It is given that if for all in , then has no stationary point in . A student concludes: *' has no stationary point in , so for all in .'* What is wrong with this argument?
Answer and explanation
Correct answer: A. It uses the converse: with no stationary point, could be negative throughout the interval
- Step 1: The given statement is with : ' on ' and : 'no stationary point'. The student argues , the converse.
- Step 2: Counterexample: has no stationary point but .
Answer
It uses the converse: with no stationary point, could be negative throughout the interval.
Why not the others: The conclusion does not follow by contrapositive: the contrapositive of the given statement is 'if has a stationary point then is not positive throughout'. A function with no stationary point need not be constant (for example ), and functions with never have stationary points, so the given statement is not false.
Practise more Valid and invalid arguments.
Free questions with an explanation for every one, and full timed TMUA mock tests.
More Valid and invalid arguments questions
- Which of the following arguments is valid?
- Which of the following arguments is invalid?
- A student argues: 'All prime numbers greater than 2 are odd. The number 15 is odd. Therefore 15 is prime.' What is wrong with this argumen…
- A student argues: 'If a triangle is equilateral then it is isosceles. This triangle is not equilateral. Therefore it is not isosceles.' Wh…
- A student solves as follows: *'Factorising, . So or , giving or .'* What is w…