Benjamin Shafer

CST 329: Reasoning with Logic

Professor N.A. Doss (Based on Dr. Islam’s and Dr. Bruns’ material)

Practice Problems

Work on the practice problems must be typed and submitted in pdf format only. Any other
formats will not be accepted. Make your own copy (File > Make a copy) of the document and
edit your copy with your answers. Then download a copy of your word doc as a PDF (File >
Download > PDF) and submit it through the Canvas submission page.

You are encouraged to work with others and discuss solutions to these problems. If you have
questions you can ask me or the TA about our methods for answering these questions.

Note: When asked to write proof, create the problems on proof-checker.org and paste the
screenshots of your successful proofs in this document for your submission.

Proof by Contradiction (Reductio Ad Absurdum)

1. Write a proof for this argument, and check your proof with the proof checker:

¬(𝑃 ∧ 𝑄), 𝑄
¬𝑃
2. Write a proof for this argument, and check your proof with the proof checker:

𝑃
¬𝑃 → 𝑄

3. Is 𝑄 ∧ ¬𝑄 a contradiction?
Yes it is a contradiction.

Q ~Q (Q ^ ~Q)

T F F

F T F

Proof by Contradiction (Reductio Ad Absurdum) 2

1. Write a proof for this argument, and check your proof with the proof checker:

¬(𝑃 ∨ 𝑄)
¬𝑃
2. Write a proof for this argument, and check your proof with the proof checker:

𝑃∨𝑄
𝑄∨𝑃
3. Write a proof for this argument, and check your proof with the proof checker:

¬(𝑃 ∨ 𝑄)
¬𝑃 ∧ ¬𝑄

Proof strategies

1. Solve this argument. However, think carefully about how you decided to do the proof.
Write down the steps in your thought process. Don't rush this -- it's a very helpful
exercise.

¬𝑄 → 𝑃
𝑄∨𝑃
You can work as a team, or compare your strategy afterward.
2. Repeat the steps of the previous problem, but use this argument (theorem - conclusion
without premise):

𝑃 ∨ ¬𝑃
3. Repeat the steps of the previous problem, but use this argument (theorem - conclusion
without premise):

(𝑃 ∧¬𝑄) → ¬(𝑃 →𝑄)

Iff, Contingent sentences, and Theorems

1. Do the proof of Hume's argument, and check your proof with the proof checker:

𝑃 ↔ (𝑄 ∨ 𝑅), ¬𝑄, ¬𝑅
¬𝑃
2. Write a proof for this argument, and check your proof with the proof checker:

𝑃 ↔ 𝑄, 𝑄 ↔ 𝑅
𝑃↔𝑅
3. If Φ is a tautology, then what is ¬Φ ?
A contradiction.
4. If Φ is a contingent sentence, then can ¬Φ be a tautology? Support your answer.
Yes. A negation of a contingent sentence is a contingent sentence.
5. You can instantiate a sentence Φ by replacing atomic sentences in Φ with sentences.
But these substitutions have to be done consistently and "in parallel". Which of the
following are legal instantiations of this sentence: 𝑃 → (𝑄 −> 𝑃) ?
a. 𝑄 → (𝑄 → 𝑄)
b. 𝑅 → (𝑄 → ¬𝑅)
c. (𝑃 ∧ 𝑄) → (𝑄 → (𝑃 ∧ 𝑄))
d. ¬𝑃 → (𝑄 → ¬𝑃)
6. Refer to the textbook for the theorems T1-T10. Is this sentence a legal instantiation of
one of the theorems T1-T10, and if so, which theorem?
a. (𝑃 → (𝑅 → 𝑃)) → (¬(𝑅 → 𝑃) → ¬𝑃)
Yes. Theorem T10.
7. Why is the instantiation of a theorem also a theorem? For example, can you explain
why, if 𝑃 → (𝑅 → 𝑃) is a theorem, then also (𝑃 ∧ 𝑅) → (¬𝑄 → (𝑃 ∧ 𝑅)) is a theorem?
A theorem is a tautology which means it is always true regardless of the
premises.