that "all cats are dogs." This illustrates the fallacy of illicit minor term.
(iii) Show whether the fallacy of illicit minor term is related with deduction or induction. The fallacy of illicit minor term is related to deduction because it occurs in deductive reasoning. In a deductive syllogism, the conclusion must logically follow from the premises. If the minor term is not properly distributed, the deduction becomes invalid, resulting in the fallacy of illicit minor term. In contrast, induction involves reasoning from specific instances to general principles, and such a fallacy does not arise in inductive reasoning in the same way.