How to determine validity of logical arguments using Euler diagrams There is a mistake in example 6. DRIVERS should be inside HAPPY, so this argument is valid
That is true that happy and driver should be other way around however it is not really valid, you can also conclude some people who are happy are also drivers not just happy people thus making it invalid
I have to ask regarding example #6 and example #10, is it not invalid instead of valid? Our professor told us that there can be instances where the conclusion does not overlap with the premise?
Does the 2nd premise in example 8 imply some sailors are pirates? So, the sailor & pirate circles should overlap in the 1st drawing. Still contradicts conclusion and is invalid, maybe it's not important.
Some sailors are not pirates could mean that there is not a single sailor who is a pirate. It is not the same as saying that some sailors are pirates. Hope this clarifies it.
I think the sailors should be another set which overlaps both the pirates and the eye patches Since the "some" means there are sailors who are pirates and those that are not Shouldn't those that are not pirates be outside the eye patches circle?
In example #4 if the minor is invalid, is not therefore also the conclusion invalid. I mean the sun does tell time (frames) , namely morning, afternoon or by absence night
While "some" could mean "all", it does not automatically imply it. "Some" mathematicians like algebra does not necessarily mean that "all" do, while it is possible.
Thanks for this video! It's very helpful to me 🌻
I am glad!
in example 6. the driver must be inside happy right not the other way around? so it must be valid
Yep, you are correct. Thanks for pointing it out!
That is true that happy and driver should be other way around however it is not really valid, you can also conclude some people who are happy are also drivers not just happy people thus making it invalid
I have to ask regarding example #6 and example #10, is it not invalid instead of valid? Our professor told us that there can be instances where the conclusion does not overlap with the premise?
Yeah, I made a mistake, so I pointed it out in the description. One day I will redo it
@@thatrussianmathteacher4558 The mistake is great. It made me triple check my work. Good practice
Does the 2nd premise in example 8 imply some sailors are pirates? So, the sailor & pirate circles should overlap in the 1st drawing. Still contradicts conclusion and is invalid, maybe it's not important.
Some sailors are not pirates could mean that there is not a single sailor who is a pirate. It is not the same as saying that some sailors are pirates. Hope this clarifies it.
I think the sailors should be another set which overlaps both the pirates and the eye patches
Since the "some" means there are sailors who are pirates and those that are not
Shouldn't those that are not pirates be outside the eye patches circle?
In example #4 if the minor is invalid, is not therefore also the conclusion invalid. I mean the sun does tell time (frames) , namely morning, afternoon or by absence night
We do not necessarily focus on the validity of a statement here...
Is example nr.10 invalid (bcs in conclusion is "some" ,but it can be and All)?
While "some" could mean "all", it does not automatically imply it. "Some" mathematicians like algebra does not necessarily mean that "all" do, while it is possible.
Example 10 already told all cats chase Rats, so M must be inside R. (valid)
none of this makes sense to me FML
Sorry, math can be challenging. What do you need clarification on?
😅😮😢🎉❤