Let p be: John goes to the beach
Let q be: He will go surfing.
Then in symbolic form, the argument becomes:
p ⇒ q
p
---------------------
∴ q
An argument is valid if the conjuction of the premises implies the conclusion.
p | q | p ⇒ q | (p ⇒ q) ∧ p | [(p ⇒ q) ∧ p] ⇒ q
---------------------------------------------------------------------\
F | F | T | F | T
F | T | T | F | T
T | F | F | F | T
T | T | T | T | T
The table above shows that the argument is a tautology.
Hence, the argument is valid
Answer: If the solution's boiling point drops because salt is added to the soltuiton, then the reason the solution boils sooner is the addition of salt to the solution
Step-by-step explanation:
The re are two cause - consequence relations inside an other one.
I use 3 different cause - consequence connectors not to mix them up.
A --> D equals “ D because A “
A --> S equals “ the reason S happens is A “
(A --> D) --> (A --> S) Equals “ if (A --> D) then (A --> S) “
Answer:
6 gallons probally
Step-by-step explanation:
Answer:
Step-by-step explanation:
Such partnerships only terminate when one of the partners sells his entire share which makes him no longer a partner in the company, but there may still be another partnership in the company. The other way all partnerships in the company terminate is when a single party/partner gains control of the entire companies' shares meaning they are 100% owner of the company and no other individual has any controlling interest in the company.
Answer:
nothing nothing nothing nothing
Step-by-step explanation:
nothing nothing nothing nothing nothing nothing nothing nothing
