SUBJECT: it's like a game show, only it doesn't want to play with you

Formal logic or people who like !"ictures or Sad Children#

Thank you, and welcome to this week's episode o !$ogic or lu%stricken depressi&es#'
En(oy )*)
Denying the Disjunct
Either my academic lie is a cruel (oke or + am hallucinating +'m writing this sentence'
+ am not hallucinating +'m writing this sentence'
,y academic lie is a cruel (oke
Affirming the Disjunct
Either e&eryone + lo&e is going to li&e ore&er, or +'m a little -it nauseous right now'
+'m a little -it nauseous right now'
E&eryone + lo&e is e&entually going to die
Hypothetical Syllogism
+ a child in Uganda hasn't -een mutilated -y the time you read this, you ha&en't inished the sentence'
.ou (ust inished the sentence'
There is no such thing as innocence
Modus Ponens
+ + could remem-er what it elt like to eel the touch o someone who lo&ed me, + would tell you
/
+ would tell you
SUS01 2 ohhhh, your last e3ample is so sad :4
5E16. 2 7i 0le3ander, + am not sure a-out your orm, -ut + know that you need some sleep and
some attention rom your mom' + know' + ha&e kids your age' 8o see her' Take Care, 5endy
"0,E$0 2 7ello 0le3ander, it sounds like you need some cheering up' 5endy hit it right on the nose
when she said to go see mom or whoe&er else makes you eel warm and sae' .our academics can't -e
as -ad as you think, you are too smart or that to happen' Cheer up9 .our e3amples were &ery good -ut
a little depressing' ,ay-e ne3t time you will eel -etter and you will make us all smile with your wit
and humor''' 5hat do you say: 0nyway, + really hope you eel -etter soon''
ooh la la, a -it o -athtime un, eh: 8reat e3amples'
Still, though, not sure how + eel a-out your decision concerning the -u--le -ath' +n the Supreme
Court's seminal Bubbles v. Rubber Ducky (1959), the 5arren Court came down pretty hard on the side
o ;u--er 6ucky, declaring that <Mr. Ducky, he's the one... [who] mkes btht!me so much "un<= e&en
going on so ar as to note that <...#l!nt!"" Ducky [...] we're w"ully "on$ o" [h!m]'<
> course, dissenting Justices Brennan and Black did oer a pretty scathing minority opinion as to the
short%sightedness o the rest o the Court's unwillingness to <%ut $own [...] the Ducky<: highlighting in
their iconic <sa3ophone deense< the a-surdity o trying to reconcile ,r' 6ucky's practices with other
high matters o -athtime importance' This was poised to shake the &ery oundations o the trial until the
shocking disco&ery that neither Brennan nor Black had in act -athed since early ?@AB: a contro&ersy
which would ultimately orce them to recuse themsel&es rom the trial'
7ey, the more you know, right:
7ey Brian,
0ll are great e3cept your <airming the conseCuent<, which "amela is dead on a-out' +ts orm is <+ ",
then D' EE D' EE So, "< %% and what happened is, you omitted the middle term, and thus arri&ed at a alse
conclusion' Try:
If we eat fast food, then we will gain weight
We have gained weight.
So, we must have eaten fast food
This, o course, is also a untrue conclusion %% -ut due to a logical allacy, not improper construction'
The particular logical allacy is called <#ost hoc, er&o %ro%ter hoc' ($atin or <ater this, thereore
-ecause o this<F, and is popularly e3pressed today as <Correlation is not Causation< %% i'e' i 0 is
correlated to B, e&en when 0 happens -eore B, it still does not necessarily mean that 0 was the
C0USE o B'
This e3ample is perect: (ust -ecause eating ast ood is correlated to weight gain, when people gain
weight, it is ne&ertheless allacious to assume that ast ood was the cause o that gain %% it could -e due
to inacti&ity, or a thyroid pro-lem, or e&en (ust eating unhealthy Cuantities o health ood''' + mean, hey,
rare as they are, we'&e all met at least one mor-idly o-ese &egan, right''':