Chapter 14

CATEGORICAL ARGUMENTS TESTED ACCORDING TO FORM.

=1. ARGUMENTS OF FORM AND MATTER.=

The matter relative to the syllogism treated in chapters 11, 12 and 13 is given primarily to enable the reader to test the validity of categorical arguments. Such arguments must be viewed from the two standpoints of _form_ and _matter_, since it is one of the chief purposes of logic to enable the student to detect fallacious reasoning, no matter how subtly it may be concealed. Therefore, that one may gain marked facility in this kind of work, it becomes necessary to proceed with _thoroughness_ and _confidence_. The _meaning_ of arguments and the various _material_ fallacies may be treated later; but we are now equipped with sufficient knowledge and experience to test the validity of arguments from the viewpoint of _form_.

=2. ORDER OF PROCEDURE IN THE FORMAL TESTING OF ARGUMENTS.=

In testing categorical arguments _three_ things are essential; first, _to follow a definite plan_; second, _to give reasons_; third, _to give the author the benefit of the doubt_. In view of these essentials, we suggest this outline which may be helpful to the inexperienced:

(1) Arrange logically and complete the syllogism.

(2) Determine the figure and mood by using symbols.

(3) Apply the rules for negatives and particulars.

(4) Indicate the distribution by underscoring the terms distributed.

(5) Apply the rules for distribution.

(6) Name fallacies, if any, giving reasons.

We recall that to be strictly logical any categorical argument must take this form: first, major premise; second, minor premise; third, conclusion. Often in common conversation either the minor premise or conclusion is given first. Illustrations of this: (1) “He cannot be a gentleman (conclusion); for no gentleman would do such a thing (major premise), and there is no doubt but that he did it” (minor premise). (2) “He has the making of a good teacher (conclusion); because he not only knows, but he knows how to impart what he knows (minor premise), and this is a sure sign of a good teacher” (major premise). When the argument appears in this illogical form, the first duty of the student is to arrange it logically. To do this he must be able to recognize readily the premises and the conclusion. To this end these facts may be of assistance:

(1) A premise always answers the question “Why”, and is often
introduced by such words as “_for_,” “_because_,” “_since_,”
and the like.

(2) The conclusion is usually introduced by “_therefore_,” “_hence_,”
“_it follows_,” etc.

(3) When there are no word-signs those mentioned in the foregoing may
be inserted with a view of determining which is the conclusion,
and which are the premises.

_Suggestions relative to completing abbreviated arguments:_

(1) If the conclusion is to be supplied, select the term used twice in the premises; this, the middle term, must not appear in the conclusion. The other two terms may now be connected (copulated) to form the conclusion, the _narrower_ term (minor) being used as the subject, unless it occurs in what clearly seems to be the major premise. (2) If either premise is to be supplied, unite the middle term with the _subject_ of the conclusion for the minor premise, and with the _predicate_ of the conclusion for the major premise. (3) In supplying any missing proposition, care should be taken to make the argument _valid_, if this can be done in conformity with good English, good sense, and the rules of logic.

As regards the determination of the figure it is well to locate the middle term first, placing above it the symbol M. Then “G” (greater) may be placed above the major term and “S” (smaller) above the minor.

=3. ILLUSTRATIVE EXERCISES IN TESTING ARGUMENTS WHICH ARE ALREADY
COMPLETE, REGULAR, AND LOGICALLY ARRANGED.=

M G
(1) A All dogs are quadrupeds,
――――

S M
A All greyhounds are dogs,
――――――――――

S G
A ∴ All greyhounds are quadrupeds.
――――――――――

{ A This argument is in the first figure, the mood being { A. All { A the propositions are affirmative and universal, consequently the rules pertaining to negatives and particulars are inapplicable. “A” distributes the subject only, hence all the subjects are underscored. The middle term “_dog_” is distributed in the major premise, and the minor term “_greyhound_,” which is distributed in the conclusion, is likewise distributed in the minor premise. The argument is, therefore, valid in _form_. This may be verified by referring to a list of valid moods in the first figure.

