question 3\ndetermine if the conclusion follows logically from the premises.\nall children are…

question 3\ndetermine if the conclusion follows logically from the premises.\nall children are energetic.\nsome actors are children.\ntherefore, some actors are energetic.\nvalid argument\ninvalid argument\nall flowers need water.\nroses need water.\ntherefore, roses are flowers.\nvalid argument\ninvalid argument\nquestion help: message instructor post to forum

question 3\ndetermine if the conclusion follows logically from the premises.\nall children are energetic.\nsome actors are children.\ntherefore, some actors are energetic.\nvalid argument\ninvalid argument\nall flowers need water.\nroses need water.\ntherefore, roses are flowers.\nvalid argument\ninvalid argument\nquestion help: message instructor post to forum

Answer

Brief Explanations:

  1. For the first argument:
    • Given "All children are energetic" and "Some actors are children". By the law of syllogism, if a subset (some actors who are children) of a set (actors) belongs to a set (children) that has a certain property (being energetic), then that subset of actors also has the property. So the conclusion "Some actors are energetic" is valid.
  2. For the second argument:
    • Just because all flowers need water and roses need water, it doesn't necessarily mean roses are flowers. There could be other things that need water but are not flowers. This is an example of the fallacy of affirming the consequent. So the conclusion "Roses are flowers" is invalid.

Answer:

  1. Valid argument
  2. Invalid argument