Scribd
Upload
69 views

Lecture 9-2 - Logic - Analyzing Arguments With Truth Tables

math

Uploaded by

misssunshine112
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
69 views

Lecture 9-2 - Logic - Analyzing Arguments With Truth Tables

math

Uploaded by

misssunshine112
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 20

Chapter 3

Introduction
to Logic

© 2008 Pearson Addison-Wesley.


All rights reserved
Chapter 3: Introduction to Logic

3.1 Statements and Quantifiers


3.2 Truth Tables and Equivalent Statements
3.3 The Conditional and Circuits
3.4 More on the Conditional
3.5 Analyzing Arguments with Euler Diagrams
3.6 Analyzing Arguments with Truth Tables

© 2008 Pearson Addison-Wesley. All rights reserved 3-6-2


Chapter 1

Section 3-6
Analyzing Arguments with Truth
Tables

© 2008 Pearson Addison-Wesley. All rights reserved 3-6-3


Analyzing Arguments with Truth
Tables
• Truth Tables (Two Premises)
• Valid and Invalid Argument Forms
• Truth Tables (More Than Two Premises)
• Arguments of Lewis Carroll

© 2008 Pearson Addison-Wesley. All rights reserved 3-6-4


Truth Tables

In section 3.5 Euler diagrams were used to


test the validity of arguments. These work
well with simple arguments but may not
work well with more complex ones. If the
words “all,” “some,” or “no” are not
present, it may be better to use a truth table
than an Euler diagram to test validity.

© 2008 Pearson Addison-Wesley. All rights reserved 3-6-5


Testing the Validity of an Argument with a
Truth Table

Step 1 Assign a letter to represent each


component statement in the argument.
Step 2 Express each premise and the
conclusion symbolically.

Continued on the next slide…

© 2008 Pearson Addison-Wesley. All rights reserved 3-6-6


Testing the Validity of an Argument with a
Truth Table
Step 3 Form the symbolic statement of the entire
argument by writing the conjunction of all the
premises as the antecedent of a conditional
statement, and the conclusion of the argument
as the consequent.

Step 4 Complete the truth table for the conditional


statement formed in Step 3. If it is a tautology,
then the argument is valid; otherwise it is
invalid.

© 2008 Pearson Addison-Wesley. All rights reserved 3-6-7


Example: Truth Tables (Two Premises)

Is the following argument valid?


If the door is open, then I must close it.
The door is open.
I must close it.

© 2008 Pearson Addison-Wesley. All rights reserved 3-6-8


Example: Truth Tables (Two Premises)

If the door is open, then I must close it.


The door is open.
I must close it.
Solution
Let p represent “the door is open” and
q represent “I must close it.”
p→q
p
q
© 2008 Pearson Addison-Wesley. All rights reserved 3-6-9
Example: Truth Tables (Two Premises)

( p → q ) ∧ p  → q
Premise and premise implies conclusion
The truth table is on the next slide.

© 2008 Pearson Addison-Wesley. All rights reserved 3-6-10


Example: Truth Tables (Two Premises)

The truth table below shows that the argument is


valid.
p q ( p → q ) ∧ p  → q
T T T
T F T
F T T
F F T

© 2008 Pearson Addison-Wesley. All rights reserved 3-6-11


Valid Argument Forms

Modus Modus Disjunctive Reasoning


Ponens Tollens Syllogism by
Transitivity
p→q p→q p∨q p→q
p ~q ~p q→r
q ~p q p→r

© 2008 Pearson Addison-Wesley. All rights reserved 3-6-12


Invalid Argument Forms (Fallacies)

Fallacy of the Fallacy of the


Converse Inverse

p→q p→q
q ~p
p ~q

© 2008 Pearson Addison-Wesley. All rights reserved 3-6-13


Example: Truth Tables (More Than Two
Premises)
Determine whether the argument is valid or invalid.
If Pat goes skiing, then Amy stays at home. If Amy
does not stay at home, then Cade will play video
games. Cade will not play video games. Therefore,
Pat does not go skiing.

Solution
Let p represent “Pat goes skiing,” let q represent
“Amy stays at home,” and let r represent “Cade will
play video games.”
© 2008 Pearson Addison-Wesley. All rights reserved 3-6-14
Example: Truth Tables (More Than Two
Premises)
So we have p→q
q→r
r
p
This leads to the statement
( p → q ) ∧ ( q → r ) ∧ r  → p.
The truth table is on the next slide.

© 2008 Pearson Addison-Wesley. All rights reserved 3-6-15


Example: Truth Tables (More Than Two
Premises)

p q r ( p → q ) ∧ ( q → r ) ∧ r  → p
T T T T
T T F F
T F T T
T F F T
F T T T
F T F T
F F T T
F F F T
© 2008 Pearson Addison-Wesley. All rights reserved 3-6-16
Example: Truth Tables (More Than Two
Premises)

Because the final column does not contain all Ts,


statement is not a tautology and the argument is
invalid.

© 2008 Pearson Addison-Wesley. All rights reserved 3-6-17


Example: Arguments of Lewis Carroll

Supply a conclusion that yields a valid argument for


the following premises.
Babies are illogical.
Nobody is despised who can manage a
crocodile.
Illogical persons are despised.

Let p be “you are a baby,” let q be “you are logical,”


let r be “you can manage a crocodile,” and let s be
“you are despised.”

© 2008 Pearson Addison-Wesley. All rights reserved 3-6-18


Example: Arguments of Lewis Carroll

With these letters, the statements can be written


symbolically as p →~ q
r →~ s
~ q → s.
Beginning with p and using a contrapositive we
can get p→ q
~q→s
s →~ r .
© 2008 Pearson Addison-Wesley. All rights reserved 3-6-19
Example: Arguments of Lewis Carroll

Repeated use of reasoning by transitivity gives the


conclusion
p →~ r,
leading to a valid argument.

In words, the conclusion is “If you are a baby, then you


cannot manage a crocodile.”

© 2008 Pearson Addison-Wesley. All rights reserved 3-6-20

You might also like