Propositional Logic. I'm unsure about a few steps of this problem. (( P ∧ Q ) ∨ R ) ⇒ (R ⇒ Q ) ≡ ¬ (( P ∧ Q ) ∨ R ) ∨ (R ⇒ Q )
≡ ¬ (( P ∧ Q ) ∨ R ) ∨ ( ¬ R ∨ Q ) ≡ ( ¬ ( P ∧ Q ) ∧ ¬ R ) ∨ ( ¬ R ∨ Q )
≡ (( ¬ P ∨ ¬ Q ) ∧ ¬ R ) ∨ ( ¬ R ∨ Q ) to CNF from here
≡ (( ¬ P ∨ ¬ Q ) ∨ ( ¬ R ∨ Q )) ∧ ( ¬ R ∨ ( ¬ R ∨ Q ))
≡ ( ¬ P ∨ ¬ Q ∨ ¬ R ∨ Q ) ∧ ( ¬ R ∨ Q ) CNF
≡ Τ ∧ ( ¬ R ∨ Q ) ≡ ¬ R ∨ Q simplified CNF

What happens when it goes from
≡ (( ¬ P ∨ ¬ Q ) ∧ ¬ R ) ∨ ( ¬ R ∨ Q ) to CNF from here
≡ (( ¬ P ∨ ¬ Q ) ∨ ( ¬ R ∨ Q )) ∧ ( ¬ R ∨ ( ¬ R ∨ Q ))

What gets distributed to gain these results? 

Also, in this line:
 ( ¬ P ∨ ¬ Q ∨ ¬ R ∨ Q ) ∧ ( ¬ R ∨ Q ) CNF 
 ≡ Τ ∧ ( ¬ R ∨ Q ) ≡ ¬ R ∨ Q simplified CNF

Shouldn't -Q and Q be the one that are getting pulled out as True? In my head, I believe it should be :

$$T\land(\lnot P \lor \lnot R) \land (\lnot R \lor Q)$$

Which can be simplified down into 
    $\lnot R \land (\lnot P \lor Q)$??
 A: You're correct on the second question: it should be $$Q \lor \lnot Q \equiv T,$$ leaving what you wrote:

$$ T\land(-P \lor -R) \land (-R \lor Q) \;\;\equiv\;\; (\lnot P \lor \lnot R) \land (\lnot R \lor Q)\tag{1}$$

which can be simplified, but simplified to $$\lnot R \lor (\lnot P \land Q)\tag{2}$$ and NOT to $\lnot R \land (\lnot P \lor Q)$, as you wrote: $\; (2)$ follows from $(1)$ by the distributive laws: $$ (A\lor B) \land (A \lor C) \equiv A \lor (B \land C)$$  
But $(2)$ is not in CNF, whereas the highlighted expression $(1)$ is already in CNF.

First Question: We have the distributive rule:$$(A \land B) \lor C \equiv (A\lor C) \land (B\lor C)$$
Where $\quad A = (\lnot P \lor \lnot Q);\quad B = \lnot R;\quad C = (\lnot R \lor Q).\;$
So
$$ (( ¬ P ∨ ¬ Q ) ∧ ¬ R ) ∨ ( ¬ R ∨ Q )\quad \equiv \quad (( ¬ P ∨ ¬ Q ) ∨ ( ¬ R ∨ Q )) ∧ ( ¬ R ∨ ( ¬ R ∨ Q ))$$



*

*$(\lnot P \lor \lnot Q)$ is or'ed with $(\lnot R \lor Q),$ 

*then, $\quad\lnot R$ is or'ed with $(\lnot R \lor Q)$

*And they are conjoined by $\land$ because $\land$ connects the two
terms $(\lnot P \lor \lnot Q)$ and $\lnot R$.
You're correct, this is one of the distributive laws.
A: Assuming you have reason to believe an expansion using distributive rule was used....
There are only four binary operations in 

(( ¬ P ∨ ¬ Q ) ∧ ¬ R ) ∨ ( ¬ R ∨ Q )

furthermore, two of them aren't in an expression that one could expand with the distributive rule. So there is a very small number of cases to check....
Or working backwards

(( ¬ P ∨ ¬ Q ) ∨ ( ¬ R ∨ Q )) ∧ ( ¬ R ∨ ( ¬ R ∨ Q ))

There aren't terribly many subexpressions of this expression; it's not hard to check all of them to find an expression that is repeated twice, and then factor using the distributive rule to see if it provides the previous expression.
