Question: Discuss the meaning and scope of logic.

Answer: The term logic is derived from the Greek word ‘logos’ meaning thought or reason. Logic
is generally understood as the study of the methods and principles used in distinguishing correct
from incorrect reasoning. It is like a set of rules that we use to understand how things relate to
each other and how we can draw conclusions based on information we have. In Western
philosophy, logic was first developed by Aristotle. (Define Logic.)

Logic prescribes how one ought to reason; it is not concerned with how one actually does reason.
Hence, logic is not a positive science like biology or sociology. It is a normative science. A positive
science describes ‘what is given’ whereas a normative science prescribes ‘what ought to be’. Thus,
logic is defined as the normative study of human reasoning that provides the
norms/standards/ideals of correct thinking. (How is logic a normative science?)

When people think, they make inferences. These inferences when expressed verbally or in writing
are transformed into arguments, and the tools of logic can then be applied to the resulting
arguments. In logic, argument does not mean a quarrel or dispute; instead, it is the primary means
of reasoning in which one or more statements are offered as support or reasons for another
statement. The statement being supported is the conclusion of the argument, and the statements
that support it are the premises of the argument. Because of the central position of arguments in
it, logic is sometimes also called the study of arguments. It is foundational to any field that makes
use of arguments. Consequently, logical analysis seeks to distinguish good arguments from poor
ones. (Why is logic called the study of arguments? / Why are arguments so important in
logic?)

At its core, logic is concerned with identifying patterns, relationships, and connections between
ideas, propositions, or pieces of information. As such, it has its applications in various disciplines
such as mathematics, science, philosophy, and even everyday life. In mathematics, logic helps us
prove theorems, establish mathematical truths, and solve problems by applying logical rules and
principles. In science, logic is used to formulate hypotheses, design experiments, and draw logical
inferences from experimental data. (Give any two areas of application of Logic.)
In philosophy, logic plays a central role. Just as philosophy underlies all other branches of human
enquiry, so logic underlies all other branches of philosophy. Philosophy is based on the idea that
you need to think clearly to grapple with the major (and minor) questions of the universe; logic is
the way to accomplish this momentous task. Philosophy is based on reasoning, and logic is the
study of correct reasoning, and also of the kind of mistakes we can make in reasoning called
fallacies. Logic helps philosophers analyze and evaluate arguments, identify fallacies, and
construct valid and sound arguments to support their claims. Hence studying logic is essential to
becoming a better philosopher and a clearer thinker generally. (What is the importance of logic
for philosophy?)
Moreover, logic extends beyond academic disciplines and is applicable to our daily lives. It helps
us make informed decisions, solve problems, and communicate effectively. When we encounter
an issue or face a decision, logic enables us to analyze the available information, consider different
perspectives, and weigh the pros and cons before arriving at a reasonable conclusion. (How is
logic applicable to our daily lives?)
In conclusion, logic is a powerful tool that helps us analyze, evaluate, and reason. It provides us
with a systematic and reliable framework for clear thinking and rational understanding, enabling
us to navigate the complexities of the world with more confidence and clarity.
Question: Distinguish between Proposition and Sentence.

Answer: Propositions are the building blocks of our reasoning. A proposition asserts that something
is the case or it asserts that something is not. We may affirm a proposition, or deny it—but every
proposition either asserts what really is the case, or it asserts something that is not the case. Therefore
every proposition is either true or false.

There are many propositions about whose truth we are uncertain. “There is life on some other planet
in our galaxy,” for example, is a proposition that, so far as we now know, may be true or may be false.
Its “truth value” is unknown, but this proposition, like every proposition, must be either true or false.

