Phil 230

Spring 2016
EXAM 1 – ANSWERS
TOTAL POINTS=41
Divide your points received by the total points for your grade.

Make up a first order language with predicate symbols and names. Explain the interpretation of
your predicates and names. Then use your language to express the following claims:
2 points for each sentence

s=Scalia
b=Bowie
SC(x)=x is a Supreme Court justice
D(x)= x is dead
B(x,y)= x is better at guitar than y
H(x)= x is in heaven
G(x)= God loves x

1. Antonin Scalia, the Supreme Court justice, is dead.

SC(s) & D(s)
2. David Bowie is also dead.
D(b)
3. Bowie was better at guitar than Scalia.
B(d,s)
4. Either Scalia is in heaven, or Bowie is in heaven, or both are in heaven, or neither are.
H(s) v H(b) v (H(s) & H(b)) v (~H(s) & ~H(b))
Or De Morgan equivalent
H(s) v H(b) v (H(s) & H(b)) v ~(H(s) v H(b))

5. God loves both of them or God does not love either of them.
(G(s) & G(b)) v (~G(s) & ~G(b))
or De Morgan equivalent
(G(s) & G(b)) v ~(G(s) v G(b))

Use truth tables to answer the following questions:

5 points each

6. Is sentence number 4 a tautology? Yes

H(s) H(b) H(s) v H(b) v (H(s) & H(b)) v (~H(s) & ~H(b))
T T T T T T F F F
T F T T F T F F T
F T T T F T T F F
F F F F F T T T T

Explanation:
The sentence is a large disjunction, we could simplify it as:
 A v B v (A&B) v (~A&~B) or De Morgan equivalent A v B v (A&B) v ~(AvB)
I worked left to right, making the last disjunction the main connective. As you can see,
there are all Ts, making the sentence a tautology. We can also think about the sentence,
and intuitively know that it must be a tautology, because the sentence is giving every
possibility when it comes to Bowie and Scalia being in heaven. There is no way the
sentence can be false.

7. Break up sentence number 4 into two sentences like this:

4.1-Either Scalia is in heaven or Bowie is in heaven.
4.2-Both are in heaven or neither are.
Is sentence 4.1 a tautological consequence of sentence 4.2? No

H(s) H(b) H(s) v H(b) (H(s) & H(b)) v (~H(s) & ~H(b))
T T T T T F F F
T F T F F F F T
F T T F F T F F
F F F F T T T T

Explanation:
Sentence 4.2 is true in two instances, one of which, the last line of the truth table, has sentence
4.1 as false. So because there is an instance in which 4.2 is true but 4.1 is false, that means that
4.1 is not a tautological consequence of 4.2.
Notice that though it is possible to use the already drawn truth table for this question, you needed
to be very careful about how you read the table. In the first table, the last disjunction was
between (H(s) v H(b) v (H(s) & H(b))) and (~H(s) & ~H(b)). But when I split them up into two
difference sentences, my final disjunction is only between (H(s) & H(b)) and (~H(s) & ~H(b)).

Determine whether the following arguments are valid. If they are valid, determine whether they
are sound. If they are invalid, briefly explain why (give a counterexample).
5 points each

8. Premise 1: Both Scalia and Bowie are dead.

Conclusion: Therefore, Obama will get to appoint another Supreme Court justice.

The argument is valid because if the premise is true, the conclusion would have to be
true. There is no way that the premise can be true, and the conclusion false. As long as
Scalia is dead, Obama will get to appoint another justice. The premise also happens to be
true, so the argument is sound.
The information about Bowie is irrelevant to the argument, but having an irrelevant
premise doesn’t affect whether an argument is valid or not.

I would accept different answers. If you really believed that there is some way that the
premise can be true and the conclusion can be false and you explain that as a
counterexample, then I would accept the answer that the argument is invalid. Perhaps
you don’t know how the Supreme Court works, or you have never heard of Antonin
 Scalia. I would also accept the answer that the argument is unsound, if you didn’t know
that Scalia and Bowie were dead, or you didn’t know who they are. I don’t want to take
points off for not following the news.
However, note that while different answers would be accepted, in point of fact the
argument is valid and sound.

9. Premise 1: Bowie was a rock musician.

Premise 2: Scalia was not a rock musician.
Conclusion: Either Bowie was the greatest musician of all time or he wasn’t.

The argument is both valid and sound.

Notice that the conclusion is a tautology, it is a variation of the law of excluded middle;
Av~A. Even if you did not remember the law of excluded middle, you can see that the
sentence has to be true, there is no way the sentence can be false.
Since the conclusion is a tautology, there is no way for the premises to be true and the
conclusion false, meaning the argument is valid. The premises are both true, so the
argument is sound as well.

Again I would accept different answers about the soundness of the argument. If you
don’t know who Bowie and Scalia are, then you wouldn’t know that David Bowie was a
musician and Scalia wasn’t. But in this case, even if you don’t know who they are, you
should know the argument is valid.

Provide a formal proof of the following argument:

3 points, with a half point of extra credit possible

10. 1. Tet (a) v Tet (b)

2. a=b
3. Tet (a) v Tet (a) =Elim 1,2
4. ~Cube (a) Ana Con 3

You shouldn’t have done this proof in one step using only AnaCon, because the fact that
a is not a cube is based on the premise that a must be a tetrahedron. However, you don’t
know that a must be a tetrahedron, unless you eliminate the identity, and substitute the
name a for b in the first premise.
But TECHNICALLY, everything is AnaCon, so I can’t take points off for using it. But I
will give a little extra credit if you did the proof using =Elim.

True or False:
2 points each

11. Every valid argument is sound. FALSE

12. Every sound argument is valid. TRUE
13. Every logical truth is a tautology. FALSE
14. Every tautological consequence is also a logical consequence. TRUE