Proving Validity of a Symbolic Argument Using Truth Tables
I am looking to determine the validity of this argument using the truth table method:
(P ∨ ¬Q) → P
I cannot yet embed the image of my truth table on here because I haven't earned enough points of my profile yet, so I will try to explain it the best I can.
I have used these column headers:
| P | Q | ¬Q | P ∨ ¬Q | P |
After filling out this truth table I have found that the first row reads:
| T | T | F | T | T |
| T | F | T | T | T |
| F | T | F | F | T |
| F | F | T | T | F |
Row 2 shows all true premises and a true conclusion, however row three shows all true premises and a false conclusion (which would indicate invalidity).
I want to conclude that the presence of a row where a false conclusion is derived from true premises determines that the argument is invalid. However, I was just concerned that Row 2 (showing all true premises and a true conclusion) somehow somehow affect this.
As you can probably tell, I am a beginner in logic, so I would appreciate any help to clarify this. Thank you.