The author uses the word "immediacy" (line 39) most likely in order to express
annetr0712on January 19, 2020
Missing premises
I have come across an issue with these because I am underuse where the "not" is supposed to be.
Take the following example:
P1: A -> Not B
P2: ?
C: B -> C
The correct answer for premise 2 is: Not A -> C with the Contrastive being Not C -> A
But I put down the following:
A -> Not C with the contrapositive being C -> Not A
I want to know how to differentiate between what variable the not should be put or does this not matter?
Reply
Create a free account to read and
take part in forum discussions.
It does matter which variable is negated, because the answer that you first provided does not lead to the conclusion. Let's test it.
P1: A - > not B P2: A - > not C or C - > not A C: B - > C
Ok, the conclusion gives us B. From premise 1, we get not A. This is what we need to use to get to the conclusion. With the premise 2 that you provided, not A does not lead to the conclusion. It does not guarantee C.
Here is how we need to approach this problem.
P1: A - > not B P2: ? C: B - > C
The conclusion gives us B. From premise 1, we get not A. How can we say that not A leads to C? We can simply write:
not A - > C or not C - > A
With the correct answer, not A is sufficient for C. This means that it guarantees the conclusion is properly drawn.
With your previous answer, not A is necessary for C. It does not guarantee the conclusion.
