Module Logic and Set Theory

pw
Chapter 2 Propositional Logic: Valid Arguments

Intended Learning Outcomes: At the end of this chapter, the students are expected to:

1. Prove argument if it is valid or not

2. Prove the validity of arguments applying the rules of inference

Symbolic Arguments

Historical Note

Aristotle (384-322 B.C.) was an ancient Greek philosopher who studied under
Plato. He wrote about many subjects, including logic, biology, politics, astronomy,
metaphysics and ethics. His ideas about logic and the reasoning process have had a major
impact on mathematics and philosophy.

Arguments

In this section, we consider methods of analyzing arguments to determine

whether they are valid or invalid. For instance, consider the following argument.

“If Aristotle was human, then Aristotle was mortal. Aristotle was human. Therefore,
Aristotle was mortal.”

To determine whether the above argument is a valid argument, we must first

define the terms argument and valid argument.

An Argument and a Valid Argument

An argument consists of a set of statements called premises and another

statement called the conclusion. An argument is valid if the conclusion is true whenever
all the premises are assumed to be true. An argument is invalid if it is not a valid
argument.

In the argument about Aristotle, two premises and the conclusion are shown
below. It is customary to place a horizontal line between the premises and the conclusion.

First Premise: If Aristotle was human, then Aristotle was mortal.

Second Premise: Aristotle was human._______________________
Conclusion: Therefore, Aristotle was mortal.

Arguments can be written in symbolic form. For instance, if we let h represents

the statement “Aristotle was human” and m represents the statement “Aristotle was
mortal”, then the argument can be expressed as

𝒉→𝒎

Logic and Set Theory

Page 2 of 12
Module

USMKCC-COL-F-050
 𝒉_____
𝑻𝒉𝒆𝒓𝒆𝒇𝒐𝒓𝒆 𝒎
Example:

Write the following argument in symbolic form.

1. The fish is fresh or I will not order it. The fish is fresh. Therefore, I will order it.

Solution:

Let f represents the statement “The fish is fresh”. Let o represents the statement
“I will order it”. The symbolic form of the argument is

𝒇˅~𝒐

𝒇___________
𝑻𝒉𝒆𝒓𝒆𝒇𝒐𝒓𝒆 𝒐

Practice Exercise:

Write the following argument in symbolic form.

1. If she doesn’t get on the plane, she will regret it. She does not regret it. Therefore, she
got on the plane.

Let p represents “She got on the plane”. Let r represents “She will regret it”.

Arguments and Truth Tables

The following truth table procedure can be used to determine whether argument
is valid or invalid.

Truth Table Procedure to Determine the Validity of an Argument

1. Write the argument in symbolic form.

2. Construct a truth table that shows the truth value of each premise and the truth
value of the conclusion for all combinations of truth values of the simple statements.
3. If the conclusion is true in every row of the truth table in which all the premises are
true, the argument is valid. If the conclusion is false in any row in which all the
premises are true, the argument is invalid.

We will now use the above truth table procedure to determine the validity of the
argument about Aristotle.

1. Once again we let h represents the statement “Aristotle was human” and m
represents the statement “Aristotle was mortal”. In symbolic form the argument is

Logic and Set Theory

Page 3 of 12
Module

USMKCC-COL-F-050
𝒉→𝒎
𝒉___________
𝑻𝒉𝒆𝒓𝒆𝒇𝒐𝒓𝒆 𝒎

2. Construct a truth table as shown below.

h m First Premise Second Premise Conclusion

h→m h m
T T T T T
T F F T F
F T T F T
F F T F F

3. Row 1 is the only row in which all the premises are true, so it is the only row that we
examine. Because the conclusion is true in row 1, the argument is valid.

More Examples:

1. Determine whether the following argument is valid or invalid.

“If it rains, then the game will not be played. It is not raining. Therefore, the game will
be played.”

