<< Chapter < Page Chapter >> Page >
Problems on propositional logic, including truth-tables, boolean algebra, and inference rules.

Please write logic formulas using the syntax previously defined , using (or for brevity,

F
), (or
T
), ¬, ∧, ∨, and ⇒.Except where directed, use only these connectives.

You can download WaterWorld if you like. At Rice University, WaterWorld is installed on OwlNet, in /home/comp280/bin/waterworld .

Propositional logic

[Practice problem solution provided.]

Your friend Tracy argues:

It is bad to be depressed. Watching the news makes me feel depressed.Thus, it's good to avoid watching the news.

Regardless of whether the premises and conclusion are true, show that the argument is not, by showing it doesn't hold for all domains.Replace

depressed
and
watching news
with expressions which leave the premises true,but the conclusion false (or at least, what most reasonable people would consider false).

Lots of possible counterexamples.

It is bad to be depressed. Doing homework makes me depressed;so it's good to not do my homework.
Or,
It is bad for people to be in physical pain. Childbirth causes pain.Therefore childbirth needs be avoided by all people.
If the original conclusion is really correct, Tracy needs to elucidate some of his unspoken assumptions.

The flaw seems to be along the lines of,

avoiding bad in the short run may not always be good in the long run
(or equivalently, sometimes you have to choose the lesser of two evils).No, you weren't asked to name a specific flaw, and reasonable people can differ on precisely what the flaw is.(And, formal logic is not particularly helpful here.) Nonetheless, uncovering hidden assumptionsin arguments often helps understand the real issues involved.

For fun, pick up the front page of the daily newspaper,and see how many arguments use faulty rules of inference and/or rely on unspoken premises (which not all might agree with).In particular, political issues as spun to the mainstream press are often riddled with error,even though there are usually reasonable arguments on both sides which policy-makers and courts debate.

Got questions? Get instant answers now!

[Practice problem solution provided.]

An acquaintance says the following to you:

Chris claims knowledge is more important than grades. But she spent yesterday doing an extra-credit assignmentwhich she already knew how to do. Therefore, she's a hypocrite and deserves no respect.

Regardless of whether the premises and conclusion are true,show that the argument is not, by showing it doesn't hold for all domains.Replace

knowledge
and
grades
with expressions which give you true premises, but a false conclusion(or at least, what most reasonable people would consider false).
Exaggerate
knowledge
to something more important, and
grades
to something less important.

Terry claims that encouraging human-rights is more important than playing Tetris.But Terry played Tetris yesterday rather than volunteering with Amnesty International .
Most people wouldn't condemn Terry as a hypocrite just because of this; even the most dedicated of people areentitled to some free time. If your friend wants to prove Terry hypocritical,they'll have to provide further evidence or arguments.

Or similarly,

Politician X claims to support science funding, but voted against a proposal to shift all Medicare funds to NASA.

Got questions? Get instant answers now!

Get Jobilize Job Search Mobile App in your pocket Now!

Get it on Google Play Download on the App Store Now




Source:  OpenStax, Intro to logic. OpenStax CNX. Jan 29, 2008 Download for free at http://cnx.org/content/col10154/1.20
Google Play and the Google Play logo are trademarks of Google Inc.

Notification Switch

Would you like to follow the 'Intro to logic' conversation and receive update notifications?

Ask