Discover new perspectives and gain insights with IDNLearn.com's diverse answers. Get accurate and detailed answers to your questions from our dedicated community members who are always ready to help.
Sagot :
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]
- 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]
We value your participation in this forum. Keep exploring, asking questions, and sharing your insights with the community. Together, we can find the best solutions. Your questions deserve precise answers. Thank you for visiting IDNLearn.com, and see you again soon for more helpful information.
