Upload
allen-todd
View
213
Download
0
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Validity: Long and short truth tables
Sign In! Week 10! Homework Due Review: MP,MT,CA Validity: Long truth tables Short truth table method Evaluations! For Next Time: Read Chapter 9 pages 325-334
Review
We ended last time by looking at three valid argument forms:
Modus Ponens Modus Tollens Chain Argument We used truth tables to
show that each argument type was valid
Modus Ponens
1. P > Q
2. P
3. :. Q
Why is this argument form always valid?
What about affirming the consequent?
1. P > Q
2. Q
3. :. P
P Q P > Q
T T T
T F F
F T T
F F T
Modus Tollens
1. P > Q
2. ~Q
3. :. ~P
Why is Modus Tollens a valid argument form?
What about denying the antecedent?
1. P > Q
2. ~P
3. :. ~Q
P Q P > Q
T T T
T F F
F T T
F F T
Chain Argument
We also said that chain arguments are valid argument forms:
Every chain argument has two conditional premises where the consequent of one conditional premise is the antecedent of the other
1. P > Q 2. Q > R 3. :. P > R
Chain Argument
P Q R P > Q Q > R P > R
T T T T T T
T T F T F F
T F T F T T
T F F F T F
F T T T T T
F T F T F T
F F T T T T
F F F T T T
Invalid Conditional Arguments
What's wrong with the following conditional argument? 1. P > Q 2. R > Q 3. :. P > R This is an invalid argument form, but why? Here's a hint: recall the relationship that must hold
between the consequent and antecedent of conditionals in a chain argument
Proving Invalidity
P Q R P > Q R > Q P > R
T T T T T T
T T F T T F
T F T F F T
T F F F T F
F T T T T T
F T F T T T
F F T T F T
F F F T T T
Practice
Given the following argument, can you derive R (by itself)?
Hint: do not use a truth table, use only MP, MT, and/or CA
1. ( P v Q) > ( A > B) 2. P & A 3. ~(A > B) 4. ~(P v Q) > R
Practice
We can prove that R follows by using Modus Tollens and Modus Ponens:
1. ( P v Q) > ( A > B) 2. P & A 3. ~(A > B) 4. ~(P v Q) > R 5. ~(P v Q) 1, 3 MT 6. R 4,5 MP
Proving Invalidity
We have been using truth tables to prove that arguments were valid and invalid (MP, MT, CA)
How did we do that? We plotted out all the possible truth values for the
premises and checked to see if a row existed where the premises were true and the conclusion was false
If this kind of row exists then the argument is invalid If this kind of row does not exist then the argument is
valid
Examples
Is the following argument valid or invalid? Prove this using a truth table
1. A > (B & C)
2. ~B v ~C
3. :. ~A
Your first step should be to construct a truth table
Your second step should be to plot all of the truth values into the table
Finally, check to see if there is a row where the premises are true and the conclusion is false
Practice
A B C B & C A > (B & C) ~B v ~C ~A
T T T T T F F
T T F F F T F
T F T F F T F
T F F F F T F
F T T T T F T
F T F F T T T
F F T F T T T
F F F F T T T
Short Truth Table Method
We could construct a truth table for any argument in order to determine whether the argument is valid or invalid
Constructing entire truth tables can be time consuming however
Thankfully there is a faster way to figure out whether an argument is valid or invalid using a truth table
We could use the short truth table method
Short Truth Table
An argument is invalid when we find a row where the premises are true and the conclusion is false
When we construct a short truth table we are looking to find only the row that invalidates
In order to do this, we first assume that the conclusion is false (assign it an F) and then see if it is possible to construct a row where the premises are still true
If we can do this then the argument is invalid
Example
Let's construct a short truth table for the following argument:
1. A > B 2. ~B > C 3. :. ~A > C The first thing to do is to make (~A > C) false When is the only time that conditionals are false?
Example
A B C A > B ~B > C ~ A > C
F F F
Conditionals are only false when the antecedent is true and the consequent false
This means that ~A must be true and C must be false What about the second premise (~B > C)? If C is
false what must ~B be in order for the entire conditional to come out true?
Example
A B C A > B ~B > C ~ A > C
F T F T T F
If we must make B true then how does this affect our first premise: A > B?
If B is true and A is false then the first premise is true We therefore have created a row on the truth table
where the premises are true but the conclusion is false This argument is invalid
Practice
Construct a short truth table to prove whether the following argument is valid or invalid:
1. A & (B v C)
2. C > D
3. A > E
4. :. D & E
This is is tricky because the conclusion is a conjunction, there are three possible ways it can be false
Try to make the premises true first, some of the truth values are 'forced' on us and that makes things easier
Practice
A B C D E
T T F F T
1. A & (B v C)
2. C > D
3. A > E
4. :. D & E
If we know that E must be true then we know that D must be false if the conclusion is false
If D must be false then C must be false and if C must be false then B must be true
This argument is INVALID
A must be true because the first premise is a conditional and in order for a conditional to be true both conjuncts must be true
If A must be true then we know that E must be true as well in order for premise 3 to be true
For Next Time
For Next Time: Read Chapter 9 pages 330-334 Bring your books Wednesday!