Introduction to Logic

By Paul Herrick (Oxford University Press, 2012)

Student Workbook

This document is divided into two parts. Part One contains supplementary
materials created by Paul Herrick and Mark Storey, under a grant from the
Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation administered by the Washington State
Board for Community and Technical Colleges. These materials accompany
the standard Symbolic Logic class and comprise the Open Course Library
Symbolic Logic Course, Philosophy 120. Included here are online lectures
covering Chapters 1 - 35 of the textbook, Introduction to Logic (Oxford
University Press, 2012), and URLs for online videos on the same material.

Part Two contains the Student Manual materials for the text, posted at the
Student Support Page at the Oxford University Press Website. All materials
from the Student Manual at the Oxford University Press Website are
copyright Oxford University Press and may not be reproduced without
permission. Included in this section is a summation of nearly all the
definitions and rules (truth-table rules, inference rules, replacement rules,
etc.) used in the text. This section ends with a list of errata for the text as of
June 2013.

Table of Contents

Part One

Lectures and Supplements…………………………………….2

URLs for the Videos………………………………………………233

Part Two

Student Manual……………………………………………………244
List of Definitions and Rules………………………………….366
Errata………………………………………………………………….391

1
 Part One.
Open Course Library Lectures on Logic

Unit One
Online Lecture 1
Overview

Remarks On Unit One in General

Welcome to logic class! You are about to study a subject that college students have been
studying since the days of ancient Greece. Logic is one of the oldest of all academic
subjects.

When you begin a journey sometimes it helps to have a roadmap of where you are going
and why you are on the road. Unit One, which comprises Chapters 1-6 in the textbook,
presents and carefully defines all the fundamental ideas of logical theory, from the
definition of logic itself, to the notion of an argument, to the definition of logical
contingency at the end of Chapter 6. In these opening chapters, the basic ideas of logic
are all defined in plain English, without the use of special symbols or mathematical
formulas. This is a very important part of the textbook because it lays the foundation for
the rest of the course. A clear understanding of the basic ideas of logic in the beginning,
in English, without symbols and formulas, will prepare you for everything to follow.

In short, Unit One is the launching pad for the rest of the course. After Unit One, each
succeeding unit systematically deepens and sharpens one or more of the fundamental
concepts taught in Unit One and applies it to a particular type of reasoning. The first
unit is the conceptual foundation for the course; the material gets more technical after
Unit One. This is why it is important that you study this opening unit carefully.

When you start the textbook, we recommend that you read the “To the Student” greeting
before you start reading Chapter 1. That page in the textbook contains important
information as you start the text. Also, it is important that you read the overview of Unit
One as well, on the page before the start of Chapter 1. All of this will help you get
properly oriented at the start of the course.

Things to Watch For as You Study Unit One

The chapters in the text build on each other. Make sure that you understand Chapter 2
before you study Chapter 3, and Chapter 3 before you understand Chapter 4, and so on.
2
The concepts introduced in Chapters 1 and 2 are very elementary; things do not start to
build until Chapter 3, with the distinction between deduction and induction. For a
thorough understanding of this very crucial distinction—the difference between
deductive and inductive arguments--study the definitions and examples carefully.

The most difficult concept to master, in all of Unit One, is surely the concept of
deductive validity, introduced in Chapter 4. We recommend that you pay special
attention when learning this basic logical idea. The textbook explains the concept very,
very carefully, with many examples. Sometimes when learning a difficult concept, it
helps to hear it explained in several different ways. This is why the text explains the
concept of validity in several different ways. One way of explaining the basic idea may
make better sense to one person, another way of explaining it may make better sense to
someone else, and so on. The explanations may be a little “wordy” at times, but they are
very exact. Explanations in technical subjects often tend to be a little complicated and
wordy.

In addition to paying close attention to the explanations of validity, study the

applications and examples carefully to really nail down the concept. The text also warns
you away from certain common mistakes students often make when first learning the
definition of validity and when first learning to distinguish valid from invalid
arguments. These warnings are marked with a bold “Caution!” heading. Be sure to
notice them!

So, read the section on validity with extra care, concentrating on the definitions and the
examples. Make sure you really understand this crucial idea, one of the central ideas in
all of logical theory.

A Word of Caution

Some students take the first quiz or the first test, over the fundamental ideas of logical
theory, and they ace it and are very happy. But many students take the very first test or
quiz, earn a low score, and are both surprised and discouraged. They studied, and they
thought they understood the material. And they are disappointed. When this happens,
they sometimes express their disappointment, telling us that they studied and really
thought they knew the material. In most cases, what happened was probably this: They
thought they understood the material, but in reality they did not understand it very well
at all. They overestimated how well they understood the material. Sometimes we fool
ourselves and think we understand something when we in reality we don’t. Sometimes
we only discover that we do not understand something when we test our knowledge
against a more objective measure. This is true in life as well as in the classroom, isn’t it?
This is why the self-tests—the “Practice Problems With Answers”—provided in the
individual lectures on each chapter in the text, are so important. If used properly the
online lectures (in Course Materials, Online Lectures to Accompany the Text) can give
you valuable feedback.

However, it is also true that the fundamental ideas of logic are not as easy to grasp as the
ideas taught in Water Boiling 101. (“Place pan of water on stove, turn burner to high…”)

3
We believe that one reason the fundamental ideas of logic are more difficult (quite a bit
more difficult) is that (a) they are extremely abstract and conceptual, and (b) for most of
us, the authors of this course included, extra mental effort is required when we learn
extremely abstract ideas. Whether the subject is calculus, physics, or chemistry, abstract
subjects all require a lot of mental concentration, the power of abstraction, sustained
mental attention and effort, good study habits, and effective note-taking skills. Logic is
no exception.

After Unit One

Here is what happens after Unit One. Each unit after the first unit will analyze and
sharpen certain of the fundamental ideas of logic, forming them into a system of precise
thought with very exact rules for the evaluation of important kinds of reasoning. Once
we enter modern logic, reasoning will be translated into a symbolic logical language
much like the symbolic languages used in mathematics and computer programming.
Combined with exact rules, these languages will allow us to solve problems with the
precision of mathematics.

Here is one way to picture modern logic: We translate reasoning from English into
logical symbolism, somewhat the way mathematicians translate a “story problem” into
mathematical formulas. After this, exact rules and procedures are applied and answers
are found with extreme precision.

Main Objectives of Unit One

The student who successfully completes all six chapters of Unit One will be expected to
meet all of the following objectives.

1. Demonstrate your understanding of logic by accurately defining it in your own

words.

2. Demonstrate your understanding of reasoning by correctly defining it in your

own words.

3. Demonstrate your understanding of how logic (as an academic subject) began by

explaining its historical origin in your own words and by correctly answering
relevant questions, including true-false, multiple-choice, and other types of short
answer questions and essay questions.

4. Demonstrate your understanding of the basic concepts of logic explained in Unit

One by correctly distinguishing arguments from nonarguments, by accurately
identifying the parts of arguments, by distinguishing deductive from inductive
arguments, valid from invalid arguments, and strong from weak arguments, by
identifying the logical properties of sentences (necessary truth and falsity and
4
 contingent truth and falsity) and by correctly identifying the presence of logical
relations among groups of sentences (consistency, inconsistency, implication,
and equivalence).

5. Demonstrate your understanding of the basic concepts of logical theory explained

in Unit One by correctly explaining them in your own words, by accurately
applying them to examples given, and by correctly answering relevant questions,
including true-false, multiple-choice, and other types of short answer questions
and essay questions.

The basic concepts of logic covered in Unit One include but are not limited to those
indicated by, or corresponding to, the following questions, problems, and operations:

1. What is logic?
2. What is reasoning?
3. How does logic differ from psychology?
4. What is an argument?
5. How does an argument differ from a nonargument?
6. What are the parts of an argument?
7. What is a declarative sentence?
8. List four different types of sentences.
9. How do declarative sentences differ from other types of sentences?
10. What is a premise indicator?
11. What is a conclusion indicator?
12. List three premise indicators.
13. List three conclusion indicators.
14. What is an inductive argument?
15. What is a deductive argument?
16. What are some common patterns of deductive reasoning?
17. What are some common patterns of inductive reasoning?
18. What is a deductive argument indicator?
19. What is an inductive argument indicator?
20. List three deductive indicators.
21. List three inductive indicators.
22. What is a valid argument?
23. How can we tell whether an argument is valid or invalid?
24. What is a logical possibility?
25. How does the logical concept of possibility differ from the everyday sense
of possibility?
26. What is a counterexample to an argument?
27. How do we use a counterexample to show that an argument is invalid?
28. What is a self-contradiction?
29. What is a strong argument?
30. How can we tell whether an argument is strong or weak?
31. What is a sound argument?
32. What is a cogent argument?

5
 33. How does induction differ from deduction?
34. What is an argument diagram?
35. What is the procedure for properly diagramming an argument?
36. What are the two ways that an argument can go wrong?
37. What are the two ways to effectively criticize an argument?
38. What is an enthymeme?
39. Define the logical properties of sentences (necessary truth, necessary
falsity, and contingency).
40. Identify sample sentences as necessarily true, necessarily false, or
contingent.
41. Define the logical relations (consistency, inconsistency, implication, and
equivalence).
42. Identify the logical relations existing between sentences in groups of
sample sentences.
43. What is an ideal of reasoning? State an example.
44. Solve a brain teaser and then explain your reasoning in your own words.

The Core Concepts

The following is a list of the most fundamental or core concepts presented and defined
in Unit One. These are the basic concepts taught in virtually every standard, university-
level logic course around the world. The concepts identified here form the conceptual
foundation, the launching pad, for the rest of the course.

 The definition of logic (as an academic subject)

 Reasoning
 Argument
 Deductive argument
 Inductive argument
 Valid, invalid, sound arguments
 Strong, weak, cogent arguments

These are the concepts emphasized in Chapters 1 through 5 of the textbook.

The following very basic logical ideas are also presented in Unit One, Chapters 1 through
5. In most logic courses, the ideas on this list are covered along with the core concepts
listed above:

 The parts of an argument (premises, conclusions, indicator words)

 The different types of sentences (declarative, interrogative, imperative, etc.)
 Differences between deductive and inductive reasoning
 Two ways to effectively criticize or object to an argument
 Enthymemes

6
  Diagramming arguments

The following basic concepts of logic are also covered in Unit One, in Chapter 6. In some
logic courses these concepts—the ideas of Chapter 6--will be taught at the beginning of
the course, in other courses they will be covered later in the course, in subsequent units
as the class advances through specialized branches of logic. Thus, some teachers will
skip Chapter 6, others will cover it:

 Consistency and inconsistency

 Implication
 Equivalence
 Necessary truth and necessary falsehood
 Contingent truth and contingent falsehood

That’s our overview of Unit One.

Thank you for taking this course. We sincerely hope that it will be a positive experience
for you and that you will learn a great deal about logical theory. Study hard. Good luck
to you!

Paul Herrick, Shoreline Community College

Mark Storey, Bellevue College
September 4, 2011

Unit One
Online Lecture 2

On Chapter 1

Every academic subject begins by defining itself and logic is no exception. Consequently,
Chapter 1 (in your textbook) begins with a definition of logic. Since the definition of
logic (“the systematic study of the standards of correct reasoning”) presupposes an
understanding of what reasoning is, the chapter also defines reasoning. Make sure you
understand these important definitions; they are pre-requisite for all that follows in this
course.

Chapter 1 also explains how logic began and discusses the historic role it has played in
higher education since the days of ancient Greece. We always understand something
better when we can place it in a larger context, and what larger context can there be, for
an academic subject, than the context of world history? The historical background

7
provided in this chapter, and provided in more detail in the Appendix to Chapter One, is
the background context for the rest of the course. Some teachers will choose to cover
this historical background in full, and they will assign the Appendix to Chapter One.
Other teachers will not require you to study the historical background included in the
Appendix, and they won’t assign it. It’s all good either way.

For more on the history of logic, read Appendix One at the back of the textbook, on
ancient Indian logic. Written by professor Mark Storey (Bellevue College, Bellevue,
Washington), this essay will give you an international, multicultural perspective on the
early history of our subject.

People sometimes confuse logic with psychology. As you begin your study of logical
theory, make sure you understand the difference between logic and psychology. As the
text points out, psychology studies human thinking as it actually is, with all of its errors
and imperfections. Logic, on the other hand, is the study of the standards of correct
reasoning—the standards our reasoning ideally ought to follow if it is to be good
reasoning. Logic is thus more abstract than psychology. It would not be too far off to say
that psychology is concerned with what is, while logic is concerned with what ideally
ought to be.

Chapter 1 Outcomes

An understanding of all of Chapter 1 and its appendix would encompass the following
learning outcomes. Individual teachers may, of course, assign some but not all of these
objectives.

1. Demonstrate an understanding of the definition of logic by accurately explaining

the definition in your own words.

2. Demonstrate an understanding of the definition of reasoning by correctly

explaining the definition in your own words and by giving examples of reasoning.

3. Demonstrate an understanding of the distinction between deductive and

inductive logic by correctly explaining the difference in your own words and by
answering relevant questions, including true-false, multiple choice, and short
answer questions and essay questions.

4. Demonstrate your understanding of the distinction between formal and informal

logic by correctly explaining the difference in your own words and by answering
relevant questions, including true-false, multiple choice, and short answer
questions and essay questions.

5. Demonstrate your understanding of how logic as an academic subject began by

explaining the historical origin of logic in your own words and by correctly
answering relevant questions about its historical origin, including true-false,
multiple choice, and short answer questions and essay questions.

8
 6. Demonstrate an understanding of the difference between myth and philosophy
by accurately explaining the difference in your own words and by correctly
answering relevant questions about the matter, including true-false, multiple
choice, and short answer questions and essay questions.

7. Demonstrate an understanding of the concepts in this chapter by correctly

answering relevant true-false, multiple-choice, and other types of short answer
and essay questions.

8. If something taught in the text was inadvertently not included in this list of
objectives, be prepared to correctly demonstrate an understanding of that item
too!

We placed the last clause (8) in the list just in case a legalistic (and possibly litigious)
student says something like this to his or her teacher after a quiz or test: “But I didn’t
study that because it wasn’t specifically on the list of outcomes and so you can’t put it on
the test!” Thanks to this little “catch-all” clause, our hypothetical future law student
won’t be able to use that excuse in this class! Our clause 8 is sort of the converse of the
10th amendment to the United States Constitution, that basically says to the Federal
Government: We’ve listed the things you cannot do, and if we left anything off the list,
you can’t do that either!

Some Advice as You Start the Course

We recommend that you read the textbook very carefully, the way you would read a
math text. This means that you should concentrate on what you are reading and pay
close attention to definitions and technical details. In some cases, missing one word
makes all the difference in the world. Why? Logic is a lot like mathematics. Both are
very precise subjects. Both are technical disciplines. In both fields, if you do not
understand the terminology and the technical details, you will not be able to apply the
principles correctly and solve the problems. Successful logic students find that they
must concentrate on details and master the terminology before they can correctly
answer the questions and solve the problems correctly. This should not be seen as a
defect in the subject—it is simply the way it is in any technical discipline. Students must
concentrate on details and technical definitions in math, medicine, computer science,
nursing, engineering, physics, biology, chemistry, cosmetology, accounting, and auto
mechanics as well, right? If a nurse misreads one word and gives the patient the wrong
medicine, the patient may die. In some fields, small details matter. Logic is such a field.

Take Notes

We also recommend that you take notes and summarize the key points in your own
words as you go. We always understand something better after we have put it into our
own words. Some experts in education maintain that we do not really understand
something until we can explain it in our own words.

9
Taking good notes is a learned skill. It requires distinguishing between things that are
important and matters that are less important, ideas that are central and ideas that are
tangential, and so on. It is assumed that a student has acquired note-taking skills by the
time he or she enters a college class. One way to identify key ideas is to look at the
glossary provided at the end of each chapter. Each glossary presents definitions of the
most important ideas introduced in the chapter.

Test Your Understanding

We also strongly recommend that you test your knowledge as you go. To do this, solve
the answered problems (in the text and in the online class) and then check your answers
against the corresponding answer key. Many years of experience have shown that
students who do not continually self-test their knowledge are quite likely to do poorly on
real quizzes and tests. The reason has to do with human psychology: It often happens
that a student studies the text and confidently thinks he understands the concepts, only
to discover after taking a quiz or test that he really didn’t understand them at all. Again:
sometimes we fool ourselves. Sometimes we are absolutely sure we know something or
can do something--until we test our alleged knowledge against a more objective
standard (than our own self-image) and find out we were totally deluded with regard to
our own abilities!

Practice

In addition, we recommend practicing logic by solving the practice problems provided in

the text and in the online course. The ability to solve logic problems is a skill that
improves with practice. Experience has shown that students who do not practice logic by
working the problems in the text and in the online course are likely to do poorly on tests
and quizzes. Just as most of us would not become good piano players without practice,
most people will not become good at solving logic problems without practice. Even
Vladimir Horowitz had to practice before he became a great pianist.

Online Video Demos

It is extremely important that you watch the video lectures and demonstrations. These
are available for free, online, from within the course (Course Materials, Videos to
Accompany the Text). Most students who complete this course say that they could not
have learned the material without watching the online, filmed demos, in addition to
reading the text and the other online supplements. The online video lectures provide
visual demonstrations of most of the key concepts and techniques. For most of us, a
visual presentation, in addition to the written text, makes all the difference in the world.

However, the online videos (there are about 115 of them) should not take the place of
reading the text. They are short (usually 5-10 minutes) and they merely provide visuals
for the key ideas and activities. In other words, the videos are not a complete course
unto themselves. Anyone who tries to learn the material through the online video
lectures alone will very probably be disappointed when they take the tests and quizzes.

10
Again: the filmed demonstrations, available online from within the course, supplement
the text, they do not take its place.

Class Discussions

Contributing to the assigned online class discussions is also a very important part of the
course. You will almost certainly develop a better grasp of logical theory if you talk about
the ideas with others in the class and if you help others solve logic problems in class. In
the class discussion boards, you will learn to articulate the concepts of logic in your own
words and you will also apply them to real problems. Don’t we usually understand
something better after we have put it into our own words? Don’t we usually understand
an idea better after we have discussed it with others? Don’t we usually understand an
idea better after we have applied it to something?

PowerPoints

Finally, it is recommended that at the relevant places you click through the
corresponding PowerPoints for step-by-step instructions. These short, step-by- step
demonstrations are not provided for every concept in the course (that would require
thousands of PowerPoints); but they are provided in places where a detailed, step-by-
step slide show may be a helpful supplement.

What You Won’t Find in These Online Lectures

You will not find summaries of all the key ideas and procedures that are taught in the
textbook. To provide summaries of all the key ideas and techniques presented in the text
would be to do your work for you. It is your responsibility to take notes and summarize
the material as you go. This is a good thing to do, for as previously noted, we always
understand something better after we have summarized it in our own words.
Furthermore, experience has shown that when summaries of all key ideas are provided
online, some students simply read the summaries and do not study the text. Not only do
they miss a great deal of the information provided in the text, students who only read
the summaries and not the text generally do poorly on quizzes and tests as well.
Sometimes they blame the summary for not covering every detail in the text, rather than
their own lack of effort—as if a summary could be more than a summary.

You will also not find in the online lectures all the ideas and material in the text re-
explained and rehashed all over again. The online lectures are not supposed to take the
place of the text. They are not supposed to present all the material that is in the text.
Presenting the course material is the job of the text, not of the online lectures. Besides, if
the online lectures presented and re-hashed all material presented in the text, then there
would be no need for a text. But presenting the course content is not the job of the
online lectures, it is the job of the textbook. The online lectures serve as a guide and
mentor, not as an online replacement for a textbook.

You will not be told the quiz and test questions in advance. To provide questions in
advance would defeat the purpose of the tests and quizzes, which is to test you to see if

11
you really understand the material. You also may not be told in advance the exact
number of questions or the types of questions on tests and quizzes. That is not the
responsibility of the instructor—it is your responsibility as a student to be prepared to
answer any relevant questions that may be asked. Which you will surely do with flying
colors if you study the textbook and the online materials effectively!

Unit One
Lecture 3
On Chapter 2
When we put our reasoning into words, the result is called an “argument.” This may not
be the meaning of the word “argument” in all contexts, but this is the standard meaning
in academic contexts. Since reasoning cannot be studied systematically until it has been
placed into words, logical theory begins with the concept of an argument. The central
idea, but by no means the only idea, of Chapter 2 is the definition of the word
“argument” as that word is used in logic and in academic subjects generally. This little
word is one of the most fundamental technical terms in all of logical theory. It is
important to understand it thoroughly. Read the text carefully here and study the
examples!

We always understand something better after we have contrasted it with other things.
Consequently, Chapter 2 distinguishes arguments from “nonarguments.” An important
logical skill is the ability to recognize an argument when one is presented to you. Study
the examples in the text carefully and notice the difference between arguments and
things that are not arguments.

In this chapter you also learn to identify the parts of arguments. Make sure you
understand how to spot premises and conclusions and premise indicators and
conclusion indicators. Once you understand the parts of an argument, and how the parts
fit together, and how they work together, you will have a better understanding of what
an argument is and how arguments are constructed. Just as auto mechanics use their
knowledge of the parts of an engine when they diagnose and repair broken ones, you
will learn in this course to use your knowledge of the parts of an argument when you
need to diagnose and repair broken (illogical) arguments. Arguments, like machines,
have many moving parts.

Keep in mind that many of the main ideas of the chapter can be identified by reading the
glossary at the end of the chapter.

Chapter Objectives
The student who has successfully studied Chapter 2 will be expected to meet all of the
following objectives:

12
 1. Demonstrate an understanding of the textbook’s definition of an argument by
correctly explaining the idea in your own words.

2. Demonstrate an understanding of the structure of an argument by accurately

identifying the parts of an argument, including premises, conclusions, and
premise and conclusion indicator words.

3. Demonstrate an understanding of how the word “argument” as defined in

academic contexts differs from the meaning of “argument” as the word is defined
and used in nonacademic contexts by correctly explaining the difference in your
own words.

4. Demonstrate that you know how to recognize an argument and can distinguish
arguments from nonarguments by correctly distinguishing passages containing
arguments from passages that do not contain arguments.

5. Demonstrate that you understand the idea of a premise indicator and the idea of
a conclusion indicator by correctly identifying premise and conclusion indicators
in sample arguments.

6. Demonstrate an understanding of the difference between a premise and a

conclusion by correctly identifying the premises and conclusions of arguments.

7. Demonstrate an understanding of the definitions of the various types of

sentences (declarative, imperative, interrogative, exclamatory, and performative)
by accurately explaining the definitions in your own words.

8. Given sentences of English, correctly classify them as declarative, imperative,

interrogative, exclamatory, or performative.

9. Demonstrate an understanding of the definition of an enthymeme by correctly

explaining it in your own words.

10. Demonstrate an understanding of the principle of charity by correctly explaining

it in your own words.

11. Given an enthymematic argument, fill in the missing step or steps in accord with
the principle of charity.

12. Demonstrate that you know how to diagram an argument by accurately

diagramming sample arguments.

13. Demonstrate an understanding of the concepts in this chapter by correctly

answering relevant true-false, multiple-choice, and other types of short answer
questions and essay questions.

13
 14. If something taught in the text was not included in this list of objectives, be
prepared to demonstrate an understanding of that item too!

Test Your Understanding!

Practice Problems with Answers
Indicator Words

For each argument, (a) state any premise or conclusion indicators and (b) state the
conclusion.
1. Since Tuan is a student, it follows that he studies regularly.
2. Sarah is a mother, because she has given birth to a child.
3. All dogs are mammals, and all mammals are animals; thus all dogs are animals.
4. Given that Kim is the country’s president, that Kim is a politician may be inferred
from the fact that all presidents of countries are politicians.
5. The ground is wet during a heavy rain. Consequently, due to the fact that it’s raining
now, the ground now is wet.
6. Provided that two is greater than one, and three is greater than two, it follows that
three is greater than one.
7. Tran is happy. Hence Tran is happy.
8. Simón Bolívar was born in Venezuela. Bolívar was a military hero in South America.
This implies that a military hero was born in Venezuela.
9. According to Socrates, people will do what they believe is in their best interests. Thus,
since the good is in people’s best interest, it behooves philosophers to explain the good
to people.
10. Given that all dogs are mammals, and because no mammals are birds, it must be
concluded that no dogs are fish.

Answers:
1. (a) Since; it follows that; (b) he studies regularly
2. (a) because; (b) Sarah is a mother
3. (a) thus; (b) all dogs are animals
4. (a) Given that; may be inferred from; (b) Kim is a politician
5. (a) Consequently; due to the fact that; (b) the ground is now wet
6. (a) Provided that; it follows that; (b) three is greater than one.
7. (a) Hence; (b) Tran is happy (the second instance of the claim)
8. (a) This implies that; (b) a military hero was born in Venezuela
9. (a) Thus; since; (b) it behooves philosophers to explain the good to people
10. (a) Given that; because; it must be concluded that; (b) no dogs are fish

Which Type of Sentence?

14
1.I love renaissance art.
2.Boo.
3.If today is Monday then tomorrow is Tuesday.
4.Renaisance art, wow!!!
5.Do your homework.
6.Do you like peanut butter?
7.Hydrogen is the most common element in the universe.
8.Logic is my favorite class.
9.Dang it!!!
10.Do you know the way to San Jose?
11.I’ve been away so long.
12.Fidel Castro executed thousands of political opponents without trial.

Answers
1.Declarative
2.Exclamatory
3. Declarative
4. Exclamatory
5.Imperative
6.Interrogative
7.Declarative
8. Declarative
9. Exclamatory
10.Interrogative
11.Declarative
12.Declarative

Arguments and Non-arguments

In each case, does the passage present an argument? Or does it not contain an
argument?

1. Elizabeth and Marty went together to school on Tuesday, got in a minor automobile
accident, and were late for their biology class. Their teacher was giving a test that day,
and the two students were not there to take it.
2. Elizabeth and Marty left their house to go to school on Tuesday, but on the way
decided to spend the day at the movie theater instead. Their biology teacher was giving a
test that day, and the two students were not there to take it. That is why they received a
poor grade for their coursework that week.

15
3. Elizabeth and Marty, you two are crazy! You should not have gone to the movies
Tuesday, especially when you had a test in your biology class. You should go to school
each day classes are in session.
4. Elizabeth and Marty went together to school every day this week and studied the
material covered in class. Students who attend class regularly and study regularly
usually do well in class. Thus Elizabeth and Marty probably did well in class this week.
5. Some students do not attend class regularly. For instance, Elizabeth and Marty went
together to school on Tuesday, but decided to return home to play Grand Theft Auto all
day. Such behavior is indicative of poor study habits.
6. Maria studies every night for her chemistry class, and works very precisely in her
chemistry lab work. She also attends class each day and takes complete notes. We can
conclude that Maria will likely do well in her chemistry class.
7. Both Mahatmas Gandhi and Sri Aurobindo were philosophically minded, both were
male, both were from India, and both wrote commentaries on the Bhagavad Gita.
Gandhi fought against British occupation of India. Thus Aurobindo did, too.
8. Rene Descartes was unable to see the relations between things, focused on breaking
“problems” into smaller parts, and missed viewing systems holistically. Thus he has
been deemed a “mechanistic” philosopher.
9. Fatima likes pizza. Julio likes football. Takashi likes reading The Tale of Genji.
10. Sunzi wrote The Art of War, and The Art of War was written by a Chinese
philosopher. Sunzi must then be a Chinese philosopher.

Answers:
1. Non-argument. It’s merely a report of the day’s events with no inference.
2. Non-argument. It’s a causal explanation of the students’ poor grades with no
inference.
3. Non-argument. It’s a combination of opinion and advice, but with no inference.
4. Argument. There are a series of claims serving as premises leading to a conclusion
(note the indicator word “thus”).
5. Non-argument. It’s merely an illustration of the opening claim with no inference.
6. Argument. Note the use of the conclusion indicator, “We can conclude that.”
7. Argument. This is an argument from analogy.
8. Non-argument. We find the word “thus” (which is often a conclusion indicator), but
here it is pointing to the effect of a causal relation. That is, the final statement is
explained by the previous ones, but there is no inference intended here.
9. Non-argument. It’s just an unconnected string of claims.
10. Argument. The first two claims give good reason to believe the third claim.

Diagramming Arguments

16
Number each premise and conclusion in the following arguments, and diagram the
arguments using arrows to indicate the inference from one or more premises to a
conclusion.

1. Amanda wrote Tim a love letter. Amanda gave Tim a birthday present. Amanda told
Tim she really likes him. It follows that Amanda probably likes Tim a lot.
2. All dogs are animals, and all dogs are mammals. Fido is a dog. Thus Fido is an animal
and a mammal.
3. Every crow I’ve ever seen has been black. Also, ravens are similar to crows, and ravens
are black. Thus the next crow I see will probably be black.
4. Either Smith is a politician, or she is a logic teacher and a tennis player. But Smith is
not a politician. Thus Smith is a logic teacher.
5. If Garcia is a philosopher, then he is logical. If Garcia is logical, then Garcia is at least
in part rational. Thus if Garcia is a philosopher, then he is at least in part rational. And if
that conditional statement is true, then Garcia is a thinking being. Thus Garcia is a
thinking being.

Answers:
1. (1) Amanda wrote Tim a love letter. (2) Amanda gave Tim a birthday present. (3)
Amanda told Tim she really likes him. It follows that (4) Amanda probably likes Tim a
lot.
(1) (2) (3)
Three separate arrows to (4)
(4)
2. (1) All dogs are animals, and (2) all dogs are mammals. (3) Fido is a dog. Thus (4)
Fido is an animal and a mammal.
(1)+(2)+(3)
One arrow from the premise group to (4)
(4)
3. (1) Every crow I’ve ever seen has been black. Also, (2) ravens are similar to crows, and
(3) ravens are black. Thus (4) the next crow I see will probably be black.
(1) (2)+(3)
Two separate arrows from (1) and from (2)+(3) to (4)
(4)
4. (1) Either Smith is a politician, or she is a logic teacher and a tennis player. But (2)
Smith is not a politician. Thus (3) Smith is a logic teacher.
(1)+(2)
One arrow from premise group to (3)
(3)
5. (1) If Garcia is a philosopher, then he is logical. (2) If Garcia is logical, then Garcia is
at least in part rational. Thus (3) if Garcia is a philosopher, then he is at least in part

17
rational. And (4) if that conditional is true, it follows necessarily that Garcia is a
thinking being. Thus (5) Garcia is a thinking being.
(1)+(2)
One arrow from premise group to (3)
(3)+(4)
One arrow from second premise group to (5)
(5)

Unit One
Supplement to Chapter 2

Monty Python’s famous skit

“The Argument Clinic”

Chapter 2 introduces the precise academic meaning of the word “argument” and
explains how the meaning of the word “argument” in academic and intellectual contexts
differs from its meaning in other contexts. As you learn the difference between the
academic and the nonacademic meanings of the word, enjoy this hilarious and
wonderful spoof performed by the Monty Python cast.

Watch this classic skit on YouTube by copying and pasting the following into your
browser:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQFKtI6gn9Y&feature=fvwk

The Script

Scene: The reception desk at the Argument Clinic.

Receptionist: Yes, sir?

Man: I'd like to have an argument please.

Receptionist: Certainly, sir, have you been here before...?

Man: No, this is my first time.

Receptionist: I see. Do you want to have the full argument, or were you thinking of
taking a course?

18
Man: Well, what would be the cost?

Receptionist: Yes, it's one pound for a five-minute argument, but only eight pounds
for a course of ten.

Man: Well, I think it's probably best of I start with the one and see how it goes from
there. OK?

Receptionist: Fine. I'll see who's free at the moment... Mr. Du-Bakey's free, but he's a
little bit conciliatory... Yes, try…Room 12.

Man: Thank you.

[...] The man knocks on the door of room 12.

Professional arguer: Come in.

The man enters the room. The arguer is sitting at a desk.

Man: Is this the right room for an argument?

Arguer: I've told you once.

Man: No you haven't.

Arguer: Yes I have.

Man: When?

Arguer: Just now!

Man: No you didn't.

Arguer: Yes I did!

Man: You didn't.

Arguer: Did.

Man: Didn't.

Arguer: I'm telling you I did!

Man: You did not!

Arguer: I'm sorry, is this a five-minute argument, or the full half-hour?

19
Man: Oh, just a five minute one.

Arguer: Fine….Thank you. Anyway I did.

Man: You most certainly did not.

Arguer: Now, let's get one thing quite clear... I most definitely told you!

Man: You did not.

Arguer: Yes I did.

Man: You did not.

Arguer: Yes I did….

Man: Look this isn't an argument.

Arguer: Yes it is.

Man: No it isn't, it's just contradiction.

Arguer: No it isn't.

Man: Yes it is.

Arguer: It is not …

Man: Oh, look this is futile.

Arguer: No it isn't.

Man: I came here for a good argument.

Arguer: No you didn't…

Man: Well, an argument's not the same as contradiction.

Arguer: It can be.

Man: No it can't. An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish

a definite proposition.

Arguer: No it isn't.

Man: Yes it is. It isn't just contradiction….

20
Arguer: Yes it is.

Man: No it isn't, an argument is an intellectual process... contradiction is just the

automatic gainsaying of anything the other person says.

Arguer: No it isn't.

Man: Yes it is.

Arguer: Not at all.

Man: Now look!

Arguer:(pressing the bell on his desk) Thank you, good morning.

Man: What?

Arguer: That's it….

Man: But I was just getting interested.

Arguer: Sorry the five minutes is up.

Man: That was never five minutes just now!

Arguer: I'm afraid it was.

Man: No it wasn't.

Arguer: I'm sorry, I'm not allowed to argue any more.

Man: What!?

Arguer: If you want me to go on arguing, you'll have to pay for another five minutes.

Man: But that was never five minutes just now... oh come on! …

Arguer: I'm very sorry, but I told you I'm not allowed to argue unless you've paid.

Man: Oh. All right. (The man pays.) There you are.

Arguer: Thank you.

Man: Well?

Arguer: Well what?

21
Man: That was never five minutes just now.

Arguer: I told you I'm not allowed to argue unless you've paid.

Man: But I've just paid.

Arguer: No you didn't.

Man: I did! I did! I did!

Arguer: No you didn't.

Man: Look I don't want to argue about that.

Arguer: Well I'm very sorry but you didn't pay.

Man: Aha! Well if I didn't pay, why are you arguing... got you!

Arguer: No you haven't.

Man: Yes I have... if you're arguing I must have paid.

Arguer: Not necessarily. I could be arguing in my spare time.

Man: I've had enough of this.

Arguer: No you haven't.

End….

[From "Monty Python's Flying Circus: Just the Words, Volume 2", episode 29.
Methuen, ISBN 0-413-62550-8 (hardback).]

Question

Which of the characters in this skit has the better understanding of the word “argument”
as it is used in logic? The professional arguer? Or the man trying to buy an argument?
Explain.

Unit One
Online Lecture 5
22
 On Chapter 3
The distinction between deductive and inductive arguments is the central point of this
chapter. It is also one of the most fundamental distinctions in all of logical theory. The
ability to distinguish deductive from inductive reasoning is a very important logical skill.
Pay very close attention to the definitions and examples. They are very precise. Don’t
forget to test your understanding by trying the “Practice Problems with Answers.” The
online videos are also important. That was just a reminder.

Chapter Objectives
1. Demonstrate an understanding of the definition of an inductive argument by
correctly explaining it in your own words.

2. Demonstrate an understanding of a deductive argument by correctly explaining it

in your own words.

3. Demonstrate an understanding of the difference between deduction and

induction by correctly classifying sample arguments as deductive or inductive.

4. Demonstrate an understanding of deductive and inductive indicator words by

correctly classifying indicator words as deductive or inductive.

5. Demonstrate an understanding of the definition of an argument form by correctly

explaining it in your own words.

6. Demonstrate an understanding of the differences between deductive and

inductive arguments by explaining the differences in your own words.

7. Demonstrate an understanding of the concepts in this chapter by correctly

answering relevant true-false, multiple-choice, and other types of short answer
questions and essay questions.

8. If something taught in the text was not included in this list of objectives, be
prepared to demonstrate an understanding of that item too!

Test Your Understanding

Practice Problems With Answers

Is the indicator word deductive or inductive?

23
1.Necessarily
2.Probably
3.Certainly
4.Perhaps
5.For sure
6.Must be so
7.It’s likely that
8.It’s guaranteed that
9.It may very well be that
10.It’s a good bet that

Answers
1. D (Deductive)
2.I (Inductive)
3.D
4.I
5.D
6.D
7.I
8.D
9.I
10.I

Deduction and Induction

For each argument, state whether it is deductive or inductive. Some contain deduction
or induction indicator words; others do not.

1. Some dogs are mammals. Some mammals are animals. Thus, some dogs are animals.
2. Either Thomas Aquinas was a writer or he was an astronaut. But he was not a writer.
Thus he definitely was an astronaut.
3. Nearly all geometry teachers are serious when they say that triangles have three sides.
Thus, on that basis, we can say that triangles probably have three sides.
4. Some diseases can spread easily from one person to another by skin contact. Thus it is
guaranteed that some diseases are contagious.
5. No human has ever lived for 2000 years. Thus the current prime minister of England
will probably not live for 2000 years.
6. The official sign posted at the edge of our campus says that this is Catatonic State
University. Therefore, this probably is Bellevue College.
7. If Michael Jackson was president of the United States, then he was a politician.
Michael Jackson was a politician. Thus Michael Jackson certainly was president of the
United States.
8. The U.S. military dropped many bombs on Iraq while fighting there. Bombs almost

24
always explode, destroying things near them. Thus the U.S. military probably destroyed
things in Iraq.
9. If Lady Gaga [the female singer] is an adult man, then Lady Gaga is a male. But Lady
Gaga is not an adult man. Thus Lady Gaga is surely not a male.
10. German philosopher Georg Hegel was a space alien. Thus certainly Georg Hegel was
a space alien.
11. No dogs are cats. No cats are mice. Thus it is guaranteed that some cats are not mice.
12. Large, naturally occurring icebergs have yet to be found in the middle of the Sahara
Desert. Thus it is likely that no such ice berg will be found there next year.
13. The Atlantic Ocean lies between Africa and South America. Africa is immediately
east of the Atlantic Ocean. Thus South America is certainly west of the Atlantic Ocean.
14. The sign placed by officials on the Statue of Liberty in New York City says that it was
made by Peruvian artists. Thus the Statue of Liberty was likely made by Peruvian artists.
15. Every rock-n-roll musician says that we should all eat corn for dinner every night.
Thus we probably should eat corn for dinner every night.

Answers:
1. Deductive
2. Deductive
3. Inductive
4. Deductive
5. Inductive
6. Inductive
7. Deductive
8. Inductive
9. Deductive
10. Deductive
11. Deductive
12. Inductive
13. Deductive
14. Inductive
15. Inductive

Unit One
Online Lecture 6
On Chapter 4

25
The central idea of this chapter is the definition of deductive validity. For most logic
students this is the most difficult concept to understand and apply—of all the concepts
taught in the introductory unit of any logic course. It is very important that you study
the definition and examples closely, concentrating on the details. The definition of
validity is very precise...and very important. It is also important that you practice
applying the concept of validity by completing the practice quizzes and then checking
your answers against the answer key. The more times you apply the concept of validity
and check your work, by assessing arguments as valid or invalid, the better you will
understand this crucial logical idea.

The Videos and PowerPoints

We also strongly recommend that you watch the corresponding online video lectures
and the relevant PowerPoint as you study the concept of validity and learn to distinguish
valid from invalid arguments. Few students can adequately learn this material without
watching visual explanations.

Course Objectives
1. Demonstrate an understanding of the difference between valid and invalid
arguments by correctly defining each concept in your own words.

2. Demonstrate an understanding of the difference between valid and invalid

arguments by correctly classifying sample arguments as valid or invalid.

3. Demonstrate an understanding of the concept of a self-contradiction by correctly

explaining the definition of a self-contradiction.

4. Demonstrate an understanding of the concept of a self-contradiction by correctly

distinguishing sentences that are self-contradictory from those that are not.

5. Demonstrate an understanding of the definition of “possibility” used in logic by

correctly explaining it in your own words.

6. Demonstrate an understanding of the way in which the definition of “possibility”

in logic class differs from the definition used in everyday life by correctly
explaining the difference in your own words.

7. Demonstrate an understanding of the definition of a sound argument by correctly

explaining it in your own words.

8. Demonstrate an understanding of the procedure (“intuitive test”) for deciding

whether an argument is valid or invalid by correctly determining if sample
arguments are valid or invalid.

26
 9. Demonstrate an understanding of the method of counterexample by showing
arguments invalid using the method of counterexample.

10. Demonstrate an understanding of the two ways that an argument can go wrong
by criticizing an argument based on the two ways that an argument can go wrong.

11. Demonstrate an understanding of enthymematic deductive arguments by

completing them in such a way that they become valid arguments.

12. Use deductive reasoning to solve brain teasers such as the knights and knaves
problems.

13. Demonstrate an understanding of the notions of validity, invalidity, soundness,

and related ideas by answering relevant true-false, multiple-choice, and other
types of short answer questions and essay questions.

14. If something taught in the text was not included in this list of objectives, be
prepared to demonstrate an understanding of that item too.

Test Your Understanding

Practice Problems with Answers

Valid and Invalid

For each of the following deductive arguments, determine whether it is valid or invalid.

1. Some dogs are mammals. Some dogs are poodles. Thus some mammals are poodles.
2. Either the former U.S. president George W. Bush was not a professional baseball
player or he was not a famous rock singer. But he was a famous rock singer. Thus
George W. Bush was not a professional baseball player.
3. The word ‘wet’ has three letters in it. Thus the word ‘wet’ has an odd number of letters
in it.
4. If Mahatma Gandhi was a woman, then Mahatma Gandhi was a female. But Mahatma
Gandhi was not a woman. Therefore Mahatma Gandhi was not a female.
5. Nine is greater than four, and four is greater than six. Thus nine is greater than four.
6. René Descartes is now the U.S. President. Thus René Descartes is now the U.S.
President.
7. All cats are tigers. No tigers are fish. Thus no cats are fish.
8. Snow-covered landscapes are chilly. Hence, snow-covered landscapes are cold.
9. This geometric figure is a square. Therefore, this geometric figure has three sides.
10. If Bertrand Russell wrote a book on advanced logic, then he was a logician. Bertrand
Russell did indeed write a book on advanced logic. And either he was not a logician or he
27
was a ballet star. Thus Bertrand Russell was a ballet star.
11. Five is greater than two. Two is greater than ten. Thus five is greater than ten.
12. Elephants fly. Elephants are animals. Thus some animals fly.
13. Bob is a gzworg. Thus Bob is a gzworg.
14. If Malcolm X was a National Hockey League star, then Malcolm X was a professional
athlete. Malcolm X was not a professional athlete. Thus Malcolm X was not a National
Hockey League star.
15. Some dogs are German shepherds. Thus some dogs are not German shepherds.

Answers:
1. Invalid
2. Valid
3. Valid
4. Invalid
5. Valid
6. Valid
7. Valid
8. Valid
9. Invalid
10. Valid
11. Valid
12. Valid
13. Valid
14. Valid
15. Invalid

Enthymemes

For each of the following arguments, state whether a premise or the conclusion is
missing, and supply missing premise or conclusion. In each case, assume the argument
is deductive, and add the missing element to produce a valid argument.

1. All dictatorships trample on human rights. Therefore, the government of Ruritania

tramples on human rights.
2. Men are from Mars, and women are from Venus. So, Pat is from Venus.
3. Anyone who sympathizes with Kramer is unorthodox. Susan is unorthodox.
4. Some mammals live in the water, for whales do.
5. You owe taxes only if you earn a profit. You owe taxes.
6. Only gas-powered vehicles are allowed in the race. Therefore, Joe’s truck is not
allowed in the race.
7. Because all cats are felines, tigers are felines.

28
8. Many adults are drug users, because caffeine is a drug.
9. Nobody who eats fatty food is healthy. So, people who eat hamburgers are not
healthy.
10. If you watch television, then you get a superficial view of the world. So, you waste
your time, if you watch television.
11. Jones must be healthy, for he runs a mile every day.
12. All shrews are mammals. So, all shrews have hair.
13. Some cats are domesticated. So, some mammals are domesticated.
14. If Radhakrishnan was an Indian philosopher, then he was not from Suriname; and
Radakrishnan was indeed an Indian philosopher.
15. Hui-neng wrote the Platform Sutra or the Diamond Sutra. Thus, Hui-neng wrote
the Platform Sutra.

Answers:
1. Premise: The government of Ruritania is a dictatorship.
2. Premise: Pat is a woman.
3. Premise: Susan sympathizes with Kramer.
4. Premise: All whales are mammals.
5. Conclusion: You earn a profit.
6. Premise: Joe’s truck is not a gas-powered vehicle.
7. Premise: All tigers are cats.
8. Premise: Many adults use caffeine.
9. Premise: People who eat hamburgers eat fatty foods.
10. Premise: If you get a superficial view of the world, then you waste your time.
11. Premise: Anyone who runs a mile a day must be healthy.
12. Premise: All mammals have hair.
13. Premise: All cats are mammals.
14. Conclusion: He was not from Suriname.
15. Premise: Hui-neng did not write the Diamond Sutra.

Unit One
Online Lecture 7
On Chapter 5
The central idea of this chapter is the definition of a strong argument. For most people
this is one of the more difficult ideas learned in the introductory logic course. It is very
important that you study the definitions carefully and think about each example. The
definition is very precise. Probably the two most important ideas in all of Unit One are
the definitions of a valid argument (taught in the previous chapter) and a strong
29
argument (the central idea of this chapter). Both concepts will play a big role in all that
follows in this course.

As with validity, it is important that you practice applying the definition of a strong
argument by completing the practice quizzes and then checking your answers against
the answer key. The more times you apply the concept of inductive strength and check
your work, by assessing inductive arguments as strong or weak, the better you will
understand this key logical idea.

Objectives
1. Demonstrate an understanding of the difference between strong and weak
inductive arguments by correctly defining each concept in your own words.

2. Demonstrate an understanding of the difference between strong and weak

inductive arguments by correctly classifying sample arguments as strong or weak.

3. Demonstrate an understanding of the definition of a cogent argument by

correctly explaining it in your own words.

4. Demonstrate an understanding of the notions of strength, weakness, cogency and

related ideas by correctly answering relevant true/ false, multiple choice, and
other short answer questions and essay questions concerning strength, weakness,
cogency, and related ideas.

5. If something taught in the text was not included in this list of objectives, be
prepared to demonstrate an understanding of that item too!

Test Your Understanding!

Practice Problems with Answers

Strong and Weak

For each of the following inductive arguments, state whether it is strong or weak.

1. Serious biologists will tell you that mice are mammals. Thus mice are mammals.
2. It has rained every day in the Darién Gap for the past twenty-five years. Thus it will
probably rain in the Darién Gap tomorrow.
3. People try on shoes before buying them. People drive cars before signing up for a
three-year lease. People take a close look at travel information before committing to an
expensive vacation. Thus people should have sex with each other before committing to

30
marriage.
4. Different cultures have different beliefs about morality. Thus there is no objective
basis outside of cultural norms for any moral claim.
5. Sandra’s math teacher says that God exists. Thus God probably exists.
6. Two teenagers were found writing graffiti on the school walls yesterday. Thus all
teenagers are delinquents.
7. A reliable study showed that 90 percent of the university’s students want better food
in the school cafeteria. Latisha is a student at the university. It follows that Latisha
probably wants better food at the cafeteria.
8. Hakim has eaten at Joe’s Café every day for two weeks, and has liked the food each
time. Hakim plans to go to Joe’s Café tonight for dinner, and on the basis of his past
experiences concludes that he will likely enjoy this meal, too.
9. Paul has eaten at Joe’s Café once before for breakfast, and liked the food. On that
basis, Paul concludes that he will love the food at Joe’s Café tonight when he goes there
for dinner.
10. Upon landing at the airport, passengers saw broken buildings, large cracks in the
runway, fire engines running about, and paramedics assisting injured people. The
passengers concluded that an earthquake just occurred.
11. A box contains 1000 U.S. coins. Two selected at random were one cent pennies. Thus
the entire box probably contains nothing but pennies.
12. An official state parks sign at a beach says, “Attention: Beyond this point you may
encounter nude sunbathers.” Therefore the beach in front of you is probably sanctioned
for clothing-optional use.
13. An elderly lady drove 50 miles out of her way to visit the officially sanctioned
clothing-optional beach at the state park, and complained to the park ranger there that
she was offended by the nudity she saw through her binoculars. Thus the ranger should
arrest every nude sunbather at the beach for disorderly conduct.
14. A spokeswoman for the nude sunbathers at the officially sanctioned clothing-
optional beach plans to politely explain to the elderly woman complainant that no one at
the beach had broken any law. Therefore it is likely that this particular elderly woman
will subsequently and happily join the nudists for a game of Frisbee on the beach.
15. Ranger Dan has listened to the elderly woman’s strident complaint about beach
nudity. Ranger Dan has also listened to over a dozen nudists shout their points of view
regarding the elderly woman’s’ complaint. Ranger Dan works under an incompetent site
administrator who demands that Dan resolve all beach user-conflict quickly and in such
a way that avoids negative media attention. Thus Ranger Dan is probably feeling
frustrated.

Answers:
1. Strong
2. Strong

31
3. Weak
4. Weak
5. Weak
6. Weak
7. Strong
8. Strong
9. Weak
10. Strong
11. Weak
12. Strong
13. Weak
14. Weak
15. Strong

Soundness and Cogency

For each of the following arguments, determine three things: (a) whether it is deductive
or inductive, (b) whether it is valid or invalid (if deductive), or strong or weak (if
inductive), and (c) whether it is deductively sound or unsound (if deductive), or cogent
or uncogent (if inductive).

1. All rats are mammals, and no mammals are fish. Thus it is necessary that no rats are
fish.
2. Paris is in France, and France is in Africa. Hence it must be the case that Paris is in
Africa.
3. No human has ever swum across the Atlantic Ocean. The president of the USA is a
human. Thus the president of the USA will likely not swim across the Atlantic Ocean.
4. Mexico City’s human population is today well over 1000. Thus it is guaranteed that
the human population today of Mexico City is over 500.
5. India is north of the Antarctic. It follows that the Antarctic is south of India.
6. Beijing—the capitol of China—is a large, famous, and interesting city. Thus Beijing
probably receives at most a dozen tourists a year.
7. Highly respected physicists say that it is important to learn math in order to excel at
advanced physics. Thus it is important to learn math to excel at advanced physics.
8. Different cultures have different beliefs about morality. Thus it is certain that there is
nothing absolute or objective about morality.
9. Our moral beliefs are produced through environmental conditioning. Thus is highly
likely that there is nothing absolute or objective about morality.
10. Thinkers have yet to agree on an absolute or objective basis for morality. Thus it is
certain that there is no absolute or objective basis for morality.
11. It has never snowed in the mountains of Tibet. Thus it will not likely snow there this

32
year.
12. The USA has never elected a woman as president of the country. Thus in the next
election, the USA will likely elect a woman as president of the country.
13. In 1950, basketball star Michael Jordan was president of Argentina. All basketball
players are athletes. Thus in 1950, Argentina had an athlete as president.
14. The capitol of Costa Rica is San Jose. The capitol of Panama is Panama City. Most of
Costa Rica is north of Panama. Thus it is certain that San Jose is north of Panama City.
15. Ethiopia is north of Kenya, and Kenya is north of Botswana. Therefore it is
guaranteed that Ethiopia is (at least in part) north of Botswana.

Answers:
1. Deductive, valid, deductively sound
2. Deductive, valid, deductively unsound
3. Inductive, strong, cogent
4. Deductive, valid, deductively sound
5. Deductive, valid, deductively sound
6. Inductive, weak, uncogent
7. Inductive, strong, cogent
8. Deductive, invalid, deductively unsound
9. Inductive, weak, uncogent
10. Deductive, invalid, deductively unsound
11. Inductive, strong, uncogent
12. Inductive, weak, uncogent
13. Deductive, valid, deductively unsound
14. Deductive, invalid, deductively unsound
15. Deductive, valid, deductively sound

33
Given a sentence, demonstrate your understanding of necessary truth and falsity, and
contingent truth and falsity, by classifying the sentence as necessarily true, necessarily
false, contingently true or contingently false.

Unit One
Online Lecture 8
On Chapter 6
Many teachers will skip this chapter of the text, preferring to cover the concepts
presented in this chapter later in the course, in the more symbolic parts of the course.
That is a fine approach, as is the approach that covers the ideas right here in Chapter 6.
Both are fine. It is all good in the end.

The main change you will notice when you study this chapter is the focus on sentences
rather than arguments. This chapter teaches you the logical properties of individual
sentences and certain logical relations that exist among groups of sentences.

It is important that you practice applying the concepts taught in this chapter, by
completing the practice quizzes and then checking your answers against the answer key.
The more times you apply the concepts of necessary truth, necessary falsehood,
contingency, consistency, implication, and equivalence, and check your work, the better
you will understand these fundamental logical ideas.

The Videos and PowerPoints

If you study this chapter, we strongly recommend that you watch the corresponding
online video lectures and the PowerPoint that sums up all the key ideas of Unit One.
Few students can adequately learn this material without watching the visual
explanations.

Objectives

1. Demonstrate an understanding of the logical relations--consistency,

inconsistency, implication and equivalence--by accurately defining each concept
in your own words.

34
 2. Demonstrate an understanding of the logical relations by correctly classifying the
relation between sample sentences as one of consistency, inconsistency,
implication and equivalence.

3. Demonstrate an understanding of the logical properties of sentences--necessary

truth and falsity and contingent truth and falsity--by accurately defining each
concept in your own words.

4. Demonstrate an understanding of necessity and contingency by accurately

classifying sample sentences as necessarily true, necessarily false, contingent,
contingently true, or contingently false.

5. Demonstrate an understanding of the notions of consistency, inconsistency,

implication, equivalence, necessity, contingency, necessary truth and falsity and
contingent truth and falsity, and related ideas by correctly answering relevant
true/ false, multiple choice, and other types of short answer questions and essay
questions.

6. Demonstrate an understanding of the notion of an intellectual ideal by correctly

explaining one in your own words.

7. If something taught in the text was not included in this list of objectives, be
prepared to demonstrate an understanding of that item too.

Test Your Understanding

Practice Problems with Answers

Consistency and Inconsistency

Consider the following pairs of statements and determine which pairs are consistent and
which are inconsistent.

1. David Hume was from Scotland. David Hume was a philosopher.

2. Confucius was a Chinese philosopher. It is false that Confucius was a Chinese
philosopher.
3. Jean-Paul Sartre was French. Albert Camus was French.
4. Nagarjuna was a Buddhist philosopher who lived in India. Nagarjuna was not a
philosopher.
5. José Vasconcelos wrote The Cosmic Race. José Vasconcelos was a Mexican
philosopher.
6. The Indian philosophy of Jainism philosophy encourages ahimsa (nonharming).
Some Indians encourage ahimsa.

35
7. John Rawls taught philosophy in the USA his entire adult life. John Rawls taught
philosophy in Japan when he was in his 50s.
8. Gotama taught and wrote extensively about logic in India in the 3rd century B.C. No
one in India taught logic prior to A.D. 100.
9. The Nyaya Sutras of Gotama expand upon a longstanding logic system used by
Indian philosophers. The Nyaya Sutras of Gotama expand upon longstanding debate
protocol used by Indian debaters.
10. The ancient Carvaka tradition of India believes in the existence of material objects.
The ancient Carvaka tradition of Indian does not believe in the existence of immaterial
objects.

Answers:
1. Consistent
2. Inconsistent
3. Consistent
4. Inconsistent
5. Consistent
6. Consistent
7. Inconsistent
8. Inconsistent
9. Consistent
10.Consistent

Implication

Consider the following pairs of statements. In each case, determine whether the first
member of the pair implies the second member.

1. Plato lived before Aristotle. Aristotle lived after Plato.

2. The tabletop is wet. The tabletop is not dry.
3. Soren Kierkegaard admired Immanuel Kant. Immanuel Kant admired Soren
Kierkegaard.
4. Two plus two equals five. Elephants fly to the Moon.
5. Alfred North Whitehead liked math. Two plus two equals four.
6. Plato was a teacher of Socrates. Socrates was a student of Plato.
7. The students in Smith’s logic class study daily. The students in Smith’s logic class will
all get As.
8. Garcia received an A in Smith’s logic class. Garcia studied logic every day.
9. Francisco Vitoria was a philosopher from Spain. Francisco Vitoria was from the
Iberian Peninsula.
10. Bartolome de Las Casas defended indigenous Americans against the Spanish in the

36
1500s. Bartolome de Las Casa was Spanish.

Answers:
1. Implication
2. Implication
3. No implication
4. Implication
5. Implication
6. Implication
7. No implication
8. No implication
9. Implication
10. No implication

Equivalence

Consider the following pairs of statements. In each case, are the sentences logically
equivalent?

1. Plato wrote more books than Socrates. Socrates wrote fewer books than Plato.
2. No ancient Jain philosophers are 21st century logicians. No 21st century logicians are
ancient Jain philosophers.
3. Xunzi was a male Chinese philosopher. Xunzi was a Chinese philosopher.
4. Some dogs are not black animals. Some black animals are not dogs.
5. All dogs are organic beings. No dogs are inorganic beings.
6. The Indian tradition of Samkhya is metaphysically dualist. The Indian tradition of
Samkhya affirms the existence of two distinct kinds of substance.
7. Carvaka philosophers tended to be atheists. Carvaka philosophers tended to not
believe in the existence of God.
8. Martha Nussbaum is a female and she’s a philosopher. Martha Nussbaum is a female
philosopher.
9. Melody is holding a total of three coins in her right hand. Melody is holding an odd
number of coins in her right hand.
10. Some Chileans are philosophers. Some philosophers are Chileans.

Answers:
1. Equivalent
2. Equivalent
3. Not equivalent
4. Not equivalent
5. Equivalent

37
6. Equivalent
7. Equivalent
8. Equivalent
9. Not equivalent
10. Equivalent

Necessary and Contingent Statements

Consider the following statements. In each case, is the statement necessarily true,
necessarily false, contingently true, or contingently false?

1. Squares have four sides.

2. Elephants can fly.
3. Squares have four sides or elephants can fly.
4. It is false that elephants can fly.
5. Squares have five sides.
6. Unicorns are commonly seen in New York City.
7. French women are commonly seen in Paris.
8. There are no rivers in India.
9. Either apples are fruit or it is false that apples are fruit.
10. Apples are fruit and it is false that apples are fruit.
11. Tokyo has a human population of over 10,000.
12. Two plus two equals four.
13. All bachelors are married men.
14. Columbia has beautiful beaches that attract tourists.
15. A Maya dialect is the official language of Nigeria.

Answers:
1. Necessarily true
2. Contingently false
3. Necessarily true
4. Contingently true
5. Necessarily false
6. Contingently false
7. Contingently true
8. Contingently false
9. Necessarily true
10. Necessarily false
11. Contingently true
12. Necessarily true
13. Necessarily false

38
14. Contingently true
15. Contingently false

Unit Two
Online Lecture 1
About Unit Two

Unit Two takes you into categorical logic, the study of categorical reasoning, the first
branch of logic systematized by Aristotle, the founder of logic. Study this unit and learn
to recognize categorical arguments and to evaluate them using principles and
techniques as precise as any in mathematics. This unit builds on the ideas covered in
Unit One. A solid understanding of Unit One is thus a pre-requisite for a solid
understanding of the ideas in this unit.

The Online Videos

We also strongly recommend that you watch the corresponding online video lectures as
you learn this material. Few students can adequately learn this material without
watching these visual, step-by-step demonstrations.

General Objectives of Unit Two

The student who successfully studies Unit Two will be expected to meet all of the
following objectives.

1. Demonstrate an understanding of the definition of categorical logic by defining it

correctly in your own words.

2. Demonstrate an understanding of how categorical logic began by correctly

explaining its origin in your own words.

39
 3. Demonstrate an understanding of categorical sentences by correctly identifying
the parts of categorical sentences.

4. Demonstrate an understanding of the four categorical sentence forms by

correctly identifying them and by classifying sample categorical sentences in
terms of their forms.

5. Demonstrate an understanding of categorical arguments by correctly identifying

the parts of categorical arguments.

6. Distinguish the three different types of categorical arguments: immediate

inferences, mediate inferences, and sorites.

7. Demonstrate an understanding of the traditional square of opposition by using it

to determine relations between opposing sentences and to test single-premise
arguments for validity and be prepared to demonstrate your understanding by
correctly doing so.

8. Demonstrate an understanding of the traditional square of opposition by using it

to test single-premise arguments for validity.

9. Demonstrate an understanding of the laws of conversion, obversion, and

contraposition by correctly identifying relevant inferences as valid or invalid and
by correctly judging whether sample pairs of sentences are equivalent or not
equivalent.

10. Demonstrate an understanding of the rules of validity for categorical arguments

by correctly applying them to each of the different types of categorical argument.

