PART 2 MODULE 3

ARGUMENTS AND PATTERNS OF REASONING

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.

Consider these two arguments, such as a prosecutor might present to a jury:

1. The person who robbed the Mini-Mart drives a 1989 Toyota Tercel. Gomer drives a
1989 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?

1. The person who robbed the Mini-Mart drives a 1989 Toyota Tercel. Gomer drives a
1989 Toyota Tercel. Therefore, Gomer robbed the Mini-Mart.

Evidence (premises):
A. The person who robbed the Mini-Mart drives a 1989 Toyota Tercel.
B. Gomer drives a 1989 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.
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.

The preceding statement may be referred to as the Fundamental Principle of

Argumentation. It governs our entire discussion of arguments and reasoning.

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 1989 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.

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.
 EXAMPLE 2.3.1
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.

EXAMPLE 2.3.1 Solution

Step 1: Symbolize the argument.
Let p be the statement "The apartment is damaged."
Let q be the statement "The deposit won't be refunded."

The argument has this form:

p"q
~p
#~ q

Note: the triangular configuration of dots represents the word "therefore."

! Step 2: Make a truth table having a column for each premise and for the conclusion.

PREM PREM CONC

p q p→q ~p ~q
T T T F F
T F F F T
F T T T F
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 2.3.2
Use a truth table to test the validity of this 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.

EXAMPLE 2.3.2 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."

Then the argument has this form:

p"q
~q
#~ p

Step 2: Make a truth table having a column for each premise and for the conclusion.
!
PREM PREM CONC
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

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.
 COMMON PATTERNS OF REASONING: CONTRAPOSITIVE REASONING
From the result in EXAMPLE 2.3.2 we have the following general fact

Any argument that can be reduced to the form

p"q
~q
#~ p
will be a valid argument.

This is a common form of valid reasoning known as Contrapositive Reasoning or

! Modus Tollens.

EXAMPLE 2.3.3
Without making a truth table, we know automatically that this is a valid argument:
If it rains, then I won't go out.
I went out.
Therefore, it didn't rain.

Here is another example of Contrapositive Reasoning (in set language):

All cats have rodent breath.

Whiskers doesn't have rodent breath.
Thus, Whiskers isn't a cat.

Note: the previous argument agrees with the form Contrapositive Reasoning because it
can be rephrased in "if...then" language:
If one is a cat, then one has rodent breath.
Whiskers doesn't have rodent breath.
Therefore, Whiskers isn't a cat
(where the individual "Whiskers" is taking the place of the general subject "one..." in the
first premise).
 COMMON PATTERNS OF REASONING: FALLACY OF THE INVERSE
Generalizing from the result of EXAMPLE 2.3.1 above, we see that any argument that
can be reduced to the form
p"q
~p
#~ q

will be an invalid argument.

This is a common form of invalid reasoning known as Fallacy of the Inverse.
!
EXAMPLE 2.3.4
Without having to make a truth table, we automatically know that the following argument
is INVALID:
If you drink Pepsi, then you are happy.
You don't drink Pepsi.
Therefore, you aren't happy.

Here is another example of Fallacy of the Inverse (in set language):

All firefighters are courageous.
Gomer the Bold isn't a firefighter.
Thus, Gomer the Bold isn't courageous.

EXAMPLE 2.3.5
"There's a fine line between clever and stupid."
Nigel Tufnel, lead guitarist, Spinal Tap

Can you discern the "fine line between clever and stupid" in these two arguments?

Argument 1:
If I get a huge tax refund, then I'll buy a Yugo. I didn't buy a Yugo.
Therefore, I didn't get a huge tax refund.

Argument 2:
If I get a huge tax refund, then I'll buy a Yugo. I didn't get a huge tax refund.
Therefore, I didn't buy a Yugo.

EXAMPLE 2.3.5 Solution

Argument 1 is VALID (it is Contrapositive Reasoning), whereas Argument 2 is
INVALID (it is Fallacy of the Inverse).
 EXAMPLE 2.3.6
Use a truth table to test the validity of this argument.
If one grows vegetables, then one is a gardener.
Gomer is a gardener.
Therefore, Gomer grows vegetables.

