Dear Mr. Cothran,

I’m still working my way through your first formal logic book and enjoying it. However, I've run into a problem. In the chapter 8 discussion of distribution you show that “I” statements are undistributed and I don’t understand this because of one of the examples that you use.

You illustrate your first example, “some dogs are vicious things”, with a Euler diagram having two overlapping circles. The intersection of the two circles is shaded. This makes sense to me since not all vicious things are dogs. Your next example is “some men are carpenters.” Again you show how this works with two overlapping circles. The overlapping section is shaded representing “some men are carpenters” but in this diagram the section of the carpenter’s circle outside of the shaded region is dotted to show “that there are no carpenters who are not men.”

Why wouldn’t the carpenters’ circle be entirely within Man’s circle if there are no carpenters who aren’t men?

If there are no carpenters who are not men then all carpenters are men and so the statement “some men are carpenters” appears to use the term carpenters universally. And if so then it is distributed Is this true? If not then why not?

Thank you for your time,

JCEB

I’m still working my way through your first formal logic book and enjoying it. However, I've run into a problem. In the chapter 8 discussion of distribution you show that “I” statements are undistributed and I don’t understand this because of one of the examples that you use.

You illustrate your first example, “some dogs are vicious things”, with a Euler diagram having two overlapping circles. The intersection of the two circles is shaded. This makes sense to me since not all vicious things are dogs. Your next example is “some men are carpenters.” Again you show how this works with two overlapping circles. The overlapping section is shaded representing “some men are carpenters” but in this diagram the section of the carpenter’s circle outside of the shaded region is dotted to show “that there are no carpenters who are not men.”

Why wouldn’t the carpenters’ circle be entirely within Man’s circle if there are no carpenters who aren’t men?

If there are no carpenters who are not men then all carpenters are men and so the statement “some men are carpenters” appears to use the term carpenters universally. And if so then it is distributed Is this true? If not then why not?

Thank you for your time,

JCEB

## Comment