Question

Is the following definition of dog reversible? If yes, write it as a true biconditional.

A dog is a mammal.

A. The reverse is false.
B. The reverse is true. An animal is a dog if (and only if) it is a mammal.
C. The reverse is true. An animal is a mammal if (and only if) it is a dog.
D. The reverse is true. If an animal is a dog, then it is a mammal.

I think it is C. What do you think and why?

Answer 1

B.

Answer 2

yeah id say b

Answer 3

Why do you guys think that?

Answer 4

well thats hard to say

Answer 5

You must have a reason for believing the correct answer is B.

Answer 6

@Fang02
By "reverse," do you mean "converse?"
By "converse," I mean the following: the converse of p--> q is q --> p.

Answer 7

No, I am certain about it being 'reverse.'

Answer 8

Then, what is the reverse of "A dog is a mammal." I'm thinking "reverse" and "converse" are two names for the same concept.

Answer 9

@ScaryHomelessMan
@IHaveMurdered80People
OpenStudy values the Learning process - not the ‘Give you an answer’ process •Don’t post only answers - guide the asker to a solution.
http://openstudy.com/code-of-conduct

Answer 10

Perhaps. By saying "reverse" or "converse" it just makes me think of "an animal is a mammal if (and only if) it is a dog." Which is the answer I have chosen. What do you think?

Answer 11

The question states: Is the following definition of dog reversible?
The converse is If an animal is a mammal, then it is a dog. That is not true.
The original statement and its converse are not logically equivalent.
The original statement and its contrapositive are and would could form a biconditional.

My thinking is that the reverse is false. If the animal is a mammal, it could be a cat. No assurance that it is a dog.

Answer 12

Okay, thank you.