I encountered the following argument while I was studying syllogistic logic from a book:

All red cars kill papers, (premise)

All cars that kill papers are beautiful, (premise)

All red cars are beautiful. (conclusion)

Of course, the argument is valid. But when I tried to symbolize the argument, I couldn't do it completely because of the problem which I will mention. The answer (symbolization) of the argument that my book suggests is the folowing:

all R is K, (premise)

all K is B, (premise)

all R is B. (conclusion)

Of course this is valid, too.

My problem is: Why do we use the capital "K" for both "kill papers" and "cars that kill papers"? Shouldn't we use different letters for each of these sentences? I have this problem with arguments involving "that" generally as seen above.

  • 1
    I made an edit. You may roll this back or continue editing as you are probably aware. Welcome to this SE. – Frank Hubeny Jul 24 '18 at 18:29
  • @FrankHubeny Thank you Mr. Hubeny, your edit has made me happy. – Bright Chancellor Jul 24 '18 at 18:50

Why do we use the capital "K" for both "kill papers" and "cars that kill papers"?

"[K]ill papers" is actually shorthand for "cars that kill papers". The statement is saying that all members of one set are also members of a second set; so the content of the second set must be defined.

| improve this answer | |
  • Ah, I understand clearly now. Again thanks for your answer. – Bright Chancellor Jul 25 '18 at 10:51

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.