In Philosophy: What do you think would be the correct translation of the following argument into symbolic form? You can copy and paste the symbols from here as needed: ~ · ∨ ⊃ ≡

If the Mitchells get a divorce, they will live separately in poverty; but if they stay married, they will live together in misery. Since they must either get a divorce or stay married, they will either live separately in poverty or together in misery.

What do your intuitions tell you about this argument form? Is it valid or invalid? And if valid, do you think it is sound? (Soundness means it is valid and has all true premises)

Toss some ideas around. 

Analyze the central conflict and its in a story to discover the theme. resolution protagonist antagonist character

Read the excerpt from elie wiesel’s all rivers run to the sea. why were those trains allowed to roll unhindered into poland? why were the tracks leading to birkenau never bombed? i have put these questions to american presidents and generals and to high-ranking soviet officers. since moscow and washington knew what the killers were doing in the death camps, why was nothing done at least to slow down their “production”? that not a single allied military aircraft ever tried to destroy the rail lines converging on auschwitz remains an outrageous enigma to me. birkenau was “processing” ten thousand jews a day. stopping a single convoy for a single night—or even for just a few hours—would have prolonged so many lives. based on the paragraph, the author would most likely agree that it is best to avoid confrontation at all costs. people need to be proactive when they witness an injustice. countries should remain neutral to keep alliances strong. moscow and washington are to be blamed for the holocaust.

How is the consumption of food used as a symbol in the play the importance of being earnest?