T5.6 7 of 9
Okay, now lets apply our three step strategy analysis to a more difficult problem. Use derivations to show that...
D>~B
(B&C)>~D
We may now see how the three strategy steps work for this more complicated example...
Start the Demo.
From the premise 'D>~B' deduce '(B&C)>~D'.
Thus, we assume the antecedent of our goal sentence.
Our plan to use >I provides us with a new goal: we hope to derive the consequent '~D' by line 6 (this is step 1 again).
If it's not obvious what to do next, then step 3 again suggests the introduction rule for our goal's main connective: ~I. This requires a second assumption and a subderivation within a subderivation!
It may be obvious how to proceed at this point, but if not move to step 3 and apply E-rules (there is no I rule to apply). We should only use E-rules that move toward our goal of a contradiction.
Finally, citing lines 2 through 6, we have shown that if 'B&C' holds, then '~D' does too. Thus, line 7 is justified.
Replay the demonstration.
Next...
sign to pause the demo.