Explain Klenk’s argument in favor of retaining the material analysis of the conditional. By this, I mean her argument that we must retain the material conditional because without it, we would not “have rules determining in every case what the truth value of the [conditional] would be” (p. 41). To do this, explain first why it matters that we do have said rules, and second, why other analyses of the conditional would fail where the material analysis succeeds.

Answer rating: 100% (QA)

Logics of conditionals deal with inferences involving sentences of the form if A then B of natural language Despite the overwhelming presence of such sentences in everyday discourse and reasoning ther... View the full answer