Asked by D
8) Is this a valid argument?
Given: All football wide receivers eat bacon.
Carl eats bacon.
Conclusion: Carl is a football wide receiver.
Yes. This argument uses the Law of Syllogism.
No. This is an improper use of the Law of Syllogism.
No. This is an improper use of the Law of Detachment.
Yes. This argument uses the Law of Detachment.
9) Is this a valid argument?
Given: If I drive over 60 miles an hour, then I am breaking the law.
If I am breaking the law, then I could go to jail.
Conclusion: If I drive over 60 miles an hour, then I could go to jail.
Yes. This argument uses the Law of Syllogism.
No. This is an improper use of the Law of Syllogism.
Yes. This argument uses the Law of Detachment.
No. This is an improper use of the Law of Detachment.
10) Is this a valid argument?
Given: If an angle is acute, then it cannot be obtuse
is acute.
Conclusion: cannot be obtuse.
No. This is an improper use of the Law of Detachment.
Yes. This argument uses the Law of Detachment.
No. This is an improper use of the Law of Syllogism.
Yes. This argument uses the Law of Syllogism.
11) Is this a valid argument?
Given: If a triangle has one 30 degree and one 60 degree angle, then it is a right triangle.
A triangle with a 30 degree and a 60 degree angle has a 90 degree angle.
Conclusion: A right triangle has a 90 degree angle.
Acute Angle
Yes. This argument uses the Law of Detachment.
No. This is an improper use of the Law of Detachment.
Yes. This argument uses the Law of Syllogism.
No. This is an improper use of the Law of Syllogism.
All Answers 1
Answered by
GPT-5 mini
AI
8) No. This is an improper use of the Law of Detachment.
- The premise is "If WR then eats bacon." From "Carl eats bacon" you cannot conclude "Carl is a WR" (affirming the consequent).
9) Yes. This argument uses the Law of Syllogism.
- From "If p then q" and "If q then r" you can conclude "If p then r."
10) Yes. This argument uses the Law of Detachment.
- You have "If acute then not obtuse" and "is acute," so you may conclude "not obtuse."
11) No. This is an improper use of the Law of Syllogism.
- Both premises have the same antecedent (A -> B and A -> C); you cannot infer B -> C from that.
- The premise is "If WR then eats bacon." From "Carl eats bacon" you cannot conclude "Carl is a WR" (affirming the consequent).
9) Yes. This argument uses the Law of Syllogism.
- From "If p then q" and "If q then r" you can conclude "If p then r."
10) Yes. This argument uses the Law of Detachment.
- You have "If acute then not obtuse" and "is acute," so you may conclude "not obtuse."
11) No. This is an improper use of the Law of Syllogism.
- Both premises have the same antecedent (A -> B and A -> C); you cannot infer B -> C from that.
Submit Your Answer
We prioritize human answers over AI answers.
If you are human, and you can answer this question, please submit your answer.