Solution:

If we let r represents “it rains” and g represents “the game will be played”, then
the symbolic form is

𝒓 → ~𝒈
~𝒓__________
𝑻𝒉𝒆𝒓𝒆𝒇𝒐𝒓𝒆 𝒈

The truth table for this argument follows

r g First Premise Second Premise Conclusion

r→~g ~r g
T T F F T
T F T F F
F T T T T
F F T T F

Because the conclusion in row 4 is false and the premises are both true, the
argument is invalid.

Question: Why do we need to examine only rows 3 and 4?

Answer: Rows 3 and 4 are the only rows in which all the premises are true.

Practice Exercise:

Logic and Set Theory

Page 4 of 12
Module

USMKCC-COL-F-050
Determine the validity of the following argument.

𝑰𝒇 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝒔𝒕𝒐𝒄𝒌 𝒎𝒂𝒓𝒌𝒆𝒕 𝒓𝒊𝒔𝒆𝒔, 𝒕𝒉𝒆𝒏 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝒎𝒂𝒓𝒌𝒆𝒕 𝒘𝒊𝒍𝒍 𝒇𝒂𝒍𝒍.

𝑻𝒉𝒆 𝒃𝒐𝒏𝒅 𝒎𝒂𝒓𝒌𝒆𝒕 𝒅𝒊𝒅 𝒏𝒐𝒕 𝒇𝒂𝒍𝒍.___________________
𝑻𝒉𝒆𝒇𝒐𝒓𝒆, 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝒔𝒕𝒐𝒄𝒌 𝒎𝒂𝒓𝒌𝒆𝒕 𝒅𝒊𝒅 𝒏𝒐𝒕 𝒓𝒊𝒔𝒆.

Let r represents “The stock market rises”. Let f represents “The bond market will fall”.

2. Determine whether the following argument is valid or invalid.

𝑰𝒇 𝑰 𝒂𝒎 𝒈𝒐𝒊𝒏𝒈 𝒕𝒐 𝒓𝒖𝒏 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝒎𝒂𝒓𝒂𝒕𝒉𝒐𝒏, 𝒕𝒉𝒆𝒏 𝑰 𝒘𝒊𝒍𝒍 𝒃𝒖𝒚 𝒏𝒆𝒘 𝒔𝒉𝒐𝒆𝒔.

𝑰𝒇 𝑰 𝒃𝒖𝒚 𝒏𝒆𝒘 𝒔𝒉𝒐𝒆𝒔, 𝒕𝒉𝒆𝒏 𝑰 𝒘𝒊𝒍𝒍 𝒏𝒐𝒕 𝒃𝒖𝒚 𝒂 𝒕𝒆𝒍𝒆𝒗𝒊𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏. _____________
𝑻𝒉𝒆𝒓𝒆𝒇𝒐𝒓𝒆, 𝑰𝒇 𝑰 𝒃𝒖𝒚 𝒂 𝒕𝒆𝒍𝒆𝒗𝒊𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏, 𝑰 𝒘𝒊𝒍𝒍 𝒏𝒐𝒕 𝒓𝒖𝒏 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝒎𝒂𝒓𝒂𝒕𝒉𝒐𝒏.

Solution:

Label each simple statement.

𝒎: 𝑰 𝒂𝒎 𝒈𝒐𝒊𝒏𝒈 𝒕𝒐 𝒓𝒖𝒏 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝒎𝒂𝒓𝒂𝒕𝒉𝒐𝒏.

𝒔: 𝑰 𝒘𝒊𝒍𝒍 𝒃𝒖𝒚 𝒏𝒆𝒘 𝒔𝒉𝒐𝒆𝒔.
𝒕: 𝑰 𝒘𝒊𝒍𝒍 𝒃𝒖𝒚 𝒂 𝒕𝒆𝒍𝒆𝒗𝒊𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏.

