Final answer:
The conclusion that 'some duck hunters are not animal rights activists' does not commit an existential fallacy and is likely considered valid in both Boolean and Aristotelian logic, since it follows from the premise that denies any overlap between duck hunters and animal-rights activists.
Step-by-step explanation:
The student's question deals with a logical statement concerning duck hunters and animal-rights activists and whether the logical inference made is valid or invalid, and if it commits an existential fallacy based on the semantics of the Boolean or Aristotelian logic represented in a Venn diagram.
The statement 'It is false that some duck hunters are animal-rights activists' negates the possibility of overlap between the sets of duck hunters and animal-rights activists in a Venn diagram. However, concluding from this that 'some duck hunters are not animal rights activists' does not commit an existential fallacy in Boolean logic, as non-existence can be inferred from a statement of non-existence.
In traditional Aristotelian logic, the conclusion would likely be seen as valid as well because it deals with what is not the case in a particular. However, the reasoning here may be contingent upon the context or understanding whether any duck hunters could, in principle, be animal-rights activists.