Proving invalidity of an argument.

Question

I have a problem in proving invalid the following argument:

Horses and cows are mammals.Some animals are mammals.Some animals are not mammals.Therefore all horses are animals.

If we translate it into the logical notation then we have :

The premises are :

$(\forall x)(Hx \lor Cx \rightarrow Mx)$.

$(\exists x)(Ax \land Mx)$

$(\exists x)(Ax \land \sim Mx)$

The conclusion is :

$(\forall x)(Hx \rightarrow Ax)$.

Where $Ax$ is means $x$ is an animal, $Hx$ means $x$ is a horse, $Cx$ means $x$ is a cow, $Mx$ means $x$ is a Mammal.

I have to show it is an invalid argument.But the 2nd and 3rd premises are like contradictory to the conclusion part.

As per I know if I can show a truthvalue assignment for which the conclusion is false still the premises are true,then the argument will be invalid. But I am unable to find such a truthvalue assignment, looking for a help. Thanks.

Answer 1

Red cars and red trucks are red. Some baloons are red. Some baloons are not red. Therefore, all red cars are baloons.

Answer 2

You just need to show that it's valid for there to be a horse that is not an animal.

So take $y$ such that $Hy$ is true and $Ay$ is false. Note how this doesn't interfere with the second or third premise.

---

To get the full truth values, consider a universe $\{x,y,z\}$ such that $$ Mx, My, Ax, Az, Hy\quad \text{are true} $$ and $$ Cx, Cy, Cz, Hx, Hz, Ay, Mz\quad \text{are false}. $$ Then verify that all premises hold and the conclusion fails.