Argumentative Essay: If An Islander Was A Hunter

Suppose the islander was a hunter, the statement would have to be false, therefore the monkey would be stolen by a fisherman. If the islander was a fisherman, then the statement would be true, thus the monkey would be stolen by a hunter. Hence the islander is innocent. This is because whether he is a hunter or a fisherman, the statement is implies that the opposite type of islander, from the man on trial, stole the monkey

No it is not. Notice that if a Hunter were to say “I am a hunter” then he would be telling the truth, but hunters only lie. In addition, fisherman only tell the truth, so he would not be able to say “I am a hunter.” Both can only say “I am a fisherman.”
It is possible for a hunter to say this statement because hunters always …show more content…
A hunter can not say this statement because both parts would be true to him, and a hunter can not tell the truth.
Neither a hunter nor a fisherman can say this statement. To make a statement true with an “or” connective, at least one of the antecedent or consequent must be true. A fisherman can not say this statement because both the antecedent and consequent are false, making the statement false and a fisherman can not lie. A hunter couldn 't say this because the antecedent is true, and although the consequent is false, the entire statement is true. Hence why a hunter could not say this because a hunter has to lie.
A fisherman would be able to say this because “two plus two equals four’ is the truth. Although “I am a hunter” is a lie, the statement would be true, and a fisherman has to tell the truth. A hunter would not be able to say this statement because both “I am a hunter” and “two plus two equals four” are true statements, making the conditional statement true, and hunters can not