Exercise 9 Propositional Logic (2) Solution

I. Test the following arguments by truth-tables.

1. (A  B)  C, (A & C)  ~B,  B  ~C

A B C (A  B)  C (A & C)  ~B B  ~C
T T T T T T T T T T T F FT T F FT
T T F T T T F F T F F T FT T T TF
T F T T T F T T T T T T TF F T FT
T F F T T F F F T F F F TF F T TF
F T T F T T T T F F T T FT T F FT
F T F F T T F F F F F T FT T T TF
F F T F F F T T F F T F TF F T FT
F F F F F F T F F F F F TF F T TF

It is possible that the premises are all true but the conclusion is false (row 5). Therefore,
the argument is invalid.

2. (A  B) & [(A & B)  C], A  (C  B),  A~B

A B C (A  B) & [(A & B)  C] A  (C  B) A  ~B

T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T F FT
T T F T T T F T T T F F T T F T T T F FT
T F T T F F F T F F T T T F T F F T T TF
T F F T F F F T F F T F T T F T F T T TF
F T T F T T T F F T T T F T T T T F T FT
F T F F T T T F F T T F F T F T T F T FT
F F T F T F T F F F T T F T T F F F T TF
F F F F T F T F F F T F F T F T F F T TF

It is possible that the premises are all true but the conclusion is false (row 1). Therefore,
the argument is invalid.

3. (A  B) & (C  ~A), A  C,  ~B  A

A B C (A  B) & (C  ~A) AC ~B  A

T T T T T T F T F FT T T T FT T T
T T F T T T T F T FT T T F FT T T
T F T T F F F T F FT T T T TF T T
T F F T F F F F T FT T T F TF T T
F T T F T T T T T TF F T T FT F F
F T F F T T T F T TF F F F FT F F
F F T F T F T T T TF F T T TF T F
F F F F T F T F T TF F F F TF T F

It is possible that the premises are all true but the conclusion is false (row 5). Therefore,
the argument is invalid.

1
 4. A  (B  C), (~B  C) & A, C & ~B, A  (B  C)

A B C A  (B  C) (~B  C) & A C & ~B A  (B  C)

T T T T T T T T FT T T T T T F FT T T T T T
T T F T T T T F FT T F T T F F FT T F T F F
T F T T T F T T TF T T T T T T TF T T F T T
T F F T F F F F TF F F F T F F TF T T F T F
F T T F T T T T FT T T F F T F FT F F T T T
F T F F T T T F FT T F F F F F FT F T T F F
F F T F T F T T TF T T F F T T TF F F F T T
F F F F T F F F TF F F F F F F TF F F F T F

It is not possible that the premises are all true but the conclusion is false. (Indeed, it is
not possible that the premises are all true in this case.) Therefore, the argument is valid.

II. Symbolise the following arguments and test their validity by (long) truth-tables.
Remember to state what your symbols represent. (Unless specified, ‘truth-tables’ always
means long or full truth-tables.)

1. It is not the case that she either forgot or wasn’t able to finish. Therefore, she was able to
finish.

Let A = she forgot, B = she was able to finish

~ (A  ~B),  B
A B ~ (A  ~B) B
T T F TTFT T
T F F TTTF F
F T T F FFT T
F F F F TTF F

Valid argument. It is because there is no case in which the premises are all true but the
conclusion is false. When the premise is true (row 3), the conclusion is also true.

2. Either the manager didn’t notice the change or else he approves of it. He noticed it all
right. So, he must approve of it.

Let A = the manager noticed the change, B = the manager approves of the change
~A  B, A, B
A B ~A  B A B
T T FTTT T T
T F FTFF T F
F T TFTT F T
F F TFTF F F

Valid argument. It is because there is no case in which the premises are all true but the
conclusion is false. When the premise is all true (row 1), the conclusion is also true.

3. If humans have free will, then God cannot know what every human being will do next.
But there is no free will; therefore God knows what each one of us will do next.

Let A = humans have free will, B = God knows what every human being will do next

2
 A → ~B, ~A, B
A B A → ~B ~A B
T T T F FT FT T
T F T T TF FT F
F T F T FT TF T
F F F T TF TF F

Invalid argument. It is because it has a case in which the premises are all true but the
conclusion is false (row 4). This is the fallacy of denying the antecedent.

5. If the MP votes against this bill, then he is opposed to penalties against tax evaders. Also,
if the MP is a tax evader himself, the he is opposed to penalties against tax evaders.
Therefore, if the senator votes against this bill, he is a tax evader himself.

Let A = the MP votes against this bill, B = the MP is opposed to penalties against tax
evaders, C = the MP is a tax evader himself
A → B, C → B, A→C
A B C A→B C→B A→C
T T T T T T T T T T T T
T T F T T T F T T T F F
T F T T F F T F F T T T
T F F T F F F T F T F F
F T T F T T T T T F T T
F T F F T T F T T F T F
F F T F T F T F F F T T
F F F F T F F T F F T F

Invalid argument. It is because there is a case in which the premises are all true but the
conclusion is false (row 2). Although there are other cases in which all premises and
conclusion are true (rows 1, 5, 6, 8), since the argument does not guarantee that
whenever all premises are true, the conclusion must be true, so the argument is invalid.

7. Only if she respects her friends as individuals can she have many friends. If she respects
them as individuals, then she cannot expect them all to behave alike. She does have many
friends. Therefore, she does not expect them all to behave alike.