11. Demonstrate an understanding of the definition of logical form for categorical

arguments by correctly determining logical form when presented with a
categorical argument.

12. Demonstrate an understanding of the valid forms of categorical syllogisms by

correctly classifying arguments under the headings of the valid forms.

13. Show that an argument is formally invalid using the method of logical analogy.

14. Demonstrate an understanding of the 19th century developments in categorical

logic by correctly answering true-false, multiple-choice, and other relevant short
answer questions and essay questions.

15. Demonstrate an understanding of the difference between traditional (pre-

nineteenth century) and modern categorical logic by correctly comparing and
contrasting the two methods.

40
 16. Demonstrate an understanding of an axiom system, proof by contradiction, and
proof by reduction by correctly explaining these ideas in your own words.

17. Demonstrate an understanding of the basic ideas in this unit by correctly

answering relevant true-false, multiple-choice, and other types of short answer
questions and essay questions.

18. If something taught in the text was not included in this list of objectives, be
prepared to demonstrate an understanding of that item too.

Unit Two
Online Lecture 2
On Chapter 7

Chapter 7 covers introductory categorical logic. For the most part this is logic as it would
have been taught in ancient times, in Aristotle’s Lyceum. After the categorical sentence
is defined and its parts are identified, the four standard logical forms of categorical
sentences are presented and explained. After this, the concept of an immediate (single
premise) inference is defined, the square of opposition is introduced, and strict rules are
stated for the evaluation of immediate inferences. The laws of conversion, obversion,
and contraposition supplement the square of opposition and complete a very
comprehensive system of logic for one-premise categorical arguments. The definitions
are very precise. Study them carefully!

The Online Videos

We also strongly recommend that you watch the corresponding online video lectures as
you learn this material. The visual, step-by-step demonstrations can be very helpful
when learning this material.

Chapter 7
Objectives

1. Demonstrate your understanding of the definition of categorical logic by defining

it in your own words.

2. Demonstrate your understanding of how categorical logic began by explaining its

origin in your own words.

41
 3. Demonstrate your understanding of the definition of a categorical sentence by
correctly defining the notion in your own words.

4. Demonstrate your understanding of quality and quantity for categorical

sentences by correctly assigning the proper quality and quantity to sample
categorical sentences.

5. Demonstrate your understanding of the four logical forms of categorical

sentences by accurately classifying sample categorical sentences under the four
forms.

6. Demonstrate your understanding of the notion of standard form for a categorical

sentence by accurately translating improperly formed English sentences into
standard form categoricals.

7. Demonstrate your understanding of categorical arguments by correctly

distinguishing the different types of categorical arguments: immediate
inferences, mediate inferences, and sorites.

8. Demonstrate your understanding of the definition of an immediate inference by

correctly explaining the definition in your own words.

9. Demonstrate your understanding of the traditional square of opposition by

correctly answering questions about it, including true-false, multiple-choice, and
short answer questions and essay questions.

10. Demonstrate that you know how to identify logical relations among opposing
categorical sentences by correctly evaluating immediate inferences using the
square of opposition and by correctly answering relevant questions.

11. Demonstrate your understanding of contrariety, subcontrariety, contradiction,

alternation, subalternation, and related ideas by correctly defining these terms in
your own words.

12. Demonstrate your understanding of contrariety, subcontrariety, contradiction,

alternation, subalternation, and related ideas by correctly identifying the
appropriate relationship (contrariety, contradiction, etc.) given pairs of
sentences.

13. Demonstrate your understanding of how logic inspired the birth of the computer
by accurately explaining the story in your own words.

14. Demonstrate your understanding of conversion, obversion, and contraposition by

correctly converting, obverting, and contraposing sample sentences.

42
 15. Demonstrate your understanding of the laws of conversion, obversion, and
contraposition by correctly determining whether or not sample sentences are
equivalent and whether or not sample inferences are valid--on the basis of the
laws of conversion, obversion, and contraposition.

16. Demonstrate your understanding of the ideas in this chapter by correctly

answering relevant true-false, multiple-choice, and other short answer questions
and essay questions.

17. If something taught in the text was not included in this list of objectives, be
prepared to correctly demonstrate an understanding of that item too.

Test Your Understanding

Practice Problems with Answers
Parts of Categorical Statements

For each of the following categorical statements, state its (a) quantifier, (b) subject term,
(c) copula, and (d) predicate term.

1. Some dogs are poodles.

2. No peacocks are bright fish.
3. All white bears are polar bears.
4. Some reptiles are not lizards.
5. No dogs that do no bark are animals that purr.
6. Some animals that are fast are not cats that are not purple.
7. All green parrots are birds that are not white.

Answers:
1. (a) Some, (b) dogs, (c) are, (d) poodles
2. (a) No, (b) peacocks, (c) are, (d) bright fish
3. (a) All, (b) white bears, (c) are, (d) polar bears
4. (a) Some, (b) reptiles, (c) are not, (d) lizards
5. (a) No, (b) dogs that do no bark, (c) are, (d) animals that purr
6. (a) Some, (b) animals that are fast, (c) are not, (d) cats that are not purple
7. (a) All, (b) green parrots, (c) are, (d) birds that are not white

Truth Value of Categorical Statements

What is the truth value of the following statements? (I.e., are they true or false?)

1. No dogs are pets.

2. At least one dog is a pet.
3. At least one pet is a dog.
4. All pets are dogs.
5. Some pets are dogs.
6. Some cats are pets.
43
7. Some pets are cats.
8. Some cats are dogs.
9. A few cats are animals.
10. Some cats are not pets.

Answers:
1. False
2. True
3. True
4. False
5. True
6. True
7. True
8. False
9. True
10. True

Characteristics of Categorical Statements

I. For each of the categorical statements below, determine its label (or kind, i.e., A, E, I,
or O), quantity, and quality.
1. No salmon are eels.
2. Some antelope are not prairie denizens.
3. All mountain goats are acrobatic animals.
4. Some parakeets that live in cages are birds that do not sing.

Answers:
1. E, universal, negative
2. O, particular, negative
3. A, universal, affirmative
4. I, particular, affirmative

II. Given a statement with the one characteristic provided below, what can be said about
that statement’s other two characteristics?

1. An E statement.
2. A negative statement.
3. An I statement.
4. An affirmative statement.
5. A universal statement.
6. A particular statement.
7. An A statement.
8. An O statement.

Answers:
1. The statement would be universal and negative.
2. The statement would be E and universal, or O and particular.

44
3. The statement would be particular and affirmative.
4. The statement would be A and universal, or I and particular.
5. The statement would be A and affirmative, or E and negative.
6. The statement would be I and affirmative, or O and negative.
7. The statement would be universal and affirmative.
8. The statement would be particular and negative.

Square of Opposition Relations

I. Change the original statement using the relation and assuming the truth value
indicated, and then state whether the new statement is true (T), false (F), or
undetermined (U).

Example: All D are G (T, contradiction)

Answer: Some D are not G (F)

1. Some A are B (F, contradiction)

2. No H are C (T, contrariety)
3. Some J are not U (T, subcontrariety)
4. All P are Y (F, subimplication)
5. All K are J (T, subimplication)
6. Some R are E (F, superimplication)
7. No L are F (T, subimplication)
8. Some N are no M (T, superimplication)
9. All M are D (F, contrariety)
10. Some Z are V (F, subcontrariety)
11. All N are G (T, contradiction)
12. Some L are not M (F, contradiction)
13. No A are B (F, contrariety)
14. Some J are E (T, subcontrariety)
15. Some Y are W (T, superimplication)
16. Some R are not U (T, contradiction)
17. All O are I (T, contrariety)
18. Some C are not W (F, subcontrariety)
19. All M are N (F, subimplication)
20. No Z are W (F, subimplication)

Answers:
1. No A are B (T)
2. All H are C (F)
3. Some J are U (U)
4. Some P are Y (U)
5. Some K are J (T)
6. All R are E (F)
7. Some L are not F (T)
8. No N are M (U)
9. No M are D (U)

45
10. Some Z are not V (T)
11. Some N are not G (F)
12. All L are N (T)
13. All A are B (U)
14. Some J are not E (U)
15. All Y are W (U)
16. All R are U (F)
17. No O are I (F)
18. Some C are W (T)
19. Some M are N (U)
20. Some Z are not W (U)

Testing Immediate Inferences for Validity with the Square of Opposition

Consider each of the immediate inferences below. State which square of opposition
relation is used, and whether the inference is valid or invalid. “F:” will be used to
abbreviate “It is false that.”

1. All A are B. Thus F: some A are not B.

2. No W are S. Thus some W are not S.
3. All J are E. Thus F: some J are E.
4. Some K are T. Thus some K are not T.
5. F: some P are not I. Thus some P are I.
6. F: some H are F. Thus no H are F.
7. F: some N are M. Thus F: all N are M.
8. Some S are not U. Thus no S are U.
9. All A are T. Thus F: no A are T.
10. No C are Y. Thus all C are Y.
11. F: no J are A. Thus F: some J are A.
12. F: no H are Q. Thus F: some H are not Q.
13. Some X are N. Thus F: all X are N.
14. No Y are S. Thus F: all Y are S.
15. F: some A are R. Thus some A are not R.

Answers:
1. Contradiction, valid
2. Subimplication, valid
3. Subimplication, invalid
4. Subcontrariety, invalid
5. Subcontrariety, valid
6. Contradiction, valid
7. Superimplication, valid
8. Superimplication, invalid
46
9. Contrariety, valid
10. Contrariety, invalid
11. Contradiction, invalid
12. Subimplication, invalid
13. Superimplication, invalid
14. Contrariety, valid
15. Subcontrariety, valid

Conversion, Obversion, and Contraposition

Change the original statement using the relation and assuming the truth value indicated,
and then state whether the new statement is true (T), false (F), or undetermined (U).

Example: Some A are B (F, obversion)

Answer: Some A are not non-B (F)

1. All G are E (T, conversion)

2. No J are M (T, conversion)
3. Some K are not L (T, contraposition)
4. Some H are W (F, obversion)
5. All N are S (T, obversion)
6. No L are T (T, contraposition)
7. No I are B (F, obversion)
8. Some non-A are not non-Y (F, contraposition)
9. Some non-A are Q (T, conversion)
10. All X are non-K (T, conversion)
11. All non-K are E (T, obversion)
12. All J are non-O (F, contraposition)
13. Some G are non-P (F, conversion)
14. No F are Q (T, contraposition)
15. Some non-R are not N (T, obversion)

Answers:
1. All E are G (U)
2. No M are J (T)
3. Some non-L are not non-K (T)
4. Some H are not non-W (F)
5. No N are non-S (T)
6. No non-T are non-L (U)
7. All I are non-B (F)
8. Some Y are A (F)
9. Some Q are non-A (T)
10. All non-K are X (U)
11. No non-K are non-E (T)
12. All O are non-J (F)
13. Some non-P are G (F)

47
14. No non-Q are non-F (U)
15. Some non-R are non-T (T)

More Testing of Inferences

For each of the following immediate inferences, determine which of the eight categorical
relations (i.e., contradiction, subimplication, superimplication, contrariety,
subcontrariety, conversion, obversion, or contraposition) is used, and whether the
inference is valid or invalid. “F:” will be used to abbreviate “It is false that.”

1. All A are G. Thus no A are non-G.

2. F: Some U are I. Thus F: some I are U.
3. No J are Y. Thus some J are not Y.
4. F: some L are H. Thus no L are H.
5. Some G are E. Thus F: some G are not E.
6. All M are N. Thus F: no M are N.
7. Some W are O. Thus some non-O are non-W.
8. Some K are not non-I. Thus some I are not non-K.
9. All non-P are T. Thus all T are non-P.
10. No H are non-I. Thus all H are I.
11. All B are A. Thus F: no B are non-A.
12. No H are W. Thus some H are W.
13. No H are W. Thus F: some H are W.
14. Some E are I. Thus F: some I are E.
15. Some E are I. Thus some I are E.

Answers:
1. Obversion, valid
2. Conversion, valid
3. Subimplication, valid
4. Contradiction, valid
5. Subcontrariety, invalid
6. Contrariety, valid
7. Contraposition, invalid
8. Contraposition, valid
9. Conversion, invalid
10. Obversion, valid
11. Obversion, invalid
12. Contradiction, invalid
13. Contradiction, valid
14. Conversion, invalid
15. Conversion, valid

48
 Unit Two
Online Lecture 3
On Chapter 8

This chapter completes the presentation of the traditional system of categorical logic
first developed by Aristotle and taught with few significant changes into the 19th century.
Chapters 7 and 8 together complete introductory categorical logic. In this chapter, after
the categorical syllogism is introduced and defined, exact rules are stated for the
evaluation of categorical syllogisms. The concept of argument form for categorical
syllogisms is developed and the standard forms of valid syllogism are presented along
with the names assigned during the medieval period. The system is rounded out with
explanations of Aristotle’s axiom system, his methods of proof by reduction and by
contradiction, refutation by logical analogy, translating syllogisms into standard form,
reduction of the number of terms, and the evaluation of sorites. If you study only this
and the previous chapter (Chapter 7) in this unit, you will have a solid grounding in the
traditional logic taught in nearly all universities and colleges, from the time of Aristotle
until the 19th century.

Chapter 8
Objectives
1. Demonstrate your understanding of the definition of a categorical syllogism by
correctly defining the notion in your own words.

2. Demonstrate your understanding of the structure and parts of a categorical

syllogism (minor, major and middle terms, and minor and major premises) by
correctly identifying the parts when presented with a syllogism.

3. Demonstrate your understanding of logical form for categorical arguments by

providing an accurate definition in your own words.

4. Demonstrate your understanding of logical form for categorical arguments by

correctly classifying categorical syllogisms in terms of their logical form.

49
 5. Demonstrate your understanding of standard form for categorical arguments by
correctly placing improperly formed categorical syllogisms into standard form.

6. Demonstrate your understanding of the valid forms of categorical syllogism

identified by Aristotle and his successors by correctly classifying sample
arguments under the headings of those valid forms.

7. Demonstrate your understanding of the notion of distribution by correctly

determining whether a term is distributed or not distributed when presented with
a categorical sentence.

8. Demonstrate your understanding of the traditional rules of validity for

categorical syllogisms by correctly using them to classify sample arguments as
valid or invalid.

9. Demonstrate that you know how to reduce the number of terms in a categorical
syllogism by correctly reducing the number of terms in a categorical syllogism in
need of reduction.

10. Demonstrate that you understand the definition of a sorites by correctly defining
the notion in your own words.

11. Demonstrate your understanding of the concept of standard form for sorites by
correctly placing improperly formed sorites into standard form.

12. Demonstrate that you know how to apply the rules of validity for sorites by using
them to correctly determine whether sample sorites are valid or invalid.

13. Demonstrate your understanding of the nature of an axiom system, proof by

contradiction, and proof by reduction, by correctly explaining these ideas in your
own words and by correctly answering relevant questions including true-false,
multiple-choice, and other short answer questions and essay questions.

14. Demonstrate that you know how to use the method of logical analogy to show
that an argument is formally invalid by correctly doing so.

15. Demonstrate your understanding of the ideas in this chapter by correctly

answering relevant true-false, multiple-choice, and other short answer questions
and essay questions.

16. If something taught in the text was not included in this list of objectives, be
prepared to demonstrate an understanding of that item too!

Test Your Understanding

Practice Problems with Answers

50
 Standard Form

Abbreviate each of the following categorical syllogisms in standard form (i.e., with the
major premise listed first, and the conclusion last); then (using the single capital letters
from your abbreviation) state the argument’s major term, minor term, and middle term.

1. All dogs are animals. Some dogs are poodles. Thus some poodles are animals.
2. Some cats are lions, because some lions are animals, and some animals are cats.
3. No tigers are elephants. Thus some elephants are mammals, since all tigers are
mammals.
4. All mice are rodents, and all rodents are animals. Thus all mice are animals.
5. Some rats are not mice. No rats are cats. Thus no cats are mice.
6. All birds are animals. Some parrots are birds. Thus some animals are not parrots.
7. No trout are birds. Thus, since some birds are eagles, no trout are eagles.
8. Because all falcons are birds, and some falcons are raptors, some birds are not
raptors.
9. No gerbils are rabbits, and no rabbits are hares. Thus no gerbils are hares.
10. Some agouti are mammals, and some deer are mammals. Thus some agouti are not
deer.
11. All horses are animals, and some horses are stallions. Thus some animals are
stallions.
12. No cows are fish, and no fish are birds. Thus some cows are not birds.
13. All wolves are mammals. Thus some wolves are animals, because all mammals are
animals.
14. Some owls are birds, and no birds are fish, thus some owls are not fish.
15. All sheep are mammals. No mammals are pelicans. Thus no pelicans are sheep.

Answers:
1. All D are A
Some D are P
Some P are A
APD
2. Some L are A
Some A are C
Some C are L
LCA
3. All T are M
No T are E
Some E are M
MET
4. All R are A
All M are R
All M are A
AMR
5. Some R are not M
No R are C
No C are M

51
MCR
6. Some P are B
All B are A
Some A are not P
PAB
7. Some B are E
No T are B
No T are E
ETB
8. Some F are R
All F are B
Some B are not R
RBF
9. No R are H
No G are R
No G are H
HGR
10. Some D are M
Some A are M
Some A are not D
DAM
11. Some H are S
All H are A
Some A are S
SAH
12. No F are B
No C are F
Some C are not B
BCF
13. All M are A
All W are M
Some W are A
AWM
14. No B are F
Some O are B
Some O are not F
FOB
15. All S are M
No M are P
No P are S
SPM

Translating Into Standard Categorical Form

Rewrite the following English claims into the standard categorical form of an A, E, I, or
O sentence.

52
1. Every cat is an animal.
2. All birds are not fish.
3. A few mice are rodents.
4. Most ducks are birds.
5. All horses are fast.
6. Some rich realtors are Republicans.
7. Parrots are birds.
8. Only mammals are pigs.
9. None but animals are llamas.
10. Julio is a logic teacher.
11. Tokyo is in Japan.
12. Most fish swim.
13. I do not love Molly.
14. Some animals live in caves.
15. Bob always wears a hat.
16. Whoever studies will do well on the test.
17. A dog is not a cat.
18. If something is a goose, then it’s a bird.
19. Apples are tasty unless they are rotten.
20. The only people who voted for Tran are women.

Answers:
1. All cats are animals. All C are A.
2. No birds are fish. No B are F.
3. Some mice are rodents. Some M are R.
4. Some ducks are birds. Some D are B.
5. All horses are fast things. All H are F.
6. Some wealthy realtors are Republicans. Some W are R.
7. All parrots are birds. All P are B.
8. All pigs are mammals. All P are M.
9. All llamas are animals. All L are A
10. All people identical to Julio are logic teachers. All J are L.
11. All things identical to Tokyo are things in Japan. All T are J.
12. Some fish are swimmers. Some F are S.
13. No people identical to me are people who love Molly. No M are L.
14. Some animals are things that live in caves. Some A are L.
15. All people identical to Bob are people who wear a hat. All B are W.
16. All people who study are people who will do well on the test. All S are W.
17. No dogs are cats. No D are C.
18. All geese are birds. All G are B.

53
19. All unrotten apples are tasty things. All U are T.
20. All people who voted for Tran are women. All P are W.

Standard Form and Validity

Consider the arguments in the previous set of practice problems, and name each
argument’s logical form (e.g., EAO-3), and determine whether the argument is valid or
invalid.

Answers:
1. AII-3, valid
2. III-4, invalid
3. AEI-3, invalid
4. AAA-1, valid
5. OEE-3, invalid
6. IAO-4, invalid
7. IEE-1, invalid
8. IAO-3, invalid
9. EEE-1, invalid
10. IIO-2, invalid
11. IAI-3, valid
12. EEO-1, invalid
13. AAI-1, valid
14. EIO-1, invalid
15. AEE-4, valid

Constructing Categorical Syllogisms

Create categorical syllogisms with guidance from the instructions below. Students’
choice of terms will vary, but each argument’s structure must conform to the requested
form.

1. Construct a syllogism with the form AIO-2.

2. Construct a syllogism with the form EOE-1.
3. Construct a syllogism with the form AII-1.
4. Construct a syllogism with the form AEE-3.
5. Construct a syllogism with the form IAI-4.

Answers:
1. All dogs are animals.
Some cats are animals.
Some cats are not dogs.
2. No dogs are cats.
Some birds are not dogs.
No birds are cats.
3. All dogs are animals.

54
Some poodles are dogs.
Some poodles are animals.
4. All birds are animals.
No birds are rocks.
No rocks are animals.
5. Some poodles are dogs.
All dogs are animals.
Some animals are poodles.

Unit Two
Online Lecture 4
On Chapter 9

This chapter takes categorical logic into the modern era by presenting the two major 19th
century developments that revolutionized the field: (1) The Boolean interpretation of
universal sentences; and (2) the method of Venn diagrams. In this chapter, learn to
interpret universal sentences from both the Aristotelian and Boolean standpoints and
the logical implications of doing so. Learn how the modern square of opposition differs
from the traditional square. Next, learn how to evaluate immediate inferences,
categorical syllogisms, and sorites using Venn diagrams--from both the Aristotelian and
Boolean standpoints. If you have a philosophical bent, you might ponder the logical and
philosophical differences between the traditional Aristotelian logic (Chapters 7 and 8)
and the modern update developed by Boole and Venn, and why someone might, or
might not, favor the modern update. This chapter completes the presentation of
categorical logic.

The Videos and PowerPoints

We also strongly recommend that you watch the corresponding online video lectures
and the PowerPoints as you learn to construct Venn diagrams. Few students can
adequately learn to build correct Venn diagrams without watching these visual, step-by-
step demonstrations.

Chapter 9
Objectives

55
 1. Demonstrate that you understand the 19th century developments in categorical
logic, including the distinction between the Aristotelian and hypothetical
viewpoints and the method of Venn diagrams, by accurately explaining these
ideas in your own words.

2. Demonstrate that you understand the difference between traditional (pre-

nineteenth century) and modern categorical logic by correctly comparing and
contrasting the two.

3. Demonstrate that you understand the difference between the hypothetical and
the Aristotelian viewpoints by correctly evaluating given sentences on the basis of
both standpoints.

4. Demonstrate that you understand the method of Venn diagrams for one premise
arguments by correctly testing one premise arguments for validity using Venn
diagrams from both the Aristotelian and Boolean standpoints.

5. Demonstrate your understanding of the method of Venn diagrams for categorical

syllogisms by correctly testing categorical syllogisms for validity using Venn
diagrams from both the Aristotelian and Boolean standpoints.

6. Demonstrate that you understand the method of Venn diagrams for sorites by
correctly testing sorites for validity using Venn diagrams from both the
Aristotelian and Boolean standpoints.

7. Demonstrate your understanding of the ideas in this chapter by correctly

answering relevant true-false, multiple-choice, and other short answer questions
and essay questions.

8. If something taught in the text was not included in this list of objectives, be
prepared to demonstrate an understanding of that item too.

Test Your Understanding

Practice Problems with Answers

Drawing Venn Diagrams

Abbreviate the following categorical statements, and make a complete two-circle Venn
diagram for each. Use the existential or hypothetical viewpoint as warranted.

1. All dogs are animals.

2. No cats are fish.
3. Some birds are not ravens.
4. Some crows are black animals.
5. All unicorns are animals.

56
6. No vampires are vegetarians.
7. Some three-sided rectangles are geometric figures.
8. Some geometric figures are horses.
9. Some dogs that are not blue are animals that are not pink.
10. All raptors are carnivores.

Answers:
[Descriptions of which quadrants shading or an X is to be found are provided here.]
1. All D are A; shading in 1; X in 2.
2. No C are F; shading in 2; X in 1.
3. Some B are not R; no shading; X in 1.
4. Some C are B; no shading; X in 2.
5. All U are A; shading in 1; no X.
6. No V are E; shading n 2; no X.
7. Some T are G; no shading; X in 1.
8. Some G are H; no shading; X in 2.
9. Some D are A; no shading; X in 2.
10. All R are C; shading in 1; X in 2.

Testing Immediate Inference with Venn Diagrams

Use a Venn diagram to determine if the following arguments are valid or invalid. Begin
by abbreviating the argument. Use the existential or hypothetical viewpoint as
warranted.

1. Some pigs are mammals. Thus some mammals are pigs.

2. All canines are animals. Thus some animals are not canines.
3. No purple leprechauns are dissatisfied logicians. Hence some purple leprechauns are
not dissatisfied logicians.
4. All living people who are over 1000 years old are folks with bad knees. Therefore
some folks with bad knees are living people over 1000 years old.
5. It is false that some sea creatures are bison. Thus some bison are not sea creatures.
6. It is not the case that all logicians are party animals. Thus no logicians are party
animals.
7. Some Yetis are white, hairy creatures. Consequently, some white, hairy creatures are
Yetis.
8. All oxen are plow animals. Thus it is false that no plow animals are oxen.
9. It is false that some birds are fish. Thus it is false that some fish are birds.
10. No vampires are environmentalists. Thus it is false that some environmentalists are
vampires.
11. Some trucks are not Fords. Thus no Fords are trucks.
12. All werewolves are people in need of a barber. Hence some werewolves are people in
need of a barber.
13. Some wealthy poor people are not cola drinkers. Thus it is false that all wealthy poor
people are cola drinkers.
14. No buffalo are shufflers. Thus some buffalo are not shufflers.

57
15. Some insects are not ants. Therefore some ants are insects.

Answers:
[Descriptions of which quadrants shading or an X is to be found are provided here.]
1. Some P are M
Some M are P
No shading; X in 2; valid
2. All C are A
Some A are not C
Shading in 1; X in 2; invalid
3. No P are D
Some P are not D
Shading in 2; no X; invalid
4. All L are F
Some F are L
Shading in 1; no X; invalid
5. F: some S are B
Some B are not S
Shading in 2; X in 1; invalid
6. F: all L are P
No L are P
No shading; X in 1; invalid
7. Some Y are W
Some W are Y
No shading; X in 2; valid
8. All O are P
F: no P are O
Shading in 1; X in 2; valid
9. F: some B are F
F: some F are B
Shading in 2; no X; valid
10. No V are E
F: some E are V
Shading in 2; no X; valid
11. Some T are not F
No F are T
No shading; X in 1; invalid
12. All W are P
Some W are P
Shading in 1; no X; invalid
13. Some W are not C
F: all W are C
No shading; X in 1; valid
14. No B are S
Some B are not S
Shading in 2; X in 1; valid
15. Some I are not A

58
Some A are I
No shading; X in 1; invalid

Testing Categorical Syllogisms with Venn Diagrams

Use a Venn diagram to determine if the following arguments are valid or invalid. Use the
existential or hypothetical viewpoint as warranted.

1. Some people are logicians. All logicians are amicable individuals. So, some amicable
individuals are people.
2. All traffic cops are rugged individuals. Some hockey players are rugged individuals.
Therefore, some hockey players are traffic cops.
3. All teachers are happy persons. No logic loathers are happy persons. Thus, no logic
loathers are teachers.
4. All mermaids are fishy-smelling creatures. All fishy-smelling creatures are swimmers.
Thus all mermaids are swimmers.
5. All puppies are cute animals. All small mammals are cute animals. So, all small
mammals are puppies.
6. Some pianists are not skiers. All pianists are aesthetically gifted persons. Therefore,
some aesthetically gifted persons are not skiers.
7. No chefs are garlic haters. Some vampires are garlic haters. Thus some chefs are not
vampires.
8. No poets are doctors. No doctors are baseball fans. So, no poets are baseball fans.
9. No scuba divers are musicians. All musicians are artistic persons. Consequently, no
artistic persons are scuba divers.
10. No presently living brontosauruses are marsh dwellers. No marsh dwellers are
leaping lizards. Thus no presently living brontosauruses are leaping lizards.
11. Some nudists are conservatives. No conservatives are prudes. So, some prudes are
not nudists.
12. No taxi drivers are musicians. Some taxi drivers are bald people. Therefore, some
bald people are not musicians.
13. Some apes are primates. Some deer are not apes. So, some deer are not primates.
14. Some pixies are tiny females. Some elves are tiny females. Thus some pixies are
elves.
15. Some people who can swim across the Pacific Ocean in five minutes are superior
athletes. All superior athletes are teenagers in good shape. Hence, some teenagers in
good shape are people who can swim across the Pacific Ocean in five minutes.
[For the remainder of the problems in this section, assume that each term refers to
existing things.]
16. No R are B. All C are R. Thus, no C are B.
17. All P are B. All P are C. Hence, some C are B.
18. Some H are B. All C are B. Therefore, some C are H.

59
19. All J are B. No B are C. Consequently, some C are J.
20. All W are B. All W are C. It follows that, all C are B.
21. All D are B, since all D are C, and all B are C.
22. No S are B, thus some C are B, because no S are C.
23. Some G are B. Some G are C. Accordingly, some B are C.
24. Some K are not B, provided that some K are not C, and all C are B.
25. No L are B, so some C are not L, since all B are C.
26. All N are P. No S are N. Thus, no S are P.
27. All O are M. Some S are M. Therefore, some S are O.
28. All I are M. All S are M. We conclude that all S are I.
29. Some U are not P. Some S are U. Thus, some S are not P.
30. No X are P. All X are S. Therefore, some S are not P.
31. No V are B. No C are B. Consequently, no C are V.
32. No J are G. All F are G. Thus, Some F are not J.
33. No Z are G. Some F are G. Thus, some F are not Z.
34. Some T are not H. No F are T. Thus, some F are not H.
35. Some Q are G. Some F are G. So, some F are Q.

Answers:
[Descriptions of which quadrants shading or an X is to be found are provided here.]
1. Shading in quadrants 1, 4; X in quadrant 3; valid
2. Shading in 6, 7; X on line separating 2 and 3; invalid
3. Shading in 2, 3, 6, 7; X in 4 and 5; valid
4. Shading in 1, 2, 5, 6; no X; valid
5. Shading in 5, 6, 7; no X; invalid
6. Shading in 1, 4; X in 2; valid
7. Shading in 2, 3; X in 4; invalid
8. Shading in 2, 3, 4; X in 1; invalid
9. Shading in 1, 3, and 4; X in 2; invalid
10. Shading in 2, 3, 4; no X; invalid
11. Shading in 2, 3; X in 4; invalid
12. Shading in 3, 4; X in 2; valid
13. No shading; X on line separating 3 and 4, and separating 5 and 6; invalid
14. No shading; X on line separating 2 and 3, and separating 3 and 4; invalid
15. Shading in 1, 4; X in 3; valid
16. Shading in 3, 4, 5, 6; X in 2; valid
17. Shading in 1, 2, 4; X in 3; valid
18. Shading in 5, 6; X on line separating 3 and 4; invalid
19. Shading in 2, 3, 6, 7; X in 1; invalid
20. Shading in 1, 2, 4; X in 3; invalid
21. Shading in 5, 6, 7; no X; invalid

60
22. Shading in 2, 3, 4; X in 1; invalid
23. No shading; X on line separating 2 and 3, and separating 3 and 4; invalid
24. Shading in 1, 2; X on line separating 5 and 6; invalid
25. Shading in 1, 3, 4; X in 2; valid
26. Shading in 1, 2, 3; X in 4; invalid
27. Shading in 6, 7; X on line separating 2 and 3; invalid
28. Shading in 5, 6, 7; no X; invalid
29. No shading; X on line separating 1 and 2, and separating 2 and 3; invalid
30. Shading in 1, 3, 4; X in 2; valid
31. Shading in 2, 3, 4; no X; invalid
32. Shading in 3, 4, 5, 6; X in 2, 6; valid
33. Shading in 2, 3; X in 2; valid
34. Shading in 2, 3; X in 1; invalid
35. No shading; X on line separating 2 and 3, and separating 3 and 4; invalid

Sorites and Venn Diagrams

Rewrite each sorites below in standard form. Use a Venn diagram to determine any
needed intermediate conclusions, and using Venn diagrams determine if each sorites is
valid or invalid. Assume the Aristotelian standpoint.

1. Some CEOs are business people. All business people are tactful individuals. All CEOs
are people in public life. So, some people in public life are tactful individuals.
2. Baseball players are athletic. No philosophers are maudlin. Athletic people are
maudlin. Therefore, no baseball players are philosophers.
3. No chess players are athletes. Some doctors are chess players. No athletes are
lethargic people. Therefore, some doctors are not lethargic people.
4. All Q are L. Some C are Q. All C are D. So, some D are L.
5. Some P are not D. All D are H. All P are G. Therefore, some G are H.
6. No M are K. All C are M. All C are D. So, some D are K.
7. All S are M. No C are S. All C are D. So, some D are M.
8. All I are J. No C are J. All D are C. So, no D are I.
9. All F are B. Some P are not D. No B are D. So, no F are P.
10. All N are B. All P are D. No D are B. So, no P are N.
Answers:
1. All B are T
Some C are B
< Thus some C are T
All C are P
Thus some P are T
Valid
2. No P are M
All A are M
< Thus no A are P
All B are A

61
Thus no B are P
Valid
3. No A are L
No C are A
< No conclusion can be drawn
Some D are C
Thus some D are not L
Invalid
4. All Q are L
Some C are Q
< Thus some C are L
All C are D
Thus some D are L
Valid
5. All D are H
Some P are not D
< No conclusion can be drawn
All P are G
Thus some G are H
Invalid
6. No M are K
All C are M
< Thus some C are not K
All C are D
Thus some D are K
Invalid
7. All S are M
No C are S
< Thus some M are not C
All C are D
Thus some D are M
Invalid
8. All I are J
No C are J
< No conclusion can be drawn
All D are C
Thus no D are I
Invalid
9. All F are B
No B are D
< Thus no D are F
Some P are not D
Thus no F are P
Invalid
10. All N are B
No D are B
< Thus no D are N

62
All P are D
Thus no P are N
Valid

Enthymemes

For each of the following enthymemes, supply the missing premise or conclusion. In
each case, try to add missing elements so as to produce a valid argument.

1. All bears are mammals. Thus Yogi is a mammal.

2. If Boo-Boo is Yogi’s friend, then Boo-Boo is loyal. And Boo-Boo is indeed Yogi’s
friend.
3. Either Scooby Doo is a dog or a cat. But he’s not a cat.
4. Sponge Bob Square Pants lives underwater. Hence he must be wet.
5. If Tom & Jerry are friends, then Tom & Jerry are pals; and if Tom & Jerry are pals,
then Tom & Jerry are buddies.
6. No married people are single, and Wilma Flintstone is married.
7. Speed Racer is a male. Thus Speed Racer is a male who drives cars.
8. Bugs Bunny is not a duck. Either Bugs Bunny is a rabbit or he is a duck. Thus Bugs
Bunny is a carrot-loving rabbit.
9. Donald Duck is taller than Mickey Mouse. Mickey Mouse is taller than Minnie Mouse.
If Donald Duck is taller than Minnie Mouse, then Minnie Mouse is friends with Goofy.
Thus Minnie Mouse is friends with Goofy.
10. Pigs will fly and monkeys will fall out of my nose, if I ever take another logic class;
and either pigs will not fly or it is false that monkeys will fall out of my nose.

Answers:
1. Premise: Yogi is a bear.
2. Conclusion: Boo-Boo is loyal.
3. Conclusion: Scooby Doo is a dog.
4. Premise: Anything that lives underwater is wet.
5. Conclusion: If Tom & Jerry are friends, then Tom & Jerry are buddies.
6. Conclusion: Wilma Flintstone is not single.
7. Premise: Speed Racer drives cars.
8. Premise: Bugs Bunny is carrot-loving.
9. Conclusion/Premise: Donald Duck is taller than Minnie Mouse.
10. Conclusion: I will never take another logic class.

63
 Unit Three
Online Lecture 1
General Comment On Unit Three
With Unit Three we enter a new branch of logic, albeit one also founded in ancient
Greece. The first two chapters of this unit introduce the basic ideas:

 What is a compound sentence?

 What is a simple sentence?
 What is a sentence operator?
 What is a truth function?
 What is a truth-functional sentence operator?
 What is a truth-functional compound sentence?
 What is a truth-functional argument?

In logic classes these concepts are usually taught in modern terms, with no reference to
the ancient Greeks. But the ancient Greeks are the ones who first articulated these
concepts and incorporated them into logical theory.

Our class textbook, Introduction to Logic, takes a somewhat novel approach: For the
first two chapters of Unit Three, we are once again immersed in the world of ancient
Greece as we learn the concept of a truth-function and associated notions as they were
first articulated and studied in the ancient Stoic school of philosophy, department of
logic. (We say “once again” because Unit Two began with logic as it was first developed
and presented by the Greek philosopher Aristotle in the fourth century B.C.). The Stoic
philosophers flourished in Athens, Greece, during the 3rd century B.C, a couple
generations after Aristotle. The relation between Aristotle’s logic and Stoic logic is
explained in the text. Aristotle pioneered the development of one branch of logical
theory, categorical logic, while the Stoics discovered a different branch altogether—the
branch we explore in the present unit.

The Stoics were known for their research in both logic and ethics (the philosophical
examination of the standards of right and wrong, good and bad). The Stoic ethical ideal
was a life in which the desires and passions were checked and moderated by reason.
They argued that desires and emotions, if not checked by reason, can lead us astray.
Only our faculty of reason has the self-critical ability to keep everything in balance and
on track. (Isn’t it true that our desires can lead us to do things that are not right? Such as
eating or drinking too much for our own good? Isn’t it true that passions like anger,
jealousy, envy, and revenge, can lead us to do things that are morally wrong? We use our
faculty of reason to decide which of our actions are in the right and which are morally
wrong, and which of our beliefs are worth keeping and which ought to be rejected.
Reason can be mistaken or distorted, but reason is the only faculty that can also criticize
itself and correct its own errors. Desires and passions are not capable of self-correction

64
on their own, without the guidance of reason. Many philosophers argue that this ancient
Greek idea is as sound today as it was in the days of ancient Greece.

You are probably familiar with the character of Spock, played by Leonard Nimoy on the
original Star Trek. Spock was the embodiment of the Stoic ideal—of a person whose
reason moderates his or her desires and emotions and keeps them on track. Like Spock,
the Stoic sage measured everything by rational, reality-based standards, reigning in the
desires and passions when they urged him to commit a foolish or an unjust act or to do
something that is just plain not good. Read more about the Stoics in this unit.

Now that you know a little about the founders of this branch of logic, it is time to enter
their world and see what their logical theory was all about. After a firm foundation is
laid in the first two chapters of this unit—the Stoic discovery of the truth-function and
the truth-functional argument--we move in the next chapter to the 19th century and
learn the modern updates to truth-functional logic that revolutionized logical theory: the
invention of the first fully formal logical languages, truth-tables, and truth-functional
natural deduction.

General Objectives for Unit Three

The student who successfully completes this unit will be expected to attain all of these
outcomes.

1. Demonstrate that you understand the definition of truth-functional logic by

correctly defining it in your own words.

2. Demonstrate that you understand how truth-functional logic began by accurately

explaining its origin in your own words.

3. Demonstrate an understanding of the nature of a truth-functional argument by

accurately explaining the idea in your own words.

4. Demonstrate that you understand the notion of a truth-functional argument form

by accurately explaining the idea in your own words.

5. Demonstrate that you understand some of the common forms of valid and invalid
truth-functional reasoning by correctly classifying arguments in terms of those
forms.

6. Demonstrate that you understand the nature of a formal language by accurately

explaining the notion in your own words.

7. Demonstrate that you know how to accurately translate truth-functional

sentences and arguments from English into the symbols of a formal language by
doing so.

65
 8. Demonstrate that you know how to use truth-tables to correctly test sentences for
logical status (tautology, contradiction, contingency), to correctly test arguments
for validity, and to correctly test pairs of sentences for logical relationships
(consistency, inconsistency, implication, and equivalence), by doing so when
given appropriate sample sentences and arguments.

9. Demonstrate that you know how to use natural deduction to correctly prove
sample arguments valid, by doing so.

10. Demonstrate that you understand the formal semantics for truth-functional logic
by correctly explaining aspects of said semantics in your own words and by
correctly answering relevant questions about the formal semantics of truth-
functional logic, including true-false, multiple-choice, and other short answer
questions and essay questions.

11. If something taught in the text was not included in this list of objectives, be
prepared to demonstrate an understanding of that item too!

Unit Three
Online Lecture 2
On Chapter 10
In this, the opening chapter of this unit, we go back to the world of the ancient Greeks to
see a new school of logic emerge and make its name pioneering the study of a newly
discovered type of argument—the truth-functional argument. In this chapter you also
learn about simple and compound sentences, component sentences, sentence operators,
truth-functional operators, truth-functions, and the way these elements work together
to produce a new type of deductive argument—one very different in nature from the
categorical arguments studied by Aristotle and his successors. The new type of argument
is called a truth-functional argument. Study the definition in the text carefully.

As your text points out, the rules that control the opening and closing of the thousands
of tiny circuits (“logic gates”) inside your computer and cell phone are truth-functional
rules—essentially the same rules of logic that you learn when you study this branch of
our subject, truth-functional logic.

Objectives

1. Demonstrate your understanding of the difference between compound and

simple sentences by correctly classifying sentences as simple or compound.

66
 2. Demonstrate that you understand the definitions of sentence operator and
sentence component by correctly identifying sentence operators and sentence
components in sample sentences.

3. Demonstrate that you understand the definitions of truth-function, truth-

functional operator, and truth-functional compound sentence by correctly
explaining the definitions in your own words.

4. Demonstrate that you can identify the four truth-functional operators introduced
in this chapter (and, or, if, not) by correctly classifying sentences in terms of their
respective operators.

5. Demonstrate that you can determine the truth or falsity of various truth-
functional compound sentences given only the truth-values of the component
sentences and your knowledge of the truth-functions by correctly doing so.

6. Demonstrate your understanding of the ideas in this chapter by correctly

answering relevant true-false, multiple-choice, and other short answer questions.

7. If something taught in the text was not included in this list of objectives, be
prepared to demonstrate an understanding of that item too!

Test Your Understanding!

Practice Problems with Answers

Operators

How many truth-functional operators exist in the following sentences? Identify the
operators in each sentence.

1. Ann is home but Bob is not home; however Jane is home if Ed is home.
2. Neither Ed nor Jose is home but both Ann and Bob are home.
3. Ann is not home and Pat is not home but if Joe is home then Rita is home.
4. It is false that if Diego is not home then Jean-Pierre is home, if Jacinto is home.
5. Either both Jose is not home and Manuel is not home, or Francesca is home if Maria
is not home.
6. Dudley is home.
7. If both Thelma and Louise are home, then Abbot and Costello are both not home.
8. It is false that Hugo is not home.
9. Mark is not home if both Paul and Steven are home.
10. Sue and Maggie are home, however Julia is not home.

Answers:

67
1. 4 (but, not, however, if)
2. 4 (neither, but, and)
3. 5 (not, and, not, but, if)
4. 4 (false, if, not, if)
5. 6 (not, and, not, or, if, not)
6. 0
7. 4 (If, and, and, not)
8. 2 (It is false that, not)
9. 3 (not, if, and)
10. 3 (and, however, not)

Is the sentence a conjunction ( C ), disjunction (D), negation (N), or

conditional (Cond)?

1.Aristo is home and Blippo is home.

2. Aristo is home or Blippo is home.
3.If Aristo is home then Blippo is home.
4.Aristo is not home.
5.It is not the case that Aristo is home.

Answers
1.C
2.D
3.Cond
4.N
5.N

Truth Values of Compound Sentences

Refer to the defined truth functions and complete the following sentences.

1. If the left conjunct is true and the right conjunct is false, the conjunction as a whole is
___.

2. If the left conjunct is false and the right conjunct is false, the conjunction as a whole is
___.

3. If the left conjunct is true and the right conjunct is true, the conjunction as a whole is
___.

68
4. If the left disjunct is true and the right disjunct is false, the disjunction as a whole is
___.

5. If the left disjunct is false and the right disjunct is false, the disjunction as a whole is
___.

6. If the left disjunct is true and the right disjunct is true, the disjunction as a whole is
___.

7. If the antecedent is true and the consequent is false, the conditional as a whole is ___.

8. If the antecedent is false and the consequent is false, the conditional as a whole is
___.

9. If the antecedent is true and the consequent is true, the conditional as a whole is ___.

Answers:
1. false
2. false
3. true
4. true
5. false
6. true
7. false
8. true
9. true

Unit Three
Online Lecture 3
On Chapter 11

The central idea of this chapter is the concept of logical form for truth-functional
arguments. This chapter also presents a number of important valid as well as invalid
truth-functional argument forms. Perhaps the most difficult idea to grasp in this chapter
is the relation between an argument form and its “substitution instances.” Study the
explanation carefully, it is very exact. When you look at the examples, note how the
truth-functional operators in each form carry down into the instances of the form and
serve to direct the flow of the reasoning so as to make any substitution instance of the
form either valid or invalid as the case may be. The definitions are very precise and it is
important that you read them carefully and apply them exactly. The relation between an

69
argument form and an argument that is a substitution instance of the form is somewhat
like the relation between a cookie cutter and a cookie stamped out by the cookie cutter.
Study the examples carefully to nail down the ideas!

Chapter Objectives
1. Demonstrate that you understand the definition of an argument form and a
substitution instance by correctly matching argument forms with their
corresponding substitution instances.

2. Demonstrate that you understand how to abbreviate arguments by accurately

abbreviating sample arguments.

3. Demonstrate an understanding of the four common forms of valid truth-

functional reasoning and the two common forms of invalid truth-functional
reasoning by correctly classifying sample arguments in terms of those forms and
by stating which arguments fall under which forms.

4. Demonstrate your understanding of the valid and invalid truth-functional

argument forms by correctly evaluating sample arguments.

5. Demonstrate your understanding of the ideas in this chapter by correctly

answering relevant true-false, multiple-choice, and other short answer questions
and essay questions.

6. If something taught in the text was not included in this list of objectives, be
prepared to demonstrate an understanding of that item too.

Test Your Understanding!

Practice Problems with Answers
For each argument, state the form that the argument follows.

1.If Balisto is home, then Floppo is home. If Floppo is home, then Gloppo is home. So, if
Balisto is home, then Gloppo is home.

2.If Stilpo is teaching, then Christo will be in class. Christo will not be in class.
Therefore, Stilpo is not teaching.

3.Either Aristotle is teaching or Chrysippus is teaching. It is not the case that Aristotle is
teaching. Therefore Chrysippus must be teaching.

4.If Galisto is home, then Bloppo is home. If Stilpo is home, then Galisto is home. So, if
Stilpo is home, then Bloppo is home.

70
5.If Stilpo is teaching, then Christo will be in class. Stilpo is teaching. Therefore, Christo
will be in class.

6.Either Baristo is home or Chrysippus is home. It is not the case that Baristo is home.
Therefore Chrysippus must be home.

7.If Balisto is home, then Floppo is home. Balisto is not home. Therefore Floppo is not
home.

8.If Stilpo is teaching, then Christo will be in class. Christo will be in class. Therefore,
Stilpo is teaching.

Answers:

1.Hypothetical Syllogism
2.Modus Tollens
3.Disjunctive Syllogism
4.Hypothetical Syllogism
5.Modus Ponens
6.Disjunctive Syllogism
7.Denying the antecedent.
8.Affirming the consequent

Forms and Instances

For each argument form defined in this chapter, create an original substitution instance
of the form.

Answers:

Answers will vary. Be creative!

Unit Three
Online Lecture 4
On Chapter 12
In this chapter you will experience the revolution in truth-functional logic that occurred
in the late 19th century when the first fully formal language for logic was invented and
introduced to the world of logic by a then unknown German mathematician/logician

71
named Gottlob Frege. Learn what a formal language is, how one works, and begin
translating sentences of English into the formal language of this chapter, the language
named TL. Formal logical languages such as the one you will learn in this chapter are
similar to the languages used in computer programming, which are essentially the
languages programmers use when they talk to their computers. Your text explains why
formal languages were invented. Among other things, they remove a great deal of the
ambiguity and vagueness that makes natural languages (such as English, Spanish, etc.)
unsuitable for the precise rules and techniques of logical theory. Read the text for the
rest of the story!

On Symbols

We recommend that on your keyboard you use the greater than sign (>) to type the
horseshoe symbol and that you use the equals sign (=) to type the biconditional
operator.

Important

The online videos and the PowerPoints may be very helpful as you study this chapter.

Chapter Objectives

1. Demonstrate your understanding of the difference between a natural language

and a formal language by correctly answering relevant questions about the
difference.

2. Demonstrate your understanding of the formal language TL by accurately

distinguishing between well-formed and incorrectly formed sentences of the
language.

3. Demonstrate your understanding of the formal language TL by correctly

translating sample sentences of English into the formal language.

4. Demonstrate your understanding of TL by correctly identifying the main

connectives in sample sentences.

5. Demonstrate your understanding of the ideas in this chapter by correctly

answering relevant true-false, multiple-choice, and other short answer questions.

6. If something taught in the text was not included in this list of objectives, be
prepared to demonstrate an understanding of that item too.

Test Your Understanding!

Practice Problems with Answers

WFFs

72
In each case, is the formula well-formed or not well-formed?
1.A v B
2.~A v ~B
3.E
4.~E
5.H v O > M v G
6.~~H
7.Good for you!
8.J ~~O
9.J > IOU
10.K v > &

Answers
1.wff
2.wff
3.wff
4.wff
5.not wff
6.wff
7.not wff
8.not wff
9.not wff
10.not wff

Translations

Translate the following sentences into TL, using obvious abbreviations:

1.Neither Crysippus nor Balisto is teaching logic today.

2.If Calisto and Bloppo are both teaching then Floppo will attend and Gloppo will
attend.
3.Either Aristotle will not be there or Stilpo will not be there.
4.It is not the case that both Aristotle and Plato will be in attendance.
5.It is not the case that Ed will swim and it is not the case that Fred will swim.
6.It is not the case that either Mark or Jane will swim.
7. It is not the case that both Aristotle will not be there and Plato will not be there.
8.If Ann does not swim then Pat does not swim.

Answers:

73
1.~(C v B)
2.(C & B) > (F & G)
3.~A v ~S
4. ~( A & P)
5. ~E &~F
6. ~( M v J)
7. ~(~A & ~P)
8. ~A > ~P

Truth values of Compound Sentences

Since the biconditional operator was not introduced until modern times, we did not
practice this one in Chapter 10. Let’s get it over with now:

1. If the left component of a biconditional sentence is true and the right component is
false, the biconditional as a whole is ___.

2. If the left component of a biconditional sentence is false and the right component is
false, the biconditional as a whole is ___.

3. If the left component of a biconditional sentence is true and the right component is
true, the biconditional as a whole is ___.

Answers:

10. false
11. true
12. true

Unit Three
Online Lecture 5
On Chapter 13
This fascinating chapter is devoted to one single activity: Accurately translating
sentences of English into TL, including English sentences that are more complicated
than the ones we worked with in the last chapter. In other words, this chapter takes the
ideas of the previous chapter to a higher level. As you will see, an understanding of
English grammar helps when it comes to translating sentences from English to TL. But
this should not be surprising: an understanding of the Spanish language and its
grammar is required in order to translate Spanish sentences into English, an
understanding of Swahili is required before translating Swahili into English, and so on.
74
Why would it be any different when it comes to translating English into the formal
language TL? Perhaps you will develop a new interest in English grammar after studying
this chapter. Or perhaps not. Perhaps an enhanced understanding of English grammar
will help you in other ways, in ways outside this course. For instance, perhaps it will
improve your writing abilities. And dare we say it: The online videos and PowerPoints
are highly recommended!

Chapter Objectives

1. Demonstrate your understanding of the formal language TL by correctly

translating sample sentences of English into the formal language, including
conditional sentences and sentences asserting necessary and sufficient
conditions.

2. If something taught in the text was not included in this list of objectives, be
prepared to demonstrate an understanding of that item too.

Test Your Understanding!

Practice Problems with Answers

Translation into Logical Symbols

Translate the following English statements into the symbols of sentential logic, using the
capital letters provided for affirmative statements.

1. If dogs are mammals and cats are mammals, then mice are mammals. (DCM)
2. It is false that lions are fish, unless birds have fur. (LB)
3. Either Laozi was Chinese or Kongzi was Japanese, but Zhu Xi was not Korean. (LKZ)
4. If it is false that Han Feizi was a legalist philosopher, then Sunzi was not a legalist
philosopher. (HS)
5. It is false that if Han Feizi was a legalist philosopher then Sunzi was not a legalist
philosopher. (HS)
6. Gautama was an Indian logician if and only if Saul Kripke was a U.S. mathematician,
moreover Risieri Frondizi was an Argentinean philosopher. (GKF)
7. Neither Aristotle nor Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan was a dog trainer, however both
Domingo Sarmiento and Leopoldo Zea were philosophers. (ARSZ)
8. If Brazil’s Alfanio Coutinho was a philosopher, then so too were Peru’s Víctor Raúl
Haya de la Torre and José Carlos Mariátegui. (CTM)
9. Gongsun Longzi philosophized about language only if Zhuangzi took a relativist
stance to ethics, if Mozi was a utilitarian. (LZM)

75
10. Italy’s Thomas Aquinas and Spain’s Francisco de Vitoria argued from the Natural
Law tradition, just in case either Holland’s Hugo Grotius or England’s John Stuart Mill
did not. (AVGM)
11. If it is false that Buddhism is a Hindu system of philosophy, then neither Jainism nor
Carvaka are Hindu systems of philosophy. (BJC)
12. Frege and Russell were logicians, but it is not the case that either Kripke or Pierce
were. (FRKP)
13. Descartes and Spinoza were rationalists, yet Hume was an empiricist if Berkeley was,
too. (DSHB)
14. Being incomprehensible is a necessary condition for being a French philosopher of
language, unless being a French philosopher of language is a sufficient condition for
being an obscurantist. (IFO)
15. Mill and Bentham were utilitarians only if it is false that both Kant and Aristotle
were deontologists. (MBKA)
16. John Dewey was North American or Karl Jaspers was German, unless it is false that
G. E. Moore was British. (DJM)
17. Alfarabi was an Aristotelian if and only if Avicenna was, and Algazali was not an
Aristotelian. (AVL)
18. Saadia Ben Joseph was the father of medieval Jewish philosophy, if neither Solomon
Ibn Gabirol was a Jewish Neoplatonist nor was Moses Maimonides the most well-known
Jewish philosopher of the medieval period. (SGM)
19. Thomas Aquinas was a rationalist in the context of divine law, and both John Duns
Scotus and Williams of Ockham were voluntarists in the context of divine law. (ASO)
20. Either Augustine wrote The Consolation of Philosophy or Boethius did, but
Augustine did not write it and Hasdai Crecas did not edit it. (ABC)

Answers:
1. (D & C)  M
2. ~B  ~L
3. (L v K) & ~Z
4. ~H  ~S
5. ~(H  S)
6. (G  K) & F
7. ~(A v R) & (S & Z)
8. C  (T & M)
9. M  (L  Z)
10. (A & V)  (~G v ~M)
11. ~B  ~(J v C)
12. (F & R) & ~(K v P)
13. (D & S) & (B  H)

76
14. ~(F  O)  (F  I)
15. (M & B)  ~(K & A)
16. ~~M  (D v J) or M  (D v J)
17. (A  V) & ~L
18. ~(G v M)  S
19. A & (S & O)
20. (A v B) & (~A & ~C)

Unit Three
Online Lecture 6
On Chapter 14
This chapter introduces the modern logical invention known as the truth-table and tells
you how to use it to calculate the precise truth-value of a compound sentence. The Stoics
had the basic idea of the truth-table, but they expressed it in words, in natural language,
rather than in the form of an actual table with symbols on top of it. It was not until 1920
that logicians began using the truth-table to perform precise calculations—calculations
that would be very hard to do if we had to carry them out within the confines of the
words of a natural language alone. Memorize the truth-tables for each truth-functional
operator and learn how to calculate the value of a formula on the basis of the tables. As
the text explains, it is easy to memorize the truth-tables because there is only one main
idea to remember for each table. For example, a conjunction is only true when both
conjuncts are true, a disjunction is only false when both disjuncts are false, and so on.

This chapter also introduces one new truth-functional operator, bringing the total to
five—the biconditional operator. Make sure you understand it. As your text explains, the
“biconditional” operator was introduced in modern times in order to more effectively
solve problems related to modern science and mathematics. You may notice that its
truth table is related closely to the table for the horseshoe.

Not every teacher will cover the method of truth-tables. Some teachers prefer to skip
truth-tables altogether (Chapters 14-17 in the text) and cover natural deduction proofs
instead (Chapters 18-22). Consequently, at this point in the course those teachers may
skip this chapter and the three that follow and move from here straight to Chapter 18
(the start of natural deduction). Truth-tables or natural deduction? It is partly a matter
of taste, like tea or coffee. Truth-tables are one way of getting a certain job done, natural
deduction proofs are a different way; both accomplish the same thing in the end. Many
logicians argue that the method of natural deduction is much closer to the way we
actually reason, while the method of truth-tables is more like the way a machine would
do the job. And certainly this is right. Some logicians also argue that natural deduction
is a more efficient method compared to the method of truth tables. These are some of
the reasons why some teachers skip truth-tables (Chapters 14-17) in favor of just
teaching the method of natural deduction (Chapters 18-22). It is also one reason why

77
some teachers teach both methods! In any logic course, time is limited and one cannot
cover everything. Some parts of logic inevitably must be passed over in any introductory
course. But you can be assured that whichever way your teacher chooses to go, it will all
be good in the end.

The Videos and PowerPoints

We strongly recommend that you watch the corresponding online video lectures and the
PowerPoints as you learn to build truth tables. Few students can adequately learn to
build proper truth tables without watching these visual, step-by-step demonstrations.

Chapter Objectives

1. Demonstrate that you understand the truth tables for the five truth functional
operators by correctly calculating truth values of individual compound sentences
based on the rules presented in those tables.

2. Demonstrate that you understand the truth tables by correctly calculating the
truth values of formulas that are missing one or more truth-values.

3. Demonstrate your understanding of the ideas in this chapter by correctly

answering relevant true-false, multiple-choice, and other short answer questions
and essay questions.

4. If something taught in the text was not included in this list of objectives, be
prepared to demonstrate an understanding of that item too.

Test Your Understanding!

Practice Problems with Answers
Truth Values of Compound Sentences

Refer to the truth tables and complete the following sentences.

1. If the left conjunct is true and the right conjunct is true then the conjunction as a
whole is ___.

2. If the left conjunct is false and the right conjunct is true then the conjunction as a
whole is ___.

3. If the left conjunct is true and the right conjunct is false, the conjunction as a whole is
___.

78
4. If the left disjunct is true and the right disjunct is true then the disjunction as a whole
is ___.

5. If the left disjunct is false and the right disjunct is true, the disjunction as a whole is
___.

6. If the left disjunct is false and the right disjunct is false then the disjunction as a
whole is ___.

7. If the antecedent is true and the consequent is true then the conditional as a whole is
___.

8. If the antecedent is false and the consequent is true then the conditional as a whole is
___.

9. If the antecedent is true and the consequent is false then the conditional as a whole is
___.

10. If the left component of a biconditional sentence is false and the right component is
false, the biconditional as a whole is ___.

11. If the left component of a biconditional sentence is false and the right component is
true then the biconditional as a whole is ___.

12. If the left component of a biconditional sentence is true and the right component is
true, the biconditional as a whole is ___.

Answers:
1. T
2. F
3. F
4. T
5. T
6. F
7. T
8. T
9. F
10.T
11.F
12.T

Main Connectives

79
For each well-formed statement below, state the main operator and identify the
sentence as a conjunction, disjunction, negation, conditional, or biconditional.

1. E & ~R
2. ~F  ~N
3. (~A v ~B)  ~H
4. (B  L) v ~K
5. ~~(H  ~R)
6. ~[(A v ~G)  ~(S & ~F)] & A
7. ~{D  [A & (~H v D)]}
8. ~~K  ~~(Z & ~J)
9. M  ~(~K v ~I)
10. ~{[(A & ~R) & (~G v ~F)] v [~J  (~~U  ~G)]} & ~[(I  L)  F]
11. [(J v ~I) & ~(S & ~A)] v B
12. ~(K & K) & ~K
13. (G & ~M)  {(~G & ~D) v [~J  (~J  ~L)]}
14. ~[(K  G) v (~F v A)]
15. ~{[(~A  ~L) v ~T] & ~[~(K  ~J)]}

Answers:
1. conjunction, &
2. conditional, 
3. conditional, 
4. disjunction, v
5. negation, first ~
6. conjunction, second &
7. negation, first ~
8. conditional, 
9. conditional, 
10. conjunction, third &
11. disjunction, v
12. conjunction, &
13. biconditional, 
14. negation, ~
15. negation, ~

Calculating Truth Values

80
For each statement below, assume that A, B, and C are true, and that X, Y, and Z are
false. With that information, determine whether the statement is true or false.

