click below
click below
Normal Size Small Size show me how
2 be logical
INTERMEDIATE LOGIC Lessons 7-12
| Question | Answer |
|---|---|
| In a valid argument, if the premises are true, the conclusion must be | true. |
| If an argument can have TRUE premises with a FALSE conclusion, then the argument is | invalid. |
| When using truth tables to determine VALIDITY: assign the PREMISES | the value T and the CONCLUSION the value F. |
| When using truth tables to determine VALIDITY: IF there IS a contradiction, then the argument is | VALID. |
| When no forced truth values appear in a truth table for VALIDITY, you must | guess the truth value of one variable or constant. |
| When you have had to GUESS truth values in a truth table for VALIDITY, if NO CONTRADICTION occurs, then | you are done and the argument is invalid. |
| When you have had to guess truth values in a truth table for VALIDITY, if a contradiction occurs, then you must | try the other truth value for the guessed variable/constant, to see if a contradiction still occurs. |
| To say that propositions are CONSISTENT simply means that they | can be TRUE at the same time. |
| To use shorter truth tables to establish CONSISTENCY, you | assume both PREMISES are TRUE. If you do NOT get a contradiction, then they ARE consistent. |
| To test EQUIVALENCE, assume the two propositions are | NOT logically equivalent and then see if a contradiction occurs. |
| When testing for EQUIVALENCE, assign one premise the value of T and one the value of F. If NO contradiction occurs, the propositions | are NOT equivalent. |
| When testing for EQUIVALENCE, assign one premise the value of T and one the value of F. If a contradiction OCCURS, then | SWITCH the assigned truth values and try again. If a contradiction STILL occurs, then they ARE EQUIVALENT. |
| When testing for EQUIVALENCE, if a contradiction is unavoidable, then the propositions are | equivalent. |
| dilemma | a valid argument which presents a choice between two CONDITIONALS |
| Constructive dilemmas work like | modus ponens. |
| Destructive dilemmas work like | modus tollens. |
| Going between the horns of a dilemma means you DENY the disjunctive premise and PROVIDE | a THIRD alternative, somewhere between the two stated solutions. This clarifies that the dilemma is an either/or fallacy. |
| Grasping the horns of a dilemma means you REJECT | one of the CONDITIONALS in the CONJUNCTIVE premise. |
| Rebutting the horns of a dilemma means you OFFER | a COUNTER-DILEMMA. |