This document defines and provides examples of sorites arguments. A sorites argument is a chain of syllogisms where the conclusion of each syllogism serves as a premise for the next, until reaching the overall conclusion. There are two types: Aristotelian (progressive) sorites, where each premise subject becomes the next premise predicate; and Goclenian (regressive) sorites, where the order of premises is reversed. The document also outlines the steps to solve a sorites argument: put it in standard form, introduce intermediate conclusions, and test for validity using Venn diagrams or rules about term distribution and premise/conclusion polarity.
This document defines and provides examples of sorites arguments. A sorites argument is a chain of syllogisms where the conclusion of each syllogism serves as a premise for the next, until reaching the overall conclusion. There are two types: Aristotelian (progressive) sorites, where each premise subject becomes the next premise predicate; and Goclenian (regressive) sorites, where the order of premises is reversed. The document also outlines the steps to solve a sorites argument: put it in standard form, introduce intermediate conclusions, and test for validity using Venn diagrams or rules about term distribution and premise/conclusion polarity.
This document defines and provides examples of sorites arguments. A sorites argument is a chain of syllogisms where the conclusion of each syllogism serves as a premise for the next, until reaching the overall conclusion. There are two types: Aristotelian (progressive) sorites, where each premise subject becomes the next premise predicate; and Goclenian (regressive) sorites, where the order of premises is reversed. The document also outlines the steps to solve a sorites argument: put it in standard form, introduce intermediate conclusions, and test for validity using Venn diagrams or rules about term distribution and premise/conclusion polarity.
This document defines and provides examples of sorites arguments. A sorites argument is a chain of syllogisms where the conclusion of each syllogism serves as a premise for the next, until reaching the overall conclusion. There are two types: Aristotelian (progressive) sorites, where each premise subject becomes the next premise predicate; and Goclenian (regressive) sorites, where the order of premises is reversed. The document also outlines the steps to solve a sorites argument: put it in standard form, introduce intermediate conclusions, and test for validity using Venn diagrams or rules about term distribution and premise/conclusion polarity.
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1/ 5
Sorites an argument whose conclusion is inferred from its premises by a chain of
syllogistic inferences in which the conclusion of each inference serves as a premise
for the next, and the conclusion of the last syllogism is the conclusion of the entire argument. (Copi & Cohen) - Chain of categorical syllogisms without intermediate conclusion. Two Kinds of Categorical Sorites: Aristotelian (progressive) sorites the predicate of each premise is the subject of the following premise, and the subject of the first premise is the subject of the conclusion. Example: All A is B; All B is C; All C is D; All D is E; Therefore, All A is E All philosophers are wide readers; All wide readers are intelligent; All intelligent people are creative; All creative people are producers of great ideas Therefore, All philosophers are producers of great ideas. Goclenian (regressive) sorites the same premises occur, but their order is reversed. Example: All A is B; All C is A; All D is C; All e is D; Therefore, All E is B. One who will not sacrifice truth for power is a responsible person. One who is a paragon of honesty will not sacrifice truth for power; One who is worth emulating is paragon of honesty; A model of decency is worth emulating; Therefore, A model of decency is a responsible person. Steps in solving Sorites: A. Put sorites in standard form B. Introduce the intermediate conclusion C. Test for validity 1. Venn diagram 2. Use 5 rules
a. Each middle term must be distributed at least once.
b. If a term is distributed in the conclusion, it must be distributed in the premise. c. Two negative (-) premises are not allowed. d. A (-) conclusion requires a (-) premise and a positive (+) conclusion requires a positive (+) premise. e. If all the premises are universal, the conclusion cannot be particular. Application: No B are C. Some E are A. All A are B. All D are C. Some E are not D. 1. Put in standard form: All D are C No B are C All A are B Some E are A Some E are not D 2. Introduce the intermediate conclusions All D are C No B are C Therefore, No B are D All A are B Therefore, No A are D Some E are A Therefore, Some E are not D 3. Test for validity C
Disjunctive syllogism a syllogism in which one of the premises is a disjunction, the
other premise is the denial or the contradictory of one of the two disjuncts in the first premise, and the conclusion is the statement that the other disjunct in that first premise is true.
She was driven either by stupidity or arrogance
She was driven by stupidity disjuncts She was driven by arrogance
Kinds of disjunctive syllogism
1. Inclusive sense one is true P or Q MP: Either A or B mp: - B Therefore: A *Rule: Negate one option so the remainder is your conclusion Example: Either the wall is wet or the floor is wet The wall is wet Therefore, the floor is not wet ( This conclusion is invalid, as both the wall and floor may be wet.)
Either the wall is wet or the floor is wet
The wall is not wet Therefore, the floor is wet. (this is conclusion is valid because atleast one of the two options of a disjunctive must obtain
2. Exclusive P or Q but not both MP: Either a or B but not both mp: B Therefore, not A Example: Either the wall is not wet or the floor is wet, but not both The wall is wet Therefore, the floor is not wet ( this conclusion is valid, because the major premise is exclusive, so one of the two options must obtain but not both ) Other Examples:
1. The cake has either chocolate or vanilla frosting.
The cake does not have vanilla frosting. Therefore, the cake has chocolate frosting. 2. Either the Sun orbits the Earth, or the Earth orbits the Sun. The Sun does not orbit the Earth. Therefore, the Earth orbits the Sun.
