Mixing
Is this argument valid?
Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
Is this argument valid?
- No one under 18 is permitted to vote.
- No faculty member is under 18.
- The philosophy chairperson is a faculty member.
- Conclusion: The philosophy chairperson is permitted to vote.
My answer was it is not valid because the conclusion don't follow from the premises.
logic
edited 5 hours ago
Eliran H
4,02521133
asked 6 hours ago
Abdullah O. Alfaqir
84
New contributor
Abdullah O. Alfaqir is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
Is this argument valid?
- No one under 18 is permitted to vote.
- No faculty member is under 18.
- The philosophy chairperson is a faculty member.
- Conclusion: The philosophy chairperson is permitted to vote.
My answer was it is not valid because the conclusion don't follow from the premises.
logic
edited 5 hours ago
Eliran H
4,02521133
asked 6 hours ago
Abdullah O. Alfaqir
84
New contributor
Abdullah O. Alfaqir is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
Wait. Philosophy chairperson is a faculty member -> philosophy chairperson is 18 years old or older -> philosophy chairperson is permitted to vote. The argument is sound. And "the conclusion don't follow from the premises." is not what validity means.
– rus9384
5 hours ago
I'm sorry, to avoid gamesmanship here on the forum... are you asking about the argument ending in "Then the philosophy chairperson..." ? or the one ending in "My answer was it is not..."?
– elliot svensson
5 hours ago
I'm asking if my answer was correct or not
– Abdullah O. Alfaqir
5 hours ago
What you might need to add is why the conclusion does not follow from the premises, not just assert that it doesn't follow from the premises. What were your reasons? Welcome to this SE!
– Frank Hubeny
1 hour ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
Is this argument valid?
- No one under 18 is permitted to vote.
- No faculty member is under 18.
- The philosophy chairperson is a faculty member.
- Conclusion: The philosophy chairperson is permitted to vote.
My answer was it is not valid because the conclusion don't follow from the premises.
logic
edited 5 hours ago
Eliran H
4,02521133
asked 6 hours ago
Abdullah O. Alfaqir
84
New contributor
Abdullah O. Alfaqir is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
Is this argument valid?
- No one under 18 is permitted to vote.
- No faculty member is under 18.
- The philosophy chairperson is a faculty member.
- Conclusion: The philosophy chairperson is permitted to vote.
My answer was it is not valid because the conclusion don't follow from the premises.
logic
logic
edited 5 hours ago
Eliran H
4,02521133
asked 6 hours ago
Abdullah O. Alfaqir
84
New contributor
Abdullah O. Alfaqir is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
edited 5 hours ago
Eliran H
4,02521133
asked 6 hours ago
Abdullah O. Alfaqir
84
New contributor
Abdullah O. Alfaqir is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
edited 5 hours ago
Eliran H
4,02521133
edited 5 hours ago
Eliran H
4,02521133
edited 5 hours ago
Eliran H
4,02521133
4,02521133
asked 6 hours ago
Abdullah O. Alfaqir
84
New contributor
Abdullah O. Alfaqir is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
asked 6 hours ago
Abdullah O. Alfaqir
84
asked 6 hours ago
Abdullah O. Alfaqir
84
84
New contributor
Abdullah O. Alfaqir is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
New contributor
Abdullah O. Alfaqir is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
Abdullah O. Alfaqir is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
Wait. Philosophy chairperson is a faculty member -> philosophy chairperson is 18 years old or older -> philosophy chairperson is permitted to vote. The argument is sound. And "the conclusion don't follow from the premises." is not what validity means.
– rus9384
5 hours ago
I'm sorry, to avoid gamesmanship here on the forum... are you asking about the argument ending in "Then the philosophy chairperson..." ? or the one ending in "My answer was it is not..."?
– elliot svensson
5 hours ago
I'm asking if my answer was correct or not
– Abdullah O. Alfaqir
5 hours ago
What you might need to add is why the conclusion does not follow from the premises, not just assert that it doesn't follow from the premises. What were your reasons? Welcome to this SE!
