The author uses the word "immediacy" (line 39) most likely in order to express

izyat on May 29, 2019

Fill in the missing premise

I'm a little bit confused because I am trying to figure out the missing premise questions, and it seems like there is no video with an explanation for it. The lecture seemed to cover logical reasoning questions themselves, but not the missing premises and variable questions. Am I missing a video?

Create a free account to read and take part in forum discussions.

Already have an account? log in

Ravi on May 29, 2019


Great question. If you review the "Quantifiers" video lessons, there's
some stuff in there that goes over how you can fill in the missing
premise. Those videos will help you solidify your ability to answer
these questions.

Hope this helps. Let us know if you have any other questions!

izyat on May 30, 2019

Would you be able to provide me with an example of how to solve a 'fill in the missing premise question' step by step? I watched the entire quantifier lecture, and I think I have a more solid grasp on the some, all and most statements, however I don't think I have quite made the jump from that to filling in the missing premise.

Ravi on June 6, 2019


Happy to help.

Let's take a look at this question. This'll give you an example of how
to solve a missing premise question with quantifier statements.

P: X - >C (not C - >not X)
C: A-some-C

We know that all Xs are Cs, and we need to add a premise to be able to
conclude that some As are Cs.

What if some As are Xs (A-some-X)? Well, if some As are Xs, and all Xs
are Cs, then we'd definitely be able to conclude that some As are Cs

P: X - >C (not C - >not X)
P: A-some-X
C: A-some-C

Thus, the missing premise is A-some-X.

Does this make sense? Let us know if you have any questions!