This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?

BooksAudiobooksComicsSheet Music### Categories

### Categories

### Categories

Editors' Picks Books

Hand-picked favorites from

our editors

our editors

Editors' Picks Audiobooks

Hand-picked favorites from

our editors

our editors

Editors' Picks Comics

Hand-picked favorites from

our editors

our editors

Editors' Picks Sheet Music

Hand-picked favorites from

our editors

our editors

Top Books

What's trending, bestsellers,

award-winners & more

award-winners & more

Top Audiobooks

What's trending, bestsellers,

award-winners & more

award-winners & more

Top Comics

What's trending, bestsellers,

award-winners & more

award-winners & more

Top Sheet Music

What's trending, bestsellers,

award-winners & more

award-winners & more

Welcome to Scribd! Start your free trial and access books, documents and more.Find out more

Th 1:00- 4:00 pm Bro. Jensen DG. Mañebog

LOGIC: The Art of Reasoning. P. ∴ All philosophers are producers of good ideas. All E is D. P. It has this form: All A is B. All D is E. All C is A. D.SORITES Sorites is an abridged form of polysyllogism wherein the intermediate conclusions are left out. 4 Example: One who will not sacrifice truth for power is a responsible person. All B is C. 1 2 Santiago.2 Example: All philosophers are wide readers. It has this form: All A is B. It is an argument which states the premises and a main conclusion but conceals conclusions in between. . Goclenian Sorites Goclenian sorites is an abridged polysyllogism in which the subject of the preceding premise becomes the predicate of the following. 3 Ibid. Alma Salvador Ph. ∴ All A is E. All wide readers are intelligent. 4 Santiago. All C is D. 3 B. There are two kinds of Sorites: Aristotelian sorites and Goclenian sorites. 1 A. 2002. 2002. One who is worth emulating is a paragon of honesty. ∴ All E is B. Ibid. One who is a paragon of honesty will not sacrifice truth for power. Alma Salvador Ph. 185. All intelligent people are creative. 186. All D is C. LOGIC: The Art of Reasoning. D. Aristotelian Sorites Aristotelian sorites is an abridged polysyllogism in which the predicate of the preceding premise becomes the subject of the following. All creative people are producers of good ideas.

No sons of mine takes any exercise. 5 6 Ibid. we start with the last premise and end with first.A model of decency is worth emulating. The conclusion remains the same. all persons fit to serve on a jury are intelligent. Every animal is God’s creation. . All reproductive things grow._______ ∴ A model of decency is a responsible person. 6 Group 3B’s examples of Sorites Karen Rizel Abella’s example: All animals are living things. No child of mine is healthy who takes no exercise. Kristine Lea Rabaja’s example: Every cat is a mammal. All living things is reproductive. 5 There is no essential difference between the Aristotelian sorites and Goclenian sorites except in the manner of the arrangement of the premises. All animals grow. Ibid. All sane persons are persons who can do Logic. Therefore every cat is God’s creation. who are children of mine. Kin Pearly Flores’ example: All my daughters are slim. Therefore. Every mammal is an animal. To construct the Aristotelian sorites from Goclenian sorites and vice-versa. All gluttons. Crystal Gayle Nacua’s example: All persons fit to serve on a jury are sane persons. All persons who can do Logic are intelligent. Therefore. are fat.

