I will call the disjunction of literals a disjunction form. Let $\Sigma$ be a set of disjunction forms, and $\alpha$ is a well-formed formula satisfying $\Sigma \vDash \alpha$. For all propositional variable $p$, assume that $p$ and $\neg p$ do not occur in element of $\Sigma$ at the same time.
Prove that $\exists \sigma \in \Sigma$ such that $\sigma \vDash \alpha$. And the above proposition is true if we change all disjunctions to conjunctions.
Can you help me?
Neither statement is true.
Let $\Sigma = \{P_1\lor P_2, Q_1\lor Q_2\}$, and $\alpha = (P_1\lor P_2) \land (Q_1\lor Q_2)$.
Then $\Sigma\models \alpha$, but there is no $\sigma\in \Sigma$ such that $\sigma\models \alpha$.
Similarly, for "conjunction forms" instead of "disjunction forms", let $\Sigma = \{P_1\land P_2, Q_1\land Q_2\}$, and $\alpha = (P_1\land P_2) \land (Q_1\land Q_2)$.
Edit: In response to the comments, I'll prove the following.
Suppose $\Sigma$ is a nonempty set of disjunctions of literals, such that for every propositional variable $p$, at most one of the literals $p$ and $\lnot p$ occurs in $\Sigma$. And suppose $\alpha$ is a disjunction of literals. If $\Sigma\models \alpha$, then there is some $\sigma\in \Sigma$ such that $\sigma\models \alpha$.
Case 1: There is some propositional variable $p$ such that both of the literals $p$ and $\lnot p$ occur in $\alpha$. Then $\alpha$ is a tautology, so $\sigma\models \alpha$ for any $\sigma\in \Sigma$.
Case 2: There is some $\sigma\in \Sigma$ such that every literal occuring in $\sigma$ occurs in $\alpha$. Then we are done, since $\sigma\models \alpha$.
We will show that if we assume we are not in Case 1 or Case 2, we have a contradiction. Since we are not in Case 2, for every $\sigma\in \Sigma$, we can pick some literal $l_\sigma$ which appears in $\sigma$ but not in $\alpha$.
Let $M$ be a model/interpretation such that the literals $\{l_\sigma\mid \sigma\in \Sigma\}$ are all true, and the literals appearing in $\alpha$ are all false. We can do this, because:
But then for each $\sigma\in \Sigma$, we have $M\models l_\sigma$, so $M\models \sigma$, and hence $M\models \Sigma$. But $M\not\models \alpha$. So $\Sigma\not\models \alpha$, contradiction.