COMMON PATTERNS OF REASONING: FALLACY OF THE CONVERSE

Generalizing from the result of EXAMPLE 2.3.6, we have this fact:
Any argument that can be reduced to the form
p"q
q
#p
will be an invalid argument.
This is a common form of invalid reasoning known as Fallacy of the Converse.
!
EXAMPLE 2.3.7
Test the validity of the following arguments.
If I eat Wheaties, then I am healthy. I am healthy.
Therefore, I eat Wheaties.

All great writers are philosophical. Thoreau was philosophical.

Thus, Thoreau was a great writer.

EXAMPLE 2.3.7 Solution

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.
 EXAMPLE 2.3.8
Test the validity of this argument (from Aristotle):
All men are mortal. Socrates is a man. Therefore, Socrates is mortal.

COMMON PATTERNS OF REASONING: DIRECT REASONING

Any argument that can be reduced to the form
p"q
p
#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):

If I quit school, I'll sell apples on the corner.

I did quit school.
Therefore, I sell apples on the corner.

In set language:
All Gators are obnoxious.
Steve is a Gator.
Thus, Steve is obnoxious.

No beggars are choosers.

Diogenes is a beggar.
Hence, Diogenes is not a chooser.

Note: This last argument conforms to the pattern of Direct Reasoning because the
statement "No beggars are choosers" can be rephrased as "If one is a beggar, then one
isn't a chooser."
 EXAMPLE 2.3.8A
Test the validity of each argument.

1. All men are mortal. 2. All women are normal.

Socrates is a man. Socrates isn’t a woman.
Therefore, Socrates is mortal. Therefore, Socrates isn’t normal.

3. All toads are wartful. 4. All edifices have portals.

Socrates is wartful. Socrates doesn’t have portals.
Therefore, Socrates is a toad. Therefore, Socrates isn’t an edifice.

EXAMPLE 2.3.9
Test the validity of this argument:
I have my keys or I'm locked out.
I'm not locked out.
Therefore, I have my keys.

COMMON PATTERNS OF REASONING: DISJUNCTIVE SYLLOGISM

Any argument that can be reduced to the form
p"q
~q
#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
~p
#q

EXAMPLE
! This argument is automatically valid:
Socrates is in Athens or Socrates is in Sparta.
Socrates isn't in Sparta.
Thus, Socrates is in Athens.
 EXAMPLE 2.3.9A
Test the validity of this argument:
I walk or I chew gum.
I'm walking.
Therefore, I'm not chewing gum.

COMMON PATTERNS OF REASONING: DISJUNCTIVE FALLACY

Any argument that can be reduced to one of these forms:

p"q p"q
p q
#~ q #~ 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.

I can stay home.
Therefore, today is Sunday.

Fido is a poodle or has brown fur.

Fido is a poodle.
Therefore, Fido doesn't have brown fur.

WORLD WIDE WEB NOTE

For lots of practice in the art of using truth tables to analyze arguments, visit the
companion website and try THE ARGUE-MENTOR
 EXAMPLE 2.3.10
Test the validity of the argument.
If I get elected, I'll reduce taxes.
If I reduce taxes, the economy will prosper.
Thus, if I get elected, the economy will prosper.

COMMON PATTERNS OF REASONING: TRANSITIVE REASONING

Any argument that can be reduced to the form
p"q
q"r
#p " r
will be a valid argument.
This is a common form of valid reasoning known as Transitive Reasoning.
!

EXAMPLE 2.3.10A

The following arguments are valid because they are examples of Transitive Reasoning.

If today is Monday, then tomorrow is Tuesday.

If tomorrow is Tuesday, then the day after tomorrow is Wednesday.
Therefore, if today is Monday, then the day after tomorrow is Wednesday.

In natural language:
All bulldogs are mean-looking dogs.
All mean-looking dogs are good watchdogs.
Therefore, all bulldogs are good watchdogs.
 EXAMPLE 2.3.10B

The following argument is valid, because of Transitive Reasoning

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.

EXAMPLE 2.3.11
Test the validity of this argument:
If I get elected, I'll take lots of bribes.
If I get elected, I'll reduce taxes.
Thus, if I take lots of bribes, then I'll reduce taxes.

