Consider the following argumentsAll chickens have feathers….

Consider the following arguments All chickens have feathers. This animal has feathers. Therefore, this animal is a chicken. All chickens are green. No green birds eat pickles. Therefore, no chickens eat pickles. All chickens are mortal. My pet bird Gilda is a chicken. Therefore, Gilda is mortal. All chickens are birds. All ducks are birds. Therefore, all chickens are ducks. Floyd is a rooster. A rooster is a male chicken. Therefore, Floyd is a chicken.

The arguments presented above can be examined using logic and deductive reasoning. Deductive reasoning is a method of reasoning in which conclusions are drawn from premises that are assumed to be true. In this context, the premises are the statements given, and the conclusion is the statement that follows logically from the premises. Let us analyze each argument individually:

1. All chickens have feathers. This animal has feathers. Therefore, this animal is a chicken.

This argument is valid because it follows the form of a categorical syllogism, which is a valid deductive argument. The first premise states that all chickens have feathers, and the second premise states that this animal has feathers. Since this animal possesses the defining characteristic of a chicken (feathers), it is reasonable to conclude that it is indeed a chicken.

2. All chickens are green. No green birds eat pickles. Therefore, no chickens eat pickles.

This argument is also valid. The first premise states that all chickens are green, and the second premise states that no green birds eat pickles. Since all chickens are green and no green birds eat pickles, we can infer that no chickens eat pickles.

3. All chickens are mortal. My pet bird Gilda is a chicken. Therefore, Gilda is mortal.

This argument is valid and follows the form of a categorical syllogism. The first premise states that all chickens are mortal, and the second premise states that my pet bird Gilda is a chicken. Since Gilda possesses the defining characteristic of a chicken (being a chicken), it is reasonable to conclude that she is also mortal.

4. All chickens are birds. All ducks are birds. Therefore, all chickens are ducks.

This argument is invalid. It commits the fallacy of the undistributed middle term. While it is true that all chickens and ducks are birds, it does not follow that all chickens are ducks. This argument assumes that because both chickens and ducks are birds, they must be the same type of bird, which is not necessarily true. Therefore, the conclusion does not logically follow from the premises.

5. Floyd is a rooster. A rooster is a male chicken. Therefore, Floyd is a chicken.

This argument is valid and follows the form of a categorical syllogism. The first premise states that Floyd is a rooster, and the second premise states that a rooster is a male chicken. Since Floyd possesses the defining characteristic of a rooster (being a rooster), it is reasonable to conclude that he is also a chicken.

In summary, the first, second, third, and fifth arguments are all valid deductive arguments. The fourth argument, on the other hand, is invalid due to the fallacy of the undistributed middle term. It is important to critically analyze arguments to determine their validity and logical coherence.