Phil/LPS 31 Introduction to Inductive Logic

Homework 2
Due Monday 17th April 2023 4pm

Name: Student ID:

Instructions
1. Download this homework worksheet.
2. You may complete the worksheet using a suitable annotating software or by printing this worksheet
and writing down your answers with a pen or a pencil only in the spaces provided.
3. Write your name clearly in BLOCK LETTERS and your student ID in the spaces provided above.
4. You may talk to each other while working on this homework but everyone must upload their own
written work.
5. If you enter your answers with pen or pencil, use the free iOS and Android app CamScanner
(https://www.camscanner.com/) to clearly scan your solutions.
6. Upload your solutions to GradeScope by the due date and time. Late work will not be accepted.

Question 1 (20 points)

In class we have said what it means for a formula F to be: (1) a tautology, (2) contradictory. That F is a
tautology and that G is contradictory represent two extreme poles of the spectrum of truth values for formulas
in sentential logic. Most formulas involving sentences in English are neither tautologies nor contradictory.
So, call a formula F satisfiable or contingent if its truth function has value 1 under at least one truth value
assignment to its component simple sentences. It follows that a formula F is unsatisfiable if its truth function
has value 0 under every truth value assignment to its component simple sentences. Your task is to use
truth tables to determine whether the following formulas are: tautologies, contradictory (unsatisfiable) or
contingent (satisfiable).
(a) p (1 point)

1
(b) (p ∧ q) (1 point)

(c) (p ∨ q) (1 point)

(d) ((p ∧ q) → (p ∨ q)) (1.5 points)

(e) ((p ∨ q) → (p ∧ q)) (1.5 points)

2
(f) (¬¬p → p) (2 points)

(g) (p ∧ ¬p) (2 points)

(h) (p → (q → p)) (2 points)

(i) ((p ∧ q) ∧ (¬p ∨ ¬q)) (4 points)

3
(j) ((p ∨ q) → (¬p ∧ ¬q)) (4 points)

4
Question 2 (20 points)
In class we have shown how to use truth tables to determine if two formulas are truth-functionally equivalent.
If two formulas F and G are truth-functionally equivalent we introduce another symbol ↔, aptly called the
biconditional. Here is the truth table for the biconditional.
p q (p ↔ q)
1 1 1
1 0 0
0 1 0
0 0 1
Now we shall say that F and G are truth-functionally equivalent if (F ↔ G) is a tautology.
There are other properties of two formulas that we are usually interested in besides truth-functional
equivalence. One of these properties is when two formulas are mutually exclusive. We say two formulas F
and G are mutually exclusive if (F ∧ G) is contradictory (unsatisfiable).
Now using truth tables determine whether the following formulas are truth-functionally equivalent or mutually
exclusive.
(a) p and ¬p (2 points)

(b) p and ¬¬p (2 points)

(c) ¬(p ∧ ¬q) and (p → q) (3 points)

5
(d) (¬p ∨ q) and (p → q) (3 points)

(e) ¬(¬p ∨ ¬q) and (p ∧ q) (5 points)

(f) ¬(¬p ∧ ¬q) and (p ∨ q) (5 points)

6
Question 3 (20 points)
In class we introduced some rules of inference that are truth preserving. Here are other rules of inference that
are truth preserving.
1. From a formula ¬G and (F → G), infer ¬F . This is known as modus tollens (Literally Latin for "the
way of taking away or removing")
2. From a formula F and (F → G), infer G. This is known as modus ponens (Literally Latin for "the way
of putting or placing")
3. From a formula (F ∧ G) infer F . Similarly from a formula (F ∧ G) infer G. So from a conjunction
of two formulas you can infer either conjunct. This rule of inference is sometimes called "conjunction
elimination."
Your task is to show that these rules of inference are truth preserving by verifying that the following formulas
are tautologies.
(a) Modus Tollens ((¬G ∧ (F → G)) → ¬F ) (5 points)

(b) Modus Ponens ((F ∧ (F → G)) → G) (5 points)

(c) Conjunction Elimination I ((F ∧ G) → F ) (5 points)

7
(d) Conjunction Elimination II ((F ∧ G) → G) (5 points)

8
Question 4 (20 points)
Consider the following arguments, in each case determine whether the argument is valid, i.e., is it an instance
of an argument form in deductive logic in which the rule of inference is truth-preserving?
(a) (2 points)
1. p
∴ 2. (p ∨ s)

(b) (3 points)
1. ¬(r ∨ s)
2. ((r ∨ s) ∨ p)
∴ 3. p

(c) (4 points)
1. (¬r ∨ ¬s)
2. ((p ∨ q) → (r ∧ s))
∴ 3. ¬(p ∨ q)

9
(d) (6 points)
1. (p → ¬¬p)
2. (¬¬¬p ∧ ¬p)
∴ 3. ¬p
∴ 4. (¬p ∨ q)

10
Question 5 (20 points)
Here are some arguments in English. Your task is to paraphrase these arguments in sentential logic then
determine whether or not the arguments are valid. The words in parentheses can be ignored; they are there
to simply help you to understand what the English arguments are saying. Hint: Clearly identify the premises
and the conclusion first.
1. Sondra mailed the grant proposal I placed on her desk. So she either mailed the grant proposal or
threw it away.

2. If you have a cake, then just looking at it will make you hungry. But if looking at it will make you
hungry, then you will eat it. So you can’t both have your cake and fail to eat it.

11
3. If I’m right, then I’m not wrong. But if I’m wrong, then I’m not right. Therefore, I’m not wrong.

4. Either we must philosophize or we must not. If we must philosophize, then we must philosophize. If we
must not philosophize, then we must philosophize (to justify this view). Hence, in any case we must
philosophize. (Aristotle)

12