Reconstruct the following as a standard-form syllogism; then, determine whether it is valid using either a Venn diagram or the rules of the syllogism."Not necessarily, Mr. Dalgliesh. Suppose it's a double bluff. Suppose he's saying in effect, 'Look, I can prove I knew the Whistler was dead. Whoever killed Hilary Robarts didn't know. So why aren't you looking for someone who hadn't been told that the Whistler's body had been found?'" -P. D. James, Devices and Desires
What will be an ideal response?
I = people identical to me; W = people who knew the Whistler was dead; K = people who killed Hilary Robarts.
No W are K.
All I are W.
Therefore, no I are K.
Valid.
You might also like to view...
What is the missing premise in Anselm's argument that begins, "Therefore, if that, than which nothing greater can be conceived, exists in the understanding alone, the very being, than which nothing greater can be conceived, is one, than which a greater can be conceived," and concludes "There is no doubt that there exists a being, than which nothing greater can be conceived, and it exists both in
the understanding and in reality"? A) It is possible that humans have only imagined God's existence. B) That which exists in reality is greater than that which only exists in understanding. C) God cannot be understood by human understanding. D) God created the idea of God in the human mind.
We should be virtuous because ________, argues Colin McGinn
a. virtue will produce happiness b. virtue will produce wealth c. virtue is its own justification d. being virtuous is in our own self-interest
Moral realism would fail as a theory if
a. a more plausible theory was found b. it failed in a single instance as an effective theory c. a general agreement on moral principles is not found d. both a and c
Descartes was a soldier
Indicate whether the statement is true or false