VALIDITY IN

SENTENTIAL LOGIC

1. Tautologies, Contradictions, and Contingent Formulas..................................62

2. Implication And Equivalence..........................................................................64
3. Validity in Sentential Logic ............................................................................66
4. Testing Arguments in Sentential Logic...........................................................67
5. The Relation Between Validity and Implication.............................................71
6. Exercises for Chapter 3 ...................................................................................74
7. Answers to Exercises for Chapter 3 ................................................................76
62 Hardegree, Symbolic Logic

1. TAUTOLOGIES, CONTRADICTIONS, AND CONTINGENT

FORMULAS
In Chapter 2 we saw how to construct the truth table for any formula in sen-
tential logic. In doing the exercises, you may have noticed that in some cases the
final (output) column has all T's, in other cases the final column has all F's, and in
still other cases the final column has a mixture of T's and F's. There are special
names for formulas with these particular sorts of truth tables, which are
summarized in the following definitions.

A formula A is a tautology
if and only if
the truth table of A is such that
every entry in the final column is T.

A formula A is a contradiction
if and only if
the truth table of A is such that
every entry in the final column is F.

A formula A is a contingent formula

if and only if
A is neither a tautology nor a contradiction.

The following are examples of each of these types of formulas.

A Tautology:
P ∨ ~ P
T T F T
F T T F

A Contradiction:
P & ~ P
T F F T
F F T F

A Contingent Formula:
P → ~ P
T F F T
F T T F

In each example, the final column is shaded. In the first example, the final column
consists entirely of T's, so the formula is a tautology; in the second example, the
final column consists entirely of F's, so the formula is a contradiction; in the third
example, the final column consists of a mixture of T's and F's, so the formula is
contingent.
Chapter 3: Validity in Sentential Logic 63

Given the above definitions, and given the truth table for negation, we have
the following theorems.

If a formula A is a tautology, then its negation ~A is a

contradiction.

If a formula A is a contradiction, then its negation ~A

is a tautology.

If a formula A is contingent, then its negation ~A is

also contingent.

By way of illustrating these theorems, we consider the three formulas cited earlier.
In particular, we write down the truth tables for their negations.
~( P ∨ ~ P )
F T T F T
F F T T F

~( P & ~ P )
T T F F T
T F F T F

~( P → ~ P )
T T F F T
F F T T F

Once again, the final column of each formula is shaded; the first formula is a con-
tradiction, the second is a tautology, the third is contingent.
64 Hardegree, Symbolic Logic

2. IMPLICATION AND EQUIVALENCE

We can use the notion of tautology to define two very important notions in
sentential logic, the notion of implication, and the notion of equivalence, which are
defined as follows.

Formula A logically implies formula B

if and only if
the conditional formula A→B is a tautology.

Formulas A and B are logically equivalent

if and only if
the biconditional formula A↔B is a tautology.

[Note: The above definitions apply specifically to sentential logic. A more general
definition is required for other branches of logic. Once we have a more general
definition, it is customary to refer to the special cases as tautological implication
and tautological equivalence.]
Let us illustrate these concepts with a few examples. To begin with, we note
that whereas the formula ~P logically implies the formula ~(P&Q), the converse is
not true; i.e., ~(P&Q) does not logically imply ~P). This can be shown by con-
structing truth tables for the associated pair of conditionals. In particular, the ques-
tion whether ~P implies ~(P&Q) reduces to the question whether the formula
~P→~(P&Q) is a tautology. The following is the truth table for this formula.
~ P → ~( P & Q)
F T T F T T T
F T T T T F F
T F T T F F T
T F T T F F F

Notice that the conditional ~P→~(P&Q) is a tautology, so we conclude that its an-
tecedent logically implies its consequent; that is, ~P logically implies ~(P&Q).
Considering the converse implication, the question whether ~(P&Q) logically
implies ~P reduces to the question whether the conditional formula ~(P&Q)→~P
is a tautology. The truth table follows.
~ ( P & Q )→ ~ P
F T T T T F T
T T F F F F T
T F F T T T F
T F F F T T F

The formula is false in the second case, so it is not a tautology. We conclude that
its antecedent does not imply its consequent; that is, ~(P&Q) does not imply ~P.
Chapter 3: Validity in Sentential Logic 65

Next, we turn to logical equivalence. As our first example, we ask whether

~(P&Q) and ~P&~Q are logically equivalent. According to the definition of logi-
cal equivalence, this reduces to the question whether the biconditional formula
~(P&Q)↔(~P&~Q) is a tautology. Its truth table is given as follows.
~ ( P & Q )↔( ~ P & ~ Q)
F T T T T F T F F T
T T F F F F T F T F
T F F T F T F F F T
T F F F T T F T T F
* *

In this table, the truth value of the biconditional is shaded, whereas the constituents
are marked by ‘*’. Notice that the biconditional is false in cases 2 and 3, so it is not
a tautology. We conclude that the two constituents – ~(P&Q) and ~P&~Q – are
not logically equivalent.
As our second example, we ask whether ~(P&Q) and ~P∨~Q are logically
equivalent. As before, this reduces to the question whether the biconditional for-
mula ~(P&Q)↔(~P∨~Q) is a tautology. Its truth table is given as follows.
~ ( P & Q )↔( ~ P ∨ ~ Q )
F T T T T F T F F T
T T F F T F T T T F
T F F T T T F T F T
T F F F T T F T T F
* *
Once again, the biconditional is shaded, and the constituents are marked by
‘*’. Comparing the two *-columns, we see they are the same in every case; ac-
cordingly, the shaded column is true in every case, which is to say that the
biconditional formula is a tautology. We conclude that the two constituents –
~(P&Q) and ~P∨~Q – are logically equivalent.
We conclude this section by citing a theorem about the relation between im-
plication and equivalence.

