Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 69

Methods of Deduction

and
Analogical Reasoning
MAGALGALIT, Rejie C.
QUIMSON, Ellaine M.

May 2018
Methods of Deduction
• 9.9 Proving Invalidity
• 9.10 Inconsistency
• 9.11 Indirect Proof of Validity
• 9.12 Shorter Truth-Table
Proving Invalidity

Constructing proofs is an effective way


to prove that an argument is valid.
Proving Invalidity
Truth-Table Technique

Premises = True
Proving Invalidity
Truth-Table Technique

Premises = True
Conclusion = False
Proving Invalidity
Truth-Table Technique

Premises = True
Conclusion = False

INVALID
Proving Invalidity
In the argument
p⊃q
r⊃q
∴p⊃r
Proving Invalidity
p q r p⊃q r⊃q p⊃r

T T T T T T
T T F T T F
T F T F F T
T F F F T F
F T T T T T
F T F T T T
F F T T F T
F F F T T T
Proving Invalidity
• Conjunctive statements
Both the antecedent and the consequent are true
=TRUE

• Disjunctive statements
At least one of either the antecedent or the
consequent is true
=TRUE
Proving Invalidity
• Conditional statements
Antecedent is true and the consequent is false
= FALSE

• Bi-conditional statements
Antecedent is either both true or both false
= TRUE
Proving Invalidity

p q r p⊃q r⊃q p⊃r


Proving Invalidity

p q r p⊃q r⊃q p⊃r


F
Proving Invalidity

p q r p⊃q r⊃q p⊃r


T F F
Proving Invalidity

p q r p⊃q r⊃q p⊃r


T F F F
Proving Invalidity

p q r p⊃q r⊃q p⊃r


T F F F F F
Proving Invalidity

p q r p⊃q r⊃q p⊃r


T F F
Proving Invalidity

p q r p⊃q r⊃q p⊃r


T T F F
Proving Invalidity

p q r p⊃q r⊃q p⊃r


T T F T F
Proving Invalidity

p q r p⊃q r⊃q p⊃r


T T F T T F
Proving Invalidity

p q r p⊃q r⊃q p⊃r


T T F T T F
Proving Invalidity
p q r p⊃q r⊃q p⊃r

T T T T T T
T T F T T F
T F T F F T
T F F F T F
F T T T T T
F T F T T T
F F T T F T
F F F T T T
Proving Invalidity

p q r p⊃q r⊃q p⊃r


T T F T T F
INCONSISTENCY
INCONSISTENCY
A set of premises is consistent if it
would be possible for all of them
to be true together.
If not, it is INCONSISTENT.
INCONSISTENCY
INCONSISTENT
There will be no line in the truth-
table for that argument on which
all of the premises are true.
INCONSISTENCY
It is raining.
It is not raining.
Therefore, the moon is red.
INCONSISTENCY
R
~R
∴M
INCONSISTENCY
1. R
2. ~R / ∴ M
3. R ∨ M 1 Add.
INCONSISTENCY
1. R
2. ~R / ∴ M
3. R ∨ M 1 Add.
4. M 3, 2 D.S.
INCONSISTENCY
1. R
2. ~R / ∴ M
3. R ∨ M 1 Add.
4. M 3, 2 D.S.

