Which of the following arguments is faulty because the major term is exhaustive and the middle term is inclusive?

The inference 'every object is nameable because it is knowable' fails because both terms embrace everything.

Here the major term 'nameable' is the sadhya (probandum) and the middle 'knowable' is the reason.

Everything whatever is both knowable and nameable, so the classes are all-inclusive.

Establishing vyapti (invariable concomitance) needs a dissimilar instance where the middle is absent.

Since nothing lies outside 'knowable' or 'nameable', no such negative instance can ever be found.

The concomitance therefore cannot be genuinely tested, leaving the reason inconclusive.