Formulas A and B are logically equivalent

if and only if
A logically implies B
and
B logically implies A.

This follows from the fact that A↔B is logically equivalent to

(A→B)&(B→A), and the fact that two formulas A and B are tautologies if and
only if the conjunction A&B is a tautology.
66 Hardegree, Symbolic Logic

3. VALIDITY IN SENTENTIAL LOGIC

Recall that an argument is valid if and only if it is impossible for the premises
to be true while the conclusion is false; equivalently, it is impossible for the
premises to be true without the conclusion also being true. Possibility and impos-
sibility are difficult to judge in general. However, in case of sentential logic, we
may judge them by reference to truth tables. This is based on the following
definition of ‘impossible’, relative to logic.

To say that it is impossible that S is to say that there is

no case in which S.

Here, ø is any statement. the sort of statement we are interested in is the following.
S: the premises of argument A are all true, and the conclusion is false.
Substituting this statement for S in the above definition, we obtain the following.

To say that it is impossible that {the premises of argu-

ment A are all true, and the conclusion is false} is to say
that there is no case in which {the premises of ar-
gument A are all true, and the conclusion is false}.

This is slightly complicated, but it is the basis for defining validity in

sentential logic. The following is the resulting definition.

An argument A is valid
if and only if
there is no case in which
the premises are true
and the conclusion is false.

This definition is acceptable provided that we know what "cases" are. This
term has already arisen in the previous chapter. In the following, we provide the
official definition.

The cases relevant to an argument A are precisely all

the possible combinations of truth values that can be
assigned to the atomic formulas (P, Q, R, etc.), as a
group, that constitute the argument.

By way of illustration, consider the following sentential argument form.

Example 1
(a1) P → Q
~Q
/ ~P
Chapter 3: Validity in Sentential Logic 67

In this argument form, there are two atomic formulas – P, Q – so the possible cases
relevant to (a1) consist of all the possible combinations of truth values that can be
assigned to P and Q. These are enumerated as follows.
P Q
case 1 T T
case 2 T F
case 3 F T
case 4 F F

As a further illustration, consider the following sentential argument form, which

involves three atomic formulas – P, Q, R.

Example 2
(a2) P → Q
Q→R
/P→R
The possible combinations of truth values that can be assigned to P, Q, R are given
as follows.
P Q R
case 1 T T T
case 2 T T F
case 3 T F T
case 4 T F F
case 5 F T T
case 6 F T F
case 7 F F T
case 8 F F F

Notice that in constructing this table, the T's and F's are alternated in quadruples in
the P column, in pairs in the Q column, and singly in the R column. Also notice
that, in general, if there are n atomic formulas, then there are 2n cases.

4. TESTING ARGUMENTS IN SENTENTIAL LOGIC

In the previous section, we noted that an argument is valid if and only if there
is no case in which the premises are true and the conclusion is false. We also noted
that the cases in sentential logic are the possible combinations of truth values that
can be assigned to the atomic formulas (letters) in an argument.
In the present section, we use these ideas to test sentential argument forms for
validity and invalidity.
68 Hardegree, Symbolic Logic

The first thing we do is adopt a new method of displaying argument forms.

Our present method is to display arguments in vertical lists, where the conclusion is
at the bottom. In combination with truth tables, this is inconvenient, so we will
henceforth write argument forms in horizontal lists. For example, the argument
forms from earlier may be displayed as follows.
(a1) P → Q ; ~Q/~P
(a2) P → Q ; Q → R/P → R
In (a1) and (a2), the premises are separated by a semi-colon (;), and the conclusion
is marked of by a forward slash (/). If there are three premises, then they are
separated by two semi-colons; if there are four premises, then they are separated by
three semi-colons, etc.
Using our new method of displaying argument forms, we can form multiple
truth tables. Basically, a multiple truth table is a collection of truth tables that all
use the same guide table. This may be illustrated in reference to argument form
(a1).
GuideTable: Argument:
P Q P → Q ; ~ Q / ~ P
case 1 T T T T T F T F T
case 2 T F T F F T F F T
case 3 F T F T T F T T F
case 4 F F F T F T F T F

In the above table, the three formulas of the argument are written side by side,
and their truth tables are placed beneath them. In each case, the final (output) col-
umn is shaded. Notice the following. If we were going to construct the truth table
for ~Q by itself, then there would only be two cases to consider. But in relation to
the whole collection of formulas, in which there are two atomic formulas – P and Q
– there are four cases to consider in all. This is a property of multiple truth tables
that makes them different from individual truth tables. Nevertheless, we can look
at a multiple truth table simply as a set of several truth tables all put together. So in
the above case, there are three truth tables, one for each formula, which all use the
same guide table.
The above collection of formulas is not merely a collection; it is also an argu-
ment (form). So we can ask whether it is valid or invalid. According to our defini-
tion an argument is valid if and only if there is no case in which the premises are all
true but the conclusion is false.
Let's examine the above (multiple) truth table to see whether there are any
cases in which the premises are both true and the conclusion is false. The shaded
columns are the only columns of interest at this point, so we simply extract them to
form the following table.
Chapter 3: Validity in Sentential Logic 69

P Q P→Q ; ~Q / ~P
case 1 T T T F F
case 2 T F F T F
case 3 F T T F T
case 4 F F T T T

