Attention Philosophers!
 

[B]Identify the form and discuss the validity or invalidity of the following argument:[/B]



Time heals all wounds. Time is money. Therefore money heals all wounds.

All the three propositions in this argument are 'universal affirmative propositions' (i.e. 'A' propositions).

So mood of argument: AAA

Structure of this argument is:

All M is P
All M is S
>> All S is P

this structure corresponds to the 'figure' = 3

It means that 'form' of this argument is: AAA-3 (i.e. form is just combination of 'mood' and 'figure')

There can be a total of 256 forms of this type of arguments. But all the 256 forms are not valid. Only 15 out of the total of 256 forms are valid.

Following is the list of those 15 valid forms:

First Figure:

1- AAA-1
2- EAE-1
3- AII-1
4- EIO-1

Second Figure:

5- AEE-2
6- EAE-2
7- AOO-2
8- EIO-2

Third Figure:

9- AII-3
10- IAI-3
11- EIO-3
12- OAO-3

Fourth Figure:

13- AEE-4
14- IAI-4
15- EIO-4


Since the form of our argument i.e. AAA-3 is not included in the list of standard valid forms ... so it means that our argument is not valid.

Now consider the following argument:

Time heals all wounds. Money is Time. Therefore money heals all wounds.

The mood of above argument is same i.e. AAA

But now its figure is changed. Now its figure is '1' ... (Please note that in second proposition, I have changed the order of time and money with the view to change its figure)

It means that now the form of this argument is AAA-1

And since form AAA-1 is included in the list of valid forms ... So this second argument is valid one...!!!!!!

Thanks!

Tough Job
 

AoA

@ Khurram
[QUOTE]But now its figure is changed. Now its figure is '1' ... (Please note that in second proposition, I have changed the order of time and money with the view to change its figure)[/QUOTE]

What if I invert "cows give milk" to "milk give cows", will the conclusion be still true?
Likewise, inverting the statement" Time is money" to "money is time" holds the same reasoning for conclusion.
Plz clear out my confusion in this regard.

@ Qurratulain

if i say that "humans are mammals" and "dogs are mammals" and conclude that "humans are dogs"?
Reasoning is valid but plz dont ignore the premises which are changed and the resultant conclusion which is also not true in this regard.

Last but not the least, I think that :

Figure 3 : Conclusion=true, premises=true and reasoning=invalid

But for figure 4: Reasoning=valid, premises=invalid and hence the conclusion=false

So, with all the due respect to brother khurram, i, in my own point of view shall regard this argument as a form of figure 4. I may be wrong, but i m still in search of guidance and shall be thankfull if u seniors provide it so, in this regard.