Unit 1:- Logic, language and

reasoning

• Introduction to the basic concepts of logic: Propositions, arguments, premises,

conclusions, deductive and inductive arguments, validity and truth.
• Functions of language: Emotive and neutral
• Ambiguity and disputes. Structure of definitions.
• "Fallacies and its types: relevance, defective induction, presumption, and ambiguity"

[Website]

Introduction to logic:

The word "logic" originates from the Greek word "logos", which has a variety of translations,
such as reason, discourse, or language. Logic is traditionally defined as the study of the laws
of thought or correct reasoning, and is usually understood in terms of inferences or arguments.
Reasoning is the activity of drawing inferences. Arguments are the outward expression of
inferences. An argument is a set of premises together with a conclusion. Logic is interested in
whether arguments are correct, i.e. whether their premises support the conclusion. These
general characterizations apply to logic in the widest sense, i.e., to both formal and informal
logic since they are both concerned with assessing the correctness of arguments. Formal logic
is the traditionally dominant field, and some logicians restrict logic to formal logic.

Logic was developed independently in several cultures during antiquity. One major early
contributor was Aristotle,

Logic is the study of the methods and principles used in distinguishing correct from
incorrect reasoning. So, logic provides the rules for correct thinking, and identifies
fallacies of incorrect thinking.

Logic is the study of correct reasoning. It includes both formal and informal logic. Formal
logic is the science of deductively valid inferences or logical truths. It studies how
conclusions follow from premises due to the structure of arguments alone, independent
of their topic and content. Informal logic is associated with informal fallacies, critical
thinking, and argumentation theory. It examines arguments expressed in natural
language while formal logic uses formal language. When used as a countable noun, the
term "a logic" refers to a logical formal system that articulates a proof system. Logic
plays a central role in many fields, such as philosophy, mathematics, computer science,
and linguistics.
 The four main types of logic are:
• Informal logic: Uses deductive and inductive reasoning to make arguments.
• Formal logic: Uses syllogisms to make inferences.
• Symbolic logic: Uses symbols to accurately map out valid and invalid arguments.
• Mathematical logic Uses mathematical symbols to prove theoretical arguments.

1. Propositional Logic :
A proposition is basically a declarative sentence that has a truth value. Truth value can
either be true or false, but it needs to be assigned any of the two values and not be
ambiguous. The purpose of using propositional logic is to analyze a statement, individually
or compositely.
For example :
The following statements :

1. (a+b)2 = a2 + 2ab + b2
2. If x is real, then x2 >= 0
3. If x is real, then x2 < 0
4. The sun rises in the east.
5. The sun rises in the west.
Are all propositions because they have a specific truth value, true or false.
The branch of logic that deals with proposition is propositional logic.

2. Predicate Logic :
Predicates are properties, additional information to better express the subject of the
sentence. A quantified predicate is a proposition , that is, when you assign values to a
predicate with variables it can be made a proposition.

For example :
In P(x) : x>5, x is the subject or the variable and ‘>5’ is the predicate.
P(7) : 7>5 is a proposition where we are assigning values to the variable x, and it has a
truth value, i.e. True.
The set of values that the variables of the predicate can assume is called the Universe or
Domain of Discourse or Domain of Predicate.

Difference between Propositional Logic and Predicate Logic :

 Propositional Logic Predicate Logic

Predicate logic is an expression consisting of

Propositional logic is the logic that deals with
1 variables with a specified domain. It consists of
a collection of declarative statements which
objects, relations and functions between the
have a truth value, true or false.
objects.

2 It is the basic and most widely used logic. It is an extension of propositional logic covering
Also known as Boolean logic. predicates and quantification.

3 A proposition has a specific truth value, either A predicate’s truth value depends on the variables’
true or false. value.

Predicate logic helps analyze the scope of the

subject over the predicate. There are three
4 Scope analysis is not done in propositional quantifiers : Universal Quantifier (∀) depicts for
logic. all, Existential Quantifier (∃) depicting there exists
some and Uniqueness Quantifier (∃!) depicting
exactly one.

Propositions are combined with Logical

Operators or Logical Connectives like
5 Predicate Logic adds by introducing quantifiers to
Negation(¬), Disjunction(∨), Conjunction(∧),
the existing proposition.
Exclusive OR(⊕), Implication(⇒), Bi-
Conditional or Double Implication(⇔).

