You don't need to construct a Venn Diagram, it is just part of the instruction. Just determine whether or not the argument is va
lid or not with support.
Construct a Venn diagram to determine the validity of the given argument.
Argument:
1. All poets are loners.
2. All loners are taxi drivers.
Therefore, all poets are taxi drivers.
Choices:
- The argument is valid.
- The argument is invalid.
Please provide explanation for whether the argument is valid or not.
Construct a Venn diagram to determine the validity of the given argument.
Argument:
1. All poets are loners.
2. All loners are taxi drivers.
Therefore, all poets are taxi drivers.
Choices:
- The argument is valid.
- The argument is invalid.
Please provide explanation for whether the argument is valid or not.
1 answer:
Answer:
It is valid.
Venn Diagram is attached.
I also provided a truth table.
I also provided a couple of names this argument could be called.
Please let me know if you have any questions about this question.
Thank you kindly.
Step-by-step explanation:
If a person is a poet, then that person is a loner.
If a person is a loner, then that person is a taxi driver.
If a person is a poet, then that person is a taxi drive.
This is in the form:
p->q
q->r
Therefore, p->r.
This is an example of a hypothetical syllogism.
The first thing my mind goes to when seeing this is the transitive property which says if A is related to B and B is related to C then A is related to C.
So this syllogism also has another name and it is called the principle of transitivity of implication.
Let p=person is a poet, q=person is a loner, and r=person is a taxi driver.
I'm going to make a truth table and compare the truth values of the propositions to the conclusion.
Since we have 3 variables, we are going to need 2^3=8 rows.
p q r p->q q->r (p->q) and (q->r) conclusion=(p->r)
T T T T T T T
T T F T F F F
T F T F T F T
T F F F T F F
F F F T T T T
F F T T T T T
F T F T F F T
F T T T T T T
So we are trying to see if we ever have the preposition part true and the conclusion false.
That doesn't happen so the argument is valid.
You might be interested in
the overhead, fixed costs, is $1000.
the variable cost is $200, so if she sells "x" tiles, then her costs is 200*x or 200x.
total costs then will just be C(x) = 200x + 1000.
namely both costs added together.
Revenue is just how much it's been taken in from the sales, since each tile is selling for $240, then the revenue is simply 240*x or just R(x) = 240x.
break even point is when those two guys equal each other
what if the cost for each tile were $220, 20 bucks more?
well, if the cost for each tile is $200, her break-even point is at 25 units, namely once she has sold 25 tiles, she's has lost nothing, has won nothing either, but hasn't lost anything.
if the cost is however $220 instead, her break-even point comes much later, at 50 units, so she'll have to sell more tiles in order to not have any losses, so she's worse off if the cost is more or course.