Module 8 General Mathematics

General Mathematics 1st Trimester, S.Y.
2020-2021
Governor Pack Road, Baguio City, Philippines 2600
Tel. Nos.: (+6374) 442-3316, 442-8220; 444-2786;
442-2564; 442-8219; 442-8256; Fax No.: 442-6268 Grade Level/Section: Grade 11
Email: email@uc-bcf.edu.ph; Website: www.uc-bcf.edu.ph
MODULE 8 – Gen Math Subject Teacher:
Argument, Fallacies, and Methods of proof and disproof

Objectives:
At the end of the module, the learner should be able to:

a. illustrates different types of tautologies and fallacies;
b. determines the validity of categorical syllogisms;
c. establishes the validity and falsity of real-life arguments using logical propositions, syllogisms,
and fallacies;
d. illustrates the different methods of proof (direct and indirect) and disproof (indirect and by
counterexample); and
e. justifies mathematical and real-life statements using the different methods of proof and
disproof.
Preliminary Activities: Answer the logical puzzle below:

Amy, Jim, John, and Kelly are standing on the east bank of a river and wish to cross to the west
side using a canoe. The canoe can hold at most two people at a time. Amy, being the most athletic,
can row across the river in 1 minute. Jim, John, and Kelly would take 2, 5, and 10 minutes,
respectively. If two people are in the canoe, the slower person dictates the crossing time. The
objective is for all people to be on the other side of the river in the shortest period of time. What is the
shortest possible time to cross the river?
Answer: 17 minutes
LESSON PROPER:
ARGUMENTS AND PATTERNS OF REASONING
Logical thinking gives the individual an opportunity to reflect in his mind the objective reality,
processes, objects, events, cases, objects and their originality, the ability to reflect the important
connections and the relationships between them in the form of ideas, concepts and discussion
(problems of scientific hypotheses, theories) (Shirmatov, S, 2015). The most important thing is that they
acquire the skills of finding a fundamental fact in dealing with any arguments, issues or problems and
learn to distinguish, understand and appreciate the logical framework.
In logic, an argument is formed when we try to connect bits of evidence (premises) in a way
that will force the audience to draw a desired conclusion.
A traditional form of argument involving two premises and a single conclusion is known as
categorical syllogism.
Consider these two arguments (categorical syllogism), such as a prosecutor might present to a jury:
1. The person who robbed the Mini-Mart drives a Toyota Tercel. Gomer drives a Toyota
Tercel. Therefore, Gomer robbed the Mini-Mart.
2. The person who drank my coffee left this fingerprint on the cup. Gomer is the only person
in the world who has this fingerprint. Therefore, Gomer is the person who drank my coffee.
One of these arguments is convincing, and one is not. Why?
Page 1 of 12
General Mathematics 1st Trimester, S.Y. 2020-2021
Tel. Nos.: (+6374) 442-3316, 442-8220; 444-2786;
1. The person who robbed the Mini-Mart drives a Toyota Tercel. Gomer drives a Toyota Tercel.
Therefore, Gomer robbed the Mini-Mart.
Evidence (premises):
A. The person who robbed the Mini-Mart drives a Toyota Tercel.
B. Gomer drives a Toyota Tercel.
Desired conclusion:
Therefore, Gomer robbed the Mini-Mart.
2. The person who drank my coffee left this fingerprint on the cup. Gomer is the only person in
the world who has this fingerprint. Therefore, Gomer is the person who drank my coffee.
Evidence (premises):
A. The person who drank my coffee left this fingerprint on the cup.
B. Gomer is the only person in the world who has this fingerprint.
Desired conclusion:
Therefore, Gomer is the person who drank my coffee.
Based on the premises and conclusions that were laid out, statement 2 is more valid
argument than statement 1.
Notice that in the first argument given above, even if the jury believes all of the
evidence, they don't necessarily have to believe the conclusion (because there are
many people besides Gomer who drive a Toyota Tercels). That is what makes the first
argument invalid.
Notice that in the second argument, however, if the jury believes all of the evidence,
then they must accept the conclusion. That is what makes the second argument
valid.
VALID ARGUMENTS
In a well-formulated argument, it should be logically impossible to reject the conclusion if we
accept all of the evidence ("the truth of the premises forces the conclusion to be true;" or "the
conclusion is an inescapable consequence of the premises"). Such an argument is called VALID.
On the other hand:
INVALID ARGUMENTS
An argument is poorly-formed if it is logically possible for the audience to believe all of the
evidence and yet reject the conclusion.
More formally: An argument is said to be INVALID if it is logically possible for the CONCLUSION to be
FALSE even though EVERY PREMISE is assumed to be TRUE.
An argument is valid if the conclusion is true whenever the premises are assumed to be true.
An argument is not valid is said to be invalid argument, also called a fallacy.
Based on the Fundamental Principle of Argumentation, we have the following procedure that can
be used to analyze arguments whose statements can be symbolized with logical connectives:
TECHNIQUE FOR USING TRUTH TABLES TO ANALYZE ARGUMENTS

