Battle of Fishers Hill in the American Civil War

Battle of Fishers Hill in the American Civil War Battle of Fishers Hill - Conflict Date: The Battle of Fishers Hill was fought September 21-22, 1864, during the American Civil War (1861-1865). Armies Commanders: Union Major General Philip H. Sheridan29,444 men Confederate Lieutenant General Jubal A. Early9,500 men Battle of Fishers Hill - Background: In June 1864, with his army besieged at Petersburg by Lieutenant General Ulysses S. Grant, General Robert E. Lee detached Lieutenant General Jubal A. Early with orders to operate in the Shenandoah Valley.   The goal of this was to have Early reverse Confederate fortunes  in the region which had been sustained a blow due to Major General David Hunters victory at Piedmont  earlier in the month.   Additionally, Lee hoped that Earlys men would divert some Union forces away from Petersburg.   Arriving at Lynchburg, Early was able to force Hunter to withdraw into West Virginia and then drove down  (north) the valley.   Entering into Maryland, he pushed aside a scratch Union force at the Battle of Monocacy on July 9.  Ã‚  Responding  to this new threat, Grant ordered Major General Horatio G. Wrights VI Corps north from the siege lines to reinforce Washington, DC.   Though Early threatened the capital later in July, he lacked the forces to mount a meaningful assault on th e Union defenses.   With little other choice, he withdrew back to the Shenandoah. Battle of Fishers Hill - Sheridan Takes Command: Weary of Earlys activities, Grant created the Army of the Shenandoah on August 1 and appointed his cavalry chief, Major General Philip H. Sheridan, to lead it.   Composed of Wrights VI Corps, Brigadier General William Emorys XIX Corps, Major General George Crooks VIII Corps (Army of West Virginia), and three  divisions of cavalry under Major General Alfred Torbert,  this new formation received orders to eliminate Confederate forces in the Valley and render the  region worthless as a source of supplies for Lee.   Moving south from Harpers Ferry, Sheridan initially showed caution and probed to ascertain Earlys strength.   Leading four  infantry and two cavalry divisions, Early misinterpreted Sheridans early  tentativeness as  over-caution and permitted his command to be strung out between Martinsburg and Winchester. Battle of Fishers Hill - Gibraltar of the Shenandoah Valley: In mid-September, having gained an understanding of Earlys forces, Sheridan moved against the Confederates at Winchester.   In the Third Battle of Winchester (Opequon) his forces inflicted a severe defeat on the enemy and sent Early reeling south.   Seeking to recover, Early reformed his men along Fishers Hill just south of Strasburg.   A strong position, the hill was situated at a point where the valley narrowed with Little North Mountain to the west and Massanutten Mountain to the east.   Additionally, the north side of Fishers Hill possessed a steep slope and was fronted by a creek named Tumbling Run.   Known as the Gibraltar of the Shenandoah Valley, Earlys men occupied the heights and prepared to meet Sheridans advancing Union forces.    Though Fishers Hill offered a strong position, Early lacked sufficient forces to cover the four miles between the two mountains.   Anchoring his right on Massanutten, he deployed the divisions of Brigadier General Gabriel C. Wharton, Major General John B. Gordon, Brigadier General John Pegram, and Major General Stephen D. Ramseur in a line extending east to west.   To bridge the gap between Ramseurs left flank and Little North Mountain, he employed Major General Lunsford L. Lomaxs cavalry division in a dismounted role.   With the arrival of Sheridans army on September 20, Early began to realize the danger of his position and that his left was extremely weak.   As a result, he began making plans for a retreat further south to begin on the evening of September 22.      Battle of Fishers Hill - The Union Plan: Meeting with his corps commanders on September 20, Sheridan rejected mounting a frontal assault against Fishers Hill as it would cause heavy losses and had a questionable chance of success.   Subsequent discussions resulted in a plan to strike Earlys right near Massanutten.   While this was endorsed by Wright and Emory, Crook had reservations as any movement in that area would be visible to the Confederate signal station atop Massanutten.   Adjourning the meeting, Sheridan reconvened the group that evening to discuss a thrust against the Confederate left.   Crook, with support from one of his brigade commanders, future president Colonel Rutherford B. Hayes, argued in favor of this approach while Wright, who did not wish his men to be relegated to a secondary role, fought against it.   When Sheridan approved of the plan, Wright attempted to secure leading the flank attack for VI Corps.   This was blocked by Hayes who reminded the Union commander that VIII Corps had spent much of the war fighting in the mountains and was better equipped to traverse the difficult terrain of Little North Mountain than VI Corps.   Resolving to move forward with the plan, Sheridan directed Crook to begin quietly moving his men into position.   That night, VIII Corps formed in heavy woods north of Cedar Creek and out of sight of the enemy signal station (Map). Battle of Fishers Hill - Turning the Flank: On September 21, Sheridan advanced VI and XIX Corps towards Fishers Hill.   Nearing the enemy lines, VI Corps occupied a small hill and began deploying its artillery.   Having remained concealed all day, Crooks men commenced moving again that evening and arrived at another concealed position north of Hupps Hill.   On the morning of the 21st, they ascended the east face of Little North Mountain and marched southwest.   Around 3:00 PM, Brigadier General Bryan Grimes reported to Ramseur that enemy troops were on their left.   After initially dismissing Grimes claim, Ramseur then saw Crooks men approaching through his field glasses.   Despite this, he refused to send more forces to the left end of the line until he discussed it with Early. In position by 4:00 PM, Crooks two divisions, led by Hayes and Colonel Joseph Thoburn, commenced their attack on Lomaxs flank.   Driving in the Confederate pickets, they quickly routed Lomaxs men and pressed on towards Ramseurs division.   As VIII Corps began to engage Ramseurs men it was joined on its left by Brigadier General James B. Ricketts division from VI Corps.   Additionally, Sheridan directed the remainder of VI Corps and XIX Corps to pressure Earlys front.   In an attempt to rescue the situation, Ramseur directed Brigadier General Cullen A. Battles brigade on his left to refuse back to face Crooks men.   Though Battles men mounted a fierce resistance, they were soon overwhelmed.   Ramseur then sent Brigadier General  William R. Cox’s brigade to aid Battle.   This force became lost in the confusion of the fight and played little role in the engagement. Pressing forward, Crook and Ricketts next rolled Grimes brigade as enemy resistance faltered.   With his line shattered, Early began directing his men to withdraw south.   One of his staff officers, Lieutenant Colonel Alexander Pendleton, attempted to mount a rearguard action on the Valley Turnpike but was mortally wounded.   As the Confederates retreated in confusion, Sheridan ordered a pursuit in the hopes of dealing Early a fatal blow.   Chasing the enemy south, the Union troops finally broke off their efforts near Woodstock. Battle of Fishers Hill - Aftermath: A stunning success for Sheridan, the Battle of Fishers Hill saw his troops capture nearly 1,000 of Earlys men while killing 31 and wounding around 200.   Union losses included 51 killed and around 400 wounded.   As Early escaped south, Sheridan commenced laying waste to the lower part of the Shenandoah Valley.   Reorganizing his command, Early attacked the Army of the Shenandoah on October 19 while Sheridan was away.   Though the fighting at the Battle of Cedar Creek initially favored the Confederates, Sheridans return later in the day led to a change in fortunes with Earlys men being driven from the field.   The defeat effectively gave control of the valley to the Union and eliminated Earlys army as an effective force.    Selected Sources Civil War Trust: Battle of Fishers HillShenandoah at War: Battle of Fishers HillHistoryNet: Battle of Fishers Hill

communism2 essays

communism2 essays Communism is a concept or system of society in which the community owns the major resources and means of production rather than by individuals. (Beers 670) Which means if that theory was true, everything should be shared between people. That also suggests that society wouldnt need a government because this society would be without rulers. However, communism also involves the abolition of private property by a revolutionary movement. In the early 19th century the idea of a communist society was a response of the poor and dislocated to the beginning of modern capitalism. (Carr 28) At that time communism was the basis for a number of Utopian settlements. Most Communistic experiments, however, failed eventually. Most of these small private experiments involved voluntary cooperation, with everyone participating in the governing process. Later the term communism was reserved for the philosophy advanced by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels in their Communist Manifesto and movement they helped create in Central Europe. Since 1917 the term has denoted those who regard the Russian Revolution as a model that all Marxists should follow. (Beers 670-71) Beginning with the Russian Revolution the center of gravity of global communism has moved away from Central and Western Europe from the late 1940s through the 1980s, communist movements were often connected with Third World strivings for national independence and social change. (Beers 729) Karl Marx was born on May 5, 1818 in the city of Trier in Prussia now Germany. He was one of seven children of Jewish Parents. Marx attended high school in his hometown in (1830-1835). During high school years he was always politically rebellious and often was drunk and disorderly causing him to spend a lot of time in jail. After high school he went to university in Berlin. In October of 1842, Marx became an editor of the paper Rheinische Zeitung and as the editor wrote editorials on socioeconomic issues such...

