For the following argument: Select symbols and be sure to define them accurately.  Put the argument into standard form as a hypothetical or disjunctive syllogism.  Identify the form (e.g., “affirming the necessary condition,” or “denying the disjunct”).  Determine whether it is valid or invalid.  If the argument has a missing premise or conclusion, complete the argument to make it come out valid, putting the added proposition in square brackets.  If you’ve made it this far in the course, then you must be serious about logic.  And you can’t be serious about logic unless you love it.  It follows then (or does it?) that you’ve got to love logic if you’ve made it this far.

For the following argument: Select symbols and be sure to define them accurately.  Put the argument into standard form as a hypothetical or disjunctive syllogism.  Identify the form (e.g., “affirming the necessary condition,” or “denying the disjunct”).  Determine whether it is valid or invalid.  If the argument has a missing premise or conclusion, complete the argument to make it come out valid, putting the added proposition in square brackets.  If someone had been snooping around here last night, there’d be footprints, right?  Well, those are clearly footprints.  So someone must have been snooping around here last night.

For the following sentence, symbolize the subject and predicate classes, explaining what each letter stands for, rewrite the proposition in standard categorical form, and indicate any distributed terms with asterisks: Only people who are at least 18 years old can vote in the election

Consider the following argument: I thought I was allergic to cats, but twice this week I handled cats without developing a rash.  So my rashes must have been caused by something else. Now consider this claim: I handled cats this week without developing a rash. Indicate two things: Is the claim an unsupported premise, a supported premise, the argument’s conclusion, or neither a premise nor a conclusion (NPNC)? And is the claim being made explicitly, implicitly, or is it neither stated nor assumed (NSNA)?

Consider the following argument: I thought I was allergic to cats, but twice this week I handled cats without developing a rash.  So my rashes must have been caused by something else. Now consider this claim: My rashes weren’t caused by cats. Indicate two things: Is the claim an unsupported premise, a supported premise, the argument’s conclusion, or neither a premise nor a conclusion (NPNC)? And is the claim being made explicitly, implicitly, or is it neither stated nor assumed (NSNA)?

Consider the following argument: The question isn’t whether great video games can be art, but whether they can ever be great art.  The argument against this view is based on the idea that all great art liberates a person for a time from the itch-scratching demands of petty desires.  And the thing to realize about great video games, the so-called “addictive” ones, is that they’re all about this sort of desire satisfaction.  They set up challenges that are fun to overcome — and that’s essentially what they are.  Playing them is all about making choices, sometimes fascinating choices, and moving from challenge to challenge.  But what makes these games great as games is what makes them mediocre at best as works of art.  Think of what it’s like to read a great novel, or listen to a great symphony, or watch a great movie.  You are swept up, transported, but transcended as well: you move beyond yourself and your self-centered concerns.  This is what we mean by great art.  If great games are built on itch-scratching, and great art delivers us from itch-scratching, then no great video game can be great art. Now consider this claim: The question is whether great video games can be great art. Indicate two things: Is the claim an unsupported premise, a supported premise, the argument’s conclusion, or neither a premise nor a conclusion (NPNC)? And is the claim being made explicitly, implicitly, or is it neither stated nor assumed (NSNA)?

Consider the following argument: The question isn’t whether great video games can be art, but whether they can ever be great art.  The argument against this view is based on the idea that all great art liberates a person for a time from the itch-scratching demands of petty desires.  And the thing to realize about great video games, the so-called “addictive” ones, is that they’re all about this sort of desire satisfaction.  They set up challenges that are fun to overcome — and that’s essentially what they are.  Playing them is all about making choices, sometimes fascinating choices, and moving from challenge to challenge.  But what makes these games great as games is what makes them mediocre at best as works of art.  Think of what it’s like to read a great novel, or listen to a great symphony, or watch a great movie.  You are swept up, transported, but transcended as well: you move beyond yourself and your self-centered concerns.  This is what we mean by great art.  If great games are built on itch-scratching, and great art delivers us from itch-scratching, then no great video game can be great art. Now consider this claim: Great art gives a person temporary respite from petty desires. Indicate two things: Is the claim an unsupported premise, a supported premise, the argument’s conclusion, or neither a premise nor a conclusion (NPNC)? And is the claim being made explicitly, implicitly, or is it neither stated nor assumed (NSNA)?

Consider the following argument: One of the main reasons for studying logic, or “critical thinking” as it’s sometimes called nowadays, is to achieve familiarity with some of the more important forms that reasoning takes — syllogisms, analogies, generalizations, and the like.  However common these forms may be, they aren’t widely understood, not with the kind of clarity needed to criticize arguments well.  As a result of this ignorance, people giving reasons in support of their claims tend to be bad, not just at listening to one another, but also at listening to themselves.  This is a serious problem in human life.  One might think that having reasons in support of one’s beliefs and actions is good, but having bad reasons is in some ways more dangerous than having no reasons at all.  Bad reasoning makes people into proud, self-righteous, unwitting fools, threats to themselves and others.  This is a reason why students should be required to study logic — which is to say to practice it, logic being a set of skills acquired only through doing.  If begun in college, this should begin early, ideally in the student’s first year of studies, and it should continue throughout their time at the institution. Now consider this claim: For most people, the basic forms of reasoning are generally not understood well enough for them to be good at criticizing arguments. Indicate two things: Is the claim an unsupported premise, a supported premise, the argument’s conclusion, or neither a premise nor a conclusion (NPNC)? And is the claim being made explicitly, implicitly, or is it neither stated nor assumed (NSNA)?

For the following sentence, symbolize the subject and predicate classes, explaining what each letter stands for, rewrite the proposition in standard categorical form, and indicate any distributed terms with asterisks: There’s no way to have a life worth living that’s painless.

Which is the correct translation for:  I do not like art.