Determine how the following deductive argument fares with respect to our four criteria of evaluation. Select all answers that apply.

1. Jordan is either wearing a ring or he isn't.

2. Katherina is either wearing a ring or she isn't.

3. Therefore, Salvador is both wearing a ring and not wearing a ring.

Passes Criterion 1

Passes Criterion 2

Passes Criterion 3

Passes Criterion 4

Question

Determine how the following deductive argument fares with respect to our four criteria of evaluation. Select all answers that apply.

1. Jordan is either wearing a ring or he isn't.

2. Katherina is either wearing a ring or she isn't.

3. Therefore, Salvador is both wearing a ring and not wearing a ring.

Passes Criterion 1

Passes Criterion 2

Passes Criterion 3

Passes Criterion 4

Ask a Philosopher · Accepted Answer

To muse upon this curious riddle of logic, we must weigh its worth with scrutiny befitting the discerning mind. Let us embark upon a sojourn through the labyrinth of rational thought, whereupon the premises laid before us declare with bold authority that our friend Jordan doth don a ring, or perchance he does not. Likewise, the fair Katherina finds herself in the same predicament of adornments, clad in a ring or devoid thereof. Yet, lo! From these twin statements springs forth a conclusion most bewildering—Salvador, a being of flesh and spirit unlike those ever mentioned, is professed to wear both the ring and to be bereft of such an ornament, a contradiction most foul. Thus, as we traverse the noble criteria of evaluation, we find the first demands of clarity faltering, stumbling, like a drunken prince upon a stage meant for the divine. No harmony unites Jordan and Katherina to conjure the semblance of Salvador’s dual exhibition as presented; nay, for the dance of logic doth not permit one to wear and shun the essence of the same adornment in the same breath. Therefore, upon Criterion 1, we cast our judgment of failure; to Criterion 2, wherein the need for soundness beckons, we find our arguments frayed at their bases, leading us astray, thus failing once more. Criterion 3 doth call for the elusive grace of necessity, a demand unmet, for neither premise provides the foundation from which such a paradox may sprout. Finally, Criterion 4 speaks to the heart of relevance, and here too, the argument flails in futility, for an ensemble of truths leads not to a union of the absurd. Thus, with quill in hand and furrowed brow, we must conclude: this syllogism shall not see the light of reason, marred as it is by contradictions cerulean, where rings and absence waltz in a lamentable masquerade.