Determine which of the standard argument forms matches the following argument and indicate whether or not this is a valid argument. "You must eat well or you will not be healthy. I eat well therefore I am healthy." This is an example of square (B) and this argument is therefore Select an answer square

The argument presented is:<br /><br />1. "You must eat well or you will not be healthy."<br />2. "I eat well, therefore I am healthy."<br /><br />To determine the standard form of this argument, let's break it down into logical components:<br /><br />- Let \( E \) represent "I eat well."<br />- Let \( H \) represent "I am healthy."<br /><br />The first statement can be interpreted as a conditional: "If you do not eat well, then you will not be healthy." In logical terms, this can be expressed as:<br /><br />\[ \neg E \rightarrow \neg H \]<br /><br />This is logically equivalent to:<br /><br />\[ H \rightarrow E \]<br /><br />The second statement is:<br /><br />"I eat well, therefore I am healthy."<br /><br />This can be represented as:<br /><br />\[ E \rightarrow H \]<br /><br />Now, let's analyze the argument structure:<br /><br />1. Premise 1: \( H \rightarrow E \)<br />2. Premise 2: \( E \)<br />3. Conclusion: \( H \)<br /><br />This argument does not match any standard valid argument forms such as Modus Ponens, Modus Tollens, Disjunctive Syllogism, etc. Instead, it seems to be an example of affirming the consequent, which is a formal fallacy.<br /><br />Affirming the consequent takes the form:<br /><br />1. If \( P \), then \( Q \).<br />2. \( Q \).<br />3. Therefore, \( P \).<br /><br />In this case, the argument is invalid because eating well (\( E \)) does not necessarily guarantee being healthy (\( H \)), as there could be other factors affecting health.<br /><br />Therefore, the answer is:<br /><br />This is an example of **affirming the consequent**, and this argument is therefore **invalid**.