Term Paper, Part 1
John Green
Philosophy 105 – 001 – 008
In the first part of this term paper, I am testing the validity of the following argument: “There is no reason to believe that banning violent video games will reduce violent crime. If there is no reason to believe that banning violent video games will reduce violent crime, then banning violent video games will reduce violent crime. If Congress does not ban violent video games, then Congress must be corrupt. So, banning video games will reduce violent crime and congress is corrupt.”
The first step is to define a dictionary for the argument. The one I crafted consisted of the four following letters:
T = There is reason to believe banning violent video games will reduce violent crime.
B = Banning violent video games will lead to a reduction in violent crimes.
V = Congress bans video games.
C = Congress is corrupt.
Now, I must use the dictionary to symbolize the argument in a way that reflects the reasoning accurately. The first sentence is “There is no reason to believe that banning violent video games will reduce violent crime,” which simply becomes “~T.” Next is “If there is no reason to believe that banning violent video games will reduce violent crime, then banning violent video games will reduce violent crime.” Once translated, this becomes “(~T) ⊃ B.” “If Congress does not ban violent video games, then Congress must be corrupt,” is now written as “(~V) ⊃ C.” Finally, the conclusion “So, banning video games will reduce violent crime and congress is corrupt,” is “∴B • C.”
To check the validity, the statements have to be in proper form. To do that, I must use the equivalencies:
~T
(~T) ⊃ B
(~V) ⊃ C
∴B • C
~(B•C)4, N.C/
~(~T) v B2, Impl.
T v B6, D.N.
~(~V) v C3, Impl.
V v C8, D.N.
~B v ~C5, De.M.
And, now that I have them in the proper form, I can make a table to check whether the argument is valid:
/ \
~B ~C / \ / \
V C V C
/ \ / \ / \
Philosophy 105 – 001 – 008
In the first part of this term paper, I am testing the validity of the following argument: “There is no reason to believe that banning violent video games will reduce violent crime. If there is no reason to believe that banning violent video games will reduce violent crime, then banning violent video games will reduce violent crime. If Congress does not ban violent video games, then Congress must be corrupt. So, banning video games will reduce violent crime and congress is corrupt.”
The first step is to define a dictionary for the argument. The one I crafted consisted of the four following letters:
T = There is reason to believe banning violent video games will reduce violent crime.
B = Banning violent video games will lead to a reduction in violent crimes.
V = Congress bans video games.
C = Congress is corrupt.
Now, I must use the dictionary to symbolize the argument in a way that reflects the reasoning accurately. The first sentence is “There is no reason to believe that banning violent video games will reduce violent crime,” which simply becomes “~T.” Next is “If there is no reason to believe that banning violent video games will reduce violent crime, then banning violent video games will reduce violent crime.” Once translated, this becomes “(~T) ⊃ B.” “If Congress does not ban violent video games, then Congress must be corrupt,” is now written as “(~V) ⊃ C.” Finally, the conclusion “So, banning video games will reduce violent crime and congress is corrupt,” is “∴B • C.”
To check the validity, the statements have to be in proper form. To do that, I must use the equivalencies:
~T
(~T) ⊃ B
(~V) ⊃ C
∴B • C
~(B•C)4, N.C/
~(~T) v B2, Impl.
T v B6, D.N.
~(~V) v C3, Impl.
V v C8, D.N.
~B v ~C5, De.M.
And, now that I have them in the proper form, I can make a table to check whether the argument is valid:
/ \
~B ~C / \ / \
V C V C
/ \ / \ / \