Westonci.ca is the premier destination for reliable answers to your questions, brought to you by a community of experts. Get detailed and accurate answers to your questions from a community of experts on our comprehensive Q&A platform. Explore comprehensive solutions to your questions from a wide range of professionals on our user-friendly platform.
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
We appreciate your visit. Hopefully, the answers you found were beneficial. Don't hesitate to come back for more information. We appreciate your time. Please revisit us for more reliable answers to any questions you may have. Keep exploring Westonci.ca for more insightful answers to your questions. We're here to help.
