Here is an argument with an unstated premise or conclusion. Translate it into a standard-form syllogism and determine whether the reasoning is valid.Some family men are not gamblers, since no gamblers are prudes.
What will be an ideal response?
No gamblers are prudes; [some family men are prudes]; therefore, some family men are not gamblers. Valid.
You might also like to view...
Which is the correct formula for, "It isn't true that Nigeria's being in Africa implies that if both Italy is in Europe and Japan in Asia, then Canada is not in North America"
where C = Canada is in North America, I = Italy is in Europe, J = Japan is in Asia, and N = Nigeria is in Africa? A) ~ {N ? [(I ? J) ? ~C]} B) ~ N ? [(I ? J) ? ~C] C) ~ {N ? (I ? J) ? ~C}
Socrates explains that he is ‘wise’ in that
a. he knows what the gods know [the good] b. he knows what his 'inner voice' tells him c. he knows what he does not know [the good] d. the way the craftsmen know their craft, he knows the good e. he knows not only the sciences, but the good
Buddhism came to Tibet in the fourteenth century
Indicate whether the statement is true or false.
Identify any fallacies in the following passage either by naming them or, where they seem not to conform to any of the patterns described in the text, by giving a brief explanation of why the fallacious reasoning is irrelevant to the point at issue."This new Honda gets better mileage than any other car in its class. After all, Honda has completely redesigned the engine."
What will be an ideal response?