@BreanaNunez Hi! I don't think is argument is valid.

Premise 1: If one is relaxing, they're watching tv. (Translation: If r -> tv)

Premise 2: Bre is watching TV. (Translation: B^TV)

You can't conclude that Bre is relaxing because watching TV is the necessary condition of the first premise or the "superset". This means that there are many other states that Bre or anyone could be in based on the first premise.

Another way to think about it is to think like this:

Premise 1: If one is in New York City, they're in the United States.

Premise 2: Bre is in the United States.

Based on the above logic, the conclusion would be: Bre is in New York. HOWEVER, we know that based on the premises/logic, Bre could be anywhere in the United States not just in New York.

To make the argument valid you would have to change the second premise to "Bre is in New York City" and then conclude "Bre is in the United States".

With the original argument, the same logic follows. You would have to change the second premise to "Bre is relaxing" and the conclusion to "therefore, Bre is watching TV" to make it logically sound.

You could also alter the first premise to say, "if one is watching TV, they're relaxing". Then the argument would be valid as it is.

I hope this helps!