Arguments

• An argument is sequence of statements wherein the last

statement is the conclusion.
o All statements before the last one are called premises or
assumptions or hypotheses.
o “The crucial fact about a valid argument is that the truth of its
conclusion follows necessarily or inescapably or by logical
form alone from the truth of its premises.”
o An argument whose premises are true, and its conclusion is
false is invalid.
• Testing an Argument Form for Validity1
1. Identify the premises and conclusion of the argument form.
2. Construct a truth table showing the truth values of all the
premises and the conclusion.
3. A row of the truth table in which all the premises are true is
called a critical row.
• If the conclusion in every critical row is true, then the
argument form is valid.

1Epp, Susanna
1. Is the argument below valid?
p → q ∨ ∼r
q→p∧r premises conclusion

∴p→r p q r ∼r q ∨ ∼r p ∧ r q→p∧r p → q ∨ ∼r p→r

T T T F T T T T T
T T F T T F F T
T F T F F T T F
T F F T T F T T F
F T T F T F F T
F T F T T F F T
F F T F F F T T T
F F F T T F T T T
• Syllogism is a form of argument with two premises and a
conclusion.
• Modus Ponens is a form of argument classified as syllogism.
• Its form is:
if p then q. premises conclusion

p p q p→q p q
⸫q T T T T T
T F F T
F T T F
F F T F
1. The argument below is valid.
if 27 is divisible by 9, then 27 is divisible by 3.
27 is divisible by 9.
Therefore, 27 is divisible by 3.
2. Is the argument below valid?
p→q premises conclusion

~p p q p → q ~p ~q
∴ ~q T T T F F
T F F F T
F T T T F
F F T T T
• Modus tollens is an argument form classified as syllogism.
• Its form is:
if p then q. premises conclusion

~q p q p → q ~q ~p
⸫ ~p T T T F F
T F F T F
F T T F T
F F T T T
• If x is greater than 0, then x is positive.
x is not positive.
Therefore, x is not greater than 0.

explanation:
(1) If x is greater than 0, then x is positive.
(2) x is not positive.
Is x less than 0?

if x is greater than 0, then by (1), x is positive.

but by (2), x is not positive.
so, x cannot be greater than 0. (x is a negative number)
• Rules of Inference is a valid form of argument. So, modus
ponens and modus tollens are some of the rules of
inference.
• Generalization is a valid form of argument that if “p is true”,
then “p or q” is also true for any statement q.
• Its form are:

p q
⸫pvq ⸫pvq
• Example: you are to count the number of early childhood
pupils in the University. You are told that Charles is in the
nursery.

Charles is a nursery pupil.

⸫ Charles is a nursery pupil or Charles is a kinder pupil.
nursery or kinder is part of the early childhood curriculum,
so, Charles is included in the count.
• Specialization is a form of valid argument wherein you know
that an object has several properties and discards the other
properties to focus on the property that you are interested
in.
• Its forms are:

p^q p^q
⸫p ⸫q
• Explanation: you are recruiting players for your basketball
team. You know the Clarence can play basketball and
table tennis. His other skill is irrelevant to you, so you ignore it.

Clarence can play basketball and Clarence can play table tennis.
⸫ (in particular/what you need) Clarence can play basketball.
• Elimination
o If there are only two possibilities A and B and option A can be
ruled out, then it must be option B.
o Form1: pvq
Pedro is in his house or Pedro is in school.
~q Pedro is not in his house.
⸫p Therefore, Pedro is in school.

o Form 2: pvq Pedro is in his house or Pedro is in school.

~p Pedro is not in school.
⸫q Therefore, Pedro is in his house .
• Transitivity (hypothetical syllogism)
o An argument form that consist of a series of conditional
statements.
o Argument form:
p→q
q→r
⸫p→r

If 100 is divisible by 20, then 100 is divisible by 10.

