Critical Thinking And Logical Fallacies Trivia Quiz

Modus tollens is the correct answer because it refers to the syllogism of denying the consequent. In this type of argument, the consequent of a conditional statement is denied, leading to the denial of the antecedent. This is a valid form of reasoning in logic. Modus ponens, on the other hand, refers to the syllogism of affirming the antecedent, which is a different logical argument. Therefore, the correct answer is Modus tollens.

The syllogism of affirming the antecedent is also called Modus ponens. This is a valid form of deductive reasoning where if the antecedent of a conditional statement is affirmed to be true, then the consequent can also be affirmed to be true. In other words, if "If A, then B" is true and A is true, then B must also be true. Modus Tollens, on the other hand, is a different form of deductive reasoning where the denial of the consequent leads to the denial of the antecedent. Therefore, the correct answer is Modus ponens.

Modus ponens is a valid form of deductive reasoning where if we have a conditional statement "if A then B" and we know that A is true, then we can conclude that B is also true. In this case, the conditional statement is "All my sisters are fair" and the fact that "This lady is my sister" confirms that A is true. Therefore, we can conclude that "This lady is fair" (B) is also true.

This is an example of Modus ponens because it follows the logical form "If A, then B. A, therefore B." In this case, the statement "All commonwealth boys are rowdy" is the premise that if Derick is a commonwealth boy (A), then he is rowdy (B). The second premise states that Derick is a commonwealth boy (A). Therefore, according to Modus ponens, the conclusion is that Derick is rowdy (B).

This is an example of the fallacy of affirming the consequent. The argument assumes that if A (being an insect) implies B (being a butterfly), then if B (being a beetle) is true, A (being an insect) must also be true. However, this is a logical error because there are other insects besides butterflies, such as beetles. Therefore, the conclusion that a beetle is a butterfly is incorrect.

The given statement follows the pattern of Modus Ponens, which is a valid form of deductive reasoning. Modus Ponens states that if we have a conditional statement "If A, then B" and we also have the premise "A is true", then we can conclude that "B is true". In this case, the conditional statement is "If I learn smart enough, I will score an A on my exam" and the premise is "Damzinium has helped me learn smart". Therefore, we can conclude that "I will score an A on my exam".

This is an example of the fallacy of affirming the consequent. The argument assumes that if all previous presidents of Ghana are called John, then anyone who was the president of Ghana must be called John. However, this is a faulty assumption as it does not consider the possibility of other names being given to the president. The argument makes an invalid inference by affirming the consequent (Nkrumah was the president of Ghana) without considering other factors.

This is an example of hypothetical syllogism because it follows the logical structure of a hypothetical syllogism. In a hypothetical syllogism, two conditional statements are given and a conclusion is drawn based on the relationship between the two conditions. In this case, the two conditional statements are "All fair guys are playboys" and "All playboys are rich", and the conclusion is "Therefore all fair guys are rich". The conclusion is logically derived from the two conditional statements, making it an example of hypothetical syllogism.

Disjunctive syllogism is a valid form of reasoning in which one of the premises states that either one thing is true or another thing is true, and the conclusion asserts that the other thing must be false because the first thing is true. This means that if one of the premises is true, the conclusion must also be true. In contrast, Modus ponens, Modus tollens, and Hypothetical syllogism require both premises to be true in order for the conclusion to be true. Therefore, the correct answer is Disjunctive syllogism.

This is an example of a false hypothetical syllogism because it follows the pattern "If A, then B. A is false, therefore B is false." In this case, the statement "All metals expand when heated" is the hypothetical premise, "Copper is a metal" is the antecedent, and "Copper expands when heated" is the consequent. However, the conclusion that "Copper expands when heated" is false because not all metals necessarily expand when heated.