Which fallacy occurs when the major term is distributed in the conclusion but not in the major premise?

• A. Illicit Minor
• B. Undistributed Middle
• C. Illicit Major
• D. Exclusive Premises

Answer: (C)

In this fallacy, the major term is shown to apply to all members of its class in the conclusion, but the major premise doesn’t do that same work with the major term. In a two-premise categorical syllogism, if the major term is distributed in the conclusion, it must be distributed in the major premise as well. When it’s distributed in the conclusion but not in the major premise, the argument illegitimately extends what the major term covers.

A clear way to see it is with premises like:

All M are P.

No S are M.

From these, one might try to conclude No S are P. In the conclusion, the major term P is distributed (No S are P), but in the major premise All M are P, the major term P is not distributed. That mismatch is illicit major: the conclusion makes a universal claim about P that the major premise doesn’t authorize.

The other options describe different distribution issues (illicit minor for the minor term, undistributed middle for the middle term, exclusive premises for a specific negative-premise form), which don’t match the scenario where the major term’s distribution status differs between the conclusion and the major premise.