Math 102

Exam 2: Additional Practice Problems

1. For each of the following, state whether the situation is an example of inductive or deductive reasoning:

(a) You notice that your houseplants seem to grow better if you water them in the morning rather than in the evening,
so you decide to start watering them every morning right before you leave to go to school.
Inductive Reasoning
(b) After hearing a debate on the radio, you decide to construct a truth table in order to determine whether or not
the logical argument given by one of the participants is valid.
Deductive Reasoning
(c) The last couple of times you have gone to the grocery store on Friday afternoon, you noticed that they were giving
away free samples, so you decide to start doing your grocery shopping on Friday afternoon every week.
Inductive Reasoning

2. Use inductive reasoning to predict the next two terms in each of the following sequences:
1 2 3 4 5 6
(a) , , , ... ,
2 3 4 5 6 7
(b) 1, 2, 4, 7, 11, 16, ... 22, 29
(c) 2, 5, 7, 12, 19, 31, ... 50, 81

3. Determine whether or not each of the following are statements:

(a) I went to the store last night.

Statement
(b) Did you remember to get milk at the store?
Not a statement
(c) I forgot to pick up a gallon of milk at the store.
Statement

4. Negate each of the following statements, then rewrite them as English sentences:

(a) All bees are busy.

It is not the case that all bees are busy.
Some bees are not busy.
(b) Some things are better left unsaid.
It is not the case that some things are better left unsaid.
All things should be said.
(c) I got up early on Saturday and went to the gym.
It is not the case that I got up early on Saturday and went to the gym.
I did not get up early, or I did not go to the gym.
(d) This summer I will get a job or I will take classes.
It is not the case that this summer I will get a job or I will take classes.
I will not get a job this summer and I will not take classes this summer.
(e) If I eat my vegetables then I will get dessert
It is not the case that if I eat my vegetables then I will get dessert
I eat my vegetables and I do not get dessert

5. Given p : “I studied for this exam”, q : “I got a good grade on this exam”, r : “I understand truth tables”,
and s : “I am not good at doing proofs”, translate the following statements into words:

(a) p ∧ (∼ s) → q
If I studied for this exam and I am good at doing proofs then I got a good grade on this exam.
(b) (∼ p ∨ s) →∼ q
If I did not study for this exam or am not good at doing proofs then I did not get a good grade on this exam.
 (c) p ↔ (∼ s∨ ∼ r)
I studied for this exam if and only if I am good at doing proofs or I do not understand truth tables.
(d) (p → (r ∧ (∼ s)) → q
If whenever I study for this exam it is also true that I understand truth tables and I am good at doing proofs then
I will get a good grade on this exam.

6. (a) Explain, in your own words, the difference between “exclusive or” and “inclusive or”
Exclusive or is used to indicate that one of two things is true, but not both.
Inclusive or indicates that one of two things are true, or both could be true as well.
(b) Give real world examples that illustrate both “exclusive or” and “inclusive or”
Exclusive Or: I will drive to work or I will take the bus.
Inclusive Or: To get all of my work done, I need to stay at work late or go into work early.

7. Given the statements: p : There is a full moon tonight, and q : I will go for a walk on the beach

(a) Write the conditional statement relating p to q in words.

(p → q :) If there is a full moon tonight, then I will go for a walk on the beach.
(b) Write the converse in words.
(q → p :) If I go for a walk on the beach, then there is a full moon tonight.
(c) Write the inverse in words.
(∼ p →∼ q :) If there is a not a full moon tonight, then I will not go for a walk on the beach.
(d) Write the contrapositive in words.
(∼ q →∼ p :) If I do not go for a walk on the beach, then there is not a full moon tonight.
(e) Indicate which of these statements above are logically equivalent to each other. You do not need to prove your
answer.
The conditional and the contrapositive are logically equivalent.
The converse and the inverse are logically equivalent.

8. According to one of DeMorgan’s Laws, ∼ (p ∨ q) is logically equivalent to (∼ p) ∧ (∼ q). Use truth tables to prove that
these two statements are logically equivalent. Then, explain in your own words why the fact that these two statements
are equivalent makes sense.

p q p∨q ∼ (p ∨ q) p q ∼p ∼q ∼ p∧ ∼ q
T T T F T T F F F
T F T F T F F T F
F T T F F T T F F
F F F T F F T T T

Since the last column in these two truth tables match, the statements are logically equivalent.
Notice that this makes sense since ∼ (p ∨ q) means that it is not the case that p or q holds, so we must be in the case
where neither one holds, which is what is described by the statement (∼ p) ∧ (∼ q).
9. Given that p is true, q is false, r is true, and s is true:

(a) What is truth value of the statement: ∼ (p ∨ q) → (r∧ ∼ s)

Solution:

p q r s p∨q ∼ (p ∨ q) ∼s r∧ ∼ s ∼ (p ∨ q) → (r∧ ∼ s)
T F T T T F F F T

Therefore, with these truth values, the logical expression is True.

