Correction in statement A:
- This is obvious that it is not necessarily false since both F1 and F2 are contingency, F1∨F2 is a contingency.
Since $F_1, F_2$ both are contingency, So, $F_1 \vee F_2$ may be contingency, but it is Not necessary that $F_1 \vee F_2$ will definitely be contingency. For example, Let $F_1 = P, F_2 = \neg P,$ here, $F_1 \vee F_2 $ is Tautology, not contingency.
Correction in statement B:
- F1∨F2 is tautology is not necessarily false because conside the situation where either of F1 or F2 is true when other is false. This will give F1∨F2 a tautology.
Since $F_1, F_2$ both are contingency, So, $F_1 \vee F_2$ may be Tautology, but it is Not necessary that $F_1 \vee F_2$ will definitely be a Tautology. For example, Let $F_1 = P, F_2 = \neg P,$ here, $F_1 \vee F_2 $ is Tautology, but if $F_1 = P, F_2 = P,$ here, $F_1 \vee F_2 $ is Not Tautology.
Another example, $F_1 = P\vee Q, F_2 = P \rightarrow Q,$ here, $F_1 \vee F_2 $ is Tautology