Oh no - in what way?? I just thought of two things that can fly. BUT there's no indication of whether the two "flying objects" are related in anyway. Thus, based on the information given (NOT the same as what we know to be true!), the argument is invalid.
Looking at what I drew - I think I see the confusion. What I SHOULD have done was shown the two sets with an overlap and with no overlap since either is potentially correct based on the given information.
Based on the given information, we don't know whether they are completely separate or not. So I probably should have shown both where there is some overlap and where there is not. I chose to just show the diagram that would cause the argument to be invalid.
Excellent question. For universal quantifiers (all or none), convert these statements into conditional statements. So "No fish can talk" becomes "If it is a fish, then it cannot talk." Then give each simple statement its own letter such as F=It is a fish, write the argument where the second to last column is the conjunction of the premises and the final column is the conjunction of the premises implying the conclusion. If the last column is all Ts then the argument is valid, otherwise, it is invalid. You can also watch this video here which I explain in more detail: ua-cam.com/video/axje4uWil-Q/v-deo.html
Bravo! But I was quite confused with the mosquito and Helicopter😢
Oh no - in what way?? I just thought of two things that can fly. BUT there's no indication of whether the two "flying objects" are related in anyway. Thus, based on the information given (NOT the same as what we know to be true!), the argument is invalid.
Looking at what I drew - I think I see the confusion. What I SHOULD have done was shown the two sets with an overlap and with no overlap since either is potentially correct based on the given information.
2:09 you need to devide them into two seperate categories
Based on the given information, we don't know whether they are completely separate or not. So I probably should have shown both where there is some overlap and where there is not. I chose to just show the diagram that would cause the argument to be invalid.
Examples help me a lot! Do you have videos on truth tables? Thanks!
Yes, soon
How do you check if it's valid using Truth Table?
Excellent question. For universal quantifiers (all or none), convert these statements into conditional statements. So "No fish can talk" becomes "If it is a fish, then it cannot talk." Then give each simple statement its own letter such as F=It is a fish, write the argument where the second to last column is the conjunction of the premises and the final column is the conjunction of the premises implying the conclusion. If the last column is all Ts then the argument is valid, otherwise, it is invalid. You can also watch this video here which I explain in more detail: ua-cam.com/video/axje4uWil-Q/v-deo.html
A subscribe for you. Really nice video
i don't know anything, im just curious...can p1 p2 and c can be switched places to make the argument valid?
Switching the premises certainly won't change anything, but switching one of the premises with the conclusion could possibly make an argument valid.