The symbolic form of the argument is

𝒎→𝒔
𝒔 → ~𝒕___________
𝑻𝒉𝒆𝒓𝒆𝒇𝒐𝒓𝒆, 𝒕 → ~𝒎

The truth table for this argument follows.

m s t First Second Conclusion

Premise Premise t→~m
m→s s→~t
T T T T F F
T T F T T T
T F T F T F
T F F F T T
F T T T F T
F T F T T T
F F T T T T
F F F T T T

The only rows in which both premises are true are rows 2, 6,7 and 8. Because the
conclusion is true in each of these rows, the argument is valid.

Practice Exercise:

a. Determine whether the following argument is valid or invalid.

𝑰𝒇 𝑰 𝒂𝒓𝒓𝒊𝒗𝒆 𝒃𝒆𝒇𝒐𝒓𝒆 𝟖 𝑨. 𝑴. , 𝒕𝒉𝒆𝒏 𝑰 𝒘𝒊𝒍𝒍 𝒎𝒂𝒌𝒆 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝒇𝒍𝒊𝒈𝒉𝒕.

Logic and Set Theory

Page 5 of 12
Module

USMKCC-COL-F-050
𝑰𝒇 𝑰 𝒎𝒂𝒌𝒆 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝒇𝒍𝒊𝒈𝒉𝒕, 𝒕𝒉𝒆𝒏 𝑰 𝒘𝒊𝒍𝒍 𝒈𝒊𝒗𝒆 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝒑𝒓𝒆𝒔𝒆𝒏𝒕𝒂𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏________________
𝑻𝒉𝒆𝒓𝒆𝒇𝒐𝒓𝒆, 𝑰𝒇 𝑰 𝒂𝒓𝒓𝒊𝒗𝒆 𝒃𝒆𝒇𝒐𝒓𝒆 𝟖 𝑨. 𝑴. , 𝒕𝒉𝒆𝒏 𝑰 𝒘𝒊𝒍𝒍 𝒈𝒊𝒗𝒆 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝒑𝒓𝒆𝒔𝒆𝒏𝒕𝒂𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏.

Let a represents “I arrive before 8 A.M”. Let f represents “I will make the flight”.
Let p represents “I will give the presentation”.

Standard Forms

Arguments can be shown to be valid if they have the same symbolic form as an
argument that is known to be valid. For instance, we have shown that the argument

𝒉→𝒎
𝒉___________
𝑻𝒉𝒆𝒓𝒆𝒇𝒐𝒓𝒆, 𝒎

Is valid. The symbolic form is known as direct reasoning. All arguments that have this
symbolic form are valid.

The table below shows four symbolic forms and the name used to identify each
form. Any argument that has a symbolic form identical to one of these symbolic forms is
a valid argument.

Standard Forms of Four Arguments

Direct Reasoning Contrapositive Transitive Disjunctive
Reasoning Reasoning Reasoning
𝑝→𝑞 𝑝→𝑞 𝑝→𝑞 𝑝˅𝑞
𝑝__________ ~𝑞__________ 𝑞 → 𝑟__________ ~𝑝__________
𝑻𝒉𝒆𝒓𝒆𝒇𝒐𝒓𝒆, 𝒒 𝑻𝒉𝒆𝒓𝒆𝒇𝒐𝒓𝒆, ~𝒑 𝑻𝒉𝒆𝒓𝒆𝒇𝒐𝒓𝒆, 𝒑 → 𝒓 𝑻𝒉𝒆𝒓𝒆𝒇𝒐𝒓𝒆, 𝒒

