Methods of Deduction

Formal Proof of Validity

Introduction

Truth tables may be adequate to test the validity of any argument, however, it may be time consuming and
requires more extensive work when the number of component statements increases. A more efficient method of
establishing the validity of an extended argument is to deduce its conclusion from its premises by a sequence of
elementary arguments.

Discussion

Formal proof of validity is a sequence of statements each of which is either a premise of a given
argument, or follows from the preceding statements of the sequence by one of the rules of inference, or by logical
equivalence, where the last statement in the sequence is the conclusion of the argument whose validity is proved. It
is done by writing the premises and the statements that we deduce from them in a single column, and setting off in
another column, to the right of each statement, its “justification”, or the reason we give for including it in the proof.
One way to provide a formal proof of validity of any argument that is valid is through natural deduction.
Natural deduction is a method of proving the validity of a deductive argument by using the rules of inference. This
method is as reliable as the truth-table, however this method is more efficient and enables us to follow the flow of
the reasoning process from the premises to the conclusion and is therefore more intuitive and more illuminating.
As discussed in the previous chapter, rules of inference are the rules that permit valid inferences from
statements assumed as premises. There are twenty-three rules of inference: nine elementary valid argument forms,
ten logical equivalences and four rules governing instantiation and generalization in quantified logic. The
application of the rules of inference allows conclusions to be validly inferred or deduced from premises.
These rules of inference are now used to create elementary valid arguments. An elementary valid
argument is any one set of specified deductive arguments that serves as rules of inference and that may therefore be
used in constructing a formal proof of validity. Rules of inference are not only used on premises, but is also used on
elementary valid arguments.

Example

Consider, for example, the following arguments:

1. If Anderson was nominated, then she went to Boston.
2. If she went to Boston, then she campaigned there.
3. If she campaigned there, she met Douglas.
4. Anderson did not meet Douglas.
5. Either Anderson was nominated or someone more eligible was selected.
6. Therefore, someone more eligible was selected.
 Statements 1 to 6 are only premises. However, for us to be able to use these premises, we must
first translate them into symbolism that can be used to identify what rules of inference will be used to come
up with elementary valid arguments. The following is the symbolism of the premises given:

1. If Anderson was nominated, then she went to Boston.

2. If she went to Boston, then she campaigned there.
3. If she campaigned there, she met Douglas.
4. Anderson did not meet Douglas.
5. Either Anderson was nominated or someone more eligible was selected.
6. Therefore, someone more eligible was selected.
Now, the symbolism of each premise will be used to create elementary valid arguments through
the use of the rules of inference. In this example we can identify that the rules of inference that can be used
are Hypothetical Syllogism (H.S.), Modus Tollens (M.T.) and Disjunctive Syllogism (D.S.). After
identifying the rules of inference to be used to create elementary valid arguments, we can now proceed to
prove the validity of the conclusion given.

Formal Proof of Validity through Natural Deduction:

Elementary Valid Argument 1 (1,2 H.S.)

Elementary Valid Argument 2 (6,3 H.S.)

Elementary Valid Argument 3 (7,4 M.T.)

Elementary Valid Argument 4 (5,8 D.S.)