7. The Existential Fallacy The existential fallacy is committed when an argument is invalid merely because the premise or premises are interpreted as lacking existential import. With regard specifically to the Aristotelian standpoint and the traditional square of opposition, the existential fallacy occurs whenever the contrary relation, the subcontrary relation, or the subalternation relation is used with a proposition about nonexistent things (as long as the relation is used properly otherwise). The existential fallacy cannot be committed in a correct use of the contradictory relation (even if the subject term does not denote anything that actually exists) because the contradictory relation does not depend on the assumption of existential import. This is why the contradictory relation is the only relation that appears both on the traditional square of opposition and on the modern square of opposition. Use the selection lists to indicate whether cach of the following immediate inferences commits the existential fallacy. Also indicate which relation being used to link the premise with the conclusion in an otherwise correct way. Argument 1 It is false that some female ogres are princesses in disguise. Therefore, it is false that all female ogres are princesses in disguise. In Argument 1, the immediate inference makes use of the relation The subject term in these categorical propositions denote something that actually exists. Therefore, Argument 1 commit the existential fallacy. Argument 2 No phoenixes are fire birds. Therefore, it is false that all phoenixes are fire birds. In Argument 2, the immediate inference makes use of the relation The subject term in these categorical propositions denote something that actually exists. Therefore, Argument 2 commit the existential fallacy. Argument 3 It is false that some paintbrushes are things made from horsehair. Therefore, some paintbrushes are not things made from horsehair. In Argument 3, the immediate inference makes use of the relation The subject term in these categorical propositions denote something that actually exists. Therefore, Argument 3 commit the existential fallacy. Argument 6 It is false that all vacuum cleaners are household appliances. Therefore, some vacuum cleaners are not household appliances. In Argument 6, the immediate inference makes use of the relation The subject term in these categorical propositions denote something that actually exists. Therefore, Argument 6 commit the existential fallacy. Argument 7 It is false that some hockey fans are season ticket holders. Therefore, it is false that all hockey fans are season ticket holders. In Argument 7, the immediate inference makes use of the relation. The subject term in these categorical propositions denote something that actually exists. Therefore, Argument 7 commit the existential fallacy. In Argument 8, the immediate inference makes use of the relation. The subject term in these categorical propositions denote something that actually exists. Therefore, Argument 8 commit the existential fallacy. 7. The Existential Fallacy The existential fallacy is committed when an argument is invalid merely because the premise or premises are interpreted as lacking existential import. With regard specifically to the Aristotelian standpoint and the traditional square of opposition, the existential fallacy occurs whenever the contrary relation, the subcontrary relation, or the subalternation relation is used with a proposition about nonexistent things (as long as the relation is used properly otherwise). The existential fallacy cannot be committed in a correct use of the contradictory relation (even if the subject term does not denote anything that actually exists) because the contradictory relation does not depend on the assumption of existential import. This is why the contradictory relation is the only relation that appears both on the traditional square of opposition and on the modern square of opposition. Use the selection lists to indicate whether cach of the following immediate inferences commits the existential fallacy. Also indicate which relation being used to link the premise with the conclusion in an otherwise correct way. Argument 1 It is false that some female ogres are princesses in disguise. Therefore, it is false that all female ogres are princesses in disguise. In Argument 1, the immediate inference makes use of the relation The subject term in these categorical propositions denote something that actually exists. Therefore, Argument 1 commit the existential fallacy. Argument 2 No phoenixes are fire birds. Therefore, it is false that all phoenixes are fire birds. In Argument 2, the immediate inference makes use of the relation The subject term in these categorical propositions denote something that actually exists. Therefore, Argument 2 commit the existential fallacy. Argument 3 It is false that some paintbrushes are things made from horsehair. Therefore, some paintbrushes are not things made from horsehair. In Argument 3, the immediate inference makes use of the relation The subject term in these categorical propositions denote something that actually exists. Therefore, Argument 3 commit the existential fallacy. Argument 6 It is false that all vacuum cleaners are household appliances. Therefore, some vacuum cleaners are not household appliances. In Argument 6, the immediate inference makes use of the relation The subject term in these categorical propositions denote something that actually exists. Therefore, Argument 6 commit the existential fallacy. Argument 7 It is false that some hockey fans are season ticket holders. Therefore, it is false that all hockey fans are season ticket holders. In Argument 7, the immediate inference makes use of the relation. The subject term in these categorical propositions denote something that actually exists. Therefore, Argument 7 commit the existential fallacy. In Argument 8, the immediate inference makes use of the relation. The subject term in these categorical propositions denote something that actually exists. Therefore, Argument 8 commit the existential fallacy