Reconstruct the following as a standard-form syllogism;then,determine whether it is valid using either a Venn diagram or the rules of the syllogism.
"Not necessarily,Mr.Dalgliesh.Suppose it's a double bluff.Suppose he's saying in effect,'Look,I can prove I knew the Whistler was dead.Whoever killed Hilary Robarts didn't know.So why aren't you looking for someone who hadn't been told that the Whistler's body had been found?'" -P.D.James,Devices and Desires
I = people identical to me;W = people who knew the Whistler was dead;K = people who killed Hilary Robarts.
No W are K.
All I are W.
Therefore,no I are K.
Valid.
Correct Answer:
Verified
View Answer
Unlock this answer now
Get Access to more Verified Answers free of charge
Q3: Translate the following into a standard-form categorical
Q8: Translate the following into a standard-form categorical
Q9: Translate the following into a standard-form categorical
Q26: Translate the following into a standard-form categorical
Q26: Translate the following into a standard-form categorical
Q27: Translate the following into a standard-form categorical
Q30: Translate the following into a standard-form categorical
Q37: Translate the following into a standard-form categorical
Q39: Translate the following into a standard-form categorical
Q72: Reconstruct the following as a standard-form syllogism;
Unlock this Answer For Free Now!
View this answer and more for free by performing one of the following actions
Scan the QR code to install the App and get 2 free unlocks
Unlock quizzes for free by uploading documents