INDIRECT PROOF OF VALIDITY (REDUCTIO AD ABSURDUM/ REDUCTION TO

THE ABSURD)

Indirect proof is based on the classical notion that any given sentence, such as the
conclusion, must be either true or false.

We do indirect proof by assuming the premises to be true and the conclusion to be

false and deriving a contradiction. That contradiction will show that when we
denied what was to be proved we were brought to absurdity.

Assume the opposite of the conclusion then you demonstrate that this assumption
leads to a contradiction.

STEPS:

1. Assume the opposite of the conclusion.

2. Continue the proof as normal.
3. Derive an explicit contradiction. (Ex. P ~P)

SIMPLE EXAMPLE:
1. R v S
2. ~R v ~P
3. P
4. S
5. ~S I.P.
6. ~R 1, 5 M.T.
7. ~P 2, 6 M.P.
8. P. ~P Lines 3 and 7 contradict each other.
the assumption ~S is false and S is true.

This method of indirect proof strengthens our machinery for testing arguments by
making it possible, in some circumstances, to prove validity more quickly than
would be possible without it.

In the following example, the proof without the reductio ad absurdum is on the left
and requires fifteen steps; the proof using the reductio ad absurdum is on the right
and requires only eight steps. An exclamation point (!) is used to indicate that a
given step is derived after the assumption advancing the indirect proof had been
made.

DIRECT PROOF INDIRECT PROOF

1. (H I) (J K)
2. (I v K) L
3. ~ L
~ (H v J)
4. ~ (I v K) 2, 3, M.T. !4~~(H v J) I.P. (Indirect Proof)
5. ~I ~K 4, De M. !5 H v J 4, D.N.
6. ~I 5, Simp. !6 I v K 1, 5, C.D.
7. H I 1, Simp. !7 L 2, 6, M.P.
8. ~H 7, 6, M.T. !8 L ~L 7, 3, Conj.
9. (J K) (H I) 1, Com.
10. J K 9, Simp.
11. ~K ~I 5, Com.
12. ~K 11, Simp.
13. ~J 10, 12, M.T.
14. ~H ~J 8, 13, Conj.
15. ~ (H v J) 14, De M.
Shorter Truth-Table Technique

An argument may be proved invalid by assuming the PREMISES are all TRUE and the
CONCLUSION is FALSE.

OBJECTIVE:
- To prove that the argument is invalid by the question:

IS IT POSSIBLE TO HAVE ALL TRUE PREMISES AND A FALSE CONCLUSION?

YES INVALID NO VALID

Accordingly, if we can assign consistently* truth-values to an argument that results

in all true premises and a false conclusion, then we know the form is invalid.

*CONSISTENT - if the truth-value of a proposition is true in one occurrence in a

particular argument, then it must be true in its other occurrences in that same
argument. This is similar with a false proposition.

EXAMPLE 1:

AvB
BC
A
C

STEP 1. AvB BC A C
Display
the argument in a linear form.

STEP 2. Assign T to all the premises and F to the conclusion. Put the truth-values

T T T F

AvB BC A C
above the premises and conclusion:

STEP 3. Figure out what are the truth values of the simple propositions. But given
the assumption that the premises are true and the conclusion is false, there are
some givens: The A proposition will be true and the C proposition will be false.

T T T F

AvB BC A C

t f

If the C is false then, to be consistent, we must enter an f underneath the C of the

second premise. But this means the B must be false as well, for if the B were true
and the C were false then the conditional statement would be false. So we put in
two fs underneath the second premise:

T T T F

AvB BC A C

f f t f

Now we can put in the remaining truth values, for we know the A is true and the B is
false:

T T T F

AvB BC A C

t f f f t f
We have now shown that there is a consistent set of truth-values that produces a
line in which the premises are true and the conclusion is false. Therefore the
argument form is invalid.

Note that the line we discovered would be one of the lines in a full truth table. But
instead of going to the trouble to display the whole table, we, with a little
imagination and reasoning, were able to produce only what we needed: a line with
true premises and a false conclusion. This is all it takes to show that a deductive
argument form is invalid.

EXAMPLE 2.

If determinism holds, people do not have free will.

People have free will.
Therefore determinism does not hold.

Here it is in symbols:

D ~F
F
~D
Here it is in a short-cut truth table:
Assume: T T F

D ~F F ~D

t f t f

But: F T F

No actual assignment of true premises and false conclusion is possible. Therefore

the argument form is valid!