Chapter 1
Exercises 1.1
A.
1. Invalid. A non-Russian non-American could have landed on the Moon before 1969.
2. Invalid. Granted that it is always cloudy when it rains, that does not imply that it always
rains when it is cloudy. So, it could be cloudy now, and not be raining.
3. Valid.
4. Invalid. Pat could be Mary’s sister.
5. Invalid. Granted that all things that have scales live in the sea, that does not imply that
everything that lives in the sea has scales. So, the premises do not imply that all, or
indeed, any fish have scales.
6. Valid.
7. Invalid. A friend of a friend might not be a friend. Even if John is a friend of Brian and
Brian is a friend of Jim, John and Jim might not even know each other, or might dislike
each other, etc.
8. Invalid. See q.4
9. Valid.
10. Valid.
11. Invalid. Nadal could win the tournament by winning the final, even if he does not win the
final in straight sets.
12. Valid.
B.
1. Valid but unsound. Not all snakes are poisonous.
2. Invalid, and hence, unsound. Even if copper is a metal and all conductors are metals,
that allows that some metals could be non-conductors, and copper could be one of
those.
3. Valid and sound.
4. Valid, but unsound. The first premise is false.
5. Valid, and plausibly sound once the 2016 Democratic primary was well-advanced.
6. Invalid, and hence, unsound. The premises guarantee that the saving would be half of
that. So, in fact, they validly entail that the conclusion is false.
7. If we tighten up the wording of the conclusion so that it says that Obama means/intends
to take our guns away, then valid, but unsound. Numerous politicians favor gun safety
legislation (that restricts the kinds of guns and/or the capacity of magazines that can be
legally owned), but do not wish to take away guns in general. Reading the second
premise as asserting that anyone who favors gun legislation means to take (all) our guns
away, it is plausibly false.
8. Invalid. Even if the mind is not entirely physical (for instance, if there is a non-physical
mind or “soul” that works in tandem with the brain), it is possible that a suitably
programmed computer would house an artificial mind, in part, because it houses a non-
© 2018 Taylor & Francis
physical mind. So, even if we accept that it is possible to create artificial minds in
computers, and accept the first premise, that does not guarantee that the mind is entirely
physical.
C.
1. (a) Valid.
(b) An argument is either valid or invalid. Period. That we have found a new cure has no bearing
on the quality of the argument’s reasoning. However, new information can impact the plausibility
of the premises. In this case, the information tells us that the first premise is plausibly false, and
hence, the argument is plausibly unsound. (c) As per(b), background information has no bearing
on the argument’s validity. Given that the conclusion is false and that the argument is valid (i.e.
it is impossible for both premises to be true and the conclusion to be false), we can only
conclude that at least one of the premises is false. Maybe John didn’t have pancreatic cancer at
all, or the first premise is too pessimistic, or both.
2.
1. Impossible. By definition, a sound argument is one that has all true premises and is
valid. Hence, a sound invalid argument is a contradiction in terms.
2. Possible. Jane is in Berlin. Berlin is in France. So, Jane is in France.
3. Possible.
4. Possible. Given that it is both valid and unsound, at least one of its premises must be
false.
5. Possible. The Eiffel tower is in France. Paris is in France. So, the Eiffel tower is in Paris.
6. Impossible. A sound argument has all true premises and is such that it is impossible for
all of its premises to be true and its conclusion to be false. So, its conclusion must be
true.
7. Possible. The example in 3 is invalid, and hence unsound, but it has a true conclusion.
Here’s a valid but unsound argument that has a true conclusion: All cats are robots. All
robots have hearts. So, all cats have hearts.
8. Possible.
9. The Eiffel tower is in Berlin. Berlin is in France. So, the Eiffel tower is in France.
10. Possible. Dogs can speak English. Things with tails can typically speak English. Dogs
typically have tails.
Exercises 1.2
A.
It is worth noting that, by supplying a suitable background context, every one of the following
examples could be read as invoking epistemic possibility. However, we shall only identify an
example as such, where that notion is clearly intended / it is not naturally read as invoking
another notion of possibility.
1. Physical possibility.
3. Logical possibility.
5. Physical possibility.
© 2018 Taylor & Francis
7. Since there are no real zombies, this is not biological possibility. This might be uttered in a
discussion of, say, “The Walking Dead” where the speakers are considering what is possible
relative to the specification of what zombies are like provided by that graphic novel / TV series.
