221; This syllogism does not break the first rule (Fallacy of Four Terms) because it has exactly three terms. It also does not break the second rule (Fallacy of Undistributed Middle) because the middle term is distributed in at least one premiss. The third rule (Fallacy of the Illicit Major, or Fallacy of an Illicit Minor) states, “if either term is distributed in the conclusion, then it must be distributed in the premise. When applying the third term to my syllogism you will conclude that it is valid. The syllogism does not contain any negative premises so the Fallacy of Exclusive Premises (rule four) and Fallacy of Drawing an Affirmative Conclusion from a Negative Premiss (rule 5) can be discarded. The sixth and final rule is existential fallacy, which states, “No valid standard-from categorical syllogism with a particular conclusion can have two universal premises. Yes, the syllogism has two universal premises but the conclusion is also universal. This syllogism can be concluded that is a valid syllogism because it passes the Venn diagram and the six essential rules for standard-form syllogisms. Soundness At first glance the argument seems to be sound. The first of the two is the weakest because it states, all those that are able to apply logic in their daily lives understand how the mind processes information. There is a problem with this premiss because people apply logic without even realizing what process has taken place. Humans do many activities that are logical but they don’t necessarily understand the reason behind those actions. For example, many of us celebrate many traditions and holidays. But upon examination, many don’t really know the reasons why they celebrate a particular holiday or tradition. Sometimes humans display logical actions because they are environmentally conditioned. Humans develop some logical patterns because of their parents not because they actually process the i...