neither horn being comfortable. neither of which is practically acceptable. Tradition has identified two valid moods. I've had it. as follows: 7 http://en. they give an impression of presenting us with a predicament. if I do that. when we are faced with a choice of means to get to a goal.net/2_future_logic/2_chapter_30. The minor premise is a disjunction.DILEMMA A dilemma (Greek: δί-λημμα "double proposition") is a problem offering two possibilities. in action contexts. Colloquially. so it deserves some analysis. This is sometimes more colorfully described as "Finding oneself impaled upon the horns of a dilemma". Simple dilemma consists of a conjunction of subjunctives as major premise. but in logic the expression is understood more broadly. a disjunctive as minor premise. One in this position has been traditionally described as "being on the horns of a dilemma". I've had it — so I've had it anyway (and it is no use my doing this or that)'. then P — and — if N. a. 8 9 . it constitutes a false dichotomy. The hypotheticals which constitute the major premise of a dilemma are called its 'horns'. or B". even at the cost of redundancies. 'If I do this. This is indeed a case of dilemma. in the form "you must accept either A. The conclusion is said to 'resolve' the dilemma.org/wiki/Dilemma http://www. a fallacy. Applied incorrectly. 9 (i) The simple constructive dilemma. we call a 'dilemma'. any impossible choice. 7 The dilemma is sometimes used as a rhetorical device. it has a certain autonomy of cogency and is commonly used in practise. It normally involves three theses. then P but M and/or N hence. If M. we might resolve the dilemma by using all available means.thelogician. and a (relative) categorical as conclusion. Note well first that the disjunction used in dilemma is the 'and/or' type (not the 'or else' type). even if in practise this is not always made clear. to cover more positive situations.htm Ibid. here A and B would be propositions each leading to some further conclusion. so as to ensure that the goal is attained one way or the other. P This is proved by reduction ad absurdum through two negative apodoses. Thus. often. it is said to 'take the dilemma by its horns'.wikipedia. equally uncomfortable (and dangerous). referring to the sharp points of a bull's horns. 8 Although dilemmatic argument may be derived from apodosis and syllogism.

then M — and — if P. If M. then M — and — if P. and disjunctives as minor premise and conclusion. P b. the following two arguments would be fallacious: If M. we could regard the simple constructive dilemma as summarizing a number of positive apodoses. It normally involves four theses. Alternatively. .If M. P and P This shows the essential continuity between the concepts of apodosis and dilemma. Tradition has identified two valid moods. though two are occasionally merely mutual antitheses. P whence. then M — and — if P. then P (original major premise) and not P (denial of conclusion) so. (ii) The simple destructive dilemma. P (common major) (alternative minors) (common conclusion). as in simple dilemma. then Q but M and/or N hence. then P but not M and/or not N hence. If P. P and/or Q This can be proved by reductio ad absurdum. Alternatively. not P This is proved by reduction ad absurdum through two apodoses. Complex dilemma consists of a conjunction of subjunctives as major premise. note. as follows: 10 Ibid. then P — and — if N. then N but not M and/or not N hence. or 'M and N' whence. then P but 'M (and not N)' or 'N (and not M)' whence. 10 (i) The complex constructive dilemma. as follows: If P. we may analyze it through a sorites. then P — and — if N. with reference to the matrix of alternative conjunctions underlying the minor premise: If M. not M and not N (contrary of minor). not P If P. then N but M and/or N hence. then P — and — if N. then P — and — if N. In contrast. M and N (contrary of minor). then N (original major premise) and P (denial of conclusion) so.

not P and/or not Q If P. then not M (contrapose left horn) if not M. if not P. the minor premise means 'if nonM. together with the right horn. But 11 Ibid. in view of the similarity in appearance between these valid substitutes. In contrast. Concerning both the simple and complex valid moods. We may understand this argument as follows: contrapose the left horn to 'if not-{P and nonQ}. then Q (right horn) therefore. because people sometimes argue in that way. if not not P. then P (axiomatic) if P. then {nonP and Q} but M and/or N hence. these propositions. the following two arguments would be fallacious: If M. But this would not reflect the true format of dilemma. then N but not M and/or not N hence. and the minor premises of the invalid moods. (from minor) if not N. Alternatively. note that.If not P. then {nonP and Q}'. 11 A special case of complex constructive dilemma is worthy of note. then not not M (axiomatic) if not not M. form a sorites whose conclusion is 'if not-{P and nonQ}. then N but M and/or N hence. as in simple dilemma. then M — and — if Q. we may analyze it through a sorites. then M (left horn) if M. then not Q (transform to conclusion). not to accumulate useless formulas. then Q (transform to conclusion). then not N. in the valid constructive and destructive moods. not P and/or not Q This can be proved by reductio ad absurdum. The goal here is only to describe actual thought processes. (ii) The complex destructive dilemma. P and/or Q c. either P or Q. then not Q (contrapose right horn) therefore. then N'. respectively. then Q but not M and/or not N hence. then P — and — if N. then M — and — if Q. Its form is: If M. as follows: If not not P. . then {P and nonQ} — and — if N. However. then N (from minor) if N. formally speaking. it is well to be aware of the possibility of confusion. then nonM'. we could use as minor premises the equivalent forms 'not M or else not N' and 'M or else N'. If P.

