2 Deductive Proof

DO YOU KNOW THAT ..............

l If someone offers you a ticket to Europe tour or Asia tour then Logic is on your side, if you
accept the ticket for Europe but not Asia, You can prove the Conclusion by showing that its
denial is impossible.
l When an idividual says ‘6 + 4’ is same as ‘4 + 6’ then that individual is using the rule of
Logic.

2.1 Formal Proof of Validity : are other methods in Logic for establishing the
validity of arguments and one of the method is
There are two types of methods used by the the ‘Method of Deductive Proof’.
logicians, for deciding or proving the validity of The Deductive Proof is of three types.
arguments. They are :
1) Decision Procedure such as Truth Table (1) The Direct Deductive Proof
Method, Shorter truth table method, Truth (2) Conditional Proof
tree etc. are used to decide validity of
(3) Indirect Proof
arguments.
In the Method of Direct Deductive Proof,
2) Methods that are not Decision procedure
the conclusion is deduced directly from the
such as Deductive proof, Conditional
premises by a sequence of Elementary valid
proof, Indirect proof are used to prove argument forms. The Elementary valid argument
validity of arguments. forms, used for this purpose are called the
Truth-table is a purely mechanical method ‘Rules of Inference’; we have already dealt
for deciding whether an argument is valid or with direct deductive proof and we know that
invalid, however it is not a convenient method the Direct Deductive proof is based on nine
when an argument contains many different rules of inference and ten rules based on rule of
truth-functional statements. In such cases there replacement as follows.
Rules of Inference :

(i) Rule of Modus Ponens (M.P.) (ii) Rule of Modus Tollens (M.T.)
pq pq
p ~q
\q \~p

(iii) Rule of Hypothetical syllogism (H.S.) (iv) Rule of Disjunctive syllogism (D.S.)
pq pÚq
qr ~p
\pr \q

(v) Rule of Constructive Dilemma (D.D.) (vi) Rule of Destructive Dilemma (D.D.)
(p  q) . (r  s) (p  q) . (r  s)
pÚr ~qÚ~s
\ qÚs \ ~pÚ~r

9
 (vii) Rule of Conjunction (Conj.)
(viii) Rule of Simplification (Simp.)
p
p.q
q
\p
\p.q

(ix) Rule of Addition (Add.)

p
\pÚq

Rules based on the rule of Replacement:

(i) Rule of Double Negation (D.N.) (ii) De-Morgan’s Law (De. M.)
~~pºp ~ (p . q) º (~ p Ú ~ q)
~ (p Ú q) º (~ p . ~ q)

(iii) Associative Laws (Assoc.) (iv) Distributive Laws (Dist.)

[(p . q) . r)] º [p . (q . r)] [p . (q Ú r) º [(p . q) Ú (p . r)]
[(p Ú q) Ú r)] º [p Ú (q Ú r)] [p Ú (q . r) º [(p Ú q) . (p Ú r)]

(v) Commutative Law (Comm.) (vi) Rule of Transposition (Trans.)

(p . q) º (q . p) (p  q) º (~ q  ~ p)
(p Ú q) º (q Ú p)

(vii) Rule of Material Implication (M. Imp.) (viii) Rule of Material Equivalence (M. Equi)
(p  q) º (~ p Ú q) (p º q) º [(p  q) . (q  p)]
(p º q) º [(p . q) Ú (~ p . ~ q)]

(ix) Rule of Exportation (Export.) (x) Rule of Tautology (Taut.)

[(p . q)  r] º [p  (q  r)] p º (p . p)
p º (p Ú p)

2.2 Conditional Proof “By assuming the antecedent of the

conclusion as an additional premise, when its
The method of Conditional Proof is used consequent is deduced as the conclusion, the
to establish the validity of arguments, when the original conclusion will be taken to have been
conclusion of an argument is an implicative proved”.
(conditional) proposition. The method of
While using Conditional Proof, it should
Conditional Proof is based upon the Rule of
be noted that the conclusion can be any statement
Conditional Proof.
equivalent to a conditional statement. In such a
The Rule of Conditional Proof enables us case, first the equivalent conditional statement is
to construct shorter proofs of validity for some derived and then the Rule of Conditional Proof
arguments. Further by using it, we can prove is used. However, in this chapter, we will use
the validity of some arguments which cannot be Conditional Proof only when the conclusion is
proved by using the above nineteen rules. a conditional statement.
The Rule of Conditional Proof may be To illustrate let us construct a Conditional
expressed in a simple way : Proof of Validity for the following argument :

