Discrete Math Quiz: Proof By Contradiction
20 questions · exam conditions
0:00
Proof By ContradictionQuestion 1 of 20

Consider the statement: "For any integer nn, if n2n^2 is even, then nn is even." A student attempts to prove this by contradiction, assuming n2n^2 is even but nn is odd. If nn is odd, then n=2k+1n = 2k + 1 for some integer kk. What contradiction emerges when the student computes n2n^2?

Computing n2=(2k+1)2=4k2+4k+1=2(2k2+2k)+1n^2 = (2k + 1)^2 = 4k^2 + 4k + 1 = 2(2k^2 + 2k) + 1, which shows n2n^2 is odd, contradicting the assumption that n2n^2 is even.
Computing n2=(2k+1)2=4k2+2k+1n^2 = (2k + 1)^2 = 4k^2 + 2k + 1, which cannot be factored as 2m2m for any integer mm, contradicting the definition of even numbers.
Computing n2=(2k+1)2=4k2+4k+1=(2k)2+4k+1n^2 = (2k + 1)^2 = 4k^2 + 4k + 1 = (2k)^2 + 4k + 1, which shows that n2n^2 has both even and odd components, creating a logical impossibility.
Computing n2=(2k+1)2=2k2+4k+1n^2 = (2k + 1)^2 = 2k^2 + 4k + 1, which simplifies to an expression that is neither clearly even nor clearly odd, contradicting the law of excluded middle.
← Back to quizzes

Discrete Math Quiz

Discrete Math Quiz: Proof By Contradiction

Practice Proof By Contradiction in Discrete Math with focused quiz questions that help you check what you know, review explanations, and build confidence with test-style prompts.

What this quiz covers

This quiz focuses on Proof By Contradiction, giving you a quick way to practice the rules, question types, and explanations that matter most for Discrete Math.

How to use this quiz

Try each quiz question before looking at the correct answer. Use the explanations to review missed ideas, then come back to similar questions until the pattern feels familiar.

All questions

Question 1

Consider the statement: "For any integer nn, if n2n^2 is even, then nn is even." A student attempts to prove this by contradiction, assuming n2n^2 is even but nn is odd. If nn is odd, then n=2k+1n = 2k + 1 for some integer kk. What contradiction emerges when the student computes n2n^2?

  1. Computing n2=(2k+1)2=4k2+4k+1=2(2k2+2k)+1n^2 = (2k + 1)^2 = 4k^2 + 4k + 1 = 2(2k^2 + 2k) + 1, which shows n2n^2 is odd, contradicting the assumption that n2n^2 is even. (correct answer)
  2. Computing n2=(2k+1)2=4k2+2k+1n^2 = (2k + 1)^2 = 4k^2 + 2k + 1, which cannot be factored as 2m2m for any integer mm, contradicting the definition of even numbers.
  3. Computing n2=(2k+1)2=4k2+4k+1=(2k)2+4k+1n^2 = (2k + 1)^2 = 4k^2 + 4k + 1 = (2k)^2 + 4k + 1, which shows that n2n^2 has both even and odd components, creating a logical impossibility.
  4. Computing n2=(2k+1)2=2k2+4k+1n^2 = (2k + 1)^2 = 2k^2 + 4k + 1, which simplifies to an expression that is neither clearly even nor clearly odd, contradicting the law of excluded middle.
Explanation: Choice A correctly identifies the contradiction. When n=2k+1n = 2k + 1, we have n2=(2k+1)2=4k2+4k+1=2(2k2+2k)+1n^2 = (2k + 1)^2 = 4k^2 + 4k + 1 = 2(2k^2 + 2k) + 1. Since 2k2+2k2k^2 + 2k is an integer, this shows n2n^2 has the form 2m+12m + 1 where m=2k2+2km = 2k^2 + 2k, meaning n2n^2 is odd. This directly contradicts our assumption that n2n^2 is even. Choice B makes an error in the expansion (missing the 4k4k term). Choice C incorrectly suggests numbers can have "both even and odd components." Choice D has an algebraic error in the expansion and misapplies the law of excluded middle.

Question 2

A proof by contradiction aims to show that the equation x22x+5=0x^2 - 2x + 5 = 0 has no real solutions. The proof begins by assuming there exists a real number xx such that x22x+5=0x^2 - 2x + 5 = 0. Which manipulation most directly leads to the desired contradiction?

  1. Use calculus to show the function f(x)=x22x+5f(x) = x^2 - 2x + 5 has a minimum value of 4, which is always positive.
  2. Apply the quadratic formula to get x=2±162x = \frac{2 \pm \sqrt{-16}}{2}, which involves the square root of a negative number.
  3. Rearrange to x2=2x5x^2 = 2x - 5 and show that the left side is always non-negative while the right side can be negative.
  4. Complete the square to get (x1)2+4=0(x-1)^2 + 4 = 0, which implies (x1)2=4(x-1)^2 = -4 and contradicts the non-negativity of squares. (correct answer)
Explanation: When you encounter a proof by contradiction problem, you're looking for the most direct path from your assumption to an impossible conclusion. The key is finding which algebraic manipulation immediately reveals something that cannot be true in the real numbers. Starting with the assumption that there exists a real number xx satisfying x22x+5=0x^2 - 2x + 5 = 0, option D provides the cleanest contradiction. Completing the square transforms this equation into (x1)2+4=0(x-1)^2 + 4 = 0, which rearranges to (x1)2=4(x-1)^2 = -4. This directly contradicts a fundamental property of real numbers: squares are always non-negative. Since no real number squared can equal 4-4, we've reached our contradiction in just two steps. Option A uses calculus concepts that, while valid, go beyond basic algebraic manipulation and aren't necessary for this proof. Option B applies the quadratic formula correctly and does reveal complex solutions, but the question asks for the most direct contradiction from the algebraic assumption, not a formula application. Option C attempts to compare signs but is flawed—when x=1x = 1, both sides equal 1, and the right side 2x52x - 5 isn't always negative, so this doesn't create a reliable contradiction. For proof by contradiction problems involving quadratic equations, completing the square is often your best strategy. It directly exposes contradictions by isolating perfect squares and revealing when they would need to equal negative values, which is impossible for real numbers.