To express a proposition, we always need a sentence, but they are not identical. A proposition is
different from a sentence in three important ways. Firstly, all sentences do not express propositions.
A question asserts nothing, and therefore it is not a proposition. “Do you know how to play chess?” is
indeed a sentence, but that sentence makes no claim about the world. Neither is a command a
proposition (“Come quickly!”), nor is an exclamation a proposition (“Oh my god!”). Questions,
commands, and exclamations are neither true nor false. Only declarative sentences express
propositions, and are true or false. In fact, propositions are often defined as the contents of declarative
sentences.

Secondly, when we assert some proposition, we do so using a sentence in some language, but the
proposition we assert is not identical to that sentence. This is evident because two different sentences,
consisting of different words differently arranged, may have the same meaning and may be used to
assert the very same proposition. For example, “Leslie won the election” and “The election was won
by Leslie” are plainly two different sentences that make the same assertion. The states of affairs
described by the first sentence is the same as that of the second sentence.

Thirdly, a sentence is a linguistic entity belonging to a specific language, whereas propositions are
logical entities having no specific relation to any particular language. For example, the following three
sentences are in different languages, but they have a single meaning and therefore express the same
proposition:

It is raining. (English)

Es regnet. (German)

Baarish ho rahi hai. (Hindi)

All the sentences stated above, using different words, may be uttered to assert the very same
proposition. They can be translated into any other language like Oriya, Marathi or Sanskrit, and the
corresponding sentences in these languages would express the same proposition.

Last but not the least, the same sentence may be used to express different propositions when uttered
at different times and in different places. For example, the sentence "The present Prime Minister of
India is a bachelor" uttered in the year 1994 would express a false proposition whereas the same
sentence uttered in the year 2002 and 2015 would express a true proposition. In other words, the
states of affairs expressed by the two utterances of the same sentence at different times are different.

Thus it can be seen that propositions are distinct from sentences. A proposition is simply the meaning
of a sentence. So, the distinction between a proposition and a sentence is really the distinction
between the sentence and its meaning.
Question: What is a Categorical Proposition? What are its types?

Answer: Classical logic deals mainly with arguments based on the relations of classes of objects
to one another. By a class we mean a collection of all objects that have some specified
characteristic in common. (Define Class.) Everyone can see immediately that two classes can be
related in at least the following three ways:

1. All of one class may be included in all of another class. Thus, the class of all dogs is wholly
included in the class of all mammals.
2. Some, but not all, of the members of one class may be included in another class. Thus, the
class of all athletes is partially included in the class of all females.
3. Two classes may have no members in common. Thus, no members of the class of triangles are
the members of the class of circles. (What are the three ways in which two classes of objects
can be related to each other?)

These three relations may be applied to classes, or categories, of every sort. In a deductive
argument we present propositions that state the relations between one category and some
other category. The propositions with which such arguments are formulated are therefore
called categorical propositions. Hence, we may define a categorical proposition as
a proposition that affirms or denies that all or some of the members of one category (the subject
term) are included in another (the predicate term). (Define Categorical Proposition.)

Consider the argument:

All football players are athletes.

No athletes are vegetarians.
Therefore, no football players are vegetarians.

This argument contains three categorical propositions, about the class of all athletes, the class of
all vegetarians, and the class of all football players. It is evident that each of the premises is
categorical; that is, each premise affirms, or denies, that some class S is included in some other
class P, in whole or in part. Aristotle identified the following four primary distinct types of
categorical proposition and gave them standard forms (now often called A, E, I, and O):

• Universal Affirmative propositions (A form) – In these, we assert that the whole of one
class is included or contained in another class. “All politicians are liars” is an example; it
asserts that every member of one class, the class of politicians, is a member of another class,
the class of liars. Any universal affirmative proposition can be written as “All S is P”, where
the subject category is named S and the predicate category is named P.
• Universal Negative propositions (E form) – In these, we assert that the whole of one class
is excluded from another class. “No politicians are liars,” for example, asserts that no
member of the class of politicians is a member of the class of liars. Any universal negative
proposition can be written as “No S is P.”
• Particular Affirmative Propositions (I form): In these, we assert that some members of
one class are included in another class. “Some politicians are liars” affirms that some
members of the class of all politicians are members of the class of all liars. But it does not
affirm this about all politicians. A particular affirmative proposition is written as
“Some S is P.”
• Particular Negative Propositions (O form): In these, we assert that some members of one
class are not included in another class. “Some politicians are liars” asserts that some
members of the class of all politicians are not the members of the class of all liars. But it
does not assert this about all politicians. A particular negative proposition is written as
“Some S is not P.”
Question: Discuss what is meant by a Deductive Argument. / What are deductive arguments?
Explain with examples.