Common patterns of reasoning FALSE CHAINS

Any argument that can be reduced to one of these forms
p"q p"q
p"r r "q
#q " r #p " r

will be invalid.
These common forms of invalid reasoning are called False Chains.
! !
The following arguments are INVALID because they are examples of False Chains.

If today is a state holiday, then school is closed.

If today is Sunday, then school is closed.
Therefore, if today is a state holiday, then today is Sunday.

All cats are mammals.

All cats are predators.
Therefore, all mammals are predators.

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.

EXAMPLE 2.3.12
Test the validity of the following argument.
You have jumper cables or our date is cancelled.
You have a credit card or our date is cancelled.
Our date is cancelled.
Therefore, you don't have jumper cables or you don't have a credit card.

EXAMPLE 2.3.13
Test the validity of this argument:
I got a scholarship and I got an "A" in math.
I'm not good at logic or I got an "A" in math.
Therefore, I'm good at logic or I don't get a scholarship.
EXAMPLE 2.3.14
I will hire Gomer or I will hire Homer.
If I don't hire Homer then I'm not having a bad hair day.
I don't hire Gomer.
Therefore I'm having a bad hair day.

EXAMPLE 2.3.15
Test the validity of the following argument.
If I want to be a lawyer, then I want to study logic.
If I don't want to be a lawyer, then I don't like to argue.
Therefore, if I like to argue, then I want to study logic.

EXAMPLE 2.3.16
Test the validity of the following argument:
If I buy cheap gasoline, then my car runs badly.
If I don't change the oil, then my car runs badly.
Therefore, if I buy cheap gasoline, then I don't change the oil.
PRACTICE EXERCISES
1 – 27: Test the validity of each 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 change my oil regularly, my engine will die. My engine died. Thus, I didn’t
change my oil regularly.

3. All frogs are amphibians. All frogs have gills. Therefore, all amphibians have gills.

4. You will meet a tall, handsome stranger or you will stay home and pick fleas off of
your cat. You didn’t meet and tall, handsome stranger. Therefore, you stayed home and
picked fleas off of your cat.

5. If I don’t tie my shoes, then I trip. I didn’t tie my shoes. Hence, I tripped.

6. All racers live dangerously. Gomer is a racer. Therefore, Gomer lives dangerously.

7. If you aren’t polite, you won’t be treated with respect. You aren’t treated with
respect. Therefore, you aren’t polite.

8. 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.

9. If you drink Surge, then you won’t fall off of your skateboard. You fell off of your
skateboard. Therefore, you didn’t drink Surge.

10. 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.

11. I wash the dishes or I don’t eat. I eat. Thus, I wash the dishes.

12. All protons are subatomic particles. All neutrons are subatomic particles. Hence, all
protons are neutrons.

13. All sneaks are devious. All swindlers are sneaks. Therefore, all swindlers are
devious.

14. All superheroes wear capes. The Masked Gomer wears a cape. Hence, The Masked
Gomer is a superhero.

15. All wolverines are cuddly. No weasels are wolverines. Thus, no weasels are cuddly.

16. If you want to be a used-car salesman, then you have to be a flashy dresser. You
don’t want to be a used-car salesman. Thus, you don’t have to be a flashy dresser.
17. If an animal is cute, then it isn’t a squid. This animal isn’t a squid. Therefore, this
animal is cute.

18. 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.

19. I will run for office or I will shut my mouth. I ran for office. Thus, I didn’t shut my
mouth.

20. If I am literate, then I can read and write. I can read but I can’t write. Thus, I am not
literate.

21. If it rains or snows, then my roof leaks. My roof is leaking. Thus, it is raining and
snowing.

22. All cyclists wear helmets. Gomer doesn’t wear a helmet. Therefore, Gomer isn’t a
cyclist.

23. All firefighters wear red suspenders. Gomer wears red suspenders. Therefore,
Gomer is a firefighter.

24. All Yugo-owners are used to hitchhiking. Gomer isn’t a Yugo-owner. Therefore,
Gomer isn’t used to hitchhiking.

25. If I lose my keys, then I can’t start my car. If I lose my keys, then I can’t get in my
house. Therefore, if I can’t start my car, then I can’t get in my house.

26. 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.

27. If you are a fire-eater, then you work in the circus. If you don’t like cotton candy,
then you don’t work in the circus. Therefore, if you are a fire-eater, then you like cotton
candy.

