LOGIC.

Evening Star, Issue 3808, 8 May 1875, Page 2

LOGIC.

To the Editor. kiR, I think that you have on certain occasions used expressions which imply that you have some knowledge of logic. May I, therefore, ask your assistance with regard to the following argument, which appeared in an artide on education in yesterday's]* Guardian ’ ’‘ The argument is two fold: first, that any scheme of education which does not embrace religious teaching is ‘godless’; and ■ secondly: that the btat6 has no right to ihterfefe with the teaching of religion. These two proposP tions, if accepted conjunctively, lead up by a perfectly logical process to the conclusion tnat the education of the people is not the business of the State.” Now what I want to know is whether the perfectly logical process referred to in this argument is not of the nature of what logicians call a non sequitur. Is it not exactly paralleled by this argument “ Water tint ha • not at least a wee taste of whisky in it is not worth the drinking. Secondly, the Corporation has nothing to do with supplying the burgesses of Dunedin with whisky. These two propositions when taken together ioad up by * perfectly * logical process’ to the conolusion that supplying the people of Dunedin with water is not tae business of the I am, &c., One Who Wants to Know. Dunedin, May 8.