1. Symbolize (consistently) all of the premises and the conclusion.
2. Make a truth table having a column for each premise and for the conclusion.
3. If there is a row in the truth table where every premise column is true but the conclusion
column is false (a bad row) then the argument is invalid. If there are no bad rows, then the
argument is valid.
Page 2 of 12
Tel. Nos.: (+6374) 442-3316, 442-8220; 444-2786;
EXAMPLE 1. Use a truth table to test the validity of the following argument.
If the apartment is damaged, then the deposit won't be refunded.
The apartment isn't damaged.
Therefore, the deposit will be refunded. Note: The triangular configuration of
dots represents the word "therefore."
Solution:
Also, the symbol ~𝑞 is use to represent
Step 1: Symbolize the argument. the conclusion because of the concept
Let p be the statement "The apartment is damaged." of double negation. Double negation
statement will give us a positive
Let q be the statement "The deposit won't be refunded."
statement.
The argument has this form:

𝑝→𝑞 If the apartment is damaged, then the deposit won't be refunded.
~𝑝 The apartment isn't damaged.
∴ ~𝑞 Therefore, the deposit will be refunded.
Step 2: Make a truth table having a column for each premise and for the conclusion.
PREMISE PREMISE CONCLUSION
p q 𝑝→𝑞 ~𝑝 ~𝑞
T T T F F
T F F F T
F T T T F Bad Row
F F T T T
Step 3: Look for the indication of an INVALID argument (a row where every premise is true while the
conclusion is false).
Notice that in the third row, both premises are true while the conclusion is false; this "bad row" tells us
that the argument is INVALID.
EXAMPLE 2. Use a truth table to test the validity of the following argument.
If I had a hammer, I would hammer in the morning.
I don't hammer in the morning.
Therefore, I don't have a hammer
Solution:
Step 1: Symbolize the argument.
Let p be the statement "I have a hammer."
Let q be the statement "I hammer in the morning."
The argument has this form:

𝑝→𝑞 If I had a hammer, I would hammer in the morning.
~𝑞 I don't hammer in the morning.
∴ ~𝑝 Therefore, I don't have a hammer
Step 2: Make a truth table having a column for each premise and for the conclusion.
PREMISE PREMISE CONCLUSION
p q 𝑝→𝑞 ~𝑞 ~𝑝
T T T F F
T F F T F
F T T F T
F F T T T
Page 3 of 12
Tel. Nos.: (+6374) 442-3316, 442-8220; 444-2786;
Step 3: Look for the indication of an INVALID argument (a row where every premise is true while the
conclusion is false).
Notice that there is NO ROW where the conclusion column is false while both premise columns are
true; the absence of a "bad row" tells us that the argument is VALID.
Try it! Now it’s your turn.

Use a truth table to test the validity of the following argument.
1. If I plant a tree, then I will get dirt under my nails. I didn’t get dirt under my nails. Therefore, I didn’t
plant a tree.
2. If I don’t tie my shoes, then I trip. I didn’t tie my shoes. Hence, I tripped.
COMMON PATTERNS OF REASONING: (Without using the truth table)
1. Contrapositive Reasoning or Modus Tollens.

𝑝 → 𝑞 If p then q.
~𝑞 Not q.
∴ ~𝑝 Therefore not p.
Examples:
Without making a truth table, we know automatically that these are valid arguments:
If it rains, then I won't go out. If you love me, you’ll come with me to Baguio.
I went out. You will not come with me to Baguio.
Therefore, it didn't rain. Therefore, you do not love me.
Make the following argument valid by completing each statement using Modus
Tollens.
If the cake is made with sugar, then the If Sam was born in the Philippines, then he is Filipino.
cake is sweet. Sam is not a Filipino.
_________________________________________ Therefore, __________________________________.
Therefore, the cake is not made with sugar.
2. Fallacy of the Inverse
Generalizing from the result of EXAMPLE 1 above:

