CHAPTER 3

THE LOGIC OF
QUANTIFIED
STATEMENTS

Copyright © Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

1
SECTION 3.4
Arguments with Quantified
Statements

Copyright © Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

2
Arguments with Quantified Statements
The rule of universal instantiation (in-stan-she-AY-shun)
says the following:

Universal instantiation is the fundamental tool of deductive

reasoning.

Mathematical formulas, definitions, and theorems are like

general templates that are used over and over in a wide
variety of particular situations.

3
Arguments with Quantified Statements
A given theorem says that such and such is true for all
things of a certain type.

If, in a given situation, you have a particular object of that

type, then by universal instantiation, you conclude that
such and such is true for that particular object.

You may repeat this process 10, 20, or more times in a

single proof or problem solution.

4
Universal Modus Ponens

5
Universal Modus Ponens
The rule of universal instantiation can be combined with
modus ponens to obtain the valid form of argument called
universal modus ponens.

6
Universal Modus Ponens
Note that the first, or major, premise of universal modus
ponens could be written “All things that make P (x) true
make Q (x) true,” in which case the conclusion would follow
by universal instantiation alone.

However, the if-then form is more natural to use in the

majority of mathematical situations.

7
Example 1 – Recognizing Universal Modus Ponens

Rewrite the following argument using quantifiers, variables,

and predicate symbols. Is this argument valid? Why?

If an integer is even, then its square is even.

k is a particular integer that is even.
• k2 is even.

Solution:
The major premise of this argument can be rewritten as
x, if x is an even integer then x2 is even.

8
Example 1 – Solution cont’d

Let E (x) be “x is an even integer,” let S (x) be “x2 is even,”

and let k stand for a particular integer that is even.

Then the argument has the following form:

x, if E (x) then S (x).

E (k), for a particular k.

• S (k).

This argument has the form of universal modus ponens

and is therefore valid.
9
Use of Universal Modus Ponens
in a Proof

10
Use of Universal Modus Ponens in a Proof

Here is a proof that the sum of any two even integers is

even.

It makes use of the definition of even integer, namely, that

an integer is even if, and only if, it equals twice some
integer. (Or, more formally:  integers x, x is even if, and
only if, ∃ an integer k such that x = 2k.)

Suppose m and n are particular but arbitrarily chosen even

integers. Then m = 2r for some integer r,(1) and n = 2s for
some integer s.(2)

11
Use of Universal Modus Ponens in a Proof

Hence

Now r + s is an integer,(4) and so 2(r + s) is even.(5)

Thus m + n is even.

12
Use of Universal Modus Ponens in a Proof

The following expansion of the proof shows how each of

the numbered steps is justified by arguments that are valid
by universal modus ponens.

(1) If an integer is even, then it equals twice some integer.

m is a particular even integer.
• m equals twice some integer r.

(2) If an integer is even, then it equals twice some integer.

n is a particular even integer.
• n equals twice some integer s.

13
Use of Universal Modus Ponens in a Proof

(3) If a quantity is an integer, then it is a real number.

r and s are particular integers.
• r and s are real numbers.

For all a, b, and c, if a, b, and c are real numbers,

then ab + ac = a (b + c).
2, r, and s are particular real numbers.
• 2r + 2s = 2(r + s).

(4) For all u and v, if u and v are integers, then u + v is

an integer.
r and s are two particular integers.
• r + s is an integer. 14
Use of Universal Modus Ponens in a Proof

(5) If a number equals twice some integer, then that number

is even.
2(r + s) equals twice the integer r + s.
• 2(r + s) is even.

15
Universal Modus Tollens

16
Universal Modus Tollens
Another crucially important rule of inference is universal
modus tollens. Its validity results from combining universal
instantiation with modus tollens.

Universal modus tollens is the heart of proof of contradiction,

which is one of the most important methods of mathematical
argument.

17
Example 3 – Recognizing the Form of Universal Modus Tollens

Rewrite the following argument using quantifiers, variables,

and predicate symbols. Write the major premise in
conditional form. Is this argument valid? Why?

All human beings are mortal.

Zeus is not mortal.
• Zeus is not human.

