Speakpigeon wrote: ↑
Fri Jan 25, 2019 4:02 pm
This is a poll on the logical validity of the following argument:
A squid is not a giraffe
A giraffe is not an elephant
An elephant is not a squid
Joe is either a squid or a giraffe
Joe is an elephant
Therefore, Joe is a squid
Is this argument logically valid?
Either way, please articulate why.
This argument is not logically valid because:
1. So called premise 4 and 5 contradict each other.
2. So called premise 4 and 5 do not contradict each other but that is not made clear.
3. The so called conclusion does not follow the so called premises.
6. If joe is an elephant but an elephant is not a squid, then joe could not be a squid. The conclusion is false.
6. The first three lines do not need to be stated, as they are obviously true.
7. The conclusion does not logically follow from the previous two lines.
8. 'Joe' is not any thing other than a name, which is just a label placed onto some other actual thing.
I am pretty sure there are other reasons in there, but just at the moment i could not be bothered looking for them.