I is implicit in the norm prescribed in the sentence. This is why checking is being advised. Again, what would the banks check? Obviously what the clients reveal. Banks would assume the revelation to be true.Hence II is not implicit. However, II is vague. If cross - checking is what the speaker has in mind, II would become implicit.
Assumptions:
Conclusions:
Since one premise is particular and the other negative, the conclusion must be particular negative and should not contain the middle term. So, it follows that 'Some trains are not jungles'.
No road is jungle. All flowers are jungles.
Since both the premises are universal and one premise is negative, the conclusion must be universal negative and should not contain the middle term. So, it follows that 'No flower is road'. IV is the converse of this conclusion and so it holds.
Some trains are roads, No flower is road.
As discussed above, it follows that 'Some trains are not flowers'.
Courses of Action:
Conclusions:
Courses of Action:
Comments
There are no comments.Copyright ©CuriousTab. All rights reserved.