PHIL 201 QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS LATEST UPDATE, ALREADY
GRADED A+.
->
Conditional (if-then)
Identify the main connective in: (C v ~(A & D)) -> (B & D)
->
"consistent"
A set of claims is called _____ when it is possible for all of the claims to be true at the same time.
"only"/ "only if"
The words ____ and ____ precede the predicate term in a universal affirmative statement
"some"
at least one
"some"
Translate "most," "a few," "several," "almost all," and similar terms as
"the only"
The words ______ precede the subject term in a universal affirmative statement
(~A& B) v ~(C & ~(B v D))
F T F T TT F F F T T F
(~A & B) v ~(C & ~(B v D))
(A -> ~(~C -> B)) & (D v ~B)
T F F TF T T F F F FT
(A -> ~(~C -> B)) & (D v ~B)
(D & ~A) -> (~B -> ~(A v C))
F F FT T FT T F T T T
(D & ~A) -> (~B -> ~(A v C))
(logically) equivalent
A set of claims is _____ when they have the same truth-value for each truth-value assignment of the
variables
[Translation] All artists are geniuses.
[Original] If someone is an artist, (then) they are a genius.
,[Translation] All artists are geniuses.
[Original] Whoever is an artist is a genius.
[Translation] All dogs are loyal animals.
[Original] All dogs are loyal.
[Translation] All hockey players are athletes.
[Original] Every/each hockey player is an athlete.
[Translation] All persons identical to Jamie Foxx are actors.
[Original] Jamie Foxx is an actor.
[Translation] All prosecuted crimes are murders.
[Original] The only crimes prosecuted are murders.
[Translation] All real junk foods are hamburgers.
[Original] Hamburgers are the only real junk food.
[Translation] All WAV files are music files.
[Original] Only if something is a music file is it a WAV file.
[Translation] All wise advisers are palm readers.
[Original] Only palm readers are wise advisers.
[Translation] Some guys are people who have all the luck.
[Original] Some guys have all the luck.
[Translation] Some redwood trees are trees that stood beyond the mountains.
[Original] Beyond the mountains stood the redwood trees.
[Translation] Some Trent University students are radicals.
[Original] Trent University students are radicals.
&
Conjuncation (and)
&
Identify the main connective in:
(A -> ~~C) & (D v ~B)
~
,Identify the main connective in:
~(((C v ~D) -> B) & (A v B))
~
Identify the main connective in:
~(~A -> (B & ~(C & D)))
~
Negation (not)
~ (A v ~ D) B v ~A D -> (C v B) C
T F F F T T T TF F T F T T F
~(A v ~D)
B v ~A
D -> (C v B)
Therefore, C.
~(((C v ~D) -> B) & (A v B))
F F T TF T T T T T T
~(((C v ~D) -> B) & (A v B))
~(A & B)
"It is false that both A and B" is translated as:
~(A v B)
"Neither A nor B" is translated as
A -> B
"A only if B" is translated into propositional logic as
A & C ~ B -> C D -> ~ A ~ A v (B & C) D
TTTFTTTFTFTFTTTTTF
A&C
~B -> C
D -> ~A
~A v (B & C)
Therefore, D.
a conjunction truth table.
PQ
P&Q
TTT
TFF
, FTF
FFF
A double negation ((~)(~))
is the same thing as no negation.
A is T and B is F.
If the set of sentences above was consistent, what were the truth values of A and B?
A negative categorical statement
denies that one class is entirely or partly included in another.
a representative sample
the right sample size for a population, doesn't guarantee having
A valid categorical syllogism
Can't have a false conclusion
A valid categorical syllogism
is such that if its premises are true, its conclusion must be true.
All persons identical with John Brown are plumbers
Translate this singular statement into categorical form.
John Brown is a plumber.
All tangy things are oranges; all bitter things are tangy things; therefore, all bitter things are oranges.
Please translation of this argument into categorical logic:
Since only if something is tangy is it bitter, only oranges are bitter; this is because the only tangy things
are oranges.
All things identical with Herc are cats.
Translate this singular statement into categorical form.
Herc is a cat.
An affirmative categorical statement
affirms that one class is entirely or partly included in another.
An analogical induction (or argument by analogy)
reasons this way: because two or more things are similar in several respects, they must be similar in
some further respect.
