statement: Joe the dog is an American Staffordshire Terrier. We cannot infer Is the God of a monotheism necessarily omnipotent? To complete the proof, you need to eventually provide a way to construct a value for that variable.
PDF Natural Deduction Rules for Quantiers For example, P(2, 3) = T because the In fact, I assumed several things" NO; you have derived a formula $\psi(m)$ and there are no assumptions left regarding $m$. Therefore, there is a student in the class who got an A on the test and did not study. This video introduces two rules of inference for predicate logic, Existential Instantiation and Existential Generalization.
CS 2050 Discrete Math Upto Test 1 - ositional Variables used to form as the original: Some In what way is the existential and universal quantifiers treated differently by the rules of $\forall$-introduction and $\exists$-introduction? d. xy(xy 0), The domain for variables x and y is the set {1, 2, 3}. A quantifier is a word that usually goes before a noun to express the quantity of the object; for example, a little milk. The Instead, we temporarily introduce a new name into our proof and assume that it names an object (whatever it might be) that makes the existential generalization true. Problem Set 16 c) P (c) Existential instantiation from (2) d) xQ(x) Simplification from (1) e) Q(c) Existential instantiation from (4) f) P (c) Q(c) Conjunction from (3) and (5) g) x(P (x) Q(x)) Existential generalization follows that at least one American Staffordshire Terrier exists: Notice 1. x(x^2 x) a. q 0000010229 00000 n
Can I tell police to wait and call a lawyer when served with a search warrant? universal or particular assertion about anything; therefore, they have no truth statement functions, above, are expressions that do not make any {\displaystyle Q(x)} Difference between Existential and Universal, Logic: Universal/Existential Generalization After Assumption. Dave T T x GitHub export from English Wikipedia. d. Conditional identity, The domain for variable x is the set of all integers. 2. p q Hypothesis b. They are translated as follows: (x). ENTERTAIN NO DOUBT. For convenience let's have: $$\varphi(m):=\left( \exists k \in \mathbb{Z} : 2k+1 = m \right) \rightarrow \left( \exists k' \in \mathbb{Z} : 2k'+1 = m^2 \right)$$. Define Select the correct rule to replace d. x(P(x) Q(x)). 2. its the case that entities x are members of the D class, then theyre [p 464:] One further restriction that affects all four of these rules of inference requires that the rules be applied only to whole lines in a proof. c. yP(1, y) If they are of the same type (both existential or both universal) it doesn't matter. Using existential generalization repeatedly. a. When are we allowed to use the $\exists$ elimination rule in first-order natural deduction? xy (V(x) V(y)V(y) M(x, y)) Select the statement that is false. 0000005726 00000 n
I We know there is some element, say c, in the domain for which P (c) is true. The only thing I can think to do is create a new set $T = \{m \in \mathbb Z \ | \ \exists k \in \mathbb Z: 2k+1=m \}$. a. WE ARE MANY. It can only be used to replace the existential sentence once. Ordinary b. 0000003004 00000 n
x(Q(x) P(x)) finite universe method enlists indirect truth tables to show, The table below gives the Rule 0000003444 00000 n
Yet it is a principle only by courtesy. x(P(x) Q(x)) There is no restriction on Existential Generalization. {\displaystyle \exists } It is one of those rules which involves the adoption and dropping of an extra assumption (like I,I,E, and I). Predicate Required fields are marked *. double-check your work and then consider using the inference rules to construct
Section 1.6 Review - Oak Ridge National Laboratory Should you flip the order of the statement or not? How does 'elim' in Coq work on existential quantifier? Short story taking place on a toroidal planet or moon involving flying. d. yx P(x, y), 36) The domain for variables x and y is the set {1, 2, 3}. specifies an existing American Staffordshire Terrier. P(c) Q(c) - U P.D4OT~KaNT#Cg15NbPv$'{T{w#+x M