G M
(2) E No prejudiced person is open to conviction,
――――――――――――――――― ――――――――――――――――――

S M
A  All fair minded persons are open to conviction,
―――――――――――――――――――

S G
E ∴ No fair minded person is prejudiced.
――――――――――――――――――

{ E The argument is in the second figure; mood { A. There is one { E negative premise and the conclusion is negative; no particulars. “E” distributes both terms, “A” the subject only. The middle term is distributed in the major premise. Both major and minor terms are distributed in the conclusion, but they are likewise distributed in the premises where they are used. The argument is, therefore, valid. Reference to the valid moods of the second figure confirms this conclusion.

M G
(3) A All good citizens vote,
―――――――――――――

M S
A All good citizens obey the law,
―――――――――――――

S G
A ∴ All who obey the law vote.
――――――――――――――――

{ A The mood is { A used in the third figure. All the propositions are { A A’s, hence the negative and particular rules are inapplicable. “A” distributes its subject. The middle term is distributed in both premises. “All who obey the law” is distributed in the conclusion but not in the premise where it is used. Therefore the argument is invalid. { A The fallacy being _illicit minor_. { A is not found in the third { A figure’s list of valid moods.

M G
(4) A All good citizens vote,
―――――――――――――

S M
E No criminal is a good citizen,
―――――――― ――――――――――――

S G
E ∴ No criminal votes.

{ A
The mood of this argument is { E used in the first figure. One premise
{ E

negative; conclusion negative; no particulars. “A” distributes the subject only; “E” both subject and predicate. The middle term, “good citizens,” is distributed in both premises. The major term, “votes,” is distributed in the conclusion but not in the premise where it is used. { A The argument is invalid, the fallacy being _illicit major_. { E is not { E found in the first figure’s list of valid moods.

G M
(5) A All true teachers are sympathetic,
―――――――――――――

S M
A All lovers of children are sympathetic,
――――――――――――――――――

S G
A ∴ All lovers of children are true teachers.
――――――――――――――――――

{ A The mood of this argument is { A used in the second figure. There are { A no negatives and no particulars. “A” distributes its subject only. The middle term, “sympathetic,” is distributed in neither premise, hence the argument is invalid. Fallacy of _undistributed middle_. Referring { A to the list of valid moods, we do not find { A in the second figure. { A

M G
(6) A All thoughtful men are humane,
――――――――――――――

S M
A All good citizens are thoughtful men,
―――――――――――――

S G
I ∴ Some good citizens are humane.

{ A The mood is { A in the first figure. No negatives; no particulars. “A” { I distributes its subject only; “I” distributes neither term. Middle term, distributed in the major premise; no term distributed in the conclusion. The argument is, therefore, valid. The conclusion is _weakened_ as it { A could just as well be an A. The mood { A in the first figure is valid, { I but of little value because of the weakened conclusion.

=4. ILLUSTRATIVE EXERCISE IN TESTING COMPLETED ARGUMENTS, ONE OR BOTH
PREMISES BEING ILLOGICAL.=

_Arguments containing exclusive propositions._

(1) Only first class passengers may ride in the parlor car,
All these are first class passengers,
∴ They may ride in the parlor car.

Propositions introduced by such words as _only_, _none but_, _alone_ and their equivalents are _exclusive_ propositions. Since these distribute their predicates, but do not distribute their subjects, the most convenient way of dealing with them is to _interchange subject and predicate_ and then regard them as _“A” propositions_. As the first proposition of the argument is an exclusive, we must deal with it accordingly. Interchanging subject and predicate and introducing it with _all_ places the argument in this form:

G M
A (All) The parlor car is reserved for first class passengers,
――――――――――

S M
A All these are first class passengers,
―――――

S G
A ∴ All these may ride in the parlor car.
―――――

{ A The mood of this argument is { A in the second figure. No negatives; { A no particulars. “A” distributes its subject only; the middle term is thus undistributed. The argument is invalid, the fallacy being that of _undistributed middle_.

