Sec 3.6 Analyzing Arguments with Truth Tables - EIU
[Pages:36]Sec 3.6 Analyzing Arguments with Truth Tables
Some arguments are more easily analyzed to determine if they are valid or invalid using Truth Tables instead of Euler Diagrams.
One example of such an argument is:
If it rains, then the squirrels hide. It is raining. ------------------------------------The squirrels are hiding.
Notice that in this case, there are no universal quanti ers such
as all, some, or every, which would indicate we could use Euler
Diagrams.
To determine the validity of this argument, we must rst identify the component statements found in the argument. They are:
p = it rains / is raining q = the squirrels hide / are hiding
? 2005?09, N. Van Cleave
1
Rewriting the Premises and Conclusion
Premise 1: p q Premise 2: p
Conclusion: q
Thus, the argument converts to: ((p q) p) q
With Truth Table:
pq TT TF FT FF
((p q) p) q
Are the squirrels hiding?
? 2005?09, N. Van Cleave
2
Testing Validity with Truth Tables
1. Break the argument down into component statements, assigning each a letter.
2. Rewrite the premises and conclusion symbolically.
3. Rewrite the argument as an implication with the conjunction of all the premises as the antecedent, and the conclusion as the consequent.
4. Complete a Truth Table for the resulting conditional statement. If it is a tautology, then the argument is valid; otherwise, it's invalid.
? 2005?09, N. Van Cleave
3
Recall
Direct Statement Converse Inverse Contrapositive
pq qp p q q p
Which are equivalent?
? 2005?09, N. Van Cleave
4
If you come home late, then you are grounded. You come home late. --------------------------------------------You are grounded.
p=
q=
Premise 1: Premise 2: Conclusion: Associated Implication:
pq TT TF FT FF
Are you grounded?
? 2005?09, N. Van Cleave
5
Modus Ponens -- The Law of Detachment
Both of the prior example problems use a pattern for argument called modus ponens, or The Law of Detachment.
p q p
------
q
or
((p q) p) q
Notice that all such arguments lead to tautologies, and therefore are valid.
? 2005?09, N. Van Cleave
6
If a knee is skinned, then it will bleed. The knee is skinned. -------------------------------------It bleeds.
p=
q=
Premise 1: Premise 2: Conclusion: Associated Implication:
pq TT TF FT FF
(Modus Ponens) ? Did the knee bleed?
? 2005?09, N. Van Cleave
7
Modus Tollens -- Example
If Frank sells his quota, he'll get a bonus. Frank doesn't get a bonus. ------------------------------------Frank didn't sell his quota.
p=
q=
Premise 1: p q
Premise 2: q
Conclusion: p
Thus, the argument converts to: ((p q) q) p
pq TT TF FT FF
((p q) q) p
Did Frank sell his quota or not?
? 2005?09, N. Van Cleave
8
................
................
In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.
To fulfill the demand for quickly locating and searching documents.
It is intelligent file search solution for home and business.
Related download
- table of logical equivalences
- r e ca p t h e au th o rity o f s c r ip tu r e r e q u i r e s o f u s
- w w ` o w t n t n w a n b w t t d c e b b a n q m r f g c h n g w ` i
- basicargumentforms colorado state university
- ejercicios de derivación lógica nivel medio avanzado
- math 213 logical equivalences rules of inference and examples
- n o o k p q p r s t u i d v w b x d m u p q w k s v q p
- sec 3 6 analyzing arguments with truth tables eiu
- truthtables tautologies andlogicalequivalences
- propositional logic truth tables and predicate logic rosen sections
Related searches
- analyzing arguments worksheet pdf
- analyzing arguments example
- analyzing arguments quiz
- analyzing arguments in readings
- analyzing arguments pdf
- truth tables generator easy
- logic truth tables calculator
- truth tables for dummies
- analyzing arguments worksheet
- analyzing arguments with truth tables
- analyzing arguments ppt
- analyzing arguments powerpoint