10
Example : 1 The proof may now be written down as :
~MN 1. ~MN /\ ~NM
\~NM 2. ~N
The proof may be written as follows : 3. ~ ~ M 1, 2 . M.T.
1. ~MN /\ ~NM 4. M 5 . D.N.
2. ~ N Assumption 5. ~ N  M 2 - 4, C.P.
3. ~ ~ M 1, 2 . M.T. The head of the arrow indicates that step
4. M 3 . D.N. 2 is an assumption. So the word “assumption”
need not be written as the justification.
Here the step 2 is the antecedent of the
conclusion. It is used as an assumption. (The If the conclusion has a compound
assumption should be indicated by bent arrow.) proposition with more than one conditional
statement as its components, then the antecedents
From the premise 1 and the assumption, of all the conditional statements can be assumed
one has deduced the consequent of the conclusion as additional premises.
by the Rule of M.T.
Let us take an example of this type :
However the proof is not complete. One Example : 2
has yet to arrive at the conclusion. To do so one
more step remains to be taken, i.e. to write down 1. (X Ú Y)  Z
the conlcusion, ‘~ N  M’. 2. A  (B · C) / \ (X  Z) · (A  B)
The proof is now written by adding step 5 3. X
thus :
4. X Ú Y 3, Add.
1. ~MN /\ ~NM
5. Z 1, 4 M.P.
2. ~ N Assumption
6. X  Z 3 - 5, C.P.
3. ~ ~ M 1, 2 . M.T.
7. A
4. M 3. D.N.
8. (B · C) 2, 7, M.P.
5. ~ N  M 2 - 4, C.P.
9. B 8, Simp.
The conclusion step 5 has not been
deduced from the assumption. So the conclusion 10. A  B 7 - 9, C.P.
lies outside the scope of the assumption. i.e. the
11 . (X  Z ) · (A  B) 6, 10 Conj.
scope of the assumption ends up with the last
step which follows from step 4. To mark this out Here the scope of the assumption in step
clearly the device of a bent arrow ( ) is used. 3 is independent of the scope of assumption in
The head of the arrow points at the assumption step 7.
and its shaft runs down till it reaches the last
statement which is deduced on its basis, then the Hence assumption in step 7 lies outside
arrow bends inwards and discharges (closes) the the scope of the assumption in step 3.
assumption. The last step i.e. step 5, where the But in the next example-3 given below, the
conclusion is written, will lie outside the scope scope of one assumption lies within the scope of
of assumption. the other assumption.

11
Example : 3 consists in proving the conclusion by showing
that its negation leads to contradiction.
1. (M · N)  O / \ ~ O  (M  ~ N)
An Indirect Proof of validity for an argument
2. ~O is constructed by assuming the negation of the
3. ~ (M · N) 1, 2 . M.T. conclusion as an additional premise. From this
additional premise, along with original premise/s
4. ~ M Ú ~ N 3, De.M. a contradiction is derived. A contradiction is a
5. M conjunction in which one conjunct is the denial
of the other conjunct. Eg. ‘A · ~ A’ , ‘(A Ú B) ·
6. ~ ~ M 5, D.N. ~ (A Ú B)’, are contradictions.
7. ~ N 4, 6 . D.S. By assuming the negation of the conclusion,
we obtain a contradiction. This shows that
8. M  ~ N 5-7, C.P.
the assumption is false. The assumption is the
9. ~ O  (M  ~ N) 2-8, C.P. negation of the conclusion. Since the assumption
is false, the original conclusion is taken to be
Here the assumption at step 5, lies within proved.
the scope of the assumption of step 2.
When this method of proof is used, the
Give justifications for each step of the validity of the original argument is said to follow
following formal proofs of validity by the by the rule of Indirect proof. Unlike conditional
method of conditional proof. proof the method of Indirect proof can be used
irrespective of the nature of the conclusion.
1. (P · Q)  S / \ ~ S  [P  (~ Q Ú T)]
Let us construct an Indirect proof of
2. ~S
validity for the following argument :
3. ~ (P · Q)
Example : 1
4. ~PÚ~Q
1. ~MÚN
5. P
2. ~ N /~M
6. ~~P
3. ~ ~ M I.P.
7. ~Q
8. ~QÚT 4. N 1, 3 D.S.

