Discrete Math Quiz: Proof By Contrapositive
20 questions · exam conditions
0:00
Proof By ContrapositiveQuestion 1 of 20

Consider the statement "If SRS \subseteq \mathbb{R} is bounded above and sup(S)\sup(S) exists, then for every ε>0\varepsilon > 0, there exists sSs \in S such that s>sup(S)εs > \sup(S) - \varepsilon." Which contrapositive formulation captures the logical structure most precisely?

If for some ε>0\varepsilon > 0, no element sSs \in S satisfies s>sup(S)εs > \sup(S) - \varepsilon, then either SS is unbounded or sup(S)\sup(S) is undefined.
If there exists ε>0\varepsilon > 0 such that for all sSs \in S, ssup(S)εs \leq \sup(S) - \varepsilon, then SS is not bounded above or sup(S)\sup(S) does not exist.
If for all ε>0\varepsilon > 0, there exists sSs \in S with ssup(S)εs \leq \sup(S) - \varepsilon, then SS has no supremum or is unbounded above.
If some ε>0\varepsilon > 0 exists where every sSs \in S has s<sup(S)εs < \sup(S) - \varepsilon, then the bounded nature of SS or existence of sup(S)\sup(S) fails.
← Back to quizzes

Discrete Math Quiz

Discrete Math Quiz: Proof By Contrapositive

Practice Proof By Contrapositive 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 Contrapositive, 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 "If SRS \subseteq \mathbb{R} is bounded above and sup(S)\sup(S) exists, then for every ε>0\varepsilon > 0, there exists sSs \in S such that s>sup(S)εs > \sup(S) - \varepsilon." Which contrapositive formulation captures the logical structure most precisely?

  1. If for some ε>0\varepsilon > 0, no element sSs \in S satisfies s>sup(S)εs > \sup(S) - \varepsilon, then either SS is unbounded or sup(S)\sup(S) is undefined.
  2. If there exists ε>0\varepsilon > 0 such that for all sSs \in S, ssup(S)εs \leq \sup(S) - \varepsilon, then SS is not bounded above or sup(S)\sup(S) does not exist. (correct answer)
  3. If for all ε>0\varepsilon > 0, there exists sSs \in S with ssup(S)εs \leq \sup(S) - \varepsilon, then SS has no supremum or is unbounded above.
  4. If some ε>0\varepsilon > 0 exists where every sSs \in S has s<sup(S)εs < \sup(S) - \varepsilon, then the bounded nature of SS or existence of sup(S)\sup(S) fails.
Explanation: When you encounter contrapositive problems in discrete math, remember that the contrapositive of "If P, then Q" is "If not Q, then not P." Both statements are logically equivalent, so finding the correct contrapositive requires careful negation of both the hypothesis and conclusion. The original statement has the structure: "If [S is bounded above AND sup(S) exists], then [for every ε > 0, there exists s ∈ S such that s > sup(S) - ε]." To form the contrapositive, you need to negate both parts. The negation of "for every ε > 0, there exists s ∈ S such that s > sup(S) - ε" is "there exists ε > 0 such that for all s ∈ S, s ≤ sup(S) - ε." The negation of "S is bounded above AND sup(S) exists" is "S is not bounded above OR sup(S) does not exist." Answer B correctly captures this logical structure with precise quantifier placement and proper negation. Answer A uses "no element satisfies" instead of the more precise "for all s ∈ S, s ≤ sup(S) - ε," making it less mathematically rigorous. Answer C incorrectly negates the quantifiers—it should be "there exists ε" not "for all ε." Answer D uses vague language like "bounded nature fails" rather than the precise logical negation, and uses s < instead of s ≤. Study tip: When forming contrapositives, write out the logical structure with quantifiers first (∀, ∃), then carefully apply negation rules: ¬(∀x P(x)) = ∃x ¬P(x) and ¬(∃x P(x)) = ∀x ¬P(x).

Question 2

Which statement best explains why contrapositive proof is sometimes preferred over direct proof for implications of the form "If PP, then QQ"?

  1. Contrapositive proof is logically stronger than direct proof because it establishes both the original statement and its converse simultaneously through bidirectional reasoning.
  2. The contrapositive ¬Q¬P\neg Q \rightarrow \neg P often provides more concrete or constructive assumptions to work with, especially when QQ involves existence statements or complex conditions. (correct answer)
  3. The contrapositive approach avoids potential circular reasoning that can occur in direct proofs when the hypothesis and conclusion are closely related conceptually.
  4. Contrapositive proof requires fewer logical steps and is computationally more efficient, making it preferable for complex mathematical arguments involving multiple quantifiers.
Explanation: When you encounter questions about proof strategies, focus on the practical advantages each method offers rather than their logical equivalence. Contrapositive proof works by proving ¬Q¬P\neg Q \rightarrow \neg P instead of PQP \rightarrow Q. The key insight is that negating the conclusion often gives you something concrete to work with. For example, if QQ states "there exists an element with property X," then ¬Q\neg Q means "no element has property X" — a much clearer assumption for building a proof. Similarly, when QQ involves complex conditions, ¬Q\neg Q frequently simplifies to more manageable statements that naturally lead to contradicting PP. Choice A is incorrect because contrapositive proof doesn't establish the converse (QPQ \rightarrow P). Both direct and contrapositive proofs are logically equivalent in strength — they prove exactly the same statement. Choice C misunderstands circular reasoning. The conceptual relationship between hypothesis and conclusion doesn't create circularity in either proof method. Circular reasoning occurs when you assume what you're trying to prove, not when concepts are related. Choice D is wrong because contrapositive proofs aren't inherently shorter or more computationally efficient. The number of steps depends on the specific problem, and both methods involve the same logical complexity. Study tip: When deciding between direct and contrapositive proof, examine the conclusion carefully. If it's an existence statement, contains multiple conditions, or seems difficult to construct directly, try working backwards from its negation — you'll often find a clearer path to the contradiction you need.

