Solved: In 5158, translate each argument into symbolic

Use a truth table to determine whether the symbolic form of the argument is valid or invalid. \(p \rightarrow q\) \(\frac{\sim p}{\therefore \sim q}\) Text Transcription: p rightarrow q sim p / therefore sim q

Use a truth table to determine whether the symbolic form of the argument is valid or invalid. \(p \rightarrow q\) \(\frac{\sim p}{\therefore q}\) Text Transcription: p rightarrow q sim p / therefore q

Use a truth table to determine whether the symbolic form of the argument is valid or invalid. \(p \rightarrow \sim q\) \(\frac{q}{\therefore \sim p}\) Text Transcription: p rightarrow sim q q / therefore sim p

Use a truth table to determine whether the symbolic form of the argument is valid or invalid. \(\sim p \rightarrow q\) \(\frac{\sim q}{\therefore p}\) Text Transcription: sim p rightarrow q sim q / therefore p

Use a truth table to determine whether the symbolic form of the argument is valid or invalid. \(p \wedge \sim q\) \(\frac{p}{\therefore \sim q}\) Text Transcription: p wedge sim q p/ therefore sim q

Use a truth table to determine whether the symbolic form of the argument is valid or invalid. \(\sim p \vee q\) \(\frac{p}{\therefore q}\) Text Transcription: sim p vee q p / therefore q

Use a truth table to determine whether the symbolic form of the argument is valid or invalid. \(p \rightarrow q\) \(\frac{q \rightarrow p}{\therefore p \wedge q}\) Text Transcription: p rightarrow q q rightarrow p / therefore p wedge q

In Exercises 1–14, use a truth table to determine whether the symbolic form of the argument is valid or invalid. \((p \rightarrow q) \wedge(q \rightarrow p)\) p_________________ \(\therefore p \vee q\)

Use a truth table to determine whether the symbolic form of the argument is valid or invalid. \(p \rightarrow q\) \(\frac{q \rightarrow r}{\therefore r \rightarrow p}\) Text Transcription: p rightarrow q q rightarrow r / therefore r rightarrow p

Use a truth table to determine whether the symbolic form of the argument is valid or invalid. \(p \rightarrow q\) \(\frac{q \rightarrow r}{\therefore \sim p \rightarrow \sim r}\) Text Transcription: p rightarrow q q rightarrow r / therefore sim p rightarrow sim r

Use a truth table to determine whether the symbolic form of the argument is valid or invalid. \(p \rightarrow q\) \(\frac{q \wedge r}{\therefore p \vee r}\) Text Transcription: p rightarrow q q wedge r / therefore p vee r

In Exercises 1–14, use a truth table to determine whether the symbolic form of the argument is valid or invalid. \(\sim p \wedge q\) \(\frac{p \leftrightarrow r}{\therefore p \wedge r}\)

Use a truth table to determine whether the symbolic form of the argument is valid or invalid. \(\begin{array}{l}p \leftrightarrow q \\ q \rightarrow r \\ \overline {\therefore \sim r \rightarrow \sim p}\end{array}\)

Use a truth table to determine whether the symbolic form of the argument is valid or invalid. \(q \rightarrow \sim p\) \(\frac{q \wedge r}{\therefore r \rightarrow p}\ Text Transcription: q rightarrow sim p q wedge r / therefore r rightarrow p

Translate each argument into symbolic form. Then determine whether the argument is valid or invalid. You may use a truth table or, if applicable, compare the argument’s symbolic form to a standard valid or invalid form. (You can ignore differences in past, present, and future tense.) If it is cold, my motorcycle will not start. My motorcycle started. ________________ \(\therefore\) It is not cold. Text Transcription: therefore

Translate each argument into symbolic form. Then determine whether the argument is valid or invalid. You may use a truth table or, if applicable, compare the argument’s symbolic form to a standard valid or invalid form. (You can ignore differences in past, present, and future tense.) If a metro rail system is not in operation, there are traffic delays. Over the past year, there have been no traffic delays. ________________ \(\therefore\) Over the past year a metro rail system has been in operation. Text Transcription: therefore

Translate each argument into symbolic form. Then determine whether the argument is valid or invalid. You may use a truth table or, if applicable, compare the argument’s symbolic form to a standard valid or invalid form. (You can ignore differences in past, present, and future tense.) There must be a dam or there is flooding. This year there is flooding. ________________ \(\therefore\) This year there is no dam. Text Transcription: therefore

Translate each argument into symbolic form. Then determine whether the argument is valid or invalid. You may use a truth table or, if applicable, compare the argument’s symbolic form to a standard valid or invalid form. (You can ignore differences in past, present, and future tense.) You must eat well or you will not be healthy. I eat well. ________________ \(\therefore\) I am healthy. Text Transcription: therefore

Translate each argument into symbolic form. Then determine whether the argument is valid or invalid. You may use a truth table or, if applicable, compare the argument’s symbolic form to a standard valid or invalid form. (You can ignore differences in past, present, and future tense.) If we close the door, then there is less noise. There is less noise. ________________ \(\therefore\) We closed the door. Text Transcription: therefore

Translate each argument into symbolic form. Then determine whether the argument is valid or invalid. You may use a truth table or, if applicable, compare the argument’s symbolic form to a standard valid or invalid form. (You can ignore differences in past, present, and future tense.) If an argument is in the form of the fallacy of the inverse, then it is invalid. This argument is invalid. ________________ \(\therefore\) This argument is in the form of the fallacy of the inverse. Text Transcription: therefore

In Exercises 15–42, translate each argument into symbolic form. Then determine whether the argument is valid or invalid. You may use a truth table or, if applicable, compare the argument’s symbolic form to a standard valid or invalid form. (You can ignore differences in past, present, and future tense.) If he was disloyal, his dismissal was justified. If he was loyal, his dismissial was justified. His dismissal was justified.

