|
|
Are the following syllogisms valid or invalid?All women are feminists
Some bankers are women Therefore, some bankers are feminists. No comets are cosmic objects Some planets are not cosmic objects Therefore, some planets are not comets. All tigers are felines All tigers are animals Therefore, all animals are felines. All critical thinkers are atheists No Christians are atheists Therefore, no Christians are critical thinkers. Some philosophers are intelligent Some women are not philosophers Therefore, some women are not intelligent. |
| asked on Tuesday, Aug 11, 2015 07:58:30 PM by Sergiu | |
Top Categories Suggested by Community |
|
Comments |
|
|
| |
Want to get notified of all questions as they are asked? Update your mail preferences and turn on "Instant Notification."
As you start to list properties that the animal lacks to justify eating them, you begin to realize that some humans also lack those properties, yet we don’t eat those humans. Is this logical proof that killing and eating animals for food is immoral? Don’t put away your steak knife just yet.
In Eat Meat… Or Don’t, we examine the moral arguments for and against eating meat with both philosophical and scientific rigor. This book is not about pushing some ideological agenda; it’s ultimately a book about critical thinking.
* This is for the author's bookstore only. Applies to autographed hardcover, audiobook, and ebook.
|
|
Valid
Valid Invalid Invalid Valid |
| answered on Wednesday, Aug 12, 2015 12:19:18 AM by mike |
Comments |
|
| |
|
|
1) Valid, The some bankers that are female are feminists
2) (Invalid?) I'll posed (unclear), if by some you mean 1 or more but not all, then it is valid. The cosmic planets are not comets. If some can include possibly all then all planets could be not cosmic and all planet could be comets ( Affirmative Conclusions from a Negative Premiss) 3) Invalid, (Undistributed middle term.) 4) Valid, assuming that christians and atheists are mutually exclusive groups. All critical thinkers are contained in Atheist, leaving none to be christain. 5) Invalid, some philosphers being intelligent does not exclude the possibility that non philosphers can be intelligent, there is nothing preventing the non philospher women from being entirely within the group of intelligent people. |
| answered on Saturday, Aug 15, 2015 04:23:01 PM by michael |
Comments |
|
| |
|
|
The first one is okay. The rest have problems.
The second gets the result right but the premises are wrong. The third and fourth are non-sequiturs since the conclusion does not follow from the arguments. There are some Christians who do think critically and some atheists who do not. The fifth has the same problem as the second; there can be stupid philosophers and non-stupid non-philosophers. |
| answered on Monday, Aug 17, 2015 05:54:35 PM by michael |
Comments |
|
| |
|
|
Remember, valid merely means form, it has nothing to do with whether the thoughts are reasonable. It's obvious that all critical thinkers are not atheists. But within the form of the syllogism, valid doesn't reflect the definition of valid out in the real world, It merely means form of the arguemnt. The argument isn't sound, which means its basically hot air. People who use this type of argumentation then claim valid aren't actually in need of discussion they merely try to promote personal opinion. I could have sworn that there is a personal opinion fallacy syllogism. But I'm not sure.
|
| answered on Wednesday, Sep 16, 2015 05:02:26 PM by michael |
Comments |
|
| |
|
|
Remember, valid merely means form, it has nothing to do with whether the thoughts are reasonable. It's obvious that all critical thinkers are not atheists. But within the form of the syllogism, valid doesn't reflect the definition of valid out in the real world, It merely means form of the arguemnt. The argument isn't sound, which means its basically hot air. People who use this type of argumentation then claim valid aren't actually in need of discussion they merely try to promote personal opinion. I could have sworn that there is a personal opinion fallacy syllogism. But I'm not sure.
|
| answered on Tuesday, Jan 18, 2022 07:42:46 PM by Do.C | |
Do.C Suggested These Categories |
|
Comments |
|
|
| |
