Logic
The proposition that ‘My cat is a dog’ is based on the premise that ‘My cat has four legs and all dogs have four legs’. The basic problem with this logic derives from the fact that it considers solely one aspect of similarity, or a single premise, that the cat has four legs like dogs and, therefore, it can be called a dog. This argument discounts all the dissimilarities that exist between these two animals and focuses only on one physical attribute of both animals possessing four legs. Several arguments can be listed against the reasoning in the statement that ‘the cat can be called a dog because it has four legs’.
Most of the animals in the animal kingdom have four legs; but because of a host of other distinct physical and genetic characteristics, these animals have been categorized into different species. Even those animals which belong to the same species have different traits that are unique to them and, therefore, have been assigned different names. While cats come under feline category, dogs are canines because of a variety of features that are characteristic of these species. When such differences exist between cats and dogs, it becomes a flawed logic to call a cat a dog.
Thus, it can be argued that there is a logical problem in the statement that ‘My cat is a dog because it has four legs like dogs’. The main issue is that it is not based on sound reasoning and, instead, relies on a flimsy premise that the cat has four legs like all dogs. On the other hand, it ignores all the differences that both these animals have. Thus the truth that the cat has four legs cannot sustain the reasoning that it can be called a dog. Under the circumstances, the logic behind the statement cannot support the inference that cats, because they have four legs, are dogs.
Logic Redux
The statement that ‘I see that the streets are wet, and, therefore, it must be raining’ is based on the premise that ‘If it rains, the street will be wet.’ This statement is logically true because a lot of relevant facts exist that can validate this reasoning. The narrator refers to ‘streets’ which connote several streets and not a single one, and, hence, it can be deciphered that the wetness is seen and felt in a wider area. Seepage of water from a supply truck or breakage of a water tank cannot cause wetness on a major scale like that as such occurrences it will only be capable of wetting part of a single street or a small area.
On the other hand, if the wetness has been caused by a major breach in a large dam or a tsunami, there will be evidence of damage and perhaps the narrator won’t exist to tell the story of wetness. Thus, the logic rules out any possibilities of a major disaster. The fact remains that the streets are wet and there has neither been a tsunami nor a breakage of a dam. Lack of any evidence to point to such eventualities leaves scope for a simple reasoning that the streets are wet because it had rained.
An argument becomes credible only when there exist sufficient grounds to validate the process of reasoning. Here, the premise is that several streets are wet and there has been no mention of any mishap or unusual events that may have caused the wetness. So, it is reasonable to presume that it has rained and that the rain has caused the wetness. Thus, the logic that there is wetness because it rained is founded on sound reasoning and, therefore, it is true and stands validated.