CHAPTER 2

THE LOGIC OF COMPOUND

STATEMENTS

Copyright © Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

2.1 Logical Form and Logical Equivalence

Copyright © Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

Logical Form and Logical Equivalence
An argument is a sequence of statements aimed at
demonstrating the truth of an assertion.

The assertion at the end of the sequence is called the

conclusion, and the preceding statements are called
premises.

3
Logical Form and Logical Equivalence
In logic, the form of an argument is distinguished from its
content. Logical analysis won’t help you determine the
intrinsic merit of an argument’s content, but it will help you
analyze an argument’s form to determine whether the truth
of the conclusion follows necessarily from the truth of the
premises.

For this reason logic is sometimes defined as the science

of necessary inference or the science of reasoning.

4
Logical Form and Logical Equivalence
Consider the following two arguments. They have very
different content but their logical form is the same. To help
make this clear, we use letters like p, q, and r to represent
component sentences; we let the expression “not p” refer to
the sentence “It is not the case that p”; and we let the
symbol ∴ stand for the word “therefore.”

5
Logical Form and Logical Equivalence

The common form of the arguments is

If p or q, then r.
∴ If not r, then not p and not q.

6
Example 2.1.1 – Identifying Logical Form
Fill in the blanks below so that argument (b) has the same
form as argument (a). Then represent the common form of
the arguments using letters to stand for component
sentences.
a. If Jane is a math major or Jane is a computer science
major, then Jane will take Math 150. Jane is a computer
science major. Therefore, Jane will take Math 150.
b. If logic is easy or I will study hard.
Therefore, I will get an A in this course.

7
Example 2.1.1 – Solution
a. I (will) study hard.

b. I will get an A in this course.

Common form: If p or q, then r.

q.
Therefore, r.

8
Statements

9
Statements

For example, “Two plus two equals four” and “Two plus two
equals five” are both statements, the first because it is true
and the second because it is false. On the other hand, the
truth or falsity of

depends on the value of x. For some values of x, it is true

(x = 3 and x = −3), whereas for other values it is false.

10
Statements
Similarly, the truth or falsity of
x+y>0

depends on the values of x and y. For instance, when

x = −1 and y = 2 it is true, whereas when x = −1 and y = 1 it
is false.

11
Compound Statements

12
Compound Statements
We now introduce three symbols that are used to build
more complicated logical expressions out of simpler ones.
The symbol denotes not, ∧ denotes and, and ∨ denotes
or.

Given a statement p, the sentence is read “not p” or

“It is not the case that p.” In some computer languages the
symbol is used in place of

13
Compound Statements
In expressions that include the symbol as well as ∧ or ∨,
the order of operations specifies that is performed first.

For instance, p ∧ q = ( p) ∧ q. In logical expressions, as

in ordinary algebraic expressions, the order of operations
can be overridden through the use of parentheses.

14
Compound Statements
Thus (p ∧ q) represents the negation of the conjunction
of p and q. In this, as in most treatments of logic, the
symbols ∧ and ∨ are considered coequal in order of
operation, and an expression such as p ∧ q ∨ r is
considered ambiguous.

This expression must be written as either (p ∧ q) ∨ r or

p ∧ (q ∨ r) to have meaning.

15
Example 2.1.2 – Translating from English to Symbols: But and Neither-Nor

Write each of the following sentences symbolically, letting

h = “It is hot” and s = “It is sunny.”

a. It is not hot but it is sunny.

b. It is neither hot nor sunny.

16
Example 2.1.2 – Solution
a. The given sentence is equivalent to “It is not hot and it is
sunny,” which can be written symbolically as h ∧ s.

b. To say it is neither hot nor sunny means that it is not hot

and it is not sunny. Therefore, the given sentence can be
written symbolically
h ∧ s. as

17
Example 2.1.3 – And, Or, and Inequalities
Suppose x is a particular real number. Let p, q, and r
symbolize “0 < x,” “x < 3,” and “x = 3,” respectively. Write
the following inequalities symbolically:
a. x ≤ 3

b. 0 < x < 3

c. 0 < x ≤ 3

18
Example 2.1.3 – Solution
a. q ∨ r

b. p ∧ q

c. p ∧ (q ∨ r)

19
Truth Values

20
Truth Values

The truth values for negation are summarized in a truth

table.

21
Truth Values

The truth values for conjunction can also be summarized in

a truth table.

22
Truth Values
The table is obtained by considering the four possible
combinations of truth values for p and q.

23
Truth Values
Each combination is displayed in one row of the table; the
corresponding truth value for the whole statement is placed
in the right-most column of that row. Note that the only row
containing a T is the first one because an and statement is
true only when both components are true.

24
Truth Values
Here is the truth table for disjunction:

25
 Evaluating the Truth of More
General Compound Statements

26
Evaluating the Truth of More General Compound Statements

Now that truth values have been assigned to p, p ∧ q,

and p ∨ q, consider the question of assigning truth values
to more complicated expressions such as p ∨ q, (p ∨ q)
∧ (p ∧ q), and (p ∧ q) ∨ r. Such expressions are called
statement forms (or propositional forms).

27
Evaluating the Truth of More General Compound Statements

To compute the truth values for a statement form, follow

rules similar to those used to evaluate algebraic
expressions.

For each combination of truth values for the statement

variables, first evaluate the expressions within the
innermost parentheses, then evaluate the expressions
within the next innermost set of parentheses, and so forth,
until you have the truth values for the complete expression.