(b) How many rows would the full truth table for the expression ∼ (p ∨ q) → (r∧ ∼ s) have?
Solution:
Since there are 4 variables in the expression, the full truth table would have 24 = 16 rows.
10. Build truth tables for the following logical statements:
(a) (p∧ ∼ q) → q
p q ∼q p∧ ∼ q (p∧ ∼ q) → q
T T F F T
T F T T F
F T F F T
F F T F T
(b) ∼ q → (p∨ ∼ r)
p q r ∼q ∼r p∨ ∼ r ∼ q → (p∨ ∼ r)
T T T F F T T
T T F F T T T
T F T T F T T
T F F T T T T
F T T F F F T
F T F F T T T
F F T T F F F
F F F T T T T
(c) (p → q) ↔∼ (q ∧ r)
p q r p→q q∧r ∼ (q ∧ r) (p → q) ↔∼ (q ∧ r)
T T T T T F F
T T F T F T T
T F T F F T F
T F F F F T F
F T T T T F F
F T F T F T T
F F T T F T T
F F F T F T T
11. Identify the form of the following arguments, and state whether the given argument is valid:
(a) If I have enough money saved up, then I will go to Mexico for Spring Break. I did not go to Mexico for Spring
Break. Therefore, I did not have enough money saved up.
Solution:
We define p : I have enough money saved up, and q : I will go to Mexico for Spring Break.
Then the argument has the form:

p→q
This is the Law of Contraposition
∼q
Therefore, this argument is valid
∴∼ p
(b) If I lie on my tax return, then I will get audited by the IRS. I got audited by the IRS. Therefore, I lied on my tax
return.
Solution:
We define p : I lie on my tax return, and q : I get audited by the IRS.
Then the argument has the form:

p→q
This is the Fallacy of the Converse
q
Therefore, this argument is invalid
∴ p
(c) I will go to Mexico for Spring Break or I will spend Spring Break with my family. I did not spend Spring Break
with my family. Therefore, I went to Mexico for Spring Break.
Solution:
We define p : I will go to Mexico for Spring Break, and q : I will spend Spring Break with my family.
Then the argument has the form:

p∨q
This is Disjuctive Syllogism
∼q
Therefore, this argument is valid
∴ p
 12. (a) Draw an Euler diagram for the statements: “Some A’s are B’s”, “All C’s are not A’s”, and “ All D’s are A’s”
Solution
There are a few possibilities for this diagram. Here is one of them:

A B

(b) State a valid conclusion that can be made based on the statements in part (a) above.
Solution:
I wanted a bit more than just restating one of the premises here. The main acceptable novel conclusion one can
reach based on this Euler diagram is:
No C’s are D’s (or All D’s are not C’s).

13. Use Euler diagrams to determine whether the following syllogisms are valid or invalid:
Some exams are too long. Some dogs chase cats.
(a) Some exams are too difficult. (b) All dogs have fleas.
Therefore, some exams are too long and too difficult. Therefore, some cat-chasing dogs have fleas.

(a) Things with Fleas

(b)
Long Difficult

Dogs

Exams
Cat Chasers

Invalid Valid
14. Use a truth table to determine whether or not the following argument is valid:
If I work hard, then I will get a raise.
If I get a raise, then I will not have to get a second job.
I got a second job.
Therefore, I did not work hard.
Solution:
First, we need to translate the argument into logical symbols. To do this, we take p : I work hard, q : I get a raise, and
r : I get a second job.
With these variables, the form of this argument is:

p→q
q →∼ r
r
∴∼ p

With this symbolic representation, to assess the validity of this agrument, we need to investigate the logical expression:
(p → q) ∧ (q →∼ r) ∧ r → (∼ p)

p q r ∼r p→q q →∼ r (p → q) ∧ (q →∼ r) ∧ r ∼p (p → q) ∧ (q →∼ r) ∧ r → (∼ p)
T T T F T F F F T
T T F T T T F F T
T F T F F T F F T
T F F T F T F F T
F T T F T F F T T
F T F T T T F T T
F F T F T T T T T
F F F T T T F T T

Notice that the last column of the truth table is all True entries. Therefore, this argument is valid.
15. Given the argument:
p→q
∼ (q ∧ r)
r
∴∼ p
Fill in the missing reasons in the following two column proof:
Statement Reason
1. ∼ (q ∧ r) Premise
2. ∼ q∨ ∼ r 1, DeMorgan’s Laws
3. r Premise
4. ∼ (∼ r) 3, Double Negation
5. ∼ q 2, 4, Disjunctive Syllogism
6. p → q Premise
7. ∼ q →∼ p 6, Contraposition
8. ∼ p 5, 7, Law of Detachment
16. Write a 2-column proof to verify the following argument:
t→p
s∨t
p→q
∼q
∴s
Solution:
Statement Reason
1. t → p Premise
2. p → q Premise
3. t → q 1, 2, Law of Syllogism
4. ∼ q Premise
5. ∼ t 3, 4, Law of Contraposition
6. s ∨ t Premise
7. s 5, 6, Disjunctive Syllogism