Business Ethics Topics.. 5 questions each have their own title Essay

Business Ethics Topics.. 5 questions each have their own title - Essay Example If the objective is to achieve the greatest good for the greatest number, one must work with estimates. (97) McGee explains that the most important principle that all ethical organizations in all cultures should consider is not to breach or contribute in any way to the breaching of individual contract rights. Rosenthal (2013) says â€Å"Ethics in international business is a very complex issue since ethical standards differ among different countries. Some issues which organizations should establish an ethical standpoint include corporate governance, social responsibility, targeted marketing and corruption.† When trading in international markets, participants should be aware of different ethical standards and business standpoints of various groups around the world. A trader should always ensure that high ethical standards are observed and also be prepared to accept the different standards and expectations of others as well as the reasons for them. Bibliography Frankel, Paul, McG ee, Robert, and Tibor, Machan. Business Ethics in the Global Market. Hoover institution Pr.1999.print Rosenthal, Joel. â€Å"Ethics and International affairs: A primer†. ... al with the help of what is not public knowledge and therefore giving them an advantage over the rest of the market participants who are on the outside (Machan and Chester, 131) The Pros of insider trading includes: it increase the overall efficiency of transactions in the market. McGee (2009) argues that â€Å"those trading from the inside send signals to others whose reactions then help propel the market to its new level of efficiency† (67).Another pro for insider trading according to McGee is that it allows the executives to use inside information to cut the company costs through saving on payroll costs. It is an alternative form of compensation that makes it possible for the organization to pay a lower salary (McGee, 67).The cons of insider trading include; it is morally not right for some individuals to gain from inside information by making huge profits with such little effort. Also business is like level playing field where all individuals should benefit from informatio nal equally and not where others enjoy informational advantages over others. Insider trading is economically beneficial since stocks can trade at prices that reflect more information. Those who are against insider trading base their arguments on emotional appeals and not sound economic analysis. Bibliography Machan,Tibor & Chesher,James. A Primer on Business Ethics.Rowman & Little field. 2003.print McGee, Robert. â€Å"Analyzing Insider Trading from the Perspectives of Utilitarian Ethics and Rights Theory†. Journal of Business Ethics Springer.2009.DOI 10.1007/s10551-009-0068-2 Question#3. Capitalism is the political economic system in which the institution of the right to private property is fully protected. It is an economic arrangement of an organized human community. It is a type of legal order

Reflective Paper Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 2000 words

Reflective Paper - Essay Example bility to establish and maintain harmonious relationships with diverse people and groups, especially with those different from themselves is a quality most effective leaders have. He is the glue that fuses the group together with diplomacy and commonality of goals. He possesses high emotional intelligence, maturity and understanding of people coming from various backgrounds. I believe that having a sensible and stable moral and ethical base should be the foundation of an organization. Michael Fullan, a leading advocate in the study of leadership claims that a leader should have moral purpose. This moral purpose pushes him to act with the intention of making a positive difference in the lives of the people around him and in society in general (Fullan, 2004). â€Å"Moral purpose infuses an organization with passion and purpose since workers become eager to know the enabling purpose of their work† (Fullan, 2004, p. 26). A manager needs the capacity to keep his focus on the real purpose of the organization. He has a clear vision of where he is going and sets directions to others towards that vision. He works together with others on thinking of ways and means to reach their goals and not focus on the authority on himself. In doing so, he empowers them to be confident in their abilities and motivates them to welcome challenges and opportunities. His positive influence gains him the respect of everyone to follow his lead while pursuing a common mission for the growth and development of the organization (Leithwood & Riehl,2003). Although the manager is imbued with great knowledge and skills, he is aware that he still needs help from others. He is humble enough to admit when he does not really know instead of putting up a faà §ade of being all-knowing. He is always open to learning something new, and not haughty enough to claim that he is already â€Å"made†.† Being human and fallible is one trait that all people share, and what better quality to relate to

Money reward is superior to any other motivational incentives Assignment

Money reward is superior to any other motivational incentives - Assignment Example However, Thomas (2000) explains that without good working conditions, it is impossible for high salaries to be a good motivator to the employees of an organization. Thomas (2000) therefore explains that, the link between compensation, performance and motivation is very complex, and difficult to understand. Research indicates that if people were left to decide on how much money they should earn, then chances are high that they would not get satisfaction in their jobs. Human resource experts, who advocate for money as a motivator, also accept the notion that money alone cannot act as an effective motivator. Other factors such as a good working environment, cooperation between employees and the management, ability for growth are other motivational factors that are effective in increasing the morale of workers. The basic question to ask in this debate is on whether money plays a role in making our jobs enjoyable or not. Furthermore, the question to ask is whether high salaries play a role in motivating or de-motivating the employees of an organization. Whiteley (2002) explains that in as much as money is not the major motivator, in an organization, lack of good salaries can become a de-motivator. We are living in a capitalistic world, where everything we do, is monetized. It is very difficult to survive without making good money, or earning a good salary. The social status of an individual is also motivated, based on the kind or amount of money that he or she earns. It is based on these factors that employees of a business organization normally want to be paid high salaries, or a decent income for their services to an organization. Whiteley (2002) explains that a good theoretical framework that explains the importance of money is the Hierarchy of Needs theory, formulated by Abraham Maslow. The second level of these needs is security. Maslow explains that employees of an organization always have a

Multi Disciplinary Team

Multi Disciplinary Team Introduction This discussion opens with a definition of a therapeutic relationship and the key elements that impact on this. The discussion will focus on the different types of communication and explain the importance. I will also refer to the Multi Disciplinary Team (MDT) in a patients care and how this can strengthen the relationship. The discussion will end with reference to the Nursing and Midwifery Council (NMC) guidelines and the impact on the relationship. Self awareness will also be discussed. A therapeutic relationship is defined as A partnership between clients and nurses, both working together to improve the clients health status (Balzer Riley, 1986). This relationship allows both the nurse and the patient to gain satisfaction, the patient feels supported and listened to and the nurse feels valued in his/her role. One of the significant points in the relationship is that if the patient feels they are being listened to by the healthcare provider they will recover at a much faster rate. The key elements are, attending, hearing, understanding and remembering. Attending is the physical part with both the nurse and the patient being present and keeping up to date with what is being said. Hearing is the part that pays the attention to the patient. Understanding, this is reassuring the patient that what they have said has been understood. This can be done by paraphrasing. Remembering can be very difficult, if the nurse has understood what the patient has said this does become easier. In order to do this the nurse needs to fully attend to the patient, listen to them and then respond to them. According to Barker (1971), the listening process consists of four different elements listed above. By actioning the concepts the nurse can start to empathise with the patient. Empathy is an important aspect of this relationship, Empathy is the act of communicating to our fellow human beings that we understand how they are feeling and what makes them feel that way (Hogan, 1969) Empathy can be shown both verbally and non verbally, the verbal part is to reflect on how the patient is feeling and the reasons why and the goal should be to meet an accurate verbal reflection. The non verbal features of empathy are as much important as the verbal part; the non verbal part should show features of warmth and genuineness does the true caring for your patient come across. To do this verbal and non verbal communication must be used. Summary Questioning is a way of verbal communication between the nurse and the patient, some would say that questioning is a way of helping others to think about their problems (Alder and Rodman, 1982). There are two types of questions that may be asked to patients, open questions and closed questions, Open questions are asking for a more verbal response from the patient whereas closed questions is only encouraging the patient to give a short simple response. Along with questioning there are many other ways of verbal communication, establishing guidelines, acknowledgement, reflecting, paraphrasing, seeking clarification, summarising and planning .Clearly verbal communication is very important as are non verbal skills. Non verbal communication has various components; some of these include Posture, gesture, eye contact, touch, facial expression, appearance, head nods, silence, proxemics and other body language. Egan ( 1977) S.O.L.E.R framework has an important part to play in a therapeutic relationship, all of the points should make both the nurse and the patient is comfortable and in control of the situation, here is a bit of information to elaborate on the soler framework- S Sit squarely this means sit face to face with the patient this does not mean the nurse has to sit directly opposite the patient, the nurse should sit upright not slouching, this will show the patient the nurse has a caring posture. O Open posture this means sit with both arms and legs uncrossed, if both arms and legs are crossed it is said to show an element of defence from the nurse. L Lean slightly forward although this does depend on the conversation, leaning forward without leaning away will lead the nurse into the intimate zone of the patient. E Eye contact is recommended to be constant although this shouldnt be a constant stare as this can be very uncomfortable for the patient. R Relax -the nurse must be relaxed in order to gain the confidence in the patient. This framework can also be used by other healthcare professionals. Professionals other than nurses can strengthen the relationship; this can be another member of the health care team that needs to take part in the patients care. The professionals could include physicians, pharmacists, dieticians, occupational therapists these professionals are known as the MDT. A member of the MDT might need to be involved in the patients care, For example if the patient had concerns about their diet you could introduce the dietician to help. By introducing a member of the MDT it will strengthen the relationship with the patient. The patient however must consent to the involvement of other disciplines. Consent within a therapeutic relationship is very important, obtaining consent is a process and not a one off event. The patient must be told in a sensitive manner and the patient must then make the decision on whether to accept or decline the proposal being offered. The NMC (2008) states that you must respect and support peoples rights to accept or decline treatment and care (NMC code May 2008). Usually the professional who is going to perform the procedure will gain the consent although it is possible this task could be delegated to another professional who has the capability of meeting the required standards, Consent maybe obtained in a number of different ways, Verbal consent this is explaining everything verbally to the patient and the patient replying with a verbal answer, written consent this is normally obtained if the procedure has any risk or is lengthy and complex, the written consent is a record of what has taken place or could be of what has been offered and not taken p lace as the patient decline the opportunity. The NMC is the code that should be adhered to all times, some of the guidelines under the code includes Privacy, dignity and confidentiality, as part of the NMC code of conduct nurses are to work within their limitations. This is about the nurse being self aware. Self awareness is about recognising, accepting, challenging who we are, what we feel, and what we can and can not do (Rungapadiachy, 1998). In a therapeutic relationship it is also important to be in control of your own self awareness, be aware of your own values and beliefs. According to Rokeach (1968),a value is an important life goal or societal condition which is despired by a person. Beliefs are subjective statements used by individuals to describe something they believe as being true. Values are seen as the central core that reflects on ones attitude this is also know to affect ones attitude. Fishben and Ajzen (1975) define beliefs as statements which indicate a persons subjective probability that an object has a particular characteristic. Conclusion The Johari window is a model that is used to explore and develop self awareness; this model concentrates on interpersonal skills that are applied to interaction, it deals with awareness in the human behaviour (Luft 1969). There are four aspects to the Johari window, open, blind, hidden and unknown. The open part is the part that is known to self and others, the blind is the area that is unknown to self but know to others, the hidden part is the area that is known to self but unknown to others and the unknown is the area that is unknown to self and unknown to others. Through communication the open self is made more accessible. This strengthens the therapeutic relationship. This Essay has defined what a therapeutic relationship is and the key elements that impact on this. Different types of communication have been discussed and explanation given to show their importance. The role of the MDT in a patients care and how this can strengthen the relationship has also been discussed. NMC guidelines have an impact on the relationship and discussed a key issue from the guidelines, with special reference to consent. This essay has also explained why self awareness is important within a therapeutic relationship