In cases 1 through 3, one of the premises is false, so they won't do. In case 4, both
the premises are true, but the conclusion is also true, so this case won't do either.
Thus, there is no case in which the premises are all true and the conclusion is false.
To state things equivalently, every case in which the premises are all true is also a
case in which the conclusion is true. On the basis of this, we conclude that
argument (a1) is valid.
Whereas argument (a1) is valid, the following similar looking argument
(form) is not valid.
(a3) P → Q
~P
/ ~Q
The following is a concrete argument with this form.
(c3) if Bush is president, then the president is a U.S. citizen;
Bush is not president;
/ the president is not a U.S. citizen.
Observe that (c3) as the form (a3), that (c3) has all true premises, that (c3) has a
false conclusion. In other words, (c3) is a counterexample to (a3); indeed, (c3) is a
counterexample to any argument with the same form. It follows that (a3) is not
valid; it is invalid.
This is one way to show that (a3) is invalid. We can also show that it is
invalid using truth tables. To show that (a3) is invalid, we show that there is a case
(line) in which the premises are both true but the conclusion is false. The following
is the (multiple) truth table for argument (a3).
P Q P → Q ; ~ P / ~ Q
case 1 T T T T T F T F T
case 2 T F T F F F T T F
case 3 F T F T T T F F T
case 4 F F F T F T F T F

In deciding whether the argument form is valid or invalid, we look for a case in
which the premises are all true and the conclusion is false. In the above truth table,
cases 1 and 2 do not fill the bill, since the premises are not both true. In case 4, the
premises are both true, but the conclusion is also true, so case 4 doesn't fill the bill
either. On the other hand, in case 3 the premises are both true, and the conclusion
is false. Thus, there is a case in which the premises are all true and the conclusion
is false (namely, the 3rd case). On this basis, we conclude that argument (a3) is
invalid.
70 Hardegree, Symbolic Logic

Note carefully that case 3 in the above truth table demonstrates that argument
(a3) is invalid; one case is all that is needed to show invalidity. But this is not to
say that the argument is valid in the other three cases. This does not make any
sense, for the notions of validity and invalidity do not apply to the individual cases,
but to all the cases taken all together.
Having considered a couple of simple examples, let us now examine a couple
of examples that are somewhat more complicated.
P Q P →( ~ P ∨ Q) ; ~ P →Q ; Q→ P / P & Q
1 T T T T F T T T F T T T T T T T T T
2 T F T F F T F F F T T F F T T T F F
3 F T F T T F T T T F T T T F F F F T
4 F F F T T F T F T F F F F T F F F F

In this example, the argument has three premises, but it only involves two atomic
formulas (P, Q), so there are four cases to consider. What we are looking for is at
least one case in which the premises are all true and the conclusion is false. As
usual the final (output) columns are shaded, and these are the only columns that
interest us. If we extract them from the above table, we obtain the following.
P Q P→(~P∨Q) ; ~P→Q ; Q→P / P&Q
1 T T T T T T
2 T F F T T F
3 F T T T F F
4 F F T F T F

In case 1, the premises are all true, but so is the conclusion. In each of the
remaining cases (2-4), the conclusion is false, but in each of these cases, at least
one premise is also false. Thus, there is no case in which the premises are all true
and the conclusion is false. From this we conclude that the argument is valid.
The final example we consider is an argument that involves three atomic for-
mulas (letters). There are accordingly 8 cases to consider, not just four as in previ-
ous examples.
P Q R P ∨ (Q→ R) ; P →~ R / ~(Q & ~ R)
1 T T T T T T T T T F F T T T F F T
2 T T F T T T F F T T T F F T T T F
3 T F T T T F T T T F F T T F F F T
4 T F F T T F T F T T T F T F F T F
5 F T T F T T T T F T F T T T F F T
6 F T F F F T F F F T T F F T T T F
7 F F T F T F T T F T F T T F F F T
8 F F F F T F T F F T T F T F F T F

As usual, the shaded columns are the ones that we are interested in as far as decid-
ing the validity or invalidity of this argument. We are looking for a case in which
the premises are all true and the conclusion is false. So in particular, we are look-
Chapter 3: Validity in Sentential Logic 71

ing for a case in which the conclusion is false. There are only two such cases –
case 2 and case 6; the remaining question is whether the premises both true in
either of these cases. In case 6, the first premise is false, but in case 2, the premises
are both true. This is exactly what we are looking for – a case with all true
premises and a false conclusion. Since such a case exists, as shown by the above
truth table, we conclude that the argument is invalid.

5. THE RELATION BETWEEN VALIDITY AND

IMPLICATION
Let us begin this section by recalling some earlier definitions. In Section 1,
we noted that a formula A is a tautology if and only if it is true in every case. We
can describe this by saying that a tautology is a formula that is true no matter what.
By contrast, a contradiction is a formula that is false in every case, or false no
matter what. Between these two extremes contingent formulas, which are true
under some circumstances but false under others.
Next, in Section 2, we noted that a formula A logically implies (or simply
implies) a formula B if and only if the conditional formula A→B is a tautology.
The notion of implication is intimately associated with the notion of validity.
This may be illustrated first using the simplest example – an argument with just one
premise. Consider the following argument form.
(a1) ~P /~(P&Q)
You might read this as saying that: it is not true that P; so it is not true that P&Q.
On the other hand, consider the conditional formed by taking the premise as the
antecedent, and the conclusion as the consequent.
(c1) ~P → ~(P&Q)
As far as the symbols are concerned, all we have done is to replace the ‘/’ by ‘→’.
The resulting conditional may be read as saying that: if it is not true that P, then it
is not true that P&Q.
There seems to be a natural relation between (a1) and (c1), though it is clearly
not the relation of identity. Whereas (a1) is a pair of formulas, (c1) is a single for-
mula. Nevertheless they are intimately related, as can be seen by constructing the
respective truth tables.
P Q ~ P / ~( P & Q) ~ P →~( P & Q)
1 T T F T F T T T F T T F T T T
2 T F F T T T F F F T T T T F F
3 F T T F T F F T T F T T F F T
4 F F T F T F F F T F T T F F F

We now have two truth tables side by side, one for the argument ~P/~(P&Q), the
other for the conditional ~P→~(P&Q).
72 Hardegree, Symbolic Logic

Let's look at the conditional first. The third column is the final (output) col-
umn, and it has all T's, so we conclude that this formula is a tautology. In other
words, no matter what, if it is not true that P, then it is not true that P&Q.
This is reflected in the corresponding argument to the left. In looking for a
case that serves as a counterexample, we notice that every case in which the
premise is true so is the conclusion. Thus, the argument is valid.
This can be stated as a general principle.

