Andrew Adams Honors BPQ 9/6/11

First Logic Assignment

1. Consistency: (i) the ability of two beliefs to be simultaneously true. An example of consistency is my belief that baseball is the best sport and my belief that the Yankees are the best baseball team. These two beliefs are consistent because I can hold both at the same time without them contradicting each other. (ii) An example of consistency is, Now, didnt we agree that justice is a souls virtue and injustice its vice,(353e7-8). (iii) These belief that justice is virtue and injustice a vice because injustice and justice as well as virtue and vice are opposites, believing one is virtuous and the other a vice does not lead to a contradiction. 2. Contradiction: (i) a pair of statements that cannot be true simultaneously because they disprove each other. A contradiction would be, Nora is my sister, and, Nora is not my sister. The two statements form a contradiction because there is no middle ground between the two states, they cannot both be true. Nora cannot be my sister and not my sister, one of the two is true, and thus the other has to be false. (ii) An example of a contradiction can be found in the lines, According to your account, then, it isnt only advantageous, (339c11-d2). (iii) A law cannot be just, and thus advantageous to the stronger and simultaneously unjust, and disadvantageous to the stronger. 3. Contraries: (i) a pair of statements that cannot simultaneously be true, but can both be false. If one was to say that, Dogs are the best animal to keep as a pet and dogs are the worst animal to keep as a pet, it would be a contrary. This is a contrary and not a contradiction because dogs cannot be the best and worst pets at the same time, but they can be average pets (that is to say, cats could be the best pet to keep, but dogs are okay too). (ii) Contraries are seen in the multiple definitions of justice, But speaking of the thing itself, are we to say it is simply stating the truth and paying whatever debts one has incurred, (331b8-331c2). There is also Polemarchus definition, I still believe this, however, that benefitting ones friends and harming ones enemies is justice, (334b7-8). And finally Thrasymachus definition, Listen, then. I say justice is nothing other than what is advantageous for the stronger, (338b9-338c1). (iii) These definitions are all contrary because they cannot all be true simultaneously, justice can have only one definition, however, they can all be simultaneously false, making them contraries.

4. Arguments from analogy: (i) an argument constructed around a comparison between two supposedly similar things. An argument from analogy could take the form, I like vanilla, chocolate, and strawberry ice cream. You like vanilla and strawberry ice cream. It is possible or even probable that you like chocolate ice cream too because we share similar ice cream tastes. The analogy boils down to because we both like A and B, and I like C, it is likely that you will also like C. This argument is weak to a counterexample however. (ii) Socrates uses argument from analogy to compare justice to a variety of trades in an attempt to elicit common traits, Clearly it givesnever just to harm anyone, (332c9-335e5). (iii) Socrates is using analogies to discover what justice apportions to what, akin to cooking apportioning flavor to food, or medicine apportioning health to bodies. 5. Conditional statement: (i) an if/then statement with both an antecedent and a consequent that demonstrates a relationship between antecedent and consequent. The statement, If the ground is wet, then it has rained, is an example of a conditional statement because it articulates a relationship between wet ground and rain falling on that ground. This statement does not indicate truth, just that the two conditions are linked. (ii) Cephalus makes a conditional statement when he says, If he finds many injustices in his life, he often even awakes from sleep in terror (330e5-6). (iii) Cephalus is linking the amount of injustice one has done in his life to terror about the afterlife. He boils it down to, there more unjust a man has been, the more worried he is about his punishment in the afterlife. 6. Necessary condition: (i) a condition that is a requirement but does not guarantee the veracity of the statement. The consequent is the necessary condition in a conditional statement. In the example, If the ground is wet, then it has rained, the necessary condition is, then it has rained, because rain can make the ground wet, but that does not necessarily mean that it had to have rained (there could be other alternative explanations). (ii) The same example used for conditional statement also applies, If he finds many injustices in his life, he often even awakes from sleep in terror (330e5-6). In this case the necessary condition is, He often even awakes from sleep in terror, (330e5-6). (iii) This is the necessary condition because awaking from sleep in terror can be caused by anxieties resulting from an unjust life, or it can be caused by many other sources. 7. Sufficient condition: (i) a condition that guarantees the truth of the statement. Without the sufficient condition being met, the conditional statement cannot be true. The antecedent is the sufficient condition in a conditional statement. In the example, If the ground is wet, then it has rained, the sufficient condition is, If the ground is wet, because rain is sufficient for making the ground upon which it rained wet. (ii)Using the same example from conditional statement, If he finds many injustices in his life, he