6 It is a more generalized representation. It is a more specialized representation.

7 It cannot deal with sets of entities. It can deal with set of entities with the help of

Argument:-

An argument is a group of statements including one or more premises and one and only
one conclusion. A premise is a statement in an argument that provides reason or
support for the conclusion. There can be one or many premises in a single argument.

A premise includes the reasons and evidence behind a conclusion. A conclusion is the
statement that the premise supports and is a way of promoting a certain belief or point
of view.
There are several kinds of arguments in logic, the best-known of which are
"deductive" and "inductive." An argument has one or more premises but
only one conclusion. Each premise and the conclusion are truth bearers or
"truth-candidates", each capable of being either true or false (but not both).
These truth values bear on the terminology used with arguments.

Deductive arguments
A deductive argument asserts that the truth of the conclusion is a logical consequence
of the premises: if the premises are true, the conclusion must be true. It would be self-
contradictory to assert the premises and deny the conclusion, because negation of the
conclusion is contradictory to the truth of the premises. Based on the premises, the
conclusion follows necessarily (with certainty). Given premises that A=B and B=C, then
the conclusion follows necessarily that A=C.

A deductive argument is a logic construct with two or more premises and a conclusion
where if the premises are true then the conclusion must also be true. In philosophy, if
the truth of the conclusion is fully established by the premises, then the argument is
called valid. If the argument is valid and the premises are true, then the argument is
called sound.

A deductive argument establishes a conclusion to be true by stating two or more true

premises that lead to the conclusion being true. A deductive argument can be simply
stated as "If A and B are true, then C must also be true." A deductive argument uses
deductive reasoning. In a deductive argument the premises have a logical implication.
A simple example of a deductive argument is "All dogs have four legs, John's pet is a
dog, therefore John's pet has four legs."

Validity and soundness of deductive arguments

A deductive argument is said to be valid if the truthfulness of the premises necessitates

that the conclusion be true. A deductive argument is said to be sound if the premises
are true.

Consider the following example: "All dogs have four legs, all dogs are animals, therefore
all animals have four legs." This statement would not be valid because the two premises
would not logically require the conclusion to be true.

As another example "All dogs have four legs, Rover is a dog, therefore Rover has four
legs." This argument is valid in that if the premises were true, it would mean that the
conclusion must be correct. But it is not sound because the premise "all dogs have four
legs" is not true, because some dogs through misfortune do not have all their legs.

A good way to determine if an argument is valid and sound is to try to think of counter
examples. If no counter examples to the premises can be found it is most likely a sound
argument.

An example deductive argument that is both valid and sound is "All dogs are animals,
Rover is a dog, therefore Rover is an animal."

Valid and sound argument: 'All dogs are animals, Rover is a dog, therefore Rover is an
animal.'

Exercise caution when evaluating a deductive argument, because it may have true
premises and lead to a true conclusion, but the logic is unsound so it is invalid and
could cause problems if accepted. Consider "John owns a dog, Rover lives at John's
house, therefore Rover is a dog." While those statements may be true, this same logic
would lead you to believe that John is also a dog.

Deductive vs. inductive arguments

In philosophy, a deductive argument is contrasted with an inductive argument. Inductive

arguments also have premises and a conclusion. The difference is that with a deductive
argument, the conclusion must be true, and an inductive argument generally means that
the conclusion is only probable. Inductive arguments use inductive reasoning.

An example of an inductive argument is "Most dogs have fur, Rover is a dog, therefore
Rover has fur."

In an inductive argument, if the premises would logically lead to the conclusion, it is said
that it is strong. If the inductive argument is strong and the premises are true, then it is
said to be cognizant. This is like a deductive argument being valid and sound.

The exact distinction between deductive and inductive arguments is not fully accepted
by all philosophers. Some may use a slightly different definition. Others believe that
there is not a clear distinction between the two and that instead all arguments have
different qualities that make this type of categorization difficult or meaningless.

