You are on page 1of 4

RULES OF INFERENCE

RULE OF INFERENCE
(VALID ARGUMENTS)
PRINCIPLE
CORRESPONDING FALLACY
(INVALID ARGUMENTS)
PRINCIPLE
MODUS PONENS
P ⟶ Q
P
∴ Q

Example:
If I own a company, then I am
rich.
I own a company.
Therefore, I am rich.

P implies Q; P is asserted
to be true. Therefore, Q
must be true.

NOTE:
Affirming the antecedent
– MODUS PONENS
AFFIRMING THE CONSEQUENT
P ⟶ Q
Q
∴ P

Example:
If I own a company, then I am rich.
I am rich.
Therefore, I own a company.
(INVALID)

Invalid because since
P was never asserted
as the ONLY sufficient
condition for Q, other
factors could account
for Q (while P could be
false).
MODUS TOLLENS
P ⟶ Q
~Q
∴ ~P

Example:
If I own a company, then I am
rich.
I am not rich.
Therefore, I don’t own a
company.

P implies Q; When you
deny the consequent (Q),
it can be logically
concluded that it is not
the case that P.

NOTE:
Denying the consequent
– MODUS TOLLENS
DENYING THE ANTECEDENT
P ⟶ Q
~P
∴ ~Q

Example:
If I own a company, then I am rich.
I don’t own a company.
Therefore, I am not rich. (INVALID)

DETACHING THE CONSEQUENT
P ⟶ Q
∴ Q

Example:
If I own a company, then I am rich.
Therefore, I am rich. (INVALID)

Invalid because if the
antecedent (P) is not
true, you can’t
conclude that
consequent (Q) is not
true.



Invalid since you
cannot infer the
consequent because
the consequent and
antecedent of the
conditional can both
be false yet the
conditional can still be
true. (FF=T)
HYPOTHETICAL SYLLOGISM
P ⟶ Q
Q ⟶ R
∴ P ⟶ R

Example:
If I own a company, then I am
rich.
If I am rich, I can afford fancy
dinner.
Therefore, if I own a company,
then I can afford a fancy dinner.

P implies Q and Q implies
R; then P can implicate R
subsequently

FALLACY OF MISPLACED MIDDLE
P ⟶ Q
R ⟶ Q
∴ P ⟶ R

Example:
If I own a company, then I am rich.
If I can afford fancy dinner, then I’m
rich.
Therefore, if I own a company, I can
afford a fancy dinner.

Invalid. Although
conclusion could be
right, the conclusion
did not follow the
formal logic of
deducting. When
common element is
the consequent of both
premises you commit
a fallacy.
DISJUNCTIVE SYLLOGISM
P ⋁ Q
~P
∴ Q

Example:
Either the Defensor or Trillanes
will run for office.
Defensor will not run for office.
Therefore, Trillanes will run for
office.

If we are told that at least
one of the two
statements is true; and
also told that it is not the
former that is true, we
can infer that it has to be
the latter that is true.
If either P or Q is true
and P is false, then Q s
true.

DENYING AN ALTERNATIVE
P ⋁ Q P ⋁ Q
Q P
∴ ~P ∴ ~Q

Example:
Either Defensor or Trillanes will run
for office.
Trillanes will run for office.
Therefore, Defensor will not run for
office. (INVALID)

Invalid because even if
you know that the
other premise is true,
you cannot infer that
the 2
nd
statement is
false because it can
still be true.

NOTE:
An alternation is true
when both alternants
are true.
DESTRUCTIVE DILEMMA
P ⟶ Q
R ⟶ S
~Q ⋁ ~S
∴ ~P ⋁ ~R

Example:
If my friend wins the lottery,
then my friend will donate to a
school.
If I win the lottery, I will donate
to an orphanage.
Neither an orphanage nor school
received a donation.
Therefore, neither I nor my
friend won the lottery.

Valid because it denies
the consequent of both
conditionals and
therefore you can validly
infer the denial of the
antecedent in the
conclusion.

NOTE:
Destructive dilemma is a
combination of two
modus tollens.

DESTRUCTIVE - take
note of the negation
PSEUDO DILEMMA I
P ⟶ Q
R ⟶ S
~P ⋁ ~R
∴ ~Q ⋁ ~S

Example:
If my friend wins the lottery, then
my friend will donate to a school.
If I win the lottery, I will donate to
an orphanage.
Neither I nor my friend won the
lottery. Therefore, neither an
orphanage nor school will receive a
donation.
(Might appear valid, but still
INVALID)
Invalid because it
denies the antecedent
of the conditional
premises. And so it
cannot conclude the
denial of both the
consequents.

RULE:
Either AFFIRM the
ANTECEDENT, or
DENY the
CONSEQUENT to get a
valid argument.


CONSTRUCTIVE DILEMMA
P ⟶ Q
R ⟶ S
P ⋁ R
∴ Q ⋁ S

Example:
If my friend wins the lottery,
then my friend will donate to a
school.
If I win the lottery, I will donate
to an orphanage.
Either my friend or I win the
lottery.
Therefore, an orphanage or
school will receive a donation.

Valid because it affirms
the antecedent P and R of
both conditionals and
therefore, you can validly
infer the consequent Q ⋁
S in the conclusion.

NOTE:
Constructive dilemma is
a combination of two
modus ponens.
PSEUDO DILEMMA II
P ⟶ Q
R ⟶ S
Q ⋁ S
∴ P ⋁ R

Example:
If my friend wins the lottery, then
my friend will donate to a school.
If I win the lottery, I will donate to
an orphanage.
Either an orphanage or school will
receive a donation.
Therefore, my friend or I will win
the lottery.
(Might appear valid, but still
INVALID)
Invalid because it
affirms the consequent
of both conditional
statements and
therefore cannot
affirm the antecedent.

