0 views

Uploaded by M. Shreedharan

This is logic sheet.

- L01-03
- Lecture Notes
- assign8_11
- Kin Ematic s of Rigid B o d Ies
- GK_task
- assign1_11
- lec31
- Full Text
- Logic Worksheet
- Experiment 7.pdf
- L01-03
- is.1201-1220.1978
- CE2_Key
- Effect_of_Gradient_on_Pedestrian_Flow_Characterist.pdf
- Imo Sample Paper Class-9
- Vikalp of Sixth Pay Commission
- PerviousConcrete Pavements
- Characterizationandmodellingofperviousconcrete-RicardoPieralisi
- Paper1_ENGLISH.pdf
- Never Split the Difference: Negotiating As If Your Life Depended On It

You are on page 1of 2

~R means Not-R.

P ∧ Q means P and Q.

P ∨ Q means P or Q.

An argument is valid if the following conditional holds: If all the premises are true, the

conclusion must be true.

(1) 1. P

2. P→Q

C. Therefore, Q

(2) 1. ~Q

2. P→Q

C. Therefore, ~P

(3) 1. P

2. Q

3. (P ∧ Q)→R

C. Therefore, R

(4) 1. P

2. P→Q

3. Q→R

4. R→S

C. Therefore, S

(5) 1. P→Q

2. Q→R

3. ~R

C. Therefore, ~P

(6) 1. (P ∨ Q)→R

2. P

C. Therefore, R.

(7) 1. P→Q

2. (P→Q) → (R→S)

C. Therefore, R→S

*Notice that this is structurally identical to (1)!*

So, when you attempt to write a valid argument, you should try to write out what the logical

structure of the argument is by symbolizing it.

There should not be any terms in the conclusion that haven’t already appeared earlier in the

argument. For example, you can’t conclude anything about what we can know if none of your

premises contains the word “know.”

2. It’s impossible to tell which direction is objectively future

3. The moving spotlight theory has an objective past, present, and future

C. The moving spotlight theory is false

But the symbolic form of this argument, as it’s written above, is:

1. P

2. Q

3. R

C. S

Since none of the sentence parts are repeated! But obviously this isn’t a valid argument form. We

need to know what the relationship is between the premises. That is, whatever sentence letter is

on the last line ought to have appeared earlier in the argument in some way.

1. A person could have all the same evidence I do but disagree with me about which

direction is the future.

2. If a person could have all the same evidence I do but disagree with me about which

direction is the future, then there is no objective fact of the matter about which direction

is the future.

3. If there is no objective fact of the matter about which direction is the future, the moving

spotlight theory is false.

4. The moving spotlight theory is false.

1. P

2. P→Q

3. Q→R

C. R

Which is valid!

- L01-03Uploaded byeadaladarenu
- Lecture NotesUploaded bygirish19
- assign8_11Uploaded byM. Shreedharan
- Kin Ematic s of Rigid B o d IesUploaded bySadeep Madhushan
- GK_taskUploaded byM. Shreedharan
- assign1_11Uploaded byM. Shreedharan
- lec31Uploaded byIkoka Rider
- Full TextUploaded bymebrahtom
- Logic WorksheetUploaded byM. Shreedharan
- Experiment 7.pdfUploaded byM. Shreedharan
- L01-03Uploaded byeadaladarenu
- is.1201-1220.1978Uploaded byrajupetalokesh
- CE2_KeyUploaded byM. Shreedharan
- Effect_of_Gradient_on_Pedestrian_Flow_Characterist.pdfUploaded byM. Shreedharan
- Imo Sample Paper Class-9Uploaded bycoaching cks
- Vikalp of Sixth Pay CommissionUploaded byM. Shreedharan
- PerviousConcrete PavementsUploaded byYati Aggarwal
- Characterizationandmodellingofperviousconcrete-RicardoPieralisiUploaded byM. Shreedharan
- Paper1_ENGLISH.pdfUploaded byNaman Gupta