In Exercises 15–42, translate each argument into symbolic form. Then determine whether the argument is valid or invalid. You may use a truth table or, if applicable, compare the argument’s symbolic form to a standard valid or invalid form. (You can ignore differences in past, present, and future tense.) If I tell you I cheated, I’m miserable. If I don’t tell you I cheated, I’m miserable. I’m miserable.

Translate each argument into symbolic form. Then determine whether the argument is valid or invalid. You may use a truth table or, if applicable, compare the argument’s symbolic form to a standard valid or invalid form. (You can ignore differences in past, present, and future tense.) \(\therefore\) We criminalize drugs or we damage the future of young people. We will not damage the future of young people. ________________ \(\therefore\) We criminalize drugs. Text Transcription: therefore

Translate each argument into symbolic form. Then determine whether the argument is valid or invalid. You may use a truth table or, if applicable, compare the argument’s symbolic form to a standard valid or invalid form. (You can ignore differences in past, present, and future tense.) He is intelligent or an overachiever. He is not intelligent. ? He is an overachiever.

Translate each argument into symbolic form. Then determine whether the argument is valid or invalid. You may use a truth table or, if applicable, compare the argument’s symbolic form to a standard valid or invalid form. (You can ignore differences in past, present, and future tense.) If all people obey the law, then no jails are needed. Some people do not obey the law. ________________ \(\therefore\) Some jails are needed. Text Transcription: therefore

In Exercises 15–42, translate each argument into symbolic form. Then determine whether the argument is valid or invalid. You may use a truth table or, if applicable, compare the argument’s symbolic form to a standard valid or invalid form. (You can ignore differences in past, present, and future tense.) If all people obey the law, then no jails are needed. Some jails are needed. Some people do not obey the law.

Translate each argument into symbolic form. Then determine whether the argument is valid or invalid. You may use a truth table or, if applicable, compare the argument’s symbolic form to a standard valid or invalid form. (You can ignore differences in past, present, and future tense.) \(\therefore\) If I’m tired, I’m edgy. If I’m edgy, I’m nasty. ________________ \(\therefore\) If I’m tired, I’m nasty. Text Transcription: therefore

Translate each argument into symbolic form. Then determine whether the argument is valid or invalid. You may use a truth table or, if applicable, compare the argument’s symbolic form to a standard valid or invalid form. (You can ignore differences in past, present, and future tense.) If I am at the beach, then I swim in the ocean. If I swim in the ocean, then I feel refreshed. ________________ \(\therefore\) If I am at the beach, then I feel refreshed. Text Transcription: therefore

Translate each argument into symbolic form. Then determine whether the argument is valid or invalid. You may use a truth table or, if applicable, compare the argument’s symbolic form to a standard valid or invalid form. (You can ignore differences in past, present, and future tense.) \(\therefore\) If I’m tired, I’m edgy. If I’m edgy, I’m nasty. ________________ \(\therefore\) If I’m nasty, I’m tired. Text Transcription: therefore

Translate each argument into symbolic form. Then determine whether the argument is valid or invalid. You may use a truth table or, if applicable, compare the argument’s symbolic form to a standard valid or invalid form. (You can ignore differences in past, present, and future tense.) If I’m at the beach, then I swim in the ocean. If I swim in the ocean, then I feel refreshed. \(\therefore\) If I’m not at the beach, then I don’t feel refreshed.

Translate each argument into symbolic form. Then determine whether the argument is valid or invalid. You may use a truth table or, if applicable, compare the argument’s symbolic form to a standard valid or invalid form. (You can ignore differences in past, present, and future tense.) If Tim and Janet play, then the team wins. Tim played and the team did not win. ________________ \(\therefore\) Janet did not play. Text Transcription: therefore

Translate each argument into symbolic form. Then determine whether the argument is valid or invalid. You may use a truth table or, if applicable, compare the argument’s symbolic form to a standard valid or invalid form. (You can ignore differences in past, present, and future tense.) If The Graduate and Midnight Cowboy are shown, then the performance is sold out. Midnight Cowboy was shown and the performance was not sold out. ________________ \(\therefore\) The Graduate was not shown. Text Transcription: therefore

Translate each argument into symbolic form. Then determine whether the argument is valid or invalid. You may use a truth table or, if applicable, compare the argument’s symbolic form to a standard valid or invalid form. (You can ignore differences in past, present, and future tense.) If it rains or snows, then I read. I am not reading. ________________ \(\therefore\) It is neither raining nor snowing. Text Transcription: therefore

Translate each argument into symbolic form. Then determine whether the argument is valid or invalid. You may use a truth table or, if applicable, compare the argument’s symbolic form to a standard valid or invalid form. (You can ignore differences in past, present, and future tense.) If I am tired or hungry, I cannot concentrate. I can concentrate. \(\therefore\) I am neither tired nor hungry.

Translate each argument into symbolic form. Then determine whether the argument is valid or invalid. You may use a truth table or, if applicable, compare the argument’s symbolic form to a standard valid or invalid form. (You can ignore differences in past, present, and future tense.) If it rains or snows, then I read. I am reading. \(\therefore\) It is raining or snowing.

Translate each argument into symbolic form. Then determine whether the argument is valid or invalid. You may use a truth table or, if applicable, compare the argument’s symbolic form to a standard valid or invalid form. (You can ignore differences in past, present, and future tense.) \(\therefore\) If I am tired or hungry, I cannot concentrate. I cannot concentrate. ________________ \(\therefore\) I am tired or hungry. Text Transcription: therefore

Translate each argument into symbolic form. Then determine whether the argument is valid or invalid. You may use a truth table or, if applicable, compare the argument’s symbolic form to a standard valid or invalid form. (You can ignore differences in past, present, and future tense.) If it is hot and humid, I complain. It is not hot or it is not humid. ________________ \(\therefore\) I am not complaining. Text Transcription: therefore

In Exercises 15–42, translate each argument into symbolic form. Then determine whether the argument is valid or invalid. You may use a truth table or, if applicable, compare the argument’s symbolic form to a standard valid or invalid form. (You can ignore differences in past, present, and future tense.) If I watch Schindler’s List and Milk, I am aware of the destructive nature of intolerance. Today I did not watch Schindler’s List or I did not watch Milk. Today I am not aware of the destructive nature of intolerance.

