Final answer:
Logic question assessing the validity of an argument with premises related to having the flu and staying home. The argument is identified as 'affirming the consequent' and deemed invalid because the premises do not necessitate the conclusion.
Step-by-step explanation:
The subject of this question is Logic, often studied in philosophy or critical thinking courses. To determine if the conclusion follows logically from the premises, we must test whether the argument is valid or invalid. The given argument is:
- Premise: If you have the flu, then you need to stay home.
- Premise: You need to stay home.
- Conclusion: Therefore, you have the flu.
This form of argument is known as affirming the consequent, which is a common logical fallacy. A correct deduction (modus tollens) would be if the premises were 'If you have the flu, then you need to stay home' and 'You do not need to stay home', which would lead to a valid conclusion of 'Therefore, you do not have the flu'. However, the current argument provided does not offer such structure.
Moreover, the necessity to stay home could arise from various reasons other than having the flu. This makes the logic invalid as the truth of the premises does not guarantee the truth of the conclusion. Therefore, another scenario where the premises are true but the conclusion is false is possible, which shows the argument is invalid.