So in order to "reason using general claims we must assert something in a general way about all or a party of a collection." One example used in the book is "All teachers give fair exams. Professor Zzzyzzx gives fair exams. So professor Zzzyzzx is a good teacher." However this is not valid. The premise may be true, the Professor gives good exams, but he could be a bad teacher who gives fair exams. Now you want to look at all, every single one, or some, which is at least one. To get the contradictory of this you would flip all to some, or some to all in your claim/contradictory.
For example in my life I heard a claim from my parents regarding my college classes here at at De Anza. They stated that no courses at De Anza transfer over for my major at San Jose State. We have already checked and they don't offer anything in the articulation program. The contradictory is that some courses transfer over from De Anza to San Jose State because they were reading a out of date articulation program. The claim is no courses transfer over, with the contradictory being some courses transfer over.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Hey, I like how you illustrated your personal example of a contradictory claim. It makes contradictory more easy to understand compared to the textbook. Chapter 8 was very confusing to me. I realized that the contradictory for general claims is quite different from regular claims which was introduced in Chapter 6. In Chapter 8, general claims involving the word “all” has a contradictory with the word “some”. I thought that the claim “All dogs bark” has a contradictory “All dogs don’t bark” but I realized that this is wrong. The contradictory is actually “Some dogs don’t bark”. The “some” word confused me a bit. Thanks to your post, it made things easier to understand. J
ReplyDelete