The Illicit Major is a type of logical error that occurs when someone mistakenly uses a universal statement (all) as the major premise in an argument, but then draws a conclusion that only applies to some or one specific case.

Example:

“All humans are mortal.” (Major premise)
“Socrates was human.” (Minor premise)
“Therefore, Socrates is the only person who has ever died.” (Fallacious conclusion)

In this example, the major premise states that all humans are mortal, but then the conclusion is drawn that Socrates is the only person who has ever died. This is a fallacy because the major premise does not provide any information about Socrates being unique in his mortality.

Formal Representation:

∀x (Px → Qx) (Major premise: All x are Q)
Pa (Minor premise: a is P)
∴ (∀y ≠ a, ¬Qy) (Fallacious conclusion: For all y other than a, y is not Q)

In this example, the major premise states that all x are Q, but then the conclusion is drawn that for all y other than a specific individual (Socrates),
y is not Q. This is a fallacy because the major premise does not provide any information about Socrates being unique in his mortality.

Real-Life Examples:

1. “All students who cheat on exams will be expelled.” (Major premise)
   “John was caught cheating on an exam.” (Minor premise)
   “Therefore, John is the only student who has ever been expelled for cheating on an exam.” (Fallacious conclusion)
2. “All politicians are corrupt.” (Major premise)
   “Our current president is a politician.” (Minor premise)
   “Therefore, our current president is the most corrupt person in history.” (Fallacious conclusion)

In both cases, the major premise states that all x are Q, but then the conclusion is drawn that one specific individual is unique or exceptional in some way. This is a fallacy because the major premise does not provide any information about the individual being unique.

Avoiding the Illicit Major Fallacy:

1. Be cautious with universal statements: Recognize that universal statements apply to all cases, and avoid drawing conclusions that only apply to one specific case.
2. Look for evidence of uniqueness: Instead of relying on a universal statement, look for evidence that an individual or case is unique or exceptional in some way.
3. Consider alternative explanations: Think about other possible reasons why something might be true or false.

Relationship with Other Fallacies:

The Illicit Major fallacy is related to other fallacies, such as:

• Hasty Generalization: Making sweeping conclusions based on limited or incomplete evidence.
• Begging the Question: Assuming that a statement is true without providing sufficient evidence.

Formal Relationship:

If ∀x (Px → Qx) (Major premise: All x are Q)
Pa (Minor premise: a is P)
Hasty Generalization: ∴ (∀y, Qy) (Making sweeping conclusions based on limited or incomplete evidence)
Begging the Question: ∴ (∃x, Px ∧ Qx) (Assuming that a statement is true without providing sufficient evidence)

By being aware of the Illicit Major fallacy and its relationships with other fallacies, you can strengthen your arguments and avoid making unjustified conclusions.

---

Filed under: Uncategorized - @ September 26, 2024 10:23 am