∴ You are intemperate.
It would seem that the major premise is a logical disjunctive, since temperate and intemperate indicate that the alternatives are mutually exclusive and the enumeration complete. And since the minor premise denies one alternative while the conclusion affirms the other, we may infer that the argument is valid.
(3) If a man is honest, he will either pay his debts or explain; but this fellow paid no heed to the repeated notifications.
Arranged logically.
If a man is honest, he will pay his debts; and if he is honest, he will explain in case he cannot pay,
This man neither paid his debt, nor explained,
∴ This man is not honest.
This is a simple destructive dilemma, and since the minor premise denies the consequents it is valid.
(4) A voter must either favor protection or free trade; and since you do not favor protection, you must be a free trader. The disjunctive is not logical as one might believe in universal reciprocity. The argument is, therefore, invalid. Why?
(5) If a man were loyal, he would not be unduly critical; and if he were wise, he would not be too loquacious; but I find this clerk has been both unduly critical and too loquacious; hence I consider that he has been not only unwise but strikingly disloyal.