Traditional Logic 2 Ch 14 Question 8. e.

[Courtney]

For Traditional Logic 2 CH 14 question 8.e.:

For this to be in a valid form I believe-
The major premise must be "Crime is a result of family breakdown" and the minor premise must be "Breaking the speed limit is a crime"
They are flipped in my teacher guide.

It says the transitive relationship is weak - can you help me with how to determine that?

[pschaeffer]

Re: Traditional Logic 2 Ch 14 Question 8. e.

Hi Courtney,

To be First Figure, you are correct that the two premises need to be switched. However, remember that on page 3 of the text we learned that the ancients viewed the Fourth Figure as just a form of First Figure. Question 8.d. is in the same format. I'm going to confer with Mr. Cothran whether we want to change this in the key or not.

Anyway, what makes a transitive relationship weak is dealt with in Material Logic. It comes down to causality. You can sort of see this instinctively in this syllogism. Everyone would agree that breaking the speed limit is a crime and most would support the statement that crime is a result of family breakdown. However, to make then the leap that breaking the speed limit is a result of family breakdown is tenuous at best. The reason it is tenuous is that "the result of" is speaking of causality, and there can be many causes of one thing. Does that help?

Paul

[Courtney]

Re: Traditional Logic 2 Ch 14 Question 8. e.

Ok. I guess I am just confused. So you can say P is S in the conclusion?

[pschaeffer]

Re: Traditional Logic 2 Ch 14 Question 8. e.

Ok. I guess I am just confused. So you can say P is S in the conclusion?

Oh I'm sorry, I didn't look at the conclusion that carefully. You're right that the minor term has to be the subject in the conclusion. The premises in both questions d and e should be flipped. Thanks for pointing this out. Did the explanation of the weak relationship help?

Paul

[Courtney]

Re: Traditional Logic 2 Ch 14 Question 8. e.

Yes that helps. Thank you!