philosophy - analysing arguments

Question

Determine whether the argument is valid, and give a reason why.

It is morally permissible to eat farm animals. Dogs and cats are not farm animals so it is morally wrong to eat them.

The argument is valid, the conclusion is true because dogs and cats are not farm animals.

The argument is invalid, there might be other reasons why it is morally wrong to eat farm animals.

The argument is invalid, it is immoral to eat farm animals.

The argument is invalid, it might still be morally permissible to eat dogs and cats, even if the premises were true.

The argument is valid, the premises are true so the conclusion is true.

The argument is valid, it’s not possible for it to be morally permissible to eat dogs and cats if the premises are true.

Choose the generalised form that represents the argument.

 

Select one:

A = farm animals

B = dogs and cats

C = things that are morally permissible to eat

1. All A are C.

2. Some B are not A.

Therefore, 

C: Some B are not C.

A = you are a farm animal

B = you are a dog or cat

C = you are something that is morally permissible to eat

1. If A then C.

2. If B then not A.

Therefore, 

C: If B then C.

A = farm animals

B = dogs and cats

C = things that are morally permissible to eat

1. All A are C.

2. No B are A.

Therefore, 

C: No B is C.

A = you are a farm animal

B = you are a dog or cat

C = you are something that is morally permissible to eat

1. If C then A.

2. If B then not A.

Therefore, 

C: If B then not C.

Answer 1

The argument is invalid because the conclusion is true but is derived from false premises. The conclusion is false because it is possible that some dogs and cats are not farm animals.

A = farm animals

B = dogs and cats

C = things that are morally permissible to eat

1. All A are C.

2. Some B are not A.

Therefore, 

C: Some B are not C.