𝑝˅𝑞
~𝑞__________
𝑻𝒉𝒆𝒓𝒆𝒇𝒐𝒓𝒆, 𝒑

Transitive reasoning can be extended to include more than two conditional

premises. For instance, if the conditional premises of an argument are
𝒑 → 𝒒, 𝒒 → 𝒓 and 𝒓 → 𝒔, then a valid conclusion for the argument is 𝒑 → 𝒔.
Example:
1. Use a standard form to determine a valid conclusion for each argument.
a. 𝑰𝒇 𝑲𝒊𝒎 𝒊𝒔 𝒂 𝒍𝒂𝒘𝒚𝒆𝒓 (𝒑), 𝒕𝒉𝒆𝒏 𝒔𝒉𝒆 𝒘𝒊𝒍𝒍 𝒃𝒆 𝒂𝒃𝒍𝒆 𝒕𝒐 𝒉𝒆𝒍𝒑 𝒖𝒔 (𝒒).
𝑲𝒊𝒎 𝒊𝒔 𝒏𝒐𝒕 𝒂𝒃𝒍𝒆 𝒕𝒐 𝒉𝒆𝒍𝒑 𝒖𝒔 (~𝒒). ________________________________
𝑻𝒉𝒆𝒓𝒆𝒇𝒐𝒓𝒆, ?

b. 𝑰𝒇 𝒕𝒉𝒆𝒚 𝒉𝒂𝒅 𝒂 𝒈𝒐𝒐𝒅 𝒕𝒊𝒎𝒆 (𝒈), 𝒕𝒉𝒆𝒚 𝒘𝒊𝒍𝒍 𝒓𝒆𝒕𝒖𝒓𝒏 (𝒓).

𝑰𝒇 𝒕𝒉𝒆𝒚 𝒓𝒆𝒕𝒖𝒓𝒏 (𝒓), 𝒘𝒆 𝒘𝒊𝒍𝒍 𝒎𝒂𝒌𝒆 𝒎𝒐𝒓𝒆 𝒎𝒐𝒏𝒆𝒚 (𝒎).

𝑻𝒉𝒆𝒓𝒆𝒇𝒐𝒓𝒆, ?

Logic and Set Theory

Page 6 of 12
Module

USMKCC-COL-F-050
Solution:

a. The symbolic form of the premise is:

𝒑→𝒒
~𝒒________
𝑻𝒉𝒆𝒓𝒆𝒇𝒐𝒓𝒆, ?

This matches the standard form known as contrapositive reasoning. Thus, a valid
conclusion is ~𝒑: “Kim is not a lawyer”.
b. The symbolic form of the premises is:
𝒈→𝒓
𝒓 → 𝒎______
𝑻𝒉𝒆𝒓𝒆𝒇𝒐𝒓𝒆, ?

This matches the standard form known as transitive reasoning. Thus, a valid
conclusion is 𝒈 → 𝒎: “If they have a good time, then we will make more money.”
Practice Problem:
1. Use a standard form to determine a valid conclusion for each argument.
a. 𝑰𝒇 𝒚𝒐𝒖 𝒄𝒂𝒏 𝒅𝒓𝒆𝒂𝒎 𝒊𝒕 (𝒑), 𝒚𝒐𝒖 𝒄𝒂𝒏 𝒅𝒐 𝒊𝒕 (𝒒).
𝒀𝒐𝒖 𝒄𝒂𝒏 𝒅𝒓𝒆𝒂𝒎 𝒊𝒕 (𝒑). ________________________
𝑻𝒉𝒆𝒓𝒆𝒇𝒐𝒓𝒆, ?
2. 𝑰 𝒃𝒐𝒖𝒈𝒉𝒕 𝒂 𝒄𝒂𝒓 (𝒄)𝒐𝒓 𝑰 𝒃𝒐𝒖𝒈𝒉𝒕 𝒂 𝒎𝒐𝒕𝒐𝒓𝒄𝒚𝒄𝒍𝒆 (𝒎).
𝑰 𝒅𝒊𝒅 𝒏𝒐𝒕 𝒃𝒖𝒚 𝒂 𝒄𝒂𝒓 (~𝒄)._____________________
𝑻𝒉𝒆𝒓𝒆𝒇𝒐𝒓𝒆, ?

The table below shows two symbolic forms associated with invalid arguments. Any
argument that has any of these symbolic forms is invalid.

