In order to prove that the argument is invalid you just have to prove that there is at least one case in which the premises are true and the conclusion false. That is how she works backwards in the example: she sets up the logically consistent conditions under which the premises are true and the conclusion false. If you were to build the complete truth table, then * showing that at least one case yields true premises and false conclusion proves the argument is INVALID. * showing that all cases lead to a false conclusion proves it is logically false (i.e., a contradiction) * showing that all cases lead to a true conclusion proves it is logically true (i.e., a tautology). * showing that all cases where the premises are true yield a true conclusion proves it is valid.
In the last example, I failed completely to get how you assigned the values of the consonants because if you compute by using the assigned values we cannot have the truth values of the premises. The best way is to assign the TRUTH values to A, C, D, L, M and N with False values. With that, we are able to get the truth values of the premises and false values in the conclusion. I stand to be corrected.
If you take C and N to be false,then according to matrial equivalence it will be true ,but here in shorter truth table method we try to make conclusion to be false
I love you mam 😭😭😭 thank you so much..It was very helpful,❤️❤️❤️ plz upload more videos abt formal proof of validity exhibition...My frds will give re it will be helpful to them 😩
Thanks for your great effort madam...m a student of Philosophy from Sambalpur Bargarh Jai MAA SAMLEI
is there any posibility of getting another table values solution?
Like this argument, (AVB) >(C.D), (DVE)>F, A>F. Here> is horse shoe sign
Maam what if an argument is invalid only if a particular statement is both true and false
mam wonderful i got so much help love u from assam
Thanku ma'am your video is very helpful to understand this topic for me
thank you so much cramming for a test today
Maam in every case the conclusion should be false in this method?
In order to prove that the argument is invalid you just have to prove that there is at least one case in which the premises are true and the conclusion false. That is how she works backwards in the example: she sets up the logically consistent conditions under which the premises are true and the conclusion false.
If you were to build the complete truth table, then
* showing that at least one case yields true premises and false conclusion proves the argument is INVALID.
* showing that all cases lead to a false conclusion proves it is logically false (i.e., a contradiction)
* showing that all cases lead to a true conclusion proves it is logically true (i.e., a tautology).
* showing that all cases where the premises are true yield a true conclusion proves it is valid.
Thank you Maam. Very helpful one.
In the last example, I failed completely to get how you assigned the values of the consonants because if you compute by using the assigned values we cannot have the truth values of the premises. The best way is to assign the TRUTH values to A, C, D, L, M and N with False values. With that, we are able to get the truth values of the premises and false values in the conclusion. I stand to be corrected.
If you take C and N to be false,then according to matrial equivalence it will be true ,but here in shorter truth table method we try to make conclusion to be false
I love you mam 😭😭😭 thank you so much..It was very helpful,❤️❤️❤️ plz upload more videos abt formal proof of validity exhibition...My frds will give re it will be helpful to them 😩
Thnak you so much mam!
Thank you mam.
Thank you mam