UNIT 2 FORMAL PROOF OF VALIDITY: RULES OF REPLACEMENT

Contents

2.0 Objectives
2.1 Introduction
2.2 The Rules of Replacement
2.3 Testing the Validity of Arguments (The Rules of Replacement)
2.4 The Rules of Inference and Replacement
2.5 Test of Arguments in Verbal Form
2.6 Let Us Sum Up
2.7 Key Words
2.8 Further Readings and References
2.9 Answers to Check Your Progress

2.0 OBJECTIVES

The main objective of this unit is to expose the inadequacy of the rules of inference. While this
is the primary objective, which is intended to be achieved, there is another objective. It is to
demonstrate that logic is a growing science. If new techniques of testing arguments are invented,
then logic stands on par with technological science where continuous inventions and
improvements are the order of the day. This unit also serves to demonstrate a crucial factor that
all arguments do not fall under one or two categories. Therefore the same set of rules cannot
guarantee success.

By the time you go through this unit, you should be in a position to identify the type of rules that
are required to test given argument. This sort of ability can be acquired only by practice.
Therefore, the arguments are designed in such a way that you are required to employ both the
rules of inference and replacement.

2.1 INTRODUCTION

Not all arguments can be tested only with the rules of inference, though as shown in the previous
unit, highly complex and diverse arguments succumb to these rules. Just as modern logic tried to
supplement traditional logic, within modern logic, the need was felt to supplement the rules of
inference. Hence we have the rules of replacement. The structure of argument may be such that
it may require only the rules of replacement or only the rules of inference as we found it out in
the previous unit or both. We have ten such rules, which are called the rules of replacement.
The difference between these two sets of rules is that the rules of inference are themselves
inferences whereas rules of replacement are not. However, the rules of replacement are restricted
to change or change in the form of statements. For example, A or B is changed to B or A, or AΛ

1
(B v C) is changed to (A Λ B) v (AΛC). Also, in the mode of application of rules there is a
restriction. Any rule of inference should be applied to the whole line only, as mentioned in the
previous unit, whereas any rule of replacement can be applied to any part of the line. Suppose,
for example, that a line consists of the expression ‘A => (B Λ D)’. The consequent part cannot
be simplified. The reason is simple. Suppose that either B or D is false, when A is false.
Implication is still true. But we do not know whether B is true or D is true. On the other hand,
no such restriction applies to any one of the ten rules, which are called replacement rules. All
rules of replacement are logically equivalent expressions (i.e., these biconditionals (exposed with
the symbol ‘≡’ / ‘<=>’ will be tautologies (true in all substitution instances) and so their
replacement would be free from mistakes).

2.2 THE RULES OF REPLACEMENT

1 De Morgan’s Law (De M.) ⌐ (p Λ q) ≡ (⌐ p v ⌐q)

⌐ (p v q) ≡ (⌐ p Λ ⌐ q)

2 Commutation Law (Com.) pvq≡qvp

pΛq≡qΛp
3 Double Negation(D.N.) ⌐ (⌐ p) ≡ p
4 Transposition (Trans.) (p => q) ≡ (⌐ q => ⌐ p)
5 Material Implication (Impl.) (p => q) ≡ ⌐ p v q
6 Material Equivalence (Equiv.) (p ≡ q) ≡ {(p => q) Λ (q => p)}
(p ≡ q) ≡ {(p Λ q) v (⌐ p Λ ⌐q)}

7 Exportation (Exp.) {(p Λ q) => r} ≡ {p => (q => r)}

8 Tautology (Taut.) p≡pvp
p≡pΛp

9 Association (Ass.) {p v (q v r)} ≡ {(p v q) v r}

{p Λ (q Λ r)} ≡ {p Λ q) Λ r}

10 Distribution (Dist.) {p Λ (q v r)} ≡ {(p Λ q) v (p Λ r)}

{p v (q Λ r)} ≡ {p v q) Λ (p v r)}

Some of these rules are structurally similar to some forms of immediate inference. For example,
commutation law is similar, structurally, to simple conversion. Double negation is obversion.
Transposition is what is called contraposition of hypothetical proposition in traditional logic.
Finally, de Morgan’s law is contradiction applied to disjunctive and conjunctive propositions.

