PROVING

So, unto our main subject matter for this lecture. So, let’s start proving Arguments using your
Truth Table. So, let’s go back to the Arguments that we had presented, the Kinds of Syllogisms that we
presented in the previous video lecture.
1. Mixed Hypothetical Syllogism
- So, this is the first kind of Syllogism that we discussed in the previous video.

If it rains, then the ground is wet.

It rained.
Therefore, the ground is wet.

- So, you can see here that,

P1: If it rains, then the ground is wet.
P2: It rained.
C: Therefore, the ground is wet.

- And, let’s say [it rains] is R, [ground is wet] is W, [It rained] again is R, and [ground is wet] is W.
So, when we symbolize it that’s:

R⊃W
R
∴W

- And, if we plot your Truth Table, our n=2, this refers to R and W. So, for the number of rows, 2n =
22 = 4. So, our rows would be four (4). We have 4 rows here, and if we plot our Propositions, we
get:
R W

- Then, we insert another column for Premise 1 (P1), which is R ⊃ W. Then, insert another column
for Premise 2 (P2), which is R. Then, insert another column for the Conclusion (C), which is W. So,
we get:

R W P1 (R ⊃ W) P2 (R) C (W)

- I know that the two Rs and Ws in the table are the same, but just so we identify that the three
highlighted columns here refer to the Argument itself. So, now, we have four rows, and
 n 2
2 2 4
determining the numbers of Trues (Ts) and Falses (Fs), = = = 2. So, that means two
2 2 2
alternating Ts and Fs. Thus,

R W P1 (R ⊃ W) P2 (R) C (W)
T
T
F
F

- For the second row, to determine the numbers of Trues (Ts) and Falses (Fs), we use the formula,
2
n
2
2
4
2
2 = 2 = 2 = = 1. Now, what this means is one alternating T and F. So,
2
2 2 2

R W P1 (R ⊃ W) P2 (R) C (W)
T T
T F
F T
F F

- Now, we plot your Arguments. So, you first Premise is R ⊃ G (If R, then W). So, again, your
Conditional is False if your Antecedent is True and its Consequent is False, for all other instances
it’s True. And for the P2 (R) column, we just copy the values in the first R column because they are
the same. And same goes for the Ws. Thus,

R W P1 (R ⊃ W) P2 (R) C (W)
T T T T T
T F F T F
F T T F T
F F T F F

- So, how do we know if this is Valid or Invalid? Remember that the definition of Validity is that
Validity is the condition of an Argument whereby if all of the Premises are True, then it’s
necessary for your Conclusion to be True as well. So, it cannot be the case that you have True
Premises and your Conclusion is False. So, we determine the Validity of Arguments using the
Truth Table if you have here a row where all of the Premises are True and the Conclusion is False.
If you have a row here where all of the Premises are True and the Conclusion is False, then the
Argument is Invalid. If you don’t have any row that is like that, then the Argument is Valid.
- So, in the first row, all are True and the Conclusion is True, so it’s okay. In the second row, F-T-T,
so even if we have F, it’s okay because the Conclusion is False. In the fourth row, we have a False
Conclusion here but it’s okay because in this instance, Premise 2 is False, so it’s okay. Okay, so
here, the Argument is Valid.