Argument

Topic 8 Reading Exercises from: Copi, Irving M. Introduction to Logic, 14th Ed. Routledge.
7.5 INSTRUCTIONS
For each of the following enthymematic arguments:
a. Formulate the plausible premise or conclusion, if any, that is missing but understood.
b. Write the argument in standard form, including the missing premise or conclusion needed to make the completed argument valid—if possible—using parameters if necessary.
c. Name the order of the enthymeme.
d. If the argument is not valid even with the understood premise included, name the fallacy that it commits.
Example Problem
Transgenic animals are manmade and as such are patentable.
—Alan E. Smith, cited in Genetic Engineering(San Diego, CA: Greenhaven Press, 1990)
Example Solution
a. The premise understood but not stated here is that whatever is manmade is patentable.
b. Standard-form translation:
All manmade things are patentable things.
All transgenic animals are manmade things.
Therefore, all transgenic animals are patentable things.
c. The enthymeme is first-order, because the premise taken as understood is the major premise of the completed argument.
d. This is a valid syllogism of the form AAA–1, Barbara.
PROBLEMS
20. Productivity is desirable because it betters the condition of the vast majority of the people.
—Stephen Miller, “Adam Smith and the Commercial Republic,”The Public Interest, Fall 1980
Solution 20
The premise can be understood from the statement because it is only through desirable productivity that vast majority of people are made better.

Standard-form translation:
Productivity betters the conditions of majority people.
Desirable productivity betters the conditions of vast majority of people.
Therefore, all productivity that is desirable betters the condition of vast majority of people.
The enthymeme is second-order because one has to interchange the premise for it to gain meaning that is easily understood.
This is a case of valid syllogism of the form AAA-1, Barbara
21. Advertisements perform a vital function in almost any society, for they help to bring buyers and sellers together.
—Burton M. Leiser, Liberty, Justice, and Morals, 1986
Solution 21
The premise is understandable on the major functions of advertisement and how it helps in bringing buyers and seller alone.
Standard-form translation:
Advertisements help bring buyers and sellers together.
Advertisements play vital function in almost any society.
Therefore, advertisement helps bring sellers and buyers together in almost any society.
The enthymeme is in the first-order form since the premise since it’s the major premise to bring completed argument.
This is a pure hypothetical syllogism (Copi, Cohen & Rodych, 2016).
22. Logic is a matter of profound human importance precisely because it is empirically founded and experimentally applied.
—John Dewey, Reconstruction in Philosophy, 1920
Solution 22
The premise is understood since it creates an assumption that logic is empirically founded and experimentally applied.
Standard-form translation:
Logic is a matter of profound human importance.
Logic is empirically founded and experimentally applied.
Therefore, logic is of profound human importance since it can be empirically founded and experimentally applied.
The enthymeme is in the second-order form since the premise can be understood easily hence it supports the complete argument.
This is a case of hypothetical syllogism(Copi, Cohen & Rodych, 2016).
23. Iphigeneia at Aulis is a tragedy because it demonstrates inexorably how human character, with its itch to be admired, combines with the malice of heaven to produce wars which no one in his right mind would want and which turn out to be utterly disastrous for everybody.
—George E. Dimock, Jr., Introduction to Iphigeneia at Aulis by Euripides, 1992
Solution 23
The premise is understood and stated correctly that Iphigeneia at Aulis is a tragedy that demonstrates how human character combines malice of heaven and produces wars.
Standard-form translation:
Iphigeneia at Aulis demonstrates how human character combines malice of heaven and produces wars.
Iphigeneia at Aulis produces disastrous wars for everybody.
Therefore, Iphigeneia at Aulis is a tragedy which produces wars that are disastrous.
The enthymeme is in the first-order form since the premise given has completed argument.
This is a case of valid syllogism of form AAA-1, Barbara
24. … the law does not expressly permit suicide, and what it does not expressly permit it forbids.
—Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics
Solution 24
The premise is understood as stated that the law does not expressly permit suicide.
Standard-form translation:
Law forbids suicide.
