Question 5

Explanation

Let's analyze the premises provided in the problem using mathematical logic:

• $P$: Budi diligently practices cycling.
• $Q$: Budi can cycle for long distances.
• $R$: Budi can win a bicycle race.

The given statements are:

1. If $P$, then $Q$ ($P \rightarrow Q$).
2. If $Q$, then $R$ ($Q \rightarrow R$).
3. Fact: Today Budi cannot cycle for long distances ($\sim Q$).

To draw a conclusion, we focus on the relationship between the first premise ($P \rightarrow Q$) and the existing fact ($\sim Q$). We can use the Modus Tollens rule:

The conclusion is $\sim P$ (the negation of $P$). Since $P$ is "Budi diligently practices cycling", then $\sim P$ is "Budi does not diligently practice cycling".

Although one might argue for $\sim R$ (Budi cannot win) if $\sim Q$ were an absolute condition, in formal logic, Modus Tollens on the first premise provides the most direct and certain conclusion regarding the cause.