Fundamentals of Logic

1
Logic
Logic: rules to validate an argument is
correct or not correct.
The logic of mathematics is applied to decide
whether one statement follows from, or is a
logical consequence of, one or more other
statements.

2
Contents
1. Basic Connectives and Truth Tables
2. Logical Equivalence: The Laws of Logic
3. Logical Implication: Rules of Inference
4. The Use of Quantifiers
5. Quantifiers, Definitions, and the Proofs of
Theorems

3
1. Basic Connectives and
Truth Tables

4
Terminology
Assertions: in a form of sentences;
Statements (Propositions): verbal or
written assertions are declarative sentences
that are either true or false – but not both.

5
Example
We use the lowercase letters of the alphabet
(such as p, q, and r) to represent these
statements.
p: Combinatorics is a required course for
sophomores.
q: Margaret Mitchell wrote Gone with the
Wind.
r: 2 + 3 = 5.
The preceding statements represented by p,
q, and r are considered to be primitive
statements, for there is really no way to break
them down into anything simpler. 6
Example
We do not regard sentences such as
the exclamation: “What a beautiful evening!”
the command: “Get up and do your
exercises.”
as statements.

x + 1 = 2 ??

7
New statements from primitive statements
New statements can be obtained from
primitive statements in two ways:
Transform a given statement p into the
statement ¬p, which denotes its negation and
is read “Not p”. (Negation statements)
Combine two or more statements into a
compound statement, using logical
connectives. (Compound statements)

8
4 Logical Connectives
Conjunction
Disjunction
Implication
Biconditional

9
Conjunction
The conjunction of the statements p, q is
denoted by p ∧ q, which is read “p and q”.

Example:
p ∧ q : read “Combinatorics is a required
course for sophomores, and Margaret Mitchell
wrote Gone with the Wind.”

10
Disjunction
The expression p ∨ q denotes the disjunction
of the statements p, q and is read “p or q”.

Example:
p ∨ q : read “Combinatorics is a required
course for sophomores, or Margaret Mitchell
wrote Gone with the Wind.”.

11
Inclusive and exclusive or
Inclusive and exclusive or (denoted by ∨
and ∨): We use the word “or” in the inclusive
sense. The exclusive “or” is denoted by
“p∨q”. The compound statement “p ∨ q” is
true if one or the other but not both of the
statements p and q is true.

Example:
p ∨ q – “Combinatorics is a required course for
sophomores, or Margaret Mitchell wrote Gone
with the Wind, but not both.”.
12
Implication
We say that “p implies q” (write p → q) is equal
to “If p, then q”, “p is sufficient for q”, “p is a
sufficient condition for q”, “p only if q”, “q is
necessary for p”, and “q is a necessary condition
for p”. The statement p is called the hypothesis
of the implication; q is called the conclusion.

Example:
 p → q : read “If combinatorics is a required
course for sophomores, then Margaret Mitchell
wrote Gone with the Wind.”.
13
Biconditional
The biconditional of two statements p, q, is
denoted by p ↔ q (read “p if and only if q” or
“p is necessary and sufficient for q”).

Example:
p ↔ q (or p iff q): Combinatorics is a required
course for sophomores, if and only if Margaret
Mitchell wrote Gone with the Wind.”.

14
Truth Tables
The judgment of the true or falsity of a
(compound or negation) statement is
dependent only on the true values of its
component statements and can be
investigated by truth tables as below for the
negation and the different kinds of compound
statements:

15
Example 2.2
It is almost the week before Christmas and
Penny will be attending several parties that
week. Ever conscious of her weight, she plans
not to weigh herself until the day after
Christmas. Considering what those parties
may do to her waistline by then, she makes
the following resolution for the December 26
outcome: “If I weigh more than 120 pounds,
then I shall enroll in an exercise class.”

16
Example 2.2 (cont.)
 Let p and q denote the (primitive) statements
 p: I weigh more than 120 pounds.
 q: I shall enroll in an exercise class.
 Then Penny’s statement (implication) is given by p → q.
 We shall consider the truth values of this particular example
of p → q
p q pq Statements
0 0 1 If W < 120 then no exercice (+)
0 1 1 If W < 120 then exercice (+)
1 0 0 If W > 120 then no exercice (-)
1 1 1 If W > 120 then exercice (+)

17
Note
In our everyday language, we often find
situations where an implication is used when
the intention actually calls for a biconditional.
In scientific writing one must make every
effort to be unambiguous – when an
implication is given, it ordinarily cannot, and
should not, be interpreted as a biconditional.