Translate each argument into symbolic form. Then determine whether the argument is valid or invalid. You may use a truth table or, if applicable, compare the argument’s symbolic form to a standard valid or invalid form. (You can ignore differences in past, present, and future tense.) If you tell me what I already understand, you do not enlarge my understanding. If you tell me something that I do not understand, then your remarks are unintelligible to me. ________________ \(\therefore\) Whatever you tell me does not enlarge my understanding or is unintelligible to me. Text Transcription: therefore

In Exercises 15–42, translate each argument into symbolic form. Then determine whether the argument is valid or invalid. You may use a truth table or, if applicable, compare the argument’s symbolic form to a standard valid or invalid form. (You can ignore differences in past, present, and future tense.) If we are to have peace, we must not encourage the competitive spirit. If we are to make progress, we must encourage the competitive spirit. We do not have peace and we do not make progress.

Translate each argument into symbolic form. Then determine whether the argument is valid or invalid. You may use a truth table or, if applicable, compare the argument’s symbolic form to a standard valid or invalid form. (You can ignore differences in past, present, and future tense.) If some journalists learn about the invasion, the newspapers will print the news. If the newspapers print the news, the invasion will not be a secret. The invasion was a secret. ________________ \(\therefore\) No journalists learned about the invasion. Text Transcription: therefore

Translate each argument into symbolic form. Then determine whether the argument is valid or invalid. You may use a truth table or, if applicable, compare the argument’s symbolic form to a standard valid or invalid form. (You can ignore differences in past, present, and future tense.) If some journalists learn about the invasion, the newspapers will print the news. If the newspapers print the news, the invasion will not be a secret. No journalists learned about the invasion. ________________ \(\therefore\) The invasion was a secret. Text Transcription: therefore

Use the standard forms of valid arguments to draw a valid conclusion from the given premises. If a person is a chemist, then that person has a college degree. My best friend does not have a college degree. Therefore,...

Use the standard forms of valid arguments to draw a valid conclusion from the given premises. If the Westway Expressway is not in operation, automobile traffic makes the East Side Highway look like a parking lot. On June 2, the Westway Expressway was completely shut down because of an overturned truck. Therefore,...

Use the standard forms of valid arguments to draw a valid conclusion from the given premises. The writers of My Mother the Car were told by the network to improve their scripts or be dropped from prime time. The writers of My Mother the Car did not improve their scripts. Therefore,...

Use the standard forms of valid arguments to draw a valid conclusion from the given premises. You exercise or you do not feel energized. I do not exercise. Therefore,...

Use the standard forms of valid arguments to draw a valid conclusion from the given premises. If all electricity is off, then no lights work. Some lights work. Therefore,...

Use the standard forms of valid arguments to draw a valid conclusion from the given premises. If all houses meet the hurricane code, then none of them are destroyed by a category 4 hurricane. Some houses were destroyed by Andrew, a category 4 hurricane. Therefore,...

Use the standard forms of valid arguments to draw a valid conclusion from the given premises. If I vacation in Paris, I eat French pastries. If I eat French pastries, I gain weight. Therefore,...

Use the standard forms of valid arguments to draw a valid conclusion from the given premises. If I am a full-time student, I cannot work. If I cannot work, I cannot afford a rental apartment costing more than $500 per month. Therefore,...

Translate each argument into symbolic form. Then determine whether the argument is valid or invalid. If it was any of your business, I would have invited you. It is not, and so I did not.

Translate each argument into symbolic form. Then determine whether the argument is valid or invalid. If it was any of your business, I would have invited you. I did, and so it is.

Translate each argument into symbolic form. Then determine whether the argument is valid or invalid. It is the case that x < 5 or x > 8, but \(x \geq 5\), so x > 8 Text Transcription: . x geq 5

Translate each argument into symbolic form. Then determine whether the argument is valid or invalid. It is the case that x < 3 or x > 10, but \(x \leq 10\), so x < 3. Text Transcription: x leq 10

Translate each argument into symbolic form. Then determine whether the argument is valid or invalid. Having a college degree is necessary for obtaining a teaching position. You have a college degree, so you have a teaching position.

In Exercises 51–58, translate each argument into symbolic form. Then determine whether the argument is valid or invalid. Having a college degree is necessary for obtaining a teaching position. You do not obtain a teaching position, so you do not have a college degree.

Translate each argument into symbolic form. Then determine whether the argument is valid or invalid. “I do know that this pencil exists, but I could not know this if Hume’s principles were true. Therefore, Hume’s principles, one or both of them, are false.” —G. E. Moore, Some Main Problems of Philosophy

Translate each argument into symbolic form. Then determine whether the argument is valid or invalid. (In this exercise, determine if the argument is sound, valid but not sound, or invalid.) If an argument is invalid, it does not produce truth, whereas a valid unsound argument also does not produce truth. Arguments are invalid or they are valid but unsound. Therefore, no arguments produce truth.

Illustrate arguments that have appeared in cartoons. Each argument is restated below the cartoon. Translate the argument into symbolic form and then determine whether it is valid or invalid. If you do not know how to read, you cannot read War and Peace. If you cannot read War and Peace, then Leo Tolstoy will hate you. Therefore, if you do not know how to read, Leo Tolstoy will hate you.

