SOLUTION: 1. ~(U v R) 2. (~R v N) ⊃ (P • H) 3. Q ⊃ ~H /~Q

Question 1178947: 1. ~(U v R)
2. (~R v N) ⊃ (P • H)
3. Q ⊃ ~H /~Q

Answer by CPhill(1959) (Show Source): You can put this solution on YOUR website!
Let's analyze this logical argument to determine its validity. We'll use a proof by deduction to see if we can derive ~Q from the given premises.
**1. Premises:**
1. ~(U v R)
2. (~R v N) ⊃ (P • H)
3. Q ⊃ ~H
**2. Derivations:**
4. ~U • ~R (De Morgan's Law on premise 1)
5. ~R (Simplification on line 4)
6. ~R v N (Addition on line 5)
7. P • H (Modus Ponens on lines 2 and 6)
8. H (Simplification on line 7)
9. ~Q (Modus Tollens on lines 3 and 8)
**Explanation of Steps:**
* **Step 4:** We applied De Morgan's Law to premise 1. De Morgan's Law states that ~(A v B) is equivalent to ~A • ~B.
* **Step 5:** We used simplification on line 4. If a conjunction (A • B) is true, then both A and B are true individually.
* **Step 6:** We used addition on line 5. If A is true, then (A v B) is also true, regardless of the truth value of B.
* **Step 7:** We used Modus Ponens on lines 2 and 6. Modus Ponens states that if (A ⊃ B) is true and A is true, then B is true.
* **Step 8:** We used simplification on line 7, the same as step 5.
* **Step 9:** We used Modus Tollens on lines 3 and 8. Modus Tollens states that if (A ⊃ B) is true and ~B is true, then ~A is true.
**Conclusion:**
We were able to derive ~Q from the given premises. Therefore, the argument is **valid**.

RELATED QUESTIONS
1. ~(U v R) 2. (~R v N) ⊃ (P * H) 3. Q ⊃ ~H /... (answered by math_helper)

1. P v R 2. R -> Q ////// :. (P v Q) (answered by solver91311)

Question 1 1. ~(U v R) 2. (~R v N) ⊃ (P * H) 3. Q ⊃ ~H ~Q Question 2... (answered by Edwin McCravy)

1. P V Q 2. Q -> (R & S) 3. (R V P) -> T /... (answered by Edwin McCravy)

P v (Q & R) <=> (P v Q) & (P v R) (answered by Edwin McCravy)

~p ^ r p v q -------- ∴ q v... (answered by math_tutor2020)

Can somebody please gimme a hand 1.�S -> Q 2.(U v P) -> (F v T) 3.(R & S) -> T 4.�R (answered by Edwin McCravy)

(q →... (answered by MathLover1)

Looking for a logical proof help using rules of implication! Thank you! 1. [(T � R) v (answered by Edwin McCravy)