Philosophy 2 – Logic Class Notes

IV. Tautologies, Contradictions and Contingent Statements

The construction of a truth table tells us that a compound statement as been formed may either
be true or falls depending on the truth or falsity of the component statements. However, some
compound statements are true under all possible combinations of truth-values of their components
statements. Such statements are called tautologies, the statement that are said to be “logically true,”
“necessarily true,” or “true as a matter of logical necessity.” Let us take for example the statement
“Either Manilea is the capital of the Philippines or Manila is not the capital of the Philippines. Following
such statement we may have the form p v ∼p. To put this into a truth table, what we can have is:

C ∼C C v ∼C
T F T
F T T

In a more complex case, the tautological character of a given statement may not be all obvious,
but may be demonstrated by the use of a truth table. For instance, if the statement is (p v q) v (∼p v
∼q), we can have our truth table as:

p q ∼p ∼q pvq ∼p v ∼q (p v q) v (∼p v ∼q)

T T F F T F T
T F F T T T T
F T T F T T T
F F T T F T T

Moreover, there are compound statements that are false under all possible combinations of
truth and falsity of their component statements. These statements are called contradictions. Such
statements are said to be “logically false,” necessarily false,” or false are a matter of logical necessity.”
An example of this statement is p • ∼p, which can be placed in the following table.

p ∼p p •∼p
T F F
F T F

A more complex example of a contradiction is any statement of the form (p v q) • (∼p • ∼q)
which can be placed in the following truth table:

p q ∼p ∼q pvq ∼p •∼q (p v q) • (∼p •∼q)

T T F F T F F
T F F T T F F
F T T F T F F
F F T T F T F

36
Philosophy 2 – Logic Class Notes

Meanwhile, the statement that is neither a tautology nor contradiction is called contingent
statement, i.e. a statement that may be either true or false depending on the truth values of its
component statements. It is important to take not that every statement is a tautology, a contradiction
or a contingent statements.

V. Method of Deduction and Nine Rules of Inference

In theory, truth tables are adequate to test the validity of any argument. But in practice, they
grow unwieldy as the number of component statement increase. In such a case, we have to use a more
efficient method in order to establish the validity of an extended argument through the method of
deduction. This is done by deducing the conclusion from its premises by a sequence of elementary
arguments wherein each argument is considered valid. Let us consider this argument:

RF
(R • F)  B
(R  B)  T
∼TvE \ E

In this argument, we are not certain whether the conclusion derived is valid or not. To be able to
ascertain its validity, we should refer to the Nine Rules of Inference, which can support the valid flow of
this argument and ultimately, the derivation of conclusion.

The Rules of Inference

1. Modus Ponens (M. P.)

pq
p
/ q
“Given a conditional and antecedent of that conditional, you are permitted to infer the
consequent of the conditional.”

E.g. (A v B)  ∼C
(A v B)
/ ∼C

2. Modus Tollens (M.T.)

pq
∼q
/ ∼p

37
Philosophy 2 – Logic Class Notes

“Given a conditional and negation of the consequent of the conditional, you are permitted to
infer the negation of the antecedent of that conditional.

E.g.
(J • G)  D
∼D
/∼(J • G)

3. Hypothetical Syllogism (H.S.)

pq
qr
/ p  r

“Given the conditionals in which the consequent of the first is identical to the antecedent of
the second, you may infer the conditional whose antecedent is the antecedent of the first and whose
consequent is the consequent of the second.”

E.g.
(A v B)  (C • D)
(C • D)  (∼E • F)
/  (A v B)  (∼E • F)

4. Disjunctive Syllogism pvq pvq pvq pvq

∼p ∼q p q
/q /p /∼q /∼p

“Given a disjunction and negation of one of the disjuncts, you may infer the other disjunct.”

E.g.
[∼A v (B  C)] v ∼D
∼ [∼A v (B  C)]
/  ∼D

5. Simplification
p•q p•q
/q /p
“From a conjunction as premise, we may infer either of the conjuncts separately as a
conclusion.”

38
Philosophy 2 – Logic Class Notes

E.g. [(A • B)  ∼ (C v D)] • (F v ∼H)

/  (F v ∼H)

6. Conjunction
p
q
/pq

“Given two statements, we may infer their conjuction.”

E.g.
(I v H) The flood is high
K Classes are suspended
/  (I v H)  K The flood is high and classes are suspended.

7. Addition p q
/pvq /qvp

“Given any statement, you may infer any disjunction that includes that statement as one
of the disjuncts.”

E.g.
US Ted stole John’s wallet
/  (U  S) v (T  B) Either Ted or Bill stole John’s wallet.

8. Dillema Constructive pq Destructive

pq
rs rs
pvr ∼q v ∼s
/qvs /  ∼p v ∼r

“Given two conditionals and the disjunction of the antecedents of those conditionals, we may
infer the disjunction of the consequences of the conditionals.”

E.g. [((A v B)  C)  (D v F)]

[(F  G)  (A  F)]
[((A v B)  C) v (F  G)]
/ (D v F) v (A  F)

39
Philosophy 2 – Logic Class Notes

9. Absorption
pq
/ p  (p  q)

“Given the conditional as premise, you can conclude the conjunction of both antecedent and
consequent as the whole consequent of the conclusion.”

E.g.
(R v F)  (T v Y) If it rains, then the ground is wet.
/ (R v F)  [(R v F)  (T v Y)] If it rains, then it rains and the ground is wet.

Proofs of Validity

We can construct the proofs of validity for the abovementioned argument by referring to the
rules of inference.
RF
(R • F)  B
(R  B)  T
∼TvE \ E
In doing the proofs of validity, the argument should be numbered in such a way that the
numbers after the conclusion are the valid proofs.
1. R  F
2. (R • F)  B
3. (R  B)  T
4. ∼ T v E \ E
5. R  (R  F) 1, Absorption
The first possible proof that we can deduce is the premise no. 1, which can be applied with
absorption to arrive at its conclusion for the 5th item.
6. R  B 5, 2 Hypothetical Syllogism
Numbers 5 and 2 can be applied with the rules for Hypothetical syllogism in order to arrive at
the conclusion in number 6.
7. T 3,6 Modus Ponens
T is the result of numbers 3 and 6 following the rules for Modus Ponens.
8. E 4, 7 Disjunctive Syllogism
E is the consistent conclusion in the original argument as well as in the proofs of validity (Nos. 5-
8). It is the result of the disjunctive syllogism between items 4 and 7. Hence, the argument is valid for it
is proved under the rules of inference.

40
Philosophy 2 – Logic Class Notes

1. AB
2. BC
3. CD
4. ∼D
5. AvE / E

In the next argument, we shall try to look for the possible proofs that we can deduce in order to
prove the validity of the conclusion and the whole argument.
6. A  C 1, 2 Hypothetical Syllogism
A  C is the result of pairing up nos. 1 and 2 which is a hypothetical syllogism
7. A  D 6, 3 Hypothetical Syllogism
A  D is the conclusion derived from the hypothetical syllogism between nos. 6 and 3.
8. ∼A 7, 4 Modus Tollens
When we try to put together Nos. 7 and 4, it is Modus Tollens and derives ∼A as a conclusion.
9. E 5, 8, Disjunctive Syllogism
Finally, nos. 5 and 8 are disjunctive syllogism which deduces a conclusion in no. 9, E. Hence the
argument is valid.

41