ANSWERS TO LINKED EXAMPLES

EXAMPLE 2.3.6 Invalid
EXAMPLE 2.3.8.A 1. Valid 2. Invalid 3. Invalid 4. Valid
EXAMPLE 2.3.9 Valid
EXAMPLE 2.3.9A Invalid
EXAMPLE 2.3.10 Valid
EXAMPLE 2.3.11 Invalid
EXAMPLE 2.3.12 Invalid
EXAMPLE 2.3.13 Invalid
EXAMPLE 2.3.14 Invalid
EXAMPLE 2.3.15 Valid
EXAMPLE 2.3.16 Invalid
ANSWERS TO PRACTICE EXERCISES
1. Valid (contrapositive reasoning)
3. Invalid (false chain)
5. Valid (direct reasoning)
7. Invalid (fallacy of converse)
9. Valid (contrapositive reasoning)
11. Valid (disjunctive syllogism)
13. Valid (transitive reasoning)
15. Invalid (false chain)
17. Invalid (fallacy of converse)
19. Invalid (not disjunctive syllogism) 20. Valid (use truth table)
21. Invalid (use truth table)
23. Invalid (fallacy of converse)
25. Invalid (false chain)
27. Valid (transitive reasoning)
2. Invalid (fallacy of converse)
4. Valid (disjunctive syllogism)
6. Valid (direct reasoning)
8. Invalid (fallacy of inverse)
10. Valid (use truth table)
12. Invalid (false chain)
14. Invalid (fallacy of converse)
16. Invalid (fallacy of inverse)
18. Valid (contrapositive reasoning)
22. Valid (contrapositive reasoning)
24. Invalid (fallacy of inverse)
26. Invalid (false chain)
 2-19-2020
Truth Tables, Tautologies, and Logical Equivalences
Mathematicians normally use a two-valued logic: Every statement is either True or False. This is
called the Law of the Excluded Middle.
A statement in sentential logic is built from simple statements using the logical connectives ¬, ∧, ∨, →,
and ↔. The truth or falsity of a statement built with these connective depends on the truth or falsity of its
components.
For example, the compound statement P → (Q ∨ ¬R) is built using the logical connectives →, ∨, and
¬. The truth or falsity of P → (Q ∨ ¬R) depends on the truth or falsity of P , Q, and R.
A truth table shows how the truth or falsity of a compound statement depends on the truth or falsity
of the simple statements from which it’s constructed. So we’ll start by looking at truth tables for the five
logical connectives.
Here’s the table for negation:
P ¬P
T F
F T

This table is easy to understand. If P is true, its negation ¬P is false. If P is false, then ¬P is true.
P ∧ Q should be true when both P and Q are true, and false otherwise:

P Q P ∧Q
T T T
T F F
F T F
F F F

P ∨ Q is true if either P is true or Q is true (or both — remember that we’re using “or” in the inclusive
sense). It’s only false if both P and Q are false.

P Q P ∨Q
T T T
T F T
F T T
F F F

Here’s the table for logical implication:

P Q P →Q
T T T
T F F
F T T
F F T

To understand why this table is the way it is, consider the following example:
“If you get an A, then I’ll give you a dollar.”

1
 The statement will be true if I keep my promise and false if I don’t.
Suppose it’s true that you get an A and it’s true that I give you a dollar. Since I kept my promise, the
implication is true. This corresponds to the first line in the table.
Suppose it’s true that you get an A but it’s false that I give you a dollar. Since I didn’t keep my promise,
the implication is false. This corresponds to the second line in the table.
What if it’s false that you get an A? Whether or not I give you a dollar, I haven’t broken my promise.
Thus, the implication can’t be false, so (since this is a two-valued logic) it must be true. This explains the
last two lines of the table.
P ↔ Q means that P and Q are equivalent. So the double implication is true if P and Q are both
true or if P and Q are both false; otherwise, the double implication is false.