Illustrate arguments that have appeared in cartoons. Each argument is restated below the cartoon. Translate the argument into symbolic form and then determine whether it is valid or invalid. If I say I’m in denial, then I’m not in denial. I am saying that I’m in denial, so I’m not in denial at all.

Conservative commentator Rush Limbaugh directed this passage at liberals and the way they think about crime. Of course, liberals will argue that these actions [contemporary youth crime] can be laid at the foot of socioeconomic inequities, or poverty. However, the Great Depression caused a level of poverty unknown to exist in America today, and yet I have been unable to find any accounts of crime waves sweeping our large cities. Let the liberals chew on that. (See, I Told You So, p. 83) Limbaugh’s passage can be expressed in the form of an argument: If poverty causes crime, then crime waves would have swept American cities during the Great Depression. Crime waves did not sweep American cities during the Great Depression. ________________ \(\therefore\) Poverty does not cause crime. (Liberals are wrong.) Translate this argument into symbolic form and determine whether it is valid or invalid. Text Transcription: therefore

In the following passage, Martin Luther King, Jr. presents an argument with the conclusion “Segregation statutes are unjust.” Use two premises, one a conditional statement and the other a simple statement, to rewrite King’s argument in the format used throughout this section. Then determine if the argument is sound, valid but not sound, or invalid. “Any law that uplifts human personality is just. Any law that degrades human personality is unjust. All segregation statutes are unjust because segregation distorts the soul and damages the personality. It gives the segregator a false sense of superiority, and the segregated a false sense of inferiority.” —Martin Luther King, Jr., “Letter from a Birmingham Jail”

In addition to the forms of invalid arguments, fallacious reasoning occurs in everyday logic. Some people use the fallacies described below to intentionally deceive. Others use fallacies innocently; they are not even aware they are using them. Match each description below with the example that illustrates the fallacy. The matching is one-to-one. Common Fallacies in Everyday Reasoning a. The fallacy of emotion consists of appealing to emotion (pity, force, etc.) in an argument. b. The fallacy of inappropriate authority consists of claiming that a statement is true because a person cited as an authority says it’s true or because most people believe it’s true. c. The fallacy of hasty generalization occurs when an inductive generalization is made on the basis of a few observations or an unrepresentative sample. d. The fallacy of questionable cause consists of claiming that A caused B when it is known that A occurred before B. e. The fallacy of ambiguity occurs when the conclusion of an argument is based on a word or phrase that is used in two different ways in the premises. f. The fallacy of ignorance consists of claiming that a statement is true simply because it has not been proven false, or vice versa. g. The mischaracterization fallacy consists of misrepresenting an opponent’s position or attacking the opponent rather than that person’s ideas in order to refute his or her argument. h. The slippery slope fallacy occurs when an argument reasons without justification that an event will set off a series of events leading to an undesirable consequence. i. The either/or fallacy mistakenly presents only two solutions to a problem, negates one of these either/or alternatives, and concludes that the other must be true. j. The fallacy of begging the question assumes that the conclusion is true within the premises. k. The fallacy of composition occurs when an argument moves from premises about the parts of a group to a conclusion about the whole group. It also occurs when characteristics of an entire group are mistakenly applied to parts of the group. l. The fallacy of the complex question consists of drawing a conclusion from a self-incriminating question. If we allow physician-assisted suicide for those who are terminally ill and request it, it won’t be long before society begins pressuring the old and infirm to get out of the way and make room for the young. Before long the government will be deciding who should live and who should die.

In addition to the forms of invalid arguments, fallacious reasoning occurs in everyday logic. Some people use the fallacies described below to intentionally deceive. Others use fallacies innocently; they are not even aware they are using them. Match each description below with the example that illustrates the fallacy. The matching is one-to-one. Common Fallacies in Everyday Reasoning a. The fallacy of emotion consists of appealing to emotion (pity, force, etc.) in an argument. b. The fallacy of inappropriate authority consists of claiming that a statement is true because a person cited as an authority says it’s true or because most people believe it’s true. c. The fallacy of hasty generalization occurs when an inductive generalization is made on the basis of a few observations or an unrepresentative sample. d. The fallacy of questionable cause consists of claiming that A caused B when it is known that A occurred before B. e. The fallacy of ambiguity occurs when the conclusion of an argument is based on a word or phrase that is used in two different ways in the premises. f. The fallacy of ignorance consists of claiming that a statement is true simply because it has not been proven false, or vice versa. g. The mischaracterization fallacy consists of misrepresenting an opponent’s position or attacking the opponent rather than that person’s ideas in order to refute his or her argument. h. The slippery slope fallacy occurs when an argument reasons without justification that an event will set off a series of events leading to an undesirable consequence. i. The either/or fallacy mistakenly presents only two solutions to a problem, negates one of these either/or alternatives, and concludes that the other must be true. j. The fallacy of begging the question assumes that the conclusion is true within the premises. k. The fallacy of composition occurs when an argument moves from premises about the parts of a group to a conclusion about the whole group. It also occurs when characteristics of an entire group are mistakenly applied to parts of the group. l. The fallacy of the complex question consists of drawing a conclusion from a self-incriminating question. Of course, there are extraterrestrials. Haven’t you read that article in the National Enquirer about those UFOs spotted in Texas last month?

