Modus Ponens, Modus Tollens, and Hypothetical Syllogism are all valid argument forms in propositional logic.

This is an example of Modus Ponens, a valid argument form. Since the premise 'It is raining' is true, and the rule of Modus Ponens allows us to infer the conclusion 'The grass is wet'.

A dilemma argument presents two or more unappealing alternatives, forcing a choice between them. In this case, the two alternatives are 'study hard' and 'fail the exam'.

Affirming the consequent is a fallacy that occurs when someone mistakenly infers the truth of the antecedent from the truth of the consequent. In this case, the argument incorrectly concludes that 'all dogs are animals' based on the true statements 'all dogs are mammals' and 'all mammals are animals'.

These statements are all logically equivalent because they convey the same meaning. They express the conditional relationship between 'raining' and 'grass being wet'.

The argument presents a choice between two alternatives: 'go to the party' and 'stay home'. Since going to the party leads to having fun, and staying home leads to being bored, the conclusion is that you should go to the party.

A hypothetical syllogism is a type of argument that consists of a hypothetical premise and a categorical premise, followed by a conclusion. In this case, the hypothetical premise is 'Either you study hard or you fail the exam', the categorical premise is 'You studied hard', and the conclusion is 'Therefore, you will pass the exam'.

Denying the antecedent is a fallacy that occurs when someone mistakenly infers the falsity of the antecedent from the falsity of the consequent. In this case, the argument incorrectly concludes that 'you didn't study hard' based on the true statements 'if you don't study hard, you will fail the exam' and 'you failed the exam'.

These statements are all logically equivalent because they convey the same meaning. They express the negation of the conjunction of 'A' and 'B'.

The argument presents a choice between two alternatives: 'save money' and 'spend money'. Since saving money leads to financial security in the future, and spending money leads to enjoying the present moment, the conclusion is that you should find a balance between the two.

Modus tollens is a type of argument that consists of a conditional premise, a negation of the consequent, and a conclusion. In this case, the conditional premise is 'Either you study hard or you fail the exam', the negation of the consequent is 'You didn't study hard', and the conclusion is 'Therefore, you failed the exam'.

Denying the antecedent is a fallacy that occurs when someone mistakenly infers the falsity of the antecedent from the falsity of the consequent. In this case, the argument incorrectly concludes that 'it cannot be a swan' based on the true statements 'all swans are white' and 'I saw a black bird'.

These statements are all logically equivalent because they convey the same meaning. They express the conditional relationship between 'A' and 'B'.

The argument presents a choice between two alternatives: 'go to college' and 'get a job'. Since going to college leads to a higher earning potential, and getting a job leads to more work experience, the conclusion is that you should find a way to do both.