Services
Discover
Ask a Question
Log in
Sign up
Filters
Done
Question type:
Essay
Multiple Choice
Short Answer
True False
Matching
Topic
Philosophy
Study Set
Introduction to Formal Logic with Philosophical Applications
Exam 4: Monadic Predicate Logic
Path 4
Access For Free
Share
All types
Filters
Study Flashcards
Practice Exam
Learn
Question 161
Essay
determine whether the given argument is valid or invalid. If it is valid, provide a derivation of the conclusion from the premises. If it is invalid, provide a counterexample. -1. (∃x)(Jx • ∼Kx) ⊃ (∃x)(Lx • Mx) 2. (∃x)(Jx • Lx) 3. ∼(∃x)(Jx • Kx) / ∼(∀x)(Lx ⊃ ∼Mx)
Question 162
Multiple Choice
determine whether the given argument is valid or invalid. If it is invalid, select a counterexample. -1. (∃x) [(Dx • Ex) • Fx] 2) (∀x) [(Dx • Fx) ⊃ ∼Gx] / (∃x) (Ex • ∼Gx)
Question 163
Short Answer
use: b: Berkeley h: Hume Ax: x is an apriorist Cx: x is consistent Ex: x is an empiricist Ix: x is an idealist Px: x is a person Rx: x is a rationalist Sx: x is a skeptic Tx: x is a theist -Berkeley is an empiricist and Hume is not an apriorist.
Question 164
Essay
derive the conclusions of each of the following arguments using the rules of inference for M, including conditional or indirect proof. -1. (∀x)(Jx ⊃ Kx) 2. (∀x)(Jx ⊃ ∼Lx) / (∀x)[Jx ⊃ (Kx • ∼Lx)]
Question 165
Short Answer
use: b: Berkeley h: Hume Ax: x is an apriorist Cx: x is consistent Ex: x is an empiricist Ix: x is an idealist Px: x is a person Rx: x is a rationalist Sx: x is a skeptic Tx: x is a theist -All idealists are apriorists, but not theists.