If in logic
A > C
B > C
then we can conclude that A > C
However in language
Nothing is better than pizza
Stale bread is better than noting
then we can conclude that
Stale bread is better than pizza
To be continued....
Sometime next week !
The logic A>B and B>D then A > D would be better - but even then that is not a very convincing argument. If A (nothing is better than pizza) > B (stale bread is better than nothing) then B (stale bread is better than nothing) > D (stale bread is better than pizza) then A (nothing is better than pizza) > (stale bread is better than pizza). This is invlaid as an invalid argument is such that the premises can't be true and the conclusion false. Your initial premise is that no thing is better than pizza
ReplyDelete