Question 3

A student attempts to prove "If n2n^2 is odd, then nn is odd" using contrapositive. They write: "Assume nn is even. Then n=2kn = 2k for some integer kk. So n2=4k2=2(2k2)n^2 = 4k^2 = 2(2k^2), which is even." What is the most significant issue with this proof?

  1. The algebraic manipulation n2=4k2=2(2k2)n^2 = 4k^2 = 2(2k^2) contains an error because 4k24k^2 should equal 2(k2)2(k^2), not 2(2k2)2(2k^2).
  2. The student failed to explicitly state the contrapositive before beginning the proof, making the logical connection unclear to readers.
  3. The proof is actually correct and complete; no significant issues exist with the logical structure or mathematical content presented. (correct answer)
  4. The proof assumes nn is even but should assume n2n^2 is even, since the contrapositive requires negating the conclusion first.
Explanation: When evaluating proofs by contrapositive, you need to check three key elements: correct logical structure, valid mathematical reasoning, and complete argumentation. The student's proof is actually mathematically sound and logically complete. They correctly identify that the contrapositive of "If n2n^2 is odd, then nn is odd" is "If nn is even, then n2n^2 is even." They assume nn is even, express it as n=2kn = 2k, and correctly calculate n2=(2k)2=4k2=2(2k2)n^2 = (2k)^2 = 4k^2 = 2(2k^2), showing n2n^2 is even. This proves the contrapositive, which establishes the original statement. Option A incorrectly claims an algebraic error. The calculation 4k2=2(2k2)4k^2 = 2(2k^2) is perfectly valid—factoring out 2 from 4k24k^2 gives 2(2k2)2(2k^2), not 2(k2)2(k^2). Both expressions show n2n^2 is even, which is what matters. Option B suggests the proof lacks clarity by not stating the contrapositive explicitly. While stating it would improve readability, this omission doesn't constitute a "significant issue" since the logical flow is still correct and followable. Option D fundamentally misunderstands contrapositive logic. The contrapositive of "If P, then Q" is "If not Q, then not P." Here, that means "If nn is even, then n2n^2 is even"—exactly what the student proved. Remember: when checking contrapositive proofs, verify they assume the negation of the conclusion and prove the negation of the hypothesis. Don't be distracted by minor presentation issues if the core logic is solid.

Question 4

A student claims: "To prove 'If pp is prime and p>2p > 2, then pp is odd' by contrapositive, I assume pp is even and show pp is not prime or p2p \leq 2." What is the most significant error in this reasoning?

  1. The contrapositive is correctly stated, but the proof strategy should focus on showing p=2p = 2 when pp is even and prime, not showing non-primality.
  2. The logical structure is sound, but the student should prove pp is composite directly rather than using the contrapositive approach for this theorem.
  3. The contrapositive formulation is incorrect; it should be "if pp is even, then pp is not prime or p=2p = 2" to properly handle the compound hypothesis.
  4. The reasoning is actually correct and complete; assuming pp is even and deriving that pp is either composite or equals 2 properly proves the contrapositive. (correct answer)
Explanation: The student's reasoning is actually correct. The original statement "If pp is prime and p>2p > 2, then pp is odd" has contrapositive "If pp is even, then pp is not prime or p2p \leq 2." The student correctly identifies this. When pp is even, either p=2p = 2 (so p2p \leq 2) or p>2p > 2 (making pp composite since it's even). Choice A suggests an incomplete approach. Choice B incorrectly dismisses contrapositive proof. Choice C misunderstands the contrapositive formation for compound hypotheses.

Question 5

A theorem states: "If a graph GG is connected and has exactly two vertices of odd degree, then GG has an Eulerian path but not an Eulerian cycle." What would be the most challenging part of proving this by contrapositive?

  1. Correctly negating the compound conclusion to get "GG has no Eulerian path or GG has an Eulerian cycle" and handling both cases systematically. (correct answer)
  2. Establishing that a graph with no Eulerian path must be disconnected, since this requires deep understanding of graph connectivity theory.
  3. Proving that if a graph has an Eulerian cycle, then all vertices must have even degree, which contradicts having exactly two odd-degree vertices.
  4. Showing that the number of odd-degree vertices in any graph must be even, making it impossible to have exactly two such vertices.
Explanation: The contrapositive requires negating "GG has an Eulerian path but not an Eulerian cycle," which becomes "GG has no Eulerian path OR GG has an Eulerian cycle." This creates two separate cases to consider, making the proof structure more complex. Choice B is incorrect - disconnected graphs can still have Eulerian paths in components. Choice C describes just one part of the proof. Choice D states a true fact but it's not directly relevant to this contrapositive proof.