Now our task is well defined. We examine, initially, arguments which require only these rules.

a. TESTING THE VALIDITY OF ARGUMENTS

(THE RULES OF INFERENCE AND REPLACEMENT)

1 pΛq

2
 ⌐ (⌐q v ⌐p)
Ans:
1 pΛq / ⌐ (⌐q v ⌐p)
2 qΛp 1, Com.
3 ⌐ (⌐q v ⌐p) 2, (De.M.)

2 1 p => q / ⌐q => ⌐p
⌐q => ⌐p 1, Trans.
3 1 ⌐ p => q / ⌐q => p
2 ⌐q => ⌐ (⌐p) 1, Trans.
3. ⌐q => p 2, D.N.
Let us use symbols for propositions instead of proposition form.

4 1 {I => (J => K)} Λ (J => ⌐I) / {(I Λ J) => K} Λ (J => ⌐ I)}

2 {(I Λ J) => K} Λ (J => ⌐I) 1, Exp.

5 1 (R Λ S) => (⌐R v ⌐S) / (⌐R v ⌐S) => (R Λ S) .

2 (⌐R v ⌐S) => (R Λ S) 1,De.M.

6 1 (T v ⌐U) Λ {(W Λ ⌐V) => ⌐T}/ (T v ⌐U) Λ {(W=>(⌐V=>⌐T)}

2 (T v ⌐U) Λ {(W=>(⌐V=>⌐T)} 1, Exp.

7 1 (X v Y) Λ (⌐X v Z)/ (X v Y Λ ⌐X) v {(X v Y) Λ Z}

2 (X v Y Λ ⌐X) v {(X v Y) Λ Z} 1, Dist.

8 1 Z => (A => B) / Z => ⌐{ ⌐ (A => B)}

2 Z => ⌐{ ⌐ (A => B)} 1, D.N.
9 1 (⌐F v G) Λ (F => G) / F => G.)
2 (F => G) Λ (F => G) 1 Impl.
3 F=> G 2 Taut.

2.4 THE RULES OF INFERENCE AND REPLACEMENT

3
Now we shall consider different types of arguments, which may involve both kinds of rules.

Although construction of formal proof is an interesting section in Symbolic Logic, certain tips as
regards its procedure is in order. 1. Concentrate on the general form of the argument, and not to
he confused by the complexity of the statements involved. See the following example:
(A v D) => [(C v D) => (C => D)]
⌐ [(C v D) => (C => D)]
∴⌐ (A v D)

Although it is a highly complex argument verbally and symbolically, closer observation will tell
us that it is an instance of Modus Tollens. 2. Simplification will help us in dropping the
statements; H.S. will drop the middle term and connect with a new consequent. M.P. liberates
the consequent. 3. Distribution enables us to transform a conjunction into disjunction and vice
versa. Double negation avoids the negation signs. 4. If conclusion to be followed is a
disjunction, it can be derived in three ways, i.e., by applying C.D. or D.D.; deduce a statement
and the apply Addition, and find out an implication, then turn to a Disjunction. 5. If the
conclusion is a conditional statement, it can be found through H.S., or deduce a disjunction and
then turn it by applying Material implication. Thought-out application of the rules and
imagination is the best means of success in constructing formal proof.

10 1 (O => ⌐ P) Λ (P => Q)
2 Q => O
3 ⌐R => P / R
4 ⌐QvO 2, Impl.
5 Ov⌐Q 4, Com.
6 (O => ⌐ P ) Λ (⌐ Q => ⌐ P) 1, Trans,
7 ⌐P v ⌐P 6, 5, C.D.
8 ⌐P 7, Taut.
9 ⌐⌐R 3, 8, M.T.
10 R 9, D.N.

11. 1 X => (Y => Z)

2 X => (A => B)
3 X Λ (Y v A)
4 ⌐Z / B
5 (X Λ Y) => Z 1, Exp.
6 (X Λ A) => B 2, Exp.
7 (X Λ Y) v (X Λ A) 3, Dist.
8 {(X Λ Y) => Z} Λ {(X Λ A) => B} 5,6, Conj.
9 ZvB 8, 7, C.D.
10 B 9, 4, D.S.

12. 1 C => (D => ⌐ C)

4
 2 C≡D / ⌐C v ⌐D
3 C => (⌐ ⌐C => ⌐D) 1, Trans.
4 C => (C => ⌐D) 3, D.N.
5 (C Λ C) => ⌐D 4, Exp.
6 C => ⌐D 5, Taut.
7 ⌐C v ⌐D 6, Impl.

