section 3.5 homework\nscore: 7/9 answered: 7/9\nquestion 8\ndraw a set diagram to determine whether the…

section 3.5 homework\nscore: 7/9 answered: 7/9\nquestion 8\ndraw a set diagram to determine whether the conclusion follows logically from the premises.\ni never have cream and sugar in my coffee.\ni am drinking coffee.\ntherefore, there arent cream and sugar in my coffee.\nvalid argument\ninvalid argument\nno ranchers are city - dwellers.\nall models are city - dwellers.\ntherefore, no ranchers are models.\nvalid argument\ninvalid argument\nquestion help: video message instructor post to forum

section 3.5 homework\nscore: 7/9 answered: 7/9\nquestion 8\ndraw a set diagram to determine whether the conclusion follows logically from the premises.\ni never have cream and sugar in my coffee.\ni am drinking coffee.\ntherefore, there arent cream and sugar in my coffee.\nvalid argument\ninvalid argument\nno ranchers are city - dwellers.\nall models are city - dwellers.\ntherefore, no ranchers are models.\nvalid argument\ninvalid argument\nquestion help: video message instructor post to forum

Answer

Explanation:

Step1: Analyze first - set of statements

Let (C) be the set of coffee with cream and sugar. The first premise says the person's coffee is not in (C). The second premise says the person is drinking coffee. The conclusion that there isn't cream and sugar in the coffee follows from the first premise.

Step2: Analyze second - set of statements

Let (R) be the set of ranchers and (D) be the set of city - dwellers and (M) be the set of models. The first premise is (R\cap D=\varnothing), the second premise is (M\subseteq D). If (M) is a subset of (D) and (R) has no intersection with (D), then (R\cap M = \varnothing), so the conclusion that no ranchers are models is valid.

Answer:

  1. Valid argument
  2. Valid argument