I'm not familiar with phrasing arguments in the form of traditional logical syllogisms, so I'd like to ask if this formulation is correct, or if it can be expressed more concisely. Note, I'm not asking for an evaluation of the argument itself.

P: If a life-form is not useful, it is inferior

P: Non-human animals are not useful

C: Therefore, non-human animals are inferior

P: If an animal is inferior, it can be exploited

P: Non-human animals are inferior

C: Therefore, non-human animals can be exploited

  • 1
    It works....... – Mauro ALLEGRANZA Jan 27 at 15:33
  • Well you should read up on enthymes. If you were trying to make a chain argument the first conclusion should have been the major premise of the second argument. What you wrote were two distinct arguments and made two unique conclusions. What you likely are trying to pull off is combining the two distinct conclusions, correct? Secondly your formation of propositions is really problematic. Every sentence is NOT a proposition. Many would argue your premises are false from the start so why are you still going on? Valid arguments are not required to be TRUE IN REALITY. Do you think otherwise? – Logikal Jan 27 at 17:21
  • @Lou Aside from the question of validity, the form is understandable. However, one of your premise is contradicting your conclusion, which definitely makes your argument not valid, if only informally, as the contradiction results from the semantic. – Speakpigeon Jan 27 at 19:35

Your Answer

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

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.