Argument P/C is valid

if and only if
the conditional formula P→C is a tautology.

Since, by definition, a formula P implies a formula C if and only if the conditional

P→C is a tautology, this principle can be restated as follows.

Argument P/C is valid

if and only if
the premise P logically implies the conclusion C.

In order to demonstrate the truth of this principle, we can argue as follows. Sup-
pose that the argument P/C is not valid. Then there is a case (call it case n) in
which P is true but C is false. Consequently, in the corresponding truth table for
the conditional P→C, there is a case (namely, case n) in which P is true and C is
false. Accordingly, in case n, the truth value of P→C is T→F, i.e.,, F. It follows
that P→C is not a tautology, so P does not imply C.
This demonstrates that if P/C is not valid, then P→C is not a tautology. We
also have to show the converse conditional: if P→C is not a tautology, then P/C is
not valid. Well, suppose that P→C isn't a tautology. Then there is a case in which
P→C is false. But a conditional is false if and only if its antecedent is true and its
consequent is false. So there is a case in which P is true but C is false. It immedi-
ately follows that P/C is not valid. This completes our argument.
[Note: What we have in fact demonstrated is this: the argument P/C is not valid if
and only if the conditional P→C is not a tautology. This statement has the form:
~V↔~T. The student should convince him(her)self that ~V↔~T is equivalent
to V↔T, which is to say that (~V↔~T)↔(V↔T) is a tautology.]
The above principle about validity and implication is not particularly useful
because not many arguments have just one premise. It would be nice if there were
a comparable principle that applied to arguments with two premises, arguments
with three premises, in general to all arguments. There is such a principle.
What we have to do is to form a single formula out of an argument irrespec-
tive of how many premises it has. The particular formula we use begins with the
premises, next forms a conjunction out of all these, next takes this conjunction and
makes a conditional with it as the antecedent and the conclusion as the consequent.
The following examples illustrate this technique.
Chapter 3: Validity in Sentential Logic 73

Argument Associated conditional:

(1) P1; P2/C (P1 & P2) → C
(2) P1; P2; P3/C (P1 & P2 & P3) → C
(3) P1; P2; P3; P4/C (P1 & P2 & P3 & P4) → C

In each case, we take the argument, first conjoin the premises, and then form the
conditional with this conjunction as its antecedent and with the conclusion as its
consequent. Notice that the above formulas are not strictly speaking formulas,
since the parentheses are missing in connection with the ampersands. The removal
of the extraneous parentheses is comparable to writing ‘x+y+z+w’ in place of the
strictly correct ‘((x+y)+z)+z’.
Having described how to construct a conditional formula on the basis of an
argument, we can now state the principle that relates these two notions.

An argument A is valid
if and only if
the associated conditional is a tautology.

In virtue of the relation between implication and tautologies, this principle can be
restated as follows.

Argument P1;P2;...Pn/C is valid

if and only if
the conjunction P1&P2&...&Pn
logically implies
the conclusion C.

The interested reader should try to convince him(her)self that this principle is
true, at least in the case of two premises. The argument proceeds like the earlier
one, except that one has to take into account the truth table for conjunction (in
particular, P&Q can be true only if both P and Q are true).
74 Hardegree, Symbolic Logic

6. EXERCISES FOR CHAPTER 3

EXERCISE SET A
Go back to Exercise Set 2C in Chapter 2. For each formula, say whether it is a
tautology, a contradiction, or a contingent formula.

EXERCISE SET B
In each of the following, you are given a pair generically denoted A, B. In each
case, answer the following questions:
(1) Does A logically imply B?
(2) Does B logically imply A?
(3) Are A and B logically equivalent?
1. A: ~(P&Q) 13. A: P→Q
B: ~P&~Q B: ~P→~Q
2. A: ~(P&Q) 14. A: P→Q
B: ~P∨~Q B: ~Q→~P
3. A: ~(P∨Q) 15. A: P→Q
B: ~P∨~Q B: ~P∨Q
4. A: ~(P∨Q) 16. A: P→Q
B: ~P&~Q B: ~(P&~Q)
5. A: ~(P→Q) 17. A: ~P
B: ~P→~Q B: ~(P&Q)
6. A: ~(P→Q) 18. A: ~P
B: P&~Q B: ~(P∨Q)
7. A: ~(P↔Q) 19. A: ~(P↔Q)
B: ~P↔~Q B: (P&Q) → R
8. A: ~(P↔Q) 20. A: (P&Q) → R
B: P↔~Q B: P→R
9. A: ~(P↔Q) 21. A: (P∨Q) → R
B: ~P↔Q B: P→R
10. A: P↔Q 22. A: (P&Q)→R
B: (P&Q) & (Q→P) B: P → (Q→R)
11. A: P↔Q 23. A: P → (Q&R)
B: (P→Q) & (Q→P) B: P→Q
12. A: P→Q 24. A: P → (Q∨R)
B: Q→P B: P→Q
Chapter 3: Validity in Sentential Logic 75