Question 3

Consider proving by contradiction that there exist irrational numbers aa and bb such that aba^b is rational. The proof assumes the contrary: for all irrational aa and bb, aba^b is irrational. Which case analysis correctly establishes the contradiction?

  1. Consider 22\sqrt{2}^{\sqrt{2}}. If irrational, we're done. If rational, then (22)2=22=2(\sqrt{2}^{\sqrt{2}})^{\sqrt{2}} = \sqrt{2}^2 = 2 is rational, giving our counterexample.
  2. Consider 22\sqrt{2}^{\sqrt{2}}. If rational, we're done. If irrational, then (22)2=22=2(\sqrt{2}^{\sqrt{2}})^{\sqrt{2}} = \sqrt{2}^2 = 2 is rational, giving our counterexample. (correct answer)
  3. Consider 2+2\sqrt{2} + \sqrt{2}. This equals 222\sqrt{2}, which is irrational, contradicting our assumption about sums of irrationals.
  4. Consider eπe^{\pi}. Since both ee and π\pi are irrational, our assumption says eπe^{\pi} must be irrational, but this contradicts known results.
Explanation: Proof by contradiction is a powerful technique where you assume the opposite of what you want to prove, then show this leads to a logical impossibility. Here, we want to prove irrational numbers aa and bb exist such that aba^b is rational, so we assume the contrary: whenever aa and bb are both irrational, aba^b must be irrational. The clever strategy is to consider 22\sqrt{2}^{\sqrt{2}} and use case analysis. Since 2\sqrt{2} is irrational, we have two possibilities for 22\sqrt{2}^{\sqrt{2}}: either it's rational or irrational. If 22\sqrt{2}^{\sqrt{2}} is rational, we immediately have our counterexample—two irrational numbers whose power is rational, contradicting our assumption. If 22\sqrt{2}^{\sqrt{2}} is irrational, then consider (22)2=222=22=2(\sqrt{2}^{\sqrt{2}})^{\sqrt{2}} = \sqrt{2}^{\sqrt{2} \cdot \sqrt{2}} = \sqrt{2}^2 = 2. Here we have an irrational base (22\sqrt{2}^{\sqrt{2}}) and irrational exponent (2\sqrt{2}) producing a rational result (2), again contradicting our assumption. Choice A reverses the logic incorrectly. Choice C discusses addition of irrationals, which is irrelevant to our exponentiation problem. Choice D mentions eπe^{\pi} and "known results" but provides no concrete contradiction—we actually don't know whether eπe^{\pi} is rational or irrational. Study tip: In proof by contradiction with case analysis, ensure your cases are exhaustive and that each case leads to the same contradiction. The beauty of choice B is that both possible cases for 22\sqrt{2}^{\sqrt{2}} give us what we need.

Question 4

Consider proving by contradiction that there is no largest even integer. A student begins by assuming "there exists a largest even integer MM". To complete the proof, which approach correctly leads to a contradiction?

  1. Show that M2\frac{M}{2} is an integer and M<2MM < 2M, contradicting the assumption that MM is largest.
  2. Show that M2M - 2 is also even and M2<MM - 2 < M, contradicting the assumption that MM exists.
  3. Show that M2M^2 is also even and M2>MM^2 > M for M3M \geq 3, contradicting the maximality of MM.
  4. Show that M+2M + 2 is also even and M+2>MM + 2 > M, contradicting the assumption that MM is largest. (correct answer)
Explanation: When approaching proof by contradiction problems, you need to show that your assumption leads to an impossible situation. Here, you're assuming there exists a largest even integer MM and must demonstrate this creates a logical contradiction. The key insight is that if MM is truly the largest even integer, then no even integer can be greater than MM. To contradict this, you need to construct another even integer that's larger than MM. Answer D does exactly this: if MM is even, then M+2M + 2 is also even (since adding 2 to any even number yields another even number), and clearly M+2>MM + 2 > M. This directly contradicts the assumption that MM is the largest even integer. Answer A fails because while M2\frac{M}{2} is indeed an integer and M<2MM < 2M, this doesn't create a contradiction—2M2M isn't necessarily even, and even if it were, being larger than MM is expected, not contradictory. Answer B is flawed because finding a smaller even integer (M2M - 2) doesn't contradict the claim that MM is the largest—you'd expect smaller even integers to exist. Answer C has the right idea about finding a larger even integer, but M2>MM^2 > M only holds for M3M \geq 3, making this argument incomplete for cases like M=2M = 2. Remember: in contradiction proofs, you must show your assumption leads to something impossible. When dealing with "largest" or "smallest" claims about infinite sets, construct a counterexample that violates the assumed boundary.

Question 5

To prove by contradiction that 2+3\sqrt{2} + \sqrt{3} is irrational, suppose 2+3=r\sqrt{2} + \sqrt{3} = r for some rational number rr. After rearranging to 2=r3\sqrt{2} = r - \sqrt{3} and squaring both sides, which equation results?

  1. 2=r2+32r32 = r^2 + 3 - 2r\sqrt{3}, which can be rearranged to 3=r212r\sqrt{3} = \frac{r^2 - 1}{2r}, showing 3\sqrt{3} is rational.
  2. 2=r22r3+32 = r^2 - 2r\sqrt{3} + 3, which can be rearranged to 3=r2+12r\sqrt{3} = \frac{r^2 + 1}{2r}, showing 3\sqrt{3} is rational. (correct answer)
  3. 4=r22r3+34 = r^2 - 2r\sqrt{3} + 3, which can be rearranged to 3=r212r\sqrt{3} = \frac{r^2 - 1}{2r}, showing 3\sqrt{3} is rational.
  4. 2=r22r3+32 = r^2 - 2r\sqrt{3} + 3, which can be rearranged to 3=r212r\sqrt{3} = \frac{r^2 - 1}{2r}, showing 3\sqrt{3} is rational.
Explanation: Proof by contradiction is a powerful technique where you assume the opposite of what you want to prove, then show this leads to an impossibility. Here, we're proving 2+3\sqrt{2} + \sqrt{3} is irrational by assuming it's rational and finding a contradiction. Starting with 2+3=r\sqrt{2} + \sqrt{3} = r where rr is rational, we rearrange to get 2=r3\sqrt{2} = r - \sqrt{3}. When we square both sides, we need to carefully expand the right side using the formula (ab)2=a22ab+b2(a - b)^2 = a^2 - 2ab + b^2. So (2)2=(r3)2(\sqrt{2})^2 = (r - \sqrt{3})^2 becomes: 2=r22r3+(3)22 = r^2 - 2r\sqrt{3} + (\sqrt{3})^2 2=r22r3+32 = r^2 - 2r\sqrt{3} + 3 Rearranging to isolate the irrational term: 2r3=r2+32=r2+12r\sqrt{3} = r^2 + 3 - 2 = r^2 + 1, so 3=r2+12r\sqrt{3} = \frac{r^2 + 1}{2r}. Since rr is rational, this fraction is also rational, contradicting the fact that 3\sqrt{3} is irrational. Choice A incorrectly writes r2+32r3r^2 + 3 - 2r\sqrt{3} instead of r22r3+3r^2 - 2r\sqrt{3} + 3, scrambling the order of terms. Choice C has the wrong left side (4 instead of 2). Choice D correctly expands the square but makes an algebraic error when rearranging, getting r212r\frac{r^2 - 1}{2r} instead of r2+12r\frac{r^2 + 1}{2r}. The correct answer is B. Study tip: In proof by contradiction problems involving irrationals, always double-check your algebraic manipulations—small errors in expanding or rearranging can derail the entire proof structure.