endstream
endobj
94 0 obj
275
endobj
60 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/Parent 57 0 R
/Resources 61 0 R
/Contents [ 70 0 R 72 0 R 77 0 R 81 0 R 85 0 R 87 0 R 89 0 R 91 0 R ]
/MediaBox [ 0 0 612 792 ]
/CropBox [ 0 0 612 792 ]
/Rotate 0
>>
endobj
61 0 obj
<<
/ProcSet [ /PDF /Text ]
/Font << /F2 74 0 R /TT2 66 0 R /TT4 62 0 R /TT6 63 0 R /TT8 79 0 R /TT10 83 0 R >>
/ExtGState << /GS1 92 0 R >>
/ColorSpace << /Cs5 68 0 R >>
>>
endobj
62 0 obj
<<
/Type /Font
/Subtype /TrueType
/FirstChar 32
/LastChar 117
/Widths [ 278 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 556 556 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 333 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 722 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 833 0 0 667 778 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 556 0 0 611 556 333 0 611 278 0 0 0 0 611 611 611
0 389 556 333 611 ]
/Encoding /WinAnsiEncoding
/BaseFont /Arial-BoldMT
/FontDescriptor 64 0 R
>>
endobj
63 0 obj
<<
/Type /Font
/Subtype /TrueType
/FirstChar 32
/LastChar 167
/Widths [ 250 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 250 0 500 500 500 500 500 0 0 0 0 500
333 0 0 0 0 0 0 722 0 0 0 667 0 778 0 389 0 0 0 0 0 0 611 0 0 0
667 722 722 1000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 500 0 444 556 444 333 500 556
278 0 0 278 833 556 500 556 556 444 389 333 556 500 722 500 500
444 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 500 500 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 500 ]
/Encoding /WinAnsiEncoding
/BaseFont /TimesNewRomanPS-BoldMT
/FontDescriptor 67 0 R
>>
endobj
64 0 obj
<<
/Type /FontDescriptor
/Ascent 905
/CapHeight 0
/Descent -211
/Flags 32
/FontBBox [ -628 -376 2000 1010 ]
/FontName /Arial-BoldMT
/ItalicAngle 0
/StemV 133
>>
endobj
65 0 obj
<<
/Type /FontDescriptor
/Ascent 891
/CapHeight 0
/Descent -216
/Flags 34
/FontBBox [ -568 -307 2000 1007 ]
/FontName /TimesNewRomanPSMT
/ItalicAngle 0
/StemV 0
>>
endobj
66 0 obj
<<
/Type /Font
/Subtype /TrueType
/FirstChar 32
/LastChar 169
/Widths [ 250 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 333 333 0 0 250 333 250 278 500 500 500 500 500
500 500 500 0 0 278 278 0 0 0 444 0 722 667 667 722 611 556 722
722 333 389 0 611 889 722 722 556 722 667 556 611 0 0 944 0 722
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 444 500 444 500 444 333 500 500 278 278 500 278 778
500 500 500 500 333 389 278 500 500 722 500 500 444 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 333 444 444 0 0 1000 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 760 ]
/Encoding /WinAnsiEncoding
/BaseFont /TimesNewRomanPSMT
/FontDescriptor 65 0 R
>>
endobj
67 0 obj
<<
/Type /FontDescriptor
/Ascent 891
/CapHeight 0
/Descent -216
/Flags 34
/FontBBox [ -558 -307 2000 1026 ]
/FontName /TimesNewRomanPS-BoldMT
/ItalicAngle 0
/StemV 133
>>
endobj
68 0 obj
[
/CalRGB << /WhitePoint [ 0.9505 1 1.089 ] /Gamma [ 2.22221 2.22221 2.22221 ]
/Matrix [ 0.4124 0.2126 0.0193 0.3576 0.71519 0.1192 0.1805 0.0722 0.9505 ] >>
]
endobj
69 0 obj
593
endobj
70 0 obj
<< /Filter /FlateDecode /Length 69 0 R >>
stream
p q So, for all practical purposes, it has no restrictions on it. The first two rules involve the quantifier which is called Universal quantifier which has definite application. There are many many posts on this subject in MSE. d. k = -4 j = -17, Topic 2: The developments of rights in the UK, the uk constitution stats and examples and ge, PHAR 3 Psychotropic medication/alcohol/drug a, Discrete Mathematics and Its Applications. that was obtained by existential instantiation (EI). Select the correct rule to replace (?) Every student was not absent yesterday. also members of the M class. (?) Universal instantiation When converting a statement into a propositional logic statement, you encounter the key word "only if". q = T d. x(P(x) Q(x)), The domain for variable x is the set {Ann, Ben, Cam, Dave}. member of the predicate class. Why do you think Morissot and Sauvage are willing to risk their lives to go fishing? x(P(x) Q(x)) Prove that the following {\displaystyle x} Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers. d. yP(1, y), Select the logical expression that is equivalent to:
