SHORTENED TRUTH TABLE TECHNIQUE

You have at this point learned two separate techniques for proving arguments to be valid:

a) truth tables, and

b) formal proof using the 19 rules plus

CP (and IP)

Each has its advantages and disadvantages:

Advantages Disadvantages

Truth Tables:

entirely mechanical long and tedious

for arguments of
Gives Y/N answer: >4 propositions

Valid or invalid Careless errors easy

Formal Proof:

shorter for arguments requires strategy

of >4 propositions gives only Yes answer

careless errors less likely failure to construct a

formal proof of validity
does not = proof of invalidity

What is the Shortened Truth Table Technique?

The shortened truth table technique offers a third possibility for proof which has the
advantage of truth tables in that it can give a Y/N answer: the argument is shown to be valid
or invalid, but it short cuts the long and tedious nature of the full blown truth table.

What do I use the Shortened Truth Table Technique to Prove?

The great advantage of the Shortened Truth Table Technique is that it can be used to prove
either validity or invalidity -just like any truth table. Therefore -unlike formal proofs- this
technique can prove both the validity and the invalidity of arguments. In this way it avoids
the primary disadvantage of formal proof.

What is the goal in using this technique?

You can think of the shortened truth table technique as like a game with permitted and
forbidden moves. The objective of the game is to find a row out of all the rows in a full
truth table which has all true premisses and a false conclusion. Such a row, if it exists,
would, of course, show the argument to be invalid. Thus the objective of the game is to
prove the argument is invalid. Therefore "success" in this game means the argument
is invalid, and failurein this game means the argument is valid.

The greatest single problem students have with this technique is remembering that
"success" means the argument is INVALID!

How do I use the Shortened Truth Table Technique?

Whether you are attempting to prove validity or invalidity you ALWAYS play the game the
same way: You always begin by assuming the premisses are all true and the conclusion is
false, i.e. that the argument is invalid. You then "reason backwards" from the assumed truth
of the premisses and falsity of the conclusion to try to find a set of truth values to assign to
the individual propositions which would make the premisses all come out true and yet the
conclusion to be false. If you succeed in finding such a set of truth values (a "row" of a full
table) that shows it is possible for the premisses to be true and the conclusion false, so the
argument is invalid.

However, if every attempt to find such a set of T values ends in a contradiction, then the
game cannot succeed because there is no set of truth values which will make all the
premisses true and the conclusion false, so in other words there is no such row in the full
table. Therefore the argument must be valid. The is a proof by "reductio ad absurdum."

How do I actually show this?

1. Write out the argument in a spacious fashion, skipping lines between premisses and
conclusion. On the side write a "score box" to keep track of the assigned truth values of the
statements, with one box for each proposition in the argument.

2. Write an "F" above the main relation of the conclusion, and a "T" above the main relation
in each of the premisses. (Note that if the statement is a denial, the truth value is written
above the negation symbol.

3. Proceed to reason "backwards" (from whole to part) to determine the truth values of the
components of the premisses and conclusion. You write a "T or and "F" above each letter or
symbol as long as that truth value is forced.

When is a truth value "forced"?

A truth value is "forced" when knowledge of the truth value of a whole statement
determines the truth values of its components. This occurs in the following cases:

A disjunction is known to be false: both disjuncts are forced

to be F

A conjunction is known to be true: both conjuncts are forced

to be T

An implication is known to be false: the

antecedent must be T and the
consequent must be F
The negation of a statement always forces the
negated statement to have
the opposite truth value: if the
negation is T, the statement is false,
if

the negation is false the statement is

true

All of these cases are "good" in playing the game; other cases are less good.

4. As long as each truth value assignment is forced keep playing the game, and keep a
record in the "score box" on the side. Three possibilities await:

a) you succeed in finding a consistent set of truth values for each single

statement component.

b) you are forced to contradict yourself in assigning truth values to

component statements (i.e. you assign a symbol "T in one statement and "F" in
another); or
c) you run out of forced moves before reaching either a) or b) above.

What does this mean?

If possibility a) occurs you have succeeded in the game of trying to prove the argument
invalid: ergo the argument is INVALID. You're done, write your answer.
If possibility b) occurs, your attempt to prove the argument invalid has contradicted itself,
your attempt to prove the argument invalid has failed, or in other words it is logically
impossible to have all true premisses and a false conclusion; ergo the argument is VALID
by reductio ad absurdum. You're done, write your answer.

If possibility c) occurs, go to the next step.

5. When you have come to an end of all possible forced moves (be sure to recheck to see
that you have in fact come to an end, nothing further is forced) but have not yet either
determined the truth values of all components or found a contradiction, then you have to
make a hypothetical truth value assignment. This means that you arbitrarily try out
assigning a "T" or "F" to any statement, and then proceed as before looking for further
forced moves. Again the three possibilities a), b), and c) above await you.

If a) occurs, the game is over; the argument is INVALID.

However, if b) occurs, you have not (yet) proved the argument is valid by reductio ad
absurdum, because your truth value assignments (which led to the contradiction of case b))
could be just because you chose the "wrong" hypothetical truth value to assign. You now
must return to the point where you made the hypothetical assignment and try the other
alternative. If your first hypothesis was to assign a "T" now you need to try an "F" (or vice
versa). Again, a), b), or c) could occur. If a) occurs, the argument is invalid and the game is
over, or if b) occurs the argument is now proved valid by reduction ad absurdum; and the
game is over. If c) occurs again, then repeat the process (return to step 5) with a second
hypothesis, etc.