All-some-some Invalid Argument (NAME?)

Question

	All-some-some Invalid Argument (NAME?) I'm looking for a specific name (i.e. affirming the consequent). Some have suggested fallacies with "if-then" format, which doesn't apply to this, which is an "all-some" format. All X are Y. Some Y are Z. Therefore, some X are Z. Example: All roses are flowers. Some flowers fade quickly. Therefore, some roses fade quickly. The conclusion doesn't follow from the premises (it's invalid) even though each premise and the conclusion happens to be true.
	asked on Monday, Jul 01, 2019 10:02:39 PM by
Top Categories Suggested by Community
Comments

Want to get notified of all questions as they are asked? Update your mail preferences and turn on "Instant Notification."

Like the Site? You'll Love the Book!

This book is a crash course, meant to catapult you into a world where you start to see things how they really are, not how you think they are. The focus of this book is on logical fallacies, which loosely defined, are simply errors in reasoning. With the reading of each page, you can make significant improvements in the way you reason and make decisions.

Get 20% off this book and all Bo's books*. Use the promotion code: websiteusers

* This is for the author's bookstore only. Applies to autographed hardcover, audiobook, and ebook.

Get the Book

Answers

Jim 0	I can't say exactly what fallacy this is, but a Venn diagram of the argument has a large circle called Flowers, a smaller totally-contained circle called Roses, and another small totally-contained circle called Fade Quickly. The two smaller circles may or may not overlap.
	answered on Tuesday, Jul 02, 2019 08:58:22 AM by Jim
Comments

Bill 0	Basic rule: no valid syllogism can include the word "some."
	answered on Tuesday, Jul 02, 2019 10:32:05 AM by Bill
Comments

Bill 0	So I asked around on Reddit, and it seems that this fallacy doesn't have a name for it's "all-some-some format". So I decided to name it; the "Ambiguous Property Fallacy"; it's ambiguous because we don't know if the property (fading quickly) applies to roses or not, even though it applies to flowers.
	answered on Tuesday, Jul 02, 2019 12:56:01 PM by Bill
Comments

Bryan 0	Have a look here<> in the section syllogistic fallacies, I think that would fall under: Undistributed middle: Neither of the premises accounts for all members of the middle term, which consequently fails to link the major and minor term I'm far from an expert on syllogisms but according to the basic structure section "some" can be used.
	answered on Tuesday, Jul 02, 2019 05:02:16 PM by Bryan
Comments

DrBill 0	I think it's an example of the formal fallacy of the undistributed middle en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fal. . . One way to spot the fallacy is to reframe the syllogism to force the middle to be distributable All roses are flowers. Some flowers fade quickly. All roses share the property of fading with all flowers Therefore, some roses fade quickly. The offset premise actually anticipates the consequent, but All roses are flowers. Some roses fade quickly. Therefore, some flowers fade quickly. is actually valid and sound
	answered on Tuesday, Jul 02, 2019 06:55:45 PM by DrBill
Comments