Open study

is now brainly

With Brainly you can:

  • Get homework help from millions of students and moderators
  • Learn how to solve problems with step-by-step explanations
  • Share your knowledge and earn points by helping other students
  • Learn anywhere, anytime with the Brainly app!

A community for students.

Determine which, if any, of the three statements are equivalent. Give a reason for your conclusion. I) If the cat does not have claws, then the cat cannot scratch the furniture. II) If the cat can scratch the furniture, then the cat has claws. III) If the cat has claws, then the cat can scratch the furniture. a. I and II are equivalent b. I and III are equivalent c. II and III are equivalent d. I, II, and III are equivalent e. None are equivalent

I got my questions answered at in under 10 minutes. Go to now for free help!
At vero eos et accusamus et iusto odio dignissimos ducimus qui blanditiis praesentium voluptatum deleniti atque corrupti quos dolores et quas molestias excepturi sint occaecati cupiditate non provident, similique sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollitia animi, id est laborum et dolorum fuga. Et harum quidem rerum facilis est et expedita distinctio. Nam libero tempore, cum soluta nobis est eligendi optio cumque nihil impedit quo minus id quod maxime placeat facere possimus, omnis voluptas assumenda est, omnis dolor repellendus. Itaque earum rerum hic tenetur a sapiente delectus, ut aut reiciendis voluptatibus maiores alias consequatur aut perferendis doloribus asperiores repellat.

Join Brainly to access

this expert answer


To see the expert answer you'll need to create a free account at Brainly

this is hard.
The first thing you need to do is transform these statements into statements using propositional logic: \[p = \text{cat has claws}\]\[q = \text{cat can scratch furniture}\] 1) \(\neg p \implies \neg q\) 2) \(q \implies p\) 3) \(p \implies q\) Since 1 & 2 are contrapositions of each other, therefore they are logically equivalent. However 3 is not equivalent to 1 or 2. Therefore I would say the answer is \(a\)
To be more specific the converse of a statement is not logically equivalent to the statement.

Not the answer you are looking for?

Search for more explanations.

Ask your own question

Other answers:

So to be clear p->q does not imply q->p
Do you understand?
heck no!!!
saifoo not funny!
Here, I will explain. Lets look at these two statements: \[p=\text{"it is raining"}\]\[q=\text{"i am getting wet"}\] Suppose \(p \implies q\) If it is raining, then I am getting wet. Is that the same as \(q \implies p\)? If I am getting wet then it is raining. The answer is clearly no. Do you understand so far?
You could be getting wet, even when it is not raining (shower for instance).
saifoo not funny!
okay i get that part!
So we've established that \(p \implies q\) does not necessarily mean \(q \implies p\). However, as I have stated before. I have made the claim that if \(p \implies q\) then \(\neg q \implies \neg p\). So \(p \implies q\) is If it is raining then I am getting wet. Is that the same as \(\neg q \implies \neg p\) If I am not getting wet, then it is not raining. Well we have stated that if it is raining then I am getting wet. So if I am not getting wet then it is not raining, or the first implication would not hold. Do you see how these two are logically equivalent?
yes i understand now!
So now apply this to the original problem. Do you see how only the first two statements about the cat are logically equivalent?
saifoo not funny!
so what is my awser
Well look at the choices. What do you think is the correct answer?
A sound reasonable!
Yes, A is the correct answer.
so how wouldi right this!
I suggest you read about contrapositive and converse statements.
Once you fully understand those two concepts, it will be immediately clear that only 1 & 2 are equivalent.

Not the answer you are looking for?

Search for more explanations.

Ask your own question