Question 6

A student attempts to prove by contradiction that 3\sqrt{3} is irrational. They assume 3=ab\sqrt{3} = \frac{a}{b} where aa and bb are integers with gcd(a,b)=1\gcd(a,b) = 1. After squaring both sides and rearranging, they obtain 3b2=a23b^2 = a^2. What is the next crucial step to reach a contradiction?

  1. Show that aa must be divisible by 3, then show bb must also be divisible by 3, contradicting gcd(a,b)=1\gcd(a,b) = 1. (correct answer)
  2. Show that bb must be divisible by 3, then show aa must also be divisible by 3, contradicting gcd(a,b)=1\gcd(a,b) = 1.
  3. Show that both aa and bb must be even numbers, which contradicts the assumption that 3\sqrt{3} is rational.
  4. Show that 3b2=a23b^2 = a^2 implies a=ba = b, which contradicts the assumption that gcd(a,b)=1\gcd(a,b) = 1.
Explanation: From 3b² = a², we can conclude that 3 divides a² (since the left side is divisible by 3). Since 3 is prime, if 3 divides a², then 3 must divide a. Let a = 3k for some integer k. Substituting back: 3b² = (3k)² = 9k², so b² = 3k², which means 3 divides b² and therefore 3 divides b. This contradicts gcd(a,b) = 1. Choice B reverses the correct logical order. Choice C incorrectly focuses on even numbers rather than divisibility by 3. Choice D makes an invalid conclusion that a = b.

Question 7

A student wants to prove by contradiction that if nn is an integer and n2n^2 is divisible by 4, then nn is even. They assume nn is odd and n2n^2 is divisible by 4. Writing n=2k+1n = 2k + 1 for some integer kk, what form does n2n^2 take that reveals the contradiction?

  1. n2=4k2+4k+1n^2 = 4k^2 + 4k + 1, showing n2n^2 is always odd and therefore cannot be divisible by 4.
  2. n2=4k2+4k+1=4(k2+k+1)3n^2 = 4k^2 + 4k + 1 = 4(k^2 + k + 1) - 3, showing n2n^2 leaves remainder 3 when divided by 4.
  3. n2=4k2+4k+1=4(k2+k)+1n^2 = 4k^2 + 4k + 1 = 4(k^2 + k) + 1, showing n2n^2 leaves remainder 1 when divided by 4. (correct answer)
  4. n2=(2k+1)2=2k(2k+1)+1n^2 = (2k + 1)^2 = 2k(2k + 1) + 1, showing n2n^2 is one more than an even number.
Explanation: Proof by contradiction is a powerful technique where you assume the opposite of what you want to prove and show this leads to an impossibility. Here, we're assuming nn is odd (opposite of even) while n2n^2 is divisible by 4, then looking for a contradiction. When nn is odd, we can write n=2k+1n = 2k + 1 for some integer kk. Squaring this gives us: n2=(2k+1)2=4k2+4k+1n^2 = (2k + 1)^2 = 4k^2 + 4k + 1 The key insight is recognizing how to rewrite this expression to reveal the remainder when divided by 4. We can factor out 4 from the first two terms: n2=4k2+4k+1=4(k2+k)+1n^2 = 4k^2 + 4k + 1 = 4(k^2 + k) + 1 Since k2+kk^2 + k is an integer, this shows n2n^2 has the form "4 times an integer plus 1," meaning n2n^2 leaves remainder 1 when divided by 4. But we assumed n2n^2 is divisible by 4 (remainder 0). This contradiction proves our assumption was wrong. Choice A incorrectly focuses on n2n^2 being odd, but odd numbers can sometimes be divisible by 4 conceptually - this misses the key point about remainders. Choice B makes an algebraic error: 4(k2+k+1)3=4k2+4k+43=4k2+4k+14(k^2 + k + 1) - 3 = 4k^2 + 4k + 4 - 3 = 4k^2 + 4k + 1, but the factoring is wrong. Choice D gives a correct but less useful form that doesn't clearly show the remainder when dividing by 4. Study tip: In modular arithmetic proofs, always try to express your result in the form "multiple of n plus remainder" to make divisibility contradictions crystal clear.

Question 8

To prove by contradiction that there are infinitely many prime numbers, Euclid's argument assumes there are only finitely many primes p1,p2,,pkp_1, p_2, \ldots, p_k. The proof then considers the number N=p1p2pk+1N = p_1 \cdot p_2 \cdot \ldots \cdot p_k + 1. What property of NN leads to the contradiction?

