Group 10

Table of Contents

A. VINCE WAYLON SIA

I. CONSTRUCTING FORMAL PROOFS USING THE NINETEEN RILES OF

INFERENCE

II. PROOF OF VALIDITY

III. INCONSISTENCY

B. CHARIZZ DOMINGUEZ

IV. INDIRECT PROOF OF VALIDITY

V. SHORT TRUTH TABLE TECHNIQUE

VI. INDUCTION AND DEDUCTION REVISITED

C. MEGAN TABORA

VII. ARGUMENT BY ANALOGY

VIII. APPRAISING ANALOGICAL ARGUMENT

IX. REFUTATION BY LOGICAL ANALOGY

 (I) Constructing Formal Proofs using the Nineteen rules of Inference

The objective in this case remains the same, but the process of devising the proof
involves inspection of a larger intellectual toolbox. To arrive in the conclusion, we
may include steps justified by either an elementary valid argument form or a logical
equivalence. The balance or order of their use is determined only by the logical need
encountered as we implement the strategy that leads to the consummation of the
proof.

Illustration:

1. 1. p ⊃ q
2. r⊃ ~ q

∴ p⊃ ~ r

3. ~ ~ q ⊃ ~ r 2, Trans.

4. q⊃ ~ r 3, D.N.

5. p⊃ ~ r 1, 4, H.S.

Solution:

Line 3 is simply line 2 transposed.

Line 4 is simply line 3 with ~~q replaced by q.

Line 5 applies the Hypothetical Syllogism argument form to lines 1 and 4.

Example:

1. If Lon obtains an average of 85 then he is a Dean’s Lister.

2. If Lon obtained an average of 83 then he is not a Dean’s Lister.
3. Therefore, if Lon obtains an average of 85 then Lon did not obtain an average
of 83.
4. If it is not true that Lon is not a Dean’s Lister then Lon did not obtain an
average of 85.
5. If Lon obtains an average of 85 then Lon did not obtain an average of 83.
  Let “p” be “Lon obtains an average of 85.”
 Let “q” be “he is a Dean’s Lister.”
 Let “r” be “Lon obtained an average of 83.”
2. 1. (p • q) ⊃ r
2. (p⊃ r) ⊃ s

∴ q⊃ s

3. (q • p) ⊃ r 1, Com.

4. q⊃ (p ⊃ r) 3, Exp.

5. q⊃ s 4, 2, H.S

Solution:

Line 3 commutes (p • q) from line 1.

Line 4 applies Exportation to line 3.

Line 5 applies Hypothetical Syllogism to line 4 and 2.

Example:
1. If Joseph finishes his assignments early and he sleeps around 8 o’clock in the
evening then he can wake up early in the morning.
2. If Joseph finishes his assignments early then he can wake up early in the
morning then he will arrive in school on time.
Therefore, if he sleeps around 8 o’clock in the evening then he will arrive in
school on time.
3. If he sleeps around 8 o’clock in the evening and Joseph finishes his
assignments early then he can wake up early in the morning.
4. If he sleeps around 8 o’clock in the evening then Joseph finishes his
assignments early then he can wake up early in the morning.
5. Therefore, if he sleeps around 8 o’clock in the evening then he will arrive in
school on time.
  Let “p” be “Joseph finishes his assignments early”.
 Let “q” be “he sleeps around 8 o’clock in the evening.”
 Let “r” be “he can wake up early in the morning.”
 Let “s” be “he will arrive in school on time.”

(II) Constructing Formal Proofs using the full set of Rules of Inference

 Two statements added to the premise

Example:

1. A⊃ ~ A

∴ ~A

2.~ A v ~ A 1, Impl.

3.~ A 2, Taut.

1. If apple is a fruit, then the apple is not a fruit

Therefore the apple is not a fruit

2. The apple is not a fruit or the apple is not a fruit

3. Therefore the apple is not a fruit

Solution

If we apply Material Implication(Impl.) ~ A v ~ A to which we can apply the valid

argument form Tautology (Taut.) and that will yield the conclusion we seek.
Adding just two statements to the premises will produce a formal proof of its
validity.
 Three lines added to the premises

Example:

1. ~ A⊃ A

∴A

2. ~ ~ A v A 1, Impl

3. A v A 2, D.N

4. A 3, Taut

Solution

It is better to convert conditional statements into disjunctive statements. Using

material Implication in line 1 will yield ~ ~ A as the first of the disjuncts; that
component may be replaced with A; then applying the argument form tautology.

 More than three lines

Example

1. A⊃~B

2. ~(C ·~A)

∴ C⊃~B

3. ~ C v ~~A 2, De M.

