1.

7 Quick test of logical inference

There is a very short and effective way of checking the logical

validity of inferences by truth-value analysis, which, however, is
only sometimes applicable.

In principle, testing whether an inference scheme is valid comes

down to determining whether it is possible for the conclusion to
be false when the premise (or the conjunction of the premises if
there are more) is true. The testing can be simplified if it is clear
that the premise (the conjunction of the premises) is true in only
one case or that the conclusion is false in only one case. If the
premise is true in only one case, we can check whether in this case
the conclusion can be false. The scheme will be valid if and only if
it cannot. Consider the following scheme as an example:

¬p ∧ q ∧ r
[p→(q∨s)] ∧ (¬r↔¬q)

Obviously, the premise is true if and only if “p” is false and “q” and
“r” are true (a conjunction is true when all its members are true).
Go to Contents
In order to check whether in this case the conclusion can be false,
we replace the propositional letters in the conclusion with the
corresponding truth values and check by truth-value analysis
whether it can obtain the value F:

[p→(q∨s)] ∧ (¬r↔¬q)

p: F, q: T, r: T

[(F→(T∨s)] ∧ (F↔F)

T∧T
 T

The analysis shows that in the only case where the premise is true,
the conclusion is also true; therefore, this is a logically valid
inference scheme.

Consider a similar example. We want to check whether the

following inference scheme is valid:

¬(p→q) ∧ r
(¬q∨r) → (¬p∨s)

Here again, the premise is true in a single case because the

negation of a conditional is true (i.e., the conditional itself is false)
only when its antecedent is true and its consequent is false, which
means that “¬(p→q)∧r” is true only when “p” is true, “q” is false,
and “r” is true. To test whether the scheme is valid, we replace in
the conclusion those propositional letters with those truth values
and check whether it is possible for the conclusion to obtain the
value F:

(¬q∨r) → (¬p∨s)

p: T, q: F, r: T

(T∨T) → (F∨s)

T→s

T F

The analysis shows that when the premise is true, the conclusion
may be false, which means that the inference scheme is invalid.

The quick test is also applicable when the conclusion is false in only
one case. Then we can check whether in this case the premise may
be true. If it cannot, it will not be possible for the conclusion to be
false when the premise is true, and therefore the inference
scheme will be valid. Conversely, if it is possible for the premise to
be true in the case in question, the inference scheme will be
invalid. As an example, let us check the validity of the following
scheme:

p ↔ (¬r∨q)
p ∨ ¬q

The conclusion is false only when “p” is false and “q” is true. By
replacing in the premise “p” and “q” with these truth values, we
check whether the premise can be true in this case:

p ↔ (¬r∨q)

p: F, q: T

F ↔ (¬r∨T)

F↔T

It turns out that in this case the premise cannot be true; the
scheme is therefore valid.

The quick test is a very effective method that is more often

applicable than it might seem at first glance. Often the conclusion
of an argument is a simple sentence, a negation of a simple
sentences, a disjunction or a conditional of simple sentences. Then
the conclusion is false in only one case, which makes the quick
testing applicable in the variant where we check whether the
premise (the conjunction of the premises if they are more than
one) can be true in this case. The examples in exercise (2) below
are an illustration.

Exercises

(Download the exercises as a PDF file.)

(1) Determine by the quick test whether the following inference

schemes are logically valid:

1) (p→p) → q
q

2) p∧q
p ↔ (q∧r)

3) ¬(r→¬s) ∧ p
r ↔ (p→s)

4) (p∨q) → [(r∨s)→t]
(p∧q) → (r→t)

5) (r→q) ∧ (s→r) ∧ [p→(r∨s)]

p → (q∨r)

6) [p∨(q∧r)] ∧ (p→r)
r

7) ¬p ∧ ¬q ∧ s
p ↔ [q→(r↔s)]

8) (p∧¬q) ∨ [(r∧s)→p]
¬p ∨ (q→r)

9) (p→¬q) ∨ r
 ¬r → p

10) ¬(p∨q) ∧ r
[(p∧r)→¬q] ∨ (¬p∧¬r)

(2) Prove by the quick test that the following arguments are
logically valid:

1)
If I start a new job, I will have to buy a car, and if I go to the sea
this summer, I will spend half of my savings. But if I buy a car
and spend half of my savings, I will have to live on 10 euros a
day. However, I cannot live on 10 euros a day. So either I won’t
buy a car or I won’t go to the sea.

2)
If our representative runs for president, if he does a positive
campaign, there will be a runoff. If there is a runoff and he wins
the election, he will not be reelected in four years. However, if he
supports the death penalty, he will win the election and be
reelected in four years. Therefore, if our representative runs for
president, if he runs a positive campaign, he will not support the
death penalty.

3)
If the doctor injects the antibodies, the patient will have an
allergic reaction, and if he has an allergic reaction, his kidney
will stop functioning. But if the doctor does not inject the
antibodies, the bacteria will spread to the bloodstream. The
patient’s kidney will stop functioning if the bacteria spreads to
the bloodstream. If the kidney stops functioning, the patient will
not survive until the morning. Therefore, the patient will
certainly not survive until the morning.
 4)
On New Year’s Eve, John drinks red wine. If he celebrates with
friends, he drinks beer. Therefore, if John celebrates the New
Year with friends, he drinks red wine and beer.

5)
If Alice enrolls in Ancient Greek, she will also enroll in Latin. If
she enrolls in Ancient Greek and Latin, she will enroll in logic.
But if she enrolls in Ancient Greek, then if she enrolls in logic,
she will enroll in mathematics. Therefore, if Alice enrolls in
Ancient Greek, she will also enroll in mathematics.

6)
If an economic crisis begins or international conflicts arise, if the
government fails to act or takes inadequate action, there will be
neither economic growth nor political stability. If there is no
economic growth or taxes are raised, there will be protests.
Therefore, if an economic crisis begins, then if the government
fails to act, there will be protests.

7)
If Peter has met Mary, he would have told her the news if he
knew it. But Peter met Mary and did not tell her the news. So he
didn’t know it.

8)
If I go to the ball, I’ll have to buy а tailcoat. But if I buy a tailcoat,
I will not be able to pay my rent and repay my loan at the same
time. If I don’t pay the rent, I'll have to hide from the landlord,
and I can’t do that. Besides, I'll have to repay the loan. So, I can’t
go to the ball.

1. See the solution to Exercise (1), 3) in Solutions. /