EXERCISE SET C
In each of the following, you are given an argument form from sentential logic,
splayed horizontally. In each case, use the method of truth tables to decide whether
the argument form is valid or invalid. Explain your answer.
1. P→Q; P / Q 19. P∨~Q; P∨Q / P
2. P→Q; Q / P 20. P→Q; P∨Q / P↔Q
3. P→Q; ~Q / ~P 21. ~(P→Q); P→~P / ~P&~Q
4. P→Q; ~P / ~Q 22. ~(P&Q); ~Q→P / P
5. P∨Q; ~P / Q 23. P→Q; Q→R / P→R
6. P∨Q; P / ~Q 24. P→Q; Q→R; ~P→R / R
7. ~(P&Q); P / ~Q 25. P→Q; Q→R / P&R
8. ~(P&Q); ~P / Q 26. P→Q; Q→R; R→P / P↔R
9. P↔Q; ~P / ~Q 27. P→Q; Q→R / R
10. P↔Q; Q / P 28. P→R; Q→R / (P∨Q)→R
11. P∨Q; P→Q / Q 29. P→Q; P→R / Q&R
12. P∨Q; P→Q / P&Q 30. P∨Q; P→R; Q→R / R
13. P→Q; P→~Q / ~P 31. P→Q; Q→R; R→~P / ~P
14. P→Q; ~P→Q / Q 32. P→(Q∨R); Q&R / ~P
15. P∨Q; ~P→~Q / P&Q 33. P→(Q&R); Q→~R / ~P
16. P→Q; ~P→~Q / P↔Q 34. P&(Q∨R); P→~Q / R
17. ~P→~Q; ~Q→~P / P↔Q 35. P→(Q→R); P&~R / ~Q
18. ~P→~Q; ~Q→~P / P&Q 36. ~P∨Q; R→P; ~(Q&R) / ~R

EXERCISE SET D
Go back to Exercise Set B. In each case, consider the argument A/B, as well as
the converse argument B/A. Thus, there are a total of 48 arguments to consider.
On the basis of your answers for Exercise Set B, decide which of these arguments
are valid and which are invalid.
76 Hardegree, Symbolic Logic

7. ANSWERS TO EXERCISES FOR CHAPTER 3

EXERCISE SET A
1. contingent 14. tautology
2. tautology 15. contradiction
3. contradiction 16. contingent
4. contingent 17. tautology
5. contingent 18. contingent
6. contingent 19. contingent
7. contingent 20. tautology
8. tautology 21. contingent
9. contradiction 22. tautology
10. tautology 23. contingent
11. contradiction 24. tautology
12. contingent 25. tautology
13. tautology

EXERCISE SET B
#1.
A: B:
~ ( P & Q ) ~ P & ~ Q A → B B → A
F T T T F T F F T F T F F T F
T T F F F T F T F T F F F T T
T F F T T F F F T T F F F T T
T F F F T F T T F T T T T T T
Does A logically imply B? NO
Does B logically imply A? YES
Are A and B logically equivalent? NO
#2.
A: B:
~ ( P & Q ) ~ P ∨ ~ Q A → B B → A
F T T T F T F F T F T F F T F
T T F F F T T T F T T T T T T
T F F T T F T F T T T T T T T
T F F F T F T T F T T T T T T
Does A logically imply B? YES
Does B logically imply A? YES
Are A and B logically equivalent? YES
Chapter 3: Validity in Sentential Logic 77

#3.
A: B:
~ ( P ∨ Q ) ~ P ∨ ~ Q A → B B → A
F T T T F T F F T F T F F T F
F T T F F T T T F F T T T F F
F F T T T F T F T F T T T F F
T F F F T F T T F T T T T T T
Does A logically imply B? YES
Does B logically imply A? NO
Are A and B logically equivalent? NO
#4.
A: B:
~ ( P ∨ Q ) ~ P & ~ Q A → B B → A
F T T T F T F F T F T F F T F
F T T F F T F T F F T F F T F
F F T T T F F F T F T F F T F
T F F F T F T T F T T T T T T
Does A logically imply B? YES
Does B logically imply A? YES
Are A and B logically equivalent? YES
#5.
A: B:
~ ( P → Q ) ~ P → ~ Q A → B B → A
F T T T F T T F T F T T T F F
T T F F F T T T F T T T T T T
F F T T T F F F T F T F F T F
F F T F T F T T F F T T T F F
Does A logically imply B? YES
Does B logically imply A? NO
Are A and B logically equivalent? NO
#6.
A: B:
~ ( P → Q ) P & ~ Q A → B B → A
F T T T T F F T F T F F T F
T T F F T T T F T T T T T T
F F T T F F F T F T F F T F
F F T F F F T F F T F F T F
Does A logically imply B? YES
Does B logically imply A? YES
Are A and B logically equivalent? YES
78 Hardegree, Symbolic Logic

