I’m working on a philosophy question and need an explanation and answer to help me learn.
For each of the following hypothetical syllogisms, indicate whether it is valid or
invalid and then the reason why (Modus Ponens, Modus Tollens, Affirming the Consequent, Denying
the Antecedent). For example, a proper answer would look like this: Invalid; Affirming the
1.If everyone in the country drank red wine daily, then the red wine industry would be booming. The
red wine industry is booming. So, everyone in the country is drinking red wine daily.
2. If the president of the United States is a warlock, then he can cast spells. The president of the
United States is a warlock. It follows that he can cast spells.
3. If it is raining, then the ground is wet.It is not raining, so the ground is not wet.
4. If you are Cuyamaca College campus right now, then you are in Rancho San Diego, and you’re not in
Rancho San Diego, so you must not be on Cuyamaca College campus right now.
5. If Paris Hilton is the Vice President, then Lindsay Lohan is the Secretary of Defense, hence Lindsay
Lohan actually is the Secretary of Defense, since Paris Hilton is the Vice President.
6.That thing must be a mammal because it is a tiger, and if it is a mammal then it is a tiger.
7. He must not have gotten a sunburn because it wasn’t sunny outside, and if it was sunny outside,
then he would have gotten a sunburn.
8. If Greg studies hard, then he will excel in school. Since he studied hard, he must have excelled in
9. Justin Timberlake must make movies because he makes records, and if he makes movies then he
10. If Kristin Stewart is a good actress, then Jessica’s Schnauzers are air traffic controllers. Jessica’s
Schnauzers are not air traffic controllers, so Kristin Stewart must not be a good actress.