Understanding what follows from “Whenever I go in the sun, I get a headache.” Decide which statement is logically entailed by this conditional, without assuming that I actually went in the sun today.

Introduction / Context:
We analyze a everyday-language conditional: “If I go in the sun, then I get a headache.” Symbolically, Sun -> Headache. The question asks what we can conclude from this rule alone, without extra facts about today.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Rule: Sun -> Headache (whenever antecedent holds, consequent follows).
• No assertion that I actually went in the sun.
• No assertion that I currently have or do not have a headache.

Concept / Approach:
From a conditional P -> Q, we may infer Q if P happens (modus ponens). But unless we are told P is true, we cannot assert Q. Nor can we infer P from Q (that would be affirming the consequent). We also cannot infer not Q from not P (denying the antecedent).

Step-by-Step Solution:

Verification / Alternative check:
Construct scenarios: If I did not go in the sun but have a headache (for other reasons), the rule still holds. If I went in the sun and got a headache, it holds. The rule does not fix what happens when I do not go in the sun.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:

• “I went in sun so I have headache now.” Not supported; we are not told I went out.
• “I didn’t go in sun so I don’t have headache now.” Denying the antecedent—invalid.
• “I’m feeling headache so I went in sun.” Affirming the consequent—invalid.

Common Pitfalls:
Confusing sufficient with necessary conditions. “Sun” is sufficient for “headache”, not necessary.

Final Answer:
None of these.