often even awakes from sleep in terror (330e5-6), the sufficient condition in this statement would be, If he finds many injustices in his life, (330e5). (iii) This is because finding many injustices in one life is enough (sufficient) to cause one to awake from sleep in terror. 8. Iff: (i) a statement that indicates that two conditions must happen together. Iff is short for if and only if. An example of an iff statement is, You are broke if and only if you have no money. This statement indicates that the two conditions are directly linked and do not occur separately. (ii) Cephalus implies a biconditional (an iff statement) when talking to Socrates, a good person would not easily bear old age if it were coupled with povertyeven if her were wealthy,(330a4-6). (iii) The biconditional is not quite explicitly stated in this case; however Cephalus is stating that good people bear old age well if and only if they are wealthy and vice-versa. 9. Affirming the antecedent: (i) a valid argument with two premises, the first being a conditional statement and the second premise being a statement that asserts the sufficient condition of the conditional statement leading to a conclusion stipulated by the conditional statement. An argument that affirms the antecedent would have a form similar to, If Bob is late for work, he will be fired. Bob is late for work. Bob will be fired. (ii) Socrates utilizes modus ponens (affirming the antecedent) in the example, if the function of injusticeany common purpose? (351d7-351e1). (iii) This is an example of affirming the antecedent because Socrates lays out his argument as, If injustice arises, then it will cause people to hate each other. Injustice arises. People come to hate each other. The second premise is in this case assumed by Socrates to make his point, but it is implied in his statement. He follows through the steps, using his second, implied premise to assert the sufficient condition of his conditional statement. 10. Denying the consequent: (i) a valid argument with two premises, the first being a conditional statement and the second premise stating that the consequent is false, thus rendering the consequent false. If I were to make the argument, If I eat too much, then I will gain weight. I did not gain weight. Therefore, I did not eat too much, this would be an example of denying the consequent. (ii) Socrates closes the discussion with Thrasymachus through the use of modus tollens (denying the consequent), Then an argument came uphas it is happy or unhappy,(354b6-c3). (iii) Socrates essentially says in this passage, If I do not know what justice is, then I do not know if it is a virtue or if it makes people happy. I do not know if justice is virtuous or causes happiness. Therefore I do not know what justice is (or indeed anything about it). This argument 11. Reductio ad absurdum: (i) a technique for discrediting an argument by following the argument to its most ridiculous conclusion. Assume that someone was to argue that all drugs in the United States should be outlawed, and that anyone who is caught possessing a drug of any kind should be put in jail for twenty years. In order to refute

this statement, one could follow the logic to the fullest conclusion and argue that if that is the case, one would be making criminals out of every doctor, pharmacist, and any person with a bottle of aspirin in their bathroom. This shows that the consequences of this argument are absurd when carried to their fullest extent and ignores the value of legal, prescribed drugs taken under the supervision of a doctor or very mild drugs that cause no harm. (ii) Socrates frequently resorts to reduction ad absurdum to defeat the arguments brought before him. An example of this is his debate with Polemarchus from 332c11-333e2, And what owed or appropriatefor useless things. (iii) In this passage, Socrates slowly demonstrates that according to Polemarchus definition, justice is only useful for hiding money. Hidden money is useless to the one who possesses it, so the concept of justice thus becomes useless and ridiculous. By following Polemarchus argument to its most absurd extent, Socrates has revealed a crippling flaw. 12. Validity: (i) an argument that ensures that the conclusions are true if the premises are true. An example of a valid argument would be, If this project gets an A, then I did a good job. This project got an A. Therefore I did a good job. If the premises in this argument are true, then the conclusion reached must be true, thus making it valid. An example of a valid argument put forth by Socrates is, For tell methe weaker, not the stronger, (346a1-346e6) (iii)The argument being made here by Socrates is that crafts benefit the subject of their craft. He does this by separating self-interest into its own craft (in his examples, wage earning) from the actual crafts. This allows him to separate rulers acting in their own interest from the actual concept of justice. He can then conclude that the craft of justice is interested in promoting the well-being of the people, making a just ruler one who benefits his subjects and an unjust ruler one who neglects his subjects. 13. Premise: (i) a statement which lays the ground for a later conclusion to be drawn. Take the argument, All dogs are warm blooded mammals. Fido is a dog. Therefore Fido is a warm blooded mammal. All dogs are warm blooded mammals, and Fido is a dog, are the premises of that argument. (ii) Socrates states an example of a premise in his argument with Thrasymachus, saying, Nor would you call medicine wage-earning (346b6). (iii) The premise being articulated here is that medicine and wage earning are different crafts with healing being the purpose of medicine and gaining money being the purpose of wage-earning. 14. Conclusion: (i) a statement based on premises which is being proved by an argument. In the example used for the definition of premise, the conclusion is, Therefore Fido is a warm blooded mammal, this conclusion is based on the premises, All dogs are warm blooded mammals, and Fido is a dog. (ii) An example of a conclusion drawn by Socrates is, Then it is clear nowthe weaker, not the stronger, (346e3-6). (iii)Socrates is here drawing the conclusion that crafts provide for the improvement and well-being

