Using Venn Diagrams

SOLVED BY  Expert Writers

Categorical syllogisms are the oldest form of argument to be treated in a formal, systematic way. Venndiagrams, invented in 1880 by John Venn, are a handy way of graphically representing the formal structure ofcategorical syllogisms and testing them for validity. For this discussion, create Venn diagrams for the followingarguments, indicating whether each diagram shows the argument to be valid or invalid. Hint: at least one ofthem is valid and at least one is invalid.There are some Venn diagram makers available on the Internet, or you could use PowerPoint. But Venndiagrams are also easy to draw by hand: simply trace around a quarter (or some other round object) and fill inthe diagram using a pen or pencil. Then snap a picture of your diagrams and post it.All hospitals are health care centers.Some health care centers are not profit-driven institutions.Therefore, some hospitals are not profit-driven institutions.No tigers are herbivores.No herbivores are malevolent.Therefore, all tigers are malevolent.Some disasters are catastrophes.Some disasters are really unpleasant events.Therefore, some catastrophes are really unpleasant events.All venture capitalists are risk-takers.Some risk-takers are wealthy.Therefore, some venture capitalists are wealthy.All Aristotelian’s are meta-physicians.No positivists are meta-physicians.Therefore, no positivists are Aristotelian.
Sample Solution

shaped to fit the idealised viewpoint of the editor, before it is exchanged. This was the adoption of shared culture. I suggest, that because of this ‘shared culture’, it is incredible that Elizabeth could be questioning rigid, accepted gender roles. As the most read woman of her period, her participation in this ‘shared culture’ demonstrates the significance of the Queen’s role for women writers. It is also important to remember is that, for Elizabeth, ‘only three poems – all written before she became queen – were published (without Elizabeth’s permission) during her life; the rest circulated in manuscript, some during her life, others after’. This is common with many Renaissance texts, and so one cannot fully dismiss this exchange of these poems. As Herman suggests, ‘the attendant textual issues should not obscure either the degree of Elizabeth’s poetic accomplishment or the importance of her verse for understanding the dynamics of authority’ . The dynamic of authority evidenced in this case is Elizabeth’s playful mocking of the courtier’s lack of innovation and imagination in his poetry addresses a bigger gender issue. Her assumption that Raleigh is hiding behind Petrarchan norms, (he’s ‘so sore afraid’ and ‘dismayed’) is a total reversal of gender roles, positioning the male lover’ as a weakened individual. Elizabeth is exposing Raleigh’s true motive for writing which lay behind the heavily-allegorical sonnets of the courtier. He was vulnerable male keen to preserve favouritism, and thus turned to the literary mode of flattery, with an abundance of friendly banter, to ensure a good relationship with his queen. She however, posits if Raleigh is too stubborn to ask for help as he uses the cloak of Petrarch to instead position the Queen as a mere lover. Marriage, a constant reminder to Elizabeth of her restricting femininity, would not allow her submission. Victor Von Klarwill for example accounts Baron Caspar Breuner as stating that Elizabeth would ‘rather go into a nunnery, or for that matter suffer death, than marry against her will’. Interestingly, one can postulate that this sonnet was either recited to a private audience at court or circulated through a manuscript – perhaps >