Answer: Every argument claims that its premises provide grounds for the truth of its conclusion. However,
there are two different ways in which a conclusion may be supported by its premises, and thus there are
two different classes of arguments: the deductive and the inductive.

In a deductive argument, the truth of the premises guarantees the truth of the conclusion. This means that
if all the premises in the argument are true, then the conclusion has to be true. In such an argument, the
conclusion follows necessarily from the premises. Here is an example:

Premise 1: All cows are mammals.

Premise 2: All mammals have a heart.
Conclusion: Therefore, all cows have hearts.

Here it can be seen that if the premises are true, then it simply isn’t possible for the conclusion to be false.
A deductive argument does not guarantee that its premises are true. However, it does guarantee that if the
premises are true, there is no way for the conclusion to be false.

The categories of validity and invalidity apply to deductive arguments. To evaluate the validity of a
deductive argument, we need to determine whether the conclusion logically follows from the premises. A
valid deductive argument is one where the conclusion necessarily follows from the premises, while an
invalid argument is one where the conclusion does not logically follow from the premises.

Example of a valid deductive argument:

Premise 1: All humans are mortal.

Premise 2: Socrates is a human.
Conclusion: Therefore, Socrates is mortal.

In this example, the conclusion (Socrates is mortal) follows necessarily from the premises (All humans are
mortal, and Socrates is a human). If we accept the truth of the premises, we must also accept the truth of
the conclusion.

The kind of support that valid deductive arguments give to their conclusions is not a matter of degree; it is
‘all or nothing.’ That is why deductive arguments give us certainty, although they tell us nothing new. This
is because all the information contained in the conclusion is already contained in the premises. Deductive
reasoning is often used in mathematics where we make conclusions about a specific case according to more
general principles or rules.

Deductive arguments can also be assessed using the concept of soundness. A deductive argument is
considered sound if it is valid and has all true premises. In other words, a sound deductive argument is both
logically valid and factually correct.

Example of a sound deductive argument:

All mammals feed milk to their young.

All humans are mammals.
Therefore, all humans feed milk to their young.

The above is a valid argument, and all of its premises are true. In fact, this is the main difference between a
valid argument and a sound argument. A valid argument contains a big if: If all the premises are true, then
the conclusion must also be true. A sound argument is a valid argument with one further condition: The
premises really are true, so the conclusion is really is true as well. (Define Soundness. / What is a sound
argument?/ How is a sound argument different from a valid argument?)
Question: Discuss the various types of deductive arguments.
Answer: There are many types of deductive arguments, each with its own structure and
rules of inference. Some of the most commonly known deductive arguments are discussed
as under:

a) Categorical Syllogism: A categorical syllogism is a type of deductive argument

that deals with propositions about categories or classes of objects. It consists of
three categorical propositions – two premises and a conclusion, with each premise
being one of the four categorical propositions (universal affirmative, universal
negative, particular affirmative, particular negative).

Example of a Categorical Syllogism:

Premise 1: All dogs are mammals.

Premise 2: No mammals are reptiles.
Conclusion: Therefore, no dogs are reptiles.

