Any valid standard form of categorical syllogism with a particular conclusion and two universal premises will commit the fallacy of

The correct answer is B) Existential fallacy. Take the classic case: All M are P; All S are M; therefore Some S is P. Both premises are universal (A propositions), and they only say what happens to a class if it has members. They say nothing about whether S has any members at all. The conclusion, however, asserts that some S exists. That is the existential fallacy, and it is why traditional logic treats forms like Darapti (AAI-3) as valid only with existential import.

• A) Illicit major: This needs the major term to be distributed in the conclusion but not in the premise. A particular conclusion does not distribute its predicate in the affirmative form, so this does not arise here.
• C) Illicit minor: The same logic applies to the minor term. A valid form does not distribute it illicitly in this setup.
• D) Undistributed middle: A valid syllogism must distribute the middle term at least once. Undistributed middle is a rule violation that valid forms cannot have, so it cannot be the answer.

This sits under the rules of syllogism, which is a standard Logic and Reasoning topic and links to Mains ethics questions on sound inference.

Trap: students pick illicit major or minor because the conclusion looks like it 'drops' a term. The real issue is the leap from universal premises to a particular conclusion about existence.