  1. NN must have a prime divisor not in the list {p1,p2,,pk}\{p_1, p_2, \ldots, p_k\}, contradicting the assumption of finitely many primes. (correct answer)
  2. NN must be composite since it's larger than all primes in the list, contradicting the fundamental theorem of arithmetic.
  3. NN must be divisible by each prime pip_i, contradicting the fact that N1(modpi)N \equiv 1 \pmod{p_i} for each ii.
  4. NN must be prime itself and larger than pkp_k, contradicting the assumption that pkp_k is the largest prime.
Explanation: The key insight is that N must have at least one prime divisor (since N > 1). However, N leaves remainder 1 when divided by any of the supposedly complete list of primes p₁, p₂, ..., pₖ. Therefore, N cannot be divisible by any prime in our finite list, so there must exist a prime divisor of N that's not in the list. This contradicts our assumption that the list contains all primes. Choice B incorrectly assumes N must be composite. Choice C misunderstands the divisibility relationship. Choice D incorrectly assumes N itself must be prime.

Question 9

In attempting to prove by contradiction that log23\log_2 3 is irrational, a student assumes log23=pq\log_2 3 = \frac{p}{q} where pp and qq are integers with q0q \neq 0 and gcd(p,q)=1\gcd(p,q) = 1. After converting to exponential form, which equation should the student obtain?

  1. 2p=3q2^p = 3^q, which leads to plog2=qlog3p \log 2 = q \log 3 after taking natural logarithms of both sides.
  2. 3p/q=23^{p/q} = 2, which leads to 3p=2q3^p = 2^q after raising both sides to the qq-th power.
  3. 2p/q=32^{p/q} = 3, which leads to 2p=3q2^p = 3^q after raising both sides to the qq-th power. (correct answer)
  4. pq=log3log2\frac{p}{q} = \frac{\log 3}{\log 2}, which leads to plog2=qlog3p \log 2 = q \log 3 by cross multiplication.
Explanation: When proving irrationality by contradiction, you assume the number is rational and show this leads to an impossible conclusion. For logarithms, this means assuming log23=pq\log_2 3 = \frac{p}{q} where pp and qq are integers in lowest terms. The key step is converting from logarithmic to exponential form using the definition: if logbx=y\log_b x = y, then by=xb^y = x. Applying this to log23=pq\log_2 3 = \frac{p}{q}, you get 2p/q=32^{p/q} = 3. To eliminate the fraction in the exponent, raise both sides to the qq-th power: (2p/q)q=3q(2^{p/q})^q = 3^q, which simplifies to 2p=3q2^p = 3^q. Answer C correctly captures this process: starting with 2p/q=32^{p/q} = 3 and obtaining 2p=3q2^p = 3^q after raising both sides to the qq-th power. Answer A has the right final equation 2p=3q2^p = 3^q but doesn't show how to derive it from the logarithmic assumption. Answer B incorrectly starts with 3p/q=23^{p/q} = 2, which would come from assuming log32=pq\log_3 2 = \frac{p}{q}, not log23=pq\log_2 3 = \frac{p}{q}. Answer D uses the change of base formula but skips the crucial step of converting to exponential form, which is essential for this type of proof. Study tip: In logarithm irrationality proofs, always convert to exponential form first using logbx=y    by=x\log_b x = y \iff b^y = x. This transforms the problem into showing that powers of different primes cannot be equal.

Question 10

A proof by contradiction aims to show that the system of equations {x+y=1x+y=2\begin{cases} x + y = 1 \\ x + y = 2 \end{cases} has no solution. After assuming a solution (x0,y0)(x_0, y_0) exists, which step most directly establishes the contradiction?

  1. Subtracting the equations gives 0=10 = -1, which is impossible, so no solution can exist for this system.
  2. From the assumed solution: x0+y0=1x_0 + y_0 = 1 and x0+y0=2x_0 + y_0 = 2, so 1=21 = 2 by transitivity of equality. (correct answer)
  3. Adding the equations gives 2(x0+y0)=32(x_0 + y_0) = 3, so x0+y0=32x_0 + y_0 = \frac{3}{2}, contradicting both original equations.
  4. The first equation gives y0=1x0y_0 = 1 - x_0 and the second gives y0=2x0y_0 = 2 - x_0, so 1x0=2x01 - x_0 = 2 - x_0, implying 1=21 = 2.
Explanation: When you encounter a proof by contradiction, you're assuming the opposite of what you want to prove, then showing this assumption leads to a logical impossibility. Here, we assume a solution (x0,y0)(x_0, y_0) exists and look for the most direct path to contradiction. If (x0,y0)(x_0, y_0) is indeed a solution, it must satisfy both equations simultaneously. This means x0+y0=1x_0 + y_0 = 1 (from the first equation) and x0+y0=2x_0 + y_0 = 2 (from the second equation). Since both statements must be true for the same values of x0x_0 and y0y_0, we can apply the transitivity property of equality: if A=BA = B and A=CA = C, then B=CB = C. Therefore, 1=21 = 2, which is clearly false. This direct logical contradiction proves no solution exists. Option A performs algebraic manipulation (subtracting equations) rather than working directly from the assumption of a solution's existence. While it reaches the same conclusion, it's less direct for a contradiction proof. Option C adds the equations to get x0+y0=32x_0 + y_0 = \frac{3}{2}, but this creates a new constraint rather than directly showing the assumed solution leads to impossibility. Option D solves for y0y_0 in terms of x0x_0 from both equations, then equates them—this works but involves unnecessary algebraic steps. The key to contradiction proofs is finding the most direct path from your assumption to an obvious impossibility. Always look for the approach that requires the fewest intermediate steps while staying true to the logical structure of contradiction.

Question 11

To prove that log102\log_{10} 2 is irrational, a student uses proof by contradiction. They assume log102=pq\log_{10} 2 = \frac{p}{q} where pp and qq are integers with q>0q > 0 and gcd(p,q)=1\gcd(p,q) = 1. Converting to exponential form gives 10p/q=210^{p/q} = 2. After raising both sides to the power qq, they obtain 10p=2q10^p = 2^q. Which statement best explains why this equation leads to a contradiction?

