DOCSLIB.ORG

7.1 Rules of Implication I

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
7.1 Rules of Implication I Natural Deduction is a method for deriving the conclusion of valid arguments expressed in the symbolism of propositional logic. The method consists of using sets of Rules of Inference (valid argument forms) to derive either a conclusion or a series of intermediate conclusions that link the premises of an argument with the stated conclusion. The First Four Rules of Inference: ◦ Modus Ponens (MP): p q p q ◦ Modus Tollens (MT): p q ~q ~p ◦ Pure Hypothetical Syllogism (HS): p q q r p r ◦ Disjunctive Syllogism (DS): p v q ~p q Common strategies for constructing a proof involving the first four rules: ◦ Always begin by attempting to find the conclusion in the premises. If the conclusion is not present in its entirely in the premises, look at the main operator of the conclusion. This will provide a clue as to how the conclusion should be derived. ◦ If the conclusion contains a letter that appears in the consequent of a conditional statement in the premises, consider obtaining that letter via modus ponens. ◦ If the conclusion contains a negated letter and that letter appears in the antecedent of a conditional statement in the premises, consider obtaining the negated letter via modus tollens. ◦ If the conclusion is a conditional statement, consider obtaining it via pure hypothetical syllogism. ◦ If the conclusion contains a letter that appears in a disjunctive statement in the premises, consider obtaining that letter via disjunctive syllogism. Four Additional Rules of Inference: ◦ Constructive Dilemma (CD): (p q) • (r s) p v r q v s ◦ Simplification (Simp): p • q p ◦ Conjunction (Conj): p q p • q ◦ Addition (Add): p p v q Common Misapplications Common strategies involving the additional rules of inference: ◦ If the conclusion contains a letter that appears in a conjunctive statement in the premises, consider obtaining that letter via simplification. ◦ If the conclusion is a conjunctive statement, consider obtaining it via conjunction by first obtaining the individual conjuncts. ◦ If the conclusion is a disjunctive statement, consider obtaining it via constructive dilemma or addition. ◦ If the conclusion contains a letter not found in the premises, addition must be used to introduce that letter. ◦ Conjunction can be used to set up constructive dilemma. The ten rules of replacement are expressed in terms of pairs of logically equivalent statement forms, either of which can replace each other in a proof sequence. ◦ A double colon (::) is used to designate logical equivalence. ◦ Underlying the use of rules of replacement are Axioms of Replacement, which asserts that within the context of a proof, logically equivalent expressions may replace each other. ◦ By Axioms of Replacement, the rules of replacement may be applied to an entire line or to any part of a line. The First Five Rules of Replacement: ◦ DeMorgan’s Rule (DM) ~(p • q) :: (~p v ~q) ~(p v q) :: (~p • ~q) ◦ Commutativity (Com) (p v q) :: (q v p) (p • q) :: (q • p) ◦ Associativity (Assoc): [p v (q v r)] :: [(p v q) v r)] [p • (q • r)] :: [(p • q) • r)] ◦ Distribution (Dist): [p • (q v r)] :: [(p • q) v (p • r)] [p v (q • r)] :: [(p v q) • (p v r)] ◦ Double Negation (DN): p :: ~~p Common strategies involving the first five rules of replacement: ◦ Conjunction can be used to set up DeMorgan’s rule. ◦ Constructive dilemma can be used to set up DeMorgan’s rule. ◦ Addition can be used to set up DeMorgan’s rule. ◦ Distribution can be used in two ways to set up disjunctive syllogism. ◦ Distribution can be used in two ways to set up simplification. ◦ If inspection of the premises does not reveal how the conclusion should be derived, consider using the rules of replacement to deconstruct the conclusion. The Remaining Five Rules of Replacement: ◦ Transposition (Trans): (p q) :: (~q ~p) ◦ Material Implication (Impl): (p q) :: (~q p) ◦ Material Equivalence (Equiv): (p ≡ q) :: [(p q) • (q p)] (p ≡ q) :: [(p • q) v (~q • ~p) ◦ Exportation (Exp): [(p • q) r] :: [(p (q r)] ◦ Tautology (Taut): p :: (p v p) p :: (p • p) Common strategies involving the remaining five rules of replacement: ◦ Material implication can be used to set up hypothetical syllogism. ◦ Exportation can be used to set up modus ponens. ◦ Exportation can be used to set up modus tollens. ◦ Addition can be used to set up material implication. ◦ Transposition can be used to set up hypothetical syllogism. ◦ Transposition can be used to set up constructive dilemma. ◦ Constructive dilemma can be used to set up tautology. ◦ Material implication can be used to set up tautology. ◦ Material implication can be used to set up distribution. Conditional Proof is a method for deriving a conditional statement (either the conclusion or some intermediate line) that offers the usual advantage of being both shorter and simpler than the direct method. For example: ◦ a (b • c) ◦ ( b v d) e / a e To Construct a Conditional Proof: ◦ Begin by assuming the antecedent of the desired conditional statement