question 1\ndetermine if the conclusion follows logically from the premises.\nall children are…

question 1\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: video message instructor post to forum

question 1\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: video message instructor post to forum

Answer

Brief Explanations:

  1. For the first argument: Since all children are energetic and some actors are children, the subset of actors who are children must be energetic. So the conclusion that some actors are energetic follows logically.
  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 that aren't flowers. This is an example of the fallacy of affirming the consequent.

Answer:

  1. Valid argument
  2. Invalid argument