Evaluate a real letter to the editor (2). Worth 10%

Directions:

First. Translate the letter to the editor into propositional logic and then standardize it.

Be sure to tell me what the letters represent. Worth 5 points.

For example. Here is an argument:

Either there will be no snow today or no rain for tomorrow. Yet it is snowing today. Therefore, tomorrow it will rain too.

Let S = There is snow today.

Let R = There is rain tomorrow.

Standardization:

P1) -S v -R

P2) S

---

C3) .: R

Okay, that’s the first thing to do.

Second. Once you have done this, do a long truth table to determine if the argument is valid or not. Be sure to show all your work and make sure to identify all the parts of the argument and what you are looking at to determine whether it is valid or invalid. You can type it out or hand draw it (worth 5 points) – the example below highlights what I look at to determine if the argument is valid. Remember: I look only at when the conclusion is false, and check to see if there is at least one false premise. If all the premises are true when the conclusion is false, the argument is invalid.

P2	C3			P1
S	R	-S	-R	-S v -R
T	T	F	F	F
T	F	F	T	T	X (fails)
F	T	T	F	T
F	F	T	T	T

The argument is INVALID

Here’s the Letter to the editor. Please no cover letter. Just one page with your work, your name, and your ID number. Thanks!

Regarding: MPs To Investigate Ottawa’s Approval Of Arms Exports To Turkey

It should be no surprise that if one makes, sells, and ships weapons – then those weapons are going to maim or kill people.

If Canada doesn’t want to be complicit in that, then there’s a simple solution: We shouldn’t manufacture weapons.

David Kinahan Toronto (November 4th)

Citation: https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/letters/article-us-election-reader-reaction-joe-biden-donald-trump-deadlocked/

Answer rating: 100% (QA)

Standardization Let W Manufacturing weapons Let K People maimed or killed Let S Cana... View the full answer