18
Example 2.4
Let us examine the truth table for the
compound statement “Margaret Mitchell
wrote Gone with the Wind, and if 2 + 3 ≠ 5,
then combinatorics is a required course for
sophomores.”
p: Combinatorics is a required course for
sophomores.
q: Margaret Mitchell wrote “Gone with the
Wind”.
r: 2 + 3 = 5.
q ∧ (¬r → p)
19
Example 2.4 (cont.)
p q r ¬r ¬r  p q ∧ (¬ r  p)
0 0 0 1 0 0
0 0 1 0 1 0
0 1 0 1 0 0
0 1 1 0 1 1
1 0 0 1 1 0
1 0 1 0 1 0
1 1 0 1 1 1
1 1 1 0 1 1

20
Definition 2.1
A compound statement is called a tautology if
it is true for all truth value assignments for its
component statements. If a compound
statement is false for all such assignments,
then it is called a contradiction. (The symbol
T0 to denote any tautology and the symbol F 0
to denote any contradiction.)

21
2. Logical Equivalence:
The Laws of Logic

22
Equivalence of the Statements
In all areas of mathematics we need to know
when the entities we are studying are equal
or essentially the same. Our study of logic is
often referred to as the algebra of
propositions (as opposed to the algebra of
real numbers). In this algebra we shall use
the truth tables of the statements
(propositions) to develop an idea of when two
such entities are essentially the same.

23
Example 2.7
Evaluate the equivalence of the compound
statements ¬ p ∨ q and p → q.

¬ p ∨ q and p → q are logically

equivalent.
24
Definition 2.2
Two statements s1, s2 are said to be logically
equivalent, and we write s1 ⇔ s2 or s1 ≡ s2,
when the statements s1 is true (respectively,
false) if and only if the statement s2 is true
(respectively, false). (Note that when s1 ⇔ s2
the statements s1 and s2 provide the same
truth tables because s1, s2 have the same
truth values for all choices of truth values for
their primitive components.)

25
Eliminate Connectives from Compound
Statements

26
Example 2.8

27
Example 2.9

28
The Laws of Logic
For any primitive statements p, q, r, any tautology
T0, and any contradiction F0,
1. ¬¬p ⇔ p Law of Double
Negation
2. ¬(p ∨ q) ⇔ ¬p ∧ ¬q DeMorgan’s
Laws
¬(p ∧ q) ⇔ ¬p ∨ ¬q
3. p ∨ q ⇔ q ∨ p Commutative Laws
p∧q⇔q∧p
4. p ∨ (q ∨ r) ⇔ (p ∨ q) ∨ r Associative Laws
p ∧ (q ∧ r) ⇔ (p ∧ q) ∧ r
29
The Laws of Logic (cont.)
5. p ∨ (q ∧ r) ⇔ (p ∨ q) ∧ (p ∨ r) Distributive
Laws
p ∧ (q ∨ r) ⇔ (p ∧ q) ∨ (p ∧ r)
6. p ∨ p ⇔ p Idempotent Laws
p∧p⇔p
7. p ∨ F0 ⇔ p Identity Laws
p ∧ T0 ⇔ p
8. p ∨ ¬p ⇔ T0 Inverse Laws
p ∧ ¬p ⇔ F0
9. p ∨ T0 ⇔ T0 Domination Laws
p ∧ F0 ⇔ F0
10. p ∨ (p ∧ q) ⇔ p Absorption Laws
p ∧ (p ∨ q) ⇔ p
30
Example
Show that (p ∧ q)  (p ∨ q) is a tautology

p → q and ¬ p ∨ q are logically equivalent

: [¬ (p ∧ q) ∨ (p ∨ q)]
DeMorgan : (¬p ∨ ¬ q) ∨ (p ∨ q)]
Associative : (¬p ∨ p) ∨ (¬q ∨ q)
Inverse : T0 ∨ T0 ⇔ T0 (1 ∨ 1 ⇔ 1)

