Question

Answer whether the following conditional reasoning tasks affirm/deny the antecedent/consequent, and whether they are valid or invalid. if they are valid, are they modus ponens vs tollens?

#1. If they are bleeding, then they are beina murdered.
They are not bleeding.
Therefore they are not being murdered.
#2. If it is a dragon, then it has scales.
It is a dragon.
Therefore, it has scales.
#3. If I play video games all night, then I'm tired in the morning.
I'm not feeling tired this morning.
Therefore I didn't play video games all night.
#4. If the bed is rocking, then please avoid knocking.
You should avoid knocking.
Therefore the bed is rocking.

Answer 1

Statement 1: modus tollens

Statement 2: modus ponens

Statement 3: invalid

Statement 4: invalid

Step-by-step explanation:

Conditional reasoning tasks analyzed for validity and form.

#1. This is the form of modus tollens. The argument denies the consequent to conclude that the antecedent is also false. So, the argument is valid.

#2. This is the form of modus ponens. The argument affirms the antecedent to conclude that the consequent is true. So, the argument is valid.

#3. This argument is invalid. It is not a form of modus ponens or modus tollens. The negation of the consequent does not allow us to infer the negation of the antecedent.

#4. This argument is invalid. It is not a form of modus ponens or modus tollens. The presence of the consequent does not imply the truth of the antecedent.