13. 1 E Λ (F v G)
2 (E Λ G) => ⌐ (H v I)
3 ⌐ (⌐H v ⌐I) => ⌐ (E Λ F) / H≡I
4 (E Λ G) => (⌐H Λ ⌐I) 2, De.M.
5 ⌐ (H Λ I) => ⌐ (E Λ F) 3, De.M.
6 (E Λ F) => (H Λ I) 5, Trans.
7 {(E Λ F) => (H Λ I)} Λ {(E Λ G) => (⌐H Λ ⌐I)} 6,4,Conj.
8 (E Λ F) v (E Λ G) 1, Dist.
9 (H Λ I) v (⌐H Λ ⌐I) 7,8, C.D.
10 H≡I 9, Equiv.

14. 1 J v (⌐K v J)
2 K v (⌐J v K) / J≡K
3 (⌐K v J) v J 1, Com.
4 ⌐k v (J v J) 3, Ass.
5 ⌐K v J 4, Taut.
6 K => J 5, Impl.
7 (⌐J v K) v K 2, Com.
8 ⌐J v (K v K) 7, Ass.
9 ⌐J v K 8, Taut.
10 J => K 9, Impl.
11 (J => K) Λ (K => J) 10, 6, Conj.
12 J≡K 11, Equi.

15. 1 (E Λ F) Λ G
2 (F ≡ G) => (H v I) / IvH
3 E Λ (F Λ G) 1, Ass.
4 (F Λ G) Λ E 3, Com.
5 (F Λ G) 4, Simp.
6 (F Λ G) v (⌐ F Λ ⌐ G) 5, Add.
7 F≡G 6, Equiv.
8 HvI 2, 7, M.P.
9 IvH 8, Com.

16. 1 (M => N) Λ (⌐ O v P)

5
 2 Mv⌐O / NvP
3 NvP 1, 2,C.D.

17. 1 (L v M) v (N Λ O)
2 (⌐ L Λ O) Λ ⌐ (⌐ L Λ M) / ⌐L Λ N
3 ⌐ L Λ [O Λ ⌐ (⌐ L Λ M)] 2, Ass.
4 ⌐L 3, Simp.
5 L v {(M v (N Λ O)} 1, Ass.
6 M v (N Λ O) 5,4, D.S.
7 ⌐ (⌐ L Λ M) 2, Simpl.
8 Lv ⌐ M 7, De. M.
9 ⌐M 8, 4, D.S.
10 NΛO 6, 9, D.S.
11 N 10, Simpl.
12 ⌐LΛN 4,11, Conj.

18. 1 E => (F => G) / F => (E => G)

2 (E Λ F) => G 1, Exp.
3 (F Λ E) => G 2, Com.
4 F => (E => G) 3, Exp.

19. 1 H => (I Λ J) / H=>I

2 ⌐ H v (I Λ J) 1, Impl.
3 (⌐ H v I) Λ (⌐ H v J) 2, Dist.
4 ⌐HvI 3, Simp.
5 H => I 4, Impl.

20. 1 N => O / (N Λ P) => O

2 ⌐NvO 1, Impl.
3 ⌐Pv⌐NvO 2, Add.
4 ⌐ (P Λ N) v O 3, De.M.
5 (P Λ N) => O 4, Impl.
6 (N Λ P) => O 5, Com.

21. 1 (Q v R) => S / Q => S

2 ⌐ (Q v R) v S 1, Impl.
3 (⌐ Q Λ ⌐R) v S 2, De.M.
4 (⌐Q v S) Λ (⌐ R v S) 3, Dist.
5 ⌐Q v S 4, Simp.
6 Q => S 5, Impl.

6
22. 1 T => ⌐ (U => V) / T => U
2 T => ⌐ {⌐ ( U Λ ⌐V)} 1, D.N.
3 ⌐T v (U Λ ⌐V) 2, Impl.
4 (⌐T v U) Λ (⌐T v ⌐V) 3, Dist.
5 ⌐T v U 4, Simp.
6 T => U 5, Impl.

23. 1 W => (X v ⌐Y) / W => (Y => X)

2 W => (⌐Y v X) 1, Com.
3 W => (Y => X) 2, Impl.

24. 1 H => (I v J)
2 ⌐I / H => J
3 ⌐H v (I v J) 1, Impl.
4 ⌐H v (J v I) 3, Com.
5 (⌐H v J) v I 4, Ass.
6 ⌐H v J 5, 2, D.S.
7 H=> J 6, Impl.

