SOLUTION: determine if the argument is valid or invalid. give a reason to justify answer.
if im hungry then i will eat
im not hungry
i will not eat.
A)valid by the law of detachment
B
Algebra ->
Conjunction
-> SOLUTION: determine if the argument is valid or invalid. give a reason to justify answer.
if im hungry then i will eat
im not hungry
i will not eat.
A)valid by the law of detachment
B
Log On
Question 483383: determine if the argument is valid or invalid. give a reason to justify answer.
if im hungry then i will eat
im not hungry
i will not eat.
A)valid by the law of detachment
B)valid by the law of contraposition
C)invalid by fallacy of the converse
D)invalid by fallacy of the inverse
E)valid by the lay of syllogism Found 2 solutions by MathLover1, Theo:Answer by MathLover1(20849) (Show Source):
You can put this solution on YOUR website! An argument is said to be INVALID if it is logically possible for the CONCLUSION to be FALSE even though EVERY PREMISE is assumed to be TRUE.
Common patterns of reasoning (Fallacy of the Inverse)
If then .
Not . Therefore, not .
---------------can be reduced to the form
p ->q
~p
---------
·:~q
will be an .
This is a common form of invalid reasoning known as Fallacy of the Inverse.
You can put this solution on YOUR website! the statement is:
if i am hungry then i will eat
the inverse of that statement is:
if i am not hungry then i will not eat.
the converse of that statement is:
if i will eat, then i am hungry.
the contra-positive of that statement is:
if i do not eat, then i am not hungry.
we can translate those statements into logic symbols and variables.
we let p = i am hungry
we let q = i will eat
if i am hungry then i will eat translates to p->q
if i am not hungry then i will not eat translates to ~p->~q
if i eat, then i am hungry translates to q->p
if i don't eat, then i am not hungry translates to ~q->~p
the general rule is:
p->q is the statement.
~p->~q is the inverse.
q->p is the converse.
~q->~p is the contra-positive.
the statement and the contra-positive are equivalent. if the statement is true, then the contra-positive is also true.
the inverse and the converse are equivalent. if the inverse is true, then the converse is also true.
the statement and the converse are not equivalent. sometimes the converse is true when the statement is true and sometimes it's not.
the statement and the inverse are not equivalent. sometimes the inverse is true when the statement is true and sometimes it's not.
the original statement is:
if i am hungry then i will eat
the statement you are asked to analyze is:
if i am not hungry then i will not eat.
that's the inverse of the statement and it is not true by the fallacy of the inverse.
