Seeking answers to legal logic questions

First, the answer upstairs is completely correct.

Second, 1. Negative proposition: Either someone has a high fever, he must have pneumonia.

Equivalence reasoning: If someone doesn't have pneumonia, then he must not have a high fever.

Negative proposition: Lisa doesn't like singing and dancing.

Equivalence reasoning: This is not to say that Lin Sha doesn't like singing and dancing.

Negative proposition: it does not mean that the letter will be sent to Beijing or Shanghai.

Equivalence reasoning: that letter is either sent to Beijing or Shanghai.

4. Negative proposition: Not both A and B go to the movies, nor both C and D go to the movies.

Equivalent reasoning: Either A and B go to the movies, or C and D go to the movies.

5. Negative proposition: it is impossible for a person to write a good novel without a certain foundation of life or insufficient written expression ability.

Equivalence reasoning: to write a novel well, you don't have to have a certain life foundation or writing ability.

Third, 1. Deductive reasoning. Reasoning form: hypothetical reasoning, this proposition is valid;

2. Deductive reasoning. Reasoning form: hypothetical reasoning, this proposition is invalid;

3. Deductive reasoning. The form of reasoning: syllogism, which is effective;

4. Deductive reasoning. The form of reasoning: syllogism, which is invalid;

Please correct me if there are any mistakes.