#7.
A: B:
~ ( P ↔ Q ) ~ P ↔ ~ Q A → B B → A
F T T T F T T F T F T T T F F
T T F F F T F T F T F F F T T
T F F T T F F F T T F F F T F
F F T F T F T T F F T T T F F
Does A logically imply B? NO
Does B logically imply A? NO
Are A and B logically equivalent? NO
#8.
A: B:
~ ( P ↔ Q ) P ↔ ~ Q A → B B → A
F T T T T F F T F T F F T F
T T F F T T T F T T T T T T
T F F T F T F T T T T T T T
F F T F F F T F F T F F T F
Does A logically imply B? YES
Does B logically imply A? YES
Are A and B logically equivalent? YES
#9.
A: B:
~ ( P ↔ Q ) ~ P ↔ Q A → B B → A
F T T T F T F T F T F F T F
T T F F F T T F T T T T T T
T F F T T F T T T T T T T T
F F T F T F F F F T F F T F
Does A logically imply B? YES
Does B logically imply A? YES
Are A and B logically equivalent? YES
#10.
A: B:
P ↔ Q ( P & Q ) & ( Q → P ) A → B B → A
T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T
T F F T F F F F T T F T F F T F
F F T F F T F T F F F T F F T F
F T F F F F F F T F T F F F T T
Does A logically imply B? NO
Does B logically imply A? YES
Are A and B logically equivalent? NO
Chapter 3: Validity in Sentential Logic 79

#11.
A: B:
P ↔ Q ( P → Q ) & ( Q → P ) A → B B → A
T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T
T F F T F F F F T T F T F F T F
F F T F T T F T F F F T F F T F
F T F F T F T F T F T T T T T T
Does A logically imply B? YES
Does B logically imply A? YES
Are A and B logically equivalent? YES
#12.
A: B:
P → Q Q → P A → B B → A
T T T T T T T T T T T T
T F F F T T F T T T F F
F T T T F F T F F F T F
F T F F T F T T T T T T
Does A logically imply B? NO
Does B logically imply A? NO
Are A and B logically equivalent? NO
#13.
A: B:
P → Q ~ P → ~ Q A → B B → A
T T T F T T F T T T T T T T
T F F F T T T F F T T T F F
F T T T F F F T T F F F T T
F T F T F T T F T T T T T T
Does A logically imply B? NO
Does B logically imply A? NO
Are A and B logically equivalent? NO
#14.
A: B:
P → Q ~ Q → ~ P A → B B → A
T T T F T T F T T T T T T T
T F F T F F F T F T F F T F
F T T F T T T F T T T T T T
F T F T F T T F T T T T T T
Does A logically imply B? YES
Does B logically imply A? YES
Are A and B logically equivalent? YES
80 Hardegree, Symbolic Logic

#15.
A: B:
P → Q ~ P ∨ Q A → B B → A
T T T F T T T T T T T T T
T F F F T F F F T F F T F
F T T T F T T T T T T T T
F T F T F T F T T T T T T
Does A logically imply B? YES
Does B logically imply A? YES
Are A and B logically equivalent? YES
#16.
A: B:
P → Q ~ ( P & ~ Q ) A → B B → A
T T T T T F F T T T T T T T
T F F F T T T F F T F F T F
F T T T F F F T T T T T T T
F T F T F F T F T T T T T T
Does A logically imply B? YES
Does B logically imply A? YES
Are A and B logically equivalent? YES
#17.
A: B:
~ P ~ ( P & Q ) A → B B → A
F T F T T T F T F F T F
F T T T F F F T T T F F
T F T F F T T T T T T T
T F T F F F T T T T T T
Does A logically imply B? YES
Does B logically imply A? NO
Are A and B logically equivalent? NO
#18.
A: B:
~ P ~ ( P ∨ Q ) A → B B → A
F T F T T T F T F F T F
F T F T T F F T F F T F
T F F F T T T F F F T T
T F T F F F T T T T T T
Does A logically imply B? NO
Does B logically imply A? YES
Are A and B logically equivalent? NO
Chapter 3: Validity in Sentential Logic 81

#19.
A: B:
~ ( P ↔ Q ) ( P & Q )→ R A → B B → A
F T T T T T T T T F T T T F F
F T T T T T T F F F T F F T F
T T F F T F F T T T T T T T T
T T F F T F F T F T T T T T T
T F F T F F T T T T T T T T T
T F F T F F T T F T T T T T T
F F T F F F F T T F T T T F F
F F T F F F F T F F T T T F F
Does A logically imply B? YES
Does B logically imply A? NO
Are A and B logically equivalent? NO
#20.
A: B:
( P & Q )→ R P → R A → B B → A
T T T T T T T T T T T T T T
T T T F F T F F F T F F T F
T F F T T T T T T T T T T T
T F F T F T F F T F F F T T
F F T T T F T T T T T T T T
F F T T F F T F T T T T T T
F F F T T F T T T T T T T T
F F F T F F T F T T T T T T
Does A logically imply B? NO
Does B logically imply A? YES
Are A and B logically equivalent? NO
#21.
A: B:
( P ∨ Q )→ R P → R A → B B → A
T T T T T T T T T T T T T T
T T T F F T F F F T F F T F
T T F T T T T T T T T T T T
T T F F F T F F F T F F T F
F T T T T F T T T T T T T T
F T T F F F T F F T T T F F
F F F T T F T T T T T T T T
F F F T F F T F T T T T T T
Does A logically imply B? YES
Does B logically imply A? NO
Are A and B logically equivalent? NO
82 Hardegree, Symbolic Logic

