akltoihtfnaegfasgn principle, we can use truth tables to show the validity of an

y argument, but in practice, truth tables tend to get rather unwieldy very quick
ly. Truth tables also fall short in one other respect they aren't particularly goo
d for bringing out the patterns of reasoning at work in an argument, that is, th
ey don't help us figure out how we get from the premises to the conclusion in a
valid argument. It would thus be nice to have a method for dealing with argument
s that is not only less cumbersome, but that also makes evident patterns of reas
oning.
Fortunately, there is such a method, called the DEDUCTIVE METHOD, in which we pr
oceed by deducing or deriving the conclusion of an argument from its premises vi
a a series of elementaryand valid inferences. Thus, the resulting DERIVATIONS de
monstrate the validity of an argument and clarify the pattern of reasoning that
leads us from premises to conclusion.
Goals for this chapter:
Learn what derivations are and how to do them.
Learn the basic rules of inference for sentential logic.
Demonstrate that the basic inference rules are valid.
The Basics
Consider the following, fairly simple argument:
The cat is purring.
The dog is wagging his tail.
If the cat is purring, then she is happy.
If the dog's wagging his tail, then he is happy.
?The cat's happy and the dog is happy.
Here's the symbolisation:
P
W
P ? C
W ? D
? C & D
It's pretty clear that this argument is valid just by a cursory examination, but
in order to demonstrate this using a truth-table, you'd have to go through the
whole cumbersome process of producing the sixteen row truth-table for the argume
nt. By using the deductive method, on the other hand, we can demonstrate the val
idity of the argument in just three steps. Let's jump right in and take a look a
t the derivation:
1.
P
Prem
2.
W
Prem
3.
P ? C
Prem
4.
W ? D
Prem
5.
C
?E:
3, 1
6.
D
?E:
4, 2
7.
C & D
&I:
5, 6
If you take a good look at this derivation and compare it to the symbolisation o
f the argument above, most of what's going on should be pretty obvious, but we'l
l go through it explicitly in any case.
The first thing to note about the derivation is its basic structure it consists of
, in this case, seven lines, each numbered on the left. Following the line numbe
r, each line contains a formula of sentential logic. To the right of each formul
a we find the JUSTIFICATION for that formula's presence in the derivation. You'l
l note that the formulae appearing on the first four lines of the derivation are
just the premises of the argument whose validity we wish to demonstrate. Quite

sensibly, then, our justification for including these formulae is that they are
indeed premises:
TABLE :
1.
P
Premise
2.
W
Premise
3.
P ? C Premise
4.
W ? D Premise
5.
C
?E: 1, 3
6.
D
?E: 2, 4
7.
C & D &I: 5, 6
The formula on the last line of the derivation, as one might expect, is the conc
lusion of the argument. You'll note here that the justification for the conclusi
on is not that it's the conclusion, but rather the so far somewhat cryptic expressio
n ' &I 5, 6.' This expression is actually an explanation of how we DERIVED this
formula from the earlier lines in the derivation. The two numbers refer to line
numbers, and &I is the RULE OF INFERENCE we applied to the formulae appearing on
those two lines in order to INFER the formula we're justifying. Here's the deri
vation again with a little colour thrown in to help make this obvious:
TABLE :
1.
P
Premise
2.
W
Premise
3.
P ? C Premise
4.
W ? D Premise
5.
C
?E: 1, 3
6.
D
?E: 2, 4
7.
C & D &I: 5, 6
At this point, you're probably wondering what these mysterious rules of inferenc
e are, how many we have, and things like that. We'll get to the rules of inferen
ce in just a moment, but first, now would be a good time to make sure we've cove
red everything you'll ne