2. It is false that some people who hunger for wealth are not victims of their obsession; Therefore, some people who hunger for wealth are victims of their obsession. This is legitimate sub-contrary, so the inference is valid.
3.No lamps containing genies are ordinary sources of light; therefore, some lamps containing genies are ordinary sources of light. This performs the operation of “contradictory”incorrectly.
If no such lamps are ordinary light sources is true, then “some lamps containing genies being ordinary sources of light”would be false. Notice, if the inference would have been: No lamps containing genies are ordinary sources of light; therefore, some lamps containing genies are not ordinary sources of light; it would be an existential fallacy for Boole that would have had to be tested for Aristotle, since it is valid by sub-alternation. But, Genie Lamps do not exist, so it would also commit the existential fallacy for Aristotle in this case.
No summer romances are banal pastimes Regions A and B are empty region C is shaded....