Republic of the Philippines

City of Olongapo

GORDON COLLEGE
Olongapo City Sports Complex, East Tapinac, Olongapo City
Tel. No. (047) 224-2089 loc. 314
www.gordoncollege.edu.ph

DISCRETE STRUCTURES 2
Title: RULES OF INFERENCE Module No. 3

I. INTRODUCTION
Proofs in mathematics are valid arguments that establish the truth of mathematical
statements. By an argument, we mean a sequence of statements that end with a
conclusion. By valid, we mean that the conclusion, or final statement of the argument,
must follow from the truth of the preceding statements, or premises, of the argument.
That is, an argument is valid if and only if it is impossible for all the premises to be true
and the conclusion to be false. To deduce new statements from statements we already
have, we use rules of inference which are templates for constructing valid arguments.
Rules of inference are our basic tools for establishing the truth of statements.

Before we study mathematical proofs, we will look at arguments that involve only
compound propositions. We will define what it means for an argument involving
compound propositions to be valid. Then we will introduce a collection of rules of
inference in propositional logic. These rules of inference are among the most important
ingredients in producing valid arguments. After we illustrate how rules of inference are
used to produce valid arguments, we will describe some common forms of incorrect
reasoning, called fallacies, which lead to invalid arguments.

II. LEARNING OBJECTIVES

After studying this module, you should be able to:
 Identify and differentiate the rules of inference in propositional logic;
 Describe how these rules of inference can be used to produce valid arguments;
 Understand how incorrect reasoning leads to forming invalid arguments.

III. TOPICS AND KEY CONCEPT

A. VALID ARGUMENTS IN PROPOSITIONAL LOGIC
Consider the following argument involving propositions (which, by definition, is a
sequence of propositions):

“If you have a current password, then you can log onto the network.”

“You have a current password.”

Therefore,

“You can log onto the network.”

We would like to determine whether this is a valid argument. That is, we would like
to determine whether the conclusion “You can log onto the network” must be true

Prepared by: Mr. Kenneth V. Bautista 1 | 10

EXCLUSIVE FOR GORDON COLLEGE ONLY.
 Discrete Structures 2: RULES OF INFERENCE | Module No. 3

when the premises “If you have a current password, then you can log onto the
network” and “You have a current password” are both true.

Before we discuss the validity of this particular argument, we will look at its form. Use
p to represent “You have a current password” and q to represent “You can log onto
the network.” Then, the argument has the form

p→q
p
∴q

where ∴ is the symbol that denotes “therefore”.

We know that when p and q are propositional variables, the statement [(p → q) ∧ p]
→ q is a tautology. In particular, when both p → q and p are true, we know that q must
also be true. We say this form of argument is valid because whenever all its premises
(all statements in the argument other than the final one, the conclusion) are true, the
conclusion must also be true.

Now suppose that both “If you have a current password, then you can log onto the
network” and “You have a current password” are true statements. When we replace p
by “You have a current password” and q by “You can log onto the network,” it
necessarily follows that the conclusion “You can log onto the network” is true. This
argument is valid because its form is valid. Note that whenever we replace p and q by
propositions where p → q and p are both true, then q must also be true.

What happens when we replace p and q in this argument form by propositions where
not both p and p → q are true? For example, suppose that p represents “You have
access to the network” and q represents “You can change your grade” and that p is
true, but p → q is false. The argument we obtain by substituting these values of p and
q into the argument form is

“If you have access to the network, then you can change your grade.”
“You have access to the network.”
∴ “You can change your grade.”

The argument we obtained is a valid argument, but because one of the premises,
namely the first premise, is false, we cannot conclude that the conclusion is true. (Most
likely, this conclusion is false.)

In our discussion, to analyze an argument, we replaced propositions by propositional

variables. This changed an argument to an argument form. We saw that the validity of
an argument follows from the validity of the form of the argument. We summarize the
terminology used to discuss the validity of arguments with our definition of the key
notions.

Prepared by: Mr. Kenneth V. Bautista 2 | 10

EXCLUSIVE FOR GORDON COLLEGE ONLY.
 Discrete Structures 2: RULES OF INFERENCE | Module No. 3

DEFINITION 1 An argument in propositional logic is a sequence of propositions. All

but the final proposition in the argument are called premises and
the final proposition is called the conclusion. An argument is valid if
the truth of all its premises implies that the conclusion is true.