Teen Marriage Essay -- Argumentative Persuasive Relationship Essays

Teen Marriage What is marriage? Marriage is â€Å"the institution whereby men and women are joined in a special kind of social and legal dependence for the purpose of founding and maintaining a family† (Marriage 729). The fact is, marriage, to most of society, is something much more than that. To some, marriage is the uniting of their souls; to others, it is merely an escape from their fear, their pain, and their agony. The sad truth about it is that many of those marriages will end in divorce. So how do couples know if what they have will last forever? It is impossible to know for sure. No one can tell them that they definitely have what it takes to make a marriage last. Marriage is about compromise and understanding. It is also about give and take. If one party in the marriage is unwilling to give, and only takes, the marriage will be short lived. Statistics show that in 1998, 2,256,000 couples became married, and 1,135,000 couples became divorced (Fast 1,2). For every two couples getting married, there is one that is getting divorced. In fact, half of ALL marriages end in divorce (Ayer 41). That is a sad reality to face. Those percentage rates increase as the age of the participant’s decrease. It seems these days, fewer and fewer teens between the ages of 14 and 18 are getting married. This is a change for the better. Teens are usually not prepared for marriage. Marriage comes with many responsibilities; most of which teens are not prepared to handle. â€Å"Early marriage, though possessing certain inherent dangers, is widely practiced in contemporary America† (Teenage 1). Even if teens feel they have the potential for a lasting marriage, they should still wait to become married. One of many arguments against this is that if the teens feel they are â€Å"destined† to be together and they wait to become married, there is a strong potential for pregnancy before marriage. However, just because teens wait to become married does not mean that they wait to share the privileges that married couples share. Today, sex before marriage is widely practiced. Many couples, who are not even considering marriage, have sex. Chances are that if a teen couple is thinking about marriage, they probably have already had intercourse. Allowing the teens to become married would only encourage sex before they are fully prepared to handle the responsibilities that come ... ...ociety; we do not need teens, which are not ready for marriage, to be married. Marriage is all about compromise, understanding, and give and take. Teens have not fully grasped that concept yet. They need to experience more in life before becoming married. They are missing out on so much; it is truly not worth it to rush into marriage. Works Cited Ayer, Eleanor H. Everything you need to know about teen marriage. 1st ed. New York: Rosen Pub. Group, 1990. "Fast Stats A to Z." [online] Available http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/ default .html, March 7, 2001. Holt, Chatal Danino. "The three R's of Relationships." [online] Available http://www.aboutyourmarriage.com/communicating/article/ three_r.html, February 12, 2001. Holtrop, Holly. Personal interview, March 12, 2001. "Marriage." Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary. 1991. "Teenage Marriage: weigh it carefully!" [online] Available http://www.bible .ca/ f-teen- marriage.html, February 14, 2001. Tobin, Dr. Michael. "Personal Responsibility." [online] Available http://www. aboutyourmarriage.com/columns/drtobin/responsibilities.html, February 7, 2001.

Logic: American Association of State Colleges and Universities and Subsequent Rights Restrictions