P Q P ↔Q
T T T
T F F
F T F
F F T

You should remember — or be able to construct — the truth tables for the logical connectives. You’ll
use these tables to construct tables for more complicated sentences. It’s easier to demonstrate what to do
than to describe it in words, so you’ll see the procedure worked out in the examples.
Remark. (a) When you’re constructing a truth table, you have to consider all possible assignments of True
(T) and False (F) to the component statements. For example, suppose the component statements are P , Q,
and R. Each of these statements can be either true or false, so there are 23 = 8 possibilities.
When you’re listing the possibilities, you should assign truth values to the component statements in a
systematic way to avoid duplication or omission. The easiest approach is to use lexicographic ordering.
Thus, for a compound statement with three components P , Q, and R, I would list the possibilities this way:

P Q R
T T T
T T F
T F T
T F F
F T T
F T F
F F T
F F F

(b) There are different ways of setting up truth tables. You can, for instance, write the truth values “under”
the logical connectives of the compound statement, gradually building up to the column for the “primary”
connective.
I’ll write things out the long way, by constructing columns for each “piece” of the compound statement
and gradually building up to the compound statement. Any style is fine as long as you show enough work
to justify your results.
Example. Construct a truth table for the formula ¬P ∧ (P → Q).
First, I list all the alternatives for P and Q.
Next, in the third column, I list the values of ¬P based on the values of P . I use the truth table for
negation: When P is true ¬P is false, and when P is false, ¬P is true.

2
 In the fourth column, I list the values for P → Q. Check for yourself that it is only false (“F ”) if P is
true (“T ”) and Q is false (“F ”).
The fifth column gives the values for my compound expression ¬P ∧ (P → Q). It is an “and” of ¬P
(the third column) and P → Q (the fourth column). An “and” is true only if both parts of the “and” are
true; otherwise, it is false. So I look at the third and fourth columns; if both are true (“T ”), I put T in the
fifth column, otherwise I put F .

P Q ¬P P →Q ¬P ∧ (P → Q)
T T F T F
T F F F F
F T T T T
F F T T T

A tautology is a formula which is “always true” — that is, it is true for every assignment of truth
values to its simple components. You can think of a tautology as a rule of logic.
The opposite of a tautology is a contradiction, a formula which is “always false”. In other words, a
contradiction is false for every assignment of truth values to its simple components.

Example. Show that (P → Q) ∨ (Q → P ) is a tautology.

I construct the truth table for (P → Q) ∨ (Q → P ) and show that the formula is always true.

P Q P →Q Q→P (P → Q) ∨ (Q → P )
T T T T T
T F F T T
F T T F T
F F T T T

The last column contains only T’s. Therefore, the formula is a tautology.

Example. Construct a truth table for (P → Q) ∧ (Q → R).

P Q R P →Q Q→R (P → Q) ∧ (Q → R)
T T T T T T
T T F T F F
T F T F T F
T F F F T F
F T T T T T
F T F T F F
F F T T T T
F F F T T T

3
 You can see that constructing truth tables for statements with lots of connectives or lots of simple
statements is pretty tedious and error-prone. While there might be some applications of this (e.g. to digital
circuits), at some point the best thing would be to write a program to construct truth tables (and this has
surely been done).
The point here is to understand how the truth value of a complex statement depends on the truth
values of its simple statements and its logical connectives. In most work, mathematicians don’t normally
use statements which are very complicated from a logical point of view.
Example. (a) Suppose that P is false and P ∨ ¬Q is true. Tell whether Q is true, false, or its truth value
can’t be determined.

(b) Suppose that (P ∧ ¬Q) → R is false. Tell whether Q is true, false, or its truth value can’t be determined.
(a) Since P ∨ ¬Q is true, either P is true or ¬Q is true. Since P is false, ¬Q must be true. Hence, Q must
be false.
(b) An if-then statement is false when the “if” part is true and the “then” part is false. Since (P ∧ ¬Q) → R
is false, P ∧ ¬Q is true. An “and” statement is true only when both parts are true. In particular, ¬Q must
be true, so Q is false.

Example. Suppose
“x > y” is true.
Z
“ f (x) dx = g(x) + C” is false.

“Calvin Butterball has purple socks” is true.

Determine the truth value of the statement
Z
(x > y → f (x) dx = g(x) + C) → ¬(Calvin Butterball has purple socks)

For simplicity, let

P = “x > y”.
Z
Q = “ f (x) dx = g(x) + C”.

R = “Calvin Butterball has purple socks”.

