Complete 2 pages APA formatted article: Critical reasoning. Critical Reasoning: Logic Part 1. An argument with true premises and true conclusion that is valid. First Premise: All normal human beings are rational.
Second Premise: Peter is a normal human being.
Conclusion: Peter, therefore, is rational.
2. An argument with false premises, and true conclusion that is valid.
First Premise: All the animals that belong to the family of cats are carnivorous
Second Premise: snakes belong to the family of cats
Conclusion: Therefore, snakes are carnivorous.
3. An argument with false premises, true conclusion and is invalid.
First Premise: all the current football stars in the world are Chinese
Second Premise: Lionel Messi is an American
Conclusion: Lionel Messi, therefore, is a football star.
(I). From a common sense point of view, the first argument is consistent and valid. This is because the premises are true and the conclusion follows necessarily from the premises. The first premise is true because from experience we know that all cats purr. For that reason, therefore, given the fact that Oedopus is a cat, Oedopus must purr.
(III). The second argument also is inconsistent. This is because, from the premises that we are given, it doesn’t necessarily follow that Jane must be at home whenever Susan is not at home. One counter-example that can be given in this case is that it is possible for both Susan and Jane to be not at home. For that reason, therefore, based on the given premises, it can be concluded that Jane is not at home even though Susan is not at home.
(III). The third argument is consistent. This is because the conclusion of the argument flows necessarily from the given premises. We learn from the first premise that all birds are mammals, for that reason, therefore, given the fact that Platypus is a bird, the Platypus must be a mammal.
IV. The fourth argument is not consistent. This is because the conclusion of the argument doesn’t follow necessarily from the given premises. From the given premises, we are not told Jem and Minal must leave the party at the same time. For this reason, therefore, although Jem left the party early, we are not logically justified to conclude that Minal too left the party early. This argument, therefore, is inconsistent.