(2) “No one but a thief would take these books without asking for them, and it has been proved that you took the books; that is the reason I have called you a thief.”

It is clear that “_no one but_” is equivalent to “_only_.” Thus the first proposition of the argument is an exclusive, and may be made logical by interchanging subject and predicate and calling it an “A.” As a result of this the argument takes the following form:

M G
A (All) These books were taken by a thief,
―――――

S M
A You took these books,
―――

S G
A ∴ You are a thief.
―――

We have now had sufficient experience to recognize the validity of mood AAA in the first figure.

(3) “None but the brave deserve the fair,
And you are not fair.”

Making the exclusive logical and completing gives:

M G
A (All) The fair deserve the brave,
――――

S M
E You are not fair,
―――

S G
E ∴ You do not deserve the brave.
―――

{ A The mood of this argument is { E used in the first figure. There { E is a negative premise, also a negative conclusion; no particulars. The middle term is distributed twice. The major term “_brave_” is distributed in the conclusion but not in the major premise; hence the argument is invalid, the fallacy being _illicit major_.

NOTE.――There may be some doubt in the student’s mind as to the proposition “None but the brave deserve the fair,” really meaning “All the fair deserve the brave.” This doubt may be better satisfied by treating the exclusive in the second way as indicated on page 137, to wit: Negate the subject of the exclusive, then give it the form of the regular “E.” This results in “No not-brave persons deserve the fair,” which, after first converting and then obverting becomes, “All the fair deserve the brave.”

_Arguments Containing Individual Propositions._

(4) “George Washington never told a lie, but you, when tempted,
yielded with no qualms of conscience.”

Completing, and arranging logically gives:

E George Washington never told a lie,
―――――――――――――――――

A You _did_ tell a lie,
―――

E ∴ You (in this respect) are not like George Washington.
――― ―――――――――――――――――

Treated properly this argument proves to be valid; the student, however, is apt to deal with such in this wise:

O George Washington never told a lie,
―――

I You did tell a lie,
―――

O ∴ You (in this respect) are not like George Washington.
――― ―――――――――――――――――

When placed in this mood the argument is invalid; since the major term, which is distributed in the conclusion, is not distributed in the premise where it occurs (_illicit major_). It is the tendency on the part of students to classify as particular, a proposition which has as its subject a _singular term_. Such propositions we have learned to call _individual_. The cause of this tendency is easily explained: Consider the propositions, (1) “This man is mortal”; (2) “Some men are mortal”; (3) “All men are mortal.” In the first instance “_mortal_” refers to the subject “_man_” which is narrower in significance than “_some men_” to which “mortal” of the second proposition refers. In consequence, it is very natural to infer that if, “_Some men are mortal_,” is particular, then, “_This man is mortal_,” is likewise particular. The error springs from a wrong conception of particular as used in logic; the content of the term has little to do with _extension_, but is chiefly concerned with _indefiniteness_. A particular proposition is one in which the predicate refers to only a part of an _indefinite_ subject. If the subject is referred to as a whole, and this whole is more or less definite, then the proposition is universal. Since “mortal” refers to the _whole_ of the definite term “_this man_,” as positively as it refers to the whole of “_all men_,” there is as much justification in calling the _first_ proposition universal as there is in calling the _third_ universal. _It may be remembered, then, that logicians class as universal all individual propositions._

_Arguments Containing Partitive Propositions._

(5) All that glitters is not gold,
Tinsel glitters,
∴ Tinsel is not gold.