Suicide is not expected to be illegal.
The law does not expressly forbid suicide.
Therefore, there are some actions that the law does not permit and hence it forbids.
The enthymeme is second-order whereby the premise is understood as the major premise hence making the argument complete(Copi, Cohen & Rodych, 2016).
This a case of Categorical Syllogism of form AAA-1
25. The man who says that all things come to pass by necessity cannot criticize one who denies that all things come to pass by necessity: for he admits that this too happens of necessity.
—Epicurus, Fragment XL, Vatican Collection
Solution 25
The premise is only understood through combining different premises to conclude that a man who says all things come to pass by necessity cannot criticize the one who denies.
Standard-form:
The man who says all things come to pass by necessity.
The man who denies all things comes to pass by necessity.
Therefore, a man admits that all things happen because of necessity.
The enthymeme is of second-order and the premise is added up to the conclusion given of the argument(Copi, Cohen & Rodych, 2016).
This is a case of hypothetical syllogism of AAA-1.
7.7 INSTRUCTIONS
Identify the form of each of the following arguments and state whether the argument is valid or invalid:
Example Problem
If a man could not have done otherwise than he in fact did, then he is not responsible for his action. But if determinism is true, it is true of every action that the agent could not have done otherwise. Therefore, if determinism is true, no one is ever responsible for what he does.
—Winston Nesbit and Stewart Candlish, “Determinism and the Ability to Do Otherwise,” Mind, July 1978
Example Solution
This is a pure hypothetical syllogism. Valid.
PROBLEMS
10. I have already said that he must have gone to King’s Pyland or to Capleton. He is not at King’s Pyland, therefore he is at Capleton.
—Arthur Conan Doyle, The Adventure of Silver Blaze
Solution
The argument has a disjunctive argument. It is, therefore, a disjunctive syllogism. Since the argument is of the following form either A is true or B is true.
A is not true.
Therefore, B is true.
The above syllogism is valid.
11. If then, it is agreed that things are either as the result of coincidence or for an end, and that these cannot be the result of coincidence or spontaneity, it follows that they must be for an end.
—Aristotle, Physics
Solution
It is a mixed hypothetical syllogism. It is a valid (Bunge, 2012).
12. There is no case known (neither is it, indeed, possible) in which a thing is found to be the efficient cause of itself; for in such a case it would be prior to itself, which is impossible.
—Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, I, question 2, article 3
Solution
The argument is a Disjunctive syllogism. This is a valid argument
13. Either wealth is an evil or wealth is a good; but wealth is not an evil; therefore wealth is a good.
—Sextus Empiricus, Against the Logicians, second century CE
Solution
It is a Disjunctive syllogism and it is valid.
14. I do know that this pencil exists; but I could not know this, if Hume’s principles were true; therefore, Hume’s principles, one or both of them, are false.
—G. E. Moore, Some Main Problems of Philosophy (New York: Allen & Unwin, 1953)
Solution
It is a hypothetical syllogism since it has hypothetical propositions. It is a valid argument.
15. It is clear that we mean something, and something different in each case, by such words [as substance, cause, change, etc.]. If we did not we could not use them consistently, and it is obvious that on the whole we do consistently apply and withhold such names.
—C. D. Broad, Scientific Thought, 1923
Solution
This is a pure hypothetical syllogism. Valid.
7.8 INSTRUCTIONS
Discuss the various arguments that might be offered to refute each of the following:
Example Problem
If we interfere with the publication of false and harmful doctrines, we shall be guilty of suppressing the liberties of others, whereas if we do not interfere with the publication of such doctrines, we run the risk of losing our own liberties. We must either interfere or not interfere with the publication of false and harmful doctrines. Hence we must either be guilty of suppressing the liberties of others or else run the risk of losing our own liberties.
Example Solution
It is impossible to go between the horns. It is possible to grasp it by either horn, arguing either (a) that liberties do not properly include the right to publish false and harmful doctrines or (b) that we run no risk of losing our own liberties if we vigorously oppose false and harmful doctrines with true and helpful ones. It could plausibly be rebutted (but not refuted) by the use of its ingredients to prove that “we must either be guiltless of suppressing the liberties of others or else run no risk of losing our own liberties.”
