Logical Argument, valid or not.
Explicitly identify the component statements that are part of the argument and show the symbolic form of the argument.
Decide whether the argument is valid or invalid. Here you may use truth tables, standard forms, Euler diagrams, and/or logical manipulation. If the argument is invalid, point to its logical fallacy.
"It's impossible for pigs to understand logic, and it is also impossible for pigs to breathe underwater; so it must be the case that pigs neither breathe underwater nor understand logic."
I have, P - Pigs to understand logic
Q - Pigs to breathe underwater
I am becoming familiar with LaTex so please bare with me until I become proficient at it. This is what I have for trying to represent it symbolically so far.
(~P ^ ~Q) --> (~Q V P)
I would assume it is valid, but My truth table skills are lacking. This is where I need help.
My textbook does a very confusing job at explaining them to me in terms of logical arguments. The textbook I have is Mathematical Excursions the 2nd edition by Aufmann, Lockwood, etc.
I am also assuming the word "impossible" means negating P and Q in the first statement, yes?