An argument form in propositional logic is a sequence of compound

propositions involving propositional variables. An argument form is
valid no matter which particular propositions are substituted for the
propositional variables in its premises, the conclusion is true if the
premises are all true.

From the definition of a valid argument form we see that the argument form with
premises p1, p2, . . . , pn and conclusion q is valid, when (p1 ∧ p2 ∧ . . . ∧ pn) → q is a
tautology.

The key to showing that an argument in propositional logic is valid is to show that its
argument form is valid. Consequently, we would like techniques to show that
argument forms are valid. We will now develop methods for accomplishing this task.

B. RULES OF INFERENCE FOR PROPOSITIONAL LOGIC

We can always use a truth table to show that an argument form is valid. We do this by
showing that whenever the premises are true, the conclusion must also be true.
However, this can be a tedious approach. For example, when an argument form
involves 10 different propositional variables, to use a truth table to show this
argument form is valid requires 210 = 1024 different rows. Fortunately, we do not
have to resort to truth tables. Instead, we can first establish the validity of some
relatively simple argument forms, called rules of inference. These rules of inference
can be used as building blocks to construct more complicated valid argument forms.
We will now introduce the most important rules of inference in propositional logic.

The tautology (p ∧ (p → q)) → q is the basis of the rule of inference called modus
ponens, or the law of detachment. (Modus ponens is Latin for mode that affirms.) This
tautology leads to the following valid argument form, which we have already seen in
our initial discussion about arguments (where, as before, the symbol ∴ denotes
“therefore”):

p
p→q
∴q

Using this notation, the hypotheses are written in a column, followed by a horizontal
bar, followed by a line that begins with the therefore symbol and ends with the
conclusion. In particular, modus ponens tells us that if a conditional statement and the
hypothesis of this conditional statement are both true, then the conclusion must also
be true. Example 1 illustrates the use of modus ponens.

EXAMPLE 1
Suppose that the conditional statement “If it snows today, then we will go skiing” and
its hypothesis, “It is snowing today,” are true. Then, by modus ponens, it follows that
the conclusion of the conditional statement, “We will go skiing,” is true.

Prepared by: Mr. Kenneth V. Bautista 3 | 10

EXCLUSIVE FOR GORDON COLLEGE ONLY.
 Discrete Structures 2: RULES OF INFERENCE | Module No. 3

As we mentioned earlier, a valid argument can lead to an incorrect conclusion if one

or more of its premises is false.

EXAMPLE 2
Determine whether the argument given here is valid and determine whether its
conclusion must be true because of the validity of the argument.

3 3 3
“If √2 > 2 , then (√2)2 > (2)2 . We know that √2 > 2 . Consequently,
3 9
(√2)2 = 2 > (2)2 = 4 .”

3 3
Solution: Let p be the proposition “√2 > 2” and q the proposition “2 > (2)2”. The
premises of the argument are p → q and p, and q is its conclusion. This argument is
valid because it is constructed by using modus ponens, a valid argument form.
3
However, one of its premises, √2 > 2 , is false. Consequently, we cannot conclude that
the conclusion is true. Furthermore, note that the conclusion of this argument is false,
9
because 2 < 4 .

TABLE 1 Rules of Inference.

Rule of Inference Tautology Name Name
p [p ∧ (p → q)] → q Modus ponens
p→q
∴q
¬q [¬q ∧ (p → q)] → ¬p Modus tollens
p→q
∴ ¬p
p→q [(p → q) ∧ (q → r)] → (p → r) Hypothetical syllogism
q→r
∴p→r
p∨q [(p ∨ q) ∧ ¬p] → q Disjunctive syllogism
¬p
∴q
p p → (p ∨ q) Addition
∴p∨q
p∧q (p ∧ q) → p Simplification
∴p
p [(p) ∧ (q)] → (p ∧ q) Conjunction
q
∴p∧q
p∨q [(p ∨ q) ∧ (¬p ∨ r)] → (q ∨ r) Resolution
¬p ∨ r
∴q∨r

Prepared by: Mr. Kenneth V. Bautista 4 | 10

EXCLUSIVE FOR GORDON COLLEGE ONLY.
 Discrete Structures 2: RULES OF INFERENCE | Module No. 3

There are many useful rules of inference for propositional logic. Perhaps the most
widely used of these are listed in Table 1.