9. P  (~ Q Ú T) 5. N · ~ N 4, 2 Conj.

10. ~ S  [P  (~ Q Ú T)] In the above proof, the expression ‘I.P’

shows that the Rule of Indirect Proof is being
2.3 Indirect Proof : used. In the above example, we first assume
the negation of the conclusion then by using
The methods of Direct Deductive Proof rules of inference and rules based on the rule of
and Conditional Proof have one thing in common replacement, we arrive at a contradiction.
while using them we deduce the conclusion
from the premises. The method of Indirect Proof The last step of the proof is a contradiction,
is completely different from these methods. which is a demonstration of the absurdity
derived by assuming ~ ~ M in the step 3. This
The method of Indirect Proof is based on contradiction is formally expressed in the last
the principle of reductio-ad-absurdum. Here step exhibits the absurdity and completes the
one assumes the opposite of what is to be proved proof.
and this leads to an absurdity. i.e. this method

12
 Let us construct few more Indirect Proof 4. ~~Q·~S 3, De. M
of validity for the following arguments :
5. ~~Q 4, Simp.
Example : 2
6. Q 5, D.N.
1. MT
7. QÚ~P 6, Add.
2. GT
8. S 1, 7 M.P.
3. M /\ T
9. ~S·~~Q 4, Com.
4. ~T 1.P.
10. ~ S 9, Simp.
5. ~M 1, 4. M. T.
11. S · ~ S 8,10 Conj.
6 M·~M 3, 5 Conj
In the fourth argument given above, the
Example : 3 conclusion is a conditional statement. So the
method of Conditional Proof could have been
1. (B · D) Ú E used. Infact the proof would have been shorter.
2. C~E
Give justifications for each step of the
3. F~E following formal proofs of validity by the
4. CÚF /\B·D method of Indirect proof :

5. ~ (B · D) ..... I.P. 1. (H Ú K)  (N · B)

6. E 1,5 D.S. 2. B~C

7. (C  ~ E) · (F  ~ E) 2, 3 Conj. 3. C / \ ~ H

8. ~EÚ~E 7,4 C.D. 4. ~~H

9. ~E 8, Taut. 5. H

10. E · ~ E 6, 9 Conj. 6. HÚK

Example : 4 7. N·B

1. (Q Ú ~ P)  S /\QS 8. B·N

2. ~ (Q  S) ..... I.P. 9. B

3. ~ (~ Q Ú S) 2, m. Imp. 10. ~ C
11. C · ~ C

13
 Summary

There are three types of Deductive Proofs :

(1) Direct Deductive Proof : In this method conclusion is derived directly from the premises.
(2) Conditional Proof : This method is used only when the conclusion of an argument is a
conditional statement. In this method the antecedent of the conclusion is taken as an
additional premise and the consequent of the conclusion is deduced with the help of the
required rules of Inference and rules based on the rule of replacement.
(3) Indirect Proof : This method is preferably used when the conclusion of an argument is
other than a conditional statement. In this method we assume the negation of the conclusion
as an additional premise.
From this, along with the original premises, we obtain a contradiction. And this is taken to
be the proof of validity of arguments.

Exercises
Q. 1. Fill in the blanks with suitable words (9) The rule of ……… states that if an
from those given in the brackets: implication is true and its consequent
(1) [(p  q) · p]  q is the rule of ……… . is false, then its antecedent must also be
(Modus Ponens / Modus Tollens) false. (M.P./ M.T.)

(2) The rule of ……… consists in (10) (p · p) º p is the rule of ……… .

interchanging the antecedent and the (Simplification / Tautology)
consequent by negating both of them. (11) The method of ……… is based on the
(Commutation / Transposition) principle of reductio-ad-absurdum.
(3) The rule of Addition is based on the (Conditional Proof / Indirect Proof)
basis truth table of ……… . Q. 2. State whether the following statements
(Conjunction / Disjunction) are true or false.
(4) The ……… can be applied to the part of (1) The rule of Disjunctive Syllogism can be
the statement. (rules of inference / rules applied to the part of the statement.
based on rule of replacement)
(2) ~ ~ p º p is the rule of Tautology.
(5) ~ (~ p Ú q) º ………, according to De.
Morgan’s Law. ((p · ~ q) / (~ p · q) (3) When the denial of the conclusion leads to
contradiction, the argument is proved to be
(6) (p  q) º (~ p Ú q) is the rule of ………. valid in the method of indirect proof.
(Material Implication / Material
Equivalance) (4) Conditional Proof decides whether the
argument is valid or invalid.
(7) The method of ……… is used only
when the conclusion of an argument is (5) Indirect proof is constructed for
an implicative statement. establishing the validity of arguments.
(Conditional Proof / Indirect Proof) (6) Conditional proof is a mechanical
(8) In the method of ………, we assume procedure.
the negation of the conclusion as an (7) (p Ú q) º (q Ú p) is Commutative Law.
additional premise. (8) The rule of inference can be applied to the
(Conditional Proof / Indirect Proof) whole statement only.
14
(9) The Elementary valid arguments forms are (4) 1. Q Ú (P Ú R) / \ ~ Q  [~ R  (P ÚS)]
called the rule of Replacement. (5) 1. A Ú (B  D)
Q. 3. Match the columns : 2. A  C
A B 3. B /\~CD
(1) Elementary valid (a) Antecendent of (6) 1. D  E
argument forms the conclusion is
assumed. 2. D Ú G /\EÚG

