Understanding Categorical Syllogisms - Part 2

[@pauls7056]

Amazing for making a complicated matter so straight forward. Thank you.

[@edwardlimonjr.7903]

Excellent video! I now have a better understanding of determining validity of categorical syllogisms. Thank you...

[@user-zm3ld7vt2f]

This actually is a miracle sent down by the gods!!! it might be long, but makes such a complex subject seem so simple.

[@cedrick81]

Thank you for the two videos you have posted. you have fully explained and how to break down Syllogisms. I'm preparing for my Police Test and this have helped me a great deal with my preparation.

[@pelkeybrothers8120]

Thank you so much! This makes so much more sense than before. Great Job!

[@markorlich1444]

Thank you for the explanation of distribution. I was not "getting" it until I watched your video.

[@TheNoister]

this is great! made things very clear. loved it and liked it too :)

[@hapymekusmile]

THANK YOU SO MUCH!! this helped me take revenge on my teacher cuz he humiliated me for having a low score :))) NOW I JUST GOT AN A!! :)

[@aidataleb1972]

really good , thank you, very helpful

[@warnckeboy01]

Very helpful, thanks!

[@iv0yt]

You da real MVP

[@cherylvargas9228]

Awesome!!!! Thank you so much. If ONLY my professor explained things the way you do.

[@tarroz822]

You really helped me nail this subject matter. Thank you!

[@seltranY]

thank you very much. you teach way better than my professor.

[@riccimarie1176]

Great

[@javeriakaukab3713]

very useful👍

[@katariajaymin205]

can you post the videos related to hypothetical-categorical, disjunctive-categorical, Dilemma, Fallacies ..this 2 vid were wonderful..u explained me the whole thing..ty

[@jessicalouw2705]

Do you have perhaps a video about hypothetical Syllogisms and disjunctive syllogisms?

[@vocalists5555]

thank you! i like the difficulty!

[@AlwaysHopeful87]

Distribution starts at 4:05.

[@sonzahere]

YOU THE REAL MVP

[@MikaSwee]

Thank you so much.. you had explain very clearly and well. I love it.

[@seyttleforless2093]

Thank you so much for this simple explanation! Understood more from you than my professor in Logic! 😅

[@herminiohernandez-buso5328]

This is a good explanation. When you use the term "distributed", what do you mean? Is "distributed" considered as a verb or action word? I am completely confused by the theory of distributed. How was mammal and cats distributed in the conclusion?

[@Joshjosh123su]

thank you so much, you really helps me a lot, this is easy like a 3rd grade problem to me right now

[@cautioncontentshot6564]

You said that any term distributed in a conclusion must be distributed in a premise. What if the conclusion is an I? Then nothing needs to be distributed from the premises? Thank you, sire.

[@dejandjurovic7032]

So, if the two premises start with ALL or NO the conclusion cannot start with some like you mentioned. What will the conclusion start with then, or is there NO conclusion? Also, when you mentioned that if either premise is negative the conclusion must be negative, does that mean the conclusion must be negative as in start with NO or just have NO or NOT in the final conclusion? Finally, is there a way to know what every conclusion will start with based on the two premises? Thank you

[@parisgayda5775]

This helped so much because I was extremely lost in my class.

[@AJSummer7]

it all seems clearer now o.o

[@Teflon11Don]

Thank you

[@iy3917]

Thanks a lot

[@stephaniepugh65]

Thank you....I am still a little confused as to the definition of Universal?

[@XXXQ2]

It's all about the quantity determinator: When he talks about A forms (affirmative - All S are P) and E forms (Negative - No S are P), those are universals. Because they determine the quantity of "Those S that are P" ex. All cats are furry can be statet differently = Every cat in the UNIVERSE is furry..... Universals are a categorical quantity determinator and it tells you how many S are P in the case of Universals EVERY S IN THE WORLD IS P :) Hope that helped a little

[@westco1921]

I got the following question wrong which doesn't match up with your rule No. 6 regarding 2 universal premises. All divers are adventurers. No divers are wimps. Answer according to the test I took was: Some adventurers are not wimps. The conclusion has the word "Some" and yet the two premises were universal. HELP anyone?

[@hamzaabdul-tawwaab8531]

+Westco Adventure was not distributed

[@SuperJameal]

you lost me at distribution.