The following text is from a philosophy of logic article.
Classical logic assumes bivalence: every proposition is either true or false. Multi-valued logics reject this principle, allowing additional truth values—indeterminate, partially true, or degrees along a continuum. Such extensions accommodate vague predicates and future contingents. Critics argue that apparent counterexamples to bivalence can be resolved through epistemicism (truth values exist but are unknowable) or supervaluationism (truth is truth on all precisifications).
What is the primary purpose of the text?
To explain departures from classical logic and alternative approaches
To argue definitively that multi-valued logic is correct
To provide exercises for learning logical notation
To trace the biography of major logicians
Correct Answer: A
Choice A is the best answer. The text explains multi-valued logic departures from bivalence and presents alternative approaches (epistemicism, supervaluationism).
- Evidence: The text explains departures: "Multi-valued logics reject this principle, allowing additional truth values." It presents alternatives: "Critics argue that apparent counterexamples... can be resolved through epistemicism... or supervaluationism."
- Reasoning: The passage introduces a non-standard logic and shows how others try to defend the classical view.
- Conclusion: The purpose is to explain departures and alternatives.
đź’ˇ Strategy: Summarize: True/False isn't enough (Multi-valued). Or is it? (Alternatives).
Choice B is incorrect because alternatives to multi-valued logic are presented. Choice C is incorrect because exercises aren't provided. Choice D is incorrect because biographies aren't given.