WARNING:
JavaScript is turned OFF. None of the links on this concept map will
work until it is reactivated.
If you need help turning JavaScript On, click here.
This Concept Map, created with IHMC CmapTools, has information related to: modus ponens, Paul is a rational human being therefore (ArgScheme: modus ponens) Paul is responsible for what he did, John did not committ the murder therefore (ArgScheme: modus ponens) it is false that if someone's fingerprints are on a mur- der weapon, then this is a sufficient condition for the fact that this person committed the murder, you will be admitted to medical school only if you have taken organic chemistry therefore (ArgScheme: modus ponens) you have taken orga- nic chemistry, not p therefore (ArgScheme: modus ponens) q, you want to maintain a good reputation therefore (ArgScheme: modus ponens) give only honest advice, p is a sufficient condition for q therefore (ArgScheme: modus ponens) q, if a quarter of customers report technical problems with MP3 Player XY, then there is a 25% probability that the XY Player you just bought has technical problems therefore (ArgScheme: modus ponens) there is a 25% probability that the XY Player you just bought has technical problems, if spanking inflicts unnecessary pain on a child, then spanking is wrong therefore (ArgScheme: modus ponens) spanking is wrong, p only if q therefore (ArgScheme: modus ponens) q, the ice does not melt therefore (ArgScheme: modus ponens) it remains cold, utilitarian/ consequentialist/ pragmatic argu- ments can be represented as modus ponens example If the cost/benefit ratio for action A is lower than for action B, then action A is better, give only honest advice if you want to maintain a good reputation therefore (ArgScheme: modus ponens) give only honest advice, the ice will melt unless it remains cold therefore (ArgScheme: modus ponens) it remains cold, if we assume that reflection shows that the alibi-argu- ment is more con- vincing than the other one, then the task is to figure out what is wrong with the original argument. In this situation it is possible to falsify the original inference rule, as in the following reformulation of the original argument. Of course, it is still possible that one of the premises of this argu- ment is wrong therefore (ArgScheme: modus ponens) it is false that if someone's fingerprints are on a mur- der weapon, then this is a sufficient condition for the fact that this person committed the murder, p → q therefore (ArgScheme: modus ponens) q, if we assume that reflection shows that the alibi-argu- ment is more con- vincing than the other one, then the task is to figure out what is wrong with the original argument. In this situation it is possible to falsify the original inference rule, as in the following reformulation of the original argument. Of course, it is still possible that one of the premises of this argu- ment is wrong contradicts John cannot be the murderer, hypothetical imperatives can be represented as modus ponens example give only honest advice if you want to maintain a good reputation, the ice will melt unless it remains cold therefore (ArgScheme: modus ponens) the ice will melt, John's fingerprints are on the murder weapon therefore (ArgScheme: modus ponens) it is false that if someone's fingerprints are on a mur- der weapon, then this is a sufficient condition for the fact that this person committed the murder, you study hard therefore (ArgScheme: modus ponens) you will excel in school