No class Monday due to a holiday.

The reading for Wednesday is available off the library's electronic reserves; click on 'services' on the right, and then 'reserves'. You can get to the article by searching by professor or, perhaps, through this link:
Tom Regan, "Patterns of Resistance"
You might be able to access this only if you are on campus.

Please print out the article, read it carefully, re-read it, and, on paper, attempt to state the arguments given in defense of slavery in the logically valid, premise-conclusion format that we have been practicing in class.

Last Wednesday we worked through some examples of 2 invalid argument forms found in the Rulebook for Argument chapter X on fallacies: affirming the consequent and denying the antecedent.

Here's an example of affirming the consequent:

1. If you are a professional basketball player, then you are over 3 feet tall.
2. You are over 3 feet tall.
3. Therefore, you are a professional basketball player.

Why is this argument logically invalid?

Here's an example of denying the antedent:

1. If you are a professional basketball player, then you are over 3 feet tall.
2. You are not a professional basketball player.
3. Therefore, you are not over 3 feet tall.

Why is this argument logically invalid?

About the terms 'antedecent' and 'consequent': in an 'if, then' statement, the claim(s) following the 'if' is the antedent and the claim(s) following the 'then' is the consequent.