SYMBOLIC

ARGUMENTS
Mathematics in the Modern World
Objectives:

After the discussion, the students are able to:

a. Write the argument in symbolic form;
b. Determine the validity of an argument;
and
c. Determine a valid conclusion for an
argument.
ARGUMENTS

An argument consists of two components the initial statements, or

hypothesis or premises and the final statements or the conclusion.

THE ARGUMENT TYPES

An inductive argument uses a collection of specific examples as its premises

and uses them to propose a general conclusion (from specific to general).

A deductive argument uses a collection of general statements as its premises

and uses them to propose a specific situation as the conclusion (from general
to specific).
 When presented with an argument, a listener or reader may ask,

“Does this person have a logical argument?

“Does his or her conclusion necessarily follow from the given statements?”

An argument is valid if the conclusion of the argument is guaranteed under

its given set of hypotheses.

Valid Argument

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.
Example 1. Human beings are mortal. Aristotle is human. Therefore, Aristotle is mortal.

In the argument above, the two premises and the conclusion is shown below.

First Premise: Human beings are mortal. (a generalization)

Second Premise: Aristotle is human. (specific example)

Conclusion: Therefore, Aristotle is mortal.

This is an example of Deductive Argument.

Example 2. The premises are:

 I ate candy last week and I had toothache.

 I ate candy yesterday, and I had toothache.
 I ate candy today, and I had toothache.

The conclusion is:

Therefore, eating candy gives me toothache.

This is an example of Inductive Argument.

 Classify each argument as deductive or inductive.
I ate a hotdog at Julies Resto and I get indigestion.
I ate a hotdog at Macdoy’s and I got indigestion.

Conclusion: Therefore, eating hotdogs give me indigestion.

So, this is inductive argument.

All spicy foods upset my stomach. Caldereta is a spicy

food.

Conclusion: Therefore, eating caldereta will upset my stomach.

So, this is deductive argument.

ARGUMENTS IN SYMBOLIC FORM

Arguments can be written in symbolic form. For instance, If we let “h”

represents the statement “Aristotle was human” and “m” represents
“Aristotle was mortal” then the argument can be expressed as:
h  m (first premise)
h (second premise)
∴m
The three dots ∴ are symbol for “therefore”
Example 1: The fish is fresh or I will not order it.
The fish is fresh. Therefore, I will order it.

Solution:
Let f represent the statement “The fish is fresh”.
Let O represent the statement “I will order it.
The symbolic form of the argument is
f ⋁ ∼O
f
∴O
Example 1: Write the following arguments in symbolic form.

“If she doesn’t get on the plane. She will regret it. she doesn’t
regret it. Therefore, she got on the plane.”

Let p represent “She got on the plane.”

Let r represent “She will regret it.”

~p → r
~r
∴p
ARGUMENTS AND TRUTH TABLE

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 conclusions for all combinations or truth value of
the simple statements.

3. If the conclusion is true in every row or 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.
1. Once again, we let h represent the statement “Aristotle was human”
and m represent the statement “Aristotle was mortal”. In symbolic
form the argument is
h  m (first premise)
h (second premise)
∴ m Conclusion

2. Construct a truth table.

r g First premise Second premise Conclusion

h m h m
T T F F T row 1
T F T F F
F T T T T row 2
F F T T F row 3
row 4

3. The argument is valid.

 Example 2:
Determine the Validity of an Argument
 “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 represent “it rains” and g represent “the game will be

played,” then the symbolic form is
r  ~g
~r
∴g
 Truth table

r g First premise Second premise Conclusion

r~g ~ r g
T T F F T row 1
T F T F F row 2
F T T T T
F F T T F row 3
row 4

The conclusion in row 4 is false and the premises are both

true, the argument is invalid.
Example

r f
If the stock market rises, then the bond market will fall. ~f
The bond market did not fall.
∴ The stock market did not rise. ~r
 Truth Table

r f r→f ~f ~r

Row
T T T F F 1
Row
T F F T F 2
Row
F T T F T
3
Row
F F T T T 4

Valid
 Example 3:
Determine the Validity of an
Argument
 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.
∴ If I buy a television, I will not run the marathon.

SOLUTION:
The symbolic form of the
Label each simple statement. argument is:
m: I am going to run the
marathon. m→s
s: I will buy new shoes. s → ~t
t: I will buy a television. ∴ t → ~m
The truth table for this argument follows.

