9.1 All possible except the second situation.

9.2.a False.

9.2.b False

9.2.C True.

9.2.d True.

9.2.e False.

9.2.f True.

9.2.g False. False premises in a valid argument can give a true conclusion.

9.2.h False.

9.2.i True.

9.2.) True.

9.2.k True.

9.3.a Not valid.

9.3.b Not valid.

9.3.C Not valid. Maybe Angelo is not the only cheap restaurant.

9.3.d Valid.

9.3.e Not valid.

9.3.f Not valid.

9.3.g Not valid.

9.3.h Not valid.

9.4 There are lots of things we might say about this passage. But in light of what we have
discussed in the chapter, one point that is of special relevance is that embracing nonduality
seems to be self-refuting. To embrace non-duality rather than duality is to make a
distinction, and this is inconsistent with giving up all distinctions!

9.5 When we say "If P then Q. Q. Therefore P." is not a pattern of valid argument, we are
saying that not every argument ofthat form is valid. But this does not rule out the possibility
that some arguments ofthat form are indeed valid—for example, when Q is identical to P,
we have "If P then P. P. Therefore P." This is circular but valid. Compare the situation with
modus ponens, in which every argument of the the same form is valid.