An Introduction to Critical Thinking and Creativity - always yours

EXERCISES 85
j) If P entails Q, then "P. Therefore Q." is a valid argument.
k) If "P. Therefore Q." is a valid argument, then "P and it is not the case
that Q" is inconsistent.
9.3 Are these arguments valid?
a) All cocos are bobos. All lulus are bobos. So all cocos are lulus.
b) Very few insects are purple. Very few purple things are edible. So very
few insects are edible.
c) Angelo is a cheap restaurant. We should eat at a cheap restaurant. So we
should eat at Angelo.
d) Every F is G. Every G is not H. Therefore, no H is F.
e) No tweeüe beetle is in a puddle. Nothing that is in a puddle is in a muddle.
So no tweetle beetle is in a muddle.
f) Every xook is a beek. Some beek is not a kwok. So some kwok is not a
xook.
g) Most cooks are men. Most men are insensitive people. So most cooks
are insensitive people.
h) Very few plants are green. Very few green things are edible. So very few
plants are edible.
9.4 Discuss this passage. Anything wrong?
Dualities are bad. Suffering comes about because we make distinctions
and then choose one thing over another: we want good and not
bad things, we want to be happy and not sad, and we want love rather
than hatred. These dualities are the root of our misery. To liberate
ourselves, we should reject all distinctions and embrace non-duality.
9.5 Modus ponens is a pattern of valid arguments, while affirming the consequent
is not. What is the difference between saying (a) Affirming the consequent
is not a pattern of valid arguments, and (b) Affirming the consequent is a pattern
of invalid arguments? This is a rather difficult theoretical question. Hint: Is it true
that every argument of the form affirming the consequent is invalid? Use some
examples to illustrate your answers.