2
$\begingroup$

The question asks to construct a derivation of the argument if it's valid, and otherwise to provide an arithmetical interpretation which shows it's invalid. Am I doing this correctly?

Argument: "All good critics like every poet mentioned in the lecture. No good critic likes Edgar Guest, although Edgar Guest is a poet. Therefore, Edgar Guest was not mentioned in the lecture."

Let $C(x)\leftrightarrow x\ is\ a\ good\ critic $

$L(x,y) \leftrightarrow x\ likes\ y$

$P(x) \leftrightarrow x\ is\ a\ poet$

$M(x) \leftrightarrow x\ was\ mentioned\ in\ the\ lecture$

$g = Edgar\ Guest $

I symbolise the premises of the argument as:

Premise 1: $\forall x(C(x)\rightarrow \forall y(M(y)\wedge P(y) \rightarrow L(x,y)))$

Premise 2: $P(g)\wedge\forall x(C(x) \rightarrow \neg L(x,g)) $

The conclusion is $\neg M(g)$

In my first attempt, I tried to prove that the argument is true by assuming the negation of the desired conclusion, $M(g)$, and finding a contradiction. However, it only led me to conclude from the premises that $\forall x(M(g) \rightarrow \neg C(x))$

So I tried to find an interpretation which makes the argument invalid and found the following:

Domain: $\mathbb{Z}^+$

$C(x) \leftrightarrow x < 1$

$P(x) \leftrightarrow x\ is\ prime$

$M(x) \leftrightarrow x=2$

$L(x,y) \leftrightarrow x <y $

$g=2$

Essentially I chose an interpretation of $C(x)$ so that implications in which $C(x)$ is an antecedent are always true because $C(x)$ is always false. This allows the first premise to be true. Note that this also makes the second term of the second premise true. I then choose an interpretation of $P(x)$ and $M(x)$ so that $P(g)$ ("2 is prime") is true while $\neg M(g)$ ("2$\neq$2") is false. Is this solution fine?

$\endgroup$
0
$\begingroup$

Indeed, in your first attempt you only managed to show that $\forall x (M(g)\to\neg C(x))$, which is equivalent to $\forall x(C(x)\to\neg M(g))$ (by contraposition). This indicates already that to conclude that $g$ was not mentioned in the lecture, the universe must contain at least one $x$ that is a good critic. In other words, "there is still the possibility that $g$ was mentioned and that is in case no one is a good critic".

So, you came up with a universe/model which has no "good critics" at all, to prove that the initial argument is not valid.

Well done!

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ thanks for the feedback! :) $\endgroup$ – Unknowledgeable Mar 17 at 10:34

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.