In Philosophy: What do you think would be the correct translation of the following argument into symbolic form? You can copy and paste the symbols from here as needed: ~ · ∨ ⊃ ≡

If the Mitchells get a divorce, they will live separately in poverty; but if they stay married, they will live together in misery. Since they must either get a divorce or stay married, they will either live separately in poverty or together in misery.

What do your intuitions tell you about this argument form? Is it valid or invalid? And if valid, do you think it is sound? (Soundness means it is valid and has all true premises)

Toss some ideas around. 

In the real world, feldman learned to settle for less than 95 percent. he came to consider a company “honest” if its payment rate was above 90 percent. he considered a rate between 80 and 90 percent “annoying but tolerable.” if a company habitually paid below 80 percent, feldman might post a hectoring note, like this one: the cost of bagels has gone up dramatically since the beginning of the year. unfortunately, the number of bagels that disappear without being paid for has also gone up. don’t let that continue. i don’t imagine that you would teach your children to cheat, so why do it yourselves? the excerpt serves as which type of support for the authors’ argument? a claim an example a conclusion a counterclaim