Some guilty defendants are not believable witnesses. Therefore, some unbelievable witnesses are not innocent defendants.
A) Invalid; existential fallacy.
B) Valid; no fallacy.
C) Invalid; illicit contraposition.
D) Invalid; illicit contrary.
E) Invalid; illicit subcontrary.

Question

Quizplus · Accepted Answer

The argument is valid because it follows the form of a proposition known as "EAO-3" in categorical syllogisms, which argues that some S are not P. In this case, the categorical statements are:
Premise 1: Some guilty defendants are not believable witnesses (S is guilty defendants, P is believable witnesses)
Conclusion: Some unbelievable witnesses are not innocent defendants (S is unbelievable witnesses, P is innocent defendants)
There is no fallacy in this reasoning, and the conclusion logically follows from the premise.

Some Guilty Defendants Are Not Believable Witnesses