– Frank Hubeny
1 hour ago
add a comment |Â
Wait. Philosophy chairperson is a faculty member -> philosophy chairperson is 18 years old or older -> philosophy chairperson is permitted to vote. The argument is sound. And "the conclusion don't follow from the premises." is not what validity means.
– rus9384
5 hours ago
I'm sorry, to avoid gamesmanship here on the forum... are you asking about the argument ending in "Then the philosophy chairperson..." ? or the one ending in "My answer was it is not..."?
– elliot svensson
5 hours ago
I'm asking if my answer was correct or not
– Abdullah O. Alfaqir
5 hours ago
What you might need to add is why the conclusion does not follow from the premises, not just assert that it doesn't follow from the premises. What were your reasons? Welcome to this SE!
– Frank Hubeny
1 hour ago
Wait. Philosophy chairperson is a faculty member -> philosophy chairperson is 18 years old or older -> philosophy chairperson is permitted to vote. The argument is sound. And "the conclusion don't follow from the premises." is not what validity means.
– rus9384
5 hours ago
Wait. Philosophy chairperson is a faculty member -> philosophy chairperson is 18 years old or older -> philosophy chairperson is permitted to vote. The argument is sound. And "the conclusion don't follow from the premises." is not what validity means.
– rus9384
5 hours ago
I'm sorry, to avoid gamesmanship here on the forum... are you asking about the argument ending in "Then the philosophy chairperson..." ? or the one ending in "My answer was it is not..."?
– elliot svensson
5 hours ago
I'm sorry, to avoid gamesmanship here on the forum... are you asking about the argument ending in "Then the philosophy chairperson..." ? or the one ending in "My answer was it is not..."?
– elliot svensson
5 hours ago
I'm asking if my answer was correct or not
– Abdullah O. Alfaqir
5 hours ago
I'm asking if my answer was correct or not
– Abdullah O. Alfaqir
5 hours ago
What you might need to add is why the conclusion does not follow from the premises, not just assert that it doesn't follow from the premises. What were your reasons? Welcome to this SE!
– Frank Hubeny
1 hour ago
What you might need to add is why the conclusion does not follow from the premises, not just assert that it doesn't follow from the premises. What were your reasons? Welcome to this SE!
– Frank Hubeny
1 hour ago
add a comment |Â
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
up vote
3
down vote
accepted
The argument is invalid. In fact, it's an instance of the fallacy of denying the antecedent.
To see this, we can formalize the argument as follows:
- Under-18 → not Permitted
- Faculty → not Under-18
- Chair is Faculty
From 2 and 3 we can deduce that Chair is not under 18. But we cannot then deduce from this and 1 that Chair is permitted to vote: that would commit the fallacy of denying the antecedent.
Another way to see that the argument is invalid is to imagine a scenario where the premises are true and the conclusion is false. For example, the chairperson might not be permitted to vote because they are not a citizen (which isn't ruled out by the premises). If it's possible for the premises to be true and the conclusion false, then the argument is invalid.
answered 5 hours ago
Eliran H
4,02521133
I used the star test by Harry j. Gensler and that's why my answer was invalid.
– Abdullah O. Alfaqir
5 hours ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
I arrived at the same conclusion (invalidity) as Eliran H, but for a different reason. The premises are insufficient to show, affirmatively, that persons 18 years old and older are permitted to vote. Missing that information, the reasoning fails.
Here are my notes on my attempt to reason it through:
- If Person is Underage, then they are not permitted to Vote.
1.1 If Person is permitted to Vote, then they are not Underage. Contrapositive of #1 (looking for an affirmative statement about voting).
If Person is Faculty, then they are not Underage.
If Person is Chairperson, then they are Faculty.
Partial (valid) Conclusion: If Person is Chairperson, then they are not Underage. (#2 + #3)
- Final (failed) Conclusion: If Person is Chairperson, then they are permitted to Vote.
answered 44 mins ago
Mark Andrews
2,170621
add a comment |Â
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
3
down vote
accepted
The argument is invalid. In fact, it's an instance of the fallacy of denying the antecedent.
