/*! This file is auto-generated */ .wp-block-button__link{color:#fff;background-color:#32373c;border-radius:9999px;box-shadow:none;text-decoration:none;padding:calc(.667em + 2px) calc(1.333em + 2px);font-size:1.125em}.wp-block-file__button{background:#32373c;color:#fff;text-decoration:none} Problem 39 Determine which, if any, of the ... [FREE SOLUTION] | 91Ó°ÊÓ

91Ó°ÊÓ

Determine which, if any, of the three given statements are equivalent. You may use information about a conditional statement's converse, inverse, or contrapositive, De Morgan's laws, or truth tables. a. If he is guilty, then he does not take a lie-detector test. b. He is not guilty or he takes a lie-detector test. c. If he is not guilty, then he takes a lie-detector test.

Short Answer

Expert verified
Statement a and Statement b are equivalent. Statement c is not equivalent to the other two.

Step by step solution

01

Translate Statements into Logical Format

Translate the statements into logical format. 'If...then...' statements can be translated into \(P \Rightarrow Q\) where P is the premise and Q is the conclusion. Using this, translate the following statements: a. If he is guilty (P), then he does not take a lie-detector test (~Q). This is \(P \Rightarrow \sim Q\). b. He is not guilty (~P) or he takes a lie-detector test (Q). This is \( \sim P \vee Q\). c. If he is not guilty (~P), then he takes a lie-detector test (Q). This is \(\sim P \Rightarrow Q\).
02

Use Logical Equivalences

Use De Morgan's laws and the logical equivalences of conditionals. The conditional \(P \Rightarrow Q\) is logically equivalent to \(\sim P \vee Q\) (not P or Q). Checking the three statements, it's clear that Statement a and Statement b are logically equivalent because \(P \Rightarrow \sim Q\) is the same as \(\sim P \vee Q\). However, Statement c is not equivalent to Statement a or Statement b.
03

Draw a Truth Table (Optional)

An optional step for further clarity would be to draw a truth table. This would systematically check all possible truth values for P and Q, and compare the results for the logical expressions of each of the three statement. This will confirm that indeed, Statement a and b are equivalent while Statement c is not.

Unlock Step-by-Step Solutions & Ace Your Exams!

  • Full Textbook Solutions

    Get detailed explanations and key concepts

  • Unlimited Al creation

    Al flashcards, explanations, exams and more...

  • Ads-free access

    To over 500 millions flashcards

  • Money-back guarantee

    We refund you if you fail your exam.

Over 30 million students worldwide already upgrade their learning with 91Ó°ÊÓ!

Key Concepts

These are the key concepts you need to understand to accurately answer the question.

Conditional Statements
Understanding conditional statements is crucial in both mathematics and computer science. A conditional statement, also known as an 'implication', takes the form 'If P, then Q', where P is called the 'antecedent' and Q is the 'consequent'. This can be expressed in logical terms as a logical implication, represented by the symbol \rightarrow., pronounced as 'P implies Q'.

In logical notation, this implication is written as \(P \Rightarrow Q\). The truth of a conditional statement is determined by whether or not the implication is logically consistent. For example, if 'P' is true and 'Q' is also true, then the implication holds. But if 'P' is true and 'Q' is false, the implication does not hold, and the entire statement is considered false. The remaining cases, where 'P' is false (regardless of the truth value of 'Q'), the implication is always considered to be true.

This might seem counterintuitive at first, but in logic, an implication is only false when a true antecedent leads to a false consequent. As part of exploring logical equivalences, we come to understand that a conditional statement can be expressed in different forms, where its converse, inverse, and contrapositive each have distinct meanings and truth values.
De Morgan's Laws
De Morgan's laws are pivotal in the study of logic, as they provide a way to transform complex logical expressions. These laws describe how the negation of conjunctions and disjunctions behave and are often used in computer science, mathematics, and logic to simplify statements or algorithms. The two laws are stated as:

  • The negation of a conjunction is equivalent to the disjunction of the negations. Mathematically, this is represented as \(\sim(P \land Q) \equiv \sim P \vee \sim Q\).
  • The negation of a disjunction is equivalent to the conjunction of the negations. Expressed in symbols: \(\sim(P \vee Q) \equiv \sim P \land \sim Q\).
These laws can be applied to our exercise by transforming the conditional statements into disjunctions. For instance, the statement 'If P, then Q' is logically equivalent to '\(~P \vee Q\)', allowing us to compare the equivalency of different forms of statements by examining their components under negation and disjunction.
Truth Tables
Truth tables are an essential tool for illustrating and analyzing the truth values of logical expressions. They systematically list all possible combinations of truth values for given propositions and show the result of logical operations for each combination. By filling out a truth table, you can determine the validity or equivalence of logical sentences in a clear and organized manner.

A truth table has a column for each of the variables (e.g., P, Q) and a column for the compound statements (like \(P \Rightarrow Q\)). For simplicity, with two variables, there are four possible combinations of truth values: both can be true, both can be false, or one can be true while the other is false.

By comparing the columns of truth values, we can decide whether different logical expressions are equivalent. In our exercise, a truth table could confirm that the statements 'If P, then Q' (\(P \Rightarrow Q\)) and 'Not P or Q' (\(\sim P \vee Q\)) are equivalent, a concept central to understanding conditional statements and their logical implications.

One App. One Place for Learning.

All the tools & learning materials you need for study success - in one app.

Get started for free

Most popular questions from this chapter

This is an excerpt from a 1967 speech in the U.S. House of Representatives by Representative Adam Clayton Powell: He who is without sin should cast the first stone. There is no one here who does not have a skeleton in his closet. I know, and I know them by name. Powell's argument can be expressed as follows: No sinner is one who should cast the first stone. All people here are sinners. Therefore, no person here is one who should cast the first stone. Use an Euler diagram to determine whether the argument is valid or invalid.

Translate each argument into symbolic form. Then determine whether the argument is valid or invalid. You may use a truth table or, if applicable, compare the argument's symbolic form to a standard valid or invalid form. (You can ignore differences in past, present, and future tense.) If I watch Schindler's List and Milk, I am aware of the destructive nature of intolerance. Today I did not watch Schindler's List or I did not watch Milk. \(\therefore\) Today I am not aware of the destructive nature of intolerance.

Use the standard forms of valid arguments to draw a valid conclusion from the given premises. You exercise or you do not feel energized. I do not exercise. Therefore, ...

Conservative commentator Rush Limbaugh directed this passage at liberals and the way they think about crime. Of course, liberals will argue that these actions [contemporary youth crime] can be laid at the foot of socioeconomic inequities, or poverty. However, the Great Depression caused a level of poverty unknown to exist in America today, and yet I have been unable to find any accounts of crime waves sweeping our large cities. Let the liberals chew on that. (See, I Told You So, p. 83) Limbaugh's passage can be expressed in the form of an argument: If poverty causes crime, then crime waves would have swept American cities during the Great Depression. Crime waves did not sweep American cities during the Great Depression. \(\therefore\) Poverty does not cause crime. (Liberals are wrong.) Translate this argument into symbolic form and determine whether it is valid or invalid.

Translate each argument into symbolic form. Then determine whether the argument is valid or invalid. You may use a truth table or, if applicable, compare the argument's symbolic form to a standard valid or invalid form. (You can ignore differences in past, present, and future tense.) If he was disloyal, his dismissal was justified. If he was loyal, his dismissial was justified. \(\therefore\) His dismissal was justified.

See all solutions

Recommended explanations on Math Textbooks

View all explanations

What do you think about this solution?

We value your feedback to improve our textbook solutions.

Study anywhere. Anytime. Across all devices.