anonymous
  • anonymous
1)People who download music eat pizza 2)You download music. 3)You eat pizza. is this invalid,law of syllogism, or law of detachment?
Mathematics
  • Stacey Warren - Expert brainly.com
Hey! We 've verified this expert answer for you, click below to unlock the details :)
SOLVED
At vero eos et accusamus et iusto odio dignissimos ducimus qui blanditiis praesentium voluptatum deleniti atque corrupti quos dolores et quas molestias excepturi sint occaecati cupiditate non provident, similique sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollitia animi, id est laborum et dolorum fuga. Et harum quidem rerum facilis est et expedita distinctio. Nam libero tempore, cum soluta nobis est eligendi optio cumque nihil impedit quo minus id quod maxime placeat facere possimus, omnis voluptas assumenda est, omnis dolor repellendus. Itaque earum rerum hic tenetur a sapiente delectus, ut aut reiciendis voluptatibus maiores alias consequatur aut perferendis doloribus asperiores repellat.
schrodinger
  • schrodinger
I got my questions answered at brainly.com in under 10 minutes. Go to brainly.com now for free help!
anonymous
  • anonymous
I say invalid, it's not true. That is opinionated.
anonymous
  • anonymous
Thats what i thought
anonymous
  • anonymous
This is invalid. It is the fallacy of the undistributed middle. "I am a person, but I am not all people"

Looking for something else?

Not the answer you are looking for? Search for more explanations.

More answers

anonymous
  • anonymous
I think it's a perfect example of the law of detachment. says if given a->b (in this case, download music -> eat pizza) someone downloads music means they are "a" so they are also by definition "b"
anonymous
  • anonymous
I think its invalid. Its optional.
anonymous
  • anonymous
But you're not given any other information, right? it's an if/then statement... unless I'm mistaken?!
anonymous
  • anonymous
If you were to do a formal logic proof on this, it would sound more like "There exist those who when they eat pizza, they download music". To conclude the proof you would have to say "There exist at least some who when they eat pizza, download music." However, what their conclusion is saying is that "For ALL people, when they eat pizza, they download music", this is cleary false.
anonymous
  • anonymous
^
anonymous
  • anonymous
See: Existential instantiation/Universal instantiation for predicate logic.
anonymous
  • anonymous
where are you getting simultaneity from though? I am no expert in logic, but I don't think the last claim is the ultimate one this is making
anonymous
  • anonymous
Ooh, this seems like a civilized disagreement. *grabs popcorn
anonymous
  • anonymous
hahahaha
anonymous
  • anonymous
what's your thought on the matter, @julianassange?
anonymous
  • anonymous
Yes, It is simply invalid. No more further say, because once said opinionated, you can conclude that is not true as a fact, simply true as a false thought.
anonymous
  • anonymous
This is entertaining..
anonymous
  • anonymous
I mean, I get it. I know that the set {music downloaders} is a subset of {humans} and that there is a separate subset {pizza eaters} that intersects with music downloaders.
anonymous
  • anonymous
Right well ultimately there's two problems here because the events are disjoint. Eating pizza and downloading music. There's no implication. It's not implying that because I eat pizza, I download music. Second. You vs. People. You = "There exists" People = "For all" You cannot do this. You cannot say because there exists one where this is the case then it must be true for ALL.
anonymous
  • anonymous
cool
anonymous
  • anonymous
Invalid is the answer for the win!

Looking for something else?

Not the answer you are looking for? Search for more explanations.