To see this, we can formalize the argument as follows:
- Under-18 → not Permitted
- Faculty → not Under-18
- Chair is Faculty
From 2 and 3 we can deduce that Chair is not under 18. But we cannot then deduce from this and 1 that Chair is permitted to vote: that would commit the fallacy of denying the antecedent.
Another way to see that the argument is invalid is to imagine a scenario where the premises are true and the conclusion is false. For example, the chairperson might not be permitted to vote because they are not a citizen (which isn't ruled out by the premises). If it's possible for the premises to be true and the conclusion false, then the argument is invalid.
answered 5 hours ago
Eliran H
4,02521133
I used the star test by Harry j. Gensler and that's why my answer was invalid.
– Abdullah O. Alfaqir
5 hours ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
3
down vote
accepted
The argument is invalid. In fact, it's an instance of the fallacy of denying the antecedent.
To see this, we can formalize the argument as follows:
- Under-18 → not Permitted
- Faculty → not Under-18
- Chair is Faculty
From 2 and 3 we can deduce that Chair is not under 18. But we cannot then deduce from this and 1 that Chair is permitted to vote: that would commit the fallacy of denying the antecedent.
Another way to see that the argument is invalid is to imagine a scenario where the premises are true and the conclusion is false. For example, the chairperson might not be permitted to vote because they are not a citizen (which isn't ruled out by the premises). If it's possible for the premises to be true and the conclusion false, then the argument is invalid.
answered 5 hours ago
Eliran H
4,02521133
I used the star test by Harry j. Gensler and that's why my answer was invalid.
– Abdullah O. Alfaqir
5 hours ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
3
down vote
accepted
up vote
3
down vote
accepted
The argument is invalid. In fact, it's an instance of the fallacy of denying the antecedent.
To see this, we can formalize the argument as follows:
- Under-18 → not Permitted
- Faculty → not Under-18
- Chair is Faculty
From 2 and 3 we can deduce that Chair is not under 18. But we cannot then deduce from this and 1 that Chair is permitted to vote: that would commit the fallacy of denying the antecedent.
Another way to see that the argument is invalid is to imagine a scenario where the premises are true and the conclusion is false. For example, the chairperson might not be permitted to vote because they are not a citizen (which isn't ruled out by the premises). If it's possible for the premises to be true and the conclusion false, then the argument is invalid.
answered 5 hours ago
Eliran H
4,02521133
The argument is invalid. In fact, it's an instance of the fallacy of denying the antecedent.
To see this, we can formalize the argument as follows:
- Under-18 → not Permitted
- Faculty → not Under-18
- Chair is Faculty
From 2 and 3 we can deduce that Chair is not under 18. But we cannot then deduce from this and 1 that Chair is permitted to vote: that would commit the fallacy of denying the antecedent.
Another way to see that the argument is invalid is to imagine a scenario where the premises are true and the conclusion is false. For example, the chairperson might not be permitted to vote because they are not a citizen (which isn't ruled out by the premises). If it's possible for the premises to be true and the conclusion false, then the argument is invalid.
answered 5 hours ago
Eliran H
4,02521133
answered 5 hours ago
Eliran H
4,02521133
answered 5 hours ago
Eliran H
4,02521133
answered 5 hours ago
Eliran H
4,02521133
4,02521133
I used the star test by Harry j. Gensler and that's why my answer was invalid.
– Abdullah O. Alfaqir
5 hours ago
add a comment |Â
I used the star test by Harry j. Gensler and that's why my answer was invalid.
– Abdullah O. Alfaqir
5 hours ago
I used the star test by Harry j. Gensler and that's why my answer was invalid.
– Abdullah O. Alfaqir
5 hours ago
I used the star test by Harry j. Gensler and that's why my answer was invalid.
– Abdullah O. Alfaqir
5 hours ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
I arrived at the same conclusion (invalidity) as Eliran H, but for a different reason. The premises are insufficient to show, affirmatively, that persons 18 years old and older are permitted to vote. Missing that information, the reasoning fails.