1. B v C
2. Y v ~A
3. Z  ~C
4. ~(B & C)  Z
5. (~A v ~C)  ~X
6. ~A & B
7. (A & Z) & X
8. Z v ~X
9. (A v X) v (Z v Y)
10. ~(A  X)
11. (B  C)  (Z  ~A)
12. ~A  ~B
13. X  (~C  Z)
14. ~(A & Z)  [(C v X)  ~(B & A)]
15. ~{[(A & X) v ~(Z  B)] & ~(B  ~C)}  ~(B  ~X)

Answers:
1. true
2. false
3. true
4. true
5. false
6. false
7. false
8. true
9. true
10. true
11. true
12. true
13. false
14. false
15. true

Truth-values With One Unknown

81
Suppose the values of P and Q are unknown but the value of A is true and the value of B
is false. Even though one or more values are unknown, what are the truth values in each
case? In each case, justify your answer.

1. A v (P &Q)

2. B & ( P v Q)

3. (P & Q) ‫ ﬤ‬A

4. B ‫( ﬤ‬P & Q)

5. P v ~P

6. Q & ~Q

Answers

1.T

2.F

3.T

4.T

5.T

6. F

Unit Three
Online Lecture 7
On Chapter 15

In the last chapter we mentioned that not every teacher will cover the method of truth-
tables (Chapters 14-17). As we said, some teachers prefer to skip the method of truth-
tables and cover natural deduction proofs instead (Chapters 18-22). Truth tables are one
way of getting a certain job done, natural deduction proofs are a different way. Both
methods, however, do essentially the same thing or can be used to accomplish
essentially the same thing. As we mentioned, many logicians prefer natural deduction
because it is closer to the way we actually reason in everyday life. The method of truth-
tables is more mechanical--closer to the way a machine would solve a problem. This is
one reason why some teachers skip truth-tables in favor of just teaching the method of

82
natural deduction. It is also one reason some teachers teach both methods--it can be
interesting to compare the two.

The focus in this chapter, if your teacher has assigned it or if you are reading it, is using
truth-tables to determine the logical properties of individual sentences. Note that in this
chapter we are only testing individual sentences, not arguments. Arguments are handled
in the next chapter. This chapter therefore “automates” some of the concepts of Chapter
6, namely the concepts of logical necessity and contingency. It automates them in the
sense that it provides mechanical means for detecting their presence.

In truth-functional logic, when a sentence is necessarily true it is called a “tautology”

and we say that its “logical status” is “tautological.” So, being tautological is a logical
status that a sentence may have; it is also a logical property that a sentence may have.
The tests for tautology, contradiction, and contingency are explained in detail, step by
step. Please read the explanations carefully, paying attention to the details. As you work
through this chapter, it may pay to keep in mind the old adage: “When in doubt, follow
the instructions.”

The Videos and PowerPoints

We also strongly recommend that you watch the corresponding online video lectures
and the PowerPoints as you learn to build truth tables. Few students can adequately
learn to build proper truth tables without watching these visual, step-by-step
demonstrations. They are there for a good reason.

Chapter Objectives

1. Demonstrate that you understand how to use truth tables to test a sentence for
logical status (tautology, contradiction, contingency) by correctly testing
sentences for logical status on truth-tables.

2. Demonstrate your understanding of the definitions of the logical properties of

tautology, contradiction, and contingent by correctly answering relevant
questions, including possibly true / false and multiple choice, and essay questions
about these notions.

3. If something taught in the text was not included in this list of objectives, be
prepared to demonstrate an understanding of that item too.

Test Your Understanding!

Practice Problems with Answers

Truth Tables and the Logical Status of a Single Statement

83
Create two- or four-row truth tables and determine for each of the following statements
whether it is a tautology, contradiction, or contingency.

1. (K & ~K) v K
2. ~J & (J & ~J)
3. (G  ~G)  (~G  G)
4. (~A v ~B)  ~(B & A)
5. (~D v U) & ~(D  U)
6. E v (R & ~E)
7. (S  L)  ~(L  ~S)
8. [A & (A  M)]  M
9. ~(J & ~G) & ~(G v ~J)
10. (N & ~B)  (B & ~N)
11. (A & B) v (B  ~A)
12. (K & J) v ~(J & ~K)
13. (~A v ~B)  (A  B)
14. (B  ~C)  ~(C & B)
15. (H & P) & (H  ~H)

Answers:
1. Contingency
(K & ~ K) v K
T F F T T T
F F T F F F

2. Contradiction
~ J & (J & ~ J)
F T F T F F T
T F F F F T F

3. Contradiction
(G  ~ G)  (~ G  G)
T F F T F F T T T
F T T F F T F F F

4. Tautology
(~ A v ~ B)  ~ (B & A)
F T F F T T F T T T
F T T T F T T F F T

84
T F T F T T T T F F
T F T T F T T F F F

5. Contradiction
(~ D v U) & ~ (D  U)
F T T T F F T T T
F T F F F T T F F
T F T T F F F T T
T F T F F F F T F

6. Contingency
E v (R & ~ E)
T T T F F T
T T F F F T
F T T T T F
F F F F T F

7. Contingency
(S  L)  ~ (L  ~ S)
T T T T T T F F T
T F F T F F T F T
F T T F F T T T F
F T F F F F T T F

8. Tautology
[A & (A  M)]  M
T T T T T T T
T F T F F T F
F F F T T T T
F F F T F T F

9. Contradiction
~ (J & ~ G) & ~ (G v ~ J)
T T F F T F F T T F T
F T T T F F T F F F T
T F F F T F F T T T F
T F F T F F F F T T F

10. Contingency

85
(N & ~ B)  (B & ~ N)
T F F T T T F F T
T T T F F F F F T
F F F T T T T T F
F F T F T F F T F

11. Contingency
(A & B) v (B  ~ A)
T T T T T F F T
T F F T F T F T
F F T T T T T F
F F F F F F T F

12. Contingency
(K & J) v ~ (J & ~ K)
T T T T T T F F T
T F F T T F F F T
F F T F F T T T F
F F F T T F F T F

13. Contingency
(~ A v ~ B)  (A  B)
F T F F T F T T T
F T T T F F T F F
T F T F T F F F T
T F T T F T F T F

14. Tautology
(B  ~ C)  ~ (C & B)
T F F T T F T T T
T T T F T T F F T
F T F T T T T F F
F T T F T T F F F

15. Contradiction
(H & P) & (H  ~ H)
T T T F T F F T
T F F F T T F T
F F T F F T T F

86
F F F F F T T F

Unit Three
Online Lecture 8
On Chapter 16
In this chapter the focus is testing arguments for validity using truth-tables. Now we are
placing whole arguments on the tables, and not simply individual sentences. This
chapter “automates” one of the ideas of Unit One, namely, the concept of validity. The
method of truth tables automates the concept of validity in the sense that it provides a
strictly mechanical means for detecting its presence.

The truth-table test for validity is spelled out step-by-step. Pay close attention, read the
explanation carefully: it is all very mechanical. It works every time if you simply follow
the rules! It can’t hurt to repeat the advice from the last lecture: As you work through
this chapter, keep in mind the old adage: “When in doubt, read the instructions.”

The Videos and PowerPoints

Once again, we recommend that you watch the corresponding online video lectures and
the PowerPoints as you learn to build truth tables. Few students can adequately learn to
build proper truth tables without watching these visual, step-by-step demonstrations.

Chapter Objectives
1. Demonstrate that you understand how to use truth tables to test arguments for
validity by correctly testing arguments for validity on truth-tables.

2. Demonstrate that you understand the meaning of validity by correctly answering

questions, including possibly true / false and multiple choice, about it.

3. Demonstrate that you understand how to establish validity or invalidity using a

partial truth table and using a short cut tables by actually doing so.

4. Demonstrate that you understand the formal semantics for truth-functional logic
by explaining it in your own words and by answering relevant questions.

5. Demonstrate your understanding of the ideas in this chapter by correctly

answering relevant true-false, multiple-choice, and other short answer questions
and essay questions.

87
 6. If something taught in the text was not included in this list of objectives, be
prepared to demonstrate an understanding of that item too.

Test Your Understanding!

Practice Problems with Answers

Truth Tables and Testing Arguments for Validity

Use truth tables to determine whether the following arguments are valid or invalid.

1. M & S // S v ~M
2. A  B / B  A // A  B
3. H & (~G & H) / H  G // G v H
4. W  ~U / U  (W & ~W) // W  U
5. ~[(K & J) & J] // ~K
6. X  ~Y / Y v (X & Y) // X  Y
7. (A & B)  (B v A) // B  (A & ~B)
8. N // (A & ~N)  (A v ~A)
9. G v (~G & G) / G  G // M
10. (H  S) v (H & S) // H & (~S v H)

Answers:
1. Valid
M & S // S v ~ M
T T T T T F T
T F F F F F T
F F T T T T F
F F F F T T F

2. Valid
A  B / B  A // A  B
T T T T T T T T T
T F F F T T T F F
F T T T F F F F T
F T F F T F F T F

3. Valid

88
H & (~ G & H) / H  G // G v H
T F F T F T T T T T T T
T T T F T T T F F F T T
F F F T F F F F T T T F
F F T F F F F T F F F F

4. Invalid
W  ~ U / U  (W & ~ W) // W  U
T F F T T T T F F T T T T
T T T F F T T F F T T F F
F T F T T F F F T F F T T
F F T F F T F F T F F T F

5. Invalid
~ [(K & J) & J] // ~ K
F T T T T T F T
T T F F F F F T
T F F T F T T F
T F F F F F T F

6. Valid
X  ~ Y / Y v (X & Y) // X  Y
T F F T T T T T T T T T
T T T F F F T F F T F F
F T F T T T F F T F T T
F T T F F F F F F F T F

7. Invalid
(A & B)  (B v A) // B  (A & ~ B)
T T T T T T T T F T F F T
T F F T F T T F T T T T F
F F T T T T F T F F F F T
F F F T F F F F T F F T F

8. Valid
N // (A & ~ N)  (A v ~ A)
T T F F T T T T F T
T F F F T T F T T F
F T T T F T T T F T

89
F F F T F T F T T F

9. Invalid
G v (~ G & G) / G  G // M
T T F T F T T T T T
T T F T F T T T T F
F F T F F F F T F T
F F T F F F F T F F

10. Invalid
(H  S) v (H & S) // H & (~ S v H)
T T T T T T T T T F T T T
T F F F T F F T T T F T T
F T T T F F T F F F T F F
F T F T F F F F F T F T F

Unit Three
Online Lecture 9

On Chapter 17
In this chapter we use truth-tables to test pairs of sentences for the presence of the
logical relations (consistency, inconsistency, implication, equivalence). No arguments
appear in this chapter, just pairs of individual sentences. The logical relations between
sentences were introduced and carefully defined in Chapter 6; thus, the present chapter
can be seen as “automating” some of the logical ideas taught in Unit One, Chapter 6. It
automates them in the sense that it provides mechanical tests for the presence of the
logical relations. The tests are explained in detail; read the instructions carefully. If you
follow the instructions exactly, they work perfectly every time. It can’t hurt to repeat the
advice from the last lecture one more time: As you work through this chapter, it may pay
to keep in mind the old adage: “When in doubt, read the instructions.”

Chapter Objectives
1. Demonstrate that you understand how to use truth tables to test pairs of
sentences for the logical relations of consistency, inconsistency, implication, and
equivalence by correctly testing pairs of sentences for those relations using truth-
tables.

90
 2. Demonstrate your understanding of the meanings of consistency, inconsistency,
implication, and equivalence by correctly answering questions, including possibly
true / false and multiple choice and short answer questions about them.

3. If something taught in the text was not included in this list of objectives, be
prepared to demonstrate an understanding of that item too.

Test Your Understanding!

Practice Problems with Answers

Truth Tables and Testing Pairs of Sentences for Equivalence

Use a truth table to determine whether the following pairs of statements are equivalent
or not.

1. K & ~L / L  K
2. J  G / J v ~G
3. (A & U) v (~A & ~U) / U  A
4. ~F v ~D / ~(D & F)
5. (M & W) v ~M / W
6. ~I  O / (~I  O) & (O  ~I)

Answers:
1. Not equivalent
K & ~ L / L  K
T F F T T T T
T T T F F T T
F F F T T F F
F F T F F T F

2. Not equivalent
J  G / J v ~ G
T T T T T F T
T F F T T T F
F T T F F F T
F T F F T T F

3. Equivalent
(A & U) v (~ A & ~ U) / U  A

91
T T T T F T F F T T T T
T F F F F T F T F F F T
F F T F T F F F T T F F
F F F T T F T T F F T F

4. Equivalent
~ R v ~ D / ~ (D & R)
F T F F T F T T T
F T T T F T F F T
T F T F T T T F F
T F T T F T F F F

5. Not equivalent
(M & W) v ~ M / W
T T T T F T T
T F F F F T F
F F T T T F T
F F F T T F F

6. Equivalent
~ I  O / (~ I  O) & (O  ~ I)
F T F T F T T T F T F F T
F T T F F T T F T F T F T
T F T T T F T T T T T T F
T F F F T F F F F F T T F

Unit Three
Online Lecture 10
Optional Lecture:
Extra Prep for Natural Deduction
This is an optional lecture. It does not correspond directly to a chapter in the text. It is
extra prep and background to help you when you start natural deduction in the next
chapter. Natural deduction is the method presented in the next five chapters, Chapters
18-22.

92
The ability to recognize argument forms and their substitution instances is a crucial
prerequisite for learning natural deduction. Consequently, extra instruction and practice
with respect to argument forms and their instances can only help you as you prepare to
learn natural deduction in the following chapters.

This lecture is not required reading--we have already learned the definition of an
argument form and a sentence form. This lecture is just more depth on the matter, with
more examples, and it is offered only as “extra prep” for the five chapters to follow,
Chapters 18-22. Without further adieu, here is some extra background material to help
you learn Chapters 18-22.

The Concept of Logical Form

An in-depth Analysis
1.Sentence Forms

Recall the difference between a variable and a constant. A variable stands for anything
from a specified set of things, whereas a constant is a symbol that stands for one
specified thing.

Consider the following three sentences:

a. It will rain or it will snow.
b. Jan is from Michigan or Jan is from Arkansas.
c. It is not Wednesday or this is not Belgium.

Symbolized within our formal language TL, these become

a. R v S
b. M v A
c. ~W v ~B

What do these three sentences of TL have in common? Each consists of a left disjunct
joined by a disjunction operator to a right disjunct. In logic, this general pattern is
expressed by
PvQ

where P and Q are variables ranging over sentences of TL. This expression, P v Q,
represents a general pattern exhibited by the three TL sentences above. The expression
P v Q is the form of the three TL sentences, and those three sentences are said to be
substitution instances or instantiations of the form P v Q. A TL sentence will qualify
as a substitution instance of a form if and only if the TL sentence can be generated from
the form by replacing only the variables in the form with TL sentences and, in addition,

93
making any necessary parenthetical adjustments. This will become clearer after we work
through several examples.

Consider again the form P v Q. Suppose we abbreviate the English sentence “Jean
attended the Monterey Pop Festival in 1967” with the letter J and “Chris attended the
Monterey Pop Festival in 1967” with the letter C. If we begin with the form P v Q and
replace P with the constant J and Q with the constant C, we generate the substitution
instance

JvC

To record the replacements, let us write

P/J
Q/C
Here, P / J simply indicates that each occurrence of the variable P was replaced by the
constant J and Q / C indicates that every occurrence of the variable Q was replaced by
the constant C.

If we return to the form P v Q and replace P with the TL formula A, and if we replace Q
with the TL formula B, we generate a new substitution instance:
AvB
To record the replacements, we write
P/A
Q/B
Substitution instances can grow quite large. For instance, remaining with the same
form, if we replace P with (A & B) and if we replace Q with (C v D), we generate the
substitution instance
(A & B) v (C v D)

To record the replacements, we write

P/A&B
Q/CvD

Next, let us replace P with ~ (A & B) and Q with ~( A & E):

~(A & B) v ~ ( A & E)
Again, we record the replacements by writing
P / ~(A & B)
Q / ~ ( A & E)

94
Consider now a different form, the form ~(P v Q). If we replace the variable P with
(A & B) and if we replace the variable Q with (C v D), after we make the appropriate
parenthetical adjustments, we derive the substitution instance
~ [(A & B) v (C v D)]
Notice that the tilde on the left side of the form carried down from the form to the
instance unchanged. Ditto for the wedge in the form: the wedge was carried down from
the form to the instance unchanged. When we go from the form to the instance, the
connectives in the form carry down unchanged. The only change that takes place
concerns the variables. We “swap out” the variables. That is, each variable is replaced
with a specific wff. The connectives in the form retain their position and scope—they do
not change. It is very important that you understand this point.

If instead we replace the variable P with ~ (A v B) and the variable Q with ~ ( A v E) we

have a different substitution instance:
~[ ~(A v B) v ~( A v E)]
Notice again that the tilde on the left side of the form carried down from the form to the
instance unchanged. Ditto for the wedge in the form. However, since the variable P was
replaced by ~(A v B), the instance has a tilde that was not in the form. Since the variable
Q was replaced in this instance by ~(A v E), the instance has another tilde that was not
in the form. This illustrates the fact that the instance can have more connectives than
the form. However, for reasons given above, the instance can never have fewer instances
than the form (for every connective in the form carries down into the instance).

Other TL substitution instances of the form ~(P v Q) include the following:

INSTANCE: REPLACEMENTS MADE:

iii. ~ [(A & E) v (E v F)] P / (A & E) Q / (E v F)

iii. ~(S v G) P/S Q/ G
iii. ~(H v R) P/H Q/ R

To reiterate: When you go from a pure form to one of its substitution instances, the
arrangement of the form’s operators-their relative positions and scopes-remains in
place. The only change occurs when the form’s variables are replaced. The arrangement
of the form’s operators and their associated scope-indicating devices gives the form its
character, its identity. It is this character, this arrangement of operators, that the form
shares with or passes on to all of its instantiations or substitution instances. Thus, the
arrangement of the form’s operators constitutes the abstract pattern or structure that its
instances have in common. Within the constraints of that abstract structure, the
instances of a form may vary. A form therefore constitutes a sort of symbolic template,
and substitution instances of a form are sentences that fit that template.

Notice also how the arrangement of the form’s operators carries over into the instance.
The relationship between a form and its instances is similar in some ways to the
relationship between a cookie cutter and the cookies it produces. The cookie cutter
95
imposes a common form on each cookie in the batch. However, within the constraints of
that form, the individual cookies may vary. For instance, within the common form some
might have chocolate chips, others might have cherries, and so on. Similarly, all the
instances of a form share its arrangement of operators, but within that structure each
instance of the form may have different TL sentences.

2.Argument Forms

An argument form may be defined as a set of two or more sentence forms with one of
these designated as the conclusion and the other (or others) designated as a premise (or
premises). An argument form can be transformed into a symbolized argument by
replacing the variables in the form with TL sentences, and an argument formed in this
way from an argument form is a substitution instance (or instantiation) of the
argument form.

The relationship between an argument form and a symbolized argument is similar to the
relationship between a sentence form and a symbolized sentence. The distinction should
become clear as we identify and examine some very common forms of deductive
reasoning.

THE DISJUNCTIVE SYLLOGISM FORM

Consider the argument:
1. We’ll either swim or jog.
2. We won’t swim.
3. So, we’ll jog.

In TL this is
1. S v J
2. ~S / J

The premises are numbered and the symbolized conclusion appears after the slash
(which represents “therefore”).

Now consider the next argument:

1. We’ll either eat or drink.
2. We won’t eat.
3. So, we’ll drink.

In TL this is
1. E v D

96
2. ~E / D

These two arguments look similar, don’t they? As you can see by simple inspection,
these arguments display the same abstract logical structure or logical form. We can see
that form when we replace the constants with variables. In each case, if we replace
constants with variables, making no other changes, the result is the same:
1. P v Q
2. ~P / Q

Logicians named this pattern of reasoning the Disjunctive Syllogism form because it
is a syllogism, i.e., a deductive argument, and it begins with a disjunction.

THE MODUS PONENS FORM

Consider next this argument:
1. If it is raining over the roof, then the roof is wet.
2. It is raining over the roof.
3. The roof is wet.

In TL this is symbolized as follows:

1. R ‫ ﬤ‬W
2. R / W

Again, the premises are numbered and the conclusion follows the slanted slash. This
argument is a substitution instance of the argument form
1. P ‫ ﬤ‬Q
2. P / Q

Logicians in the cathedral schools of Europe during the Middle Ages named this form of
reasoning Modus Ponens, Latin for “method of affirmation,” reflecting the fact that
the second premise affirms the antecedent of the first premise. Additional instances of
the Modus Ponens form follow:
1. (A v B) ‫( ﬤ‬E v F)
2. (A v B) / (E v F)

Here, the variable P was replaced with (A v B), and Q was replaced with (E v F).
1. A ‫( ﬤ‬H & G)
2. A / (H & G)

97
In this case P was replaced with A and Q was replaced with (H & G). Notice that an
argument form constitutes a general form or pattern of reasoning that many individual
arguments may instantiate.

THE MODUS TOLLENS FORM

Consider the following argument:
1. If it’s raining, then the roof is wet.
2. The roof is not wet.
3. So, it is not raining.

In TL, with obvious abbreviations, this is:

1. R ‫ ﬤ‬W
2. ~W / ~R

This argument is an instance of the argument form named Modus Tollens:

1. P ‫ ﬤ‬Q
2. ~Q / ~P

The name Modus Tollens is Latin for “method of denial” and derives from the fact that
the second premise is a denial of the consequent of the first premise.

THE HYPOTHETICAL SYLLOGISM FORM

In everyday reasoning we often link several things together in a chain of “if-then”

connections. For instance:
1. If it rains, then the roof gets wet.
2. If the roof gets wet, then the ceiling leaks.
3. So, if it rains, then the ceiling leaks.
In TL, with obvious abbreviations, this becomes
1. R ‫ ﬤ‬W
2. W ‫ ﬤ‬C / R ‫ ﬤ‬C
This argument instantiates the Hypothetical Syllogism argument form:
1. P ‫ ﬤ‬Q
2. Q ‫ ﬤ‬R / P ‫ ﬤ‬R
Here is another instance of this form:
1. If Moe slaps Curley, then Curley will jab Larry.

98
2. If Curley jabs Larry, then Larry will hit Moe.
3. So, if Moe slaps Curley, then Larry will hit Moe.

In TL, with the usual abbreviations, this is:

1. M ‫ ﬤ‬C
2. C ‫ ﬤ‬L / M ‫ ﬤ‬L

Valid Argument Form Defined

Each of the four argument forms above is a valid argument form. A valid argument
form may be defined as a form whose every instance is a valid argument. An invalid
argument form is a form not all of whose instances are valid arguments. We learned
how to construct truth-tables in the previous chapter. In truth-functional logic, a valid
argument form may also be defined in terms of truth-tables as follows: An argument
form is valid if and only if its truth-table has no row showing all true premises and a
false conclusion.

This suggests a way to test an argument form for validity. To test an argument form for
validity, construct a truth-table for the form, write the form across the top of the table,
and fill in the truth-values for each cell of the table. Look for a row showing the
possibility of true premises and false conclusion. If you find no such row, the form is a
valid argument form. If you find one or more such rows, the form is an invalid
argument form.

The Modus Ponens and Disjunctive Syllogism argument forms are both valid argument
forms, as the two truth-tables below show:

Disjunctive Syllogism Modus Ponens

PQ PvQ ~P Q PQ P‫ ﬤ‬Q P Q
TT T F T TT T T T
TF T F F TF F T F
FT T T T FT T F T
FF F T F FF T F F

Notice that neither table contains a row showing true premises and a false conclusion,
which proves that each is a valid form. The Modus Tollens form can be seen to be valid
on the basis of the following table:

PQ P‫ﬤ‬Q ~Q ~P

99
 TT T F F
TF F T F
FT T F T
FF T T T

The table contains no row with the true premises-false conclusion combination; the
form is a valid form. The Hypothetical Syllogism form is also easily shown to be valid on
an easily constructed truth table.

If a particular argument in TL or in English instantiates a valid argument form, the

argument itself must be valid, for every substitution instance of a valid argument form is
a valid argument. Here is why: The arrangement of operators in the form carries over
into every substitution instance of the form. This arrangement of operators determines
the final columns on the truth-table. So, the arrangement of operators determines the
final columns of the form’s table as well as the final columns for the tables of each
instance of the form. Thus, the final columns on the truth-table of any instance of the
form will match the final columns on the form’s truth-table. One consequence of this is
that every instantiation of a valid form will itself always be a valid argument.

In logic, we study valid argument forms because these serve as guides to help us reason
properly. We can be sure our reasoning is valid if it instantiates a valid form of
argument. And validity is always better than invalidity.

Two Noteworthy Argument Forms That are Not Valid

An argument form that is not valid is an invalid argument form. Some invalid forms are
interesting and noteworthy because although they are invalid, they may look valid at
first. Their appearance is thus deceiving. In other words, they may sometimes fool us.
For example, the following invalid argument form looks deceptively similar to Modus
Ponens:
1. P ‫ ﬤ‬Q
2. Q / P
Here is an instance of this form of reasoning:
1. If Freddie is a member of the Mafia, then Freddie is Italian.
2. Freddie is Italian.
Therefore, Freddie is a member of the Mafia.
Symbolized in TL, this argument is
1. F ‫ ﬤ‬I
2. I / F

100
You can easily verify the invalidity of this argument form by performing a simple truth-
table test. In the case of an invalid argument form, some (but not all) substitution
instances will be invalid arguments.

A fallacy is an error in reasoning that may nevertheless appear correct to some even
though it is incorrect. The invalid argument form above is thus a “logical fallacy.” It is
called the fallacy of affirming the consequent because the second premise -
”affirms” the consequent of the first premise. Be careful not to confuse Modus Ponens
with the “fallacy of affirming the consequent.” On the surface, they look somewhat alike.

For another example, the following invalid argument form, the fallacy of denying the
antecedent, looks deceptively similar to Modus Tollens:
1. P ‫ ﬤ‬Q
2. ~P / ~Q

For instance, consider the argument:

1. If Chris swims, then Dave will swim.
2. But Chris won’t swim.
3. So, Dave won’t swim.

Symbolized in TL, this is an instance of the fallacy of denying the antecedent:

1. C ‫ ﬤ‬D
2. ~C / ~D

Once again, you may easily prove the invalidity of this form with a simple truth-table. Be
careful not to confuse this form with the Modus Tollens form—they look similar on the
surface.

These two fallacies, the fallacy of affirming the consequent, and the fallacy of denying
the antecedent, are formal fallacies because the logical error has to do with the
general form or structure of the argument rather than the specific content of the
argument. In other words, the fallacy is in the form, not in the content. Logic also
studies “informal fallacies”—we will examine several of these when we turn to the
informal branch of logical theory, in Chapter 24.

When arguing within a natural language, one must constantly be on the lookout for
invalid or fallacious patterns of reasoning, because what appears at first glance to be an
instance of a valid argument form sometimes turns out to be an invalid pattern of
reasoning. Don’t let an invalid form fool you!

Test Your Understanding!

Practice Problems with Answers

101
 Matching Sentence Forms and Instances

Match the numbered statement instance from the first (upper) section to the lettered
statement form in the second (lower) section.

1. P 6. ~(P v Q)
2. ~P 7. P  Q
3. P & Q 8. ~(P  Q)
4. ~(P & Q) 9. P  Q
5. P v Q 10. ~(P  Q)

a. (L & H)  J
b. ~(K & J)
c. ~S
d. (V & N) v ~I
e. ~[H & (J v G)]
f. ~~R
g. (J & D) & (~L & E)
h. ~Z  R
i. ~(~Z  R)
j. ~[(I & F)  (W v F)]

Answers:
1. None
2. c, f
3. g
4. b, e
5. d
6. None
7. h
8. i
9. a
10. j

Matching Argument Forms and Instances

Determine the name of argument form exhibited by each of the following arguments.
Choices include modus ponens, modus tollens, disjunctive syllogism, hypothetical

102
syllogism, affirming the consequent, and denying the antecedent. Then determine if
each argument is valid or invalid.

1. ~A  K / ~A // K
2. (F v J) v K / ~(F v J) // K
3. D  R / R // D
4. H  ~U / ~U  S // H  S
5. (J  Y)  (D v M) / ~(D v M) // ~(J  Y)
6. (E  I) v (~E  ~~S) / ~(E  I) // ~E  ~~S
7. ~C  (I & H) / ~C // I & H
8. (J & L)  [(U & D)  (R  ~D)] / [(U & D)  (R  ~D)]  Y // (J & L)  Y
9. ~A  (B v H) / ~~A // ~(B v H)
10. ~M  ~G / ~~G // ~~M
11. ~J v H / ~~J // H
12. (S & B)  N / N // S & B
13. (H v Y)  (J & L) / ~(H v Y) // ~(J & L)
14. ~(J  P)  (P  J) / (K  P)  ~(J  P) // (K  P)  (P  J)
15. [(P  U)  (H  J) / [(P  U)  (H  J)]  (J  U) // J  U

Answers:
1. modus ponens, valid
2. disjunctive syllogism, valid
3. affirming the consequent, invalid
4. hypothetical syllogism, valid
5. modus tollens, valid
6. disjunctive syllogism, valid
7. modus ponens, valid
8. hypothetical syllogism, valid
9. denying the antecedent, invalid
10. modus tollens, valid
11. disjunctive syllogism, valid
12. affirming the consequent, invalid
13. denying the antecedent, invalid
14. hypothetical syllogism, valid
15. modus ponens, valid

Unit Three
103
 Online Lecture 11
On Chapter 18
This and the next four chapters of the text (Chapters 18-22) teach the method of natural
deduction. Do you remember doing “proofs” in geometry class? Natural deduction is
very similar.

As the text explains, natural deduction is a method of logical proof first invented and
introduced by the Stoic logicians during the 3rd century B.C. The Stoics are thus the
inventors of natural deduction. In the 20th century, the method introduced by the Stoics
was refined and it has become the main method of establishing logical truths in the
academic world, all over the world. It all unfolds in stages in the text. This chapter
introduces a specific system of natural deduction, the system TD, and explains in detail
the first four rules of the system. In the beginning, just learn the rules as you would
learn rules in a board game. They will grow on you. With sufficient practice, you will use
them as easily as you use a knife and fork at the dinner table.

Each succeeding chapter adds another layer. As in a math text, each chapter builds on
the previous one. Don’t move to Chapter 19 until you have mastered Chapter 18; don’t
move to Chapter 20 until you understand Chapter 19, and so on.

This chapter defines “natural deduction” and explains in detail exactly what counts as a
system of natural deduction. The system TD is defined in detail. Don’t miss these
explanations. Why does this chapter teacher only the first four rules of the system? Why
not all 20 rules in one big 100 page chapter? When learning something like this, it is
best to proceed in small steps. If you have seen the movie, “What About Bob?”: baby
steps. You will have to wait until the next chapter for the next four rules. That is the way
it is.

This is important. There is a proper form for constructing and stating a proof. You
cannot simply write a proof any way you want to. You have to follow the proper form.
(Similarly, when working with a computer language, commands must be written in a
proper form; the computer will not execute the command if it is not written in a proper
form.) The form for stating a natural deduction proof is precise and it is taught in the
text. Many examples in the text show you what the proper form looks like. Your proofs
must be constructed in the proper form and this means they need to look like the
examples of proofs presented in the text (and in this lecture below.) The text explains
the matter and demonstrates it in detail.

Remember: Your proof is correct as long as (a) the conclusion of the argument being
proven is the very last step of the proof, and (b) each step in the proof correctly follows
from previous lines in the proof via one of the rules of inference, the rule has been
applied and used correctly, and the rule is correctly cited in the justification of the line.
The text demonstrates this in detail. The PowerPoints and the online video demos also
demonstrate in detail how to construct a proper proof.

104
One bit of advice. We strongly recommend that you practice proofs the way you would
practice problems in a math class. Practice at least some proofs every day. Experience
shows that most students only become good at constructing proofs (and do well on
tests) with practice; rarely does anyone become good at proofs without a fair amount of
practice. Remember: Practice makes perfect!

The Videos and PowerPoints

We also strongly recommend that you watch the corresponding online video lectures
and the PowerPoints as you learn to construct proofs. Few students can adequately learn
natural deduction without watching these visual, step-by-step demonstrations. You will
find many, many video lectures on natural deduction. We hope they are helpful.

Objectives

1. Demonstrate that you understand natural deduction and the nature of a natural
deduction system by correctly defining the terms “natural deduction” and
“natural deduction system” in your own words.

2. Demonstrate that you understand the nature of an inference rule and a valid
inference rule by correctly defining these terms (inference rule and valid
inference rule) in your own words.

3. Demonstrate your understanding of the four deduction rules introduced in this

chapter by using them to correctly prove arguments valid.

4. Demonstrate that you understand how to symbolize an argument in TL and prove

it valid using natural deduction by doing exactly that with sample arguments.

5. Demonstrate your understanding of the ideas in this chapter by correctly

answering relevant true-false, multiple-choice, and other short answer questions.

6. If something taught in the text was not included in this list of objectives, be
prepared to demonstrate an understanding of that item too.

Test Your Understanding!

Practice Problems with Answers

Proofs Using the First Four Inference Rules

105
Construct natural deduction proofs using any of the first four rules--MP, MT, DS, and
HS—for the following valid arguments.

1.
1. D  K
2. K  ~R
3. ~R  J / D J
2.
1. Q
2. Q  ~L
3. L v B / B
3.
1. H  S
2. ~S
3. H v E / E
4.
1. ~O  [P  (O v Y)]
2. ~O
3. P / Y
5.
1. I v (K  V)
2. ~V
3. I  V
4. J  K / ~J
6.
1. M  N
2. M
3. M  (N  U) / U
7.
1. K v (B  P)
2. K v B
3. ~K / P
8.
1. O v [J  (K & M)]
2. J
3. J  ~O / K & M
9.
1. (I  S)  F
2. (I  S) v (B  F)
3. ~F / ~B

106
10.
1. ~M v [~M v (U  N)]
2. N  A
3. ~~M
4. (U  A)  (~M v G) / G

Answers

Note: As the text explains, in most cases more than one proof can be given for any
particular valid argument. Each proof below is thus one way to prove the corresponding
argument valid. In many cases, alternative proofs are possible as well. If we included
every possible proof, for every argument in these practice sets, our online lectures would
become thousands of pages long. Certainly too many pages to be useful. We simply do
not have the space to include every possible proof for every argument. The text explains
this important point in more detail.

Remember: A proof is correct as long as (a) the conclusion of the argument being
proven is the last step of the proof, and (b) each step in the proof correctly follows from
previous lines via one of the rules of inference correctly applied (and the rule is correctly
cited).

1.
1. D  K
2. K  ~R
3. ~R  J / D J
4. D  ~R HS 1, 2
5. D J HS 3, 4
2.
1. Q
2. Q  ~L
3. L v B / B
4. ~L MP 1, 2
5. B DS 3, 4
3.
1. H  S
2. ~S
3. H v E / E
4. ~H MT 1, 2
5. E DS 3, 4
4.

107
 1. ~O  [P  (O v Y)]
2. ~O
3. P / Y
4. P  (O v Y) MP 1, 2
5. O v Y MP 3, 4
6. Y DS 2, 5
5.
1. I v (K  V)
2. ~V
3. I  V
4. J  K / ~J
5. ~I MT 2, 3
6. K  V DS 1, 5
7. ~K MT 2, 6
8. ~J MT 4, 7
6.
1. M  N
2. M
3. M  (N  U) / U
4. N MP 1, 2
5. N  U MP 2, 3
6. U MP 4, 5
7.
1. K v (B  P)
2. K v B
3. ~K / P
4. B  P DS 1, 3
5. B DS 2, 3
6. P MP 4, 5
8.
1. O v [J  (K & M)]
2. J
3. J  ~O / K & M
4. ~O MP 2, 3
5. J  (K & M) DS 1, 4
6. K & M MP 2, 5
9.
1. (I  S)  F
2. (I  S) v (B  F)
3. ~F / ~B

108
 4. ~(I  S) MT 1, 3
5. B  F DS 2, 4
6. ~B MT 3, 5
10.
1. ~M v [~M v (U  N)]
2. N  A
3. ~~M
4. (U  A)  (~M v G) / G
5. ~M v (U  N) DS 1, 3
6. U  N DS 3, 5
7. U  A HS 2, 6
8. ~M v G MP 4, 7
9. G DS 3, 8

For Additional Help

DVD Lectures

If you watched the online video demonstrations, provided within the online classroom,
on this material, and the corresponding PowerPoints, and feel you need additional
visual demonstrations, you might want to check out or purchase the boxed, 2 DVD set of
video-taped lectures on logic, that I produced in 2005. Running around an hour each,
these are longer, more in-depth lectures, filmed before a class in the Shoreline
Community College TV studio in 2005. In these lectures, I present and explain the
symbolic logic parts of the course in detail. (Note: I have never received, and will never
receive, any royalties or fees from the production of this two-DVD video set of logic
lectures, and Shoreline Community College sells the item at its cost of production.)
These boxed DVD sets are available for check-out at many community colleges (usually
at the library) across the state of Washington, and from the library media center at
Shoreline Community College. Students who have a fear of math and formulas, and
those who simply want more in-depth explanations, are encouraged to give these DVD
lectures a try. As the syllabus explains, they also may be purchased in person or online,
for around 9 dollars, from the Shoreline Community College bookstore.

Unit Three
Online Lecture 12
On Chapter 19

109
This chapter introduces the second four rules of our natural deduction system TD. As
stated in the last lecture, it is extremely important that you practice proofs the way you
would practice problems in a math class. Practice at least a few proofs every day.
Experience shows that most students only become good at constructing proofs with
practice; rarely does anyone become good at proofs without working quite a few proofs
for practice. Remember, even Horowitz had to practice before he became a great
pianist. Likewise for Stevie Wonder and Elton John. And of course, you should not be
starting this chapter unless you are comfortable using the rules from the previous
chapter. The previous chapter is of course a pre-requisite for this chapter. Study the
examples in the text carefully. They have been carefully chosen for their explanatory
value.

The Videos and PowerPoints

Again we recommend that you watch the corresponding online video lectures and the
PowerPoints as you learn to construct proofs. (Are you getting tired of hearing this? You
probably are. ) Few students can adequately learn the rules without watching these
visual, step-by-step demonstrations.

Chapter Objectives
1. Demonstrate that you understand the four deduction rules introduced in this
chapter by using them (and the rules of the previous chapter) to correctly prove
arguments valid.

2. If something taught in the text was not included in this list of objectives, be
prepared to demonstrate an understanding of that item too.

Test Your Understanding!

Practice Problems with Answers
Proofs Using All Eight Inference Rules

Use any of the eight truth-functional inference rules to prove the following arguments
valid.

1.
1. A
2. (A v B)  S / S
2.
1. ~G
2. G v ~D
3. F  D / ~F

110
3.
1. T & (M v S)
2. T  ~M / T & S
4.
1. ~A  B
2. ~A v D
3. D  H / (B v H) v ~M
5.
1. ~B
2. H
3. (~B & H)  (B v N) / N
6.
1. A  G
2. (A  ~R)  (F  G)
3. G  ~R / F  ~R
7.
1. (B  G) & F
2. (M & S) & (A  D)
3. B v A / G v D
8.
1. E & F
2. S
3. (S & F)  H / H v ~F
9.
1. L  J
2. ~J
3. L v O
4. O  (J v M) / (M & ~J) v J
10.
1. ~(A v B)
2. A / Z
11.
1. A
2. S
3. (A & S)  P / P & S
12.
1. ~D & R
2. D v L
3. L  S / (S & R) v ~L
13.

111
 1. G  H
2. ~H & M
3. (~G & M)  (H v P) / P
14.
1. (R  S) & (S  ~D)
2. (R  ~D)  R
3. D v (S  M) / (R  M) v (M R)
15.
1. A & ~C
2. A  (C v ~D)
3. F  D / (~F v ~A) & A

Answers:

Note: Remember that in most cases more than one proof can be given for any particular
valid argument, as the text explains. If we included every possible proof of every
argument in the practice sets, our lectures would become thousands and thousands of
pages long. Too many pages to be useful! Each proof below is thus one way to prove the
corresponding argument valid.

1.
1. A
2. (A v B)  S / S
3. A v B Add 1
4. S MP 2, 3
2.
1. ~G
2. G v ~D
3. F  D / ~F
4. ~D DS 1, 2
5. ~F MT 3, 4
3.
1. T & (M v S)
2. T  ~M / T & S
3. T Simp 1
4. ~M MP 2, 3
5. M v S Simp 1
6. S DS 4, 5
7. T & S Conj 3, 6
4.

112
 1. ~A  B
2. ~A v D
3. D  H / (B v H) v ~M
4. B v H CD 1, 2, 3
5. (B v H) v ~M Add 4
5.
1. ~B
2. H
3. (~B & H)  (B v N) / N
4. ~B & H Conj 1, 2
5. B v N MP 3, 4
6. N DS 1, 5
6.
1. A  G
2. (A  ~R)  (F  G)
3. G  ~R / F  ~R
4. A  ~R HS 1, 3
5. F  G MP 2, 4
6. F  ~R HS 3, 5
7.
1. (B  G) & F
2. (M & S) & (A  D)
3. B v A / G v D
4. B  G Simp 1
5. A  D Simp 2
6. G v D CD 3, 4, 5
8.
1. E & F
2. S
3. (S & F)  H / H v ~F
4. F Simp 1
5. S & F Conj 2, 4
6. H MP 3, 5
7. H v ~F Add 6
9.
1. L  J
2. ~J
3. L v O
4. O  (J v M) / (M & ~J) v J
5. ~L MT 1, 2

113
 6. O DS 3, 5
7. J v M MP 4, 6
8. M DS 2, 7
9. M & ~J Conj 2, 8
10. (M & ~J) v J Add 9
10.
1. ~(A v B)
2. A / Z
3. A v B Add 2
4. (A v B) v Z Add 3
5. Z DS 1, 4
11.
1. A
2. S
3. (A & S)  P / P & S
4. A & S Conj 1, 2
5. P MP 3, 4
6. P & S Conj 2, 5
12.
1. ~D & R
2. D v L
3. L  S / (S & R) v ~L
4. ~D Simp 1
5. L DS 2, 4
6. S MP 3, 5
7. R Simp 1
8. S & R Conj 6, 7
9. (S & R) v ~L Add 8
13.
1. G  H
2. ~H & M
3. (~G & M)  (H v P) / P
4. ~H Simp 2
5. ~G MT 1, 4
6. M Simp 2
7. ~G & M Conj 5, 6
8. H v P MP 3, 7
9. P DS 4, 8
14.
1. (R  S) & (S  ~D)

114
 2. (R  ~D)  R
3. D v (S  M) / (R  M) v (M  R)
4. R  S Simp 1
5. S  ~D Simp 1
6. R  ~D HS 4, 5
7. R MP 2, 6
8. ~D MP 6, 7
9. S  M DS 3, 8
10. R  M HS 4, 9
11. (R  M) v (M  R) Add 10
15.
1. A & ~C
2. A  (C v ~D)
3. F  D / (~F v ~A) & A
4. A Simp 1
5. C v ~D MP 2, 4
6. ~C Simp 1
7. ~D DS 5, 6
8. ~F MT 3, 7
9. ~F v A Add 8
10. (~F v ~A) & A Conj 4, 9

Some Notes on the Inference Rules

A Supplement to Chapters 18-19

We all need reminders when learning a complicated subject. Hopefully, the points
emphasized here will help you remember some key things as you learn to use the
inference rules. The following pointers are all demonstrated multiple times in the
examples in the textbook, in the videos, and in the examples in the slides.

115
 Modus Ponens
A common mistake is to apply an inference rule to a line when only part of the line
instantiates or fits the relevant part of the inference rule. The book warns you against
making this error, as do the videos, but a little emphasis on the point can’t hurt:

When you apply Modus Ponens, one whole entire line must be of the form P > Q, and
another whole line must instantiate the P part of that line alone. If a whole entire line
is of the form P > Q, then the main connective on that line is >. In the other line, the
whole line must just be the P part of that other line. This is demonstrated in the
examples in the book, and in the videos and slides.

So, MP can be applied to the following two lines, because one whole line is of the form P
> Q, which means that the main connective is a >, and the other whole line is just the P
part of that line:

1.A > B (Note: This whole line is of the form P > Q, and the main connective is >.)

2.A (Note: This whole line is the P part of the line above.)

3.B MP 1, 2

Another example:

1.(O v I) > (H &B) (Note: This whole line is of the form P > Q, thus the “main” is >.)

2. O v I (Note: This whole line is the P part of the line above.)

3. H & B MP 1, 2

However, MP cannot be applied to the following lines, because the first line as a whole
is not of the form P > Q (note that its main connective is not >), and the second line as a
whole is not the P part alone of the first line:

1. (A > B) v G
2. A & O
3. B MP 1, 2 (error)

For the same reason, the following is very illegal:

From:

1. E v (A > B)

and:

116
 2. A

Infer

3. B by MP (error)

Generalizing the Point

In general, as the text explains, when you apply an inference rule, you apply the rule to
whole lines of a proof, not to parts of a line. This is demonstrated in the textbook, and
it is demonstrated multiple times in the videos and slides. For example, HS can be
applied to the following two lines:

1. A > N
2. N > W
3. A > W HS 1, 2

However, HS cannot be applied to the following two lines:

1. O v ( A > N)
2. G v (N > W)
3. A > W HS 1, 2 (illegal)

HS also cannot be applied to the following two lines:

1. K & ( A > N)
2. L & (N > W)
3. A > W HS 1, 2 (illegal)

And so forth. As the text explains, the inference rules can only be applied to whole lines,
and only to whole lines that exactly match the pattern of the inference rule, of course.

Simplification
Students often apply this rule incorrectly. Simp can only be applied when the entire line
is of the form P & Q, which means the main connective of the entire line is &. So, Simp
cannot be applied to these formulas:

A>B

AvB

H > (A & B)

117
(A & B) > I

(A v X) v (A & B)

Simp cannot be applied to the above formulas because in each case, the line is not of the
form P & Q, in other words, the main connective is not &.

Simp can, however, be applied to the following formulas, because in each case the main
connective is &:

A&B

A & (B v C)

H & (A & B)

(A v B) & I

(A v X) & (A & B)

Thus, the following move is super illegal:

From:

1. E v (A & B)

Infer

2. A by Simp (error)

However, the following move is perfectly legal:

From:

1. (A v B) & (E v S)

Infer:

2. A v B

I hope this helps!

118
 Proof Strategies

Another Supplement to Chapters 18-19!

When you are constructing proofs for the first time, it is natural to ask: Where do I start? How do
I know which steps to take? How do I begin a proof? Unfortunately, there is no useful algorithm
or decision procedure that you can use to answer these questions. In short, there is no practical,
mechanical procedure for constructing a proof. Building a proof is therefore somewhat of an art.
Without a practical decision procedure that tells you how to construct a proof, you must proceed
by a combination of trial and error, intuition, pattern recognition, general problem-solving skills,
and a strategy we may call “working backward from the conclusion” Although these strategies
are not decision procedures, they may help figure out where to begin and they may help as you
construct proofs.

THE TRIAL AND ERROR STRATEGY

Suppose you begin a proof and are unsure where to start or where to go. Scan the premises,
looking for any of the inference rule patterns. When you spot a pattern, apply the appropriate rule
and make the required move, whether or not it seems to take you to the conclusion. Often, if you
make enough moves like this, even though you have no overall plan or direction in mind, you
will eventually arrive at the conclusion. Let us call this the trial and error strategy. For example,
consider the following argument:
1. (A v E) > ~ G
2. G v (R & H)
3. (A v E) /H

(Note that we are using the greater than sign, >, for the horseshoe.) When you have become
familiar with the inference rule patterns, you should be able to spot the MP pattern on lines 1 and
3. This gives you
1. (A v E) > ~G
2. G v (R & H)
3. A v E / H

119
4. ~G MP 1, 3

Next, look for another pattern. Notice that lines 2 and 4 instantiate the premise section of DS.
Thus:
1. (A v E) > G
2. G v (R & H)
3. A v E / H
4. ~G MP 1, 3
5. R & H DS 2, 4

Finally, notice that line 5 fits the premise section of Simp, which allows you to infer the
conclusion:
6. H Simp 5

If you are proceeding by the trial and error strategy, the most important piece of advice is this: If
you spot a pattern and see an inference you could make, but you don’t see where it would take
you, don’t hesitate . . . just do it! When you infer another line, another pattern will probably open
up, which will probably lead to another inference, and another, until you eventually reach the
conclusion.

THE DECOMPOSITION STRATEGY

Another proof strategy may be called the decomposition strategy: Break larger sentences down
into smaller sentences by deriving parts of the larger sentences. Use these smaller parts to derive
additional lines, until you finally derive the conclusion. For example, consider the following
symbolized argument:
1. (H v C) > [(E v F) v (A & B)]
2. ~(E v F)
3. H / B

Let us begin by deriving something that we can use to break up (decompose) line 1:
4. H v C Add 3

Using this, plus MP, we can now bring down the consequent of 1:
5. (E v F) v (A & B) MP 1, 4

Notice that line 2 is the negation of the left disjunct of line 5. Consequently, we can use DS to
break up 5 as follows:
6. A & B DS 2, 5

The last move is obvious:

120
7. B Simp 6

Notice that in each step after line 4 we broke a larger sentence down by deriving one of its parts.

WORKING BACKWARD FROM THE CONCLUSION

Let’s suppose we are trying to prove the following symbolized argument valid:
1. ~H > (B > A)
2. S v B
3. H > E
4. ~S
5. ~ E /A

Ultimately, we want to reach--at the bottom of the proof--the conclusion A. Let’s begin with the
conclusion and trace a series of steps backward to the first step in the proof. First, where in the
premises is the conclusion formula? Notice that A is at the end of line 1. How might we derive
it? On line 1 the sentence A is the consequent of a conditional. What rule would let us derive the
consequent of a conditional? Modus Ponens. What would MP require? First, the conditional
must be all by itself on a line. Second, another line must consist of just the antecedent of the
conditional. So, first we will need to bring the conditional B > A down onto a line by itself, and
then we will need a line consisting of B by itself. From those two lines, A will follow. The
inference would look like this:
B>A
B
Therefore:
A

How might we “detach” or bring down B > A? Notice that on the first line,
B > A is itself the consequent of a conditional. If we could get the antecedent of that conditional
on a line by itself, we could use MP to bring down B > A. The inference would look like this:
~H > (B > A)
~H

Therefore,

B>A

121
But how might we get ~H on a line by itself? First, find H in the premises. In line 3, H is the
antecedent. Modus Tollens would let us infer ~H from line 3, if we also had on another line the
negation of the consequent of line 3. The inference would look like this:

H>E

~E

Therefore,

~H

So we need ~ E on a line by itself. How will we get that? We locate ~E on line 5. Next, we need
to derive B in order to apply MP to B > A. How will we get B? Notice that B is the right disjunct
of the disjunction on line 2. If we can derive or find, on a line by itself, the negation of the left
disjunct of that disjunction, we can infer B, which we may then use to bring down our
conclusion, A. The negation of the left disjunct of line 2 is ~S. So, we will need ~S in order to
break B out of line 2. Looking around, we find ~S on line 4. Putting this together in the proper
order, we get:
1. ~H > (B > A)
2. S v B
3. H > E
4. ~S
5. ~E / A
6. ~H MT 3, 5
7. B > A MP 1, 6
8. B DS 2, 4
9. A MP 7, 8

So, approach a proof the way you would a game of strategy such as chess or Monopoly.
Constantly think about the various possibilities open to you at each step. Look ahead to where
you want to be, and think of ways to get there from where you are. In a game of strategy, a
skilled player develops the ability to look several steps ahead and plans moves in terms of that
goal. A skilled logician does the same thing. You can do it!

End

122
 Unit Three
Online Lecture 13
On Chapter 20
This chapter introduces the next ten rules of our system, ten “replacement rules.” It is
very important that you understand the difference between the first 8 rules of our
system, called “inference rules,” and the next ten rules, called “replacement” rules. Both
types of rule allow you to make an inference. However, the replacement rules work
differently from the inference rules. Read the text carefully on this point. The first 8
rules are always applied to whole lines of a proof, never to parts of a line. The
replacement rules, on the other hand, may be applied to a well-formed part of a line, or
to a whole line. The text explains the matter in detail. Read the explanation carefully!

Chapter 20 Objectives

1. Demonstrate that you understand how to use the ten replacement rules
introduced in this chapter by using them to correctly prove arguments valid.

2. Demonstrate an understanding of the notion of redundancy in a natural

deduction system by correctly explaining it in your own words.

3. Demonstrate an understanding of the notion of redundancy in a natural

deduction system by showing that a given rule is redundant in our system.

4. Demonstrate an understanding of the notion of a derived rule by correctly

explaining the idea in your own words.

5. Demonstrate your understanding of the ideas in this chapter by correctly

answering relevant true-false, multiple-choice, and other short answer questions
and essay questions.

6. If anything taught in the text was not included in this list of objectives, be
prepared to demonstrate an understanding of that item too!

123
 Test Your Understanding!
Practice Problems with Answers

Proofs Using the First Five Replacement Rules

Use any of the eight inference rules (MP, MT, etc.) along with Comm, Assoc, DNeg, DM,
and Dist to prove that the following arguments are valid.
1.
1. (P & Y)  (O v I)
2. Y & P / I v O
2.
1. (~R v I) v K
2. ~~R
3. ~I / P v K
3.
1. ~H  ~E
2. E / J v H
4.
1. (S v G) & L
2. ~L v ~S / ~~G
5.
1. ~(W v H)
2. W v ~K
3. (K v ~G) v ~T / ~(G & T)
6.
1. I v (K & P) / I v (M v K)
7.
1. A
2. ~(A & B) / ~(B & C)
8.
1. ~(~A v ~G)
2. H & ~A / Z
9.
1. J & (O v P) / (O v A) v J
10.
1. ~(A v B)
2. ~(C v D) / ~(B v D)

Answers:

124
Note: Remember that in most cases more than one proof can be given for any particular
valid argument, as the text explains. Each proof below is thus one way to prove the
corresponding argument valid. In many cases, alternative proofs may be possible. As we
have said, we simply do not have the space to include every possible proof for every
argument.
1.
1. (P & Y)  (O v I)
2. Y & P / I v O
3. P & Y Comm 2
4. O v I MP 1, 3
5. I v O Comm 4
2.
1. (~R v I) v K
2. ~~R
3. ~I / P v K
4. ~R v (I v K) Assoc 1
5. I v K DS 2, 4
6. K DS 3, 5
7. K v P Add 6
8. P v K Comm 7
3.
1. ~H  ~E
2. E / J v H
3. ~~E DNeg 2
4. ~~H MT 1, 3
5. H DNeg 4
6. H v J Add 5
7. J v H Comm 6
4.
1. (S v G) & L
2. ~L v ~S / ~~G
3. S v G Simp 1
4. L Simp 1
5. ~~L DNeg 4
6. ~S DS 2, 5
7. G DS 3, 6
8. ~~G DNeg 7
5.
1. ~(W v H)
2. W v ~K
3. (K v ~G) v ~T / ~(G & T)

125
 4. ~W & ~H DM 1
5. ~W Simp 4
6. ~K DS 2, 5
7. K v (~G v ~T) Assoc 3
8. ~G v ~T DS 6, 7
9. ~(G & T) DM 8
6.
1. I v (K & P) / I v (M v K)
2. (I v K) & (I v P) Dist 1
3. I v K Simp 2
4. (I v K) v M Add 3
5. I v (K v M) Assoc 4
6. I v (M v K) Comm 5
7.
1. A
2. ~(A & B) / ~(B & C)
3. ~A v ~B DM 2
4. ~~A DNeg 1
5. ~B DS 3, 4
6. ~B v ~C Add 5
7. ~(B & C) DM 6
8.
1. ~(~A v ~G)
2. H & ~A / Z
3. ~~A & ~~G DM 1
4. ~~ A Simp 3
5. A DNeg 4
6. ~A Simp 2
7. A v Z Add 5
8. Z DS 6, 7
9.
1. J v (O & P) / (O v A) v J
2. (J v O) & (J v P) Dist 1
3. J v O Simp 2
4. (J v O) v A Add 3
5. J v (O v A) Assoc 4
6. (O v A) v J Com 5

10.

126
 1. ~(A v B)
2. ~(C v D) / ~(B v D)
3. ~A & ~B DM 1
4. ~C & ~D DM 2
5. ~B Simp 3
6. ~D Simp 4
7. ~B & ~D Conj 5, 6
8. ~(B v D) DM 7

Proofs Using Inference and Replacement Rules

Use the eight inference and ten replacement rules of natural deduction to prove that the
following arguments are valid.
1.
1. A & ~B
2. A  ~R
3. R v P / P
2.
1. H  K
2. K  ~U / H  ~U
3.
1. ~(J v E)
2. A  (W  E)
3. J v A / ~W
4.
1. G v (D & S)
2. (G v S)  K / K & (G v D)
5.
1. ~F  R
2. ~F v U
3. U  W / (R v W) & (~R  F)
6.
1. ~G v (T v S)
2. ~T / ~(G & ~S)
7.
1. ~(L  J) / ~J v (L & J)
8.
1. Z  ~F
2. ~Z v ~~F) / F
9.

127
 1. (N & G) v (K & A) / ~K  N
10.
1. M  (M  Y) / ~M v Y
11.
1. J
2. (J & J)  M / ~M  S
12.
1. B  (B  F)
2. F  ~G / G  ~B
13.
1. (~R & W)  A
2. ~R
3. S v ~W / (A & S) v ~W
14.
1. ~(A v N)
2. G  F / ~F  ~N
15.
1. E v (F v G)
2. ~G
3. F  ~E / E  ~F

Answers:
1.
1. A & ~B
2. A  ~R
3. R v P / P
4. A Simp 1
5. ~R MP 2, 4
6. P DS 3, 5
2.
1. H  K
2. K  ~U / H  ~U
3. (H  K) & (K  H) Equiv 1
4. H  K Simp 3
5. H  ~U HS 2, 4
3.
1. ~(J v E)
2. A  (W  E)
3. J v A / ~W
4. ~J & ~E DM 1

128
 5. ~J Simp 4
6. A DS 3, 5
7. W  E MP 2, 6
8. ~E Simp 4
9. ~W MT 7, 8
4.
1. G v (D & S)
2. (G v S)  K / K & (G v D)
3. (G v D) & (G v S) Dist 1
4. G v S Simp 3
5. K MP 2, 4
6. G v D Simp 3
7. K & (G v D) Conj 5, 6
5.
1. ~F  R
2. ~F v U
3. U  W / (R v W) & (~R  F)
4. R v W CD 1, 2, 3
5. ~R  ~~F Trans 1
6. ~R  F DNeg 5
7. (R v W) & (~R  F) Conj 5, 6
6.
1. ~G v (T v S)
2. ~T / ~(G & ~S)
3. (T v S) v ~G Comm 1
4. T v (S v ~G) Assoc 3
5. S v ~G DS 2, 4
6. ~G v S Comm 5
7. ~G v ~~S DNeg 6
8. ~(G & ~S) DM 7
7.
1. ~(L  J) / ~J v (L & J)
2. ~(~L v J) Imp 1
3. ~~L & ~J DM 2
4. ~J Simp 3
5. ~J v (L & J) Add 4
8.
1. Z  ~F
2. ~Z v ~~F) / F
3. (Z & ~F) v (~Z & ~~F) Equiv 1

129
 4. ~(Z & ~F) DM 2
5. ~Z & ~~F DS 3, 4
6. ~~F Simp 5
7. F DNeg 6
9.
1. (N & G) v (K & A) / ~K  N
2. [(N & G) v K] & [(N & G) v A] Dist 1
3. (N & G) v K Simp 2
4. K v (N & G) Comm 3
5. (K v N) & (K v G) Dist 4
6. K v N Simp 5
7. ~~K v N DNeg 6
8. ~K  N Imp 7
10.
1. M  (M  Y) / ~M v Y
2. (M & M)  Y Exp 1
3. M  Y Taut 2
4. ~M v Y Imp 3
11.
1. J
2. (J & J)  M / ~M  S
3. J  M Taut 2
4. (J  M) & (M  J) Equiv 3
5. J  M Simp 4
6. M MP 1, 5
7. M v S Add 6
8. ~~M v S DNeg 7
9. ~M  S Imp 8
12.
1. B  (B  F)
2. F  ~G / G  ~B
3. (B & B)  F Exp 1
4. B  F Taut 3
5. B  ~G HS 2, 4
6. ~~G  ~B Trans 5
7. G  ~B DNeg 6
13.
1. (~R & W)  A
2. ~R
3. S v ~W / (A & S) v ~W
130
 4. ~R  (W  A) Exp 1
5. W  A MP 2, 4
6. ~W v A Imp 5
7. ~W v S Comm 3
8. (~W v A) & (~W v S) Conj 6, 7
9. ~W v (A & S) Dist 8
10. (A & S) v ~W Comm 9
14.
1. ~(A v N)
2. G  F / ~F  ~N
3. ~A & ~N DM 1
4. ~N Simp 3
5. ~N v G Add 4
6. N  G Imp 5
7. N  F HS 2, 6
8. ~F  ~N Trans 7
15.
1. E v (F v G)
2. ~G
3. F  ~E / E  ~F
4. (E v F) v G Assoc 1
5. E v F DS 2, 4
6. ~~E v F DNeg 5
7. ~E  F Imp 6
8. (E  ~F) & (~F  E) Conj 3, 7
9. E  ~F Equiv 8

Some Notes on the Replacement

Rules
A Supplement to Chapter 20

We all need reminders when learning a complicated subject. Hopefully, the points
emphasized here will help you remember some key things as you learn to use

131
replacement rules. The following items are all demonstrated multiple times in the
examples in the textbook, in the videos, and in the examples in the slides.

