>>86775445I got some time so i thought i'd do it.
Propositions:
A: Ame left because of management forcing her to travel constantly to Japan instead of streaming.
T: Management was not relenting on that (forcing her to travel for her activities next year).
L: It would not have been feasible for Ame to stay with the company due to her current living situation.
F: Ame had to leave the company.
G: Gura is angry at management's decisions.
C: Gura's anger is a sensible conclusion to come to.
Premise 1: "Ame likely left because of management forcing her to travel constantly to Japan instead of streaming."
Symbolically: A
Premise 2: "If management weren’t relenting on that for her activities next year, it would not have been feasible for her to stay with the company due to her current living situation, so she had to leave."
Symbolically: T(L∧F)
Premise 3: "Gura being angry at management's decisions leading to that is a sensible conclusion."
Symbolically: GC
Argument Structure:
Premises:
T(L∧F), GC
F (Ame had to leave the company)
Truth Table:
We will construct a truth table to analyze whether the conclusion F (Ame had to leave the company) follows from the premises. (See photo i made in exel)
Validity of the Argument:
To check if the argument is valid, we need to verify if there are any rows where all the premises are true but the conclusion F is false.
Rows 1-4: All premises are true, and the conclusion F is true.
Rows 5-8: Premise T(L∧F) is false, so the argument is not affected.
Rows 9-12: Premise T(L∧F) is false or doesn't affect the truth of
Rows 13-16: The premises do not contradict F.
Since there are no rows where all the premises are true and the conclusion F is false, the argument is valid. Let me know if I got anything wrong
