HCCS Cyphering Syllogisms International Women Rights Paper

Description

Don't use plagiarized sources. Get Your Custom Essay on
HCCS Cyphering Syllogisms International Women Rights Paper
Just from $13/Page
Order Essay

1.The 7 syllogisms that follow all have a flaw; find it.(at the end of the pdf)2.Name the flaw: §Premise.One (or both) of the premises is false. §Inference.Both premises are true, but they do not support the conclusion. §Causal connection.The antecedent is not causally connected to the consequent. §False consequent. There is a plausible connection between antecedent and consequent, but the consequent is false. §NB:Don’t quibble!If the premise is at least plausible, grant it for the sake of argument.I promise there is another flaw there somewhere. 3.Briefly explain what the problem is in your own words.This is the most important part of the assignment—can you spot a problem and explain why it is a problem.

Cyphering Syllogisms
The Square of Opposition
Every man is wise.
All dogs go to
heaven.
Everything Tom says
is true.
Some man is wise.
Some dogs go to
heaven.
Some thing Tom says
is true.
Bill is handsome.
A
E
I
O
No man is wise.
No dog goes to heaven.
Nothing Tom says is
true.
Some man is not wise.
Some dogs do not go to
heaven.
Some things Tom says are
not true.
Bill is not handsome.
Invalidating a Standard Syllogism:
Invalidating a Conditional Syllogism:
Deny a premise:
Deny the causal connection:
1. Every cat loves water.
2. Morris is a cat.
 Morris loves water.
Invalid because the first (“major”) premise is not true.
1. If Australia is a continent, then John Wilkes Booth shot
Lincoln.
2. Australia is a continent.
 John Wilkes Booth shot Lincoln.
Both antecedent and consequent are true, but no causal
connection exists.
Deny an inference
1. “Animal” is a genus.
2. Tom is an animal.
 Tom is a genus.
Invalid because Tom is not an “animal” in the way the first
premise uses the term (i.e., as a logical category).
Deny the consequent:
1. If there is fire, then there is heat.
2. There is no heat.
There is no fire.
Note that this is a valid syllogism, but one that denies the
antecedent, which is usually the thing attempting to be
established. These arguments often take the form: “X is Y
because of Z.”
Instructions
1.
2.
The syllogisms that follow all have a flaw; find it.
Name the flaw:
▪ Premise. One (or both) of the premises is false.
▪ Inference. Both premises are true, but they do not support the
conclusion.
▪ Causal connection. The antecedent is not causally connected to the
consequent.
▪ False consequent. There is a plausible connection between
antecedent and consequent, but the consequent is false.
▪ NB: Don’t quibble! If the premise is at least plausible, grant it for the
sake of argument. I promise there is another flaw there somewhere.
3.
Briefly explain what the problem is in your own words. This is
the most important part of the assignment—can you spot a
problem and explain why it is a problem.
Example 1
Syllogism
1.
2.

All good men must come to the
aid of their country in times of
need.
But Tammi is a woman.
Tammi need not come to the
aid of her country.
Problem
Inference. “Men” in the first
premise refers to “human beings,”
not “males.”
Example 2
Syllogism
1.
2.

If someone hurts your feelings,
then that other person is
mean.
Tammi hurt Tim’s feelings.
Tammi is mean.
Problem
Causal connection. From the fact
that feelings were hurt, it does not
follow that the other person is
mean—Perhaps Tim is overlysensitive.
Example 3
Syllogism
1.
2.

If Alex has the money, then he
should go ahead and buy a
Mercedes.
Alex has the money.
Alex should by a Mercedes.
Problem
Causal connection. Having enough
money is a necessary but not
sufficient condition –there are other
conditions besides money that have
to be met.
The Square of Opposition
Every man is wise.
All dogs go to heaven.
Everything Tom says is true.
A
Some man is wise.
I
Some dogs go to heaven.
Some thing Tom says is true.
Bill is handsome.
No man is wise.
E No dog goes to heaven.
Nothing Tom says is true.
O
Some man is not wise.
Some dogs do not go to heaven.
Some thing Tom says is not true.
Bill is not handsome.
Invalidating a Standard Syllogism:
Invalidating a Conditional Syllogism:
Deny a premise:
Deny the causal connection:
1. Every cat loves water.
2. Morris is a cat.
 Morris loves water.
1. If Australia is a continent, then John Wilkes Booth shot Lincoln.
2. Australia is a continent.
 John Wilkes Booth shot Lincoln.
Invalid because the first (“major”) premise is not true.
Both antecedent and consequent are true, but no causal connection exists.
Deny an inference
Deny the consequent:
1. “Animal” is a genus.
2. Tom is an animal.
 Tom is a genus.
1. If there is fire, then there is heat.
2. There is no heat.
 There is no fire.
Invalid because Tom is not an “animal” in the way the first
premise uses the term (i.e., as a logical category).
Note that this is a valid syllogism, but one that denies the antecedent,
which is usually the thing attempting to be established. These arguments
often take the form: “X is Y because of Z.”
Instructions
1. The syllogisms that follow all have a flaw; find it.
2. Name the flaw:

Premise. One (or both) of the premises is false.

Inference. Both premises are true, but they do not support the conclusion.

Causal connection. The antecedent is not causally connected to the consequent.

False consequent. There is a plausible connection between antecedent and
consequent, but the consequent is false.

NB: Don’t quibble! If the premise is at least plausible, grant it for the sake of argument.
I promise there is another flaw there somewhere.
3. Briefly explain what the problem is in your own words. This is the most important part of the
assignment—can you spot a problem and explain why it is a problem.
Name: ___________________________________
Ethics
Prof. Condic
Cyphering Syllogisms
Argument 1
1.
Judy is a Buddhist.
2.
Tom loves Judy.

Tom loves Buddhism.
Argument 2:
1.
People in love should get married.
2.
Tom and Judy are in love.

Tom and Judy should get married.
Argument 3:
1.
All success requires hard work.
2.
Some hard work is painful.

Success is always painful.
Argument 4:
1.
All pain is bad.
2.
All success requires pain.

All Success is bad.
Argument 5:
1.
In order to be harmed, you must be aware that harm is being done to you.
2.
Tom is cheating on Judy, but Judy is not aware of Tom’s infidelity.

Tom is not harming Judy.
Argument 6:
1.
If you break the law, you are a criminal.
2.
But everyone breaks some law, and regularly.

Everyone is a criminal.
4.
Every criminal should be punished.

Everyone should be punished, and regularly.
Argument 7:
1.
If two people love each other and are in a committed relationship, then they should be
able to get married, if they want.
2.
But Tom loves his daughter, Jodi, and she loves him, and they are in a committed
relationship.

Tom and Jodi should be able to get married, if they want.

Purchase answer to see full
attachment

Order a unique copy of this paper

550 words
We'll send you the first draft for approval by September 11, 2018 at 10:52 AM
Total price:
$26
Top Academic Writers Ready to Help
with Your Research Proposal

Order your essay today and save 30% with the discount code ESSAYHELP