Westonci.ca is your go-to source for answers, with a community ready to provide accurate and timely information. Join our platform to connect with experts ready to provide precise answers to your questions in various areas. Connect with a community of professionals ready to provide precise solutions to your questions quickly and accurately.
Sagot :
To determine which conditional completes the Law of Syllogism, let's first understand what the Law of Syllogism is:
The Law of Syllogism states that if we have two conditionals: [tex]\( p \rightarrow q \)[/tex] and [tex]\( q \rightarrow r \)[/tex], then we can infer a third conditional: [tex]\( p \rightarrow r \)[/tex].
Given:
- [tex]\( p \rightarrow q \)[/tex] (Read as: If [tex]\( p \)[/tex] then [tex]\( q \)[/tex])
We are supposed to identify the correct choice that should be in the form of [tex]\( q \rightarrow r \)[/tex] so that we can deduce [tex]\( p \rightarrow r \)[/tex].
Let's analyze each choice:
1. [tex]\( q \rightarrow 1 \)[/tex]
- This statement means if [tex]\( q \)[/tex] then [tex]\( 1 \)[/tex]. However, [tex]\( 1 \)[/tex] is not in our original statements [tex]\( p, q, r \)[/tex]. This does not help infer [tex]\( p \rightarrow r \)[/tex].
2. [tex]\( q \rightarrow p \)[/tex]
- This means if [tex]\( q \)[/tex] then [tex]\( p \)[/tex]. It does not match the required form [tex]\( q \rightarrow r \)[/tex] and does not help us infer [tex]\( p \rightarrow r \)[/tex].
3. [tex]\( r \rightarrow q \)[/tex]
- This means if [tex]\( r \)[/tex] then [tex]\( q \)[/tex]. This is actually the reverse of what we need. However, thinking of contrapositive logic, it is equivalent to saying [tex]\( \neg q \rightarrow \neg r \)[/tex] which is still not in our required form [tex]\( q \rightarrow r \)[/tex].
4. [tex]\( p \rightarrow 1 \)[/tex]
- This means if [tex]\( p \)[/tex] then [tex]\( 1 \)[/tex]. Similar to choice 1, [tex]\( 1 \)[/tex] is not in our original statements [tex]\( p, q, r \)[/tex]. Hence, this does not help infer [tex]\( p \rightarrow r \)[/tex].
Among these conditionals, analyzing [tex]\( r \rightarrow q \)[/tex] (choice 3), let's think step-by-step:
If we have:
- [tex]\( p \rightarrow q \)[/tex] (given)
- [tex]\( r \rightarrow q \)[/tex] (choice 3)
Using contrapositive of [tex]\( r \rightarrow q \)[/tex]:
- [tex]\( \neg q \rightarrow \neg r \)[/tex]
From original [tex]\( p \rightarrow q \)[/tex]:
- Contrapositive of [tex]\( p \rightarrow q \)[/tex] is [tex]\( \neg q \rightarrow \neg p \)[/tex]
If [tex]\( \neg q \rightarrow \neg p \)[/tex] holds true and we assert [tex]\( \neg q \rightarrow \neg r \)[/tex] holds, logically, we can deduce [tex]\( p \rightarrow r \)[/tex].
Therefore, conditional [tex]\( r \rightarrow q \)[/tex] is logically equivalent to helping in constructing [tex]\( p \rightarrow r \)[/tex].
Thus, the correct choice is [tex]\( \boxed{3} \)[/tex]: r \rightarrow q
The Law of Syllogism states that if we have two conditionals: [tex]\( p \rightarrow q \)[/tex] and [tex]\( q \rightarrow r \)[/tex], then we can infer a third conditional: [tex]\( p \rightarrow r \)[/tex].
Given:
- [tex]\( p \rightarrow q \)[/tex] (Read as: If [tex]\( p \)[/tex] then [tex]\( q \)[/tex])
We are supposed to identify the correct choice that should be in the form of [tex]\( q \rightarrow r \)[/tex] so that we can deduce [tex]\( p \rightarrow r \)[/tex].
Let's analyze each choice:
1. [tex]\( q \rightarrow 1 \)[/tex]
- This statement means if [tex]\( q \)[/tex] then [tex]\( 1 \)[/tex]. However, [tex]\( 1 \)[/tex] is not in our original statements [tex]\( p, q, r \)[/tex]. This does not help infer [tex]\( p \rightarrow r \)[/tex].
2. [tex]\( q \rightarrow p \)[/tex]
- This means if [tex]\( q \)[/tex] then [tex]\( p \)[/tex]. It does not match the required form [tex]\( q \rightarrow r \)[/tex] and does not help us infer [tex]\( p \rightarrow r \)[/tex].
3. [tex]\( r \rightarrow q \)[/tex]
- This means if [tex]\( r \)[/tex] then [tex]\( q \)[/tex]. This is actually the reverse of what we need. However, thinking of contrapositive logic, it is equivalent to saying [tex]\( \neg q \rightarrow \neg r \)[/tex] which is still not in our required form [tex]\( q \rightarrow r \)[/tex].
4. [tex]\( p \rightarrow 1 \)[/tex]
- This means if [tex]\( p \)[/tex] then [tex]\( 1 \)[/tex]. Similar to choice 1, [tex]\( 1 \)[/tex] is not in our original statements [tex]\( p, q, r \)[/tex]. Hence, this does not help infer [tex]\( p \rightarrow r \)[/tex].
Among these conditionals, analyzing [tex]\( r \rightarrow q \)[/tex] (choice 3), let's think step-by-step:
If we have:
- [tex]\( p \rightarrow q \)[/tex] (given)
- [tex]\( r \rightarrow q \)[/tex] (choice 3)
Using contrapositive of [tex]\( r \rightarrow q \)[/tex]:
- [tex]\( \neg q \rightarrow \neg r \)[/tex]
From original [tex]\( p \rightarrow q \)[/tex]:
- Contrapositive of [tex]\( p \rightarrow q \)[/tex] is [tex]\( \neg q \rightarrow \neg p \)[/tex]
If [tex]\( \neg q \rightarrow \neg p \)[/tex] holds true and we assert [tex]\( \neg q \rightarrow \neg r \)[/tex] holds, logically, we can deduce [tex]\( p \rightarrow r \)[/tex].
Therefore, conditional [tex]\( r \rightarrow q \)[/tex] is logically equivalent to helping in constructing [tex]\( p \rightarrow r \)[/tex].
Thus, the correct choice is [tex]\( \boxed{3} \)[/tex]: r \rightarrow q
Thank you for visiting. Our goal is to provide the most accurate answers for all your informational needs. Come back soon. Thank you for choosing our platform. We're dedicated to providing the best answers for all your questions. Visit us again. We're here to help at Westonci.ca. Keep visiting for the best answers to your questions.
