1.

SNSD is a kpop girl group or kpop boy group

SNSD is not a kpop boy girl group
Therefore SNSD is a kpop girl group

Solution

Let P: SNSD is a kpop girl group

Q: SNSD is a kpop boy group

The Arguments becomes

Premise: p ⱽ q

Premise: P

Conclusion: -q

Symbolic Form [(pⱽq)]^p]→-q

P q pⱽq (p ⱽ q)^p -q [(pⱽq)]^p]→-

q
1 1 1 1 0 1
1 0 1 1 1 1
0 1 1 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 1 1
Since [(pⱽq)]^p]→-q not a tautology, then the given argument is invalid.

Fallacy of the inclusive or

pⱽq

∴-q

2. Invalid (Fallacy of the inclusive or)

Either you will have an exam today or the next day.

You are having an exam today.

Therefore, you will not have an exam tomorrow

Let p: you will have an exam today

Q: you will have an exam tomorrow

Premise: pq

Premise: p

Conclusion: -q
pVq

= -q

Solution= [(pvq)]^p]  -q

p q pvq [(pvq)]^p] -q [(pvq)]^p]  -q

1 1 1 1 0 0
1 0 1 1 1 1
0 1 1 0 0 1
0 0 0 0 1 1
Since [(pⱽq)]^p]→-q not a tautology, then the given argument is invalid.

3. Valid (Law of Detachment)

If we search the Internet, then we will find information about logic.
We searched the Internet.
Therefore, we found information on logic.

Let p: we search the internet

Q: we will find information about logic
Premise: p q
Premise: p
Conclusion: q
Solution: [(pq)] ^p]  q

p q
p
=q

p q pq [(pq)] ^p] [(pq)] ^q]  p

1 1 1 1 1
1 0 0 0 1
0 1 1 0 1
0 0 1 0 1
Since [(pq)] ^p]  q is a tautology, then the given argument is valid.

4. ???
I am going shopping, or I am going to the museum.
I went to the museum.
Therefore, I did not go shopping.
 Let p: I am going shopping
Q: I am going to the museum

Premise: p v q
Premise: q
Conclusion: -p
Sol: [( pvq)^q]  -p

p q pvq [( pvq)^q] -p [( pvq)^q]  -p

1 1 1 1 0 0
1 0 1 0 0 1
0 1 1 1 1 1
0 0 0 0 1 1
Or gagawin ko siyang law of syllogism magiging ganito pag yung isa neither fallacy nor valid
argument
Let Let p: I am going shopping
Q: I am going to the museum
Premise: p v q
Premise: -p
Conclusion: q
Sol: [(pvq)] ^-p] q
Pvq
-p
.’. q

p q pvq -p (pvq)] ^-p [(pvq)] ^-p] q

1 1 1 0 0 1
1 0 1 0 0 1
0 1 1 1 1 1
0 0 0 1 0 1
Since [(pvq)] ^-p] q is a tautology, then the given argument is valid.

5. Valid (Law of Hypothetical Syllogism)

If we serve salmon, then Vicky will join us for lunch.
If Vicky joins us for lunch, then Marilyn will not join us for lunch.
Therefore, if we serve salmon, then Marilyn will not join us for lunch.

Let p: we serve salmon

q: Vicky will join us for lunch.
r: Marilyn will not join us for lunch
premise:
 p q
q r
=p r

p q r pq qr (pq)^ (qr) (pr) x

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 0 1 0 0 0 1
1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1
1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1
0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1
0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1
0 0 1 0 1 0 1 1
0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1
Sol: [( pq)^ (qr)] (pr)

Since [( pq)^ (qr)] (pr) is a tautology, then the given argument is valid.

6. Invalid (Fallacy of the inverse)

If a number is odd, then it is a prime number.
The number is not odd.
Therefore, the number is not a prime number.

Let p: a number is odd

q: it is a prime number
p q
-p
= -q
Premise: p q
Premise: -p
Conclusion: -q
Sol; [( pq)^-p] -q

p q pq -p (pq)^-p -q [( pq)^-p]

-q
1 1 1 0 0 0 1
1 0 0 0 0 1 1
0 1 1 1 1 0 0
0 0 1 1 1 1 1

Since[( pq)^-p] -q is not a tautology, then the given argument is invalid.

7. Invalid (Fallacy of the inverse)

 If I go to beach for summer break, then I will not study.
I did not go to the beach for summer break.
Therefore, I studied.

Let p: I go to beach for summer break

q: I will not study
premise: pq
premise: -p
conc: -q
p q
-p
= -q
Sol: [(pq)^-p]-q

p q pq -p (pq)^-p -q [(pq)^-p]-q

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

Since [(pq)^-p]-q is not a tautology, then the given argument is invalid.

8. Valid (Law of Contraposition)

If the power goes off, then the air condition unit will not work.
The air condition unit is working.
Therefore, the power is not off.

Let p: the power goes off

q: air condition unit will not work
premise: pq
premise: -q
conc: -p
sol: [(pq) ^-q]-p
p q
-q

p q (pq) -q (pq) ^-q -p [(pq) ^-q]-

p
1 1 1 0 0 0 1
1 0 0 1 0 0 1
0 1 1 0 0 1 1
0 0 1 1 1 1 1
=-p
 Since [(pq) ^-q]-p is a tautology, then the given argument is valid.
9. Valid (Law of Contraposition)
If the stock market rises, then the bond market will fall.
The bond market did not fall.
Therefore, the stock market did not rise.

Let p: the stock market rises

q: the bond market will fall
p q
-q
=-p
Premise: pq
Premise: -q
Conc: -p
Sol: [(pq)^-q] -p

p q (pq) -q (pq) ^-q -p [(pq) ^-q]-

p
1 1 1 0 0 0 1
1 0 0 1 0 0 1
0 1 1 0 0 1 1
0 0 1 1 1 1 1

Since [(pq) ^-q]-p is a tautology, then the given argument is valid.

10. Valid (Law of Detachment)

If you help your classmate cheat, then you shall also be reprimanded.
You help your classmate cheat.
Therefore, you should be reprimanded.

Let p: you help your classmate cheat

q: you shall also be reprimanded
p q
p
=q
Premise: pq
Premise: p
Con: q
 Sol: [(pq) ^p]q

p q pq (pq) ^p [(pq) ^p]q

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

Since [(pq) ^p]q is a tautology, then the given argument is valid.