  1. The equation 10p=2q10^p = 2^q implies that 10p10^p is a power of 2, but since 10=2×510 = 2 \times 5 and 5 is not a power of 2, no positive integer power of 10 can equal a power of 2.
  2. Since 10p=2q10^p = 2^q, taking logarithms of both sides gives plog10=qlog2p \log 10 = q \log 2, so pq=log2log10=log102\frac{p}{q} = \frac{\log 2}{\log 10} = \log_{10} 2. This returns us to our original assumption, creating circular reasoning.
  3. The left side 10p=(25)p=2p5p10^p = (2 \cdot 5)^p = 2^p \cdot 5^p contains 5p5^p as a factor, while the right side 2q2^q contains no factors of 5. By unique prime factorization, these cannot be equal unless p=0p = 0, but then 1=2q1 = 2^q implies q=0q = 0, contradicting q>0q > 0. (correct answer)
  4. From 10p=2q10^p = 2^q, we get (25)p=2q(2 \cdot 5)^p = 2^q, which expands to 2p5p=2q2^p \cdot 5^p = 2^q. Dividing both sides by 2p2^p gives 5p=2qp5^p = 2^{q-p}. Since the left side is odd and the right side is even for q>pq > p, we have a contradiction.
Explanation: When you encounter irrationality proofs by contradiction, the key insight is usually finding where fundamental mathematical principles like unique prime factorization create an impossible situation. The equation 10p=2q10^p = 2^q leads to a contradiction through prime factorization analysis. Since 10=2×510 = 2 \times 5, we can rewrite the left side as (25)p=2p5p(2 \cdot 5)^p = 2^p \cdot 5^p. This gives us 2p5p=2q2^p \cdot 5^p = 2^q. By the Fundamental Theorem of Arithmetic, every integer has a unique prime factorization. The left side contains 5p5^p as a factor (where pp must be positive for equality), while the right side 2q2^q contains only powers of 2 and no factors of 5. This violates unique prime factorization unless p=0p = 0, but then 100=1=2q10^0 = 1 = 2^q would require q=0q = 0, contradicting our assumption that q>0q > 0. Option A correctly identifies that powers of 10 and powers of 2 cannot be equal, but doesn't provide the rigorous prime factorization argument needed. Option B describes circular reasoning, but the algebra shown isn't actually circular—it's valid manipulation that doesn't create the contradiction. Option D attempts a parity argument by dividing by 2p2^p, but this approach is flawed because it assumes q>pq > p without justification, and the division step doesn't preserve the integer relationship needed. Remember: In irrationality proofs, look for contradictions arising from unique prime factorization when you have equations involving different prime bases.

Question 12

To prove that 3\sqrt{3} is irrational, a student begins by assuming 3=ab\sqrt{3} = \frac{a}{b} where aa and bb are integers with gcd(a,b)=1\gcd(a,b) = 1. After squaring both sides and rearranging, the student obtains 3b2=a23b^2 = a^2. Which of the following correctly identifies the key contradiction that completes this proof?

  1. Since 33 divides a2a^2, we have 33 divides aa, so a=3ka = 3k for some integer kk. Substituting gives 3b2=9k23b^2 = 9k^2, so b2=3k2b^2 = 3k^2, meaning 33 divides b2b^2 and thus 33 divides bb. This contradicts gcd(a,b)=1\gcd(a,b) = 1. (correct answer)
  2. Since a2=3b2a^2 = 3b^2, we know that a2a^2 is divisible by 33, which means aa must be divisible by 99. This contradicts the assumption that gcd(a,b)=1\gcd(a,b) = 1 since 99 and bb cannot be coprime.
  3. The equation 3b2=a23b^2 = a^2 implies that a2a^2 is odd since 33 is odd, but b2b^2 must be even to make 3b23b^2 divisible by an even number. This parity contradiction shows our assumption was false.
  4. From 3b2=a23b^2 = a^2, we can write 3=ab=3b2b=3\sqrt{3} = \frac{a}{b} = \frac{\sqrt{3b^2}}{b} = \sqrt{3}, which is a circular statement that contradicts the original assumption that 3\sqrt{3} can be written as a ratio.
Explanation: Choice A correctly identifies the complete contradiction argument. From 3b2=a23b^2 = a^2, since 3 divides the right side, 3 must divide a2a^2. Since 3 is prime, this means 3 divides aa, so a=3ka = 3k. Substituting back: 3b2=(3k)2=9k23b^2 = (3k)^2 = 9k^2, so b2=3k2b^2 = 3k^2. This means 3 divides b2b^2, and again since 3 is prime, 3 divides bb. But if both aa and bb are divisible by 3, then gcd(a,b)3\gcd(a,b) \geq 3, contradicting our assumption that gcd(a,b)=1\gcd(a,b) = 1. Choice B incorrectly claims aa must be divisible by 9. Choice C makes an invalid parity argument. Choice D presents circular reasoning that doesn't constitute a proper contradiction.

Question 13

A student wants to prove by contradiction that there are infinitely many prime numbers. They assume there are only finitely many primes p1,p2,,pkp_1, p_2, \ldots, p_k and consider the number N=p1p2pk+1N = p_1 \cdot p_2 \cdot \ldots \cdot p_k + 1. Which statement most accurately describes what the student must show to complete the contradiction?

  1. The number NN must be prime, but N>pkN > p_k, which contradicts the assumption that pkp_k is the largest prime number in our finite list.
  2. The number NN cannot be divisible by any prime in our list, yet every integer greater than 1 has a prime divisor, so NN must have a prime divisor not in our supposedly complete list. (correct answer)
  3. The number NN is both even and odd simultaneously, since adding 1 to an even product gives an odd result, but NN must also be even to have any prime factors.
  4. The number NN equals 1 when divided by each prime in our list, but this means NN has remainder 1 with respect to every integer, which is impossible for numbers greater than 1.
Explanation: Choice B correctly identifies the key insight. Since N=p1p2pk+1N = p_1 \cdot p_2 \cdot \ldots \cdot p_k + 1, when we divide NN by any prime pip_i in our list, we get remainder 1, so none of the primes p1,p2,,pkp_1, p_2, \ldots, p_k divide NN. However, by the Fundamental Theorem of Arithmetic, N>1N > 1 must have at least one prime divisor. This prime divisor cannot be any of p1,p2,,pkp_1, p_2, \ldots, p_k, contradicting our assumption that these were all the primes. Choice A incorrectly assumes NN must be prime (it might be composite with prime factors not in our list). Choice C makes an invalid parity argument. Choice D misunderstands what 'remainder 1' means in this context.

Question 14

A student wants to prove by contradiction that log23\log_2 3 is irrational. They begin by assuming log23=pq\log_2 3 = \frac{p}{q} where pp and qq are positive integers with gcd(p,q)=1\gcd(p,q) = 1. After converting to exponential form, they obtain 2p/q=32^{p/q} = 3. Which step correctly leads to the desired contradiction?