simple and complex dilemmas may consist of more than two horns. Destructive: If A is true. we should be careful with it. is/are true therefore A is true. but either M or nonM. There is no destructive version of this argument. the independence signals lack of connection. what this argument achieves is the elimination of the remaining two formal alternatives. but there is a resemblance. in that only three theses are involved. and if Q. meaning 'If P not-then R. There is also no equivalent argument in simple dilemma. then not-{nonP and Q}'. It follows that simple and complex dilemma should not be viewed as essentially distinct forms of argument. then R. for any two propositions.we know on formal grounds. hence R anyway'. then R. simple dilemma is a limiting case of complex dilemma. the independence is an outcome of multiple dependence. Note well the difference. and if Q not-then R. hence. that 'if {P and nonQ}. 12 Ibid. which is formally given anyway. In the former case. but R'. then not-{nonP and Q}'. because its result would only be 'if {P and nonQ}. and if nonM. Also. in the latter case. 12 Also note. But note that if we substitute nonM for N in the one above. either P or Q. because in some cases we intend it to dissociate R from P and Q. but also exhaustive. we obtain something akin to it: if M. is/are false therefore A is false'. since formally true. The commonly employed form 'Whether P or Q. Thus. but P and/or Q. This is not really simple dilemma because the antecedents are not identical. then {P and nonQ}. 'either {P and nonQ} or {nonP and Q}' is true. Therefore. the combinations {P and nonQ} and {nonP and Q} become not merely incompatible. then {nonP and Q}. then A is true but B and/or C and/or D…etc. then B and C and D …etc. meaning 'If P. . the minor premise here is redundant. {P and Q} and {nonP and nonQ}. Similarly with other sorts of arrays. so the conclusion may be viewed as an eduction from the compound major premise. which can in turn be rephrased as 'either P or Q'. However. rather. R' is normally understood as an abridged simple constructive dilemma. the process involved being essentially one of purging our knowledge of extraneous alternatives. The following are examples of multi-horned simple dilemma: Constructive: If B and/or C and/or D… is/are true. This shows that we can view the horns of dilemmas as forming a single hypothetical proposition whose antecedent and/or consequent is/are conjunctive or disjunctive. are true but B and/or C and/or D…etc.

it turns lead into gold. is a very significant form of reasoning. I will make my own dreams be fulfilled. The significance of this will become more transparent as we proceed further. sales will slump.Dilemma. either I will make my parents proud or I will make my own dreams be fulfilled. logically. Without this device. 13 Ibid. sales will slump. if I stay. If I jump. But. . Either we increase the price or we decrease the quality. and deal with paradoxical logic. only factual in status. Therefore. in that it is capable of yielding factual results from purely problematic theses (implicit in hypotheticals or disjunctives). Note however that the conclusion of a simple dilemma is still. If I travel around the world and not finish my studies. simple version. Kin Pearly Flores’ example: If we increase the price. A thesis only acquires the status of logical necessity or impossibility. when the exhaustiveness of the alternatives in the premises is itself logically incontingent (rather than a function of the present context of knowledge). I shall not have to pay Euathlus. If I finish my studies and not travel around the world. If we decrease the quality. I shall not have to pay Euathlus. Crystal Gayle Nacua’s example: If I win this case. in dilemma. I shall die immediately from the fire. If I lose this case. when it is implied or denied by all eventualities. sales will slump. Kristine Lea Rabaja’s example: I must either jump or stay. Therefore. 13 Group 3B’s examples of Dilemma Karen Rizel Abella’s example: Either I finish my studies or I will travel around the world. this means. I shall die immediately from the fall. knowledge would ever be conjectural. I shall die immediately. a mass of logically related but unresolvable problems. I will make my parents proud. Like the philosopher's stone of the alchemist. especially its ultimate. Therefore.

I must either win or lose this case. . I do not have to pay Euathlus. Therefore.

Are you sure?

This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?

We've moved you to where you read on your other device.

Get the full title to continue

Get the full title to continue listening from where you left off, or restart the preview.

scribd