28
Example 2.1.4 – Truth Table for Exclusive Or

Construct the truth table for the statement form (p ∨ q) ∧

(p ∧ q). Note that when or is used in its exclusive sense,
the statement “p or q” means “p or q but not both” or “p or q
and not both p and q,” which translates into symbols as
(p ∨ q) ∧ (p ∧ q).

29
Example 2.1.4 – Solution
Set up columns labeled p, q, p ∨ q, p ∧ q, (p ∧ q), and (p
∨ q) ∧ (p ∧ q). Fill in the p and q columns with all the
logically possible combinations of T’s and F’s. Then use the
truth tables for ∨ and ∧ to fill in the p ∨ q and p ∧ q
in ∧
columns with the appropriate truth values. Next fill (p theq)
column by taking the opposites of the truth values for p ∧ q.

For example, the entry for (p ∧ q) in the first row is F

because in the first row the truth value of p ∧ q is T.

30
Example 2.1.4 – Solution continued

Finally, fill in the (p ∨ q) ∧ (p ∧ q) column by considering

the truth values for an and statement together with the truth
values for p ∨ q and (p ∧ q).

Since an and statement is true only when both components

are true and since rows 2 and 3 are the only two rows
where both p ∨ q and (p ∧ q) are true, put T in rows 2
and 3 and F in the remaining rows.

31
Example 2.1.4 – Solution continued

32
Example 2.1.5 – Truth Table for

Construct a truth table for the statement form (p ∧ q) ∨ r.

33
Example 2.1.5 – Solution
Make columns headed p, q, r, p ∧ q, r, and (p ∧ q) ∨ r.
Enter the eight logically possible combinations of truth
values for p, q, and r in the three left-most columns. Then
fill in the truth values for p ∧ q and for r.

Complete the table by considering the truth values for (p ∧ q)

and for r and the definition of an or statement.

34
Example 2.1.5 – Solution continued

Since an or statement is false only when both components

are false, the only rows in which the entry is F are the third,
fifth, and seventh rows because those are the only rows in
which the expressions p ∧ q and r are both false.

The entry for all the other rows is T.

35
Example 2.1.5 – Solution continued

36
Logical Equivalence

37
Logical Equivalence

38
Logical Equivalence

39
Example 2.1.6 – Double Negative Property:

Construct a truth table to show that the negation of the

negation of a statement is logically equivalent to the
statement, annotating the table with a sentence of
explanation.

40
Example 2.1.6 – Solution

41
Example 2.1.7 – Showing Nonequivalence
Show that the statement forms (p ∧ q) and p ∧ q are
not logically equivalent.

42
Example 2.1.7 – Solution
a. This method uses a truth table annotated with a
sentence of explanation.

43
Example 2.1.7 – Solution continued

b. This method uses an example to show that (p ∧ q)

and
p ∧ q are not logically equivalent. Let p be the
statement “0 < 1” and let q be the statement “1 < 0.”
Then
(p ∧ q) is “It is not the case that both 0 < 1
and 1 < 0,”
which is true. On the other hand,
p∧ q is “0 ≮ 1 and 1 ≮ 0,”
which is false.

44
Example 2.1.7 – Solution continued

This example shows that there are concrete statements

you can substitute for p and q to make one of the
statement forms true and the other false.

Therefore, the statement forms are not logically

equivalent.

45
Logical Equivalence

46
Example 2.1.9 – Applying De Morgan’s Laws

Write negations for each of the following statements:

a. John is 6 feet tall and he weighs at least 200 pounds.

b. The bus was late or Tom’s watch was slow.

47
Example 2.1.9 – Solution
a. John is not 6 feet tall or he weighs less than 200 pounds.

b. The bus was not late and Tom’s watch was not slow.

Since the statement “neither p nor q” means the same as

“ p and q,” an alternative answer for (b) is “Neither was
the bus late nor was Tom’s watch slow.”

48
Example 2.1.10 – Inequalities and De Morgan’s Laws

Use De Morgan’s laws to write the negation of −1 < x ≤ 4.

49
Example 2.1.10 – Solution
The given statement is equivalent to
−1 < x and x ≤ 4.

By De Morgan’s laws, the negation is

−1 ≮ x or x ≰ 4,
which is equivalent to
−1 ≥ x or x > 4.

50
Example 2.1.10 – Solution continued

Pictorially, if −1 ≥ x or x > 4, then x lies in the shaded

region of the number line, as shown below.

51
Tautologies and Contradictions

52
Tautologies and Contradictions

53
Example 2.1.12 – Tautologies and Contradictions

Show that the statement form p ∨ p is a tautology and

that the statement form p p∧is a contradiction.

54
Example 2.1.12 – Solution

55
Example 2.1.13 – Logical Equivalence Involving Tautologies and Contradictions

If t is a tautology and c is a contradiction, show that

56
Example 2.1.13 – Solution

57
Summary of Logical Equivalences

58
Summary of Logical Equivalences

59
Example 2.1.14 – Simplifying Statement Forms

Use Theorem 2.1.1 to verify the logical equivalence

60
Example 2.1.14 – Solution
Use the laws of Theorem 2.1.1 to replace sections of the
statement form on the left by logically equivalent
expressions. Each time you do this, you obtain a logically
equivalent statement form. Continue making replacements
until you obtain the statement form on the right.

61
Example 2.1.14 – Solution continued

62