Step-by-step explanation:
The argument you've presented follows the rules of categorical syllogism, specifically the "No S are P" (E) and "Some S are not P" (O) forms. Here's the breakdown:
1. "No man is an island." (Premise: No S are P - E-form)
2. "Manhattan is an island." (Premise: A particular S is P)
From these premises, the conclusion is drawn based on the logical form of a categorical syllogism:
3. "Therefore, Manhattan is not a man." (Conclusion: Some S are not P - O-form)
However, it's important to note that the conclusion drawn doesn't follow logically from the premises. The argument commits a fallacy known as the fallacy of illicit conversion. The correct conclusion that can be derived from the premises should be "Therefore, Manhattan is not necessarily a man." The conclusion "Manhattan is not a man" oversimplifies and overgeneralizes the relationship between being an island and being a man.