Bring Down the Whole Line When Applying

Replacement Rules

A mistake that is often made when students are first learning to apply Replacement
rules, is this: Some apply the Replacement rule and make a change in part of a formula
on a line, but then they bring down (as an inference) only the part of the line that was
changed; they do not bring down the whole line. This is not right. When you apply a
Replacement Rule to a line and make a change in the line, you must bring down the
whole entire line—whether you replaced part of the line or the whole line. You are not
allowed to use a Replacement rule to replace part of a line and then bring down only
that part of the line that the rule was applied to. That is not allowed. You have to always
bring down the whole line.

As the text explains, Replacement rules, unlike Inference rules, can be applied to part of
a line, or to a whole line. They can be applied either way. However, again, no matter
which way you go, whether you change part of a line or the whole line, you still must
bring down the whole line. This is demonstrated over and over again in the text, in the
videos, and in the slides. Watch for it and make sure you understand this crucial point!

Lesson: When you apply a Replacement Rule to a line, no matter whether you changed
part of the line, or the whole line, you must bring down the whole entire line.

De Morgan’s Rule
Students often make small errors when first learning to apply De Morgan’s rule. But
even a small error can derail a proof, turning what would have been an easy problem
into a hard one (and resulting in an incorrect proof and points lost). De Morgan’s rule
allows you to convert a wedge to an ampersand, or an ampersand to a wedge. But you
have to follow the rule. The following are correct applications of the De Morgan rule:

From: ~( A v H)

Infer by DM: ~A & ~H

132
From: ~( A & H)

Infer by DM: ~A v ~H

From: ~( ~A v ~H)

Infer by DM: ~~A & ~~H

From: ~( ~A & ~H)

Infer by DM: ~~A v ~~H

The De Morgan Algorithm

The following three step algorithm, which I shall call the De Morgan Algorithm, is
logically equivalent to the De Morgan rule and may be used in place of the DM rule
anytime (write as justification: “DM Alg”):

1. Change the v to &, or the & to v.

2. Add a tilde to each side of this.
3. Add a tilde to the formula as a whole.

You may want to apply the DN rule if too many tildes build up during the process.

Examples

In these examples, the DM Algorithm is applied in three steps:

Start: ~( A v B)

Step 1: ~( A & B) (We changed the v to &.)

Step 2: ~( ~A & ~B) (We added a tilde to each side.)

Step 3: ~ ~(~ A & ~B) (We added a tilde to the formula as a whole.)

Now, let’s apply DN to this:

~A & ~B (We removed the two outside tildes, using DN.)

Start: ~( A & B)

Step 1: ~( A v B) (We changed the & to v.)

Step 2: ~( ~A v ~B) (We added a tilde to each side.)

133
Step 3: ~ ~(~ A v ~B) (We added a tilde to the formula as a whole.)

Now, let’s apply DN to this:

~A v ~B (We removed the two outside tildes, using DN.)

Start: ~( ~A & B)

Step 1: ~( ~A v B) (We changed the & to v.)

Step 2: ~( ~~A v ~B) (We added a tilde to each side.)

Step 3: ~ ~(~~ A v ~B) (We added a tilde to the formula as a whole.)

Now, let’s apply DN to this:

A v ~B (We removed the two outside tildes, using DN, and using DN we also removed
the two tildes on the A inside.)

Start: ~( A v ~B)

Step 1: ~( A & ~B) (We changed the v to &.)

Step 2: ~( ~A & ~~B) (We added a tilde to each side.)

Step 3: ~ ~(~ A & ~~B) (We added a tilde to the formula as a whole.)

Now, let’s apply DN to this:

~A & B (We removed the two outside tildes, using DN, and using DN we also removed
the two tildes on the B inside.)

Start: ~( ~A & ~B)

Step 1: ~( ~A v ~B) (We changed the & to v.)

Step 2: ~( ~~A v ~~B) (We added a tilde to each side.)

Step 3: ~ ~(~~ A v ~~B) (We added a tilde to the formula as a whole.)

Now, let’s apply DN to this:

A v B (We removed the two outside tildes, using DN, and using DN we also removed the
two tildes on the A inside and we removed the two tildes on the B inside.)

134
 Unit Three
Online Lecture 14
On Chapter 21
This chapter introduces two additional rules of our system: the rule of indirect proof and
the rule of conditional proof. These are “complex” rules; the previous rules have all been
“simple” rules. The text explains the difference between simple and complex inference
rules detail. Note the difference carefully. It is good to understand the difference
because it improves your understanding of all the rules of our system. The two new
rules, indirect proof and conditional proof, are explained in detail, with many examples.
As usual, pay close attention to the explanations: the details matter. And remember the
old adage: Practice makes perfect. Even Rembrandt had to practice before he became a
great artist. We are almost finished learning truth-functional natural deduction. Can you
hold on for one more chapter? Of course you can!

The Videos and PowerPoints

Chapter 21 Objectives

1. Demonstrate your understanding of the rules of indirect proof and conditional

proof introduced in this chapter by using them to prove arguments valid.

2. Demonstrate that you understand the difference between simple and complex
rules of inference by explaining the difference in your own words.

3. If anything taught in the text was not included in this list of objectives, be
prepared to demonstrate an understanding of that item too.

Test Your Understanding!

Practice Problems with Answers

Proofs Using Indirect Proof

Use Indirect Proof and any of the eight inference rules to demonstrate that each of the
following arguments is valid.

1.

135
 1. A  B
2. A v A / B
2.
1. F  ~B
2. J v (F & B) / J
3.
1. ~~D  [~D v (A  ~D)]
2. A & (A v B) / ~D
4.
1. M  A
2. (B v C) v (H  M)
3. ~(H  A) / B v C
5.
1. D [~G  (H & B)]
2. H  G
3. (H v M) & (M  D) / G

Answers:
1.
1. A  B
2. A v A / B
3. ~B AP
4. ~A MT 1, 3
5. A DS 2, 4
6. A & ~A Conj 4, 5
7. B IP 3-6
2.
1. F  ~B
2. J v (F & B) / J
3. ~J AP
4. F&B DS 2, 3
5. F Simp 4
6. ~B MP 1, 5
7. B Simp 4
8. B & ~B Conj 6, 7
9. J IP 3-9
3.
1. ~~D  [~D v (A  ~D)]
2. A & (A v B) / ~D
3. ~~D AP

136
 4. ~D v (A  ~D) MP 1, 3
5. A  ~D DS 3, 4
6. A Simp 2
7. ~D MP 5, 6
8. ~D & ~~D Conj 3, 7
9. ~D IP 3-8
4.
1. M  A
2. (B v C) v (H  M)
3. ~(H  A) / B v C
4. ~(B v C) AP
5. HM DS 2, 4
6. HA HS 1, 5
7. (H  A) & ~(H  A) Conj 3, 6
8. B v C IP 4-7
5.
1. D [~G  (H & B)]
2. H  G
3. (H v M) & (M  D) / G
4. ~G AP
5. ~H MT 2, 4
6. HvM Simp 3
7. M DS 5, 6
8. MD Simp 3
9. D MP 7, 8
10. ~G  (H & B) MP 1, 9
11. H&B MP 4, 10
12. H Simp 11
13. H & ~H Conj 5, 12
14. G IP 4-13

Proofs Using Conditional Proof

Use Conditional Proof and any of the eight inference rules to demonstrate that each of
the following arguments is valid.

1.
1. P  (A & B)
2. B  Q / P  Q
2.

137
 1. H  A
2. H v (D  S)
3. D & ~S / ~A  S
3.
1. B  H
2. E  S
3. (H & S)  F / (B & E)  F
4.
1. Q  (D  B)
2. A v D / (~A & Q)  [D & (B v R)]
5.
1. M  P
2. ~M  (B  A)
3. P v (A  K) / ~P  (B  K)

Answers:
1.
1. P  (A & B)
2. B  Q / P  Q
3. P AP
4. A&B MP 1, 3
5. B Simp 4
6. Q MP 2, 5
7. P  Q CP 3-6
2.
1. H  A
2. H v (D  S)
3. D & ~S / ~A  S
4. ~A AP
5. ~H MT 1, 4
6. DS DS 2, 5
7. D Simp 3
8. S MP 6, 7
9. ~A  S CP 4-8
3.
1. B  H
2. E  S
3. (H & S)  F / (B & E)  F
4. B&E AP

138
 5. B Simp 4
6. E Simp 4
7. H MP 1, 5
8. S MP 2, 6
9. H&S Conj 7, 8
10. F MP 3, 9
11. (B & E)  F CP 4-10
4.
1. Q  (D  B)
2. A v D / (~A & Q)  [D & (B v R)]
3. ~A & Q AP
4. ~A Simp 3
5. Q Simp 3
6. D DS 2, 4
7. DB MP 1, 5
8. B MP 6, 7
9. BvR Add 8
10. D & (B v R) Conj 6, 9
11. (~A & Q)  [D & (B v R)] CP 3-10

5.
1. M  P
2. ~M  (B  A)
3. P v (A  K) / ~P  (B  K)
4. ~P AP
5. ~M MT 1, 4
6. BA MP 2, 5
7. AK DS 3, 4
8. BK HS 6, 7
9. ~P  (B  K) CP 4-8

Proofs Using Indirect or Conditional Proof

Use either conditional or indirect proof (along with the eight inference rules) to prove
that the following arguments are valid.

1.
1. (A v J)  (B & D) / A  B
2.
1. ~A  D

139
 2. ~A  (~D & J) / A
3.
1. E v G
2. G  (M  F)
3. M / ~E  F
4.
1. (G v D)  L
2. Q v G
3. L  ~G / Q
5.
1. ~~A  Q
2. Z  B
3. ~B
4. (Q & ~Z)  Z / ~A
6.
1. S  (D & G)
2. (G v M)  ~P
3. P v S / (S  G) & (G  S)

Answers:
1.
1. (A v J)  (B & D) / A  B
2. A AP
3. AvJ Add 2
4. B&D MP 1, 3
5. B Simp 4
6. A  B CP 2-5
2.
1. ~A  D
2. ~A  (~D & J) / A
3. ~A AP
4. D MP 1, 3
5. ~D & J MP 2, 3
6. ~D Simp 5
7. D & ~D Conj 4, 6
8. ~A IP 3-7
3.
1. E v G
2. G  (M  F)
3. M / ~E  F

140
 4. ~E AP
5. G DS 1, 4
6. MF MP 2, 5
7. F MP 3, 6
8. ~E  F CP 4-7
4.
1. (G v D)  L
2. Q v G
3. L  ~G / Q
4. ~Q AP
5. G DS 2, 4
6. GvD Add 5
7. L MP 1, 6
8. ~G MP 3, 7
9. G & ~G Conj 5, 8
10. Q IP 4-9
5.
1. ~~A  Q
2. Z  B
3. ~B
4. (Q & ~Z)  Z / ~A
5. ~~A AP
6. Q MP 1, 5
7. ~Z MT 2, 3
8. Q & ~Z Conj 6, 7
9. Z MP 4, 8
10. Z & ~Z Conj 7, 9
11. ~A IP 5-10
6.
1. S  (D & G)
2. (G v M)  ~P
3. P v S / (S  G) & (G  S)
4. S AP
5. D&G MP 1, 4
6. G Simp 5
7. S  G CP 4-6
8. G AP
9. GvM Add 8
10. ~P MP 2, 9
11. S DS 3, 10

141
 12. G  S CP 8-11
13. (S  G) & (G  S) Conj 7, 12

More Proofs Using Indirect and Conditional Proof

Use the rules of natural deduction along with indirect or conditional proof (or in nested
proofs) to prove that the following arguments are valid.

1.
1. A  B
2. (B v R)  O / A  O
2.
1. G  M
2. S v G
3. ~M / S
3.
1. N  R
2. B  (M  N)
3. (M  R)  ~B / ~B
4.
1. A  E
2. A v (G & C) / C v E
5.
1. H
2. (M v ~M)  I / H & I
6.
1. (A & B)  C
2. A  ~(E v F)
3. E v B / A  C
7.
1. P  S
2. S  ~(B & D)
3. ~B  T
4. ~(D  T) / ~P
8.
1. C  (D  ~C)
2. C  D / ~C & ~D
9.
1. A  (B  C)

142
 2. (C & D)  E
3. F  ~(D  E) / A  (B ~F)
10.
1. A  C / (A & G)  (B  C)
11.
1. (P  Q)  P / P v ~ M
12.
1. C v A
2. A  D / ~C  (B v D)
13.
1. (O v N)  (O & N) / N  O
14.
1. ~(P v T)
2. R  H
3. R  [(P v T)  H] / ~R
15.
1. (O  A)  (J  F)
2. ~(O & A)  F / ~F  ~J

Answers:
1.
1. A  B
2. (B v R)  O / A  O
3. A AP
4. B MP 1, 3
5. BvR Add 4
6. O MP 2, 5
7. A  O CP 3-6
2.
1. G  M
2. S v G
3. ~M / S
4. ~S AP
5. G DS 2, 4
6. M MP 1, 5
7. M & ~M Conj 3, 6
8. S IP 4-7
3.
1. N  R
2. B  (M  N)

143
 3. (M  R)  ~B / ~B
4. B AP
5. MN MP 2, 4
6. MR HS 1, 5
7. ~B MP 3, 6
8. B & ~B Conj 4, 7
9. ~B IP 4-8
4.
1. A  E
2. A v (G & C) / C v E
3. ~(C v E) AP
4. ~C & ~E DM 3
5. ~E Simp 4
6. ~A MT 1, 5
7. G&C DS 2, 6
8. C Simp 7
9. ~C Simp 4
10. C & ~C Conj 8, 9
11. C v E IP 3-10
5.
1. H
2. (M v ~M)  I / H & I
3. ~(H & I) AP
4. ~H v ~I DM 3
5. ~~H DNeg 1
6. ~I DS 4, 5
7. ~(M v ~M) MT 2, 6
8. ~M & ~~M DM 7
9. H & I IP 3-8
6.
1. (A & B)  C
2. A  ~(E v F)
3. E v B / A  C
4. A AP
5. ~(E v F) MP 2, 4
6. ~E & ~F DM 5
7. ~E Simp 6
8. B DS 3, 7
9. A&B Conj 4, 8
10. C MP 1, 9

144
 11. A  C CP 4-10
7.
1. P  S
2. S  ~(B & D)
3. ~B  T
4. ~(D  T) / ~P
5. P AP
6. S MP 1, 5
7. ~(B & D) MP 2, 6
8. ~(~D v T) Imp 4
9. ~~D & ~T DM 8
10. ~~D Simp 9
11. ~B v ~D DM 7
12. ~D v ~B Comm 11
13. ~B DS 10, 12
14. T MP 3, 13
15. ~T Simp 9
16. T & ~T Conj 14, 15
17. ~P IP 5-16
8.
1. C  (D  ~C)
2. C  D / ~C & ~D
3. ~(~C & ~D) AP
4. (C & D) v (~C & ~D) Equiv 2
5. (~C & ~D) v (C & D) Comm 4
6. C&D DS 3, 5
7. C Simp 6
8. D  ~C MP 1, 6
9. D Simp 6
10. ~C MP 8, 9
11. C & ~C Conj 7, 10
12. ~C & ~D IP 3-11
9.
1. A  (B  C)
2. (C & D)  E
3. F  ~(D  E) / A  (B  ~F)
4. A AP
5. B AP
6. BC MP 1, 4
7. C MP 5, 6

145
 8. F AP
9. ~(D  E) MP 3, 8
10. ~(~D v E) Imp 9
11. ~~D & ~E DM 10
12. ~~D Simp 11
13. D DNeg 12
14. C&D Conj 7, 13
15. E MP 2, 14
16. ~E Simp 11
17. E & ~E Conj 15, 16
18. ~F IP 8-17
19. B  ~F CP 5-18
20. A  (B  ~F) CP 4-19
10.
1. A  C / (A & G)  (B  C)
2. A&G AP
3. B AP
4. A Simp 2
5. C MP 1, 4
6. BC CP 3-5
10. (A & G)  (B  C) CP 2-6
11.
1. (P  Q)  P / P v ~ M
2. ~(P v ~M) AP
3. ~P & ~~M DM 2
4. ~P Simp 3
5. ~(P  Q) MT 1, 4
6. ~(~P v Q) Imp 5
7. ~~P & ~Q DM 6
8. ~~P Simp 7
9. ~P & ~~P Conj 4, 8
10. P v ~M IP 2-9
12.
1. C v A
2. A  D / ~C  (B v D)
3. ~C AP
4. A DS 1, 3
5. D MP 2, 4
6. DvB Add 5
7. BvD Comm 6

146
 8. ~C  (B v D) CP 3-7
13.
1. (O v N)  (O & N) / N  O
2. N AP
3. NvO Add 2
4. OvN Comm 3
5. O&N MP 1, 4
6. O Simp 5
7. N  O CP 2-6
8. O AP
9. OvN Add 8
10. O&N MP 1, 9
11. N Simp 10
12. O  N CP 8-11
13. (N  O) & (O  N) Conj 7, 12
14. N  O Equiv 13
14.
1. ~(P v T)
2. R  H
3. R  [(P v T)  H] / ~R
4. R AP
5. (P v T)  H MP 3, 4
6. [(P v T)  H] & [H  (P v T)] Equiv 5
7. H  (P v T) Simp 6
8. ~H MT 1, 7
9. ~R MT 2, 8
10. R & ~R Conj 4, 9
11. ~R IP 4-10
15.
1. (O  A)  (J  F)
2. ~(O & A)  F / ~F  ~J
3. ~F AP
4. ~~(O & A) MT 2, 3
5. O&A DNeg 4
6. A Simp 5
7. A v ~O Add 6
8. ~O v A Comm 7
9. OA Imp 8
10. JF MP 1, 9
11. ~J MT 3, 10

147
 12. ~F  ~J CP 3-11

Unit Three
Online Lecture 15
On Chapter 22
The main idea in this chapter is the concept of a premise-free proof. Read this chapter
carefully and learn exactly how to create a premise-free proof and what such a proof
proves.

Any formula established using a premise-free proof is called a theorem of our system.
Your text explains the matter carefully. In addition, in the branch of logic known as
metalogic (the “logic of logical systems”) it has been proven that every theorem of our
system is tautological. Your text explains this in some detail as well.

As before, the more you practice, the better you will become. The videos and
PowerPoints are strongly recommended! This chapter completes the explanation of
truth-functional natural deduction. When you finish this chapter, you will know all that
anyone needs to know about truth-functional logic, unless you want to get a Ph.D in the
subject, or something like that.

Chapter 22 Objectives
1. Demonstrate that you understand the nature of a premise-free proof by
constructing valid premise-free proofs of theorems.

2. Demonstrate that you understand the definitions of “theorem,” “tautology,” and

“metalogic,” by explaining these notions in your own words or by answering
relevant questions about them.

3. If anything taught in the text was not included in this list of objectives, be
prepared to demonstrate an understanding of that item too.

Test Your Understanding!

Practice Problems with Answers

Proving Tautologies Using Premise-free Proofs

148
Use natural deduction to prove the following statements to be tautologies (i.e., logical
truths). You may use conditional proof, indirect proof, and the inference and
replacement rules of natural deduction.

1. A  (B  A)
2. D  [(D  W)  W]
3. [G  (O  S)]  [(G  O)  (G  S)]
4. (~K  L) v (K  S)
5. Q  [Q & (P  Q)]
6. N  [N v (O & N)]
7. (H  C) v (~C  H)
8. A  [(M & ~M)  P]
9. [(W & O) v A]  [(~A v O)  (W  O)]
10. (R & ~S)  ~(R  S)

Answers:
1.
1. A AP
2. B AP
3. AvA Taut 1
4. A Taut 3
5. BA CP 2-4
6. A  (B  A) CP 1-5
2.
1. D AP
2. DW AP
3. W MP 1, 2
4. (D  W)  W CP 2-3
5. D  [(D  W)  W] CP 1-4
3.
1. G  (O  S) AP
2. GO AP
3. G AP
4. O MP 2, 3
5. OS MP 1, 3
6. S MP 4, 5
7. GS CP 3-6
8. (G  O)  (G  S) CP 2-7

149
 9. [G  (O  S)]  [(G  O)  (G  S)] CP 1-8
4.
1. ~[(~K  L) v (K  S)] AP
2. ~(~K  L) & ~(K  S) DM 1
3. ~(~K  L) Simp 2
4. ~(K  S) Simp 2
5. ~(~~K v L) Imp 3
6. ~(K v L) DNeg 5
7. ~K & ~L DM 6
8. ~(~K v S) Imp 4
9. ~~K & ~S DM 8
10. ~~K Simp 9
11. ~K Simp 7
12. ~K & ~~K Conj 10, 11
13. (~K  L) v (K  S) IP 1-12
5.
1. Q AP
2. P AP
3. Q&P Conj 1, 2
4. Q Simp 3
5. PQ CP 2-4
6. Q & (P  Q) Conj 1, 5
7. Q  [Q & (P  Q)] CP 1-6
8. Q & (P  Q) AP
9. Q Simp 8
10. [Q & (P  Q)]  Q CP 8-9
11. {Q  [Q & (P  Q)]} & {[Q & (P  Q)]  Q} Conj 7, 10
12. Q  [Q & (P  Q)] Equiv 11
6.
1. N AP
2. N v (O & N) Add 1
3. N  [N v (O & N)] CP 1-2
4. N v (O & N) AP
5. (N v O) & (N v N) Dist 4
6. NvN Simp 5
7. N Taut 6
8. [N v (O & N)]  N CP 4-7
9. {N  [N v (O & N)]} & {[N v (O & N)]  N} Conj 3, 8
10. N  [N v (O & N)] Equiv 9
7.

150
 1. ~[(H  C) v (~C  H)] AP
2. ~(H  C) & ~(~C  H) DM 1
3. ~(H  C) Simp 2
4. ~(~C  H) Simp 2
5. ~(~H v C) Imp 3
6. ~~H & ~C DM 5
7. ~~H Simp 6
8. ~(~~C v H) Imp 4
9. ~(C v H) DNeg 8
10. ~C & ~H DM 9
11. ~H Simp 10
12. ~H & ~~H Conj 7, 11
13. (H  C) v (~C  H) IP 1-12
8.
1. A AP
2. M & ~M AP
3. ~P AP
4. M Simp 2
5. ~M Simp 2
6. M & ~M Conj 4, 5
7. P IP 3-6
8. (M & ~M)  P CP 2-7
9. A  [(M & ~M)  P] CP 1-8
9.
1. (W & O) v A AP
2. ~A v O AP
3. W AP
4. ~O AP
5. O v ~A Comm 2
6. ~A DS 4, 5
7. A v (W & O) Comm 1
8. W&O DS 6, 7
9. O Simp 8
10. O & ~O Conj 4, 9
11. O IP 4-10
12. WO CP 3-11
13. (~A v O)  (W  O) CP 2-12
14. [(W & O) v A]  [(~A v O)  (W  O)] CP 1-13
10.
1. R & ~S AP

151
 2. R Simp 1
3. ~S Simp 1
4. RS AP
5. (R  S) & (S  R) Equiv 4
6. RS Simp 5
7. S MP 2, 6
8. S & ~S Conj 3, 7
9. ~(R  S) IP 4-8
10. (R & ~S)  ~(R  S) CP 1-9

Unit Four
Online Lecture 1

General Comment On Unit Four

Unit Four introduces our third branch of logic, predicate logic, also called
“quantificational” logic or “quantified” logic. The first two chapters of this unit introduce
the language of predicate logic, the formal language PL. They also teach how to translate
English sentences into PL. Once you have successfully translated many sentences, you
will understand the language very well. An understanding of the language of predicate
logic is a pre-requisite for the rest of the unit.

Note the way in which the language PL includes the language TL. As your text explains,
TL is “resident within” PL. The rest of the unit teaches five new deduction rules and
defines a system of natural deduction for predicate logic arguments, a system that
accompanies the language Pl. A formal semantical theory for PL and a semantical means
of showing arguments valid or invalid (using interpretations) is also explained. It is a
well-confirmed general rule that the more proofs you practice, the better you get at
constructing this new type of proof. Good luck with it!

The Videos and PowerPoints

We recommend that you watch the corresponding online video lectures and the
PowerPoints as you learn to translate English sentences into PL and as you learn to
construct proofs in predicate logic in this unit. Few students can adequately learn this
material without watching these visual, step-by-step demonstrations.

General Unit Objectives

152
1. Demonstrate that you understand what predicate logic is by defining it in your own
words.

2. Demonstrate that you understand how predicate logic began by explaining its origin
in your own words.

3. Demonstrate that you understand the nature of the arguments studied in predicate
logic by explaining the idea in your own words.

4. Demonstrate that you understand the notion of an argument form in predicate logic
by correctly identifying the forms of sample arguments.

5. Demonstrate that you understand some of the common forms of valid and invalid
reasoning in predicate logic by correctly classifying arguments in terms of those forms.

6. Demonstrate that you understand the formal language PL by accurately translating

sentences and arguments into the symbols of PL.

7. Demonstrate that you understand how to use interpretations to show that an

argument is invalid by correctly doing so.

8. Demonstrate that you know how to use truth-functional expansions to show validity
and invalidity for monadic predicate arguments by correctly doing so.

9. Demonstrate that you understand how to use natural deduction to prove quantified
arguments valid by correctly doing so.

10. If something taught in the text was not included in this list of objectives, be prepared
to demonstrate an understanding of that item too.

Unit Four
Online Lecture 2
On Chapter 23

This and the next chapter introduce you to the formal language PL and teach you how to
translate sentences of English into PL. In this chapter you translate only singular
sentences and sentences that contain quantifiers and monadic predicates; the next
chapter adds more complicated translations involving relational predicates and
overlapping quantifiers. What are these? You’ll see in the next chapter! Study the
examples in this chapter carefully; it is really not as hard as it looks at first. Remember,

153
practice makes perfect. Even Michelangelo had to practice before he became a great
artist.

The Videos

We recommend that you watch the corresponding online video lectures, provided in the
online class, as you learn to translate from English to PL. Few students can adequately
learn this material without watching visual, step-by-step demonstrations.

On Symbols

When you need to type the existential quantifier, (Ǝx), we recommend that you simply
type the numeral 3 in place of the backward E, like this: (3x). The two symbols look
almost the same; good enough for our purposes!

Chapter 23 Objectives

1. Demonstrate that you understand the elements that compose the arguments
studied in predicate logic (quantifiers, predicates, singular terms, etc.) by
correctly identifying them in sample sentences.

2. Demonstrate that you understand the formal language PL by correctly

distinguishing between correctly formed and incorrectly formed sentences of the
language.

3. Demonstrate your understanding of PL by correctly translating singular

sentences of English and sentences containing only monadic predicates.

4. Demonstrate an understanding of the ideas in this chapter by correctly answering

relevant true-false, multiple-choice, and other short answer questions and essay
questions.

5. If something taught in the text was not included in this list of objectives, be
prepared to demonstrate an understanding of that item too.

Test Your Understanding!

Practice Problems with Answers

Translation into Predicate Logic

154
Translate the following English statements into the language of predicate logic, using
the capital letters provided for your predicate constants. E.g., “All dogs are animals
(DA)” translates as “(x)(Dx  Ax).”

1. Some cats are tigers. (CT)

2. No birds are fish. (BF)
3. Some animals are not dogs. (AD)
4. All lions are felines. (LF)
5. It is false that no buffalo are mammals. (BM)
6. Trixie is a poodle. (P)
7. My favorite pet is a fish. (F)
8. If Rex is a dog, then Trixie is a poodle. (DP)
9. If Scooby is not a cat, then it is not the case that Asta is a dog. (CD)
10. Either all dogs are mammals, or Scooby is not a dog. (DM)
11. Yogi is a bear and Smith is a ranger, or no bears are rangers. (BR)
12. Some black dogs are animals. (BDA)
13. Some birds are feathered animals. (BFA)
14. All blue fish are colorful animals. (BFCA)
15. None but animals are reptiles. (AR)
16. It is false that none but students are logicians. (SL)
17. Only amphibians are salamanders. (AS)
18. Only nimble reptiles are brown snakes. (NRBS)
19. Every trout is a scaly fish. (TSF)
20. Everything is material. (M)
21. Everything is either blue or not blue. (B)
22. There are no leprechauns in Nigeria. (LN)
23. Mice are not birds. (MB)
24. A dog is in the room. (DI)
25. A dog is a mammal. (DM)
26. A logic class is open this quarter. (LO)
27. A logic class is an opportunity to learn logic. (LO)
28. The only dogs here are pugs. (DP)
29. It is false that the only black cats in the zoo are pumas. (BCZP)
30. All birds and fish are animals. (BFA)
31. No yellow eagles or pink herons are flamingos. (YEPHF)
32. Not all cows are farm animals. (CF)
33. Anything that eats meat is a carnivore, yet most carnivores are not bears. (ECB)
34. All my pets except the dogs are birds. (PDB)
35. Unicorns exist. (U)
36. Unicorns do not exist. (U)
37. There is a dog barking, and no barking dogs are pleasant animals. (DBPA)

155
38. That Betty is rich is a necessary condition for Betty having a billion dollars. (RB)
39. Lions being mammals is a sufficient condition for lions being animals. (LMA)
40. Barbara is a mother if and only if Barbara has a child. (MC)
41. If Katrina is not a metaphysician and all logicians are epistemologists, then it is not
the case that some epistemologists being metaphysicians is a necessary condition for
some logicians not being epistemologists. (MLE)
42. That dogs possess hair is a necessary and sufficient condition for dogs being
mammals. (DHM)
43. If either all red apples are tasty fruits or no fruits are tasty apples, then it is not the
case that both some red fruits are bananas and some red bananas are not fruits.
(RATFB)
44. All trucks are Fords just in case there is a green Ford driven by Maria. (TFGM)
45. If it is false that Bob is a doctor, then Bob is an astronaut. (DA)
46. It is false that if Bob is a doctor then he is an astronaut. (DA)
47. If it is false that if Bob is a doctor then he is an astronaut, then he is a logician. (DAL)
48. If it is the case that if Bob is a doctor then he is an astronaut, then if he’s not an
astronaut then he’s not a doctor. (DA)
49. Some physicians are surgeons if and only if being a surgeon is a necessary condition
for being a physician. (PS)
50. Pigs will fly and monkeys will fall out of my nose, if I ever take another logic class.
(PFMNT)

Answers:
1. (x)(Cx & Tx)
2. (x)(Bx  ~Fx)
3. (x)(Ax & ~Dx)
4. (x)(Lx  Fx)
5. ~(x)(Bx  ~Mx)
6. Pt
7. Fm
8. Dr  Pt
9. ~Cs  ~Da
10. (x)(Dx  Mx) v ~Ds
11. (Bo & Rs) v (x)(Bx  ~Rx)
12. (x)[(Bx & Dx) & Ax]
13. (x)[Bx & (Fx & Ax)]
14. (x)[(Bx & Fx)  (Cx & Ax)]
15. (x)(Rx  Ax)
16. ~(x)(Lx  Sx)
17. (x)(Sx  Ax)

156
18. (x)[(Bx & Sx)  (Nx & Rx)]
19. (x)[Tx  (Sx & Fx)]
20. (x)Mx
21. (x)(Bx v ~Bx)
22. ~(x)(Lx & Nx) or (x)~(Lx & Nx)
23. (x)(Mx  ~Bx)
24. (x)(Dx & Ix)
25. (x)(Dx  Mx)
26. (x)(Lx & Ox)
27. (x)(Lx  Ox)
28. (x)(Dx  Px)
29. ~(x){[(Bx & Cx) & Zx]  Px}
30. (x)[(Bx v Fx)  Ax]
31. (x){[(Yx & Ex) v (Px & Hx)]  ~Fx}
32. ~(x)(Cx  Fx) or (x)(Cx & ~Fx)
33. (x)(Ex  Cx) & (x)(Cx & ~Bx)
34. (x)[(Px & ~Dx)  Bx]
35. (x)Ux
36. ~(x)Ux or (x)~Ux
37. (x)(Dx & Bx) & (x)[(Bx & Dx)  ~(Px & Ax)]
38. Bb  Rb
39. (x)(Lx  Mx)  (x)(Lx  Ax)
40. Mb ≡ Cb
41. [~Mj & (x)(Lx  Ex)]  ~[(x)(Lx & ~Ex)  (x)(Ex & Mx)]
42. (x)(Dx  Hx) ≡ (x)(Dx  Mx)
43. {(x)[(Rx & Ax)  (Tx & Fx)] v [(x)[Fx  ~(Tx & Ax)}  ~{(x)[(Rx & Fx) & Bx] &
(x)[(Rx & Bx) & ~Fx]}
44. (x)(Tx  Fx) ≡ (x)[(Gx & Fx) & Mx]
45. ~Db  Ab
46. ~(Db  Ab)
47. ~(Db  Ab)  Lb
48. (Db  Ab)  (~Ab  ~Db)
49. (x)(Px & Cx) ≡ (x)(Px  Cx)
50. Ti  [(x)(Px & Fx) & (x)(Mx & Nx)]

Unit Four
Online Lecture 3
157
 On Chapter 24
In this chapter we continue learning to translate sentences from English into PL.
However, this chapter steps it up a bit by handling sentences whose translation requires
relational predicates and overlapping quantifiers. The sentences are more complex, the
translations are a little more challenging, but it is also more interesting. Study the
examples carefully—they can teach you a great deal if you let them. The online videos
and PowerPoints are also strongly recommended!

Chapter 24 Objectives

1. Demonstrate that you understand the aspects of the formal language PL covered
in this chapter by correctly translating sentences of English whose translation
requires relational predicates and overlapping quantifiers.

2. Demonstrate that you understand the properties of relations including symmetry,

transitivity, reflexivity, by accurately explaining the meanings in your own words
and by correctly identifying these relations when they are present in groups of
sentences. (See the Appendix)

3. Demonstrate that you understand the ideas in this chapter by correctly answering
relevant true-false, multiple-choice, and other short answer questions and essay
questions.

4. If something taught in the text was not included in this list of objectives, be
prepared to demonstrate an understanding of that item too.

Test Your Understanding!

Practice Problems with Answers

Translating Dyadic Predicates and Overlapping Quantifiers

Translate the following English statements into the language of predicate logic making
use of dyadic predicates and overlapping quantifiers when appropriate. Use the capital
letters provided for your predicate constants. E.g., “Everything likes something (L)”
translates to “(x)(y)Lxy.”

1. Bill is faster than Jorge, and Flora is slower than Michelle. (FS)
2. Something is taller than Alfredo. (T)
3. Everything is heavier than Duc. (H)
4. Ricardo loves everything. (L)

158
5. If Marty likes himself, then something likes Marty. (L)
6. Not everything loves itself. (L)
7. If some person likes Mikaela, then Mikaela is happier than John. (PLH)
8. Saul is wiser than somebody. (WP)
9. Saul is wiser than everybody. (WP)
10. Everybody is wiser than Saul. (PW)
11. Everybody loves somebody. (PL)
12. If nobody loves somebody, then it is false that somebody loves everybody. (PL)
13. All dogs eat something. (DE)
14. Some cats like nothing. (CL)
15. Any logician can outscore any slacker. (LOS)

Answers:
1. Fbj & Sfm
2. (x)Txa
3. (x)Txd
4. (x)Lrx
5. Lmm  (x)Lxm
6. ~(x)Lxx or (x)~Lxx
7. (x)(Px & Lxm)  Hmj
8. (x)(Px & Wsx)
9. (x)(Px  Wsx)
10. (x)(Px  Wxs)
11. (x)[(Px  (y)(Py & Lxy)] or by limiting the universe of discourse to people, one gets
(x)(y)Lxy
12. (x)[Px  ~(y)(Py & Lxy)]  ~(x)[Px & (y)(Py  Lxy)]
13. (x)[Dx  (y)Exy]
14. (x)[Cx & ~(y)Lxy] or (x)[Cx & (y)~Lxy]
15. (x)[Lx  (y)(Sy  Oxy)]

Unit Four
Online Lecture 4
On Chapter 25

159
This fascinating chapter concludes the presentation of the language PL by introducing
an operator for identity. It is very important that you understand what is meant by
“identity” in this chapter, including how quantitative identity differs from qualitative
identity. The text very precisely explains the difference. Again, the examples are
instructive; study them closely. Using the identity operator, we can now represent
specific numbers (exact quantities) of things. Adding the identity operator to the
language is a big step.

The sentences treated in this chapter become quite complex, but they are also very
interesting logically. Don’t forget the online videos! Good luck.

Chapter 25 Objectives
1. Demonstrate that you understand translations requiring the identity operator by
correctly translating sentences of English whose translation requires the identity
operator (in addition to quantifiers, predicates, etc.).

2. Demonstrate that you understand express specific quantities of things using the
identity operator by correctly making the relevant translations.

3. Demonstrate that you understand the ideas in this chapter by correctly answering
relevant true-false, multiple-choice, and other short answer questions and essay
questions.

4. If something taught in the text was not included in this list of objectives, be
prepared to demonstrate an understanding of that item too.

Test Your Understanding!

Practice Problems with Answers

Translating Identity Statements

Translate the following English statements into the language of predicate logic making
use of the identity sign as appropriate. Use the capital letters provided for your predicate
constants. E.g., “Only Mark has a watch (W)” translates as “Wm & (x)[Wx  (x = m)].”

1. Samuel Clemens is Mark Twain.

2. If Cicero is Tully, then at least one Roman was an orator. (RO)
3. George W. Bush is not Bob Marley.
4. Mark is Diane’s firstborn son.

160
5. It is false that the room with the evidence is the place where the murder took place.
6. There is no best flavor of ice cream. (BF)
7. There is only one building. (B)
8. The barber shaves everybody except himself. (S)
9. Only Kant could critique pure reason. (C)
10. The only book written by Isabel Allende is The House of the Sprits. (BW)
11. No author except Herman Melville wrote Moby Dick. (AW)
12. The only musicians who won a prize were Rueben Blades and Jose Alfredo Jimenez.
(MW)
13. The tallest basketball player is Stretch. (TB)
14. There is at most one choice. (C)
15. There are at least two Libertarians in the room. (LR)

Answers:
1. c = t
2. (c = t)  (x)(Rx & Ox)
3. ~(b = m)
4. m = f
5. ~(e = m)
6. ~(x){Fx & (y){[(Fy & ~(x = y)]  Bxy}}
7. (x)(y){Bx & [By  (x = y)]}
8. (x){[(Px & ~(x = t)]  Stx)}
9. Ck & (x)[Cx  (x = k)]
10. (Bh & Wh) & (x)[(Bx & Wx)  (x = h)]
11. (Am & Wm) & (x)[(Ax & Wx)  (x = m)]
12. [(Mb & Wb) & (Pj & Wj)] & (x){(Mx & Wx)  [(x = b) v (x = j)]}
13. Bs & (x){[Bx & ~(x = s)]  Tsx}
14. (x)(y)[(Cx & Cy)  (x = y)]
15. (x)(y){[(Lx & Rx) & (Ly & Ry)] & ~(x = y)}

Unit Four
Online Lecture 5
On Chapter 26
This exciting chapter introduces the second system of natural deduction, the system we
call here QD (for “quantificational deduction”), the deduction system for predicate
arguments (also called “quantified” arguments). Five rules are presented, with many
examples. Four of these rules are inference rules, which (you will recall) means they are
applied only to whole lines of a proof. One is a replacement rule, which means it can be
161
applied to a whole line or to a part of a line. Make sure you keep in mind the difference
between the two types of rules. This was first explained in Unit Three of course.

We also recommend that you study the examples carefully. We also recommend that you
practice proving arguments valid in this new system. The more proofs you complete, the
better at creating proofs you will be. Constructing proofs is a skill that improves with
practice.

In this chapter, you are only asked to prove monadic predicate arguments valid—those
containing only monadic predicates. Arguments with relational predicates are more
complex and they are considered separately, in the next chapter. Keep in mind the
difference between the two types of predicates. Monadic predicates attach to one thing
at a time. A relational predicate represents a relation between two or more things.
Notice that QD incorporates all the rules from TD. The system TD is “resident within”
the system QD. The text explains this in detail, of course.

This is very important. Remember that there is a proper form for constructing and
stating a proof. You cannot simply write a proof any way you feel like at the moment.
You have to follow the proper format. (Similarly, when writing instructions or
commands in a computer programming language, the commands must be written in a
proper form; the computer will not execute a command if it is not written in a proper
form.) The form for stating a natural deduction proof is as precise and it is taught in the
text. Many examples in the text show you what the proper form looks like. Your proofs
must be constructed in the proper form and this means they need to look like the
examples of proofs presented in the text (and in this lecture below.) The text explains
the matter and demonstrates it in detail, of course!

This is important: As the text explains and demonstrates, your proof is correct as long as
(a) the conclusion of the argument being proven is the very last step of the proof, and (b)
each step in the proof after the premises correctly follows from one or more previous
lines via one of the rules of inference, the rule has been applied and used correctly, and
the rule is correctly cited in the justification of the line. The text demonstrates this in
detail. The PowerPoints and the online video demos also demonstrate in detail how to
construct a proper proof.

One bit of advice. We strongly recommend that you practice proofs the way you would
practice problems in a math class. Practice at least some proofs every day. Experience
shows that most students only become good at constructing proofs (and do well on
tests) with practice; rarely does anyone become good at proofs without a fair amount of
practice. Remember: Practice makes perfect!

The Videos and PowerPoints

162
We recommend that you watch the corresponding online video lectures and the
PowerPoints as you learn to construct proofs in predicate logic. Few students can
adequately learn this material without watching visual, step-by-step demonstrations.

Chapter 26 Objectives
1. Demonstrate that you understand how to correctly use the five rules of the
natural deduction system QD by correctly proving monadic predicate arguments
valid.

2. Demonstrate that you understand the ideas in this chapter by correctly answering
relevant true-false, multiple-choice, and other short answer questions and essay
questions.

3. If something taught in the text was not included in this list of objectives, be
prepared to demonstrate an understanding of that item too.

Test Your Understanding!

Practice Problems with Answers

Proofs in Predicate Logic

Use natural deduction to show that the following arguments are valid. Available to you
are the truth-functional rules, and the four quantifier rules. Do not use CP or IP.

1. 1. (x)(Ax  Gx)
2. (x)Ax / Ab & Gb

2. 1. (x)(Dx v Mx)
2. (y)~Dy / (z)Mz

3. 1. Js & ~Pj
2. [(x)Mx v Js]  Lm / Lm & ~Pj

4. 1. He v He
2. ~He v Jd / Jd

5. 1. (x)[Ax v (Mx & Nx)]

2. ~Mb / (x)Ax

6. 1. (x)(Rx  Tx)

163
 2. (x)Rx / (y)Ty

7. 1. (x)(Dx v Mx)
2. (x)(Dx  Ax)
3. (x)(~Ax & Px) / (z)Mz

8. 1. (x)(~Hx v Zx)
2. (x)Hx / (x)Zx

9. 1. (x)Ax
2. (z)Az  (x)Bx / (y)By

10. 1. ~Pg
2. (y)[(Py v Py) v Gy] / Gg v (x)~Px

11. 1. Ab  (x)Kx
2. (y)Ay / (y)Ky

12. 1. ~Jc v Lg
2. Jc
3. (y)Ly  (x)(Dx & Hx) / He

13. 1. ~Df
2. (x)(Jx Dx)
3. (x)(Jx v Mx) / Mf

14. 1. Ac
2. (x)Bx
3. (Ac & Bc)  (x)Rx / (x)Rx

15. 1. (x)(Ax  Bx)

2. ~Bk / (z)(~Az v Bz)

16. 1. (z)(Mz Nz)

2. (y)(Ny  Oy)
3. (x)(Ox  Px) / (x)(~Mx v Px)

17. 1. (x)(Gx  Fx)

2. (y)Gy / (x)Fx & (x)Gx

164
18. 1. (x)[(Ax v Bx)  Ox]
2. (y)(Ay & Dy) / (y)Oy

19. 1. (x)(Gx  Hx)

2. (x)(Ix & ~Hx)
3. (x)(~Fx v Gx) / (x)(Ix & ~Fx)

20. 1. (x)Gx  (x)~Ox

2. (x)Wx  (x)(Fx  Ox)
3. (x)(Wx & Gx) / (x)~Fx

Answers:

Remember: As the text explained in Unit Three, in most cases more than one proof
can be given for any particular valid argument. Each proof below is thus one way to
prove the corresponding argument valid. In many cases, alternative proofs are possible
as well. If we included every possible proof, for every argument in these practice sets,
our online lectures would become thousands of pages long. Way too many pages to be
useful. We simply do not have the space to include every possible proof for every
argument.

1. 1. (x)(Ax  Gx)
2. (x)Ax / Ab & Gb
3. Ab  Gb UI 1
4. Ab UI 1
5. Gb MP 3, 4
6. Ab & Gb Conj 4, 5

2. 1. (x)(Dx v Mx)
2. (y)~Dy / (z)Mz
3. ~Da EI 2
4. Da v Ma UI 1
5. Ma DS 3, 4
6. (z)Mz EG 5

3. 1. Js & ~Pj
2. [(x)Mx v Js]  Lm / Lm & ~Pj
3. Js Simp 1
4. Js v (x)Mx Add 3

165
 5. (x)Mx v Js Comm 4
6. Lm MP 2, 5
7. ~Pj Simp 1
8. Lm & ~Pj Conj 6, 7

4. 1. He v He
2. ~He v Jd / Jd
3. He Taut 1
4. ~~He DNeg 3
5. Jd DS 2, 4

5. 1. (x)[Ax v (Mx & Nx)]

2. ~Mb / (x)Ax
3. Ab v (Mb & Nb) UI 1
4. (Ab v Mb) & (Ab v Nb) Dist 3
5. Ab v Mb Simp 4
6. Mb v Ab Comm 5
7. Ab DS 2, 6
8. (x)Ax EG 7

6. 1. (x)(Rx  Tx)
2. (x)Rx / (y)Ty
3. Ru EI 2
4. Ru  Tu UI 1
5. Tu MP 3, 4
6. (y)Ty EG 5

7. 1. (x)(Dx v Mx)
2. (x)(Dx  Ax)
3. (x)(~Ax & Px) / (z)Mz
4. ~Ab & Pb EI 3
5. Db v Mb UI 1
6. Db  Ab UI 2
7. ~Ab Simp 4
8. ~Db MT 6, 7
9. Mb DS 5, 8
10. (z)Mz EG 9

8. 1. (x)(~Hx v Zx)
2. (x)Hx / (x)Zx

166
 3. ~Hx v Zx UI 1
4. Hx UI 2
5. ~~Hx DNeg 4
6. Zx DS 3, 5
7. (x)Zx UG 6

9. 1. (x)Ax
2. (z)Az  (x)Bx / (y)By
3. Ax UI 1
4. (z)Az UG 3
5. (x)Bx MP 2, 4
6. Ba EI 5
7. (y)By EG 6

10. 1. ~Pg
2. (y)[(Py v Py) v Gy] / Gg v (x)~Px
3. (Pg v Pg) v Gg U 2I
4. Pg v Gg Taut 3
5. Gg DS 1, 4
6. Gg v (x)~Px Add 5

11. 1. Ab  (x)Kx
2. (y)Ay / (y)Ky
3. Ab UI 2
4. (x)Kx MP 1, 3
5. Kb UI 4
6. (y)Ky EG 5

12. 1. ~Jc v Lg
2. Jc
3. (y)Ly  (x)(Dx & Hx) / He
4. ~~Jc DNeg 2
5. Lg DS 1, 4
6. (y)Ly EG 5
7. (x)(Dx & Hx) MP 3, 6
8. De & He UI 7
9. He Simp 8

13. 1. ~Df

167
 2. (x)(Jx Dx)
3. (x)(Jx v Mx) / Mf
4. Jf Df UI 2
5. ~Jf MT 1, 4
6. Jf v Mf UI 3
7. Mf DS 5, 6

14. 1. Ac
2. (x)Bx
3. (Ac & Bc)  (x)Rx / (x)Rx
4. Bc UI 2
5. Ac & Bc Conj 1, 4
6. (x)Rx MP 3, 5
7. Ra UI 6
8. (x)Rx EG 7

15. 1. (x)(Ax  Bx)

2. ~Bk / (z)(~Az v Bz)
3. Ak  Bk UI 1
4. ~Ak MT 2, 3
5. ~Ak v Bk Add 4
6. (z)(~Az v Bz) EG 5

16. 1. (z)(Mz Nz)

2. (y)(Ny  Oy)
3. (x)(Ox  Px) / (x)(~Mx v Px)
4. Mx  Nx UI 1
5. Nx  Ox UI 2
6. Ox Px UI 3
7. Mx Ox HS 4, 5
8. Mx Px HS 6, 7
9. ~Mx v Px Imp 8
10. (x)(~Mx v Px) UG 9

17. 1. (x)(Gx  Fx)

2. (y)Gy / (x)Fx & (x)Gx
3. Gu EI 2
4. Gu  Fu UI 1
5. Fu MP 4, 5

168
 6. (x)Fx EG 5
7. (x)Gx EG 3
8. (x)Fx & (x)Gx Conj 6, 7

18. 1. (x)[(Ax v Bx)  Ox]

2. (y)(Ay & Dy) / (y)Oy
3. Au & Du EI 3
4. (Au v Bu)  Ou UI 1
5. Au Simp 3
6. Au v Bu Add 5
7. Ou MP 4, 6
8. (y)Oy EG 7

19. 1. (x)(Gx  Hx)

2. (x)(Ix & ~Hx)
3. (x)(~Fx v Gx) / (x)(Ix & ~Fx)
4. Iu & ~Hu EI 2
5. Gu  Hu UI 1
6. ~Hu Simp 4
7. ~Gu MT 5, 6
8. ~Fu v Gu UI 3
9. Gu v ~Fu Com 8
10. ~Fu DS 7, 9
11. Iu Simp 4
12. Iu & ~Fu Conj 10, 11
13. (x)(Ix & ~Fx) EG 12

20. 1. (x)Gx  (x)~Ox

2. (x)Wx  (x)(Fx  Ox)
3. (x)(Wx & Gx) / (x)~Fx
4. Wu & Gu EI 3
5. Wu Simp 4
6. Gu Simp 4
7. (x)Wx EG 5
8. (x)Gx EG 6
9. (x)(Fx  Ox) MP 2, 7
10. (x)~Ox MP 1, 8
11. ~Ov EI 10
12. Fv  Ov UI 9

169
 13. ~Fv MT 11, 12
14. (x)~Fx EG 13

5. Proofs Using QE

Use natural deduction to show that the following arguments are valid. Available to you
are the truth-functional rules, UI, UG, EI, EG, and QE. Do not use CP or IP.

1. 1. ~(x)Mx
2. (x)~Mx  ~(y)Dy / (y)~Dy

2. 1. (x)~Ax  ~(y)By
2. (y)~By  (z)~Dz / ~(x)Ax  ~(z)Dz

3. 1. ~(x)Nx
2. ~(y)My / (x)~(Nx v Mx)

4. 1. (x)Bx  (x)Tx
2. ~(x)Tx / (x)~Bx

5. 1. (x)Ax
2. (y)Ay  (x)Sx / ~(x)~Sx

6. 1. (x)Px ≡ (x)Kx
2. ~(x)~Px
3. Ka  Gc / (y)Gy & Pb

7. 1. (x)Ax
2. (x)Bx / ~(x)~Ax ≡ ~(x)~Bx

8. 1. ~(x)~Sx
2. (x)Sx ≡ (x)Mx
3. Ma  ~Gb / ~(y)Gy

9. 1. ~(y)Dy
2. (y)~Dy  (x)~Mx / ~(x)Mx

10. 1. ~(y)Hy
2. ~(y)Jy

170
 3. (x)~(Hx v Jx)  [(y)Jy v (x)Mx] / ~(x)~Mx

11. 1. (x)[(Ax v Bx)  Px]

2. ~(y)(Py v Dy) / ~(x)Ax

12. 1. ~[(x)Fx v (x)Gx]

2. (x)~Fx  (y)Hy
3. (x)~Gx  (z)Jz / (x)(Hx & Jx)

13. 1. (x)~Ax  (x)(Bx  Ox)

2. ~(x)(Ax v Ox) / ~(x)Bx

14. 1. (x)[(Fx & Qx)  Sx]

2. ~(x)(Fx  Sx) / ~(x)Qx

15. 1. (x)Cx  (x)Ax

2. (x)Dx  (x)Bx
3. ~(x)(Ax v Bx) / ~(x)(Cx v Dx)

Answers:

1. 1. ~(x)Mx
2. (x)~Mx  ~(y)Dy / (y)~Dy
3. (x)~Mx QE 1
4. ~(y)Dy MP 2, 3
5. (y)~Dy QE 4

2. 1. (x)~Ax  ~(y)By
2. (y)~By  (z)~Dz / ~(x)Ax  ~(z)Dz
3. (x)~Ax  (y)~By QE 1
4. (x)~Ax  (z)~Dz HS 2, 3
5. ~(x)Ax  (z)~Dz QE 4
6. ~(x)Ax  ~(z)Dz QE 5

3. 1. ~(x)Nx
2. ~(y)My / (x)~(Nx v Mx)
3. (x)~Nx QE 1
4. (y)~My QE 2
5. ~Na UI 3

171
 6. ~Ma UI 4
7. ~Na & ~Ma Conj 5, 6
8. ~(Na v Ma) DM 7
9. (x)~(Nx v Mx) EG 8

4. 1. (x)Bx  (x)Tx
2. ~(x)Tx / (x)~Bx
3. ~(x)Bx MT 1, 2
4. (x)~Bx QE 3

5. 1. (x)Ax
2. (y)Ay  (x)Sx / ~(x)~Sx
3. Aa EI 1
4. (y)Ay EG 3
5. (x)Sx MP 2, 4
6. ~(x)~Sx QE 5

6. 1. (x)Px ≡ (x)Kx
2. ~(x)~Px
3. Ka  Gc / (y)Gy & Pb
4. (x)Px QE 2
5. [(x)Px  (x)Kx] & [(x)Kx  (x)Px] Equiv 1
6. (x)Px  (x)Kx Simp 5
7. (x)Kx MP 4, 6
8. Ka UI 7
9. Gc MP 3, 8
10. (y)Gy EG 9
11. Pb UI 4
12. (y)Gy & Pb Conj 10, 11

7. 1. (x)Ax
2. (x)Bx / ~(x)~Ax ≡ ~(x)~Bx
3. ~(x)~Ax QE 1
4. ~(x)~Bx QE 2
5. ~(x)~Ax & ~(x)~Bx Conj 3, 4
6. [~(x)~Ax & ~(x)~Bx] v [~~(x)~Ax & ~~(x)~Bx] Add 5
7. ~(x)~Ax ≡ ~(x)~Bx Equiv 6

8. 1. ~(x)~Sx

172
 2. (x)Sx ≡ (x)Mx
3. Ma  ~Gb / ~(y)Gy
4. (x)Sx QE 1
5. [(x)Sx  (x)Mx] & [(x)Mx  (x)Sx] Equiv 2
6. (x)Sx  (x)Mx Simp 5
7. (x)Mx MP 4, 6
8. Ma UI 7
9. ~Gb MP 3, 8
10. (y)~Gy EG 9
11. ~(y)Gy QE 10

9. 1. ~(y)Dy
2. (y)~Dy  (x)~Mx / ~(x)Mx
3. (y)~Dy QE 1
4. (x)~Mx MP 2, 3
5. ~(x)Mx QE 4

10. 1. ~(y)Hy
2. ~(y)Jy
3. (x)~(Hx v Jx)  [(y)Jy v (x)Mx] / ~(x4)~Mx
4. (y)~Hy QE 1
5. (y)~Jy QE 2
6. ~Hx UI 4
7. ~Jx UI 5
8. ~Hx & ~Jx Conj 6, 7
9. ~(Hx v Jx) DM 8
10. (x)~(Hx v Jx) UG 9
11. (y)Jy v (x)Mx MP 3, 10
12. (y)~Jy UG 7
13. ~(y)Jy QE 12
14. (x)Mx DS 11, 13
15. ~(x)~Mx QE 14

11. 1. (x)[(Ax v Bx)  Px]

2. ~(y)(Py v Dy) / ~(x)Ax
3. (y)~(Py v Dy) QE 2
4. (Ax v Bx)  Px UI 1
5. ~(Px v Dx) UI 3
6. ~Px & ~Dx DM 5
7. ~Px Simp 6

173
 8. ~(Ax v Bx) MT 4, 7
9. ~Ax & ~Bx DM 8
10. ~Ax Simp 9
11. (x)~Ax UG 10
12. ~(x)Ax QE 11

12. 1. ~[(x)Fx v (x)Gx]

2. (x)~Fx  (y)Hy
3. (x)~Gx  (z)Jz / (x)(Hx & Jx)
4. ~(x)Fx & ~(x)Gx DM 1
5. ~(x)Fx Simp 4
6. (x)~Fx QE 5
7. (y)Hy MP 2, 6
8. ~(x)Gx Simp 4
9. (x)~Gx QE 8
10. (z)Jz MP 3, 9
11. Hx UI 7
12. Jx UI 10
13. Hx & Jx Conj 11, 12
14. (x)(Hx & Jx) UG 13

13. 1. (x)~Ax  (x)(Bx  Ox)

2. ~(x)(Ax v Ox) / ~(x)Bx
3. (x)~(Ax v Ox) QE 2
4. ~(Au v Ou) EI 3
5. ~Au & ~Ou DM 4
6. ~Au Simp 5
7. (x)~Ax EG 6
8. (x)(Bx  Ox) MP 1, 7
9. ~Ou Simp 5
10. Bu  Ou UI 8
11. ~Bu MT 9, 10
12. (x)~Bx EG 11
13. ~(x)Bx QE 12

14. 1. (x)[(Fx & Qx)  Sx]

2. ~(x)(Fx  Sx) / ~(x)Qx
3. (x)~(Fx  Sx) QE 2
4. ~(Fu  Su) EI 3
5. (Fu & Qu)  Su UI 1
174
 6. ~(~Fu v Su) Imp 4
7. ~~Fu & ~Su DM 6
8. ~Su Simp 7
9. ~(Fu & Qu) MT 5, 8
10. ~Fu v ~Qu DM 9
11. ~~Fu Simp 7
12. ~Qu DS 10, 11
13. (x)~Qx EG 12
14. ~(x)Qx QE 13

15. 1. (x)Cx  (x)Ax

2. (x)Dx  (x)Bx
3. ~(x)(Ax v Bx) / ~(x)(Cx v Dx)
4. (x)~(Ax v Bx) QE 3
5. ~(Ax v Bx) UI 4
6. ~Ax & ~Bx DM 5
7. ~Ax Simp 6
8. ~Bx Simp 6
9. (x)~Ax UG 7
10. (x)~Bx UG 8
11. ~(x)Ax QE 9
12. ~(x)Bx QE 10
13. ~(x)Cx MT 1, 11
14. ~(x)Dx MT 2, 12
15. (x)~Cx QE 13
16. (x)~Dx QE 14
17. ~Cy UI 15
18. ~Dy UI 16
19. ~Cy & ~Dy Conj 17, 18
20. ~(Cy v Dy) DM 19
21. (x)~(Cx v Dx) UG 20
22. ~(x)(Cx v Dx) QE 21

175
 Unit Four
Online Lecture 6
On Chapter 27

No proofs will be found in this chapter. This chapter gives you a break from doing
proofs. The central idea in this chapter is the notion of an interpretation for a
quantified sentence. In this chapter you learn the formal semantics for predicate logic
and a semantical method for demonstrating validity and invalidity—all using the notion
of an interpretation. Some logic teachers will consider this an optional chapter and will
skip it. Others will use this chapter to teach some important and interesting aspects of
predicate logic. Logic teachers are human; they do not agree on everything! Either way
is good.

As you study this chapter, keep in mind the difference between syntax and semantics.
The method of natural deduction is purely syntactic in nature: The rules of deduction
are applied to items based on their shape or syntax, that is, to the way the symbols look,
without reference to what the symbols or shapes mean or stand for. However, when we
specify an interpretation for a sentence of PL, we are saying what the symbols stand for,
we are attaching meanings to the symbols. An interpretation is thus semantic in nature,
while proofs are purely syntactic in nature.

When we specify an interpretation for a predicate sentence or an argument, we leave

pure syntax behind and we enter the realm of semantics—the assignment of meanings to
the symbols of a language. The text explains this in detail. We mention it here because it
is an important point.