The conclusion makes a statement about the relationship between the two
categories mentioned in the premises and follows logically from them. If all dogs
are mammals (Premise 1), and no mammals are reptiles (Premise 2), then it
logically follows that no dogs are reptiles (Conclusion). (Explain Categorical
Syllogism.)

b) Hypothetical Syllogism: A hypothetical syllogism, also known as a conditional

syllogism, involves conditional statements or "if-then" propositions, consisting of
an antecedent (the "if" part) and a consequent (the "then" part). It has two
premises and a conclusion, where the first premise sets up a conditional
relationship, and the second premise provides a condition that fits into that
relationship, leading to a conclusion.

The standard form of a hypothetical syllogism is as follows:

If A, then B.
If B, then C.
Therefore, if A, then C.

Example of a Hypothetical Syllogism:

Premise 1: If it rains, then the ground gets wet.

Premise 2: If the ground is wet, then the grass becomes slippery.
Conclusion: Therefore, if it rains, the grass becomes slippery.

In this example, Premise 1 establishes the conditional relationship that if it rains,

the ground gets wet. Premise 2 introduces another conditional statement that if
the ground is wet, the grass becomes slippery. The conclusion follows from these
 premises, stating that if it rains, the grass becomes slippery. (Explain
Hypothetical Syllogism.)

The primary differences between hypothetical syllogisms and categorical

syllogisms lie in their subject matter, structure, types of statements used, the rules
of inference they follow, and their overall focus. Categorical syllogisms deal with
relationships between categories, while hypothetical syllogisms focus on
conditional relationships.

c) Argument by Elimination: An "argument by elimination" is a form of reasoning

in which a conclusion is reached by systematically eliminating all other possible
options or explanations, leaving only the desired conclusion as the most
reasonable or likely one. This type of argument is often employed when other
methods of establishing the truth or validity of a claim are not feasible or when it
is necessary to rule out competing hypotheses or possibilities. Argument by
elimination is common in various fields, including scientific research, problem-
solving, and decision-making.

Let us take the example of the use of argument by elimination in medical diagnosis.
When a patient presents a set of symptoms, a doctor may use argument by
elimination to diagnose the underlying condition. For example, if a patient
presents with abdominal pain, fever, and elevated white blood cell counts, the
doctor may consider appendicitis, gallbladder issues, and infection. After
conducting appropriate tests and ruling out gallbladder problems and infection,
the doctor might conclude that appendicitis is the most likely diagnosis.
To take another example, detectives often employ argument by elimination in a
criminal investigation. They consider various suspects and systematically
eliminate individuals as they gather evidence and establish alibis. By process of
elimination, they narrow down their list of potential suspects to the most likely
perpetrator. (Explain Argument by Elimination.)
Question: Discuss the concept of validity and invalidity in case of Deductive Arguments. /
Distinguish between a valid and an invalid deductive argument.

Answer: The categories of validity and invalidity apply to deductive arguments. Validity is a
measure of the argument's logical consistency and coherence, and invalidity is a lack of these
qualities.

A valid deductive argument is one where the conclusion necessarily follows from the premises. In
other words, if the premises are true, the conclusion cannot be false.

Here are the main characteristics of a valid deductive argument:

a) Logical Structure: A valid argument has a logical structure that ensures the conclusion
follows necessarily from the premises.

b) Inescapable Consequence: If the premises are true, the conclusion is an inescapable

consequence. It is impossible for the premises to be true while the conclusion is false.

c) Independence from Truth: Validity is solely based on the logical structure of the argument,
not on the actual truth or falsity of the premises. A valid argument can have false premises
and a true conclusion, or true premises and a true conclusion.

Examples of a valid deductive argument:

a) Premise 1: All humans are mortal.

Premise 2: Socrates is a human.
Conclusion: Therefore, Socrates is mortal.

In this example, the conclusion (Socrates is mortal) follows necessarily from the premises
(All humans are mortal, and Socrates is a human). If we accept the truth of the premises,
we must also accept the truth of the conclusion.

b) Premise 1: If it's raining, then the ground is wet.

Premise 2: It's raining.
Conclusion: Therefore, the ground is wet.

