Question

Determine if the argument is valid or invalid.
If I'm hungry then I will eat. I'm not hungry.
I will not eat.

Possible solutions:
*Valid by the law of detachment
*Valid by the law of contraposition
*Invalid by fallacy of the converse
*Invalid by fallacy of the in-converse
*Valid by the law of syllogism
*Valid by the disjuctive syllogism

Answer 1

hi. do you still need help with this question?

Answer 2

Yes

Answer 3

i was going to say it was law of detachment. but then i realized that the second sentence was the negation of the hypothesis or antecedent.

Answer 4

this is definitely an invalid argument.

Answer 5

Invalid because the second statement is the inverse of the first, and the inverse is not necessarily equivalent.

Answer 6

The underlined sentence is : " Im not hungry"

Answer 7

If hungry, then eat. p -> q : p=hungry, q=eat.
If not hungry, then not eat. -p -> -q (this is the inverse of the statement.
There is a conclusion to 'If hungry' but we have no information about what follows from 'If not hungry.'

Answer 8

I've never heard of "in-converse" but I guess it means the same as 'inverse'

Answer 9

that is what was throwing me too.

Answer 10

Might be a typo..

Answer 11

could be. couldnt find inconverse

Answer 12

i believe it is fallacy of the inverse

Answer 13

Here's a handy reference for these sorts of things:
Conditional: p -> q.
Contrapositive: not q -> not p.
Converse: q -> p.
Inverse: not p -> not q.


The contrapositive is equivalent to the conditional, i.e. they mean the same thing; if one is true, then the other is true. Likewise, the inverse is equivalent to the converse because the inverse is the contrapositive of the converse.

If the conditional and converse are both true, then it is bi-conditional, and all the forms of the statement mean the same thing and are true.

Answer 14

Thank U!!

Answer 15

stick with this dsmith. you'll do fine. :)

Answer 16

take care. hope what we said helped.

Answer 17

It did thanks!!!!!

Answer 18

:)