Once defined, the notion of an interpretation is used to state a formal semantics for PL
and it also is used to show arguments valid and invalid in a semantical rather than a
purely syntactical way. Note the comparison, drawn in the text, between truth tables (in
truth-functional logic, Unit Three) and interpretations (in predicate logic).
Interpretations are the analogue, in predicate logic, of truth tables in truth-functional
logic. If you understand that, you will really understand this chapter in depth. The
notion of an interpretation is thus in a sense a bridge connecting truth-functional and
predicate logic.

176
The notion of truth-functional expansions, taught in this chapter, also forms a bridge
connection between truth-functional and quantificational (predicate) logic. Note the
connection when you study the idea, which is explained in detail in the text. Note also
that the method of truth-functional expansions only works with monadic predicate
arguments—with arguments containing nothing more than monadic predicates. In
metalogic—the logic of logical systems--it has been proven that the method does not
work for arguments containing relational predicates.

Chapter 27 Objectives
1. Demonstrate that you understand the formal semantics for predicate logic by
correctly explaining it in your own words.

2. Demonstrate that you understand the nature of an interpretation by correctly

constructing interpretations for sentences and arguments.

3. Demonstrate that you know how to use interpretations to show that an argument
in predicate logic is invalid by correctly showing sample arguments invalid using
appropriate interpretations.

4. Demonstrate that you understand how to use truth-functional expansions to test

monadic predicate arguments for validity and to show that a monadic predicate
argument is valid or invalid by correctly doing so using truth-functional
expansions.

5. Demonstrate your understanding of the ideas in this chapter by correctly

answering relevant true-false, multiple-choice, and other short answer questions
and essay questions.

6. If something taught in the text was not included in this list of objectives, be
prepared to demonstrate an understanding of that item too!

Test Your Understanding!

Practice Problems with Answers

Establishing Invalidity in Predicate Logic

Specify an interpretation showing that each argument below is invalid.

1. (x)Ax / (x)Ax

177
2. (x)(Ax & ~Bx) / (x)(Ax & Bx)
3. (x)(~Ax v ~Bx) / (x)~(Ax v Bx)
4. (x)(Ax & Bx)
(x)(Ax & Cx) / (x)[Ax & (Bx & Cx)]
5. (x)(Ax  Bx)
(x)(Ax  Cx) / (x)(Bx  Cx)
6. (x)(Ax  ~Bx)
(x)(Bx  Cx) / (x)(Cx & Ax)

Answers:
1. Domain: universal; Ax: is an aardvark
Something is an aardvark. Thus all things are aardvarks.
2. Domain: universal; Ax: is a dog; Bx: is a cat
Some dogs are not cats. Thus some dogs are cats.
3. Domain: whole numbers; Ax: is odd; Bx: is even
There is a whole number that is odd or even. Thus there is a whole number that is
neither odd nor even.
4. Domain: universal; Ax: is a female; Bx: is a human; Cx: is an eagle
Some females are humans. Some females are eagles. Thus some females are both
humans and eagles.
5. Domain: universal; Ax: is a mouse; Bx: is an animal; Cx: is a mammal
All mice are animals. All mice are mammals. Thus all animals are mammals.
6. Domain: universal: Ax: is a car; Bx: is a dog; Cx: is an animal
No cars are dogs. All dogs are animals. Thus something is both an animal and a car.

Unit Four
Online Lecture 7
On Chapter 28
Now we are back to proofs! No new rules are added in this chapter; however, in this
chapter we learn to apply the existing rules to arguments containing overlapping
quantifiers and relational predicates. You will notice that the proofs in this chapter
take on an added level of complexity. All the more reason to watch the online videos. In
addition, we again recommend that you practice these proofs every day. We say: Good
exercise for the brain!

Chapter 28 Objectives

178
 1. Demonstrate that you can correctly use the five rules of the natural deduction
system QD to prove arguments valid containing relational predicates and
overlapping quantifiers valid by correctly proving such arguments valid.

2. Demonstrate your understanding of the ideas in this chapter by correctly

answering relevant true-false, multiple-choice, and other short answer questions
and essay questions.

3. If something taught in the text was not included in this list of objectives, be
prepared to demonstrate an understanding of that item too.

Test Your Understanding!

Practice Problems with Answers

Proofs with Dyadic Predicates and Overlapping Quantifiers

Use natural deduction to derive the conclusions of the following valid arguments.

1. 1. (x)(y)Pxy / (y)(z)Pyz

2. 1. (x)Cxx
2. (y)(z)(Cyz  Azy) / Abb

3. 1. (x)Rxa  (y)(x)Mxy
2. Rba / Mbc

4. 1. ~Ukg  ~(x)Ix / (x)Ix  (y)Uyg

5. 1. Dq
2. (x)[Fx  (y)(Dy  Oxy)] & Fp / Opq

6. 1. Tp
2. (y)[Ty  (z)Dyz] / (x)Dpx & (y)Ty

7. 1. (x)(z)Mxz
2. (x)( z)Mxz  (y)Ny / ~(y)~Ny

8. 1. ~Fb v (Ab v Gbq)

2. (z)(x)~Gxz / (y)(x)~Fxy  (Fb  Ab)

179
9. 1. (x)(y)(z)(Rxy  ~Rxz) / (y)(x)~Rxy

10. 1. ~(x)(y)(Ax v By) / (x)~Ax & (y)~By

11. 1. (x)Gx  (y)(My & Jx) / (x)[Gx  (y)Jy]

12. 1. (x)[(y)Axy  (z)Nz] / (x)(y)Axy  (z)Nz

13. 1. ~(x)~Axa  (z)~Aza

2. (y)(x)Axy / ~(x)Mx

14. 1. ~(x)[Px & (y)(Py  Lxy)] / (x)[Px  ~(y)(Py  Lxy)]

15. 1. Aq / (z)[(Gzq & Fz)  (y)(Ay & Gzy)]

16. 1. (x)(Px v Gx)

2. (x)(y)[(~Lx v Mx)  Nyx] / (x)[~(y)(Gy v Lx)  (z)(Pz & Nzx)]

17. 1. Qe & Fb
2. (x){Fx  (y)[Qy  (z)(Rz & Axyz)]} / (z)(Abez & Rz)

18. 1. (x)(y)(Axy v Bxy)  (z)Pz

2. (x)(y)(Px  ~Py) / (x)(y)~Axy

19. 1. (x)Hx  (y)Ky

2. (x)[Hx & (y)(Ky  Lxy)] / (x)(y)Lxy

20. 1. (y)(x)(Ax & Hxy)  ~Mb

2. (x)[Ax & (y)(My  Hxy)] / (x)~Mx

Answers:

1. 1. (x)(y)Pxy / (y)(z)Pyz
2. (y)Pxy UI 1
3. Pxa EI 2
4. (z)Pxz EG 3
5. (y)(z)Pyz UG 4

180
2. 1. (x)Cxx
2. (y)(z)(Cyz  Azy) / Abb
3. Cbb UI 1
4. (z)(Cbz  Azb) UI 2
5. Cbb  Abb UI 4
6. Abb MP 3, 5

3. 1. (x)Rxa  (y)(x)Mxy
2. Rba / Mbc
3. (x)Rxa EG 2
4. (y)(x)Mxy MP 1, 3
5. (x)Mxc UI 4
6. Mbc UI 5

4. 1. ~Ukg  ~(x)Ix / (x)Ix  (y)Uyg

2. (x)Ix AP
3. ~~(x)Ix DNeg 2
4. ~~Ukg MT 1, 3
5. Ukg DNeg 4
6. (y)Uyg EG 5
7. (x)Ix  (y)Uyg CP 2-6

5. 1. Dq
2. (x)[Fx  (y)(Dy  Oxy)] & Fp / Opq
3. (x)[Fx  (y)(Dy  Oxy)] Simp 2
4. Fp Simp 2
5. Fp  (y)(Dy  Opy) UI 3
6. (y)(Dy  Opy) MP 4, 5
7. Dq  Opq UI 6
8. Opq MP 1, 7

6. 1. Tp
2. (y)[Ty  (z)Dyz] / (x)Dpx & (y)Ty
3. Tp  (z)Dpz UI 2
4. (z)Dpz MP 1, 3
5. Dpx UI 4
6. (x)Dpx UG 5
7. (y)Ty EG 1
8. (x)Dpx & (y)Ty Conj 6, 7

181
7. 1. (x)(z)Mxz
2. (x)( z)Mxz  (y)Ny / ~(y)~Ny
3. (z)Maz UI 1
4. Mab UI 3
5. (z)Maz EG 4
6. (x)(z)Mxz EG 5
7. (y)Ny MP 2, 6
8. ~(y)~Ny QE 7

8. 1. ~Fb v (Ab v Gbq)

2. (z)(x)~Gxz / (y)(x)~Fxy  (Fb  Ab)
3. (y)(x)~Fxy AP
4. (x)~Gxq UI 2
4. ~Gbq UI 3
5. (~Fb v Ab) v Gbq Assoc 1
6. Gbq v (~Fb v Ab) Comm 5
7. ~Fb v Ab DS 4, 6
8. Fb  Ab Imp 7
9. (y)(x)~Fxy  (Fb  Ab) CP 3-8

9. 1. (x)(y)(z)(Rxy  ~Rxz) / (y)(x)~Rxy

2. (y)(z)(Ray  ~Raz) UI 1
3. (z)(Rau  ~Raz) EI 2
4. Rau  ~Rau UI 3
5. ~Rau v ~Rau Imp 4
6. ~Rau Taut 5
7. (x)~Rxu EG 6
8. (y)(x)~Rxy EG 7

10. 1. ~(x)(y)(Ax v By) / (x)~Ax & (y)~By

2. (x)~(y)(Ax v By) QE 1
3. (x)(y)~(Ax v By) QE 2
4. (y)~(Ax v By) UI 3
5. ~(Ax v Bb) EI 4
6. ~Ax & ~Bb DM 5
7. ~Ax Simp 6
8. ~Bb Simp 6
9. (x)~Ax UG 7
10. (y)~By EG 8
11. (x)~Ax & (y)~By Conj 9, 10
182
11. 1. (x)Gx  (y)(My & Jx) / (x)[Gx  (y)Jy]
2. Gx AP
3. (x)Gx EG 2
4. (y)(My & Jx) MP 1, 3
5. Mv & Jv UI 4
6. Jv Simp 5
7. (y)Jy EG 6
8. Gx  (y)Jy CP 2-7
9. (x)[Gx  (y)Jy] UG 8

12. 1. (x)[(y)Axy  (z)Nz] / (x)(y)Axy  (z)Nz

2. (x)(y)Axy AP
3. (y)Auy  (z)Nz UI 1
4. (y)Auy UI 2
5. (z)Nz MP 3, 4
6. (x)(y)Axy  (z)Nz CP 2-5

13. 1. ~(x)~Axa  (z)~Aza

2. (y)(x)Axy / ~(x)Mx
3. ~~(x)Mx AP
4. (x)Mx DNeg 3
5. (x)Axa UI 2
6. ~(x)~Axa QE 5
7. (z)~Aza MP 1, 6
8. ~Axa UI 8
9. (x)~Axa UG 7
10. (x)~Axa & ~(x)~Axa Conj 6, 9
11. ~(x)Mx IP 3-10

14. 1. ~(x)[Px & (y)(Py  Lxy)] / (x)[Px  ~(y)(Py  Lxy)]

2. (x)~[Px & (y)(Py  Lxy)] QE 1
3. (x)[~Px v ~(y)(Py  Lxy)] DM 2
4. (x)[Px  ~(y)(Py  Lxy)] Imp 3

15. 1. Aq / (z)[(Gzq & Fz)  (y)(Ay & Gzy)]

2. Gzq & Fz AP
3. ~(y)(Ay & Gzy) AP
4. (y)~(Ay & Gzy) QE 3
5. ~(Aq & Gzq) UI 4
183
 6. ~Aq v ~Gzq DM 5
7. ~~Aq DNeg 1
8. ~Gzq DS 6, 7
9. Gzq Simp 2
10. Gzq & ~Gzq Conj 8, 9
11. (y)(Ay & Gzy) IP 3-10
12. (Gzq & Fu)  (y)(Ay & Gzy) CP 2-11
13. (z)[(Gzq & Fz)  (y)(Ay & Gzy)] UG 12

16. 1. (x)(Px v Gx)

2. (x)(y)[(~Lx v Mx)  Nyx] / (x)[~(y)(Gy v Lx)  (z)(Pz & Nzx)]
3. ~(y)(Gy v Lx) AP
4. (y)~(Gy v Lx) QE3
5. ~(Gv v Lx) UI 4
6. ~Gv & ~Lx DM 5
7. ~Gv Simp 6
8. ~Lx Simp 6
9. Pv v Gv UI 1
10. Gv v Pv Comm 9
11. Pv DS 7, 10
12. (y)[(~Lx v Mx)  Nyx] UI 2
13. (~Lx v Mx)  Nvx UI 12
14. ~Lx v Mx Add 8
15. Nvx MP 13, 14
16. Pv & Nvx Conj 11, 15
17. (z)(Pz & Nzx ) EG 16
18. ~(y)(Gy v Lx)  (z)(Pz & Nzx) CP 3-17
19. (x)[~(y)(Gy v Lx)  (z)(Pz & Nzx)] UG 18

17. 1. Qe & Fb
2. (x){Fx  (y)[Qy  (z)(Rz & Axyz)]} / (z)(Abez & Rz)
3. Qe Simp 1
4. Fb Simp 1
5. Fb  (y)[Qy  (z)(Rz & Abyz)] UI 2
6. (y)[Qy  (z)(Rz & Abyz)] MP 4, 5
7. Qe  (z)(Rz & Abez) UI 6
8. (z)(Rz & Abez) MP 3, 7
9. Rv & Abev EI 8
10. Abev & Rv Comm 9
11. (z)(Abez & Rz) EG 10

184
18. 1. (x)(y)(Axy v Bxy)  (z)Pz
2. (x)(y)(Px  ~Py) / (x)(y)~Axy
3. ~(x)(y)~Axy AP
4. (x)~(y)~Axy QE 3
5. (x)(y)Axy QE 4
6. (y)Auy EI 5
7. Auv EI 6
8. Auv v Buv Add 7
9. (y)(Auy v Buy) EG 9
10. (x)(y)(Axy v Bxy) EG 10
11. (z)Pz MP 1, 10
12. Pw EI 11
13. (y)(Pw  ~Py) UI 2
14. Pw ~Pw UI 13
15. ~Pw v ~Pw Imp 14
16. ~Pw Taut 15
17. Pw & ~Pw Conj 12, 16
18. (x)(y)~Axy IP 3-17

19. 1. (x)Hx  (y)Ky

2. (x)[Hx & (y)(Ky  Lxy)] / (x)(y)Lxy
3. Hu & (y)(Ky  Luy)] EI 2
4. Hu Simp 3
5. (y)(Ky  Luy) Simp 3
6. (x)Hx EG 4
7. (y)Ky MP 1, 6
8. Kv EI 7
9. Kv  Luv UI 5
10. Luv MP 8, 9
11. (y)Luy EG 10
12. (x)(y)Lxy EG 11

20. 1. (y)(x)(Ax & Hxy)  ~Mb

2. (x)[Ax & (y)(My  Hxy)] / (x)~Mx
3. ~(x)~Mx AP
4. (x)Mx QE 3
5. Mb UI 4
6. ~~Mb DNeg 5

185
 7. ~(y)(x)(Ax & Hxy) MT 1, 6
8. (y)~(x)(Ax & Hxy) QE 7
9. (y)(x)~(Ax & Hxy) QE 8
10. Av & (y)(My  Hvy) EI 2
11. Av Simp 10
12. (y)(My  Hvy) Simp 10
13. Mb  Hvb UI 12
14. Hvb MP 5, 13
15. (x)~(Ax & Hxb) UI 9
16. ~(Av & Hvb) UI 15
17. Av & Hvb Conj 11, 14
18. (Av & Hvb) & ~(Av & Hvb) Conj 16, 17
19. (x)~Mx IP 3-18(x)~Mx

Unit Four
Online Lecture 8
On Chapter 29

In this chapter, we combine indirect and conditional proof with the other rules of
predicate logic. You will recall that indirect proof and conditional proof were introduced
and explained in Unit Three. Those explanations are presupposed in this unit. In this
chapter we also use the IP and CP rules to construct premise-free proofs of theorems in
predicate logic. Premise-free proofs were introduced and explained in the last unit as
well, and that explanation is of course presupposed here too. Our system is almost
complete!

The Videos and PowerPoints

Have we said this lately? We recommend that you watch the corresponding online video
lectures as you learn to construct these proofs. Few students can adequately learn
natural deduction without watching visual, step-by-step demonstrations.

Chapter 29 Objectives

186
 1. Demonstrate that you know how to use the natural deduction system QD and the
methods of indirect proof and conditional proof to prove arguments valid by
correctly proving arguments valid using indirect and conditional proof.

2. Demonstrate that you understand how to correctly use the natural deduction
system of QD to construct premise-free proofs and establish theorems in the
system by doing so.

3. Demonstrate your understanding of the ideas in this chapter by correctly

answering relevant true-false, multiple-choice, and other short answer questions
and essay questions.

4. If something taught in the text was not included in this list of objectives, be
prepared to demonstrate an understanding of that item too.

Test Your Understanding!

Practice Problems with Answers

Conditional and Indirect Proof with Quantifiers

Use conditional proof, indirect proof, or both to derive the conclusions of the following
valid arguments.

1. 1. (x)(Ax  Bx)
2. Bb  Gb / Ab Gb

2. 1. (x)Fx  (x)Rx / (x)(Fx  Rx)

3. 1. (x)(Ix  Mx)
2. (x)(Ix v Rx) / (x)(~Mx  Rx)

4. 1. (x)Hx  ~(x)Bx
2. (y)(By  Hy) / ~Ba

5. 1. Pa  Da
2. (x)Px v (x)Mx
3. ~Mg & Ng / Da

6. 1. (x)(Lx v Bx)  (x)~Lx / ~(x)Lx

187
7. 1. (x)Ax  (x)~Bx / ~(x)(Ax & Bx)

8. 1. ~(x)~(Mx  Ax) / (x)(Ax  Rx)  (x)(Mx  Rx)

9. 1. (x)Fx  (x)(Gx & Hx)

2. (x)Hx  (x)Jx / (x)(Fx  Jx)

10. 1. (y)~By v ~(x)~Ax

2. (Ab v Bc)  (x)Bx / (x)Ax ≡ (x)Bx

11. 1. (x)Ax  (x)(Bx & Px)

2. (x)(Px v Dx)  (x)Hx / (x)(Ax  Hx)

12. 1. (x)Rx  (x)Sx

2. (x)(Tx  Rx) / (x)Tx  (x)Sx

13. 1. (x)[(Qx v Sx)  Ix]

2. (x)(~Qx v Dx) (x)Fx / (x)Ix v (x)Fx

14. 1. (x)[Rx  (Hx & Px)]

2. (x)[Bx  (Ax & Ox)] / (x)(Ox  Rx)  (x)(Bx Px)

15. 1. (x)[Px  (Qx v Rx)]

2. (x)[(Sx & Px)  ~Qx] / (x)(Sx  Px)  (x)(Sx  Rx)

Answers:

Remember: As we have explained, in most cases more than one proof can be given for
any particular valid argument. Each proof below is thus one way to prove the
corresponding argument valid. In many cases, alternative proofs are possible as well. If
we included every possible proof, for every argument in these practice sets, our online
lectures would become thousands of pages long. Again, we simply do not have the space
to include every possible proof for every argument.

1. 1. (x)(Ax  Bx)
2. Bb  Gb / Ab Gb
3. Ab ACP
4. Ab  Bb UI 1

188
 5. Ab  Gb HS 2, 4
6. Gb MP 3, 5
7. Ab Gb CP 3-6

2. 1. (x)Fx  (x)Rx / (x)(Fx  Rx)

2. Fx ACP
3. (x)Fx EG 2
4. (x)Rx MP 1, 3
5. Rx UI 4
6. Fx  Rx CP 2-5
7. (x)(Fx  Rx) UG 6

3. 1. (x)(Ix  Mx)
2. (x)(Ix v Rx) / (x)(~Mx  Rx)
3. ~Mx ACP
4. Ix  Mx UI 1
5. Ix v Rx UI 2
6. ~Ix MT 3, 4
7. Rx DS 5, 6
8. ~Mx  Rx CP 3-7
9. (x)(~Mx  Rx) UG 8

4. 1. (x)Hx  ~(x)Bx
2. (y)(By  Hy) / ~Ba
3. ~~Ba AIP
4. Ba DNeg 3
5. Ba  Ha UI 2
6. Ha MP 4, 5
7. (x)Hx EG 6
8. ~(x)Bx MP 1, 7
9. (x)~Bx QE 8
10. ~Ba UI 9
11. Ba & ~Ba Conj 4, 10
12. ~Ba IP 3-11

5. 1. Pa  Da
2. (x)Px v (x)Mx
3. ~Mg & Ng / Da
4. ~Da AIP
5. ~Pa MT 1, 4

189
 6. (x)~Px EG 5
7. ~(x)Px QE 6
8. (x)Mx DS 2, 7
9. Mg UI 8
10. ~Mg Simp 3
11. Mg & ~Mg Conj 9, 10
12. Da IP 4-11

6. 1. (x)(Lx v Bx)  (x)~Lx / ~(x)Lx

2. ~~(x)Lx AIP
3. (x)Lx DNeg 2
4. Lu EI 3
5. Lu v Bu Add 4
6. (x)(Lx v Bx) EG 5
7. (x)~Lx MP 1, 6
8. ~Lu UI 7
9. Lu & ~Lu Conj 4, 8
10. ~(x)Lx IP 2-9

7. 1. (x)Ax  (x)~Bx / ~(x)(Ax & Bx)

2. ~~(x)(Ax & Bx) AIP
3. (x)(Ax & Bx) DNeg 2
4. Ax & Bx UI 4
5. Ax Simp 4
6. Bx Simp 4
7. (x)Ax UG 5
8. (x)~Bx MP 1, 7
9. ~Bx UI 8
10. Bx & ~Bx Conj 6, 9
11. ~(x)(Ax & Bx) IP 2-10

8. 1. ~(x)~(Mx  Ax) / (x)(Ax  Rx)  (x)(Mx  Rx)

2. (x)(Ax  Rx) ACP
3. Mx ACP
4. Ax  Rx UI 2
5. (x)(Mx  Ax) QE 1
6. Mx  Ax UI 5
7. Ax MP 3, 6
8. Rx MP 4, 7
9. Mx  Rx CP 3-8

190
 10. (x)(Mx  Rx) UG 9
11. (x)(Ax  Rx)  (x)(Mx  Rx) CP 2-10

9. 1. (x)Fx  (x)(Gx & Hx)

2. (x)Hx  (x)Jx / (x)(Fx  Jx)
3. Fx ACP
4. (x)Fx EG 3
5. (x)(Gx & Hx) MP 1, 4
6. Gv & Hv EI 5
7. Hv Simp 6
8. (x)Hx EG 7
9. (x)Jx MP 2, 8
10. Jx UI 9
11. Fx  Jx CP 3-10
12. (x)(Fx  Jx) UG 11

10. 1. (y)~By v ~(x)~Ax

2. (Ab v Bc)  (x)Bx / (x)Ax ≡ (x)Bx
3. (x)Ax ACP
4. Ab UI 3
5. Ab v Bc Add 4
6. (x)Bx MP 2, 5
7. (x)Ax  (x)Bx CP 3-6
8. (x)Bx AP
9. Bx UI 8
10. (y)By UG 9
11. ~(y)~By QE 10
12. ~(x)~Ax DS 1, 11
13. (x)Ax QE 12
14. (x)Bx  (x)Ax CP 8-13
15. [(x)Ax  (x)Bx] & [(x)Bx  (x)Ax] Conj 7, 14
16. (x)Ax ≡ (x)Bx Equiv 15

11. 1. (x)Ax  (x)(Bx & Px)

2. (x)(Px v Dx)  (x)Hx / (x)(Ax  Hx)
3. Ax ACP
4. (x)Ax EG 3
5. (x)(Bx & Px) MP 1, 4
6. Bu & Pu EI 5

191
 7. Pu Simp 6
8. Pu v Du Add 7
9. Du v Pu Comm 8
10. (x)(Px v Dx) EG 9
11. (x)Hx MP 2, 10
12. Hx UI 11
13. Ax  Hx CP 3-12
14. (x)(Ax  Hx) UG 13

12. 1. (x)Rx  (x)Sx

2. (x)(Tx  Rx) / (x)Tx  (x)Sx
3. (x)Tx ACP
4. Tu EI 3
5. Tu  Ru UI 2
6. Ru MP 4, 5
7. (x)Rx EG 6
8. (x)Sx MP 1, 7
9. (x)Tx  (x)Sx CP 3-8

13. 1. (x)[(Qx v Sx)  Ix]

2. (x)(~Qx v Dx) (x)Fx / (x)Ix v (x)Fx
3. ~[(x)Ix v (x)Fx] AIP
4. ~(x)Ix & ~(x)Fx DM 3
5. ~(x)Ix Simp 4
6. ~(x)Fx Simp 4
7. (x)~Ix QE 5
8. ~Iu EI 7
9. (Qu v Su)  Iu UI 1
10. ~(Qu v Su) MT 8, 9
11. ~Qu & ~Su DM 10
12. ~Qu Simp 11
13. ~Qu v Du Add 12
14. (x)(~Qx v Dx) EG 13
15. (x)Fx MP 2, 14
16. (x)Fx & ~(x)Fx Conj 6, 15
17. (x)Ix v (x)Fx IP 3-16

14. 1. (x)[Rx  (Hx & Px)]

2. (x)[Bx  (Ax & Ox)] / (x)(Ox  Rx)  (x)(Bx Px)
3. (x)(Ox  Rx) ACP
192
 4. Bx AP
5. Bx  (Ax & Ox) UI 2
6. Ax & Ox MP 4, 5
7. Ox  Rx UI 3
8. Ox Simp 6
9. Rx MP 7, 8
10. Rx  (Hx & Px) UI 1
11. Hx & Px MP 9, 10
12. Px Simp 11
13. Bx  Px CP 4-12
14. (x)(Bx Px) UG 13
15. (x)(Ox  Rx)  (x)(Bx Px) CP 3-14

15. 1. (x)[Px  (Qx v Rx)]

2. (x)[(Sx & Px)  ~Qx] / (x)(Sx  Px)  (x)(Sx  Rx)
3. (x)(Sx  Px) ACP
4. Sx ACP
5. Sx  Px UI 3
6. Px MP 4, 5
7. Px  (Qx v Rx) UI 1
8. Qx v Rx MP 6, 7
9. ~Rx AIP
10. Rx v Qx Com 8
11. Qx DS 9, 10
12. (Sx & Px)  ~Qx UI 2
13. Sx & Px Conj 4, 6
14. ~Qx MP 12, 13
15. Qx & ~Qx Conj 11, 14
16. Rx IP 9-15
17. Sx  Rx CP 4-16
18. (x)(Sx  Rx) UG 17
19. (x)(Sx  Px)  (x)(Sx  Rx) CP 3-18

Unit Four
Online Lecture 9

193
 On Chapter 30

Congratulations! You have reached the last chapter of the toughest unit in the course.
(For most people, predicate logic is the most difficult branch of introductory logic to
master.) This chapter adds one last group of rules to our natural deduction system: rules
for handling the identity operator. As usual, read the instructions carefully and follow
them exactly as they are written. Study the examples carefully. And remember: practice
makes perfect. Even Bono had to practice before he became a great musician. The online
videos are of course strongly recommended. With this chapter, our system of predicate
logic is as complete as it is going to get.

Chapter 30
Objectives
1. Demonstrate that you know how to use the natural deduction system QD,
augmented with the rules for the identity operator, to prove valid arguments that
contain the identity operator, by correctly proving such arguments valid.

2. Demonstrate your understanding of the ideas in this chapter by correctly

answering relevant true-false, multiple-choice, and other short answer questions
and essay questions.

3. If something taught in the text was not included in this list of objectives, be
prepared to demonstrate an understanding of that item too.

Test Your Understanding!

Practice Problems with Answers

Proofs with Identity Statements

Use natural deduction to derive the conclusions of the following valid arguments. These
proofs require the rules for the identity operator.

1. 1. Hs
2. s = m
3. Ts / Hm & Tm

2. 1. (a = a)  (x)Hx / ~(x)~Hx

3. 1. a = c
2. c = f

194
 3. (a = f)  (f = p)
4. Ja / Jp

4. 1. (x)[Kxg & (x = b)] / (z)Kzb

5. 1. (x)(x = a) / (x)(y)(x = y)

6. 1. (x)(y)[Syx  (z)~Dz]
2. (x)[Hx & (n = x)]
3. (x)[Ax & (y)(Ay  Sxy)] / ~Dn

7. 1. a = s
2. Ha
3. (x)(Hx ≡ Tx) / Ts

8. 1. Pd & (x)[(Px  (x = d)]

2. Po / o = d

9. 1. (x)(Fx  ~Pxn)
2. Fa & Ofn
3. a = g / ~Pgn

10. 1. Ba & ~Bn

2. a = f / ~(n = f)

11. 1. [(e = g) & Qme]  Qma

2. ~(x)Qmx / (x)[~(x = a) v ~Qmx]

12. 1. Sg
2. (x)[(Px & Dbx)  (g = m)] / (x)[(Px & Dbx)  Sm]

13. 1. (x){{Lxp & (y)[Lyp  (x = y)]} & Lxf}

2. (x)(Nx  Lxp) / (x)(Nx  Lxf)

14. 1. We & (x)[Wx  ~(x = e)] / n = e

15. 1. ~Pm & (x){[Px & ~(x = m)]  Fmx}

2. Pb / Fmb

16. 1. (x)(y)[(Px & Py)  (y = x)]

195
 2. (x)(Px & ~Ax)
3. Ae / ~Pe

17. 1. Gr & (x){[Gx v ~(x = r)]  Grx}

2. ~(x)Grx / ~(x)Gxx v Ga

18. 1. (x)~( y)~[Om  (x = y)]

2. Om / ~(z)~Oz & (b = a)

19. 1. (x)~(Ax v Bx)

2. (x)(y)(Myx & Rx)
3. (Ra & ~Ba)  g = a / a = g

20. 1. (x){Fx & (y)[Fy  (x = y)]} / (x)(y)[(Fx & Fy)  (x = y)] & (x)Fx

Answers:

1. 1. Hs
2. s = m
3. Ts / Hm & Tm
4. Hm LL 1, 2
5. Tm LL 2, 3
6. Hm & Tm Conj 4, 5

2. 1. (a = a)  (x)Hx / ~(x)~Hx
2. (x)(x = x) Self-Identity
3. a = a UI 2
4. (x)Hx MP 1, 3
5. ~(x)~Hx QE 4

3. 1. a = c
2. c = f
3. (a = f)  (f = p)
4. Ja / Jp
5. a = f LL 1, 2
6. f = p MP 3, 5
7. a = p LL 5, 6
8. Jp LL 4, 7

4. 1. (x)[Kxg & (x = b)] / (z)Kzb

196
 2. Kgg & (g = b) UI 1
3. Kgg Simp 2
4. g = b Simp 2
5. ~(z)Kzb AP
6. (z)~Kzb QE 7
7. ~Kgb UI 8
8. ~Kgg LL 4, 7
9. Kgg & ~Kgg Conj 3, 8
10. (z)Kzb IP 5-9

5. 1. (x)(x = a) / (x)(y)(x = y)
2. x = a UI 1
3. y = a UI 1
4. x = y LL 2, 3
5. (y)(x = y) UG 4
6. (x)(y)(x = y) UG 5

6. 1. (x)(y)[Syx  (z)~Dz]
2. (x)[Hx & (n = x)]
3. (x)[Ax & (y)(Ay  Sxy)] / ~Dn
4. ~~Dn AP
5. Dn DNeg 4
6. Aa & (y)(Ay  Say) EI 3
7. Aa Simp 6
8. (y)(Ay  Say) Simp 6
9. (y)[Syn  (z)~Dz] UI 1
10. San  (z)~Dz UI 9
11. Ha & (n = a) UI 2
12. n=a Simp 11
13. Aa  Saa UI 8
14. Saa MP 7, 13
15. San LL 12, 14
16. (z)~Dz MP 10, 15
17. ~Dn UI 16
18. Dn & ~Dn Conj 5, 17
19. ~Dn IP 4-18

7. 1. a = s
2. Ha
3. (x)(Hx ≡ Tx) / Ts

197
 4. Ha ≡ Ta UI 3
5. (Ha  Ta) & (Ta  Ha) Equiv 4
6. Ha  Ta Simp 5
7. Ta MP 2, 6
8. Ts LL 1, 7

8. 1. Pd & (x)[(Px  (x = d)]

2. Po / o = d
3. (x)[(Px  (x = d)] Simp 1
4. Po  (o = d) UI 3
5. o = d MP 2, 4

9. 1. (x)(Fx  ~Pxn)
2. Fa & Ofn
3. a = g / ~Pgn
4. Fg  ~Pgn UI 1
5. Fa Simp 2
6. Fg LL 3, 5
7. ~Pgn MP 4, 6

10. 1. Ba & ~Bn

2. a = f / ~(n = f)
3. ~~(n = f) AP
4. n=f DNeg 3
5. Bf & ~Bn LL 1, 2
6. Bf & ~Bf LL 4, 5
7. ~(n = f) IP 3-6

11. 1. [(e = g) & Qme]  Qma

2. ~(x)Qmx / (x)[~(x = a) v ~Qmx]
3. (x)~Qmx QE 2
4. ~(x)[~(x = a) v ~Qmx] AP
5. (x)~[~(x = a) v ~Qmx] QE 4
6. ~[~(e = a) v ~Qme] UI 5
7. ~~(e = a) & ~~Qme DM 6
8. ~~Qme Simp 7
9. Qme DNeg 8
10. ~Qme UI 3
11. Qme & ~Qme Conj 9, 10
14. (x)[~(x = a) v ~Qmx] IP 4-11

198
12. 1. Sg
2. (x)[(Px & Dbx)  (g = m)] / (x)[(Px & Dbx)  Sm]
3. Px & Dbx AP
4. (Px & Dbx)  (g = m) UI 2
5. g=m MP 3, 4
6. Sm LL 1, 5
7. (Px & Dbx)  Sm CP 3-6
8. (x)[(Px & Dbx)  Sm] UG 7

13. 1. (x){{Lxp & (y)[Lyp  (x = y)]} & Lxf}

2. (x)(Nx  Lxp) / (x)(Nx  Lxf)
3. {Lap & (y)[Lyp  (a = y)]} & Laf EI 1
4. Lap & (y)[Lyp  (a = y)] Simp 3
5. Laf Simp 3
6. (y)[Lyp  (a = y)] Simp 4
7. Nx AP
8. Nx  Lxp UI 2
9. Lxp MP 7, 8
10. Lxp  (a = x) UI 6
11. a=x MP 9, 10
12. Lxf LL 5, 11
13. Nx  Lxf CP 7-12
14. (x)(Nx  Lxf) UG 13

14. 1. We & (x)[Wx  ~(x = e)] / n = e

2. We Simp 1
3. (x)[Wx  ~(x = e)] Simp 3
4. ~(n = e) AP
5. We  ~(e = e) UI 3
6. ~(e = e) MP 2, 5
7. (x)(x = x) Self-Identity
8. e=e UI 7
9. (e = e) & ~(e = e) Conj 6, 8
10. n = e IP 4-9

15. 1. ~Pm & (x){[Px & ~(x = m)]  Fmx}

2. Pb / Fmb
3. ~Pm Simp 1
4. (x){[Px & (x = m)]  Fmx} Simp 1
199
 5. [Pb & ~(b = m)]  Fmb UI 4
6. ~(b = m)  Fmb Simp 5
7. ~Fmb AP
8. ~~(b = m) MT 6, 7
9. b=m DNeg 8
10. Pm LL 2, 9
11. Pm & ~Pm Conj 3, 10
12. Fmb IP 7-11

16. 1. (x)(y)[(Px & Py)  (y = x)]

2. (x)(Px & ~Ax)
3. Ae / ~Pe
4. Pe AP
5. Pb & ~Ab EI 2
6. (y)[(Pe & Py)  (y = e)] UI 1
7. (Pe & Pb)  (b = e) UI 6
8. Pb Simp 5
9. Pe & Pb 4Conj 4, 8
10. b=e MP 7, 9
11. Ab LL 3, 10
12. ~Ab Simp 5
13. Ab & ~Ab Conj 11, 12
14. ~Pe IP 4-13

17. 1. Gr & (x){[Gx v ~(x = r)]  Grx}

2. ~(x)Grx / ~(x)Gxx v Ga
3. (x)~Grx QE 2
4. ~Grb EI 3
5. (x){[Gx v ~(x = r)]  Grx} Simp 1
6. [Gb v ~(b = r)]  Grb UI 5
7. ~[Gb v ~(b = r)] MT 4, 6
8. ~Gb & ~~(b = r) DM 7
9. ~Gb Simp 8
10. Gr Simp 1
11. ~~(b = r) Simp 8
12. b = r DNeg 11
13. (x)Gxx v Ga AP
14. Gb LL 10, 12
15. Gb & ~Gb Conj 9, 14
16. ~(x)Gxx v Ga IP 13-15

200
18. 1. (x)~(y)~[Om  (x = y)]
2. Om / ~(z)~Oz & (b = a)
3. ~( y)~[Om  (b = y)] UI 1
4. (y)[Om  (b = y)] QE 3
5. Om  (b = a) UI 4
6. b = a MP 2, 5
7. (z)Oz EG 2
8. ~(z)~Oz QE 7
9. ~(z)~Oz & (b = a) Conj 6, 8

19. 1. (x)~(Ax v Bx)

2. (x)(y)(Myx & Rx)
3. (Ra & ~Ba)  (g = a) / a = g
4. ~(Aa v Ba) UI 1
5. (y)(Mya & Ra) UI 2
6. Mba & Ra EI 5
7. Ra Simp 6
8. ~Aa & ~Ba DM 4
9. ~Ba Simp 8
10. Ra & ~Ba 7Conj 7, 9
11. g = a MP 3, 10
12. ~(a = g) AP
13. ~(g = a) LL 11, 12
14. (g = a) & ~(g = a) Conj 11, 13
15. a = g IP 12-14

20. 1. (x){Fx & (y)[Fy  (x = y)]} / (x)(y)[(Fx & Fy)  (x = y)] & (x)Fx
2. Fa & (y)[Fy  (a = y)] EI 1
3. Fa Simp 2
4. (y)[Fy  (a = y) ] Simp 2
5. (x)Fx EG 3
6. Fx & Fy AP
7. Fx  (a = x) UI 4
8. Fx Simp 6
9. a=x MP 7, 8
10. Fy  (a = y) UI 4
11. Fy Simp 6
12. a=y MP 10, 11
13. x=y LL 9, 12

201
 14. (Fx & Fy)  (x = y) CP 6-13
15. (y)[(Fx & Fy)  (x = y)] UG 14
16. (x)(y)[(Fx & Fy)  (x = y)] UG 15

Unit Five
Online Lecture 1
On Chapter 31

If you are getting a little tired of symbols and formulas and formal principles, this unit
will give you a “breather.” This is the first of four chapters on the nonformal branches of
logical theory—those branches that do not focus on the abstract forms of reasoning but
instead for the most part study nonformal aspects of the reasoning process. This chapter
presents some of the basic principles pertaining to the art of defining words. Your text
explains why defining words is an important part of the reasoning process, and hence
why it is a special concern of logical theory. Don’t forget the online videos. They may
help you put it all together.

Chapter 31
Objectives
1. Demonstrate that you understand the nature of a definition by correctly
explaining the idea in your own words.

2. Demonstrate that you understand why definitions are needed by correctly

explaining the point in your own words.

3. Demonstrate that you understand the purposes definitions serve by correctly

explaining these purposes in your own words and by correctly answering
questions about them.

4. Demonstrate that you understand the purposes that definitions serve by correctly
identifying the purposes served by sample definitions.

5. Demonstrate that you understand the main types of definitions by accurately

classifying definitions in terms of these main types .

6. Demonstrate that you understand the common methods for constructing

definitions by correctly identifying the method employed by sample definitions.

202
 7. Demonstrate that you understand the rules for constructing good definitions by
correctly evaluating definitions on the basis of these rules.

8. Demonstrate your understanding of the ideas in this chapter by correctly

answering relevant true-false, multiple-choice, and other short answer questions
and essay questions.

9. If something taught in the text was not included in this list of objectives, be
prepared to demonstrate an understanding of that item too.

Test Your Understanding!

Practice Problems with Answers

Definitions

Answer the following multiple-choice questions.

1. What kind of definition is the following? “A physician is a doctor.” (A) analytic, (B)
persuasive, (C) demonstrative, (D) synonymous, (E) enumerative.
2. What kind of definition is the following? “A physician is a leach-using quack who only
wants the money of the helpless and the wretched.” (A) analytic, (B) persuasive, (C)
demonstrative, (D) synonymous, (E) enumerative.
3. What kind of definition is the following? “A physician is a professional who heals
people.” (A) analytic, (B) persuasive, (C) demonstrative, (D) synonymous, (E)
enumerative.
4. What kind of definition is the following? “A physician is someone like Dr. Jones, Dr.
Smith, or Dr. Perez.” (A) intensional, (b) extensional.
5. ‘Extension’ means roughly the same things as (A) corporality, (B) sense, (C)
connotation, (D) denotation, (E) conventional connotation.
6. Which of the following are all denoted by the term ‘corporation’? (A) Gillette, Oracle,
Pfizer, Boeing, (B) directors, officers, shareholders, employees, (C) Razors, software,
drugs, airplanes, (D) bankers, brewers, camera makers, real estate developers, (E) large,
impersonal, powerful, wealthy.
7. Which of the following are all connoted by the term ‘baseball player’? (A) Yankee,
Cub, Giant, Oriole, (B) Babe Ruth, Frank Robinson, Ty Cobb, Stan Musial, (C) pitcher,
catcher, first baseman, shortstop, (D) New York, Chicago, San Francisco, Baltimore, (E)
athletic, cap-wearing, skillful, speedy.
8. Which of the following pairs of terms have the same extension? (A) actor, actress, (B)
elf, genie, (C) football player, linebacker, (D) professor, instructor, (E) Kansas,
Nebraska.

203
9. Which of the following is always an intensional definition? (A) a persuasive definition
(B) a demonstrative definition, (C) an ostensive definition, (D) a synonymous definition,
(E) stipulative definition.
10. The difference between a claim being vague and its being ambiguous is that the
meaning of an ambiguous claim (A) is not at all clear, (B) uses emotive language, (C) is
not intended to convey cognitive meaning, (D) has two or more clear meanings, but it’s
not clear which one is intended, (E) has no intended meaning.
11. The definition, “‘Filly’ means a young female horse,” is most clearly (A) stipulative,
(B) theoretical, (C) lexical, (D) precising, (E) persuasive.
12. The definition, “‘Balzorite’ is the term for the first life form we find in space,” is most
clearly (A) stipulative, (B) theoretical, (C) lexical, (D) precising, (E) persuasive.
13. The definition, “‘Euthanasia’ refers to the senseless, self-centered murder of the
innocent and helpless,” is most clearly (A) stipulative, (B) theoretical, (C) lexical, (D)
precising, (E) persuasive.
14. The definition, “An act is ‘morally obligatory’ if and only if it maximizes happiness in
terms of increased pleasure and decreased pain for all sentient beings involved,” is most
clearly (A) stipulative, (B) theoretical, (C) lexical, (D) precising, (E) persuasive.
15. The definition, “‘Hot’, in the context of spas and hot tubs, means 105-110 degrees
Fahrenheit,” is most clearly (A) stipulative, (B) theoretical, (C) lexical, (D) precising, (E)
persuasive.

Answers:
1. D
2. B
3. A
4. B
5. D
6. A
7. E
8. B
9. D
10. D
11. C
12. A
13. E
14. B
15. D

204
 Unit Five
Online Lecture 2
On Chapter 32

This chapter explains what a logical fallacy is, distinguishes formal from informal
fallacies, and surveys the common forms of informal fallacies. Make sure you
understand what a fallacy is and how informal fallacies differ from formal fallacies. We
examined several formal fallacies in Unit Three. You may want to return to that
discussion (the fallacies of “affirming the consequent” and “denying the antecedent”)
and compare the formal truth-functional fallacies identified there with the informal
fallacies of this chapter. The online videos may be helpful as you study this chapter.

This offhand comment may be a little controversial, but if you want to see informal
fallacies being used to good effect, we recommend you look at the world of politics and
political debate. Not all politicians use informal fallacies to get their way or to win the
debate, and not all political arguments are fallacious; but the field of politics seems to
have more than its fair share of fallacious “arguments.” At least that is our opinion. This
is an important chapter.

Chapter 32
Objectives

1. Demonstrate that you understand the nature of a logical fallacy by correctly

defining the idea in your own words.

2. Demonstrate that you understand the distinction between a formal and an

informal fallacy by correctly defining the point in your own words.

3. Demonstrate that you understand the important informal fallacies identified in

the chapter by correctly explaining them in your own words.

4. Demonstrate that you can recognize the informal fallacies by accurately

identifying the presence of informal fallacies in sample passages and examples.

5. Demonstrate that you understand the fallacies by criticizing sample fallacious

arguments using what you know of the informal fallacies.

6. Demonstrate your understanding of the ideas in this chapter by correctly

answering relevant true-false, multiple-choice, and other short answer questions
and essay questions.

205
 7. If something taught in the text was not included in this list of objectives, be
prepared to demonstrate an understanding of that item too.

Test Your Understanding!

Practice Problems with Answers
Informal Fallacies

Determine which of the following informal fallacies each argument below most clearly
illustrates. Fallacies may be used more than once or not at all.

A Special Pleading J False Dilemma

B Appeal to the People K Genetic Fallacy
C Abusive Ad Hominem L Straw Man
D Circumstantial Ad Hominem M Suppressed Evidence
E Tu Quoque Ad Hominem N Red Herring
F Appeal to Questionable Authority O Irrelevant Conclusion
G Hasty Generalization P Composition
H False Cause Q Division
I Slippery Slope R Begging the Question

1. Clearly the moral standards of our youth have decayed. Three brain surgeons at
Central Hospital appeared recently on a talk show, and all three were convinced that the
youth of today have no morals at all.
2. Smith, Adams, and Harris all outlived their wives, and their wives were younger than
they were. It must be the case that men outlive women these days.
3. Twenty percent of the women at State University are tall. Since Sue is a student there,
it follows that twenty percent of her is tall.
4. Driver to traffic court judge: “I was paying full attention when I ran into that other
car. Thus I should be given the minimum traffic fine.”
5. We acquire our moral beliefs due to environmental conditioning. Therefore there is
nothing objectively true about our moral beliefs.
6. Either you send Hallmark cards or you do not care enough to send the very best.
Surely you do care to send the very best. Thus you will want to send Hallmark cards.
7. There has been a rise in petty crime in our neighborhood recently. Therefore we
should execute all people caught committing petty crimes.
8. Abortion is murder. Therefore abortion is morally wrong.
9. Most elderly people who are hospitalized with cancer eventually die from the disease.
Thus, if an elderly person wants to recover from cancer, he or she must, at all costs,
refuse hospitalization.

206
10. You have heard Representative Smith’s arguments in favor of gun control. But surely
you won’t take them seriously. Smith is known to have sexually harassed three women
ten years ago and wants to legalize marijuana.
11. Every student in this school is under 40 years old. Thus this school is under 40 years
old.
12. Little Billy came to believe that a man walked on Mars by reading of such an event in
a science fiction comic book. Thus Billy’s belief is false.
13. Either dogs are fish or birds. But they are not birds. Thus they are fish.
14. Each word in Lincoln’s “Gettysburg Address” is very ordinary. Therefore the
“Gettysburg Address” must be a very ordinary speech.
15. More people in America drink Budweiser than any other beer. Clearly, if you drink
beer, you should drink Bud.
16. You should read The Color Purple. Everyone at our school is.
17. Professor Jones, surely you will give me an A for the class. I need to get into a good
graduate school and my parents are really hoping to see me succeed. I’ll be a nervous
wreck if I don’t get that A.
18. Senator Garcia argues that we should support wheat subsidies in Washington State.
But his constituents are wheat farmers and he knows that they want these subsidies.
Thus we can discount Garcia’s arguments for such subsidies.
19. If we in the USA allow the state to ban automatic rifles, they’ll next ban all rifles;
then they’ll ban all hand guns; and then Canada will take it as a window of opportunity
to attack the USA. For the love of our country, we thus must not allow the state to ban
automatic rifles.
20. Jack Sherman argues that modern technology does not hold the key to human
happiness. Apparently Sherman would have us throw out our computers, TVs, and
appliances and return to the Stone Age. I bet he also says we should turn in our clothing
for animal skins and live in caves. What utter foolishness!
21. You argue that I should cut down on my drinking. But you drink much more heavily
than I. You haven’t been sober in a year.
22. Premarital sex is sinful because any sexual relation outside of marriage is morally
wrong.
23. Every time I take a shower the phone rings. Therefore since I am dying to talk to
someone right now, I should jump in the shower.
24. Professor Thomson polled her three best math students out of her class of 200, and
asked them if they liked math. All three said, “yes.” She concluded that close to 100% of
her students liked math.
25. So your stockbroker has tried to persuade you to buy 1000 shares of Macro Data
stock. Well, I wouldn’t trust his arguments. He just wants to earn that fat commission
on the sale.

Answers:

207
1. F 11. P 21. E
2. G 12. K 22. R
3. Q 13. J 23. H
4. M 14. P 24. G
5. K 15. B 25. D
6. J 16. B
7. O 17. A
8. R 18. D
9. H 19. I
10. C 20. L

Unit Five
Online Lecture 3
On Chapter 33
Recall that inductive reasoning was first defined in Chapter One. The concept was
defined again, more precisely, in Chapter 3, and several common forms of inductive
reasoning were presented. This chapter is an in-depth and systematic survey of the most
important forms of inductive reasoning used in science, in the courtroom, in many
academic fields, and in everyday life as well, and the standards by which they are
evaluated. As usual, the online videos are recommended as you study this material.
Once you understand the common forms of inductive reasoning analyzed in this
chapter, you will notice that these arguments are used all the time in everyday life.

Chapter 33
Objectives
1. Demonstrate that you understand the nature of an inductive argument by
correctly defining the idea in your own words.

2. Demonstrate that you understand the distinction between inductive and

deductive arguments by correctly defining the distinction in your own words.

3. Demonstrate that you understand the common patterns of inductive reasoning,

including analogical induction, enumerative induction, inference to the best
explanation, the confirmation and disconfirmation of hypotheses, and Mills
methods, by accurately classifying various inductive arguments in terms of these
common patterns.

4. Demonstrate that you understand the principles used to evaluate inductive

arguments by correctly evaluating various inductive arguments in terms of those
principles.

208
 5. Demonstrate that you understand how to make inductive arguments stronger or
weaker by suggesting changes to sample arguments that make the arguments
stronger or weaker as the case may be.

6. Demonstrate your understanding of the ideas in this chapter by correctly

answering relevant true-false, multiple-choice, and other short answer questions
and essay questions.

7. If something taught in the text was not included in this list of objectives, be
prepared to demonstrate an understanding of that item too.

Test Your Understanding!

Practice Problems with Answers
Analogical Reasoning

Consider the argument from analogy below. For each change afterward, first determine
if that change would (S) strengthen the argument, (W) weaken the argument, or leave its
strength/weakness (U) unchanged. Then state which single principle the change relates
to the most: (A) Number of common characteristics, (B) Relevancy of common
characteristics (C) Number of primary analogates, (D) Diversity of primary analogates,
(E) Number or relevance of dissimilarities, or (F) Specificity of conclusion.
Mary is thinking of buying a car from Hal’s Used Cars. Her friend Tom bought a car
from Hal’s, and it ran well for over two years. Mary concludes that if she buys a car from
Hal’s Used Cars, that her car will also run well for at least two years.

1. Mary has three other friends who purchased cars from Hal’s Used Cars, and their cars
have run well for over two years.
2. One of the friends bought a sedan; one bought a station wagon; the third bought an
SUV; while Tom bought a hatchback.
3. Mary’s four friends are avid amateur car mechanics, while Mary knows little about
cars.
4. Mary adjusts her conclusion to say merely that her new car will likely not break down
within a month of purchase.
5. Mary changes her conclusion again to say that her car will last her lifetime and will
run better than any of her friends’ cars.
6. Mary notices that her four friends bought their cars from Hal’s on sunny days, and
she plans on buying hers from Hal’s on a sunny day, also.
7. Mary notices that all the cars bought from Hal’s Used Cars by her four friends had
been worked on by Mike, the experienced chief mechanic at Hal’s. Mary’s car will be
worked on by Mike, too.

209
8. Mary finds out that her four friends regularly use the best high-octane gasoline, and
she is determined to do so, too.
9. Mary’s four friends live in Los Angeles, California, whereas she lives in Hollywood,
California.
10. Unlike her friends, Mary plans to use her car in extensive off-road travel touring Baja
California, Mexico.

Answers:
1. S, C 6. U, B
2. S, D 7. S, A
3. W, E 8. S, A
4. S, F 9. U, E
5. W, F 10. W, E

Enumerative Induction

I. Consider the observations in each problem below. What reasonable conclusion (if any)
can be drawn using enumerative induction?

1. On the mornings of Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday this week I saw my
new neighbor drive off to work at 6:00 am.
2. I’ve been watching the squirrels in my back yard, and the last ten I saw appeared
nervous.
3. At 8:00 in the morning I saw a bird in my front yard. At 9:00 I saw another bird in my
front yard. At 10:00 I saw yet another bird in my front yard. For the following six hours
I saw different birds in my front yard.
4. I went to the grocery store this morning, and someone had spilled some jelly all over
the floor.

Answers:
1. Thus probably my new neighbor needs to leave for work at 6:00 am each morning. Or,
probably my new neighbor will continue to leave for work at 6:00 am. Related
conclusions are possible.
2. Thus it is likely that squirrels are generally or usually nervous.
3. Thus it is probably that birds like or are attracted to my front yard. Or, thus it’s
probably that I’ll see birds in my front yard in the future. Related conclusions are
possible.
4. No conclusion using enumerative induction can be made here, as there is no pattern
or set of examples from which to draw such a conclusion.

210
II. Consider the argument below and the changes that follow. For each change,
determine whether it strengthens or weakens the argument, or leaves its strength
unaltered.

I have enrolled in literature classes here at State University for the last three semesters.
In each class, I’ve been assigned a term paper. Thus in my next literature class here at
State University, I’ll probably be assigned a term paper.

1. I’ve enrolled in one literature class each of the previous five semesters, and each
instructor assigned a term paper.
2. I also enrolled in a Chemistry class last semester, and the instructor did not assign a
term paper.
3. All of my friends who enrolled in literature classes at State University were assigned
term papers for those classes.
4. I’ve enrolled in only two literature classes at State University, and the instructor of
each assigned a term paper.
5. I’ve been enrolled full-time at State University for three years, and I’ve never been
assigned a term paper.

Answers:
1. Strengthen. There is a larger array of examples, or a more established pattern, from
which to draw the conclusion.
2. Unchanged. A chemistry instructor not assigning a term paper says little or nothing
about what literature instructors might do.
3. Strengthen. More examples help establish a more reliable pattern supporting the
conclusion.
4. Weaken. The argument is still fairly good, but two examples provide less support than
five (or three).
5. Weaken. Now the argument is straightforwardly weak. There are no examples to point
to in establishing a pattern leading to the conclusion. It may remain likely that at State
University the literature instructors will always assign term papers, but there is now
nothing in the premises to support the conclusion, thus making this argument weak.

Explanations and Hypotheses

Part I. Imagine two theories purporting to explain why Mars appears to exhibit back-
and-forth retrograde motion in its observed motion through the night sky. (I.e., over the
course of many nights, Mars sometimes looks like it’s moving back and forth across the
night sky.)

211
Theory 1: Given the elliptical orbits of Mars and the Earth around the Sun, and given
what we know about gravity, it only appears from our earthly vantage point that Mars
radically changes its direction of motion.
Theory 2: Little five-year-old boys are floating in space pushing Mars back and forth.

With consideration of the four criteria for a best explanation, why is Theory 1 a better
explanation than Theory 2?

Answer:
Although both theories are internally consistent, Theory 1 is more consistent with what
we know (or take as knowledge) about eth world: little boys don’t float out in space, and
they are not strong enough to push a planet around. Theory 1 also has more explanatory
power, as it is more testable and explains why other planets move about as they do.
Finally, Theory 1 can be said to be more simple, as it does not appeal to the added
entities of nearly overly powerful, space-dwelling boys.

Part II. Provide the single best answer to the following multiple choice problems.

1. If a hypothesis goes against what we normally take to be obviously true about the
world, then we’d say that the hypothesis is not (A) internally consistent, (B) externally
consistent, (C) fruitful, (D) testable, (E) simple.
2. If one hypothesis appeals to fewer entities than a second hypothesis, the first is said to
be more (A) internally consistent, (B) externally consistent, (C) fruitful, (D) testable, (E)
simple.
3. If a prediction of a hypothesis is found to be true, then (A) the hypothesis is not
proven true, but the reason for believing it might be strengthened, (B) there is no need
for further tests, (C) the hypothesis is proven true, at least in part, (D) the hypothesis is
proven false, (E) the hypothesis is rendered useless.
4. To the extent that a hypothesis suggests new ideas for future analysis and
confirmation, a hypothesis is said to be (A) experimental, (B) fruitful, (C) externally
consistent, (D) internally consistent, (E) have explanatory power.
5. To the extent that a hypothesis fits the facts it is intended to explain, the hypothesis is
said to be (A) externally consistent, (B) having explanatory power, (C) fruitful,
(D) experimental, (E) internally consistent.
6. Hypothetical reasoning is useful (A) as a substitute for deductive reasoning, (B) when
the scientific method fails, (C) in science but not in philosophy, (D) in philosophy but
not in science, (E) when the evidence, by itself, does not suggest the answer to a
problem.
7. In hypothetical reasoning, the prediction from the hypothesis must (A) be directly
testable, (B) follow from the hypothesis, (C) both A and B, (D) be indirectly testable, (E)
none of the above.

212
8. If a prediction in hypothetical reasoning is found to be false, then (A) the hypothesis
is proven to be true, (B) the hypothesis is merely confirmed, (C) the test is disconfirmed,
(D) the hypothesis is proven false, (E) the test is proven false.
9. To the extent that a hypothesis is not self-contradictory, the hypothesis is said to be
(A) internally consistent, (B) fruitful, (C) testable, (D) externally consistent, (E) simple.
10. If a hypothesis lends itself to experimentation and to confirmation, it is said to be (A)
internally consistent, (B) fruitful, (C) testable, (D) externally consistent, (E) simple.

Causal Arguments: Mill’s Methods

1. What kind of causal condition is best understood as intended in the claims below: a
necessary condition, sufficient condition, both, or neither?
a. Oxygen causes wood to burn.
b. Throwing a brick through a window causes the window to break.
c. Getting straight As on one’s tests in Introduction to Logic will get a student an A for
the class.
d. Being greater than two and less than four causes one—as a whole number—to be
three.
e. Air is needed for humans to live.
f. Eating leafy greens causes good health.
g. Being an enclosed geometric figure with four equal sides and four internal 90-degree
angles makes something a square.
2. Consider the following situation. Bob and Sue go out for dinner. They each enter the
Chunk-O-Cheese Pizzeria in basically the same state of health. Bob is sick later in the
evening from something he eats there. Bob and Sue both drank two glasses of root beer;
both ate the triple-cheese pizza; and both ate from the same plate of “Cheese-Goo
Nachos.” Bob ate cheesecake for dessert, Sue—being, as she says, “on a diet”—decided
not to.
a. What is the cause of Bob’s illness?
b. Which of Mill’s methods is used to determine this?
c. What sense of causality is involved in your conclusion?
3. Consider the following situation. A birthday party was held at the Chunk-O-Cheese
Pizzeria. Al had pizza, pasta, and a cola. Barbara had pizza, a house salad, beer, and
cheesecake. Charley just ordered the house salad and beer. Debbie had a house salad,
pizza, pasta, and the house red wine. Ellen ate pizza, but drank too much beer and
started dancing naked on the table. Frank was not amused at Ellen’s eccentricities, and
drowned his concerns in cola, pasta, and cheesecake, and then split a pizza with Charley.
Later, after the restaurant owner threw the party out, they all got sick from something
they ate or drank.
a. What is the cause of the illness?
b. Which of Mill’s methods is used to determine this?

213
c. What sense of causality is involved in your conclusion?
4. Consider the following situation. The owner of the Chunk-O-Cheese Pizzeria notes
that the number of his customers has declined as the number of people claiming that his
food made them sick has increased. After giving it some thought, he determines that he
probably should take steps to avoid the health inspector.
a. Which of Mill’s methods is used?