Sequenced. Precise. Elegant. Clear. Hurley’s A Concise Introduction to Logic, 11th Edition How to Make an Origami Crane Make your own origami crane using these instructions and the perforated sheet of paper included in your book. 1. Start with a square piece of paper, colored side up. Fold in half and open. Then fold in half the other way. 2. Turn the paper over to the white side. Fold the paper in half, crease well and open, and then fold again in the other direction. 3. Using the creases you have made, bring the top 3 corners of the model down to the bottom corner.Flatten model. The iconic red crane on the cover of this new edition of Hurley’s, A Concise Introduction to Logic symbolizes the qualities that make it the most successful logic text on the market. We have chosen origami to symbolize this text’s careful sequencing, precision, elegance, and clarity. About the Cover 4. Fold top triangular flaps into the center and unfold. 5. Fold top of model downwards, crease well and unfold. 6. Open the uppermost flap of the model, bringing it upwards and pressing the sides of the model inwards at the same time. Flatten down, creasing well.Couple an icon steeped in tradition with a clean, modern design, and you will quickly get a sense of the qualities that make this new edition of Hurley the best yet. Along with instructions, each new text includes a sheet of red paper so that you can bring the cover to life. This exercise serves as a metaphor for the process of learning logic. It is challenging, requires practice, but can be fun. Ideas for other ways to create your own origami can be found at www. origami-resource-center. com. 7. Turn model over and repeat Steps 4-6 on the other side. . Fold top flaps into the center. 9. Repeat on other side. 10. Fold both ‘legs’ of 11. Inside Reverse Fold the â€Å"legs† model up, crease along the creases very well, then you just made. unfold. Finished Crane. 12. Inside Reverse Fold one si de to make a head, then fold down the wings. Source: www. origami-fun. com Copyright 2010 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it. A C O N C I S E I N T R O D U C T I O N TO Logic Copyright 2010 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it. Copyright 2010 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience.Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it. A C O N C I S E I N T R O D U C T I O N TO Logic ELEVENTH EDITION PATRICK J. HURLEY University of San Diego Australia †¢ Brazil †¢ Japan †¢ Korea †¢ Mexico †¢ Singapore †¢ Spain †¢ United Kingdom †¢ United States Copyright 2010 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it. This is an electronic version of the print textbook. Due to electronic rights restrictions, some third party content may be suppressed. Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience.The publisher reserves the right to remove content from this title at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it. For valuable information on pricing, previous editions, changes to current editions, and alternate formats, please visit www. cengage. com/highered to search by ISBN#, author, title, or keyword for materials in your areas of interest. Copyright 2010 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party co ntent may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it. A Concise Introduction to Logic, Eleventh Edition Patrick J. Hurley Publisher: Clark Baxter Senior Sponsoring Editor: Joann Kozyrev Development Editor: Florence Kilgo Assistant Editor: Nathan Gamache Editorial Assistant: Michaela Henry Media Editor: Diane Akerman Marketing Manager: Mark T.Haynes Marketing Coordinator: Josh Hendrick Marketing Communications Manager: Laura Localio Content Project Manager: Alison Eigel Zade Senior Art Director: Jennifer Wahi Print Buyer: Paula Vang Production Service: Elm Street Publishing Services Internal designer: Yvo Riezebos Cover designer: Jeff Bane of CMB Design Partners Cover image: Courtesy of Getty Images: Red origami crane on white table (image numbe r 85592979) Compositor: Integra Software Services Pvt. Ltd.  © 2012, 2008, 2006 Wadsworth, Cengage Learning ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.No part of this work covered by the copyright herein may be reproduced, transmitted, stored, or used in any form or by any means graphic, electronic, or mechanical, including but not limited to photocopying, recording, scanning, digitizing, taping, Web distribution, information networks, or information storage and retrieval systems, except as permitted under Section 107 or 108 of the 1976 United States Copyright Act, without the prior written permission of the publisher.For product information and technology assistance, contact us at Cengage Learning Customer & Sales Support, 1-800-354-9706 For permission to use material from this text or product, submit all requests online at www. cengage. com/permissions. Further permissions questions can be emailed to [email  protected] com. Library of Congress Control Number: 2010924757 Student Edition: ISBN-13: 978 -0-8400-3417-5 ISBN-10: 0-8400-3417-2 Wadsworth 20 Channel Center Street Boston, MA 02210 USA Cengage Learning is a leading provider of customized learning solutions with o? e locations around the globe, including Singapore, the United Kingdom, Australia, Mexico, Brazil, and Japan. Locate your local o? ce at: international. cengage. com/region Cengage Learning products are represented in Canada by Nelson Education, Ltd. For your course and learning solutions, visit www. cengage. com. Purchase any of our products at your local college store or at our preferred online store www. cengagebrain. com. Printed in the United States of America 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 14 13 12 11 10 Copyright 2010 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part.Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it. To: All of the instructors, past and present, who have taught logic from this book. It is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence. –W. K. Clifford Nothing can be more important than the art of formal reasoning according to true logic. Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz Copyright 2010 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it. Brief Contents Preface xiii PART I  Ã‚  INFORMAL LOGIC 1 2 3 Basic Concepts 1 Lang uage: Meaning and De? ition 78 Informal Fallacies 119 PART II  Ã‚  FORMAL LOGIC 4 5 6 7 8 Categorical Propositions 197 Categorical Syllogisms 259 Propositional Logic 310 Natural Deduction in Propositional Logic 380 Predicate Logic 442 PART III  Ã‚  INDUCTIVE LOGIC 9 10 11 12 13 14 Analogy and Legal and Moral Reasoning 509 Causality and Mill’s Methods 529 Probability 554 Statistical Reasoning 571 Hypothetical/Scienti? c Reasoning 593 Science and Superstition 615 Appendix: Logic and Graduate-Level Admissions Tests 644 Answers to Selected Exercises 655 Glossary/Index 697 vi Copyright 2010 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved.May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it. Contents Preface xiii PART I? INFORMAL LOGIC 1 Basic Concepts EXERCISE 1. 1 7 1 1 14 33 1. 1 Arguments, Premises, and Conclusions 1. 2 Recognizing Arguments EXERCISE 1. 2 25 1. 3 Deduction and Induction EXERCISE 1. 40 1. 4 Validity, Truth, Soundness, Strength, Cogency 44 EXERCISE 1. 4 53 1. 5 Argument Forms: Proving Invalidity EXERCISE 1. 5 63 57 1. 6 Extended Arguments EXERCISE 1. 6 70 64 2 Language: Meaning and De? nition 2. 1 Varieties of Meaning EXERCISE 2. 1 83 78 78 88 2. 2 The Intension and Extension of Terms EXERCISE 2. 2 92 2. 3 De? nitions and Their Purposes EXERCISE 2. 3 99 93 2. 4 De? nitional Techniques EXERCISE 2. 4 108 102 111 2. 5 Criteria for Lexical De? nitions EXERCISE 2. 5 115 vii Copyright 2010 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part.Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial revi ew has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it. 3 Informal Fallacies 3. 1 Fallacies in General EXERCISE 3. 1 121 119 122 138 119 3. 2 Fallacies of Relevance EXERCISE 3. 2 133 3. 3 Fallacies of Weak Induction EXERCISE 3. 3 149 3. 4 Fallacies of Presumption, Ambiguity, and Grammatical Analogy 156 EXERCISE 3. 4 170 . 5 Fallacies in Ordinary Language EXERCISE 3. 5 185 178 PART II? FORMAL LOGIC 4 Categorical Propositions 197 4. 1 The Components of Categorical Propositions 197 EXERCISE 4. 1 200 4. 2 Quality, Quantity, and Distribution EXERCISE 4. 2 204 200 4. 3 Venn Diagrams and the Modern Square of Opposition 205 EXERCISE 4. 3 216 4. 4 Conversion, Obversion, and Contraposition EXERCISE 4. 4 225 217 4. 5 The Traditional Square of Opposition EXERCISE 4. 5 234 227 4. 6 Venn Diagrams and the Traditional Standpoint 239 EXERCISE 4. 6 245 4. 7 Translating Ordinary Language Statements into Categorical Form 246 EXERCISE 4. 254 viii Contents Copyright 2010 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it. 5 Categorical Syllogisms 259 5. 1 Standard Form, Mood, and Figure 259 EXERCISE 5. 1 264 5. 2 Venn Diagrams EXERCISE 5. 277 266 280 288 292 5. 3 Rules and Fallacies EXERCISE 5. 3 286 5. 4 Reducing the Number of Terms EXERCISE 5. 4 291 5. 5 Ordinary Language Arguments EXERCISE 5. 5 294 5. 6 Enthymemes 295 EXERCISE 5. 6 297 5. 7 Sorites 301 EXERCISE 5. 7 304 6 Propositional Logic EXERCISE 6. 1 319 310 6. 1 Symbols and Translation 310 6. 2 Truth Functions EXERCISE 6. 2 332 323 6. 3 Truth Tables for Propositions 335 EXERCISE 6. 3 341 6. 4 Truth Tables for Arguments EXERCISE 6. 4 347 344 6. 5 Indirect Truth Tables 350 EXERCISE 6. 5 358 6. 6 Argument Forms and Fallacies EXERCISE 6. 6 371 360 Contents ixCopyright 2010 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it. 7 Natural Deduction in Propositional Logic 380 7. 1 Rules of Implication I 380 EXERCISE 7. 1 386 7. 2 Rules of Implication II 391 EXERCISE 7. 396 7. 3 Rules of Replacement I 401 EXERCISE 7. 3 407 7. 4 Rules of Replacement II EXERCISE 7. 4 419 414 7. 5 Conditional Proof EXERCISE 7. 5 430 427 7. 6 Indirect Proof EXERCISE 7. 6 436 432 438 7. 7 Proving Logical Truths EXERCISE 7. 7 440 8 Predicate Logic 442 8. 1 Symbols and Translation 442 EXERCISE 8. 1 449 8. 2 Using the Rules of Inference EXERCISE 8. 2 460 451 8. 3 Change of Quanti? er Rule EXERCISE 8. 3 467 464 468 8. 4 Conditional and Indirect Proof EXERCISE 8. 4 472 8. 5 Proving Invalidity EXERCISE 8. 5 479 474 481 8. 6 Relational Predicates and Overlapping Quanti? ers EXERCISE 8. 6 489 . 7 Identity 492 EXERCISE 8. 7 501 x Contents Copyright 2010 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions r equire it. Part III INDUCTIVE LOGIC 9 Analogy and Legal and Moral Reasoning 509 9. 1 Analogical Reasoning 9. Legal Reasoning 9. 3 Moral Reasoning EXERCISE 9 520 509 512 516 10 Causality and Mill’s Methods 10. 2 Mill’s Five Methods 531 10. 3 Mill’s Methods and Science EXERCISE 10 546 529 529 10. 1 â€Å"Cause† and Necessary and Sufficient Conditions 540 11 Probability 554 11. 1 Theories of Probability 11. 2 The Probability Calculus EXERCISE 11 567 554 557 12 Statistical Reasoning 571 12. 1 Evaluating Statistics 571 12. 2 Samples 572 576 12. 3 The Meaning of â€Å"Average† 12. 4 Dispersion 578 12. 5 Graphs and Pictograms 12. 6 Percentages 586 EXERCISE 12 588 583 13 Hypothetical/Scienti? c Reasoning 593 13. The Hypothetical Method 593 13. 2 Hypothetical Reasoning: Four Examples from Science 596 Contents xi Copyright 2010 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, som e third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it. 13. 3 The Proof of Hypotheses EXERCISE 13 607 02 13. 4 The Tentative Acceptance of Hypotheses 604 14 Science and Superstition 14. 2 Evidentiary Support 14. 3 Objectivity 14. 4 Integrity EXERCISE 14 615 615 14. 1 Distinguishing Between Science and Superstition 616 621 625 630 631 14. 