Symbolize and provide derivations for each of the following.

1.  Every student is ambitious.  No one who is ambitious will be lazy.  Therefore, there will be no lazy students.

(x)(Sx -> Ax), (x)(Ax -> ~Lx) |- (x)(Sx -> ~Lx)

1. (x)(Sx -> Ax)
2.  (x)(Ax -> ~Lx)      \show  (x)(Sx -> ~Lx)
3.  Sa -> Aa              1,  UI
4.  Aa -> ~La             2,  UI
5.  Sa -> ~La             3,  HS
6.  (x)(Sx -> ~Lx)       5,  UG 

2.  Some students do  work hard.  Anyone who works hard will pass.  Therefore, there are students who will pass.

(Ex)(Sx & Wx), (x)(Wx -> Px) |- (Ex)(Sx & Px)

1.  (Ex)(Sx & Wx)
2.  (x)(Wx -> Px)          \ show  (Ex)(Sx & Px)
3.  Sa & Wa                1,  EI
4.  Wa -> Pa               2,  UI
5.  Wa                        3,  Simp
6.  Pa                         4,5,  MP
7.  Sa                         3,  Simp
8.  Sa & Pa                 6,7,  Conj
9.  (Ex)(Sx & Px)         8, EG

3.  Alice is an ambitious student and Bob is a bright student.  If there are both bright students and ambitious students, then the teachers will be happy.  No teachers, then, will be unhappy.

Aa & Sa, Bb & Sb, [(Ex)[(Bx & Sx) & (Ex)(Ax & Sx)] -> (x)(Tx -> Hx) |-  (x)(Tx -> Hx)

1.  Aa & Sa
2.  Bb & Sb
3.  [(Ex)(Bx & Sx) & (Ex)(Ax & Sx)] -> (x)(Tx -> Hx)  \ show (x)(Tx -> Hx)
        Note that in the premise we are not saying there is an individual who is both ambitious and bright, so we need to use separate quantifiers.  Also note that in "translating" the conclusion we are already building in the idea of a double negative.
4   (Ex)(Bx & Sx)                                                     2,  EG
5.  (Ex)(Ax & Sx)                                                     1,  EG
6.  (Ex)(Bx & Sx) & (Ex)(Ax & Sx)                              4,5,  Conj
7.  (x)(Tx -> Hx)                                                        3,6,  MP

4.  Some classes are not interesting.  Any class that is not interesting will not be fun.  If there are classes that are not fun then Bob will not be happy.  It does follow that Bob will be unhappy.

(Ex)(Cx & ~Ix), (x)[(Cx & ~Ix) -> ~Fx], (Ex)(Cx & ~Fx) -> ~Hb  |- ~Hb

1.  (Ex)(Cx & ~Ix)
2.  (x)[(Cx & ~Ix) -> ~Fx]
3.  (Ex)(Cx & ~Fx) -> ~Hb   / show  ~Hb
       Note the importance of grouping correctly (using our parentheses and brackets as we should).  In the second premise the quantifier is the main connective, but in the third premise it is the arrow.
4.  Ca & ~Ia                        1,  EI    we are supposing class "a" (algebra, for instance) as our example but we are not really claiming that it would be class "a"
5.  (Ca & ~Ia) -> ~Fa            2,  UI     if the uninteresting class really is class "a" we would know it is not fun
6.  ~Fa                               4,5,  MP
7.  Ca                                 4,  Simp
8.  Ca & ~Fa                       6,7,  Conj
9.  (Ex)(Cx & ~Fx)               8,  EG
10.  ~Hb                             3,9,  MP


5.  Alice will pass only if all the classes are interesting.   Only classes that are fun are interesting.  Some classes are not fun, so it follows that Alice is not going to pass.

Pa -> (x)(Cx -> Ix), (x)(Ix -> Fx), (Ex)(Cx & ~Fx)  |- ~Pa
       Note the importance of symbolizing in the right order when the word "only" indicates a necessary condition.

1.  Pa -> (x)(Cx -> Ix)
2.  (x)(Ix -> Fx)
3.  (Ex)(Cx & ~Fx)        / show ~Pa
4.  Ca & ~Fa                3,  EI
5.  Ia -> ~Fa                2,  UI
6.  ~Fa                        4,  Simp
7.  ~Ia                         5,6,  MT
8.  Ca                         4,  Simp
9.  Ca & ~Ia                 7,8,  Conj
10.  (Ex)(Cx & ~Ix)       9,  EG         remember, even if we wanted to, we could not now come up with a universal generalization based on the name "a"
11.  ~(x)(Cx -> Ix)         10,  QN
12.  ~Pa                       1,11,  MT