Concept:The EAO mood in the third figure has universal premises (E and A) but a particular conclusion (O). This violates the rule that particular conclusions cannot be drawn from universal premises alone—this error is called the existential fallacy.
Explanation:In the third figure, the middle term is the subject of both premises. For EAO:
- First premise (E): No M are P (universal negative).
- Second premise (A): All M are S (universal affirmative).
- Conclusion (O): Some S are not P (particular negative).
Both premises are universal; they do not assert that any member of the subject class actually exists. The conclusion, however, claims existence of at least one S that is not P. Since existence is not established in the premises, this reasoning commits the existential fallacy.
Other options are incorrect:
- Undistributed middle: The middle term M is distributed in the first premise (E) and distributed in the second (A), so it is not undistributed.
- Conclusion distributes its subject term: In O, the subject term S is undistributed (only some S), so this rule is not violated.
- Fallacy of exclusive premises: Only one premise (E) is negative, so not both are negative.
Thus, only the existential fallacy applies.
Answer:D. Commits the Existential fallacy