Here are my notes on my attempt to reason it through:
- If Person is Underage, then they are not permitted to Vote.
1.1 If Person is permitted to Vote, then they are not Underage. Contrapositive of #1 (looking for an affirmative statement about voting).
If Person is Faculty, then they are not Underage.
If Person is Chairperson, then they are Faculty.
Partial (valid) Conclusion: If Person is Chairperson, then they are not Underage. (#2 + #3)
- Final (failed) Conclusion: If Person is Chairperson, then they are permitted to Vote.
answered 44 mins ago
Mark Andrews
2,170621
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
I arrived at the same conclusion (invalidity) as Eliran H, but for a different reason. The premises are insufficient to show, affirmatively, that persons 18 years old and older are permitted to vote. Missing that information, the reasoning fails.
Here are my notes on my attempt to reason it through:
- If Person is Underage, then they are not permitted to Vote.
1.1 If Person is permitted to Vote, then they are not Underage. Contrapositive of #1 (looking for an affirmative statement about voting).
If Person is Faculty, then they are not Underage.
If Person is Chairperson, then they are Faculty.
Partial (valid) Conclusion: If Person is Chairperson, then they are not Underage. (#2 + #3)
- Final (failed) Conclusion: If Person is Chairperson, then they are permitted to Vote.
answered 44 mins ago
Mark Andrews
2,170621
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
up vote
1
down vote
I arrived at the same conclusion (invalidity) as Eliran H, but for a different reason. The premises are insufficient to show, affirmatively, that persons 18 years old and older are permitted to vote. Missing that information, the reasoning fails.
Here are my notes on my attempt to reason it through:
- If Person is Underage, then they are not permitted to Vote.
1.1 If Person is permitted to Vote, then they are not Underage. Contrapositive of #1 (looking for an affirmative statement about voting).
If Person is Faculty, then they are not Underage.
If Person is Chairperson, then they are Faculty.
Partial (valid) Conclusion: If Person is Chairperson, then they are not Underage. (#2 + #3)
- Final (failed) Conclusion: If Person is Chairperson, then they are permitted to Vote.
answered 44 mins ago
Mark Andrews
2,170621
I arrived at the same conclusion (invalidity) as Eliran H, but for a different reason. The premises are insufficient to show, affirmatively, that persons 18 years old and older are permitted to vote. Missing that information, the reasoning fails.
Here are my notes on my attempt to reason it through:
- If Person is Underage, then they are not permitted to Vote.
1.1 If Person is permitted to Vote, then they are not Underage. Contrapositive of #1 (looking for an affirmative statement about voting).
If Person is Faculty, then they are not Underage.
If Person is Chairperson, then they are Faculty.
Partial (valid) Conclusion: If Person is Chairperson, then they are not Underage. (#2 + #3)
- Final (failed) Conclusion: If Person is Chairperson, then they are permitted to Vote.
answered 44 mins ago
Mark Andrews
2,170621
answered 44 mins ago
Mark Andrews
2,170621
answered 44 mins ago
Mark Andrews
2,170621
answered 44 mins ago
Mark Andrews
2,170621
2,170621
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
Abdullah O. Alfaqir is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Abdullah O. Alfaqir is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Abdullah O. Alfaqir is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Abdullah O. Alfaqir is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphilosophy.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f56506%2fis-this-argument-valid%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Wait. Philosophy chairperson is a faculty member -> philosophy chairperson is 18 years old or older -> philosophy chairperson is permitted to vote. The argument is sound. And "the conclusion don't follow from the premises." is not what validity means.
– rus9384
5 hours ago
I'm sorry, to avoid gamesmanship here on the forum... are you asking about the argument ending in "Then the philosophy chairperson..." ? or the one ending in "My answer was it is not..."?
– elliot svensson
5 hours ago
I'm asking if my answer was correct or not
– Abdullah O. Alfaqir
5 hours ago
What you might need to add is why the conclusion does not follow from the premises, not just assert that it doesn't follow from the premises. What were your reasons? Welcome to this SE!
– Frank Hubeny
1 hour ago