Friday

March 6, 2015

March 6, 2015

Posted by **Anne** on Tuesday, December 12, 2006 at 10:05pm.

Arg

1. P-->Q

2. ~P ^:~Q

Arg

If Peter is perceptive, then Quincy is a quack. Quincy, however, is not a quack. So Peter's not perceptive. (Hint: this is a valid argument)

This logical argument is valid under the following condition.

If and only if Peter is perceptive, then Quincy is a quack. Quincy, however, is not a quack. So Peter's not perceptive.

Truth table

PP QQ

T T

F F

I have no idea what you mean by group I rules.

**Answer this Question**

**Related Questions**

Philosophy - a) Using long or short truth tables (symbolize as necessary and ...

Philosophy - a) Using long or short truth tables (symbolize as necessary and ...

Phil103 Informal Logic - . If P is false, and Q is false, the truth-value of "P...

Descrete maths - Show that the following conditional statement is a tautology ...

Phi103 - What is the truth value of the sentence "P v ~ P"? (Points : 1) True ...

phi103 - 1. A conditional sentence with a false antecedent is always (Points : ...

Informal Logic-Pls chk ans - The sentence "P → Q" is read as (3) P or Q P ...

Logic - The sentence "P → Q" is read as (3) P or Q P and Q If P then Q Q ...

philosophy - Truth tables can determine which of the following? (Points : 1) If ...

PHI103: Informal Logic - 1) In the truth table for an invalid argument, Student ...