Take the 2-minute tour ×
Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. It's 100% free, no registration required.

I would like to know whether the following argument is valid.

Some amphibians live in the water
All fish live in the water
Therefore, some fish are amphibians.

share|improve this question
2  
it isn't valid. Is any animal in the water a fish? –  Vittorio Patriarca Jun 4 '12 at 23:26

2 Answers 2

up vote 4 down vote accepted

Venn diagrams are sometimes helpful in seeing what’s going on. The conclusion Some fish are amphibians would fit this diagram:

enter image description here

However, the hypothesis fit this diagram just as well, and it describes a world in which no fish are amphibians:

enter image description here

Since the second diagram is consistent with the hypotheses and contradicts the conclusion, the argument cannot be valid.

share|improve this answer

This argument is not valid. Notice that some violins make sounds and all pianos make sounds, but this does not mean that some pianos are violins.

The argument is essentially

$\exists x ( \operatorname{Amphibian} (x) \land \operatorname{Water} (x) )$

$\forall x ( \operatorname{Fish} (x) \implies \operatorname{Water} (x) )$

$\therefore \exists x ( \operatorname{Fish} (x) \land \operatorname{Amphibian} (x) )$

The argument would be valid IF the second statement were changed to:

$\forall x ( \operatorname{Water} (x) \implies \operatorname{Fish} (x) )$ (All things that live in water are fish)

In its current form, the argument is an example of affirming the consequent.

share|improve this answer
    
how do i show it. –  count Jun 4 '12 at 23:28
    
Try to think with sets. It helps. –  Vittorio Patriarca Jun 4 '12 at 23:32

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

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