Abductive Argument

The generation of hypotheses relies on a particular kind of logical inference, known

as abductive Argument, abduction, “inference to the best explanation,” or, simply,
“hypothesis.” Alongside its sisters, deductive (“top-down”) reasoning and inductive
(“bottom-up”) reasoning, abductive reasoning is a core component of the methodology
of science, and although it cannot itself be the basis for any sort of conclusions about
the world, it represents the crucial first step towards that end.

Abduction is the process of forming explanatory hypotheses. It is the only logical

operation which introduces any new idea..

While you may not be aware of it, people use abductive reasoning all the time to make
educated guesses or form hypotheses on why a certain thing or event took place.

For Example: (1)The grass is wet (the observation), therefore, It probably rained last
night (the most likely hypothesis).(2)A coffee mug I bought from that store broke very
easily, so all of the store's cups must be fragile.
 What is emotive language?

Emotive language is language chosen to evoke an emotional response in an audience.

Emotive language often involves connotation, which is implied meaning beyond a
word's literal dictionary definition.

Emotive language is chosen specifically to cause an emotional response in listeners or

readers. The emotive language definition encompasses both words and phrases that
incite strong emotion, whether positive or negative. Emotive language is used for
persuasion as well as to gain and hold an audience's attention. The use of emotive
language appeals to a variety of readers. For example:

• Megan was in the depths of despair after losing her cherished pet turtle.

In this sentence, the phrase "depths of despair" creates a strong sense of Megan's
emotion. The adjective "cherished" explains Megan's bond with her lost pet in a way
that encourages the reader to feel sympathetic, and possibly even sad. If the emotive
language is removed, the simple sentence "Megan lost her pet turtle" is less likely to
evoke emotions in the reader.

EMOTIVE LANGUAGE SENTENCES

Here are some emotive language sentences that will clear the concept for you:
 “An innocent tenant was killed in cold blood in New York.”
This sentence uses emotive language where words innocent and cold blood is used in
an emotive sense.
“Defenseless victims were brutally attacked in a blind night.”
The phrases like defenseless victims and blind night indicate the use of emotive
language in the sentence.

Ambiguity in Neutral language Processing

Ambiguity Definition
Ambiguity is when a word, phrase, statement, or idea has more than one meaning or can be understood in more
than one way. Ambiguity typically creates a feeling of vagueness, uncertainty, or even confusion. This can
make a reader or audience feel doubt, suspense, and an active desire for clarity or resolution.

Ambiguity. Ambiguity in NLP refers to sentences and phrases that potentially have two or more possible
interpretations. Lexical ambiguity: a word that could be used as a verb, noun, or adjective. Syntactic ambiguity:
In the sentence above, this is what creates the confusion of meaning. NLP is very ambiguous.
Common Ambiguity Examples
Below are some common examples of ambiguity:

• A good life depends on a liver – Liver may be an organ or simply a living person.
• Foreigners are hunting dogs – It is unclear whether dogs were being hunted, or
foreigners are being spoken of as dogs.
• Each of us saw her duck – It is not clear whether the word “duck” refers to an
action of ducking, or a duck that is a bird.
• The passerby helped the dog bite victim – Is the passerby helping a dog bite
someone? Or is he helping a person who has been bitten by a dog? It’s not clear.

NLP has following types of Ambiguity

here are five major types of ambiguities as given below.

1. Semantic Ambiguity: This ambiguity is about the semantics of a word or phrase

when it is interpreted out of its context.

This occurs when the meaning of pharase themselves can be misinterpreted even
after syntax and the meaning of individual word have been resolved.

Example:

1.Seema love her mother and Shreya does too.

2.The car hit the ple while it was moving.

2. Syntactic Ambiguity: It occurs when a word or phrase has two or more possible
meanings in the given sentence. It is also called structural ambiguity.

Example: The men saw the girl with the telescope.

1. The men saw the girls carry a telescope.

2. The men saw the girl through the telescope.

3. Lexical Ambiguity: It occurs when a word or phrase has two or more possible
meanings or there are two words having the same forms such as homonymy,
homophony, or polysemy.

Example: Silver

1. She won two silver medals.

 2.She made a silver speech

4. Anaphoric Ambiguity: This kind of ambiguity arises due to use of anaphora

entities is discourse.

For example, the horse ran up the hill. It was very steep. It soon got tired.
5. Pragmatic Ambiguity: It occurs when sentence gives it multiple interpretation
or it is not specific.