Standard Forms of Two Invalid Arguments

Fallacy of the Converse Fallacy of the inverse
𝑝→𝑞 𝑝→𝑞
𝑞__________ ~𝑝__________
𝑇ℎ𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑓𝑜𝑟𝑒, 𝑝 𝑇ℎ𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑓𝑜𝑟𝑒, ~𝑞

Logic and Set Theory

Page 7 of 12
Module

USMKCC-COL-F-050
Example:

1. Use a standard form to determine whether the following arguments are valid or invalid.

a. 𝑻𝒉𝒆 𝒑𝒓𝒐𝒈𝒓𝒂𝒎 𝒊𝒔 𝒊𝒏𝒕𝒆𝒓𝒆𝒔𝒕𝒊𝒏𝒈 𝒐𝒓 𝑰 𝒘𝒊𝒍𝒍 𝒘𝒂𝒕𝒄𝒉 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝒃𝒂𝒔𝒌𝒆𝒕𝒃𝒂𝒍𝒍 𝒈𝒂𝒎𝒆.

𝑻𝒉𝒆 𝒑𝒓𝒐𝒈𝒓𝒂𝒎 𝒊𝒔 𝒏𝒐𝒕 𝒊𝒏𝒕𝒆𝒓𝒆𝒔𝒕𝒊𝒏𝒈. _______________________________________

𝑻𝒉𝒆𝒓𝒆𝒇𝒐𝒓𝒆, 𝑰 𝒘𝒊𝒍𝒍 𝒘𝒂𝒕𝒄𝒉 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝒃𝒂𝒔𝒌𝒆𝒕𝒃𝒂𝒍𝒍 𝒈𝒂𝒎𝒆.

b. 𝑰𝒇 𝑰 𝒉𝒂𝒗𝒆 𝒂 𝒄𝒐𝒍𝒅, 𝒕𝒉𝒆𝒏 𝑰 𝒇𝒊𝒏𝒅 𝒊𝒕 𝒅𝒊𝒇𝒇𝒊𝒄𝒖𝒍𝒕 𝒕𝒐 𝒔𝒍𝒆𝒆𝒑.

𝑰 𝒇𝒊𝒏𝒅 𝒊𝒕 𝒅𝒊𝒇𝒇𝒊𝒄𝒖𝒍𝒕 𝒕𝒐 𝒔𝒍𝒆𝒆𝒑. _________________________

𝑻𝒉𝒆𝒓𝒆𝒇𝒐𝒓𝒆, 𝑰 𝒉𝒂𝒗𝒆 𝒂 𝒄𝒐𝒍𝒅.

Solution:

a. Label the simple statements.

𝒊: 𝑻𝒉𝒆 𝒑𝒓𝒐𝒈𝒓𝒂𝒎 𝒊𝒔 𝒊𝒏𝒕𝒆𝒓𝒆𝒔𝒕𝒊𝒏𝒈.

𝒘: 𝑰 𝒘𝒊𝒍𝒍 𝒘𝒂𝒕𝒄𝒉 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝒃𝒂𝒔𝒌𝒆𝒕𝒃𝒂𝒍𝒍 𝒈𝒂𝒎𝒆.

In symbolic form, the argument is

𝒊˅𝒘

~𝒊_________

𝑻𝒉𝒆𝒓𝒆𝒇𝒐𝒓𝒆, 𝒘

This symbolic form matches one of the standard forms known as disjunctive
reasoning. Thus, the argument is valid.

b. Label the simple statements.

𝒄: 𝑰 𝒉𝒂𝒗𝒆 𝒂 𝒄𝒐𝒍𝒅.

𝒔: 𝑰 𝒇𝒊𝒏𝒅 𝒊𝒕 𝒅𝒊𝒇𝒇𝒊𝒄𝒖𝒍𝒕 𝒕𝒐 𝒔𝒍𝒆𝒆𝒑.