Question 6

Consider proving "If aa and bb are integers such that abab is not divisible by 3, then neither aa nor bb is divisible by 3." The contrapositive approach requires assuming which condition and proving what conclusion?

  1. Assume at least one of aa or bb is divisible by 3, then prove abab is divisible by 3 using the fundamental theorem of arithmetic. (correct answer)
  2. Assume neither aa nor bb is divisible by 3, then prove abab is not divisible by 3 by showing gcd(ab,3)=1\gcd(ab, 3) = 1.
  3. Assume abab is divisible by 3, then prove at least one of aa or bb must be divisible by 3 using Euclid's lemma.
  4. Assume both aa and bb are divisible by 3, then prove abab is divisible by 9, which implies divisibility by 3.
Explanation: The original statement is "If abab is not divisible by 3, then neither aa nor bb is divisible by 3." The contrapositive is "If at least one of aa or bb is divisible by 3, then abab is divisible by 3." Choice A correctly identifies this. Choice B proves the original statement directly. Choice C reverses the logic. Choice D assumes too strong a condition (both divisible by 3) rather than the correct assumption (at least one divisible by 3).

Question 7

To prove "If xx and yy are rational numbers and x+y2x + y\sqrt{2} is rational, then y=0y = 0" by contrapositive, a student assumes y0y \neq 0 and writes y=pqy = \frac{p}{q} where p,qp, q are integers with q0q \neq 0 and p0p \neq 0. If x+y2x + y\sqrt{2} were rational, what contradiction would arise?

  1. The product y2y\sqrt{2} would be both rational and irrational simultaneously, which is logically impossible by the definition of rational numbers.
  2. The sum x+y2x + y\sqrt{2} would be irrational since y2y\sqrt{2} is irrational and xx is rational, contradicting our assumption.
  3. Since y0y \neq 0, the expression x+y2x + y\sqrt{2} cannot be simplified to a rational form, creating a direct contradiction.
  4. We could solve for 2=rxy\sqrt{2} = \frac{r - x}{y} where rr is rational, making 2\sqrt{2} rational, which contradicts the irrationality of 2\sqrt{2}. (correct answer)
Explanation: When you encounter a proof by contrapositive, you're proving "if P then Q" by instead proving "if not Q then not P." Here, we assume y0y \neq 0 (not Q) to show that x+y2x + y\sqrt{2} cannot be rational (not P). The key insight is algebraic manipulation. If we assume x+y2x + y\sqrt{2} is rational (call it rr), then we can rearrange: x+y2=rx + y\sqrt{2} = r, so y2=rxy\sqrt{2} = r - x. Since xx and rr are both rational, their difference rxr - x is rational. Now, since y0y \neq 0 and yy is rational, we can divide both sides by yy: 2=rxy\sqrt{2} = \frac{r - x}{y}. This expresses 2\sqrt{2} as a quotient of two rational numbers, making it rational—but we know 2\sqrt{2} is irrational. This contradiction proves our assumption was wrong. Answer choice A incorrectly focuses on y2y\sqrt{2} being simultaneously rational and irrational, but y2y\sqrt{2} is simply irrational when y0y \neq 0. Choice B correctly notes that x+y2x + y\sqrt{2} should be irrational, but this doesn't create the contradiction we need—we assumed it was rational to derive our contradiction. Choice C vaguely mentions inability to simplify without showing the specific algebraic contradiction. Answer D correctly identifies the contradiction: we derive that 2\sqrt{2} must be rational, contradicting its known irrationality. Study tip: In contrapositive proofs involving irrationals, look for ways to isolate the irrational term and show it must equal something rational—that's usually where your contradiction lies.

Question 8

Consider the statement: "If nn is a positive integer and 2n12^n - 1 is prime, then nn is prime." In a proof by contrapositive, we assume nn is composite. If n=abn = ab where 1<a,b<n1 < a, b < n, which factorization property allows us to conclude that 2n12^n - 1 is composite?

