Paper Topic 3
For this paper I will break down the following argument in terms of validity and soundness:
If an argument has a true conclusion, then it is both valid and sound. If an argument is sound, then it is valid. An argument will have a true conclusion if it is sound. An argument has a false conclusion only if it is valid. If an argument has a false conclusion, then it is invalid. An argument is both valid and invalid. Therefore, an argument is sound if and only if it is sound.
I have prepared a dictionary to more clearly distinguish the different premises. Here is my dictionary is standard logical form.
“C” represents a consistent premise
“S” represents a sound argument
“V” represents a valid argument
Here is the argument in standard logical form.
V→S
(V&C) →S
S→C
~C→(V&~S)
~S→~V
V&~V
C→C
The truth tables for the previous arguments can be located in the appendix. The truth table is used to examine the validity of the arguments. All of the arguments are valid because there are no occurrences in which the premises are true and the conclusion is false.
Using two examples from the truth table I can explain why they are valid.
V & ~V C → C
T F F T T T
T F F T T T
T F F F T F
T F F F T F
F F T T T T
F F T T T T
F F T F T F
F F T F T F
…show more content…
There are two conditions a statement must meet to be valid. The first is that all premises must be true and secondly the statements conclusion must be false. A contradiction statement is false in every connotation making it logically false. Within the truth table there happens to be contradictions. For V&~V the conclusions are false in every statement. The opposite of a contradiction is a tautology. A tautology is when every interpretation is true. In the example of C→C the first condition is not met because there are four instances where both premises are false but the conclusion is
Summary of Argument: This part of the brief is the summary of the main points that were made (Statsky, pg. 545).
The argument posited by Sider (S1) can be seen as an argument by elimination, where the premises if accepted, reject the possibility of S2 and S3. As such, the argument suffers from whether the re...
If I would make any proposition whatever [P], then by that I would have a logical error [E]...
Premise one is a generalized argument, premise two is a specific argument, and the conclusion is the result of both premises. An explanation is due to be provided for how the argument posed obeys the two rules for a good argument. There are two rules for a good argument:
Then, he characterizes this rule as something that always and necessarily follows. Also, this rule must make the
3. A belief is justified for a person only if he is in cognitive possession of such a reason.
All these arguments when analyzed are valid. This has brought about ethics issues that are involved with increased use and r...
Your refutation might have been more effective if you had chosen a single claim to refute instead of nine claims. Still you have made a fine effort.]
Part B: Identify specific information from your sources that can be used as supporting evidence in
...d the evidence that you have used. Weigh up the two (or more) sides of the argument.
For the purposes of this debate, I take the sign of a poor argument to be that the negation of the premises are more plausible than their affirmations. With that in mind, kohai must demonstrate that the following premises are probably false:
Most people aren’t familiar with ways our government is trying to lower health care costs of the homeless by putting them in houses, here is their chance to learn. “Housing First” approaches are aimed at reducing the number of homeless people in metropolitan cities, especially in USA and Canada. In Tulsa, the Mental Health Association operates housing models that are successful using the Housing First approach, but only with a success rate of around nine percent. These programs are able to help people achieve self-sufficiency. Special consideration is given to people who have mental illnesses. The main advantage of the approach is it makes an efficient use of the existing systems and services, and then eliminates the need for new ones. The approach has been said to lead to better quality of life, less alcohol and substance use among the beneficiaries, and less use of emergency services by the beneficiaries. Despite all of the advantages and purposes, the program has many challenges that make one think it’s not as successful as first projected. This could lead to program loss or the challenges being dealt with appropriately. If the government wants to use money to help end homelessness, they should put it towards resources and organizations that can, not towards homes where the homeless go to be ignored.
This structure shows the two initial premises which he argues, in detail, to be correct and in the case that they are correct a logically valid conclusion.
The following is a summary of the aspects of the problem of induction as presented in the Enquiry which concern my discussion.
In this argument, if “employees have a duty of loyalty to the companies that employ them” is considered the p and “it is rational for employees to expect companies to recognize and fulfill a duty of loyalty to their employees” will be the q. It continues to follow that q is false as it is not rational for employees to expect companies to recognize and fulfill loyalty to their employees. The logical form ends with not p as “It is false that employees have a duty of loyalty to the companies that employ them”. It is known that this argument is deductively valid but in order to show that the conclusion is also true, it must be true that the argument is deductively sound. An example of a deductively valid argument would be as following: Premise 1) All mammals have four feet; Premise 2) Lions are mammals; Conclusion) Therefore, Lions have four feet. Premise 1 in this argument is true, mammals do have four feet, Premise 2 is also true, Lions are mammals, and therefore the conclusion is also true that Lions have four feet. With these true premises leading to a true conclusion help us understand