"If a number is an integer, then it is a whole number." In math terms, the converse of p-->q is q-->p. Note that although the statement in the problem is true, the converse that I just stated is not necessarily true.
This problem is a copyright violation of the curriculum used by Connections Academy, an online charter school. Students who use this problem and its answers on this website are cheating on their math test. Please remove this problem from your website.
False
Not necessarily. If the statement is "All rectangles are polygons", the converse is "All polygons are rectangles." This converse is not true.
no converse is not true
false
If a triangle is isosceles, then it is equilateral. To find the converse of a conditional, you switch the antecedent ("If ____ ...") and consequent ("... then ____."). (Of course, if not ALL isosceles triangles were equilateral, then the converse would be false.)
false
All four-sided polygons are squares. (False) Squares are all four-sided polygons. (True)
false
Let's take an example.If it is raining (then) the match will be cancelled.A conditional statement is false if and only if the antecedent (it is raining) is true and the consequent (the match will be cancelled) is false. Thus the sample statement will be false if and only if it is raining but the match still goes ahead.By convention, if the antecedent is false (if it isn't raining) then the statement as a whole is considered true regardless of whether the match takes place or not.To recap: if told that the sample statement is false, we can deduce two things: It is raining is a true statement, and the match will be cancelled is a false statement. Also, we know a conditional statement with a false antecedent is always true.The converse of the statement is:If the match is cancelled (then) it is raining.Since we know (from the fact that the original statement is false) that the match is cancelled is false, the converse statement has a false antecedent and, by convention, such statements are always true.Thus the converse of a false conditional statement is always true. (A single example serves to show it's true in all cases since the logic is identical no matter what specific statements you apply it to.)If you are familiar with truth tables, the explanation is much easier. Here is the truth table for A = X->Y (i.e. A is the statement if X then Y) and B = Y->X (i.e. B is the converse statement if Y then X).X Y A BF F T TF F T TT F F TF T T FLooking at the last two rows of the A and B columns, when either of the statements is false, its converse is true.
Look at the statement If 9 is an odd number, then 9 is divisible by 2. The first part is true and second part is false so logically the statement is false. The contrapositive is: If 9 is not divisible by 2, then 9 is not an odd number. The first part is true, the second part is false so the statement is true. Now the converse of the contrapositive If 9 is not an odd number, then 9 is not divisible by two. The first part is false and the second part is true so it is false. The original statement is if p then q,the contrapositive is if not q then not p and the converse of that is if not p then not q
A converse statement is a statement is switched to make the statement true or false. For example, "If it is raining, then we will not go to the beach" would be changed to, "If we go to the beach, then it is not raining."
No. Consider the statement "If I'm alive, then I'm not dead." That statement is true. The converse is "If I'm not dead, then I'm alive.", which is also true.
False
"If a number is an integer, then it is a whole number." In math terms, the converse of p-->q is q-->p. Note that although the statement in the problem is true, the converse that I just stated is not necessarily true.
Converses of a true if-then statement can be true sometimes. For example, you might have "If today is Friday, then tomorrow is Saturday," and "If tomorrow is Saturday, then today is Friday." Both the above conditional statement and its converse are true. However, sometimes a converse can be false, such as: "If an animal is a fish, then it can swim." and "If an animal can swim, it is a fish." The converse is not true, as some animals that can swim (such as otters) are not fish.