Symbolic Logic I

Question 1:  What is the mehod of reductio ad absurdum and why does it work?

Question 2:Construct a proof for the following argument.  You may use either direct proof, conditional proof, or reductio ad absurdum.

 1.   O •• I

2.   O → (S v G)

3.  I → ~G          ∴ S

Question 3:Construct a proof for the following argument.  You may use either direct proof, conditional proof, or reductio ad absurdum.

1.~A

2.   (~A v• M) → P

3.   ~B ↔ (M •• ~P)                 ∴ B

Question 4 :What, exactly, is the position of the mechanical jurist and how does the mechanical jurist believe legal reasoning relates to logical reasoning?  Why might someone be attracted to such a view?