A bit confused with this one: Is the argument correct? if not explain why it's not and change the minor premise to make it correct:
All NBA basketball players are over 5ft. tall
Russell is 6ft tall
Therefore, Russell plays in the NBA
Thanks!
I meant to add my thoughts: I think it is incorrect because of an inverse problem. To make it correct I would write it as:
All NBA basketball players are over 5ft tall
Russell is an NBA player
Therefore, Russell is over 6ft tall.
The first post has made a wrong conclusion. (p->q and q->p are different propositinos)
The second conclusion is correct.
thank you!
You're welcome!
The argument is not correct because it contains a fallacy known as "affirming the consequent." This fallacy occurs when we assume that if the consequent (Russell playing in the NBA) is true, then the antecedent (being over 5 ft. tall) must also be true. However, this assumption is not valid because there may be other reasons why Russell is 6 ft. tall besides playing in the NBA.
To make the argument valid, we need to change the minor premise to state a necessary condition for playing in the NBA. For example:
All NBA basketball players are over 6ft. tall (changing the height requirement)
Russell is 6ft tall
Therefore, it is possible that Russell plays in the NBA.
This revised argument is now valid because it establishes a necessary condition (being over 6 ft. tall) for playing in the NBA. However, it is important to note that meeting this condition does not guarantee that Russell plays in the NBA; it only opens the possibility. Other factors, such as skills, experience, and team selection processes, also come into play.