Which formal fallacy is committed in the following argument. “No politicians are idiots. Some voters are not idiots. Therefore, some voter are not politicians”?

Correct option is A

(a) Exclusive Premises
The formal fallacy committed in the given argument is the "Exclusive Premises" fallacy. This fallacy occurs in a categorical syllogism when both premises are negative. In this argument, "No politicians are idiots" (a negative premise) and "Some voters are not idiots" (a negative premise) lead to the conclusion "Therefore, some voters are not politicians." In standard categorical syllogistic logic, a valid conclusion cannot be drawn from two negative premises. The conclusion mistakenly assumes a relationship between voters and politicians based on two negations, which does not logically follow.
Information Booster:
Exclusive Premises: A syllogistic fallacy where both premises are negative, making it impossible to derive a valid conclusion.
Existential Fallacy: Involves drawing a conclusion that assumes the existence of something not established by the premises.
Affirming the consequent: This formal fallacy involves the argument structure: If P, then Q. Q, therefore P. It incorrectly infers the antecedent from the consequent.
Denying the antecedent: This formal fallacy involves the argument structure: If P, then Q. Not P, therefore not Q. It wrongly infers the negation of the consequent from the negation of the antecedent.