25. 1 (K v L) => ⌐ (M Λ N)
2 (⌐M v ⌐N) => (O ≡ P)
3 (O ≡ P) => (Q Λ R) / (L v K) => (R Λ Q)
4 (L v K) => ⌐ (M Λ N) 1, Com.
5 (L v K) => (⌐M v ⌐N) 4, De.M.
6 L v K) => (O ≡ P) 5, 2, H.S.
7 (L v K) => (Q Λ R) 6, 3, H.S.
8 (L v K) => (R Λ Q) 7, Com.

26. 1 (D Λ E) => F
2 (D => F) => G / E=>G
3 (E Λ D) => F 1, Com.
4 E => (D => F) 3, Exp.
5 E => G 4, 2, H.S.

27. 1 (H v I) => {J Λ (K Λ L)}

2 I / JΛK
3 IvH 2, Add.
4 HvI 3, Com.
5 J Λ (K Λ L) 1, 4, M.P.
6 (J Λ K) Λ L 5, Ass.

7
 7 JΛK 6, Simp.

28. 1 (M v N) => (O Λ P)
2 ⌐O / ⌐M
3 ⌐O v ⌐P 2, Add.
4 ⌐ (O Λ P) 3, De.M.
5 ⌐ (M v N) 1, 4, M.T.
6 ⌐M Λ ⌐N 5, De.M.
7 ⌐M 6, Simp.

29. 1 T Λ (U v V)
2 T => {U => (W Λ X)}
3 (T Λ V) => ⌐ (W v X) / W≡X
4 (T Λ U) => (W Λ X) 2, Exp.
5 (T Λ V) => (⌐W Λ ⌐X) 3, De.M.
6 {(T Λ U) => (W Λ X)} Λ {(T ΛV) => (⌐W Λ ⌐X)} 4, 5, Conj.
7 (TΛU) v (TΛV) 1, Dist.
8 (W Λ X) v (⌐WΛ⌐X) 6,7, C.D.
9 W≡X 8, Taut.

30. 1 Y => Z
2 Z => {Y => (R Λ S)}
3 ⌐ (R Λ S) / ⌐Y
4 Y => {Y => (R Λ S)} 1,2, H.S.
5 (Y Λ Y) => (R Λ S) 4, Exp.
6 Y => (R Λ S) 5, Taut.
7 ⌐Y 6, 3, M.T.
31. 1 AvB
2 C v D / {(A v B) Λ C} v {( (A v B) Λ D )
3 (A v B) Λ (C v D) 1, 2,Conj.
4 {(A v B) Λ C} v {(A v B) Λ D} 3, Dist.

32. 1 (I v ⌐ ⌐J) Λ K
2 {⌐ L => ⌐ (K Λ J)} Λ {K => ( I=> ⌐M)} / ⌐ (M Λ ⌐ L)
3 {(K Λ J) => L} Λ {K => (I => ⌐ M)} 2, Trans.
4 {(K Λ J) => L} Λ {(K Λ I) => ⌐ M} 3, Exp.
5 (I v J) Λ K 1, D.N.
6 K Λ (I v J) 5, Com.
7 (K Λ I) v (K Λ J) 6, Dist.
8 (K Λ J) v ( K Λ I) 7, Com.
8
 9 L v ⌐M 4, 8, C.D.
10 ⌐MvL 9, Com.
11 ⌐ (M Λ ⌐ L) 10, De. M.

2.5 TEST OF ARGUMENTS IN VERBAL FORM

Let us start with verbal form of argument and symbolize the statement and logical constants
before proceeding to test the validity of the arguments. (Problems are worked out at the end.)