This argument is valid because if the premises are true, the conclusion follows necessarily.

An invalid deductive argument is one where the conclusion the conclusion does not necessarily
follow from the premises. In other words, even if the premises are true, the conclusion can still be
false.

Here are the main characteristics of a valid deductive argument:

a) Logical Flaws: An invalid argument contains logical flaws or errors in reasoning that
prevent the conclusion from necessarily following from the premises.

b) Possibility of False Conclusion: In an invalid argument, the premises do not provide

sufficient support for the conclusion. It is possible for the premises to be true and yet the
conclusion is false.
 c) Dependence on Logical Structure: An invalid argument cannot be fixed by changing the
truth values of the premises. It is inherently flawed in terms of its logical structure.

Examples of an invalid deductive argument:

a) Premise 1: Cats have fur.

Premise 2: Dogs have fur.
Conclusion: Therefore, dogs are cats.

In this example, the conclusion (dogs are cats) does not logically follow from the premises
(Cats have fur, and dogs have fur). The argument is invalid because having fur is a
characteristic shared by both cats and dogs, but it does not mean that dogs are cats.

b) Premise 1: If it's raining, then the ground is wet.

Premise 2: The ground is wet.
Conclusion: Therefore, it's raining.

This argument is invalid because. even though the premises are true (the ground is wet),
the conclusion (it's raining) does not necessarily follow. The ground could be wet for
various reasons other than rain, making the argument invalid.

It is important to remember that validity or invalidity of a deductive argument does not depend
on the actual truth or falsehood of the premises. It is valid because, if we accept the premises as
true, the conclusion logically follows. Therefore, we should never be misled by true premises or
true conclusions to suppose that an argument is valid. Similarly, we should never be misled by
false premises or false conclusions to suppose that it is invalid. To recognize this can go a long way
in saving ourselves from deceptive arguments.
Question: Discuss what is meant by an Inductive Argument. / What are inductive
arguments? Explain with examples.

Answer: Every argument claims that its premises provide grounds for the truth of its
conclusion. However, there are two different ways in which a conclusion may be supported
by its premises, and thus there are two different classes of arguments: the deductive and the
inductive.

In an inductive argument, the truth of the premises supports the truth of the conclusion.
However, it does not guarantee the truth of the conclusion. This means that even if all the
premises of the argument are true, the conclusion may still be false. Here is an example:

Premise 1: Socrates was Greek.

Premise 2: Most Greeks eat fish.
Conclusion: Therefore, Socrates ate fish.

In this example, even if both premises are true, it is still possible for the conclusion to be false
(maybe Socrates was allergic to fish, for example.)

The concepts of validity and invalidity do not apply to inductive arguments. Inductive
arguments are either strong or weak. Understanding the strength of an inductive argument
is crucial for evaluating the reliability of its conclusion. In a strong inductive argument with
all true premises, the truth of the conclusion is merely likely and its falsity is merely unlikely.

Example of a Strong Inductive Argument:

Premise 1: In the past ten years, every time I've taken this route to work, there has been heavy
traffic.
Conclusion: Therefore, there will probably be heavy traffic if I take this route to work
tomorrow.

In this example, the conclusion (there will probably be heavy traffic tomorrow) is strongly
supported by the evidence provided by the premises (consistent traffic congestion on this
route in the past). The argument acknowledges that the conclusion is not guaranteed, but it
is highly likely based on the observed pattern of traffic in the past.

Example of a Weak Inductive Argument:

Premise 1: Sarah, who is a talented singer, won the local singing competition.
Conclusion: Therefore, all talented singers will win singing competitions.

In this example, the conclusion (all talented singers will win singing competitions) is weakly
supported by the evidence provided by the premises (the success of one talented singer,
Sarah). The argument makes a broad generalization based on a single instance, which is not
sufficient to establish a strong link between talent and winning singing competitions.

