If we assume the modern view of existential import, why is the following syllogism invalid? Some terrorists support an independent Palestinian state.
John Smith supports an independent Palestinian state.
John Smith is a terrorist.

Question

Quizplus · Accepted Answer

The middle term, "supports an independent Palestinian state," is not distributed in either premise, meaning it does not refer to all members of the category in either statement. This leads to an undistributed middle, making the syllogism invalid because it does not logically prove that John Smith is a terrorist based on the given premises.

If We Assume the Modern View of Existential Import, Why