5 Concluding Remarks Appendix: Logic and Graduate-Level Admissions Tests 644 Answers to Selected Exercises Glossary/Index 697 655 xii Contents Copyright 2010 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).Editorial review has deemed that an y suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it. Preface The most immediate benefit derived from the study of logic is the skill needed to construct sound arguments of one’s own and to evaluate the arguments of others. In accomplishing this goal, logic instills a sensitivity for the formal component in language, a thorough command of which is indispensable to clear, e? ective, and meaningful communication.On a broader scale, by focusing attention on the requirement for reasons or evidence to support our views, logic provides a fundamental defense against the prejudiced and uncivilized attitudes that threaten the foundations of our democratic society. Finally, through its attention to inconsistency as a fatal ? aw in any theory or point of view, logic proves a useful device in disclosing ill-conceived policies in the politic al sphere and, ultimately, in distinguishing the rational from the irrational, the sane from the insane. This book is written with the aim of securing these bene? s. Every Book Has a Story When I ? rst began teaching introductory logic many years ago, I selected a textbook that was widely used and highly regarded. Yet, my students often had a hard time understanding it. The book tended to be overly wordy and the main points were often lost amid a welter of detail. Also, I found that much of the book’s content was only peripherally related to the central concepts of logic. Using this book provided the happy and unanticipated result that my students always came to class so they could hear me explain the textbook.But after I tired of doing this, I decided to write a textbook of my own that would address the de? ciencies of the one I had been using. Speci? cally, my goal was to write a book in which the main points were always presented up front so students could not possibly mis s them, the prose was clear and uncomplicated, and excess verbiage and peripheral subject matter was avoided. To accomplish these and other related goals, I incorporated the following pedagogical devices: †¢ Relevant and up-to-date examples were used extensively throughout the book. †¢ Key terms were introduced in bold face type and de? ed in the glossary/index. †¢ Central concepts were illustrated in graphic boxes. †¢ Numerous exercises—today there are over 2,600—were included to perfect student skills. †¢ Many exercises were drawn from real-life sources such as textbooks, newspapers, and magazines. †¢ Typically every third exercise was answered in the back of the book so students could check their work. xiii Copyright 2010 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).Editorial re view has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it. †¢ Chapters were organized so that earlier sections provided the foundation for later ones. Later sections could be skipped by instructors opting to do so. †¢ Important rules and tables were printed on the inside covers for ready access. In its ? rst edition, the book was so well received that plans were quickly begun for a second edition.With the completion of that and later editions, the book grew to incorporate many new features: †¢ Venn diagrams for syllogisms were presented in a novel and more e? ective way using color to identify the relevant areas. †¢ Dialogue exercises were included to depict the commission of fallacies in real life. †¢ Predicate logic was extended to include relational predicates and identity. †¢ The Emin ent Logicians feature was introduced to enhance the human element: it presented the lives of historically prominent logicians. †¢ â€Å"Truth Trees† and â€Å"Critical Thinking and Writing† were written as supplements. Learning Logic, a multimedia program that includes an additional 2,000 exercises and that practically teaches the course by itself, was included in the package. †¢ A series of videos dealing with topics that students ? nd di? cult, including the concept of validity, indirect truth tables, and natural deduction, were o? ered with the last edition. I am convinced that with each successive edition the book has become a more e? ective teaching tool. I am also convinced that the current, eleventh edition, is the best and most accurate one to date. New To This Edition †¢ Five new biographical vignettes of prominent logicians are introduced.The new logicians include Ruth Barcan Marcus, Alice Ambrose, Ada Byron (Countess of Lovelace), Willard Van Orman Quine, and Saul Kripke. †¢ Six new dialogue exercises are introduced to help a? rm the relevance of formal logic to real-life. They can be found in Sections 5. 6, 6. 4, 6. 6, 7. 3, 7. 4, and 8. 2. †¢ The end-of-chapter summaries now appear in bullet format to make them more useful for student review. †¢ Many new and improved exercises and examples appear throughout the book. †¢ In Section 1. 4, the link between inductive reasoning and the principle of the uniformity of nature is explained.Cogent inductive arguments are those that accord with this principle, while weak ones violate it. Such violations are always accompanied by an element of surprise. xiv Preface Copyright 2010 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially aff ect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it. The connection between the Boolean Standpoint and the Aristotelian standpoint is explained more completely. †¢ The existential fallacy as it occurs in immediate inferences is explained in greater detail. All inferences that commit this fallacy have a universal premise and a particular conclusion. The meaning of â€Å"universal† and â€Å"particular† are extended to cover statements that are given as false. †¢ A new exercise set is introduced in Section 4. 5 that involves testing immediate inferences for soundness. †¢ An improved de? nition of the â€Å"main operator† of a compound statement is given. A new subsection is introduced in Section 6. 5 giving preliminary instruction on how to work backward from the truth values of the simple propositions to the truth values of the operators. A ne w exercise set provides practice with this technique. †¢ Section 7. 1 has been rewritten, emphasizing the strategy of trying to â€Å"? nd† the conclusion in the premises. †¢ Margin of error in Chapter 12 is now explained in terms of level of expectation. A more informative table illustrates this change. A complete list of all improvements is given at the beginning of the Instructor’s Manual.Note to the Student Imagine that you are interviewing for a job. The person across the desk asks about your strengths, and you reply that you are energetic, enthusiastic, and willing to work long hours. Also, you are creative and innovative, and you have good leadership skills. Then the interviewer asks about your weaknesses. You hadn’t anticipated this question, but after a moment’s thought you reply that your reasoning skills have never been very good. The interviewer quickly responds that this weakness could create big problems. â€Å"Why is that? † you ask. Because reasoning skills are essential to good judgment. And without good judgment your creativity will lead to projects that make no sense. Your leadership skills will direct our other employees in circles. Your enthusiasm will undermine everything we have accomplished up until now. And your working long hours will make things even worse. † â€Å"But don’t you think there is some position in your company that is right for me? † you ask. The interviewer thinks for a moment and then replies, â€Å"We have a competitor on the other side of town. I hear they are hiring right now. Why don’t you apply with them? †The point of this little dialogue is that good reasoning skills are essential to doing anything right. The business person uses reasoning skills in writing a report or preparing a presentation; the scientist uses them in designing an experiment or clinical trial, the department manager uses them in maximizing worker e? ciency, the law yer uses them in composing an argument to a judge or jury. And that’s where logic comes in. The chief purpose of logic is to develop good reasoning skills. In fact, logic is so important that when the liberal arts program of studies was formulated ? fteen hundred years Preface v Copyright 2010 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it. ago, logic was selected as one of the original seven liberal arts. Logic remains to this day a central component of a college or university education.From a more pragmatic angle, logic is important to earning a good score on any of the several tests required for admission to graduate professional schools—the LSAT, GMAT, MCAT, and so on. Obviously, the designers of these tests recognize that the ability to reason logically is a prerequisite to success in these ? elds. The appendix in the back of the book contains sample questions and cues on answering them. Also, logic is a useful tool in relieving what has come to be called math anxiety. For whatever reason, countless students today are terri? ed of any form of reasoning that involves abstract symbols.If you happen to be one of these students, you should ? nd it relatively easy to master the use of logical symbols, and your newly found comfort with these symbols will carry over into the other, more di? cult ? elds. To improve your performance in logic, I strongly urge you to take full advantage of a multimedia program called Learning Logic. This is an interactive tutorial that teaches the essentials of this textbook in a very user-friendly way. However, your computer mu st be equipped with loudspeakers or headphones, because the audio component is essential.Learning Logic is available both on CD and online at the Logic CourseMate site. If the CD version or a passcode for the website did not come with your textbook, it can be purchased separately through your campus bookstore if your instructor has ordered it. You can also order it directly at www. cengagebrain. com. In addition to Learning Logic, an eBook and other quizzes and self-study material are available on the Logic CourseMate site. Also available online through the Logic CourseMate site are brief video lectures on key topics. The videos include pointers on how to work the pertinent exercises in the textbook.They cover topics such as the concept of validity, conversion, obversion, and contraposition, indirect truth tables, and natural deduction. If, as you work through the content of this book, you encounter a subject that you have trouble understanding, one of these videos may solve the pro blem. Additionally, a set of audio summaries for each chapter in the book is available. These are designed so that you can download them onto your iPod, mp3 player, or computer and listen to them before taking a test. Because pro? ciency in logic involves developing a kill, it helps to work through the practice problems in Learning Logic and the exercises in the textbook more than once. This will help you see that good reasoning (and bad reasoning, too) follows certain patterns whose identi? cation is crucial to success in logic. As you progress, I think you will ? nd that learning logic can be lots of fun, and working with the online resources should enhance your overall learning experience. Note to the Instructor With this eleventh edition, Learning Logic is available both on CD and online. The CD comes free if  ordered with a new book, or it can be ordered separately at www. engagebrain. com. Online, Learning Logic it is available through the Logic CourseMate site, a password p rotected website (www. cengage. com/sso). This website o? ers the bene? t of being able to check a student’s â€Å"time on task,† that is, how much time the student has spent using a particular supplement. â€Å"Critical Thinking and Writing† and â€Å"Truthtrees† are available free on the website, and they can also be selected as modules in a custom version of the textbook. The videos, which cover topics students often have trouble with, are also available on Logic CourseMate.This edition also features Aplia, one of the Cengage Learning CourseMaster digital solutions. Aplia established a name for itself in the ? eld of economics, where it o? ers interactive online homework xvi Preface Copyright 2010 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed cont ent does not materially affect the overall learning experience.Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it. assignments with continuous feedback to students. Providing automatic grading, Aplia increases student effort and keeps students accountable for course material while adding no additional paperwork to the instructor’s workload, leaving instructors with more time to prepare lectures and work with students. As Aplia expands its o? erings to include additional subjects, it has won widespread acclaim from thousands of instructors across numerous disciplines. Now, Aplia o? ers its signature bene? s to logic students and instructors with a program speci? cally designed to enhance student engagement. The Aplia assignments build on the exercises in this textbook, and they conform to the language, style, and structure of the book. Let me now turn to alternate ways of approaching the textbook. In genera l, the material in each chapter is arranged so that certain later sections can be skipped without a? ecting subsequent chapters. For example, those wishing a brief treatment of natural deduction in both propositional and predicate logic may want to skip the last three sections of Chapter 7 and the last four (or even ? e) sections of Chapter 8. Chapter 2 can be skipped altogether, although some may want to cover the ? rst section of that chapter as an introduction to Chapter 3. Finally, Chapters 9 through 14 depend only slightly on earlier chapters, so these can be treated in any order one chooses. However, Chapter 14 does depend in part on Chapter 13. Type of Course Traditional logic course Recommended material Chapter 1 Chapter 3 Chapter 4 Chapter 5 Chapter 6 Sections 7. 1–7. 4 Informal logic course, critical reasoning course Chapter 1 Chapter 2 Chapter 3 Chapter 4 Sections 5. 1–5. Sections 5. 5–5. 6 Sections 6. 1–6. 4 Section 6. 6 Chapter 9 Chapter 12 C hapter 13 Chapter 14 Writing Supplement Section 5. 4 Section 5. 7 Section 6. 5 Chapter 10 Chapter 11 Course emphasizing modern formal logic Chapter 1 Sections 4. 