their subjects (i.e. healing the sick for medicine), and aims at what is advantageous to it. This conclusion is something that Socrates has been building at through his argument with Thrasymachus, by providing examples of crafts as analogies to justice. 15. Sound argument: (i) a valid argument with premises which are all true, thus making the conclusions drawn by that argument true. An example of a sound argument would be, All animals need to eat. Your cat is an animal. Therefore your cat needs to eat. This argument is sound because it is valid (the premises follow logically) and all the premises are true (cats are in fact animals and all animals do need to eat), thus making the conclusion true. (ii) Socrates in making his argument for crafts focusing only on the subject of the craft, makes a very sound argument, For tell methe weaker, not the stronger, (346a1-346e6). (iii) This argument is sound because all of the premises are true, and the conclusion is thus most likely true. It makes sense that wage earning and medicine are separate crafts, and if that is true than it logically follows that all professions break down into two crafts, one concerned with the object of the craft, and one concerned with the benefit of the craftsman. 16. Antecedent: (i) the first half of a conditional statement (the if portion). The antecedent is also a sufficient condition for the consequent in a conditional. In the conditional statement, If you have not slept in two days, then you are tired, the antecedent is, you have not slept in two days. (ii) Using the example for conditional statement, If he finds many injustices in his life, he often even awakes from sleep in terror (330e5-6), one would find that the antecedent in that conditional would be, If he finds many injustices in his life(330e5). (iii) This is the antecedent because it comes before the consequent, it is the sufficient condition, and is preceded by if. 17. Consequent: (i) the second half of a conditional statement (the then portion). The consequent is also a necessary condition for the antecedent in a conditional. In the conditional statement, If you have not slept in two days, then you are tired, the consequent is you are tired. (ii) A conditional statement with an easy to identify consequent is, If he finds many injustices in his life, he often even awakes from sleep in terror (330e5-6). (iii) The consequent in this case is, he often even awakes from sleep in terror(330e5-6). In this case this is the consequent because it is the necessary condition and is preceded by the antecedent. 18. Non sequitur: (i) a conclusion that does not follow from the premises on which it is based. An example of a non sequitur would be, All green vegetables are good for you. Spinach is a green vegetable. Bananas are my favorite fruit. The non sequitur in this case is the last statement, Bananas are my favorite fruit. It does not follow from the premises and may be true, but is irrelevant to the argument at hand. (ii) Thrasymachus uses a non sequitur as an insult in an attempt to throw Socrates off his game, Tell me, Socrates, do you still have a wet nurse? (343a4). (iii) This is a non sequitur because it