The quantity sign “_all_” when used with “_not_” is ambiguous; it may mean “_no_” or “_some-not_.” The only way to determine which meaning is intended is to try both these quantity signs, selecting the one which seems to fit best the author’s meaning. When “all-not” means “some-not” the proposition which it introduces is called a _partitive_ proposition; since such always suggests a complementary proposition. (See page 133.) For example, “Some glittering things are _not_ gold,” suggests its complement, “Some glittering things _are_ gold.” In testing the foregoing argument it is clear that “_All that glitters is not gold_” does not mean “_No glittering thing is gold_,” so much as it implies “_Some glittering things are not gold_.” Thus the argument takes this form:

M G
O Some glittering things are not gold,
――――

S M
A Tinsel glitters,
――――――

S G
E ∴ Tinsel is not gold.
―――――― ――――

{ O The mood is { A in the first figure. There is one negative premise { E (O), and the conclusion is negative. There is one particular premise (O), but the conclusion is _not_ particular. This makes the argument invalid according to rule 8; viz.: “A particular premise necessitates a particular conclusion.” Carrying the test still further it will be seen that there is likewise the fallacy of _undistributed middle_.

_Other arguments where one of the premises is partitive._

“All scholars are not wise and, therefore, Aristotle was not wise.” “All democrats are not free-traders, but most of the men of this particular club are democrats, and hence they are of a different faith (not free-traders).”

“All the members of the club are not good players, and James belongs to the club.”

“All educated men do not write good English; therefore, you ought not to express surprise when informed that X, though an educated man, uses poor English.”

The major premise in each of the foregoing is partitive in nature and should be changed to the following form before the argument is tested; taking these in order we have: “Some scholars are not wise”; “Some democrats are not free-traders”; “Some of the members of the club are not good players”; “Some educated men do not write good English.” Let us test the validity of the last one:

(6) O Some educated men do not write good English,
——————————————————

A X is an educated man,
—

E ∴ X does not write good English (uses poor English).
— ——————————————————

Like the first one of the list, this is invalid inasmuch as a particular premise should yield a particular conclusion, not one which is universal. The argument also contains the fallacy of _undistributed middle_.

_Arguments Containing Inverted Propositions._

(7) “Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy.” The first proposition, being poetical in construction, is typical of the inverted form. These are usually made logical by _simple conversion_. Since premises usually follow “_for_,” or equivalent word-signs, it is easy to see that “for they shall obtain mercy” is one of the premises; while the other, the broader of the two, is understood.

Arranged logically the argument assumes this form:

M G
A Those who obtain mercy are blessed,
————————————

S M
A The merciful shall obtain mercy,
————————

S G
A ∴ The merciful are blessed.
————————

{ A
Here we have the mood { A in the first figure, which we know to be
{ A
valid.

_Other arguments where one of the propositions is inverted._

“Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall see God.”

“To thine own self be true, and it must follow, as the night the day, thou canst not then be false to any man.”

“A king thou art and, therefore, thy commands shall be, yea, _must_ be obeyed.”

Taking the inverted propositions in order and making each logical, the following is the result: “The pure in heart are blessed”; “You be true to yourself, and....”; “You are a king, therefore....”

=5. ARGUMENTS WHICH ARE INCOMPLETE AND MORE OR LESS IRREGULAR.=

(1) “He must be a star player; for he played fullback on the team
which won the championship.”

(2) “The man is not to be trusted; because he served a term of
90 days in jail.”

(3) “Only material bodies gravitate, and ether does not gravitate.”

(4) “If only fools despise knowledge, this man cannot be a fool.”

(5) “A charitable man has no merit in relieving distress; because he
merely does what is pleasing to himself.”

(6) “It is evident that all who get justice buy it; since only the
rich get it.”

The above arguments thrown into logical form and validity or invalidity stated: (The student should test these in detail.)