on one line. ◦ Derive the consequent on the subsequent line. ◦ “Discharge” these lines in the desired conditional statement. Every conditional proof must be discharged, otherwise any conclusion can be derived from any premises. Indirect Proof is a technique similar to conditional proof that can be used on any argument to derive either the conclusion or some intermediate line leading to the conclusion. To construct an indirect proof: ◦ Begin by assuming the negation of the statement to be obtained. ◦ Use this assumption to derive a contradiction. ◦ Conclude that the original statement is false. ◦ As in conditional proofs, every indirect proof must be discharged, otherwise any conclusion can be derived from any premises. Indirect and conditional proofs can be combined to derive either a line in a proof sequence or the conclusion of a proof. Both conditional and indirect proof can be used to establish the truth of a logical truth, or tautology. You can treat tautologies as if they were the conclusions of arguments having no premises. This is suggested by the fact that any argument having a tautology for its conclusion is valid regardless of its premises. .
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Classifying Material Implications Over Minimal Logic
    Classifying Material Implications over Minimal Logic Hannes Diener and Maarten McKubre-Jordens March 28, 2018 Abstract The so-called paradoxes of material implication have motivated the development of many non- classical logics over the years [2–5, 11]. In this note, we investigate some of these paradoxes and classify them, over minimal logic. We provide proofs of equivalence and semantic models separating the paradoxes where appropriate. A number of equivalent groups arise, all of which collapse with unrestricted use of double negation elimination. Interestingly, the principle ex falso quodlibet, and several weaker principles, turn out to be distinguishable, giving perhaps supporting motivation for adopting minimal logic as the ambient logic for reasoning in the possible presence of inconsistency. Keywords: reverse mathematics; minimal logic; ex falso quodlibet; implication; paraconsistent logic; Peirce’s principle. 1 Introduction The project of constructive reverse mathematics [6] has given rise to a wide literature where various the- orems of mathematics and principles of logic have been classified over intuitionistic logic. What is less well-known is that the subtle difference that arises when the principle of explosion, ex falso quodlibet, is dropped from intuitionistic logic (thus giving (Johansson’s) minimal logic) enables the distinction of many more principles. The focus of the present paper are a range of principles known collectively (but not exhaustively) as the paradoxes of material implication; paradoxes because they illustrate that the usual interpretation of formal statements of the form “. → . .” as informal statements of the form “if. then. ” produces counter-intuitive results. Some of these principles were hinted at in [9]. Here we present a carefully worked-out chart, classifying a number of such principles over minimal logic.
    [Show full text]
  • Chrysippus's Dog As a Case Study in Non-Linguistic Cognition
    Chrysippus’s Dog as a Case Study in Non-Linguistic Cognition Michael Rescorla Abstract: I critique an ancient argument for the possibility of non-linguistic deductive inference. The argument, attributed to Chrysippus, describes a dog whose behavior supposedly reflects disjunctive syllogistic reasoning. Drawing on contemporary robotics, I urge that we can equally well explain the dog’s behavior by citing probabilistic reasoning over cognitive maps. I then critique various experimentally-based arguments from scientific psychology that echo Chrysippus’s anecdotal presentation. §1. Language and thought Do non-linguistic creatures think? Debate over this question tends to calcify into two extreme doctrines. The first, espoused by Descartes, regards language as necessary for cognition. Modern proponents include Brandom (1994, pp. 145-157), Davidson (1984, pp. 155-170), McDowell (1996), and Sellars (1963, pp. 177-189). Cartesians may grant that ascribing cognitive activity to non-linguistic creatures is instrumentally useful, but they regard such ascriptions as strictly speaking false. The second extreme doctrine, espoused by Gassendi, Hume, and Locke, maintains that linguistic and non-linguistic cognition are fundamentally the same. Modern proponents include Fodor (2003), Peacocke (1997), Stalnaker (1984), and many others. Proponents may grant that non- linguistic creatures entertain a narrower range of thoughts than us, but they deny any principled difference in kind.1 2 An intermediate position holds that non-linguistic creatures display cognitive activity of a fundamentally different kind than human thought. Hobbes and Leibniz favored this intermediate position. Modern advocates include Bermudez (2003), Carruthers (2002, 2004), Dummett (1993, pp. 147-149), Malcolm (1972), and Putnam (1992, pp. 28-30).