The kind of support that strong inductive arguments provide their conclusions is a matter of
degree; it is ‘more or less.’ That is why inductive arguments are always uncertain to some
degree, although they provide us with lots of new information. This is because the conclusion
of an inductive argument contains information not contained in the premises. Inductive
reasoning is essential for scientific investigations, where hypotheses are formed based on
observed patterns and empirical evidence. Scientists often use inductive reasoning to draw
conclusions about natural phenomena based on experimental data.

Inductive arguments can also be assessed using the concept of cogency. A cogent inductive
argument is one that is strong and has true premises, meaning it is both well-supported by
the evidence and factually correct.

Example of a cogent inductive argument:

Premise 1: A random sample of 500 people from City X shows that 80% prefer public
transportation over driving.
Conclusion: Therefore, it is likely that a significant portion of City X's population prefers
public transportation over driving.

This argument is cogent because the conclusion is well-supported by the evidence provided
by the random sample. The large sample size adds credibility to the conclusion that a
significant portion of City X's population prefers public transportation. (Define Cogency. /
Define a cogent inductive argument.)
Question: Discuss the different types of Inductive arguments.

Answer: All inductive arguments claim to provide support—that is, evidence or reasons— for
their conclusions. But they differ greatly in the way they provide this support. On this basis, we
have two important kinds of inductive arguments:

a) Inductive generalization: A generalization is a statement that attributes some

characteristic to all or most members of a given class. Here are some examples of
generalizations:

1. All politicians are corrupt.

2. Most college students want to go to university level.

An inductive generalization is an argument in which a generalization is claimed to be true

based on information about some members of a particular class. The pattern of an
Inductive generalization is as follows:

The proportion Q of the sample has attribute A.

Therefore, the proportion Q of the total population has attribute A.

How much the premises support the conclusion depends upon (1) the number in the
sample group, (2) the number in the total population, and (3) the degree to which the
sample represents the total population. Here are two examples of Inductive
Generalization.

1. All South Indian dishes I have eaten so far have been delicious.
Therefore, probably all South Indian dishes are delicious.

2. Six months ago, I met a farmer from Punjab, and he was friendly.
Four months ago, I met a singer from Punjab, and he was friendly.
Two months ago, I met a dentist from Punjab, and she was friendly.
Therefore, I guess most people from Punjab are friendly.

Because all inductive generalizations claim that their conclusions are probable rather
than certain, such arguments are always inductive.

b) Predictive Arguments: A predictive argument is one which has a prediction as its

conclusion, based on previously known or past information. Prediction is a statement
about what may or will happen in the future. Predictive arguments use past experience to
conclude that something that happened in the past, will likely occur again if the conditions
are the same. In a predictive argument, the prediction is defended with reasons. The
pattern of a Predictive Argument is as follows:

So far, all the P’s I have seen have had property Q.

Therefore, the next P I see will have property P.

Here are two examples of Predictive Arguments:

1. Most Indian prime ministers have been male.

Therefore, probably the next Indian president will be male.

2. The sun has risen every morning so far.

Therefore, the sun will rise tomorrow.
 Because nothing in the future is absolutely certain, arguments containing predictions are
usually inductive.

c) Statistical Argument: A statistical argument is an argument which involves making

inferences or drawing conclusions based on observations or a sample. The stronger the
sample, the more persuasive the argument. However, it's important to note that statistical
arguments are based on probabilities and correlations, rather than absolute truths.

Here is an example of a statistical argument:

1. A study conducted on 10,000 participants found that those who consumed at least five
servings of fruits and vegetables per day had a 30% lower risk of developing heart
disease and cancer compared to those who consumed fewer servings.
2. Therefore, eating fruits and vegetables regularly improves overall health.

In this statistical argument, the conclusion is supported by a specific statistic derived from
a study. The statistic suggests a correlation between consuming fruits and vegetables and
improved health. Since statistical arguments are suggestive rather than conclusive, such
arguments are usually inductive.
Question: Discuss the concept of strength and weakness in case of Inductive Arguments. /
Distinguish between a strong and a weak inductive argument.