We now give examples of arguments that use these rules of inference. In each
argument, we first use propositional variables to express the propositions in the
argument. We then show that the resulting argument form is a rule of inference from
Table 1.

EXAMPLE 3
State which rule of inference is the basis of the following argument: “It is below
freezing now. Therefore, it is either below freezing or raining now.”

Solution: Let p be the proposition “It is below freezing now” and q the proposition “It
is raining now.” Then this argument is of the form

p
∴p∨q

This is an argument that uses the addition rule.

EXAMPLE 4
State which rule of inference is the basis of the following argument: “It is below
freezing and raining now. Therefore, it is below freezing now”.

Solution: Let p be the proposition “It is below freezing now”, and let q be the
proposition “It is raining now”. This argument is of the form

p∧q
∴p

This argument uses the simplification rule.

EXAMPLE 5
State which rule of inference is used in the argument:

If it rains today, then we will not have a barbecue today. If we do not have a
barbecue today, then we will have a barbecue tomorrow. Therefore, if it rains
today, then we will have a barbecue tomorrow.

Solution: Let p be the proposition “It is raining today”, let q be the proposition “We
will not have a barbecue today”, and let r be the proposition “We will have a barbecue
tomorrow”. Then this argument is of the form

p→q
q→r
∴p→r

Hence, this argument is a hypothetical syllogism.

Prepared by: Mr. Kenneth V. Bautista 5 | 10

EXCLUSIVE FOR GORDON COLLEGE ONLY.
 Discrete Structures 2: RULES OF INFERENCE | Module No. 3

C. USING RULES OF INFERENCE TO BUILD ARGUMENTS

When there are many premises, several rules of inference are often needed to show
that an argument is valid. This is illustrated by Examples 6 and 7, where the steps of
arguments are displayed on separate lines, with the reason for each step explicitly
stated. These examples also show how arguments in English can be analyzed using
rules of inference.

EXAMPLE 6
Show that the hypotheses “It is not sunny this afternoon and it is colder than
yesterday,” “We will go swimming only if it is sunny,” “If we do not go swimming, then
we will take a canoe trip,” and “If we take a canoe trip, then we will be home by sunset”
lead to the conclusion “We will be home by sunset.”

Solution: Let p be the proposition “It is sunny this afternoon”, q the proposition “It is
colder than yesterday”, r the proposition “We will go swimming”, s the proposition
“We will take a canoe trip”, and t the proposition “We will be home by sunset”. Then
the hypotheses become ¬p ∧ q, r → p, ¬r → s, and s → t. The conclusion is simply t. We
need to give a valid argument with hypotheses ¬p ∧ q, r → p, ¬r → s, and s → t and
conclusion t.

We construct an argument to show that our hypotheses lead to the desired conclusion
as follows.

Step Reason
1. ¬p ∧ q Hypothesis
2. ¬p Simplification using (1)
3. r → p Hypothesis
4. ¬r Modus tollens using (2) and (3)
5. ¬r → s Hypothesis
6. s Modus ponens using (4) and (5)
7. s → t Hypothesis
8. t Modus ponens using (6) and (7)

Note that we could have used a truth table to show that whenever each of the four
hypotheses is true, the conclusion is also true. However, because we are working with
five propositional variables, p, q, r, s, and t, such a truth table would have 32 rows.

EXAMPLE 7
Show that the hypotheses “If you send me an e-mail message, then I will finish writing
the program”, “If you do not send me an e-mail message, then I will go to sleep early”,
and “If I go to sleep early, then I will wake up feeling refreshed” lead to the conclusion
“If I do not finish writing the program, then I will wake up feeling refreshed”.

Solution: Let p be the proposition “You send me an e-mail message”, q the proposition
“I will finish writing the program”, r the proposition “I will go to sleep early”, and s
the proposition “I will wake up feeling refreshed”. Then the hypotheses are p → q,
¬p → r, and r → s. The desired conclusion is ¬q → s. We need to give a valid argument
with hypotheses p → q, ¬p → r, and r → s and conclusion ¬q → s.

This argument form shows that the hypotheses lead to the desired conclusion.