    [Show full text]
  • Frontiers of Conditional Logic
    City University of New York (CUNY) CUNY Academic Works All Dissertations, Theses, and Capstone Projects Dissertations, Theses, and Capstone Projects 2-2019 Frontiers of Conditional Logic Yale Weiss The Graduate Center, City University of New York How does access to this work benefit ou?y Let us know! More information about this work at: https://academicworks.cuny.edu/gc_etds/2964 Discover additional works at: https://academicworks.cuny.edu This work is made publicly available by the City University of New York (CUNY). Contact: [email protected] Frontiers of Conditional Logic by Yale Weiss A dissertation submitted to the Graduate Faculty in Philosophy in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy, The City University of New York 2019 ii c 2018 Yale Weiss All Rights Reserved iii This manuscript has been read and accepted by the Graduate Faculty in Philosophy in satisfaction of the dissertation requirement for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. Professor Gary Ostertag Date Chair of Examining Committee Professor Nickolas Pappas Date Executive Officer Professor Graham Priest Professor Melvin Fitting Professor Edwin Mares Professor Gary Ostertag Supervisory Committee The City University of New York iv Abstract Frontiers of Conditional Logic by Yale Weiss Adviser: Professor Graham Priest Conditional logics were originally developed for the purpose of modeling intuitively correct modes of reasoning involving conditional|especially counterfactual|expressions in natural language. While the debate over the logic of conditionals is as old as propositional logic, it was the development of worlds semantics for modal logic in the past century that cat- alyzed the rapid maturation of the field.
    [Show full text]
  • Rules of Replacement II, §7.4
    Philosophy 109, Modern Logic, Queens College Russell Marcus, Instructor email: [email protected] website: http://philosophy.thatmarcusfamily.org Office phone: (718) 997-5287 Rules of Replacement II, §7.4 I. The Last Five Rules of Replacement See the appendix at the end of the lesson for truth tables proving equivalence for each. Transposition (Trans) P e Q :: -Q e -P You may switch the antecedent and consequent of a conditional statement, as long as you negate (or un-negate) both. Often used with (HS). Also, traditionally, called the ‘contrapositive’. Sample Derivation: 1. A e B 2. D e -B / A e -D 3. --B e -D 2, Trans 4. A e -D 1, 3, DN, HS QED Transposition can be tricky when only one term is negated: A e -B becomes, by Trans: --B e -A which becomes, by DN B e -A Equivalently, but doing the double negation first: A e -B becomes, by DN: --A e -B becomes, by Trans: B e -A Either way, you can include the DN on the line with Trans. Material Implication (Impl) P e Q :: -P w Q Implication allows you to change a statement from a disjunction to a conditional, or vice versa. It’s often easier to work with disjunctions. You can use (DM) to get conjunctions. You may be able to use distribution, which doesn’t apply to conditionals. On the other hand, sometimes, you just want to work with conditionals. You can use (HS) and (MP). Proofs are overdetermined by our system - there are many ways to do them.
    [Show full text]
  • On Basic Probability Logic Inequalities †
    mathematics Article On Basic Probability Logic Inequalities † Marija Boriˇci´cJoksimovi´c Faculty of Organizational Sciences, University of Belgrade, Jove Ili´ca154, 11000 Belgrade, Serbia; [email protected] † The conclusions given in this paper were partially presented at the European Summer Meetings of the Association for Symbolic Logic, Logic Colloquium 2012, held in Manchester on 12–18 July 2012. Abstract: We give some simple examples of applying some of the well-known elementary probability theory inequalities and properties in the field of logical argumentation. A probabilistic version of the hypothetical syllogism inference rule is as follows: if propositions A, B, C, A ! B, and B ! C have probabilities a, b, c, r, and s, respectively, then for probability p of A ! C, we have f (a, b, c, r, s) ≤ p ≤ g(a, b, c, r, s), for some functions f and g of given parameters. In this paper, after a short overview of known rules related to conjunction and disjunction, we proposed some probabilized forms of the hypothetical syllogism inference rule, with the best possible bounds for the probability of conclusion, covering simultaneously the probabilistic versions of both modus ponens and modus tollens rules, as already considered by Suppes, Hailperin, and Wagner. Keywords: inequality; probability logic; inference rule MSC: 03B48; 03B05; 60E15; 26D20; 60A05 1. Introduction The main part of probabilization of logical inference rules is defining the correspond- Citation: Boriˇci´cJoksimovi´c,M. On ing best possible bounds for probabilities of propositions. Some of them, connected with Basic Probability Logic Inequalities. conjunction and disjunction, can be obtained immediately from the well-known Boole’s Mathematics 2021, 9, 1409.
