This type of reasoning is known as modus tollens (the mode that denies). All fish, for example, have scales. This salmon is a kind of fish. As a result, this fish possesses scales.

- What is the modus tollens example?
- What is the modus tollens rule?
- Is modus tollens a fallacy?
- What is the difference between modus tollens and denying the antecedent?
- Which is the tautology form of the modus tollens rule?
- Why is modus tollens valid?
- How do you identify modus Ponens?
- What is the universal modus tollens?

Modus tollens is a valid argument form in propositional calculus in which and are propositions. If it is inferred and untrue, it is false. It is also known as a contrapositive proof or an indirect proof. For example, if being the king entails wearing a crown, not wearing a crown entails not being the king. Therefore, not being the king is true if and only if the king isn't wearing a crown.

Use the modus tollens rule to prove or disprove claims about things such as animals, plants, and objects that exist now or have existed in the past. For example, if someone claims that no animals live beyond **their natural lifespan**, they use evidence from scientists who have studied animals for many years to prove their claim by applying the modus tollens rule. First, they would conclude that because animals live longer than their natural lifespan, there must be something that kills them. Second, they would conclude that since there is something that kills them, then there cannot be any other thing or action that preserves their life forever. Finally, they would conclude that since there is no way for animals to preserve their lives forever, then animals must die when they reach their natural lifespan.

This argument is also useful for decisions about **possible future events**. If I were to claim that there is no way for animals to fly, you could use **this argument** to prove that I'm wrong. First, you would conclude that since animals can fly, there must be something that allows them to do so.

Modus tollens (/'[email protected]'talenz/), also known as modus tollendo tollens (Latin for "mode that by denying denies") and rejecting the consequent, is a deductive argument form and an inference rule in propositional logic. Justification using a truth table.

p | q | p → q |
---|---|---|

T | F | F |

F | T | T |

F | F | T |

Modus tollens is a legitimate argument form, much like **modus ponens**, because the truth of the premises ensures the validity of the conclusion. Denying the antecedent, like affirming the consequent, is an invalid argument form since the validity of the premises does not ensure the truth of the conclusion. For example, if we were to deny the antecedent of this argument, we would be saying that anyone who can walk can run. This seems counter-intuitive since we know that some people cannot walk due to physical limitations. Therefore, denying the antecedent of this argument would lead to a false conclusion.

Modus tollens is used when answering questions with multiple choices or answers. For example, if given two choices for solving a problem, we could use modus tollens to determine which answer choice is correct. Modus tollens allows us to eliminate **one option** in order to find the correct answer. For example, if given the options "Mary walks to school," "John drives to school" and asked which one Mary goes to school by, we could use modus tollens to determine that it must be the first option since she cannot walk to school and drive at **the same time**. Thus, we know that Mary goes to school by walking.

Denying the antecedent is used when there are no possible answers other than all of them or none of them.

Modus tollens (/'[email protected]'talenz/), also known as modus tollendo tollens (Latin for "mode that by denying denies") and rejecting the consequent, is a deductive argument form and an inference rule in propositional logic. The modus tollens is expressed as "If P, then Q.... Justification using a truth table.

p | q | p → q |
---|---|---|

F | F | T |

It is an application of **the basic principle** that if a statement is true, then its inverse is also true. The form demonstrates that inference from P entails Q, and negation of Q implies negation of P is a valid argument. This means that invalid arguments such as "All dogs are mortal. Therefore, all cats are not mortal" can sometimes be refuted by following the pattern of modus tollens.

Here is how they are constructed:

- Modus Ponens: “If A is true, then B is true. A is true. Therefore, B is true.”
- Modus Tollens: “If A is true, then B is true. B is not true. Therefore, A is not true.”

The Tollens Modus Universalis Proof by contradiction—showing an argument is flawed by providing an example where the argument causes a contradiction—can be one of **the simplest ways** to prove or refute an argument. This proof method can be used with **any form** of argument, not just logical arguments such as **analytic proofs** and syntactic proofs.

In formal logic, a truth table is a tool used by logicians to examine the validity of arguments and their conclusions by applying each possible combination of values for the multiple variables involved in the argument. Such arguments can be either valid or invalid. If an argument is invalid, there must be at least one case where it leads to a contradiction. The universal modus tollens proof method involves finding this contradiction and showing that it cannot be escaped. Since all contradictions can be reduced to the form "A!= A", this proof method can be applied to show any argument is invalid.

For example, suppose we want to prove that no person can walk across the Atlantic Ocean in less than 20 days.