Does the following argument illustrate the Law of Syllogism? Given: If the power is cut, then the refrigerator will not work. If the refrigerator will not work, then the food will spoil. Conclude: If the food spoils, then the power was cut. no yes
No
Yes, the argument illustrates the Law of Syllogism. According to the Law of Syllogism, if we have two conditional statements where the conclusion of the first statement matches the hypothesis of the second statement, then we can conclude a new statement by linking the hypothesis of the first statement with the conclusion of the second statement.
In this argument:
- Statement 1: If the power is cut, then the refrigerator will not work.
- Statement 2: If the refrigerator will not work, then the food will spoil.
By applying the Law of Syllogism, we can conclude:
- Conclusion: If the food spoils, then the power was cut.
So, the argument follows the structure of the Law of Syllogism.
Yes, the argument does illustrate the Law of Syllogism. The Law of Syllogism states that if two conditional statements are given, and the conclusion of the first statement is the hypothesis of the second statement, then we can conclude the conclusion of the second statement.
In this argument, we have the following statements:
1. If the power is cut, then the refrigerator will not work.
2. If the refrigerator will not work, then the food will spoil.
The conclusion we need to reach is:
3. If the food spoils, then the power was cut.
To apply the Law of Syllogism, we see that the conclusion of statement 1 ("the refrigerator will not work") is the hypothesis of statement 2. Therefore, we can conclude that the power being cut is the reason for the food spoiling, which matches our desired conclusion in statement 3. So, the argument follows the Law of Syllogism.