Bulanadi, Jeff Kevin M.

BSIT-3-A DM

(a) Alice is a math major. Therefore, Alice is either a math major

or a c.s. major:
Addition
(b) If it snows today, the college will close. The college is not
closed today. Therefore, it did not snow today.
Modus tollens
(c) If I go swimming, then I will stay in the sun too long. If I stay
in the sun too long, then I will sunburn. Therefore, if I go
swimming, then I will get sunburn.
Hypothetical syllogism

2. Use rule of inference to show that the premises

Premises: “Henry works hard”, “If Henry works hard then he is a

dull boy” and “If Henry is a dull boy then he will not get the job”

Conclusion: “Henry will not get the job.”

Let H= Henry works hard, D= Henry is a dull boy J= Henry will get
the job

H H->D
H->D D->~J
D->~J H->~J (Hypothetical Syllogism)
∴ ~J H
∴ ~J (MP)
H
H->D
D (Modus Ponens)
D->~J
∴ ~J (MP)
3. (Valid or Invalid?). Provide Proofs?

(a) All students in this class understand logic. Pascal is a student in this
class. Therefore, Pascal understands logic. (Let P(x) = “x is in this class”
and Q(x) = “x understands logic”.) ∀x, P(x) -> Q(x) P (Pascal), ∴
Q(Pascal)
Valid, U.M.P

(b) Every c.s. major takes discrete mathematics. Esther is taking discrete
mathematics. Therefore, Esther is a c.s. major. (Let P(x) = “x is a c.s.
major” and Q(x) = “x takes discrete”.) ∀x, P(x) -> Q(x) Q(Esther),
∴P(Esther) Invalid, U.A.C

(c) All parrots like fruit. My pet bird is not a parrot. Therefore, my pet bird
does not like fruit. (Let P(x) = “x is a parrot” and Q(x) = “x like fruit”.) ∀x,
P(x) -> Q(x) -P (my pet bird), ∴ -Q (my pet bird) Invalid, U.P.H

(d) Everyone who eats granola every day is healthy. John is not healthy.
Therefore John does not eat granola every day. (Let P(x) = “x eats granola
every day” and Q(x) = “x is healthy”.) ∀x, P(x) -> Q(x) -Q (John), ∴ -P
(John) Valid, U.M.T

4. Give an argument (based on rules of inference) to show that the

hypotheses/premises

(~p ∧ q) -> (r ∨ s), ~p -> (r -> w),(s -> t) ∨ p, ~p ∧ q

lead to the conclusion w ∨ t.

Line Step Reason

(1) -p ^ q Hypothesis

(2) (-p ^ q) -> (r v s) Hypothesis

(3) r v s Modus Ponens on (1) (2)

(4) -p -> (r-> w) Hypothesis

(5) (s -> t) v p Hypothesis

(6) (r -> w) v (s-> t) Disjunctive Syllogism on (4) (5)

(7) (r v s) -> (w v t) Distributive on (6)

(8) w v t Modus Ponens on (3) (7)

5. Give an argument (based on rules of inference) to show that the
hypotheses/premises

p ->q, ~q ∨ r, r -> (t ∨ s), ~s ∧ p

lead to the conclusion t.

Line Step Reason

(1) p -> q Hypothesis

(2) q Simplification (1)

(3) ~q v r Hypothesis

(4) r Disjunctive syllogism (2) (3)

(5) r -> (t v s) Hypothesis

(6) tvs Modus Ponens (4) (5)

(7) ~s ^ p Hypothesis

(8) ~s Simplification (7)

(9) t Disjunctive syllogism (6) (8)

6. Give an argument (based on rules of inference) to show that the

hypotheses/premises

p ∧ q, p -> (~q ∨ r), r -> s

lead to the conclusion s.

Line Step Reason

(1) p ^ q Hypothesis

(2) p -> (-q v r) Hypothesis

(3) r -> s Hypothesis

(4) p Conjunctive Simplification (1)

(5) q Conjunctive Simplification (1)

(6) -q v r Modus Ponens (2) (4)

(7) r Disjunctive syllogism

(8) s Modus Ponens (3) (7)