1 / 26

Using Venn Diagrams to Test Validity

Using Venn Diagrams to Test Validity. What we are doing. To test the validity of a syllogism, you may use a Venn diagram. A Venn diagram is three intersecting circles. There are 8 sections created as a result. How to do it.

diella
Télécharger la présentation

Using Venn Diagrams to Test Validity

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Using Venn Diagrams to Test Validity

  2. What we are doing. • To test the validity of a syllogism, you may use a Venn diagram. • A Venn diagram is three intersecting circles. There are 8 sections created as a result.

  3. How to do it. • To test a syllogism using a Venn diagram, we fill in the major and minor premises. • Do NOT fill in the conclusion. • If the syllogism is valid, the conclusion will already be diagrammed. If it isn’t, the syllogism is invalid.

  4. S is the minor term. (Remember: S is the subject of the conclusion.) P is the major term (the predicate of the conclusion.) M is the middle term.

  5. Take the following syllogism: All Greeks are mortal. (All M are P) All Athenians are Greek. (All S are M) So, all Athenians are mortal. (All S are P) What is its mood and figure? AAA-1

  6. Start with the major premise. • (Remember: M is Greeks, P is mortal.) • What would this part look like?

  7. Major premise, diagrammed.

  8. Now, diagram the minor premise: All Athenians are Greek. • Out of P, S, and M, which letter do we use for the Athenians? • S • Out of P, S, and M, which letter will we use for the Greeks? • M

  9. So what will the minor premise look like?

  10. Now, overlap the two premises: • S = Athenians • P = mortal • M = Greeks Is the conclusion valid?

  11. Yes. All Greeks are mortal. (All M are P) All Athenians are Greek. (All S are M) So, all Athenians are mortal. (All S are P)

  12. Try this one: All mathematicians are rational. (All P are M) All philosophers are rational. (All S are M) SO, all philosophers are mathematicians. (All S are P) What will the diagram look like?

  13. Volunteer

  14. What rule(s) does this syllogism violate? All mathematicians are rational. (All P are M) All philosophers are rational. (All S are M) SO, all philosophers are mathematicians. (All S are P) • D1: fallacy of the undistributed middle. (Whenever we have exactly 3 shaded regions, we have a fallacy of distribution.)

  15. Consider the following: All philosophers are logical. (All P are M.) Some physicists are logical. (Some S are M.) So, some philosophers are physicists. (Some S are P.) What is the mood and figure? AII-2

  16. What does this one look like?

  17. AII-2 is invalid. Whenever a diagram indicates that a term occupies 2 regions, it is invalid.

  18. What rule(s) does this one violate? All philosophers are logical. (All P are M.) Some physicists are logical. (Some S are M.) So, some philosophers are physicists. (Some S are P.) • D2 (fallacy of the undistributed middle)

  19. Tweaking it a bit. Some physicists are logical. (Some S are M) No philosophers are logical. (No P are M) So, some physicists are not philosophers. (Some S are not P) What is the mood and figure of this argument? IEO-2

  20. What does IEO-2 look like?

  21. OEO-4 Some P is not M. No M is S. Some S is not P. • Diagram and test for validity. • OEO-4 commits D2, (fallacy of the illicit major).

  22. AEE-3 All M is P. No M is S. No S is P. • AEE is invalid. It commits D2 (fallacy of the illicit major, again).

  23. OOO-1 Some M is not P. Some S is not M. Some S is not P. This syllogism commits a D1 violation…2 negative premises. This particular violation is called fallacy of exclusive premises.

  24. The problem of EAO-4. • No P is M. • All M is S. • Some S is not P. • According to what we’ve learned, EAO-4 doesn’t violate Q1, Q2, D1, or D2. However, there is nothing to positively indicate the conclusion!

  25. One more rule! • You cannot have two universal premises and a particular conclusion. This is called the existential fallacy.

  26. Limitations on Venn Diagrams • 4- and 5-term diagrams are possible, but…

More Related