Final answer:
The correct option is b) Modus tollens, which involves denying the consequent, a form of valid deductive reasoning. The answer clarifies that modus ponens involves affirming the antecedent, and both denying the antecedent and affirming the consequent are fallacies, not valid reasoning forms.
Step-by-step explanation:
The correct answer to the question is Modus tollens: denying the consequent. Modus ponens and modus tollens are both forms of valid deductive reasoning. In modus ponens, the form is as follows: if X, then Y; X is true; therefore, Y must be true. In modus tollens, the structure is: if X, then Y; Y is not true; therefore, X cannot be true.
The inverse error and converse error mentioned are instances of invalid reasoning. Affirming the antecedent is another term for modus ponens, not an error, and denying the antecedent is a common logical fallacy, not a form of valid inference like modus tollens.