Prepared by: Mr. Kenneth V. Bautista 6 | 10

EXCLUSIVE FOR GORDON COLLEGE ONLY.
 Discrete Structures 2: RULES OF INFERENCE | Module No. 3

Step Reason
1. p → q Hypothesis
2. ¬q → ¬p Contrapositive of (1)
3. ¬p → r Hypothesis
4. ¬q → r Hypothetical syllogism using (2) and (3)
5. r → s Hypothesis
6. ¬q → s Hypothetical syllogism using (4) and (5)

D. RESOLUTION
Computer programs have been developed to automate the task of reasoning and
proving theorems. Many of these programs make use of a rule of inference known as
resolution. This rule of inference is based on the tautology

[(p ∨ q) ∧ (¬p ∨ r)] → (q ∨ r).

The final disjunction in the resolution rule, q ∨ r, is called the resolvent. When we let
q = r in this tautology, we obtain (p ∨ q) ∧ (¬p ∨ q) → q. Furthermore, when we let
r = F, we obtain (p ∨ q) ∧ (¬p) → q (because q ∨ F ≡ q), which is the tautology on
which the rule of disjunctive syllogism is based.

EXAMPLE 8
Use resolution to show that the hypotheses “Jasmine is skiing or it is not snowing” and
“It is snowing or Bart is playing hockey” imply that “Jasmine is skiing or Bart is playing
hockey”.

Solution: Let p be the proposition “It is snowing”, q the proposition “Jasmine is skiing”,
and r the proposition “Bart is playing hockey”. We can represent the hypotheses as
¬p ∨ q and p ∨ r, respectively. Using resolution, the proposition q ∨ r, “Jasmine is
skiing or Bart is playing hockey” follows.

Resolution plays an important role in programming languages based on the rules of

logic, such as Prolog (where resolution rules for quantified statements are applied).
Furthermore, it can be used to build automatic theorem proving systems. To construct
proofs in propositional logic using resolution as the only rule of inference, the
hypotheses and the conclusion must be expressed as clauses, where a clause is a
disjunction of variables or negations of these variables. We can replace a statement in
propositional logic that is not a clause by one or more equivalent statements that are
clauses. For example, suppose we have a statement of the form p ∨ (q ∧ r). Because p
∨ (q ∧ r) ≡ (p ∨ q) ∧ (p ∨ r), we can replace the single statement p ∨ (q ∧ r) by two
statements p ∨ q and p ∨ r, each of which is a clause. We can replace a statement of
the form ¬(p ∨ q) by the two statements ¬p and ¬q because De Morgan’s law tells us
that ¬(p ∨ q) ≡ ¬p ∧ ¬q. We can also replace a conditional statement p → q with the
equivalent disjunction ¬p ∨ q.

EXAMPLE 9
Show that the hypotheses (p ∧ q) ∨ r and r → s imply the conclusion p ∨ s.

Solution: We can rewrite the hypothesis (p ∧ q) ∨ r as two clauses, p ∨ r and q ∨ r. We

can also replace r → s by the equivalent clause ¬r ∨ s. Using the two clauses p ∨ r and
¬r ∨ s, we can use resolution to conclude p ∨ s.

Prepared by: Mr. Kenneth V. Bautista 7 | 10

EXCLUSIVE FOR GORDON COLLEGE ONLY.
 Discrete Structures 2: RULES OF INFERENCE | Module No. 3

E. FALLACIES
Several common fallacies arise in incorrect arguments. These fallacies resemble rules
of inference, but are based on contingencies rather than tautologies. These are
discussed here to show the distinction between correct and incorrect reasoning.

The proposition [(p → q) ∧ q] → p is not a tautology, because it is false when p is false

and q is true. However, there are many incorrect arguments that treat this as a
tautology.

In other words, they treat the argument with premises p → q and q and conclusion p
as a valid argument form, which it is not. This type of incorrect reasoning is called the
fallacy of affirming the conclusion.

EXAMPLE 10
Is the following argument valid?

If you do every problem in this book, then you will learn discrete mathematics.
You learned discrete mathematics.

Therefore, you did every problem in this book.

