1.
Location of the Glasses (Logical Deduction)
1 Let K: reading in kitchen, L: reading in living room, T: glasses on kitchen table, C: glasses on
coffee table, B: saw glasses at breakfast.
2 Given: K → T, T → B, ¬B, K ∨ L, L → C.
3 From T → B and ¬B, by contrapositive we get ¬T.
4 From K → T and ¬T, again using contrapositive we get ¬K.
5 Since K ∨ L and ¬K, therefore L is true.
6 From L → C, we conclude C is true.
7 Therefore the glasses are on the coffee table.
2. Translation of Quantified Statement
1 Statement: ∀x (C(x) ∨ ∃y (C(y) ∧ F(x,y))).
2 C(x): x has a computer. F(x,y): x and y are friends.
3 English translation: For every student x, either x has a computer OR there exists some student
y such that y has a computer and x and y are friends.
3. Converse, Inverse, Contrapositive
1 (a) p: It snows tonight, q: I stay at home. Converse: q → p. Inverse: ¬p → ¬q. Contrapositive:
¬q → ¬p.
2 (b) p: There is a quiz, q: I come to class. Converse: q → p. Inverse: ¬p → ¬q. Contrapositive:
¬q → ¬p.
3 (c) p: Positive integer is prime, q: It has no divisors except 1 and itself. Converse: q → p.
Inverse: ¬p → ¬q. Contrapositive: ¬q → ¬p.
4 (d) p: I stay up late, q: I sleep until noon. Converse: q → p. Inverse: ¬p → ¬q. Contrapositive:
¬q → ¬p.
4. Necessary Condition Statements
1 (a) 'Divisible by 3 is necessary for divisible by 9'. If a number is divisible by 9 then it is divisible
by 3.
2 Contrapositive: If a number is not divisible by 3 then it is not divisible by 9.
3 (b) 'Homework regularly is necessary to pass'. If Jasmeet passes the course then she did
homework regularly.
4 Contrapositive: If Jasmeet does not do homework regularly then she will not pass the course.
5. Tautology / Contradiction / Contingency
1 (a) ((p ∨ q) ∧ (p → r) ∧ (q → r)) → r.
2 If p or q is true, and both imply r, then r must be true. Hence the implication always holds.
3 Therefore it is a TAUTOLOGY.
4 (b) ¬(q → r) ∧ r ∧ (p → q).
5 ¬(q → r) means q ∧ ¬r. But the expression also contains r.
6 So we get r ∧ ¬r which is impossible.
7 Therefore it is a CONTRADICTION.
6. Validity of Government Argument
1 Let A: able to prevent corruption, W: willing, P: powerless, C: complicit.
2 Given: (A ∧ W) → prevent corruption, ¬prevent corruption, A → ¬P, ¬W → C.
3 Also if government exists it is neither powerless nor complicit.
4 From ¬prevent corruption we infer not(A ∧ W).
5 This implies either not able or not willing.
6 But each case contradicts the assumption that government is neither powerless nor complicit.
7 Therefore the logical conclusion is that the government does not exist.
7. Logical Equivalence Proof
1 ¬(¬p ∧ q).
2 Using De Morgan's law: ¬¬p ∨ ¬q.
3 So we get p ∨ ¬q.
4 (p ∧ q) ∨ (p ∧ ¬q) ∨ (¬p ∧ ¬q) simplifies to p ∨ ¬q.
5 Since both simplify to the same expression, they are logically equivalent.
8. Logical Equivalence of Two Propositions
1 (a) If it rains tomorrow then (if I get paid then I go to Paris).
2 This becomes r → (p → q).
3 Using implication rule: p → q ≡ ¬p ∨ q.
4 So r → (¬p ∨ q).
5 (b) If it rains and I get paid then I go to Paris: (r ∧ p) → q.
