Question section of logical reasoning review

@chris_va, Could you specify which lecture are you referring to? The argument in question has the following structure: If P then Q Q _________ Therefore, P you can also use notation with arrows: P->Q Q _____ P If a person is red/green colorblind (P) they cannot distinguish between brown and green (Q). G cannot distinguish between green-brown (Q) Therefore, G is red/green colorblind (Q) The fallacy in the argument is known as affirming the consequent, making it invalid. Let's compare it to the answer choices: (A) If P (fair-skinned) then Q (sunburn) P (fair-skinned) Therefore, Q (sunburn) This is a valid argument. (B) If P (sinusitis) then Q (lose sense of smell) Q(lose sense of smell) Therefore, P (sinusitis) Bingo. This argument commits the exact same fallacy as the one in the stimulus. (C) If P (jaundice) then not Q (donor) Q (donor) Therefore, not P (not jaundice) This is also a valid argument. (D) If P (color-blind) then not Q (pilot) P (color-blind) Therefore, not Q (not a pilot) This is again a valid argument. (E) If P (diabetic) then not Q (large amounts of sugar) P (diabetic) Therefore, R (modified diet) This is an invalid argument but it is structurally different from the stimulus. Does this help? Let me know if you have any other questions.