HINT
We have to rewrite 1) as :
"Only if John chops down the tree, will he be a lumberjack"
as :
if John will be a lumberjack, then he chops down the tree.
This one has the "logical form" : $p \rightarrow q$; thus, its converse ($q \rightarrow p$) will be :
if John chops down the tree, then he will be a lumberjack,
while its contrapositive ($\lnot q \rightarrow \lnot p$)will be :
if John does not chop down the tree, then he will not be a lumberjack.
For 2), we simply have :
if you don't fight, then you can't win.
Thus, converse and contrapositive must be straightforward.
For 3), assuming that we have to "analyze" it without predicate logic, I agree with you :
if a person roots for the Ducks, then he is from Oregon.
Again, having reduced it to the standard "logical form" : $p \rightarrow q$, we have only to apply the above formulae to get converse and contrapositive.
contrapositive If john is not a lumberjack, then he did not cut down the tree.
Converse If you don't fight, then you can't win. Contrapositive If you do fight, then you can win.
Converse If person is from Oregon then they root for the Ducks.
If person is not from Oregon, then they dont root for the Ducks.
are these correct?
– MD_90 Jan 24 '15 at 15:52