Solution:
The major premise can be rewritten as
x, if x is human then x is mortal.

18
Example 3 – Solution cont’d

Let H (x) be “x is human,” let M (x) be “x is mortal,” and let Z

stand for Zeus.

The argument becomes

This argument has the form of universal modus tollens and

is therefore valid.

19
Proving Validity of Arguments
with Quantified Statements

20
Proving Validity of Arguments with Quantified Statements

The intuitive definition of validity for arguments with

quantified statements is the same as for arguments with
compound statements.
An argument is valid if, and only if, the truth of its
conclusion follows necessarily from the truth of its
premises.
The formal definition is as follows:

21
Using Diagrams to Test for
Validity

22
Using Diagrams to Test for Validity
Consider the statement
All integers are rational numbers.

Or, formally,

 integers n, n is a rational number.

Picture the set of all integers and the set of all rational
numbers as disks.

23
Using Diagrams to Test for Validity
The truth of the given statement is represented by placing
the integers disk entirely inside the rationals disk, as shown
in Figure 3.4.1.

Because the two statements

if x is in D then Q(x)” are

logically equivalent, both
can be represented by
diagrams like the foregoing.

Figure 3.4.1

24
Using Diagrams to Test for Validity
To test the validity of an argument diagrammatically,
represent the truth of both premises with diagrams.

Then analyze the diagrams to see whether they necessarily

represent the truth of the conclusion as well.

25
Example 6 – Using Diagrams to Show Invalidity

Use a diagram to show the invalidity of the following

argument:
All human beings are mortal.
Felix is mortal.
• Felix is a human being.

26
Example 6 – Solution
The major and minor premises are represented
diagrammatically in Figure 3.4.4.

Major premise Minor premise

Figure 3.4.4

27
Example 6 – Solution cont’d

All that is known is that the Felix dot is located somewhere

inside the mortals disk. Where it is located with respect to
the human beings disk cannot be determined. Either one of
the situations shown in Figure 3.4.5 might be the case.

(a) (b)
Figure 3.4.5

28
Example 6 – Solution cont’d

The conclusion “Felix is a human being” is true in the first

case but not in the second (Felix might, for example, be a
cat).

Because the conclusion does not necessarily follow from

the premises, the argument is invalid.

29
Using Diagrams to Test for Validity
The argument of Example 6 would be valid if the major
premise were replaced by its converse. But since a
universal conditional statement is not logically equivalent to
its converse, such a replacement cannot, in general, be
made.

We say that this argument exhibits the converse error.

30
Using Diagrams to Test for Validity
The following form of argument would be valid if a conditional
statement were logically equivalent to its inverse. But it is not,
and the argument form is invalid.

We say that it exhibits the inverse error.

31
Example 7 – An Argument with “No”
Use diagrams to test the following argument for validity:

No polynomial functions have horizontal asymptotes.

This function has a horizontal asymptote.
• This function is not a polynomial function.

32
Example 7 – Solution
A good way to represent the major premise diagrammatically
is shown in Figure 3.4.6, two disks—a disk for polynomial
functions and a disk for functions with horizontal asymptotes
—that do not overlap at all.

Figure 3.4.6

33
Example 7 – Solution cont’d

The minor premise is represented by placing a dot labeled

“this function” inside the disk for functions with horizontal
asymptotes.

The diagram shows that “this function” must lie outside the
polynomial functions disk, and so the truth of the conclusion
necessarily follows from the truth of the premises.

Hence the argument is valid.

34
Using Diagrams to Test for Validity
An alternative approach to this example is to transform the
statement “No polynomial functions have horizontal
asymptotes” into the equivalent form “x, if x is a
polynomial function, then x does not have a horizontal
asymptote.”

35
Using Diagrams to Test for Validity
If this is done, the argument can be seen to have the form

where P (x) is “x is a polynomial function” and Q (x) is

“x does not have a horizontal asymptote.”

This is valid by universal modus tollens.

36
Creating Additional Forms of
Argument

37
Creating Additional Forms of Argument
Universal modus ponens and modus tollens were obtained
by combining universal instantiation with modus ponens
and modus tollens.

