Philosophy Homework Solutions
Problem
#110837

What is the fallacy and definition of the Hypothetical Syllogism

I am trying to learn and EASILY identify fallacy types... Deny the Consequent, Deny the Antecedent (invalid) etc.

Here are a few examples along with my initial response, but it doesn't appear that I got them right (although I don't know what the correct answer would be). Your assistance is greatly appreciated.

I thought this was Denying the Consequent:  

If I master critical thinking then I will be a better employee
I am not a better employee
Therefore, I did not master critical thinking.

I thought this would be Deny the Antecedent:

If I can master critical thinking
then, I will be a better employee
I haven't mastered critical thinking
therefore I am not a better employee.

For the next statement I thought it contained two fallacies: Appeal to Ignorance and Appeal to Authority.

Rhymes' lawyer, Robert Kalina, told the judge, "I can tell you, judge, my client is innocent, and I rarely say this in a courtroom." He added that the accuser had no discernible injuries other than one red mark on his face.




Solution Summary

Explains the fallacies of "denying the antecedent" and "affirming the consequent."  Compares these invalid forms of reasoning to the valid forms of Modus Ponens (affirming the antecedent) and Modus Tollens (denying the consequent).  Provides examples of each.  Also explains the reasoning involved in Hypothetical Syllogism.

Solution
By OTA - Overall OTA Rating
Purchase Cost Now
$2.19 CAD (was ~$7.98)
Included in Download
  • Plain text response
  • Attached file(s):
    • conditional reasoning.doc
Why you can trust BrainMass.com
  • Your Information is Secure
  • Best Online Academic Help Service
  • Students find real academic Success

Related Solutions
Browse