#22.
A: B:
( P & Q )→ R P →( Q → R ) A → B B → A
T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T
T T T F F T F T F F F T F F T F
T F F T T T T F T T T T T T T T
T F F T F T T F T F T T T T T T
F F T T T F T T T T T T T T T T
F F T T F F T T F F T T T T T T
F F F T T F T F T T T T T T T T
F F F T F F T F T F T T T T T T
Does A logically imply B? YES
Does B logically imply A? YES
Are A and B logically equivalent? YES
#23.
A: B:
P →( Q & R ) P → Q A → B B → A
T T T T T T T T T T T T T T
T F T F F T T T F T F T F F
T F F F T T F F F T T F T F
T F F F F T F F F T F F T F
F T T T T F T T T T T T T T
F T T F F F T T T T T T T T
F T F F T F T F T T T T T T
F T F F F F T F T T T T T T
Does A logically imply B? YES
Does B logically imply A? NO
Are A and B logically equivalent? NO
#24.
A: B:
P →( Q ∨ R ) P → Q A → B B → A
T T T T T T T T T T T T T T
T T T T F T T T T T T F T T
T T F T T T F F T F F T T T
T F F F F T F F F T F F T F
F T T T T F T T T T T T T T
F T T T F F T T T T T T T T
F T F T T F T F T T T T T T
F T F F F F T F T T T T T T
Does A logically imply B? NO
Does B logically imply A? YES
Are A and B logically equivalent? NO
Chapter 3: Validity in Sentential Logic 83

EXERCISE SET C
1. 6.
P → Q ; P / Q P ∨ Q ; P / ~ Q
T T T T T T T T T F T
T F F T F T T F T T F
F T T F T F T T F F T
F T F F F F F F F T F
VALID INVALID
2. 7.
P → Q ; Q / P ~ ( P & Q ) ; P / ~ Q
T T T T T F T T T T F T
T F F F T T T F F T T F
F T T T F T F F T F F T
F T F F F T F F F F T F
INVALID VALID
3. 8.
P → Q ; ~ Q / ~ P ~ ( P & Q ) ; ~ P / Q
T T T F T F T F T T T F T T
T F F T F F T T T F F F T F
F T T F T T F T F F T T F T
F T F T F T F T F F F T F F
VALID INVALID
4. 9.
P → Q ; ~ P / ~ Q P ↔ Q ; ~ P / ~ Q
T T T F T F T T T T F T F T
T F F F T T F T F F F T T F
F T T T F F T F F T T F F T
F T F T F T F F T F T F T F
INVALID VALID
5. 10.
P ∨ Q ; ~ P / Q P ↔ Q ; Q / P
T T T F T T T T T T T
T T F F T F T F F F T
F T T T F T F F T T F
F F F T F F F T F F F
VALID VALID
11.
P ∨ Q ; P → Q / Q
T T T T T T T
T T F T F F F
F T T F T T T
F F F F T F F
VALID
84 Hardegree, Symbolic Logic

12.
P ∨ Q ; P → Q / P & Q
T T T T T T T T T
T T F T F F T F F
F T T F T T F F T
F F F F T F F F F
INVALID
13.
P → Q ; P → ~ Q / ~ P
T T T T F F T F T
T F F T T T F F T
F T T F T F T T F
F T F F T T F T F
VALID
14.
P → Q ; ~ P → Q / Q
T T T F T T T T
T F F F T T F F
F T T T F T T T
F T F T F F F F
VALID
15.
P ∨ Q ; ~ P → ~ Q / P & Q
T T T F T T F T T T T
T T F F T T T F T F F
F T T T F F F T F F T
F F F T F T T F F F F
INVALID
16.
P → Q ; ~ P → ~ Q / P ↔ Q
T T T F T T F T T T T
T F F F T T T F T F F
F T T T F F F T F F T
F T F T F T T F F T F
VALID
17.
~ P → ~ Q ; ~ Q → ~ P / P ↔ Q
F T T F T F T T F T T T T
F T T T F T F F F T T F F
T F F F T F T T T F F F T
T F T T F T F T T F F T F
VALID
Chapter 3: Validity in Sentential Logic 85

18.
~ P → ~ Q ; ~ Q → ~ P / P & Q
F T T F T F T T F T T T T
F T T T F T F F F T T F F
T F F F T F T T T F F F T
T F T T F T F T T F F F F
INVALID
19.
P ∨ ~ Q ; P ∨ Q / P
T T F T T T T T
T T T F T T F T
F F F T F T T F
F T T F F F F F
VALID
20.
P → Q ; P ∨ Q / P ↔ Q
T T T T T T T T T
T F F T T F T F F
F T T F T T F F T
F T F F F F F T F
INVALID
21.
~ ( P → Q ) ; P → ~ P / ~ P & ~ Q
F T T T T F F T F T F F T
T T F F T F F T F T F T F
F F T T F T T F T F F F T
F F T F F T T F T F T T F
VALID
22.
~ ( P & Q ) ; ~ Q → P / P
F T T T F T T T T
T T F F T F T T T
T F F T F T T F F
T F F F T F F F F
INVALID
23.
P → Q ; Q → R / P → R
T T T T T T T T T
T T T T F F T F F
T F F F T T T T T
T F F F T F T F F
F T T T T T F T T
F T T T F F F T F
F T F F T T F T T
F T F F T F F T F
VALID
86 Hardegree, Symbolic Logic

24.
P → Q ; Q → R ; ~ P → R / R
T T T T T T F T T T T
T T T T F F F T T F F
T F F F T T F T T T T
T F F F T F F T T F F
F T T T T T T F T T T
F T T T F F T F F F F
F T F F T T T F T T T
F T F F T F T F F F F
VALID
25.
P → Q ; Q → R / P & R
T T T T T T T T T
T T T T F F T F F
T F F F T T T T T
T F F F T F T F F
F T T T T T F F T
F T T T F F F F F
F T F F T T F F T
F T F F T F F F F
INVALID
26.
P → Q ; Q → R ; R → P / P ↔ R
T T T T T T T T T T T T
T T T T F F F T T T F F
T F F F T T T T T T T T
T F F F T F F T T T F F
F T T T T T T F F F F T
F T T T F F F T F F T F
F T F F T T T F F F F T
F T F F T F F T F F T F
VALID
27.
P → Q ; Q → R / R
T T T T T T T
T T T T F F F
T F F F T T T
T F F F T F F
F T T T T T T
F T T T F F F
F T F F T T T
F T F F T F F
INVALID
Chapter 3: Validity in Sentential Logic 87