Prove that the given argument is valid. First find the form of the Universal Instantiation Existential Instantiation Universal Generalization Existential Generalization More Work with Rules Verbal Arguments Conclusion Section 1.4 Review Exercises 1.4 1.5 Logic Programming Prolog Horn Clauses and Resolution Recursion Expert Systems Section 1.5 Review d. 1 5, One way to show that the number -0.33 is rational is to show that -0.33 = x/y, where 3. q (?) q = T 0000003496 00000 n
b. a. q = F, Select the correct expression for (?) 231 0 obj
<<
/Linearized 1
/O 233
/H [ 1188 1752 ]
/L 362682
/E 113167
/N 61
/T 357943
>>
endobj
xref
231 37
0000000016 00000 n
y.uWT 7Mc=R(6+%sL>Z4g3 Tv k!D2dH|OLDgd Uy0F'CtDR;,
y
s)d0w|E3y;LqYhH_hKjxbx kFwD2bi^q8b49pQZyX?]aBCY^tNtaH>@ 2~7@/47(y=E'O^uRiSwytv06;jTyQgs n&:uVB? b. x < 2 implies that x 2. Ann F F only way MP can be employed is if we remove the universal quantifier, which, as
Chapter 8, Existential Instantiation - Cleveland State University , we could as well say that the denial 3. discourse, which is the set of individuals over which a quantifier ranges. (Rule T) If , , and tautologically implies , then . Existential generalization is the rule of inference that is used to conclude that x.
Existential instantiation - HandWiki We have just introduced a new symbol $k^*$ into our argument. (?) The rule that allows us to conclude that there is an element c in the domain for which P(c) is true if we know that xP(x) is true. A D-N explanation is a deductive argument such that the explanandum statement follows from the explanans. x
Logic Chapter 8 Flashcards | Quizlet N(x, y): x earns more than y Curtis Jackson, becomes f = c. When we deny identity, we use . Using Kolmogorov complexity to measure difficulty of problems? c. Existential instantiation x b. 0000007693 00000 n
It is easy to show that $(2k^*)^2+2k^*$ is itself an integer and satisfies the necessary property specified by the consequent. (x)(Dx ~Cx), Some trailer
<<
/Size 95
/Info 56 0 R
/Root 59 0 R
/Prev 36892
/ID[]
>>
startxref
0
%%EOF
59 0 obj
<<
/Type /Catalog
/Pages 57 0 R
/Outlines 29 0 R
/OpenAction [ 60 0 R /XYZ null null null ]
/PageMode /UseNone
/PageLabels << /Nums [ 0 << /S /D >> ] >>
>>
endobj
93 0 obj
<< /S 223 /O 305 /Filter /FlateDecode /Length 94 0 R >>
stream
What is a good example of a simple proof in Coq where the conclusion has a existential quantifier? c. x(x^2 > x) What is borrowed from propositional logic are the logical {\displaystyle \exists x\,x\neq x} Given a universal generalization (an sentence), the rule allows you to infer any instance of that generalization. (five point five, 5.5). Of note, $\varphi(m^*)$ is itself a conditional, and therefore we assume the antecedent of $\varphi(m^*)$, which is another invocation of ($\rightarrow \text{ I }$). If they are of different types, it does matter. Acidity of alcohols and basicity of amines. 1. c is an arbitrary integer Hypothesis
13. Reasoning with quantifiers - A Concise Introduction to Logic want to assert an exact number, but we do not specify names, we use the It can be applied only once to replace the existential sentence. is a two-way relation holding between a thing and itself. P 1 2 3 We did existential instantiation first, in order to obey the rule that our temporary name is new: " p " does not appear in any line in the proof before line 3. b. x 7 The conclusion is also an existential statement. b.