  1. 2n1=(2a1)(2b1)+(2a1)+(2b1)2^n - 1 = (2^a - 1)(2^b - 1) + (2^a - 1) + (2^b - 1), providing a factorization where both factors are greater than 1.
  2. 2n1=2ab1=(2a)b12^n - 1 = 2^{ab} - 1 = (2^a)^b - 1, and since xb1=(x1)(xb1+xb2++x+1)x^b - 1 = (x-1)(x^{b-1} + x^{b-2} + \cdots + x + 1), we get a non-trivial factorization. (correct answer)
  3. 2n1=2ab12^n - 1 = 2^{ab} - 1 can be written as 2a(2b11)+(2a1)2^a(2^{b-1} - 1) + (2^a - 1), giving us two factors each greater than 1.
  4. Since n=abn = ab is composite, 2n12^n - 1 inherits the composite property directly through the exponential function's behavior on composite inputs.
Explanation: When proving statements about prime numbers using contrapositive, you're leveraging powerful algebraic identities to show that composite exponents lead to composite results. The key insight here involves the factorization formula for expressions of the form xb1x^b - 1. When n=abn = ab with both aa and bb greater than 1, we can write 2n1=2ab1=(2a)b12^n - 1 = 2^{ab} - 1 = (2^a)^b - 1. Now applying the standard factorization xb1=(x1)(xb1+xb2++x+1)x^b - 1 = (x-1)(x^{b-1} + x^{b-2} + \cdots + x + 1) with x=2ax = 2^a, we get 2n1=(2a1)(2a(b1)+2a(b2)++2a+1)2^n - 1 = (2^a - 1)(2^{a(b-1)} + 2^{a(b-2)} + \cdots + 2^a + 1). Since a>1a > 1, both factors are greater than 1, proving 2n12^n - 1 is composite. This makes B correct. Option A presents an incorrect algebraic manipulation that doesn't follow from any standard factorization identity. Option C attempts a factorization but the expression 2a(2b11)+(2a1)2^a(2^{b-1} - 1) + (2^a - 1) doesn't actually factor 2n12^n - 1 into a product of two integers. Option D makes the fundamental error of assuming compositeness transfers directly through exponentiation, which isn't mathematically justified. Remember this pattern: when you see "if f(n)f(n) has property P, then nn has property Q" in number theory, look for algebraic identities that connect the structure of nn to the factorization of f(n)f(n). The contrapositive approach often reveals these connections most clearly.

Question 9

Consider the statement: "If nn is a positive integer and n2+n+1n^2 + n + 1 is divisible by 3, then nn is divisible by 3." To prove this by contrapositive, we assume nn is not divisible by 3. What are the possible remainders when n2+n+1n^2 + n + 1 is divided by 3?

  1. Only remainder 1, proving the contrapositive since n2+n+1n^2 + n + 1 is never divisible by 3 when nn is not divisible by 3. (correct answer)
  2. Only remainder 0, which contradicts our assumption and proves the original statement false.
  3. Remainders 1 and 2, but never 0, proving the contrapositive since n2+n+1n^2 + n + 1 is never divisible by 3 when nn is not divisible by 3.
  4. Remainders 0, 1, and 2 are all possible, so the contrapositive method cannot be used for this statement.
Explanation: If nn is not divisible by 3, then n1(mod3)n \equiv 1 \pmod{3} or n2(mod3)n \equiv 2 \pmod{3}. Case 1: If n1(mod3)n \equiv 1 \pmod{3}, then n21(mod3)n^2 \equiv 1 \pmod{3} and n2+n+11+1+101(mod3)n^2 + n + 1 \equiv 1 + 1 + 1 \equiv 0 \equiv 1 \pmod{3}. Case 2: If n2(mod3)n \equiv 2 \pmod{3}, then n241(mod3)n^2 \equiv 4 \equiv 1 \pmod{3} and n2+n+11+2+141(mod3)n^2 + n + 1 \equiv 1 + 2 + 1 \equiv 4 \equiv 1 \pmod{3}. In both cases, n2+n+1n^2 + n + 1 has remainder 1 when divided by 3, so it's never divisible by 3. This proves the contrapositive. Choice B is incorrect about the remainder. Choice C incorrectly claims both remainders 1 and 2 are possible. Choice D misunderstands that finding only remainder 1 actually strengthens the proof.

Question 10

Consider proving by contrapositive: "If aa, bb, and cc are positive integers with a2+b2=c2a^2 + b^2 = c^2, then at least one of aa or bb is even." The contrapositive assumes both aa and bb are odd. If a=2m+1a = 2m + 1 and b=2n+1b = 2n + 1, what can be concluded about a2+b2a^2 + b^2?

  1. a2+b2=4(m2+n2)+4(m+n)+2a^2 + b^2 = 4(m^2 + n^2) + 4(m + n) + 2, which is always even but never divisible by 4, creating the needed contradiction.
  2. a2+b2a^2 + b^2 is even, which means c2c^2 is even, so cc is even, contradicting the requirement that aa, bb, cc are positive integers.
  3. a2+b22(mod4)a^2 + b^2 \equiv 2 \pmod{4}, but any perfect square is congruent to 0 or 1 modulo 4, so c2c^2 cannot equal a2+b2a^2 + b^2. (correct answer)
  4. a2+b2a^2 + b^2 yields an irrational sum when aa and bb are both odd, making it impossible for c2c^2 to be an integer.
Explanation: When you encounter a proof by contrapositive, you're proving "If P, then Q" by showing "If not Q, then not P." Here, we assume both aa and bb are odd and seek a contradiction with a2+b2=c2a^2 + b^2 = c^2. Let's work with odd integers. If a=2m+1a = 2m + 1 and b=2n+1b = 2n + 1, then: a2=(2m+1)2=4m2+4m+1a^2 = (2m + 1)^2 = 4m^2 + 4m + 1 b2=(2n+1)2=4n2+4n+1b^2 = (2n + 1)^2 = 4n^2 + 4n + 1 Therefore: a2+b2=4m2+4m+1+4n2+4n+1=4(m2+m+n2+n)+2a^2 + b^2 = 4m^2 + 4m + 1 + 4n^2 + 4n + 1 = 4(m^2 + m + n^2 + n) + 2 This shows a2+b22(mod4)a^2 + b^2 \equiv 2 \pmod{4}. However, any perfect square can only be congruent to 0 or 1 modulo 4. You can verify this: if cc is even, c20(mod4)c^2 \equiv 0 \pmod{4}; if cc is odd, c21(mod4)c^2 \equiv 1 \pmod{4}. Since c2c^2 cannot be congruent to 2 modulo 4, we have our contradiction. Answer C captures this reasoning perfectly. Answer A contains the correct algebraic manipulation but incorrectly states the sum is "never divisible by 4" when it actually leaves remainder 2 when divided by 4. Answer B stops too early—being even doesn't create a contradiction by itself. Answer D is nonsensical since the sum of integers is always rational. Study tip: When proving statements about even/odd integers, modular arithmetic (especially mod 4) often reveals contradictions that basic even/odd analysis misses. Perfect squares have very specific patterns modulo 4.

