Providing Techniques in

Propositional Logic
Overview
At the end of the lesson, the students should be able to:
1. Apply the Logical Identities, Rules of Displacement
and Rules of Inference to come up with conclusion.
2. Produce convincing arguments using the different
methods of proving.
3. Write an argument using logical notation and
determine if the argument is or is not valid.

2
Argument, Premises, and
Conclusion
An argument is a conditional proposition of the form:
(p1 ∧ p2 ∧ · · · ∧ pk) → q

where p1, p2, . . . , pk, and q are propositions. We call p1,

p2, . . . , pk, as the premises or hypotheses and q as the
conclusion

4
Testing the Validity of the Argument
Argument 1: ‘If you insulted Bob then I’ll never speak
to you again. You insulted Bob so I’ll never speak to you
again.

Solution:
p: You insulted Bob.
q: I’ll never speak to you again.

The premises in this argument are: p → q and p.

The conclusion is: q.

5
Testing the Validity of the Argument
Argument 1: ‘If you insulted Bob then I’ll never speak
to you again. You insulted Bob so I’ll never speak to you
again.

We must therefore investigate the truth table for [(p → q) ∧ p]

→ q. If this compound proposition is a tautology, then the
argument is valid. Otherwise it is not.

This shows that the argument is valid.

6
Testing the Validity of the Argument
Argument 2: ‘If you are a mathematician then you are
clever. You are clever and rich. Therefore if you are rich then
you are a mathematician.’

Solution:
p: You are a mathematician.
q: You are clever.
r: You are rich.
The premises are: p → q and q ∧ r.
The conclusion is: r → p.

7
Testing the Validity of the Argument
We must test whether or not [(p → q) ∧ (q ∧ r)] → (r → p) is a
tautology.

From the last column we see that [(p → q)∧(q∧r)] → (r → p) is not a tautology and hence
the argument is not valid.

8
RULES OF INFERENCE
FOR PROPOSITIONAL
LOGIC
RULES OF INFERENCE FOR
PROPOSITIONAL LOGIC
We can always use a truth table to show that an argument
form is valid. We do this by showing that whenever the
premises are true, the conclusion must also be true. However,
this can be a tedious approach. Fortunately, we do not have to
resort to truth tables. Instead, we can first establish the validity
of some relatively simple argument forms, called rules of
inference. These rules of inference can be used as building
blocks to construct more complicated valid argument forms.

10
RULES OF INFERENCE FOR
PROPOSITIONAL LOGIC

11
RULES OF INFERENCE FOR
PROPOSITIONAL LOGIC

12
USING RULES OF
INFERENCE TO BUILD
ARGUMENTS
USING RULES OF INFERENCE TO BUILD
ARGUMENTS
When there are many premises, several rules of inference are
often needed to show that an argument is valid. These
examples show how arguments in English can be analyzed
using rules of inference.

14
USING RULES OF INFERENCE TO BUILD
ARGUMENTS
Argument 3: Show that the premises “It is not sunny this
afternoon and it is colder than yesterday,” “We will go swimming
only if it is sunny,” “If we do not go swimming, then we will take a
canoe trip,” and “If we take a canoe trip, then we will be home by
sunset” lead to the conclusion “We will be home by sunset.”
Propositions:
p: It is sunny this afternoon
q: It is colder than yesterday
r: We will go swimming
s: We will take a canoe trip
t: We will be home by sunset.

15
USING RULES OF INFERENCE TO BUILD
ARGUMENTS
Argument 3: Show that the premises “It is not sunny this
afternoon and it is colder than yesterday,” “We will go swimming
only if it is sunny,” “If we do not go swimming, then we will take a
canoe trip,” and “If we take a canoe trip, then we will be home by
sunset” lead to the conclusion “We will be home by sunset.”
Premises:
¬p ∧ q
r→p
¬r → s
s → t.
The conclusion is simply t.

16
USING RULES OF INFERENCE TO BUILD
ARGUMENTS
Argument 3:
We construct an argument to show that our premises lead to
the desired conclusion as follows.

Note that we could have used a truth table to show that whenever each of
the four hypotheses is true, the conclusion is also true. However, because
we are working with five propositional variables, p, q, r, s, and t, such a
truth table would have 32 rows. 17
USING RULES OF INFERENCE TO BUILD
ARGUMENTS
Argument 4: Show that the premises “If you send me an e-mail
message, then I will finish writing the program,” “If you do not
send me an e-mail message, then I will go to sleep early,” and “If
I go to sleep early, then I will wake up feeling refreshed” lead to
the conclusion “If I do not finish writing the program, then I will
wake up feeling refreshed.”
Propositions:
p: You send me an e-mail message
q: I will finish writing the program
r: I will go to sleep early
s: I will wake up feeling refreshed.

18
USING RULES OF INFERENCE TO BUILD
ARGUMENTS
Argument 4: Show that the premises “If you send me an e-mail
message, then I will finish writing the program,” “If you do not
send me an e-mail message, then I will go to sleep early,” and “If
I go to sleep early, then I will wake up feeling refreshed” lead to
the conclusion “If I do not finish writing the program, then I will
wake up feeling refreshed.”
Premises:
p→q
¬p → r
r→s
The conclusion is ¬q → s

19
USING RULES OF INFERENCE TO BUILD
ARGUMENTS
Argument 4:
We need to give a valid argument with premises p → q, ¬p
→ r, and r → s and conclusion ¬q → s.

20
THANKS!
Any questions?
You can find me at @username & user@mail.me

21