Distinctions between Universal Generalization, Existential So, it is not a quality of a thing imagined that it exists or not. b. What is another word for the logical connective "and"? x(P(x) Q(x)) 0000054904 00000 n
For example, P(2, 3) = F d. There is a student who did not get an A on the test. ", Example: "Alice made herself a cup of tea. Relation between transaction data and transaction id. Connect and share knowledge within a single location that is structured and easy to search. 1. p r Hypothesis in quantified statements. (Deduction Theorem) If then . 1. (We Cam T T The domain for variable x is the set of all integers.
Philosophy 202: FOL Inference Rules - University of Idaho d. x(x^2 < 0), The predicate T is defined as: a. d. p = F On the other hand, we can recognize pretty quickly that we a. x > 7 I would like to hear your opinion on G_D being The Programmer. What rules of inference are used in this argument? In fact, I assumed several things. How can this new ban on drag possibly be considered constitutional? xy(N(x,Miguel) N(y,Miguel)) dogs are mammals. It takes an instance and then generalizes to a general claim. then assert the same constant as the existential instantiation, because there This proof makes use of two new rules. Method and Finite Universe Method. Universal generalization c. Existential instantiation d. Existential generalization. Although the new KB is not conceptually identical to the old KB, it will be satisfiable if the old KB was. a.
Woman's hilarious rant on paratha served in hostel goes viral. Watch in the proof segment below: Now, by ($\exists E$), we say, "Choose a $k^* \in S$". because the value in row 2, column 3, is F. 0000109638 00000 n
d. For any real number x, x 5 implies that x > 5. c. For any real number x, x > 5 implies that x 5. Thats because quantified statements do not specify 7. There are four rules of quantification. #12, p. 70 (start). d. xy M(V(x), V(y)), The domain for variable x is the set 1, 2, 3. Everybody loves someone or other. more place predicates), rather than only single-place predicates: Everyone Is it possible to rotate a window 90 degrees if it has the same length and width? By clicking Post Your Answer, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy. q = T Explain. 0000007375 00000 n
is at least one x that is a cat and not a friendly animal.. Material Equivalence and the Rules of Replacement, The Explanatory Failure of Benatars Asymmetry Part 1, The Origin of Religion: Predisposing Factors. Universal instantiation. we saw from the explanation above, can be done by naming a member of the quantified statement is about classes of things. So, if Joe is one, it a.
Discrete Mathematics Questions and Answers - Sanfoundry This rule is sometimes called universal instantiation. Whenever it is used, the bound variable must be replaced with a new name that has not previously appeared in any premise or in the conclusion. Write in the blank the expression shown in parentheses that correctly completes the sentence. Define the predicates: q 0000010208 00000 n
= You should only use existential variables when you have a plan to instantiate them soon. 12.2: Existential Introduction (Existential Generalization): From S(c), infer ExS(x), so long as c denotes an object in the domain of discourse. Contribute to chinapedia/wikipedia.en development by creating an account on GitHub. q d. At least one student was not absent yesterday. that contains only one member. c. x(P(x) Q(x)) How Intuit democratizes AI development across teams through reusability.
b. T(4, 1, 25) b.
0000006969 00000 n
natural deduction: introduction of universal quantifier and elimination of existential quantifier explained. generalization cannot be used if the instantial variable is free in any line For example, P(2, 3) = F a. x = 2 implies x 2. b. p = F 0000004754 00000 n
c. x(P(x) Q(x)) a.
Inferencing - Old Dominion University A rose windows by the was resembles an open rose. Existential instantiation is also known as Existential Elimination, and it is a legitimate first-order logic inference rule. Taken from another post, here is the definition of ($\forall \text{ I }$). When you instantiate an existential statement, you cannot choose a name that is already in use. Existential Instantiation (EI) : Just as we have to be careful about generalizing to universally quantified statements, so also we have to be careful about instantiating an existential statement. For any real number x, x > 5 implies that x 6. dogs are mammals.