I want to determine the truth value of (P → Q) → ¬R. Since I was given specific truth values for P ,
Q, and R, I set up a truth table with a single row using the given values for P , Q, and R:

P Q R P →Q ¬R (P → Q) → ¬R
T F T F F T

Therefore, the statement is true.

Example. Determine the truth value of the statement

(10 > 42) → “Ichabod Xerxes eats chocolate cupcakes”

4
 The statement “10 > 42” is false. You can’t tell whether the statement “Ichabod Xerxes eats chocolate
cupcakes” is true or false — but it doesn’t matter. If the “if” part of an “if-then” statement is false, then
the “if-then” statement is true. (Check the truth table for P → Q if you’re not sure about this!) So the
given statement must be true.

Two statements X and Y are logically equivalent if X ↔ Y is a tautology. Another way to say this
is: For each assignment of truth values to the simple statements which make up X and Y , the statements
X and Y have identical truth values.
From a practical point of view, you can replace a statement in a proof by any logically equivalent
statement.
To test whether X and Y are logically equivalent, you could set up a truth table to test whether X ↔ Y
is a tautology — that is, whether X ↔ Y “has all T’s in its column”. However, it’s easier to set up a table
containing X and Y and then check whether the columns for X and for Y are the same.

Example. Show that P → Q and ¬P ∨ Q are logically equivalent.

P Q P →Q ¬P ¬P ∨ Q
T T T F T
T F F F F
F T T T T
F F T T T

Since the columns for P → Q and ¬P ∨ Q are identical, the two statements are logically equivalent.
This tautology is called Conditional Disjunction. You can use this equivalence to replace a conditional
by a disjunction.

There are an infinite number of tautologies and logical equivalences; I’ve listed a few below; a more
extensive list is given at the end of this section.
Double negation ¬(¬P ) ↔ P
DeMorgan’s Law ¬(P ∨ Q) ↔ (¬P ∧ ¬Q)
DeMorgan’s Law ¬(P ∧ Q) ↔ (¬P ∨ ¬Q)
Contrapositive (P → Q) ↔ (¬Q → ¬P )
Modus ponens [P ∧ (P → Q)] → Q
Modus tollens [¬Q ∧ (P → Q)] → ¬P
When a tautology has the form of a biconditional, the two statements which make up the biconditional
are logically equivalent. Hence, you can replace one side with the other without changing the logical meaning.

You will often need to negate a mathematical statement. To see how to do this, we’ll begin by showing
how to negate symbolic statements.
Example. Write down the negation of the following statements, simplifying so that only simple statements
are negated.
(a) (P ∨ ¬Q)
(b) (P ∧ Q) → R

5
(a) I negate the given statement, then simplify using logical equivalences. I’ve given the names of the logical
equivalences on the right so you can see which ones I used.

¬(P ∨ ¬Q) ↔ ¬P ∧ ¬¬Q DeMorgan’s law

↔ ¬P ∧ Q Double negation

(b)
¬[(P ∧ Q) → R] ↔ ¬[¬(P ∧ Q) ∨ R] Conditional Disjunction
↔ ¬¬(P ∧ Q) ∧ ¬R DeMorgan’s law
↔ (P ∧ Q) ∧ ¬R Double negation
I showed that (A → B) and (¬A ∨ B) are logically equivalent in an earlier example.

In the following examples, we’ll negate statements written in words. This is more typical of what you’ll
need to do in mathematics. The idea is to convert the word-statement to a symbolic statement, then use
logical equivalences as we did in the last example.

Example. Use DeMorgan’s Law to write the negation of the following statement, simplifying so that only
simple statements are negated:

“Calvin is not home or Bonzo is at the movies.”

Let C be the statement “Calvin is home” and let B be the statement “Bonzo is at the moves”. The
given statement is ¬C ∨ B. I’m supposed to negate the statement, then simplify:

¬(¬C ∨ B) ↔ ¬¬C ∧ ¬B DeMorgan’s Law

↔ C ∧ ¬B Double negation

The result is “Calvin is home and Bonzo is not at the movies”.

Example. Use DeMorgan’s Law to write the negation of the following statement, simplifying so that only
simple statements are negated:

“If Phoebe buys a pizza, then Calvin buys popcorn.”

