What's wrong with this logical reasoning?

Post Reply New Topic

I'm curious...
Someone told me this is an invalid argument:

X is the state of Y.
Z's actions are determined by the state of Y.
The actions of Z are ultimately determined by X.

I fail to see that it is invalid, so I'd like to ask some logically reasoning people here, what's wrong with this very simple argument?

well...

Y = Bob's Girlfriend
Z = Bob
X = Angry

Bob's girlfriend is angry, and because of this Bob decides to punch whoever made his girlfriend angry. Therefore, Bob's girlfriend should go to jail. Yes/No?

a. X is the color of the matador's cape (Y).
b. The bull (Z) is angered by the matador's cape (Y).
: : The bull (Z) is angered by the color red.

ERROR: False data. The bull is color-blind, and is angered by the presence of the matador, the motion of the cape, and the swords piercing its shoulders.

QED

Yes!
Bros before Hoes!

There is also the fact that the major premise and the minor premise are expressions of the same thing, called an Existential Fallacy.

I think that's right ... it's been a long time since I've had to grade someone's logic homework.

It depends on what the sentence "X is the state of Y" means.

If it means simply "X equals Y" then its logical.

If it means that X is a changing situation that is sometimes Y then its not quite logical.

Z actions are not affected if the condition of X is anything from A to W. Its only the condition Y of X that sets of Z.

So X only partially influences Z.

Understanding "the" in "the state of Y" as having its typical implication of uniqueness in context, then the argument is valid.

Both substitution examples have substituted things incorrectly.

The matador example substituted the second and third statement incorrectly.

The original statement is "Z's actions are determined by the state of Y" and not "Z's actions are determined by Y".
So "The bull (Z) is angered by the matador's cape (Y)" should be "The bull (Z) is angered by the color of the matador's cape."

"The bull (Z) is angered by the color red" is incorrect because X is not the color red but the color of the matador's cape.

In the girlfriend example, the third statement "The actions of Z are ultimately determined by X" seems to have been replaced with "Therefore, Bob's girlfriend should go to jail" which is nothing like the original statement.

There's lots wrong with overreliance on "logic," in lieu of "common sense."

can u believe that ? sometimes one awful experience with one partial behaviour of one certain individual (based on logical fallacies and overtaken by resent .. or an accumulation of one thousand similar events out of maybe millions of that group of people .. actually most people are somewhat awful most of time) decides how you treat another group of people .. a wall is born.

such should be documented first , studied second then reprimanded last.

X is the state of Y
And Z actions are determined by the state of Y.

Ergo Z's actions are determinded by X.

Actually it is logical.

IF Z fixes chimneys, he cant work that day if the state of Y (the weather), is X (raining or snowing).

So yes, whether or not it precipitating does determine whether or not Z works that day.