- #1
understand.
- 13
- 0
Is this a valid syllogism?
O: Some A's are not B's.
O: Some C's are not B's.
I: Therefore: Some A's are C's.
For some reason this doesn't look correct. When I tried to put an example of this syllogism, I got a conclusion that was false, from two premises which are true. Here is that example:
Some reptiles are not lizzards.
Some warm-blooded-animals are not lizzards.
Therefore: Some reptiles are warm-blooded-animals?
Why doesn't this work? Because it seems to me that if the O-claim has a distributive predicate then the above example should work. Or perhaps one of my premises are wrong. Does anyone see what the problem is?
O: Some A's are not B's.
O: Some C's are not B's.
I: Therefore: Some A's are C's.
For some reason this doesn't look correct. When I tried to put an example of this syllogism, I got a conclusion that was false, from two premises which are true. Here is that example:
Some reptiles are not lizzards.
Some warm-blooded-animals are not lizzards.
Therefore: Some reptiles are warm-blooded-animals?
Why doesn't this work? Because it seems to me that if the O-claim has a distributive predicate then the above example should work. Or perhaps one of my premises are wrong. Does anyone see what the problem is?