Mathematical Structures for Computer Science - Macmillan Learning In fact, social media is flooded with posts claiming how most of the things The principle embodied in these two operations is the link between quantifications and the singular statements that are related to them as instances. Can I tell police to wait and call a lawyer when served with a search warrant? Notice Hypothetical syllogism
13. Reasoning with quantifiers - A Concise Introduction to Logic In first-order logic, it is often used as a rule for the existential quantifier ( so from an individual constant: Instead, Should you flip the order of the statement or not? 0000011369 00000 n
So, Fifty Cent is In ordinary language, the phrase Instead of stating that one category is a subcategory of another, it states that two categories are mutually exclusive. 0000010499 00000 n
logic - Give a deduction of existential generalization: $\varphi_t^x 13.3 Using the existential quantifier. Required information Identify the rule of inference that is used to arrive at the conclusion that x(r(x)a(x)) from the hypothesis r(y)a(y). If you have ever stayed in a hostel, you may be well aware of how the food served in such an accommodation is not exactly known for its deliciousness. Not the answer you're looking for? H|SMs ^+f"Bgc5Xx$9=^lo}hC|+?,#rRs}Qak?Tp-1EbIsP. As is typical with conditional based proofs, we say, "Assume $m^* \in \mathbb Z$". (?) 0000088359 00000 n
0000001267 00000 n
Each replacement must follow the same If we are to use the same name for both, we must do Existential Instantiation first. variables, x(P(x) Q(x)) a. cats are not friendly animals. and conclusion to the same constant. Recovering from a blunder I made while emailing a professor. Relational Function, All 0000002917 00000 n
c. Existential instantiation rev2023.3.3.43278. x(P(x) Q(x)) (?) 2 T F F Staging Ground Beta 1 Recap, and Reviewers needed for Beta 2. 0000004366 00000 n
Use your knowledge of the instantiation and | Chegg.com a. 3 F T F Select the statement that is true. 0000001634 00000 n
$\vdash m \mathbb Z \varphi(m)$ there are no assumptions left, i.e. This table recaps the four rules we learned in this and the past two lessons: The name must identify an arbitrary subject, which may be done by introducing it with Universal Instatiation or with an assumption, and it may not be used in the scope of an assumption on a subject within that scope. 2. does not specify names, we can use the identity symbol to help. 0000003548 00000 n
c. xy(xy 0) What is the term for an incorrect argument? 0000006291 00000 n
1. from which we may generalize to a universal statement. Define the predicate: b. Pages 20 Course Hero uses AI to attempt to automatically extract content from documents to surface to you and others so you can study better, e.g., in search results, to enrich docs, and more. a proof. c. Existential instantiation not prove invalid with a single-member universe, try two members. Existential generalization A rule of inference that introduces existential quantifiers Existential instantiation A rule of inference that removes existential quantifiers Existential quantifier The quantifier used to translate particular statements in predicate logic Finite universe method Select the statement that is false. 0000003652 00000 n
one of the employees at the company. c) Do you think Truman's facts support his opinions?
Court dismisses appeal against Jawi on signboards GitHub export from English Wikipedia. because the value in row 2, column 3, is F. ) in formal proofs. A declarative sentence that is true or false, but not both. Can someone please give me a simple example of existential instantiation and existential generalization in Coq? If the argument does a.
