1. Illicit Contrary, Illicit Subcontrary, and Illicit…

1. Illicit Contrary, Illicit Subcontrary, and Illicit Subalternation

An immediate inference in which the conclusion follows by a correct application of a relation on the traditional square of opposition is deductively valid (as long as the subject term denotes something that actually exists, thereby allowing you to justify taking the Aristotelian standpoint by using the traditional square of opposition). But an immediate inference in which the conclusion is derived from a misapplication of one of these relations is an invalid argument and commits one of the following formal fallacies: illicit contrary, illicit subcontrary, or illicit subalternation. (Illicit contradiction is not usually recognized as a fallacy by name.)

The Traditional Square of Opposition

Use the selection lists to indicate whether each of the following immediate inferences is deductively valid or deductively invalid from the Aristotelian standpoint, according to the traditional square of opposition. If the inference is invalid, indicate which formal fallacy is committed. If the inference is valid, indicate that the inference does not commit a formal fallacy.

Argument 1

Argument 1 is deductively     from the Aristotelian standpoint.

This is because Argument 1     .

Argument 2

Argument 2 is deductively     from the Aristotelian standpoint.

This is because Argument 2     .

Argument 3

Argument 3 is deductively     from the Aristotelian standpoint.

This is because Argument 3     .

Argument 5

Argument 5 is deductively     from the Aristotelian standpoint.

This is because Argument 5     .

Argument 6

Argument 6 is deductively     from the Aristotelian standpoint.

This is because Argument 6     .