Syllogism 1G Given the following syllogism: Some bad judges are lawyers, since some lawyers are prejudiced magistrates, and all good judges are unprejudiced magistrates. After reducing the number of terms in Syllogism 1G, the conclusion is:
A) Some L are G.
B) Some G are not L.
C) No G are P.
D) Some L are not G.
E) All G are P.
D
You might also like to view...
The South African-state-sponsored Truth and Reconciliation Committee set up a systems of truth-telling and amnesty that provided a way for the country to start healing; this is an example of _________________________
a. retributive justice b. reparative justice c. distributive justice d. reallocation
Is the argument represented by "C ? (D ? E), D v E .•. C" valid or invalid? Which specific rows, if any, are relevant to answering this?
A) invalid; 5th, 6th, and 7th rows B) invalid; 1st and 3rd rows C) valid; it has no rows showing invalidity
Syllogism 1E Given the following syllogism: Some workers without papers are licensed drivers, so some workers with papers are not documented citizens, for some undocumented citizens are not unlicensed drivers. For Syllogism 1E, the major premise is:
A) Some documented citizens are not licensed drivers. B) Some licensed drivers are not workers with papers. C) Some workers with papers are not licensed drivers. D) Some workers with papers are not documented citizens. E) Some licensed drivers are not documented citizens.
Who were the sophists, and why did they oppose Socrates?
I know they are a group in Greece and what else?