Final answer:
The question assesses the consistency of a set of philosophical statements through principles like noncontradiction and valid deductive inferences. By evaluating the possibility of all statements being true at once without contradiction, we determine consistency. The process involves critical analysis for potential contradictions or confirmation of universal statement validity.
Step-by-step explanation:
The question posed concerns whether the given set of statements is consistent or inconsistent. To determine this, we must analyze whether it is possible for all statements to be true simultaneously (logical consistency). We are dealing with a series of conditional and conjunction statements, which can be assessed through the principles of noncontradiction and valid deductive inferences. The statements given are:
- S ⊃ (Q ∨ L)
- (Q ∨ G) ⊃ (S ⊃ N)
- L ⊃ (N ∨ ∼ S)
- S • ∼ N
To resolve consistency, we need to check if there's a scenario where all statements could be true without contradiction. The process involves checking for potential contradictions, similar to seeking counterexamples in universal statements. Understanding the logical meaning behind these statements helps us to evaluate the validity of the argument presented.
If, upon inspection, the statements do not contradict each other, then they are consistent. However, if a statement and its negation are both asserted, this would generate a contradiction, rendering the set inconsistent.