Validity of Argument
- jadechiagirl
- New Trial Member
- Posts: 0
- Joined: November 15th, 2021, 2:06 pm
Validity of Argument
Consider the following argument: All groups or institutions that spend money are businesses. All families are groups or institutions that spend money. Therefore, all families are businesses. This argument is invalid because:
A) the conclusion is true, and thus the argument is not truth preserving.
B) the premises are true, and thus the argument is truth preserving.
C) the premises and conclusion are false; it doesn't matter if truth is preserved.
D) the premises are true, but the conclusion is false (and thus the argument is not truth preserving).
I got the question wrong and the correct answer was apparently D, but I don't understand why. The question seemed wrong to begin with because it seems like the argument is valid in the first place.
1. All groups or institutions that spend money are businesses.
2. All families are groups or institutions that spend money.
3. Therefore, all families are businesses.
Doesn't the conclusion follow from the premises and is therefore valid?
-
- Posts: 10339
- Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Re: Validity of Argument
So I've no idea why the correct answer is deemed to be D.
- LuckyR
- Moderator
- Posts: 7991
- Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am
Re: Validity of Argument
I'm with you, the first premise is clearly incorrect, thus of the given answers, C is best.Steve3007 wrote: ↑November 16th, 2021, 7:38 am Yes, the conclusion follows from the premises as far as I can see. But the question of whether the premises are true depends on definitions. The premise "All groups or institutions that spend money are businesses" uses an odd/non-standard definition of the word "business" when it's used as a noun to denote an entity. "All families are groups or institutions that spend money" is clearly not necessarily true for all families in the world.
So I've no idea why the correct answer is deemed to be D.
If the question writer feels that the first premise is clearly true, IMO they are not very talented in coming up with test questions.
- jadechiagirl
- New Trial Member
- Posts: 0
- Joined: November 15th, 2021, 2:06 pm
Re: Validity of Argument
- LuckyR
- Moderator
- Posts: 7991
- Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am
Re: Validity of Argument
While I don't disagree with your post, in my experience with dealing with folks in charge of my grades, I would approach it differently. I would inquire why they feel the first premise is true. Where to go will depend on their answer.jadechiagirl wrote: ↑November 16th, 2021, 4:13 pm Okay, so if I confront them with this, I should be able to generally point out that firstly, the question is misleading because the argument isn't invalid in the first place. Next, even if we say that the argument invalid (which it isn't), the given answer doesn't make sense because it's not the case that the premises are true, as the answer suggests.
-
- Posts: 10339
- Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Re: Validity of Argument
I might start by telling them that, perhaps due to my own ignorance, I wasn't aware that the word "business" (when used to refer to an entity as opposed to an action) refers to any group or institution that spends money. I tend to think of it more specifically as the word for an entity that takes in raw materials and/or labour (in exchange for money), produces goods and/or services, and sells those goods and/or services for (ideally) more money than was spent on the raw materials and/or labour, thereby making a profit.
Not all groups or institutions that spend money do all of that.
- kaczynskisatva
- New Trial Member
- Posts: 2
- Joined: November 25th, 2021, 7:55 am
Re: Validity of Argument
Both premises are false. The conclusion from them, is true.
Groups or institutions that spend money, but are not businesses, include governments, charities, and religious organizations.
Families which are not groups or institutions which spend money, include tribal family units existing outside of a monetized economy, and may also include some families which have no income and subsist on resources, but not money, provided to them. Two or more institutionalized sibling orphans may constitute a family, but dispose of no money.
The conclusion drawn from these premises is true, according to basic set theory. If all B's are A's, and all C's are B's, then transitively all C's are A's.
2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
2023 Philosophy Books of the Month
Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023
Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023