The truth table for a valid deductive argument will show
wherever the premises are true, the conclusion is true.
that the premises are false.
that some premises are true, some premises false.
wherever the premises are true, the conclusion is false.
A conditional sentence with a false antecedent is always
true.
false.
Cannot be determined.
not a sentence.
The sentence "P Q" is read as
P or Q
P and Q
If P then Q
Q if and only P
In the conditional "P Q," "P" is a
sufficient condition for Q.
sufficient condition for P.
necessary condition for P.
necessary condition for Q.
What is the truth value of the sentence "P & ~ P"?
True
False
Cannot be determined
Not a sentence
"P v Q" is best interpreted as
P or Q but not both P and Q
P or Q or both P and Q
Not both P or Q
P if and only if Q
Truth tables can determine which of the following?
If an argument is valid
If an argument is sound
If a sentence is valid
All of the above
One of the disadvantages of using truth tables is
it is difficult to keep the lines straight
T's are easy to confuse with F's.
they grow exponentially and become too large for complex arguments.
they cannot distinguish strong inductive arguments from weak inductive arguments.
"~ P v Q" is best read as
Not P and Q
It is not the case that P and it is not the case that Q
It is not the case that P or Q
It is not the case that P and Q
In the conditional "P Q," "Q is a
sufficient condition for Q.
sufficient condition for P.
necessary condition for P.
necessary condition for Q.