1–4. 3 Section 4. 7 Sections 6. 1–6. 5 Chapter 7 Chapter 8 Truth Tree Supplement Optional material Chapter 2 Sections 7. 5–7. 7 Chapters 9–14 Chapter 3 Sections 4. 4–4. 6 Sections 5. 1–5. 2 Section 5. 7 Section 6. 6 Preface xvii Copyright 2010 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part.Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it. Acknowledgements For their reviews and suggestions leading to this eleventh edition I want to thank the following: Kevin Berry Scott Calef Gabriel Camacho Loren Cannon Victor Cosculluela Thompson Faller Thomas J.Frost Paul Gass Alexander Hall Courtney Hammond Merle Harton Anthony Hanson Ron Jackson William Jamison Sandra Johanson Richard Jones Russel Jones William Lawhead Stephen Leach Keane Lundt Erik Meade Ian MacKinnon Allyson Mount Seyed Mousavian Madeline Muntersbjorn Herminia Reyes Frank Ryan Eric Saidel Stephanie Semler Janet Simpson Aeon Skoble Joshua Smith Paula Smithka Krys Sulewski Brian Tapia William Vanderburgh Mark Vopat David Weise Shannon Grace Werre Katherine D.Witzig Stephen Wykstra Ohio University Ohio Wesleyan University El Paso Community College Humboldt State University Polk State College University of Portland Biola University/Long Beach City College Coppin State University Clayton State University Cuyamaca College Edward Waters College West Valley College Clayton State University University of Alaska Anchorage Green River Community College Howard University Uni versity of Oklahoma University of Mississippi UTPA Massachusetts College of Liberal Arts Southern Illinois University–Edwardsville The University of Akron Keene State College University of Alberta University of Toledo San Diego State University Kent State University George Washington University Radford University Su? olk County Community College Bridgewater State College Central Michigan University University of Southern Mississippi Edmonds Community College Foothill College Wichita State University Youngstown State University Gonzaga University Edmonds Community College Southwestern Illinois College Calvin College Of course any errors or omissions that may remain are the result of my own oversight. xviii Preface Copyright 2010 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved.May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has deemed that any suppresse d content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it. Those who have contributed reviews and suggestions leading to the ten previous editions, and to whom I express my continued thanks, are the following: James T. Anderson, University of San Diego; Carol Anthony, Villanova University; Joseph Asike, Howard University; Harriet E.Baber, University of San Diego; Kent Baldner, Western Michigan University; James Baley, Mary Washington College; Jerome Balmuth, Colgate University; Victor Balowitz, State University of New York, College at Buffalo; Ida Baltikauskas, Century College; Gary Baran, Los Angeles City College; Robert Barnard, University of Mississippi; Gregory Bassham, Kings College; Thora Bayer, Xavier University of Louisiana; David Behan, Agnes Scott College; John Bender, Ohio University, Athens; James O. Bennett, University of Tennessee, Knoxv ille; Victoria Berdon, IUPU Columbus; Robert Berman, Xavier University of Louisana; Joseph Bessie, Normandale Community College; John R. Bosworth, Oklahoma State University; Andrew Botterell, University of Toronto; Tom Browder, University of Nevada, Las Vegas; Kevin Browne, Indiana University Southeast; Harold Brown, Northern Illinois University; KenBuckman, University of Texas, Pan American; Robert Burch, Texas A&M University; Keith Burgess-Jackson, University of Texas, Arlington; Michael Byron, Kent State University; James Campbell, University of Toledo; Joseph Keim Campbell, Washington State University; Charles Carr, Arkansas State University; William Carroll, Coppin State University; Jennifer Caseldine-Bracht, IUPU Fort Wayne; John Casey, Northern Illinois University; Greg Cavin, Cypress College; Robert Greg Cavin, Cypress College; Ping-Tung Chang, University of Alaska; Prakash Chenjeri, Southern Oregon University; Drew Christie, University of New Hampshire; Timothy Christion, U niversity of North Texas; Ralph W. Clarke, West Virginia University; David Clowney, Rowan University; Michael Cole, College of William and Mary; Michael J. Colson, Merced College; William F. Cooper, Baylor University; William Cornwell, Salem State College; Victor Cosculluela, Polk Community College; Mike Coste, Front Range Community College; Ronald R. Cox, San Antonio College; Houston A. Craighead, Winthrop University; Donald Cress, Northern Illinois University, DeKalb; Jack Crumley, University of San Diego; Linda Damico, Kennesaw State University; William J.DeAngelis, Northeastern University; Joseph DeMarco, Cleveland State University; Paul DeVries, Wheaton College; Jill Dieterle, Eastern Michigan University; Mary Domski, University of New Mexico; Beverly R. Doss and Richard W. Doss, Orange Coast College; Paul Draper, Purdue University; William A. Drumin, King’s College, Pennsylvania; Clinton Dunagan, Saint Philips College; Paul Eckstein, Bergen Community College; Anne M. Ed wards, Austin Peay State University; Lenore Erickson, Cuesta College; Michael Epperson, California State University, Sacramento; Cassandra Evans, San Diego City College; Evan Fales, University of Iowa; Lewis S. Ford, Old Dominion University; Gary Foulk, Indiana State University, Terre Haute; LeAnn Fowler, Slippery Rock University; Thomas H. Franks, Eastern Michigan University; Bernard D.Freydberg, Slippery Rock University; Frank Fair, Sam Houston State University; Timothy C. Fout, University of Louisville; Craig Fox, California University of Pennsylvania; Dick Gaffney, Siena College; George Gale, University of Missouri, Kansas City; Pieranna Garavaso, University of Minnesota at Morris; Joseph Georges, El Camino College; Kevin Gibson, University of Colorado; Victor Grassian, Los Angeles Harbor College; J. Randall Groves, Ferris State University; Shannon Grace, Edmunds Community College; James Granitto, Santiago Canyon College; Catherine Green, Rockhurst University; James Greene, Nort hern Michigan University; Harold Greenstein, SUNY Brockport; Shahrokh Haghighi, California State University; Alexander W.Hall, Clayton State University; Dean Hamden, Montclair State University; Ken Hanly, Brandon University; Larry Hauser, Alma College; Deborah Heikes, University of Alabama in Huntsville; Ronald Hill, University of San Diego; Lawrence Hinman, University of San Diego; Preface xix Copyright 2010 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it. Dale Lynn Holt, Mississippi State University; John B.Howell, III, Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary; R. I. G. Hughes, University o f South Carolina, Columbia; Lynn Holt, Mississippi State University; Peter Hutcheson, Texas State University; Debby D. Hutchins, Boston College; William H. Hyde, Golden West College; Sandra Johanson, Green River Community College; Gary Jones, University of San Diego; Glenn C. Joy, Texas State University, San Marcos; Olin Joynton, North Harris County College; Grant Julin, St. Francis University; Glen Kessler, University of Virginia; Charles F. Kielkopf, Ohio State University; Moya Kinchla, Bakersfield College; Bernard W. Kobes, Arizona State University; Keith W.Krasemann, College of DuPage; Richard La Croix, State University College at Buffalo; Sandra LaFave, West Valley College, Saratoga, California; Richard Lee, University of Arkansas; Lory Lemke, University of Minnesota, Morris; Robert Levis, Pasadena City College; Chenyang Li, Monmouth College, Monmouth, Illinois; Ardon Lyon, City University of London; Scott MacDonald, University of Iowa; Krishna Mallick, Salem State College; Tho mas Manig, University of Missouri, Columbia; James Manns, University of Kentucky; Dalman Mayer, Bellevue Community College; Larry D. Mayhew, Western Kentucky University; Leemon McHenry, California State University, Northridge; Robert McKay, Norwich University; Rick McKita, Colorado State University; Phillip McReynolds, Pennsylvania State University; Noel Merino, Humboldt State University; Kenneth R.Merrill, University of Oklahoma; Thomas Michaud, Wheeling Jesuit College; Dolores Miller, University of Missouri, Kansas City; George D. Miller, DePaul University; Richard Miller, East Carolina University; Frederick Mills, Bowie State University; Jeff Mitchell, Arkansas Tech University; John Mize, Long Beach City College; Dwayne Mulder, California State University, Fresno; John D. Mullen, Dowling College; Henry Nardone, Kings College; Theresa Norman, South Texas Community College; David O’Connor, Seton Hall University; Len Olsen, Georgia Southern University; Elane O’Rourke, Moorpark College; Brendan O’Sullivan, Rhodes College; Linda Peterson, University of San Diego; Rodney Peffer, University of San Diego; Robert G.Pielke, El Camino College; Cassandra Pinnick, Western Kentucky University; Nelson Pole, Cleveland State University; Norman Prigge, Bakersfield State University; Gray Prince, West Los Angeles College; R. Puligandla, University of Toledo; T. R. Quigley, Oakland University; Nani Rankin, Indiana University at Kokomo; Robert Redmon, Virginia Commonwealth University; Bruce Reichenbach, Augsburg College; David Ring, Southern Methodist University; Tony Roark, Boise State University; Michael Rooney, Pasadena City College; Phyllis Rooney, Oakland University; Beth Rosdatter, University of Kentucky; Michelle M. Rotert, Rock Valley College; Paul A. Roth, University of Missouri, Saint Louis; Daniel Rothbart, George Mason University; Robert Rupert, University of Colorado, Boulder; Sam Russo, El Camino College; Kelly Salsbery, Stephen F.Austin State University; Eric Saidel, George Washington University; Paul Santelli, Siena College; Stephen Satris, Clemson University; Phil Schneider, Coastal Carolina University; Philip Schneider, George Mason University; James D. Schumaker, University of North Carolina at Charlotte; Stephanie Semler, Radford University; Pat Sewell, University of North Texas; Elizabeth Shadish, El Camino College; Joseph G. Shay, Boston College; Dennis L. Slivinski, California State University, Channel Islands; Arnold Smith, Youngstown State University; JohnChristian Smith, Youngstown State University; Paula Smithka, University of Southern Mississippi; Eric W.Snider, University of Toledo; Bob Snyder, Humboldt University; Joseph Snyder, Anne Arundel Community College; Lynne Spellman, University of Arkansas; David Stern, University of Iowa; James Stuart, Bowling Green State University; John Sullins, Sonoma State University; John Sweigart, James Madison University; Clarendon Swift, Moorpark College; Wayne Swindall, California Baptist College; Bangs Tapscott, University of Utah; Ramon Tello, Shasta College; Jan Thomas, University of Arkansas at Little Rock; Phil Thompson, Eastern Illinois University; Richard Tieszen, San Jose State University; Larry Udell, West Chester University; Ted Ulrich, Purdue xx Preface Copyright 2010 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it. University; Robert Urekew, University of Louisville; William Uzgalis, Oregon State University; Thomas H. Warren, Solano Colleg; Andrew J.Waskey, Dalton State University; Roy Weatherford, University of South Florida; Chris Weigand, Our L ady of the Lake University; David Weinburger, Stockton State College; Paul Weirich, University of Missouri, Columbia; Robert Wengert, University of Illinois, Urbana/Champaign; Gerald Joseph Williams, Seton Hall University; Frank Wilson, Bucknell University; W. Kent Wilson, University of Illinois, Chicago; Stephen Wykstra, Calvin College; Marie Zaccaria, Georgia Perimeter College; Jeffrey Zents, University of Texas; Finally, it has been a pleasure working with philosophy editor Joann Kozyrev, development editor Florence Kilgo, project manager Alison Eigel Zade, project editors Emily Winders and Amanda Hellenthal, and editorial assistant Michaela Henry. Preface xxi Copyright 2010 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it. Copyright 2010 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it. 1 Basic Concepts 1. 1 1. 2 1. 3 1. 4 1. 5 1. Arguments, Premises, and Conclusions Recognizing Arguments Deduction and Induction Validity, Truth, Soundness, Strength, Cogency Argument Forms: Proving Invalidity Extended Arguments 1. 