Chapter 10 Examples - Further Explanations
Uploaded by
RODENIOUSChapter 10 Examples - Further Explanations
Uploaded by
RODENIOUSChapter 10 Examples
Notation: v = wedge, ~ = tilde, dot = dot, hs = horseshoe Pg. 363 I. 2 For the elementary valid argument, state the rule of inference by which its conclusion follows from its premise or premises. (D v E) dot (F v G), therefore, D v E. Simplification (Simp.)
Pg. 363 II. 2 State the justification for each numbered line that is not a premise in the formal proof of validity for the indicated argument. Solution: 1. (E v F) dot (G v H) 2. (E hs G) dot (F hs H) 3. ~G, therefore, H 4. E v F 5. G v H 6. H
1, Simp. 2,4, C.D. 5,3, D.S.
Explanation of solution: Step by step, we start with the argument: 1. (E v F) dot (G v H) 2. (E hs G) dot (F hs H) 3. ~G, therefore, H Our goal is to get to the conclusion (therefore, H) from the three premises given and using the rules of inference from page 362. We do this by looking carefully at our premises and thinking about our conclusion, we try to find a rule of inference that we can use to make a little argument which will give us an intermediate conclusion which
will become a premise in our proof (line 4). We will keep doing this until we get to our actual conclusion (H), which will be our last line of our proof. (The last line of our proof will always be the conclusion to our argument repeated.) These take practice and many times require trial and error to begin our proof to see if what we try leads us to the conclusion we are seeking. So here, looking at our premises and comparing to the rules of inference, we see that the first line has is of the form p dot q (where p = EvF and q = GvH), so lets try Simplification on line 1 since it has a premise of p dot q. Its conclusion is p. So for our little argument we use line 1 and Simplification and our intermediate conclusion is EvF (which was our p in this step). We write this on line 4. 1. (E v F) dot (G v H) 2. (E hs G) dot (F hs H) 3. ~G, therefore, H 4. E v F
1, Simp.
Now we look to see what we have for premises and compare to the rules of inference to see where we could go next. Looking at line 2, we have (E hs G) dot (F hs H) which looks like the form of the first premise of a Constructive Dilemma. We see that we also have the form of the second premise of the C.D. in line 4, so we can use that to make the intermediate conclusion G v H, which is the form of the conclusion of the C.D. So we write this as line 5 citing lines 2, 4, C.D.
1. (E v F) dot (G v H) 2. (E hs G) dot (F hs H) 3. ~G, therefore, H 4. E v F 5. G v H
1, Simp. 2,4, C.D.
So, now looking at what we have and remembering we are trying to get to the conclusion, H, we see that in line 5 we have G v H, and in line 3 we have ~G. Comparing to our rules of inference, we see that these match the form of the premises of a Disjunctive Syllogism. Its conclusion is q, so our intermediate conclusion which we write on line 6 would be H. Since this is the conclusion we were seeking to prove, we are finished. 1. 2. (E v F) dot (G v H) (E hs G) dot (F hs H)
3. ~G, therefore, H 4. E v F 5. G v H 6. H
1, Simp. 2,4, C.D. 5,3, D.S.
Pg. 363 VI. 2 Construct a formal proof for the argument using abbreviations given. If Adam joins, then the clubs social prestige will rise; and if Baker joins, then the clubs financial position will be more secure. Either Adams or Baker will join. If the clubs social prestige rises, then Baker will join; and if the clubs financial position becomes more secure, then Wilson will join. Therefore either Baker or Wilson will join. (A = Adams joins; S = The clubs social prestige rises; B = Baker joins; F = The clubs financial position is more secure; W = Wilson joins.) 1. (A hs S) dot (B hs F) 2. A v B 3. (S hs B) dot (F hs W) therefore, B v W 4. S v F 5. B v W
1, 2, C.D. 3, 4, C.D.
Pg. 376 I. 2 For the argument, state the rule of inference by which its conclusion follows from its premise. (E hs F) dot (G hs ~H) therefore, (~E v F) dot (G hs ~H) Material Implication (Impl.)
Pg. 376 V. 2 Construct a formal proof of validity for the following argument.
1. C, therefore, D hs C. 2. C v ~D 3. ~D v C 4. D hs C
1, Add. 2, Com. 3, Impl.
Pg. 387 2 Prove the invalidity by the method of assigning truth values. ~(E dot F) (~E dot ~F) hs (G dot H) H hs G therefore, G EFGH TFFF or FTFF
Pg. 398 I. 2 (pg. 344 II. 2) We try to assign truth values such that the premises will be made true (T), and the conclusion will be made false (F). If such assignments result in an unavoidable inconsistency, the argument is proved valid. 1. (C v D) hs (C dot D) 2. C dot D therefore, C v D Valid. To make premise 2 T, both C and D must be T. But to make the conclusion F, either C or D must be F. An inconsistent assignment is unavoidable. Absurd.
