All X are Y, but not all Y are X- Critical thinking- what is the term for this?

Watch
Ron Potter
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 2 years ago
#1
Delete, please?
0
reply
Forum User
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#2
Report 2 years ago
#2
(Original post by Ron Potter)
the form
All X are Y, but not all Y are X-
what is the term for this?
'All Y are X' is the converse of the statement 'all X are Y'. If a statement is true then its converse might be true, or it might not. As far as I know, there isn't a special term for a statement's converse not being true.

'All X are Y, therefore All Y are X' is a logical fallacy, though again I don't know that it has a particular name. Perhaps 'converse fallacy'?

What does this have to do with law?
1
reply
Mill Hill
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#3
Report 2 years ago
#3
All dogs are mammals, but not all mammals are dogs, for example.
0
reply
Ron Potter
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#4
Report Thread starter 2 years ago
#4
(Original post by Mill Hill)
All dogs are mammals, but not all mammals are dogs, for example.
yeah, is that fallacious or valid?
0
reply
Ron Potter
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#5
Report Thread starter 2 years ago
#5
(Original post by Forum User)
'All Y are X' is the converse of the statement 'all X are Y'. If a statement is true then its converse might be true, or it might not. As far as I know, there isn't a special term for a statement's converse not being true.

'All X are Y, therefore All Y are X' is a logical fallacy, though again I don't know that it has a particular name. Perhaps 'converse fallacy'?

What does this have to do with law?
its something i cam across and i just don't understand. its example was: A animal is not a dog unless it barks. but it does not follow that if an animal barks it is a dog.
0
reply
UWS
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#6
Report 2 years ago
#6
(Original post by Ron Potter)
the form
All X are Y, but not all Y are X-
what is the term for this?
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Affirming_the_consequent
1
reply
Notoriety
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#7
Report 2 years ago
#7
It's valid if it's true. You're not concluding anything from it, so I don't suppose it could attract the label of a logical fallacy. Once you actually do something with it, it might become a syllogism or one of the fallacies posted in this thread.

As above, I don't see how this pertains to law.
0
reply
Ron Potter
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#8
Report Thread starter 2 years ago
#8
what form/fallacy is this? for example (the one that is confusing me)
An animal is not a dog unless it is brown. But it does not follow that if an animal is brown it is a dog
0
reply
MagneticNorth
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#9
Report 2 years ago
#9
(Original post by Ron Potter)
the form
All X are Y, but not all Y are X-
what is the term for this?
Correlation and causation?

X is caused by Y, but doesn't correlate with it.
0
reply
Shibu the Doge
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#10
Report 2 years ago
#10
X = 9
Y= revise

All the students that get a 9, revise, but not all the students who revise get a 9
1
reply
Ron Potter
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#11
Report Thread starter 2 years ago
#11
how do i remove then?
0
reply
username3911170
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#12
Report 2 years ago
#12
(Original post by Ron Potter)
how do i remove then?
it’s not possible mr.potter, unless u ask the mods to do so.

with love,
Mrs.Hermione Malvoy (ew..)
0
reply
Ron Potter
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#13
Report Thread starter 2 years ago
#13
(Original post by Çharmander)
it’s not possible mr.potter, unless u ask the mods to do so.

with love,
Mrs.Draco Granger
How?
0
reply
username3911170
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#14
Report 2 years ago
#14
(Original post by Ron Potter)
How?
You’ve just done the right thing. Anyway, as u requested earlier, it might be the fallacy of composition. Google it up!
0
reply
gjd800
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#15
Report 2 years ago
#15
Well, if then conditionals are not symmetrical, so if

P is 'animal is a dog' and Q is 'animal barks', then we have

P Q
If animal is a dog, then the animal barks. This is true, and allows no counterexample. Everything that is a dog barks.

Then take

Q P
If animal barks then it is a dog. This is false, because we have at least one counterexample - seals bark and they are not dogs.

So

(P Q) ~≡ (Q P)
If P then Q is not equivalent to if Q then P.

Thus it does not follow from 'if an animal is a dog, it barks' that 'if an animal barks, it is a dog'.
0
reply
carrotstar
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#16
Report 2 years ago
#16
(Original post by Ron Potter)
what form/fallacy is this? for example (the one that is confusing me)
An animal is not a dog unless it is brown. But it does not follow that if an animal is brown it is a dog
Ok I don’t get that one either because dogs can be grey, black or white as well..

Try to think of alternative ways of saying the same thing.

For example, all reds are a colour, but not all colours are red.
All parsnips are vegetables, but not all vegetables are parsnips.
All paper is flat, but not all flat things are paper.

You can apply this rule to most things which sit in a category alongside other items.
0
reply
gjd800
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#17
Report 2 years ago
#17
As I said in your other thread...

Well, if then conditionals are not symmetrical, so if

P is 'animal is a dog' and Q is 'animal barks', then we have

P Q
If animal is a dog, then the animal barks. This is true, and allows no counterexample. Everything that is a dog barks.

Then take

Q P
If animal barks then it is a dog. This is false, because we have at least one counterexample - seals bark and they are not dogs.

So

(P Q) ~≡ (Q P)
If P then Q is not equivalent to if Q then P.

Thus it does not follow from 'if an animal is a dog, it barks' that 'if an animal barks, it is a dog'.

If you were to say that

(1) If an animal barks, it is a dog
(2) A seal barks
(C) A seal is a dog

You would be affirming the consequent, which UWS pointed out in your other thread.
0
reply
Forum User
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#18
Report 2 years ago
#18
(Original post by Ron Potter)
its something i cam across and i just don't understand. its example was: A animal is not a dog unless it barks. but it does not follow that if an animal barks it is a dog.
'All X are Y' and all 'Y are X' are only both true if X and Y are the same set, i.e. they are just different ways of describing the same objects.
0
reply
Forum User
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#19
Report 2 years ago
#19
Why is q the premise in that argument? I never did any formal logic but it seems that the two premises are 'p implies q' and 'p', and that q is the conclusion?
0
reply
the bear
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#20
Report 2 years ago
#20
all Premier Division footie people identify as male

not all people who identify as male are Premier Division footie people
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Do you have the space and resources you need to succeed in home learning?

Yes I have everything I need (459)
56.6%
I don't have everything I need (352)
43.4%

Watched Threads

View All