1 Arguments, Premises, and Conclusions Logic may be de? ned as the organized body of knowledge, or science, that evaluates arguments. All of us encounter arguments in our day-to-day experience. We read them in books and newspapers, hear them on television, and formulate them when communicating with friends and associates. The aim of logic is to develop a system of methods and principles that we may use as criteria for evaluating the arguments of others and as guides in constructing arguments of our own.Among the bene? ts to be expected from the study of logic is an increase in con? dence that we are making sense when we criticize the arguments of others and when we advance arguments of our own. An argument, in its most basic form, is a group of statements, one or more of which (the premises) are claimed to provide support for, or reasons to believe, one of the others (the conclusion). All arguments may be placed in one of two basic groups: those in which the premises really do support the conclusion and those in which they do not, even though they are claimed to. The former are said to be good arguments (at least to that extent), the latter bad argu ments.The purpose of logic, as the science that evaluates arguments, is thus to develop methods and techniques that allow us to distinguish good arguments from bad. As is apparent from the given definition, the term argument has a very specific meaning in logic. It does not mean, for example, a mere verbal ? ght, as one might  have with one’s parent, spouse, or friend. Let us examine the features of this de? nition in Additional resources are available on the Logic CourseMate website. 1 Copyright 2010 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it. 1 greater detail. First of all, an a rgument is a group of statements. A statement is a sentence that is either true or false—in other words, typically a declarative sentence or a sentence component that could stand as a declarative sentence. The following sentences are statements: Chocolate truffles are loaded with calories. Melatonin helps relieve jet lag. Political candidates always tell the complete truth.No wives ever cheat on their husbands. Tiger Woods plays golf and Maria Sharapova plays tennis. The first two statements are true, the second two false. The last one expresses two statements, both of which are true. Truth and falsity are called the two possible truth values of a statement. Thus, the truth value of the ? rst two statements is true, the truth value of the second two is false, and the truth value of the last statement, as well as that of its components, is true. Unlike statements, many sentences cannot be said to be either true or false. Questions, proposals, suggestions, commands, and exclama tions usually cannot, and so are not usually classi? ed as statements.The following sentences are not statements: Where is Khartoum? Let’s go to a movie tonight. I suggest you get contact lenses. Turn off the TV right now. Fantastic! (question) (proposal) (suggestion) (command) (exclamation) The statements that make up an argument are divided into one or more premises and one and only one conclusion. The premises are the statements that set forth the reasons or evidence, and the conclusion is the statement that the evidence is claimed to support or imply. In other words, the conclusion is the statement that is claimed to follow from the premises. Here is an example of an argument: All film stars are celebrities. Halle Berry is a film star.Therefore, Halle Berry is a celebrity. The ? rst two statements are the premises; the third is the conclusion. (The claim that the premises support or imply the conclusion is indicated by the word â€Å"therefore. †) In this argument the premises really do support the conclusion, and so the argument is a good one. But consider this argument: Some film stars are men. Cameron Diaz is a film star. Therefore, Cameron Diaz is a man. In this argument the premises do not support the conclusion, even though they are claimed to, and so the argument is not a good one. One of the most important tasks in the analysis of arguments is being able to distinguish premises from conclusions.If what is thought to be a conclusion is really a premise, and vice versa, the subsequent analysis cannot possibly be correct. Many  arguments 2 Chapter 1 Basic Concepts Copyright 2010 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to r emove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it. contain indicator words that provide clues in identifying premises and conclusion.Some typical conclusion indicators are therefore wherefore thus consequently we may infer accordingly we may conclude it must be that for this reason so entails that hence it follows that implies that as a result 1 Whenever a statement follows one of these indicators, it can usually be identi? ed as the conclusion. By process of elimination the other statements in the argument are the premises. Example: Tortured prisoners will say anything just to relieve the pain. Consequently, torture is not a reliable method of interrogation. The conclusion of this argument is â€Å"Torture is not a reliable method of interrogation,† and the premise is â€Å"Tortured prisoners will say anything just to relieve the pain. † Premises Claimed evidence Conclusion What is claimed to follow from the evidenceIf an argument does not contain a conclusion indicator, it may contain a premise indicator. Some typical premise indicators are since as indicated by because for in that may be inferred from as given that seeing that for the reason that in as much as owing to Any statement following one of these indicators can usually be identi? ed as a premise. Example: Expectant mothers should never use recreational drugs, since the use of these drugs can jeopardize the development of the fetus. The premise of this argument is â€Å"The use of these drugs can jeopardize the development of the fetus,† and the conclusion is â€Å"Expectant mothers should never use recreational drugs. In reviewing the list of indicators, note that â€Å"for this reason† is a conclusion indicator, whereas â€Å"for the reason that† is a premise indicator. â€Å"For this reason† (except Section 1. 1 Arguments, Premises, and Conclusions 3 Copyright 2010 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it. 1 hen followed by a colon) means for the reason (premise) that was just given, so what follows is the conclusion. On the other hand, â€Å"for the reason that† announces that a premise is about to be stated. Sometimes a single indicator can be used to identify more than one premise. Consider the following argument: It is vitally important that wilderness areas be preserved, for wilderness provides essential habitat for wildlife, including endangered species, and it is a natural retreat from the stress of daily life. The premise indicator â€Å"for† goes with both â€Å"Wilderness provide s essential habitat for wildlife, including endangered species,† and â€Å"It is a natural retreat from the stress of daily life. These are the premises. By method of elimination, â€Å"It is vitally important that wilderness areas be preserved† is the conclusion. Some arguments contain no indicators. With these, the reader/listener must ask such questions as: What single statement is claimed (implicitly) to follow from the others? What is the arguer trying to prove? What is the main point in the passage? The answers to these questions should point to the conclusion. Example: The space program deserves increased expenditures in the years ahead. Not only does the national defense depend on it, but the program will more than pay for itself in terms of technological spinoffs.Furthermore, at current funding levels the program cannot fulfill its anticipated potential. The conclusion of this argument is the ? rst statement, and all of the other statements are premises. The a rgument illustrates the pattern found in most arguments that lack indicator words: the intended conclusion is stated ? rst, and the remaining statements are then o? ered in support of this ? rst statement. When the argument is restructured according to logical principles, however, the conclusion is always listed after the premises: P1: P2: P3: C: The national defense is dependent on the space program. The space program will more than pay for itself in terms of technological spinoffs.At current funding levels the space program cannot fulfill its anticipated potential. The space program deserves increased expenditures in the years ahead. When restructuring arguments such as this, one should remain as close as possible to the original version, while at the same time attending to the requirement that premises and conclusion be complete sentences that are meaningful in the order in which they are listed. Note that the ? rst two premises are included within the scope of a single sentence in the original argument. For the purposes of this chapter, compound arrangements of statements in which the various components are all claimed to be true will be considered as separate statements.Passages that contain arguments sometimes contain statements that are neither premises nor conclusions. Only statements that are actually intended to support the conclusion should be included in the list of premises. If, for example, a statement 4 Chapter 1 Basic Concepts Copyright 2010 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it. erves merely to introduce the general topic, or merely makes a pas sing comment, it should not be taken as part of the argument. Examples: The claim is often made that malpractice lawsuits drive up the cost of health care. But if such suits were outlawed or severely restricted, then patients would have no means of recovery for injuries caused by negligent doctors. Hence, the availability of malpractice litigation should be maintained intact. Massive federal deficits push up interest rates for everyone. Servicing the debt gobbles up a huge portion of the federal budget, which lowers our standard of living. And big deficits also weaken the value of the dollar. For these reasons, Congress must make a determined effort to cut overall spending and raise taxes.Politicians who ignore this reality imperil the future of the nation. 1 In the ? rst argument, the opening statement serves merely to introduce the topic, so it is not part of the argument. The premise is the second statement, and the conclusion is the last statement. In the second argument, the ? nal statement merely makes a passing comment, so it is not part of the argument. The premises are the ? rst three statements, and the statement following â€Å"for these reasons† is the conclusion. Closely related to the concepts of argument and statement are those of inference and proposition. An inference, in the narrow sense of the term, is the reasoning process expressed by an argument.In the broad sense of the term, â€Å"inference† is used interchangeably with â€Å"argument. † Analogously, a proposition, in the narrow sense, is the meaning or information content of a statement. For the purposes of this book, however, â€Å"proposition† and â€Å"statement† are used interchangeably. Note on the History of Logic The person who is generally credited as the father of logic is the ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle (384–322 b. c. ). Aristotle’s predecessors had been interested in the art of constructing persuasive arguments and in techniques for refuting the arguments of others, but it was Aristotle who ? rst devised systematic criteria for analyzing and evaluating arguments.Aristotle’s chief accomplishment is called syllogistic logic, a kind of logic in which the fundamental elements are terms, and arguments are evaluated as good or bad depending on how the terms are arranged in the argument. Chapters 4 and 5 of this textbook are devoted mainly to syllogistic logic. But Aristotle also deserves credit for originating modal logic, a kind of logic that involves such concepts as possibility, necessity, belief, and doubt. In addition, Aristotle catalogued several informal fallacies, a topic treated in Chapter 3 of this book. After Aristotle’s death, another Greek philosopher, Chrysippus (280–206 b. c. ), one of the founders of the Stoic school, developed a logic in which the fundamental elements were whole propositions.Chrysippus treated every proposition as either true or false and developed rules for determining the truth or falsity of compound propositions from the truth or falsity of their components. In the course of doing so, he laid the foundation for the truth functional interpretation of the logical connectives presented in Chapter 6 of this book and introduced the notion of natural deduction, treated in Chapter 7. Section 1. 1 Arguments, Premises, and Conclusions 5 Copyright 2010 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it. 1 For thirteen hundred years after the death of Chrysippus, relatively little creative work was done in logic. The physician Galen (a. d. 129†“ca. 199) developed the theory of the compound categorical syllogism, but for the most part philosophers con? ned themselves to writing commentaries on the works of Aristotle and Chrysippus. Boethius (ca. 480–524) is a noteworthy example. The ? rst major logician of the Middle Ages was Peter Abelard (1079–1142). Abelard reconstructed and re? ed the logic of Aristotle and Chrysippus as communicated by Boethius, and he originated a theory of universals that traced the universal character of general terms to concepts in the mind rather than to â€Å"natures† existing outside the mind, as Aristotle had held. In addition, Abelard distinguished arguments that are  valid because of their form from those that are valid because of their content, but he held that only formal validity is the â€Å"perfect† or conclusive variety. The present text

