Answered

IDNLearn.com offers a comprehensive platform for finding and sharing knowledge. Discover in-depth and trustworthy answers to all your questions from our experienced community members.

If a polygon has exactly three sides, then it is a triangle. Jeri drew a polygon with exactly three sides. Therefore, Jeri drew a triangle.

A. [tex]p \rightarrow q \\
q \\
\therefore p[/tex]

B. [tex]p \rightarrow q \\
\begin{array}{l}
\sim q \\
\therefore \sim p
\end{array}[/tex]

C. [tex]p \rightarrow q \\
\begin{array}{l}
\sim p \\
\therefore \sim q
\end{array}[/tex]

D. [tex]p \rightarrow q \\
\begin{array}{c}
p \\
\therefore q
\end{array}[/tex]

Sagot :

GinnyAnsweridn
Given the premises, let's choose the correct logical argument and explain it:

- Premise 1: If a polygon has exactly three sides, then it is a triangle.
- Premise 2: Jeri drew a polygon with exactly three sides.
- Conclusion: Therefore, Jeri drew a triangle.

Let's translate these statements into logical terms:
- Let [tex]\( p \)[/tex] be "Jeri drew a polygon with exactly three sides."
- Let [tex]\( q \)[/tex] be "Jeri drew a triangle."

Now the premises can be written as:
1. [tex]\( p \rightarrow q \)[/tex] (If a polygon has exactly three sides, then it is a triangle.)
2. [tex]\( p \)[/tex] (Jeri drew a polygon with exactly three sides.)

The logical argument we need to conclude is [tex]\( q \)[/tex] (Therefore, Jeri drew a triangle.).

Given the above, let's examine each option:

Option A:
[tex]\( p \rightarrow q \)[/tex]
[tex]\( q \)[/tex]
[tex]\(\therefore p \)[/tex]

This argument form is not applicable to our premises, because it starts from [tex]\( q \)[/tex] and concludes [tex]\( p \)[/tex], reversing the logic we need.

Option B:
[tex]\( p \rightarrow q \)[/tex]
[tex]\(\sim q \)[/tex]
[tex]\(\therefore \sim p \)[/tex]

This is the contrapositive argument. This states that if [tex]\( q \)[/tex] is not true, then [tex]\( p \)[/tex] is not true. This argument also doesn’t align with our premises.

Option C:
[tex]\( p \rightarrow q \)[/tex]
[tex]\(\sim p \)[/tex]
[tex]\(\therefore \sim q \)[/tex]

This is the converse fallacy and is not logically valid for our situation, as it suggests that not having a polygon with exactly three sides implies not having a triangle, which isn't what we need.

Option D:
[tex]\( p \rightarrow q \)[/tex]
[tex]\( p \)[/tex]
[tex]\(\therefore q \)[/tex]

This is the direct application of modus ponens, a valid logical argument form. Since our premises match this form:

1. If Jeri drew a polygon with exactly three sides ([tex]\( p \)[/tex]), then Jeri drew a triangle ([tex]\( q \)[/tex]) - [tex]\( p \rightarrow q \)[/tex].
2. Jeri drew a polygon with exactly three sides ([tex]\( p \)[/tex]).

Therefore, we can conclude:
3. Jeri drew a triangle ([tex]\( q \)[/tex]).

Hence, the correct answer is:

Option D:
[tex]\( p \rightarrow q \)[/tex]
[tex]\( p \)[/tex]
[tex]\(\therefore q \)[/tex]
Thank you for contributing to our discussion. Don't forget to check back for new answers. Keep asking, answering, and sharing useful information. IDNLearn.com provides the answers you need. Thank you for visiting, and see you next time for more valuable insights.