    [Show full text]
  • Two Sources of Explosion
    Two sources of explosion Eric Kao Computer Science Department Stanford University Stanford, CA 94305 United States of America Abstract. In pursuit of enhancing the deductive power of Direct Logic while avoiding explosiveness, Hewitt has proposed including the law of excluded middle and proof by self-refutation. In this paper, I show that the inclusion of either one of these inference patterns causes paracon- sistent logics such as Hewitt's Direct Logic and Besnard and Hunter's quasi-classical logic to become explosive. 1 Introduction A central goal of a paraconsistent logic is to avoid explosiveness { the inference of any arbitrary sentence β from an inconsistent premise set fp; :pg (ex falso quodlibet). Hewitt [2] Direct Logic and Besnard and Hunter's quasi-classical logic (QC) [1, 5, 4] both seek to preserve the deductive power of classical logic \as much as pos- sible" while still avoiding explosiveness. Their work fits into the ongoing research program of identifying some \reasonable" and \maximal" subsets of classically valid rules and axioms that do not lead to explosiveness. To this end, it is natural to consider which classically sound deductive rules and axioms one can introduce into a paraconsistent logic without causing explo- siveness. Hewitt [3] proposed including the law of excluded middle and the proof by self-refutation rule (a very special case of proof by contradiction) but did not show whether the resulting logic would be explosive. In this paper, I show that for quasi-classical logic and its variant, the addition of either the law of excluded middle or the proof by self-refutation rule in fact leads to explosiveness.
    [Show full text]
  • Contradiction Or Non-Contradiction?  Hegel’S Dialectic Between Brandom and Priest
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Padua@research CONTRADICTION OR NON-CONTRADICTION? HEGEL’S DIALECTIC BETWEEN BRANDOM AND PRIEST by Michela Bordignon Abstract. The aim of the paper is to analyse Brandom’s account of Hegel’s conception of determinate negation and the role this structure plays in the dialectical process with respect to the problem of contradiction. After having shown both the merits and the limits of Brandom’s account, I will refer to Priest’s dialetheistic approach to contradiction as an alternative contemporary perspective from which it is possible to capture essential features of Hegel’s notion of contradiction, and I will test the equation of Hegel’s dialectic with Priest dialetheism. 1. Introduction According to Horstmann, «Hegel thinks of his new logic as being in part incompatible with traditional logic»1. The strongest expression of this new conception of logic is the first thesis of the work Hegel wrote in 1801 in order to earn his teaching habilitation: «contradictio est regula veri, non contradictio falsi»2. Hegel seems to claim that contradictions are true. The Hegelian thesis of the truth of contradiction is highly problematic. This is shown by Popper’s critique based on the principle of ex falso quodlibet: «if a theory contains a contradiction, then it entails everything, and therefore, indeed, nothing […]. A theory which involves a contradiction is therefore entirely useless I thank Graham Wetherall for kindly correcting a previous English translation of this paper and for his suggestions and helpful remarks. Of course, all remaining errors are mine.
    [Show full text]
  • Notes on Proof Theory
    Notes on Proof Theory Master 1 “Informatique”, Univ. Paris 13 Master 2 “Logique Mathématique et Fondements de l’Informatique”, Univ. Paris 7 Damiano Mazza November 2016 1Last edit: March 29, 2021 Contents 1 Propositional Classical Logic 5 1.1 Formulas and truth semantics . 5 1.2 Atomic negation . 8 2 Sequent Calculus 10 2.1 Two-sided formulation . 10 2.2 One-sided formulation . 13 3 First-order Quantification 16 3.1 Formulas and truth semantics . 16 3.2 Sequent calculus . 19 3.3 Ultrafilters . 21 4 Completeness 24 4.1 Exhaustive search . 25 4.2 The completeness proof . 30 5 Undecidability and Incompleteness 33 5.1 Informal computability . 33 5.2 Incompleteness: a road map . 35 5.3 Logical theories . 38 5.4 Arithmetical theories . 40 5.5 The incompleteness theorems . 44 6 Cut Elimination 47 7 Intuitionistic Logic 53 7.1 Sequent calculus . 55 7.2 The relationship between intuitionistic and classical logic . 60 7.3 Minimal logic . 65 8 Natural Deduction 67 8.1 Sequent presentation . 68 8.2 Natural deduction and sequent calculus . 70 8.3 Proof tree presentation . 73 8.3.1 Minimal natural deduction . 73 8.3.2 Intuitionistic natural deduction . 75 1 8.3.3 Classical natural deduction . 75 8.4 Normalization (cut-elimination in natural deduction) . 76 9 The Curry-Howard Correspondence 80 9.1 The simply typed l-calculus . 80 9.2 Product and sum types . 81 10 System F 83 10.1 Intuitionistic second-order propositional logic . 83 10.2 Polymorphic types . 84 10.3 Programming in system F ...................... 85 10.3.1 Free structures .