In addition to the forms of invalid arguments, fallacious reasoning occurs in everyday logic. Some people use the fallacies described below to intentionally deceive. Others use fallacies innocently; they are not even aware they are using them. Match each description below with the example that illustrates the fallacy. The matching is one-to-one. Common Fallacies in Everyday Reasoning a. The fallacy of emotion consists of appealing to emotion (pity, force, etc.) in an argument. b. The fallacy of inappropriate authority consists of claiming that a statement is true because a person cited as an authority says it’s true or because most people believe it’s true. c. The fallacy of hasty generalization occurs when an inductive generalization is made on the basis of a few observations or an unrepresentative sample. d. The fallacy of questionable cause consists of claiming that A caused B when it is known that A occurred before B. e. The fallacy of ambiguity occurs when the conclusion of an argument is based on a word or phrase that is used in two different ways in the premises. f. The fallacy of ignorance consists of claiming that a statement is true simply because it has not been proven false, or vice versa. g. The mischaracterization fallacy consists of misrepresenting an opponent’s position or attacking the opponent rather than that person’s ideas in order to refute his or her argument. h. The slippery slope fallacy occurs when an argument reasons without justification that an event will set off a series of events leading to an undesirable consequence. i. The either/or fallacy mistakenly presents only two solutions to a problem, negates one of these either/or alternatives, and concludes that the other must be true. j. The fallacy of begging the question assumes that the conclusion is true within the premises. k. The fallacy of composition occurs when an argument moves from premises about the parts of a group to a conclusion about the whole group. It also occurs when characteristics of an entire group are mistakenly applied to parts of the group. l. The fallacy of the complex question consists of drawing a conclusion from a self-incriminating question. Either you go to college and make something of yourself, or you’ll end up as an unhappy street person. You cannot be an unhappy street person, so you should go to college.

In addition to the forms of invalid arguments, fallacious reasoning occurs in everyday logic. Some people use the fallacies described below to intentionally deceive. Others use fallacies innocently; they are not even aware they are using them. Match each description below with the example from Exercises 63–74 that illustrates the fallacy. The matching is one-to-one. Common Fallacies in Everyday Reasoning a. The fallacy of emotion consists of appealing to emotion (pity, force, etc.) in an argument. b. The fallacy of inappropriate authority consists of claiming that a statement is true because a person cited as an authority says it’s true or because most people believe it’s true. c. The fallacy of hasty generalization occurs when an inductive generalization is made on the basis of a few observations or an unrepresentative sample. d. The fallacy of questionable cause consists of claiming that A caused B when it is known that A occurred before B. e. The fallacy of ambiguity occurs when the conclusion of an argument is based on a word or phrase that is used in two different ways in the premises. f. The fallacy of ignorance consists of claiming that a statement is true simply because it has not been proven false, or vice versa. g. Themischaracterization fallacyconsists of misrepresenting an opponent’s position or attacking the opponent rather than that person’s ideas in order to refute his or her argument. h. The slippery slope fallacy occurs when an argument reasons without justification that an event will set off a series of events leading to an undesirable consequence. i. The either/or fallacy mistakenly presents only two solutions to a problem, negates one of these either/or alternatives, and concludes that the other must be true. j. The fallacy of begging the question assumes that the conclusion is true within the premises. k. The fallacy of composition occurs when an argument moves from premises about the parts of a group to a conclusion about the whole group. It also occurs when characteristics of an entire group are mistakenly applied to parts of the group. l. The fallacy of the complex question consists of drawing a conclusion from a self-incriminating question. Scientists have not proved that AIDS cannot be transmitted through casual contact. Therefore, we should avoid casual contact with suspected AIDS carriers.

In addition to the forms of invalid arguments, fallacious reasoning occurs in everyday logic. Some people use the fallacies described below to intentionally deceive. Others use fallacies innocently; they are not even aware they are using them. Match each description below with the example that illustrates the fallacy. The matching is one-to-one. Common Fallacies in Everyday Reasoning a. The fallacy of emotion consists of appealing to emotion (pity, force, etc.) in an argument. b. The fallacy of inappropriate authority consists of claiming that a statement is true because a person cited as an authority says it’s true or because most people believe it’s true. c. The fallacy of hasty generalization occurs when an inductive generalization is made on the basis of a few observations or an unrepresentative sample. d. The fallacy of questionable cause consists of claiming that A caused B when it is known that A occurred before B. e. The fallacy of ambiguity occurs when the conclusion of an argument is based on a word or phrase that is used in two different ways in the premises. f. The fallacy of ignorance consists of claiming that a statement is true simply because it has not been proven false, or vice versa. g. The mischaracterization fallacy consists of misrepresenting an opponent’s position or attacking the opponent rather than that person’s ideas in order to refute his or her argument. h. The slippery slope fallacy occurs when an argument reasons without justification that an event will set off a series of events leading to an undesirable consequence. i. The either/or fallacy mistakenly presents only two solutions to a problem, negates one of these either/or alternatives, and concludes that the other must be true. j. The fallacy of begging the question assumes that the conclusion is true within the premises. k. The fallacy of composition occurs when an argument moves from premises about the parts of a group to a conclusion about the whole group. It also occurs when characteristics of an entire group are mistakenly applied to parts of the group. l. The fallacy of the complex question consists of drawing a conclusion from a self-incriminating question. Each of my three uncles smoked two packs of cigarettes every day and they all lived into their 90s. Smoking can’t be that bad for your health.

In addition to the forms of invalid arguments, fallacious reasoning occurs in everyday logic. Some people use the fallacies described below to intentionally deceive. Others use fallacies innocently; they are not even aware they are using them. Match each description below with the example that illustrates the fallacy. The matching is one-to-one. Common Fallacies in Everyday Reasoning a. The fallacy of emotion consists of appealing to emotion (pity, force, etc.) in an argument. b. The fallacy of inappropriate authority consists of claiming that a statement is true because a person cited as an authority says it’s true or because most people believe it’s true. c. The fallacy of hasty generalization occurs when an inductive generalization is made on the basis of a few observations or an unrepresentative sample. d. The fallacy of questionable cause consists of claiming that A caused B when it is known that A occurred before B. e. The fallacy of ambiguity occurs when the conclusion of an argument is based on a word or phrase that is used in two different ways in the premises. f. The fallacy of ignorance consists of claiming that a statement is true simply because it has not been proven false, or vice versa. g. The mischaracterization fallacy consists of misrepresenting an opponent’s position or attacking the opponent rather than that person’s ideas in order to refute his or her argument. h. The slippery slope fallacy occurs when an argument reasons without justification that an event will set off a series of events leading to an undesirable consequence. i. The either/or fallacy mistakenly presents only two solutions to a problem, negates one of these either/or alternatives, and concludes that the other must be true. j. The fallacy of begging the question assumes that the conclusion is true within the premises. k. The fallacy of composition occurs when an argument moves from premises about the parts of a group to a conclusion about the whole group. It also occurs when characteristics of an entire group are mistakenly applied to parts of the group. l. The fallacy of the complex question consists of drawing a conclusion from a self-incriminating question. You once cheated on tests. I know this because when I asked you if you had stopped cheating on tests, you said yes.

