## Are you sure?

This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?

Justine Leon A. Uro E-mail: justineuro@yahoo.com

An Example

Consider the following argument in the universal set of all beings.

“Every person is a rational being. There exists a being that is irrational and quantified. Therefore, there exists a quantified being that is not a person.” Px = x is a person, Qx = x is quantified , Rx = x is rational (∀x) ( Px ⊃ Rx ) (∃x) (¬Rx ∧ Qx ) ∴(∃x) (Qx ∧ ¬Px)

**Example/Formal Proof
**

Steps 1. (∀x) ( Px ⊃ Rx ) 2. (∃x) (¬Rx ∧ Qx ) 3. ¬Ry∧ Qy 4. Py ⊃ Ry 5. ¬Ry 6. Qy 7. ¬ Py 8. Qy ∧ ¬ Py 9. ∴ (∃x) (Qx ∧ ¬Px) Reasons 1. premise 2. premise 3. 2 E.I. 4. 1 U.I. 5. 3 Simp. 6. 3 Simp. 7. 4,5 M.T. 8. 6,7 Conj. 9. 8 E.G. Q.E.D. |∴ (∃x) (Qx ∧ ¬Px)

(∀x) ( Px ⊃ Rx ) (∃x) (¬Rx ∧ Qx ∴(∃x) (Qx ∧ ¬Px)

Step 1

Write down the symbolic logic argument underlying each instantiation of the given predicate logic argument. Consider the example given in Section 1 at the instance when x = c, we then have Pc ⊃ Rc ¬Rc ∧ Qc ∴ Qc ∧¬ Pc The symbolic logic argument underlying this one would be P⊃R ¬R ∧ Q ∴ Q ∧¬ P

Step 2

Construct the truth table of the symbolic logic argument obtained in Step 1 and put at the topmost part of each column the quantifier of the proposition for that column. Each simple proposition that is not a premise of the argument is considered to be existentially quantified. (Observe that the truth table has columns for the simple propositions, premises, and conclusion.)

Object Types

∃

∃ ∃

∀

∃

∃

P Q R P⊃R ¬R∧Q Q ∧¬ P

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0

1 1 0 0 1 1 0 0

1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0

1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1

0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0

0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0

Step 3

Delete the rows of object types that have entries of 0 in a column of a universally quantified premise (i.e., rows with a 0 entry in a premise column). For this particular example, Rows 2 and 4 are deleted (they are marked with asterisks below).

Object Types

∃ ∃ ∃

∀

∃

∃

P Q R P⊃R ¬R∧Q Q ∧¬ P

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0

1 1 0 0 1 1 0 0

1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0

1 0* 1 0* 1 1 1 1

0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0

0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0

Step 4

Delete the rows of object types that have entries of 1 in a column of an existentially quantified conclusion (i.e., rows with a 1 directly below a conclusion column). For this particular example, Rows 5 and 6 are further deleted.

Object Types

∃ ∃ ∃

∀

∃

∃

P Q R P⊃R ¬R∧Q Q ∧¬ P

1 3 5 6 7 8

1 1 0 0 0 0

1 0 1 1 0 0

1 1 1 0 1 0

1 1 1 1 1 1

0 0 0 1 0 0

0 0 1* 1* 0 0

Step 5

For each ∀ column, conjoin the entries of the remaining rows and indicate the combined truth value for the column at the bottom of the table.

Object Types

∃ ∃ ∃

∀

∃

∃

P Q R P⊃R ¬R∧Q Q ∧¬ P

1 3 7 8

1 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0

1 1 1 1 1

0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0

Step 6

For each ∃ column, disjoin the entries of the remaining rows and indicate the combined truth value for the column at the bottom of the table.

Object Types

∃ ∃ ∃

∀

∃

∃

P Q R P⊃R ¬R∧Q Q ∧¬ P

1 3 7 8

1 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 1

1 1 1 1 1

0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0

Step 7

Determine the validity of the argument according to the following rules: • • If all object types are deleted then the argument is valid. If in the universe that contains these, and only these, remaining object types, it is not the case that all the premises are true and the conclusion false, then the argument is valid. If in the universe that contains these, and only these, remaining object types, all the existentially quantified simple propositions are true, the premises are true, and the conclusion is false, then the argument is invalid. However, if in the universe just described not all of the existentially quantified simple propositions are true but the premises are all true and the conclusion false, then the argument is valid in universes in which it has existential import and invalid otherwise. Object Types 1 3 7 8 ∃ P 1 1 0 0 1 ∃ Q 1 0 0 0 1 ∃ R 1 1 1 0 1 ∀ P⊃R 1 1 1 1 1 ∃ ¬R∧Q 0 0 0 0 0 ∃ Q ∧¬ P 0 0 0 0 0

•

For this particular example, Rule II is applicable and we conclude that the argument is valid (of course, the formal proof presented earlier already shows this).