PROBLEMS
15. The decision of the Supreme Court in U.S. v. Nixon (1974), handed down the first day of the Judiciary Committee’s final debate, was critical. If the President defied the order, he would be impeached. If he obeyed the order, it was increasingly apparent, he would be impeached on the evidence.
—Victoria Schuck, “Watergate,” The Key Reporter, Winter 1975–1976
Solution
It is not possible to go between the horns since it is difficult to hold by either thorn. The first argument that whether the president defied the order he would be impeached. The second argument is that the president would be impeached based on evidence even if he obeyed the order. It is not possible to criticize and therefore it is a lose-lose situation and the outcome does not change.
16. If we are to have peace, we must not encourage the competitive spirit, whereas if we are to make progress, we must encourage the competitive spirit. We must either encourage or not, encourage the competitive spirit. Therefore, we shall either have no peace or make no progress.
Solution
If the competitive spirit is encouraged, progress will be realized. If competitive spirit is encouraged, there shall be no peace. It is therefore not possible to grasp between the horns in this argument.
17. The argument under the present head may be put into a very concise form, which appears altogether conclusive. Either the mode in which the federal government is to be constructed will render it sufficiently dependent on the people, or it will not. On the first supposition, it will be restrained by that dependence from forming schemes obnoxious to their constituents. On the other supposition, it will not possess the confidence of the people, and its schemes of usurpation will be easily defeated by the State governments, who will be supported by the people.
—James Madison, The Federalist Papers, no. 46, 1788
Solution
If the government depends on the people, it will be controlled by them. On the other hand if it does not depend on the people, it will lose confidence of the people and will be defeated by the state governments. Either way the government will be controlled by the people. There is no way that the dilemma will go in between the horns.
18. … a man cannot enquire either about that which he knows, or about that which he does not know; for if he knows, he has no need to enquire; and if not, he cannot; for he does not know the very subject about which he is to inquire.
—Plato, MenoSolution
This argument portrays a lose-lose situation and it is therefore not possible to go through the horns. If a man tries to inquire about he does not know, he cannot know because he does not know what to inquire if he knows, he will see no need to inquire (Bunge, 2012).
19. We tell clients to try to go through the entire first interview without even mentioning money. If you ask for a salary that is too high, the employer concludes that he can’t afford you. If you ask for one that is too low, you’re essentially saying, “I’m not competent enough to handle the job that you’re offering.”
—James Challenger, “What to Do—and Not to Do—When Job Hunting,” U.S. News & World Report, 6 August 1984
Solution
It is not possible to grasp between the horns since a decision must be made. a) if I ask a salary that is too high I will not be employed since the employer will consider me to be too expensive. On the other hand, if I ask a salary that is too low, I will still not be employed since the employer will consider me not competent enough. It is a lose-lose situation (Bunge, 2012).
20. “Pascal’s wager” is justifiably famous in the history of religion and also of betting. Pascal was arguing that agnostics—people unsure of God’s existence—are best off betting that He does exist. If He does but you end up living as an unbeliever, then you could be condemned to spend eternity in the flames of Hell. If, on the other hand, He doesn’t exist but you live as a believer, you suffer no corresponding penalty for being in error. Obviously, then, bettors on God start out with a big edge.
—Daniel Seligman, “Keeping Up,” Fortune, 7 January 1985
Solution
It is possible to go between the horns since a) if agnostics decide to become believers and God exists they will not go to Hell and b) if they believe in God and God does not exist, they will not be penalized. It is a win-win situation (Bunge, 2012).
References
Bunge, M. (2012). Treatise on Basic Philosophy: Ethics: The Good and The Right (Vol. 8). Springer Science & Business Media.
Copi, I. M., Cohen, C., & Rodych, V. (2016). Introduction to Logic: Pearson New International Edition. Routledge.