31
Definition 2.3
Let s be a statement. If s contains no logical
connectives other than ∧ and ∨, then the dual of
s, denoted sd, is the statement obtained from s
by replacing each occurrence of ∧ and ∨ by ∨
and ∧, respectively, and each occurrence of T0
and F0 by F0 and T0, respectively.
If p is any primitive statement, then
pd is the same as p
(¬p)d is the same as ¬p
p ∨ ¬p and p ∧ ¬p are duals of each other
p ∨ T0 and p ∧ F0 are duals of each other

32
Example
1. If p is any primitive statement, then p d is the
same as p – that is, the dual of a primitive
statement is simply the same primitive
statement. And (¬p)d is the same as ¬p.
2. The statements p ∨ ¬p and p ∧ ¬p are duals
of each other whenever p is primitive – and
so are the statements p ∨ T0 and p ∧ F0.
3. Given the primitive statements p, q, r and the
compound statement s: (p ∧ ¬q) ∨ (r ∧ T0),
we find that the dual of s is sd: (p ∨ ¬q) ∧ (r ∨
F0).
33
Theorem 2.1
The Principle of Duality: Let s and t be
statements that contain no logical
connectives other than ∧ and ∨. If s ⇔ t, then
sd ⇔ td.

34
Note
Alternative way to derive a logical
equivalence is to use a tautology of the form
“p ↔ q”, in addition to using the truth table
for proving “p ⇔ q”. For example, page 60
Table 2.11 shows the logical equivalence of
“(r∧s)→q ⇔ ¬(r∧s)∨q”. Proving “(r∧s)→q ↔
¬(r∧s)∨q” a tautology can also indicate the
logical equivalence of “(r∧s)→q” and
“¬(r∧s)∨q”.

35
Substitution Rules
1. Suppose that the compound statement P is a
tautology. If p is a primitive statement that appears in
P and we replace each occurrence of p by the same
statement q, then the resulting compound statement
P1 is also a tautology.

2. Let P be a compound statement where p is an

arbitrary statement that appears in P, and let q be a
statement such that q ⇔ p. Suppose that in P we
replace one or more occurrences of p by q. Then this
replacement yields the compound statement P1.
Under these circumstances P1 ⇔ P.
36
Example 2.10 (Substitution Rule 1)
(From DeMorgan’s Laws) P: ¬(p ∨ q) ↔ (¬p ∧
¬q) is a tautology.
P1: ¬[(r ∧ s) ∨ q] ↔ [¬(r ∧ s) ∧ ¬q] is a
tautology.
P2: ¬[(r ∧ s) ∨ (t → u)] ↔x [¬(r ∧ s) ∧ ¬(t
y → u)]
is also a tautology. x ↔y
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
37
Example 2.10 (cont.)
b)

∴ [p ∧ (p → q)] → q is a tautology.
(r → s) ∧ [(r → s) → (¬t ∨ u)] → (¬t ∨ u) is also a
tautology.

38
Example 2.10 (cont.)
[p ∧ (p → q)] → q is a tautology.
[p ∧ (¬p ∨ q)] → q
[(p ∧ ¬p) ∨ (p ∧ q) ] → q
[F0 ∨ (p ∧ q) ] → q
(p ∧ q) → q
¬ (p ∧ q) ∨ q
¬p ∨ ¬ q ∨ q
¬p ∨ (¬ q ∨ q)
¬p ∨ T0
T0
39
Example 2.11 (Substitution Rule 2)
P: p → (p ∨ q) is a tautology.
P1: p → (¬¬p ∨ q) is also a tautology. (Since
¬¬p ⇔ p.)

P1: ¬p ∨ (p ∨ q) ⇔ (¬p ∨ p) ∨ q ⇔ T0 ∨ q ⇔
T0

40
Example 2.12
Negate and simplify the compound statement
(p ∨ q) → r.
1. (p ∨ q) → r ⇔ ¬(p ∨ q) ∨ r
2. ¬[(p ∨ q) → r] ⇔ ¬[¬(p ∨ q) ∨ r]
3. ¬[¬(p ∨ q) ∨ r] ⇔ ¬¬(p ∨ q) ∧ ¬r
4. ¬¬(p ∨ q) ∧ ¬r ⇔ (p ∨ q) ∧ ¬r
 ¬[(p ∨ q) → r] ⇔ (p ∨ q) ∧ ¬r

41
Example 2.13
Let p, q denote the primitive statements
p: Joan goes to Lake George.
q: Mary pays for Joan’s shopping spree.
and consider the implication
p → q: If Joan goes to Lake George, then Mary
pays for Joan’s shopping spree.
How to write the negation of p → q in a way
other than simply ¬(p → q)?

