# GATE2015-2-3

3.2k views

Consider the following two statements.

• $S_1$: If a candidate is known to be corrupt, then he will not be elected
• $S_2$: If a candidate is kind, he will be elected

Which one of the following statements follows from $S_1$ and $S_2$ as per sound inference rules of logic?

1. If a person is known to be corrupt, he is kind
2. If a person is not known to be corrupt, he is not kind
3. If a person is kind, he is not known to be corrupt
4. If a person is not kind, he is not known to be corrupt

edited
0
Option C is correct.

S1:  P-->Q

S2:  X-->Z

If X is true then Z has to be true in order for statement S2 to be true.

If Z is true then Q is false. Now, if Q is false then P has to be false in order for statement S1 to be true.

\begin{align*} S_1 &= C \rightarrow \neg E\\ S_2 &= K \rightarrow E\\ \end{align*}

so, writing them using primary operators :
\begin{align*} S_1 &= \neg C \vee \neg E\\ S_2 &= \neg K \vee E\\ \end{align*}

on using resolution principle
$\neg E$ and $E$ cancels each other out
and conclusion = $\neg C \vee \neg K$

which can also be written as $K \rightarrow \neg C$ which is translated into English as = option C

edited by
0
@amarVashishth

How do we apply resolution principle ?
2
@junaid

If you have disjunction of literals given in the premises you can cut out the literals which are in true as well as complemented form in two different premises.
0

for resolution principle

Option c. If a person is kind, he is not known to be corrupt

Let

$C(x): x \text{ is known to be corrupt}$
$K(x): x \text{ is kind}$
$E(x): x \text{ will be elected}$

• $S1: C(x) \to \neg E(x)$
• $S2: K(x) \to E(x)$

S1 can be written as $E(x) \to \neg C(x)$ as $A \to B = \neg B \to \neg A$.
Thus, from S1 and S2,

$K(x) \to E(x) \to \neg C(x)$.

Thus we get C option.

1
@anoop
best explanation
1
0
Very good

Method for these kinds of question.

Use inference law : Here we use

Contrapositive law i.e. A $\rightarrow$ B is true then ~B $\rightarrow$ ~A is always true.

For  A $\leftrightarrow$ B is true the contrapositive true. converse(B$\leftrightarrow$ A) true and Inverse(~A$\leftrightarrow$~B)  also true.

edited

Let ,

K: Person is kind

C: Person is corrupt

E: Person is elect

Here both statements 1,2 are premises and we need to check what is the conclusion.

S1: C-->¬E

S2: K-->E

3.  E-->¬C  from S1, and Contrapositive rule.

4. K-->¬C  from S2,3 and Hypothetical syllogism.It is valid.

K-->¬C ≡ " If a person is kind, he is not known to be corrupt ".

## Related questions

1
1.2k views
Based on the given statements, select the most appropriate option to solve the given question. What will be the total weight of $10$ poles each of same weight? Statements: One fourth of the weight of the pole is $5$ $Kg$. The total weight of these ... not sufficient. Statement II alone is not sufficient. Either I or II alone is sufficient. Both statements I and II together are not sufficient.
Which one of the following well-formed formulae is a tautology? $\forall x \, \exists y \, R(x,y) \, \leftrightarrow \, \exists y \, \forall x \, R(x, y)$ $( \forall x \, [\exists y \, R(x,y) \, \rightarrow \, S(x, y)]) \, \rightarrow \, \forall x \, \exists y \, S(x, y)$ ... $\forall x \, \forall y \, P(x,y) \, \rightarrow \, \forall x \, \forall y \, P(y, x)$
In a room there are only two types of people, namely $\text{Type 1}$ and $\text{Type 2}$. $\text{Type 1}$ people always tell the truth and $\text{Type 2}$ people always lie. You give a fair coin to a person in that room, without knowing which type he is from and tell ... tail If the person is of $\text{Type 2}$, then the result is tail If the person is of $\text{Type 1}$, then the result is tail