Question 11

To prove by contrapositive that "If xx and yy are real numbers and xy=0xy = 0, then x=0x = 0 or y=0y = 0," we assume the negation of the conclusion. After making this assumption and reaching xy0xy \neq 0, what property of real numbers justifies the contradiction?

  1. The completeness property of real numbers ensures that if neither xx nor yy is zero, their product cannot be zero by the density of rationals.
  2. The field property that real numbers form an integral domain, meaning the product of two nonzero elements is nonzero, directly contradicting xy=0xy = 0. (correct answer)
  3. The multiplicative inverse property guarantees that if x0x \neq 0 and y0y \neq 0, then x1x^{-1} and y1y^{-1} exist, making xyxy invertible and thus nonzero.
  4. The ordering property of real numbers implies that if x0x \neq 0 and y0y \neq 0, then both have definite signs, making their product necessarily nonzero.
Explanation: When you encounter a proof by contrapositive, you're assuming the negation of the conclusion to show it leads to a contradiction with the hypothesis. Here, we assume "not (x=0x = 0 or y=0y = 0)," which means both x0x \neq 0 and y0y \neq 0. This assumption, combined with the given condition xy=0xy = 0, creates our contradiction. The key insight is recognizing what mathematical property makes this contradiction possible. Since we're assuming both xx and yy are nonzero real numbers, yet their product equals zero, we need a fundamental property about multiplication in the real number system. Answer B correctly identifies that real numbers form an integral domain, which by definition means the product of two nonzero elements must be nonzero. This directly contradicts our hypothesis that xy=0xy = 0, completing the proof. Answer A incorrectly invokes completeness and density properties, which relate to the existence of limits and rational numbers being dense in the reals—irrelevant to multiplication of nonzero numbers. Answer C mentions multiplicative inverses, but while true that nonzero numbers have inverses, this doesn't directly establish why their product can't be zero. Answer D focuses on ordering and signs, but this misses the point—even if we know the signs, we need the integral domain property to guarantee the product is nonzero. Remember: when proving statements about products equaling zero, think about the fundamental algebraic structure. Real numbers forming an integral domain (no zero divisors) is the bedrock property that makes such proofs work.

Question 12

Consider the statement: "If n2n^2 is even, then nn is even." Which of the following correctly represents a proof by contrapositive of this statement?

  1. Assume nn is odd. Then n=2k+1n = 2k + 1 for some integer kk, so 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 is odd. Therefore, if nn is odd, then n2n^2 is odd. (correct answer)
  2. Assume n2n^2 is odd. Then n2=2k+1n^2 = 2k + 1 for some integer kk, so n=2k+1n = \sqrt{2k + 1}. Since the square root of an odd number is odd, nn is odd.
  3. Assume nn is even. Then n=2kn = 2k for some integer kk, so n2=(2k)2=4k2=2(2k2)n^2 = (2k)^2 = 4k^2 = 2(2k^2), which is even. Therefore, if nn is even, then n2n^2 is even.
  4. Assume n2n^2 is even and nn is odd. This leads to a contradiction since n2=(2k+1)2=4k2+4k+1n^2 = (2k + 1)^2 = 4k^2 + 4k + 1, which is odd, not even.
Explanation: A proof by contrapositive of "If P, then Q" proves "If not Q, then not P." For the statement "If n2n^2 is even, then nn is even," the contrapositive is "If nn is odd, then n2n^2 is odd." Choice A correctly proves this contrapositive by assuming nn is odd and showing n2n^2 must be odd. Choice B incorrectly attempts to work backwards from n2n^2 being odd but makes an invalid inference about square roots. Choice C proves the converse, not the contrapositive. Choice D attempts proof by contradiction, not contrapositive.

Question 13

A student attempts to prove by contrapositive that "If f(x)=x3+2xf(x) = x^3 + 2x, then ff is one-to-one." The student writes: "Assume ff is not one-to-one. Then there exist aba \neq b such that f(a)=f(b)f(a) = f(b). This means a3+2a=b3+2ba^3 + 2a = b^3 + 2b, so a3b3=2b2a=2(ba)a^3 - b^3 = 2b - 2a = 2(b - a)." What should the student do next to complete the proof?