Answer: The concepts of validity and invalidity do not apply to inductive arguments. Inductive
arguments are either strong or weak. Inductive arguments are used to make generalizations or
predictions based on specific observations or evidence, and the degree of strength or weakness
determines the reliability of the conclusions drawn from these arguments.

Strength in an inductive argument refers to the degree of support that the premises provide for
the conclusion. A strong inductive argument is one where the premises make the conclusion
highly probable or likely. In other words, if the premises are true, it is reasonable to expect that
the conclusion is also true. The stronger the argument, the more confident we can be in the
conclusion.

Following are some key characteristics of a strong inductive argument:

a) Relevance: The premises are directly relevant to the conclusion. They provide information
that genuinely supports or relates to the conclusion.

b) Sufficiency: The premises supply sufficient evidence or data to justify the likelihood of the
conclusion. The more comprehensive the evidence, the stronger the argument.

c) Representativeness: If the premises are based on a sample or observations, the sample

should be representative of the larger population or situation. A strong argument relies
on a well-chosen, diverse, and representative sample.

d) Credibility: The sources of information or evidence should be credible and reliable. The
stronger the credibility of the sources, the stronger the argument.

Example of a Strong Inductive Argument:

Premise: In the past ten years, every time I've taken this route to work, there has been heavy
traffic.
Conclusion: Therefore, there will probably be heavy traffic if I take this route to work tomorrow.

In this example, the conclusion (there will probably be heavy traffic tomorrow) is strongly
supported by the evidence provided by the premises (consistent traffic congestion on this route
in the past). The argument acknowledges that the conclusion is not guaranteed, but it is highly
likely based on the observed pattern of traffic in the past.

A weak inductive argument, on the other hand, is one in which the premises provide insufficient
or unreliable support for the conclusion. In a weak argument, even if the premises are true, the
conclusion is not necessarily likely to be true. The weaker the argument, the less confidence we
can have in the conclusion.

Here are some common characteristics of a weak inductive argument:

a) Lack of Relevance: The premises may not be directly related to the conclusion, making the
argument less persuasive.
 b) Insufficiency: The premises may not provide enough evidence to justify the likelihood of
the conclusion. The argument may rely on limited or inconclusive data.

c) Sample Bias: If the argument is based on a sample, the sample may not be representative
of the larger population, introducing bias and weakening the argument.

d) Credibility Issues: The credibility of the sources or the reliability of the information may
be questionable, undermining the argument's strength.

Example of a Weak Inductive Argument:

Premise: Sarah, who is a talented singer, won the local singing competition.
Conclusion: Therefore, all talented singers will win singing competitions.

