I am a bit stumped here. Working on syllogisms. To be a valid syllogism, the conclusion must be proven by the reasons. We are to decide if te following are valid or invalid.
1. All zebras are striped animals. No zebras are polar bears. Therefore, no polar bears are striped animals.
My answer- Originally I was going to say valid but after breaking down the sentence I then see it as invalid.
2. All clowns are funny individuals. Some sad people are clowns. Therefore, some sad people are funny individuals.
My answer-I feel this is valid.
I agree with both of your answers.
Some sticky substances are yucky things. All taffy is a sticky substance. Therefore, some taffy is a yucky thing
Is this a valid syllogism
To determine the validity of syllogisms, we can use the rules of categorical syllogisms to evaluate the structure of the arguments.
1. All zebras are striped animals. No zebras are polar bears. Therefore, no polar bears are striped animals.
To determine the validity, we can break down the syllogism into its component statements and analyze their relationships. Let's add some labels to make it clearer:
Statement 1: All zebras are striped animals.
Statement 2: No zebras are polar bears.
Conclusion: No polar bears are striped animals.
In this case, we can see that the conclusion (No polar bears are striped animals) follows logically from the two statements. The first statement tells us that all zebras are striped animals, and the second statement says that zebras and polar bears have no overlap. So, logically, we can infer that no polar bears are striped animals. Therefore, this syllogism is valid.
2. All clowns are funny individuals. Some sad people are clowns. Therefore, some sad people are funny individuals.
Let's break it down:
Statement 1: All clowns are funny individuals.
Statement 2: Some sad people are clowns.
Conclusion: Some sad people are funny individuals.
In this case, the conclusion does not necessarily follow from the two statements. The first statement tells us that all clowns are funny individuals, and the second statement tells us that some sad people are clowns. However, it doesn't explicitly state that those sad people who are clowns are funny individuals. It is possible for sad clowns to exist, who are not necessarily funny individuals. Therefore, the conclusion does not strictly follow logically from the given statements. Therefore, this syllogism is invalid.
In summary:
1. All zebras are striped animals. No zebras are polar bears. Therefore, no polar bears are striped animals.
Valid
2. All clowns are funny individuals. Some sad people are clowns. Therefore, some sad people are funny individuals.
Invalid