In symbolic form, the argument is

𝒄→𝒔

𝒔___________
𝑻𝒉𝒆𝒓𝒆𝒇𝒐𝒓𝒆, 𝒄

This symbolic form matches the standard form known as the fallacy of the
converse. Thus, the argument is invalid. Having a cold is not the only cause of sleep

Logic and Set Theory

Page 8 of 12
Module

USMKCC-COL-F-050
difficulties. For instance, you may find it difficult to sleep because you are thinking about
logic.

Practice Problem:

1. Use a standard form to determine whether the following arguments are valid or invalid.

a. 𝑰𝒇 𝑰 𝒈𝒐 𝒕𝒐 𝑭𝒍𝒐𝒓𝒊𝒅𝒂 𝒇𝒐𝒓 𝒔𝒑𝒓𝒊𝒏𝒈 𝒃𝒓𝒆𝒂𝒌, 𝒕𝒉𝒆𝒏 𝑰 𝒘𝒊𝒍𝒍 𝒏𝒐𝒕 𝒔𝒕𝒖𝒅𝒚.

𝑰 𝒅𝒊𝒅 𝒏𝒐𝒕 𝒈𝒐 𝒕𝒐 𝑭𝒍𝒐𝒓𝒊𝒅𝒂 𝒇𝒐𝒓 𝒔𝒑𝒓𝒊𝒏𝒈 𝒃𝒓𝒆𝒂𝒌.______________

𝑻𝒉𝒆𝒓𝒆𝒇𝒐𝒓𝒆, 𝑰 𝒔𝒕𝒖𝒅𝒊𝒆𝒅.

b. 𝑰𝒇 𝒚𝒐𝒖 𝒉𝒆𝒍𝒑𝒆𝒅 𝒔𝒐𝒍𝒗𝒆 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝒄𝒓𝒊𝒎𝒆, 𝒕𝒉𝒆𝒏 𝒚𝒐𝒖 𝒔𝒉𝒐𝒖𝒍𝒅 𝒃𝒆 𝒓𝒆𝒘𝒂𝒓𝒅𝒆𝒅.

𝒀𝒐𝒖 𝒉𝒆𝒍𝒑𝒆𝒅 𝒔𝒐𝒍𝒗𝒆 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝒄𝒓𝒊𝒎𝒆._____________________________

𝑻𝒉𝒆𝒓𝒆𝒇𝒐𝒓𝒆, 𝒚𝒐𝒖 𝒔𝒉𝒐𝒖𝒍𝒅 𝒃𝒆 𝒓𝒆𝒘𝒂𝒓𝒅𝒆𝒅.

Consider an argument with the following symbolic form.

𝑞→𝑟 Premise 1
𝑟→𝑠 Premise 2
~𝑡 → ~𝑠 Premise 3
𝑞 Premise 4
𝑇ℎ𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑓𝑜𝑟𝑒, 𝑡

To determine whether the argument is valid or invalid using a truth table would
require a table with 𝟐𝟒 = 𝟏𝟔 𝒓𝒐𝒘𝒔. It would be time consuming to construct such a table
and, with the large number of truth values to be determined, we might make an error.
Thus, we consider a different approach that makes use of A SEQUENCE OF VALID
ARGUMENTS to arrive at a conclusion.

𝒒→𝒓 Premise 1
𝒓→𝒔 Premise 2
𝑻𝒉𝒆𝒓𝒆𝒇𝒐𝒓𝒆, 𝒒 → 𝒔 Transitive Reasoning

𝒒→𝒔 The previous conclusion

𝒔→𝒕 Premise 3 expressed in equivalent form
𝑻𝒉𝒆𝒓𝒆𝒇𝒐𝒓𝒆, 𝒒 → 𝒕 Transitive reasoning

𝒒→𝒕 The previous conclusion

𝒒_____ Premise 4
𝑻𝒉𝒆𝒓𝒆𝒇𝒐𝒓𝒆, 𝒕 Direct Reasoning

This sequence of valid arguments shows that t is a valid conclusion for the
original argument. Thus, the original argument is a valid argument.

