Consider this argument: “If something is a fritztang, then it is a krilling. Zorrie is not a fritztang. Therefore, Zorrie is not a krilling.” Something is wrong with this argument. What is it?
a. The argument is invalid because there is no such thing as a “fritztang.”
b. The argument is weak because Zorrie might be a “fritztang.”
c. The argument is invalid because it denies the consquent of the major premise.
d. The argument is invalid because it affirms that a fritztang is a krilling.
ANS: C
You might also like to view...
According to Wolf, in analyzing euthanasia we should consider justice and _____:
a. compassion b. care c. beneficence d. abstractions
Jesus' explanation of "neighbor" in the Gospel of Luke comes in the form of the parable of the
A. Roman centurion B. good Samaritan C. lonely widow D. prodigal son E. tax collector and Zacchaeus
Who told Gilgamesh how to find the plant of immortality?
a. Enkidu b. Enlil c. Dumuzi d. Utnapishtim
Which view did Aquinas accept?
What will be an ideal response?