  1. Raising both sides to the power qq gives 2p=3q2^p = 3^q. Since the left side is even and the right side is odd for any positive integers pp and qq, we have a contradiction.
  2. Raising both sides to the power qq gives 2p=3q2^p = 3^q. Since 2p2^p has only 2 as a prime factor and 3q3^q has only 3 as a prime factor, the Fundamental Theorem of Arithmetic guarantees these cannot be equal. (correct answer)
  3. Taking logarithms of both sides of 2p/q=32^{p/q} = 3 gives pqlog2=log3\frac{p}{q} \log 2 = \log 3, which rearranges to our original assumption, creating circular reasoning and thus a contradiction.
  4. Since 2<3<4=222 < 3 < 4 = 2^2, we have 1<log23<21 < \log_2 3 < 2, which means pq\frac{p}{q} must satisfy 1<pq<21 < \frac{p}{q} < 2. But this forces q>pq > p, contradicting the requirement that gcd(p,q)=1\gcd(p,q) = 1.
Explanation: Choice B correctly identifies the contradiction using the Fundamental Theorem of Arithmetic. From 2p/q=32^{p/q} = 3, raising both sides to the power qq gives 2p=3q2^p = 3^q. By the Fundamental Theorem of Arithmetic, every positive integer has a unique prime factorization. The left side 2p2^p has prime factorization consisting only of the prime 2, while the right side 3q3^q has prime factorization consisting only of the prime 3. Since 232 \neq 3, these two numbers cannot be equal, providing our contradiction. Choice A is correct about the parity but this is a weaker argument than the prime factorization approach. Choice C incorrectly identifies circular reasoning where none exists. Choice D makes an invalid claim about gcd(p,q)=1\gcd(p,q) = 1 requiring a specific relationship between pp and qq.

Question 15

A student wants to prove by contradiction that if aa and bb are rational numbers with b0b \neq 0, then a+b2a + b\sqrt{2} is irrational when a0a \neq 0 or b0b \neq 0 (i.e., not both zero). They assume a+b2a + b\sqrt{2} is rational and equal to some rational number rs\frac{r}{s} where gcd(r,s)=1\gcd(r,s) = 1. Which manipulation correctly leads to a contradiction?

  1. Since aa and bb are rational, a+b2a + b\sqrt{2} can be written as pq+mn2\frac{p}{q} + \frac{m}{n}\sqrt{2} where all variables are integers. Setting this equal to rs\frac{r}{s} gives a contradiction because the left side has an irrational part while the right side doesn't.
  2. Squaring both sides gives a2+2ab2+2b2=r2s2a^2 + 2ab\sqrt{2} + 2b^2 = \frac{r^2}{s^2}. Rearranging: 2ab2=r2s2a22b22ab\sqrt{2} = \frac{r^2}{s^2} - a^2 - 2b^2. The left side is irrational while the right side is rational, giving a contradiction.
  3. From a+b2=rsa + b\sqrt{2} = \frac{r}{s}, multiplying by the conjugate ab2a - b\sqrt{2} gives (a+b2)(ab2)=rs(ab2)(a + b\sqrt{2})(a - b\sqrt{2}) = \frac{r}{s}(a - b\sqrt{2}), which simplifies to a22b2=r(ab2)sa^2 - 2b^2 = \frac{r(a - b\sqrt{2})}{s}. This makes the left side rational and right side irrational.
  4. From a+b2=rsa + b\sqrt{2} = \frac{r}{s}, we get 2=r/sab=rassb\sqrt{2} = \frac{r/s - a}{b} = \frac{r - as}{sb}. Since the right side is rational (being a quotient of integers with sb0sb \neq 0) but 2\sqrt{2} is irrational, we have a contradiction. (correct answer)
Explanation: Proof by contradiction is a powerful technique where you assume the opposite of what you want to prove and show this leads to an impossible situation. When proving that expressions involving irrational numbers like 2\sqrt{2} are irrational, the key is isolating 2\sqrt{2} on one side of an equation. Option D correctly identifies the winning approach. Starting from the assumption a+b2=rsa + b\sqrt{2} = \frac{r}{s}, you rearrange to isolate 2\sqrt{2}: 2=r/sab=rassb\sqrt{2} = \frac{r/s - a}{b} = \frac{r - as}{sb}. Since aa and rs\frac{r}{s} are both rational, their difference rsa\frac{r}{s} - a is rational. Dividing by the rational number bb gives another rational number. But this contradicts the fact that 2\sqrt{2} is irrational. Option A fails because it doesn't actually create a contradiction—it just restates that one form "looks irrational" without proving anything. Option B makes an error by assuming 2ab22ab\sqrt{2} is necessarily irrational, but if a=0a = 0, then 2ab2=02ab\sqrt{2} = 0, which is rational. Option C incorrectly claims the right side r(ab2)s\frac{r(a - b\sqrt{2})}{s} is irrational, but since we assumed a+b2a + b\sqrt{2} is rational, the conjugate expression ab2a - b\sqrt{2} could also be rational. Study tip: In contradiction proofs involving 2\sqrt{2}, always try to isolate 2\sqrt{2} and show it equals something rational. This creates the clearest, most direct contradiction since 2\sqrt{2} is fundamentally irrational.

Question 16

To prove that 23\sqrt[3]{2} is irrational, a student assumes 23=ab\sqrt[3]{2} = \frac{a}{b} where aa and bb are positive integers with gcd(a,b)=1\gcd(a,b) = 1. After cubing both sides, they get 2=a3b32 = \frac{a^3}{b^3}, so 2b3=a32b^3 = a^3. Which of the following correctly identifies why this leads to a contradiction?

