1

The following is an argument. Is it valid ?

Abortion is not wrong, because women have a right to control their bodies.

The following is also an argument. Is it valid ?

  1. All students love coffee.
  2. Jane loves coffee.
  3. Therefore, Jane is a student.
  • Welcome to Philosophy.SE. I edited your post to make it fit our markup standards slightly better (see the Markdown help). Do you want to know if the conclusions of these arguments are true or false? Or do you want to know whether "The following is an argument" and "The following argument is valid" are true or false? Please edit your question to clarify. – Keelan Jan 29 '18 at 22:30
  • @Mohammad Bhurgri. I edited your post and will explain why. An argument can be valid or invalid. It cannot be true or false though its premises and conclusion can be. Your question is well worth answering and I'd like to welcome you to PSE. I have only revised your question in order to put it in logically better form. I apologise for not explaining this as soon as I had made the alterations. Best - GT – Geoffrey Thomas Jan 30 '18 at 9:49
1
  1. Valid argument (or revisably so)

'Abortion is not wrong, because women have a right to control their bodies.' This is an 'argument', from a logical viewpoint, because it deduces a conclusion, 'Abortion is not wrong', from a premise, 'Women have a right to control their bodies.' In a deductively valid argument the premise warrants or guarantees the conclusion; the conclusion cannot be false if the premise is true. Actually more than one premise is required; and as you have framed the argument a premise is missing. You need :

i. Women have a right to control their bodies.

ii. Abortion (the availability of abortion) embodies the right of women to control their bodies.

iii. Abortion is not wrong.

This argument is valid. iii. cannot be false if i. and ii. are true. Whether they are true a matter of moral dispute. (Get clear on the distinction between the truth of premises/ conclusion and the validity of an argument. Neither yields the other. The distinction between truth and validity is widely explained online.)

  1. Fallacy

i. All students love coffee.

ii. Jane loves coffee.

iii. Therefore, Jane is a student.

This argument is invalid. All students may love coffee but coffee is loved by other people than students. Jane may be one of these other people. Therefore it does not follow that she is a student. In other words the truth of the premises, 1. and ii. does not warrant or guarantee the truth of the conclusion.

The argument is an example of the fallacy of affirming the consequent. You can find this fallacy set out readily online. The argument may contain some truths, e.g. maybe all students love coffee but it is invalid.

  • @Mohammad Bhurgri. You have an answer to your logic question. – Geoffrey Thomas Jan 30 '18 at 0:01
0

Therefore, Jane is a student.

The argument is invalid. The specific problem is the undistributed middle term (coffee). Without a distributed middle term, there is no link between the two premises. Without the link, the two premises say nothing beyond each statement separately. Jane and all students might meet at the coffee shop, but they get there by different routes, and eventually they go their separate ways.

0

Depending on your definition, an argument might be like this.

Abortion is not wrong, because women have a right to control their bodies.

  • Women have a right to control (what is good on) their bodies and abortion is a kind of control (what is bad), the result would be false

If there is woman, then there is the right to control (in good way), and if there is the right to control (in good way) then there is a chance directing it to their bodies

If there is woman, then there is the right to control (in bad way - abortion), and if there is the right to control (in bad way) then there is NO a chance directing it to their bodies

  • As you see, conclusion could be different even though the frame is correct. You just have to twist the meaning of the term, then you'll be guided to different ways, although logically correct.
    1. All students love coffee.
    1. Jane loves coffee.
    1. Therefore, Jane is a student.

If All students, then love coffee, and if there is someone, then it's Jane, and if there is Jane, then she loves coffee. Therefore there is someone loves coffee (but it's not always a student) | There is NO indication that Jane is a student

So what should you rely on? The structure or the meaning inside the structure? Or both? it's up to you

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.