Question

For this DA, you must provide your own proofs for at least 5 problems thom Part 1 and at least 5 problems from Part II (1.e., at least 10 problems in total). The answers for at least 3 of these problems must be provided in your first post; once posted. you'll be able to see the answers of the others and start the discussion. The remaining proots can be added at any later point before the deadline. In oddition. you must provide some constructive leedback on at least 3 other proots done by the other students. No group consensus answer is necessary for this DA. 1. For each of the following arguments. construct a proof of the conclusion from the given premises, and justily every step that is not a premse.

1) D⊃(A∨C),D&∼A&C

Answer 1

The question requires providing proofs of logical arguments using principles like disjunctive syllogism, modus ponens, and modus tollens, as well as assessing the truth of premises. Feedback on peers' work is also needed to ensure logical consistency and completeness of their arguments.

Step-by-step explanation:

The student's question pertains to the construction of logical proofs and the evaluation of arguments. To construct a proof from the given premises, the student is required to use principles of logical inference. When evaluating arguments, one must assess both the logical structure and the truth of the premises. In philosophy, it is crucial to distinguish between the logical assessment, which determines if the premises support the conclusion, and the truth assessment, which evaluates the factual accuracy of the premises and conclusion.

A student provided with premises such as D⊃(A-C), D&∼A&C must parse the logical operators to form a cohesive argument. Using rules like disjunctive syllogism, modus ponens, and modus tollens can guide the construction of a valid proof. Each logical step must be justified either as a given premise or through a deductive inference. For instance, if D is true, then the statement (A-C) must be true (modus ponens), and if we also know that ∼A is true, then C must be true (disjunctive syllogism).

In providing feedback to peers, highlighting aspects such as omitted necessary steps, incorrect application of logical rules, or failure to account for alternative interpretations is helpful. Ensuring a robust logical structure and internal consistency in arguments is critical for a substantive discussion.