Example:

Logic and Set Theory

Page 9 of 12
Module

USMKCC-COL-F-050
1. Determine whether the following argument is valid.

If the movie was directed by Steven Spielberg (s), then I want to see it (w). The
movie’s production costs must exceed $50 million (c) or I do not want to see it. The
movie’s production costs were less than $50 million. Therefore, the movie was not
directed by Steven Spielberg.

Solution:

In symbolic form the argument is

𝒔→𝒘 Premise 1
𝒄 ˅ ~𝒘 Premise 2
~𝒄____ Premise 3
𝑻𝒉𝒆𝒓𝒆𝒇𝒐𝒓𝒆, ~𝒔 Conclusion

Premise 2 can be written as ~𝒘 ˅ 𝒄, which is equivalent to 𝒘 → 𝒄. Applying

transitive reasoning to premise 1 and this equivalent form to premise 2 produces
𝒔→𝒘 Premise 1
𝒘 →𝒄 Equivalent form of premise 2
𝑻𝒉𝒆𝒓𝒆𝒇𝒐𝒓𝒆, 𝒔 → 𝒄 Transitive Reasoning

Combining the conclusion 𝒔 → 𝒄 with premise 3 gives us

𝒔→𝒄 Conclusion from previous argument
~𝒄_______ Premise 3
𝑻𝒉𝒆𝒓𝒆𝒇𝒐𝒓𝒆, ~𝒔 Contrapositive Reasoning

This sequence of valid arguments has produced the desired conclusion, ~𝒔.
Thus, the original argument is valid.

2. Use all of the premises to determine a valid conclusion for the following argument.

We will not go to Japan (~𝒋) or we will go to Hong Kong (h). If we visit my uncle
(u), then we will go to Singapore (s). If we go to Hong Kong, then we will not go to
Singapore.

Solution:

In symbolic form the argument is

~𝒋 ˅ 𝒉 Premise 1
𝒖→𝒔 Premise 2
𝒉 → ~𝒔 Premise 3
𝑻𝒉𝒆𝒓𝒆𝒇𝒐𝒓𝒆, ?

The first premise can be written as 𝒋 → 𝒉. The contrapositive of the second

premise is ~𝒔 → ~𝒖. Therefore, the argument can be written as:
𝒋→𝒉
~𝒔 ˅ ~𝒖
𝒉 → ~𝒔

Logic and Set Theory

Page 10 of 12
Module

USMKCC-COL-F-050
 𝑻𝒉𝒆𝒓𝒆𝒇𝒐𝒓𝒆, ?

Interchanging the second and third premise yields

𝒋→𝒉
𝒉 → ~𝒔
~𝒔 → ~𝒖_
𝑻𝒉𝒆𝒓𝒆𝒇𝒐𝒓𝒆, ?

An application of transitive reasoning produces

𝒋→𝒉
𝒉 → ~𝒔
~𝒔 → ~𝒖_
𝑻𝒉𝒆𝒓𝒆𝒇𝒐𝒓𝒆, 𝒋 → ~𝒖

Thus, a valid conclusion for the original argument is “If we go to Japan (j), then
we will not visit my uncle (~𝒖). "
Practice Problem:
1. Use all of the premises to determine a valid conclusion for the following argument.

~𝒎 ˅ 𝒕
𝒕 → ~𝒅
𝒆˅𝒈
𝒆 →𝒅
𝑻𝒉𝒆𝒓𝒆𝒇𝒐𝒓𝒆, ?

