Explore BrainMass

Explore BrainMass

    Syllogisms in philosphy

    This content was COPIED from BrainMass.com - View the original, and get the already-completed solution here!

    I am having issues with a subject. I need you to answer these attached questions and explain why so I can complete other like it.

    © BrainMass Inc. brainmass.com October 9, 2019, 9:12 pm ad1c9bdddf


    Solution Preview

    I am trying to figure out if these are syllogisms or not. I have a bunch more to do. Can you answer questions and explain why for each

    Are these valid syllogisms- Yes/No and why

    1. All zebras are striped animals.
    No zebras are polar bears.
    Therefore, no polar bears are striped animals.
    (Comment: This makes no sense. The first two sentences are speaking of zebras, which are not polar bears, that they are striped. Who knows if polar bears are striped? There is absolutely nothing to connect the appearance of polar bears with the appearance of zebras. They are two completely separate sets.)

    2. All clowns are funny individuals.
    Some sad people are clowns.
    Therefore, some sad people are funny individuals.
    (Comment: Since all clowns are funny and some "sad people" are clowns, then it must follow that some "sad people" are funny, i.e. the ones ...