- Unit 1 APA Writing Projecthildrethms70
- Alerter Creationleandre vanie
- List of Math SymbolsAnca Scirlat
- authentic assessment summaryapi-295763726
- Critical Thinkingmydarklighteye
- logicalargumentreflection 1api-302554070
- Logic Notes 1Huei Chang
- Advanced Logic and Critical Thinkingpalo_alo
- (Www.entrance-exam.net)-ICICI Bank PO Sample Paper 2virajdhamal
- Phase SynchronizationOutman Ardy
- Year 5 Calculations ArticleWistarLim
- Beauty in MathematicsSamuel Alfred Foreman
- TOEFL WritingGabriel Furtado
- Akrab Bersama Sandi MatematikaIlham Febri
- AwaVishu Vishwaroop
- discourse.docxMahendra Kumar Mishra
- The Scientific Method is a Set of Techniques Used by the Scientific Community to Investigate Natural Phenomena by Providing an Objective Framework in Which to Make Scientific Inquiry and Analyze the Data tRania Khalifa
- Definitions of Critical Thinkingnysa_nis
- Popescu Roxana - AQCIAlexandru Plopeanu
- Assignment 2 Marking ScheduleRyan Bale
- QuestionStemCCSSRLRIGr9-10Evin Shinn
- common core state standardsapi-242143493
- f.txtAnonymous 7crfY3PK3C
- Introduction to Critical ThinkingJuna May Yanoyan
- Derrida ACCypertur
- Lecture Notes in Logic - Moschovakis Μοσχοβάκης Μαθηματική Λογικήaristotelisch
- wp2-newapi-302140636
- Propaganda - Logical Fallaciesguglielmomaenza
- 40 Useful Phrases and Words for EssaysKapten Stubing
- 770659 ExplainationsRajat Jain

- Oscar Pistorius trial: State’s heads of argumentCityPress
- UT Dallas Syllabus for rhet1302.001.08f taught by (xxx)UT Dallas Provost's Technology Group
- UT Dallas Syllabus for rhet1302.017.08f taught by Thomas Mackenzie (tam036000)UT Dallas Provost's Technology Group
- Julia Indriati v. Atty Gen USA, 3rd Cir. (2013)Scribd Government Docs
- Heads of Argument Final Version - 31 July 2014eNCA.com
- Does the Theory of Natural Selection Have Any Consequences for Morality?Trip Adler
- Mata-Aguilar v. Holder, 10th Cir. (2014)Scribd Government Docs
- UT Dallas Syllabus for ecs3390.006 06f taught by (jlj065000)UT Dallas Provost's Technology Group
- Millens Email to Gallo, CouncilDaily Freeman
- International Association of MacHinists and Aerospace Workers International Association of MacHinists and Aerospace Workers District Lodge 141-M v. Us Airways, Inc., 358 F.3d 255, 3rd Cir. (2004)Scribd Government Docs
- Answer to Dr. Priestley's Letters to a Philosophical Unbeliever by Turner, Matthew, -1788Gutenberg.org
- Tom Brady testimonyyahoosports
- UT Dallas Syllabus for rhet1302.003.08f taught by Jordan Canfield (jdc072000)UT Dallas Provost's Technology Group
- UT Dallas Syllabus for rhet1302.011.08f taught by Fariborz Hadjebian (fxh037000)UT Dallas Provost's Technology Group
- Roger Collins, Cross-Appellee v. Walter Zant, Warden, Georgia Diagnostic and Classification Center, Cross-Appellant, 892 F.2d 1502, 11th Cir. (1990)Scribd Government Docs
- UT Dallas Syllabus for rhet1302.020 05f taught by Deborah Scally (das)UT Dallas Provost's Technology Group
- UT Dallas Syllabus for lit3326.001.11s taught by Peter Ingrao (jingrao)UT Dallas Provost's Technology Group
- UT Dallas Syllabus for rhet1302.503.07f taught by Heather Wood (woodh)UT Dallas Provost's Technology Group
- UT Dallas Syllabus for rhet1302.019.07f taught by Thomas Mackenzie (tam036000)UT Dallas Provost's Technology Group
- F. Vitelli & Son v. United States, 250 U.S. 355 (1919)Scribd Government Docs
- Saleh v. United States, 10th Cir. (2014)Scribd Government Docs
- UT Dallas Syllabus for rhet1302.022.08s taught by Jordan Canfield (jdc072000)UT Dallas Provost's Technology Group
- Jeremiah T. Pierce v. Erie Railroad Company, and Third-Party William Spencer & Son Corp., Third-Party and John W. McGrath Corp., Third-Party, 264 F.2d 136, 2d Cir. (1959)Scribd Government Docs
- Cummings v. Norton, 393 F.3d 1186, 10th Cir. (2005)Scribd Government Docs
- Broades v. Rudek, 10th Cir. (2012)Scribd Government Docs
- PX 2263 2014-11-07 Mack Email to Klayman Et AlJack Ryan
- United States v. Louis Wayne Fennell, 945 F.2d 411, 10th Cir. (1991)Scribd Government Docs
- Martha Bogert Powell v. Commissioner of Social Security, 11th Cir. (2014)Scribd Government Docs
- tmpC093.tmpFrontiers
- Detyens Shipyards, Inc. v. Marine Industries, Inc., and the Tug Wal-Row, 349 F.2d 357, 4th Cir. (1965)Scribd Government Docs

- Regression-through-the-origin: Ratio of Means or MediansJustine Leon A. Uro
- "What-teach-kids" in the Paleolithic AgeJustine Leon A. Uro
- On Some Measures of Genetic Distance Based on Rates of Nucleotide SubstitutionJustine Leon A. Uro
- Marche Pontificale - Papal Anthem - National Anthem of The VaticanJustine Leon A. Uro
- An Algorithm for Evaluating the Validity of Singly-Quantified Monadic Predicate Logic ArgumentsJustine Leon A. Uro
- Examples to Accompany http://www.scribd.com/doc/16033954/Algoppr-Rev (19OR24P Rev)Justine Leon A. Uro
- Tessellating with Regular PolygonsJustine Leon A. Uro
- Tessellating with Regular Polygons 2aJustine Leon A. Uro

Sign up to vote on this title

UsefulNot usefulRead Free for 30 Days

Cancel anytime.

Close Dialog## Are you sure?

This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?

Loading