Add this site to your Home Screen by opening it in Safari, tapping and selecting "Add to home screen"

Our panel of 88 professional philosophers has responded to

- 149 Sex
- 43 Color
- 58 Abortion
- 266 Language
- 71 Emotion
- 21 Suicide
- 31 Music
- 558 Philosophy
- 134 Existence
- 359 Religion
- 75 Beauty
- 36 Literature
- 124 Profession
- 70 Feminism
- 63 Happiness
- 68 Business
- 246 Justice
- 67 Perception
- 1 Action
- 113 Children
- 101 Biology
- 57 Punishment
- 52 Medicine
- 90 Law
- 4 Economics
- 213 Education
- 30 Space
- 272 Mind
- 33 Sport
- 37 Race
- 197 Science
- 261 Knowledge
- 128 Love
- 73 Death
- 77 Identity
- 24 History
- 147 Freedom
- 106 Animals
- 89 Time
- 1221 Ethics
- 57 Truth
- 331 Logic
- 28 Gender
- 200 Value
- 48 War
- 109 Art
- 5 Euthanasia
- 2 Culture
- 77 Physics

Since "-N" is true (3), then from (2), you can infer that "-K" is true. So you know that "-K and -N" is true. Hence from premise (1) you can infer that "(-P > K) and (-R > G)" is true. Hence "-P > K" is true. Since you already showed that "-K" is true, it follows that "P" is true. But if "P" is true then it will follow from premise (4) that "-R" is true. Since you've already shown that "-R > G" is true, you can conclude that "G" is true.

If you know what natural deductions are, you might find an online natural deduction proof checker and reconstruct the derivation in that.