Venn Diagrams and the Traditional Standpoint

So in section 4.6, there were some problems that have answers in the back that I got wrong and I was hoping to get some help. This one really bugged me because I just can not seem to figure out why it is wrong.

Section II
4. It is false that some duck hunters are animal rights activists.
Therefore, some duck hunters are not animal rights activists.

So from this I derived the simple argument:
It is false that some D are A.
Therefore, some D are not A.

From the Boolean standpoint, I got that the first statement gives a shaded middle, and the second statement gives an x in the left hand box.
I got the same results when testing from the Aristotelian standpoint.

Section 4.5

So I have been working on section 4.5 since 11am this morning. I just now decided to take a break and see if anyone could help me out. I understand the traditional square of opposition and the fallacies, but I am having an extremely difficult time understanding the proving validity part. I went through and did the problems in I, II, III, and IV, but I just do not get the last part. Did anyone understand it that is willing to help me?

Thanksgiving

Happy Thanksgiving!!!


I hope everyone has a great few days off. I also hope everyone eats a lot of good homecooked food :). On Friday or Saturday I will post again and take some Thanksgiving discussions and post them up so we can talk about them. Have some fun :)

Chapter 4

Here are a few examples from section 4.4. See if you can figure out whether they are conversions, obversions, or contrapositions and then state the truth value.

1. Some astronomers are interested in biology.
Therefore, some biologists are interested in astronomy.

2. No families are perfect.
Therefore, no imperfections are non- families.

3. All people who know how to swim are competitive swimmers.
Therefore, all competitive swimmers are people who know how to swim.

4. Some hired assassins are just average human beings.
Therefore, some hired assassins are not just average human beings.

What do you think?

Midterm

I finally figured out logic... at least to some point. I managed to get an 87% by studying for hours and hours and then taking the test. The only multiple choice questions I got wrong were 16,18, and 20. Then, I just made the mistake of saying the third argument was a valid one and did not provide a counterexample. All in all, I am happy with my grade as I saw a significant improvement since the quizzes.

What did you guys think of the midterm?

Studying for the midterm

I think I have decided what I am going to do to prepare myself for the midterm and I am just curious to know if you guys agree with my way of doing it. I plan to do as professor Silliman said and write out the informal fallacies over and over again until the night before the test. I also plan to go over the notes I have taken from each section numerous times and make sure all of the information makes sense to me. After that, I plan to go all the way back to section 1.1 and do all of the starred problems up to section 3.5. By doing this, I hope to be able to find my weaknesses and strengthen them by Monday when we have the test.

Good, bad, any thoughts ?

Committed to Safe City Streets

Saturday November 5, 2011

Our city is well poised in Berkshire County, with its cultural institutions and beautiful landscapes of lakes and mountains, to attract new businesses. However, I’m very concerned about the recent increase in crime.

This is not an asset for attracting people to Pittsfield. When is there going to be a leader in City Hall who will address this issue head-on? I’ve watched the debates on PCTV, listened to the radio and read the newspaper and the only candidate who appears to have a real plan to tackle crime is Dan Bianchi. Dan has stressed the need of collaboration between Pittsfield law enforcement, the sheriff’s office, local police departments and the state.

Join me on Nov. 8 in voting for Dan Bianchi because he is committed to addressing crime in our community and making our streets safe.

REBECCA KNOX

Pittsfield

http://www.berkshireeagle.com/letters/ci_19269178 

Does anybody detect any fallacies here? I actually did not find any.