6 Both forms simplify to logically equivalent expressions.
7 Hence the two propositions are equivalent.
9. Check Logical Equivalence
1 Expressions: ¬p → (q → r) and q → (p ∨ r).
2 First expression: ¬p → (¬q ∨ r) which becomes p ∨ ¬q ∨ r.
3 Second expression: q → (p ∨ r) which becomes ¬q ∨ p ∨ r.
4 Both simplify to the same logical form.
5 Therefore they are logically equivalent.
10. Proof Using Rules of Inference
1 Premises: p∨q, (p∨q)→¬r, ¬r→(s∧¬t), (s∧¬t)→(a∨b).
2 From p∨q and (p∨q)→¬r using Modus Ponens → ¬r.
3 From ¬r and ¬r→(s∧¬t) → s∧¬t.
4 From s∧¬t and (s∧¬t)→(a∨b) → a∨b.
5 Hence the conclusion (a∨b) follows.
11. John Example (Law of Inference)
1 Let p: John works hard, q: John has fun, r: John makes friends.
2 Given: p, p→¬q, ¬q→¬r.
3 From p and p→¬q → ¬q.
4 From ¬q and ¬q→¬r → ¬r.
5 Therefore John will not make any friends.
12. Conditional Proof
1 Let p: program runs, q: submit project, r: appear in exam, c: computer crashes.
2 Premises: p→q, q→r, p∨c.
3 Assume ¬c.
4 From p∨c and ¬c → p.
5 From p→q → q.
6 From q→r → r.
7 Therefore if computer does not crash then I can appear in the examination.
13. Validity of Inferences
1 (a) If birthday then Feb 16. Feb 16 therefore birthday.
2 This is the fallacy of affirming the consequent. Incorrect inference.
3 (b) If guilty then at crime scene. Not guilty therefore not at crime scene.
4 This is denying the antecedent. Incorrect inference.
14. Derivation of (t ∨ s)
1 Premises: p→q, q→¬r, r, p∨(t∧s).
2 From r and q→¬r we get ¬q.
3 From p→q and ¬q we get ¬p.
4 From p∨(t∧s) and ¬p → t∧s.
5 From t∧s we derive t∨s.
15. Consistency of Premises
1 (a) p→q, q→r, s→¬r, p∧s.
2 From p∧s → p and s.
3 p→q gives q. q→r gives r.
4 s→¬r gives ¬r.
5 So r and ¬r appear → inconsistent.
6 (b) Ram degree → job → marriage.
7 Higher study → not marriage.
8 Ram degree and higher study implies marriage and not marriage.
9 So inconsistent.
16. University Database Policies
1 Let Pass(x,c): student x passes course c.
2 (a) Symbolic forms: ∀x ∃c Pass(x,c). If Pass(x,c) then Eligible(x,c). Probation(x) if fewer than
two passes.
3 (b) Negations: ∃x ∀c ¬Pass(x,c) etc.
4 (c) Conclusion: Students passing courses become eligible and may avoid probation if enough
courses are passed.
5 (d) Rules like Universal Instantiation and Modus Ponens allow automatic policy checking.
17. Quantified Inference
1 Premises: ∀x(P(x)→Q(x)), ∀x(Q(x)→R(x)), P(a).
2 From universal instantiation: P(a)→Q(a).
3 Using modus ponens with P(a) → Q(a).
4 From Q(a) and Q(a)→R(a) → R(a).
5 Therefore argument is valid.
18. Valid Argument Explanation
1 A valid argument means if premises are true the conclusion must also be true.
2 Let p: Earth is flat, q: Sail off edge.
3 Premises: p→q, ¬q.
4 Using Modus Tollens we infer ¬p.
5 So conclusion 'Earth is not flat' is logically valid.
19. Quantifier Argument
1 Premises: ∃x (Student(x) ∧ ¬ReadBook(x)).
2 ∀x (Student(x) → PassedExam(x)).
3 Take student a who has not read the book.
4 Since a is a student → passed exam.
5 Therefore someone who passed the exam has not read the book.
20. JAVA Programming Argument
1 Premise: ∃x(Student(x) ∧ KnowJAVA(x)).
2 Premise: ∀x(KnowJAVA(x) → HighPayJob(x)).
3 Take student a who knows JAVA.
4 From rule of inference → HighPayJob(a).
5 Therefore someone in the class can get a high paying job.
21. Negations of Statements
1 (a) Original: If teacher absent then some students not quiet.
2 Negation: Teacher absent AND all students keep quiet.
3 (b) Original: All students quiet and teacher present.
4 Negation: Some student not quiet OR teacher absent.
5 (c) Original: Some students not quiet OR teacher absent.
6 Negation: All students quiet AND teacher present.
7 (d) Original: No one solved every problem.
8 Negation: Someone solved every problem.