    [Show full text]
  • Tables of Implications and Tautologies from Symbolic Logic
    Tables of Implications and Tautologies from Symbolic Logic Dr. Robert B. Heckendorn Computer Science Department, University of Idaho March 17, 2021 Here are some tables of logical equivalents and implications that I have found useful over the years. Where there are classical names for things I have included them. \Isolation by Parts" is my own invention. By tautology I mean equivalent left and right hand side and by implication I mean the left hand expression implies the right hand. I use the tilde and overbar interchangeably to represent negation e.g. ∼x is the same as x. Enjoy! Table 1: Properties of All Two-bit Operators. The Comm. is short for commutative and Assoc. is short for associative. Iff is short for \if and only if". Truth Name Comm./ Binary And/Or/Not Nands Only Table Assoc. Op 0000 False CA 0 0 (a " (a " a)) " (a " (a " a)) 0001 And CA a ^ b a ^ b (a " b) " (a " b) 0010 Minus b − a a ^ b (b " (a " a)) " (a " (a " a)) 0011 B A b b b 0100 Minus a − b a ^ b (a " (a " a)) " (a " (a " b)) 0101 A A a a a 0110 Xor/NotEqual CA a ⊕ b (a ^ b) _ (a ^ b)(b " (a " a)) " (a " (a " b)) (a _ b) ^ (a _ b) 0111 Or CA a _ b a _ b (a " a) " (b " b) 1000 Nor C a # b a ^ b ((a " a) " (b " b)) " ((a " a) " a) 1001 Iff/Equal CA a $ b (a _ b) ^ (a _ b) ((a " a) " (b " b)) " (a " b) (a ^ b) _ (a ^ b) 1010 Not A a a a " a 1011 Imply a ! b a _ b (a " (a " b)) 1100 Not B b b b " b 1101 Imply b ! a a _ b (b " (a " a)) 1110 Nand C a " b a _ b a " b 1111 True CA 1 1 (a " a) " a 1 Table 2: Tautologies (Logical Identities) Commutative Property: p ^ q $ q
    [Show full text]
  • Methods of Proof Direct Direct Contrapositive Contradiction Pc P→ C ¬ P ∨ C ¬ C → ¬ Pp ∧ ¬ C
    Proof Methods Methods of proof Direct Direct Contrapositive Contradiction pc p→ c ¬ p ∨ c ¬ c → ¬ pp ∧ ¬ c TT T T T F Section 1.6 & 1.7 T F F F F T FT T T T F FF T T T F MSU/CSE 260 Fall 2009 1 MSU/CSE 260 Fall 2009 2 How are these questions related? Proof Methods h1 ∧ h2 ∧ … ∧ hn ⇒ c ? 1. Does p logically imply c ? Let p = h ∧ h ∧ … ∧ h . The following 2. Is the proposition (p → c) a tautology? 1 2 n propositions are equivalent: 3. Is the proposition (¬ p ∨ c) is a tautology? 1. p ⇒ c 4. Is the proposition (¬ c → ¬ p) is a tautology? 2. (p → c) is a tautology. Direct 5. Is the proposition (p ∧ ¬ c) is a contradiction? 3. (¬ p ∨ c) is a tautology. Direct 4. (¬ c → ¬ p)is a tautology. Contrapositive 5. (p ∧ ¬ c) is a contradiction. Contradiction MSU/CSE 260 Fall 2009 3 MSU/CSE 260 Fall 2009 4 © 2006 by A-H. Esfahanian. All Rights Reserved. 1- Formal Proofs Formal Proof A proof is equivalent to establishing a logical To prove: implication chain h1 ∧ h2 ∧ … ∧ hn ⇒ c p1 Premise p Tautology Given premises (hypotheses) h1 , h2 , … , hn and Produce a series of wffs, 2 conclusion c, to give a formal proof that the … . p1 , p2 , pn, c . p k, k’, Inf. Rule hypotheses imply the conclusion, entails such that each wff pr is: r . establishing one of the premises or . a tautology, or pn _____ h1 ∧ h2 ∧ … ∧ hn ⇒ c an axiom/law of the domain (e.g., 1+3=4 or x > x+1 ) ∴ c justified by definition, or logically equivalent to or implied by one or more propositions pk where 1 ≤ k < r.