B.
1. Logically possible. The streets could be so hot that falling rain re-evaporates on contact,
leaving the streets dry.
3. Logically possible. Jessica could have been re-animated by a miracle, or by sophisticated
medical technology of a kind that is not generally known.
5. Logically impossible. If everyone loves Taylor Swift, that guarantees that she is popular. You
don’t even need to be universally loved to be popular.
C.
1. Part of what it means to be a triangle is that a figure has (exactly) three sides.
3. The second sentence states exactly the conditions that make the first false. If you did an
experiment where you produced an open flame in the absence of oxygen, you would have
demonstrated that the first claim was false.
5. To think, or dream, or do anything, you must exist. So, Rene’s thinking is logically
incompatible with his non-existence.
7. If you are in Paris and Paris is in France, then you must be in France. So, it is not logically
possible that you are also not in France.
D.
1. Invalid. It is logically possible that the cat that fell had super powers or that the laws of nature
were momentarily altered so that such an impact has no more effect than gently falling on a
feather bed.
3. Invalid. John might have superpowers. Less exotically, John might have been submerged in
extremely cold water, so that he remains alive, but goes into a deep coma-like state that does
not demand significant amounts of oxygen, and he remains alive.
5. Invalid. John might be a small child.
Exercises 1.3
1. All domestic cats are pets. Plausibly invalid without the additional assumption, since many
domestic animals (e.g. horses, cows) are farm animals and not pets. Even if you take “domestic
cat” to more narrowly refer to cats that are (intended to be) kept as pets, such animals do
sometimes get abandoned or their owner dies.
3. Anyone who votes for Gil Fulbright is a Republican. Invalid without the additional assumption.
Candidates often draw votes from multiple political parties.
5. The day after yesterday is this day/today. Valid without the additional assumption, since
yesterday is just the day before this day/today.
7. All negatively charged particles repel each other. Invalid without the additional assumption,
since the laws of nature could have been such that, for example, negatively charged particles
do not always repel each other.
© 2018 Taylor & Francis
9. An appendectomy is a surgical procedure. Anything that occurs within the last six weeks
occurred within the last year. The second assumption is not required for validity, given what we
normally mean by “year” and “week.” The first assumption is plausibly not required either, since
“appendectomy” is generally taken to mean the surgical removal of the appendix. Might the term
“appendectomy” cover the non-surgical removal of the appendix by swallowing nanobots or
special pharmaceuticals that painlessly and seamlessly do the job, if we develop such
technology? That’s not jarringly at odds with common usage. On that reading, the first
assumption would be required. Debate over the correct meaning of words like “appendectomy”
seems like a waste of effort. If there is a dispute, it seems better to acknowledge both candidate
meanings and judge the validity of the associated arguments accordingly.
Exercises 1.4
A.
1. Invalid. Even if it is true that some or all people who are opposed to freedom support gun
control, that does not imply that all people who support gun control are opposed to freedom. So,
it does not imply that liberals are opposed to gun control.
3. Invalid. The fact that film directors and graphic novelists need to have the same skills, does
not imply that one does the other’s job. Philosophers and lawyers require some of the same
skills, but philosophers aren’t lawyers.
5. Valid.
[Link]. Even if it were true that potatoes are currently (and not just historically) a valuable
food source in poorer societies, that does not imply that it is a valuable food source only in
poorer societies. So, the premises do not imply that Ireland, Poland, and Peru are poor
societies/countries.
C.
1. Valid
3. Invalid. The fact that one ex-president is dead, and the other is alive does not imply that the
former was president before the latter. Jimmy Carter has outlived Ronald Reagan.
5. Invalid. You can see parts of New Jersey from the top of the Empire State building, but New
Jersey is not in New York.
7. Invalid. Even if the Himalayas contain more tall mountains than any other mountain range,
that does not imply they contain the tallest mountain. So, the tallest mountain in the Himalayas
need not be the tallest mountain on Earth.
9. Invalid. Brazil could be right beside a South American country and yet not be in South
America. Canada is right beside many states that are in the United States of America, but
Canada is not in the United States of America.
© 2018 Taylor & Francis