Logical Fallacy of Illicit Major

Illicit major is a formal fallacy that covers up the problem when reasoning is based on one of the three fallacies of Agrippa's trilemma. Whenever a logical fallacy is committed, the fallacy has its roots in Agrippa's trilemma. All human thought (without Divine revelation) is based on one of three unhappy possibilities. These three possibilities are infinite regress, circular reasoning, or axiomatic thinking. This problem is known as Agrippa's trilemma. Some have claimed that only logic and math can be known without Divine revelation; however, that is not true. There is no reason to trust either logic or math without Divine revelation. Science is also limited to the pragmatic because of the weakness on human reasoning, which is known as Agrippa's trilemma.

The logical fallacy of illicit major occurs when a premise is stated referring to only part of the class, but the conclusion referrs to the whole class.

S=subject, P=predicate, M=middle term

"All S are P" (Major Premise)

"No M  are S" (Minor Premise)

"Therefore, no M are P" (Fallacy of Illicit Major)

Examples of the Logical Fallacy of Illicit Major

Subject = Catholics, Predicate = Christian, Minor Term = those supposed to follow Jesus

The minor term is the term that appears in the minor premise as the predicate. If it appears in the conclusion as the subject, it is undistributed. If we were to write the conclusion as, “Therefore, all S are M (Therefore, all Catholics are supposed to follow Jesus) then it would not be a fallacy.

"All Christ-followers are human beings."

"No person who is not following Christ is a Christ-follower."

"Therefore, no person who is not following Christ is a human being."

This reasoning is invalid because the form is backwards. The first two premises are true, but the form is invalid, so the reasoning is not sound.

"All of those who are following Christ are people who have committed sins."

"No people who think they are naturally good are following Christ."

"Therefore, No people who think they are naturally good are people who have committed sins."

The conclusion is wrong. It doesn't follow from the premises. All people who think they are naturally god are people who have committed sins. The major and minor premises are both true, but the conclusion is false. The form is not valid.