Our panel of 90 professional philosophers has responded to

87
 questions about 
Law
23
 questions about 
History
79
 questions about 
Death
2
 questions about 
Action
568
 questions about 
Philosophy
74
 questions about 
Perception
281
 questions about 
Language
1259
 questions about 
Ethics
2
 questions about 
Culture
86
 questions about 
Physics
215
 questions about 
Education
32
 questions about 
Sport
66
 questions about 
Truth
58
 questions about 
Abortion
77
 questions about 
Emotion
53
 questions about 
Medicine
24
 questions about 
Suicide
69
 questions about 
Business
107
 questions about 
Animals
115
 questions about 
Children
34
 questions about 
Music
74
 questions about 
Beauty
96
 questions about 
Time
67
 questions about 
Feminism
31
 questions about 
Space
38
 questions about 
Race
206
 questions about 
Science
79
 questions about 
Identity
109
 questions about 
Biology
5
 questions about 
Euthanasia
385
 questions about 
Religion
123
 questions about 
Profession
50
 questions about 
War
217
 questions about 
Value
146
 questions about 
Existence
165
 questions about 
Freedom
58
 questions about 
Punishment
241
 questions about 
Justice
280
 questions about 
Mind
131
 questions about 
Love
36
 questions about 
Literature
27
 questions about 
Gender
358
 questions about 
Logic
153
 questions about 
Sex
275
 questions about 
Knowledge
4
 questions about 
Economics
68
 questions about 
Happiness
43
 questions about 
Color
104
 questions about 
Art

Question of the Day

how would i use natural deduction to prove this argument to be correct? Its always either night or day.There'd only be a full moon if it were night-time. So,since it's daytime,there's no full moon right now. i have also formalized the argument using truth functional logic i'm not sure if it is completely correct though and would much appreciate the help. symbolization key: N: night D: day Fm: full moon Nt: night time Dt: day time ((N V D) , (Fm → Nt) , (Dt → ¬Fm))

There's a problem with your symbolization. The word "since" isn't a conditional. It's more like a conjunction, but better yet, we can treat it as simply giving us another premise. So in a slightly modified version of your notation, the argument would be

N v D
F → N
D
∴ ¬F

But from the premises as given, the conclusion won't be derivable. The reason is simple. You are assuming that if it's day it's not night and vice-versa. That may be part of the meaning of the words, but the symbols 'N' and 'D' aren't enough to capture it.

The easiest fix is to treat "day" as "not night." That gives us

N v ¬N
F → N
¬N
∴ ¬F

In this case, the first premise is a tautology and not needed. The argument is just a case of Modus Tollens. If you want something less trivial, you can drop the first premise and add a premise like this:

D ↔ ¬N
F → N
D
∴ ¬F

The first premise amounts to making the "v" exclusive. From there it's easy to complete a proof.

A couple of extra comments. First, in the English version, you add a quantifier, and presumably you are quantifying over times—roughly "For every time, the time is either during night or during day." The argument can be symbolized accordingly, though it will be more complex. Second, you make one of your premises counterfactual with the "would"/"were" construction. That introduces issues you'd be better off avoiding.