Open study

is now brainly

With Brainly you can:

  • Get homework help from millions of students and moderators
  • Learn how to solve problems with step-by-step explanations
  • Share your knowledge and earn points by helping other students
  • Learn anywhere, anytime with the Brainly app!

A community for students.

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
See more answers at brainly.com
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.

Join Brainly to access

this expert answer

SIGN UP FOR FREE
I say invalid, it's not true. That is opinionated.
Thats what i thought
This is invalid. It is the fallacy of the undistributed middle. "I am a person, but I am not all people"

Not the answer you are looking for?

Search for more explanations.

Ask your own question

Other answers:

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"
I think its invalid. Its optional.
But you're not given any other information, right? it's an if/then statement... unless I'm mistaken?!
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.
^
See: Existential instantiation/Universal instantiation for predicate logic.
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
Ooh, this seems like a civilized disagreement. *grabs popcorn
hahahaha
what's your thought on the matter, @julianassange?
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.
This is entertaining..
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.
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.
cool
Invalid is the answer for the win!

Not the answer you are looking for?

Search for more explanations.

Ask your own question