“If the apartment is damaged, then the deposit won't be refunded. The apartment isn't
damaged. Therefore, the deposit will be refunded.”, we see that any argument that can be
reduced to the form:
~𝑝 Not p
∴ ~𝑞 Therefore, not q.
will be an invalid argument. This is a common form of invalid reasoning known as Fallacy of
the Inverse.
Examples:
Without making a truth table, we know automatically that these are INVALID arguments:
If you drink Pepsi, then you are happy. All firefighters are courageous.
You don't drink Pepsi. Gomer isn't a firefighter.
Therefore, you aren't happy Thus, Gomer isn't courageous.
Page 4 of 12
Tel. Nos.: (+6374) 442-3316, 442-8220; 444-2786;
Which argument is valid? invalid? Argument 1 is VALID (it is

Contrapositive
Argument 1: Argument 2: Reasoning), whereas
If I get a huge tax refund, If I get a huge tax refund, Argument 2 is INVALID (it is
then I'll buy a Yugo. then I'll buy a Yugo.
Fallacy of the Inverse)
I didn't get a huge tax
I didn't buy a Yugo.
refund.
Therefore, I didn't get a Therefore, I didn't buy a
huge tax refund. Yugo.
3. Direct Reasoning or Modus Ponens.

Any argument that can be reduced to the form:
𝑝 p.
∴𝑞 Therefore, q. is a valid argument.
This common form of valid reasoning is called Direct Reasoning or Modus Ponens.
EXAMPLES:
The following arguments are automatically valid (because they are examples of Direct
Reasoning):
Example 1: Example 2:
If I quit school, I'll sell apples on the corner. All Gators are obnoxious.
I did quit school. Steve is a Gator.
Therefore, I sell apples on the corner. Thus, Steve is obnoxious.
Example 3:
No beggars are choosers.
This last argument conforms to the pattern
Diogenes is a beggar.
of Direct Reasoning because the statement
Hence, Diogenes is not a chooser
"No beggars are choosers" can be
rephrased as "If one is a beggar, then one
isn't a chooser.
Test the validity of each argument.
1. All men are mortal. 2. If we are in Paris, then we are 3. All toads are wartful.
Socrates is a man. in France. Socrates is wartful.
Therefore, Socrates is mortal. We are in Paris. Therefore, Socrates is a toad.
Therefore, we are in France.
Answer: 1. Valid 2. Valid 3. Invalid
4. Fallacy of the converse

𝑞 q
∴𝑝 Therefore, p. is an invalid argument.
This is a common form of invalid reasoning known as Fallacy of the Converse.
Page 5 of 12
Tel. Nos.: (+6374) 442-3316, 442-8220; 444-2786;
Examples:
If I eat Wheaties, then I am healthy. All great writers are philosophical.
I am healthy. Caesar was philosophical.
Therefore, I eat Wheaties. Thus, Caesar was a great writer.
Both arguments are INVALID, because they are examples of Fallacy of the Converse. It is not
necessary to make the truth tables, although the truth tables will verify the claims that these
arguments are invalid.
5. Disjunctive Syllogism
𝑝 ∨ 𝑞 If p or q.
~𝑞 not q.
∴𝑝 Therefore, p. will be a valid argument. This is a common form of valid reasoning known
as disjunctive syllogism.
Note: because the "or" connective is symmetric, this pattern can also be written as
𝑝 ∨ 𝑞 If p or q.
~𝑝 not p.
∴ 𝑞 Therefore, q.
EXAMPLES:
These arguments are automatically valid:
Socrates is in Athens or Socrates is in Sparta. I walk or I chew gum.
Socrates isn't in Sparta. I'm not walking.
Thus, Socrates is in Athens. Therefore, I'm chewing gum.
6. Disjunctive Fallacy
𝑝 ∨ 𝑞 If p or q. 𝑝 ∨ 𝑞 If p or q.
𝑝 p. 𝑞 q.
∴ ~𝑞 Therefore, not q ∴ ~𝑝 Therefore, not p
is automatically INVALID. This incorrect attempt to use the disjunctive syllogism is called
DISJUNCTIVE FALLACY.
Examples: The following arguments are INVALID, because they are examples of Disjunctive
Fallacy:
Today isn't Sunday or I can stay home. Fido is a poodle or has brown fur.
I can stay home. Fido is a poodle.
Therefore, today is Sunday. Therefore, Fido doesn't have brown fur
7. Transitive Reasoning
Any argument that can be reduced to the form
𝑝→𝑞 If p then q.
𝑞→𝑟 If q then r.
∴𝑝→𝑟 Therefore, if p then r.
Page 6 of 12
Tel. Nos.: (+6374) 442-3316, 442-8220; 444-2786;
will be a valid argument. This is a common form of valid reasoning known as Transitive
Reasoning.
EXAMPLES:
The following arguments are valid because they are examples of Transitive Reasoning
If today is Monday, then tomorrow is All bulldogs are mean-looking dogs.
Tuesday. All mean-looking dogs are good watchdogs.
If tomorrow is Tuesday, then the day after Therefore, all bulldogs are good watchdogs.
tomorrow is Wednesday.
Therefore, if today is Monday, then the day
after tomorrow is Wednesday
Example 3:
If I eat my spinach, then I'll become muscular.
If I become muscular, then I'll become a professional wrestler.
If I become I professional wrestler, then I'll bleach my hair.
If I bleach my hair, then I'll wear sequined tights.
If I wear sequined tights, then I'll be ridiculous.
Therefore, if I eat my spinach, then I'll be ridiculous.
The previous example illustrates an important property of Transitive Reasoning:

