If we assume the modern view of existential import, why is the following syllogism invalid? No computer is made of clay. All computers are electronic devices. Some electronic devices are not made of clay.

The reason why the given syllogism is invalid is because; The conclusion does not agree with the premise.

We are given two statements as premises;

1) No computer is made of clay

2) All computers are electronic devices

The third statement is the conclusion which states that;

3) Some electronic devices are not made of clay.

Now in syllogism, the conclusion must be in agreement with the two premises.

In this question, the conclusion doesn't agree with the premises because the conclusion says "some electronic devices are not made of clay". Whereas the premise says that no computer which is an electronic device is made of clay.

Since none of the premise suggests that any electronic device is made of clay, then the syllogism is invalid.

Read more about syllogism at; link

because the conclusion is not in agreement with the two premises.

Explanation:

Remember, the term syllogism refers to the form of reasoning that draws its conclusion based on the stated premises. In other words, a conclusion is reached if it satisfies all or part of the premises.

In this case, the statement "No computer is made of clay" and  "All computers are electronic devices" should be inferred to mean, No electronic devices are made of clay" not "Some electronic devices are not made of clay," since the two premises neither suggest that electronic devices are made from clay.

answer; i do believe that the correct answer is : a deadly factory fire;

answer; ( blue box );