  1. Factor a3b3a^3 - b^3 as (ab)(a2+ab+b2)(a-b)(a^2 + ab + b^2) and show this leads to a2+ab+b2=2a^2 + ab + b^2 = -2, which is impossible for real numbers. (correct answer)
  2. Conclude that since a3b3=2(ba)a^3 - b^3 = 2(b - a) and aba \neq b, we have shown ff is not one-to-one, completing the contrapositive proof.
  3. Show that a3b3=2(ba)a^3 - b^3 = 2(b - a) implies a=ba = b, contradicting the assumption that aba \neq b, thus proving ff is one-to-one.
  4. Substitute specific values for aa and bb to show that no such pair exists where aba \neq b and f(a)=f(b)f(a) = f(b).
Explanation: In a proof by contrapositive, we assume the negation of the conclusion and derive the negation of the hypothesis. The student correctly assumed ff is not one-to-one and derived a3b3=2(ba)a^3 - b^3 = 2(b - a). Factoring the left side gives (ab)(a2+ab+b2)=2(ab)(a-b)(a^2 + ab + b^2) = -2(a-b). Since aba \neq b, we can divide by (ab)(a-b) to get a2+ab+b2=2a^2 + ab + b^2 = -2. But a2+ab+b2=(a+b2)2+3b240a^2 + ab + b^2 = (a + \frac{b}{2})^2 + \frac{3b^2}{4} \geq 0 for real numbers, so it cannot equal 2-2. This contradiction shows our assumption was false. Choice B misunderstands the proof structure. Choice C attempts proof by contradiction rather than contrapositive. Choice D is not a valid proof technique for this general statement.

Question 14

A student wants to prove by contrapositive that "If f:RRf: \mathbb{R} \to \mathbb{R} is differentiable at x=ax = a, then ff is continuous at x=ax = a." The student begins: "Assume ff is not continuous at x=ax = a. Then..." What should follow to complete this proof correctly?

  1. We can find sequences approaching aa where ff takes on arbitrarily large values, making ff unbounded near aa and thus non-differentiable.
  2. The function ff has a jump discontinuity at x=ax = a, making the difference quotient f(a+h)f(a)h\frac{f(a+h) - f(a)}{h} undefined as h0h \to 0.
  3. There exists ϵ>0\epsilon > 0 such that for all δ>0\delta > 0, there exists xx with xa<δ|x - a| < \delta but f(x)f(a)ϵ|f(x) - f(a)| \geq \epsilon, which prevents the derivative limit from existing. (correct answer)
  4. The limit limxaf(x)\lim_{x \to a} f(x) either does not exist or does not equal f(a)f(a), preventing the difference quotient from having a finite limit.
Explanation: When approaching proof by contrapositive, you need to precisely negate both the hypothesis and conclusion, then show the contrapositive statement is true. The original statement is "differentiable at aa implies continuous at aa," so the contrapositive is "not continuous at aa implies not differentiable at aa." The correct approach uses the formal definition of continuity. If ff is not continuous at aa, then there exists some ϵ>0\epsilon > 0 such that no matter how small you make δ>0\delta > 0, you can always find points xx within δ\delta of aa where f(x)f(a)ϵ|f(x) - f(a)| \geq \epsilon. This persistent "jump" of at least ϵ\epsilon prevents the difference quotient f(x)f(a)xa\frac{f(x) - f(a)}{x - a} from having a limit as xax \to a, since the numerator can't get arbitrarily small. Answer C correctly captures this rigorous argument. Answer A is wrong because discontinuity doesn't require unboundedness—functions can be discontinuous while remaining bounded. Answer B incorrectly assumes all discontinuities are jump discontinuities and wrongly claims the difference quotient is "undefined" rather than showing its limit doesn't exist. Answer D makes a vague connection between continuity and differentiability without establishing the crucial logical link—it doesn't explain why the failure of limxaf(x)=f(a)\lim_{x \to a} f(x) = f(a) prevents the derivative limit from existing. Remember: contrapositive proofs require precise logical reasoning using formal definitions. Avoid intuitive but imprecise arguments—stick to the mathematical definitions of continuity and differentiability.

Question 15

A theorem states: "If a graph GG is connected and has exactly two vertices of odd degree, then GG has an Eulerian path." Which statement would be proven in a contrapositive proof of this theorem?

