I encourage you all to arrive at the scheduled start time for our class rather than our more usual ten-minutes delayed "Berkeley time." I will provide you with the first half of your mid-term examination worksheet at 2 o'clock, or any time you arrive thereafter. The second half of the exam will begin at 3.15, or any time thereafter. The examination will continue to the scheduled end of our class at 4.30. You should bring writing implements but otherwise everything will be provided for you.
Again, I urge you to use your syllabus and the Study Sheet I distributed on Thursday to prepare for the exam. So long as you have a decent definition of each of the terms on the Study Sheet and remember the SKILL SETS we covered in our various workshops in the first half of the course you should do very well on the exam. Indeed, I hope you will enjoy completing the exam and its various puzzles and exercises. The following video clip provides a clue to assist you in one of the exercises on Tuesdays exam, enjoy the cheesy retro 80s hair...
By all means, use the comments section under this post to ask questions of one another or make plans for study sessions if you like. I hope everybody has a lovely weekend.
9 comments:
GREAT SONG
Are you guys studying the other Aristotelian rhetorics besides logos, pathos and egos?
@Esther Nope! Just those 3...
Can anyone clarify the relationship between Major Premise & Minor Premise vs. Major Term, Minor Term, Middle Term?
Also, what is the relationship/differences between categorical vs. hypothetical vs. disjunctive syllogisms? What is the significance of distinguishing between these three kinds of syllogisms?
Hi Sophia,
The major premise can identity the type of syllogism, such as categorical, conditional, or disjunctive.
The difference between the syllogisms is based on the logical structure, such as "all x are p", "if x, then p", or "either x or p" . For example, consider these 3 syllogism and their logical forms:
1. Major premise:
a. all p are q
b. if p, then q
c. either p or q
2. Minor Premise:
a. x is p
b. p
c. not p
3. Conclusion:
a. So, x is q
b. so, q
c. therefore, q
I think being able to notice the difference between logical forms will come in handy for translations, like knowing which key indicator words go to which syllogism, such as "all", "if/then", or "either/or".
In addition, depending on the form of the minor premise, a syllogism can be either valid or invalid--that is, modus ponens (aA) and modus tollens (dC) or the two fallacies: denying the antecedent and affirming the consequent.
Hopefully that helps,
Best of luck!
Oops, I forgot about the relationship part between the premise and terms. I think the relationship is as follows:
1. Major Premise: All p are q (where "q" = major term)
2. Minor Premise: x is p (where "x" = minor term & "p" = middle term)
3. Conclusion: So, x is q
Great, thanks so much for clarifying @Ryan! This was super helpful.
Post a Comment