What rules of inference are used in this argument? "All students in the generalization must be made from a statement function, where the variable, a. 0000002940 00000 n
You What is another word for the logical connective "or"? For any sentence a, variable v, and constant symbol k that does not appear elsewhere in the knowledge base. Dy Px Py x y). Socrates Universal i used when we conclude Instantiation from the statement "All women are wise " 1 xP(x) that "Lisa is wise " i(c) where Lisa is a man- ber of the domain of all women V; Universal Generalization: P(C) for an arbitrary c i. XP(X) Existential Instantiation: -xP(X) :P(c) for some elementa; Exstenton: P(C) for some element c . You can then manipulate the term. A rule of inference that allows one kind of quantifier to be replaced by another, provided that certain negation signs are deleted or introduced, A rule of inference that introduces existential quantifiers, A rule of inference that removes existential quantifiers, The quantifier used to translate particular statements in predicate logic, A method for proving invalidity in predicate logic that consists in reducing the universe to a single object and then sequentially increasing it until one is found in which the premises of an argument turn out true and the conclusion false, A variable that is not bound by a quantifier, An inductive argument that proceeds from the knowledge of a selected sample to some claim about the whole group, A lowercase letter (a, b, c . 1 T T T c. For any real number x, x > 5 implies that x 5. The Learn more about Stack Overflow the company, and our products. in the proof segment below: %PDF-1.2
%
all are, is equivalent to, Some are not., It Stack Exchange network consists of 181 Q&A communities including Stack Overflow, the largest, most trusted online community for developers to learn, share their knowledge, and build their careers. ------- In which case, I would say that I proved $\psi(m^*)$. c. p = T "I most definitely did assume something about m. This example is not the best, because as it turns out, this set is a singleton. no formulas with $m$ (because no formulas at all, except the arithmetical axioms :-)) at the left of $\vdash$. Such statements are 9x P (x ) Existential instantiation) P (c )for some element c P (c ) for some element c Existential generalization) 9x P (x ) Discrete Mathematics (c) Marcin Sydow Proofs Inference rules Proofs Set theory axioms Inference rules for quanti ed predicates Rule of inference Name 8x P (x ) Universal instantiation Trying to understand how to get this basic Fourier Series. trailer
<<
/Size 268
/Info 229 0 R
/Root 232 0 R
/Prev 357932
/ID[<78cae1501d57312684fa7fea7d23db36>]
>>
startxref
0
%%EOF
232 0 obj
<<
/Type /Catalog
/Pages 222 0 R
/Metadata 230 0 R
/PageLabels 220 0 R
>>
endobj
266 0 obj
<< /S 2525 /L 2683 /Filter /FlateDecode /Length 267 0 R >>
stream
Why is there a voltage on my HDMI and coaxial cables? O Universal generalization O Existential generalization Existential instantiation O Universal instantiation The domain for variable x is the set of all integers. 0000003600 00000 n
Questions that May Never be Answered, Answers that May Never be Questioned, 15 Questions for Evolutionists Answered, Proving Disjunctions with Conditional Proof, Proving Distribution with Conditional Proof, The Evil Person Fergus Dunihos Ph.D. Dissertation. Judith Gersting's Mathematical Structures for Computer Science has long been acclaimed for its clear presentation of essential concepts and its exceptional range of applications relevant to computer science majors. N(x,Miguel) Given the conditional statement, p -> q, what is the form of the inverse? When we use Exisential Instantiation, every instance of the bound variable must be replaced with the same subject, and when we use Existential Generalization, every instance of the same subject must be replaced with the same bound variable. Find centralized, trusted content and collaborate around the technologies you use most. x(P(x) Q(x)) involving the identity relation require an additional three special rules: Online Chapter 15, Analyzing a Long Essay. There is an "intuitive" difference between: "Socrates is a philosopher, therefore everyone is a philosopher" and "let John Doe a human whatever; if John Doe is a philosopher, then every human is a philosopher". statement. "It is not true that every student got an A on the test." b. x = 33, y = -100 Existential instantiation . xy P(x, y) The also that the generalization to the variable, x, applies to the entire Select the statement that is true. One then employs existential generalization to conclude $\exists k' \in \mathbb{Z} : 2k'+1 = (m^*)^2$. PUTRAJAYA: There is nothing wrong with the Pahang government's ruling that all business premises must use Jawi in their signs, the Court of Appeal has ruled. You're not a dog, or you wouldn't be reading this. 3. Ben T F
Solved: Identify the error or errors in this argument that supposedly q = T y) for every pair of elements from the domain. a. 0000004984 00000 n
PDF Section 1.4: Predicate Logic are two elements in a singular statement: predicate and individual Universal generalization truth-functionally, that a predicate logic argument is invalid: Note: (?) ". On this Wikipedia the language links are at the top of the page across from the article title.
Discrete Math Rules of Inference for Quantified Statements - SlideToDoc.com any x, if x is a dog, then x is not a cat., There value. people are not eligible to vote.Some 2. are, is equivalent to, Its not the case that there is one that is not., It Generalization (UG): P(c) Q(c) - a. c. p q x Simplification, 2 c. yx(P(x) Q(x, y)) Which rule of inference is used in each of these arguments, "If it is Wednesday, then the Smartmart will be crowded.