OBJECTIVE:

1.Use truth tables to determine the validity of an argument.

2.Know some common valid and invalid forms.

INTRODUCTION

Argument

• An Argument consists of two parts:

Premises: the given statement (proposition)
Conclusion: the result determined by the truth of the
premises.
• Valid Argument : the conclusion is true whenever the
premises are assumed to be true.
• Invalid Argument: Also called a fallacy
 BASIC LOGICAL CONNECTIVES IN
PROPOSITIONAL LOGIC
Approximate English Name Symbol
Equivalent
And Conjunction .
Or Disjunction v
If…then Conditional ‫ﬤ‬
If and only if… Biconditional ≡
*Not *Negation *∼
TRUTH TABLES FOR THE BASIC CONNECTIVES

CONJUNCTION DISJUNCTION CONDITIONAL *NEGATION

p q p.q pvq p‫ﬤ‬q ∼p

T T T T T F
T F F T F F
F T F T T T
F F F F T T
MEMORIZING THE TRUTH TABLE RULES

Negation : The truth value of a negation is always the

opposite of the truth value of the unnegated statement.
Conjunction: A conjunction is true only when both
conjuncts are true.
Disjunction: A disjunction is false only when both disjuncts
are false.
Conditional: Conditionals are false only when it is the case
that the antecedent is true and the consequent false.
TESTING THE VALIDITY OF AN ARGUMENT WITH
A TRUTH TABLE

1. Symbolize the argument using letters to represent the

simple propositions.
2. Draw a single truth table that contains a column for each
of the premises and the conclusion.
3. Look for a row in which all of the premises are true and
the conclusion is false. If such a row exist, the argument is
invalid; if not, it is valid.
Example 1

If we will invest more money in the police forces, then

crime will decrease. (First premise) We will not invest
more money in police forces. (2nd premise)Therefore,
crime will not decrease. ( Conclusion)
• In a deductive argument, if both premises are true and the
argument is valid, the conclusion must be true. So if there
are two true premises and a false conclusion, the
argument is invalid.

• The argument is expressed using two variables, p and q,

and the appropriate connectives. The conclusion is
indicated by ∴. Now we can use the symbol to construct a
truth table of the argument.
• The argument can be written in symbolic form as:

p⊃q - First premise

∼p - Second premise

∴ ∼q - Conclusion
Draw a single truth table that contains a column for
each of the premises and the conclusion.
1st Premise 2nd Premise Conclusion
p q p⊃q ~p ~q
T T T F F
T F F F T
F T T T F
F F T T T
• Check if there is a row with all the premises true and
conclusion false.
• If there is such a row, the argument is INVALID; if there is
no such row, the argument form must be VALID. The
above given example is invalid. There is a way - row-
possibility of the true premises and a false conclusion.
Example 2

If voter election fraud occurs, then the Filipino people will

not respect their leaders. If the Filipino people do not
respect their leaders, then national security will be
weakened. Therefore, if voter election fraud occurs, then
national security will be weakened.
• First, symbolize the argument using letters to represent
the proposition. Let us use:

F ⊃ ∼R - 1st premise

∼R⊃ W - 2nd premise

∴ F⊃ W - Conclusion
Draw a single truth table that contains a column for
each of the premises and the conclusion.
F R W ∼R F ⊃ ∼R ∼R⊃ W F⊃ W
1 T T T F F T T
2 T T F F F T F
3 T F T T T T T
4 T F F T T F F
5 F T T F T T T
6 F T F F T T T
7 F F T T T T T
8 F F F T T F T
Again, check if there is a row with all the premises true and
conclusion false.

If there is such a row, the argument is INVALID; if there is

no such row, the argument form must be VALID.

The above given example is valid. There is NO way - row-

possibility of the true premises and a false conclusion.
SOME COMMON ARGUMENT FORM
A.Common Valid Form
These are the basic forms that are commonly used:
1.Disjunctive Syllogism (DS)
2.Modus Ponens (MP)
3.Modus Tollens(MT)
4.Hypothetical Syllogism (HS)
Disjunctive Syllogism (DS)
One of the simplest argument forms relies in the fact that
every disjunction, atleast one of the disjuncts must be true.
Therefore, if one of them is false, the other must be true.
The disjunction tells us that at least one of its disjuncts must
be true in order for the disjunction to be true. Now since the
other premise asserts that one of the disjuncts is false (that
is, its negation is true). It follows that the other disjunct must
be true.
We symbolize the DS as

p v q- First premise

∼p - Second premise

∴ q - Conclusion
And to show its validity we construct the following
truth table:
1st Premise 2nd Premise Conclusion
p q pvq ~p q
T T T F T
T F T F F
F T T T T
F F F T F
The truth table thus shows that the argument form has no
substitution instance having true premises and a false
conclusion, and thereby proves the validity of the argument
being tested.
After we know what the form looks like, the next step is to
identify it from a written argument. Here is an example of
disjunctive syllogism:

Either interest rates go up or inflation gets worse.

