Exercises for Conditional Chain Arguments 1. "If the Senator wins the New Hampshire primary, then he'll have a big advantage when it comes to raising money for his campaign. If he has an advantage in campaign fund-raising, he'll certainly win the nomination. And if he's nominated, he will be elected president." Given this chain argument, what can you conclude if the Senator wins the New Hampshire primary?
2. "If the Senator wins the New Hampshire primary, then he'll have a big advantage when it comes to raising money for his campaign. If he has an advantage in campaign fund-raising, he'll certainly win the nomination. And if he's nominated, he will be elected president." Given this chain argument, what can you conclude if the Senator is not elected president?
3. "If the Senator wins the New Hampshire primary, then he'll have a big advantage when it comes to raising money for his campaign. If he has an advantage in campaign fund-raising, he'll certainly win the nomination. And if he's nominated, he will be elected president." Given this chain argument, what can you conclude if the Senator does not win the nomination? He didn't win New Hampshire and he wasn't elected president. He didn't have an advantage in fund-raising and he wasn't elected president. He didn't have an advantage in fund-raising and he didn't win the primary in New Hampshire.
4. "If the Senator wins the New Hampshire primary, then he'll have a big advantage when it comes to raising money for his campaign. If he has an advantage in campaign fund-raising, he'll certainly win the nomination. And if he's nominated, he will be elected president." Given this chain argument, if the Senator does not have an advantage in campaign fund-raising, can he be elected president?
1. "If the Senator wins the New Hampshire primary, then he'll have a big advantage when it comes to raising money for his campaign. If he has an advantage in campaign fund-raising, he'll certainly win the nomination. And if he's nominated, he will be elected president." Given this chain argument, what can you conclude if the Senator wins the New Hampshire primary? You answered, He'll have a big advantage when it comes to raising money for his campaign, he'll win the nomination, and he'll be elected president.
The chain argument has the form: - If P (wins primary), then Q (advantage).
- If Q (advantage), then R (win nomination)
- If R (win nomination), then S (elected president).
You were told, "the Senator wins the New Hampshire primary,"
which affirms P and--by
2. "If the Senator wins the New Hampshire primary, then he'll have a big advantage when it comes to raising money for his campaign. If he has an advantage in campaign fund-raising, he'll certainly win the nomination. And if he's nominated, he will be elected president." Given this chain argument, what can you conclude if the Senator is not elected president? You answered, "He didn't win the New Hampshire primary, he had no advantage in campaign fund-raising, and he didn't win the nomination." You answered: He didn't win the New Hampshire primary, he had no advantage in campaign fund-raising, and he didn't win the nomination.
3. "If the Senator wins the New Hampshire primary, then he'll have a big advantage when it comes to raising money for his campaign. If he has an advantage in campaign fund-raising, he'll certainly win the nomination. And if he's nominated, he will be elected president." Given this chain argument, what can you conclude if the Senator does not win the nomination? You answered, He didn't have an advantage in fund-raising and he didn't win the primary in New Hampshire.
The chain argument has the form: - If P (wins primary), then Q (advantage).
- If Q (advantage), then R (win nomination)
- If R (win nomination), then S (elected president).
You were told, "the Senator does not win the nomination,"
which negates R
and--by
4. "If the Senator wins the New Hampshire primary, then he'll have a big advantage when it comes to raising money for his campaign. If he has an advantage in campaign fund-raising, he'll certainly win the nomination. And if he's nominated, he will be elected president." Given this chain argument, if the Senator does not have an advantage in campaign fund-raising, can he be elected president? You answered, Yes.
The chain argument has the form: - If P (wins primary), then Q (advantage).
- If Q (advantage), then R (win nomination)
- If R (win nomination), then S (elected president).
You were told, "the Senator does not have an advantage in
campaign fund-raising," which negates Q and--by
1. "If the Senator wins the New Hampshire primary, then he'll have a big advantage when it comes to raising money for his campaign. If he has an advantage in campaign fund-raising, he'll certainly win the nomination. And if he's nominated, he will be elected president." Given this chain argument, what can you conclude if the Senator wins the New Hampshire primary? You answered, He will be elected president.
The chain argument has the form: - If P (wins primary), then Q (advantage).