42
Example 2.13 (cont.)
p: Joan goes to Lake George.
q: Mary pays for Joan’s shopping spree.
¬(p → q) ⇔ ¬(¬p ∨ q) ⇔ ¬¬p ∧ ¬q ⇔ p ∧ ¬q
¬(p → q): Joan goes to Lake George, but Mary
does not pay for Joan’s shopping spree.
Note: The negation of an if-then statement
does not begin with the word if. It is not
another implication.

43
Example 2.15

The statement ¬q → ¬p is called the

contrapositive of the implication p → q.
The statement q → p is called the converse of p →
q.
The statement ¬p → ¬q is called the inverse of p
→ q.
44
Example 2.15 (cont.)
Let us consider a specific example where p, q
represent the statements
p: Jeff is concerned about his cholesterol levels.
q: Jeff walks at least 2 miles 3 times a week.
(The implication: p → q). If Jeff is concerned
about his cholesterol levels, then he will
walks at least 2 miles 3 times a week.
(The contrapositive: ¬q → ¬p). If Jeff does not
walk at least 2 miles 3 times a week, then he
is not concerned about his cholesterol levels.
45
Example 2.15 (cont.)
(The converse: q → p). If Jeff walks at least 2
miles 3 times a week, then he is concerned
about his cholesterol levels.
(The inverse: ¬p → ¬q). If Jeff is not
concerned about his cholesterol levels, then
he will not walk at least 2 miles 3 times a
week.

46
Example 2.16
For primitive statements p, q, is there any simpler
way to express the compound statement (p ∨ q) ∧
¬(¬p ∧ q) — that is, can we find a simpler
statement that is logically equivalent to the one
given?
(p ∨ q) ∧ ¬(¬p ∧ q) Reasons
⇔ (p ∨ q) ∧ (¬¬p ∨ ¬q) DeMorgan’s Law
⇔ (p ∨ q) ∧ (p ∨ ¬q) Law of Double Negation
⇔ p ∨ (q ∧ ¬q) Distributive Law of ∨ over ∧
⇔ p ∨ F0 Inverse Law
⇔ p Identity Law
Consequently, we see that (p ∨ q) ∧ ¬(¬p ∧ q) ⇔ p
47
Example 2.17
Consider the compound statement ¬[¬[(p ∨ q) ∧ r] ∨
¬q], where p, q, r are primitive statements.

¬[¬[(p ∨ q) ∧ r] ∨ ¬q] Reasons

⇔ ¬¬[(p ∨ q) ∧ r] ∧ ¬¬q] DeMorgan’s Law
⇔ [(p ∨ q) ∧ r] ∧ q Law of Double Negation
⇔ (p ∨ q) ∧ (r ∧ q) Associative Law of ∧
⇔ (p ∨ q) ∧ (q ∧ r) Commutative Law of ∧
⇔ [(p ∨ q) ∧ q] ∧ r Associative Law of ∧
⇔q∧r Absorption Law (as well as the
Commutative Laws for ∧ and ∨)

48
Simplification of Switching Networks
A switching network is made up of wires and
switches connecting two terminals T1 and T2.
Open (0): No current flows through it.
Closed (1): Current does flow through it.