If 100 is divisible by 10, then 100 is divisible by 5.
Therefore, if 100 is divisible by 20, then 100 is divisible by 5.
Fallacies
• It is an error in the reasoning, either because the form is
assumed to be correct, or the form is change to somewhat
look like a valid one making the argument invalid.
• Converse Error The premise is replaced with its converse
p→q which is not logically equivalent to it.
q
Also known as fallacy of affirming the
⸫p consequent.

p→q≢q→p
• Inverse Error. The premise is replaced with its inverse
p→q which is not logically equivalent to it.
~p
Also known as the of fallacy of denying
⸫ ~q the antecedent.

p→q≢ ~p→~q
• Valid argument with false premise and false conclusion.
if Johnny Depp knows how to play the guitar, then
Johnny Depp is a rock star.
Johnny Depp knows how to play the guitar.
Therefore, Johnny Depp is a rock star.
• Invalid argument with true premises and true conclusion.
If the Philippines has many islands, then the Philippines is
an archipelago.
The Philippines is an archipelago.
Therefore, the Philippines has many islands.
Modus Ponens 𝑝 →𝑞 Conjunction 𝑝
𝑝 𝑞
∴𝑞 ∴𝑝^𝑞

Modus Tollens 𝑝 →𝑞 Elimination 𝑝v𝑞 𝑝v𝑞

~𝑞 (Disjunctive ~𝑞 ~𝑝
∴ ~𝑝 syllogism) ∴𝑝 ∴𝑞

Generalization 𝑝 𝑞 Resolution 𝑝𝑣𝑞

(addition) ∴𝑝v𝑞 ∴𝑝v𝑞 ~𝑝 𝑣 𝑟
∴𝑞𝑣𝑟
Specialization 𝑝^𝑞 𝑝^𝑞 Transitivity 𝑝 →𝑞
(simplification) ∴𝑝 ∴𝑞 (Hypothetical 𝑞 →𝑟
syllogism) ∴𝑝 →𝑟
Additional Examples
• Example #1: 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.”
• Example #2: 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
• Example 3: “Randy works hard,” “ if Randy works hard, then
he is a dull boy,” and “if Randy is a dull boy, then he will not
get the job” imply the conclusion “Randy will not get the
job.”
 Rules of Inference for Quantified Statements
• Universal instantiation – concludes that P(c) is true, where c
is a particular member of the domain, given the premise
∀𝑥𝑃(𝑥).
• Universal generalization – state that ∀𝑥𝑃(𝑥) is true, given the
premise that 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 ∃𝑥𝑃(𝑥) is true. We cannot select an
arbitrary value of c, rather it must be a c for which P(c) is
true.
• Existential generalization - used to conclude that ∃𝑥𝑃(𝑥) is
true when a particular element c with P(c) true is known. If
we know one element c in the domain for which P(c) is true,
then we know that ∃𝑥𝑃(𝑥) is true.
• The table on the next slide summarizes these rules
Rules of Inference for Quantified Statements
Rule of Inference Name
∀𝑥𝑃(𝑥)
Universal instantiation
∴ 𝑃(𝑐)
𝑃 𝑐 𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝑎𝑛 𝑎𝑟𝑏𝑖𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑟𝑦 𝑐
Universal generalization
∴ ∀𝑥𝑃 𝑥
∃𝑥𝑃(𝑥)
Existential instantiation
∴ 𝑃 𝑐 𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝑠𝑜𝑚𝑒 𝑒𝑙𝑒𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑐
𝑃 𝑐 𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝑠𝑜𝑚𝑒 𝑒𝑙𝑒𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑐
Existential generalization
∴ ∃𝑥𝑃 𝑥
Examples
• Example #1: Show that the premises “Everyone in this
discrete mathematics class has taken a course in computer
science” and “Marla is a student in this class” imply the
conclusion “Marla has taken a course in computer science.”
• Example #2: Show that the premises “A student in this class
has not read the book,” and “Everyone in this class passed
the first exam” imply the conclusion “Someone who passed
the first exam has not read the book.”
• Example #3: Show that the following is a valid argument: ‘All
students go to parties. Some students drink too much.
Therefore, some people who drink too much go to parties.
Sources
• Epp, Susanna S. (2011). Discrete Mathematics With
Applications, Fourth Edition. Brooks/Cole Cengage
Learning
• Garnier Rowan and John Taylor (2002). Discrete
Mathematics for New Technology, Second Edition.
IOP Publishing Ltd.
• Haggard, Gary, John Schlipf, and Sue Whitesides
(2009). Discrete Mathematics for Engineers and
Scientists, Cengage Learning Asia Pte Ltd.
• Rosen, Kenneth H.. (2008) Discrete Mathematics and Its
Applications, 6th ed. McGraw Hill.