Enthymeme & Syllogism

Enthymeme & Syllogism 

Paper details Please access book if needed: Website: https://online.vitalsource.com/#/books/9781465272430/cfi/28!/4/2@100:0.00 Paper topic 1 (Straight from the professor) Contrast the notions of validity and truth in term of the following two syllogisms: (a) At least one sound argument is not valid because some arguments with mood and figure IAI-4 are not valid. (b) Some arguments with true premises and a true conclusion are not sound and no sound argument are arguments with mood and figure AOE-2 so some arguments with mood and figure AOE-2 are arguments with true premises and a true conclusion. Put both arguments in standard logical form and provide their mood and figure (neither is likely to be IAI-4 or AOE-2). Determine the validity of each syllogism by both a Venn diagram and by Salmon’s rules (when you use Salmon’s rules, apply all three rules. I don’t want to see just the rules that are violated.) Explain why each statement in each argument is true or false. Is either argument sound? Additional information 1. You must put arguments (a) and (b) in standard logical form as categorical syllogisms. This means that you must use the variables S, P, and M. You must also provide either a dictionary ro an instance along with the form. I need to know what S, P, and M stand for. Do not combine the two arguments. They are distinct arguments. 2. The terms for S, P, and M may be fairly long. You will be using terms such as these: ‘arguments with mood and figure AOE-2’ and arguments with true premises and a true conclusion’. These are longer than terms such as ‘dogs’ and ‘cats’. 3. Argument (a) is an enthymeme. Remember, in this class, every enthymeme can be turned into a valid argument. And argument (a) does not have mood and figure IAI-4—it has a different mood and figure, but it talks about IAI-4. Argument (b) is not an enthymeme and it will be invalid. (So, the hints for an enthymeme will not be useful.)

It will not have the form AOE-2 4. When you discuss IAI-4 and AOE-2, provide the forms. I want to see that you can provide the form when given the mood and figure (and I will mark down, if I do not see these forms). Do not discuss these forms until you explain why certain statements are true or false. If you discuss these forms in your introduction or before you discuss validity, then it shows that you do not understand how to analyze arguments. 5. When you discuss why each premise and each conclusion is true or false, give a paragraph to each statement. This way, you are less likely to skimp on your discussion. And I expect you to discuss the material in detail. I should not have to infer anything. 6. I expect to see examples when relevant. And if I do not see examples, I will mark down. I am not impressed by students who unable to back up claims without examples. Don’t tell me that it is possible, for example, that EIA-3 may have instances other than those with true premises and a true conclusion. You need to prove it. You prove it by providing an example. 7. There is no need to obvert or contrapose anything. So, don’t use obversion or contraposition. 8. You are given a sample paper and sample outline, along with other material. It is a good idea to look at these. But these are not religious documents. This means use them with intelligence. Just because the sample paper discusses quasi-syllogisms does not mean that you should. In fact, since we have omitted quasi-syllogisms for the summer term, you definitely should omit quasi-syllogisms from your paper. 9. In your paper, arguments should be single-spaced and indented. Other than this, I do not care if you single-space or double-space. 10. Good writing counts. You will be graded on how well the paper is organized and written. I expect clarity. If I have to figure out what your writing, this hurts your grade. The material you learned in composition classes hasn’t become obsolete simply because you are discussing arguments.