(2) Conditional Proof (b) Principle of (7) 1. W  L

reductio-ad 2. T  (~ P · L)
absurdum. 3. W Ú T /\L
(3) Indirect Proof (c) Rule based on (8) 1. T Ú B
rule of
replacement. 2. (T Ú N)  (L · S)
(4) De. Morgan’s Law (d) Rules of 3. ~ S /\ B
Inference (9) 1. R  (Q  P)
Q. 4. Give Logical Terms for the following : 2. S  R
(1) The rules that can be applied only for the 3. T  Q
whole statement.
4. ~ P /\S~T
(2) The elementary valid argument forms.
(10) 1. (A Ú B)
(3) The method of establishing the validity of
2. ( C Ú D ) E
an argument by assuming the negation of
the conclusion. / \ [~A  (B Ú F)] · (D  E)
(4) The deductive proof which is based on the (11) 1. (G  H)  J
principle of reductio-ad-absurdum. 2. ~ J /\ G
(5) The method which is used to establish (12) 1. L  (M Ú N)
the validity of argument, only when its
conclusion is an implicative statement. 2. T Ú L / \ ~ M  (~ T  N)
(13) 1. A  B
Q. 5. Construct Conditional proof or Indirect
proof of validity for the following 2. C  D / \ (A · C)  (B · D)
arguments: (14) 1. K Ú (T · ~ W)
(1) ~A/\AB 2. W Ú S /\KÚS
(2) 1. (L Ú M)  (P · Q) (15) 1. A Ú (B  C)
2. ~ P /\ ~L 2. C  D
(3) 1. (S · A)  R 3. ~ D
2. ~ R 4. B Ú E /\ ~AE
3. A /\~S (16) 1. P  (Q  R)
2. (Q · S) Ú W / \ ~ R  (P W)

15
(17) 1. (A · B) Ú C (30) 1. U  (W Ú X)
2. (C Ú D)  E / \ ~ A  E 2. ~ ~ U · ~ X
(18) 1. ~ K Ú G 3. (Y Ú W)  Z / \ Z
2. G  I (31) 1. D  G
3. ~ I /\~K 2. D Ú H / \G Ú H
(19) 1. D  E / \ D  (D · E) (32) 1. ~ (P  Q)  ~ R
(20) 1. F  (G  H) 2. S Ú R / \~ S  (~ P Ú Q)
2. G  (H  J) / \ F  (G  J) (33) 1. J  K
(21) 1. R  (S · T) 2. ~ (K · L)
2. (S Ú U)  W 3. L /\~J
3. U Ú R /\W (34) (P Ú Q)  R
(22) 1. (P Ú Q)  [(R Ú S)  T] 2. ~ R Ú S
/ \ P  [(R · U)  T] 3. ~ P  T
(23) 1. (A  B) · (C  D) 4. ~ S /\T
2. ~ B / \ (A Ú C)  D (35) 1. C Ú (W · S)
(24) 1. (K Ú G)  (H · I) 2. C  S /\~WS
2. (I Ú M)  O / \ K  O (36) 1. (A Ú B)  C
(25) 1. (R · R)  Q 2. (B Ú C)  (A  E)
2. Q  ~ R /\ ~R 3. D  A /\DE
(26) 1. ~ P  S (37) 1. R  (~ P Ú ~ Q)
2. ~ Q  P 2. S  T
3. ~ Q Ú ~ S / \ P 3. T  Q
(27) 1. (~ P Ú Q)  S / \ ~ S  ~ Q 4. P /\S~R
(28) 1. ~ F  (G  ~ H) (38) 1. A  (B  C)
2. L Ú ~ F 2. B
3. H Ú ~ M / \ ~ L  (G  ~ M) 3. (E  T)  K
(29) 1. B  C / \ ( A  C) · ( T  K)
2. D  E
3. (C · E)  G / \ (B · D)  G v v v

16