S1 : (p’ $\wedge$ (p V q)) → q $\equiv$ (p’ $\wedge$ q) → q
Approach 1 (Intuition based) :- Given p is false and q is true, from this info we can infer that q is true. So, S1 is valid argument.
Approach 2 (Formula based) :- (p’ $\wedge$ q) → q $\equiv$ (p’ $\wedge$ q)’ V q $\equiv$ p V q’ V q $\equiv$ True. So, tautology.
S2 : q → (p’ $\wedge$ (p V q)) $\equiv$ q → (p’ $\wedge$ q)
Approach 1 (Intuition based) :- Given q is true, from this info we can not infer that p is false and q is true. So, S1 is invalid argument.
Approach 2 (Formula based) :- q → (p’ $\wedge$ q) $\equiv$ q’ V (p’ $\wedge$ q) $\equiv$ (q’ V p’) $\wedge$ (q’ V q) $\equiv$ (q’ V p’). So, not tautology.