Subject and Predicate Difficulties

I'm struggling with distinguishing between the subject and predicate which is causing me problems. I understand the concrete rules of thumb about "only = predicate" or "the only = subject" but in the cases that do not have “only” it is too easy to get the S&P crossed.

I have three other rules I've tried to apply to separate between the two:

Example: Aristotle is left-handed.

1) In A-claims the class restricted is the subject:

Aristotle (subject) is restricted because he is left-hand. Left-handed people (subject) is restricted because of Aristolte. Too easy to turn it around either way...doesn't help

2) Predicate- to assert or affirm something about the subject:

Assert that Aristotle is left-handed. Assert that left-handed is what Aristotle is....Doesn't help!

3) Predicate- something that is affirmed or denied about something else:

It is affirmed that Aristotle is left-handed (subject). It is affirmed that a left-handed person is Aristotle (subject)...doesn't help.

Any ideas what I'm doing wrong or rules to help?

 

I missed above that the subject should be a noun, so Aristotle would be the subject.

What about: St. Louis is on the Mississippi. Which one is the subject?

 

Thanks guys.

Scarlet, your rule helps but according to your rule on the below:

There are frogs wherever there are snakes.

Is the subject frogs or snakes? LOL, I'm showing my ignorance. But I think I have to apply the prepositional rule you gave (wherever there are snakes) if the subject can not be in there that eliminates snakes.

My A-claim would be: All places there are frogs(S) are places there are snakes (P).

But I find once again :tear: I have the S & P backwards. :BangHead:

 

Jim,

Is the snake a noun object or the frog?

 

Thanks Jim, this is very interestingly contrary to what the (supposed) correct answer is in my book though.

I'm doing philosophy and I am suppose to translate the phrase "There are frogs wherever there are snakes" into a catorical claim. In this case it is obviously an A-Claim or All S are P. (The subject and predicate must always be in the right position.)

The answer, which I got wrong, and comes from the author of the book says:

"All places there are snakes are places where there are frogs."

Guess I need to bring this up to my professor then.

 

It needs to begin with standard-form categorical claims and leads to categorical syllogism where a conclusion, on a (subject), is later evaluated as true or not. In a two premise argument the syllogism begins with two predicates changing into two premises in a deductive argument, and it is the subject that the conclusion is made on.

So, in determining a valid or invalid argument, if one were to translate a claim into: All Baptist are Christians. It means a whole lot different than: All Christians are Baptist. If when factoring in other premises and starting off on the wrong subject you got problems. So I try to get real technical about this before I spend a bunch of time doing the exercise. You never know what might pop up if the S & P is reversed.

Anyway, in this case “wherever” being “any place” meaning where both frogs and snakes exist they always exist together, it is not affected by changing the S & P so does not change the truth value of that simple statement. Although “truly” backwards grammatically it logically means the exact same thing either way you switch the S & P. BUT, it’s not by the rules I was given.

Technically, the author made a mistake but I understand logically he is still correct, or at least “OK” in his translation. My concern is when the statements aren’t so simple, but I guess the subject is usually clearer in those cases and I seem to be getting those correct.

My professor has told me if I can ever make a case that reasoning is flawed, which he can’t logically refute, I win. He has conceded over you guy’s points that the frog is the true subject and that the author, who says, “It is amazing that college students can’t get, All X are Y, and All Y are X in the right order.” is technically incorrect in his translation. I learned how to separate S & P better in the process and I love winning. Thanks