4. C ⊃~~A 3, Impl

5. C ⊃A 4, D.N

6. C ⊃~B 5,1 H.S.

Solution

The conclusion unites a statement that appears in the second premise, C, with the
statement that appears in the first premises, ~B. the second premise contains the
negation of the antecedent of the first premise, ~A. manipulate the second premise
to emerge with C ⊃A to achieve the unification with H.S.

(III) Proof of invalidity

Constructing proofs is an effective way to demonstrate that an argument of the

proposition is valid. If we fail to discover a formal proof of validity for a given
argument, these failure foes not prove that the argument is invalid and that no such
proof can be constructed. The method is closely related to the truth-table method.
We inspect the truth-table columns for all of the premises and the conclusion; if
there is any line on which all of the premises are true while the conclusion is false,
then the argument is invalid.

Example

If the governor favors public housing, then she is in favor of restricting the scope
of private enterprise.

If the governor were a socialist, then she would be in favor of restricting the scope
of private enterprise.

Therefore if the governor favors public housing, then she is a socialist.

It is symbolized as

F⊃B

S⊃R

∴ F⊃S
By assigning the truth value of true to F and false to S will make the conclusion
F⊃S false. If the truth value is assigned to R, both premises are made true because
a conditional is true whenever its consequent is true. That if the truth value true is
assigned to F and R, and the truth value is false is assigned to S, the argument will
have two premises and a false conclusion, and thus proved to be invalid

F R S F⊃B S⊃R F⊃S

True True False True True False

An argument is proved invalid by displaying at least one row of its truth table in
which all its premises are true but its conclusion is false

The present method is shorter than writing the entire truth table. For arguments
with a considerable number of premises, or with premises of considerable
complexity, the needed assignment of truth values may not be so easy to make.
There is no mechanical method of proceeding, but some hints may be proved. It is
most efficient to proceed by assigning those values seen immediately to be
essential if invalidity is to be proved.

Inconsistency

An argument is proved invalid if truth values can be assigned to make all of

its premises true and its conclusion false. If a deductive argument is not invalid, it
must be valid. So, if truth values cannot be assigned to make the premises true and
the conclusion false, then the argument must be valid. This follows from the
definition of validity, but it has this curious consequence: Any argument whose
premises are inconsistent must be valid.

In the following argument, for example, the premises appear to be totally

irrelevant to the conclusion:

Today is Sunday.
Today is not Sunday.
Therefore the moon is made of green cheese.

Symbolic translation
1. S
2. ~S
∴ ~M

Formal proof of validity

1. S
2. ~S
∴ ~S

3. S v M 1, Add
4. M 3, 2, D.S.
An argument that is valid because its premises are inconsistent cannot possibly be
sound- for if the premises are inconsistent with each other, they cannot possibly be
all true. By such argument, therefore, it is not possible to establish any conclusion
to be true, because at least one of the premises must be false.
The premises of a valid argument imply its conclusion not merely in the sense of
material implication but logically or strictly. In a valid argument it is logically
impossible for the premises to be true when the conclusion is false- and this
situation obtains when it is logically impossible for the premises to be true. Any
argument with inconsistent premise is valid regardless of what its conclusion may
be.
Why consistency is prized so highly?
1. That two inconsistent statements cannot be both true.
-In a courtroom, cross-examination often aims to bring a hostile witness to
contradict himself. If a witness makes inconsistent assertions, not all that he says
can be true, and his credibility is seriously undermined. When it has been
established that a witness has lied under oath, no testimony of that witness can be
fully trusted.
2. Any and every conclusion follows logically from the inconsistent statements
taken as premises.
- Inconsistent statements are not meaningless; their trouble is just the opposite-
they mean too much. They mean everything, in the sense of implying everything,
and if everything is asserted, half of what is asserted is surely false, because every
statement has a denial.

(IV)Indirect Proof of Validity

In logic, proof by contradiction is a form of proof, and more specifically a form of indirect proof,
that establishes the truth or validity of a proposition. It starts by assuming that the opposite
proposition is true, and then shows that such an assumption leads to a contradiction.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_by_contradiction
Contradictory statements cannot both be true. Therefore, a statement added to the premises that
make it possible to deduce a contradiction must entail a falsehood. This gives rise to another
method of proving validity. Suppose we assume (for the purposes of the proof only) the denial of
what is to be proved. Suppose, using that assumption, we can derive a contradiction. That
contradiction will show that when we denied what was to be proved we were brought to
absurdity.