Example

Mr. Smith telephoned his father that he did not know the truth.

How and Why to Use Ambiguity?

When using ambiguity, a writer takes something out of context and fills it with
likely meanings. It could be the use of puns, doublespeak, or tautology. This
creates an ambiguity that the readers experience when reading that piece. A
writer has various other strategies at hand such as rhetorical devices.
Ambiguity is created to make the readers understand things in a different way
when direct speech or direct meanings make situations untoward or make
readers feel estranged from the writers.

How to Avoid Ambiguity and Why?

It is not difficult to avoid ambiguity. The first thing about avoiding ambiguity is
to be explicit, direct, and careful in using adverbs. If verbs, pronouns,
and parallelism in sentences are checked thoroughly and minutely, ambiguity
is removed. Following steps in writing clear ambiguity.

1. Correct grammar
2. Correct punctuation
3. Shorten your sentences
4. Write step by step

It is better not to use ambiguity in the technical writing and manuals as they
create confusion to the readers. It could also be misleading and confusing to
follow the instructions and make things work.

Fallacies(Error)
➢ A fallacy is an error in logic. It is important to recognize fallacies
because they can convince you to believe something that isn't true.
Logical fallacies can be divided into formal and informal fallacies.
➢ “Any error or mistake in reasoning in called fallacy.”
➢ A fallacy is an illogical step in the formulation of an argument. An
argument in academic writing is essentially a conclusion or claim, with
assumptions or reasons to support that claim. For example, "Blue is a
bad color because it is linked to sadness" is an argument because it
makes a claim and offers support for it.
➢ Regardless of whether the claim we make is true or false, we might
use reasons that either do not logically support that claim or are not
logically support themselves. For example, the argument above might
be consider fallacious by someone for whom blue represents
calmness.

Type of fallacies:

Formal fallacy and informal fallacy are two type of reasoning errors that
occur in argument in fact, they can weaker the validity and soundness of
any argument. Moreover, such fallacies can occur accidentally or can be
used deliberately to manipulate or deceive people.

Formal fallacy:

• Formal fallacy is a deductive argument that is invalid.

• It’s pattern of reasoning that is always wrong.
• Formal fallacy always has a flaw in its logic structure there for we
also call it as logical fallacy.
• In formal fallacy, the conclusion is not supported by the premises.
The deductive is wrong so there is no logical argument.
For ex. Premise 1: Some girls have long hair
Premise 2: Anny is a girl
Conclusion: Anny has long hair

In the above example, the argument is true but invalid.

Informal fallacy:

• An informal fallacy is an error in reasoning found in the content

of the argument.
• Unlike informal fallacy, the error on informal fallacy is not in to
form or logic of the argument.
 • Informal fallacies often involve using irrelevant information in
argument or information based on assumptions that later prove
to be false.
For ex. Premise 1: Dogs are herbivores.
Premise 2: Shadow is a dog.
Conclusion: Shadow is herbivores.

In the above example, the argument is false but invalid.

Bad Reasons Fallacy

In this fallacy, the conclusion is assumed to be bad because the

arguments are bad. In practice, a premise of the argument is bad and
therefore the conclusion is bad or invalid. This fallacy is seen often in
debate or argumentation.

A fallacy is a mistake, but not every mistake is a fallacy. Focusing just

on fallacies of argumentation, some researchers define such a fallacy
as an argument that is deductively invalid or that has very little
inductive strength.

Example of Bad Reason Fallacy

• Dogs are afraid of heights, therefore dogs don't fly. Though it may be true that dogs are afraid
of heights, that is not the reason why they do not fly.
• Ostrich cannot fly, therefore they are not birds. It is true that ostrich cannot fly, but they are in
fact birds.

Masked-man fallacy

the masked-man fallacy (also known as the intensional fallacy or epistemic

fallacy) is committed when one makes an illicit use of Leibniz's law in an
argument. Leibniz's law states that if A and B are the same object, then A and B
are indiscernible (that is, they have all the same properties).

Example of masked-man Fallacy

Premise 1: I know who my father is. Premise 2: I don't know who the masked
man is. Conclusion: The masked man is not my father. This argument is
fallacious, because based on these premises alone, it's not possible to conclude
that the masked man is not my father.