Examkin

Soru

Zorluk: Çok zorForming Contrapositives

The mind-body problem has plagued philosophers for centuries, generating countless theoretical models. According to Dr. Varma’s latest treatise on cognitive ontology, however, most of these models are fundamentally flawed. Varma argues that a philosophical framework can successfully resolve the mind-body problem only if it discards strict substance dualism and either embraces panpsychism or redefines consciousness as an emergent physical property.

Which one of the following statements logically follows from Dr. Varma’s claims?

  1. If a philosophical framework fails to discard strict substance dualism, or if it neither embraces panpsychism nor redefines consciousness as an emergent physical property, then it cannot successfully resolve the mind-body problem.Cevap
  2. B
    If a philosophical framework discards strict substance dualism and either embraces panpsychism or redefines consciousness as an emergent physical property, then it can successfully resolve the mind-body problem.
  3. C
    If a philosophical framework cannot successfully resolve the mind-body problem, then it must either fail to discard strict substance dualism, or it must neither embrace panpsychism nor redefine consciousness as an emergent physical property.
  4. D
    If a philosophical framework fails to discard strict substance dualism, or if it fails to embrace panpsychism or fails to redefine consciousness as an emergent physical property, then it cannot successfully resolve the mind-body problem.
  5. E
    Discarding strict substance dualism, along with either embracing panpsychism or redefining consciousness as an emergent physical property, is a sufficient condition for a philosophical framework to successfully resolve the mind-body problem.

Cevap

The statement indicating that a framework cannot successfully resolve the problem if it fails to discard strict substance dualism, or if it neither embraces panpsychism nor redefines consciousness.
This statement correctly applies the contrapositive and De Morgan's laws to the stimulus. The original rule is: Resolve -> Discard Dualism AND (Panpsychism OR Emergent). The contrapositive negates and reverses this: If NOT Discard Dualism, OR if NOT (Panpsychism OR Emergent), then NOT Resolve. Negating 'Panpsychism OR Emergent' results in 'NOT Panpsychism AND NOT Emergent' (which is written as 'neither... nor...').

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Translate the rule from the stimulus into formal logic.
Resolve Mind-Body (R) -> Discard Dualism (D) AND [Embrace Panpsychism (P) OR Redefine Consciousness (E)]
The phrase 'only if' introduces a necessary condition, which in this case is a compound condition requiring 'D' alongside at least one of 'P' or 'E'.
2
Determine the logical task required by the question stem.
Formulate the contrapositive of the identified conditional rule.
The question asks what logically follows from a definitive conditional statement. In this format, the correct answer almost always represents the valid contrapositive.
3
Apply De Morgan's laws to the primary conjunction (AND).
NOT D OR NOT [P OR E] -> NOT R
To negate an 'AND' statement when forming a contrapositive, you must negate both individual components and change the 'AND' to an 'OR'.
4
Apply De Morgan's laws a second time to the nested disjunction (OR).
NOT D OR [NOT P AND NOT E] -> NOT R (meaning: If NOT D, or if neither P nor E, then NOT R).
To negate the inner 'OR' statement, you must negate both 'P' and 'E' and change the 'OR' to an 'AND'. 'NOT P AND NOT E' translates smoothly to 'neither P nor E'.

Anahtar Kavram

Forming valid contrapositives using De Morgan's laws on complex, compound conditional statements.
Tahmini Süre:2m 0s
Bu soruyu puanla

Konular

Forming Contrapositives

Bu konudan daha fazla soru