Solution: Let p be the proposition “You did every problem in this book.” Let q be the
proposition “You learned discrete mathematics.” Then this argument is of the form: if
p → q and q, then p. This is an example of an incorrect argument using the fallacy of
affirming the conclusion. Indeed, it is possible for you to learn discrete mathematics
in some way other than by doing every problem in this book. (You may learn discrete
mathematics by reading, listening to lectures, doing some, but not all, the problems in
this book, and so on.)

The proposition [(p → q) ∧ ¬p] → ¬q is not a tautology, because it is false when p is

false and q is true. Many incorrect arguments use this incorrectly as a rule of inference.
This type of incorrect reasoning is called the fallacy of denying the hypothesis.

EXAMPLE 11
Let p and q be as in Example 10. If the conditional statement p → q is true, and ¬p is
true, is it correct to conclude that ¬q is true? In other words, is it correct to assume
that you did not learn discrete mathematics if you did not do every problem in the
book, assuming that if you do every problem in this book, then you will learn discrete
mathematics?

Solution: It is possible that you learned discrete mathematics even if you did not do
every problem in this book. This incorrect argument is of the form p → q and ¬p imply
¬q, which is an example of the fallacy of denying the hypothesis.

IV. TEACHING AND LEARNING MATERIALS RESOURCES

Hardware Device: Desktop Computer/ Laptop/ Mobile Phone
Application Software: GC-LAMP; Google Meet; Facebook

Prepared by: Mr. Kenneth V. Bautista 8 | 10

EXCLUSIVE FOR GORDON COLLEGE ONLY.
 Discrete Structures 2: RULES OF INFERENCE | Module No. 3

V. LEARNING TASKS
EXERCISES:
1. Find the argument form for the following argument and determine whether it is valid.
Can we conclude that the conclusion is true if the premises are true?

If Socrates is human, then Socrates is mortal.

Socrates is human.
∴ Socrates is mortal.

2. What rule of inference is used in each of these arguments?

a. Alice is a mathematics major. Therefore, Alice is either a mathematics major
or a computer science major.
b. Jerry is a mathematics major and a computer science major. Therefore, Jerry
is a mathematics major.
c. If it is rainy, then the pool will be closed. It is rainy. Therefore, the pool is
closed.
d. If it snows today, the university will close. The university is not closed today.
Therefore, it did not snow today.
e. If I go swimming, then I will stay in the sun too long. If I stay in the sun too
long, then I will sunburn. Therefore, if I go swimming, then I will sunburn.

3. Use rules of inference to show that the hypotheses “Randy works hard”, “If Randy
works hard, then he is a dull boy”, and “If Randy is a dull boy, then he will not get the
job” imply the conclusion “Randy will not get the job”.

4. What rule of inference is used in the famous argument “All men are mortal. Socrates
is a man. Therefore, Socrates is mortal.”?

Prepared by: Mr. Kenneth V. Bautista 9 | 10

EXCLUSIVE FOR GORDON COLLEGE ONLY.
 Discrete Structures 2: RULES OF INFERENCE | Module No. 3

5. For each of these collections of premises, what relevant conclusion or conclusions can
be drawn? Explain the rules of inference used to obtain each conclusion from the
premises.
a. “If I take the day off, it either rains or snows.” “I took Tuesday off or I took
Thursday off.” “It was sunny on Tuesday.” “It did not snow on Thursday.”
b. “If I eat spicy foods, then I have strange dreams.” “I have strange dreams if
there is thunder while I sleep.” “I did not have strange dreams.”
c. “I am either clever or lucky.” “I am not lucky.” “If I am lucky, then I will win the
lottery.”
d. “Every computer science major has a personal computer.” “Ralph does not
have a personal computer.” “Ann has a personal computer.”
e. “What is good for corporations is good for the United States.” “What is good
for the United States is good for you.” “What is good for corporations is for you
to buy lots of stuff.”
f. “All rodents gnaw their food.” “Mice are rodents.” “Rabbits do not gnaw their
food.” “Bats are not rodents.”

RUBRIC:
3 2 1 0

Answers all parts of Answers part of the Attempts to answer

Does not answer the
the question correctly question or is the question but is
question
and thoroughly partially correct incorrect

VI. REFERENCE
 Rosen, K. H. (2018). Discrete Mathematics and Its Applications, Eighth Edition.
McGraw-Hill.

Prepared by: Mr. Kenneth V. Bautista 10 | 10

EXCLUSIVE FOR GORDON COLLEGE ONLY.