Scribd
Upload
37 views

L9 Propositional Logic

Baptist Exercise

Uploaded by

4vmjsqhgxd
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
37 views

L9 Propositional Logic

Baptist Exercise

Uploaded by

4vmjsqhgxd
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

Critical Thinking

Dr Siu-Fan Lee

Propositional Logic (2)

Testing validity by truth-tables


The main idea: to list all possible truth-value assignments, then see if it is possible that when
the premises are all true the conclusion is false. If so, then it violates the definition of
validity and the argument is invalid. If not, then it is valid.

Steps:
1. Translate the argument into symbols.
- Identify atomic propositions
- Give a symbol for each
- Identify the connectives among them
2. Draw each premise and conclusion into a truth-table.
- Decide how many rows are needed
- List all possible truth assignments
- Calculate the truth-values of each proposition under each possible assignment
3. Decide validity, i.e. if it is possible that when all premises are true, the conclusion is false.

Examples:
A→B A→B
~A A
~B B

A B A→B ~A ~B A B A→B A B
T T T F F T T T T T
T F F F T T F F T F
F T T T F F T T F T
F F T T T F F T F F

The third row shows the possibility that There is not a case in which the argument
the premises are true but the conclusion has all true premises but a false
is false. Hence, the argument is invalid. conclusion. The argument is not invalid.
This is the fallacy of denying the antecedent. Therefore, it is valid. This is modus ponens.

Some common valid argument forms


Modus Ponens:
If it rains, then the ground is wet. It rains. Therefore, the ground is wet.
If P then Q, P, therefore Q.

Modus Tollens:
If it rains, then the ground is wet. The ground is not wet. Therefore, it does not rain.
If P then Q, not Q, therefore not P.

Hypothetical syllogism:
If the storm comes, then the river is flooded. If the river is flooded, then the houses are
destroyed. Therefore, if the storm comes, the houses are destroyed.
If P then Q, if Q then R, therefore if P then R.

1
Critical Thinking
Dr Siu-Fan Lee

Conjunctive inference:
P, Q, therefore P & Q.
P & Q, therefore P. P & Q, therefore Q.

Disjunctive syllogism:
Either Tom was naughty to play in mud or he fell into it by accident. Tom was not
naughty. Therefore, he must have fallen into it by accident.
P or Q, not P, therefore Q.

Some common invalid argument forms


Fallacy of affirming the consequent:
If it rains, then the ground is wet. The ground is wet. Therefore, it rains.
If P then Q, Q, therefore P.
Fallacy of denying the antecedent:
If it rains, then the ground is wet. It does not rain. So, the ground is not wet.
If P then Q, not P, therefore not Q.
A fallacy in disjunctive syllogism:
Either Tom was naughty to play in mud or he fell into it by accident. Tom was naughty.
Therefore, he did not fell into the mud by accident.
P or Q, P, therefore not Q.

Truth-table gives the proof to validity of arguments. For more examples, please see the
PowerPoint.

Extra: The short truth-table method


Test by reduction to absurdity
1. Assume the argument is invalid. That is, the premises are all true but the conclusion is
false.
2. Try assigning truth-values to all atomic propositions based on this assumption.
3. If we can consistently assign truth-values to all atomic propositions using this
assumption and no contradiction is formed, then the assumption is true. That is, the
argument is invalid.
4. If contradiction (absurdity) arises, then that means the assumption must be wrong. The
argument is thus valid.

Advantage of using short truth-table: Faster


Caution in using short truth-table: Look for definite truth-value assignments, sometimes the
truth-value assignment starts at the conclusion, sometimes at a premise.

Negation: always definite. If A is true, ~A is false. If A is false, ~A is true.


Conjunction: only definitely true if both conjuncts are true.
Disjunction: only definitely false if both disjuncts are false.
Implication: only definitely false if the antecedent is true and the consequent is false.
Equivalence: not definite. So, it is useful only if the truth-value of one side is already known.
For examples, please see the PowerPoint.

You might also like