please help...

determine if the argument is valid or invalid along with the appropriate form of argument.

if harvard hustles then harvard wins
harvard wins
___________________
harvard hustles

are these statements:
valid by law of detachment
valid by law of contraposition
invalid by fallacy of the converse
invalid by fallacy of the inverse

can you show me how you receive answer so i can study it. thanks

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirming_the_consequent

sometimes, but not often called the fallacy of the converse. See link.

To determine the validity of the argument, we can use the rules of deductive reasoning. Let's evaluate each option and explain the reasoning behind it.

1. Valid by the law of detachment:
The law of detachment, also known as modus ponens, states that if we have a conditional statement of the form "if A, then B," and we know that A is true, we can conclude that B is also true. However, in this argument, we do not have the form "if A, then B" explicitly stated in the premises. Therefore, the law of detachment cannot be applied here.

2. Valid by the law of contraposition:
The law of contraposition states that if we have a conditional statement of the form "if A, then B," we can also infer its contrapositive, "if not B, then not A." However, in this argument, we still do not have a conditional statement to apply the law of contraposition accurately.

3. Invalid by the fallacy of the converse:
The fallacy of the converse assumes that if a conditional statement is true, then its converse (where the consequent becomes the antecedent and vice versa) is also true. Here, the given argument assumes that if Harvard wins, Harvard hustles. However, this does not guarantee that if Harvard hustles, it will win. Therefore, this argument is invalid by the fallacy of the converse.

4. Invalid by the fallacy of the inverse:
The fallacy of the inverse assumes that if a conditional statement is false, then its inverse (where the antecedent and consequent are negated) is also false. In this case, we have no information to support that if Harvard does not win, it did not hustle. Consequently, we cannot conclude that if Harvard does not win, it did hustle. Therefore, this argument is invalid.

To summarize:
The given argument is invalid by both the fallacy of the converse and the fallacy of the inverse.

I determine the answer by evaluating the argument based on the principles of deductive reasoning and identifying any logical fallacies if applicable.