M
(1) A All belonging to the team which won the championship were
――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――

G
star players,
―――――――

S M
A He played with the team which won the championship,
――

S G
A ∴ He is a star player. _Valid in form._
――

M G
(2) E One who serves a term of 90 days in jail is not to be trusted,
―――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――― ―――――――

S M
A This man served a term of 90 days in jail,
―――

S G
E ∴ This man is not to be trusted. _Valid in form._
――― ―――――――

M G
(3) A All gravitating bodies are material,
――――――――――――――――――

S M
E Ether does not gravitate,
――――― ―――――――――

S G
E ∴ Ether is not material. _Illicit major._
――――― ――――――――

M G
(4) A All who despise knowledge are fools,
―――――――――――――――――――――

S M
E This man does not despise knowledge,
――― ―――――――――――――――――

S G
E ∴ This man is not a fool. _Illicit major._
――― ――――

M
(5) E No one who merely does what is pleasing to himself has
―――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――

G
merit in relieving distress,
―――――――――――――――――――――――――――

S M
A A charitable man merely does what is pleasing to himself,
――――――――――――――

S G
E ∴ No charitable man has merit in relieving distress. _Valid
―――――――――――――― ―――――――――――――――――――――――――――
in form._

M G
(6) A All the rich buy justice,

S M
A All who get justice are rich,
―――――――――――――――

S G
A ∴ All who get justice buy it. _Valid in form._
―――――――――――――――

In supplying suppressed premises the critic is duty bound to give the author the benefit of the doubt, if by so doing no principle in logic is violated and the proposition conforms to good English and good sense. Often it is not easy to perceive in the abbreviated argument the meaning intended; in such instances all legitimate effort should be directed to making the argument valid. To illustrate: In supplying the major premise of argument “6” it would be easy to make it, “All justice is bought by the rich”; in consequence the critic could pronounce the argument invalid as the middle term would be undistributed.

Before asserting that an argument is fallacious because it has four terms rather than three, the student must make sure that there are no synonyms or equivalents used. In argument “4,” for instance, there are apparently the four terms: (1) “foolish,” (2) “despise knowledge,” (3) “man,” (4) “fool”; but to regard “_foolish_” and “_fool_” as synonyms does not seem like undue liberty. The following arguments further illustrate this need of _recognizing synonyms_:

“Human beings are accountable for their conduct; brutes, not being human, are therefore _free from responsibility_.” (Not accountable for their conduct.)

“Not all educated men spell correctly; because one often finds mistakes in the writings of _college graduates_.” (Educated men.)

“Modern education is not popular in this state; for it increases the tax rate, and the popularity of everything, which _touches the pocket_ of these frugal Yankees, (increases the tax rate) is very short lived.” (Not popular.) In common parlance the use of synonyms is so prevalent that ready ability to substitute equivalents in word, phrase, and clause form is needed by him who would be skillful in testing all kinds of arguments.

It has already become apparent to the student that the _number_ of the noun or the _tense_ of the verb is of small logical consequence. A very large proportion of the formal fallacies in argumentation concern the rules of distribution which are summarized in the dictum “What may be said of the whole may be said of part of that whole.”

=6. COMMON MISTAKES OF STUDENTS IN TESTING ARGUMENTS.=

The most common mistakes made by the student when testing arguments are as follows: (1) Using the exclusive as an “A” without interchanging subject and predicate; e. g., interpreting the proposition, “Only high school graduates may enter the training school,” as meaning “All high school graduates may enter the training school.” (2) _Calling individual propositions particular_; e. g., interpreting “Socrates is mortal” as an “I” rather than an “A.” (3) Signifying that partitive propositions are “A’s” rather than “O’s”; e. g., “All that glitters is not gold” interpreted as meaning that “All glittering things are gold,” rather than “Some glittering things are not gold.” (A). (4) Concluding that a fallacy of four terms has been committed when two terms are synonomous. (5) Failing to interchange the subject and predicate of inverted propositions.

=7. OUTLINE.=

CATEGORICAL ARGUMENTS TESTED ACCORDING TO FORM.

(1) Arguments of form and matter.

