Is Alice's CONCLUSION VALID using the LAW OF DETACHMENT? Explain your reasoning.
Alice: "If TIME stopped time for you, he could stop time for me?
Mad Hatter: "He only stops time at tea time."
Alice: "SO then it's always tea time there?"
VALID or INVALID: explain
The conclusion Alice reaches, "SO then it's always tea time there?" is not valid using the Law of Detachment.
The Law of Detachment requires two conditional statements, a premise (If P, then Q) and a given fact (P). Based on these, it allows us to deduce a conclusion (Q).
In this conversation, Alice initially proposes a conditional statement: "If TIME stopped time for you, he could stop time for me?" However, the Mad Hatter's response, "He only stops time at tea time," does not directly confirm or deny the premise. The Mad Hatter's statement is not a clear condition (P), and it does not logically establish a cause-effect relationship between time stopping at tea time and always being tea time there (Q). Therefore, Alice's conclusion is invalid using the Law of Detachment.
To determine if Alice's conclusion is valid using the Law of Detachment, we need to analyze the statements provided.
Alice's statements:
1. "If Time stopped time for you, he could stop time for me?"
2. "So then it's always tea time there?"
The Law of Detachment states that if we have a conditional statement of the form "If A, then B," and we already know that A is true, we can conclude that B is also true.
In this case, Alice's first statement is a conditional statement: "If Time stopped time for you, he could stop time for me." However, Alice has not provided any information to establish that Time has, in fact, stopped time for the other person. Since we don't have the necessary information, we cannot determine the truth or falsehood of this statement.
Alice's second statement is a response to the Mad Hatter's comment about Time only stopping time during tea time. Alice concludes, "So then it's always tea time there?" based on this information. This statement doesn't directly follow from the available premises because it assumes that Time only exists where tea time occurs. However, the statements do not provide enough information to support this assumption. As a result, Alice's conclusion cannot be evaluated as valid or invalid using the Law of Detachment because the necessary conditions are not met.
Therefore, based on the given information, we cannot determine the validity of Alice's conclusion.
To determine whether Alice's conclusion is valid using the Law of Detachment, we need to analyze the logical reasoning presented in the conversation and evaluate if it meets the requirements of this rule.
The Law of Detachment states that if there is a conditional statement in the form of "If A, then B," and A is true, then we can conclude that B is also true.
Let's break down the conversation to see if Alice's conclusion follows this rule:
Premise 1: Alice: "If TIME stopped time for you, he could stop time for me?"
This statement suggests a conditional relationship: If TIME stops time for someone, it means he can stop time for someone else.
Premise 2: Mad Hatter: "He only stops time at tea time."
The Mad Hatter clarifies that TIME only stops time during tea time.
Premise 3: Alice: "SO then it's always tea time there?"
Based on the previous statement, Alice wonders if it's always tea time where TIME exists.
From the conversation, we can deduce that Alice's conclusion is as follows:
Conclusion: If it's always tea time where TIME exists, then TIME can stop time for Alice.
Now, let's assess whether Alice's conclusion is valid or invalid according to the Law of Detachment.
For the Law of Detachment to be valid, the initial conditional statement should be true, and the condition (A) must be satisfied. In this case, the original conditional statement is not explicitly stated; instead, it is inferred from Alice's statement.
The conversation suggests that for TIME to stop time for Alice, it would require the condition that it's always tea time where TIME exists. However, whether it's always tea time where TIME exists is not confirmed.
Therefore, based on the information provided and the Law of Detachment, Alice's conclusion is INVALID. We cannot conclude that TIME can stop time for Alice solely based on the conversation. Further information is needed to determine whether Alice's conclusion is valid or not.