Answers:
1. a. Oxygen is a necessary condition.
b. Throwing a brick through a window is a sufficient condition.
c. Getting straight As on one’s tests in Introduction to Logic is a sufficient condition.
d. Being greater than two and less than four causes one—as a whole number—is both.
e. Air is a necessary condition.
f. Eating leafy greens is neither. (Most philosophers would call leafy greens, in this
context, an INUS condition; see http://science.jrank.org/pages/8545/Causality-Inus-
Conditions.html.)
g. Being an enclosed geometric figure with four equal sides and four internal 90-degree
angles is both.
2. a. the cheesecake
b. Method of Difference
c. Sufficient condition
3. a. pizza
b. Method of Agreement
c. Necessary condition
4. Method of Concomitant Variation

Unit Five
Online Lecture 4
On Chapter 34
Study this chapter and learn the basic principles of probability theory. Although the
“laws” of probability are mathematical in nature, probability theory is a branch of
inductive logic and hence is considered by many to belong to the nonformal side of
logical theory. This is why the textbook introduces probability theory in Unit Five.
Reason enough to place it here in the course. Many students are frightened at the
prospect of calculating probabilities using mathematical laws. However, after studying
the material in this chapter, they usually say something like, “Wow, that wasn’t as hard
as I thought it would be!”

An understanding of the laws of probability may not make you rich at the horse races, it
may not help you win big at the craps table, but it may illuminate many things in

214
everyday life, namely, things that depend on correct probability assessments. It may also
be useful in real life: psychologists have shown that we tend to make faulty judgments of
probability when we rely on untutored commonsense alone.

Chapter Objectives

1. Demonstrate an understanding of the classical and the relative frequency theories

of probability by correctly explaining the underlying ideas in your own words.

2. Demonstrate that you understand and can correctly apply the rules of the
probability calculus by correctly calculating the probability of various events.

3. Demonstrate your understanding of the ideas in this chapter by correctly

answering relevant true-false, multiple-choice, and other short answer questions
and essay questions.

4. If anything taught in the text was not included in this list of objectives, be
prepared to demonstrate an understanding of that item too.

Test Your Understanding!

Practice Problems with Answers

Basic Probability Theory

Part I. Answer the following questions pertaining to the basic theories of probability.

1. Imagine an urn with four white balls, three black balls, and one green ball. What is the
probability of selecting a white ball on one blind draw? A black ball on one blind draw?
A green ball on one blind draw?
2. What is the probability of drawing a red ball from the urn in problem #1? What is the
probability of drawing a ball on one blind draw from the urn?
3. What theory needs to be used in problems #1 and #2?
4. Of 367 State University students who completed Critical Reasoning in 2011, 192
required psychiatric care within six weeks. Based on those observations, what is the
probability that a State University Critical Reasoning student will require psychiatric
care within six weeks of completing the course?
5. What theory needs to be used in problem #4?

Answers:
1. 1/2, 3/8, 1/8
2. 0/8, 1/1

215
3. Classical Theory
4. 192/367
5. Relative Frequency Theory

Part II. Using the probability rules, answer the following questions.

1. What is the probability of getting an ace or a jack from a deck of cards on one blind
draw?
2. What is the probability of getting at least one ace on two draws from a deck of cards
when the first card is replaced before the second is drawn?
3. What is the probability of getting two kings on two draws from a deck of cards,
without replacement after the first draw?
4. What is the probability of getting a face card on a single draw from a deck of cards?
5. What is the probability of getting an even number or a three on any one of three rolls
of a single die?
6. What is the probability of getting at least one tails on six tosses of a coin?
7. In a study of 250 baseball players, five developed severe elbow problems. In a study of
500 baseball players, ten developed a bone spur. What is the probability—based on
these two studies—of a baseball player developing both severe elbow problems and a
bone spur?
8. What is the probability of selecting at least one red ball on two draws from an urn
containing two red balls, three white balls, and two green balls, when the first ball is
replaced before the second selection?
9. Given the urn in Problem #8, what is the probability of selecting either a red or a
white ball (or both) on either of two draws, when the first ball is not replaced before the
second draw?
10. Imagine two urns. The first urn contains three blue balls, one yellow ball, and two
purple balls; the second urn contains four blue balls, two green balls, and one purple
ball. You draw two balls from each urn, but must replace the first ball drawn from the
first urn before the second draw; and you must not replace the first ball drawn from the
second urn before the second draw. What is the probability of drawing a total of four
blue balls?
11. Imagine the pair of urns in Problem #10. What is the probability of drawing either a
blue or yellow ball from the first urn on one blind draw, or of drawing two green balls in
a row from the second urn when you replace the first green ball drawn before making
the second draw into the second urn?
12. Imagine the pair of urns in Problem #10. You get one blind draw into each. (a) What
is the probability of your drawing a pink ball from the first urn or a green ball from the
second? (b) What would be the probability if that question contained “and” instead of
“or”?

216
Answers:
1. 2/13 or 0.15
2. 25/169 or 0.15
3. 1/221 or 0.0045
4. 3/13 or 0.23
5. 26/27 or 0.96
6. 63/64 or 0.98
7. 1/2500 or 0.0004
8. 24/49 or 0.49
9. 20/21 or 0.95
10. 1/14 or 0.071
11. 102/147 or 0.69
12. (a) 2/7 or 0.29, (b) 0

Unit Six
Online Lecture 1
On Chapter 35
Modal logic may be defined as the study of possibility and necessity and their
relationship to reasoning. With this chapter we enter the fourth and final branch of
formal logic in our journey through the many branches and worlds of logical theory.
This is a truly fascinating field of logical theory. A great deal of advanced research is
taking place right now in this important branch of our subject, and the philosophical
implications, and applications, of this branch of logic are extremely intriguing. Many of
the most interesting arguments in the history of philosophy—arguments about God and
free will and the ultimate nature of reality are modal in nature and can only be analyzed
in depth if we use the principles and discoveries of modal logic.

In this one chapter you will learn both a formal language and a natural deduction
system for modal logic and you will be presented with several classic philosophical
arguments ripe for logical analysis and debate. Apply principles of modal logic to the
classic philosophical arguments presented in this chapter and see if you agree with our
statement: many of the most interesting arguments in the history of philosophy are such

217
that they can only be probed in depth if we use the principles and concepts of modal
logic.

Chapter 35 Objectives
1. Demonstrate that you understand what modal logic is by correctly defining the
subject in your own words.

2. Demonstrate that you understand the definition of a modal argument by correctly

explaining the idea in your own words.

3. Demonstrate that you understand and can apply the formal language ML by
accurately translating sentences and arguments into ML.

4. Demonstrate that you understand and can use the system of modal natural
deduction presented in this chapter by correctly proving modal arguments valid
using the system of deduction taught in this chapter.

5. Demonstrate that you understand the differences between the various systems of
modal logic by correctly explaining those differences in your own words.

6. Demonstrate an understanding of possible worlds semantics by accurately

defining the term “possible world” as it is used in modal logic.

7. Demonstrate an understanding of the difference between physical possibility and

logical possibility by accurately explaining the difference in your own words.

8. Demonstrate an understanding of the difference between physical possibility and

logical possibility by accurately classifying propositions and / or states of affairs
as logically possible or logically impossible, physically possible or physically
impossible.

9. Demonstrate an understanding of the ideas in this chapter by correctly answering

relevant true-false, multiple-choice, and other short answer questions and essay
questions.

10. If anything taught in the text was not included in this list of objectives, be
prepared to demonstrate an understanding of that item too!

Test Your Understanding!

Practice Problems with One possible proofs
Symbolize in ML

218
Choose obvious abbreviations:

1.It is possible that Joe is home.

2.It may be that the job is complete.
3. Necessarily, it is false that numbers are material entities.
4.It is possibly true that space is curved.
5.It is necessarily the case that it is false that 1 + 1 = 6.
6. 2 + 2 is necessarily true.
7.It is necessarily false that all bachelors are married.
8.It is possibly true that there is life on other planets.
9. It is possible that it is false that there is life on other planets.
10.Possibly the next President will be a third party candidate.
11. It is contingent that some birds are blue.
12. The fact that some mammals are brown is a contingent fact.
13. It is necessary that it is contingent that some land animals are mammals.
14. It is necessary that it is necessary that all triangles have three sides.
15.It is necessary that it is possible that some people live 150 years.
16.it is necessarily false that it is false that 1 + 1 = 2.
17.That Jan is 16 implies that Jan is a teenager.
18.That it is necessary that 2 +2= 4 implies that it is not contingent that 2 + 2 = 4.

Answers:

1.◊J
2. ◊J
3. □ ~ N
4.◊ S
5.□ ~ O
6. □T
7.□~ B
8.◊ L.
9. ◊ ~ L
10.◊ P
11. ▼ B
12. ▼M
13. □ ▼ L
14. □□ A
15.□◊ P
16.□~ ~O
17.J →T
18.□T → ~ ▼T

219
 True or false?
Let P stand for the proposition that 1 + 1 = 2

1.□P
2.□~P
3.~□P
4.▼P
5.◊P
6.◊~P
7.~◊P
8.~◊~P
9.~□~P
10.▼~P

Answers:

1.T
2.F
3.F
4.F
5.T
6.F
7.F
8.T
9.T
10.F

Now let P stand for the proposition that 1 + 1 = 8. True or false?

1.□P
2.□~P
3.~□P
4.▼P
5.◊P
6.◊~P
7.~◊P
8.~◊~P
9.~□~P
10.▼~P

220
Answers:
1.F
2.T
3.T
4.F
5.F
6.T
7.T
8.F
9.F
10.F

Suppose P is a necessary truth and Q is a necessary falsehood. Suppose R is any

proposition. True or false?

1. P →Q
2.Q → P
3.P → ~Q
4.P → R
5. R →P
6.~P→ ~Q
7.~Q →P
8. Q→R
9. ~P →R
10.P →P

1. F
2.T
3.T
4.F
5. T
6.T
7.T
8. T
9. T
10.T

Prove the Following Modal Arguments valid

221
(1)1.  (A  B)
2.  (B  C)
3.  ( C  D) / A  D

One possible proof:

4. A  B BR 1
5. B  C BR 2
6. C  D BR 3
7. A  C HS 4,5
8.AD HS 6,7

(2)1.  A   ~ B
2. A & H
3. W  B / ~ W

One possible proof:

4. A Simp, 2
5.  A Poss, 4
6.  ~B MP 1, 5
7. ~ B BR 6
8. ~ W MT 3,7.

(3)1. A & B
2.  (A & B)   E
3. E   S /  S

One possible proof:

4. (A&B) Poss 1
5. E MMP, 2,4
6. S MMP 3,5

(4)1.  ~ ~ ( E v S)
2. B~(E S)
3. ~BG /G

One possible proof:

4. ~ ~ (E v S) BR 1
5. ~  B MMT 2,4
6.  G MMP, 3,5
7. G BR 6

222
(5)1. Z  W
2. Z & (G & U)
3.   O  M
4. W   O / M

One possible proof:

5. Z Simp 2
6. W MP 1,5
7.  W Poss 6
8.   O P to N, 4, 7
9. M MP 8, 4

(6)1.  (Q  R)
2.  (P  Q) /  (P  R)

One possible proof:

3.  (P  Q) Reit 2
4.  (Q  R) Reit 1
5. P  Q BR , 3
6. Q  R BR, 4
7. P  R HS 5, 6
8.  ( P  R) Nec. 3–7

(7) 1.  (P v Q)
2.  ( ~ P & ~ R )
3.  ( ~ Q v S ) /  ( S v R )

One possible proof:

4.  ( P v Q ) Reit 1
5.  ( ~ P & ~ R ) Reit 2
6.  ( ~ Q v S ) Reit 3
7. P v Q BR, 4
8. ~ P & ~ R BR, 5
9. ~ Q v S BR, 6
10. ~ P Simp 8
11. Q DS 7, 10
12. S DS 9, 11
13. S v R Add 12
14. ( S v R ) Nec 4–13

(8)
1.  S Q

223
 2. ~SP
3. ~P/Q

One possible proof:

4. ~P DE 3
5. ~~S MT 2, 4
6. S DE 5
7. Q MP 1, 6
8. Q BR, 7

(9)
1.  ( P & Q)   ~ ( R v S )
2.  ( R v S) /  ~ (P & Q)

One possible proof:

3. ~  ~ ( R v S) DE 2
4. ~  (P & Q) MT 1, 3
5.  ~ (P & Q) DE 4

(10)
1. PQ
2. ~Q/ ~P

One possible proof:

3. ~  Q DE, 2
4. ~  P MT 1, 3
5.  ~ P DE, 4

Supplement to the Text:

Additional Modal Deduction Rules
If you would like to add additional rules to Chapter 35’s modal deduction system, the following
rules appeared in an earlier textbook that I wrote, The Many Worlds of Logic. I did not include
the rules below in the present book for reasons of space: Chapter 35 would have been too long. I
am including explanations along with the rules in case you want to hand these out to students.

The Arrow Exchange Rule

224
 A sentence of the form P  Q may replace, or be replaced with, the corresponding
sentence □ (P  Q).

Explanation. Essentially, this rule allows us to replace an arrow with a necessitated horseshoe,
or vice versa. Recall that if a sentence within an argument is removed and replaced by a sentence
expressing an equivalent proposition, the validity of the argument will not be affected. That is, if
the argument happened to be valid before the replacement, it will remain valid after the
replacement. The arrow exchange rule is based on the fact that any sentence of the form □ (P 
Q) is equivalent to the corresponding sentence (P  Q). If this sounds incorrect, consider the
following argument.

If a sentence of the form □ (P  Q) is true, then the corresponding sentence P  Q has

the truth-value T in every possible world. Because a conditional P  Q is false only when
P is true and Q is false, it follows that no circumstance exists in which P is true and Q is
false. Therefore, P implies Q. Therefore P  Q is true. Similar reasoning would show
that if a sentence P  Q is true, then the corresponding sentence □ (P  Q) must be true.
The two formulas therefore express equivalent propositions.

The following proof employs arrow exchange:

1. A B
2. BS
3. ~ □ (A  S) v □ R / R v Z
4. AS MHS 1, 2
5. □(A  S) Arrow Exchange 4
6. ~ ~ □ (A  S) DN 5
7. □R DS 3, 6
8. R BR 7
9. R v Z Add 8

Double Arrow Exchange

A sentence of the form P ↔ Q may replace or be replaced with the corresponding

sentence □ (P ≡ Q).

Explanation. Essentially, this rule allows us to replace a double arrow with a necessitated triple
bar, or vice versa. Double Arrow Exchange is certainly valid, for a sentence of the form P ↔ Q
implies the corresponding sentence □ (P ≡ Q) and a sentence of the form □ (P ≡ Q) implies the
corresponding sentence P ↔ Q. The rule is based on the fact that any sentence of the form P ↔
Q is equivalent to the corresponding sentence □ (P ≡ Q). If this sounds incorrect, consider the
following argument.

225
 If a sentence of the form □ (P ≡ Q) is true, then the corresponding sentence P ≡ Q has the
truth-value T in every possible circumstance. Because a biconditional is false only when
P and Q have differing truth-values, it follows that there is no possible circumstance in
which P and Q have differing truth-values. Therefore, P and Q are equivalent and P ↔ Q
is true. So if □ (P ≡ Q) is true, then the corresponding sentence P ↔ Q is true. Similar
reasoning would show that if a sentence P ↔ Q is true, then the corresponding sentence
□ (P ≡ Q) must be true. The two are therefore equivalent.

The following proof employs this rule:

1. A ↔ B / A  B
2. □ (A ≡ B) Double Arrow Ex 1
3. A ≡ B BR 2
4. (A  B) & (B  A) Equiv 3
5. A  B Simp 4

Modal Equivalence

A sentence of the form [(P  Q) & (Q  P)] may replace or be replaced with the
corresponding sentence (P ↔ Q).

Explanation. A sentence of the form P ↔ Q is true if and only if the corresponding sentence P
implies the corresponding sentence Q and Q also implies P. Likewise, the corresponding
sentences P  Q and Q  P are true if and only if the corresponding sentence P ↔ Q is true. A
sentence of the form P ↔ Q is thus equivalent to the corresponding sentence [(P  Q) & (Q 
P)]. Here is a proof using the modal equivalence rule (ME):
1. A ↔ B / A  B
2. (A B) & (B  A) ME 1
3. (A  B) Simp 2
4. □ (A  B) Arrow Ex 3
5. A  B BR 4

Here is a beautiful proof, employing some of these new rules.

1. ◊ (A & B)
2. A  G / ◊(G & B)
3. ~ ◊ (G & B) AIP
4. □ ~ (G & B) DE 3
5. □ ~ (G & B) Reit 4
6. ~ (G & B) BR 5
7. ~G v ~ B DM 6
8. G~B Imp 7

226
9. □ (G  ~ B) Nec 5-8
10. G  ~B Arrow Ex 9
11. A  ~B MHS 2, 10
12. A  ~B Reit 11
13. □ (A  ~B) Arrow Ex 12
14. A~B BR 13
15. ~A v ~B Imp 14
16. ~ (A & B) DM 15
17. □ ~ (A & B) Nec 12-16
18. ~ ◊ (A & B) DE 17
19. ◊ (A & B) & ~ ◊ (A & B) Conj 1, 18
20. ◊ (G & B) IP 3-19

The Tautology Necessitation Rule

If a sentence P is proven tautological, we may infer from this the corresponding sentence
□P.

Explanation. Certainly every tautology is necessarily true. (This is also the first of the
five principles of modality stated in Chapter 35.) Therefore, if we can prove that a truth-
functional sentence P is a tautology, we are justified in prefixing a box to P and
asserting that P is necessarily true. Recall from Unit Three that we prove a statement
tautological (and thus a theorem) by proving the statement with a premise-free
conditional or indirect proof sequence. If a truth-functional sentence can be proven
tautological with a premise-free CP or IP, we may validly conclude that the sentence is
a necessary truth (and that it is a theorem of S5) and we may “box” it. The Tautology
Necessitation rule incorporates this reasoning.

Here are two simple examples of Tautology Necessitation:

(1) 1. A ACP
2. A v ~A Add 1
3. ~A v A Comm 2
4. AA Imp 3
5. A  (A  A) CP 1-4
6. □ [ A  (A  A)] Taut Nec 5

(2) 1. A ACP
2. AvB Add 1
3. A (A v B) CP 1-2

227
 4. □ [A  (A v B)] Taut Nec 3

Since any formula proved on the basis of a premise-free proof is a theorem of the
system in use, these two proofs show that the two formulas proven are theorems of S5.
Because every truth-functional tautology can be proved with a premise-free S5 proof,
every such formula is a theorem of S5.

Exercise 24.6

Prove that each of the following is a theorem of S5.

1.* □ [~A  (A  B)]

2. □ [(A v B)  (~ B  A)]
3. □ [B  (A  B)]
4. □ {[(A  B) & A]  B}
5. □ [(A  B)  (~ B  ~ A)]
6. □ {[(A  B) & ~ B]  ~ A}
7. □ {[(A v B) & ~ A ]  B}
8. □ {[(A  B) & (B  R)]  (A  R)}
9. □ {{[(A  B) & (R  S)] & (A v R)}  (B v S)}}
10. □ {[(A v B) & (~ B v S)]  (A v S)}
11. □ {[(A & B) & (A  R)]  R}
12. □ [A  (A  A)]
13. □ [(A  B)  ~ (A & ~ B)]
14. □ [(A v B)  (~ B  A)]
15. A  A
16. □□ A  □ A
17. (A  B)  (□A  □ B)
18. □ A  □ (A v B)
19. A  (A v B)
20. ~□ A  ◊ ~ A
21. □ [(A & B)  (A v B)]
22. ◊ ~ A  ~ □ A

23. □ ~ A  ~◊ A

228
24. ◊A v ◊ ~ A
25. ~ ◊ A  □ ~ A
26. □ (A≡ B)  (A ≡ B)
27. (A  B)  □ (A  B)
28. (A  B)  □ (A  B)
29. (A  B)  ~ ◊ (A & ~ B)
30. (A  B)  (~ B  ~ A)
31. (A & ~ B)  ~ (A  B)
32. ~ ◊ (A & ~ A)
33. (A ↔ B)  □ (A ≡ B)
34. ◊ (A ↔ B)  (A ≡ B)
35. □ (A  B)  (A  B)
36. ~ (A  B)  ◊ (A & ~ B)
37. ◊ (A B)  (A  B)

The S5 Reduction Rule

Any sequence of iterated monadic modal operators in a formula may be reduced to the
last member on the right, and the resulting reduced formula may replace the original
formula anywhere within a proof.

Explanation. Two monadic modal operators are “iterated” if the first applies directly to the
second, with no intervening parenthesis. Iterated operators are also sometimes said to be
“concatenated.” Thus, □□A contains iterated operators but □ (□ A & B) does not (because in the
second formula, a parenthesis intervenes between the two modal operators). If we remove the left
member of a pair of iterated monadic modal operators, the shortened formula is said to be
“reduced.” It can be shown (see below) that in the system S5, if we remove the left member of a
pair of iterated monadic modal operators, the reduced formula represents a proposition
equivalent to the one it formerly represented. Thus, if a sentence P reduces to a sentence Q, then
P and Q express equivalent propositions.

Here is one way to explain why this is a valid rule. In the system S5, propositions are understood
as entities possessing their modal properties essentially, that is, unchanged across all possible
worlds. On this understanding, if a proposition is necessarily true, then in all possible worlds it is
necessarily true, in other words, it is necessarily true that it is necessarily true. Its necessity is a
matter of necessity. Likewise for possibility and contingency: If a proposition is contingently
true, then in all possible worlds it is contingently true, that is, it is necessarily true that it is
contingently true. Its contingency is a matter of necessity. And if a proposition is possibly true, it
is possibly true in all possible worlds, in other words, it is necessarily true that it is possibly true.
229
Its status as a “possible” is a matter of necessity. In short, in the system S5, necessity, possibility,
and contingency are all understood to be matters of logical necessity.

It follows from this, that if we remove one iterated modal operator from a formula that is
prefixed with 2 iterated modal operators, the reduced formula is equivalent to the original
formula, that is, it expresses a proposition that is equivalent to that expressed by the original
formula.

Here is another way to argue for the same conclusion, presupposing the modal principles of S5.
Where P is any proposition:

1. If P is necessarily true, then in every possible circumstance it is true that P is necessarily true.
That is, □P  □□ P. Furthermore, if in every possible circumstance it is true that P is necessarily
true, then P is necessarily true. That is, □□ P  □ P. One sentence is equivalent to another just in
case the two imply each other. Because □ P and □□ P imply each other, it follows that □ □P is
equivalent to □ P.
2. If there is at least one possible circumstance in which P is true, then there is a circumstance in
which it is true that there is a circumstance in which P is true. That is, ◊ P ◊◊ P. Furthermore,
if there is a possible circumstance in which it is true that there is a circumstance in which P is
true, then there is a circumstance in which P is true. That is, ◊ ◊ P◊ P. Because ◊◊P and ◊ P
imply each other, it follows that ◊◊ P is equivalent to ◊ P.
3. Parallel arguments can be given for all the other combinations of modal operators, thus
showing that:
◊□P is equivalent to □P
□◊P is equivalent to ◊P
And so on.

Therefore, the S5 reduction rule is valid.

A sentence of ML that contains no iterated operators is called a “fully reduced” modal sentence.
Thus, the following formulas are all fully reduced:
◊B
□ (A & □B)
And these formulas are not fully reduced:
□□□ A
□◊◊ A
◊◊□B
Using the S5 reduction rule, then, any sequence of iterated monadic modal operators in a
formula, no matter how long, can be reduced to the last member on the right, and the resulting

230
formula will express a proposition equivalent to the proposition expressed before the reduction.
For example:
□□ A reduces to □A
◊ ◊□ A reduces to □ A
◊◊◊□□◊A reduces to ◊ A
□□(◊◊ A & □◊ B) reduces to □(◊A & ◊B)

The following two proofs employ the Reduction rule:

(1) 1. □◊◊□ J  ◊ B
2. ~◊~J/◊B
3. □J DE 2
4. □J◊B S5 Red 1
5. ◊B MP 3, 4

(2) 1. □□◊ J
2. ◊J  ~ □ B
3. □ R  □ B
4. ◊ ~ R  ◊~ S
5. ◊ ~ G  □ S / G
6. ◊ J S5 Red 1
7. ~□ B MMP 2, 6
8. ~ □ R MMT 3, 7
9. ◊~ R DE 8
10. ◊~ S MMP 4, 9
11. ~ □S DE 10
12. ~ ◊~ G MT 5, 11
13. □ G DE 12
14. G BR 13

EXERCISE

Use the reduction rule plus any of the other rules of our system to prove the following:

(1) 1. ◊□A / □ A
(2) 1. □□◊ A / ◊A
(3) 1. ◊◊ A / ◊ A
(4) 1. □□□ Q  ◊◊ S
2. ◊S □ P
3. (□ Q  □ P)  ◊ R
4. ~ ◊ R v □ A / A

231
(5) 1. □ ◊ □ P
2. ◊ ~ P v □ Q
3. Q  S / S
(6) 1. ◊ □ ◊ P v □ Q
2. ◊ ~ Q
3. ◊ P  □ P / P
(7) 1. □ ◊ ◊ □ P
2. Q  ~ P
3. ~ □ Q □ S / S
(8) 1. □□ P  ◊ Q
2. ◊ □ P
3. ~ ◊ Q v □ R
4. R □ S / S
(9) 1. ◊◊◊◊□ P
2. P  Q
3. Q  R / R
(10) 1. □◊◊ P
2. □S □ ~ P
3. ◊ ~ S □ G / G

232
 Open Course Library Videos on Logic

Created By Paul Herrick and Mark Storey for the Open Course Library Course
Philosophy 120, Symbolic Logic

To watch a particular video, simply paste the URL into your browser. The links below may also be placed
into any online logic class or web-supplemented face-to-face class by logic teachers as well. Thanks to
the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation, and to the Washington State Board for Technical and Community
Colleges, for the grant that supported our work creating these videos. Thanks also to Shoreline
Community College videographer Dwight Edwards for filming and editing our videos.

The video demonstrations are labeled by topics covered and by chapter number. The chapter numbers
refer to the corresponding chapters in the course textbook, Introduction to Logic by Paul Herrick (Oxford
University Press, 2012).

UNIT ONE. FUNDAMENTAL CONCEPTS OF LOGIC

1. Welcome to Logic Class and Introduction to the Series (October 12, 2010)

http://youtu.be/9P0HVpjNMyo

2. What is Logic? (Chapter 1)

http://youtu.be/e-tAmgh8xcE

3. What is an Argument? (Chapter 2)

http://youtu.be/IBz4SHnTip0

4. The Argument Clinic (Famous Monty Python Skit as Supplement to Chapter 2.)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQFKtI6gn9Y

5. Arguments vs NonArguments (Chapter 2)

http://youtu.be/q2q5sPnmt8I

233
6. What is a Deductive Argument? (Chapter 3)

http://youtu.be/yqRaCFolFVs

7. What is an Inductive Argument? (Chapter 3)

http://youtu.be/LeDXGXKKdHc

8. What is a Valid Argument? (Chapter 4)

http://youtu.be/46VnIOMb0MQ

9. What is a Deductively Sound Argument? (Chapter 4)

http://youtu.be/NKYEcJW9q5o

10. What is a Strong Argument? (Chapter 5)

http://youtu.be/jMd4IxnnS8Q

11. Inductively Sound or Cogent Arguments (Chapter 5)

http://youtu.be/PQKbA50fO6w

12. The Fundamental Concepts of Logic—Consistency, Inconsistency, Implication, Equivalence,

Necessity, Contingency (Chapter 6)

http://youtu.be/iU-b2lgexLE

13. Overview of the Fundamental Concepts of Logic—Argument, Deduction, Induction, Validity,

Strength, Consistency, Inconsistency, Implication, Equivalence, Necessity, and so forth. (Chapters 1-6.)

http://youtu.be/3FkdfKrJlQ8

UNIT TWO Categorical Logic

14. Translating Categorical Sentences into Standard Form--1 (Chapter 7)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=msk2N2THSFg&feature=share&list=PLdf6ZN8VasjosiSZeeyPSIPJOr9
4L9z2i

15. Translating Categorical Sentences into Standard Form--2 (Chapter 7)

http://youtu.be/KDzWB4DviME

16. Constructing the Converse, Obverse, and Contrapositive of a Cat Sentence (Chapter 7)

234
http://youtu.be/avj6J0lE8L4

17. Logical Form of a Categorical Syllogism--1(Chapter 8)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mYPltepGNXI&feature=share&list=PLdf6ZN8VasjosiSZeeyPSIPJOr94
L9z2i

18. Logical Form of a Categorical Syllogism--2 (Chapter 8)

http://youtu.be/R1CgSU-C_Ck

19. Constructing Venn Diagrams--1 (Chapter 9)

http://youtu.be/Jimj7k6b73s

20. Constructing Venn Diagrams--2: (Chapter 9)

http://youtu.be/otCTXZ8SJzM

21. Aristotelian vs Boolean Standpoints (Chapter 9)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x0DlAVMKKOk&feature=share&list=PLdf6ZN8VasjosiSZeeyPSIPJOr9
4L9z2i

22. Constructing Venn Diagrams--3 (Chapter 9)

http://youtu.be/8x2xHGHUVtk

23 -More Venn Diagrams (and our videographer Dwight’s cameo) (Chapter 9)

http://youtu.be/X4rl0k7ci-s

24. Constructing Venn Diagrams--4 (Chapter 9)

http://youtu.be/vb67P3RUQsg

25. Constructing Venn Diagrams Yet Again (Chapter 9)

http://youtu.be/s0CJ1WB2QLk

26. Venn Diagraming Unicorns (Chapter 9)

http://youtu.be/EtnTNIMRCUs

UNIT THREE TRUTH-FUNCTIONAL LOGIC

27. What is a “Truth-functional” Compound Sentence? (Chapter 10)

235
http://youtu.be/wk_5aCgmm-c

28. Argument Forms and Substitution Instances (Chapter 11)

http://youtu.be/1gaUT7Q32As

29. Symbolizing Truth-functional Sentences -1 (Chapter 12)

http://youtu.be/xPAc8lyrWO8

30. Alternative Truth-functional English Operators (however, but, although, etc.) (Chapter 12)

[Someone deleted this video by mistake; we are having in the process of getting it back online.]

31. Alternative Truth-functional Symbols Used in Various Logic Texts (dot, arrow, etc.) (Chapter 12)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FrqZq66RtVw&feature=share&list=PLdf6ZN8Vasjq0tGpSdwHk33
GYhEVCrffn

32. Symbolizing Truth functional Sentences--2 (Chapters 12-13):

http://youtu.be/qzaLhPJHrQ8

33. Symbolizing Truth-functional Sentences--3 (Chapters 12-13):

http://youtu.be/__XH4e7g8cM

34. Symbolizing Truth-functional Sentences --4 (Chapter 13)

http://youtu.be/kINKFNY_FKE

35. Symbolizing Truth-functional Sentences--5 (Chapter 13)

http://youtu.be/qzaLhPJHrQ8

36. Symbolizing Truth-functional Sentences--6 (Chapter 13)

http://youtu.be/hL2PSjgRWDA

37. Truth table for “and” (Chapter 14)

http://youtu.be/A_ULTpAswRQ

38. Truth table for “or” (With “Thing”) (Chapter 14)

http://youtu.be/ZREdVejub2E

39. Truth table for “if then” (Chapter 14)

http://youtu.be/HQFRKH_8DJ0

236
40. Calculating Truth-values Using the Replacement Method (Chapter 14)

http://youtu.be/6BCwC5L3Q4w

41. Identifying the Main Connective (Chapter 14)

http://youtu.be/QyCD3lon2Oo

42. Truth table Analysis 1: Testing a Single Sentence for Logical Status (Chapter 15)

http://youtu.be/A6KIYdSNy-4

43. Truth table Analysis 2: Testing a Single Sentence for Logical Status (Chapter 15)

http://youtu.be/ypXwgDVCeNs

44. Truth table Analysis 3: Constructing 8-row Tables (Chapter 15)

http://youtu.be/lYISsJ0Mxa0

45. Truth table Analysis 4: Testing an Argument for Validity (Chapter 16)

http://youtu.be/F_Mnu35z7jk

46. Truth table Analysis 5:Testing a Pair of Sentences for Equivalence: (Chapter 17)

http://youtu.be/VmHBxzbp0dY

47. Argument Forms and Substitution Instances (This is repeated as a good prep for Chapter 18)

http://youtu.be/1gaUT7Q32As

48. Introducing the Inference Rules Modus Ponens (MP) and Modus Tollens (MT) (Chapter 18)

http://youtu.be/l9yYwsCuGn4

49.Proofs Using the First Four Inference Rules--MP, MT, DS, HS (Chapter 18)

http://youtu.be/YkvGPHa7xKM

50: Introducing the Second Four Inference Rules—Simp, Conj, Add, CD (Chapter 19)

http://youtu.be/cTMN7wThZkY

51. The Constructive Dilemma Rule (CD): (Chapter 19)

http://youtu.be/cBC5Tiar70g

52.Proofs Using the Second Four Inference Rules-1. (Chapter 19)

237
http://youtu.be/JzHrSm3B1Hg

53. Proofs Using the Second Four Inference Rules-2 (Chapter 19)

http://youtu.be/idV_Sd60ZhY

54. Proofs Using the Second Four Inference Rules-3 (Chapter 19)

http://youtu.be/xDpXVPwIjrU

55. Proofs Using the Second Four Inference Rules-4 (Chapter 19)

http://youtu.be/EL3XA802wxs

56. Proofs Using the Second Four Inference Rules-5 (Chapter 19)

http://youtu.be/OfErpyk91-Q

57. Common Errors Made in Truth-functional Proofs-1 (Chapters 18, 19 on)

http://youtu.be/GfjkT5OlqsQ

58. Common Errors Made in Truth-functional Proofs-2 (Chapters 18, 19 on)

http://youtu.be/WXiejNKuOvU

59. Replacement Rules 1—Comm, Assoc (Chapter 20)

http://youtu.be/2TeLHOtZWto

60. Replacement Rules 2—Double Negation (Chapter 20)

http://youtu.be/7VYvGH4nmdw

61. Replacement Rules 3--DeMorgan (Chapter 20)

http://youtu.be/7xBxB90mjHc

62. Replacement Rules--Distribution (Chapter 20)

http://youtu.be/MG_haUh6l5Y

63. Replacement Rules--Implication (Chapter 20)

http://youtu.be/gdiGQSMq7Hw

64. Replacement rules--Taut (Chapter 20)

http://youtu.be/IsL6pWRHvfY

238
65. Extra Replacement Rule Proofs--1 (Chapter 20)

http://youtu.be/UcpXg3Ayvlk

65. Extra Replacement Rule Proofs--2 (Chapter 20)

http://youtu.be/eXXrb4GZz_M

67. Indirect Proof Explanation--1 (Chapter 21)

http://youtu.be/RR9rEz754-M

68. Indirect Proof Explanation--2 (Chapter 21)

http://youtu.be/tFz9v1Y60iU

69. Indirect Proof Demo (Chapter 21)

http://youtu.be/lQ4yN8iY9Ws

70. Indirect Proof Explanation--3 (Chapter 21)

http://youtu.be/1dYOk2sEM5Q

71 Indirect Proof in Math (Chapter 21)

http://youtu.be/9fKGOYUg6k0

72. Introducing Conditional Proof (Chapter 21)

http://youtu.be/YVWgJQGtCHU

73. Conditional Proof Once More (Chapter 21)

http://youtu.be/1dYOk2sEM5Q

74. Intro to Nested Proofs (Chapter 21 Appendix)

http://youtu.be/JAdvYjAY26c

75. Nested Conditional Proof (Chapter 21, Appendix)

http://youtu.be/2CgwpC5dkSg

76. More Nested Proofs (Chapter 21, Appendix)

http://youtu.be/u1e-1L3QO2I

239
77. Premise–free Proofs--1 (Chapter 22)

http://youtu.be/aPVLFaTb9P4

78. Premise-free Proofs-2 (Chapter 22)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TqQdceVoKPk

UNIT FOUR PREDICATE LOGIC

79. Predicate Logic Intro to Translations --1(Chapter 23)

http://youtu.be/7nqi7u5mm3k

80. Predicate Logic Translations Introduction-- 2 (Chapter 23)

http://youtu.be/XPhY42hS_N8

81. Translating Existentials (Chapter 23)

http://youtu.be/un5ZKrHLYKU

82. Translating Exceptives--1 (Chapter 23)

http://youtu.be/UxIJYRO3TDk

83. Translating Exceptives--2 (Chapter 23)

http://youtu.be/xk8i-O8CHWw

84. Translating Dyadic Predicates and Overlapping Quantifiers (Chapter 24)

http://youtu.be/5Fs42Q64S7I

85.Main Connectives in Predicate Logic (Chapters 23-24)

http://youtu.be/l1aQ0qvvL4I

86. Two Meanings of Identity(Chapter 25)

http://youtu.be/GG_W6aQxv1Q

87. Predicate Proofs--1--UI and EG: (Chapter 26)

http://youtu.be/ZV6LdFkX3l0

88. Predicate Proofs--2 (Chapter 26)

240
http://youtu.be/0CRIk5Preac

89. Predicate Proofs--3 (Chapter 26)

http://youtu.be/8VSkKLwG9wU

90. Predicate Proofs--4 (Chapter 26)

http://youtu.be/YXTixlgqmyo

91. Predicate Logic Interpretations (Chapter 27)

http://youtu.be/LbQLfsCryks

92. Predicate Proofs with Overlapping Quantifiers (Chapter 28)

http://youtu.be/btOoEQrJK4U

93.Premise-free Predicate Proofs (Chapter 29)

http://youtu.be/LY3KiypmE

94. Predicate Proofs with Identity--1 (Chapter 30)

http://youtu.be/YalSk1ZAdDY

95. Predicate Proofs with Identity--2 (Chapter 30)

http://youtu.be/D3uwHdL3izw

96. Common errors in Predicate Logic Proofs (Chapters 26 -28)

http://youtu.be/4cr2Ij3uGtY

UNIT FIVE INFORMAL AND INDUCTIVE LOGIC

97. Definitions--1 (Chapter 31)

http://youtu.be/w0jqtkQlKLk

98. Definitions--2 (Chapter 31)

http://youtu.be/79xBsaZb1fM

99. Definitions--3 (Chapter 31)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MKVBdjQqzzU

241
100. Informal Fallacies--1 (Chapter 32)

http://youtu.be/fxkAePee00Y

101. Informal Fallacies--2 (Chapter 32)

http://youtu.be/frVcMaK1aUY

102. Analogical Arguments (Chapter 33)

http://youtu.be/alhfG3zWL68

103. Enumerative Induction (Chapter 33)

http://youtu.be/yt8hR33q5bU

104. More on Analogical induction and Enumerative Induction (Chapter 33)

http://youtu.be/mg-WDM4TzOM

105. Logic of Science (Chapter 33)

http://youtu.be/eClqoNzV4NU

106. Hypothetical Reasoning (Chapter 33)

http://youtu.be/suTuXwyHwxA

107. “Inference to the Best Explanation” (Chapter 33)

http://youtu.be/sGE5reoGzKQ

108. Inference to the Best Explanation Again (Chapter 33)

http://youtu.be/HkGIVxus8ao

109. Very Elementary Probability Theory (Chapter 34)

http://youtu.be/B5o2dI4jibE

UNIT SIX MODAL LOGIC

110. Very Elementary Modal Logic (Chapter 35)

http://youtu.be/ucBj6u6TWgc

242
 GOODBYE VIDEO
111. Our Goodbye Video (July 12, 2011)

http://youtu.be/ymxgmBRVpu0

243
 Part Two.
Student Manual

Introduction to Logic
Student Manual
Practice Problems with Answers
By Paul Herrick

Preface
Most of the questions and answers in this student manual are drawn from the test bank that
accompanies Introduction to Logic and that is available (as part of the Instructor’s Manual) only
to teachers using the textbook. The questions below are thus samples of the questions that
teachers have in the test bank that accompanies the textbook—questions they may use to create
tests and quizzes for class. Other questions below are leftover questions I created during the
writing of the textbook that never made it into the textbook or into the instructor’s test bank.

A number of the questions and answers in Unit 1 below were created for this manual by my
friend and colleague, Mitchell Erickson, professor of philosophy, Everett Community College.
Thank you, Mitch, for creating some great problems (and answers) on the fundamental concepts
of logic.

The textbook, Introduction to Logic, that accompanies this manual, contains approximately two
thousand logic problems for you to solve, organized in approximately 175 exercise sets. None of
the problems contained in this student manual is drawn from the textbook. For maximum effect,
practice solving logic problems by solving the problems in the textbook as well as the problems
in this student manual. The questions in this little manual are meant to serve only as a modest
supplement to the practice problems available in the textbook. In other words, the problems in
this manual are not intended to serve as a complete set of practice problems for a course in
logic—the more numerous problems in the textbook, Introduction to Logic, serve that purpose.

Additional Resources

The Open Course Library Logic Class

244
Many, many more logic problems with answers, covering every chapter in the textbook, are
available in the free online logic course that my colleague, Mark Storey (Bellevue College), and
I created for the Open Course Library. What is this? With generous support from the Bill and
Melinda Gates Foundation, the State of Washington Board for Community and Technical
Colleges selected eighty-one community college faculty members and gave them the task of
creating an online library of complete online courses in nearly every introductory subject in the
community college curriculum. The online classes in the Open Course Library are freely
available to any teacher or student who wants to use them. The Open Course Library logic class,
which Mark and I created, currently entitled “Philosophy 106,” may thus be used as an additional
resource to help you master the concepts covered in Introduction to Logic. (The online course
that we created may also be used to supplement any logic course taught with a standard logic
text.) Your teacher has the relevant information.

The Many Worlds of Logic Website

In addition to the Open Course Library logic course described above, you will find further self-
tests, a general overview of logic, philosophical arguments that you can analyze and debate, and
various materials for advanced study in logical theory at the following website:

www.manyworldsoflogic.com

Once here, click on “Practice Quizzes with Answers” (at the top) for practice problems that can
help build understanding. This website can serve as a general supplement to any logic course.

In conclusion, I sincerely hope that the questions and answers in this little manual will help you
test your understanding and will give you valuable feedback as you use the accompanying
textbook, Introduction to Logic. Good luck to you as you study one the oldest of all academic
subjects!

Paul Herrick
Shoreline Community College

Unit 1: The Fundamental Concepts of Logical Theory

Chapter 1
What Is Logic?

Questions

245
 True or False?

1. Logic is the study of how people actually think—flaws, warts, and all.

2. According to the text, philosophy and myth have this in common: Both offer explanations
of the world.

3. According to the text, logic was taught in ancient times and then was not taught again
until the twentieth century.

4. According to the text, philosophy differs from myth in this way: Philosophy seeks
rational explanations, whereas myth does not.

5. Thales was an Egyptian philosopher who carried philosophy to the Greeks.

6. Logic is defined in the text as the study of the standards of correct or good reasoning.

7. Inductive reasoning seeks to show that the conclusion is probably true but not certain.

8. Aristotle studied under Plato.

9. According to the text, Plato is the founder of logic as an academic subject.

10. According to the text, logic was founded in ancient India and then copied by the ancient
Greeks.

11. According to the text, Socrates is the founder of logic.

12. Chapter 1 offers reasoning in support of the claim that not all acts of reasoning are
equally reasonable or logical.

13. Aristotle wrote the first logic textbook in history.

Multiple Choice

1. The Academy was located in:

a. Atlantis
b. Sparta
c. Athens
d. America
e. Thebes
f. None of the above

246
 2. According to the text, logic is:
a. One of the most difficult of all academic subjects
b. One of the oldest of all academic subjects
c. The academic subject with the shortest history
d. A branch of psychology

Answers
1. Logic is the study of how people actually think—flaws, warts, and all.
F
2. According to the text, philosophy and myth have this in common: Both offer explanations
of the world.
T
3. According to the text, logic was taught in ancient times and then was not taught again
until the twentieth century.
F
4. According to the text, philosophy differs from myth in this way: Philosophy seeks
rational explanations, whereas myth does not.
T

5. Thales was an Egyptian philosopher who carried philosophy to the Greeks.

F

6. Logic is defined in the text as the study of the standards of correct or good reasoning.
T
7. Inductive reasoning seeks to show that the conclusion is probably true but not certain.
T

8. Aristotle studied under Plato.

T

9. According to the text, Plato is the founder of logic as an academic subject.

F
10. According to the text, logic was founded in ancient India and then copied by the ancient
Greeks.
F

11. According to the text, Socrates is the founder of logic.

F
12. Chapter 1 offers reasoning in support of the claim that not all acts of reasoning are
equally reasonable or logical.
T
13. Aristotle wrote the first logic textbook in history.
T

247
 Multiple Choice

1. c
2. b

Chapter 2
Let’s Have an Argument!

True or False?

1. As “argument” is defined in the text, every argument has exactly one conclusion.

2. As “argument” is defined in the text, some arguments may have no premises at all.

3. According to the text, Aristotle defined truth as the correspondence of a statement or

proposition with reality.

4. A conclusion indicator word is used to flag the presence of a conclusion.

5. If no premise or conclusion indicator word is present, then no argument is present.

6. An enthymeme is an argument that is missing a premise or a conclusion or both.

7. An argument that is missing a premise or a conclusion or both is called an “enthymeme.”

8. Some exclamatory sentences are true.

9. The principle of charity is a principle that urges us to contribute 10% of our surplus to
registered charitable organizations.

10. In logic, the term "argument" refers to a heated, nasty verbal fight.

Answers

1. As “argument” is defined in the text, every argument has exactly one conclusion.
T
2. As “argument” is defined in the text, some arguments may have no premises at all.
F

248
 3. According to the text, Aristotle defined truth as the correspondence of a statement or
proposition with reality.
T
4. A conclusion indicator word is used to flag the presence of a conclusion.
T
5. If no premise or conclusion indicator word is present, then no argument is present.
F

6. An enthymeme is an argument that is missing a premise or a conclusion or both.

T
7. An argument that is missing a premise or a conclusion or both is called an “enthymeme.”
T

8. Some exclamatory sentences are true.

F
9. The principle of charity is a principle that urges us to contribute 10% of our surplus to
registered charitable organizations.
F
10. In logic, the term "argument" refers to a heated, nasty verbal fight.
F

Argument or Not an Argument?

1. The Beatles were the greatest rock band of all times.

2. If the French had not helped, the Americans probably would not have won the
Revolutionary War.

3. It is impossible that something pop into being from nothing. But the universe was not
created. Therefore, the universe must have simply existed from all eternity.

4. It is impossible that something existed before time began. But time began when the
universe began. Therefore, it is impossible that something created the universe.

5. Part of the road from Lexington, Massachusetts, to Concord, Massachusetts, is named

“Battle Road” in honor of the historic battle fought on the very spot the morning of April
19, 1775.

6. If rocking-horse people eat marshmallow pies, then Lucy will take a newspaper taxi to
the sky. There she will find cellophane flowers of yellow and green, towering over her
head as people walk by slowly. The flowers there grow so incredibly high!

Answers

249
 1. Not

2. Not

3. Argument

4. Argument

5. Not

6. Not

Multiple Choice

1. In an argument, ideally the premises:

a. Are supported by the conclusion
b. Support the conclusion
c. Counterbalance the conclusion
d. Are there only as “window dressing”

2. An argument must have at least ___ premises.

a. One
b. Two
c. Three
d. Four
e. Five

3. According to the text, critical thinking is:

a. Constantly criticizing your own views and the views of others
b. Oppositional thinking
c. Evaluating beliefs and values on the basis of rational, reality-based standards
d. A kind of thinking that takes place unconsciously

4. He invented the Socratic method:

a. Socrates
b. Plato
c. Pluto
d. Aristotle
e. Moses

5. Critical thinking is identified in the text as:

a. A type of level 1 thinking
b. A type of level 2 thinking

250
 c. A type of thinking suited mainly for intellectuals
d. A primarily negative form of thinking

Answers

1. b
2. a
3. c
4. a
5. b

In each case, is the passage an argument or a non-argument?

1. The Marx Brothers did vaudeville before they got into the movies. So did the Three Stooges.
They were sure funny, weren’t they?

2. In the last election, our opponent unleashed a smear campaign against our candidate, but it
happened on the last day of the campaign, so we didn’t have time to respond. As a result, we lost
the election.

3. The light from that star displays a peculiar wobble. The only possible explanation of the
wobble is that the star has an unseen planet. So, it is reasonable to conclude that the star has a
planet.

4. First we stopped and got hamburgers. About an hour later we stopped for some tacos. Then we
stopped for a corndog about two hours later. At dinner we got fish and chips and onion rings and
a couple hotdogs. After that, we got sick.

Answers
1. Non-argument

2. Non-argument

3. Argument

4. Non-argument

Indicator words. For each argument below, (a) state any premise or conclusion indicators
and (b) state the conclusion.

251
1. Given that all finches are birds, and because no birds are mammals, it must be concluded that
no finches are fish.
2. Ulysses S. Grant was born in the United States. Grant was a military hero in the United States.
This implies that a military hero was born in United States.
3. The pavement is dry during a drought. Consequently, due to the fact that there is a drought, the
pavement is dry.
4. Since George is a student, it follows that he attends classes daily.
5. All carp are fish, and all fish are animals; thus, all carp are animals.
6. According to my friend, people are selfish. Thus, since being good is also selfish, people
should be good.
7. Sara is sad. Hence, Sara is sad.
8. Provided that four is greater than three, and five is greater than four, it follows that five is
greater than three.
9. Jan is a mother, because she has given birth to a baby.
10. Given that Sam is a senator, that Sam is a politician may be inferred from the fact that all
senators are politicians.

Answers
1. (a) Given that; because; it must be concluded that; (b) no finches are fish.
2. (a) This implies that; (b) a military hero was born in the United States.
3. (a) Consequently; due to the fact that; (b) the pavement is dry.
4. (a) Since; it follows that; (b) he attends classes daily.
5. (a) thus; (b) all dogs are animals.
6. (a) Thus; since; (b) people should be good.
7. (a) Hence; (b) Sara is sad (the second occurrence of the sentence).
8. (a) Provided that; it follows that; (b) five is greater than three.
9. (a) because; (b) Jan is a mother.
10. (a) Given that; may be inferred from; (b) that Sam is a politician.

Are the following sentences interrogative, declarative, exclamatory, or imperative?

1. If today is Tuesday, then tomorrow is Wednesday.

252
2. I love ice cream.
3. Darn!
4. Do you know where Seattle is?
5. Go to sleep.
6. Philosophy is my favorite class.
7. I’ve been gone for a while.
8. Surprise.
9. Stalin executed his political opponents.
10. Do you like ice cream?
11. An artist, wow!
12. Matter is the only thing in the universe.

Answers
1. Declarative
2. Declarative
3. Exclamatory
4. Interrogative
5. Imperative
6. Declarative
7. Declarative
8. Exclamatory
9. Declarative
10. Interrogative
11. Exclamatory
12. Declarative

Are the following passages arguments or not?

1. Joan studies every day for her philosophy class and writes very carefully for her papers. She
also takes complete notes. We can conclude that Joan will likely do well in her class.
2. Jenny likes ice cream. John likes football. Jenny likes reading.

253
3. Both Plato and Aristotle were philosophers, both were male, both were from Greece, and both
wrote political works.
4. Plato wrote The Republic, and The Republic was written by an ancient Greek philosopher.
Plato must then be an ancient Greek philosopher.
5. Mary and Ian went together to work on Wednesday, got into an automobile accident, and were
late. Their boss was having a meeting that day, and they missed it.
6. Mary and Ian left for work on Wednesday but decided to go to the movies instead. Their boss
was having a meeting that day, and they missed it. That is why they did not hear about the
layoffs.
7. Mary and Ian, you are irresponsible. You should not have gone to the movies, especially when
you had an important meeting. You should always go to meetings.
8. Mary and Ian drove together to work every day this year and worked. People who go to work
every day and work hard usually do get raises. Thus, Mary and Ian probably will get a raise.
9. Some people do not go to work regularly. For example, Mary and Ian started to go to work on
Wednesday but decided to return home to practice their tennis. This shows poor work habits.
10. Plato believed the Forms were more real than matter. So, Plato has been called an “Idealist.”

Answers
1. Argument
2. Non-argument
3. Non-argument
4. Argument
5. Non-argument
6. Non-argument. This is an explanation.
7. Non-argument
8. Argument
9. Non-argument
10. Non-argument. This is an explanation.

254
Diagramming arguments. Number each premise and conclusion in the following arguments
and diagram the arguments using arrows to indicate the inference from one or more
premises to a conclusion.

1. If Fred is a chemist, then he is detail oriented. If Fred is detail oriented, then he careful. Thus,
if Garcia is a chemist, then he is careful. And if the last statement is true, then Fred will be
successful. Thus, Fred will be successful.

2. Either Sally is a senator, or she is a philosopher and a bridge player. But Sally is not a senator.
Thus, Sally is a philosopher.

3. Every crow ever seen has been black. Ravens are related to crows, and ravens are black. Thus,
the next crow seen will probably be black.

4. All whales are animals, and all whales are mammals. Moby Dick is a whale. Thus, Moby Dick
is an animal and a mammal.

5. Ann gave John a valentine. Then she gave him a present. Then she told him she likes him. It
follows that Ann probably likes John a lot.

Answers
1. (1) If Fred is a chemist, then he is detail oriented. (2) If Fred is detail oriented, then he is
careful. Thus, (3) if Garcia is a chemist, then he is careful. And (4) if the last statement is true,
then Fred will be successful. Thus, (5) Fred will be successful.
(1)+(2)
One arrow from premise group to (3)
(3)+(4)
One arrow from second premise group to (5)
(5)
2. (1) Either Sally is a senator, or she is a philosopher and a bridge player. But (2) Sally is not a
senator. Thus, (3) Sally is a philosopher.

255
(1)+(2)
One arrow from premise group to (3)
(3)
3. (1) Every crow ever seen has been black. (2) Ravens are related to crows, and (3) ravens are
black. Thus, (4) the next crow seen will probably be black.
(1) (2)+(3)
Two separate arrows from (1) and from (2)+(3) to (4)
(4)
4. (1) All whales are animals, and (2) all whales are mammals. (3) Moby Dick is a whale. Thus,
(4) Moby Dick is an animal and a mammal.
(1)+(2)+(3)
One arrow from the premise group to (4)
(4)
5. (1) Ann gave John a valentine. Then (2) she gave him a present. Then (3) she told him she
likes him. It follows that (4) Ann probably likes John a lot.
(1) (2) (3)
Three separate arrows to (4)
(4)

Chapter 3
The Two Basic Types of Argument

True or False?

1. Deductive arguments aim to show that the conclusion must be true.

256
 2. Inductive arguments aim to show not that the conclusion must be true but rather that it is
likely true.

3. Every deductive argument has at least two premises.

4. No inductive argument aims to prove its conclusion with certainty.

5. Mathematical arguments are a type of deductive argument.

6. Cause-and-effect reasoning is a type of deductive argument.

7. Categorical arguments are a common type of deductive argument.

Answers

1. Deductive arguments aim to show that the conclusion must be true.

T
2. Inductive arguments aim to show not that the conclusion must be true but rather that it is
likely true.
T
3. Every deductive argument has at least two premises.
F
4. No inductive argument aims to prove its conclusion with certainty.
T
5. Mathematical arguments are a type of deductive argument.
T
6. Cause-and-effect reasoning is a type of deductive argument.
F
7. Categorical arguments are a common type of deductive argument.
T

Deductive or inductive? Decide by considering the form of reasoning displayed in the

argument.

1. All cats are mammals. All mammals are hairy. Therefore, all cats are hairy.

2. The cheese has turned moldy. Mold is usually caused by organisms in the air. So, the
cheese was left exposed to the air.

3. This car gets 20 mpg. It has ten gallons in its tank. Therefore, it will go two hundred
miles before needing gas.

257
 4. We have always collected a lot of candy on Halloween. Therefore, tomorrow night,
Halloween night, we will collect a lot of candy.

5. Every time in the past that Jan has spoken, she has gone over her time limit. Therefore,
she will speak too long tomorrow night at the awards banquet.

6. If we move to Colorado, then we will ski often. If we ski often, then we will become
better skiers. So, if we move to Colorado, then we will become better skiers.

7. My doctor says this drug is safe. She is an expert in this area. So, the drug is safe.

Answers

1. All cats are mammals. All mammals are hairy. Therefore, all cats are hairy.
D
2. The cheese has turned moldy. Mold is usually caused by organisms in the air. So, the
cheese was left exposed to the air.
I

3. This car gets 20 mpg. It has ten gallons in its tank. Therefore, it will go two hundred
miles before needing gas.
D

4. We have always collected a lot of candy on Halloween. Therefore, tomorrow night,

Halloween night, we will collect a lot of candy.
I

5. Every time in the past that Jan has spoken, she has gone over her time limit. Therefore,
she will speak too long tomorrow night at the awards banquet.
I
6. If we move to Colorado, then we will ski often. If we ski often, then we will become
better skiers. So, if we move to Colorado, then we will become better skiers.
D

7. My doctor says this drug is safe. She is an expert in this area. So, the drug is safe.
I

Are the indicator words below inductive argument indicator words or deductive argument
indicator words?
1. There's a good chance that

258
2. Necessarily
3. Must
4. It's likely that
5. Certainly
6. Probably
7. The chances are high that
8. For sure
9. It may well be that
10. It's guaranteed that

Answers

1. Inductive
2. Deductive
3. Deductive
4. Inductive
5. Deductive
6. Inductive
7. Inductive
8. Deductive
9. Inductive
10. Deductive

For each argument below, decide whether it is inductive or deductive.

1. I am ten feet tall. Therefore, I must be ten feet tall.

2. Either George is an sculptor, or he is a painter. But he is not a sculptor. So, he definitely is a
painter.

259
3. No fish have ever been found in the Dead Sea. So, it is likely that no fish will be caught by us
in the Dead Sea.
4. Some cats are mammals. Some mammals are vertebrates. Consequently, some cats are
vertebrates.
5. The sign at the Mt. Rainier National Park says that it the park was established in 1300. Most
official signs are accurate. Thus, the park was likely established in 1300.
6. No person has ever moved faster than the speed of light. So, the next space flight with people
will probably not go faster than the speed of light.
7. No whales are sharks. No sharks are dolphins. So, it is certain that some sharks are not
dolphins.
8. Every doctor says that we should eat a balanced breakfast. So, we certainly should eat a
balanced breakfast.
9. Almost everyone agrees that pi is an irrational number. So, we probably can conclude that pi is
an irrational number.
10. If Susan is a child, then Susan is a minor. But Susan is not a minor. Thus, Susan is not a
child.
11. Some things in the universe are not made by people. Thus, it is certain that some things in the
universe occur naturally.
12. John lives to the north of Marsha. Fred lives north of John. So, it is certain that Fred lives
north of Marsha.
13. If Stalin was a leader of the Soviet Union, then he was a dictator. Stalin was a dictator. Thus,
Stalin was certainly a leader of the Soviet Union.
14. The traffic at rush hour always moves at about thirty miles an hour. At rush hour I have to
drive to work, which is about thirty miles away. So, it will probably take me about thirty minutes
to drive to work.
15. There is a handwritten note here that says the park is closed. Therefore, the park must be
closed.

Answers
1. Deductive
2. Deductive

260
3. Inductive
4. Deductive
5. Inductive
6. Inductive.
7. Deductive
8. Deductive
9. Inductive
10. Deductive
11. Deductive
12. Deductive
13. Deductive
14. Inductive.
15. Deductive

Chapter 4
How to Evaluate a Deductive Argument

True or False?

1. All valid arguments have all true premises and true conclusions.

2. All sound arguments are valid arguments.

3. If an argument is valid, then it must have at least one true premise.

4. Every valid argument is a sound argument.

5. The following is a valid deductive argument: If it snows, then we will go sledding, just like when
we were kids. It is snowing. So, certainly we will go sledding, just like when we were kids.

6. The following is clearly a valid deductive argument: All rock fish are orange and red. So, if we
catch a rock fish, then it will surely be red and orange.

7. The following is an invalid argument: Jim is at least sixty. Jan is at least as old as Jim. So, Jan is at
least sixty.

261
 8. The following is an invalid argument: Jim is between fifty and sixty years old. Jan is older than
Jim. So, Jan is older than sixty.

9. The following is a valid argument: Britney is a good musician. Christa is a good musician.
Therefore, they will make a good musical duo.

10. The following is a valid argument: Senator Clarke associates with known horologists. Therefore,
the argument he just gave must be an invalid argument.

