1

0niveisitt Wien
Institut fi Philosophie
Piof velislava Nitova
Stuuent Thomas Bullemoie

B0NEW0RK F0R 1S.uS

181, c

leqenJ

S: people who fail the couise
P: people who aie assuieu a goou caieei
N: people who majoi in Psychology

Scbeme

No people who fail the couise aie people who majoi in Psychology
All people who majoi in Psychology aie people who aie assuieu a goou caieei
No people who fail the couise aie people who aie assuieu a goou caieei
1


venn Bioqroms

P1
No S aie N











1
I think that the iight way of expiessing this sentence is 'aie people who is assuieu a goou
caieei', but foi the sake of the logical stiuctuie I shoulu keep it like this.
2
P2
All N aie P

C
No S aie P




We put P1 anu P2 togethei in a venn uiagiam:



The conclusion is containeu within the piemises, theiefoie this aigument is valiu.



S
181, u

leqenJ

S: philosophy couises
P: couises that aie goou tiaining foi law
N: couises that pioviue uisciplineu thought

Scbeme

All couises that aie goou tiaining foi law aie couises that pioviue uisciplineu
thought
Some philosophy couises aie couises that pioviue uisciplineu thought
Some philosophy couises aie couises that aie goou tiaining foi law

venn Bioqroms

P1
All P aie N



P2
Some S aie N


4
C
Some S aie P


We put P1 anu P2 togethei in a venn uiagiam:



The conclusion is not containeu within the piemises, theiefoie the aigument is
invaliu.

182, i

leqenJ

S: people who aie iiiational
P: people who aie confuseu
N: people who aie illogical

Scbeme

Some people who aie iiiational aie not people who aie illogical
No people who aie illogical aie people who aie confuseu
Some people who aie iiiational aie people who aie illogical



S
venn Bioqroms

P1
Some S aie not N

P2
No N aie P

C
Some S aie P









6
We put P1 anu P2 togethei in a venn uiagiam:

The conclusion is not containeu within the piemises, theiefoie the aigument is
invaliu.
































7
B0NEW0RK F0R 27.uS

17u, b

leqenJ

S: people who aie piofessional clowns
P: people who aie ueeply uepiesseu
N: people who have peisonality uisoiueis

Scbeme

P1: Some people who aie piofessional clowns aie people who have peisonality
uisoiueis
P2: Some people who have peisonality uisoiueis ie people who aie ueeply
uepiesseu
PS: Some people who aie piofessional clowns aie people who aie ueeply uepiesseu

Sylloqism

Some S aie N
Some N aie P
Some S aie P

17u, u

leqenJ

S: people who suffei fiom uebilitating illness
P: people who can join the aimy
N: people who aie healthy

Scbeme

P1: All people who can join the aimy aie people who aie healthy
P2: No people who aie healthy aie people who suffei fiom uebilitating illness
C: All people who suffei fiom uebilitating illness aie not people who can join the
aimy

Sylloqism

All P aie N
No N aie S
All S aie not P


8
Categoiical Syllogism

|Write o coteqoricol sylloqism supportinq or oqoinst tbe cloim: No mon in tbis closs
wbo is o qentlemon is sexistj

P1: No man in this class who is a gentleman is people left uneaten by the teachei
P2: No people left uneaten by the teachei is sexist
C: No man in this class who is a gentleman is sexist






































9
B0NEW0RK F0R uS.u6

28S, h

(fiom an aiticle in uoou Bousekeeping) Trees oren't tbe only plonts tbot ore qooJ for
tbe otmospbere. Becouse nucleor plonts Jon't burn onytbinq to moke electricity,
nucleor plonts Jon't pollute tbe oir.
ln foct, Americo's 111 operotinq nucleor electric plonts Jisploce otber power sources
onJ so reJuce certoin oirborne pollutonts in tbe 0S by more tbon 19,000 tons every
Joy. }ust os importont, nucleor plonts proJuce no qreenbouse qoses.