(2) Order of procedure in the formal testing of arguments.
The outline.
Determining premises and conclusion.
Completing abbreviated arguments.

(3) Illustrative exercises in testing arguments which are complete
and whose premises are logical.

(4) Illustrative exercises in testing completed arguments, one or
both of whose premises are illogical.
Exclusive premises, individual premises, partitive premises,
inverted premises.

(5) Incomplete and irregular arguments.

(6) Common mistakes of the student.

=8. SUMMARY.=

(1) In determining their validity, arguments must be tested from the two viewpoints of _form_ and _matter_.

(2) In testing categorical arguments it is quite necessary to be definite, to give reasons, and to give the author the benefit of the doubt.

With this in view the attending outline is suggestive:

1. Arrange logically and complete.
2. Determine the figure and mood.
3. Apply rules for negatives and particulars.
4. Indicate distribution.
5. Apply rules for distribution.
6. Name fallacies, if any, giving reasons.

The logical arrangement of syllogistic arguments is

1. Major premise.
2. Minor premise.
3. Conclusion.

Any proposition in a syllogism which answers the question “_Why?_” is a premise, whereas the conclusion follows “_therefore_”, or its equivalent either written or understood. If a conclusion is to be supplied, unite the two terms which are used but _once_ in the premises, using the “minor premise term” as the subject. If a premise is to be supplied, unite the middle term with the “minor” to form the minor premise and with the “major” to form the major premise.

(3) Arguments which are regular, complete, and logically arranged, may be tested by symbolizing the mood and figure, underscoring the distributed terms, and then applying the general rules of the syllogism.

(4) Arguments with illogical premises may not be tested with impunity till the faulty premises are made logical. The exclusive, an illogical proposition introduced by only, alone, none but, and the like, may be made logical by interchanging subject and predicate and calling the proposition an A. The individual proposition is one with a singular subject. In testing, individual propositions are classed as universal. Propositions introduced by “all-not” are usually given the significance of “some-not”. These are called partitive propositions, which in the testing, should be denominated “O’s”.

Inverted propositions when subjected to the test for validity must be converted _simply_ and then classified. (Usually as A’s.)

(5) In supplying propositions which are taken for granted, the aim should be to make the argument valid, provided this can be done without violating the rules of logic, English, and common sense.

Ability to _substitute_ equivalent words, phrases, or clauses is demanded of the student of logic, inasmuch as such substitution is frequently needed in the testing of arguments.

Number and tense have little significance in dealing with arguments.

(6) The common mistakes of students made in testing arguments concern exclusive, partitive and inverted propositions, and an inability to recognize expressions equivalent in meaning.

=9. REVIEW QUESTIONS.=

(1) Name and explain the two standpoints from which all arguments
must be viewed.

(2) Give an outline of procedure which may be serviceable in the
testing of categorical arguments.

(3) Give illustrations showing that the logical order of categorical
arguments is not the usual mode of procedure in common parlance.

(4) Offer suggestions which may aid in designating a premise; a
conclusion.

(5) How would you proceed in forming any one of the three
propositions of a syllogism when the other two are given?

(6) Designate the premises and the conclusion in the following,
supplying any proposition which may be omitted, also arrange
logically and test the validity.

(1) “The people of this country are suffering from an overdose
of prosperity; consequently a period of hard times will be
a valuable lesson.” (The conclusion should be recast so as
to read, “A period of hard times will cure the people of
this country.” The minor premise is, “Those who suffer from
an overdose of prosperity may be cured by a period of hard
times.”)

(2) “I am a teacher; you are not what I am; hence you are not
a teacher.”

(3) “To kill a man is murder, therefore war is murder.”

(4) “You have not adopted the best policy since honesty has
always been and will always be the best policy.”

(5) “Since the road is criminally mismanaged, why should not
the authorities be indicted as criminals?”

