17.10: Evaluating Deductive Arguments with Truth Tables
( \newcommand{\kernel}{\mathrm{null}\,}\)
Arguments can also be analyzed using truth tables, although this can be a lot of work.
To analyze an argument with a truth table:
- Represent each of the premises symbolically
- Create a conditional statement, joining all the premises to form the antecedent, and using the conclusion as the consequent.
- Create a truth table for the statement. If it is always true, then the argument is valid.
Consider the argument
Premise:If you bought bread, then you went to the store.Premise:You bought bread.Conclusion:You went to the store.
Solution
While this example is fairly obviously a valid argument, we can analyze it using a truth table by representing each of the premises symbolically. We can then form a conditional statement showing that the premises together imply the conclusion. If the truth table is a tautology (always true), then the argument is valid.
We’ll let b represent “you bought bread” and s represent “you went to the store”. Then the argument becomes:
Premise:b→sPremise:bConclusion:s
To test the validity, we look at whether the combination of both premises implies the conclusion; is it true that [(b→s)∧b]→s?
bsb→sTTTTFFFTTFFT
bsb→s(b→s)∧bTTTTTFFFFTTFFFTF
bsb→s(b→s)∧b[(b→s)∧b]→sTTTTTTFFFTFTTFTFFTFT
Since the truth table for [(b→s)∧b]→s is always true, this is a valid argument.
Determine whether the argument is valid:
Premise:If I have a shovel, I can dig a hole.Premise:I dug a hole.Conclusion:Therefore, I had a shovel.
- Answer
-
Let S= have a shovel, D=dig a hole. The first premise is equivalent to S→D. The second premise is D. The conclusion is S. We are testing [(S→D)∧D]→S
SDS→D(S→D)∧D[(S→D)∧D]→STTTTTTFFFTFTTTFFFTFT
This is not a tautology, so this is an invalid argument.
Premise:If I go to the mall, then I’ll buy new jeans.Premise:If I buy new jeans, I’ll buy a shirt to go with it.Conclusion:If I go to the mall, I’ll buy a shirt.
Solution
Let m= I go to the mall, j= I buy jeans, and s= I buy a shirt.
The premises and conclusion can be stated as:
Premise:m→jPremise:j→sConclusion:m→s
We can construct a truth table for [(m→j)∧(j→s)]→(m→s). Try to recreate each step and see how the truth table was constructed.
mjsm→jj→s(m→j)∧(j→s)m→s[(m→j)∧(j→s)]→(m→s)TTTTTTTTTTFTFFFTTFTFTFTTTFFFTFFTFTTTTTTTFTFTFFTTFFTTTTTTFFFTTTTT
From the final column of the truth table, we can see this is a valid argument.