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

C. If it is rainy, then the pool will be closed. It is rainy. Therefore, the pool is closed.

1.If P, then Q (conditional statement).

2.P (the antecedent or condition of the conditional statement).

3.Therefore, Q (the consequent or the conclusion of the conditional statement).

argument:

1.If it is rainy, then the pool will be closed (P → Q).

2.It is rainy (P).

3. Therefore, the pool is closed (Q).

This is a clear example of modus ponens, where you affirm the consequent (Q) because you've already
affirmed the antecedent (P) and the conditional statement (P → Q) is assumed to be true.
For each of these collections of premises, what relevant conclusion or conclusions can be drawn?
Explain the rules of inference used to obtain each conclusion from the premises. "I am either clever or
lucky." "I am not lucky." "If I am lucky, then I will win the lottery."

Let's analyze the given premises and draw relevant conclusions using rules of inference:

"I am either clever or lucky."

"I am not lucky."

"If I am lucky, then I will win the lottery."

We will use the rules of inference to obtain conclusions:

Premise 1: "I am either clever or lucky."

This is a logical disjunction (OR) statement. In symbolic logic, it can be represented as: P ∨ Q Where P
represents "I am clever," and Q represents "I am lucky."

Premise 2: "I am not lucky."

This statement negates the possibility of being lucky: ¬Q Where ¬ represents "not."

Premise 3: "If I am lucky, then I will win the lottery."

This is a conditional statement (implication) that connects being lucky to winning the lottery: Q → R
Where Q represents "I am lucky," and R represents "I will win the lottery."

Now, let's use these premises to draw conclusions:

From premise 2: ¬Q (I am not lucky)

have a disjunction (P ∨ Q) and the negation of one of the options (¬Q), you can conclude the other
Now, let's use a rule of inference called Disjunctive Syllogism. Disjunctive Syllogism states that if you

option (P).

In our case, we have:

Premise 1: P ∨ Q (I am either clever or lucky)

Premise 2: ¬Q (I am not lucky)

Using Disjunctive Syllogism, we can conclude P (I am clever): P ∨ Q (from premise 1) ¬Q (from premise
2) Therefore, P (I am clever)

So, the relevant conclusion is: "I am clever."

To summarize, using the rules of inference (Disjunctive Syllogism), the relevant conclusion is that you
are clever.
Let p=”I am clever”, q=”I am lucky”, r=”I will win the lottery”

(1) p ∨ q Premise

(2) ¬q Premise

(3) q -> r Premise

(4) p Disjunctive syllogism using (1) and (2)

We cannot draw another conclusion using (3).

Answer: I am clever
"I am either clever or lucky."

"I am not lucky."

"If I am lucky, then I will win the lottery."

We will use the rules of inference to obtain conclusions:

Premise 1: "I am either clever or lucky."

This is a logical disjunction (OR) statement. In symbolic logic, it can be represented as: P ∨ Q Where P
represents "I am clever," and Q represents "I am lucky."

Premise 2: "I am not lucky."

This statement negates the possibility of being lucky: ¬Q Where ¬ represents "not."

Premise 3: "If I am lucky, then I will win the lottery."

This is a conditional statement (implication) that connects being lucky to winning the lottery: Q → R
Where Q represents "I am lucky," and R represents "I will win the lottery."

Now, let's use these premises to draw conclusions:

From premise 2: ¬Q (I am not lucky)

have a disjunction (P ∨ Q) and the negation of one of the options (¬Q), you can conclude the other
Now, let's use a rule of inference called Disjunctive Syllogism. Disjunctive Syllogism states that if you

option (P).

In our case, we have:

Premise 1: P ∨ Q (I am either clever or lucky)

Premise 2: ¬Q (I am not lucky)

Using Disjunctive Syllogism, we can conclude P (I am clever): P ∨ Q (from premise 1) ¬Q (from premise
2) Therefore, P (I am clever)

So, the relevant conclusion is: "I am clever."

To summarize, using the rules of inference (Disjunctive Syllogism), the relevant conclusion is that you
are clever.

Answer: I am clever
For each of these arguments, explain which rules of inference are used for each step.

- "Each of the 93 students in this class owns a personal computer. Everyone who owns a personal
computer can use a word processing program. Therefore, Zeke, a student in this class, can use a word
processing pro- gram."

The argument you provided can be analyzed as follows, with an explanation of the rules of inference
used for each step:

1."Each of the 93 students in this class owns a personal computer." Rule of Inference: Universal
Instantiation

Explanation: This step generalizes from a specific statement about each student in the class owning a
personal computer to a universal statement that all 93 students own personal computers.

2."Everyone who owns a personal computer can use a word processing program." Rule of Inference:
Instantiation

Explanation: This step generalizes from a specific statement that everyone who owns a personal
computer can use a word processing program to a universal statement that all people who own
personal computers can use word processing programs.

3."Therefore, Zeke, a student in this class, can use a word processing program." Rule of Inference:
Modus Ponens

Explanation: This step applies the Modus Ponens rule, which allows us to conclude that Zeke, a specific
student in the class (previously established as owning a personal computer), can use a word processing
program based on the premises established in steps 1 and 2.

So, the rules of inference used in this argument are Universal Generalization for the first two steps and
Modus Ponens for the final step.
C(x) = “x is in this class”

P(x) = “x owns a personal computer”

W(x) = “x can use a word processing program”

Premise 1 ∀x(C(x) → P(x))

Premise 2 ∀x(P(x) → W(x))

Premise 3 C(Zeke)

Conclude W(Zeke)

Step Reason

1 ∀x(C(x) → P(x)) Premise 1

2 C(Zeke)→ P(Zeke) Universal Instantiation on (1)

3 C(Zeke) Premise 3

4 P(Zeke) Modus Ponens on (2) and (3)

5 ∀x(P(x) → W(x)) Premise 2

6 P(Zeke)→ W(Zeke) Universal Instantiation on (5)

“Each of the 93 students in this class owns a personal computer. Everyone who owns a personal
computer can use a word processing program. Therefore, Zeke, a student in this class, can use a word
processing program.”

Let:

P(x) = “x is student in this class”

Q(x) = “x owns a personal computer”

R(x) = “x can use a word processing program”

∀x (P(x) -> Q(x)) premise

∀x (Q(x) -> R(x)) premise

P(Zeke) premise

P(Zeke) -> Q(Zeke) Universal instantiation using 1

Q(Zeke) -> R(Zeke) Universal instantiation using 2

P(Zeke) -> R(Zeke) hypothetical syllogism using 4 and 5

R(Zeke) Modus ponens using 3 and 6