(6) “Early to bed and early to rise makes a man healthy,
wealthy and wise. I am none of these; hence my sleeping
hours have been wrong.”

(7) Illustrate a weakened conclusion.

(8) Explain the exclusive proposition and indicate how the logician
should treat it.

(9) Arrange logically and test the following:

(1) Only weak men become intemperate, and Edgar Allen Poe was
surely intemperate.

(2) No admittance except on business; hence you cannot be
admitted.

(3) Virtuous acts are praiseworthy, and indiscriminate giving
is not a virtuous act.

(10) Explain why individual propositions are classed as universal.

(11) Write an argument whose major premise is a partitive proposition;
arrange logically and test validity.

(12) Arrange and test this argument: “Blessed are the poor in spirit:
for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.”

(13) Complete, arrange and test.

(1) “The object of war is to settle disputes; hence soldiers
are the best peacemakers.”

(2) “The various species of brutes being created to prey upon
one another proves that man is intended to prey upon them.”

(3) “The end of everything is its perfection; death being the
end of life is its perfection.”

(4) “All the trees of the yard make a thick shade and this is
one of them.”

(5) “Minds of moderate caliber ordinarily condemn everything
which is beyond their range, and his is such a mind.”

(6) “The best of all medicines are fresh air and sleep, and you
are sorely in need of both.”

(7) “Every hen comes from an egg; every egg comes from a hen;
therefore every egg comes from an egg.”

(8) “He cannot have been there――otherwise I should have seen
him.”

(14) “It is fair to give the author the benefit of the doubt when we
set ourselves up as censors worthy of the name.” Explain this.

(15) Illustrate by citing arguments the need of detecting terms which
are equivalents in signification.

(16) How does the logician look upon number and tense as treated in
grammar?

(17) Illustrate and test an argument in which one of the premises is
elliptical.

(18) Summarize the most common mistakes made by students in the
testing of categorical arguments; illustrate these mistakes and
then write in logical form.

=10. QUESTIONS FOR ORIGINAL THOUGHT AND INVESTIGATION.=

(1) Give illustrations of arguments which are valid in form but
invalid in meaning. Explain.

(2) May an argument be valid in meaning but invalid in form?
Exemplify.

(3) Put a simple problem in arithmetic in syllogistic form and show
that the minor premise naturally comes first.

(4) In the practice of law is there any custom analogous to giving
the author the benefit of the doubt in logical argumentation?

(5) Test in detail the following arguments:

(1) “All wise presidents strive to give heed to the demands of
the people, but this president has not done so.”

(2) “The existence of God is not universally believed, hence it
cannot be true.”

(3) “The institution has prospered under the present régime
therefore why change it?”

(4) “The man is guilty because seven out of the nine witnesses
so testified.”

(5) “I know three men who cleared not less than ten thousand
dollars in this business; and why cannot I do as much?”

(6) “Only members may vote and, since you are not a member, you will
not be allowed to vote.” Change the exclusive in this argument in
the two ways suggested in Chapter 8, page 126. Test the argument
in both cases.

(7) Show by illustration that the quantity sign “_all_” when used
with “_not_” may in some cases mean “_no_” and in others
“_some-not_”.

(8) Make two selections from some poet of authority representing
arguments with an inverted premise.

(9) Select from news papers three arguments which seem to illustrate
the fallacy of four terms but which in reality do not. Explain.

(10) Wherein could the elliptical proposition lead to error?

(11) Put the following in syllogistic form and test:

(1) “That persons may reason without language is proven by the
circumstances that infants reason and yet have no language.”

(2) “The scriptures cannot come from God because they contain
some things which cannot be comprehended by man.”

(3) “When Columbus was sailing the ocean in search of a new
world, he fell in with a flock of land birds and concluded
that he could not be far from land.”

(4) “Bolingbroke in arguing against the truth of the Christian
religion shows that the Christian religion has bred
contentions.” “Burke answered him by showing that civil
government had bred contentions.”