Let A = she respects friends as individuals, B = she has many friends, C = she expects friends
all to behave alike.
B  A, A  ~C, B, ~C

A B C BA A  ~C B ~C
T T T T T F F T F
T T F T T T T T T
T F T T T F F F F
T F F T T T T F T
F T T F F T F T F
F T F F F T T T T
F F T T F T F F F
F F F T F T T F T

3
Whenever the premises are all true (row 2), the conclusion is also true. Therefore, it is a
valid argument.

III. Symbolise the following arguments and test their validity by truth-tables. (Try using the
short truth-tables first, and then use the long truth-tables. This course requires that you
definitely master the long truth-table method. But you may also practise the short truth-
table method here.)

1. If equality of opportunity is to be achieved, then those people previously disadvantaged

should now be given special opportunities. If those people previously disadvantages
should now be given special opportunities, then some people receive preferential
treatment. If some people receive preferential treatment, then equality of opportunity is
not to be achieved. Therefore, equality of opportunity is not to be achieved.

Let A = equality of opportunity is to be achieved, B = people previously disadvantaged should

now be given special opportunities, C = some people receive preferential treatment
A  B, B  C, C  ~A, ~A

Short truth-table method:

Assume the argument is invalid
AB BC C  ~A ~A
T T T T T T T T TF FT
There is contradiction. Therefore, the argument is valid.

Long truth-table method:

A B C AB BC C  ~A ~A
T T T T T T F F F
T T F T F F T F F
T F T F T T F F F
T F F F T F T F F
F T T T T T T T T
F T F T F F T T T
F F T T T T T T T
F F F T T F T T T
Whenever the premises are all true (rows 5, 7, 8), the conclusion is also true. Therefore, the
argument is valid.

2. If people are entirely rational, then either all of a person’s actions can be predicted in
advance or the universe is essentially deterministic. Not all of a person’s actions can be
predicted in advance. Thus, if the universe is not essentially deterministic, then people
are not entirely rational.

Let A = people are entirely rational, B = all of a person’s actions can be predicted in advance,
C = the universe is essentially deterministic
A  (B  C), ~B, ~C  ~A

Short truth-table method:

Assume the argument is invalid.
A  (B  C) ~B ~C  ~A
T T F T T TF TF FFT
There is contradiction. Therefore, the argument is valid.

4
Long truth-table method:
A B C A  (B  C) ~B ~C  ~A
T T T T T T F F T F
T T F T T T F T F F
T F T T T T T F T F
T F F T F F T T F F
F T T F T T F F T T
F T F F T T F T T T
F F T F T T T F T T
F F F F T F T T T T
Whenever the premises are all true (rows 3, 7, 8), the conclusion is also true. Therefore, the
argument is valid.

3. Only if she respects her friends as individuals can she have many friends. If she respects
them as individuals, then she cannot expect them all to behave alike. She does have
many friends. Therefore, she does not expect them all to behave alike.

Let A = she respects friends as individuals, B = she has many friends, C = she expects friends
all to behave alike.
B  A, A  ~C, B, ~C

Short truth-table method:

Assume the argument is invalid.
BA A  ~C B ~C
T T T T T TF T FT
There is contradiction. Therefore, the argument is valid.

Long truth-table method:

A B C BA A  ~C B ~C
T T T T T F F T F
T T F T T T T T T
T F T T T F F F F
T F F T T T T F T
F T T F F T F T F
F T F F F T T T T
F F T T F T F F F
F F F T F T T F T
Whenever the premises are all true (row 2), the conclusion is also true. Therefore, the
argument is valid.

4. The more we learn, the more we know. But only if we know can we forget. And the more
we forget, the less we learn. So why learn?

Let A = we learn, B = we know, C = we forget

A  B, C  B, C  ~A, ~A

Short truth-table method:

Assume the argument is invalid.
AB CB C  ~A ~A

5
T T T F T T F T FT FT
There is no contradiction. Therefore, the argument is invalid.

Long truth-table method:

A B C AB CB C  ~A ~A
T T T T T T F F F
T T F T T F T F F
T F T F F T F F F
T F F F T F T F F
F T T T T T T T T
F T F T T F T T T
F F T T F T T T T
F F F T T F T T T

It is possible that all premises are true but the conclusion is false (row 2). Therefore, the
argument is invalid.

Marking scheme for propositional logic:

In general, you need to get all the following right in order to get full marks in doing
propositional logic.

The following items will score. For detailed distribution of marks, note the marking scheme
that comes with individual assignment.

State what the symbols stand for, e.g. ‘Let A = … B=…’ [mark given per the whole task]
Correctly translate the argument into symbolic form. [mark given per each proposition]
Test the argument by writing a truth-table.
The truth-table has the correct number of rows: 2n, i.e. 4 rows for 2 atomic propositions, 8
rows for 3 atomic propositions, 16 rows for 4 atomic propositions, etc.
Write the correct truth-values for each premise and conclusion. [mark given per each
proposition]
Correctly point out the cases relevant to validity (i.e. which rows represent that all the
premises are true, and whether the conclusion is true in those cases).) [marks given]
Correctly state whether the argument is valid or invalid. [marks given]
Explain why it is valid or invalid. You can explain by pointing to the rows relevant to such
determination. [marks given]

Wrong translation will lead to wrong truth-tables, etc. and hence no marks for subsequent
operations/answer. Beware!