Jan. 24

Jan. 24 - AppliedEthics Jan.24,2011 I. II. CourseMechanics

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–2. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Applied Ethics Jan. 24, 2011 I. Course Mechanics II. Introduction to Philosophical Reasoning We will be studying arguments.  Arguments have  premises  that purport give reasons for  accepting a  conclusion : Argument A: (Premise) All dogs are mammals. (Premise) Spot is a dog. (Conclusion) Therefore, Spot is a mammal. We will be examining arguments to determine whether they are  valid  and  sound .  An argument  is valid if it is not possible for the premises to be true and the conclusion false.  Argument A is  valid.  Here is an example of an invalid argument: Argument B: (Premise) Some dogs are brown. (Premise) Spot is a dog. (Conclusion) Therefore, Spot is brown. A valid argument can have false premises: Argument C: (Premise) All dogs are reptiles. (Premise) Spot is a dog. (Conclusion) Therefore, Spot is a reptile. A sound argument is valid 
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Image of page 2
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

This note was uploaded on 02/28/2011 for the course PHIL 205 taught by Professor Carter during the Spring '09 term at BYU.

Page1 / 3

Jan. 24 - AppliedEthics Jan.24,2011 I. II. CourseMechanics

This preview shows document pages 1 - 2. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online