      First Premise Second Premise Conclusion  

m s t m→s s → ~t t → ~m

T T T T F F Row 1

T T F T T T Row 2

T F T F T F Row 3

T F F F T T Row 4

F T T T F T Row 5

F T F T T T Row 6

F F T T T T Row 7

F F F T T T Row 8

The argument is valid.

Determine whether the following argument is valid or invalid.

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

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

Let a represent “I arrive before 8 A.M.” Solution

Let f represent “I will make the flight.”
Let p represent “I will give the presentation.” The symbolic form is:
a→f
f→p
∴a→p
The truth table for this argument:

First Second
Conclusion
a f p premise premise
a⟶p
a⟶f f⟶p
T T T T T T Row1
T T F T F F Row 2
T F T F T T Row 3
T F F F T F Row 4
F T T T T T Row 5
F T F T F T Row 6
F F T T T T Row 7
F F F T T T Row 8

The argument is valid.

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 is valid
h→m
h
∴m

This symbolic form is known as direct reasoning. All arguments that

have this symbolic form are valid.
 Table 5.15 shows four symbolic form 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.

TABLE 5.5

Standard Forms of Four Valid Arguments

Direct Reasoning Contrapositive Transitive Disjunctive

reasoning Reasoning Reasoning
p→q p→q p→q p⋁q p⋁q
p ~q q→r ~p ~
∴q ∴ ~q ∴ p→q ∴q ∴p
Transitive Reasoning

It can be extended to include more then two conditional premises. For instance,
if the conditional premises of an arguments as p → q,
q → r and r → 3, then a valid conclusion for the argument is p → s.

In Example 4 we use standard forms to determine a valid conclusion for

an argument.
 Example 4:
Determine a Valid Conclusion for an
Argument
Use a standard form from Table 5.15 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)
∴?

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

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

a. The symbolic form of the premises is:

p→q
~q
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
This matches the standard form known as transitive reasoning. Thus, a
valid conclusion is g → m: “If they had a good time, then we will make
more money”.
Table 5. 16 shows the two symbolic forms associated with invalid arguments.
Any argument that has one of these symbolic forms is invalid.

TABLE 5.16
Standard form of Two Invalid Arguments

Fallacy of the converse Fallacy of the Inverse

p→q p→q
q ~p
∴p ∴ ~q
Other Example:

If they eat (f), they will go back. (b)

If they go back (b), they will have a party. (p)
∴ If they eat, they will have a party.

f→b
b→p
∴f→p
Example:
Use a standard form from Table 5.15 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).
∴?

b. I bought a car (c) or I bought a motorcycle. (m)

I did not buy a car. (~c)
∴?
Answer:

a. If you can dream it (p), you can do it. (q) p→q

You can dream it (p). p
∴ You can do it. ∴q

b. I bought a car (c) or I bought a motorcycle. (m) c∨m

I did not buy a car. (~c) ~c
∴ I bought a motorcycle. ∴m
 Example 5:
Use a Standard Form to Determine
the Validity of an Argument
Use a standard form from a Table 5.15 or Table 5.16 to determine the following
arguments are valid or invalid.
Table 5.15
Direct Contrapositive Transitive Disjunctive
Reasoning reasoning Reasoning Reasoning

p→q p→q p→q p⋁q p⋁q

p ~q q→r ~p ~q
∴q ∴~p ∴p → r ∴q ∴p

Table 5.16 Standard forms of Four Valid Arguments

Fallacy of the converse Fallacy of the Inverse

p→q p→q
q ~p
჻p ∴~q

Standard forms of Two Invalid Arguments

a. The program is interesting, or I will watch the basketball game.
The program is not interesting.

∴ 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.

