VALID AND INVALID ARGUMENTS

An argument is a sequence of propositions written

where p1,p2,p3,…..pn are the premises or hypotheses and the proposition q is called
the conclusion. The process of arriving at a conclusion from a sequence of propositions is
called deductive reasoning. A (deductive) argument consists of hypotheses and a conclusion.
An argument is VALID if the conjunction of the premises is True and the conclusion is
is also True. If, in some case, the conjunction of the premises is true and the conclusion is
false, the argument is INVALID or a FALLACY. In a valid argument, the conclusion follows
logically from its premises. This suggests that the conclusion is not necessarilly true. A valid
argument may have a conclusion that is false if any one of the premises fails to be true . An
argument is valid because of its form and not because of its content.
A conclusion drawn from an argument is true if the argument is valid and if all the
premises are true.
Since a valid argument requires that all premises must be true to derive a conclusion
that is also true, the implication is a tautology.

Proving Validity or Invalidity of An Argument

1. Proving validity may require construction of a truth table but it would be tedious if an
argument is complicated consisting a number of premises. The other way of
constructing proof is to write a sequence of equivalent propositions (or a step-by-step
assertions of some propositions) using the rules of inference and rules of replacement
until the conclusion is reached. By this way, you are constructing a formal proof of
validity.
2. Proving invalidity may also need an entire truth table. A shorter way is to assign truth
values to premises in such a way that the premises are true and the conclusion is
false.
 RULES OF INFERENCE: A Method of Proof

In logic, especially in mathematical logic, a rule of inference is a scheme for constructing valid inferences. These
schemes establish syntactic relations between a set of formulas called premises and an assertion called a conclusion. These
syntactic relations are used in the process of inference, whereby new true assertions are arrived at from other already
known ones. As stated, the application of a rule of inference is a purely syntactic.

In the setting of formal logic (and many related areas), rules of inference are usually given in the following
standard form:

   Premise#1
Premise#2
      ...
Premise#n   
Conclusion

Or equivalently expressed as an implication which in turn is a tautology:

A proof system is formed from a set of rules, which can be chained together to form proofs, or derivations. Any
derivation has only one final conclusion, which is the statement proved or derived. If premises are left unsatisfied in the
derivation, then the derivation is a proof of a hypothetical statement: "if the premises hold, then the conclusion holds."
A Rule of Inference is a pattern of reasoning consisting of one set of sentence schemata, called premises, and a
second set of sentence schemata, called conclusions. A Rule of Inference is sound if and only if, for every instance, the
premises logically entail or necessitate the conclusions.

Rules of inference are (usually) used to infer (deduce) something new from something old, such that if the old is
true then so is the new. Our purpose is just the opposite: to reduce something we hope is true to some new thing(s), such
that if the new is true, then so is the old.

These rules provide the justification of the steps used to show that a conclusion follows logically from a set of
hypotheses. As a consequence, an argument form is said to be valid.

Conjunction: Argument Form

1. P
2. Q
3. Therefore, P and Q.

1. It is raining in New York.

2. It is raining in Boston
3. Therefore, it is raining in both New York and Boston

Simplification:

1. P and Q.
2. Therefore, P.

1. It is raining in both New York and Boston.

2. Therefore, it is raining in New York.
Addition:

1. P
2. Therefore, P or Q.

1. It is raining
2. Therefore, either either it is raining or the sun is shining.

Absorption:

1. If P, then Q.
2. Therfore, If P then P and Q.

1. If it is raining, then I will get wet.

2. Therefore, if it is raining, then it is raining and I will get wet.

Modus Ponens or Law of Detachment: Argument Form

1. If P then Q.
2. P.
3. Therefore, Q.

1. If it is raining, then I will get wet.

2. It is raining.
3. Therefore, I will get wet.

Modus Tollens or Rule of Contraposition or Denying the Conclusion:

1. If P then Q.
2. Not Q. (~Q).
3. Therefore, not P (~P).

1. If it had rained this morning, I would have gotten wet.

2. I did not get wet.
3. Therefore, it did not rain this morning.

Hypothetical Syllogism or the Chain Rule:

1. If P then Q.
2. If Q then R.
3. Therefore, if P then R.

1. If it rains, then I will get wet.

2. If I get wet, then my shirt will be ruined.
3. If it rains, then my shirt will be ruined.

Disjunctive Syllogism:

1. Either P or Q.
2. Not P (~P).
3. Therefore, Q.

1. Either it rained or I took a cab to the movies.

2. It did not rain.
3. Therefore, I took a cab to the movies.

Constructive Dilemma:

1. (If P then Q) and (If R then S).

2. P or R.
3. Therefore, Q or S.

1. If it rains, then I will get wet and if it is sunny, then I will be dry.
2. Either it will rain or it will be sunny.
3. Therefore, either I will get wet or I will be dry.

Destructive Dilemma:

1. (If P then Q) and (If R then S).

2. Not Q or Not S.

3. Therefore, Not P or Not R.

The above rules of inference, when combined with the rules of replacement, mean
that propositional calculus is "complete." Propositional calculus is simply another name for
formal logic. To say that it is "complete" means that, in this system, the axioms used are
sufficient to demonstrate any true proposition or to justify any valid argument.

http://www.lawrence.edu/fast/boardmaw/inference_rules.html#rules_of_replacement
http://www.lawrence.edu/fast/boardmaw/Nat_Ded_Prelim.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_inference
http://atheism.about.com/library/glossary/general/bldef_inferencerules.htm?
terms=nine+rules+of+inference
http://www.sis.pitt.edu/~logicp/group1/main_page.html
http://www-cse.ucsd.edu/groups/tatami/handdemos/doc/rules.htm
Discrete Mathematics and its Applications, 5th ed by Dr. Kenneth H. Rosen.
Discrete Mathematics by Richard Johnsonbaugh Int’l Edition
Discrete Mathematics for Teachers by Wheeler and Brawner