Question 1061571
<pre>
I see you posted it again. Apparently your prof doesn't 
want either an indirect truth table or conditional proof.

OK, here it is, but we must use material implication.
Have you studied that? 

 1. ~w->~a
 2. ~(w&#1640;p)vs
 3. s->b
 4. ~(a&#1640;~p)  / a->b

 5. ~~a->~~w           1, transposition
 6. a->w               5, double negation
 7. ~av~~p             4, DeMorgan's law
 8. ~avp               7, double negation
 9. a->p               8, material implication
10. a->(w&#1640;p)           6,9, composition  
11. (w&#1640;p)->s           2, material implication
12. a->s               10,11, hypothetical syllogism
13. a->b               12,3, hypothetical syllogism

Edwin</pre><b>