49
Simplification of Switching Networks
Series network : ∧
Parallel network: ∨

50
Simplification of Switching Networks
 (p ∨ q ∨ r) ∧ (p ∨ t ∨ ¬q) ∧ (p ∨ ¬t ∨ r)
Reasons
 ⇔ p ∨ [(q ∨ r) ∧ (t ∨ ¬q) ∧ (¬t ∨ r )] Distributive Law
of ∨ over ∧
 ⇔ p ∨ [(q ∨ r) ∧ (¬t ∨ r ) ∧ (t ∨ ¬q)] Commutative
Law of ∧
 ⇔ p ∨ [((q ∧ ¬t) ∨ r) ∧ (t ∨ ¬q)] Distributive Law of ∨
over ∧
 ⇔ p ∨ [((q ∧ ¬t) ∨ r) ∧ (¬¬t ∨ ¬q)] Law of Double
Negation
 ⇔ p ∨ [((q ∧ ¬t) ∨ r) ∧ ¬(¬t ∧ q)] DeMorgan’s Law
 ⇔ p ∨ [¬(¬t ∧ q) ∧ ((¬t ∧ q) ∨ r)] Commutative Law of ∧
(twice)
 ⇔ p ∨ [(¬(¬t ∧ q) ∧ (¬t ∧ q)) ∨ (¬(¬t ∧ q) ∧ r)]
51
Simplification of Switching Networks
⇔ p ∨ [F0 ∨ (¬(¬t ∧ q) ∧ r)] ¬s ∧ s ⇔ F0, for
any statement s
⇔ p ∨ [(¬(¬t ∧ q)) ∧ r] F0 is the identity
for ∨
⇔ p ∨ [r ∧ ¬(¬t ∧ q)] Commutative Law
of ∧
⇔ p ∨ [r ∧ (t ∨ ¬q)] DeMorgan’s Law
and the Law of
Double Negation

52
Exercise

53
3. Logical Implication:
Rules of Inference

54
Valid Argument
From the notion of a valid argument, we
begin a formal study of what we shall mean
by an argument and when such an argument
is valid.
Consider the implication (p1∧p2∧p3∧…
∧pn)→q. The statements p1, p2, p3, … , pn
are called the premises of the argument, and
the statement q is the conclusion for the
argument.

55
Example 2.19
Let p, q, r denote the primitive statements
given as
 p: Roger studies.
 q: Roger plays tennis.
 r: Roger passes discrete mathematics.
Now let p1, p2, p3 denote the premises
 p1: If Roger studies, then he will pass discrete
mathematics.
 p2: If Roger doesn’t play tennis, then he’ll study.
 p3: Roger failed discrete mathematics.

56
Example 2.19 (cont.)
We want to determine whether the argument
(p1 ∧ p2 ∧ p3) → q is valid. To do so, we
rewrite p1, p2, p3 as
p1: p →r p2: ¬q →p p3: ¬r
and examine the truth table for the
implication
[(p → r) ∧ (¬q → p) ∧ ¬r] → q

57
Example 2.19 (cont.)

Since the implication is a tautology, we can say

that (p1 ∧ p2 ∧ p3) → q is a valid argument.
The truth of the conclusion q is deduced or
inferred from the truth of the premises p1, p2,
and p3.
58
Definition 2.4
If p, q are arbitrary statements such that p→q
is a tautology, then we say that p logically
implies q and we write p⇒q to denote this
situation.

59
Note
1) if p ⇔ q, we have p ⇒ q and q ⇒ p.
2) if p ⇒ q and q ⇒ p, then we have p ⇔ q.
3) p ≠> q is used to indicate that p→q is not a
tautology ― so the given implication
(namely, p→q) is not a logical implication.

60
Rules of Inference
To prove the correctness of a statement, a
great deal of the effort must put into
constructing the truth tables. And since we
want to avoid even larger tables, we are
persuaded to develop a list of techniques
called rules of inference that help us.

61
Modus Ponens or Rule of
Detachment (Example 2.22)

In symbolic form this rule is expressed by the

logical implication
Symbolic
form

Tabular
form

62
Modus Ponens or Rule of
Detachment

63
Law of the Syllogism (Example 2.23)
This rule is given by the logical implication
[(p → q) ∧ (q → r)] → (p → r),
where p, q, and r are any statements.
In tabular form it is written

64
Example 2.23 (cont.)
We may use it as follows:
1) If the integer 35244 is divisible by 396, then
the integer 35244 is divisible by 66. p →
q
2) If the integer 35244 is divisible by 66, then
the integer 35244 is divisible by 3. q → r
3) Therefore, if the integer 35244 is divisible by
396, then the integer 35244 is divisible by 3.
∴p→r

65
Example 2.24
Consider the following argument.
1. Rita is baking a cake. (p)
2. If Rita is baking a cake, then she is not
practicing her flute. (q: She is practicing
her flute.)
3. If Rita is not practicing her flute, then her
father will not buy her a car. (r: Her father
will buy her a car.)
4. Therefore Rita’s father will not buy her a car.
We may write the argument as

66
Example 2.24 (cont.)
We establish the validity of the argument as
follows:
Steps Reasons
1. p → ¬q Premise
2. ¬q → ¬r Premise
3. p → ¬r This follows from steps (1)
and (2) and the Law of the
Syllogism

