Logic Midterm 2

False Dichotomy

Fallacious presentation of two options as the only options where there are many

Red Herring

Fallacious subtle changing of topic to distract someone from noticing the weakness of your argument

Affirming the consequent and denying the antecedent are two example of a valid argument form

False

An indented indirect proof sequence must begin with an explicit contradiction have the form of p . ~p

False

Associativity applies only when a dot and a wedge appear within a statement

False

The explicit contradiction on the last indented line of an IP sequence may contain proposition letter that do not appear in the assumption line beginning the indented sequence

True

The expression (A>B) . C is logically equivalent to the expression C . (A>B)

True

Complex Question

Committed when two ( or more) questions are asked in the guise of a single question, and a single answer is given to both. The respondent's answer is added, an argument emerges that establishes the presumed condition

Begging the Question

Fallacious assumption of what you are trying to prove

Hasty Generalization

Fallacious generalization from a non-representative sample

Slippery Slope

Fallacious interference that if we accept something, we will be powerless to avoid future acts

Conjunction allows you to obtain the left-hand conjunct of a conjunctive proposition on a separate and subsequent line

False

Destructive Dilemma is an invalid argument form

False

If an argument is a substitution instance of an invalid argument form, then it must be an invalid argument

False

If an argument's conclusion contains a letter that does not appear in the argument's given premises, then the argument must be invalid

False

If you have a disjunction on its own line and the negation of the right-hand disjunct on another line, then you may use the disjunctive syllogism rule

False

In the application of the commutativity rule, the order of the letters remains unchanged, even though the placement of the parenthesis changes

False

It is impossible for a valid argument to be a substitution in stance of an invalid argument form

False

Modus Ponens is an Invalid argument form

False

Modus Tollens requires a conditional on its own line and the antecedent of that conditional on another line

False

One way to refute a constructive or destructive dilemma is to "grasp the dilemma by the horns,' which means to prove that the disjunctive premise is false

False

Rules of implication are rules of logical equivalence

False

Rules of replacement are applicable only to whole lines in a proof

False

Simplification allows you to obtain the right-hand conjunct of a conjunction on a separate and subsequent proof line

False

The assumption beginning an indirect proof sequence should be the same proposition you are trying to prove

False

The conditional proved by an indented conditional proof sequence should go on an indented line, within the scope of the assumption, immediately after the line containing the conditional's consequent

False

The distribution rule applies only to the conditional statement forms

False

The double negation rule states that any statement with the form p v q is logically equivalent to q v p

False

The indented line beginning a new conditional sequence should be justified by the acronym (CP)

False

The indirect proof method can be used to obtain the conclusion of an argument only if the argument is invalid

False

The last line of an indirect proof sequence must be an explicit contradiction of the form p>~p

False

The statment variables (p and q) in the form for DS can only stand for simple statements, not compound

False

To prove a biconditional using the conditional proof method, use two conditional proofs, one within the scope of the other

False

To prove a conditional with the conditional proof method, assume the conditional's consequent on an indented line, and derive the conditional's antecedent on a subsequent line within the scope of the indented sequence

False

To prove the conditional (C . I) > (Z v F) using the CP method, you should assume Z v F on an indented line and prove C . I w/n the scope of the indented sequence

False

When you are using a natural deduction proof to show that an argument is valid, the last line of your proof should always match the first premise

False

You can use constructive dilemma to prove a conjunction

False

You can use simplification to obtain any propositions letter from a previous compound proposition on separate and subsequent line

False

You do not need to discharge every indented Conditional or Indirect proof sequence to complete a proof correctly

False

Oversimplified Cause

Highlighting on aspect of the whole cause.

Gambler's Fallacy

In chance, thinking that there is a causal connection

Appeal to ignorance

The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, the lack of proof for a claim is not evidence the claim is falce

Addition is the only rule of implication that allows you to introduce into a proof a new proposition letter that does not appear in the argument's given premises

True

Affirming the consequent is an invalid argument form

True

Any argument that is a substitution instance of a valid argument form is valid

True

Conditional proof can be used only to obtain a conditional with a horseshoe as its main operator

True

Destructive Dilemma is not included as an implication rule in your textbook's rules of implication

True

Disjunctive syllogism is a valid argument form

True

If an argument is a substitution instance of an invalid form, then it could still be a valid argument

True

If you are using a conditional proof sequence to prove a conditional whose consequent is also a conditional, then you can use another conditional proof sequence, within the scope of the original sequence, to obtain the conditional's consequent

True

If you are working within an indirect proof sequence within the scope of another indented sequence, then you can use lines from the outer sequence as justification for lines in the inner sequence

True

If you derive the statement ~R from the statement ~(ZvF)V~R and from the statement ~~(ZvF) then you are using disjunctive syllogism (DS)

True

If you have premises that are inconsistent, then you can use addition together with disjunctive syllogism to show that any proposition deductively follows

True

If you have the statement ~Z > F on one line and the statement ~Z on another line, then you can use the Modus Ponens rule

True

In a natural deduction proof, disjunctive syllogism always requires that you cite exactly two line numbers

True

In natural deduction proof using the first four implication rules, each new line must follow from the lines above by a rule

True

It is possible for a valid argument to a be a substitution of an invalid argument form in addition to being a substitution instance of a valid argument form

True

Modus Ponens requires a conditional ow its own line and the antecedent of that conditional on another line

True

Modus Tollens is a valid argument form

True

Once you have discharged an indented conditional proof sequence to obtain the resulting conditional, you can use the conditional as justification for the subsequent proof lines

True

One way to refute a constructive or destructive dilemma is to "grasp the dilemma by the horns," which means torueprove one or both of the conditionals in the first premise is false

True

Rules of replacement are not rules of implication

True

Rules of replacement may be applied to parts of an expression

True

Simplification requires that you cite only one previous line as justification for the new line

True

Sometimes you must perform the operation of double negation or the operation of commutativity on the statements in an argument to make the argument fit the pattern of a common argument form

True

The associativity rule states that the truth value of a conjunctive or disjunctive statement is unaffected by the placement of parenthesis when the same operator is used throughout

True

The axiom of replacement asserts that, within a proof logically equivalent expressions may replace each other

True

The conclusion (indicated by a single slash) indicates what the proof should yield in the end; therefore, you should not cite the conclusion line as justification for any lines within the actual proof

True

The last indented line of a conditional proof sequence should always be the consequent of the conditional you are trying to prove

True

The proposition Z v ~Z cannot serve as the last indented line of an indirect proof

True

The statement variables (p, q, and r) in the form of HS may stand for compound statements

True

The statement you conclude form an entire indirect sequence should be the negation of the assumption beginning the indented indirect proof sequence

True

When you are using conjunction to conjoin together with with a dot propositions on two previous proof lines, either propositions can become the left-hand conjunct

True

You can prove the validity of any valid argument using the indirect proof method

True

A conditional proof sequence should be indented to indicate that the indented lines are dependent upon the initial assumption beginning the sequence

True~

Post Hoc Ergo Propert Hoc

When things happen sequentially and assuming the first thing caused the second thing

Appeal to Unqualified Authority

When using an authority that is not related to the problem at hand

Non Causa Pro Causa

assuming causal relationship when there is none

IN a natural deduction proof, MP always requires that you cite exactly one line number

false