1. Oxygen in the tube either combines with filament to form an oxide or else it vanishes
completely. Oxygen in the tube could not have vanished completely. Therefore the oxygen
in the tube combined with the filament to form an oxide.
2. If a political leader who sees her former opinions to be wrong does not alter her course, she
is guilty of deceit; and if she does alter her course, she is open to a charge of inconsistency.
She either alters her course or she does not. Therefore either she is guilty of deceit or else
she is open to a charge of inconsistency.
3. It is not the case that she either forgot or wasn’t able to finish. She did not forget.
Therefore she was able to finish.
4. She can have many friends only if she respects them as individuals. If she respects them as
individuals, then she cannot expect them all to behave alike. She does have many friends.
Therefore she does not expect them all to behave alike.
5. If the victim had money in his pockets, then robbery was not the motive for the crime. But
robbery or vengeance was the motive for the crime. The victim had money in his pockets.
Therefore vengeance must have been the motive for the crime.
6. Napoleon is to be condemned if he usurped power that was not rightfully his own. Either
Napoleon was a legitimate monarch or else he usurped power that was not rightfully his
own. Napoleon was not a legitimate monarch. So Napoleon is to be condemned.
7. If we extend further credit on the Wilkins account, they will have a moral obligation to
accept our bid on their next project. We can figure a more generous margin of profit in
preparing our estimates if they have a moral obligation to accept our bid on their next
project. Figuring a more generous margin of profit in preparing our estimates will cause
our general financial condition to improve considerably. Hence a considerable
improvement in our general financial condition will follow from our extension of further
credit on the Wilkins account.
8. Had Roman citizenship guaranteed civil liberties, then Roman citizens would have enjoyed
religious freedom. Had Roman citizens enjoyed religious freedom, there would have been
no persecution of the early Christians. But the early Christians were persecuted. Hence
Roman citizenship would not have guaranteed civil liberties.
9. Jalaja will come if she gets the message provided that she is still interested. Although she
did not come she is still interested. Therefore she did not get the message.
10. If the teller or the cashier had pushed the alarm button, the vault would have locked
automatically and the police would have arrived within three minutes. Had the police
arrived within three minutes, the robber’s car would have been overtaken. But the robber’s
car was not overtaken. Therefore the teller did not push alarm button.

9
11. If people are always guided by their sense of duty, they forget the enjoyment of many
pleasures; and if they are always guided by their desire for pleasure, they must often
neglect their duty. People are either always guided by their sense of duty or always guided
by their desire for pleasure. If people are always guided by their sense of duty, they do not
often neglect their duty; and if they are always guided by their desire for pleasure, they do
not forget for enjoyment of many pleasures. Therefore people must forget the enjoyment
of many pleasures if and only if they do not often neglect their duty.
12. Although world population is increasing agricultural production is declining and
manufacturing output remains constant. If agricultural production declines and world
population increases, then either new food sources will become available or else there will
be a radical redistribution of food resources in the world unless human nutritional
requirements diminish. No new food sources will become available, yet neither will family
planning be encouraged nor will human nutritional requirements diminish. Therefore there
will be a radical redistribution of food resources in the world.

Answers: The components are symbolized in this way:

1. 1 Combined with filament: C

2 Else it vanished: V
3 Could not have vanished: ⌐V
Statements / Arguments:
1CvV
2 ⌐V / C 1, D. S.

2. 1 A political leader…does not alter her course: ⌐C

2 She is guilty of deceit: D
3 She alters her course: C
4 She is open to a charge of inconsistency I
Statements:
1 (⌐ C => D) Λ (C => I)
2 Cv⌐C / DvI
3 ⌐CvC 2, Com.
4 DvI 1,3, C.D.

3. 1 It is not the case that: ⌐

2 She either forgets: F
3 She did not forget. ⌐F
3 Not able to furnish: ⌐A
Statements / Arguments
1 ⌐ (F v ⌐A)
2 ⌐F / A
3 ⌐FΛA 1,De.M.
4 A 3,Simpl.

10
4. She does not respect them as individuals: ⌐R
She can have many friends: F
She cannot expect… ⌐E
Statement / Argument
1 ⌐R => ⌐ F
2 R => ⌐ E
3 F / ⌐E
4 R 1, 3, M.T.
5 ⌐E 2, 4, M.P.

5. 1 The victim had money… M

2 Robbery was not the motive ⌐R
3 Robbery or Vengence…. RvV
Statements / Argument
1 M => ⌐R
2RvV
3M / V
4⌐R 1, 3, M.P.
V 2, 4, D.S.

6. 1 He usurped power that was not…. U

2 Napoleon is to be condemned C
3 Napoleon was a legitimate… L
Statements / Argument
1 U => C
2 LvU
3 ⌐L / C
4 U 2,3, D.S.
C 1, 4, M.P.

7. 1 We extend further credit… C

2 They will have a moral obligation…. M
3 We can figure…. F
4 Considerable improvement… I
Statement / Argument
1 C => M
2 M => F
3 F => I / C => I
4 C => F 1,2, H.S.
C => I 4,3, H.S.

11
Check Your Progress

Note: a) Use the space provided for your answer.

b) Check your answers with those provided at the end of the unit.

