Phil 201 Exam 2

Front 1

How do you find Validity in truth tables?

Back 1

T-T-F

Find it: Invalid

Don't find it: Valid

Front 2

How do you find Consistency in truth tables?

Back 2

T-T-T

Find it: Consistent

Don't find it: Inconsistent

Front 3

How do you find Equivalence in truth tables?

Back 3

Same on each row: Consistent

Different on at least one row: Inconsistent

Front 4

How do you find Truth, Falsity, and Indeterminacy in truth tables?

Back 4

All T: T-F True

All F: T-F False

Mixed: T-F Indeterminate

Front 5

&Introduction sentence logic derivation rule

Back 5

P

Q

------

P&Q

Front 6

&Elimination sentence logic derivation rule

Back 6

P&Q

-------

P or Q

Front 7

vIntroduction sentence logic derivation

Back 7

P

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

PvQ or QvP

Front 8

Fallacy or valid?

P ⊃ Q

Q

---------

P

Back 8

Fallacy

Front 9

P ⊃ Q
P
---------
Q

Back 9

Valid

Front 10

P ⊃ Q
~P
---------
~Q

Back 10

Fallacy

Front 11

P ⊃ Q
~Q
---------
~P

Back 11

Valid

Front 12

P v Q
P
---------
~Q

Back 12

Fallacy

Front 13

P v Q
~P
--------
Q

Back 13

Valid

Front 14

P ⊃ R
Q ⊃ R
----------
P ⊃ Q

Back 14

Fallacy

Front 15

P ⊃ Q
Q ⊃ R
---------
P ⊃ R

Back 15

Valid

Front 16

P ⊃ Q ≠ Q ⊃ P

Back 16

Fallacy

Front 17

P ⊃ Q ≠ ~P ⊃~Q

Back 17

Fallacy

Front 18

P ⊃ Q = ~Q ⊃~P

Back 18

Valid

Front 19

~(P & Q) ≠ ~P & ~Q
~(P v Q) ≠ ~P v ~Q

Back 19

Fallacy

Front 20

~(P & Q) = ~P v ~Q
~(P v Q) = ~P & ~Q

Back 20

Valid

Front 21

vElimination

Back 21

PvQ

P
---
R

Q
---
R
-------------
R

Front 22

⊃Introduction

Back 22

R

P

---

Q

----------

P ⊃ Q

Front 23

⊃Elimination

Back 23

P ⊃ Q
P
---------
Q

Front 24

≡ Introduction

Back 24

P

---

Q

Q

---

P

-----------

P ≡ Q

Front 25

≡ Elimination

Back 25

P ≡ Q P ≡ Q
P Q
------- or --------
Q P

Front 26

~Introduction

Back 26

~P

----

Q

~Q

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

~P

Front 27

~Elimination

Back 27

~P

----

Q

~Q

-----------

P

Front 28

Com

Back 28

P & Q or Q & P
--------- ---------
Q & P P & Q

P v Q or Q v P
-------- --------
Q v P P v Q

Front 29

Assoc

Back 29

P & (Q & R) or (P & Q) & R
---------------- -----------------
(P & Q) & R P & (Q & R)

P v (Q v R) or (P v Q) v R
--------------- ---------------
(P v Q) v R P v (Q v R)

Front 30

DN

Back 30

P or ~ ~ P
----- -------
~ ~ P P

Front 31

HS

Back 31

P ⊃ Q
Q ⊃ R
----------
P ⊃ R

Front 32

DS

Back 32

P v Q

~P

--------

Q

Front 33

MT

Back 33

P ⊃ Q
----------
~Q~ P

Front 34

Impl

Back 34

P ⊃ Q or ~P v Q
--------- ----------
~P v Q P ⊃ Q

Front 35

DeM

Back 35

~(P v Q) or ~P & ~Q
------------ -----------
~P & ~Q ~ (P v Q)

~(P & Q) or ~P v ~Q
------------ -----------
~P v ~Q ~(P & Q)

Front 36

Trans

Back 36

P ⊃ Q or ~Q ⊃ ~P
--------- -----------
~Q ⊃ ~P P ⊃ Q

Front 37

Key: U.D.: Persons
Lxy: x loves y
Hx: x is a hitman
Mx: x is a mobster
k: Kay m: Michael s: Sonny 3. Michael loves Kay but she does not love him.

Back 37

Lmk & ~ Lkm

Front 38

Key: U.D.: Persons
Lxy: x loves y
Hx: x is a hitman
Mx: x is a mobster
k: Kay m: Michael s: Sonny 2. If everyone is a hitman, then everyone is a mobster.

Back 38

(∀x) Hx ⊃ (∀x) Mx

Front 39

Key: U.D.: Persons
Lxy: x loves y
Hx: x is a hitman
Mx: x is a mobster
k: Kay m: Michael s: Sonny 4. Everyone who loves Michael loves Sonny.

Back 39

(∀x) (Lxm ⊃ Lxs)

Front 40

Key: U.D.: Everything
Bx: x is beautiful
Ex: x is an egomaniac
Gx: x is good Px: x is a person Sx: x is a singer s: Sam
4. Everyone is beautiful.

