Write the argument as three plain sentences — two starting
points and a conclusion. This page answers one question only: does the conclusion follow ? Whether the starting
points are true is a different question, and it always goes to a panel.
1. All shifts that are understaffed are slow to triage∴ All night shifts are slow to triage
It follows — the conclusion is forced
If both starting points are true there is no way the conclusion fails.
THE SIX CHECKS
✓ middle term distributed at least once
✓ no illicit major (P distributed in conclusion but not its premise)
✓ no illicit minor (S distributed in conclusion but not its premise)
✓ not two negative premises
✓ a negative premise if and only if a negative conclusion
✓ two universal premises give a universal conclusion (else holds only if the subject class is non-empty)
WHAT IT READ · read by the built-in reader
bridge: shifts that are understaffed · subject: night shifts · predicate: slow to triage · AAA-1
shifts that are understaffed slow to triage night shifts Gray = ruled out by the starting points. Blue hatching = what the conclusion claims. If any blue survives outside the gray, the conclusion can fail.
On the map this certifies an entails(formal) edge — provenance “computed”, no panel votes. Whether the starting points are TRUE still goes to a panel.
The reading This is how your three sentences were understood. If a term or a quantifier is wrong, change it here and re-check.