Question

Look at the argument below. Which of the following symbolic statements shows the set-up used to find the validity of the argument?

If it is July, then I am living at the lake.
I am not living at the lake.
Therefore, it is not July.

p: It is July.
q: I am living at the lake.

Answer 1

I think p: It is July.

Answer 2

not sure

Answer 3

wait for others comment

Answer 4

p -> q jas the truth values

T -> T = T
T -> F = F
F -> T = T
F -> F = T

Answer 5

*has

Answer 6

but this appears to be converse, inverse, or contrapositive .... since they squatched up the original P and Q

Answer 7

really? switched became squatched ??

Answer 8

The argument goes like this:

p -> q
not Q
therefore not P

This is a valid argument called modus tollens, which is basically an argument using the contrapositive.

Answer 9

A) [(p → q) ∧ ~q]
∴ p

B) [(p → q) → q]
∴ p

C) [(p → q) ∧ ~q]
∴ ~p

D) [(p → q) ∧ q]
∴ p

Answer 10

The wedge symbol means "and", the tilde means not, and the three dots symbol means "therefore." Other than that it's just what I said above.

Answer 11

what is a tile?

Answer 12

Tilde. ~ <- that symbol.

Answer 13

oh

Answer 14

So can you rewrite this phrase in symbols? "If p then q, and not q, therefore not p."

Answer 15

p->q ^~q.'.p

Answer 16

You missed the "not" on the p after the therefore.

Answer 17

p->q^p~.'.q

Answer 18

No no no, the first one was much closer. The first one you said "If p then q, and not q, therefore p." The second one you said "If p then q, and p, not therefore q." Which doesn't actually make sense :P Remember, we're trying to say: "If p then q, and not q, therefore not p."