In the same way, additional forms of arguments involving

universally quantified statements can be obtained by
combining universal instantiation with other of the valid
argument forms discussed earlier.

38
Creating Additional Forms of Argument
Consider the following argument:

This argument form can be combined with universal

instantiation to obtain the following valid argument form.

39
Example 8 – Evaluating an Argument for Tarski’s World

Consider the Tarski world shown in Figure 3.3.1.

Figure 3.3.1

40
Example 8 – Evaluating an Argument for Tarski’s World
cont’d

Reorder and rewrite the premises to show that the

conclusion follows as a valid consequence from the
premises.
1. All the triangles are blue.

2. If an object is to the right of all the squares, then it is

above all the circles.

3. If an object is not to the right of all the squares, then it is

not blue.

• All the triangles are above all the circles.

41
Example 8 – Solution
It is helpful to begin by rewriting the premises and the
conclusion in if-then form:

1. x, if x is a triangle, then x is blue.

2. x, if x is to the right of all the squares, then x is above

all the circles.

3. x, if x is not to the right of all the squares, then x is not

blue.

• x, if x is a triangle, then x is above all the circles.

42
Example 8 – Solution cont’d

The goal is to reorder the premises so that the conclusion

of each is the same as the hypothesis of the next.

Also, the hypothesis of the argument’s conclusion should

be the same as the hypothesis of the first premise, and the
conclusion of the argument’s conclusion should be the
same as the conclusion of the last premise.

To achieve this goal, it may be necessary to rewrite some

of the statements in contrapositive form.

43
Example 8 – Solution cont’d

In this example you can see that the first premise should
remain where it is, but the second and third premises
should be interchanged.

Then the hypothesis of the argument is the same as the

hypothesis of the first premise, and the conclusion of the
argument’s conclusion is the same as the conclusion of the
third premise.

But the hypotheses and conclusions of the premises do not

quite line up. This is remedied by rewriting the third premise
in contrapositive form.
44
Example 8 – Solution cont’d

Thus the premises and conclusion of the argument can be

rewritten as follows:

1. x, if x is a triangle, then x is blue.

3. x, if x is blue, then x is to the right of all the squares.

2. x, if x is to the right of all the squares, then x is above

all the circles.

• x, if x is a triangle, then x is above all the circles.

45
Example 8 – Solution cont’d

The validity of this argument follows easily from the validity

of universal transitivity.

Putting 1 and 3 together and using universal transitivity

gives that
4. x, if x is a triangle, then x is to the right of all the
squares.

And putting 4 together with 2 and using universal transitivity

gives that

x, if x is a triangle, then x is above all the circles,

which is the conclusion of the argument.
46
Remark on the Converse and
Inverse Errors

47
Remark on the Converse and Inverse Errors

A variation of the converse error is a very useful reasoning

tool, provided that it is used with caution.

It is the type of reasoning that is used by doctors to make

medical diagnoses and by auto mechanics to repair cars.

48
Remark on the Converse and Inverse Errors

It is the type of reasoning used to generate explanations for

phenomena. It goes like this: If a statement of the form

For all x, if P (x) then Q (x)

is true, and if

Q (a) is true, for a particular a,

then check out the statement P (a); it just might be true.

49
Remark on the Converse and Inverse Errors

For instance, suppose a doctor knows that

For all x, if x has pneumonia, then x has a fever and

chills, coughs deeply, and feels exceptionally tired
and miserable.

And suppose the doctor also knows that

John has a fever and chills, coughs deeply,

and feels exceptionally tired and miserable.

On the basis of these data, the doctor concludes that a

diagnosis of pneumonia is a strong possibility, though not a
certainty.
50
Remark on the Converse and Inverse Errors

The doctor will probably attempt to gain further support for

this diagnosis through laboratory testing that is specifically
designed to detect pneumonia.

Note that the closer a set of symptoms comes to being a

necessary and sufficient condition for an illness, the more
nearly certain the doctor can be of his or her diagnosis.

This form of reasoning has been named abduction by

researchers working in artificial intelligence. It is used in
certain computer programs, called expert systems, that
attempt to duplicate the functioning of an expert in some
field of knowledge.
51