Immediate Inferences
Convert: Some dogs are not cats
Undistributed Middle
Put this in standard form:
You are not my people
No you are my people
Give me any philosophical definition
(Any correct answers)
Why are we studying logic? Aristotle developed it thousands of years ago - isn't there something newer we should study?
Chronological Snobbery
Obvert: Some S is not P
Some S is non-P
Which rule corresponds to 10-3*7+3+9?
1 - Only three terms
What does this assume?
"I have sinner, for I have betrayed innocent blood"
To betray innocent blood is to sin
A hen
Female chicken
Each strand of rope is easily breakable. So the rope is easily breakable.
Composition
Contrapose: All S is P
All non-P is non-S
Which rule does this break?
No Timmies are Bimmies
Some Bimmies are not Climmies
So Some Climmies are not Timmies
Rule 6 - Two negative premises
P > Q
P
Therefore?
Q
Genus: Pizza
Species: Best
Pineapple and Pepperoni
I asked Jeffrey if he thought he was stupid, and he said no. So he must think he's a genius!
False dichotomy / Bifurcation
Contrapose: No S is P
YOU CAN'T YOU FOOL
Does this break any rules? If so, which?
1. Some boms are bahms
2. No bohms are bombs
3. So, some boms are not bombs
Rule 1 - 4 terms (bohms vs bahms)
Not Rule 3 really, since there IS no middle term
Either P or Q
Not P
Therefore...?
Q
Define God.
Impossible. God has no genus. He is not a kind of thing: he is being itself.
Video games are harmless. I mean, nobody has proven otherwise.
Appeal to Ignorance
Obvert, then convert the obversion:
Some S is not non-P
Obversion: Some S is P
Conversion: Some P is S
Which rules does this break? (BE AS SPECIFIC AS POSSIBLE)
EIE-3
Rule 4 - Illicit major
(~Q > P) & (S v T)
(~Q & ~S)
Therefore?
P & T
Genus: Teacher
Species: Most Dashing
Mr. Hartwick
Double Jeopardy: Who commits what error in this conversation?
Bob: "God died on the cross."
Tim: "No, you're wrong, because God can't die."
Bob: "But Christ is God. And Christ died on the cross. Therefore, at least some aspect of God died on the cross."
Tim: "You are trusting too much in logic. Think about it: God is beyond logic, and we can't reason about what's beyond logic, so we can't reason about God."
Bob's argument is a valid AAI-3 syllogism.
Tim is breaking the fundamental rule of non-contradiction. He is reasoning about God in order to show that you can't reason about God. If he's right, he is necessarily wrong.
If you give up non-contradiction, argument is impossible. We may as well roll around on the floor and froth at the mouth like dogs with rabies.