- If Q (advantage), then R (win nomination)
- If R (win nomination), then S (elected president).
You were told, "the Senator wins the New Hampshire primary," which affirms
P and--by
You answered, He'll have a big advantage when it comes to raising money for his campaign.
The chain argument has the form: - If P (wins primary), then Q (advantage).
- If Q (advantage), then R (win nomination)
- If R (win nomination), then S (elected president).
You were told, "the Senator wins the New Hampshire primary,"
which affirms P and--by
You answered, No valid conclusion is possible.
The chain argument has the form: - If P (wins primary), then Q (advantage).
- If Q (advantage), then R (win nomination)
- If R (win nomination), then S (elected president).
You were told, "the Senator wins the New Hampshire primary,"
which affirms P and--by
2. "If the Senator wins the New Hampshire primary, then he'll have a big advantage when it comes to raising money for his campaign. If he has an advantage in campaign fund-raising, he'll certainly win the nomination. And if he's nominated, he will be elected president." Given this chain argument, what can you conclude if the Senator is not elected president? You answered He wasn't nominated.
The chain argument has the form: - If P (wins primary), then Q (advantage).
- If Q (advantage), then R (win nomination)
- If R (win nomination), then S (elected president).
You were told, "the Senator is not elected president,"
which negates S and--by
You answered, He had no advantage in campaign fund-raising.
The chain argument has the form: - If P (wins primary), then Q (advantage).
- If Q (advantage), then R (win nomination)
- If R (win nomination), then S (elected president).
You were told, "the Senator is not elected president," which
negates S and--by
You answered, No valid conclusion is possible.
The chain argument has the form: - If P (wins primary), then Q (advantage).
- If Q (advantage), then R (win nomination)
- If R (win nomination), then S (elected president).
You were told, "the Senator is not elected president,"
which negates S and--by
3. "If the Senator wins the New Hampshire primary, then he'll have a big advantage when it comes to raising money for his campaign. If he has an advantage in campaign fund-raising, he'll certainly win the nomination. And if he's nominated, he will be elected president." Given this chain argument, what can you conclude if the Senator does not win the nomination? You answered, He wasn't elected president.
The chain argument has the form: - If P (wins primary), then Q (advantage).
- If Q (advantage), then R (win nomination)
- If R (win nomination), then S (elected president).
You were told, "the Senator does not win the nomination," which negates R
and--by
You answered, He didn't win New Hampshire and he wasn't elected president.
The chain argument has the form: - If P (wins primary), then Q (advantage).
- If Q (advantage), then R (win nomination)
- If R (win nomination), then S (elected president).
You were told, "the Senator does not win the nomination,"
which negates R
and--by
You answered, He didn't have an advantage in fund-raising and he wasn't elected president.
The chain argument has the form: - If P (wins primary), then Q (advantage).
- If Q (advantage), then R (win nomination)
- If R (win nomination), then S (elected president).
You were told, "the Senator does not win the nomination,"
which negates R
and--by
4. "If the Senator wins the New Hampshire primary, then he'll have a big advantage when it comes to raising money for his campaign. If he has an advantage in campaign fund-raising, he'll certainly win the nomination. And if he's nominated, he will be elected president." Given this chain argument, if the Senator does not have an advantage in campaign fund-raising, can he be elected president? You answered: No.
The chain argument has the form: - If P (wins primary), then Q (advantage).
- If Q (advantage), then R (win nomination)
- If R (win nomination), then S (elected president).
You were told, "the Senator does not have an advantage in
campaign fund-raising," which negates Q and--by
4. "If the Senator wins the New Hampshire primary, then he'll have a big advantage when it comes to raising money for his campaign. If he has an advantage in campaign fund-raising, he'll certainly win the nomination. And if he's nominated, he will be elected president." Given this chain argument, if the Senator does not have an advantage in campaign fund-raising, can he be elected president? You answered, Unknown.
The chain argument has the form: - If P (wins primary), then Q (advantage).
- If Q (advantage), then R (win nomination)
- If R (win nomination), then S (elected president).
You were told, "the Senator does not have an advantage
in campaign fund-raising," which negates Q and--by
## Congratulations! You have finished the exercises on conditional chain arguments.You can finish the week now with a short quiz on conditionals, by clicking on "Quiz" above. |