  1. Since a3=2b3a^3 = 2b^3, the number a3a^3 has exactly one factor of 2 in its prime factorization. But if aa has kk factors of 2, then a3a^3 has 3k3k factors of 2. Setting 3k=13k = 1 gives k=13k = \frac{1}{3}, which is impossible since kk must be an integer.
  2. From 2b3=a32b^3 = a^3, we see that a3a^3 is even, which means aa is even. So a=2ma = 2m and 2b3=(2m)3=8m32b^3 = (2m)^3 = 8m^3, giving b3=4m3b^3 = 4m^3. Since 4 divides b3b^3, we have 4 divides bb, so b=4nb = 4n. But then gcd(a,b)=gcd(2m,4n)2\gcd(a,b) = \gcd(2m, 4n) \geq 2, contradicting our assumption.
  3. The equation 2b3=a32b^3 = a^3 implies a3b3=2\frac{a^3}{b^3} = 2, so (ab)3=2\left(\frac{a}{b}\right)^3 = 2. Taking cube roots gives ab=23\frac{a}{b} = \sqrt[3]{2}, which is exactly our original assumption, creating circular reasoning and thus a contradiction.
  4. Since 2b3=a32b^3 = a^3 and 2 is prime, we know 2 divides a3a^3. This means 2 divides aa, so a=2ka = 2k. Substituting: 2b3=8k32b^3 = 8k^3, giving b3=4k3b^3 = 4k^3. Since 4=224 = 2^2, we have 222^2 divides b3b^3, so 2 divides bb. Thus gcd(a,b)2\gcd(a,b) \geq 2, contradicting gcd(a,b)=1\gcd(a,b) = 1. (correct answer)
Explanation: When you encounter an irrationality proof, you're typically using proof by contradiction: assume the number is rational, then show this assumption leads to an impossible situation. The correct reasoning follows option D. Starting from 2b3=a32b^3 = a^3, since 2 is prime and divides a3a^3, it must also divide aa. So we can write a=2ka = 2k for some integer kk. Substituting this back: 2b3=(2k)3=8k32b^3 = (2k)^3 = 8k^3, which simplifies to b3=4k3b^3 = 4k^3. Since 4=224 = 2^2 divides b3b^3, we know 2 must divide bb. But now both aa and bb are divisible by 2, so gcd(a,b)2\gcd(a,b) \geq 2, contradicting our assumption that gcd(a,b)=1\gcd(a,b) = 1. Option A uses correct prime factorization logic but makes an error in reasoning. The equation a3=2b3a^3 = 2b^3 doesn't mean a3a^3 has exactly one factor of 2—it could have more factors of 2 from b3b^3. Option B starts correctly but makes a logical leap, claiming that since 4 divides b3b^3, then 4 must divide bb. This isn't necessarily true—if 4 divides b3b^3, only 2 needs to divide bb. Option C misunderstands proof by contradiction entirely. The fact that we arrive back at our assumption isn't circular reasoning—it's exactly what we expect before finding the actual contradiction. Remember: in irrationality proofs, look for the moment when you can show both numerator and denominator share a common factor, violating the "lowest terms" assumption.

Question 17

A student attempts to prove by contradiction that no integer nn satisfies n22(mod3)n^2 \equiv 2 \pmod{3}. They assume such an nn exists and consider the possible remainders when nn is divided by 3. Which of the following correctly establishes the contradiction?

  1. If n22(mod3)n^2 \equiv 2 \pmod{3}, then n220(mod3)n^2 - 2 \equiv 0 \pmod{3}, meaning 3 divides n22n^2 - 2. But n22=(n2)(n+2)n^2 - 2 = (n-\sqrt{2})(n+\sqrt{2}), and since 2\sqrt{2} is irrational, this factorization cannot involve integers, creating a contradiction.
  2. Since n22(mod3)n^2 \equiv 2 \pmod{3}, we have n2=3k+2n^2 = 3k + 2 for some integer kk. Taking this equation modulo 9 gives n22(mod9)n^2 \equiv 2 \pmod{9}, but squares modulo 9 can only be 0, 1, 4, or 7, never 2.
  3. If n0(mod3)n \equiv 0 \pmod{3}, then n20(mod3)n^2 \equiv 0 \pmod{3}. If n1(mod3)n \equiv 1 \pmod{3}, then n21(mod3)n^2 \equiv 1 \pmod{3}. If n2(mod3)n \equiv 2 \pmod{3}, then n241(mod3)n^2 \equiv 4 \equiv 1 \pmod{3}. In all cases, n2≢2(mod3)n^2 \not\equiv 2 \pmod{3}. (correct answer)
  4. Assuming n22(mod3)n^2 \equiv 2 \pmod{3} means n2+10(mod3)n^2 + 1 \equiv 0 \pmod{3}, so 3 divides n2+1n^2 + 1. But n2+1n^2 + 1 is always even when nn is odd and always odd when nn is even, while 3 is odd, creating a parity contradiction.
Explanation: When proving by contradiction that no integer satisfies a modular equation, you assume such an integer exists and show this leads to an impossibility. For modular arithmetic problems, the most systematic approach is often to check all possible remainders. Option C provides the correct proof. Since any integer nn must have remainder 0, 1, or 2 when divided by 3, we can check each case: If n0(mod3)n \equiv 0 \pmod{3}, then n2020(mod3)n^2 \equiv 0^2 \equiv 0 \pmod{3}. If n1(mod3)n \equiv 1 \pmod{3}, then n2121(mod3)n^2 \equiv 1^2 \equiv 1 \pmod{3}. If n2(mod3)n \equiv 2 \pmod{3}, then n22241(mod3)n^2 \equiv 2^2 \equiv 4 \equiv 1 \pmod{3}. Since we've exhausted all possibilities and none yields n22(mod3)n^2 \equiv 2 \pmod{3}, we have our contradiction. Option A incorrectly uses irrational numbers in a purely integer problem—the factorization with 2\sqrt{2} is irrelevant to modular arithmetic. Option B makes an error by claiming that n22(mod3)n^2 \equiv 2 \pmod{3} implies n22(mod9)n^2 \equiv 2 \pmod{9}, but this isn't necessarily true (modular properties don't work this way). Additionally, squares modulo 9 can actually be 0, 1, 4, or 7, but the reasoning chain itself is flawed. Option D creates a false parity argument—there's no meaningful connection between divisibility by 3 and the even/odd nature of expressions. Study tip: For modular contradiction proofs, systematically check all possible remainders. This exhaustive case analysis is usually the most reliable approach and avoids complex algebraic manipulations that can introduce errors.

Question 18

Consider the statement: "There is no largest even integer." To prove this by contradiction, a student assumes there exists a largest even integer NN. Which of the following arguments correctly derives a contradiction from this assumption?