does not follow from any premise in the argument so far, it has no bearing on the argument, and is merely a personal attack on Socrates launched by Thrasymachus out of frustration. 19. Hypothesis: (i) a statement that is going to be put to the test and either proved or disproved through evidence. An example of a hypothesis would be, People who eat more fruits and vegetables are healthier and lead happier lives. This statement can be tested and potentially disproved or proved through evidence and discussion. (ii) Thrasymachus postulates a hypothesis when he says, a just man must always get less than does an unjust one, (343d2). (iii) This statement can be proved or disproved through evidence. This is what Thrasymachus goes on to try to do (by listing several ways in which apparent injustice is more profitable than justice), though Socrates does not believe him, and attempts to disprove his hypothesis. 20. Counterexample: (i) a specific example that disproves a broad statement or conclusion. If I were to state, All dogs are Great Danes, you could show me a Yellow Lab as a counterexample to disprove my statement. Socrates reply to Cephalus definition of justice is an example of a counter example, everyone would surely agreesomeone in such a state, (331c5-9). (iii) Socrates is using the example of a mad man demanding the return of borrowed weapons to disprove that justice is paying debts and being honest. By returning the weapons, you would not be doing good by the person, and would in fact be causing much harm to come to him or other around him. 21. Truth by adage: (i) depending on popular sayings to avoid carefully examining a situation or argument. An example of truth by adage is, A watched pot never boils. This adage means that you cannot change all situations and sometimes you just have to leave things alone for them to work out on their own. However, many situations will happen regardless of what you do or whether you try to interfere or not, patience or impatience is irrelevant (i.e. the sun rising). When Polemarchus references Simonides, he is applying truth by adage, He said it is just to give to each what is owed to him. And a fine saying it is, in my view, (331e3-5). (iii) Polemarchus is relying on a saying (adage) from another to form the core of his argument, thereby trying to avoid preforming his own, independent study of all the factors at play. 22. Ad hoc clauses: (i) a clause tacked on to an argument in order to avoid a specific critique or piece of evidence. In the example for reductio ad absurdum, one could avoid the absurd reduction by simply adding a clause (an ad hoc clause) stating that only those caught possessing illegal drugs, or drugs without medical merit or permission should be put in jail for twenty years. (ii) Ad hoc clauses are frequently used to revise definitions in the face of criticism, So you want us to addand to harm an enemy, provided he is bad *sic+, (335a6-10). (iii) Previously, Polemarchus definition of justice did not allow for people to make mistakes in who their real friends and enemies are. With the

addition of the ad hoc clauses, it makes the definition more robust and likely to stand up to Socrates critiques. 23. Anecdotal evidence: (i) evidence to support a conclusion that is derived from a story or experience. Suppose that every Dell laptop I had ever bought had broken within a week of me purchasing it. Then suppose at some point I was arguing over which brand of laptop was the most reliable. If during that argument I used my experiences in buying Dell laptops to argue that they were junk, that would be using anecdotal evidence to attempt to prove my point or reach a conclusion. (ii) Thrasymachus uses anecdotal evidence in an attempt to prove that all rulers make laws that are most advantageous for themselves, And each type of rulewhat is advantageous for the stronger, (338d12-339a3). (iii) Thrasymachus was a sophist, meaning he was well traveled and he is drawing on his own experiences at this point as evidence to support his point. 24. Rash generalization: (i) a rush to judgment based on insufficient or incomplete evidence. An example of a rash generalization would be to say that all RAs are rude and disinterested in the people on their floor. Some RAs are good and care a lot about the students that live on their floor. Some are certainly bad, but based on the anecdotal evidence of one person, you cannot reasonably conclude that all RAs are bad RAs. (ii) An example of this from The Republic is found in Cephalus definition of justice, Not cheating someonethat other place in fear (331b1-3). (iii) Cephalus is jumping to conclusions about the nature of justice by saying it is simply speaking truthfully and not owing anything to any gods or men without considering the possible cases in which paying debts may in fact be unjust. This is shown to be an especially rash generalization when it is disproven by Socrates through the counterexample of the mad man and his weapons. 25. False dichotomy: (i) a situation that is described as having only two possible solutions or outcomes when in fact there may be many other possibilities. If I were to make the statement, Your favorite animal is either a dog or a cat, it is a false dichotomy because your favorite animal could be any of a number of animals that are neither dogs nor cats (for example, a ferret). (ii) An example of this is when Polemarchus says, POLEMARCHUS: Well then either you must prove yourselves stronger than all these people or you will have to stay here. SOCRATES: Isnt there another alternative still: that we persuade you that you should let us go? (327c8-11). (iii) This is a false dichotomy because Polemarchus articulates only two options (either fight them all or stay in the Piraeus with them), to which Socrates proposes a third option, him convincing them to let them leave. 26. Some/ all confusion: (i) a problem caused by ambiguous language, specifically the omission of some or all, and the lack of necessary context to determine which one was intended. For example, one could state, Humans are male. This statement as it

