# AS 2 - AS 2 Name Liu Jialin Student no 301091398 Number 2...

This preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: AS 2: Name: Liu Jialin Student no. 301091398 Number 2 in page 79 A . 1. 2. 3. 1. 2. 3. B. 1. If you didn’t pass the test, then you didn’t pass the course. 2. You didn’t pass the test. 3. You did pass the course. Argument Pattern 1. 2. 3. If ~P then Q ~P Q Either it will rain tomorrow or it will snow tomorrow. It will not rain tomorrow. It will snow tomorrow. Either P or Q. ~P Q ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­ Argument Pattern (using Elimination): ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­ This argument pattern is valid. ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­ This argument pattern is invalid. Here’s a parallel case to demonstrate the invalidity. 1. 2. 3. C. 1. If crime pays, then criminals are rich. 2. Crime pays. 3. Criminals are rich. Argument Pattern (Used Affirming the antecedent ) 1. 2. 3. If P then Q. P Q This argument pattern is valid. If the student not in SFU the student not in Vancouver B.C. The student not in SFU. The student in Vancouver B.C. ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­ D. 1. Some philosophers are fast runners. 2. Some fast runners have beards. ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­ 3.Some philosophers have beards. Argument Pattern 1. 2. 3. E. 1. All penguins can fly. 2. Tweety bird is a penguin. ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­ 3.Tweety bird can fly. Argument Pattern use Hypothetical syllogism. 1. 2. 3. P is Q R is P R is Q P is Q Q have R P have R ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­ This argument pattern is invalid. ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­ This argument pattern is valid. F 1. 2. 3. 1. 2. 3. If Jack is in Hollywood, then Jack is in California. Jack is not in Hollywood. Jack is in California. If P then Q. ~P. Q. ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­ Argument Pattern ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­ This argument pattern is valid. G. 1. If Jack is in Hollywood, then Jack is in California. 2. Jack is in Hollywood. ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­ 3.Jack is not in California. Argument Pattern (Used Affirming the antecedent) 1. 2. 3. If P the Q. P Q ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­ This argument pattern is valid. H. 1 If Jack is in Hollywood, then Jack is in California. 2. Jack is in California. ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­ 3.Jack is in Hollywood. Argument Pattern 1. 2. 3. If P then Q. Q P ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­ This argument pattern is invalid. Here’s a parallel case to demonstrate the invalidity. 1. 2. 3. I 1. 2. 3. 1. 2. 3. If Jack is in Hollywood, then Jack is in California. Jack is not in California. Jack is not in Hollywood If P then Q. ~Q ~P If the student in live in SFU then the student Vancouver B.C. The student live in Vancouver B.C. The student live in SFU. ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­ Argument Pattern(Used Denying the consequent) ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­ This argument pattern is valid. J. 1. Either it will rain or it will snow. 2. If it rains, then the ground will get wet. 3. If it snows, then the ground will get wet. ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­ 4. 1. 2. 3. 4. The ground will get wet. Either P or Q. P is R. Q is R. R. Argument Pattern ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­ This argument pattern is valid. K 1. 2. 3. 4. 1. 2. 3. 4. M. 1. If Jones studies , then Jones will pass. 2. 3. 4. 1. 2. If Jones passes, then Smith will be surprised. Jones will not study. Smith will not be surprised. If P then Q. If Q then R. If Jones studies , then Jones will pass. If Jones passes, then Smith will be surprised. Jones will study. Smith will be surprised. If P then Q. If Q then R. P. R. ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­ Argument Pattern ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­ This argument pattern is valid. ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­ Argument Pattern 3. ~P. ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­ 4. ~R. This argument pattern is invalid. Here’s a parallel case to demonstrate the invalidity. 1. 2. If David buy a CD then David will listen the CD. If David listen the CD then Helen will feel relax. 3. 4. David did not buy the CD Helen will not feel relax. ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­ The premises 1 2 &3 are true. But the 4 is false. As David did not buy the CD not means Helen not feel relax. She can to flower the other things to relax. N 1. All animals have four legs. 2. All fish are animals. ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­ 4. 1. 2. 3. All fish have four legs. If P have Q. R is P R is Q Argument Pattern ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­ This argument pattern is invalid. Here’s a parallel case to demonstrate the invalidity. 1. 2. 3. O 1. 2. 3. 1. 2. 3. 1. 2. 3. P. 1. No birds can fly. 2.This robin is a bird. ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­ All birds can fly. Rover can’t fly. Rover is not a bird. P is Q. R is ~Q. R is ~P. A dog have tail. Jacky (a dog) havenot tail. Jacky isnot a dog. All the man have mustache. Your farther have mustache. Have mustache is your farther. ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­ ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­ Argument Pattern ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­ This argument pattern is invalid. ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­ 3.This robin can’t fly. This argument pattern is invalid. ...
View Full Document

## This note was uploaded on 06/27/2010 for the course PHIL philoXX1 taught by Professor Harbon during the Fall '08 term at Simon Fraser.

Ask a homework question - tutors are online