∴ I have a cold.
 Solution Table 5.15
a. Label each simple Direct Contrapositive Transitive Disjunctive
Reasoning reasoning Reasoning Reasoning
statements.
i: The program is p→q p→q p→q p⋁q p⋁q
interesting. p ~q q→r ~p ~q
w: I will watch the ∴q ∴~p ∴p → r ∴q ∴p
basketball game.
Standard forms of Four Valid Arguments
In symbolic form the argument is
i⋁w
~i
∴w

The symbolic form matches one of the standard forms known as disjunctive
reasoning. Thus, the argument is valid.
 Solution Table 5.16
b. Label each simple Fallacy of the converse Fallacy of the Inverse
statements. p→q p→q
c: I have a cold. q ~p
s: I find it difficult to ჻p ∴~q
sleep.
Standard forms of Two Invalid Arguments

In symbolic form the argument is

c→s
s
∴c

This symbolic form matches the standard form known as the fallacy of the
converse. Thus, the argument is invalid.
Example:
Use a standard form from Table 5.15 or Table 5.16 to determine whether
the following arguments are valid or invalid.

a. If it is raining, then the grass is wet.

It is not raining.
∴ The grass is not wet.

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

You helped solve the crime.
∴ You should be rewarded.
 Solution for a:

Label the simple statements.

g: It is raining. a. If it is raining, then the grass is wet.
h: The grass is wet. It is not raining.
∴ The grass is not wet.

In symbolic form the argument is

g→h
~g
∴ ~h

This symbolic form matches one of the standard form known as fallacy of
inverse. Thus, the argument is invalid.
 Solution for b:

Label the simple statements. b. If you helped solve the crime, then you should
h: You helped solve the crime. be rewarded.
r: You should be rewarded. You helped solve the crime.
∴ You should be rewarded.

In symbolic form the argument is

h→r
h
∴r

This symbolic form matches one of the standard forms known as direct
reasoning. Thus, the agreement is valid.
 Example 6:
Determine the Validity of an
Argument
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
∴ ~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 of Premise 2 produces:

s → w Premise 1
w → c Equivalent form of Premise 2
∴ s → c Transitive Reasoning
Combining the conclusion s → c with Premise 3 gives us

s → c Conclusion from previous argument

~c Premise 3
∴ ~s Contrapositive reasoning

This sequence of valid arguments has produced the desired conclusion, ~s. thus, the
original argument is valid.
Example 2:
Determine whether the following argument is valid.

I start to fall asleep if I read a math book. I drink soda whenever I start to
fall asleep. If I drink soda, then I must eat a candy bar. Therefore, I eat a
candy bar whenever I read a math book.

Hint: p whenever q is equivalent to q → p.

Solution Let a represent “I started to fall asleep.”

Let m represent “I read a math book.”
In symbolic form the argument is Let s represent “I drink soda.”
m → a Premise 1 Let c represent “I eat a candy bar.”
s → a Premise 2
s→c Premise 3
∴c → m Conclusion
Premise 2 is equivalent to a → s. Applying transitive reasoning to Premise 1 and this
equivalent form of Premise 2 produces
m → a Premise 1
a → s Equivalent form of Premise 2
∴m → s Transitive Reasoning

Combining the conclusion m → s with Premise 3 gives us

m → s Conclusion from previous argument
s → c Premise 3
∴m → c Transitive Reasoning

This sequence of valid arguments has produced the desired conclusion m → c. Thus, the
original argument is valid.
 Example 7
Determine a Valid
Conclusion for an Argument
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 Hongkong (h). If we visit my

uncle (u), then we will go to Singapore (s). If we go to Hongkong, then we
will not go to Singapore.
Solution

In symbolic form of the argument is

~j ∨ h Premise 1
u → s Premise 2
h → ~s Premise 3
∴?

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
∴?
Interchanging the second and third premises yields
j→h
h → ~s
~s → ~u
∴?

An application of transitive reasoning produces

j→h
h → ~s
~s → ~u
∴ j → ~u

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

1st premises – I will not go to the mall (m) or I will travel (t)
~m ∨ t 2nd premises – If I will travel (t) then I can’t go to the department
t → ~d store (d)
e∨g 3rd premises – I will buy envelope (e) or I will eat gulaman (g)
e→d 4th premises – If I buy envelope (e) then I will go to the department
∴? store (d)
The first premises can be written as m → t. The contrapositive of the second premise is
d → ~t. Therefore, the argument can be written as:
m→t
d → ~t
e∨g
e→d
∴?

Interchanging the second and third premises yields

m→t
e∨g
t → ~d
e→d
∴?
An application of transitive reasoning produces
m→t
e∨g
t → ~d
e→d
∴m → d

Thus, a valid conclusion for the original argument is “If I will go to the mall, then I
will go to the department store .”