stands can be interpreted to mean that all humans are male; a simple counterexample (a female) disproves that statement. It could also mean that only some people are male, a true statement that avoids the critique of the previous interpretation. (ii) Socrates points out a small bit of some/all confusion when discussing Thrasymachus definition of justice, First, I must understandweaker than he?(338c2-d1). (iii) Socrates points out a weakness, by using the possible all case of Thrasymachus definition, namely that anything that improves the stronger is just, thus making beef just because it helps strong men get stronger. Thrasymachus clearly meant that only certain cases or things that cause advantage are just, but his ambiguity left open the wiggle room that Socrates needed to make the claim. 27. Alternative explanations: (i) an explanation that is consistent with all of the premises but is not accepted as the true explanation. Take the argument, The only time Bob has ever been late for dinner was when he was in a car accident. Bob is late for dinner. Therefore Bob was in a car accident. This conclusion follows from the premises, it is a possible explanation however there are several explanations that make just as much sense. Bob may have gotten stuck in traffic, or his car may have broken down on the side of the road, or Bob may have had to work later than normal. All of these explanations are just as likely based on the available evidence and thus are alternative explanations. (ii) Examples of alternative explanations found in Book 1 of The Republic are the definitions of justice, Cephalus definition, But speaking of the thing itself, are we to say it is simply stating the truth and paying whatever debts one has incurred, (331b8-331c2), Polemarchus definition, I still believe this, however, that benefitting ones friends and harming ones enemies is justice, (334b7-8) and Thrasymachus definition, Listen, then. I say justice is nothing other than what is advantageous for the stronger, (338b9-338c1). (iii) Each one of these explanations fits the overarching premises of the debate, and provide a possible explanation for the phenomena in question, namely, what is justice? It is possible, that one of these definitions is the definition of justice, or that none of them are correct. 28. Supposition: (i) a premise articulated in order to make an argument or follow a line of reasoning that is not necessarily believed. For example, if I were to say during a debate about the fate of a missing bird, Suppose the cage door was left open, how would one be able to tell that the cat ate the bird, instead of the bird simply flying away? This statement would be a supposition, because it assumes for the sake of the argument that the door to the cage was left open without asserting that was what happened. (ii) Socrates is forced to make a supposition to continue exploring Thrasymachus views after the assumption of justice as virtue and injustice as vice is removed, But now, obviously, you will say that injustice is fine and goodsaying what you believe to be the truth,(348e9-349a7). (iii) From 348e9 to 349a7 he allows for the supposition of

injustice as virtue and justice as vice in order to fully explore the logic of Thrasymachus position. 29. Genetic fallacy: (i) the fallacy by which things are assumed to share common characteristics due to their common origin. An example of a genetic fallacy would be the ad hominem move. It would be a fallacy to believe that because an argument comes from a just person, it is automatically a just argument. Abraham Lincoln was arguably one of Americas greatest Presidents, however in addition to freeing the slaves (a very good thing) he also severely curtailed individual liberties (such as the suspension of habeas corpus). (ii) Socrates arguably commits a genetic fallacy (depending on your point of view) when he discusses justice and compares it to other trades, especially in the Examination of Polemarchus, And what owed or appropriatebut useful when they are not? (332c11-333d11). (iii) This is potentially a genetic fallacy depending on your view of justice. If you believe (as I do) that justice is not like other skills, and is important to all skills, then reducing it to sharing common characteristics with other skills does not make sense. Justice seems, based on the investigations of the first book, to be not a craft, but a regulator and a component of mens souls (which is what Socrates will later discuss and settle upon) which is crucial to all crafts. Justice causes a doctor to do no harm to a patient, to a house-builder to always build a safe and sturdy house, and a captain to always do his best to bring his crew to safety. 30. Assumption: (i) a premise that is never explicitly stated which is taken for granted by participants in a discourse. An example of an assumption would be found in the statement, Americans are, on average, just and fair people. The assumption being made here is that American refers to a citizen of the United States of America. Purely from a grammatical standpoint, American could technically refer to a person who lives in North or South America. However, you and I being United States citizens assume that the word American refers to fellow United States citizens. (ii) Throughout the entire dialogue, there is an underlying assumption that surfaces rarely until Thrasymachus chooses to reverse the assumption and in doing so forces Socrates to truly consider it, That is to say you call justice a virtue and injustice a viceThe opposite, (348c5-10). (iii) Socrates has been arguing assuming that injustice is a vice and justice is virtuous, and seems to be surprised when Thrasymachus informs him of his belief in the opposite.