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

  1. Step 1: The given statement is with : ' on ' and : 'no stationary point'. The student argues , the converse.
  2. 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.