No one held for murder is given bail
Smith isn't held for murder
Hence Smith is given bail
no M is B
s is not M
s is B
What's wrong with the conclusion?
Philosophy Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for those interested in the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence. It only takes a minute to sign up.Sign up to join this community
I have never studied logic, but this seems quite silly.
The first statement is not restrictive enough in terms of who is or is not given bail. Many people not held for murder could still not be given bail.
Smith is not held for murder. But he could still be in one of the other groups (or in the larger Venn circle) that is not given bail. So, hence nothing....
Sorry, but to me this all seems pretty obvious, actually more obvious, without the symbols.