Statement: If you work hard, you will pass. Conclusions: I. You passed, therefore you worked hard. II. You did not work hard, therefore you did not pass.
Explanation:
This is a conditional statement. I is affirming the consequent (fallacy). II is denying the antecedent (fallacy). Neither follows logically.
Statement:
Only good singers are invited to the conference. Voice is a good singer.
Conclusions:
I. Voice is invited to the conference.
II. All invited people are good singers.
Which conclusion(s) logically follow?
Explanation:
The statement says 'only good singers are invited', which translates to 'All invited people are good singers' (II follows). However, it does not say *all* good singers are invited. Voice is a good singer, but might not be invited. Thus, I does not strictly follow.
Explanation:
The statement implies education has great power to effect change, so I follows. II is not directly implied; the metaphor is about power, not literal weapons.
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!