11. The following is a valid argument: No splogs are crogs. All crogs are blonks. So, no splogs are
blonks.

12. If a deductive argument is invalid, then it must also be unsound.

13. If an argument is invalid, then it must have at least one false premise.

14. If an argument has a conclusion that is certainly false, then the argument must be invalid.

Answers

1. All valid arguments have all true premises and true conclusions.
F
2. All sound arguments are valid arguments.
T
3. If an argument is valid, then it must have at least one true premise.
F
4. Every valid argument is a sound argument.
F
5. The following is a valid deductive argument: If it snows, then we will go sledding, just like when
we were kids. It is snowing. So, certainly we will go sledding, just like when we were kids.
T

6. The following is clearly a valid deductive argument: All rock fish are orange and red. So, if we
catch a rock fish, then it will surely be red and orange.
T
7. The following is an invalid argument: Jim is at least sixty. Jan is at least as old as Jim. So, Jan is at
least sixty.
F

262
 8. The following is an invalid argument: Jim is between fifty and sixty years old. Jan is older than
Jim. So, Jan is older than sixty.
T
9. The following is a valid argument: Britney is a good musician. Christa is a good musician.
Therefore, they will make a good musical duo.
F

10. The following is a valid argument: Senator Clarke associates with known horologists. Therefore,
the argument he just gave must be an invalid argument.
F

11. The following is a valid argument: No splogs are crogs. All crogs are blonks. So, no splogs are
blonks.
F

12. If a deductive argument is invalid, then it must also be unsound.

T

13. If an argument is invalid, then it must have at least one false premise.
F

14. If an argument has a conclusion that is certainly false, then the argument must be invalid.
F

More True-False Questions

1. If the premises and conclusion are all false, the argument must be invalid.
2. Some invalid arguments have true premises and a true conclusion.

Answers
1. False
2. True

Multiple Choice

1. The following is one of the two ways to effectively criticize an argument:

a. Hit the arguer over the head with a broom

263
 b. Make fun of the arguer’s appearance
c. State an argument against one of the argument’s premises
d. Present an argument against the conclusion of the target argument

2. The combination that you will not find in a valid argument is:

a. True premises and a false conclusion

b. True premises and a true conclusion
c. False premises and a false conclusion
d. False premises and a true conclusion
e. None of the above

3. The combination that you will not find in a sound argument is:
a. True premises and a true conclusion
b. True premises and valid reasoning
c. False premises or invalid reasoning
d. All of the above

Answers: 1. c 2. a 3. c

Assume that each of the following is a deductive argument. In each case, is the argument
valid or invalid?

1. Some football coaches are poets. But no poet knows how to play football. So, some
football coaches do not know how to play football.

2. Some cars are purple, and some cars are Chevrolets. So, some cars are purple Chevrolets.

3. If Smith wins, Jones will be happy. However, Smith won't win. So, Jones won't be happy.

4. Only birds are blue. My pet is blue. So, my pet is a bird.

5. Ann and Bob both won't be home. So, Ann won't be home.

6. No aardvarks are reptiles. No reptiles are blue. So, no aardvarks are blue.

7. If Sue wins, then Ed will be happy. If Ed is happy, then George will be happy. So, if Sue
wins, then George will be happy.

Answers

1. Valid

264
2. Invalid

3. Invalid

4. Valid

5. Valid

6. Invalid

7. Valid

For each of the deductive arguments below, determine whether it is valid or invalid.

1. All dogs are wolves. No wolves are insects. So, no dogs are insects.
2. The United States comprises fifty states. Thus, the United States has an even number of states.
3. If John is a bachelor, then John is unmarried. However, John is not a bachelor. Therefore, John
is unmarried.
4. Tigers live underwater. Tigers are mammals. So, some mammals live underwater.
5. Some felines are lions. Therefore, some felines are not lions.
6. Either Susan is not an actress, or she is not a director. However, she is a director.
Consequently, she is not an actress.
7. Bill Gates is now the richest man in the world. So, Bill Gates is now the richest man in the
world.
8. Five is greater than two, and two is greater than three. So, five is greater than two.
9. This drawing is a pentagon. Thus, this drawing has six sides.
10. Some cats are animals. Some cats are Siamese. Therefore, some animals are Siamese.
11. If George plays soccer, then he must be in good physical shape. George is not in good
physical shape. Hence, George must not play soccer.
12. George W. Bush is a Quello. So, George W. Bush must be a Quello.
13. Either Sarah isn't a good actress, or she is a good singer. If Sarah has ever taken acting
lessons, then she's a good actress. Sarah has taken action lessons. So, Sarah is a good singer.
14. Ten is greater than six. Six is greater than twelve. Consequently, ten is greater than twelve.

265
Answers
1. Valid
2. Valid
3. Invalid
4. Valid
5. Invalid
6. Valid
7. Valid
8. Valid
9. Invalid
10. Invalid
11. Valid
12. Valid
13. Valid
14. Valid

Each of the following arguments is an enthymeme. For each of them do the following: (1) State
whether a conclusion or a premise is missing and (2) provide the missing premise or conclusion.
Assume that all of the arguments are valid. So, the premise or conclusion you provide must keep
the argument valid.

1. Because all whales are mammals, orcas are mammals.

2. Mammals have backbones, and insects do not. So, whales have backbones.
3. Anyone who is a Republican is a conservative. Jane is a conservative.
4. Some mammals have fur because bears have fur.
5. All governments enact laws. So, the United States enacts laws.
6. A person can survive only if he or she has eaten enough food. You have survived.
7. Many people have a disease because overconsumption is a disease.
8. Jane is either an actress or a singer. So, Jane is an actress.
9. If Jane is an actress, then she does not perform at The Met, and Jane performs at The Met.
10. Some cows are milked. So, some animals are milked.

266
11. Only people are rational. Consequently, Fido is not rational.
12. No one who exercises is weak. So, people who run every day are not weak.
13. If you like to overeat, then you get overweight. So, you will be unhealthy if you overeat.
14. Amha must be well-educated, because he studies every day.
15. All cows are mammals. So, all cows have lungs.
16. If it hasn't rained, then the corn is parched. The corn is parched.

Answers
1. Premise: All orcas are whales.
2. Premise: Whales are mammals.
3. Premise: Jane is a Republican.
4. Premise: Bears are mammals.
5. Premise: The United States is a government.
6. Conclusion: You have eaten enough food.
7. Premise: Many people overconsume.
8. Premise: Jane is not a singer.
9. Conclusion: Jane is not an actress.
10. Premise: Some cows are animals.
11. Premise: Fido is not a person.
12. Premise: People who run every day exercise.
13. Premise: If you get overweight, then you will be unhealthy.
14. Anyone who studies every day must be well-educated.
15. All mammals have lungs.
16. Premise: It hasn't rained.

Again, each of the following is an enthymeme. In each case, fill in the missing element (i.e., add
a premise or conclusion) so as to turn the enthymeme into a valid deductive argument.

1. All frogs are orange. No orange things are cute. So, ...

2. If it rains, then we’ll go swimming. It will rain. So, ...

3. We will eat either hotdogs or hamburgers. So, we will eat hamburgers.

267
4. All illy pies are hairy. So, all illy pies are warm-blooded.

Answers

1. No frogs are cute.

2. We will go swimming.

3. We won’t eat hotdogs.

4. All hairy things are warm-blooded.

Chapter 5
How to Evaluate an Inductive Argument

True or False?

1. The following is a strong argument: It has been snowing for thirty days straight, and the
prediction is for the snow to continue tomorrow. Thus, tomorrow it will probably snow.

2. The following is a weak argument: It has been snowing for sixty days straight, and the
prediction is for the snow to continue tomorrow. Thus, tomorrow it will probably be a
sunny day.

3. The following is a weak argument: Joe has eaten lunch at the taco stand every day for
two days straight. Thus, tomorrow he will probably eat there again.

4. The following is a strong argument: Sodium burns yellow. This metal burns yellow. So,
this metal is very probably sodium.

5. If an argument is inductively strong, then it must also have all true premises.

6. If an argument is cogent, then it must also be valid.

Answers

1. True

2. True

268
 3. True

4. False

5. False

6. False

Suppose that the following arguments are inductive. In each case, is the argument strong or
weak?

1. Almost every time that Pete has gone to Gorditos restaurant, he has ordered a large taco. He
has eaten there many times. He just left for Gorditos. He will probably order a large taco.

2. Over the past month, Fred has eaten eight burritos at Gorditos. All eight were good. For his
next dinner, he plans to buy another Gordito burrito. His next burrito will likely be good.

3. Professor Smith wore a bright red tie twice last week. He rarely wears a tie. So, he will
probably wear a bright red tie next week.

Answers

1. S
2. S
3. W

Determine whether the following inductive arguments are strong or weak.

1. Yesterday someone told me that driving a diesel truck causes cancer. So, driving a diesel truck
probably causes cancer.

2. Most physicists agree that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light. Thus, it is likely
that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light.

3. We sampled the box of a thousand nails by picking ten of them, and none of them was bent.
So, it is likely that none of the nails in the box is bent.

4. It has snowed on Christmas in our town every year for the past forty years, so it will probably
snow on Christmas this year.

269
5. The tide washed up some garbage onto my beach yesterday, so I conclude that the tide will
wash up some garbage onto my beach tomorrow.

6. I went out to lunch with Yolanda yesterday at the hamburger drive-in, and she ordered a diet
cola. We loved that drive-in's food, so we are going there tomorrow again. Yolanda will
probably order a diet cola again.

7. Numerous studies have shown that people who go to movies once a week do not buy snacks at
the concession stand. Jackie goes to movies once a week, so she probably doesn't buy snacks at
the concession stand.

8. My biology teacher told me that automobiles are designed to break down after 100,000 miles.
So, it's probably true that automobiles are designed to break down after 100,000 miles.

9. Two people from out of town were fined for littering in our town. Consequently, I conclude
that most of the litter in our town is caused by people from out of town.

10. Shawn and Liz went to a romantic comedy last night. Liz liked it, but Shawn didn't.
Therefore, it is likely that Shawn doesn't like romantic comedies, but Liz does.

11. Every Friday night for the past five years Yusif has taken Sherry to an action movie, and
Yusif has noticed that Sherry didn't like the movie. So, it is likely that Sherry won’t like the next
action movie that they go to.

12. When we went to the restaurant last night, we saw that the employees were clearing tables,
mopping the floors, and putting chairs onto the table. Therefore, it is likely that the restaurant
was closing.

13. The sign on the restaurant says that it is closed, so it's likely that the restaurant is closed.

14. Whenever people go to a wedding, they dress up. Whenever they go to a funeral, they dress
up. Whenever they go to the opera, they dress up. Consequently, when they go to a party, they
should dress up.

15. Paul's boss tells him every day that he needs to be more aggressive in his sales pitch to
customers. Paul's coworkers tell him that he should let customers lead the conversation and not
be aggressive. Some of Paul's customers respond well to aggressive sales pitches, but some do
not. Paul is probably feeling confused.

Answers

1. Weak

2. Strong

3. Weak

270
4. Strong

5. Weak

6. Weak

7. Strong

8. Weak

9. Weak

10. Weak

11. Strong

12. Strong

13. Strong

14. Weak

15. Strong

Chapter 6
The Logical Relations and Concluding Matters

True or False?

1. If two sentences are equivalent, then they imply each other.

2. If two sentences are consistent, then both sentences must be true.

271
 3. If P implies Q and Q implies P, then P and Q are equivalent.

4. If P is contingent, then it is possible P is false.

5. If P is necessarily false, then P is contingent.

6. If P implies Q, then Q implies P.

7. Socrates asked a lot of questions.

Answers

1. T
2. F
3. T
4. T
5. F
6. F
7. T

Consistent or inconsistent (C or I)? (Assume the ordinary meanings of the words and assume that
the author is not playing tricks with words. For example, if Jan is referred to twice, assume it is
the same Jan both times and so on.)

1. Someone in room 1410 is twenty. Someone in room 1410 is thirty.

2. Maria is under thirty. Maria is over thirty.

3. Maria is over forty. Maria is thirty.

4. Maria is a Democrat. Maria is Hindu.

In each case, does the first sentence imply the second? Yes (Y) or No (N)

272
 1. Someone is over twenty. Someone is over thirty.

2. Maria is over forty. Maria is over thirty.

3. Maria is a Democrat. Maria is Hindu.

4. Jan is younger than thirty. Jan is younger than sixty.

In each case, does the second imply the first? Yes (Y) or No (N)

1. Someone in room 1410 is over twenty. Someone in room 1410 is over sixteen.

2. Maria is under forty. Maria is under thirty.

3. Maria is over twenty. Maria is under fifteen.

4. Joe is rich. Joe is a socialist.

In each case, are the two sentences equivalent? Yes (Y) or No (N)

1. Someone is over twenty-one. Someone is over twenty.

2. Joe knows Pete. Pete knows Joe.

3. Today is Monday. Today is not Tuesday.

4. Carbon is one of the elements. One of the elements is carbon.

5. No cats are reptiles. No reptiles are cats.

6. No mechanics exist. Nothing in existence is a mechanic.

Answers

C or I?
1. C
2. I
3. I
4. C

Yes or No?
1. N

273
2. Y
3. N
4. Y

Yes or No?
1. N
2. Y
3. N
4. N

Yes or No?
1. N
2. N
3. N
4. Y
5. Y
6. Y

Insert: Rules and Reminders, by Unit

The rules and reminders collected in this insert cover the next four units of the text. As you study
one or more of the remaining units, you may want to create note cards containing the relevant
rules and reminders gathered here.

Categorical Logic Reminders

Sentence Forms

A: Universal Affirmative All S are P

E: Universal Negative No S are P
I: Particular Affirmative Some S are P
O: Particular Negative. Some S are not P

Conversion, Obversion, Contraposition

To Produce the Converse of a Categorical Statement:

Switch the subject and predicate terms.

To Produce the Obverse:

274
 1. Change the quality (without changing the quantity) from affirmative to negative or
negative to affirmative.

2. Replace the predicate term with its term complement.

To Produce the Contrapositive:

1. Switch the subject and predicate.

2. Replace each term with its term complement.

Rules of Validity for Categorical Syllogisms

A categorical syllogism is valid if, and only if, all the following conditions are met:

1. The middle term is distributed in at least one premise.

2. If either term is distributed in the conclusion, it is also distributed in a premise.
3. The syllogism does not contain two negative premises.
4. If one premise is negative, then the conclusion is negative; if the conclusion is negative,
then one premise is negative.

Truth-functional Logic Reminders

Rules for Truth-Functions

 A conjunction (P & Q) is true only when both conjuncts are true; it is false in all other
cases.

 A disjunction (P v Q) is false only when both disjuncts are false; it is true in all other
cases.

 A negation (~P) is false when the sentence negated is true and it is true when the sentence
negated is false.

 A conditional (P  Q) is false only when the antecedent is true and the consequent is
false; it is true in all other cases.

 A biconditional (P ≡ Q) is false only when the left and the right sides have differing truth-
values; it is true when both sides have the same truth-value.

275
 Truth-Table Tests

 A formula is a truth-functional tautology if and only if the final column of its truth-table is all
T’s.

 A formula is a truth-functional contradiction if and only if the final column of its truth-table
is all F’s.

 A formula is truth-functionally contingent if and only if the final column of its truth-table
contains at least one T and at least one F.

 An argument is truth-functionally valid if and only if its truth-table contains no row with all
true premises and a false conclusion.

 An argument is truth-functionally invalid if and only if its truth-table contains at least one
row with all true premises and a false conclusion.

 Two formulas are truth-functionally consistent if and only if the corresponding truth-table
contains at least one row on which both are true.

 A formula P truth-functionally implies a formula Q if and only if there is no row on the

respective truth table showing P true and Q false.
 Two formulas are truth-functionally equivalent if and only if the final columns on their
respective truth-tables match.

Truth-functional Inference Rules

(Chapters 18-19)

Disjunctive Syllogism (DS)

PvQ or P vQ
~P ~Q
Q P

Modus Ponens (MP)

PQ
P

276
Q

Modus Tollens (MT)

P Q
~Q
~P

Hypothetical Syllogism (HS)

PQ or QR
QR P Q
PR P R

Simplification (Simp)

P & Q or P & Q
P Q

Conjunction (Conj)

P
Q
P&Q

Addition (Add)

P
PvQ

Constructive Dilemma (CD)

PQ
RS
PvR
QvS

Indirect Proof (IP)

To prove P : Indent, assume ~ P, derive a contradiction, end the indentation, assert P.

Conditional Proof (CP)

277
To prove a sentence of the form P  Q: Indent, assume P, derive Q, end the indentation, and
assert P  Q.

Truth-functional Replacement Rules

(Chapter 20)

Commutation (Comm)

A formula P v Q may replace, or be replaced by, the corresponding formula Q v P.

A formula P & Q may replace, or be replaced by, the corresponding formula Q & P.

Association (Assoc)

A formula (P v Q) v R may replace, or be replaced with, the corresponding formula P v (Q v

R) .

A formula (P & Q) & R may replace, or be replaced with, the corresponding formula P & ( Q &
R).

Double Negation (DN)

A formula ~ ~ P may replace, or be replaced with, the corresponding formula P.

De Morgan’s rule (DM)

Anywhere in a proof, a formula ~ (P & Q) may replace, or be replaced with, the

corresponding formula ~P v ~ Q.

Anywhere in a proof, a formula ~(P v Q) may replace, or be replaced with, the

corresponding formula ~ P & ~Q.

Distribution (Dist)

A formula P v (Q & R) may replace, or be replaced with, the corresponding formula (P v Q) &
(P v R).

A formula P & (Q v R) may replace, or be replaced with, the corresponding formula (P & Q) v
(P & R).

Transposition (Trans)
278
A formula P  Q may replace, or be replaced with, the corresponding formula ~ Q  ~ P.

Implication (Imp)

A formula P Q may replace, or be replaced with, the corresponding formula ~ P v Q.

Exportation (Exp)

A formula (P & Q )  R may replace, or be replaced with, the corresponding formula P  (Q 

R).

Tautology (Taut)

A formula P may replace, or be replaced with, the corresponding formula P v P.

Equivalence (Equiv)

A formula P  Q may replace, or be replaced with, the corresponding formula ( P  Q ) & ( Q

 P).

A formula P  Q may replace, or be replaced with, the corresponding formula ( P & Q ) v ( ~ P

& ~ Q).

Predicate Logic Reminders

Inference Rules
(Chapter 26)

Universal Instantiation (UI)

From a universal quantification, you can infer any instantiation, provided that the
instantiation was produced by uniformly replacing each occurrence of the variable
that was bound by the quantifier with a constant.

Existential Generalization (EG)

From a sentence containing an individual constant, you may infer any corresponding existential
generalization, provided that (a) the variable used in the generalization does not already occur in
the sentence generalized upon, and (b) the generalization results by replacing at least one

279
occurrence of the constant with the variable used in the generalization, with no other changes
being made.

Existential Instantiation (EI)

From an existential quantification, you may instantiate using any constant, provided that (a) each
occurrence of the variable bound by the quantifier in the existential quantification is uniformly
replaced with a constant and no other changes are made, and (b) the constant used in place of the
variable is completely new to the proof, meaning it does not appear anywhere else in the
argument. Thus, the constant used does not appear in a premise, in a previous line, in the present
line, or in the conclusion.

Special Restriction for Relational Sentences. When applying EI to an existential quantification

containing one or more relational predicates, do not use a constant if the constant already appears
in the existential quantification.

Universal Generalization (UG)

From a sentence containing a constant, one may infer the corresponding universal
generalization, provided that (a) the constant is uniformly replaced by a variable and
no other changes are made, (b) the constant generalized upon does not appear in any
premise of the argument, (c) the constant was not introduced into the proof by EI, (c)
the variable you use in the generalization does not already appear in the sentence
from which you are generalizing; and (d) the constant does not appear in any
assumed premise that has not already been discharged.

Special Restriction for relational sentences. Do not apply UG to a constant when that constant
appears in a relational sentence along with a constant that was introduced into
the proof by EI.

The Quantifier Exchange Rule (QE)

If P is a wff of PL containing either a universal or an existential quantifier, P may be replaced

by, or may replace, a sentence that is exactly like P except that one quantifier has been switched
for the other in accord with the following steps:

1. Switch one quantifier for the other.

2. Negate each side of the quantifier.
3. Cancel out any double negatives that result.

Alternative System Rules

280
Alternative Universal Instantiation Rule (“UI-A”)

From a universal quantification, you may infer any instantiation, provided that the
instantiation was produced by uniformly replacing each occurrence of the variable
that was bound by the quantifier with a constant or a variable.

Alternative Existential Generalization Rule (“EG-A”)

From a sentence containing no quantifier and one or more constants or variables, you
may infer any corresponding existential generalization, provided that (a) the variable
used in the generalization does not already occur in the sentence generalized upon
and (b) the generalization results by replacing at least one occurrence of the constant
or variable with the variable used in the generalization, with no other changes being
made.

Alternative Universal Generalization Rule (“UG-A”)

From a sentence containing no constants and no quantifiers, you may infer the
corresponding universal generalization, provided that (a) the variable is uniformly
replaced by a variable bound by a universal quantifier and (b) no other changes are
made.

Identity Rules
(Chapter 30)

The Self-Identity Rule (SI)

At any step in a proof, you may assert (x) (x = x).

The Indiscernibility of Identity Rule (Leibniz’s Law or LL)

If c and d are two constants in a proof and a line of the proof asserts that the
individual designated by c is identical with the individual designated by d, you may
carry down and rewrite any available line of the proof replacing any or all occurrences
of c with d or any or all occurrences of d with c. A line of a proof is “available” unless
it is within the scope of a discharged assumption.

281
Symmetry of Identity Rule (Sym)

Given a formula c = d, you may infer the corresponding formula d = c

where c and d are variables ranging over constants of PL.

End Insert

Unit 2: Categorical Logic

Chapter 7
Logic Takes Form
Categorical Logic Version 1.0

True or False?

1. Categorical logic is the first specialized branch of logic to be systematized and presented
in textbook form.

2. The A sentence is universal and affirmative.

3. The O sentence is universal and affirmative.

4. The I sentence is universal and negative.

5. The E sentence is particular and affirmative.

6. The O sentence is particular and negative.

Answers
1. T
2. T
3. F
4. F
5. F

282
6. T

Multiple Choice

1. The E sentence is:

a. Universal and affirmative
b. Universal and negative
c. Particular and affirmative
d. Particular and negative

Answer:
b
Translate the following into standard form A, E, I, or O sentences:

1. Many heavy metal rockers have long hair.

Answer: Some heavy metal rockers are persons with long hair.

2. Whales can grow to be pretty big.

Answer: Some whales are big creatures.

3. No illy pies belong to the class of mammals.

Answer: No illy pies are mammals.

4. Prunes are groovy.

Answer: All prunes are groovy things.

5. Quite a few hippies attended the concert.

Answer: Some hippies are persons who attended the concert.

6. Some rockers do not like the Rolling Stones.

Answer: Some rockers are persons who do not like rock ’n’ roll.

7. Many dogs are mean.

Answer: Some dogs are mean animals.

For each sentence below, write (a) the converse, (b) the obverse, (c) the contrapositive.

283
1. All dolphins are mammals.

Answer: Converse: All mammals are dolphins.

Obverse: No dolphins are non-mammals.
Contrapositive: All non-mammals are non-dolphins.

For each sentence below, answer the following:

(a) Is the sentence an A, E, I, or O sentence?

(b) Name the quantity and quality.

1. Some monkeys are not wild animals.

Answer: a. O
b. Particular negative

Use the square of opposition to answer the following questions.

1. Assuming that “All ostriches are pets” is true, what can be inferred about the truth values of
the following (true, false, or undetermined)?

a. No ostriches are pets.

Answer: F

b. Some ostriches are pets.

Answer: T

c. Some ostriches are not pets.

Answer: F

2. Assuming that “No ostriches are pets” is false, what can be inferred about the truth values of
the following (true, false, or undetermined)?

a. All ostriches are pets.

Answer: U

b. Some ostriches are pets.

Answer: T

c. Some ostriches are not pets.

Answer: U

3. Assuming that “Some ostriches are pets” is false, what can be inferred about the truth values
of the following (true, false, or undetermined)?

284
a. All ostriches are pets.
Answer: F

b. No ostriches are pets.

Answer: T

c. Some ostriches are not pets.

Answer: T

Use the traditional square of opposition to decide if the following one-premise arguments
are valid or invalid.

a. It is false that no ostriches are blue. So, some ostriches are blue.
Answer: Valid

b. All ostriches are orange. So, some ostriches are orange.

Answer: Valid

c. It is false that all ostriches are hairy. So, it is true that some ostriches are hairy.
Answer: Invalid

For each of the following pairs of statements, specify whether the two statements are
contradictories, contraries, or subcontraries.

1. All dogs are mammals.

No dogs are mammals.
Answer: contraries

2. No cats are felines.

Some cats are felines.
Answer: contradictories

3. What is the contradictory of "No dolphins are green creatures"?

Answer: Some dolphins are green creatures.

Chapter 8
The Categorical Syllogism
True or False?

1. In a standard categorical syllogism, the minor term appears twice.

285
 2. Every standard categorical syllogism contains exactly one middle term, appearing twice.

3. No standard categorical syllogism contains three premises.

4. Every standard categorical syllogism contains exactly two different terms.

5. A fallacy is an error in reasoning.

6. In the I statement, both terms are distributed.

7. In every case, the converse of an E sentence is equivalent to the original sentence.

8. In every case, the obverse of an A sentence is equivalent to the original sentence.

9. In every case, the contrapositive of an E sentence is equivalent to the original.

10. If an A sentence is true, then the corresponding I sentence must be true.

11. If an O sentence is false, then the corresponding E sentence must be false.

Answers
1. T
2. T
3. T
4. F
5. T
6. F
7. T
8. T
9. F
10. T
11. T

Valid or invalid? Test these syllogisms using the four rules of validity.

(1)
1. All blogs are glogs.
2. All glogs are wogs.
3. So, all wogs are blogs.

(2)

1. No snarks are jarks.

286
 2. No jarks are splarks.
3. So, no snarks are splarks.

(3)

1. Some splarks are blarks.

2. Some blarks are frarks.
3. So, some splarks are frarks.

Answers

1. Invalid
2. Invalid
3. Invalid

Chapter 9
Categorical Logic Version 2.0
Boole, Venn, and the Nineteenth-Century Revolution
in Categorical Logic
True or False?

1. John Venn is the inventor of the method of Venn diagrams.

2. The X in a Venn diagram marks the spot where the treasure is buried, as in, “X marks the
spot.”

3. An X in an area of a Venn diagram means that nothing exists in that area.

4. In the text, the middle term is represented by the top circle.

5. In the text, the minor term is represented by the circle on the bottom left.

6. Aristotle is the inventor of the method of Venn diagrams.

7. George Boole was a friend of Aristotle.

8. Aristotle and Venn fought a duel; Aristotle lost.

9. At the end of the eighteenth century, the German philosopher Kant believed that logic
was basically a completed subject; nothing much left to discover.

287
Answers

1. T
2. F
3. F
4. T
5. T
6. F
7. F
8. F
9. T

Multiple Choice

1. A Venn diagram for a categorical syllogism contains ___ regions.

a. Three
b. Sixteen
c. Five
d. Seven
e. Eight

Answer
e

Use Venn diagrams to test the following arguments for validity. Assume the Aristotelian
standpoint.

1. All truckers are happy persons. No prisoners are happy persons. Thus, no prisoners are truckers.

2. No snowboarders are rich. No rich persons are MTV fans. So, no snowboarders are MTV fans.

3. All blogs are glogs. All glogs are wogs. So, all wogs are blogs.

4. No snarks are jarks. No jarks are splarks. So, no snarks are splarks.

5. Some splarks are blarks. Some blarks are frarks. So, some splarks are frarks.

Answers:

288
1. Valid
2. Invalid
3. Invalid
4. Invalid
5. Invalid

Sorites Problems

Test this sorites with Venn diagrams. Assume the Aristotelian standpoint.

Some government officials are ambassadors. All ambassadors are tactful individuals. All
government officials are people in public life. So, some people in public life are tactful
individuals.

Answer: Valid

Use Venn diagrams to test the following sorites for validity:

All ambassadors are tactful individuals.

Some government officials are ambassadors.

So, some government officials are tactful individuals.

Some government officials are tactful individuals.

All government officials are people in public life.

So, some people in public life are tactful individuals.

289
Valid

Valid

Use Venn diagrams to test the following sorites for validity:

No students of psychology are happy persons.

All energetic persons are happy persons.

All athletes are energetic persons.

So, no athletes are students of psychology.

No students of psychology are happy persons.

All energetic persons are happy persons.

So, no students of psychology are energetic persons.

No students of psychology are energetic persons.

All athletes are energetic persons.

290
So, no athletes are students of psychology.

Answer:

Valid

Valid

Fun with Enthymemes

In the following enthymemes, supply missing premises or missing conclusions. In each case,
try to supply missing elements in such a way that the result is a valid argument.

Men are from Mars, and women are from Venus. So, Pat is from Venus.

Nobody who eats fatty food is healthy. So, people who eat hamburgers aren’t healthy.

Answers

Pat is a woman.

291
A hamburger is a fatty food.

Unit 3: Truth-Functional Logic

Chapter 10
Think Like a Stoic!
Truth-Functional Logic Version 1.0

True or False?

1. A function is a rule relating one set of values to another set of values.

2. Truth-functional logic was founded by Aristotle.

3. Some compound sentences contain two sentence operators.

4. An operator is truth functional if it forms a sentence whose truth value is a function of the truth
values of its component or components.

5. The Stoics founded their school on a porch.

6. The Stoics were ancient Egyptian philosophers.

7. The Stoic school of philosophy was founded in Concord, Massachusetts, in 1860.

8. In the case of a truth-functional compound sentence, if we know the truth values of the
component(s), then we can compute the truth value of the compound.

9. No interrogative sentence is ever true or false.

10. The conjunction operator is dyadic.

11. The disjunction operator is monadic.

12. If a conjunction is true, then each of its conjuncts must be true, too.

292
 13. If a disjunction is true, then each of its disjuncts must be true, too.

14. It is possible that a conditional is true while at the same time its antecedent and consequent are
both false.

15. It is possible that a conditional is true while at the same time its antecedent is true and its
consequent is false.

16. A truth-functional argument is an argument that is true.

17. The truth value of a truth-functional compound is determined by the time of day in addition to
the truth values of the components.

18. Some compound sentences are not truth functional.

Answers

1. T

2. F

3. T

4. T

5. T

6. F

7. F

8. T

9. T

10. T

11. F

293
 12. T

13. F

14. T

15. F

16. F

17. F

18. T

For each of the following, list the operators:

If Joy went to work early, then either Suzie was wrong about the time or Fred went to work
early; and Joy did not go to work late.

Answer: If, then, or, and, not

True or false? For each, write T or F.

1. If the left conjunct is true and the right conjunct is false, then the conjunction as a whole is ...

2. If the left disjunct is true and the right disjunct is false, then the disjunction as a whole is ...

3. If the antecedent is true and the consequent is false, then the conditional as a whole is ...

4. If the antecedent is false and the consequent is true, then the conditional as a whole is ...

Answers: 1. F 2. T 3. F 4. T

How many operators does each sentence contain?

1. It is not the case that if Ann swims then Harold will not swim.

2. If it is not the case that Ed swims, then neither Ann nor Bob swims; but Joe swims.

294
 3. If Bob or Joe swims, then Ed and Ann swim; however, Julie does not swim.

Answers:

1. Three operators. 2. Five. 3. Five

Chapter 11
Truth-Functional Logic Version 1.1
Stoic Logic Takes Form

True or False?

1. An argument form is a pattern of reasoning that many different arguments, about many
different subjects, may instantiate.

2. Some argument forms are valid; others are invalid.

3. All argument forms are valid.

4. A valid argument form is one in which every instance is a valid argument.

5. Every instance of any argument form is a valid argument.

6. Every instance of a valid argument form is a valid argument.

7. An argument might fit, or instantiate, more than one form.

8. An argument form is all content and no form.

9. An argument form is all form and no content.

295
 10. Formal logic studies (among other things) argument forms.

Answers

1. T

2. T

3. F

4. T

5. F

6. T

7. T

8. F

9. T

10. T

Examine the following abbreviated arguments. In each case, state the form that the argument
instantiates. In each case, the first two sentences are premises, the third is the conclusion.

1. If A, then B 2. If A, B 3. If I, O 4. If A, N 5. If H, S 6. If A, B
If B, then C Not B If O, C Not A S A
If A, then C Not A If I, C Not N H B

Answer
HS MT HS DA AC MP

7. If E, A 8. If A, B 9. If not H, not S 10. If A and B, S 11. H or not S

If A, K If B, I Not H Not S Not H
If E, K If A, I Not S Not both A and B Not S

Answer
HS HS DA MT DS

296
12. If A and B, then F or B 13. If E or S, U and T 14. H or not S 15. A or not B
A and B Not both U and T Not H Not A
F or B Not both E or S Not S Not B

Answer
MP MT DS DS

16. H and B or not M 17. If A and B, then E 18. If A and B, then E or C

Not both H and B If E, then R or S If E or C, then T
Not M If A and B, then R or S If A and B, then T

Answer
DS HS HS

In each of the following symbolized arguments, the premises are the formulas above the line and
the conclusion is the formula below the line. Which of the following is an instance of the form
named (note: some arguments below are not instances of a valid form):

a. modus ponens b. modus tollens c. hypothetical syllogism d. disjunctive syllogism

1. If A, B 2. If A, B 3. A or B 4. A or B 5. If A, B 6. If H, B
If B, C Not A Not B Not A Not B H
If C, A Not B Not A B Not A B

7. If A, B 8. If not A, not B 9. If D, H 10. If H, J 11. If K, S

If B, C If not B, not C Not D J ~S
If A, C If not A, not C Not H Not H ~K

12. If J, E or B 13. If H,S or B 14. S or B 15. If H, M 16. K or B

J Not: S orB S If M, G Not K
E or B Not H B If H, G B

Answer

a. modus ponens: 6, 12
b. modus tollens: 5, 11, 13
c. hypothetical syllogism: 7, 8, 15
d. disjunctive syllogism: 4, 16

297
 Chapter 12
Truth-Functional Logic Version 2.0
The Invention of Formal Languages in the Nineteenth
Century

True or False?

1. If the main connective is “or,” then the sentence is a disjunction.

2. If the main connective is “If, then,” then the sentence is a conjunction.

3. The biconditional operator was not used in ancient logic; it was introduced in modern times.

4. It is possible that a conjunction is true while each of its conjuncts is at the same time false.

5. The conditional operator was introduced (into logic) in ancient times.

Answers

1. T

2. F

3. T

4. F

5. T

I. In each case, is the expression a WFF or not? Write “WFF” or “not a WFF.”

1. ~ (~R & ~E)

2. AB & G

Answers: 1: WFF 2: not a WFF

298
 Chapter 13
From English to TL
Techniques for Great Translations
True or False?

In the following questions, assume that an accurate translation gives every English
operator its TL equivalent.

1. Assuming obvious abbreviations, an accurate translation of “Neither Aribo nor Blobbo is

swimming” would be: ~(A v B).

2. Assuming obvious abbreviations, an accurate translation of “If either Aribo or Blobbo is not
swimming, then Gloppo is not swimming” would be: (~A v ~B)  G.

3. Assuming obvious abbreviations, an accurate translation of “Aribo or Blobbo is not swimming”

would be: (~A ‫~ ﬤ‬B).

4. Assuming obvious abbreviations, an accurate translation of “Both Aribo and Blobbo are not
swimming” would be: ~(A ‫ ﬤ‬B).

5. Assuming obvious abbreviations, an accurate translation of “Neither Aribo nor Blobbo is

swimming” would be: ~(A ‫ ﬤ‬B).

6. Assuming obvious abbreviations, an accurate translation of “It is not the case that both Aribo
and Blobbo are not swimming” would be: ~(~A ‫~ ﬤ‬B).

7. Assuming obvious abbreviations, an accurate translation of “If it is not the case that both Aribo
and Blobbo are swimming, then Joe is not swimming” would be: ~(A & B) ‫ ﬤ‬J.

8. Assuming obvious abbreviations, an accurate translation of “If it is not the case that both Aribo
and Blobbo are not swimming, then either Joe is swimming or Sue is swimming” would be: ~(~A
& ~B) ‫( ﬤ‬J v S).

9. Assuming obvious abbreviations, an accurate translation of “If it is not the case that both Aribo
and Blobbo are not swimming, then either Joe is not swimming or Sue is not swimming” would
be: ~(A & B) & (J v S).

299
 10. Assuming obvious abbreviations, an accurate translation of “Either it is not the case that both
Aribo and Blobbo are swimming, or Joe and Sue are not both swimming” would be: ~(A & B) v
~(J & S).

11. Assuming obvious abbreviations, an accurate translation of “The presence of onions and lettuce
is sufficient for this to be a good sandwich” would be: G ‫( ﬤ‬O & L).

12. Assuming obvious abbreviations, an accurate translation of “The presence of onions and lettuce
is necessary for this to be a good sandwich” would be: (O & L) ‫ ﬤ‬G.

13. Assuming obvious abbreviations, an accurate translation of “The car will be ready only if the
new part arrives in time” would be: ~C ‫~ ﬤ‬N.

14. The following two sentences are logically equivalent: ~(A v B), ~A & ~ B.

15. The following two sentences are logically equivalent: ~(A & B), ~A v ~ B.

16. The following two sentences are logically equivalent: “Although Ann is not home, Joe is home.”
“Ann is not home; nevertheless, Joe is home.”

Answers

1. T
2. T

3. F

4. F

5. F

6. F

7. F

8. T

9. F

300
 10. T

11. F

12. F

13. F

14. T

15. T

16. T

Multiple Choice

1. Assuming obvious abbreviations, which of the following would be an accurate translation

of “Neither Ann nor Bob is home”?

a. ~(A & B)
b. ~(A ‫ ﬤ‬B)
c. ~A v ~B
d. ~(A v B)

2. Assuming obvious abbreviations, which of the following would be an accurate translation

of “It is not the case that Ann and Bob are both home”?

a. ~(A & B)
b. ~(A ‫ ﬤ‬B)
c. ~A v ~B
d. ~(A v B)

3. Assuming obvious abbreviations, which of the following would be a logically equivalent

translation of “It is not the case that either Ann or Bob is home”?

a. ~(A v B)
b. ~(A ‫ ﬤ‬B)
c. ~A & ~B
d. ~A v ~B
e. Both a and c

4. Assuming obvious abbreviations, which of the following would be an accurate translation

of “Ann will swim unless Bob is swimming”?

301
 a. ~(A & B)
b. A ‫ ﬤ‬B
c. A v B
d. ~(A v B)

5. Assuming obvious abbreviations, which of the following would be an accurate translation

of “Although Ann is not home, Bob is home”?

a. ~(A & B)
b. ~ A & B
c. ~A v B
d. ~(A v B)

Answers

1. d
2. a
3. e
4. c
5. b

Symbolize the following in TL:

1. If either Dave or Ed is home, then Chris will be home.

2. Either Ann and Bob both won't go, or Chris and Ed will go.

3. If Buddy Holly and Ricky Nelson perform, then the Animals and Cream will
perform.

4. Donovan and Elvis will sing if and only if admission is free.

5. Either Pete or Joe won’t go swimming.

Answers

1. (D v E)  C
2. (~A & ~B) v (C & E)
3. (B & R)  (A & C)

302
 4. (D & E)  A
5. ~P v ~J

More Translations

Symbolize the following, using obvious abbreviations.

1. If either Ann swims or Bob swims or Charlie swims, then neither Dave nor Ed will swim; but Rita
will swim no matter who swims.

2. Ed and Ann both quit their jobs; however, neither Dave nor Chris quit.

3. If it's the case that Sue swims, then it's the case that if Dave swims, then Joe will swim.

4. Either Ed will enter, or Ann and Bob will enter if and only if Sue and Harold both do not enter.

Answers

1. {[(A v B) v C] ‫(~ ﬤ‬D v E)} & R

2. (E & A) & ~(D v C)

3. S ‫( ﬤ‬D ‫ ﬤ‬J)

4. E v [(A & B) ≡ (~S & ~H)

Translate the following argument from English into TL. Identify the conclusion.

1. If Blofeld is arrogant, then he will toy with Bond and not kill him. If Blofeld does not kill him,
then Bond will escape and destroy him utterly. Blofeld is not arrogant. Therefore, Bond will
destroy him utterly. (B, T, K, E, D)

Answer: B  (T & ~K), ~K  (E & D), ~B. Conclusion: D

Yet More Translations!

303
Use obvious abbreviations:

1. Either Dave or Ed will swim only if neither Sue nor Rita swims.

2. We'll go to New York only if it's snowing.

Answers

1. (D v E) ~(S v R)

2. G ‫ ﬤ‬S

Chapter 14
Truth-Table Analysis 1
Truth Tables for the Operators

True or False?

1. A conjunction is false only when both conjuncts are false.

2. A disjunction is true only when both disjuncts are true.

3. A negation is always false when the sentence negated is false.

4. If the left conjunct is true and the right conjunct is false, then the conjunction is ...

5. If the left disjunct is true and the right disjunct is false, then the disjunction is ...

6. If the antecedent is true and the consequent is true, then the conditional is true.

Answers

1. F
2. F
304
3. F
4. F
5. T
6. T

Multiple Choice
1. Which of the following principles sums up the truth table for conjunction?

a. A conjunction is true when both conjuncts are true; otherwise it is false.

b. A conjunction is false when both conjuncts are false; otherwise it is true.

c. A conjunction is true when one conjunct is true; otherwise it is false.

2. Which of the following principles sums up the truth table for disjunction?

a. A disjunction is true when both disjuncts are true; otherwise it is false.

b. A disjunction is false when both disjuncts are false; otherwise it is true.

c. A disjunction is true when one disjunct is true; otherwise it is false.

Answers

1. a

2. b

Identify the main connective.

1. A v (B  H)

Answer: v

2. ~ (H & G) v R

Answer: v

305
 3. A & ~(B  H)

Answer: &

4. ~ (J v B)  ~(R & E)

Answer: 

Chapter 15
Truth-Table Analysis 2
Testing Sentences for Logical Status

True or False?

1. The final column under a tautology will be all Ts.

2. The final column under a contingent sentence will be all Ts.

3. If the final column is a mix of Ts and Fs, then the formula is contingent.

Answers

1. T
2. F
3. T

306
Use the method of truth tables to test the following sentences for logical status.

1. [(A v B) & ~H] v ~[(A v B) & ~H]

2. ~(~O & ~U) & (~O & ~U)

3. ~[ (U v G) & ~K]

Results

1. Tautology: The final column is all Ts.

2. Contradiction: The final column is all Fs.
3. Contingent: The final column is a mix of Ts and Fs.

Chapter 16
Truth-Table Analysis 3
Testing Arguments for Validity

True or False?

1. If one row on a truth table shows all true premises and a true conclusion, then the argument on
top of the table must be valid.

2. If one row on a truth table shows all false premises and a false conclusion, then the argument on
top of the table must be invalid.

Answers

307
1. F
2. F

Use the method of truth tables to test the following arguments for validity.

(1)

1. ~A ~B
2. ~ ~B / ~ ~A

(2)
1. ~D v ~E
2. ~ ~D / ~E

(3)

1. ~A  ~W
2. ~W  ~O / A  O

(4)

1. ~A  ~W
2. ~W  ~O / O  A

(5)

1. O  U
2. O v D
3. D  Z / U v Z

(6)
1. ~O  ~U
2. ~O v ~D
3. ~D  ~Z / ~U v ~Z

Results

1. Valid. No row of the table shows all true premises and a false conclusion.
2. Valid. No row of the table shows all true premises and a false conclusion.
3. Invalid. At least one row of the table shows all true premises and a false conclusion.
4. Valid. No row of the table shows all true premises and a false conclusion.

308
5. Valid. No row of the table shows all true premises and a false conclusion.
6. Valid. No row of the table shows all true premises and a false conclusion.

Chapter 17
Truth-Table Analysis 4
Relations

1. Use a truth table to determine whether the following two WFFs are equivalent or not
equivalent.

~(~A & ~B) (A v B)

Answer: equivalent

2. Use a truth table to determine whether the following two WFFs are equivalent or not
equivalent.

~(A & B) ~A & ~B

Answer: not equivalent

3. Use a truth table to determine whether the following two WFFs are equivalent or not
equivalent.

~(A v B) ~A & ~B

Answer: equivalent

4. Use a truth table to determine whether the following two WFFs are equivalent or not
equivalent.

A  B ~A v B

Answer: equivalent

Chapter 18
309
 Modern Truth-Functional
Natural Deduction Part 1
The First Four Rules
True or False?

1. Using HS one may validly derive A ‫ ﬤ‬B from A ‫ ﬤ‬E and E ‫ ﬤ‬B.

2. Using HS one may validly derive A ‫ ﬤ‬Z from A ‫ ﬤ‬E and E ‫ ﬤ‬Z.

3. Using HS one may validly derive A ‫( ﬤ‬O & G) from A ‫ ﬤ‬Z and Z ‫( ﬤ‬O & G).

4. Using MP one may validly derive B v C from A ‫( ﬤ‬B v C) and A.

5. Using MP one may validly derive ~B from ~A ‫~ ﬤ‬B and ~A.

6. Using DS one may validly derive ~A from A v B and ~B.

7. Using DS one may validly derive (G & J) from ~A v (G & J) and ~~A.

8. Using MT one may validly derive ~(W v G) from A ‫( ﬤ‬W v G) and ~A.

Answers

1. T
2. T
3. T
4. T
5. T
6. F
7. T
8. F

For Review and Practice

This exercise is a good “prep” for natural deduction.

310
Match forms and instances:

Form A: ~(P v Q)
Form B: P  (Q v R)

Possible instances:

1. ~A v B
2. ~(~A v ~B)
3. AvB
4. ~(A & B) v (A v G)
5. B ~(H v S)
6. ~A  (S v ~G)
7. M (~H v ~M)
8. S (H & R)
9. ~[(A v B) v (G & H)]

Answers

Instances of form A: 2, 9
Instances of form B: 6, 7

Proofs!

Provide proofs, using only the first four rules. Remember: Most valid arguments can be proven
valid in more than one way.

(1) 1. A  S
2. R  A
3. S  G
4. (R  G)  B
5. B  X / X

Answer: 6. R  S HS 1, 2
7. R  G HS 3, 6
8. B MP 4, 7
9. X MP 5, 8

(2) 1. A M
2. ~M
3. A v K

311
 4. K  S
5. S  ~D / ~D

Answer: 6. ~A MT 1, 2
7. K DS 3, 6
8. S MP 4, 7
9. ~D MP 5, 8

(3) 1. ~A v B
2. ~ ~A
3. B  ~J
4. S  J / ~S

Answer:

5. B DS 1, 2
6. ~J MP 3, 5
7. ~S MT 4, 6

(4) 1. ~H
2. G (A  H)
3. S v G
4. ~S / ~A

Answer: 5. G DS 3, 4
6. A  H MP 2, 5
7. ~A MT 1, 6

(5)
1. J ‫ ﬤ‬L
2. L ‫ ﬤ‬O
3. (J ‫ ﬤ‬O) ‫~ ﬤ‬K / ~K

Answer:

4. J ‫ ﬤ‬O HS 1, 2
5. ~K MP 3, 4

(6)

312
 1. OvC
2. I ‫~ ﬤ‬O
3. M‫ﬤ‬I
4. M/C

Answer:

5. I MP 3, 4
6. ~O MP 2, 5
7. C DS 1, 6

(7)

1. H ‫( ﬤ‬J v L)
2. W ‫(~ ﬤ‬J v L)
3. UvW
4. ~U
5. H v ~D / ~D

Answer:

6. W DS 3, 4
7. ~(J v L) MP 2, 6
8. ~H MT 1, 7
9. ~D DS 5, 8

(8)

1. O ‫~ ﬤ‬L
2. ~ ~L
3. O v ~J
4. I ‫ ﬤ‬J / ~I

Answer:

5. ~O MP 1, 2
6. ~J DS 3, 5
7. ~I MT 4, 6

(9) 1. R ‫ ﬤ‬H
2. H ‫ ﬤ‬S

313
 3. S ‫ ﬤ‬G
4. (R ‫ ﬤ‬G) ‫ ﬤ‬F / F
Answer:
5. R ‫ ﬤ‬S HS 1, 2
6. R ‫ ﬤ‬G HS 3, 5
7. F MP 4, 6
(10) 1. A ‫( ﬤ‬B ‫ ﬤ‬E)
2. A
3. ~ E / ~ B
Answer:
4. B ‫ ﬤ‬E MP 1, 2
5. ~ B MT 3, 4

Supplement:

An Informal Interpretation of the Inference Rules

You are allowed to informally call a sentence P the negation of the corresponding sentence ~P, and vice
versa. (So, just as a sentence P counts as the negation of the corresponding sentence ~P, the formula
~P counts equally as the negation of the corresponding sentence P.) So, for example, A may be
considered the negation of ~A, and (vice versa) ~A is the negation of A. Likewise, B may be considered
the negation of ~B, and vice versa, ~B is the negation of B; (H v O) may be considered the negation of
~(H v O), and so on.

You are also allowed to interpret the inference rules informally as follows:

Modus Tollens (MT), Formal Statement:

From: P  Q

From: ~Q

Infer: ~P

Informal Interpretation of MT:

314
1. From a formula of the form P  Q

2. And the corresponding formula that is the negation of the Q.

3. You may infer the corresponding formula that is the negation of the P.

This informal interpretation allows the usual inference:

1.A  B

2.~B

3.~A

The informal interpretation also allows the following inference:

1.~A  ~B

2. B

3. A

Likewise, you may informally interpret Disjunctive Syllogism (DS):

Disjunctive Syllogism (DS), Formal Statement:

From: P v Q

From: ~P

Infer: Q

Informal Interpretation of DS:

1. From a formula of the form P v Q

2. And the corresponding formula that is the negation of the P

3. You may infer the corresponding formula Q.

This informal interpretation allows the usual inference:

1. A v B

2. ~A

3. B

The informal interpretation also allows the following inference:

315
1.~A v B

2. A

3. B

And so on for the rest of the rules. In any rule, where applicable, you may consider P as the negation of
~P, and vice versa, and you may interpret the rule in line with the above.

Chapter 19
Truth-Functional Natural Deduction Part 2
Four More Inference Rules

Using the first eight rules, provide proofs of the following:

(1) 1. S v G
2. H v B
3. ~S & ~H
4. (G & B)  ~K
5. J  K / ~J

Answer:

6. ~S Simp 3
7. G DS 1, 6
8. ~H Simp 3
9. B DS 2, 8
10. G & B Conj 7, 9
11. ~K MP 4, 10
12. ~J MT 5, 11

(2) 1. A  H
2. G S
3. K v (A v G)
4. S ~K
5. S & D
6. (H v S)  J / J v B

316
Answer:

7. S Simp 5
8. ~K MP 4, 7
9. A v G DS 3, 8
10. H v S CD 1, 2, 9
11. J MP 6, 10
12. J v B Add 11

(3) 1. W v H
2. (Q  H) & (S  A)
3. (W  Q) & (H  S)
4. (H v A)  Z / Z

Answer:

5. W  Q Simp 3
6. H  S Simp 3
7. Q v S CD 1, 5, 6
8. Q  H Simp 2
9. S  A Simp 2
10. H v A CD 7, 8, 9
11. Z MP 4, 10

(4) 1. H  I
2. J  G
3. ~I & J
4. (~H & G)  ~K
5. K v B / B

Answer:

6. ~I Simp 3
7. ~H MT 1, 6
8. J Simp 3
9. G MP 2, 8
10. ~H & G Conj 7, 9
11. ~K MP 4, 10
12. B DS 5, 11

(5) 1. [A  (B & C)]  H

2. Z  (B & C)

317
 3. A  Z / H v R

Answer:

4. A  (B & C) HS 2, 3
5. H MP 1, 4
6. H v R Add 5

(6) 1. (H v G)  (A  P)
2. (~P v B) (S  H)
3. P v S
4. ~P / ~A

Answer:

5. S DS 3, 4
6. ~P v B Add 4
7. S  H MP 2, 6
8. H MP 5, 7
9. H v G Add 8
10. A  P MP 1, 9
11. ~A MT 10, 4

(7) 1. (A  S)  G
2. A  Q
3. G  B
4. Q  S / B & G

Answer:

5. A  S HS 2, 4
6. G MP 1, 5
7. B MP 3, 6
8. B & G Conj 6, 7

For each of the following, identify the rule of inference underlying the reasoning.

1. Ann is a bank president. Ed is a lawyer. So, Ann is a bank president, and Ed is a lawyer.

318
 2. If it is necessary that all uncles are males, then it is possible that all uncles are males. It is
necessary that all uncles are males. So, it is possible that all uncles are males.

Answers

1. Conjunction

2. Modus ponens

More Proofs
1. (A  J) & X

2. F v (J  F)

3. ~F / ~A v Z

Answer:

4. J F DS 2, 3

5. A J Simp 1

6. A  F HS 4, 5

7. ~A MT 3, 6

8. ~A v Z Add 7

1. (J  I) & (R  S)

2. J v R

3. (I  R) & (S  A)

4. (R v A)  E / E

Answer:

5. J I Simp 1

6. R S Simp 1

7. I v S CD 2, 5, 6

319
8. I  R Simp 3

9. S A Simp 3

10. R v A CD 7, 8, 9

11. E MP 4, 10

1. (J  I) & (~ J  S)

2. I  B

3. [(J  I) & (I  B)]  [(J & B) v (~ J & ~ B)]

4. (J & B)  A

5. (~ J & ~ B)  H / A v H

Answer:

6. J I Simp 1

7. (J I) & (I  B) Conj 2, 6

8. (J & B) v (~J & ~B) MP 3, 7

9. Av H CD 4, 5, 8

1. A  B

2. ~ B & I

3. ~ S v ~ G

4. (~ A & ~ B)  [(~ S  A) & (~ G  X)] / X

Answer:

5. ~B Simp 2

6. ~A MT 1, 5

7. ~A & ~B Conj 5, 6

8. (~S ‫ ﬤ‬A) & (~G ‫ ﬤ‬X) MP 4, 7

320
9. ~S ‫ ﬤ‬A Simp 8

10. ~G ‫ ﬤ‬X Simp 8

11. A v X CD 3, 9, 10

12. X DS 6, 11

1. I v J

2. ~ I

3. (~ I v F)  (J  M)

4. (M v H)  (S  I) / ~ S

Answer:

5. J DS 1, 2

6. ~I v F Add 2

7. J ‫ ﬤ‬M MP 3, 6

8. M MP 5, 7

9. M v H Add 8

10. S ‫ ﬤ‬I MP 4, 9

11. ~S MT 10, 2

1. (A v B)  [(E  G) & (J  I)]

2. (A v E)  (E v J)

3. A & B / G v I

Answer:

4. A Simp 3

5. A v B Add 4

6. (E ‫ ﬤ‬G) & (J ‫ ﬤ‬I) MP 1, 5

321
7. A v E Add 4

8. E v J MP 2, 7

9. E ‫ ﬤ‬G Simp 6

10. J ‫ ﬤ‬I Simp 6

11. G v I CD 9, 10, 8

1. ~ A & B

2. ~ A & (J v ~ I)

3. (J  S) & (~ I  ~ H)

4. (S  A) & (~ H  ~ Z) / ~ Z

Answer:

5. ~A Simp 1

6. J v ~I Simp 1

7. J  S Simp 3

8. ~I  ~H Simp 3

9. S v ~H CD 6, 7, 8

10. S  A Simp 4

11. ~H ‫~ ﬤ‬Z Simp 4

12. A v ~Z CD 9, 10, 11

13. ~Z DS 5, 12

322
 Chapter 20
Truth-Functional Deduction Part 3
Replacement Rules

Use the inference rules and the first five replacement rules to prove the following arguments
valid.

(1) 1. Y & (A v G)
2. (Y & A)  S
3. (Y & G)  K / S v K

Answer:

4. (Y & A) v (Y & G) Dist 1

5. S v K CD 2, 3, 4

Use any of the replacement and inference rules to prove the following.

(1) 1. W v ~S
2. ~W v G
3. (S  G)  Z / Z

Answer:

4. ~W  ~S Imp 1
5. W  G Imp 2
6. ~G  ~W Trans 5
7. ~G  ~S HS 4, 6
8. S  G Trans 7
9. Z MP 3, 8

(2) 1. A  I
2. (~ I  ~ A)  W
3. M  ~ W / ~ M

Answer:

4. ~I  ~A Trans 1
5. W MP 2, 4
6. ~~W DN 5

323
7. ~M MT 3, 6

Prove this valid:

1. (A v B)  ~ (H v E)

2. A v (B & H)

3. (A & ~ E)  (P & Q) / Q v X

Answer:

4. (A v B) & (A v H) Dist 2

5. A v B Simp 4

6. ~(H v E) MP 1, 5

7. ~H & ~E DM 6

8. A v H Simp 4

9. ~H Simp 7

10. A DS 8, 9

11. ~E Simp 7

12. A & ~E Conj 10, 11

13. P & Q MP 3, 12

14. Q Simp 13

15. Q v X Add 14

Translate and prove valid:

Annette will make the scene at the beach if and only if Frankie hangs ten in the big
surfing competition. Therefore, either Annette will not make the scene, or Frankie will
hang ten.

Answer

1. A  F / ~A v F
2. (A  F) & (F  A) Equiv 1

324
3. A  F Simp 2
4. ~A v F Imp 3

Translate and prove valid:

If Euathlus wins his case in court, then he does not have to pay Protagoras. If Euathlus
does not win his case in court, then he does not have to pay Protagoras. Therefore, he
does not have to pay Protagoras.

Answer

1. E  ~P
2. ~E  ~P / ~P
3. P  ~E Trans 1
4. P  ~P HS 2, 3
5. ~P v ~P Imp 4
6. ~P Taut 5

Prove valid using replacement rules plus inference rules.

