Choose all the answers below that are impossible. There may be zero, one, or mor
ID: 3028538 • Letter: C
Question
Choose all the answers below that are impossible. There may be zero, one, or more impossible answers. (Don't choose possible answers). An invalid argument that has true premises and a false conclusion. A valid argument that as true premises and a false conclusion. A valid argument that has false premises and a false conclusion. A knight or knave who says "I am a knave". A knight or knave who says "My brother and I are both knaves". Choose the statements below that are logically equivalent to "If Gustave is a monkey then Gustave can climb a tree". More than one might be right! If Gustave cannot climb a tree, then Gustave is not a monkey. If Gustave can climb a tree then Gustave is a monkey. It's not true that both Gustave is a monkey and Gustave cannot climb a tree. Gustave is a monkey and Gustave can climb a tree. If Gustave is not a monkey then Gustave cannot climb a tree.Explanation / Answer
Question 3:
The statements 1 and 3 are possible while 2,4 and 5 are not possible.
Statement 1 says: Invalid argument with true premises and false conclusion..this is very much possible as we can better understand by example:
Say. 1. A. all sparrows are birds
B.all owls are birds ,
conclusion:all owls are sparrows.
So this conclusion is false,but the premises are true while the statement is Invalid.
So it is possible.
Statement 2: A valid argument with true premises and false conclusion is not possible.
So it is impossible.
Staement 3: A valid argument with false premises and false conclusion is possible.Say for example:
A; Dogs are tigers
B:Tigers are birds
conclusion: Therefore Dogs are birds.
As we can see the premises as well as conclusion is false but the argument is valid,and hence such arguments are possible.
So it is possible.
A knight always say truth while knave says false..
Statement 4: Since either knight or knave say that "I am knave" :solution is not possible since a knight speaks the truth always,it cant be a knave.If a knave says it is a knave,this too is not possible as knave never says the truth.
So it is impossible.
Satetment 5: As either of them say that their brother and themselves are knave,it cant be accorded to be truthful as knight always says the truth and in reality it is not the knave.While Knave has to speak anything but the truth it is unacceptable from his own mouth that his brother and himself both are knaves..as it will be considered false.
So it is impossible.
Question 4:
The statements 1 and 3 are logically equivalent to the main statement "If Gutsave is a monkey then Gutsave can climb a tree"
Explaination:
Statement 1: If Gutsave cannot climb a tree it may be any thing but monkey, as the main statement says that if Gutsave is a monkey then necessarily Gutsave climbs tree. Since Gutsave doesnt climb tree it is not a monkey.So the statement can be logically equivalent to the given statement.
Satement 2:If Gutsave can climb tree then it may be anything,we cant say necessarily it is a monkey.so this statement is not logically equivalent.
Staement 3:Being a monkey implies that it can climb tree,therefore it is not true that Gutsave being a monkey cannot climb tree.So this statement logically is equivalent to the main statement.
Staement 4:Gutsave is a monkey and can climb tree is not equivalent to the main statement since "IF" given in the main statement makes it conditional that only when Gutsave is monkey then only it can climb tree.So this statement logically is not equivalent to the main statement.
Statement 5:This statement says that Gutsave if not monkey then may be it is something else who may or may not be able to climb tree,hence we cannot conclude the validity of this statement.So this statement is logically not equivalent to the main statement.