Statements A, B, C, D and E correctly summarise the traditional and modern views of the square of opposition, while F is false. The traditional square treats A and E as contraries and I and O as subcontraries, and maintains that contradictory pairs cannot both be true or both be false. Modern logic largely drops contrariety and subcontrariety due to the rejection of existential import, but it keeps the contradictory relations intact. F is wrong because subalternation from universal to particular does not automatically hold under the modern, non-existential reading. Therefore A, B, C, D and E only is the correct combination.
Option A:
Option A is correct because it includes all the true statements and excludes only F, which misstates the scope of subalternation in modern logic. It captures both the traditional structure and the modifications introduced by the Boolean interpretation. This makes it the only option that fully matches accepted logical theory.
Option B:
Option B is incomplete because it omits E, which correctly notes that contradictory relations remain valid in both interpretations. Without E, the description of what survives in the modern view is incomplete. Hence A, B, C and D only does not represent the full set of correct statements.
Option C:
Option C is wrong because it includes F along with B, C, D and E. Including F treats subalternation as always valid in modern logic, which is not the case when universals are not assumed to have existential import. This error makes the combination inconsistent with standard textbook accounts.
Option D:
Option D is incorrect because it leaves out B and E and wrongly includes F. B is needed to characterise subcontraries, and E is needed to show what survives in the modern view. With these omissions and the inclusion of F, A, C, D and F only cannot be accepted as the correct set.
Comment Your Answer
Please login to comment your answer.
Sign In
Sign Up
Answers commented by others
No answers commented yet. Be the first to comment!