Law And Logic

Q1.

1. Argument, because of the use of a conclusion indicator that is “We can conclude
that”.
2. Argument, because of comparison between the two this is an argument from analogy.
3. Non-argument. The word “thus” which is often a conclusion indicator, but here it is
pointing to the effect of a causal relation. That is, the final statement is explained by
the previous ones, but there is no inference intended here.
4. Non-argument, the statements are all different and unconnected.
5. Argument, the two claims in the first sentence offer reason to believe the claim in the
final sentence. Also, “therefore” is functioning as a conclusion indicator.

Q2.

1. C: All pit bulls are mammals.

P: Some dangerous dogs are pit bulls.
P: Some dangerous dogs are mammals.

It follows the structure:

C: All A are B
P: Some C are A
P: Some C are B

Counterexample:
C: All jets are airplanes.
P: Some helicopters are jets.
P: Some helicopters are airplanes.
Here, the jets are airplanes but even so, the helicopters cannot be specified as either,
because they are completely different.

2. P: No logic students are completely irrational people.

P: Some logicians are mathematicians.
C: Some completely irrational people are not mathematicians.

1
 It follows the structure:
P: No A are B
P: Some A are C
C: Some B are not C

Counterexample:
P: No scientists are doctors.
P: Some scientists are atheists.
C: Some doctors are not atheists.

The relation between doctors and atheist isn’t specified and hence, it cannot be
conferred it the doctors aren’t atheists or if all of them are.

3. P: No eagles are mammals.

P: No mammals are fish.
C: No eagles are fish.

It follows the structure:

P: No A are B
P: No B are C
C: No A are C

Counterexample:
P: No engineers are mechanics.
P: No mechanics are drivers.
C: No engineers are drivers.

The relation between engineers and drivers isn’t stated hence its wrong to conclude
that no engineers are drivers, because only mechanics aren’t drivers, engineers can be
drivers.

2
4. C: Some dogs are not pigs.
P: Some pigs are animals.
P: Some animals are not dogs.

It follows the structure:

C: Some A are not B
P: Some B are C
P: Some C are not A

Counterexample:
C: Some cars are not SUVs.
P: Some SUVs are Electric.
P: Some Electric are not Cars.
Here, all cars can be SUVs since, only whether SUVs are electric is premised, but
whether some cars or all cars are/n’t SUVs isn’t premised hence, all cars can be
SUVs.

Q3.
1.
Ans.
The fallacy in this particular line of Reasoning is “Ad Hominem” because the usage
of words “Granola eating”, “Nudist” and “Environmental Extremist” indicates that the
line of reasoning is abusive and has no connection to the argument or the conclusion
drawn.

2.
Ans.

3
The fallacy in this Line of reasoning is “Accident” as this is an appeal to a generally
accepted rule and it is misapplied in this specific situation for which that rule was
never designed or intended.

3.
Ans.
The fallacy in this particular Line of reasoning is ‘Amphiboly” as there is
Grammatical Ambiguity since sentences are phrased poorly so that we have two
distinct meanings.

4.
Ans.
The fallacy in this Line of reasoning is “Genetic Fallacy” as Friends' response rejects
the belief on the basis of the origin of the belief but this does not mean that the belief
is not true.

5.
Ans.
The fallacy in this Line of reasoning is “Ad Hominem” as Ad Hominem (tu quoque)
Latin for “you also” occurs when the fallacious arguer points out the other person’s
inconsistency in holding her position, and concludes that the inconsistency alone
warrants everyone’s rejection of her position or argument

6.
Ans.
The fallacy in this Line of reasoning is “Is-Ought Fallacy” as just because something
is the case, does not mean that it ought to be the case.

7.
Ans.
The fallacy in this Line of reasoning is “Appeal to the People” as when someone
argues that you should believe X and use as their reason your (logically irrelevant)

4
desire to be associated with a portion of society, that someone is probably guilty of
the Appeal to the People fallacy.

8.
Ans.
The fallacy in this Line of reasoning is “Composition” as In Composition, the arguer
contends that merely because something is true of each of the parts of a thing, that
character trait is true of the whole, as well. But that does not always follow; it’s not a
reliable inference.

9.
Ans.
The fallacy in this Line of reasoning is “Genetic Fallacy” as the Illogical atheist friend
rejects the Belief that Jews Lived in Egypt on the basis of origin of argument being
Bible and Bible being full of metaphors doesn’t mean that Belief is not true.

10.
Ans.
The fallacy in this Line of reasoning is “Straw Man” as a Straw Man fallacy occurs
when person A holds a position (or offers an argument), and person B misinterprets
that position, attacks that weaker misinterpreted version, and shows to all who will
listen that that version is bad and should be rejected so in this Arguer misinterprets
Senator Ima Dresser’s statement and makes assumptions that are not true.

11.
Ans
The fallacy in this Line of reasoning is “Ad Hominem” as Ad Hominem
(circumstantial) occurs when a fallacious arguer points to a vested interest another
might have in people agreeing with his or her position, and concluding on that basis
that we reject that person’s position or argument.

12.
Ans

5
 The fallacy in this Line of reasoning is “Denying the Antecedent” as there is a
conditional statement along with a shorter one that denies what the conditional has as
its antecedent. The conclusion is then the denial of the consequent.

Q4.

1. The pattern used in the immediate inference here is Subalternation, and the immediate
inference is invalid.
2. The pattern used in the immediate inference here Contraposition, and the immediate
inference is valid.
3. The pattern used in the immediate inference here Subcontrary, and the immediate
inference is valid.
4. The pattern used in the immediate inference here Conversion, immediate inference is
invalid.
5. The pattern used in the immediate inference here Subalternation, immediate inference
is invalid.
6. The pattern used in the immediate inference here Contradiction, immediate inference
is valid.

Q5.

PROBLEM A
1. A
2. If either A or B, then S / S
A. 1. A
2. If either A or B, then S / S
3. A or B 1 Add

6
4. S 2, 3 MP

PROBLEM B
1. Not-G
2. G or not-D
3. If F, then D / Not-F
A. 1. Not-G
2. G or not-D
3. If F, then D / Not-F
4. Not-D 1, 2 DS
5. Not-F 3, 4 MT

PROBLEM C
1. T, and M or S
2. If T, then not-M / T and S
A. 1. T, and M or S
2. If T, then not-M / T and S
3. T 1 Simp
4. M or S 1 Simp
5. Not-M 2, 3 MP
6. S 4, 5 DS
7. T and S 3, 6 Conj

PROBLEM D
1. If not-A, then B
2. Not-A or D
3. If D, then H / B or H, or not-M
A. 1. If not-A, then B
2. Not-A or D
3. If D, then H / B or H, or not-M
4. B or H 1, 2, 3 CD

7
5. B or H, or not-M 4 Add

PROBLEM E
1. (R • P) ⊃ (Q v I)
2. (~Q v A) ⊃ R
3. (~Q v J) ⊃ P 4. ~Q • N / [I • (~Q v A)] v (P ⊃ I)
A. 1. (R • P)  (Q v I)
2. (~Q v A) R
3. (~Q v J)  P
4. ~Q • N / [I • (~Q v A)] v (P  I)
5. ~Q 4 Simp
6. ~Q v A 5 Add
7. ~Q v J 5 Add
8. R 2, 6 MP
9. P 3, 7 MP
10. R • P 8, 9 Conj
11. Q v I 1, 10 MP
12. I 5, 11 DS
13. I • (~Q v A) 6, 12 Conj
14. [I • (~Q v A)] v (P  I) 13 Add