The Cat's conclusion is not valid by either the Law of Detachment or the Law of Syllogism.
The Law of Detachment states that if a conditional statement (if p, then q) is true and the antecedent (p) is true, then the consequent (q) must also be true. However, in the Cat's argument, there are no conditional statements being made.
The Law of Syllogism states that if two conditional statements are given (if p, then q and if q, then r) and the antecedent of the first statement (p) matches the consequent of the second statement (q), then the consequent of the first statement (q) implies the consequent of the second statement (r). Again, there are no conditional statements present in the Cat's argument.
The Cat's conclusion is based on faulty logic and does not follow a valid deductive reasoning pattern. Therefore, the argument is invalid.
Is the cat's conclusion valid by LAW OF DETACHMENT or LAW OF SYLLOGISM? Explain your reasoning.
"Well, then," the Cat went on, "you see a dog growls when it's angry, and wags its tall when it's pleased. Now I growl when I'm pleased, and wag my tall when I'm angry. Therefore I'm mad."
VALID or INVALID: explain
1 answer
42 answers