This method of reasoning extends indefinitely.
We easily can construct valid arguments that have as many "if...then" premises as we wish, as
long as the fundamental pattern continues: namely, the antecedent of each new premise
agrees with the consequent of the previous premise.
8. False Chain
Any argument that can be reduced to one of these forms:
𝑝→𝑞 𝑝→𝑞
𝑝→𝑟 𝑞→𝑟
∴𝑞→𝑟 ∴𝑝→𝑟
will be invalid. These common forms of invalid reasoning are called False Chains.
EXAMPLES:
The following arguments are INVALID because they are examples of False Chains.
If today is a state holiday, then school is All cats are mammals.
closed. All cats are predators.
If today is Sunday, then school is closed. Therefore, all mammals are predators.
Therefore, if today is a state holiday, then
today is Sunday
9. ARGUMENTS THAT DON'T CONFORM TO COMMON PATTERNS

Common patterns of reasoning are useful in that they allow us to analyze arguments without
having to construct truth tables. Of course, not every argument will conform to one of the
familiar patterns that we have identified.
Page 7 of 12
Tel. Nos.: (+6374) 442-3316, 442-8220; 444-2786;
KEY METHODS OF PROOF AND DISPROOF
There are different strategies of proof. The first strategy to prove certain phenomena is by using
the simplest method of proof called direct proof. The second strategy is to prove by contrapositive or
proof of contradiction or indirect proof.
1. Direct proof
Suppose we want to prove an implication: 𝑝 → 𝑞 is true regardless of the true value of p. The
direct proof here is applied by making first assumption. Hence, let us first make an assumption,
about p, and then use the rules, inferences, axioms, definitions and logical equivalence to
prove q.
Example:
Prove: For all integers p and q, if p and q are odd integers, then p + q is an even integer.
Proof: Assume p and q are arbitrary odd integers. Then p and q can be written in form:
p = 2a + 1 and q = 2b + 1, where a and b are also integer. Note: Odd integers

then, can be written in
p+q = 2a + 1 + 2b + 1 by substitution the form 2n + 1, thus
= 2a + 2b +1 +1 by commutative property p and q can also
= (2a + 2b) + (1 + 1) by associative property be written as 2a + 1
= 2a + 2b + 2 and 2b + 1
= 2 (a + b + 1) by factoring respectively.
Since p + q is twice another integer a + b + 1, then p + q is an even integer.
2. Proof of Contradiction
The other strategy to prove a proposition like 𝑝 → 𝑞 is true is by using the proof of
contrapositive, also known as indirect proof. This strategy establishes the validity of the
proposition by showing that the proposition’s being false would imply a contradiction.
Examples:
1. Prove: p is an integer. If p2 is an even integer, then p is an even integer.
Proof: For the sake of contradiction, the contrapositive statement of the given is : If p2 is an
odd integer then p is an odd integer.
Since p is odd, it can be written as p = 2q + 1, for q is also an integer.

Therefore,
p2 = (2q + 1)2 by substitution
= 4q + 4q + 1 by squaring the binomial
2
= (4q2 + 4q) + 1 by associative property

= 2 (2q2+ 2q) +1 factoring
p2 = 2 (2q2+ 2q) +1 is an odd since 1 is added to twice (2q 2+ 2q). Thus, we prove that the
contradiction of the given is valid and not an even is a contradiction, we can say that the
argument is valid.
Page 8 of 12
Tel. Nos.: (+6374) 442-3316, 442-8220; 444-2786;
2. Prove: For all integers p, if p is an odd integer, then p2 – 2p + 7 is even.