  1. If NN is the largest even integer, then N+1N + 1 is odd and N+2N + 2 is even. Since N+2>NN + 2 > N, we have found an even integer larger than the supposedly largest even integer NN. (correct answer)
  2. If NN is the largest even integer, then 2N2N is also even. Since N>0N > 0 (as the largest even integer must be positive), we have 2N>N2N > N, contradicting the maximality of NN.
  3. If NN is the largest even integer, then all integers greater than NN must be odd. But this means there are infinitely many odd integers greater than NN, which contradicts the finite nature of our assumption.
  4. If NN is the largest even integer, consider N2N^2. Since NN is even, N2N^2 is also even, and N2N2>NN^2 \geq N^2 > N for N>1N > 1, giving us an even integer larger than NN.
Explanation: Choice A provides the correct and most straightforward contradiction. If NN is even, then N+2N + 2 is also even (since adding 2 to an even number yields an even number). Since N+2>NN + 2 > N, this directly contradicts the assumption that NN is the largest even integer. Choice B incorrectly assumes the largest even integer must be positive - it could be negative, and even if positive, the argument about 2N2N being larger works but is unnecessarily complex. Choice C doesn't provide a proper contradiction - having infinitely many odd integers doesn't contradict having a largest even integer. Choice D has a logical error in the inequality N2N2>NN^2 \geq N^2 > N (the first inequality is trivial equality) and fails for N=0N = 0 or negative values.

Question 19

To prove that the equation x2+y2=3x^2 + y^2 = 3 has no integer solutions, a student uses proof by contradiction. They assume there exist integers xx and yy such that x2+y2=3x^2 + y^2 = 3 and consider this equation modulo 4. Which of the following correctly completes the contradiction?

  1. Since squares modulo 4 can only be 0 or 1, we have x2+y20,1,x^2 + y^2 \equiv 0, 1, or 2(mod4)2 \pmod{4}. But 33(mod4)3 \equiv 3 \pmod{4}, which is impossible, giving our contradiction. (correct answer)
  2. Since xx and yy are integers, x20x^2 \geq 0 and y20y^2 \geq 0. The only way to get x2+y2=3x^2 + y^2 = 3 is if one square is 0 and the other is 3, but 3 is not a perfect square.
  3. Working modulo 4, if xx is even then x20(mod4)x^2 \equiv 0 \pmod{4}, and if xx is odd then x21(mod4)x^2 \equiv 1 \pmod{4}. The same holds for y2y^2. Since 31(mod4)3 \equiv -1 \pmod{4}, we need x2+y21(mod4)x^2 + y^2 \equiv -1 \pmod{4}, which is impossible.
  4. Since 3<43 < 4, we must have max(x,y)=1\max(|x|, |y|) = 1. Checking all cases: (±1)2+02=13(\pm 1)^2 + 0^2 = 1 \neq 3 and 02+(±1)2=130^2 + (\pm 1)^2 = 1 \neq 3, giving our contradiction.
Explanation: Choice A correctly applies modular arithmetic. For any integer nn, we have n0,1,2,n \equiv 0, 1, 2, or 3(mod4)3 \pmod{4}. Computing squares: 0200^2 \equiv 0, 1211^2 \equiv 1, 2202^2 \equiv 0, and 321(mod4)3^2 \equiv 1 \pmod{4}. So n20n^2 \equiv 0 or 1(mod4)1 \pmod{4} for any integer nn. Therefore x2+y2x^2 + y^2 can only be congruent to 0+0=00 + 0 = 0, 0+1=10 + 1 = 1, 1+0=11 + 0 = 1, or 1+1=2(mod4)1 + 1 = 2 \pmod{4}. Since 33(mod4)3 \equiv 3 \pmod{4}, the equation x2+y2=3x^2 + y^2 = 3 is impossible. Choice B uses a valid but incomplete approach (doesn't check (x,y)=(±1,±2)(x,y) = (\pm 1, \pm \sqrt{2})). Choice C incorrectly states 31(mod4)3 \equiv -1 \pmod{4} (actually 33(mod4)3 \equiv 3 \pmod{4}). Choice D misses the case where both x|x| and y|y| could equal 1.

Question 20

Consider the statement: "For all real numbers xx, if x3+x+1>0x^3 + x + 1 > 0, then x>1x > -1." To prove this by contradiction, what should be assumed, and what type of contradiction should be sought?

  1. Assume for all x1x \leq -1, we have x3+x+10x^3 + x + 1 \leq 0, then show this contradicts the original statement.
  2. Assume there exists x>1x > -1 such that x3+x+10x^3 + x + 1 \leq 0, then show this violates properties of cubic functions.
  3. Assume there exists x1x \leq -1 such that x3+x+1>0x^3 + x + 1 > 0, then show this leads to a numerical contradiction. (correct answer)
  4. Assume there exists xx such that x3+x+1>0x^3 + x + 1 > 0 and x1x \leq -1, then show x3+x+10x^3 + x + 1 \leq 0.
Explanation: When you encounter proof by contradiction problems, you need to carefully identify what to assume and what contradiction to derive. The key is understanding that to prove an implication "if P, then Q" by contradiction, you assume P is true and Q is false, then show this leads to an impossibility. The original statement has the form: "For all real numbers xx, if x3+x+1>0x^3 + x + 1 > 0, then x>1x > -1." To prove this by contradiction, you assume there exists some xx where the hypothesis is true (x3+x+1>0x^3 + x + 1 > 0) but the conclusion is false (x1x \leq -1). Then you show this assumption leads to a contradiction. Option C correctly identifies this approach: assume there exists x1x \leq -1 such that x3+x+1>0x^3 + x + 1 > 0, then derive a numerical contradiction (likely by showing that for x1x \leq -1, we must actually have x3+x+10x^3 + x + 1 \leq 0). Option A is wrong because it assumes something about all x1x \leq -1, which isn't the proper negation of the original statement. Option B incorrectly assumes the conclusion is true while making the hypothesis false, which is backwards. Option D has the right setup but seeks the wrong type of contradiction—you want to derive a numerical impossibility, not just show the opposite inequality. Study tip: In proof by contradiction for universal statements "∀x (P(x) → Q(x))", always assume "∃x (P(x) ∧ ¬Q(x))" and derive a logical impossibility from there.