Consider the following argument: If people always betray you, it is not worth cultivating friendships. But people do not always betray you. Therefore, it is indeed worth cultivating friendships. It is an instance of: a. Affirming the consequent b. Affirming the antecedent c. Denying the antecedent d. Denying the consequent<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The correct answer and explanation is:<\/strong><\/mark><\/p>\n\n\n\n The correct answer is: d. Denying the consequent<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Let’s analyze the argument step-by-step:<\/p>\n\n\n\n Argument:<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Actually, given the symbols:<\/p>\n\n\n\n Given: If P then Q This matches the pattern: This is the fallacy of denying the antecedent<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n a. Affirming the consequent The correct answer is c. Denying the antecedent<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The argument incorrectly assumes that because people do not always betray you (Not P), it must be worth cultivating friendships (Not Q). However, from the conditional “If P then Q,” the truth of Not P does not guarantee Not Q. This is a logical fallacy called denying the antecedent<\/strong>.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Consider the following argument: If people always betray you, it is not worth cultivating friendships. But people do not always betray you. Therefore, it is indeed worth cultivating friendships. It is an instance of: a. Affirming the consequent b. Affirming the antecedent c. Denying the antecedent d. Denying the consequent The correct answer and explanation […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-27140","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-quiz-questions"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/gaviki.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/27140","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/gaviki.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/gaviki.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/gaviki.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/gaviki.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=27140"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/gaviki.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/27140\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":27141,"href":"https:\/\/gaviki.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/27140\/revisions\/27141"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/gaviki.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=27140"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/gaviki.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=27140"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/gaviki.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=27140"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
\n\n\n\nExplanation:<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
\n
Symbolically:
If P, then Q
Where:\n\n
Symbolically:
Not P<\/li>\n\n\n\n
Symbolically:
Therefore, Not Q<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\nForm of the argument:<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
\n
If P \u2192 Q
Not P
Therefore, Not Q<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\nValidity Check:<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
\n
\n
Given: Not P (people do not always betray you)
Conclusion: Therefore, Not Q (it is worth cultivating friendships)<\/p>\n\n\n\n
If P then Q
Not P
Therefore, Not Q<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\nWhy is this a fallacy?<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
\n
\n\n\n\nBut the answer choices are:<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
b. Affirming the antecedent
c. Denying the antecedent
d. Denying the consequent<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\nWhich is it?<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
\n
If P then Q
P
Therefore Q<\/li>\n\n\n\n
If P then Q
Q
Therefore P<\/li>\n\n\n\n
If P then Q
Not P
Therefore Not Q<\/li>\n\n\n\n
If P then Q
Not Q
Therefore Not P<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\nOur argument matches the Denying the antecedent<\/strong> form.<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\nFinal conclusion:<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
\n
\n\n\n\nCorrection:<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\nSummary:<\/h3>\n\n\n\n