Rewrite the following arguments using letters to represent the terms, reduce the number of terms and put the arguments in to standard form. Then test the new forms with Venn diagrams or by means of the five rules for syllogisms to determine the validity or invalidity of the original arguments.
1. Some foreign emissaries are persons without diplomatic immunity, so some persons invulnerable to arrest and prosecution are foreign emissaries, because no persons with diplomatic immunity are persons vulnerable to arrest and prosecution.

P2 affirms P1 and the conclusion is in the same direction.

P1--->P2--->C

This argument is valid.

Step-by-step explanation: using the syllogism rules.

Premises 1 (P1) = Some foreign emissaries are persons without diplomatic immunity,

Premises 2 (P2) = so some persons invulnerable to arrest and prosecution are foreign emissaries

Conclusion (C) = because no persons with diplomatic immunity are persons vulnerable to arrest and prosecution.

From the argument:

P1 uses "some", that means it's not "all" foreign emissaries person that does not have diplomatic immunity. This means that some other foreign emissaries have diplomatic immunity

P2 uses "some", that means it's affirms to that part of P1 which states that some foreign emissaries have diplomatic immunity.

The conclusion is valid because the part of P2 which states that some foreign emissaries are vulnerable to arrest, which affirms with P1 which states that Some foreign emissaries are persons without diplomatic immunity. That means no persons with diplomatic immunity are persons vulnerable to arrest and prosecution. This conclusion literally means that if you don't have diplomatic immunity, you are vulnerable to arrest and prosecution.

Therefore;

P2 affirms P1 and the conclusion is in the same direction.

P1--->P2--->C

This argument is valid.

⊂⊃⊂⊃ω

step-by-step explanation:

i hope this : )