Final answer:
The presented syllogism has issues with both form and content, making it not valid in standard logical analysis. The correct aspect of this syllogism is that it is not in a standard presentation, confirming option d is the right answer.
Step-by-step explanation:
When it comes to the given syllogism: 'Some lawyer is a computer. Every computer scientist is a computer expert. Therefore, some lawyer is computer savvy,' we need to identify the structure and the validity of the argument. First, we examine what the middle term, the major term, and the minor term are within the syllogism:
Major Premise: Every computer scientist is a computer expert.
Minor Premise: Some lawyer is a computer.
Conclusion: Therefore, some lawyer is computer savvy.
The middle term is 'computer,' which serves as the link between the major premise and the minor premise. The major term is 'computer expert,' which is found in the predicate of the conclusion. Here, the syllogism is not presented in a standard form as it involves a term in the conclusion ('computer savvy') that is not present in the premises. This error in the form is called the 'fallacy of four terms.' The major and minor premises are not universal affirmations; one is universal and the other is particular, so option c is incorrect as well. The syllogism should be of the form M-P, M-S, concluding therefore S-P; however, due to the form and content errors, it fails to follow this logical structure, making options a, b, and c incorrect and option d correct.