MULTIPLE ASSIGNMENTS: CLASSICAL LOGIC

Assignment 1:

Write a 150- to 350-word summary of the differences between deductive and inductive arguments. Format APA guidelines.

Assignment 2:

5.4 EXERCISES For each of the following examples of induction or analogical reasoning, decide whether or not the argument is valid in light of the standards discussed in 5.2 and 5.3. Explain your answer. (APA FORMAT. NO WORD MIN)

1. A random sample of 1,000 Oregonians found that 51% favored the war in Iraq. Therefore, 49% of all Oregonians are opposed to the war.

2. “Now if we survey the universe, so far as it falls under our knowledge, it bears a great resemblance to an animal or organized body, and seems actuated with a like principle of life and motion. A continual circulation of matter in it produces no disorder: a continual waste in every part is incessantly repaired; the closest sympathy is perceived throughout the entire system: and each part or member, in performing its proper offices, operated both to its own preservation and to that of the whole. The world, therefore, I infer, is an animal, and the Deity is the soul of the world actuating it, and actuated by it.” (Hume, 1779, 82-3)

3. Among the students taking the history of philosophy this term, John, Shane, Michael, Roberta, Ofelia, Louise, Abigail, Suzanne, and Flora prefer the philosophy of Kant to that of Hegel. I have yet to talk with Jennifer and Martin, but I suspect that they will prefer Kant as well.

Assignment 3:

5.6.1. In each of the following decide whether the cause mentioned is a necessary condition, a sufficient condition, both or neither. (NO WORD MIN)

5. Carlos Rodriguez has U.S. citizenship because he was born in the state of New Mexico.

8. Attacking a sovereign nation for non-self-defense reasons and without an authorization for military intervention from the United Nations Security Council will cause a nation to be in violation of international law.

Assignment 4:

6.7.1. Symbolize each argument using the letters suggested. Construct formal deductions for the valid arguments below. Each of these can also be proven using the method of truth-trees.

3. If the president of the university meets with the activists and he accepts their demands, then the diversity plan will be instituted. The president, in fact, accepts the demands. If the diversity plan is accepted, then both resources will be available and there will be no more protests. The president meets with the activists. Therefore, there will be no more protests. (P: The president meets with the activists. A: The president accepts the demands. D: The diversity plan will be accepted. R: Resources will be available. N: There will be protests.)

4. Everyone can tell right from wrong. But if moral judgment is a personal matter, then there is no moral law. Of course, there is a moral law, if J. S. Mill was correct. If everyone can tell right from wrong, then Mill was correct. Therefore, moral judgment is not a personal matter. (E: Everyone can tell right from wrong. P: Moral judgment is a personal matter. L: There is a moral law. M: Mill was correct.)

5. Cindy can go to the coast this weekend or she can stay at home; she cannot do both. If she wants to study, then she will need to stay home. If she wants to pass the class, then she wants to study. She definitely wants to pass the class. Therefore, she cannot go to the coast. (C: Cindy can go to the coast this weekend. H: Cindy can stay home this weekend. P: Cindy wants to pass. S: Cindy wants to study.)

6.7.2. Prove the following problems for practice. Here the uppercase letters indicate particular assertions that represent arguments that could be given in ordinary language. Rather than “translate” these arguments from ordinary language to start, we will simply begin with them represented in standard form.

1. A | B ∴ ¬B ∨ ¬A

2. C | D, C ∴ ¬D ∨ E

3. (A ⊃ B) | C, C ∴ A

4. (F ⊃ G) | (¬G ⊃ C) ∴ F ⊃ ¬C

5. ¬(A ⊃ B) ∴ A