Fallacies
Any argument that is not valid is called a fallacy. Ancient logicians enjoyed the
study of fallacies and took pride in their ability to analyze and categorize different types
of fallacies. In this section, we consider the four fallacies known as circulus in probando,
the fallacy of experts, the fallacy of equivocation and the fallacy of accident.
Circulus in Probando
A fallacy of circulus in probando is an argument that uses a premise as the
conclusion. For instance, consider the following argument.
“The Chicago Bulls are the best basketball team because there is no basketball team
that is better than the Chicago Bulls”.

The fallacy of circulus in probando is also known as circular reasoning or begging

the question.

Logic and Set Theory

Page 11 of 12
Module

USMKCC-COL-F-050
Fallacy of Experts
A fallacy of experts is an argument that uses an expert (or a celebrity) to lend
support to a product or an idea. Often the product or idea is outside the expert’s area of
expertise. The following endorsements may qualify as fallacy of experts arguments.
“Jamie Lee Curtis for Activia yogurt”

“David Duchovny for Pedigree dog food”

“Kevin Bacon for the American Egg Board (What Goes Better with Eggs than Bacon?”

Fallacy of Equivocation

A fallacy of equivocation is an argument that uses a word with two interpretations

in two different ways. The following argument is an example of a fallacy of equivocation.

“The highway sign read $268 fine for littering, so I decided fine, for $268, I will litter”.

Fallacy of Accident

The following argument is an example of a fallacy of accident.

“Everyone should visit Europe.”

Therefore, prisoners on death row should be allowed to visit Europe.

Using a more formal language, we can state the argument as follows.

𝑰𝒇 𝒚𝒐𝒖 𝒂𝒓𝒆 𝒂 𝒑𝒓𝒊𝒔𝒐𝒏𝒆𝒓 𝒐𝒏 𝒅𝒆𝒂𝒕𝒉 𝒓𝒐𝒘 (𝒅), 𝒕𝒉𝒆𝒏 𝒚𝒐𝒖 𝒂𝒓𝒆 𝒂 𝒑𝒆𝒓𝒔𝒐𝒏 (𝒑).
𝑰𝒇 𝒚𝒐𝒖 𝒂𝒓𝒆 𝒂 𝒑𝒆𝒓𝒔𝒐𝒏 (𝒑), 𝒕𝒉𝒆𝒏 𝒚𝒐𝒖 𝒔𝒉𝒐𝒖𝒍𝒅 𝒃𝒆 𝒂𝒍𝒍𝒐𝒘𝒆𝒅 𝒕𝒐 𝒗𝒊𝒔𝒊𝒕 𝑬𝒖𝒓𝒐𝒑𝒆 (𝒆).___
𝑻𝒉𝒆𝒓𝒆𝒇𝒐𝒓𝒆, 𝑰𝒇 𝒚𝒐𝒖 𝒂𝒓𝒆 𝒂 𝒑𝒓𝒊𝒔𝒐𝒏𝒆𝒓 𝒐𝒏 𝒅𝒆𝒂𝒕𝒉 𝒓𝒐𝒘, 𝒕𝒉𝒆𝒏 𝒚𝒐𝒖 𝒔𝒉𝒐𝒖𝒍𝒅 𝒃𝒆 𝒂𝒍𝒍𝒐𝒘𝒆𝒅 𝒕𝒐
𝒗𝒊𝒔𝒊𝒕 𝑬𝒖𝒓𝒐𝒑𝒆.

The symbolic form of the argument is

𝒅→𝒑
𝒑→𝒆
𝑻𝒉𝒆𝒓𝒆𝒇𝒐𝒓𝒆, 𝒅 → 𝒆
This argument appears to be a valid argument because its symbolic form is
identical to the standard form for transitive reasoning. Common sense tells us the
argument is not valid, so where have we gone wrong in our analysis of the argument?
The problem occurs with the interpretation of the word “everyone”. Often,
when we say “everyone” we really mean “most everyone”. A fallacy of accident may
occur whenever we use a statement that is often true in place of a statement that is
always true.

Logic and Set Theory

Page 12 of 12
Module

USMKCC-COL-F-050