Let P be the statement “Phoebe buys a pizza” and let C be the statement “Calvin buys popcorn”.
The given statement is P → C. To simplify the negation, I’ll use the Conditional Disjunction tautology
which says
(P → Q) ↔ (¬P ∨ Q)
That is, I can replace P → Q with ¬P ∨ Q (or vice versa).
Here, then, is the negation and simplification:

¬(P → C) ↔ ¬(¬P ∨ C) Conditional Disjunction

↔ ¬¬P ∧ ¬C DeMorgan’s Law
↔ P ∧ ¬C Double negation

The result is “Phoebe buys the pizza and Calvin doesn’t buy popcorn”.

Next, we’ll apply our work on truth tables and negating statements to problems involving constructing
the converse, inverse, and contrapositive of an “if-then” statement.

Example. Replace the following statement with its contrapositive:

6
 “If x and y are rational, then x + y is rational.”
By the contrapositive equivalence, this statement is the same as “If x + y is not rational, then it is not
the case that both x and y are rational”.
This answer is correct as it stands, but we can express it in a slightly better way which removes some of
the explicit negations. Most people find a positive statement easier to comprehend than a negative statement.
By definition, a real number is irrational if it is not rational. So I could replace the “if” part of the
contrapositive with “x + y is irrational”.
The “then” part of the contrapositive is the negation of an “and” statement. You could restate it as
“It’s not the case that both x is rational and y is rational”. (The word “both” ensures that the negation
applies to the whole “and” statement, not just to “x is rational”.)
By DeMorgan’s Law, this is equivalent to: “x is not rational or y is not rational”. Alternatively, I could
say: “x is irrational or y is irrational”.
Putting everything together, I could express the contrapositive as: “If x + y is irrational, then either x
is irrational or y is irrational”.
(As usual, I added the word “either” to make it clear that the “then” part is the whole “or” statement.)

Example. Show that the inverse and the converse of a conditional are logically equivalent.
Let P → Q be the conditional. The inverse is ¬P → ¬Q. The converse is Q → P .
I could show that the inverse and converse are equivalent by constructing a truth table for (¬P →
¬Q) ↔ (Q → P ). I’ll use some known tautologies instead.
Start with ¬P → ¬Q:

¬P → ¬Q ↔ ¬¬Q → ¬¬P Contrapositive

↔ Q→P Double negation

Remember that I can replace a statement with one that is logically equivalent. For example, in the last
step I replaced ¬¬Q with Q, because the two statements are equivalent by Double negation.

Example. Suppose x is a real number. Consider the statement

“If x2 = 4, then x = 2.”
Construct the converse, the inverse, and the contrapositive. Determine the truth or falsity of the
four statements — the original statement, the converse, the inverse, and the contrapositive — using your
knowledge of algebra.
The converse is “If x = 2, then x2 = 4”.
The inverse is “If x2 6= 4, then x 6= 2”.
The contrapositive is “If x 6= 2, then x2 6= 4”.
The original statement is false: (−2)2 = 4, but −2 6= 2. Since the original statement is eqiuivalent to
the contrapositive, the contrapositive must be false as well.
The converse is true. The inverse is logically equivalent to the converse, so the inverse is true as well.

7
 List of Tautologies

1. P ∨ ¬P Law of the excluded middle

2. ¬(P ∧ ¬P ) Contradiction
3. [(P → Q) ∧ ¬Q] → ¬P Modus tollens
4. ¬¬P ↔ P Double negation
5. [(P → Q) ∧ (Q → R)] → (P → R) Law of the syllogism
6. (P ∧ Q) → P Decomposing a conjunction
(P ∧ Q) → Q Decomposing a conjunction
7. P → (P ∨ Q) Constructing a disjunction
Q → (P ∨ Q) Constructing a disjunction
8. (P ↔ Q) ↔ [(P → Q) ∧ (Q → P )] Definition of the biconditional
9. (P ∧ Q) ↔ (Q ∧ P ) Commutative law for ∧
10. (P ∨ Q) ↔ (Q ∨ P ) Commutative law for ∨
11. [(P ∧ Q) ∧ R] ↔ [P ∧ (Q ∧ R)] Associative law for ∧
12. [(P ∨ Q) ∨ R] ↔ [P ∨ (Q ∨ R)] Associative law for ∨
13. ¬(P ∨ Q) ↔ (¬P ∧ ¬Q) DeMorgan’s law
14. ¬(P ∧ Q) ↔ (¬P ∨ ¬Q) DeMorgan’s law
15. [P ∧ (Q ∨ R)] ↔ [(P ∧ Q) ∨ (P ∧ R)] Distributivity
16. [P ∨ (Q ∧ R)] ↔ [(P ∨ Q) ∧ (P ∨ R)] Distributivity
17. (P → Q) ↔ (¬Q → ¬P ) Contrapositive
18. (P → Q) ↔ (¬P ∨ Q) Conditional disjunction
19. [(P ∨ Q) ∧ ¬P ] → Q Disjunctive syllogism
20. (P ∨ P ) ↔ P Simplification
21. (P ∧ P ) ↔ P Simplification