1. A‫( כ‬B ● C)
2. (B V D) ‫ כ‬E
3. D V A

E
In the very next line we make explicit our assumption (for the purpose of the indirect proof) of
the denial of the conclusion.
4. - E I.P. (Indirect Proof)
With the now enlarged set of premises we can, using the established rules of inference, bring out
an explicit contradiction, thus:
5. ~ (B V D) 2,4 M.T
6. ~B ●~D 5 De M.
7. ~D●~B 6 Com
8. ~D 7 Simp
9. A 3,8 D.S
10. B●C 1,9 M.P
11. B 10 Simp
12. ~B 6 Simp
13. B●~B 11,12 Conj

The last line of the proof is an explicit contradiction, which is a demonstration of the absurdity to
which we were led by assuming~E in line 4. This contradiction, formally and explicitly
expressed in the last line, exhibits the absurdity and completes the proof.

This method of indirect proof strengthens our machinery for testing arguments by making it
possible, in some circumstances, to prove validity more quickly than would be possible without
it. We can illustrate this by first constructing a direct formal proof of the validity of an argument,
and then demonstrating the validity of that same argument using an indirect proof.
1. (H ‫כ‬I) ● (J‫ כ‬K)
2. (I V K) ‫כ‬L
3. L

~(H V J)

Direct Formal Proof Indirect Proof of Invalidity

4. ~(I V K) 2,3 M.T. !4. ~~(H V J) I.P. (Indirect Proof)
5. ~I●~ K 4 De M. !5.H V J 4 D.N
6. ~I 5 Simp !6. I V K 1,5 C.D.
7. H ‫ כ‬I 1, Simp !7. L 2,6 M.P.
8. ~H 7,6 M.T. !8. L ●~L 7,3 Conj.
9.(J ‫ כ‬K) ● (H ‫ כ‬I) 1 Com.
10. J ‫ כ‬K 9 Simp.
11. ~K●~I 5, Com.
12. ~K 11 Simp
13. ~J 10,12 M.T.
14. ~H●~J 8,13 Conj.
15. ~(H V J) 14 De M.

In this example in the left we used direct formal proof of the validity of an argument , and in the
right we used the indirect proof of invalidity. An exclamation point (!) is used to indicate that a
given step is derived after the assumption advancing the indirect proof had been made.

(V) SHORT TRUTH TABLE

What is the Shortened Truth Table Technique?

The shortened truth table technique offers a third possibility for proof which has the advantage
of truth tables in that it can give a Y/N answer: the argument is shown to be valid or invalid, but
it short cuts the long and tedious nature of the full blown truth table.

What do I use the Shortened Truth Table Technique to Prove?

The great advantage of the Shortened Truth Table Technique is that it can be used to prove either
validity or invalidity -just like any truth table.

What is the goal in using this technique?

The objective of the game is to find a row out of all the rows in a full truth table which has all
true premisses and a false conclusion. Such a row, if it exists, would, of course, show the
argument to be invalid. Thus the objective of the game is to prove the argument is invalid.
Therefore "success" in this game means the argument is invalid, and failure in this game
means the argument is valid.

http://people.loyno.edu/~folse/SHORTENEDTT.html
 (VI)Induction and Deduction
Deductive reasoning works from the more general to the more specific. Sometimes this is
informally called a “top-down” approach. We might begin with thinking up a theory about our
topic of interest. We then narrow that down into more specific hypothesis that we can test. We
narrow down even further when we collect observations to address the hypothesis. This ultimately
leads us to be able to test the hypothesis with specific data – a confirmation (or not) of our original
theories.
https://socialresearchmethods.net/kb/dedind.php

Inductive reasoning works the other way, moving from specific observations to broader
generalizations and theories. Informally, we sometimes call this a “bottom up” approach. In
inductive reasoning, we begin with specific observations and measures, begin to detect patterns
and regularities, formulate some tentative hypothesis that we can explore, and finally end up
developing some general conclusions or theories.
https://socialresearchmethods.net/kb/dedind.php
Induction thus provides the starting points—the foundation—for the reasoning that concerns us
most. We reason to establish truths in our everyday lives, to learn facts about our society, to
understand the natural world. Deduction is certainly powerful in enabling us to move from known
(or assumed) propositions to other propositions that those premises entail, but in the search for
truths with which our reasoning must begin, it is insufficient.
One essential contrast between the two families of argument lies in the relation of the premises to
the conclusion in the arguments of the two great families. In deductive arguments, the claim is
made that conclusions follow with certainty from their premises. That claim is appropriate because
any deductive argument, if it is good, brings to light in its conclusion what was already buried in
its premises. The relation between premises and conclusion, in deduction, is one of logical
necessity. In every deductive argument, if it is valid and if its premises are true, its conclusion
must be true. In inductive arguments the concern of this chapter, the relation between premises
and conclusion is not one of logical necessity. The claim of certainty is not made. The terms valid
and invalid simply do not apply. This does not mean that inductive arguments are always weak;
sometimes they are very strong indeed, and fully deserve our confidence.
 ANALOGICAL REASONING

Section 2:

(VII) ARGUMENT BY ANALOGY

Definition:
Argument by analogy or analogical argument is a kind of inductive argument that
proceeds from the fact that

a) two or more entities or things are alike in some respect(s), and

b) therefore concludes that the entities or things being compared are also alike
in some other respects.
Basic llustration:

 a, b, c, d all have the attributes P &Q

 a, b, c all have the attribute of R
 d probably has the attribute of R

 Ilocano ethnic group, Kapampangan ethnic group, Tagalog ethnic group, and Bisaya
ethnic group all have the physical attributes of brown skin and black hair.
 Ilocano ethnic group, Kapampangan ethnic group, and Tagalog ethnic group have the
physical attribute of brown-black eyes.
 Therefore, Bisaya ethnic group has the physical attribute of brown-black eyes.

Three points of analogy are involved, three respects in which the two or more entities
mentioned are said to resemble each other:

First, inbelonging to Philippine ethnic groups; second, in having similar physical attributes
particularly brown skin and black hair; and third, in having further similar physical attribute-
brown-black eyes.

The given argument may be described as having premises that assert, first that, two things are
similar in two respects, and second, that one of those things has a further characteristic,
from which the conclusion is drawn that the other entity or thing also has that further
characteristic.
Section 3:

(VIII) APPRAISING ANALOGICAL ARGUMENTS

To appraise the strength of analogical arguments, six criteria may be distinguished.

Illustration:

Analogical Argument:

John Grisham's novels The Firm, The Pelican Brief, and A Time to Kill were all made into
block-buster movies. John Grisham’s latest novel, The Testament will probably make a
block-buster movie.

1) Number of entities.
General Rule: The larger the number of entities-the stronger the argument.

Several experiences of the same kind with an item of just that sort will support the
conclusion-much more than will a single instance.
This criterion is similar to the notion of induction by simple enumeration—the more
examples enumerated or the more several the experiences, the higher the probability or
the stronger the argument. (ceteris paribus)

 Example:
If we change our premise to "John Grisham's novels The Firm, The Pelican Brief, A Time
to Kill, The Client, The Chamber, and Rainmaker were all made into block-buster
movies.", this strengthens the argument.

2) Variety of instance or Degree of Dissimilarity is in the premises.

The more dissimilar the instances mentioned only in the premises, the stronger the argument.

The conclusion is made more probable if the entities are varied because the data base
becomes broader and more inclusive.

 Example:
John Grisham's novels The Firm, The Pelican Brief, and A Time to Kill were all made
into block-buster movies. The first was about organized crime, the second was about a
conspiracy within the government, and the third was about a poor southern African-
American who killed the man who raped his daughter.", this strengthens the argument.

The more variety there is in the stories in those other novels, the less important it will be
for our conclusion that the story in the latest novel is different from those in the earlier
books.
3) Number of similar respects.
The greater the number of respects in which the entity in the conclusion is similar to the
entities in the premises, the more probable the conclusion

4) Relevance of Respects.
Respects add force to an argument when they are are relevant. A single relevant common
attribute strengthens the argument more than a host of irrelevant similarities.

 Example:
The novels The Firm, The Pelican Brief, A Time to Kill were all sold at Barnes and
Noble, and they were all made into block-buster movies", this weakens the argument. A
large book seller like Barnes and Noble tries to carry the broadest selection of books
possible. That they carry a particular book is not very relevant to whether that book is
made into a movie.
5) Number and Importance of Disanalogies.
The argument is weaker if there are many disanalogies between a, b, c, and with d in the
above schema. Similarities between entities and things in the data base and the conclusion
strengthen the argument.

 Example:
The Firm, The Pelican Brief, and A Time to Kill were all best-sellers, but that The
Testament was not selling well.

How well a book sells is certainly relevant to the decision whether to make a movie of it.
So this would be an important disanalogy between the Grisham novels in the comparison
set and The Testament.
6) Modesty or boldness of the conclusion relative to the premises.

If the stated conclusion is hedged, conservative, more cautious, or guarded relative to the
premisses, the probability of the argument becomes stronger.
 (IX) REFUTATION BY LOGICAL ANALOGY
A logical analogy is useful to show that a given argument (whether inductive or deductive) is
invalid or plainly mistaken.

To prove the invalidity of an argument, it suffices to formulate another argument that

(1) has exactly the same form as the first and

(2) has true premises and a false conclusion.

Example:

“If I were the President, I’d be famous. So I’m not famous, since I’m not the President.”

The conclusion indicator “so” tells you the conclusion is “I’m not famous”.

So the argument is:

Premise: If I were President, I’d be famous.

Premise: I’m not President.

Conclusion: I’m not famous.

The argument obviously is an instance of the invalid form Denying the Antecedent