In addition to the forms of invalid arguments, fallacious reasoning occurs in everyday logic. Some people use the fallacies described below to intentionally deceive. Others use fallacies innocently; they are not even aware they are using them. Match each description below with the example that illustrates the fallacy. The matching is one-to-one. Common Fallacies in Everyday Reasoning a. The fallacy of emotion consists of appealing to emotion (pity, force, etc.) in an argument. b. The fallacy of inappropriate authority consists of claiming that a statement is true because a person cited as an authority says it’s true or because most people believe it’s true. c. The fallacy of hasty generalization occurs when an inductive generalization is made on the basis of a few observations or an unrepresentative sample. d. The fallacy of questionable cause consists of claiming that A caused B when it is known that A occurred before B. e. The fallacy of ambiguity occurs when the conclusion of an argument is based on a word or phrase that is used in two different ways in the premises. f. The fallacy of ignorance consists of claiming that a statement is true simply because it has not been proven false, or vice versa. g. The mischaracterization fallacy consists of misrepresenting an opponent’s position or attacking the opponent rather than that person’s ideas in order to refute his or her argument. h. The slippery slope fallacy occurs when an argument reasons without justification that an event will set off a series of events leading to an undesirable consequence. i. The either/or fallacy mistakenly presents only two solutions to a problem, negates one of these either/or alternatives, and concludes that the other must be true. j. The fallacy of begging the question assumes that the conclusion is true within the premises. k. The fallacy of composition occurs when an argument moves from premises about the parts of a group to a conclusion about the whole group. It also occurs when characteristics of an entire group are mistakenly applied to parts of the group. l. The fallacy of the complex question consists of drawing a conclusion from a self-incriminating question. My paper is late, but I know you’ll accept it because I’ve been sick and my parents will kill me if I flunk this course.

In addition to the forms of invalid arguments, fallacious reasoning occurs in everyday logic. Some people use the fallacies described below to intentionally deceive. Others use fallacies innocently; they are not even aware they are using them. Match each description below with the example that illustrates the fallacy. The matching is one-to-one. Common Fallacies in Everyday Reasoning a. The fallacy of emotion consists of appealing to emotion (pity, force, etc.) in an argument. b. The fallacy of inappropriate authority consists of claiming that a statement is true because a person cited as an authority says it’s true or because most people believe it’s true. c. The fallacy of hasty generalization occurs when an inductive generalization is made on the basis of a few observations or an unrepresentative sample. d. The fallacy of questionable cause consists of claiming that A caused B when it is known that A occurred before B. e. The fallacy of ambiguity occurs when the conclusion of an argument is based on a word or phrase that is used in two different ways in the premises. f. The fallacy of ignorance consists of claiming that a statement is true simply because it has not been proven false, or vice versa. g. The mischaracterization fallacy consists of misrepresenting an opponent’s position or attacking the opponent rather than that person’s ideas in order to refute his or her argument. h. The slippery slope fallacy occurs when an argument reasons without justification that an event will set off a series of events leading to an undesirable consequence. i. The either/or fallacy mistakenly presents only two solutions to a problem, negates one of these either/or alternatives, and concludes that the other must be true. j. The fallacy of begging the question assumes that the conclusion is true within the premises. k. The fallacy of composition occurs when an argument moves from premises about the parts of a group to a conclusion about the whole group. It also occurs when characteristics of an entire group are mistakenly applied to parts of the group. l. The fallacy of the complex question consists of drawing a conclusion from a self-incriminating question. We’ve all heard Professor Jones tell us about how economic systems should place human needs above profit. But I’m not surprised that he neglected to tell you that he’s a communist who has visited Cuba twice. How can he possibly speak the truth about economic systems?

In addition to the forms of invalid arguments, fallacious reasoning occurs in everyday logic. Some people use the fallacies described below to intentionally deceive. Others use fallacies innocently; they are not even aware they are using them. Match each description below with the example from Exercises 63–74 that illustrates the fallacy. The matching is one-to-one. Common Fallacies in Everyday Reasoning a. The fallacy of emotion consists of appealing to emotion (pity, force, etc.) in an argument. b. The fallacy of inappropriate authority consists of claiming that a statement is true because a person cited as an authority says it’s true or because most people believe it’s true. c. The fallacy of hasty generalization occurs when an inductive generalization is made on the basis of a few observations or an unrepresentative sample. d. The fallacy of questionable cause consists of claiming that A caused B when it is known that A occurred before B. e. The fallacy of ambiguity occurs when the conclusion of an argument is based on a word or phrase that is used in two different ways in the premises. f. The fallacy of ignorance consists of claiming that a statement is true simply because it has not been proven false, or vice versa. g. The mischaracterization fallacyconsists of misrepresenting an opponent’s position or attacking the opponent rather than that person’s ideas in order to refute his or her argument. h. The slippery slope fallacy occurs when an argument reasons without justification that an event will set off a series of events leading to an undesirable consequence. i. The either/or fallacy mistakenly presents only two solutions to a problem, negates one of these either/or alternatives, and concludes that the other must be true. j. The fallacy of begging the question assumes that the conclusion is true within the premises. k. The fallacy of composition occurs when an argument moves from premises about the parts of a group to a conclusion about the whole group. It also occurs when characteristics of an entire group are mistakenly applied to parts of the group. l. The fallacy of the complex question consists of drawing a conclusion from a self-incriminating question. It’s easy to see that suicide is wrong. After all, no one is ever justified in taking his or her own life.

