Are the following syllogisms valid or invalid?

Question

Sergiu	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."

Uncomfortable Ideas: Facts don't care about feelings. Science isn't concerned about sensibilities. And reality couldn't care less about rage.

This is a book about uncomfortable ideas—the reasons we avoid them, the reasons we shouldn’t, and discussion of dozens of examples that might infuriate you, offend you, or at least make you uncomfortable.

Many of our ideas about the world are based more on feelings than facts, sensibilities than science, and rage than reality. We gravitate toward ideas that make us feel comfortable in areas such as religion, politics, philosophy, social justice, love and sex, humanity, and morality. We avoid ideas that make us feel uncomfortable. This avoidance is a largely unconscious process that affects our judgment and gets in the way of our ability to reach rational and reasonable conclusions. By understanding how our mind works in this area, we can start embracing uncomfortable ideas and be better informed, be more understanding of others, and make better decisions in all areas of life.

Get 20% off this book and all Bo's books*. Use the promotion code: websiteusers

* This is for the author's bookstore only. Applies to autographed hardcover, audiobook, and ebook.

Get the Book

Answers

mike 0	Valid Valid Invalid Invalid Valid
	answered on Wednesday, Aug 12, 2015 12:19:18 AM by mike
Comments

michael 0	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

michael 0	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

michael 0	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

Do.C 0	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