An analogy
can be used to argue inductively for a conclusion.
GRADED A+.
->
Conditional (if-then)
Identify the main connective in: (C v ~(A & D)) -> (B & D)
->
"consistent"
A set of claims is called _____ when it is possible for all of the claims to be true at the same time.
"only"/ "only if"
The words ____ and ____ precede the predicate term in a universal affirmative statement
"some"
at least one
"some"
Translate "most," "a few," "several," "almost all," and similar terms as
"the only"
The words ______ precede the subject term in a universal affirmative statement
(~A& B) v ~(C & ~(B v D))
F T F T TT F F F T T F
(~A & B) v ~(C & ~(B v D))
(A -> ~(~C -> B)) & (D v ~B)
T F F TF T T F F F FT
(A -> ~(~C -> B)) & (D v ~B)
(D & ~A) -> (~B -> ~(A v C))
F F FT T FT T F T T T
(D & ~A) -> (~B -> ~(A v C))
(logically) equivalent
A set of claims is _____ when they have the same truth-value for each truth-value assignment of the
variables
[Translation] All artists are geniuses.
[Original] If someone is an artist, (then) they are a genius.
,[Translation] All artists are geniuses.
[Original] Whoever is an artist is a genius.
[Translation] All dogs are loyal animals.
[Original] All dogs are loyal.
[Translation] All hockey players are athletes.
[Original] Every/each hockey player is an athlete.
[Translation] All persons identical to Jamie Foxx are actors.
[Original] Jamie Foxx is an actor.
[Translation] All prosecuted crimes are murders.
[Original] The only crimes prosecuted are murders.
[Translation] All real junk foods are hamburgers.
[Original] Hamburgers are the only real junk food.
[Translation] All WAV files are music files.
[Original] Only if something is a music file is it a WAV file.
[Translation] All wise advisers are palm readers.
[Original] Only palm readers are wise advisers.
[Translation] Some guys are people who have all the luck.
[Original] Some guys have all the luck.
[Translation] Some redwood trees are trees that stood beyond the mountains.
[Original] Beyond the mountains stood the redwood trees.
[Translation] Some Trent University students are radicals.
[Original] Trent University students are radicals.
&
Conjuncation (and)
&
Identify the main connective in:
(A -> ~~C) & (D v ~B)
~
,Identify the main connective in:
~(((C v ~D) -> B) & (A v B))
~
Identify the main connective in:
~(~A -> (B & ~(C & D)))
~
Negation (not)
~ (A v ~ D) B v ~A D -> (C v B) C
T F F F T T T TF F T F T T F
~(A v ~D)
B v ~A
D -> (C v B)
Therefore, C.
~(((C v ~D) -> B) & (A v B))
F F T TF T T T T T T
~(((C v ~D) -> B) & (A v B))
~(A & B)
"It is false that both A and B" is translated as:
~(A v B)
"Neither A nor B" is translated as
A -> B
"A only if B" is translated into propositional logic as
A & C ~ B -> C D -> ~ A ~ A v (B & C) D
TTTFTTTFTFTFTTTTTF
A&C
~B -> C
D -> ~A
~A v (B & C)
Therefore, D.
a conjunction truth table.
PQ
P&Q
TTT
TFF
, FTF
FFF
A double negation ((~)(~))
is the same thing as no negation.
A is T and B is F.
If the set of sentences above was consistent, what were the truth values of A and B?
A negative categorical statement
denies that one class is entirely or partly included in another.
a representative sample
the right sample size for a population, doesn't guarantee having
A valid categorical syllogism
Can't have a false conclusion
A valid categorical syllogism
is such that if its premises are true, its conclusion must be true.
All persons identical with John Brown are plumbers
Translate this singular statement into categorical form.
John Brown is a plumber.
All tangy things are oranges; all bitter things are tangy things; therefore, all bitter things are oranges.
Please translation of this argument into categorical logic:
Since only if something is tangy is it bitter, only oranges are bitter; this is because the only tangy things
are oranges.
All things identical with Herc are cats.
Translate this singular statement into categorical form.
Herc is a cat.
An affirmative categorical statement
affirms that one class is entirely or partly included in another.
An analogical induction (or argument by analogy)
reasons this way: because two or more things are similar in several respects, they must be similar in
some further respect.
An analogy
can be used to argue inductively for a conclusion.
