Clarification

For example two, we are told that reptile -> air breathing vertebrate with ossified skeletons. But, It is not necessarily true from this that: if (not) reptile -> (not) air breathing vertebrate with ossified skeleton. So, why is it a NECESSARY assumption that alligators are reptiles if they are air breathing vertebrate with ossified skeletons? would we not need an "if and only statement" in our R->ABVWOS premise for this to be the case? I see that it strengthens the argument, by solidifying/making explicit a hanging assumption, but this does not seem to conform to the 100% degree of certainty required in sufficient and necessary conditions. Thank you in advance.

Replies

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

Already have an account? log in

GAM December 17, 2020

can i get a response please? This seems to be a recurring glaring flaw in your explanation of necessary premise questions.

GAM December 17, 2020

there is nothing in the S/N logic that introduces an exclusive relationship between R and ABVCOS. So, although R may not exist, there may be another type of organism that is an ABVCOS, and not being an R does not necessitate not being an ABVCOS

GAM December 31, 2020

hello?

GAM January 17, 2021

still waiting.