In addition to the forms of invalid arguments, fallacious reasoning occurs in everyday logic. Some people use the fallacies described below to intentionally deceive. Others use fallacies innocently; they are not even aware they are using them. Match each description below with the example that illustrates the fallacy. The matching is one-to-one. Common Fallacies in Everyday Reasoning a. The fallacy of emotion consists of appealing to emotion (pity, force, etc.) in an argument. b. The fallacy of inappropriate authority consists of claiming that a statement is true because a person cited as an authority says it’s true or because most people believe it’s true. c. The fallacy of hasty generalization occurs when an inductive generalization is made on the basis of a few observations or an unrepresentative sample. d. The fallacy of questionable cause consists of claiming that A caused B when it is known that A occurred before B. e. The fallacy of ambiguity occurs when the conclusion of an argument is based on a word or phrase that is used in two different ways in the premises. f. The fallacy of ignorance consists of claiming that a statement is true simply because it has not been proven false, or vice versa. g. The mischaracterization fallacy consists of misrepresenting an opponent’s position or attacking the opponent rather than that person’s ideas in order to refute his or her argument. h. The slippery slope fallacy occurs when an argument reasons without justification that an event will set off a series of events leading to an undesirable consequence. i. The either/or fallacy mistakenly presents only two solutions to a problem, negates one of these either/or alternatives, and concludes that the other must be true. j. The fallacy of begging the question assumes that the conclusion is true within the premises. k. The fallacy of composition occurs when an argument moves from premises about the parts of a group to a conclusion about the whole group. It also occurs when characteristics of an entire group are mistakenly applied to parts of the group. l. The fallacy of the complex question consists of drawing a conclusion from a self-incriminating question. The reason I hurt your arm is because you hurt me just as much by telling Dad.

In addition to the forms of invalid arguments, fallacious reasoning occurs in everyday logic. Some people use the fallacies described below to intentionally deceive. Others use fallacies innocently; they are not even aware they are using them. Match each description below with the example that illustrates the fallacy. The matching is one-to-one. Common Fallacies in Everyday Reasoning a. The fallacy of emotion consists of appealing to emotion (pity, force, etc.) in an argument. b. The fallacy of inappropriate authority consists of claiming that a statement is true because a person cited as an authority says it’s true or because most people believe it’s true. c. The fallacy of hasty generalization occurs when an inductive generalization is made on the basis of a few observations or an unrepresentative sample. d. The fallacy of questionable cause consists of claiming that A caused B when it is known that A occurred before B. e. The fallacy of ambiguity occurs when the conclusion of an argument is based on a word or phrase that is used in two different ways in the premises. f. The fallacy of ignorance consists of claiming that a statement is true simply because it has not been proven false, or vice versa. g. The mischaracterization fallacy consists of misrepresenting an opponent’s position or attacking the opponent rather than that person’s ideas in order to refute his or her argument. h. The slippery slope fallacy occurs when an argument reasons without justification that an event will set off a series of events leading to an undesirable consequence. i. The either/or fallacy mistakenly presents only two solutions to a problem, negates one of these either/or alternatives, and concludes that the other must be true. j. The fallacy of begging the question assumes that the conclusion is true within the premises. k. The fallacy of composition occurs when an argument moves from premises about the parts of a group to a conclusion about the whole group. It also occurs when characteristics of an entire group are mistakenly applied to parts of the group. l. The fallacy of the complex question consists of drawing a conclusion from a self-incriminating question. Statistics show that nearly every heroin user started out by using marijuana. It’s reasonable to conclude that smoking marijuana leads to harder drugs.

In addition to the forms of invalid arguments, fallacious reasoning occurs in everyday logic. Some people use the fallacies described below to intentionally deceive. Others use fallacies innocently; they are not even aware they are using them. Match each description below with the example that illustrates the fallacy. The matching is one-to-one. Common Fallacies in Everyday Reasoning a. The fallacy of emotion consists of appealing to emotion (pity, force, etc.) in an argument. b. The fallacy of inappropriate authority consists of claiming that a statement is true because a person cited as an authority says it’s true or because most people believe it’s true. c. The fallacy of hasty generalization occurs when an inductive generalization is made on the basis of a few observations or an unrepresentative sample. d. The fallacy of questionable cause consists of claiming that A caused B when it is known that A occurred before B. e. The fallacy of ambiguity occurs when the conclusion of an argument is based on a word or phrase that is used in two different ways in the premises. f. The fallacy of ignorance consists of claiming that a statement is true simply because it has not been proven false, or vice versa. g. The mischaracterization fallacy consists of misrepresenting an opponent’s position or attacking the opponent rather than that person’s ideas in order to refute his or her argument. h. The slippery slope fallacy occurs when an argument reasons without justification that an event will set off a series of events leading to an undesirable consequence. i. The either/or fallacy mistakenly presents only two solutions to a problem, negates one of these either/or alternatives, and concludes that the other must be true. j. The fallacy of begging the question assumes that the conclusion is true within the premises. k. The fallacy of composition occurs when an argument moves from premises about the parts of a group to a conclusion about the whole group. It also occurs when characteristics of an entire group are mistakenly applied to parts of the group. l. The fallacy of the complex question consists of drawing a conclusion from a self-incriminating question. I know, without even looking, that question #17 on this test is difficult. This is the case because the test was made up by Professor Flunkem and Flunkem’s exams are always difficult.

Describe what is meant by a valid argument.

