0% found this document useful (0 votes)
70 views6 pages

Tutorial 4

1. The document discusses truth tables for logical statements involving implications and conjunctions. It provides examples of determining whether statements are true or false based on the truth values of variables. 2. Several argument forms are analyzed using truth tables to determine their validity. Statements are also characterized as tautologies, self-contradictories, or contingencies based on their truth tables. 3. Examples of symbolizing English statements as logical expressions with variables are given. An argument is translated into logical variables and analyzed using a truth table to determine validity.

Uploaded by

Pei Yong Tan
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
0% found this document useful (0 votes)
70 views6 pages

Tutorial 4

1. The document discusses truth tables for logical statements involving implications and conjunctions. It provides examples of determining whether statements are true or false based on the truth values of variables. 2. Several argument forms are analyzed using truth tables to determine their validity. Statements are also characterized as tautologies, self-contradictories, or contingencies based on their truth tables. 3. Examples of symbolizing English statements as logical expressions with variables are given. An argument is translated into logical variables and analyzed using a truth table to determine validity.

Uploaded by

Pei Yong Tan
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 6

1.

Draw the Truth Table for P ⊃ Q

P Q P⊃Q
T T T
T F F
F T T
F F T

2. If A, B and C are TRUE statements and X, Y and Z are false statements, please determine whether
the following are TRUE or FALSE. Show your workings.
i. A ⊃ B
If both antecedent and consequent are true, the statement is true.
TRUE

ii. (A ⊃ B) ⊃ C
The antecedent is an implication by itself. A and B are true so the antecedent is true.
The consequent, C is also true. Hence the statement is true.
TRUE

iii. A ⊃ X
The antecedent, A is true but the consequent, B is false. Hence the statement is false.
FALSE

iv. X ⊃ (Y ⊃ Z)
The consequent is an implication by itself. Y and Z are false so the consequent is true.
The antecedent, X is false. Hence the statement is true.
TRUE

v. [(A • X) ⊃ Y] ⊃ [(X ⊃ A) ⊃ (A ⊃ Y)]


LHS in square bracket: A • X is a conjunction whereby the statement is false if either conjunct is false.
Since X is false, this statement is false.
A • X is an antecedent to an implication. It is false. Y is the consequent and it is false. Hence the
statement is true. This statement is the antecedent to the whole statement.
RHS in square bracket: X ⊃ A is an antecedent. Since X is false and A is true, this statement is true.
A ⊃ Y is a consequent. Since A is true and Y is false, this statement is false.
The antecedent is true and the consequent is false. Hence the consequent to the whole statement is
false.
Since the overall antecedent is true and the overall consequent is false, this statement is false.

3. Use the Truth Table to prove the Validity or Invalidity of the argument forms
i.

A B AVB A•B (A V B) ⊃ (A •
B)

T T T T T

T F T F F

F T T F F

F F F F T

(A V B) ⊃ (A • AVB A•B
B)

T T T TTT

F T F FTF

F T F FTF

T F F TFF

VALID

ii.

I J IVJ I•J (I V J) ⊃ (I • J)

T T T T T

T F T F F

F T T F F

F F F F T

(I V J) ⊃ (I • J) ~ (I V J) ~( I • J)

T F F TFF
F F T FFT

F F T FFT

T T T TTT

VALID

iii.

E F E⊃F F⊃E EVF

T T T T T

T F F T T

F T T F T

F F T T F

E⊃F F⊃E EVF

T T T TTT

F T T FTT

T F T TFT

T T F TTF

INVALID

4. . Use the truth tables to characterize the following statements as tautologous, selfcontradictory or
contingent.
I. [p ⊃ (p ⊃ q)] ⊃ q

P Q P⊃Q P ⊃ (P ⊃ [P ⊃ (P ⊃ Q)] ⊃
Q) Q

T T T T T
T F F F T

F T T T T

F F T T F

contingent

II. p ⊃ [(p ⊃ q) ⊃ q]

P Q P⊃Q (P ⊃ Q) ⊃ P ⊃ [(P ⊃ Q) ⊃
Q Q]

T T T T T

T F F T T

F T T F T

F F T F T

tautology

III. p ⊃ [p ⊃ (q • ~q)]

P Q q • ~q p ⊃ (q • ~q)] p ⊃ [p ⊃ (q •
~q)]

T T F F F

T F F F F

F T F T T

F F F T T

Contingent

IV. (p ⊃ p) ⊃ (q • ~q)

P Q p⊃p q • ~q (p ⊃ p) ⊃ (q •
~q)

T T T F F

T F T F F

F T T F F

F F T F F

Selfcontradictory
5. Symbolized the following using capital letters to abbreviate the simple statements involved
i. If Argentina mobilizes then Brazil will protests to the UN and Chile will call for a meeting of all the
latin American states
A = Argentina mobilizes
B = Brazil will protests to the UN
C = Chile will call for a meeting of all the latin American states
A ⊃ (B • C)

ii. If Argentina mobilizes and Brazil protests to the UN then Chile will call for a meeting of all the latin
American states
A = Argentina mobilizes
B = Brazil will protests to the UN
C = Chile will call for a meeting of all the latin American states
(A • B) ⊃ C

iii. Brazil will protest to the UN if Argentina Mobilizes


A = Argentina mobilizes
B = Brazil will protests to the UN
A⊃B

iv. Brazil will not protest to the UN unless Argentina Mobilize


A = Argentina mobilizes
B = Brazil will protests to the UN
C = Chile will call for a meeting of all the latin American states
A⊃B

6. Use truth table to determine the validity or invalidity of the following arguments. You must first
translate your answer to the specific form of argument forms using (i.e. p, q & r).

If Angola achieves stability, then both Bostwana and Chad will adopt more liberal policies. But
Bostwana will not adopt a more liberal policy. Therefore Angola will not achieve stability.

P = Angola achieves stability


Q = Bostwana will adopt more liberal policies
R = Chad will adopt more liberal policies
P ⊃ (Q • R)
~Q
.: ~P

P Q R Q•R P ⊃ (Q • R) ~Q ~P

T T T T T F F TFF

T T F F F F F FFF

T F T F F T F FTF

T F F F F T F FTF

F T T T T F T TFT

F T F F T F T FFT

F F T F T T T FTT

F F F F T T T FTT

VALID

You might also like