Paste your essay in here…Angelique Lopez
Philosophy 06 – #21257
1 A crust of bread is better than nothing. Nothing is better is than true love. So a crust of bread is better than true love.
Nothing is better than true love.
A crust of bread is better than true love.
Crust of a bread is better than true love.
Fallacy of Equivocation: (Ambiguity) The informal fallacy that can result when an ambiguous word or phrase is used in different senses within a single argument.
– The word “nothing” means different things depending from the context. For example, in one sense, “nothing” means have nothing to eat, whereas, in another it means nothing in existence or nothing at all.
2 We’ve all heard that millions of Americans are without adequate health care. But America’s doctors, nurses, and hospitals are among the best in the world. Thousands of people come from abroad every year to be treated here. Clearly there is nothing wrong with our health care system.
We’ve heard that millions of Americans are without adequate health care.
American’s doctors, nurses, and hospitals are among the best in the world.
Clearly there is nothing wrong with our health care system.
Fallacy of Red Herring: reply to an argument that diverts attention from the issue.
– The arguer diverts the attention of the readers from Topic A (millions of Americans are without adequate health care) and changes it to Topic B ( Americas health care providers are qualified).
3 On Friday, I took Jeff out to dinner. He told me that if I wasn’t interested in a serious relationship, I should forget about dating him. On Saturday I took Dave to a film. When we discussed it afterward over a drink, he could understand why I wasn’t interested in babies. Men are all alike. All they want is a secure marriage.
Jeff told me, If I was not interested in a serious relationship then, I should forget dating him.
He also said, he could not understand why I was not interested in babies.
All men are alike, all they want is a secure marriage.
Hasty Generalization: The informal fallacy of contrasting a general claim on the basis of insufficient evidence, particularly when the sample on which the generalization is based is a typical.
– Arguer draws general statement about how relationships work. concluding that all men are alike.
1 Some integers which are even numbers are not prime. (T)
All non-prime numbers are odd integers.
The two sentences do not match because the subjects and predicates are not the same in each sentence. I need to rewrite the first sentence as, “Some even integers are not prime (T)” and the sentence changed as, “Odd integers are all non-prime numbers” which leads to:
Some even integers are not prime (T)
Odd integers are all non-prime numbers.
Concluding the second sentence to be true.
2 All inflammable substances are high in carbon isotopes. (T)
No incombustible substances are low in carbon isotopes.
Both sentences are not the same, however, they do have same conclusions. First off, start by rewriting the second sentence predicate as the first sentence, which would change to “inflammable substances are low in carbon. It would then look like:
All inflammable substances are high in carbon isotopes. (T)
No inflammable substances are low in carbon isotopes.
Concluding, the second sentences becomes as true as the first sentence.
1 Everyone who races will get a medal except those who didn’t finish.
– Everyone who finishes the race will get a medal.
2 Not all ghosts are friendly.
– Some ghosts are friendly.
3 Cara is cool.
– Cara is not harsh.
4 Kaitlyn is never not on time.
– Kaitlyn is ever late.
1 Since each and every pachyderm is a vertebrate, we may conclude that only some arthropods such as shrimp, crabs, and lobsters are elephantine animals, for there is an invertebrate that is a crustacean.
Every pachyderm is a vertebrate
There is an invertebrate that is crustacean
Only some arthropods are elephantine animals
Answer: Valid in first sentence
2 There are handsome men, but only man is vile, so it is false that nothing is both vile and handsome.
Handsome men exist
Only man is vile
It is false that nothing is both vile and handsome
Answer: Valid in first sentence
3 All schools that are driven by careerism are schools that do not emphasize liberal arts. It follows that some universities are not institutions that emphasize liberal arts, for some schools that are not driven by careerism are universities.
Some schools are driven by careerism
Some schools do not emphasize liberal arts
Some universities do not emphasize liber arts.
Answer: Valid in all three sentences
If you did your homework, which you did, then you should be able to identify the form of this syllogism.
– Argument is invalid, draws implicit conclusion from the preliminaries.
Encouraging toy-gun play gives children a clear message that the best way to deal with frustration and conflict is with a gun. Is this the message that we want to be sending to our children?
No premises or conclusion stated, which leads to an invalid argument because it only contains a statement.
...(download the rest of the essay above)