If you are given an argument in words that contains two premises and a conclusion, describe how to determine if the argument is valid or invalid.

Write an original argument in words for the direct reasoning form.

Write an original argument in words for the contrapositive reasoning form.

Write an original argument in words for the transitive reasoning form.

What is a valid conclusion?

Write a valid argument on one of the following questions. If you can, write valid arguments on both sides. a. Should the death penalty be abolished? b. Should Roe v. Wade be overturned? c. Are online classes a good idea? d. Should marijuana be legalized? e. Should grades be abolished? f. Should same-sex marriage be legalized?

Make Sense? Based on the following argument by conservative radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh and directed at former vice president Al Gore. You would think that if Al Gore and company believe so passionately in their environmental crusading that [sic] they would first put these ideas to work in their own lives, right? … Al Gore thinks the automobile is one of the greatest threats to the planet, but he sure as heck still travels in one of them—a gas guzzler too. (See, I Told You So, p. 168) Limbaugh’s passage can be expressed in the form of an argument: If Gore really believed that the automobile were a threat to the planet, he would not travel in a gas guzzler. Gore does travel in a gas guzzler. ________________ Therefore, Gore does not really believe that the automobile is a threat to the planet. Use Limbaugh’s argument to determine whether each statement makes sense or does not make sense, and explain your reasoning. I know for a fact that Al Gore does not travel in a gas guzzler, so Limbaugh’s argument is invalid.

Make Sense? Based on the following argument by conservative radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh and directed at former vice president Al Gore. You would think that if Al Gore and company believe so passionately in their environmental crusading that [sic] they would first put these ideas to work in their own lives, right? … Al Gore thinks the automobile is one of the greatest threats to the planet, but he sure as heck still travels in one of them—a gas guzzler too. (See, I Told You So, p. 168) Limbaugh’s passage can be expressed in the form of an argument: If Gore really believed that the automobile were a threat to the planet, he would not travel in a gas guzzler. Gore does travel in a gas guzzler. ________________ Therefore, Gore does not really believe that the automobile is a threat to the planet. Use Limbaugh’s argument to determine whether each statement makes sense or does not make sense, and explain your reasoning. I think Limbaugh is a fanatic and all his arguments are invalid.

Exercises 82–85 are based on the following argument by conservative radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh and directed at former vice president Al Gore. You would think that if Al Gore and company believe so passionately in their environmental crusading that [sic] they would first put these ideas to work in their own lives, right? c Al Gore thinks the automobile is one of the greatest threats to the planet, but he sure as heck still travels in one of them—a gas guzzler too. (See, I Told You So, p. 168) Limbaugh’s passage can be expressed in the form of an argument: If Gore really believed that the automobile were a threat to the planet, he would not travel in a gas guzzler. Gore does travel in a gas guzzler. Therefore, Gore does not really believe that the automobile is a threat to the planet. In Exercises 82–85, use Limbaugh’s argument to determine whether each statement makes sense or does not make sense, and explain your reasoning. In order to avoid a long truth table and instead use a standard form of an argument, I tested the validity of Limbaugh’s argument using the following representations: p: Gore really believes that the automobile is a threat to the planet. q: He does not travel in a gas guzzler.

Make Sense? Based on the following argument by conservative radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh and directed at former vice president Al Gore. You would think that if Al Gore and company believe so passionately in their environmental crusading that [sic] they would first put these ideas to work in their own lives, right? … Al Gore thinks the automobile is one of the greatest threats to the planet, but he sure as heck still travels in one of them—a gas guzzler too. (See, I Told You So, p. 168) Limbaugh’s passage can be expressed in the form of an argument: If Gore really believed that the automobile were a threat to the planet, he would not travel in a gas guzzler. Gore does travel in a gas guzzler. ________________ Therefore, Gore does not really believe that the automobile is a threat to the planet. Use Limbaugh’s argument to determine whether each statement makes sense or does not make sense, and explain your reasoning. Using my representations in Exercise 84, I determined that Limbaugh’s argument is invalid.

Write an original argument in words that has a true conclusion, yet is invalid.

Draw a valid conclusion from the given premises. Then use a truth table to verify your answer. If you only spoke when spoken to and I only spoke when spoken to, then nobody would ever say anything. Some people do say things. Therefore, . . .

Translate the argument below into symbolic form. Then use a truth table to determine if the argument is valid or invalid. It’s wrong to smoke in public if secondary cigarette smoke is a health threat. If secondary cigarette smoke were not a health threat, the American Lung Association would not say that it is. The American Lung Association says that secondary cigarette smoke is a health threat. Therefore, it’s wrong to smoke in public.

Draw what you believe is a valid conclusion in the form of a disjunction for the following argument. Then verify that the argument is valid for your conclusion. “Inevitably, the use of the placebo involved built-in contradictions. A good patient-doctor relationship is essential to the process, but what happens to that relationship when one of the partners conceals important information from the other? If the doctor tells the truth, he destroys the base on which the placebo rests. If he doesn’t tell the truth, he jeopardizes a relationship built on trust.” —Norman Cousins, Anatomy of an Illness

. In this section, we used a variety of examples, including arguments from the Menendez trial, the inevitability of Nixon’s impeachment, Spock’s (fallacious) logic on Star Trek, and even two cartoons, to illustrate symbolic arguments. a. From any source that is of particular interest to you (these can be the words of someone you truly admire or a person who really gets under your skin), select a paragraph or two in which the writer argues a particular point. (An intriguing source is What Is Your Dangerous Idea?, edited by John Brockman, published by Harper Perennial, 2007.) Rewrite the reasoning in the form of an argument using words. Then translate the argument into symbolic form and use a truth table to determine if it is valid or invalid. b. Each group member should share the selected passage with other people in the group. Explain how it was expressed in argument form. Then tell why the argument is valid or invalid.