PREVIEW

• 1.6: RULES OF INFERENCE

– valid argument
– rules of inference for propositional logic
– using rules of inference to build arguments
– 4 important rules of inference for quantifiers
– fallacies (your reading)

HONOUR HOMEWORK: To be done before next week’s tutorials.

7th edition:
• Section 1.6 : #1, 3, 9, 19, 23, 29, 35.
8th edition:
• Section 1.6 : #1, 3, 9, 19, 23, 29, 35.
CSCI2110/MATH2080 F19 Propositional Logic 1 Section 1.6 Page 2 of 7
1. LOGIC AND PROOFS
1.6. Rules of Inference.
• An argument is a sequence of propositions (premises) leading to a final
proposition (conclusion)

• A valid argument is an argument for which truth of premises implies truth

of conclusion

p1 

p2 
premises

.. 
. 



p 
n
∴ q conclusion

Example 1. “If you have access to the network, then you can change your
grade.”
“You have access to the network.”
∴ “You can change your grade.”
CSCI2110/MATH2080 F19 Propositional Logic 1 Section 1.6 Page 3 of 7

Rules of Inference Tautology Name

p
p −→ q [p ∧ (p −→ q)] −→ q Modus Ponens
∴q

¬q
p −→ q [¬q ∧ (p −→ q)] −→ ¬p Modus Tollens
∴ ¬p

p −→ q
q −→ r [(p −→ q) ∧ (q −→ r)] −→ (p −→ r) Hypothetical syllogism
∴ p −→ r

p∨q
¬p [(p ∨ q) ∧ ¬p] −→ q Disjunctive syllogism
∴q

p
p −→ (p ∨ q) Addition
∴ p∨q

p∧q
(p ∧ q) −→ p Simplification
∴p

p
q (p ∧ q) −→ (p ∧ q) Conjunction
∴ p∧q

p∨q
¬p ∨ r [(p ∨ q) ∧ (¬p ∨ r)] −→ (q ∨ r) Resolution
∴q∨r
CSCI2110/MATH2080 F19 Propositional Logic 1 Section 1.6 Page 4 of 7
Example 2. (1) Which rules of inference are used in the following arguments?
Linda is an excellent swimmer. If Linda is an excellent swimmer, then she
can work as a lifeguard. Therefore, Linda can work as a lifeguard.

(2) Show that ¬p ∧ q, r −→ p, ¬r −→ s, s −→ t imply the conclusion t.

CSCI2110/MATH2080 F19 Propositional Logic 1 Section 1.6 Page 5 of 7
(3) What conclusion can you draw?
If I take the day off, it either rains or snows. I took Tuesday off, or I took
Thursday off. It was sunny on Tuesday. It did not snow on Thursday.

RULES OF INFERENCE FOR QUANTIFIED STATEMENTS

Universal Instantiation Universal Generalization

∀x P(x) P(c) for arbitrary c in Ux
∴ P(c) for any c in Ux ∴ ∀x P(x)

Existential Instantiation Existential Generalization

∃x P(x) P(c) for some c in Ux
∴ P(c) for some c in Ux ∴ ∃x P(x)
CSCI2110/MATH2080 F19 Propositional Logic 1 Section 1.6 Page 6 of 7
Example 3. Analyze the argument and show the rules of inference involved to
demonstrate its validity:
“Everyone in New Jersey lives within 50 miles of the ocean.”
“Someone in New Jersey hasn’t seen the ocean.”
“Therefore, someone who lives within 50 miles of the ocean hasn’t seen it.”

READ! THE SUBSECTIONs ON: RESOLUTION - Page 74(68 in 6th ed.); FALLACIES
- Page 75(69 in 6th ed.).
CSCI2110/MATH2080 F19 Propositional Logic 1 Section 1.6 Page 7 of 7
Example 4. Time Permitting: Determine whether this argument is valid (from
Textbook):
“If Superman were able and willing to prevent evil, he would do so. If Superman
were unable to prevent evil, he would be impotent; if he were unwilling to prevent
evil, he would be malevolent. Superman does not prevent evil. If Superman
exists, he is neither impotent nor malevolent. Therefore, Superman does not
exist."