  1. If GG is connected and has no vertices of odd degree, then GG has an Eulerian cycle rather than an Eulerian path.
  2. If GG has an Eulerian path, then GG is connected and has exactly two vertices of odd degree.
  3. If GG is disconnected or has a number of odd-degree vertices other than two, then GG does not have an Eulerian path.
  4. If GG does not have an Eulerian path, then GG is disconnected or GG does not have exactly two vertices of odd degree. (correct answer)
Explanation: When you encounter questions about contrapositive proofs, remember that the contrapositive of "If P, then Q" is "If not Q, then not P." These statements are logically equivalent, so proving the contrapositive proves the original theorem. The original theorem states: "If [GG is connected AND has exactly two vertices of odd degree], then [GG has an Eulerian path]." To form the contrapositive, you negate both parts and reverse their order: "If [GG does NOT have an Eulerian path], then [GG is NOT (connected AND has exactly two vertices of odd degree)]." Using De Morgan's law, "NOT (connected AND exactly two odd vertices)" becomes "disconnected OR does not have exactly two odd vertices." This matches option D perfectly. Option A describes a different theorem about Eulerian cycles, not the contrapositive of our given statement. Option B is the converse of the original theorem (switching P and Q), which is not logically equivalent to the original. Option C attempts the contrapositive but gets the direction wrong—it negates the hypothesis instead of the conclusion first, making it an invalid contrapositive. The key insight is that D correctly negates the conclusion ("does not have an Eulerian path") and then negates the entire compound hypothesis using De Morgan's law. Study tip: For contrapositive questions, always follow this formula: "If not Q, then not P." When the hypothesis has multiple parts connected by "and," remember that negating it requires "or" between the negated parts. Practice identifying contrapositives versus converses, as these are commonly confused on discrete math exams.

Question 16

Consider proving "If gcd(a,12)=1\gcd(a,12) = 1, then gcd(a,8)=1\gcd(a,8) = 1 and gcd(a,3)=1\gcd(a,3) = 1" by contrapositive. Which assumption leads to the most direct proof path?

  1. Assume gcd(a,12)>1\gcd(a,12) > 1, then factor 12 as 2232^2 \cdot 3 and show aa must share factors with the prime factorization components.
  2. Assume gcd(a,8)1\gcd(a,8) \neq 1 and gcd(a,3)1\gcd(a,3) \neq 1, then prove gcd(a,12)lcm(gcd(a,8),gcd(a,3))>1\gcd(a,12) \geq \text{lcm}(\gcd(a,8), \gcd(a,3)) > 1.
  3. Assume gcd(a,8)>1\gcd(a,8) > 1 or gcd(a,3)>1\gcd(a,3) > 1, then show that aa shares a common factor with either 8 or 3, both of which divide 12. (correct answer)
  4. Assume both gcd(a,8)=1\gcd(a,8) = 1 and gcd(a,3)=1\gcd(a,3) = 1 are false, then use the Chinese Remainder Theorem to establish gcd(a,24)>1\gcd(a,24) > 1.
Explanation: When proving an implication by contrapositive, you need to prove the logically equivalent statement: "not Q implies not P." Here, the contrapositive of "If gcd(a,12)=1\gcd(a,12) = 1, then gcd(a,8)=1\gcd(a,8) = 1 and gcd(a,3)=1\gcd(a,3) = 1" is "If gcd(a,8)1\gcd(a,8) \neq 1 or gcd(a,3)1\gcd(a,3) \neq 1, then gcd(a,12)1\gcd(a,12) \neq 1." Option C correctly identifies this contrapositive assumption and provides the most direct proof path. When gcd(a,8)>1\gcd(a,8) > 1, then aa and 8 share a common factor greater than 1. Since 8=238 = 2^3 divides 12=22312 = 2^2 \cdot 3, any common factor of aa and 8 is also a common factor of aa and 12, making gcd(a,12)>1\gcd(a,12) > 1. Similarly, if gcd(a,3)>1\gcd(a,3) > 1, then aa and 3 share a common factor, and since 3 divides 12, we get gcd(a,12)>1\gcd(a,12) > 1. Option A proves the original statement directly, not by contrapositive. Option B uses the wrong logical structure—it assumes both conditions are false (AND) rather than at least one is false (OR). This misrepresents the negation of "gcd(a,8)=1\gcd(a,8) = 1 and gcd(a,3)=1\gcd(a,3) = 1." Option D also incorrectly assumes both conditions are false and unnecessarily invokes the Chinese Remainder Theorem with 24 instead of 12. Remember: when negating "P and Q," you get "not P or not Q," not "not P and not Q." This logical principle is crucial for setting up contrapositive proofs correctly.

Question 17

When proving "If n4+n2+1n^4 + n^2 + 1 is prime, then nn is even" by contrapositive, what is the key insight needed to complete the proof?

