Question

When we arrive in class, our names get written on the attendance list, but not if we're late. My name is on the list, so either I was on time, or I was early.

a) this argument is invalid, but strong
b) this argument is invalid, but weak
c) this argument is valid, and so is neither strong nor weak

Answer 1

The student's argument is invalid because it commits the logical fallacy of affirming the consequent, but it is considered strong because the premises seem to naturally lead to the conclusion under common conditions.

Step-by-step explanation:

The argument presented by the student states that their name is on the attendance list, which means they were not late. The logic is that being on time or early are the only conditions under which their name would be on the list. According to the information given about attendance rules, this argument follows a logical structure similar to a modus tollens argument. However, it is an example of affirming the consequent, which is a logical fallacy, because it is possible that the name could be on the list for reasons unrelated to the student's arrival time, such as administrative error.

Therefore, the correct answer to the question is (a) this argument is invalid but strong. Although the argument has a logical structure, it is invalid because it assumes the only way for the student's name to appear on the list is by being on time or early, which is not necessarily true. It is strong because the premises seem to lead to the conclusion under normal circumstances.