Gilmour only teaches what interests him.
Gilmour is not interested in women authors.
Gilmour will not teach about women authors.
I honestly don’t understand why this article is even an article. But since it is, I think it’s a great example of something valid, factually correct, and therefore sound. I don’t see the purpose of this article as I find it completely logical and sound, and I rarely find articles which simply state things that make sense and that everyone can agree upon. This article attempts to create conflict in a story which there is none; concerning how women authors are not in Gilmour’s syllabus.
The form of this argument is valid. It follows the form;
x is y
y is not z
/ x is not z
With x representing Gilmour teaching, y representing what Gilmour is interested in, and z representing women authors.
It is also safe to say that these premises are factually correct. Gilmour will teach what interests him – true; Gilmour is not interested in women authors – also true. As this argument is both valid and factually correct, it is thus sound. I think the logic Gilmour uses to justify why he only teaches about male authors bears no discrimination against any person. What to consider is why this is even an article. I feel as though the author of the article, Joshua Errett, attempts to create conflict in a story where none exists. Now I can’t explain the logic behind that.