  1. Showing that when nn is odd, n4+n2+13(mod4)n^4 + n^2 + 1 \equiv 3 \pmod{4}, which implies the expression cannot equal 2.
  2. Recognizing that n4+n2+1=(n2+n+1)(n2n+1)n^4 + n^2 + 1 = (n^2 + n + 1)(n^2 - n + 1) when nn is odd, providing a non-trivial factorization. (correct answer)
  3. Demonstrating that n4+n2+1>n2n^4 + n^2 + 1 > n^2 for all positive integers nn, ensuring the expression is always composite when nn is odd.
  4. Proving that n4+n2+1n^4 + n^2 + 1 is always odd regardless of the parity of nn, so primality depends on other structural properties.
Explanation: When approaching a proof by contrapositive, you need to prove the negation of the conclusion implies the negation of the hypothesis. Here, instead of proving "If n4+n2+1n^4 + n^2 + 1 is prime, then nn is even," you prove "If nn is odd, then n4+n2+1n^4 + n^2 + 1 is composite." The key insight is recognizing that when nn is odd, the expression n4+n2+1n^4 + n^2 + 1 factors as (n2+n+1)(n2n+1)(n^2 + n + 1)(n^2 - n + 1). You can verify this by expanding: (n2+n+1)(n2n+1)=n4n3+n2+n3n2+n+n2n+1=n4+n2+1(n^2 + n + 1)(n^2 - n + 1) = n^4 - n^3 + n^2 + n^3 - n^2 + n + n^2 - n + 1 = n^4 + n^2 + 1. When nn is odd, both factors are integers greater than 1, proving the expression is composite. Option A discusses modular arithmetic properties but doesn't directly prove compositeness—showing an expression can't equal 2 doesn't prove it's composite for all values. Option C makes an irrelevant comparison; being greater than n2n^2 doesn't imply compositeness. Option D correctly notes the expression is always odd, but this observation alone doesn't complete the proof of compositeness. The correct answer is B because it provides the factorization that directly proves compositeness when nn is odd. Study tip: In contrapositive proofs involving primality, look for algebraic factorizations. When you can factor an expression into two non-trivial factors, you've immediately proven it's composite, which is often the goal in these problems.

Question 18

Consider the statement: "If n3+5nn^3 + 5n is even, then nn is even." Which of the following correctly represents the contrapositive and provides the most appropriate proof strategy?

  1. If nn is odd, then n3+5nn^3 + 5n is odd. Prove by assuming n=2k+1n = 2k+1 and showing n3+5n=2m+1n^3 + 5n = 2m+1 for some integer mm. (correct answer)
  2. If nn is odd, then n3+5nn^3 + 5n is even. Prove by assuming n=2k+1n = 2k+1 and showing n3+5n=2mn^3 + 5n = 2m for some integer mm.
  3. If n3+5nn^3 + 5n is odd, then nn is odd. Prove by assuming n3+5n=2k+1n^3 + 5n = 2k+1 and deriving that nn must be odd.
  4. If nn is not even, then n3+5nn^3 + 5n is not even. Prove by contradiction, assuming both nn is odd and n3+5nn^3 + 5n is even.
Explanation: The contrapositive of "If P, then Q" is "If not Q, then not P." Here, P is "n3+5nn^3 + 5n is even" and Q is "nn is even." So the contrapositive is "If nn is not even (odd), then n3+5nn^3 + 5n is not even (odd)." Choice A correctly states this and gives the right proof approach. Choice B has the wrong conclusion in the contrapositive. Choice C reverses the logic incorrectly. Choice D describes proof by contradiction, not contrapositive.

Question 19

Which statement about proof by contrapositive is most accurate when comparing it to direct proof and proof by contradiction?

  1. Contrapositive proof is logically equivalent to direct proof, while contradiction requires assuming the negation of what you want to prove.
  2. Contrapositive proof assumes the negation of the conclusion and derives the negation of the hypothesis, making it logically distinct from both direct proof and contradiction.
  3. Contrapositive proof is a special case of proof by contradiction where you assume both the hypothesis and negation of the conclusion simultaneously.
  4. Contrapositive proof and proof by contradiction both assume negations, but contrapositive derives a specific conclusion while contradiction seeks any logical inconsistency. (correct answer)
Explanation: Choice D correctly identifies the key distinction: both contrapositive and contradiction involve assuming negations, but contrapositive specifically assumes ¬Q to prove ¬P (deriving a targeted conclusion), while contradiction assumes ¬(P→Q) to derive any contradiction. Choice A is wrong because contrapositive and direct proof are logically equivalent but procedurally different. Choice B incorrectly claims they're logically distinct. Choice C incorrectly describes contrapositive as a special case of contradiction.

Question 20

To prove "If x27x+120x^2 - 7x + 12 \neq 0, then x3x \neq 3" by contrapositive, which sequence of steps is most logically sound?

  1. Assume x=3x = 3, substitute to get 921+12=09 - 21 + 12 = 0, conclude x27x+12=0x^2 - 7x + 12 = 0, therefore the contrapositive holds. (correct answer)
  2. Assume x3x \neq 3, factor x27x+12=(x3)(x4)x^2 - 7x + 12 = (x-3)(x-4), show this equals zero only when x=4x = 4, conclude the original statement.
  3. Factor x27x+12=(x3)(x4)x^2 - 7x + 12 = (x-3)(x-4), assume x=3x = 3, substitute to show x27x+12=0x^2 - 7x + 12 = 0, contrapositive proven.
  4. Assume x27x+12=0x^2 - 7x + 12 = 0, solve to get x=3x = 3 or x=4x = 4, since x=3x = 3 is possible, the contrapositive fails.
Explanation: The contrapositive of the given statement is "If x=3x = 3, then x27x+12=0x^2 - 7x + 12 = 0." Choice A correctly assumes the hypothesis of the contrapositive (x=3x = 3) and derives the conclusion (x27x+12=0x^2 - 7x + 12 = 0). Choice B tries to prove the original statement directly. Choice C has the right idea but doesn't clearly establish the logical flow. Choice D attempts to disprove the contrapositive, which would actually disprove the original statement.