Proof: To the contrary, suppose p is not odd and p2 – 2p + 7 is not an even integer.
That is, p2 – 2p + 7 is odd and p is even integer.
Since p is even, then p can be written as p = 2q, where q is also an even integer.
p2 – 2p + 7 = (2q) 2 – 2(2q) + 7 by substitution
= (2q)2 – 2(2q) + 6 + 1 since 7 can be written as 6 + 1
= 4q2 – 4q + 6 + 1
= 2 (2q2 – 2q + 3) + 1 by factoring
p2 – 2p + 7 is odd since 1 is added to twice 2q2 – 2q + 3 and that is in the form 2n+1 an odd
integer, thus the contradiction is true.
Therefore, the argument is valid.
We live in a complicated, uncertain world, where there are many conflicting opinions
about what is true and false, wise and unwise. Logical thinking will not remedy this
situation completely, nor is it intended to. However, having the skill and understanding
the nature of logical thinking not only aid the implementation of these virtues by
allowing for focused, disciplined discussion, but help us understand the practical value
of having these virtues in the first place. If logical thinking gave us more of a guarantee
than that provided by a valid argument, we would not need to be tolerant of other
opinions. Truth would be too easy to establish.
Page 9 of 12
Tel. Nos.: (+6374) 442-3316, 442-8220; 444-2786;
ASSESSMENT:
Name:_______________________________________ Section:_________________ Date:____________
A. Vocabulary check: Fill-in the blank with the correct words. (5 points)
1. A series of statements (in a natural language), called the premises intended to determine
the degree of truth of another statement, the conclusion is known as _______________.
2. A _______________ is an argument consisting of exactly three categorical propositions (two
premises and a conclusion)
3. A _______________is the use of invalid or otherwise faulty reasoning, or "wrong moves" in the
construction of an argument.
4. An argument is said to be _______________ if it is logically possible for the conclusion to be
false even though every premises is assumed to be true.
5. A _______________ is a sequence of statements which are either givens or deductions from
previous statements, and whose last statement is the conclusion to be proved.
B. Test of validity: Use a truth table to test the validity of these arguments. (15 points)
6. If Jane has a cat, then Jane has a pet. Jane has a pet. Therefore, Jane has a cat. (5
points)
7. If I am literate, then I can read and write. I can read but I can’t write. Thus, I am not
literate. (10 points) (hint: there would be three simple propositions-use p, q and r)
C. Complete the table by testing the validity of each argument using common patterns of
reasoning. An example is made for you. (20 points)
Argument Valid/Invalid Pattern of
reasoning
Example: Invalid Fallacy of the
If an animal is cute, then it isn’t a squid. This animal isn’t a squid. converse
Therefore, this animal is cute.
8. All frogs are amphibians. All frogs have gills. Therefore,
all amphibians have gills.
9. You will meet a tall, handsome stranger or you will stay
home and pick fleas off of your cat. You didn’t meet
Page 10 of 12
Tel. Nos.: (+6374) 442-3316, 442-8220; 444-2786;
and tall, handsome stranger. Therefore, you stayed

home and picked fleas off of your cat.
10. All racers live dangerously. Gomer is a racer.
Therefore, Gomer lives dangerously.
11. If you aren’t polite, you won’t be treated with respect.
You aren’t treated with respect. Therefore, you aren’t
polite.
12. If you are kind to a puppy, then he will be your friend.
You weren’t kind to that puppy. Hence, he isn’t your
friend.
13. If I don’t pay my income taxes, then I file for an
extension or I am a felon. I’m not a felon and I didn’t
file for an extension. Therefore, I paid my income taxes
14. I wash the dishes or I don’t eat. I eat. Thus, I wash the
dishes
15. If you play golf during a thunderstorm, you’ll get hit by
lightning. You didn’t get hit by lightning. Therefore, you
didn’t play golf during a thunderstorm.
16. If an animal is a squid, then it has tentacles. If an animal
is an octopus, then it has tentacles. Therefore, if an
animal is a squid, then it is an octopus
17. All protons are subatomic particles. All neutrons are
subatomic particles. Hence, all protons are neutrons.
D. Methods of Proof: Prove the following using the methods of proof indicated. (15 points)
18. If x is an odd integer then 5x – 7 is an even integer. (use direct proof)
19. If a is an odd integer, then a2 +3a+5 is odd. (use direct proof)
20. Suppose x and y are even. If x is even, then x y is even. (use indirect proof)
Page 11 of 12
Tel. Nos.: (+6374) 442-3316, 442-8220; 444-2786;
ADDITIONAL REFERENCES: (CHECK OUT THE LINKS BELOW)
Law of Syllogism in Geometry: Definition & https://study.com/academy/lesson/law-of-syllogism-

