4

Here are two inferences A and B, one of which is valid, but the other not valid.

Inference A

  1. Every human is mortal.
  2. Socrates is human.
  3. Therefore Socrates is mortal.

Inference B

  1. Every hero likes women.
  2. Taro likes women.
  3. Therefore Taro is a hero.

Which one is correct, and in what sense it is correct ?

Can somebody give the hints to solve it ?

Asaf Karagila
  • 393,674
user77788
  • 167

3 Answers3

6

Draw a circle. Draw another circle, inside the first. Draw a point inside one of the circles and see if being inside one the circles implies being inside the other.

The difference is like between necessary and sufficient conditions. Being a human is sufficient to be mortal. Being mortal is necessary but not sufficient to be human. Similarly, being a lover is necessary for being a hero but not sufficient.

In probability, this fallacy is know as Confusion of inverse

Val
  • 1
  • ohh!!! i see ! Thank you very much – user77788 May 21 '13 at 16:13
  • 2
    Yes, A -> B means that A is inside B. The set of humans is a subset of mortals. Socrates is a point inside humans. Being Socrates -> being in the ring of humen -> being inside mortals. Heroes are inside women lovers. But, being inside a big ring of human lovers does not imply that you are inside a smaller ring of heroes. – Val May 21 '13 at 16:22
3

Hint: Is everyone who likes women necessarily a hero?

al0
  • 758
1

Hint

Inference B

$\varphi(x)$ mean $x$ likes women

$Hero(p)$ means $p$ is a hero

1) $\forall p:Hero(p)\rightarrow \varphi(p)$

2) $\varphi(taro)$

3) $\varphi(taro)\rightarrow Hero(taro)$

So the second inference is

$(P\rightarrow Q)\rightarrow (Q\rightarrow P) $

Is this always true?

Inference A

But when we talk about socrate we have a different thing:

$\varphi(x)$ mean $x$ is mortal

$Human(p)$ means $p$ is a human

1) $\forall p:Human(p)\rightarrow \varphi(x)$

2) $Human(socrate)$

3) $Human(socrate)\rightarrow \varphi(socrate)$

that is very different.

MphLee
  • 2,472