Write four arguments that meet the following criteria:
Argument 1: The argument has a false premise, but follows good logic.
Argument 2: The argument has true premises, but follows poor logic, leading to a false conclusion.
Argument 3: The argument has either a false premise or follows poor logic, but leads to a true conclusion.
Argument 4: The argument is based on true premises and follows good logic leading to a true conclusion.
Then, reorder your arguments and post them to the discussion board. Next, analyze the arguments of two other students. Identify whether or not the premises and conclusion are true, and whether the arguments follow good or poor logic. Explain how you were able to assess the quality of the logic.
If Zak wants to be a professional skateboarder, then he has to practice hard every single day.
Zak wants to be a professional skateboarder.
Therefore, he will practice hard every single day.
If fish and frogs swim in a pond, then they are both aquatic animals.
Fish and frogs swim in a pond.
Therefore they are both amphibians.
If a square’s sides add up to 100 degrees, then it has 4 congruent sides.
A square’s sides add up to 100 degrees.
Therefore, it has 4 congruent sides.
If Dante is less than 5’9, then he is allowed to ride the new rollercoaster.
If Dante is 6’1, then he is not allowed to ride the rollercoaster.
Therefore, Dante isn’t less than 5’9 and cannot ride the new rollercoaster.
Argument 1: The argument has a false premise, but follows good logic.
Premise: All puppies have wings.
Premise: Charlie is a puppy.
Conclusion: Therefore, Charlie has wings.
Argument 2: The argument has true premises, but follows poor logic, leading to a false conclusion.
Premise: All cats are orange.
Premise: Fluffy is a cat.
Conclusion: Therefore, Fluffy is orange.
Argument 3: The argument has either a false premise or follows poor logic, but leads to a true conclusion.
Premise: If it rains, then the ground gets wet.
Premise: The ground is wet.
Conclusion: Therefore, it rained.
Argument 4: The argument is based on true premises and follows good logic leading to a true conclusion.
Premise: All mammals are warm-blooded.
Premise: Whales are mammals.
Conclusion: Therefore, whales are warm-blooded.
Reordered list:
1. Argument 4: The argument is based on true premises and follows good logic leading to a true conclusion.
2. Argument 3: The argument has either a false premise or follows poor logic, but leads to a true conclusion.
3. Argument 1: The argument has a false premise, but follows good logic.
4. Argument 2: The argument has true premises, but follows poor logic, leading to a false conclusion.
To analyze the arguments of two other students, I will look at the premises and the logic used to reach the conclusions.
Student 1's Argument:
Premise: If it is sunny, then it's a good day for a picnic.
Premise: It is sunny.
Conclusion: Therefore, it's a good day for a picnic.
Assessment:
The premises are true, and the argument follows valid logical reasoning, as it uses a conditional statement. The conclusion is also true. The quality of logic can be assessed by examining whether the reasoning is valid, and in this case, it is.
Student 2's Argument:
Premise: Some birds are blue.
Premise: Tweety is a bird.
Conclusion: Therefore, Tweety is blue.
Assessment:
The premises are true, but the logic used in this argument is not valid. The argument generalizes from the fact that "some birds are blue" to conclude that a specific bird, Tweety, must be blue. This leap from a general statement to a specific case is not justified, leading to a false conclusion. The poor logic can be assessed by identifying the logical fallacy used in the argument. In this case, it is a fallacy of composition.
Argument 1: The argument has a false premise, but follows good logic.
Premise 1: All mammals lay eggs.
Premise 2: A duck is a mammal.
Conclusion: Therefore, a duck lays eggs.
Although the premise that all mammals lay eggs is false (as mammals do not lay eggs), the logic of this argument is sound because it correctly applies the premise to conclude that a duck, being a mammal, lays eggs.
Argument 2: The argument has true premises but follows poor logic, leading to a false conclusion.
Premise 1: All birds have feathers.
Premise 2: Penguins have feathers.
Conclusion: Therefore, penguins can fly.
Although the premises that all birds have feathers and penguins have feathers are true, the logic of this argument is flawed because it erroneously concludes that penguins can fly, which is false. Penguins are flightless birds.
Argument 3: The argument has either a false premise or follows poor logic but leads to a true conclusion.
Premise 1: If it rains, the ground gets wet.
Premise 2: The ground is wet.
Conclusion: Therefore, it rained.
In this argument, either the premise that if it rains, the ground gets wet is false, or the logic of the argument is poor, as there could be other reasons for the ground being wet. However, despite this issue, the conclusion that it rained is true.
Argument 4: The argument is based on true premises and follows good logic, leading to a true conclusion.
Premise 1: All humans are mortal.
Premise 2: John is a human.
Conclusion: Therefore, John is mortal.
In this argument, the premises that all humans are mortal and John is a human are true. The logic of the argument is also sound, as it correctly applies the premise to conclude that John, being a human, is mortal.
Reordering the arguments for the discussion board:
Argument 4: The argument is based on true premises and follows good logic, leading to a true conclusion.
Argument 3: The argument has either a false premise or follows poor logic, but leads to a true conclusion.
Argument 1: The argument has a false premise, but follows good logic.
Argument 2: The argument has true premises but follows poor logic, leading to a false conclusion.
Now, let's analyze the arguments of two other students to assess the quality of their logic:
Student A's Argument:
Premise 1: All cats have tails.
Premise 2: My pet dog has a tail.
Conclusion: Therefore, my pet dog is a cat.
In this argument, both premises are false. Not all cats have tails, as some may have lost them due to injury or medical conditions, and the logic is flawed as having a tail does not necessarily make an animal a cat. Therefore, the logic of this argument is poor.
Student B's Argument:
Premise 1: If it is raining, the ground gets wet.
Premise 2: The ground is wet.
Conclusion: Therefore, it is raining.
In this argument, the premise that if it is raining, the ground gets wet is true, and the observed premise that the ground is wet is also true. The logic of this argument is valid as it correctly applies the premise to arrive at the conclusion that it is raining. Therefore, the logic of this argument is good.
In assessing the quality of the logic, I carefully evaluated whether the premises provided were true or false. Then, I examined how well the logic of each argument followed from those premises to determine whether the conclusions were logically justified. By considering both the truth value of the premises and the logical inference steps, I was able to assess the quality of the logic in each argument.