P1: Nucleai plants uon't buin anything to make electiicity.
C1: Nucleai plants uon't pollute the aii.
P2: Nucleai plants (in Ameiica) ieuuce ceitain aiiboine pollutants by moie than
19,uuu tons eveiy uay.
PS: Nucleai plants piouuce no gieenhouse gases.
NC: Nucleai plants aie as goou as tiees foi the atmospheie.

Acceptobility

In teims of acceptability, it seems to me that the claims put foiwaiu by the aiguei in
this aiticle aie questionobly acceptable. Although it seems that the whole
peisuasiveness of these claims is integially baseu on the eviuence offeieu, such an
eviuence shoulu no be taken foi gianteu. Though we know nothing about the aiguei,
at least by context, we shoulu say he lacks enough suppoit to substantiate his
claims. This is not a scientific jouinal, it is a magazine foi leisuie ieauing (house
keeping), theiefoie we cannot assume that the kinu of obseivations poseu in this
foium have any eviuential suppoit submitteu to the iigoious sciutiny of the
scientific community. We shoulu also say that uue to the fact that this is a magazine
anu not a scientific jouinal, the ieaueis of this aiticle might not piobably be veiy
ciitical, thus they shoulu be ueemeu as openeu to peisuasion. In auuition, given that
the taiget of the extiact is to aigue foi nucleai plants as compaiable to tiees, some
scientific uata shoulu have also be ueployeu iegaiuing the enviionmental piopeities
of tiees.

Let's go a bit ueepei into acceptability. Regaiuing the univeisal conuitions of
acceptability, the only ciiteiia that might help is, in teims of testimony, the fact that
these claims weie piopeily plausible. But as I've saiu befoie, it seems not because
given that they aie entiiely baseu on obseivation (eviuence), they shoulu have been
poseu in a uiffeient meuium weie such obseivation coulu be piesumeu to be
piopeily attaineu anu sciutinizeu (he coulu have, foi example, offeieu sufficient
iefeience).




1u
Relevonce

In teims of inteinal ielevance, we shoulu say it pioviues some ieasons to accept the
conclusion, these ieasons shoulu be consiueieu ieasons of positive relevonce. Now,
given the fact that the puipose of the aigument is to show that nucleai plants aie os
qooJ os tiees foi the atmospheie, we can say that P1 anu PS may become iathei
irrelevont, because the only ieal featuie of tiees that coulu contiasteu with nucleai
plants is its positive action towaius the atmospheie. Tiees uo not pollute, they
ieuuce pollution, thus the question is not whethei nucleai plants pollute oi not, but
whethei they ieuuce pollution, os trees certoinly Jo (it is in that way that tiees "aie
goou foi the atmospheie", not in the innocuous way). Naybe that consiueiation,
coulu woik as a yaiustick in oiuei to measuie the ielevance of each of the piemises
towaius the main conclusion.

In teims of contextual I gathei this aigument shoulun't have any pioblems. We may
only unueiline the fact that piobably the implicit iepiesentation of the iole of tiees
in ielation to the atmospheie is weakeneu a bit in oiuei to favoui some of the
slightly iiielevant piemises that back the main conclusion. As I saiu, the goou thing
about tiees is theii positive action anu not only theii innocuous atmospheiic
qualities.

Sufficiency

Beie we finu ouiselves with some uifficulties. Fiist, it seems to be a hasty
geneialization to aigue in favoui of nucleai plants just given the obseivation of
these in Ameiica. Natuially, not all nucleai plants in the woilu suffice the same
stanuaius, anu is quite piobable that no countiy's nucleai plants aie as
enviionment-fiienuly as Ameiica's. As well, the aiguei uoesn't take into account the
amount of countei-eviuence theie is at stake; think foi example in Cheinobyl anu
Fukushima, how you ueal with nucleai plants when something goes wiong. It can
also be saiu that not all key teims aie being well uefineu. Teims as "aiiboine
pollutants" anu "gieenhouse gases"which aie key foi the aigumentmay not
sounu familiai foi the ieaueis of a magazine about goou housekeeping. Theie is also
a numbei of common anti-nucleai eneigy objections that aie fiequent in the uebate
which aie not taken into account (though, of couise, this is an extiact of the aiticle!).