1. R v S

2. ~ (A & R)

3. ~ (A & S) / ~ A

Answer:

4. ~A v ~R DM 2

5. ~A v ~S DM 3

6. (~A v ~R) & (~A v ~S) Conj 4, 5

7. ~A v (~R & ~S) Dist 6

8. ~(~R & ~S) DM 1

9. ~A DS 7, 8

1. (A v B)  ~ E
325
2. (H & A) v (B & E) / A

Answer:

3. [(H & A) v B] & [(H & A) v E] Dist 2

4. (H & A) v B Simp 3

5. B v (H & A) Comm 4

6. (B v H) & (B v A) Dist 5

7. B v A Simp 6

8. A v B Comm 7

9. ~E MP 1, 8

10. (H & A) v E Simp 3

11. H & A DS 9, 10

12. A Simp 11

1. ~ (A v B)

2. (~ B v C)  (E & G)

3. S  ~ G / ~ S v X

Answer:

4. ~A & ~B DM 1

5. ~B Simp 4

6. ~B v C Add 5

7. E & G MP 2, 6

8. G Simp 7

9. ~S MT 3, 8

10. ~S v X Add 9

326
1. A  (B v C)

2. ~ (B & E)

3. ~ (C v ~ E) / ~ A

Answer:

4. ~Bv~E DM 2

5. ~C & E DM 3

6. ~C Simp 5

7. E Simp 5

8. ~B DS 4, 7

9. ~B & ~C Conj 6, 8

10. ~(B v C) DM 9

11.~A MT 1, 10

1. Q v R

2. [(P v Q) v R]  ~ S

3. H  S / ~ H

Answer:

4. (Q v R) v P Add 1

5. P v (Q v R) Comm 4

6. (P v Q) v R Assoc 5

7. ~S MP 2, 6

8. ~H MT 3, 7

1. ~(A & B)
2. S  B
3. S v ~J

327
4. J /~A
Answer:

5. ~A v ~B DM 1
6. ~J v S Comm 3
7. ~ ~J DN4
8. S DS 3, 7
9. B MP 2, 8
10. ~B v ~A Comm 5
11. ~ ~B DN 9
12. ~ A DS 10, 11

1. ~(A v B)
2. B v ~E
3. J  E / ~J

Answer:

4. ~A & ~B DM 1
5. ~B Simp 4
6. ~E DS 2, 5
7. ~J MT 3, 6

1. A v (B v D)
2. ~(D v C)
3. ~(A v B) v S /S

Answer:

4. ~D & ~C DM 2
5. (A v B) V D Assoc 1
6. D v (A v B) Comm 5
7. ~D Simp 4
8. A v B D S 6, 7
9. ~ ~(A v B) DN 8
10. S DS 3, 9

1. A v (B & D)

328
2. (A v D)  ~C
3. J V C / J

Answer:

4. (A v B) & (A v D) Dist 1
5. A v D Simp 4
6. ~C MP 2, 5
7. C v J Comm 3
8. J DS 6, 7

1. A & (B V S)
2. J  ~(A & S)
3. ~J  ~K
4. K V G
5. ~ (A & B) / G

Answer:

6. (A & B) V (A & S) DIST 1

7. A & S DS 6, 5
8. ~ ~(A & S) DN 7
9. ~J MT 2, 8
10. ~K MP 3, 9
11. G DS 4, 10

1. A v ~ I

2. ~ A v G / I  G

Answer:

3. ~I v A Comm 1

4. I ‫ ﬤ‬A Imp 3

5. A ‫ ﬤ‬G Imp 2

6. I ‫ ﬤ‬G HS 4, 5

329
1. ~ A ‫ ﬤ‬S

2. ~ E ‫ ﬤ‬S

3. ~ (A & E) / S v H

Answer:

4. ~A v ~E DM 3

5. S v S CD 1, 2, 4

6. S Taut 5

7. S v H Add 6

1. J v (I & S)

2. J ‫ ﬤ‬S / S

Answer:

3. (J v I) & (J v S) Dist 1

4. J v S Simp 3

5. ~J ‫ ﬤ‬S Imp 4

6. ~S ‫ ﬤ‬J Trans 5

7. ~S ‫ ﬤ‬S HS 2, 6

8. S v S Imp 7

9. S Taut 8

1. A ‫ ﬤ‬B / A ‫( ﬤ‬B v E)

Answer:

2. ~A v B Imp 1

3. (~A v B) v E Add 2

330
4. ~A v (B v E) Assoc 3

5. A ‫( ﬤ‬B v E) Imp 4

1. A ‫( ~ ﬤ‬B ‫ ﬤ‬G)

2. A v G / A  ~ G

Answer:

3. ~A v ~(B ‫ ﬤ‬G) Imp 1

4. ~A v ~(~B v G) Imp 3

5. ~A v (B & ~G) DM 4

6. (~A v B) & (~A v ~G) Dist 5

7. ~A v ~G Simp 6

8. A ‫ ~ﬤ‬G Imp 7

9. G v A Comm 2

10. ~G ‫ ﬤ‬A Imp 9

11. (A ‫~ ﬤ‬G) & (~G ‫ ﬤ‬A) Conj 8, 10

12. A  ~G Equiv 11

1. (A v B)  G

2. (I  G)  S

3. B / S

Answer:

4. B v A Add 3

5. A v B Comm 4

6. G MP 1, 5

7. G v ~I Add 6

331
8. ~I v G Comm 7

9. I ‫ ﬤ‬G Imp 8

10. S MP 2, 9

1. A  B

2. A v B

3. A ‫( ﬤ‬B ‫ ﬤ‬E) / E

Answer:

4. (A ‫ ﬤ‬B) & (B ‫ ﬤ‬A) Equiv 1

5. ~A ‫ ﬤ‬B Imp 2

6. B ‫ ﬤ‬A Simp 4

7. ~A ‫ ﬤ‬A HS 5, 6

8. A v A Imp 7

9. A Taut 8

10. B ‫ ﬤ‬E MP 9, 3

11. ~B ‫ ﬤ‬A Trans 5

12. A ‫ ﬤ‬B Simp 4

13. ~B ‫ ﬤ‬B HS 11, 12

14. B v B Imp 13

15. B Taut 14

16. E MP 10, 15

1. ~A  ~B
2. (~B v A)  S /S

332
Answer:

3. B  A Trans 1
4. ~B v A Imp 3
5. S MP 2, 4

1. (A & B)  E
2. A / B  E

Answer:

3. A  (B  E) Exp 1
4. B  E MP 2, 3

1. A  E
2. E  B / ~B  ~A

Answer:

3. (A E) & (E  A) Equiv 1

4. (E  B) & (B  E) Equiv 2
5. A  E Simp 3
6. E  B Simp 4
7. A  B HS 5, 6
8. ~ B  ~A Trans 7

1. ~A v J
2. J  E / ~E  ~A

Answer:

3. A  J Imp 1
4. A  E HS 2, 3
5. ~E  ~A Trans 4

333
 Chapter 21
Truth-Functional Deduction Part 4
Indirect and Conditional Proof

Prove using conditional proof:

(1) 1. A (B  C)
2. B & E
3. (C & E)  X / A  X

Answer:

4. A ACP
5. BC MP 1, 4
6. B Simp 2
7. C MP 5, 6
8. E Simp 2
9. C&E Conj 7, 8
10. X MP 3, 9
11. A  X CP 4-10

(2) 1. H v B
2. B  ~E
3. K  E
4. ~K  A / ~H  A

Answer:

5. ~H ACP
6. B DS 1, 5
7. ~E MP 2, 6
8. ~K MT 3, 7
9. A MP 4, 8
10. ~H  A CP 5-9

334
(3) 1. (B v I)  D
2. A  B /A  (D v T)

Answer:
3. A ACP
4. B MP 2, 3
5. BvI Add 4
6. D MP 1, 5
7. DvT Add 6
8. A  (D v T) CP 3-7

(4)
1. ~ D v ~ ~ C
2. X  ~ C
3. A  (W & ~ ~ D)
4. ~ X  M / A  M

Answer:
5. A ACP
6. W & ~~D MP 3, 5
7. ~~D Simp 6
8. ~~C DS 1, 7
9. ~X MT 2, 8
10. M MP 4, 9
11. A  M CP 5-10

(5) 1. H  B
2. (H & B)  C / H  C

Answer:
3. H ACP
4. B MP 1, 3
5. H&B Conj 3, 4
6. C MP 2, 5
7. H  C CP 3-6

Prove using indirect proof:

(1) 1. G v H

335
 2. K  R
3. H  ~R
4. S v ~G
5. ~K  G / S

Answer:
6. ~S AIP
7. ~G DS 4, 6
8. ~~K MT 5, 7
9. K DN 8
10. R MP 2, 9
11. H DS 1, 7
12. ~R MP 3, 11
13. R & ~R Conj 10, 12
14. S IP 6-13

(2)

1. A  B

2. ~B / ~ A

Answer:

3. ~ ~A AIP
4. ~A MT 1, 2
5. ~A & ~ ~A Conj 3, 4
6. ~A IP 3-5

(3)
1. A v ~ (B & C)

2. (B & C) v W

3. ~ (A v W)  (~ A & ~ W) / A v W

Answer:

4. ~(A v W) AIP
5. ~A & ~W MP 3, 4
6. ~A Simp 5
7. ~(B & C) DS 1, 6

336
8. W DS 2, 7
9. ~W Simp 5
10. W & ~W Conj 9, 8
11. A v W IP 4-10

(4)

1. A v ~ ~B

2. ~B v A / A

Answer:

3. ~A AIP
4. ~ ~B DS 1, 3
5. A DS 2, 4
6. A & ~A Conj 3, 5
7. A IP 3-6

Construct a nested proof for the following argument:

(1) 1. A  (J  M)
2. (M v H)  K / A  (J  K)

Answer:
3. A ACP
4. J ACP
5. J‫ﬤ‬M MP 1, 3
6. M MP 4, 5
7. MvH Add 6
8. K MP 2, 7
9. J ‫ ﬤ‬K CP 4-8
10. A ‫( ﬤ‬J ‫ ﬤ‬K) CP 3-9

Chapter 22
Premise-Free Proofs

Prove the following theorems:

337
To prove: (A  B)  [A  (A & B)]

Answer:

1. AB AP
2. A AP
3. B MP 1, 2
4. A&B Conj 2, 3
5. A  (A & B) CP 2-4
6. (A  B)  [A  (A & B)] CP 1-5

To prove: [(A  B) & (B  C) ]  (A  C)

Answer:
1. (A  B) & (B  C) AP
2. AB Simp 1
3. BC Simp 1
4. AC HS 2, 3
5. [(A  B) & (B  C)]  (A  C) CP 1-4

Unit 4: Predicate Logic

Chapter 23

338
 Predicate Logic Version 1.1
Frege Unites Categorical and Stoic Logic

True or False?

1. The following sentence is singular: A dog is man’s best friend.

2. The following sentence is singular: One man can be an army.

3. The following symbol belongs to the vocabulary of PL: .

4. The following symbol belongs to the vocabulary of PL: (x).

5. The following symbol belongs to PL: %.

6. The following is a well-formed formula of PL: A.

7. The subject clause of a sentence states what the sentence is about.

8. An open sentence can be symbolized with a variable and a predicate constant.

Answers

1. F

2. F

3. T

4. T

5. F

6. T

7. T

8. T

339
 True or False?

1. The letter a is a sentence constant in PL.

2. The syntax of a language includes the semantics of the language.

3. The language PL is resident within TL.

4. The expression Fa is an open sentence.

Answers

1. F

2. F

3. F

4. F

Multiple Choice

1. Which of the following would be an accurate PL translation of “Jumpin’ Jack is happy”?

a. (x) Jx
b. JH
c. Hj
d. HJ
e. JJIS

2. Which of the following would be an accurate translation of “Some people are exploited”
(assuming a universal domain)?

a. (Ǝx) Ex
b. Px & Ex
c. (Ǝx) (Px & Ex)
d. Sx & Ex
e. Some people are exploited.

3. Frege:
a. Wrote a logic book with a really long and imposing title

340
 b. Swam the English Channel
c. Waged a one-man war against France
d. Got into a wrestling match with Bertrand Russell (and won)

Answers
1. c
2. c
3. a

Provide PL translations for the following English sentences. Use the letters provided.

1. Fred is a chemist. (C)

2. Weasels and possums are disgusting pests. (W, P, D)

3. Only the athletic are strong. (A, S)

4. Any student who is tardy will be reprimanded.

5. If everything is temporary and perishable, then life is contingent.

Answers
1. Fred is a chemist. (C)
Answer: Cf

2. Weasels and possums are disgusting pests. (W, P, D)

Answer: (x)[ (Wx v Px)  Dx]

3. Only the athletic are strong. (A, S)

Answer: (x) (Sx  Ax)

4. Any student who is tardy will be reprimanded.

Answer: (x) [(Sx & Tx)  Rx]

5. If everything is temporary and perishable, then life is contingent.

Answer: (x) (Tx & Px)  Cl

341
 Chapter 24
Predicate Logic Version 1.2
It’s All About Relationships
True or False?

1. The following is a relational predicate: “knows.”

2. The following is a relational predicate: “fears.”

3. The following is a relational predicate: “is twenty-one years old.”

4. The following is a monadic predicate: “is serene.”

5. The following PL predicate constant is monadic: Hx.

Answers

1. T

2. T

3. F

4. T

5. T

Multiple Choice

342
 1. Assuming obvious abbreviations, which of the following would be an accurate PL translation of
“Jumpin’ Jack is taller than Sammy”:
a. (x) (Jx ‫ ﬤ‬Sx)
b. Tjs
c. Jts
d. Sjt
e. JJTS

2. Assuming obvious abbreviations and the universal domain, which of the following would be an
accurate PL translation of “Every dog is taller than any flea”:
a. (x) (Dx ‫ ﬤ‬Tx)
b. (x) (y)(Dx & Fy)‫ ﬤ‬Txy)
c. (x) (Dx ‫ ﬤ‬Txy)
d. (x) (y) Txy
e. (x) Txy

3. Assuming obvious abbreviations and the universal domain, the following would be an accurate
PL translation of “Someone loves everyone”:
a. (Ǝx) (y) [(Px & Py) & Lxy]
b. (Ǝx) (Ǝy)Lxy
c. (Ǝx) (Ǝx) [(Px & Ex) ‫ ﬤ‬Lxy]
d. (Ǝx) Lee

4. Assuming obvious abbreviations and that the domain is restricted to all people, the following
would be an accurate PL translation of “Someone loves everyone”:
a. (Ǝx) (y) Lxy
b. (Ǝx) (Ǝy)Lxy
c. (Ǝx) (Ǝx) [(Px & Ex) ‫ ﬤ‬Lxy]
d. (Ǝx) Lee

Answers
1. b
2. b
3. a
4. a

Provide PL translations for the following English sentences.

1. Lorraine does not consume any meat dishes.

343
 2. All ostriches are larger than Elliott.

3. Arnold adores himself. (A)

Answers

1. (x) (Mx  ~Clx)

2. (x) (Ox  Lxe)

3. Aaa

Symbolize, using R. Let the domain be all persons.

1. There is someone who respects everyone.

2. Pat doesn't respect anybody.

3. Everybody respects everybody.

Answers

1. ( x) (y) (Rxy)
2. ~( x) (Rpx)
3. (x) (y) Rxy

Chapter 25
Predicate Logic Version 1.3

344
 To Be or Not to Be: The Logic of Identity

True or False?

1. The following sentence belongs to PL: a=b.

2. Assuming obvious abbreviations, the following is an accurate PL translation of “Cassius

Clay is not the same person as Muhammad Ali”: ~(c=m).

3. The identity sign in PL represents quantitative identity.

4. “Bob Dylan is Robert Zimmerman” is an assertion of quantitative identity.

5. According to the text, there is hardly an iota of difference between the letter i and the
Greek iota.

Answers

1. T

2. T

3. T

4. T

5. T

Chapter 26
345
 Natural Deduction Proofs with Monadic Predicates

For each of the following, provide a proof of validity. Use the truth-functional inference rules
and the first four quantifier rules.

(1) 1. ( x)(Gx & ~Ax)

2. (x)(Gx  Hx)/( x)(Hx & ~Ax)

Answer:
3. Gv & ~Av EI 1
4. Gv  Hv UI 2
5. Gv Simp 3
6. Hv MP 4, 5
7. ~Av Simp 3
8. Hv & ~ Av Conj 6, 7
9. ( x)(Hx & ~Ax) EG 8

(2)
1. ~Ra v Pa
2. Sa & Ra
3. Pa  (x)(Fx)
4. (x)(Fx  Gx)/(x)(Gx)

Answer:
5. Ra Simp 2
6. ~~Ra DN 5
7. Pa DS 1, 6
8. (x)(Fx) MP 3, 7
9. Fu UI 8
10. Fu  Gu UI 4
11. Gu MP, 9, 10
12. (x)(Gx) UG 11

(3) 1. (x)[Hx  (Bx v Cx)]

2. ( x)(Hx & ~Cx) / (x)(Bx)

Answer:
3. Hv & ~Cv EI 2
4. Hv Simp 3

346
5. ~Cv Simp 3
6. Hv  (Bv v Cv) UI 1
7. Bv v Cv DS 5, 7
8. Cv v Bv Comm 7
9. Bv DS 5, 8
10. (x)(Bx) EG 8

For each of the following, provide a proof of validity. Use the truth-functional rules, the first four
quantifier rules, and the quantifier exchange rule.

1. (x)(Wx)  (x)(Dx)
2. (x)(~Dx) /(x)(~Wx)

Answer:
3. ~(Ǝx)(Dx) QE 2
4. ~(x)(Wx) MT 1, 3
5. (Ǝx)(~Wx) QE 4

1. (x)(Ix) v (x)(Px  Cx)

2. ( x)(~Ix) /Pa  Ca

Answer:
3. ~(x)(Ix) QE 2
4. (x)(Px  Cx) DS 1, 3
5. Pa  Ca UI 4

1. ~(x)(Px)  (y)(Ry  Qy)

2. ~(x)(Px v Qx)/~(x)(Rx)

Answer:
3. (x) ~(Px v Qx) QE 2
4. ~(Pv v Qv) EI 3
5. ~Pv & ~Qv DM 4
6. ~Pv Simp 5
7. ( x) ~(Px) EG 6
8. ~(x) Px QE 7
9. (y) (Ry  Qy) MP 1, 8
10. Ra  Qa UI 9
11. ~Qa Simp 5
12. ~Ra MT 10, 11
13. ( x) (~Rx) EG 12
347
14. ~(x) (Rx) QE 13

Chapter 27
A Semantical Theory
for Predicate Logic
Specify an interpretation showing that each QL argument below is formally invalid.
1. (x) (Ax  Bx)
(x) Ax / (x) Bx

Answer: Domain: animals

Ax: x is a cat
Bx: x is a mammal

Each of the following arguments is invalid. For each argument, supply a refutation by
logical analogy.

1. All aardvarks are mammals. Some mammals are old. Therefore, some aardvarks are old.

Answer: All cats are mammals. Some mammals are bats. So, some cats are bats.

2. All widgets are round. No widgets are green. So, no round things are green.
Answer: All cats are mammals. No cats are rats. So, no mammals are rats.

3. All human beings have free will. All beings that have free will are rational beings. So, all
rational beings are human beings.

Answer: All dogs are mammals. All mammals have hearts. So, all beings with hearts are dogs.

Construct truth-functional expansions showing that the following QL arguments are

invalid.

1. (x) Hx / (x) (Hx & Gx)

Answer
Ha & Hb
(Ha & Ga) v (Hb & Gb)
Ha: T Ga: F
Hb: T Gb: F

2. (x) (Ax  Bx)

(x) Ax / (x) Bx

348
Answer
(Aa  Ba) & (Ab  Bb)
Aa v Ab
Ba & Bb
Aa: T Ba: T Ab: F Bb: F

3. (x) (Ax v Bx) / (x) Ax v (x) Bx

Answer

(Aa v Ba) & (Ab v Bb)

(Aa & Ab) v (Ba & Bb)
Aa: T Ba: F Ab: F Bb: T

Chapter 28
Conditional and Indirect
Predicate Proofs

Prove, using the conditional proof rule:

(1) 1. (x)(Hx  Qx)

2. (x)(Hx  Rx)/(x)[Hx  (Qx & Rx)]

Answer:
3. Hu  Qu UI 1
4. Hu  Ru UI 2
5. Hu AP
6. Qu MP 3, 5
7. Ru MP 4, 5
8. Qu & Ru Conj 6, 7
9. Hu  (Qu & Ru) CP 5-8
10. (x)[ Hx  (Qx & Rx)] UG 9

Prove, using the indirect proof rule:

(2) 1. (x)[Kx  (Bx & Sx)] / (x)(Kx  Sx)

349
Answer:
2. ~(x) (Kx  Sx) AIP
3. ( x) ~(Kx  Sx) QE, 2
4. ~(Ka  Sa) EI 3
5. ~(~Ka v Sa) Imp 4
6. ~~(~~Ka & ~Sa) DM 5
7. (Ka & ~Sa) DN 6
8. Ka Simp 7
9. Ka  (Ba & Sa) UI 1
10. Ba & Sa MP 8, 9
11. Sa Simp 10
12. ~Sa Simp 7
13. Sa & ~Sa Conj 11, 12
14. (x) (Kx  Sx) IP 2-12

(3) 1. ~(x)(~Sx) v (x)(Hx)

2. (x)(Sx  Hx)/~(x)(~Hx)

Answer:
3. (x) (~Hx) AIP
4. ~( x) (Hx) QE 3
5. ~(x) (~Sx) DS 1, 4
6. ( x) (Sx) QE 5
7. Sv EI 6
8. Sv  Hv UI 2
9. Hv MP 7, 8
10. (x) Hx EG 9
11. ~(x) ~Hx IP 3-10

(4) Prove the following theorem:

(x)(Hx) v ( x)(~Hx)

Answer:
1. ~[(x)(Hx) v ( x)(~Hx)] AIP
2. ~(x)(Hx) & ~( x)(~Hx)] DM 1
3. ~(x)(Hx) Simp 2
4. ~( x)(~Hx) Simp 2
5. (x)(Hx) QE 4
6. (x)(Hx) & ~(x)(Hx) Conj 3, 5
7. (x)(Hx) v ( x)(~Hx) IP 1-6

350
 Chapter 29
Proofs with Overlapping Quantifiers
Prove the following arguments valid.

(1) 1. (x)(y)(Mxy) / (y)(x)(Mxy)

Answer:

2. (y)(Mvy) EI 1
3. Mvu UI 2
4. (x)(Mxu) EG 3
5. (y)(x)(Mxy) UG 4

(2)

1. (x) (y) (Hxy ‫ ﬤ‬Wxy)

2. (x) (y) (~ Wxy) / ~ (x) (y) (Hxy)

Answer:

3. (y) (Hay ‫ ﬤ‬Way) EI 1

4. (y) (~ Way) UI 2
5. ~ Wab EI 4
6. Hab  Wab UI 3
7. ~Hab MT 6, 7
8. (y)~Hay EG 7
9. (x)(Ǝy) ~Pxy EG 8
10. (x)~(y)Pxy QE 9
11. ~(x)(y)Pxy QE 10

Chapter 30

351
 The Summit:
Predicate Logic with Identity

Multiple Choice

1. He is the author of Leibniz’s Law:

a. Leibniz
b. Descartes
c. Aquinas
d. Aristotle
Answer: a

The following proofs require the identity rules (among others).

(1) 1. B c  Gc
2. Jd  Ld
3. Bc & Jd
4. c = d / Gd & Lc

Answer:
5. Bc Simp 3
6. Gc MP 1, 5
7. Gd LL 4, 6
8. Jd Simp 3
9. Ld MP 2, 8
10. Lc LL 9, 4
11. Gd & Lc Conj 7, 10

(2)

1. a = e
2. e = s
3. s = j
4. ~Oj / ~Oa

352
Answer:
5. ~Os LL 3, 4
6. ~Oe LL 2, 5
7. ~O a LL 1, 6

Unit 5: Informal and Inductive Logic

Chapter 31
The Art of Definition
True or False?

1. A definition is an explanation of the meaning of a word or words.

2. A stipulative definition is stated in order to give the commonly understood meaning of a

term.

3. A stipulative definition is stated in order to give a new meaning to a term.

4. A word is vague if it has borderline cases.

5. This is an intensional definition: “Rock band” means a group like the Beatles, the Doors,
the Animals, etc.

6. As it is commonly used, the following phrase is vague: “legally an adult.”

7. As it is commonly used, the following word is vague: “old.”

Answers

1. T

2. F

353
 3. T

4. T

5. F

6. F

7. T

Using the rules for good intensional definitions, critique the following definitions.

a. “Baseball player” means an athlete who plays a game that involves throwing a ball.

Answer: too broad

b. “Bird” means “warm-blooded animal with wings.” (too broad, includes bats)

Answer: too broad (includes bats, which are not birds)

c. “Philosophy” means “the activity practiced by philosophers.”

Answer: circular

Which type of definition?

a. “Silicone” means “a polymer containing alternating silicon and oxygen atoms.”

Answer: theoretical

b. “Theocracy” means “a system of government administered by priests or religious officials.”

Answer: lexical

c. “Aurora” means “a radiant emission in the upper atmosphere appearing as luminous bands of
light.”

Answer: theoretical

d. “Insulin shock” means “a collapse caused by a decrease in blood sugar caused by the
administration of too much insulin.”

354
Answer: theoretical

Chapter 32
The Informal Fallacies
True or False?

1. A fallacy is an error in reasoning.

2. The appeal to the people fallacy attacks all people.

3. The fallacy of composition is committed only by artists.

4. The appeal to the people is also called the “appeal to the gallery.”

5. The following is one of the fallacies identified in the text: Don’t accept his conclusion; he
associates with known gangsters.

6. The following is not one of the fallacies identified in the text: the fallacy of the forgotten
ellipses.

Answers

1. T

2. F

3. F

4. T

5. T

6. T

Name the fallacy.

1. Joe: We need new laws to protect the disabled. They are being marginalized in our overly
competitive society.
Fred: I disagree. Everybody is disabled in one way or another. Are you going to make a set of
laws protecting each person? That would be ridiculous.

355
Answer: red herring

2. Ed, you really should take Suzie to the prom; after all, she hasn’t had a date in a year, and
she’s really lonely.

Answer: appeal to pity

3. There’s no sign saying “No Trespassing,” so it must be OK to walk on this property.

Answer: appeal to ignorance

4. Professor A is a good teacher, and professor B is a good teacher. They plan to team teach a
course together next fall, so they will make a good teaching team.

Answer: composition

Chapter 33
The Varieties of Inductive Reasoning
True or False?

1. In an analogical argument, all things equal, the more specific the conclusion, the weaker
the argument.

2. In an inference to the best explanation, all things equal, the less simple the hypothesis, the
stronger the argument.

3. In an analogical argument, the fewer qualities the items have in common, the stronger the
argument.

4. In an enumerative induction, generally, the more cases enumerated, the stronger the
argument.

5. In an enumerative induction, generally, the more heterogeneous the cases enumerated are,
the stronger the argument.

6. The disconfirmation of a scientific hypothesis is inductive in nature.

7. One way to strengthen an enumerative induction is to list more cases.

356
 8. A generalization from a sample is deductive in nature.

Answers

1. T

2. F

3. F

4. T

5. T

6. T

7. T

8. F

Read the following argument and the list of additional items following it. Would the addition of
each item strengthen the argument (S), weaken the argument (W), or leave the strength of the
argument unchanged (U)? Consider each addition separately from the rest.

The Ace Widget Company needs a new delivery truck. The truck must be capable of hauling
heavy crates of widgets, and it must be adequate for heavy city driving. The company next
door, the Ajax Bakery, has a delivery truck for sale. The Ajax company's president says the
truck worked extremely well for its purposes. The president of Ace concludes that the Ajax
truck will make an excellent delivery truck.

a. The Ajax company never hauled heavy loads.

b. The Ajax company used its truck mainly on the open highway.

c. The conclusion is changed to: The truck will make a good delivery truck.

d. The conclusion is changed to: The truck will be OK, though not always perfect.

e. The Ajax company plans to install a new widget-painting machine.

f. The conclusion is changed to: The truck will make an absolutely perfect delivery truck.

Answers

357
 a. Weakens

b. Weakens

c. Strengthens

d. Strengthens

e. Unaffected

f. Weakens

One hundred college students from four colleges were surveyed, and 60% said they liked
classical music. We conclude that approximately 60% of all college students like classical music.
Does each of the following alterations strengthen or weaken the original argument? Does each
leave the argument’s strength unaffected?

a. The colleges were all Catholic colleges.

b. Actually, only ten students were surveyed.

c. Actually, one thousand students were surveyed.

d. All surveyed were Capricorns.

e. All surveyed had grades of 3.8 or above.

f. Ninety percent of those surveyed said they regularly read novels.

g. Those surveyed were freshmen, sophomores, juniors, and seniors.

h. Those surveyed were seniors only.

i. Those surveyed were from large cities only.

j. Those surveyed were from the South only.

k. Those surveyed were from all regions of the country.

l. All those surveyed said that they like Mars bars.

m. We change the conclusion to: Exactly 60% like classical music.

n. We change the conclusion to: At least 60% like classical music.

358
 o. We change the conclusion to: The majority like classical music.

p. Students were surveyed at three state universities, three private liberal arts colleges, three Ivy

League colleges, and three religious colleges.

q. The students were actually drawn from three music conservatories: the Ace school of music, the

Ajax conservatory of piano, and the Smith school of music.

Answers

a. Weakens

b. Weakens

c. Strengthens

d. Weakens

e. Weakens

f. Unaffected

g. Strengthens

h. Weakens

i. Weakens

j. Weakens

k. Strengthens

l. Unaffected

m. Weakens

n. Weakens

o. Strengthens

p. Strengthens

q. Weakens

359
 Chapter 34
Elementary Probability Theory
True or False?

1. Pascal is one of the founders of probability theory.

2. If something is impossible, its probability is 0.

3. The probability of drawing a king from a shuffled poker deck is 4/52.

4. It is highly probable but not certain that the sun will rise tomorrow.

Answers

1. T
2. T
3. T
4. T

Use the rules of the probability calculus to answer these questions:

Two bowls of marbles sit in front of you. The first bowl contains ten green marbles and five blue
marbles. The second bowl contains six red marbles and eight orange marbles.

1. What is the probability that you reach into the first bowl and randomly pick a marble, and it is
a green marble, and then, after placing it back into the bowl, you randomly pick a green marble
again?

2. What is the probability that you reach into the first bowl and randomly pick a green marble,
then, without placing it back into the bowl, you randomly pick a green marble again?

3. What is the probability that you randomly pick a marble from the first bowl, and it is blue, and
then you randomly pick a marble from the second bowl, and it is red?

Answers

1. 10/15 x 10/15

360
2. 10/15 x 9/14
3. 5/15 x 6/14

Unit 6: Modal Logic

Chapter 35
Elementary Modal Logic

True or False?

1. Assuming the ordinary meanings of the words, the following proposition is necessarily
true: 1+1=2.

2. Assuming the ordinary meanings of the words, the following proposition is necessarily
true: 1+1=12.

3. Assuming the normal meanings of the words, the following proposition is necessarily
false: Someone is taller than himself.

4. Assuming the ordinary meanings of the words, the following proposition is contingent:
The Earth is flat.

5. Assuming the normal meanings of the words, the following proposition is necessarily
false: Someone is taller than all persons.

6. It is logically possible that two brothers are each older than the other.

7. It is logically possible that a planet exists and that no gravitational force exists on that
planet.

8. It is logically possible that someone runs all the way around the world in one minute
without stopping.

9. Saul Kripke is one of the giants of modern modal logic.

Answers

361
 1. T

2. F

3. T

4. T

5. T

6. F

7. T

8. T

9. T

Symbolize the following in ML.

1. It is a contingent truth that a universe actually exists. (Let U abbreviate "A universe actually
exists.")

2. Either it is necessary that the universe will expand forever, or it is necessary that the universe
will not expand forever. (Let U abbreviate "The universe will expand forever.")

3. Every necessarily true proposition is also possibly true.

4. Every possibly true proposition is also contingent.

5. Every necessary falsehood is non-contingent.

Answers

1.  U

2.  U v  ~U

3. □P  ◊ P (where P is any proposition)

4. ◊P  ▼P (where P is any proposition)

362
5. □~P  ~▼P (where P is any proposition)

Symbolize each of the following and indicate in each case whether the sentence is true or
false.

1. If A is necessarily true, then it’s not possible that A is false.

Answer: A  ~ ~A True

2. If A is false, then A is not necessarily true.

Answer: ~A  ~ A True

3. If A is non-contingent, then A is either a necessary truth or a necessary falsehood.

Answer: ~ A  ( A v  ~A)

True or False?

Let A abbreviate “2+2=4”:

1. ~ ~ A

Answer: True

Let B abbreviate “Dr. Frasier Crane is Seattle’s most popular radio personality.” True or false?

2.  ~ B

Answer: True

3. If a proposition is actually true, then it is necessarily true.

Answer: False

4. If A is necessarily false and B is necessarily true, then A must imply B.

Answer: True

5. If A and B are both necessarily true, then A and B must be equivalent.

Answer: True

6. If A and B are both necessarily false, then they are inconsistent.

363
Answer: True

For each proposition below, indicate its modality, i.e., whether it is contingent, necessarily true,
or necessarily false. Next indicate for each pair of propositions whether the propositions are
consistent or inconsistent with one another.

1. C: Pat has no siblings.

D: Pat has two siblings.

Answer: Contingent
Contingent
Inconsistent

2. K: At least one crow is black.

L: Chris saw a white crow.

Answer: Contingent
Contingent
Consistent

S5 Proofs

Supply proofs for the following arguments. You will need to use truth-functional inference rules
plus one or more of the following modal rules: PI, MMP, MMT, PN. No replacement rules are
needed. Do not use necessitation.

(1) 1. B  E
2. H & B / E v S

Answer:
3. B Simp 2
4. E MMP, 1, 3
5. E v S Add 4

(2) 1. E  R
2. S & (E & B)
3. RJ/J

Answer:
4. E & B Simp 2
5. E Simp 4

364
6.  E PI 5
7.   R PN 1, 6
8. J MP 3, 7
9. J PI 8

Construct proofs for the following arguments. You will need to use truth-functional inference
and replacement rules. The necessitation rule is recommended on these problems.

(1) 1. (~A J)
2. (~J v G)
3. [(A v G)S]
4. ~S v J / J

Answer:
5. (~A  J) Reit 1
6. (~J v G) Reit 2
7. [(AvG)  S] Reit 3
8. ~A  J BR 5
9. ~J v G BR 6
10. (AvG)  S BR 7
11. JG Imp 9
12. ~A  G HS 8, 11
13. ~~A v G Imp 12
14. AvG DN 13
15. S MP 10, 14
16. S Nec 5-15
17. ~~S DN 16
18. J DS 4, 17

Indirect proof is recommended on this one.

1. (RS)
2. R / S

Answer:
3. ~S AIP
4. ~S DE 3
5. ~S Reit 4
6. (RS) Reit 1
7. ~S BR 5
8. RS BR 6
9. ~R MT 7, 8
10. ~R Nec 5-9

365
11. ~ R DE 10
12. R & ~R Conj 2, 11
13. S IP 3-12

Introduction to Logic

Definitions and Rules

Used in the Book

The reminders and rules collected here cover Units One through Six. Consider creating
flash cards for your favorite rules and reminders. There are free online sites that allow
you to make nice flash cards, such as this one, recommended by a student:
http://ankisrs.net/

366
 Unit One
Basic Concepts of Logic
Chapters 1-6

Definitions

 Logic is the systematic study of the standards of correct reasoning.

 An argument is one or more statements, called premises, offered in support of the truth

of a further statement, called the conclusion.

 A declarative sentence is one that is either true or false.

 A deductive argument is an argument that aims to show that the conclusion must be

true.

 An inductive argument is an argument that aims to show that the conclusion is probably

true but not certainly true.

 A deductive argument that succeeds in its aim is a valid argument. Thus, a valid

deductive argument has this property: If its premises are all true, then its conclusion

must be true.

 An inductive argument that succeeds in its aim is a strong argument. Thus, a strong

inductive argument has this property: If its premises are all true, then its conclusion is

probably true though not certain.

 A sound deductive argument is one that is (a) valid and (b) that has all true premises.

 A cogent inductive argument is one that is (a) strong and (b) has all true premises.

 Two or more statements are consistent if it is possible they are all true.

367
  Two or more statements are inconsistent if it is not possible they are all true.

 One statement P implies a second statement Q if it is not possible that P is true and Q is

false.

 Two statements are equivalent if they imply each other. In other words, two statements

are equivalent if it is not possible that one is true and the other is false.

 A statement is contingent if there are circumstances in which it would be true and there

are circumstances in which it would be false.

 A

statement is necessarily true if it is true and it is not possible it is false.

 A

statement is necessarily false if it is false and it is not possible it is true.

Unit Two
Categorical Logic
Chapters 7-9

Sentence Forms

A: Universal Affirmative All S are P Example: All cats are

mammals.

E: Universal Negative No S are P Example: No cats are

reptiles.

I: Particular Affirmative Some S are P Example: Some cats are

pets.
368
O: Particular Negative. Some S are not P Example: Some cats are

not pets.

Conversion, Obversion, Contraposition

To Produce the Converse of a Categorical Statement:

Switch the subject and predicate terms.

To Produce the Obverse:

1. Change the quality (without changing the quantity) from affirmative to

negative or negative to affirmative.

2. Replace the predicate term with its term complement.

To Produce the Contrapositive:

1. Switch the subject and predicate.

2. Replace each term with its term complement.

Rules of Validity for Categorical Syllogisms

A categorical syllogism is valid if, and only if, all the following conditions are met:

5. The middle term is distributed in at least one premise.

6. If either term is distributed in the conclusion, it is also distributed in a premise.
7. The syllogism does not contain two negative premises.
8. If one premise is negative, then the conclusion is negative; if the conclusion is
negative, then one premise is negative.

Venn Diagram Test for Validity

1. Abbreviate the argument, replacing (consistently) each term with a single capital letter

and retaining the quantifier and copula of each statement. (Example: “Some gems are

not green rubies”: Some G are not R.) By convention we place the conclusion last.

369
 2. Draw three overlapping circles, one for each term, to form seven distinct regions.

3. Label the circles using the three capital letters chosen (use the predicate term of the

conclusion for the lower right circle, the subject term of the conclusion for the lower left

circle, and the middle term for the middle circle).

4. Enter the information for both premises and stop. If the argument contains a universal

premise, enter its information first. If the argument contains two universal premises or

two particular premises, either premise can be entered first. This step requires a

decision: Are you taking the Aristotelian standpoint, or the Boolean? It is up to you.

However:

a. When placing an X in an area, if one part of the area has been shaded, place the X in an

unshaded part.

b. When placing an X in an area, if a circle’s line runs through the area, place the X directly

on the line separating the area into two regions. In other words, the X must “straddle”

the line, hanging over both sides equally. An X straddling a line means that, for all we

know, the individual represented by the X might be on either side of the line, or on both

sides; in other words, it is not known which side of the line the X is actually on.

c. Look at the two circles standing for the subject terms of your premises. If these terms

refer to existing things, then if there is only one region unshaded in either or both circles,

place an X in that unshaded region (thereby presenting the existential viewpoint). If

these terms refer to things that do not exist or that the arguer does not wish to assume

exists, then you are finished (thereby presenting the hypothetical viewpoint) and can go

to the next step.

5. Use the following tests to determine if the argument is valid or invalid.

A categorical syllogism is valid if, when the information from only the two

premises has been entered into the diagram, visual inspection of the diagram

370
 reveals that the information content of the conclusion is represented as well. In

other words, by diagramming only the premises, we have also diagrammed the

information found in the conclusion.

A categorical syllogism is invalid if, when we have diagrammed the information

content of the premises, information must be added to the diagram to represent

the information content of the conclusion.

Unit Three
Truth-functional Logic
Chapters 10-22

Rules for Truth-Functions (Chapter 10)

 A conjunction (P and Q) is true only when both conjuncts are true; it is false in all
other cases.

 A disjunction (P or Q) is false only when both disjuncts are false; it is true in all
other cases.

371
  A negation (not-P) is false when the sentence negated is true and it is true when
the sentence negated is false.

 A conditional (if P then Q) is false only when the antecedent is true and the
consequent is false; it is true in all other cases.

 A biconditional (P if and only if Q) is false only when the left and the right sides
have differing truth-values; it is true when both sides have the same truth-value.

Five Valid Forms of Truth-functional Reasoning (Chapter 11)

Modus Ponens

If P then Q

Therefore Q

Modus Tollens

If P then Q

Not-Q

Therefore not-P

Disjunctive Syllogism

P or Q

Not-P

Therefore Q

Not-Both

Not both P and Q

372
But P

Therefore not-Q

Two Invalid Forms (Chapter 11)

Affirming the Consequent

If P then Q

Therefore P

Denying the Antecedent

If P then Q

Not-P

Therefore not-Q

Symbols (Chapter 12)

Negation: Tilde ~

Disjunction: Wedge v

Conjunction: Ampersand &

Conditional: Horseshoe ‫ﬤ‬

Biconditional: Triple bar ≡

Rules of Grammar (Chapter 12)

Where P and Q are variables ranging over sentences of TL:

373
Rule 1. Any sentence constant standing alone is a sentence of TL.

Rule 2. If P is a sentence of TL, then ~P is a sentence of TL.

Rule 3. If P and Q are sentences of TL, then (P v Q), (P & Q), (P ‫ ﬤ‬Q), and (P ≡

Q) are sentences of TL.

Truth-tables (Chapter 14)

Conjunction

P Q P & Q

T T T

T F F

F T F

F F F

Truth-Table for Conjunction

Disjunction

P Q P v Q

T T T

T F T

F T T

F F F

374
 Truth-Table for Inclusive Disjunction

Negation

P ~ P

T F

F T

Truth-Table for Negation

The Conditional (“If, Then”) Operator

P Q P ‫ﬤ‬ Q

T T T

T F F

F T T

F F T

Truth-Table for the Conditional Operator

The “Biconditional” Truth-Function

P Q P ≡ Q

T T T

T F F

F T F

375
 F F T

Truth-Table for the Biconditional Operator

A Summary of the Truth-Functions

A conjunction (P · Q) is only true when both conjuncts are true, otherwise it is false.

A disjunction (P v Q) is only false when both disjuncts are false, otherwise it is true.

A negation (~P) is always opposite in truth-value to the sentence negated.

A conditional (P ‫ ﬤ‬Q) is only false when the antecedent (P) is true and the consequent (Q) is
false, otherwise it is true.

A biconditional (P ≡ Q) is only true when both sides match in truth-value.

Truth-Table Tests (Chapters 14-17)

376
 A formula is a truth-functional tautology if and only if the final column of its truth-
table is all T’s.

 A formula is a truth-functional contradiction if and only if the final column of its

truth-table is all F’s.

 A formula is truth-functionally contingent if and only if the final column of its truth-
table contains at least one T and at least one F.

 An argument is truth-functionally valid if and only if its truth-table contains no row

with all true premises and a false conclusion.

 An argument is truth-functionally invalid if and only if its truth-table contains at

least one row with all true premises and a false conclusion.

 Two formulas are truth-functionally consistent if and only if the corresponding

truth-table contains at least one row on which both are true.

 A formula P truth-functionally implies a formula Q if and only if there is no row on

the respective truth table showing P true and Q false.
 Two formulas are truth-functionally equivalent if and only if the final columns on
their respective truth-tables match.

Truth-functional Inference Rules

(Chapters 18-19)

Disjunctive Syllogism (DS)

PvQ or P vQ
~P ~Q
Q P

Modus Ponens (MP)

PQ
P

377
Q

Modus Tollens (MT)

P Q
~Q
~P

Hypothetical Syllogism (HS)

PQ or QR
QR P Q
PR P R

Simplification (Simp)

P & Q or P & Q
P Q

Conjunction (Conj)

P
Q
P&Q

Addition (Add)

P
PvQ

Constructive Dilemma (CD)

PQ
RS
PvR
QvS

Indirect Proof (IP)

To prove P : Indent, assume ~ P, derive a contradiction, end the indentation, assert P.

Conditional Proof (CP)

378
To prove a sentence of the form P  Q: Indent, assume P, derive Q, end the
indentation, and assert P  Q.

Truth-functional Replacement Rules

(Chapter 20)

Commutation (Comm)

A formula P v Q may replace, or be replaced by, the corresponding formula Q v P.

A formula P & Q may replace, or be replaced by, the corresponding formula Q & P.

Association (Assoc)

A formula (P v Q) v R may replace, or be replaced with, the corresponding formula P v

(Q v R) .

A formula (P & Q) & R may replace, or be replaced with, the corresponding formula P
& ( Q & R).

Double Negation (DN)

A formula ~ ~ P may replace, or be replaced with, the corresponding formula P.

De Morgan’s rule (DM)

Anywhere in a proof, a formula ~ (P & Q) may replace, or be replaced with, the

corresponding formula ~P v ~ Q.

Anywhere in a proof, a formula ~(P v Q) may replace, or be replaced with, the

corresponding formula ~ P & ~Q.

Distribution (Dist)

A formula P v (Q & R) may replace, or be replaced with, the corresponding formula (P

v Q) & (P v R).

A formula P & (Q v R) may replace, or be replaced with, the corresponding formula (P

& Q) v (P & R).

Transposition (Trans)

379
A formula P  Q may replace, or be replaced with, the corresponding formula ~ Q  ~
P.

Implication (Imp)

A formula P Q may replace, or be replaced with, the corresponding formula ~ P v Q.

Exportation (Exp)

A formula (P & Q )  R may replace, or be replaced with, the corresponding formula P

 (Q  R).

Tautology (Taut)

A formula P may replace, or be replaced with, the corresponding formula P v P.

Equivalence (Equiv)

A formula P  Q may replace, or be replaced with, the corresponding formula ( P  Q )

& ( Q  P).

A formula P  Q may replace, or be replaced with, the corresponding formula ( P & Q )

v ( ~ P & ~ Q).

Unit Four
Predicate Logic
Chapters 23-30

Predicate Logic Inference Rules

(Chapter 26)

Universal Instantiation (UI)

380
From a universal quantification, you can infer any instantiation, provided that the
instantiation was produced by uniformly replacing each occurrence of the variable that
was bound by the quantifier with a constant.

Existential Generalization (EG)

From a sentence containing an individual constant, you may infer any corresponding
existential generalization, provided that (a) the variable used in the generalization does
not already occur in the sentence generalized upon, and (b) the generalization results by
replacing at least one occurrence of the constant with the variable used in the
generalization, with no other changes being made.

Existential Instantiation (EI)

From an existential quantification, you may instantiate using any constant, provided
that (a) each occurrence of the variable bound by the quantifier in the existential
quantification is uniformly replaced with a constant and no other changes are made, and
(b) the constant used in place of the variable is completely new to the proof, meaning it
does not appear anywhere else in the argument. Thus, the constant used does not
appear in a premise, in a previous line, in the present line, or in the conclusion.

Special Restriction for Relational Sentences. When applying EI to an existential

quantification containing one or more relational predicates, do not use a constant if the
constant already appears in the existential quantification.

Universal Generalization (UG)

From a sentence containing a constant, one may infer the corresponding universal
generalization, provided that (a) the constant is uniformly replaced by a variable and
no other changes are made, (b) the constant generalized upon does not appear in any
premise of the argument, (c) the constant was not introduced into the proof by EI, (c)
the variable you use in the generalization does not already appear in the sentence from
which you are generalizing; and (d) the constant does not appear in any assumed
premise that has not already been discharged.

Special Restriction for relational sentences. Do not apply UG to a constant when

that constant appears in a relational sentence along with a constant that was introduced
into
the proof by EI.

Quantifier Exchange (QE)

381
If P is a wff of PL containing either a universal or an existential quantifier, P may be
replaced by, or may replace, a sentence that is exactly like P except that one quantifier
has been switched for the other in accord with the following steps:

4. Switch one quantifier for the other.

5. Negate each side of the quantifier.
6. Cancel out any double negatives that result.

Alternative System Rules

Alternative Universal Instantiation Rule (“UI-A”)

From a universal quantification, you may infer any instantiation, provided that the
instantiation was produced by uniformly replacing each occurrence of the variable that
was bound by the quantifier with a constant or a variable.

Alternative Existential Generalization Rule (“EG-A”)

From a sentence containing no quantifier and one or more constants or variables, you
may infer any corresponding existential generalization, provided that (a) the variable
used in the generalization does not already occur in the sentence generalized upon and
(b) the generalization results by replacing at least one occurrence of the constant or
variable with the variable used in the generalization, with no other changes being
made.

Alternative Universal Generalization Rule (“UG-A”)

From a sentence containing no constants and no quantifiers, you may infer the
corresponding universal generalization, provided that (a) the variable is uniformly
replaced by a variable bound by a universal quantifier and (b) no other changes are
made.

Predicate Logic Identity Rules

(Chapter 30)

The Self-Identity Rule (SI)

At any step in a proof, you may assert (x) (x = x).

382
The Indiscernibility of Identity Rule (Leibniz’s Law or LL)

If c and d are two constants in a proof and a line of the proof asserts that the
individual designated by c is identical with the individual designated by d, you may
carry down and rewrite any available line of the proof replacing any or all occurrences
of c with d or any or all occurrences of d with c. A line of a proof is “available” unless it
is within the scope of a discharged assumption.

Symmetry of Identity Rule (Sym)

Given a formula c = d, you may infer the corresponding formula d = c

where c and d are variables ranging over constants of PL.

Unit Five
Informal and Inductive Logic
Chapters 31-34
Types of Definitions (Chapter 31)
Analytical definition A definition that explains the meaning of a word by breaking

the meaning down into its constituent concepts.

Extensional (or denotative) definition A definition that assigns meaning to a word

or phrase by giving examples of what the word or phrase denotes.

Intensional (or connotative) definition A definition that assigns meaning by

indicating the qualities or attributes a word or phrase connotes, that is, by listing the

properties that an entity must have if the word or phrase is to apply to it.

Lexical definition A definition that reports a word’s commonly understood meaning.

Precising definition A definition that provides a more precise meaning for a word

that formerly had a vague but established meaning. The more precise meaning provides

additional guidance as to how the word is to be applied in various borderline cases.

383
Persuasive definition A definition that aims to influence attitudes.

Stipulative definition A definition that constitutes a new meaning for a word or

phrase.

Theoretical definition A definition that characterizes the nature of something. Such

a definition provides a theoretical picture of an entity, or a way of understanding the

entity.

Summary of Some of the Main Fallacies (Chapter 32)

Fallacies of No Evidence

Argument Against the Person (argumentum ad hominem) An argument that attacks a

person’s character or circumstances in order to oppose or discredit the person’s viewpoint.

Appeal to Force (argumentum ad baculum, literally “argument from the stick”) A fallacy
committed when an arguer appeals to force or to the threat of force to make someone accept a
conclusion. (Sometimes made when rational argument has failed.)

Appeal to Pity (argumentum ad misericordiam) A fallacy committed when the arguer

attempts to evoke pity from the audience and tries to use that pity to make the audience accept
the conclusion.

Appeal to the People (argumentum ad populum) A fallacy committed when an arguer

attempts to arouse and use the emotions of a group or crowd to win acceptance for a conclusion.

Snob Appeal A fallacy committed when the arguer claims that if you will adopt a particular
conclusion, you will be a member of a special, elite group that is better than everyone else.

Irrelevant Conclusion (ignoratio elenchi, meaning “ignorance of the proof”) A fallacy in

which someone puts forward premises in support of a stated conclusion, but the premises
actually support a different conclusion.

Begging the Question (petitio principii, meaning “postulation of the beginning”) A fallacy
committed when someone employs the conclusion in some form as a premise in support of that
same conclusion.

384
Appeal to Ignorance (argumentum ad ignorantium) In this fallacy, someone argues that a
proposition is true simply on the grounds that it has not been proven false (or that a proposition
must be false because it has not been proven true).

Red Herring A fallacy committed when the arguer tries to divert attention from his opponent
‘s argument by changing the subject and then drawing a conclusion about the new subject.

Genetic A fallacy committed when someone attacks a view by disparaging the view ‘s origin
or the manner in which the view was acquired. The origin of the view is attacked rather than the
evidence for the view, and this is offered as a reason to reject the view.

Poisoning the Well The use of emotionally charged language to discredit or bash an
argument or position before arguing against it.

Fallacies of Little Evidence

Accident A fallacy committed when a general rule is applied to a specific case, but because of
unforeseen and accidental features of the case, the general rule should not be applied to the
case. The argument ignores the fact that the accidental features of the case make it an exception
to the general rule.

Straw Man A fallacy committed when an arguer (a) summarizes his opponent ‘s argument;
(b) the summary is an exaggerated, ridiculous, or oversimplified representation of the opponent
‘s argument that makes the opposing argument appear illogical or weak; (c) the arguer refutes
the weakened, summarized argument; and (d) the arguer concludes that the opponent ‘s actual
argument has been refuted.

Appeal to Questionable Authority (argumentum ad verecundiam) When someone

attempts to support a claim by appealing to an authority that is untrustworthy, or when the
authority is ignorant or unqualified, or is prejudiced, or has a motive to lie, or when the issue
lies outside the authority ‘s field of competence.

Hasty Generalization A fallacy committed when someone draws a generalization about a

group on the basis of observing an unrepresentative sample of the group, that is, a sample that is
either too small to be representative or that is unrepresentative because it is exceptional or
unusual in some way.

False Cause A fallacy involving faulty reasoning about causality. There are two important
types of this fallacy.

In a Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc fallacy (“after this, therefore, because of this”) someone
concludes that A is the cause of B simply on the grounds that A preceded B in time.

In a non causa pro causa fallacy (“not the cause for the cause”) someone claims that A is
the cause of B, when in fact (1) A is not the cause of B, but (2) the mistake is not based merely on
one thing coming after another thing. One version of this fallacy is the fallacy of accidental

385
correlation. In this fallacy, the arguer concludes that one thing is the cause of another thing from
the mere fact that the two phenomena are correlated.

Slippery Slope (or “domino argument”) In this fallacy, someone objects to a position P on
the grounds that P will set off a chain reaction leading to trouble; but no reason is given for
supposing the chain will actually occur. Metaphorically, if we adopt a certain position, we will
start sliding down a slippery slope and we won ‘t be able to stop until we slide all the way to the
bottom (where some horrible result lies in wait).

Weak Analogy A fallacy committed when an analogical argument is presented but the
analogy is too weak to support the conclusion.

False Dilemma A fallacy committed when someone assumes there are only two alternatives,
eliminates one of these two, and concludes in favor of the second, when more than the two
stated alternatives exist, but have not been considered.

Suppressed Evidence In this fallacy, evidence that would count heavily against the
conclusion is left out of the argument or is covered up.

Special Pleading In this fallacy, the arguer applies a principle to someone else ‘s case but
makes a special exception to the principle in his own case.

Fallacies of Language
Equivocation In this fallacy, a particular word or phrase is used with one meaning in one
place, that word or phrase is used with another meaning in another place, and what has been
established on the basis of the one meaning is regarded as established with respect to the other
meaning. As a result, the conclusion depends on a word (or phrase) being used in two different
senses in the argument. The premises are true on one interpretation of the word, but the
conclusion follows only from a different interpretation.

Amphiboly A fallacy containing a statement that is ambiguous because of its grammatical

construction. One interpretation makes the statement true, the other makes it false. If the
ambiguous statement is interpreted one way, the premise is true but the conclusion is false; but
if the ambiguous statement is interpreted the other way, the premise is false. The meaning must
shift if the argument is going to go from a true premise to a true conclusion. If the meaning is
not allowed to shift during the argument, either the argument has false a premise or it is invalid.

Composition A fallacy in which someone uncritically assumes that what is true of a part of a
whole is also true of the whole.

Division A fallacy in which someone uncritically assumes that what is true of the

whole must be true of the parts.

386
 Types of Inductive Arguments (Chapter 33)

Analogical argument An argument in which we (a) assert an analogy between two

things or kinds of things, A and B; (b) point out that A has a particular feature and that

B is not known not to have the feature; and (c) conclude that B probably also has the

feature.

Enumerative induction Argument in which premises about observed individuals or

cases are used as a basis for a generalization about unobserved individuals or cases.

Inference to the best explanation A type of argument that (a) cites one or more

facts that need explanation, (b) canvasses possible explanations, (c) puts one

explanation forward as the best explanation, and (d) concludes that that explanation is

probably the correct (or true) explanation.

Mill’s Methods (for Finding Causes)

 Method of agreement The method for determining a probable cause that

comprises the following steps. (1) Draw up a list of possible causes. (2) Look for

one causal factor common to all cases of the effect. (3) Select this as the probable

cause or as part of the probable cause.

 Method of concomitant variation The method for determining a probable

cause that is based on the following general principle: If changes in one

phenomenon accompany or correspond to (are concomitant with) changes in a

second phenomenon, and if the magnitude of the change in the one varies along

with the magnitude of the change in the second, the two phenomena are probably

387
 causally related—either one of the two probably causes the other, or some third

factor is probably the cause of both.

 Method of difference The method for determining a probable cause that

comprises the following steps. (1) Examine a case where an effect E occurs and a

similar case where E does not occur. (2) Choose as the probable cause the one

respect in which the case where the effect E occurs differs from the case where E

is absent.

 Method of residues This method is based on the following general principle: If

we know that (a) A, B, and C are causal conditions responsible for effects X, Y,

and Z; and (b) A is found to be the cause of X; and (c) C is found to be the cause

of Y, we can figure that B, the residual factor, is probably the cause of Z.</BL>

Unit Six
Modal Logic
Chapter 35
Definitions

Anything short of self-contradiction counts as logically possible, no matter how

improbable, unlikely, or bizarre it is.

A possible circumstance is any noncontradictory state of affairs.

388
A proposition expressed by a declarative sentence is a necessarily true proposition

if it is true in all possible circumstances, false in none.

A proposition expressed by a declarative sentence is a necessarily false proposition

if it is false in all possible circumstances, true in none.

A proposition that is neither necessarily true nor necessarily false is logically

contingent.

A proposition is possibly true if it is true in at least one possible circumstance, and it is

possibly false if there is at least one possible circumstance in which it is false.

A possible world is one way the world might be or might have been.

Semantics

 A proposition P is necessarily true if and only if it is true in all possible worlds.

 A proposition P is necessarily false if and only if it is false in all possible worlds.

 A proposition P is possibly true if and only if it is true in at least one possible world.

 A proposition P is possibly false if and only if it is false in at least one possible world.

 A proposition P is contingent if and only if it is true in some possible worlds and it is

false in some possible worlds.

 An argument is valid if and only if there are no possible worlds in which its premises

would be true and at the same time its conclusion would be false.

 An argument is invalid if and only if there is at least one possible world in which its

premises would be true and at the same time its conclusion would be false.

 P implies Q if and only if there are no possible worlds in which P is true and Q is false.

 P and Q are equivalent if and only if there are no possible worlds in which they differ in

truth-value.

389
  P and Q are consistent if and only if there is at least one possible world in which they are

both true.

 P and Q are inconsistent if and only if there is not at least one possible world in which

they are both true.</BL>

Modal Principles
MP 1: If P is tautological, then □ P

MP 2: □ P → P

MP3: [□ P & (P → Q)] → □ Q

MP4: □ P→ □ □ P

MP 5: ◊P □ ◊ P

Rules of Inference

Rule 1. From □P, infer P. Box Removal Rule (BR)

Rule 2. From P, infer ◊ P. Possibility Intro Rule (PI)

Rule 3. From P → Q and P, infer Q. Modal Modus Ponens

(MMP)

Rule 4. From P → Q and ~Q, infer ~P. Modal Modus Tollens

(MMT)

390
Rule 5. From P → Q and Q → R, infer P→ R. Modal Hypothetical

Syllogism (MHS)

Rule 6: From ▼P, infer ◊ P & ◊ ~P. Contingency (C)

Rule 7: You may trade □ for ◊ or ◊ for □

if you add a tilde to each side, canceling

out any double negations that might result. Diamond Exchange(DE)

Errata
Introduction to Logic

The following are all the substantive typos identified by faculty and students using my new text,
Introduction to Logic. Two or three very small typos are not listed because they are obvious and would
not lead anyone astray. Many thanks especially to Professors Catharine Roth and Andrew Jeffery, who
have identified errors and forwarded them to me; and to students in my logic classes who have also
founds typos and sent them to me. I appreciate your help. --Paul

Chapter 7:

Page 117: Line 10: Add “not” to ”Some Ionians are Greeks”… The line now reads:

“Some Ionians are not Greeks,” is true or false.

Chapter 11:

391
Page 243: Top of page, right column. The numerals “3” and “2” need to trade places.
Thus, the right column reads:

2. The 2nd

3. Therefore the 1st

Chapter 12:

Page 252: 8 lines up from bottom: At end of line, replace (A > B) with (E > G). (Note: I
am using here the greater than sign (>) for horseshoe ( ) because horseshoe doesn’t
always come through in some programs.)

Line then looks like this:

 Start with E………and wrap: (E > G)

Chapter 13:

Page 280: Middle of page, 13 lines up from bottom: Replace E with O. Line now looks
like this:

fuel tank contains gasoline” and if O abbreviates……

10 lines up from bottom: replace G > R with G > O. Line now looks like this:

G>O

4 lines up from bottom: Replace R > G with O > G. Line now looks like this:

O>G

Chapter 14:

Page 295: Line 12: Change each bold T to bold F. Line now looks like this:

true. (Keep in mind that we assigned F to A, we did not assign F to the ~A.)

Chapter 16:

Page 338: Ex 16.7 Problem 8: Change conclusion of problem 8 to: A . So problem 8 now
looks like this:

392
8. ~( A v B) / A.

Chapter 18: –

Page 369: Four lines up from bottom: Remove this odd symbol: “>/”

Chapter 20:

Page 403: Eight lines up from bottom: Between “apply” and “DM” insert: “DN and”. The
line should then read:

Because line 5 instantiates…, we next apply DN and DM to it and…”

Page 403: Six lines up from bottom, so two lines below the above, Replace “DM 5 ” with
“DN, DM 5” Line now looks like this:

6. (E & F) DN, DM 5

Page 406: Problem 2, line 4 of problem 2: Change conclusion, on line 4 of problem, to:

~ ~ (F v S). The line now looks like this:

4. C > S / ~ ~( F v S)

On line 10 of problem, remove ~(~F & ~S) and replace with ~~(F v S). Line now looks
like this:

10. ~ ~ (F v S).

Page 418: Five lines up from bottom: Problem 22, line 3: Remove 2nd tilde (~) : Line
then looks like this:

3. ~T / P v ~Q

Page 420: Two typos:

Problem 36, line 1. Main connective should be > (horseshoe  ) rather than ampersand
(&).

Bottom section of page 420, Ex 20.5: This exercise has three proofs. But proof #2 is
supposed to be two proofs, not one proof. So, in problem 2, lines 1 and 2 are one proof,
which should be labeled 2; and then lines 3 and 4 are the second proof, which should be

393
labeled proof #3, and thus should be numbered 1, 2. Problem #3 should be changed to
#4. So, Ex 20.5 thus contains four proofs, 1, 2, 3, 4, instead of 3 proofs, and should then
look like this:

1.

1. P > (P > Q)

2. P / Q

2.

1. P > P

2. ~P > P / P

3.

1. P > Q

2. P > ~Q / ~P

4.

1. P & Q) > R

2. ~R

3. P / ~Q

Chapter 21:

Page 435, 10 lines down: On lines 3 through 7 of the problem, move just the letters (H,
H v S, ~E & B, ~E, G) over to the right side of the vertical line.

Page 437: 7 lines up from bottom, line 15 of proof: Move the letter A over to right side of
line and extend line one line down to the A:

Selected Answers (at back of text)

Page E 26, Problem 36 answer:

Line 1: The missing main connective should be horseshoe . Line then looks like this:

394
Line 2: The very first horseshoe should be a triple bar (). Line then looks like this:

line 7: The missing connective in middle is horseshoe. Line then looks like this:

7. J > I

line 10: The connective should be triple bar  not horseshoe. Line then looks like this:

10. J  I

Page E-28: Four lines down from top, delete the first tilde (~). Line now reads:

5. 1. I v Z

Next line: Add tilde (~) to I. Line now reads:

2. Z > A / ~I >. (Z & A)

Next line: Delete one tilde. Line now reads:

3. ~I ACP

Line 7, last line of same problem: Delete one tilde (~). Line now reads:

7. ~I > (Z & A) CP 3-6

395