Frailty thy name is woman Essay Example

Frailty thy name is woman Essay Example Frailty thy name is woman Paper Frailty thy name is woman Paper Essay Topic: The Heart Of a Woman By Ophelia doing this, we can link it to Shakespeare’s portrayal of women as mentally frail when around others, unable to hold a sentence or communicate. Hamlet offers copious amounts of evidence to the audience of his madness; however there is a lack of evidence to Ophelia’s madness apart from the death of her father and rejection by Hamlet. The audience can see she displays a form of insanity in Act Four Scene Five. Ophelia shows a method to her madness in which she is suffering over the loss of her father, and all she can do after learning of the death of her father is sing. Ophelia also suffers the heartbreak of rejection by Hamlet which causes her to sing a happy love song, which therefore shows us there is more evidence in there being a method to her madness as she is singing over the love of Hamlet. Ophelia’s supposed madness shows method, which contradicts Hamlet’s argument ‘Frailty, thy name is woman,’ as there appears evidence to why women appear frail. The madness of the female mind is said to be caused by the women’s faults mentally, physically and morally. In Act one scene three, Polonius says ‘Think yourself a baby that you have ta’en these tenders for true pay which are not sterling. ’ Immediately, we recognise Polonius’ patronizing tone towards Ophelia; he talks in terms of money, as if she is something to be sold. Her weakness mentally may not be her fault as she is constantly undermined by her brother Laertes and Polonius ‘Pooh, you speak like a green girl, unsifted in such perilous circumstance. Do you believe his tenders, as you call them? : ’ Polonius criticises Ophelia for being inexperienced and naive, giving the audience the impression she is victim of Polonius’ status above her. Ophelia uses ‘Tenders as an expression of love ‘He hath, my lord, of late made many tenders of his affection to me. ’ However Polonius uses it meaning an offer to buy something which shows the audience, Polonius references Ophelia to that of a whore, corrupted by sex, shows us a reflection of Polonius’ ownership of Ophelia. Ophelia replies to Polonius ‘I shall obey my lord. ’ Ophelia responds as a victim of a patriarchal society, having no choice over her father’s opinions. This shows Ophelia is impressionable and not strong enough to disobey her father. By her quick and victimised reply, she appears rehearsed and trained into obeying her father. Hamlet’s treatment of Ophelia alternates between protests of eternal love and brutality such as his cruel and critical speech in the nunnery scene, it could be argued Hamlet uses Ophelia in his revenge plot instinctively because she is a woman, and because she is a woman he knows her as the weaker sex therefore easier to persuade, ‘To a nunnery, go – and quickly too. ’ It appears it is not just the male sex who end up seeing women as lesser and as faulty beings, but after how they have been treated, also the women in ‘Hamlet’ resort to subordinating themselves to the men in the play like when Ophelia says ‘I shall obey my lord’ as they see it as right as it is how they are used to being treated and it is how they feel expected to respond. Hamlet says to Ophelia in Act three Scene two, ‘That’s a fair thought to lie between maids’ legs’ Hamlet is unreserved when showering Ophelia in sexual innuendoes, however Ophelia appears to understand him therefore showing depth to her character, ‘You are merry, my lord. ’ which suggests to us maybe Ophelia was not as naive and weak as we had previously thought in Act one Scene three. Ophelia, it would appear, entirely at the mercy of the male figures within her life, could be seen as a victim figure. Ophelia replies to Hamlet in short prose ‘Ay, my lord’. It appears she is denied a voice in her own defence or representation which coincides with the idea of being a victim of a patriarchal society. Within the patriarchal structure, women were forced to remain within the boundaries, including their compliance, reticence and chastity. Both Ophelia and Gertrude’s reputations are questioned in ‘Hamlet’ which results in further discrimination. If either Gertrude or Ophelia mention any sexual desire, immediately it appears they become devalued, Polonius calls Ophelia a fool for a daughter for thinking expressions of love ‘You’ll tender me a fool. ’ Polonius and Laertes, advise Ophelia to save her virginity as once she is ‘spoiled’ she would be worth nothing ‘Then weigh what loss your honour may sustain is with too credent ear you list his songs, or loose your heart, or your chaste treasure open to his unmastered importunity. ’ Because of the commanding tone of her brother and father, Ophelia appears incapable to fully think for herself due to the governing temperament of Polonius and Laertes. This position Ophelia is put into enforces the purpose of the patriarchal structure in which women are bound to their submissive roles. Female hysteria was once a frequent medical diagnosis which was made mostly in women. The source of the name Hysteria originally is from the Greek word for uterus, Hystera. Hysteria was an illness that was supposedly caused by sexual withdrawal in particularly passionate women and the illness was quite often seen supposedly in virgins, nuns, widows and occasionally married women. The character of Hamlet supposedly goes mad due to the mental stress over his mother’s swift re-marriage and the apparitions of his father’s ghost. But throughout ‘Hamlet’ the women’s cause for madness are unremittingly associated with their bodies and their sexual desires, Laertes and Polonius regularly comments on Ophelia’s sexual wellbeing ‘the chariest maid is prodigal enough is she unmark her beauty to the moon. ’ Suggesting, if she was to commit a sexual deed, she would become corrupt and dirty. To conclude, both sexes in ‘Hamlet’ commit unorthodox deeds, suggesting moral frailty; Claudius shows moral frailty by murdering his brother for the crown of Denmark and Gertrude betrays Hamlet and her late husband by a quick ‘incestuous’ relationship with a relative. Both sexes in ‘Hamlet? show a form of physical weakness, Ophelia suggests to an audience she was physically weak through drowning and Claudius suggest Hamlet is frail by appearing ‘unmanly’. Hamlet feigns madness to suggest to others around him of his mental instability and Ophelia is classed mad over the mourning of her father. Despite the female sex being classed as frail, in ‘Hamlet’ the women show hidden depths, Ophelia shows method to her madness, if she was mentally frail this wouldn’t be possible, Ophelia also understands what Hamlet is saying through his sexual innuendoes which suggests she was not as naive as Polonius deemed her to ‘be you speak like a green girl. ’ Gertrude also shows depth when she describes Ophelia’s death, Gertrude being the mouthpiece for the description of Ophelia’s death suggests solidarity between the women of the play. The repeated use of the word ‘incest’ when used to describe Hamlet and the Ghost’s perception of Gertrude’s relationship with Claudius and the undermining of Ophelia’s knowledge by Polonius and Laertes, considers women as naive and sexually disgusting which is a typical form of misogyny. It would appear there is no difference in frailty depending on the sex; both sexes experience the same bereavement when loosing a loved one therefore would seem madness in itself to class one sex frailer than the other. To an audience in the Shakespearean era, how the women of ‘Hamlet’ are treated, would be no different to how women were perceived due to the standards of the patriarchal society. However to a modern day female audience, the discrimination to women’s sexuality and mental state could be seen as somewhat offensive.