Since interest rates have not gone up, we can be
sure that inflation is getting worse.
After symbolizing the argument as

UvW - First premise

∼U - Second premise
∴ W - Conclusion

We can tell that it is an instance of disjunctive syllogism. In

this way we can find out that it is valid without constructing
its truth table.
Modus Ponens (MP)

“Modus Ponens” is the Latin term for “affirmative mode.” We

can also call it “affirming the antecendent” because one of
its premises affirms that the antecedent of the conditional is
true. It is a valid form based on the concept of sufficient
condition. If p is a sufficient condition of q, and p is true,
then q must be true.
We symbolize the Modus Ponens as

p⊃q - First premise

p - Second premise
∴q - Conclusion
And to show its validity we construct the following
truth table:
1st Premise 2nd Premise Conclusion
p q p⊃q p q
T T T T T
T F F T F
F T T F T
F F T F F

The truth table thus shows that the argument form has no substitution
instance having true premises and a false conclusion, and thereby proves
the validity of the argument being tested.
Modus ponens is one of the most commonly used valid
forms. Here is an example:
If the second native told the truth, then only one native
is a politician. The second native told the
truth. Therefore only one native is a politician.
The argument is symbolized as
p⊃q
p
∴q
Modus Tollens (MT)
“ Modus Tollens” means “denying mode” in Latin. Its English
name is “denying the consequent” because one of its
premises denies that the consequent of the conditional is
true. The validity of modus tollens can be easily explained
using the concept of necessary condition. If q is a
necessary condition of p, and q is false, then p must be
false.This can be symbolized as
p⊃q
∼q
∴ ∼p
The next argument is an example of modus tollens:
If there is smoke, there is fire. There is no fire, so there is
no smoke.

The argument may be symbolized as

p⊃q
∼q
∴ ∼p
The validity of this argument form, called Modus Tollens (“the method of
taking away or denying”), may be shown by the following table:

1st Premise 2nd Premise Conclusion

p q p⊃q ~q ~p
T T T F F
T F F T F
F T T F T
F F T T T

Here, there is no substitution instance, no line, on which the premises, p ⊃

q and ~ q, are both true and the conclusion, ~ p, is false.
Hypothetical Syllogism

A hypothetical syllogism has a distinct features that helps us

recognize it. The argument consists of three conditionals.
The first conditional says that p is a sufficient condition for
q. The second one says that q in turn is a sufficient
condition for r. It would then follow that p is a sufficient
condition for r.
Here is an example:
If the first native is a politician, then the first native lies.
If the fist native lies, then the first native denies
being politician. Therefore, if the first native is
politician, then the first native denies being a politician.
The specific form of this argument is
p⊃q
q⊃r
∴ p⊃r
The validity if this argument may be shown by the
following truth table.
1st Premise 2nd Premise Conclusion
p q r p ⊃ q q ⊃ r p ⊃ r
T T T T T T
T T F T F F
T F T F T T
T F F F T F
F T T T T T
F T F T F T
F F T T T T
F F F T T T
B. COMMON INVALID FORMS

Two invalid argument forms deserve special notice because

they superficially resemble valid form and therefore often
temp careless writers or readers. They are the affirming the
consequence (AC) and denying the antecedent (DA). It is
important not to confuse them with modus ponens and
modus tollens.
Affirming the Consequent (AC)
This argument differs from modus ponens in that its
categorical premise affirms the consequent, rather than the
antecendent, of the conditional proposition. This is
symbolized as

p⊃q
q
∴p
Although the shape of this form is something like that of
modus ponens, the two argument forms are very different,
and this form is not valid. Here is that syllogism whose
invalidity does indeed render it bogus:

“If one is a terrorist one is a tyrant who hates freedom.

Saddam Hussein is a tyrant who hates freedom. Therefore
Saddam Hussein is a terrorist.”
Let us suppose that the hypothetical first premise is true
and that the second premise affirms(about Saddam
Hussein as one tyrant) only the consequent of the
preceding hypothetical. The argument plainly commits the
fallacy of affirming the consequent.
Denying the Antecedent (DA)

Another invalid form, called the fallacy of denying the

antecedent, has a shape somewhat like that of modus
tollens. Denying the antecedent concludes that q must be
false on the basis that a sufficient condition p is not true.
This may be symbolized as

p⊃q
~p
∴~q
Here is an example that shows the form invalid.
If Bill Gates owns Exxon Mobil, then he is a billionaire.
Bill Gates does not own Exxon Mobil. Therefore, he is
not a billionaire.

O⊃ B
~O
∴~B
• Both of these common fallacies may readily be shown to
be invalid by means of truth tables. In each case there is
one line of the truth table in which the premises of these
fallacious arguments are all true, but the conclusion is
false.
Here is the truth table to prove the invalidity of Denying the
Antecedent.

1st Premise 2nd Premise Conclusion

p⊃qp q p⊃q ~p ~q
~p T T T F F
T F F F T
∴~qF T T T F -INVALID
F F T T T
Here is the truth table to prove the invalidity of
Affirming the Consequent.
1st Premise 2nd Premise Conclusion
p q p⊃q q p
T T T T T
T F F F T
F T T T F -INVALID
F F T F F
SUBSTITUTION INSTANCES AND SPECIFIC
FORMS

A given argument can be a substitution instance of several

different argument forms. Hence the valid disjunctive
syllogism which may be symbolized as

RvW
~R
∴W
is a substitution instance of the valid argument form
pvq
~p
∴q
and is also a substitution instance of the invalid argument
form
p
q
∴r
An argument form that is valid can have only valid
arguments as substitution instances. That is, all of the
substitution instances of a valid form must be valid. This is
proved by the truth-table proof of validity for the valid
argument form, which shows that there is no possible
substitution instance of a valid form that has true premises
and a false conclusion.