2389

[zip]

Most people are afraid of change, but happy with it once it’s happened, but most of the time change is not for the best.

We can infer that...

Some people who are unafraid of change are disappointed by it.

Some people are happy with change that is not for the best.
Previous
Next
Visit arcade forum to discuss the question (QUESTION # 2389)

This credited answer trades on at least one fallacy. The first is as follows: The correct form of this argument structure is most a are b / most a are c, therefore, some b are c as there must be overlap at least one a which is b and c. The incorrect form which is often used is most a are b / most b are c, therefore dome a are c. This is invalid as there is not necessarily an overlap --maybe the a's are not part of the group of b which are c. The form of the question sets up just such an invalid template. The argument is most people are afraid of change but happy once it has happened and since most change is not for the best, there must be at least one person who is happy with change that is not for the best. But as in the invalid template we don't have necessary overlap. It would be like saying :" Most people like coffee they drink even though it makes them jittery and most coffee contains roach droppings, therefore at least one person enjoys coffee with roach droppings." Clearly no overlap, as the coffee they like just as the change they like is not necessarily part of the group they like.Maybe most coffee has roach droppings and is consumed by 49 percent od people who drink it because it's really cheap and the roach droppings pep them up even though they don't like it.

Of course, you could say it's more like." Most people like coffee even though it makes them jittery, most coffee has droppings. Therefore, since if something is coffee, then t coffee has droppings, and most people like anything that it coffee then there must be at least one person who likes coffee with roach poop. If that were the correct translation of the argument, then the argument would be valid. But when we refer to categories of things we would have have to assume not infer that it applies to all things in the category. If I were to say "I like games. then someone says Rollerball is a game . I concede that it is, but I don't like it. I have not contradicted myself. I like x can be interpreted as I like all x or I like some x. Left naked context helps us choose. In the coffee and change case, the some interpretation , which is not ruled out by the language were applied would seems the more natural meaning, and clearly if true would render the arguments invalid.

[a3friedm]

(Change) most (Afraid but Happy)
(Change) most (Not for the best)
------------
The inferences we can make are;

Happy some not for the best
or
Not for the best some happy
=======

It sounds like you already know the abstract

(A) most (B)
(A) most (C)
--------------
Inferences;
Some B's are C's
or
Some C's are B's (remember some statements are reversible)

So "some people are happy with change that is not for the best.
Previous" fits our inferences.

We cannot however infer anything about people being disappointed. Remember that most just means 50% +1, which could potentially be all. Thus, there is still the potential that all are afraid and happy which is why we can't make any inferences about being unafraid or disappointed.

[zip]

(Change) most (Afraid but Happy)
(Change) most (Not for the best)
------------
The inferences we can make are;

Happy some not for the best
or
Not for the best some happy
=======

It sounds like you already know the abstract

(A) most (B)
(A) most (C)
--------------
Inferences;
Some B's are C's
or
Some C's are B's (remember some statements are reversible)

So "some people are happy with change that is not for the best.
Previous" fits our inferences.

We cannot however infer anything about people being disappointed. Remember that most just means 50% +1, which could potentially be all. Thus, there is still the potential that all are afraid and happy which is why we can't make any inferences about being unafraid or disappointed.

Thanks for the reply. In your set up, the first premise is a reversal that would only apply if change were uniform and not a quantifiable category or a was a quantifiable with a quantifier of most or greater, not with a quantifier of less than most or could be less than most. Clearly, if were were entitled to the premise most change is something that people are happy with and fear, then we would have the regular most/ most formula. My point was that it is not the the case that this translation can be validly inferred. If, for example, I said most people like cats ( it happens, arguendo, that they all like fluffy and scrappy, but only them), it would be true that most people like cats, but untrue that if something is a cat it is therefore liked by most people. it is just such a faulty inference that I was pointing out in this problem.

So, say, I said most people like cats, most cat cats have fleas. Could I infer that at least one person likes cats with fleas? Not if you consider the scrappy/fluffy example. The most in this case refers not to the cats, but the people who like a certain group of cats. If, say, it were the case that 1) scappy and fluffy were flea -free, 2) most people liked them, but only them and hated all other cats, 3) all other cats were flea ridden, there would be no overlaps. So both premises would be true the conclusion false--thus an invalid argument.