28.
P → R ; Q → R / ( P ∨ Q )→ R
T T T T T T T T T T T
T F F T F F T T T F F
T T T F T T T T F T T
T F F F T F T T F F F
F T T T T T F T T T T
F T F T F F F T T F F
F T T F T T F F F T T
F T F F T F F F F T F
VALID
29.
P → Q ; P → R / Q & R
T T T T T T T T T
T T T T F F T F F
T F F T T T F F T
T F F T F F F F F
F T T F T T T T T
F T T F T F T F F
F T F F T T F F T
F T F F T F F F F
INVALID
30.
P ∨ Q ; P → R ; Q → R / R
T T T T T T T T T T
T T T T F F T F F F
T T F T T T F T T T
T T F T F F F T F F
F T T F T T T T T T
F T T F T F T F F F
F F F F T T F T T T
F F F F T F F T F F
VALID
31.
P → Q ; Q → R ; R → ~ P / ~ P
T T T T T T T F F T F T
T T T T F F F T F T F T
T F F F T T T F F T F T
T F F F T F F T F T F T
F T T T T T T T T F T F
F T T T F F F T T F T F
F T F F T T T T T F T F
F T F F T F F T T F T F
VALID
88 Hardegree, Symbolic Logic

32.
P →( Q ∨ R ) ; Q & R / ~ P
T T T T T T T T F T
T T T T F T F F F T
T T F T T F F T F T
T F F F F F F F F T
F T T T T T T T T F
F T T T F T F F T F
F T F T T F F T T F
F T F F F F F F T F
INVALID
33.
P →( Q & R ) ; Q → ~ R / ~ P
T T T T T T F F T F T
T F T F F T T T F F T
T F F F T F T F T F T
T F F F F F T T F F T
F T T T T T F F T T F
F T T F F T T T F T F
F T F F T F T F T T F
F T F F F F T T F T F
VALID
34.
P & ( Q ∨ R ) ; P → ~ Q / R
T T T T T T F F T T
T T T T F T F F T F
T T F T T T T T F T
T F F F F T T T F F
F F T T T F T F T T
F F T T F F T F T F
F F F T T F T T F T
F F F F F F T T F F
VALID
35.
P →( Q → R ) ; P & ~ R / ~ Q
T T T T T T F F T F T
T F T F F T T T F F T
T T F T T T F F T T F
T T F T F T T T F T F
F T T T T F F F T F T
F T T F F F F T F F T
F T F T T F F F T T F
F T F T F F F T F T F
VALID
Chapter 3: Validity in Sentential Logic 89

36.
~ P ∨ Q ; R → P ; ~ ( Q & R ) / ~ R
F T T T T T T F T T T F T
F T T T F T T T T F F T F
F T F F T T T T F F T F T
F T F F F T T T F F F T F
T F T T T F F F T T T F T
T F T T F T F T T F F T F
T F T F T F F T F F T F T
T F T F F T F T F F F T F
VALID
90 Hardegree, Symbolic Logic

EXERCISE SET D
1. A: ~(P&Q) B: ~P&~Q 13. A: P→Q B: ~P→~Q
(1) A / B INVALID (1) A / B INVALID
(2) B / A VALID (2) B / A INVALID
2. A:~(P&Q) B: ~P∨~Q 14. A: P→Q B: ~Q→~P
(1) A / B VALID (1) A / B VALID
(2) B / A VALID (2) B / A VALID
3. A: ~(P∨Q) B: ~P∨~Q 15. A: P→Q B: ~P∨Q
(1) A / B VALID (1) A / B VALID
(2) B / A INVALID (2) B / A VALID
4. A: ~(P∨Q) B: ~P&~Q 16. A: P→Q B: ~(P&~Q)
(1) A / B VALID (1) A / B VALID
(2) B / A VALID (2) B / A VALID
5. A: ~(P→Q) B: ~P→~Q 17. A: ~P B ~(P&Q)
(1) A / B VALID (1) A / B VALID
(2) B / A INVALID (2) B / A INVALID
6. A: ~(P→Q) B: P&~Q 18. A: ~P B ~(P∨Q)
(1) A / B VALID (1) A / B INVALID
(2) B / A VALID (2) B / A VALID
7. A: ~(P↔Q) B: ~P↔~Q 19. A: ~(P↔Q) B: (P&Q) → R
(1) A / B INVALID (1) A / B VALID
(2) B / A INVALID (2) B / A INVALID
8. A: ~(P↔Q) B: P↔~Q 20. A: (P&Q) → R B: P→R
(1) A / B VALID (1) A / B INVALID
(2) B / A VALID (2) B / A VALID
9 A: ~(P↔Q) B: ~P↔Q 21. A: (P∨Q) → R B: P→R
(1) A / B VALID (1) A / B VALID
(2) B / A VALID (2) B / A INVALID
10. A: P↔Q B: (P&Q) & (Q→P) 22. A: (P&Q)→R B: P → (Q→R)
(1) A / B INVALID (1) A / B VALID
(2) B / A VALID (2) B / A VALID
11. A: P↔Q B: (P→Q) & (Q→P) 23. A: P → (Q&R) B: P→Q
(1) A / B VALID (1) A / B VALID
(2) B / A VALID (2) B / A INVALID
12. A: P→Q B: Q→P 24. A: P → (Q∨R) B: P→Q
(1) A / B INVALID (1) A / B INVALID
(2) B / A INVALID (2) B / A VALID