First of all, we should understand the wrong meanings of four concepts: syllogism can only have three qualitative judgments, namely subject and predicate, and can only contain three different concepts, but sometimes the two words used to represent words in major premise and minor premise are the same, but they express two different concepts respectively.

For example:

Matter is eternal, (major premise) (major item: eternal immortality)

Steel is a substance, (minor premise) (minor term: steel) (middle term: substance)

So steel is immortal. (conclusion)

Term: As the concept of conclusion predicate, the term of the above syllogism is "eternity".

Event: As the concept of the conclusion subject, the event of the above syllogism: "steel".

Middle term: the concept that appears in two premises (major premise and minor premise) at the same time, and the middle term of the above syllogism: "matter".

Major premise: the premise including major terms, and the major premise of the above syllogism: "Matter is eternal".

Minor premise: the premise including minor terms, the minor premise of the above syllogism: "Steel is matter".

There is the word "matter" in the major premise and minor premise of this syllogism. But this word expresses two different concepts in the major premise and the minor premise respectively. The "matter" in the major premise is to express the philosophical concept of matter, which is an objective existence outside human will and independent of human consciousness. The "matter" in the minor premise is the concept of expressing a concrete material body. This syllogism has four wrong concepts and violates the rules of syllogism, so it is incorrect.

On the surface, there are only three terms in the above syllogism: the big term (eternity), the middle term (matter) and the small term (steel). In fact, the term "material" has two different meanings, expressing the philosophical concept of material in the major premise and the concept of concrete object in the minor premise, so the fourth concept appeared. So the above syllogism belongs to the mistake of making four concepts.

Let's take a concrete look at your question type:

Students in the department of mathematics take many liberal arts courses. Wang Ying is a math major, so she also took many liberal arts courses.

Major: I have taken many liberal arts courses.

Middle item: students of mathematics department.

Event: She (Wang Ying)

The "mathematics students" in the major premise refers to a group, that is, the concept of set.

The "math student" in Xiao Qian refers to a concrete student, that is, the concept of non-set.

Therefore, the major premise of this syllogism is different from the minor premise in the concept of "mathematics students", and four conceptual mistakes have been made.

2. The teacher of philosophy department has written many philosophical papers. Lao Zhang is a teacher in the philosophy department, so he has written many philosophical papers.

Sports: I have written many philosophical papers.

Item: Teachers of Philosophy Department (Teachers of Philosophy Department)

Event: He (Lao Zhang)

The "philosophy teachers" in the major premise refers to a group, that is, the concept of set.

The "teacher of philosophy department" in Xiao Advanced refers to a specific teacher, that is, the concept of non-setting.

The obvious mistake of this syllogism is that the Chinese words are inconsistent. The major premise is "teacher of philosophy department" and the minor premise is "teacher of philosophy department".

Therefore, in the major premise and minor premise of this syllogism, the concept of "a teacher in the philosophy department" is different, and the expression is the same, making four conceptual mistakes.

3. All the students in the department of mathematics study the course "Philosophical Principles". Ma Xiao is a math student, so she also studies the course "Principles of Philosophy".

This is a correct syllogism, and the major premise is that the keyword "du" belongs to the full name judgment, that is, the major premise determines all the extensions of the term, and the small term is also in the conclusion.

According to the rule of syllogism, the middle term must be GAI in at least one premise.

That is, syllogism conforms: all s are p, a is s, so a is p.

Students in the department of mathematics also took many liberal arts courses. Wang Ying is a math major, so she also took many liberal arts courses. Which of the following arguments shows the most similar reasoning error to the above argument?

A. All students in the department of mathematics study the course "Principles of Philosophy". Ma Xiao is a math student, so she also takes math courses.

B. the teacher of philosophy department has written many philosophical papers. Lao Zhang is a teacher in the philosophy department, so he has written many philosophical papers.

C. All old houses need regular maintenance. The house is new, so it doesn't need regular maintenance.

Most of the members of this study group are female students. Wang Ying is a member of this study group, so she is also a female student.

The initial question is this,

Personally, I think: this is not a question of collective concept and non-collective concept, but a question of whether it is GAI.

Question stem: If the "students of mathematics department" in the major premise is not GAI, it should be correctly expressed as "all students of mathematics department". If GAI in the major premise is not judged, the name "grateful math student" may have some ambiguity.

The "Du" in item A and the "Du" in item C belong to each other, and the "most" in item D means that the premise is not, so we can't draw a conclusion.

If the "teachers of philosophy department" in the major premise of item B is not GAI, it should be correctly expressed as "all teachers of philosophy department". If we don't judge GAI, the name of "some teachers in philosophy department" may have some ambiguity. So item B is the most similar to the stem.

(For reference only)