c 2020 by Bruce Ikenaga 8
17.10: Evaluating Deductive Arguments with Truth Tables
Arguments can also be analyzed using truth tables, although this can be a lot of work.

 Analyzing arguments using truth tables

To analyze an argument with a truth table:
1. Represent each of the premises symbolically
2. Create a conditional statement, joining all the premises to form the antecedent, and using the conclusion as the consequent.
3. Create a truth table for the statement. If it is always true, then the argument is valid.

 Example 34
Consider the argument
Premise: If you bought bread, then you went to the store.

Premise: You bought bread.

Conclusion: You went to the store.

Solution
While this example is fairly obviously a valid argument, we can analyze it using a truth table by representing each of the
premises symbolically. We can then form a conditional statement showing that the premises together imply the conclusion. If
the truth table is a tautology (always true), then the argument is valid.
We’ll let b represent “you bought bread” and s represent “you went to the store”. Then the argument becomes:
Premise: b → s

Premise: b

Conclusion: s

To test the validity, we look at whether the combination of both premises implies the conclusion; is it true that
[(b → s) ∧ b] → s?

b s b → s

T T T

T F F

F T T

F F T

b s b → s (b → s) ∧ b

T T T T

T F F F

F T T F

F F T F

b s b → s (b → s) ∧ b [(b → s) ∧ b] → s

T T T T T

T F F F T

F T T F T

F F T F T

Since the truth table for [(b → s) ∧ b] → s is always true, this is a valid argument.

17.10.1 https://math.libretexts.org/@go/page/41409
  Try it Now 13

Determine whether the argument is valid:

Premise: If I have a shovel, I can dig a hole.

Premise: I dug a hole.

Conclusion: Therefore, I had a shovel.

Answer
Let S = have a shovel, D = dig a hole. The first premise is equivalent to S → D . The second premise is D . The
conclusion is S . We are testing [(S → D) ∧ D] → S

S D S → D (S → D) ∧ D [(S → D) ∧ D] → S

T T T T T

T F F F T

F T T T F

F F T F T

This is not a tautology, so this is an invalid argument.

 Example 35

Premise: If I go to the mall, then I’ll buy new jeans.

Premise: If I buy new jeans, I’ll buy a shirt to go with it.

Conclusion: If I go to the mall, I’ll buy a shirt.

Solution
Let m = I go to the mall, j = I buy jeans, and s = I buy a shirt.
The premises and conclusion can be stated as:
Premise: m → j

Premise: j→ s

Conclusion: m → s

We can construct a truth table for [(m → j) ∧ (j → s)] → (m → s). Try to recreate each step and see how the truth table was
constructed.
m j s m → j j→ s (m → j) ∧ (j → s) m → s [(m → j) ∧ (j → s)] → (m → s)

T T T T T T T T

T T F T F F F T

T F T F T F T T

T F F F T F F T

F T T T T T T T

F T F T F F T T

F F T T T T T T

F F F T T T T T

From the final column of the truth table, we can see this is a valid argument.

This page titled 17.10: Evaluating Deductive Arguments with Truth Tables is shared under a CC BY-SA 3.0 license and was authored, remixed,
and/or curated by David Lippman (The OpenTextBookStore) via source content that was edited to the style and standards of the LibreTexts
platform; a detailed edit history is available upon request.

17.10.2 https://math.libretexts.org/@go/page/41409