5. ∴¬r
4. p Premise
This follows from steps (4)
and (3) and the Rule of
Detachment
67
Example 2.24 (cont.)
A second way to validate the argument as
follows:
Steps Reasons
1. p Premise
2. p → ¬q Premise
3. ¬q Steps (1) and (2) and the
Rule of the Detachment

∴¬r
4. ¬q → ¬r Premise
5. Steps (3) and (4) and the
Rule of Detachment

68
Example 2.24 (cont.)
[p ∧ (p → ¬q) ∧ (¬q → ¬r)] → ¬r
[p ∧ (¬p ∨ ¬q) ∧ (q ∨ ¬r)] → ¬r
[(p ∧ ¬p) ∨ (p ∧ ¬q) ∧ (q ∨ ¬r)] → ¬r
[ F ∨ (p ∧ ¬q) ∧ (q ∨ ¬r)] → ¬r
[ (p ∧ ¬q) ∧ (q ∨ ¬r)] → ¬r
[ (p ∧ ¬q ∧ q) ∨ (p ∧ ¬q ∧ ¬r)] → ¬r
[ (p ∧ F) ∨ (p ∧ ¬q ∧ ¬r)] → ¬r
[ F ∨ (p ∧ ¬q ∧ ¬r)] → ¬r
(p ∧ ¬q ∧ ¬r)→ ¬r
¬(p ∧ ¬q ∧ ¬r) ∨ ¬r
¬p ∨ q ∨ r ∨ ¬r
¬p ∨ q ∨ T
T
69
Modus Tollens (Example 2.25)
The rule of inference called Modus Tollens
(“method of denying”) is given by

This follows from the logical implication

[(p → q) ∧ ¬q] → ¬p.

70
Example 2.25 (cont.)
The following exemplifies the use of Modus
Tollens in making a valid inference:
1. If Connie is elected president of Phi Delta
sorority, then Helen will pledge that sorority.
p→q
2. Helen did not pledge Phi Delta sorority. ¬q
3. Therefore Connie was not elected president
of Phi Delta sorority. ∴¬p

71
Example 2.25 (cont.)
Use Modus Tollens to show that the following
argument is valid (for primitive statements p,
r, s, t, and u).
p→r
p→s
r→s p→t
t ∨ ¬s s→t p→u
¬t ∨ u t→u ¬p
¬u

∴¬p
¬u

72
Example 2.25 (cont.)
 Steps Reasons
1. p → r, r → s Premises
2. p → s Step (1) and the Law of the Syllogism
3. t ∨ ¬s Premise
4. ¬s ∨ t Step (3) and the Commutative Law of ∨
5. s → t Step (4) and the fact that ¬s ∨ t ⇔ s → t
6. p → t Steps (2) and (5) and the Law of the
Syllogism
7. ¬t ∨ u Premise
8. t → u Step (7) and the fact that ¬t ∨ u ⇔ t → u
9. p → u Steps (6) and (8) and the Law of the Syllogism

11. ∴¬p
10. ¬u Premise
Steps (9) and (10) and Modus Tollens

73
Rule of Conjunction (Example 2.26)
If p, q are true statements, then p ∧ q is a
true statement.
We call this rule the Rule of Conjunction and
write it in tabular form as

74
Rule of Disjunctive Syllogism (Example
2.27)
The Rule of Disjunctive Syllogism comes
about from the logical implication
[(p ∨ q) ∧ ¬p] → q,
which we can derive from Modus Ponens by
observing that p ∨ q ⇔ ¬p → q.
In tabular form we write

75
Example 2.27 (cont.)
1. Bart’s wallet is in his back pocket or it is on
his desk.
p ∨q
2. Bart’s wallet is not in his back pocket.
¬p
3. Therefore Bart’s wallet in on his desk.
∴q

76
Rule of Contradiction (Example 2.28)
Let p denote an arbitrary statement, and F0 a
contradiction. Then (¬p → F0) → p is a
tautology.

77
Example 2.28 (cont.)
The Rule of Contradiction is the basis of a
method for establishing the validity of an
argument – namely, the method of Proof by
Contradiction.
In general, when we want to establish the
validity of the argument

We can establish the validity of the logically

equivalent argument

78