“Aristrocracy” as a system of governance is one where a noble elite pass on government positions through inheritance.

In practical application this never has such a clean-cut look, just like every other structure of governance. “Democracy” means rulership of the people and yet no modern “democracy” has all people show up and all vote on everything.

A “monarchy” is a rule of a singular dictator who inherited the position, yet in practice every monarchy was not just one guy deciding everything with absolute power and the ability to discount other powerful nobles. Yet we still describe them as monarchies.

That actual aristocracies don’t fit neatly with the absolute description, does not mean that that is not what “aristrocracy” as a form of governance is.

Because yes, in practice, you had to become a noble somehow. And sometimes you didnt inherit stuff. Just like how in democracies functionaries aren’t directly elected and laws are passed by representatives rather than all the people and some of those representatives might not even be elected, yet we still designated the system as a democracy.

An aristrocracy is not just “a small ruling class holding all the power”. If that were the case then every parliamentary or representative democracy would be considered an aristrocracy. The inheritance of title and position is key, you absolute moron.
If you wanted something you could have made a very bad argument for oligarchy. But really you should just shut the fuck up on things you dont know and learn instead.