cellent!

Retake
Course Home

Correct
1 / 1 points

1.
Which of the following asserts a material conditional?

a. If John is not in his office, then hes at home.

Correct
A material conditional contains two complete propositions, which are separated by the English
words if... then. The proposition expressed by (a) is If John is not in his office, then John is at
home.

b. Either John is not in his office, or he is.

c. John and Jim are both in their offices.

d. John is not in his office, but Jim is.

e. None of the above.

Correct
1 / 1 points

2.
Which of the following asserts a material conditional?

c. He knows that if James is not in his office, then Jim is.

a. If you dont have a green card, then could you please show me a drivers license?
b. I think that if we need to go, we will.

e. None of the above.

d. The teams will play this season only if the strike ends.

Correct
A material conditional contains two complete propositions, which are separated by the English
words if" and "then. The proposition expressed by (d) is If the teams will play this season, then
the strike ends.

(NOTE: The English phrase "only if" expresses a conditional. "X only if Y" means "if X, then Y.")

Correct
1 / 1 points

3.
Which of the following arguments is valid?

a. The teams will play this season only if the strike ends.

The strike will end.

----------------------

Therefore, the teams will play this season.

b. If John goes, then Jim will stay.

---------------------

John will not go and Jim will stay.

c. If John goes, then Jim will stay.

Jim will stay.

-----------------------
Therefore, John will go.

d. They will get paid if they do their job.

They will get paid.

------------------------

Therefore, they will do their job.

e. If John will go, then Jim will stay.

John will go.

----------------------

Jim will stay.

Correct
If one of an argument's premises has the form, "if p, then q," and if another premise is simply the
first part, "p," which comes after the word, "if," then it is valid to infer q. So, for example, suppose
one of an argument's premises is the following:

(i) If there is a cat in the room, then there is a mouse in the room.

Suppose that the other premise is this:

(ii) There is a cat in the room.

In this case, it would be valid to infer, "there is a mouse in the room."

Remember, it is important to distinguish this valid form of reasoning, modus ponens, from
another, invalid way of reasoning. If one premise is "if p, then q," and another premise is "q," it
is not valid to infer "p." Or if we had these premises:

(iii) If there is a cat in the room, then there is a mouse in the room

(iv) There is a mouse in the room

It would not be valid to infer, "there is a cat in the room." This is because (iii) only says that the
presence of a cat in the room is sufficient for the presence of a mouse in the room. It says that a
cat is enough for there to be a mouse. It does not say that the presence of a cat is necessary for
the presence of a mouse, though. It says, "if there is a cat in the room, then there is a mouse in
the room." It does not say, "if a mouse is in the room, then a cat is in the room."

In the next lecture, (at about 6:00) we will introduce some new words--"antecedent" and
"consequent"--which allow this whole point to be stated more briefly. The point is this: if one of an
argument's premises is a conditional, and if another premise is that conditional's antecedent, then
it is valid to infer that conditional's consequent. We will discuss more in the following lecture.

Correct
1 / 1 points

4.
Which of the following arguments is valid?

a. If you are rich, then you are happy.

You are happy.

----------------------

Therefore, you are rich.

b. If you are rich, then you are sad.

You are not sad.

------------------------

Therefore, you are not rich.

Correct
Recall that one of the rules we learned, which is associated with conditionals, is modus tollens. If
one of an argument's premises has the form, "if p, then q," and if another premise is the negation
of the second part, "not q," then it is valid to infer, "not p." So, for example, suppose one of an
argument's premises is this:

(i) If there is a dragon upstairs, then it is raining.

Suppose that the other premise is this:

(ii) It is not raining.

In this case, it would be valid to infer, "there is not a dragon upstairs."

c. If you are sad and rich, then you dont deserve your wealth.

You are sad.

----------------------

Therefore, you are not rich.

d. If you are neither sad nor rich, then you are happy.

You are not happy.

-----------------------

You are both sad and rich.

e. None of the above.