handout (Feb 14)

Sentential Logic: Truth Tables (cont)

Truth table test for validity

(1 & 2 are from last handout)

1. 1. r p
2. p (q & r)
3. r / q

(remark: from now on, we write the conclusion, signified by the symbol in the last
line, that is next to the last premise, and it is also preceded by a slash / to keep the
premise and the conclusion separate.

2.
S: B: F:
S (~B&~F), B&F ~S

3. an invalid example

material implication
The key part of meaning shared by all conditional sentences is as follows:
if the antecedent (p in pq) is true and its consequent (q in pq) false, then the whole
conditional sentence is false.

compare pq to ~(p & ~q) with the truth table method

1
 handout (Feb 14)

Valid Forms for Sentential Logic (I): Valid Argument Forms of Inference

Note: When you are asked to prove an argument in our test and exam, only the rules (a total
of 18 rules) and scheme taught in the class must be used to do the proof. Other rules or
schemes will not be counted, that is, no mark will be given.

1. Modus Ponens (MP)

pq
p / q

2. Modus Tolens (MT)

pq
~q / ~p

Two related formal fallacies:

a. affirming the consequent b. denying the antecedent
pq pq
q / p ~p / ~q

3. Disjunctive Syllogism (DS)

pq pq
~p / q ~q / p

4. Hypothetical Syllogism (HS)

pq
q r / p r

An example
1. A B
2. C D
3. A C
4. ~D / B

2
 handout (Feb 14)

5. Simplification (Simp)
p & q / p
p & q / q

6. Conjunction (Conj)
p
q / p & q

An example
1. A & B
2. B C / A & C

7. Addition (Add)
p / p q

An example
1. A & C / (A E) & (C D)

8. Constructive Dilemma (CD)

pq
pr
qs / r s

Two remarks:

1. These eight argument forms work in one direction only.

2. You must apply these forms to entire lines only, never to parts of line. For instance, you
are not allowed to apply Simplification (Simp) to (A & B) C so as to get A C.

3
 handout (Feb 14)

Appendix 1
A more detailed explanation on a longer (but not difficult?) example.
For students confident enough, you could work on it as an exercise and check with my
explanation later.

1. (~A B) L
2. ~B
3. A B
4. L (~R D)
5. ~D & (R F) / (L G) & ~R

First of all, see what we could do with the existing premises. Lets start with line 1 which
could be linked with line 4 by HS.

6. (~A B) (~R D) 1,4 HS

Moreover, lines 2 and 3 are useful.

7. ~A 2, 3 MT

Line 5 is a conjunction and we could simplify it so the conjuncts could be useful later.

8. ~D 5 Simp
9. R F 5 Simp

It seems that were stuck here. But dont forget Add which could generate something new. But
also remember that what you generate should be useful. With an eye on line 6, which is a
conditional with two compound sentences, it would be useful to get its consequent, which
might be further broken down into a simple sentence.

10. ~A B 7 Add
11. ~R D 6, 10 MP

Have a look at the conclusion, which is a conjunction (L G) & ~R. Is it possible to get (L
G) and ~R separately so we could use Conjunction to link up them? ~R is already here.

12. ~R 8, 11 DS

Moreover, we notice that G is nowhere to be seen in the premises at all, it tells you that we
could use L and Add to produce (L G). L is already here.

13. L 1, 10 MP
14. L G 13 Add
15. (L G) & ~R 12, 14 Conj

4
 handout (Feb 14)

Appendix 2
A Summary of the Valid Implication Argument Forms (rules of inference)

1. Modus Ponens (MP)

pq
p / q

2. Modus Tolens (MT)

pq
~q / ~p

3. Disjunctive Syllogism (DS)

pq pq
~p / q ~q / p

4. Hypothetical Syllogism (HS)

pq
q r / p r

5. Simplification (Simp)
p & q / p
p & q / q

6. Conjunction (Conj)
p
q / p & q

7. Addition (Add)
p / p q

8. Constructive Dilemma (CD)

pq
pr
q s / r s

5
 handout (Feb 14)

References

1. Hurley (2012) Chapter 7 Natural Deduction in Propositional Logic Sections 7.1 and 7.2
Rules of Implication I and Rules of Implication II
Note: It is much detailed and with lots of exercises. It is nice to work on some of them
(about 3-4 questions).

2. Since the system of rules used in Critical Thinking Web (http://philosophy.hku.hk/think/)

is different from the one we discuss, so it is only of indirect interest to us.
Note: The principles behind the two systems are similar, but the notations and rules are
different.

Exercises

1. For truth table method. You could try to use truth-table to prove the validity of the eight
argument forms we discuss here.

2. To increase the level of difficulty, you could replace the variables p, q, r and s by
a b, c d, e & f and g h respectively.
That is, instead of proving
pq
~q / ~q
You could work on
(a b) (c d)
~(c d) / ~(a b)
Note: for an argument containing four variables (a, b, c and d), you will be required to
write 24 lines, that is 16 lines. No need to challenge more unless you are really interested
in doing so.

3. For natural deduction, the example in Appendix 1 could be proved in 13 steps. The rules
are already included in those we discuss today. Try it.
1. (~A B) L
2. ~B
3. A B
4. L (~R D)
5. ~D & (R F) / (L G) & ~R

6
 handout (Feb 14)

Appendix

Portia and her caskets (II)

Gold casket
My portrait is not inside the Silver casket.

Silver casket
My portrait is not here.

Lead casket
My portrait is here.