# These are three questions I have for my Introduction to Logic that I am stuck on.These are the instructions:

Construct a formal proof for each of the following valid arguments using the rules of implication/inference and the first 5 rules of replacement.

The two problems are below.

- R>~X
- DvR
- X /D

- ~(~E v ~N) > T
- G> (N & E) /G>T

The third problem is a little different.

The instructions are:

Construct a proof for the following valid argument using all 18 rules.

- (A & B) > C
- (B > C) > (Q v X)
- ~(Q v ~A) /X

s a

- ctum vitae odio. Donec al
- rem ipsum dolor sit amet,
- congue vel laoreet ac, di
- ec facilisis. Pellentesque dapibus e
- fficitur laoreet. Nam risus ante, dapibus a m

ffi

- Fusce dui lectus, congue vel laoreet
- at, ultrices ac magna. Fusce dui lec
- cing elit. Nam lacinia pulvinar tortor nec fa
- dictum vitae odio. Donec aliquet. Lorem ipsum
- trices ac magna. Fusce dui lectus, congue vel laoreet

ris

- m ipsum dolor sit amet, consect
- amet, consectetur adipiscing el
- ac, dictum vitae odio. Donec a
- sus ante, dapibus a molestie consequat, ul
- ipiscing elit. Nam lacinia pulvinar tort
- , consectetur adipiscing elit. Nam la
- , consectetur adipiscing elit. Nam laci
- acinia pulvinar tortor nec facilisis. P
- gue vel laoreet ac, dictum vitae odio.
- s a molestie consequat, ultrices ac magna. Fusce

**acinia pulvi**

ris

ng elit. Nam

ce

x

ec facilisis

ec facilisis. Pellent

isci

u

ec aliquet.

ffi

et, consectetur

fficitur laoreet. Nam risus ante, dapibus a molestie c

ipiscing elit.

lestie consequat, ultrices ac magna. Fusce dui lect

m ipsum dolor sit amet

onec aliqu

icitur laor

ur laoreet. Nam

ris

et, consectetur

a. Fusce dui lectus, congue vel laoreet ac, d

, ultrices ac

a mole

gue vel laore

cing elit.

cing elit. Nam lacinia pulvinar tortor nec facilisi

pulvinar to

fficitur la

o

ec facilisis. Pe

pulvinar to

or nec facilisis.

nec

inia pulvinar to

ec facilisis. Pellent

ffici

u

sum dolor si