Modus tollens is the valid rule that allows us to infer the negation of the antecedent from a conditional and the negation of its consequent. In symbolic form, from P β Q and Β¬Q we conclude Β¬P. This pattern preserves validity, because if P had been true, Q would have had to be true as well, so the falsity of Q forces the falsity of P.
Option A:
Option A is modus ponens, which affirms the antecedent to derive the consequent, a different valid pattern.
Option B:
Option B commits the fallacy of denying the antecedent, which is not generally valid.
Option C:
Option C correctly captures the modus tollens form, using the falsity of the consequent to infer the falsity of the antecedent.
Option D:
Option D is the fallacy of affirming the consequent, which is invalid in general.
Comment Your Answer
Please login to comment your answer.
Sign In
Sign Up
Answers commented by others
No answers commented yet. Be the first to comment!