RULE:
Either AFFIRM the
ANTECEDENT, or
DENY the
CONSEQUENT to get a
valid argument.




























10 RULES OF REPLACEMENT

RULES OF REPLACEMENT LOGICAL STRUCTURE/FORM
1. Double Negation (DN)
Principle: No matter what simple or compound
statement we substitute for p, the same
statement with “~~” in front will have exactly
the same truth value as original statement
p ≡ ~ ~ p
Example:
Alan is clever. p
It is not the case that Alan is not clever. ~~p
2. De Morgan’s Theorem (DeM.)
Principle: Establishes systematic relationship
between “•” statements and “∨” statements by
providing a significant insight into the truth-
conditions for the negations of both
conjunctions and disjunctions.
In other words, you REVERSE the connector
when distributing negation over a conjunct or
disjunct.
~(p • q) ≡ (~p ∨ ~q)
Example:
It is not the case that I am both bald and fat. ~(p • q)
Either I am not bald or I am not fat. (~p ∨ ~q)

~(p ∨ q) ≡ (~p • ~q)
Example:
I am neither bald nor fat. ~(p ∨ q)
I am not bald and I am not fat. (~p • ~q)
3. Material Implication (Impl.)
Principle: Logically defines connector “⊃” in
terms of “∨” and “~”. Since expressions of
these two forms are logically equivalent, we
could make conditional assertions without
using “⊃” at all, though compound statement
would be a bit more complicated
(p⊃q) ≡ (~p ∨ q)
Example:
If it rains, then we cancel the picnic. (p⊃q)
Either it doesn’t rain or we cancel the picnic. (~p ∨ q)

4. Material Equivalence (Equiv.)
Principle: Provides alternatice definition for
connective “≡” by first defining “≡” in terms of
two “⊃”, justifying the use of term
“biconditional”, and lastly by combining these
two conditionals with a conjunct “•”.
The second form defines “≡” by pointing out
its basic truth conditions. Meaning “[(p • q) ∨
(~p • ~q)]” will have the same exact truth
value as “p≡q”.
[p≡q] ≡ [(p⊃q) • (q⊃p)]
Example:
We ski if and only if it snows. [p≡q]
If we ski, then it snows. And if it snows, then we ski. [(p⊃q) • (q⊃p)]

[p≡q] ≡ [(p • q) ∨ (~p • ~q)]
Example:
We ski if and only if it snows. [p≡q]
Either we ski and it snows, or we don’t ski and it doesn’t snow. [(p • q) ∨
(~p • ~q)]
5. Transposition (Trans.)
Principle: The logical equivalence of any “⊃”
statement is equivalent to switching the
antecedent and consequent AND NEGATING
BOTH.
FALLACY OF CONVERTING THE CONDITIONAL
Switching the antecedent and consequent
without negating creates an INVALID
argument.
FALLACY OF NEGATING THE ANTECEDENT &
CONSEQUENT
Negating both elements without switching is
INVALID.
(p ⊃ q) ≡ (~q ⊃ ~p)
Example:
If it produces pleasure, then it is right. (p ⊃ q)
If it isn’t right, then it doesn’t produce pleasure. (~q ⊃ ~p)
6. Commutation (Comm.)
Principle: Statements in conjunction or
disjunction form can simply be reversed.
(p ∨ q) ≡ (q ∨ p)
Example:
Either Uncle Sam is an American or Juan is Filipino. (p ∨ q)
Either Juan is Filipino or Uncle Sam is an American. (q ∨ p)

(p • q) ≡ (q • p)
Example:
Uncle Sam is an American and Juan is a Filipino. (p • q)
Juan is a Filipino and Uncle Sam is an American. (q • p)
7. Association (Assoc.)
Principle: Permits modification of the
parenthetical grouping of certain statements.
[p ∨ (q∨r)] ≡ [(p∨q) ∨ r]
Example:
Harold is 21 or either Jane or Kelly is. [p ∨ (q∨r)]
Either Harold or Jane is 21, or Kelly is. [(p∨q) ∨ r]
[p • (q•r)] ≡ [(p•q) • r]
Example:
Harold is over 21, and so are Jane and Kelly. [p • (q•r)]
Harold and Jane are over 21, and so is Kelly. [(p•q) • r]
8. Distribution (Dist.)
Principle: 1
st
form – A conjunct is distributed
over a disjunction. 2
nd
form – a disjunct is
distributed over a conjunction.
[p • (q∨r)]≡[(p•q) ∨ (p•r)]
Example:
Paul is tall, and so is either Susan or James.
Either Paul and Susan are tall or Paul and James are.

[p ∨ (q•r)]≡ [(p∨q) • (p∨r)]
Example:
Either Paul is tall or both Susan and James are. [p ∨ (q•r)]
Paul or Susan is tall and so is either Paul and James. [(p∨q) • (p∨r)]
9. Exportation (Exp.)
Principle: Allows conditional statements
having conjunctive antecedents to be replaced
by statements having conditional consequents
and vice-versa.
[(p•q)⊃r)]≡[p⊃(q⊃r)]
Example:
If Harry is tall and quick, then he plays well. [(p•q)⊃r)]
If Harry is tall, and the if he is quick, then he plays well. [p⊃(q⊃r)]
10. Tautology (Taut.)
Principle: Permits replacement of any
statement by (or with) another statement that
is simply the disjunction or conjunction of the
original statement with itself.

Although its ordinary language use invariably
seems pointless and redundant, this pattern of
reasoning is useful in propositional calculus.
p ≡ (p ∨ p)
Example:
Harry is tall or Harry is tall. (p ∨ p)

p ≡ (p • p)
Example:
Harry is tall or Harry is tall. (p • p)