document.write( "Question 1171806: 1. W ⊃ (P v C)
\n" ); document.write( "2. ~P
\n" ); document.write( "3. W/C\r
\n" ); document.write( "\n" ); document.write( "I am trying to see how they were able to get the conclusion \"C\"\r
\n" ); document.write( "\n" ); document.write( "I think it should be
\n" ); document.write( "4. C modus ponens 1,2\r
\n" ); document.write( "\n" ); document.write( "But I am not sure if that is correct or if i am on the wrong path.
\n" ); document.write( "

Algebra.Com's Answer #796718 by math_tutor2020(3817)\"\" \"About 
You can put this solution on YOUR website!

\n" ); document.write( "You have the right idea, but it will require two steps instead of one.\r
\n" ); document.write( "
\n" ); document.write( "\n" ); document.write( "You can use Modus Ponens on lines 1 & 3 getting P v C as the result.
\n" ); document.write( "This is because we're told that \"If W, then (P v C)\" on line 1 and we know that W is the case on line 3. So that must mean (P v C) is the case as a result.\r
\n" ); document.write( "
\n" ); document.write( "\n" ); document.write( "Afterward, we use disjunctive syllogism on the statements P v C and ~P (line 2)
\n" ); document.write( "Basically from P v C we know that either P is the case or C is. But line 2 says that ~P is the case, so we know that P isn't the case. That leaves C being the conclusion.\r
\n" ); document.write( "
\n" ); document.write( "\n" ); document.write( "Here's the derivation table of the proof argument
\n" ); document.write( "\n" ); document.write( "\n" ); document.write( "
NumberStatementLines UsedReason
1W -> (P v C)
2~P
3W
:.C
4P v C1,3Modus Ponens
5C4,2Disjunctive Syllogism
\r
\n" ); document.write( "\n" ); document.write( "
\n" ); document.write( "
\n" );