Introduction to Logic

Sample Final Exam

The rules of Replacement and Quantifier use are at the end.

For #1-3, write at least two paragraphsthorough discussion that shows genuine
knowledge.
1. What is an argument? Choose two non-argument forms of speech that might be
confused with arguments, and explicate how arguments are really quite different from
them. Explicate the difference between the two families of arguments at length, using
and clarifying all the basic terminology needed to make this clear. (6 pts)
2. Explain what a counter-example is, what it does, and how it does it. Take care to
correctly differentiate between the use of valid and true. Give an example of a
counter-example; first give an example of an invalid argument (either in propositional or
categorical logic). (6 pts)
3. Thoroughly explicate what truth tables can tell us about a) individual statements, b)
sets of statements, and c) arguments. Then put the following argument into propositional
notation, and fill in the eight-line truth table. Report what you can about a) the individual
statements (each one by itself) b) the total set of statements (i.e., what can be said about
them in relation to each other, and c) the argument. Make sure you are clear and your
answer is complete. Either youre with us or youre against us. If youre with us, youre
a patriot, but if youre against us, youre a terrorist, so youre either a patriot or a
terrorist.
(12 pts)
4. List four conclusion-indicating and four premise-indicating words. From each set,
identify a word that is not always an argument indicator, and explicate (write a few
sentences) why it is not always a logical indicator. (3 pts)
5. Identify the fallacy in each passage. You can get credit for only one fallacy per
passage --that means do not provide more than one fallacy or you will get no credit.
Support your answer in a complete sentence or two, which includes a definition of the
fallacy, and write out the conclusion of each passage. (15 points)
A. The last three times we sat down for a fancy dinner, my mother called. We
havent heard from her in a while, and I wonder how shes doing. Why dont we have a
fancy dinner tonight and Im sure well hear from her?
B. When a car breaks down so often that repairs become pointless, it is thrown on
the junk heap. Likewise, when a person becomes too old and sick, he should just be put to
death.
C. The universe is spherical in form because all the constituent parts of the universe,
that is the sun, the moon, and the planets, appear in this form. --Copernicus, "The New Idea
of the Universe"

D. We know that what the Bible says is true, because it is the word of God, and we
know its the word of God because it says so right there in the Bible.
E. Mr. Larme, a noted defense lawyer, wins his cases by crying in court while
pleading his clients' cases to the jury. This sort of thing --swaying people by such blatant
appeals to their sense of pity-- is unfair and despicably low. You just can't trust lawyers.
6. Analyze these in Categorical Logic. Be thorough, cover every step on the way to
showing whether each is valid or not: a) translation to standard form, b) correct order,
c) mood and figure, d) Venn diagram, e) rule broken if invalid, f) counterexample (12
pts)
A. Of course every club member can vote. Here are the rules: everyone who can
vote subscribes to the newsletter, and youre automatically a subscriber if youre a
member of the club.
B. No one who misses weeks of class expects to get a good grade, so Adam
doesnt expect a good grade. (What is this kind of argument called?)

7. Write a proof for this using Indirect Proof. (6 pts)

1. ~ (T . ~P) ~G
2. (S v T) J
3. G
/ J
8. Use CP to write a proof for this one. (6 pts)
1. P [(L v M) (O . N)]
2. (T v O) W
/ P (M W)
9. Translate these into the notation of Predicate Logic. (9 pts)
A. Only registered voters will be given a ballot, and Joes not registered.
B. A categorical syllogism is invalid if it breaks a rule, and if it doesnt break a rule, its
valid.
C. If there are no legumes in the garden, and beans and peas are legumes, then there are
no beans or peas in the garden.

10. Translate this and write a proof in Predicate Logic. (10 pts)
All ambassadors are diplomats. Furthermore, any experienced ambassador is
cautious, and all cautious diplomats have foresight. Therefore all
experienced ambassadors have foresight.

11. Using the predicates indicated, write this out as a word problem in
colloquial English. (5 pts)
A = is alright
W= is worried
H = is happy
P = is a person
1. (x) Ax > (x) (Px > Hx)
2. (x) [(Px . Wx) > ~Hx]
3. (Pa . Pb) . (Wa . Wb)

/ (x) ~Ax

Write a proof for it (in symbols, not in English), using CQ (not CP!). (5
pts)

12. (5 pts)
Either (a) Put each of these pairs into English:
(x) Fx :: ~(x) ~Fx
(x)~Fx :: ~(x) Fx
(x) Fx :: ~(x)~ Fx
(x)~Fx :: ~(x) Fx
Or (b) Write a proof for this one :
1. (x) (Ax v Bx) ~(x) Ax

/ (x) ~Ax

Rules:
Removing or adding quantifiers.
UI
--Universal Instantiation
(x) (Ax > Bx)
--------------------Ax > Bx or Aa > Ba
UG --Universal Generalization
Ax > Bx
not allowed: Aa > Ba
------------------------(x) (Ax > Bx)
(x) (Ax > Bx)

CQ: Change of Quantifier

(x) Fx :: ~(x) ~Fx

(x)~Fx :: ~(x) Fx

(x) Fx :: ~(x)~ Fx

(x)~Fx :: ~(x) Fx

EI

--Existential Instantiation
Not allowed: (x) (Ax . Bx)
(x) (Ax . Bx)
-----------------------------------Ax . Bx
Aa . Ba
Only instantiate to a name.
Restriction: The name must be a new name
EG --Existential Generalization
Aa . Ba or Ax . Bx
--------------------(x) (Ax . Bx)

Rules of Equivalence/ Replacement

DN
p :: ~~p
CM (p . q) :: (q . p)
(p v q) :: (q v p)
AS
((p . q) . r) :: (p . ( q . r)) ((p v q) v r) :: (p v (q v r))
DM ~(p v q) :: (~p . ~q)
~(p .q) :: (~p v ~q)
DIST (p v (q . r)) :: ((p v q) . (p v r))
(p . (q v r)) :: ((p . q) v (p . r))
TRAN (p > q) :: (~q > ~p)
IMP (p v q) :: (~p > q)
EQ
(p q) :: ((p > q) . (q > p)) (p q) :: ((p . q) v (~p . ~q))
EXP (p > (q > r)) :: ((p . q) > r)
TAUT (p v p) :: p
(p . p) :: p