What is your answer?
The Inconsistency Fallacy (see p. 33):
{ 1 } - is not subject to a reductio ad absurdum.
{ 2 } - is not necessarily unsound.
{ 3 } - has two propositions which contradict each other.
{ 4 } - is an argument of which all the propositions stand together in the sense of not contradicting each other.
{ 5 } - is not necessarily invalid.
<= back | menu | forward =>
Directions: Click on a number from 1 to 5.
1 is wrong. Please try again.
The Inconsistency Fallacy (see p. 33):
{ 1 } - is not subject to a reductio ad absurdum.
{ 2 } - is not necessarily unsound.
{ 3 } - has two propositions which contradict each other.
{ 4 } - is an argument of which all the propositions stand together in the sense of not contradicting each other.
{ 5 } - is not necessarily invalid.
It is so subject, because it proposes a contradiction, which is absurd.
<= back | menu | forward =>
2 is wrong. Please try again.
The Inconsistency Fallacy (see p. 33):
{ 1 } - is not subject to a reductio ad absurdum.
{ 2 } - is not necessarily unsound.
{ 3 } - has two propositions which contradict each other.
{ 4 } - is an argument of which all the propositions stand together in the sense of not contradicting each other.
{ 5 } - is not necessarily invalid.
An apparent argument that is necessarily invalid is necessarily unsound.
<= back | menu | forward =>
3 is correct!
The Inconsistency Fallacy (see p. 33):
{ 1 } - is not subject to a reductio ad absurdum.
{ 2 } - is not necessarily unsound.
{ 3 } - has two propositions which contradict each other.
{ 4 } - is an argument of which all the propositions stand together in the sense of not contradicting each other.
{ 5 } - is not necessarily invalid.
<= back | menu | forward =>
Before continuing, you might try some wrong answers.
4 is wrong. Please try again.
The Inconsistency Fallacy (see p. 33):
{ 1 } - is not subject to a reductio ad absurdum.
{ 2 } - is not necessarily unsound.
{ 3 } - has two propositions which contradict each other.
{ 4 } - is an argument of which all the propositions stand together in the sense of not contradicting each other.
{ 5 } - is not necessarily invalid.
Such an argument would be consistent, not inconsistent, which name has the etymology of "in", not, "con", together, and "sistent" standing, because its propositions do not stand together.
<= back | menu | forward =>
5 is wrong. Please try again.
The Inconsistency Fallacy (see p. 33):
{ 1 } - is not subject to a reductio ad absurdum.
{ 2 } - is not necessarily unsound.
{ 3 } - has two propositions which contradict each other.
{ 4 } - is an argument of which all the propositions stand together in the sense of not contradicting each other.
{ 5 } - is not necessarily invalid.
Contradictory statements necessarily invalidate an inference.
<= back | menu | forward =>
the end