Examples in-geometry-definition-examples.html
Valid and Invalid Deductive Arguments http://www2.hawaii.edu/~pine/logicweb/tutorials/V-I-
Arguments/V-I-Arguments.html
Logic & Arguments - premises & https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aCXVYz8JOe4
conclusions, truth, deduction vs. induction
REFERENCES:
Albay, E.M. (2016). General mathematics. Makati City, Philippines: DIWA Learning System, Inc.
Argument and Reasoning (2015). Retrieved from
https://www.math.fsu.edu/~wooland/hm2ed/Part2Module3/Part2Module3.pdf
Dimasuay, L.A.,Alcala, J., Palacio, J. (2016). General Mathematics for Senior High School.
Quezon City, Philippines: C&E Publishing, Inc.
Melosantos, L.A., et. al. (2016). Math Connection in the Digital Age, Quezon City, Philippines:
Sibs Publishing House, Inc.
Shirmatov,S (2015).The Role of Logical Thinking in English Communication. Retrieved
file:///C:/Users/Jonathan/Downloads/483-1452-1-PB.pdf
Zorilla, R.S, Partible,F.G and Bansa, H. E. (2016). General mathematics for senior high school.
Valenzuela City: Jo-Es Publishing.
Page 12 of 12

Module 8 General Mathematics

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Module 8 General Mathematics

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

General Mathematics 1st Trimester, S.Y.

MODULE 8 – Gen Math Subject Teacher:

Argument, Fallacies, and Methods of proof and disproof

At the end of the module, the learner should be able to:

Preliminary Activities: Answer the logical puzzle below:

ARGUMENTS AND PATTERNS OF REASONING

One of these arguments is convincing, and one is not. Why?

MODULE 8 – Gen Math Subject Teacher:

On the other hand:

An argument is not valid is said to be invalid argument, also called a fallacy.

TECHNIQUE FOR USING TRUTH TABLES TO ANALYZE ARGUMENTS

MODULE 8 – Gen Math Subject Teacher:

The argument has this form:

The argument has this form:

MODULE 8 – Gen Math Subject Teacher:

Try it! Now it’s your turn.

COMMON PATTERNS OF REASONING: (Without using the truth table)

1. Contrapositive Reasoning or Modus Tollens.

2. Fallacy of the Inverse

Generalizing from the result of EXAMPLE 1 above:

MODULE 8 – Gen Math Subject Teacher:

Which argument is valid? invalid? Argument 1 is VALID (it is

3. Direct Reasoning or Modus Ponens.

Test the validity of each argument.

4. Fallacy of the converse

MODULE 8 – Gen Math Subject Teacher:

MODULE 8 – Gen Math Subject Teacher:

The previous example illustrates an important property of Transitive Reasoning:

9. ARGUMENTS THAT DON'T CONFORM TO COMMON PATTERNS

MODULE 8 – Gen Math Subject Teacher:

KEY METHODS OF PROOF AND DISPROOF

p = 2a + 1 and q = 2b + 1, where a and b are also integer. Note: Odd integers

Since p + q is twice another integer a + b + 1, then p + q is an even integer.

Since p is odd, it can be written as p = 2q + 1, for q is also an integer.

= (4q2 + 4q) + 1 by associative property

MODULE 8 – Gen Math Subject Teacher:

2. Prove: For all integers p, if p is an odd integer, then p2 – 2p + 7 is even.

Therefore, the argument is valid.

MODULE 8 – Gen Math Subject Teacher:

MODULE 8 – Gen Math Subject Teacher:

and tall, handsome stranger. Therefore, you stayed

19. If a is an odd integer, then a2 +3a+5 is odd. (use direct proof)

MODULE 8 – Gen Math Subject Teacher:

ADDITIONAL REFERENCES: (CHECK OUT THE LINKS BELOW)

Law of Syllogism in Geometry: Definition & https://study.com/academy/lesson/law-of-syllogism-

You might also like