In accusing Aristotle of committing an illicit quantifier shift, some scholars point to I.i.1094a1-3 of the Nicomachean Ethics and others point to I.ii.1094a18-22. The author of this paper analyses the logical translations of both passages in order to determine the success of the cases for and against Aristotle.

Wading through the various translations found in the secondary literature and also analysing the primary text, the author of this paper argues that the correct logical translation of both passages frees Aristotle from the accusation of an illicit quantifier shift. The first passage does not present an argument, but a description of practical reasoning. The second passage is a hypothetical argument that stipulates the conditions of the final end: eudaimonia.

The author concludes that one cannot accuse Aristotle of committing the fallacy of the quantifier shift.