Out of several problems, we have worked out seven problems. The student is advised to solve
the rest, which is a very good method of learning to test the arguments of complicated structure.

2.6 LET US SUM UP

Just as the laws of traditional logic are inadequate to test the validity, rules of inference also are
inadequate. So the stock of rules is further augmented with the help of the rules of replacement.
Rule of inference applies to the whole line. However, the rule of replacement may apply to the
whole line or any part of the line. Various types of arguments can be tested with the help of
these rules.

2.7 KEY WORDS

Usurp: Usurp is to seize power from another, usually by illegitimate means.

Technology: Technology is a broad concept that deals with human’s usage and knowledge of
tools and crafts, and how it affects human’s ability to control and adapt to environment.
Technology is a term with origins in the Greek “technologia,” “techne” (“craft”) and “logia”
(“saying”). However, a strict definition is elusive; “technology” can refer to material objects of
use to humanity, such as machines, hardware or utensils, but can also encompass broader themes,
including systems, methods of organization, and techniques.

2.8 FURTHER READINGS AND REFERENCES

Copi, I.M. Symbolic Logic. 4th Ed. New Delhi: Collier Macmillan International, 1973.

Copi, I.M. Introduction to Logic. 9th Ed. New Delhi: Prentice Hall of India, 1995.

Joseph, H.W.B. An Introduction to Logic. Oxford: 1906.

Lewis, C.I. & Longford, C.H. Symbolic Logic. New York: Dover Pub. Inc.,1959.

2.9 ANSWERS TO CHECK YOUR PROGRESS

It may be noted that every symbol is the first letter first or second term in the respective
component.

12
8 1) R => F
2) F => ⌐ C
3) C / ⌐R
4) ⌐ F 2, 3, M.T.
5) ⌐R 1, 4, M.T.

9 This particular argument is in need of some restructuring for the sake of convenience without
changing meaning. It is done in the following manner.

If Jalaja will come and she is interested then she would have got the message. She did not come
and she is interested. Therefore she did not get the message.
Now it is easy to symbolize.
1) (J Λ I) => S
2) ⌐SΛI / ⌐J
3) J => (I =>S) 1,Exp.
4) J => (⌐ I v S) 3,Impl.
5) J => ⌐ (I Λ ⌐ S) 4,De.M.
6) I Λ ⌐S 2,Com.
7) ⌐J 5,6,M.T.
10
1) (T v C) => (V Λ P )
2) P => R
3) ⌐R / ⌐T
4) ⌐P 2, 3, M.T.
5 ⌐ P v ⌐V 4, Add.
6 ⌐V v ⌐ P 5,Com.
7 ⌐ (T v C ) 1,6. M.T
8 ⌐TΛ ⌐C 7, De.M.
9 ⌐T 8, Simp.
11
1 (D => F) Λ (P => N)

2 D v P)

3 ( D => ⌐ N) Λ ( P => ⌐ F) / (F => ⌐ N) Λ (⌐ N => F)

4FvN 1, 2, C.D.

5 ⌐Nv⌐F 3, 2, C. D.

6 ⌐ F => N 4, Impl.

13
 7 N => ⌐ F 5,Impl.

8 ( ⌐ F => N) Λ ( N => ⌐ F ) 6, 7, Conj.

9 (⌐ N => F ) Λ ( F => ⌐N) 8, Trans.

10 ( F => ⌐ N ) Λ (⌐ N => F) 9, Com.

12
This argument also stands in need of restructuring of some sentences. It runs as follows.
World population is increasing and agricultural production is declining and
manufacturing output remains constant. When symbolized it becomes
W and A and M

Next the phrase ‘unless human nutritional requirements diminish’ becomes

human nutritional requirements do not diminish’. And then the statement ‘neither will
family planning be encouraged nor will human nutritional requirements diminish’ means
the same as world population is increasing and human nutritional requirements do not
diminish. The next stage is now obvious. The whole argument can be symbolized.
1 W Λ (A Λ M)
2 (A Λ W) => (N v R) Λ H
3 ⌐N
4 W
5 ⌐H / R
6 (W Λ A) Λ M 1, Ass.
7 WΛA 6, Simp.
8 (A Λ W) 7, Com.
9 (N v R) Λ H 2, 8, M.P.
10 N v R 9, Simp.
11 R 10, 3, D.S.

Note that line 5 is redundant though it is the part of the argument. Therefore it
can be ignored.

14