None of the premises were proven, only asserted. You seemed to place a special requirement on my restated premise that you were not requiring for the other premises.
Since my restated premise was not proven to be unnecessary to the argument it changes the nature of the argument.
If the simple syllogism is true but by adding the additional premise makes it false does that negate the simple syllogism?
Which ones do you have a problem with?
You seemed to place a special requirement on my restated premise that you were not requiring for the other premises.
The requirement your premise failed was relevance/necessity. Which of the other premises do you see as getting special treatment on this requirement?
If the simple syllogism is true but by adding the additional premise makes it false does that negate the simple syllogism?
In this case, whether your added premise was true or false did not effect the conclusion. This is how it is shown to be unnecessary and irrelevant.
I think maybe I can save you some time here.
Are you trying to get to a proof similar to: The Immaculate Conception must be true in order for Jesus to be God (divine)?
Is this what you’re trying to build to in order to prove the above false, or some variant of this? In order to disprove IC doctrine?