Shantila's Inside logic

#8 - Conditional Derivations

You are getting impatient. Your plane was supposed to have left twenty minutes ago. You are getting bored watching
the people around you. How long can you listen to these people? One couple is still arguing and the other couple is still
smooching. Who cares? You don't know these people. You just want to get going.

You walk over to the check-in counter to find where the airplane is. The attendant says, "Thank you for the help with
that guy."

"Well, no problem," you say. "I just showed him to the bathroom."

"He seems to have some serious problems," the attendant says.

"Yes," you say. "I believe he may have a logic block."

"Oh, that's terrible!" the attendant says. "I wonder how he gets dressed."

"That's a good question," you say. "But, frankly, I don't know. And I don't really care either."

"Can I help you with something?" she asks.

"Do you know when we're going to leave?" you ask.

You are in the Detroit airport trying to get to Atlanta because it is your sister's birthday. There is a dinner planned for
tonight. The dinner will be followed by a party.

"I'm sorry. I don't really know," the attendant says. "If it snowed this morning in Denver, the plane will be at least two
hours late. I should be getting the information soon, and I will let everybody know."

"Oh. Ok. Thanks," you say. Snow in Denver?! This is disappointing news. Assume it did snow in Denver this morning.
Then, as she just said, the plane will be at least two hours late; and if so, I won't get to Atlanta until after 8 p.m.-- which
is too late!

--So if it snowed in Denver this morning, you think, I will be too late for the dinner!

Your conclusion here is a conditional. So far we have used conditionals as premises (for use with the rules MP and MT).
As our next rule, we now introduce a general method for obtaining conditional conclusions.

During those moments at the airport, you do not know whether or not it snowed in Denver; but still, for the sake of
reasoning about your situation, you can assume it temporarily. As we naturally say,

suppose it did snow in Denver this morning

-- what follows from that? Well, it follows that you will be late for the dinner, given these two additional premises:

If it snowed in Denver this morning, the plane will be at least two hours late. (based on what the attendant said)

If the plane is at least two hours late, you will be late for the dinner (based on calculating times)

The reasoning so far is familiar and can be symbolized using the obvious letters:

S→T
 Shantila's Inside logic

T→X

From these three assumptions we use MP twice in order to derive X, you will be late.

But remember -- we don't really know whether or not S is true. We only assumed it for the sake of the argument. So the
simple conclusion L is too strong. All that we want to conclude is the conditional, if it snowed in Denver, then you will be
late. (For all you know, it did not snow in Denver and the plane will get to Detroit in time, after all, so that you will not be
late to the dinner.) That is, you want to conclude S→L based on the other two premises.

To our first method of Boxing and Canceling, Direct Derivation, we will add a second method of boxing and canceling,
Conditional Derivation. This new form of derivation method makes precise this form of reasoning. If Q depends on P as
one of its assumptions, the new rule permits us to derive P→Q based on the remaining premises. We will now give an
example.

S→T. T→X ∴ S→X

1. Show S→X

Our derivation begins as normal, with a Show line.

1. Show S→X

2. S ASS CD

But the second line is different. Here, we make an assumption. We are going to show that S→X is true if the premises
are true. We are going to do this by reasoning from S to X. That is, we will do a Conditional Derivation of S→X. We start
by assuming the antecedent, S, for conditional derivation.

Assumption for Conditional Derivation (ASS CD)

If the Show line is a conditional ▢→◯, we may write ▢ on the very next line with justification ASS CD.

We can do ASS CD only on the line immediately following a Show line, the Show line must be a conditional, we can only
write the antecedent, and we do not need a line number.

Our derivation then proceeds as we are used to.

1. Show S→X

2. S ASS CD

3. S→T PR

4. T→X PR

5. T 2 3 MP

6. X 4 5 MP

The goal of a Conditional Derivation is to show a conditional by reasoning from its antecedent to its consequent. We
have just done that – we have just got to X, and X is the consequent of the conditional we are trying to show is X. So we
can now Box and Cancel with CD:

1. Show S→X

2. S ASS CD
 Shantila's Inside logic

3. S→T PR

4. T→X PR

5. T 2 3 MP

6. X 4 5 MP

7. 6 CD

Conditional Derivation (CD)

If the Show line is a conditional ▢→◯, and we get ◯ on line n, on the next line we can write n CD in
the justification column, cancel the Show line, and Box the reasoning.

Here is an example in which Conditional Derivation is used with MT.

37 P→Q ∴ ~Q→~P

1. Show ~Q→~P

2. ~Q ASS CD

3. P→Q PR

4. ~P 2 3 MT

5. 4 CD

Notice how this proof is related to the proof we did earlier for argument 10.

10 P→Q. ~Q ∴ ~P

1. Show ~P

2. ~Q PR

3. P→Q PR

4. ~P 2 3 MT

5. 4 DD

There are some difference between the proofs of 10 and 37. The Show lines are different. The Boxing and Canceling
justifications are different – DD or CD. And line 2 has different justifications – PR or ASS CD. But, the boxed sentences are
the same and the other justifications are the same. Suppose we have a direct derivation of ▢, and line 2 is ◯ with
justification PR. We can turn that into a conditional derivation of ◯→▢ by changing the Show line to ◯→▢,
changing the justification of line 2 to ASS CD, and the justification for boxing and cancelling to CD.

Proof of the following argument relies on our new rules – ASS CD and CD – as well as the rules MP and S.

38 P→(Q→R) ∴ (P∧Q)→R

1. Show (P∧Q)→R

2. P∧Q ASS CD
 Shantila's Inside logic

3. P→(Q→R) PR

4. P 2 SL

5. Q→R 3 4 MP

6. Q 2 SR

7. R 5 6 MP

8. 7 CD

Notice that P∧Q was assumed on line 2 because it is the antecedent of the conditional we want to derive.

Whenever you are trying to prove an argument whose conclusion is a conditional, attempt a conditional derivation.
Assume the antecedent of the conditional with ASS CD. Then, try to derive the consequent, so that you can Box and
Cancel with CD. Whenever you see that you are trying to derive a conditional sentence, it is a good idea to consider using
the CD strategy.

*Practice

8.1 Use the rules PR, MP, DN, MT, S, ADJ and CP to construct proofs for each of the following arguments. (You will need
CP for these.)
37) P→Q ∴ ~Q→~P
38) P→(Q→R) ∴ (P∧Q)→R
39) P→Q. Q→R ∴ P→R
40) (P∧Q)→R. Q ∴ P→R
41) P→Q. P→R ∴ P→(Q∧R)
42) Q→R ∴ (P∧Q)→R
43) Q→R. ~Q→~P ∴ P→R
44) P ∴ (P→Q)→Q
45) Q→R ∴ (P∧Q)→(P∧R)
46) (P∧Q)→R ∴ P→(Q→R) hint: in this proof, you need to introduce a second Show line
47) P→(Q→R) ∴ Q→(P→R) hint: in this proof, you need to introduce a second Show line