Truth Tables

How do you use truth tables to show if an argument is valid or not??? a.Ray is thinking about his study plans. He thinks: If I don't study, then I won't do well on the test.: Therefore, if I do well, then I have studied. Is Ray's inference valid? I set it up so that: S=I study W=I do well on the test Ray's argument is: valid___ invalid____ because b.If rainfall is normal, then skiing will be good, because if the winter is not wet, then skiing will not be good, and if rainfall is normal, then the winter will be wet. Is this a valid argument? --I set it up so that: R=Rainfall is normal S=Skiing will be good W=Winter will be wet =This argument is: valid___ inva... click for more

A subcategory of informal errors of argumentation is that of errors of relevance. Various types of such errors are discussed and exemplified.

Which are the errors of relevance within the category of informal errors of argumentation?

Examples of amphiboly and of equivocation are given and the difference between them explained.

What is the difference between amphiboly and equivocation?

Counterexample Method

Can you show me how to use the counterexample method to prove the following categorical syllogism invalid. "All criminals who assist other criminals in bank robberies are persons guilty of larceny. Accordingly, some individuals driven by greed are not persons guilty of larceny, inasmuch as some criminals who assist other criminals in bank robberies are individuals driven by greed." I have it set up so that: C= criminals P=persons guilty of larceny D=driven by greed

Rules of Inference

Rules of Inference