Chapter 3

Introduction
to Logic

2008 Pearson Addison-Wesley.

All rights reserved

Chapter 3: Introduction to Logic

3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
3.5
3.6

Statements and Quantifiers

Truth Tables and Equivalent Statements
The Conditional and Circuits
More on the Conditional
Analyzing Arguments with Euler Diagrams
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.

pq
p
q
2008 Pearson Addison-Wesley. All rights

reserved

3-6-9

Example: Truth Tables (Two Premises)

p q p

Premise and premise implies conclusion

The truth table is on the next slide.

2008 Pearson Addison-Wesley. All rights

reserved

3-610

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

2008 Pearson Addison-Wesley. All rights

reserved

3-611

Valid Argument Forms

Modus
Ponens

pq
p
q

Modus
Tollens

pq
~q
~p

Disjunctive
Syllogism

pq
~p
q

Reasoning
by
Transitivity

pq
qr
pr

2008 Pearson Addison-Wesley. All rights

reserved

3-612

Invalid Argument Forms (Fallacies)

Fallacy of the
Converse

pq
q
p

Fallacy of the
Inverse

pq
~p
~q

2008 Pearson Addison-Wesley. All rights

reserved

3-613

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

14

Example: Truth Tables (More Than Two

Premises)
So we have

pq
: qr
: 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

3-615

Example: Truth Tables (More Than Two

Premises)
p q : q r : r : p
T
T
F
F
T
T
F
T
T
T
F
T
T
T
F 2008 Pearson Addison-Wesley.
T
3-6
All rights

p q r
T
T
T
T
F
F
F
F

T
T
F
F
T
T
F
F

reserved

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

3-617

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

3-618

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
p : q
can get

~qs
s ~ r.
2008 Pearson Addison-Wesley.
All rights
reserved

3-619

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

3-620