VALID
INCONSISTENCY
If Clyde’s visa was approved, he would have
left for the United States.
If Clyde’s visa was not approved, he would
have stayed in Baguio City.
Clyde neither left for the United States nor
stayed in Baguio City.
Therefore, Clyde went to Mountain Province.
INCONSISTENCY
1. p ⊃ q
2. ~p ⊃ r
3. ~(q v r)
∴s
1. p ⊃ q
2. ~p ⊃ r
3. ~(q v r) / ∴ s
4. ~q • ~r 3, De. M.
1. p ⊃ q
2. ~p ⊃ r
3. ~(q v r) / ∴ s
4. ~q • ~r 3, De. M.
5. ~q 4, Simp.
1. p ⊃ q
2. ~p ⊃ r
3. ~(q v r) / ∴ s
4. ~q • ~r 3, De. M.
5. ~q 4, Simp.
6. ~p 1, 5, M. T.
1. p ⊃ q
2. ~p ⊃ r
3. ~(q v r) / ∴ s
4. ~q • ~r 3, De. M.
5. ~q 4, Simp.
6. ~p 1, 5, M. T.
7. r 2, 6, M. P.
1. p ⊃ q
2. ~p ⊃ r
3. ~(q v r) / ∴ s
4. ~q • ~r 3, De. M.
5. ~q 4, Simp.
6. ~p 1, 5, M. T.
7. r 2, 6, M. P.
8. ~r • ~q 4, Com.
1. p ⊃ q
2. ~p ⊃ r
3. ~(q v r) / ∴ s
4. ~q • ~r 3, De. M.
5. ~q 4, Simp.
6. ~p 1, 5, M. T.
7. r 2, 6, M. P.
8. ~r • ~q 4, Com.
9. ~r 8, Simp.
1. p ⊃ q
2. ~p ⊃ r
3. ~(q v r) / ∴ s
4. ~q • ~r 3, De. M.
5. ~q 4, Simp.
6. ~p 1, 5, M. T.
7. r 2, 6, M. P.
8. ~r • ~q 4, Com.
9. ~r 8, Simp.
10. r v s 7, Add.
1. p ⊃ q
2. ~p ⊃ r
3. ~(q v r) / ∴ s
4. ~q • ~r 3, De. M.
5. ~q 4, Simp.
6. ~p 1, 5, M. T.
7. r 2, 6, M. P.
8. ~r • ~q 4, Com.
9. ~r 8, Simp.
10. r v s 7, Add.
11. s 10, 9, D. S.
1. p ⊃ q
2. ~p ⊃ r
3. ~(q v r) / ∴ s
4. ~q • ~r 3, De. M.
5. ~q 4, Simp.
6. ~p 1, 5, M. T.
7. r 2, 6, M. P.
8. ~r • ~q 4, Com.
9. ~r 8, Simp.
10. r v s 7, Add.
11. s 10, 9, D. S.
1. p ⊃ q
2. ~p ⊃ r
3. ~(q v r) / ∴ s
4. ~q • ~r 3, De. M.
5. ~q 4, Simp.
6. ~p 1, 5, M. T.
7. r 2, 6, M. P.
8. ~r • ~q 4, Com.
9. ~r 8, Simp.
10. r v s 7, Add.
11. s 10, 9, D. S.
INCONSISTENCY
If the premises are INCONSISTENT

Then, the argument will ALWAYS be


VALID.
Indirect Proof of Validity
“reductio ad absurdum”
= reduction of the absurd
Indirect Proof of Validity
Because inconsistent statements cannot
both be true, an added statement to the
premises that makes it possible to deduce
a contradiction must be false.
Indirect Proof of Validity
STEPS:
Indirect Proof of Validity
STEPS:
1. Negate the conclusion
Indirect Proof of Validity
STEPS:
1. Negate the conclusion.
2. Find the contradiction by
applying the rules of interference.
Indirect Proof of Validity
p⊃q
p
∴q
Indirect Proof of Validity
1. p ⊃ q
2. p
∴q
3. ~q I.P. (Indirect Proof)
Indirect Proof of Validity
1. p ⊃ q
2. p
∴q
3. ~q I.P. (Indirect Proof)
4. ~p 1, 3, M. T.
Indirect Proof of Validity
1. p ⊃ q
2. p
∴q
3. ~q I.P. (Indirect Proof)
4. ~p 1, 3, M. T.
5. p • ~p 2, 4, Conj.
Indirect Proof of Validity
1. (H ⊃ I) • (J ⊃ K)
2. (I v K) ⊃ L
3. ~L
∴ ~(H v J)
1. (H ⊃ I) • (J ⊃ K)
2. (I v K) ⊃ L
3. ~L
∴ ~(H v J)
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 ⊃ I 1, Simp. 7! L 2, 6, M. P.
8. ~H 7, 6, M. T. 8! L • ~L 7, 3, Conj.
9. (J ⊃ K) • (H ⊃ I) 1, Com.
10. J ⊃ K 9, Simp.
11. ~K • ~I 5, Com.
12. ~K 11, Simp.
13. ~J 10, 11, M. T.
14. ~H • ~J 8, 13, Conj.
15. ~(H v J) 14, De. M.
Shorter Truth- Table
If there is a set of truth values that
shows it is possible for all the premises to
be true and the conclusion false, the
argument is invalid.
If you there is none then the
argument must be valid.
Shorter Truth- Table
p⊃q
~q
∴ ~p
Shorter Truth- Table
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
Shorter Truth- Table
p q p⊃ q ~q ~p
Shorter Truth- Table
p q p⊃ q ~q ~p
T T F
Shorter Truth- Table
p q p⊃ q ~q ~p
T T F
Shorter Truth- Table
p q p⊃ q ~q ~p
T F T T F
Shorter Truth- Table
p q p⊃ q ~q ~p
T F T T F
Shorter Truth- Table
p q p⊃ q ~q ~p
T F F T F
Shorter Truth- Table
p q p⊃ q ~q ~p
T F F T F
Shorter Truth- Table
p q p⊃ q ~q ~p
T F F T F
Shorter Truth- Table
p q p⊃ q ~q ~p
T F F T F
Shorter Truth- Table
p q p⊃ q ~q ~p
T F F T F
Shorter Truth- Table
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
Methods of Deduction
• 9.9 Proving Invalidity
• 9.10 Inconsistency
• 9.11 Indirect Proof of Validity
• 9.12 Shorter Truth-Table