Prove that this is a tautology. What is the next step required?

Prove that the following is a tautology without using a truth table and only using logical equivalences.

$(p\vee q) \wedge (\neg p \vee r) \rightarrow (q \vee r)$

We know that $(p \rightarrow q)$ is logically equivalent to $(\neg p \vee q )$ so we apply that.

$\neg [(p\vee q) \wedge (\neg p \vee r)] \vee (q \vee r)$

De Morgan's Law follows that: $\neg (p \wedge q)$ is logically equivalent to $(\neg p \vee \neg q)$

[$\neg(p\vee q) \vee \neg(\neg p \vee r)] \vee (q \vee r)$

De Morgan's Law again...

$(\neg p\wedge \neg q) \vee ((\neg(\neg p) \wedge \neg r) \vee (q \vee r)$

Double negation of $\neg(\neg p)$ is equal to just $p$

$(\neg p\wedge \neg q) \vee (p \wedge \neg r) \vee (q \vee r)$

Now what comes next? Did I do everything right so far? Eventually, I'm suppose to start getting T or F for some of these compounds. I have these following laws.

Domination Law:

$p \vee T \equiv T$

$p \wedge F \equiv F$

Negation Law:

$p \vee \neg p \equiv T$

$p \wedge \neg p \equiv F$

• let $p=T, q=F, r=F$ in your last step it gives $T$ but surely the initial statement is false. Which means some your your steps are incorrect. Sep 18 '15 at 6:16
• Did you check my steps though to see where I went wrong? If I keep going, I should start getting F and T in the equation. That's why my question is what is my next step. Sep 18 '15 at 6:29
• @baharampuri With your assignment of truth values, $p=T$, $q=F$, and $r=F$, the initial statement is true, because its antecedent is false. Specifically, in the antecedent, the conjunct $(\neg p)\lor r$ is false. (The initial statement is a tautology, as the problem claims.) Sep 18 '15 at 6:37

For simplicity of writing, I will use $+$, multiplication, and $\bar{p}$ for OR, AND, and $\neg p$.
Update: To see the first step, let $t=(p+q)(\bar p+r)$. Then $$\bar t+(q+r)=\overline{\overline{\bar t+(q+r)}}=\overline{t\ \overline{(q+r)}}=\overline{t(\bar q \bar r)}=\overline{t\bar q \bar r}.$$