Validity of Implication Arguments in Movie Reviews

  • Thread starter Thread starter setvectorgroup
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    implication
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the validity of a logical argument related to movie reviews. The argument states that if a movie is not worth seeing, it was not made in England, and a movie is only worth seeing if reviewed by critic Ivor Smallbrain. The conclusion drawn is that since "The Good, The Bad and The Mathematician" was not reviewed by Smallbrain, it must not have been made in England. The participants confirm the correctness of the symbolic representation and logical flow of the argument. Overall, the argument is validated as logically sound.
setvectorgroup
Messages
16
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



Is the argument below valid? If it's valid, write down the argument symbolically.

If a movie is not worth seeing, then it was not made in England. A movie is worth seeing only if critic Ivor Smallbrain reviews it. The movie The Good, The Bad and The Mathematician was not reviewed by Ivor Smallbrain. Therefore The Good, The Bad and The Mathematician was not made in England.

The Attempt at a Solution



I use ME for "made in England", W for "worth seeing", R for "reviewed/s".

1. Not W - > not ME (If a movie is not worth seeing, then it was not made in England.)
2. W - > R (A movie is worth seeing only if critic Ivor Smallbrain reviews it)
3. not R- > not W (The movie The Good, The Bad and The Mathematician was not reviewed by Ivor Smallbrain)
4. According to the first statement, the movie was not made in England.

Please, check if I am wrong/correct.

Thanks.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
That is correct.
 
mfb said:
That is correct.

Thank You, mfb.
 
Back
Top