Talk:Illicit minor

Why is this considered too technical? Same with Illicit major. Seems straight forward to me...

Universal implying an existential
The article used to say that "Some pets are mammals" is a valid conclusion that can be drawn from the two premises. I say this is an error; it implies existence when the premises only use the universal. For such a conclusion to be drawn, it would also have to be shown that at least one poodle actually exists. In this case it's true, but consider the following argument, which is clearly invalid:

GeorgeRu (talk) 09:49, 24 September 2022 (UTC)::It is valid syllogism as long as you made valid that 'All unicorns are animals' which is not clearly valid
 * All unicorns are animals.
 * Therefore, some animals are unicorns.