• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Calling all Philosophy Students.

F

FFactory0x

Diamond Member
Im stuck on this problem. I must determine the valitdity of it. Use Aristolelian syllogistic or propostional logic as nescassry. For all arguements approached via Aristoleian logic identify all the rules violated. For propositinal logic construct truth tables as needed.

Here are 2 outta the 10 i cant get.

A. Because pretzals are salty, its not the case that both apples are sweet and apples are not sweet.


B. Some racists are not persons suited to be immigration officials given that some humanitarians are not persons suited to be immigration officials and ni humanitarians are racists
 
Originally posted by: FFactory0x
Im stuck on this problem. I must determine the valitdity of it. Use Aristolelian syllogistic or propostional logic as nescassry. For all arguements approached via Aristoleian logic identify all the rules violated. For propositinal logic construct truth tables as needed.

Here are 2 outta the 10 i cant get.

A. Because pretzals are salty, its not the case that both apples are sweet and apples are not sweet.


B. Some racists are not persons suited to be immigration officials given that some humanitarians are not persons suited to be immigration officials and ni humanitarians are racists
Click to expand...
I wouldnt put this down verbatim, but here is what I can tell you.

Pretzels are salty = S
Apples are sweet = W

S -> ~(W v ~W)
S -> (~W ^ W)

The second statement (W v ~W) is a tautology. Negating it will equal "it is the case that apples are not sweet and they are sweet", which is a contradiction. Which completely has nothing to do with pretzels being salty. No rules are broken per se, but the inference cannot be drawn.


Suited to be an immigration official = S
Racist = R
Humanitarian = H

Given = If H, then ~R.

Well, to be honest, I've totally forgot how to represent some. But I can tell you for sure, that given the information, you can not say for sure. No humanitarians are racist, so you cannot base the fact that racists are not suited to be immigration officals, because the only information you have on whether or not someone is suiteable to be an IO is that theyre a humanitarian, and they are not racist. So any information based on that, will not allow you to draw any valid inferences. 🙂
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top