Socrates is wise and just. X is wise; therefore, X is just?


If you argue that,“Socrates is wise and just. X is wise;therefore, X is just,” you have a syllogism that is ____.
(A)bounty (B)faulty ©purity (D)scarcity

The answer is (B).

Here I don’t make sense the sentence,“Socrates is wise and just. X is wise;therefore, X is just,”. What’s ‘just. X is …’ and what’s 'X is just,"? I don’t understand what does ‘X’ mean? Thanks in advance.

Maggie :wink:

“X” means “any person”. It’s a variable, like in algebra.

“Just” here means that he behaves according to what is fair or moral.

I think the logic here is that someone can be wise, but not just. You could argue that any wise person would automatically be just, but whoever wrote the question apparently believes that wisdom and justice are two separate traits.

Try thinking of it this way:

Wafaa is Lebanese and has a big nose. Miriam is Lebanese; therefore Miriam has a big nose.

This is the same kind of faulty syllogism. Wafaa is Lebanese and she has a big nose, but that doesn’t mean all Lebanese people have big noses. Some Lebanese people have small noses or medium-sized noses, so we can’t know the size of Miriam’s nose just by knowing that she’s Lebanese. It could be any size.

Mao Zedong spoke Chinese and was a dictator. Maggie speaks Chinese; therefore Maggie is a dictator.

Is that correct logic, or is it faulty?


I answer your question. That’s a faulty logic. I think I understand the sentense completely now. Thanks for your detailed explanation.