    [Show full text]
  • Propositional Logic (PDF)
    Mathematics for Computer Science Proving Validity 6.042J/18.062J Instead of truth tables, The Logic of can try to prove valid formulas symbolically using Propositions axioms and deduction rules Albert R Meyer February 14, 2014 propositional logic.1 Albert R Meyer February 14, 2014 propositional logic.2 Proving Validity Algebra for Equivalence The text describes a for example, bunch of algebraic rules to the distributive law prove that propositional P AND (Q OR R) ≡ formulas are equivalent (P AND Q) OR (P AND R) Albert R Meyer February 14, 2014 propositional logic.3 Albert R Meyer February 14, 2014 propositional logic.4 1 Algebra for Equivalence Algebra for Equivalence for example, The set of rules for ≡ in DeMorgan’s law the text are complete: ≡ NOT(P AND Q) ≡ if two formulas are , these rules can prove it. NOT(P) OR NOT(Q) Albert R Meyer February 14, 2014 propositional logic.5 Albert R Meyer February 14, 2014 propositional logic.6 A Proof System A Proof System Another approach is to Lukasiewicz’ proof system is a start with some valid particularly elegant example of this idea. formulas (axioms) and deduce more valid formulas using proof rules Albert R Meyer February 14, 2014 propositional logic.7 Albert R Meyer February 14, 2014 propositional logic.8 2 A Proof System Lukasiewicz’ Proof System Lukasiewicz’ proof system is a Axioms: particularly elegant example of 1) (¬P → P) → P this idea. It covers formulas 2) P → (¬P → Q) whose only logical operators are 3) (P → Q) → ((Q → R) → (P → R)) IMPLIES (→) and NOT. The only rule: modus ponens Albert R Meyer February 14, 2014 propositional logic.9 Albert R Meyer February 14, 2014 propositional logic.10 Lukasiewicz’ Proof System Lukasiewicz’ Proof System Prove formulas by starting with Prove formulas by starting with axioms and repeatedly applying axioms and repeatedly applying the inference rule.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 9: Answers and Comments Step 1 Exercises 1. Simplification. 2. Absorption. 3. See Textbook. 4. Modus Tollens. 5. Modus P
    Chapter 9: Answers and Comments Step 1 Exercises 1. Simplification. 2. Absorption. 3. See textbook. 4. Modus Tollens. 5. Modus Ponens. 6. Simplification. 7. X -- A very common student mistake; can't use Simplification unless the major con- nective of the premise is a conjunction. 8. Disjunctive Syllogism. 9. X -- Fallacy of Denying the Antecedent. 10. X 11. Constructive Dilemma. 12. See textbook. 13. Hypothetical Syllogism. 14. Hypothetical Syllogism. 15. Conjunction. 16. See textbook. 17. Addition. 18. Modus Ponens. 19. X -- Fallacy of Affirming the Consequent. 20. Disjunctive Syllogism. 21. X -- not HS, the (D v G) does not match (D v C). This is deliberate to make sure you don't just focus on generalities, and make sure the entire form fits. 22. Constructive Dilemma. 23. See textbook. 24. Simplification. 25. Modus Ponens. 26. Modus Tollens. 27. See textbook. 28. Disjunctive Syllogism. 29. Modus Ponens. 30. Disjunctive Syllogism. Step 2 Exercises #1 1 Z A 2. (Z v B) C / Z C 3. Z (1)Simp. 4. Z v B (3) Add. 5. C (2)(4)MP 6. Z C (3)(5) Conj. For line 4 it is easy to get locked into line 2 and strategy 1. But they do not work. #2 1. K (B v I) 2. K 3. ~B 4. I (~T N) 5. N T / ~N 6. B v I (1)(2) MP 7. I (6)(3) DS 8. ~T N (4)(7) MP 9. ~T (8) Simp. 10. ~N (5)(9) MT #3 See textbook. #4 1. H I 2. I J 3.
    [Show full text]