Question 23 0 / 3 pts What conclusion (line 3) can you validly get from line 1 and/or 2? Choose AS MANY AS apply. 1.[(X -->Y) & (Z v Q)] v (R -->W) 2. ~[(X -- > Y) & (Z v Q)] 3. Z v Q 2 simplification This is wrong because you cannot apply simplification to ~ ((X -->Y) & (Z v Q)) because Z v Q is inside the parentheses. If the statement was without the negation, such as (X -->Y) & (Z v Q), you can simplify any one of the conjuncts. O W 1 modus ponens R 1, 2 disjunctive syllogism R --> W. 1, 2 disjunctive syllogism