![Using: » Your familiar un-quantified rules of inference (modus ponens, disjunctive syllogism, etc), The quantified versions of Modus Ponens / Tollens and Hypothetical Syllogism, all of which are presented in chapter 3.4 of our textbook and ·Axioms of logical equivalence (associativity, double negation, etc) show that the proofs depicted in table 4 are valid. Note that we are not asking you to use truth tables of any kind. We are asking you to use quantified (universal, in the terminology of Epp), rules of inference to deduce the conclusions themselves. For every step of the derivation, document which rule or axiom of equivalence you are using. We assume some well-defined domain D. (Va E D)[C(x)- S(x)] R(a) Q(a) for a particular a for a particular a for a particular a for a particular a R(a) (4 pts) ..~ R(a) 5 pts) . S(a) 8 pts) . P(a Table 4: Four rules for you to use in problem 5 Note that the last rule contains 3 (three) premises, the third of which is an existentially quantified disjunction](https://d2vlcm61l7u1fs.cloudfront.net/media%2Fc98%2Fc98a34d7-4d54-4d43-821b-8d3fd9ccc83c%2FphpcwoG7G.png)
Using: Your familiar “un-quantified” rules of inference (modus ponens, disjunctive syllogism, etc). The quantified versions of Modus Ponens/Tollens and Hypothetical Syllogism, all of which are presented in chapter 3.4 of our textbook and Axioms of logical equivalence (associativity, double negation, etc) show that the proofs depicted in table 4 are valid. Note that we are not asking you to use truth tables of any kind. We are asking you to use quantified (“universal”, in the terminology of Epp), rules of inference to deduce the conclusions themselves. For every step of the derivation, document which rule or axiom of equivalence you are using. We assume some well-defined domain D. Note that the last rule contains 3 (three) premises, the third of which is an existentially quantified disjunction.