Back 40

(∀x) (Px ⊃ Bx)

Front 41

Key: U.D.: Persons
Lxy: x loves y
Hx: x is a hitman
Mx: x is a mobster
k: Kay m: Michael s: Sonny 1. Sonny does not love everyone.

Back 41

~ (∀x) Lsx

Front 42

Key: U.D.: Persons
Lxy: x loves y
Hx: x is a hitman
Mx: x is a mobster
k: Kay m: Michael s: Sonny
5. Some but not all mobsters are hitmen.

Back 42

(∃x) (Mx & Hx) & ~ (∀x) (Mx ⊃ Hx)

Front 43

Key: U.D.: Everything
Bx: x is beautiful
Ex: x is an egomaniac
Gx: x is good Px: x is a person Sx: x is a singer s: Sam
3. If anything is beautiful, Sam is.

Back 43

(∃x) Bx ⊃ Bs

Front 44

Key: U.D.: Everything
Bx: x is beautiful
Ex: x is an egomaniac
Gx: x is good Px: x is a person Sx: x is a singer s: Sam
5. Anything that sings is beautiful.

Back 44

(∀x) (Sx ⊃ Bx)

Front 45

Key: U.D.: Everything
Bx: x is beautiful
Ex: x is an egomaniac
Gx: x is good Px: x is a person Sx: x is a singer s: Sam
2. Some singers are good but some are not.

Back 45

(∃x) (Sx & Gx) & (∃x) (Sx & ~Gx)

Front 46

Key: U.D.: Everything
Bx: x is beautiful
Ex: x is an egomaniac
Gx: x is good Px: x is a person Sx: x is a singer s: Same

1. Beautiful egomaniacs are non-existent.

Back 46

~(∃x) (Bx & Ex)

Front 47

Someone is unhappy. Hence, it is not the case that everyone is happy.

Back 47

Valid

Front 48

~(∀x) (Ax ⊃ Bx)
----------------------
(∀x) (Ax ⊃ ~Bx)

Back 48

Invalid

Front 49

Everyone is loved by someone. Therfore, someone loves everyone.

Back 49

Invalid

Front 50

No one is taller than Shaq, and Shaq is taller than Kobe, so no one is taller than Kobe.

Back 50

Invalid

Front 51

(∀x)(Px & Pa)
--------------------
(∀) Px & Pa

Back 51

Valid

Front 52

Someone is rich, so someone is not rich.

Back 52

Invalid

Front 53

(∃x)(Px ⊃ Pa)
-------------------
(∃x) Px ⊃ Pa

Back 53

Invalid

Front 54

(∃x) (Px ⊃ Pa)
--------------------
(∀x) Px ⊃ Pa

Back 54

Valid

Front 55

It's not the case that something is perfect. Consequently, nothing is perfect.

Back 55

Invalid

Front 56

If someone is in Pullman, then he is not in Moscow. A man is in Moscow, Hence, there is not a man in Pullman.

Back 56

Invalid

Front 57

There is a head and Saul does not have it. Thus, Saul does not have a head.

Back 57

Invalid

Front 58

Not all foods are tax-exempt. Therefore, any food product can be taxed.

Back 58

Invalid

Front 59

The conclusion is a restatement of one of the premises

Back 59

Begging the question fallacy

Front 60

Different meanings used in the same argument making it invalid

Back 60

Equivocation fallacy

Front 61

Invalid inference exploiting the vagueness of a term

Back 61

Vagueness fallacy

Front 62

Reasoning that something is so because it's parts are that way

Back 62

Composition fallacy

Front 63

Reasoning the parts to something are so because the whole is

Back 63

Division fallacy

Front 64

Irrelevant personal attack

Back 64

Ad Hominem fallacy

Front 65

Something is true because it has not been proven false

Back 65

Appeal to ignorance fallacy

Front 66

Persuasion based on an appeal to sentiment

Back 66

Appeal to pity fallacy

Front 67

Persuasion based on what will happen to non-believers

Back 67

Appeal to force fallacy

Front 68

Justify a belief by appealing to an "expert"

Back 68

Appeal to authority fallacy

Front 69

Justify a belief by the popularity of that belief

Back 69

Appeal to popularity fallacy

Front 70

Justify an action done to a person or group based on them doing the same thing

Back 70

Two wrongs make a right fallacy

Front 71

Justify an action by appealing to lots of people doing it

Back 71

Appeal to common practice fallacy

Front 72

Misuse of statistics

Back 72

Questionable statistics fallacy

Front 73

Basing a conclusion on a sample size too small to be reliable

Back 73

Small sample fallacy

Front 74

Basing a conclusion on a sample size not representative of the whole population

Back 74

Unrepresentative sample fallacy

Front 75

argument missing relevant information

Back 75

Suppressed evidence fallacy

Front 76

Weak casual argument

Back 76

Questionable cause fallacy

Front 77

Argument against something based on a chain of events eventually leading to a catastrophe

Back 77

Casual slippery slope fallacy