RULES OF INFERENCE

What is an Argument?
A finite sequence P1 , P2 , P3 , . . . , Pn , 𝑄 of statements is called an argument. The final
statement 𝑄 is the conclusion and the statements P1 , P2 , P3 , . . . , Pn are called the premises of
the argument.

Remark 1. An argument P1 , P2 , P3 , . . . , Pn , 𝑄 is logically valid if the statement formula

(P1  P2  P3  . . .  Pn) → 𝑄
is a tautology.

Sometimes we write an argument in the following form

P1
P2
P3
.
.
.
Pn
Q

where ∴ is the symbol that denotes "therefore".

Example 1:
Consider the following argument involving propositions (which by definition, is a sequence of
propositions)
" If you have a current password, then you can log onto the network."
" You have a current password."
Therefore,
" You can log onto the network."

We would like to determine whether this is a valid argument.

Before we discuss the validity of this particular argument, we will look at its form.

Let P: You have a current password"

Q: You can log onto the network"

Then, the argument has the form

P→Q
P
∴Q

We use Truth Table to show whether [(P→Q) ∧ P] →Q is a Tautology or not.

 P Q P→Q (P→Q) ∧ P [(P→Q) ∧ P] →Q
T T T T T
T F F F T
F T T F T
F F T F T
Since the values of [(P→Q) ∧ P] →P is TRUE for all possible truth values of P and Q. Then, the
argument form is VALID.

Example 2:

" If George does not have eight legs, then he is not an insect."
" George is an insect."
Therefore
" George has eight legs.

Solution
Let R: George does not have eight legs
S: George is not an insect
Then, the argument has the form
R→S
∼S
∴ ∼R

We use Truth Table to show whether [(R→S) ∧ ∼S ] →∼R is a Tautology or not.

R S ∼R ∼S R→S (R→S) ∧ ∼S [(R→S) ∧ ∼S] → ∼R

T T F F T F T
T F T F F F T
F T F T T F T
F F T T T T T

Since the values of [(R→S) ∧ ∼S] → ∼R is TRUE for all possible truth values of R and S. Then,
the argument form is VALID.

Example 3:

" If Descartes does not exist then he does not breathe."

"Descartes exists"
Therefore, "Descartes breathes"

Solution:
Let P: Descartes does not exist
Q: Descartes does not breathe

Then, the argument has the form

 P→Q
∼P
∴ ∼Q

We use Truth Table to show whether [(P→Q) ∧ ∼P ] →∼Q is a Tautology or not.

P Q ∼Q ∼P P→Q (P→Q) ∧ ∼P [(P→Q) ∧ ∼P] → ∼Q
T T F F T F T
T F T F F F T
F T F T T T F
F F T T T T T

Since the values of [(P→Q) ∧ ∼P] → ∼Q is not all TRUE for all possible truth values of P and Q
are all True. Then, the argument form is INVALID.

Consequently, we would like techniques to show that argument forms are valid.

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 tedious approach.

For example, when an argument form involves 10 different propositional variables, to use
a truth table to show this argument is valid requires 2 10 = 1,024 different rows.

Fortunately, we do not have to resort the 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.
Definition: Given an implication P → Q. The implications
* Q → P is called CONVERSE
* ∼P → ∼ Q is called INVERSE
* ∼Q → ∼ P is called CONTRAPOSITIVE.

Example 4: Give a formal proof of validity of the following arguments.

 P∨Q
P→R
∼R
∴Q

Proof: Utilizing rules of inference and applying to the given premises, our objective is to reach
the expression of the conclusion Q.

1. P ∨ Q Given
2. P → R Given
3. ∼ R Given
4. ∼ P Modus Tollens (2) and (3)
5. Q Disjunctive Syllogism (1) and (4)

Example 5: State which rule of inference is the basis of the following argument:
"It is below freezing now. Therefore, It is either below freezing or raining now."

Solution: Let P: It is below freezing now

Q: It is raining now

This argument is of the form

P
∴P ∨ Q This is an argument that uses the Addition Rule.

TRY THIS!

1. "It is cold and raining now. Therefore, it is cold now"

What rule of inference is being used of the above argument?

2. If it rains today, then we will not have a barbecue today.

If we don't have a barbecue today, then we will have a barbecue tomorrow.
Therefore, if it rains today, then we will have a barbecue tomorrow.

