Question: Can someone answer 4.25 from language proof and logic for me? For each of the arguments below, use the truth table method to determine whether the conclusion is a tautological consequence of the premises. Your truth table for Exercise 4.24 will be fairly large. It’s good for the soul to build a large truth table every once in a while. Be thankful you have

Can someone answer 4.25 from language proof and logic for me?

For each of the arguments below, use the truth table method to determine whether the conclusion is a tautological consequence of the premises. Your truth table for Exercise 4.24 will be fairly large. It’s good for the soul to build a large truth table every once in a while. Be thankful you have Boole to help you. (But make sure you build your own reference columns!)

4.20 ➶ (Tet(a) ∧ Small(a)) ∨ Small(b) Small(a) ∨ Small(b)

4.21 ➶ Taller(claire, max) ∨ Taller(max, claire) Taller(claire, max) ¬Taller(max, claire)

4.22 ➶ Large(a) Cube(a) ∨ Dodec(a) (Cube(a) ∧ Large(a)) ∨ (Dodec(a) ∧ Large(a))

4.23 ➶⋆ A ∨ ¬B B ∨ C C ∨ D A ∨ ¬D

4.24 ➶⋆ ¬A ∨ B ∨ C ¬C ∨ D ¬(B ∧ ¬E) D ∨ ¬A ∨ E

4.25 ✎⋆ Give an example of two different sentences A and B in the blocks language such that A ∧ B is a logical consequence of A ∨ B. [Hint: Note that A ∧ A is a logical consequence of A ∨ A, but here we insist that A and B be distinct sentences.]