Is this a valid syllogism? O: Some A's are not B's. O: Some C's are not B's. I: Therefore: Some A's are C's. For some reason this doesn't look correct. When I tried to put an example of this syllogism, I got a conclusion that was false, from two premises which are true. Here is that example: Some reptiles are not lizzards. Some warm-blooded-animals are not lizzards. Therefore: Some reptiles are warm-blooded-animals? Why doesn't this work? Because it seems to me that if the O-claim has a distributive predicate then the above example should work. Or perhaps one of my premises are wrong. Does anyone see what the problem is?