State which rule of inference is used in the arguments. Symbolize the propositions
and the arguments.

3. 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.
If we take a canoe trip, then we will be home by sunset.
Therefore, we will be home by sunset.

4. "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. If I go to sleep early, then I will
 wake up feeling refreshed. Therefore, If I do not finish writing the program, then I will
wake up feeling refreshed.”

Proof:

Exercises:
1. Give the reasons for the steps verifying the following argument:

2. What rule of inference is used in each of these arguments?

a) Alice is a BIT student. Therefore, Alice is either a BIT or a BCS student.

b) Jerry is a mathematics major and a computer science major. Therefore, Jerry is a

mathematics major.

c) If there is a typhoon, then school will be suspended. There is a typhoon. Therefore,

school will be suspended.

d) If I solve exercises for practice, then I will pass the course. I did not pass the course.
Therefore, I did not solve exercises for practice.

e) If I go swimming, then I will stay in the sun too long. If I stay in the sun too long,
then I will sunburn. Therefore, if I go swimming, then I will sunburn.

3. What rule of inference is used in each of these arguments?

a) Kangaroos live in Australia and are marsupials. Therefore, kangaroos are marsupials.
 b) It is either hotter than 100 degrees today or the pollution is dangerous. It is less than
100 degrees outside today. Therefore, the pollution is dangerous.

c) 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.

d) Steve will work at a computer company this summer. Therefore, this summer Steve
will work at a computer company or he will be a beach bum.

RULES OF INFERENCE FOR QUANTIFIED STATEMENTS

We have discussed rules of inference for propositions. We will now describe some important rules of
inference for statements involving quantifiers.

Illustration:
∀x P(x) = All women are wise
P(c) = Lisa is wise
c=Lisa is a member of the domain of all women.
 * Universal Instantiation is the rule of inference used to conclude that P(c) is true, where c is a
particular member of the domain, given the premise ∀x P(x).
* Universal Generalization is the rule of inference that states that ∀x P(x) is true, given the
premise P(c) is true for all elements c in the domain.
* Existential Instantiation is the rule that allows us to conclude that there is an element c in the
domain for which P(c) is true if we know that ∃x P(x) is true.
* Existential Generalization is the rule that is to used conclude that ∃x P(x) is true when a
particular element c with P(c) true is known.

Example 1:
Show that the premise "Everyone in this discrete mathematics class has taken a course BS in
Information Technology" and "Marla is a student in this class" imply the conclusion "Marla has taken a
course BS in Information Technology."

Solution: LetD(x) = "x is in this discrete mathematics class

C(x) = "x has taken a course BS in Information Technology"
Then the premises are
∀x D(x) → C(x)
D(Marla)
The conclusion is
C(Marla)

The following steps can be used to establish the conclusion from the premises.
Step Reason
1. ∀x D(x) → C(x) Premise/Given
2. D(Marla) → C(Marla) Universal Instantiation from (1)
3. D(Marla) Premise/Given
4. C(Marla) Modus Ponens from (2) and (3).

Example 2:
Students in this class who pass the course either do the homework or attend lecture class;
Bob did not attend every lecture class;
Therefore, Bob passed the course.

Translate into logic as (with domain being all students)

Let P(x): x pass the course
H(x): x do the homework
L(x): x attend the lecture class
For specific value of x where x=Bob.
L(b) : Bob attend the lecture class
P(b) : Bob passed the course

1. Students in this class who pass the course either do the homework or attend lecture
∀x (P(x) → (H(x) ∨ L(x))
2. Bob did not attend every lecture;
∼L(b)
3. Bob passed the course.
P(b)
Proof: Reason
1. ∀x (P(x) → (H(x) ∨ L(x)) Given/Hypothesis
2. ∼L(b) Given/Hypothesis
3. P(b) Given/Hypothesis
4. P(b) → (H(b) ∨ L(b)) Universal Instantiation of (1)
5. H(b) ∨ L(b) Modus ponens of (4) & (3)
6. H(b) Disjunctive Syllogism of (5) & (2)

Therefore, Bob must have done the homework.

TRY THIS!
A student in this class has not read the book. Everyone in this class passed the first exam.
Therefore, someone who passed the first exam has not read the book.
Solution: