Chapter 10 Groupwork Key

Notation: v = wedge, ~ = tilde, dot = dot, hs = horseshoe Pg. 363 VI. 3 Construct a formal proof for the argument using abbreviations given. If Brown received the wire, then she took the plane; and if she took the plane, then she will not be late for the meeting. If the telegram was incorrectly addressed, then Brown will be late for the meeting. Either Brown received the wire or the telegram was incorrectly addressed. Therefore either Brown took the plane or she will be late for the meeting. (R = Brown received the wire; P = Brown took the plane; L = Brown will be late for the meeting; T = The telegram was incorrectly addressed.) 1. (R hs P) dot (P hs ~L) 2. T hs L 3. R v T therefore, P v L 4. R hs P 5. (R hs P) dot (T hs L) 6. P v L

1, Simp. 4, 2, Conj. 5, 3, C.D.

Pg. 376 I. 14 For the argument, state the rule of inference by which its conclusion follows from its premise. [(~O v P) v ~Q] dot [~O v (P v ~Q)] therefore, [~O v (P v ~Q)] dot [~O v (P v ~Q)] Association (Assoc.)

Pg. 376 V. 3 Construct a formal proof of validity for the following argument. 1. E hs (F hs G) therefore, F hs (E hs G). 2. (E dot F) hs G 3. (F dot E) hs G 4. F hs (E hs G)

1, Exp. 2, Com. 3, Exp.

Pg. 387-3 Prove the invalidity by the method of assigning truth values. I v ~J ~(~K dot L) ~(~I dot ~L) therefore, ~J hs K I J KL TFFF

Pg. 398 I. 4 (pg. 344 II. 4) We try to assign truth values such that the premises will be made true (T), and the conclusion will be made false (F). If such assignments result in an unavoidable inconsistency, the argument is proved valid. 1. (G v H) hs (G dot H) 2. ~(G dot H) therefore, ~(G v H) Valid. To make the conclusion F, either G or H must be made T. Then to make premise 1 T, G or H must both be made T. But then to make premise 2 T, either G or H must be F. An inconsistent assignment is unavoidable. Absurd.