In this example, the conclusion (all talented singers will win singing competitions) is weakly
supported by the evidence provided by the premises (the success of one talented singer, Sarah).
The argument makes a broad generalization based on a single instance, which is not sufficient to
establish a strong link between talent and winning singing competitions.
Question: Discuss the definition and kinds of Fallacies of Form. / Discuss the concept of
Formal Fallacy.
Answer: A fallacy of form, or a formal fallacy, as it is commonly known, is one which involves an
error in the form, arrangement or technical structure of an argument. The argument itself could
have true premises, but still have a false conclusion. The presence of a fallacy of form in a
deductive argument does not imply anything about the argument's premises or its conclusion.
Both may actually be true, but the deductive argument is still invalid because the conclusion does
not follow from the premises in the manner described. Following is an example of a fallacy of form:
Premise: All tigers hunt their prey.
Premise: All lions hunt their prey.
Conclusion: All tigers are lions.
Here we see that the conclusion does not follow from the premises, although both the premises
are true.
There are many types of fallacies of form, and some of these involve the consequent and the
antecedent of a conditional statement. The ‘consequent’ of a conditional statement of the form
‘if…then’ is the part that usually follows "then". The part that usually follows "if" is called the
"antecedent". Following are two types of such fallacies:
a) Affirming the Consequent: The fallacy of “affirming the consequent” refers to an error in
formal logic where if the consequent is said to be true, the antecedent is said to be true, as a result.
In committing this fallacy, one makes a conditional statement, affirms the consequent, and
concludes that the antecedent is true.
Logical Form:
If P then Q.
Q.
Therefore, P.
No matter what statements are substituted for P and Q, any argument that has the above logical
form will be invalid.
Example 1:
If taxes are lowered, I will have more money to spend.
I have more money to spend.
Therefore, taxes must have been lowered.
Explanation: I could have more money to spend simply because I gave up on some expensive
habits. My having more money does not imply the lowering of the taxes.
Example 2:
If there is no petrol in the car, the car will not run.
The car is not running.
Therefore, there is no petrol in the car.
Explanation: Maybe the battery is dead; maybe the engine is out of order. Having no petrol isn’t
the only possible explanation for why the car won’t start.
b) Denying the Antecedent: The fallacy of “denying the antecedent” refers to an error in formal
logic where if the antecedent is said to be not true, then it is concluded that the consequent is not
true as a result. In committing this fallacy, one makes a conditional statement, denies the
antecedent, and concludes that the consequent is also not true.
Logical Form:
If P, then Q.
Not P.
Therefore, not Q.
No matter what statements are substituted for P and Q, any argument that has the above logical
form will be invalid.
Example 1:
If you work hard, you will get a good job.
You do not work hard.
Therefore, you will not get a good job.
Explanation: It is not necessary that a person who does not work hard will not get a good job. He
could get a good job simply through a recommendation by an influential person.
Example 2:
If you kill the mosquito, it will die.
You do not kill the mosquito.
Therefore, it will not die.
Explanation: The mosquito could die of other causes, even if you do not kill it. Therefore, the
argument is invalid.
Question: What is meant by Fallacies of Relevance? Discuss two types of Fallacies of Relevance.

Answer: Fallacies of relevance are a group of fallacies that occur in arguments when the premises are
logically irrelevant to the conclusion. The actual connection between premises and conclusion is
emotional, not logical. An example would be when a student fails a course and asks the teacher to give
pass him instead of failing him, because “his parents will be upset.” Since grades should be given on the
basis of performance, the reason being given is quite irrelevant.

Fallacies of relevance do not originate from flaws in the logical form of the argument. They involve
mistakes that is made in the everyday use of language, in speaking as well as writing. Very often they
involve bringing irrelevant information into an argument or they are based on assumptions that, when
examined, prove to be incorrect. These fallacies generally occur in inductive arguments and cannot be
reduced to symbolic formulae. They fallacies often involve emotional appeals, personal attacks, or
distractions that divert attention away from the central topic.

Following are two important fallacies of relevance along with their examples:

a) Ad Hominem: Ad Hominem is a Latin term meaning ‘to the man.’ This fallacy occurs when, instead of
dealing with someone's argument, one makes an irrelevant attack on the person or some aspect of the
person who is making the argument. It usually takes the form of an attack on the opponent's character
or personal traits in an attempt to undermine their argument. It is an error because the character of an
opponent is logically irrelevant to the truth or falsity of what that person asserts, or to the validity or the
invalidity of his reasoning. Following are some examples of this fallacy:

1. Using gender as a means to devalue an argument from an opposing gender - "This is a female issue.
As a man, how can you have an opinion about this?"

2. Stating that one's age disqualifies him from being able to make an intelligent or meaningful argument
- "You are just too young to understand this."

b) Appeal to Emotion: An appeal to emotion is a specific type of fallacy in which one manipulates
another's emotions to win an argument. Emotional appeals do not rely on facts or evidence; rather, they
rely on playing on emotions. This often takes the form of emotively charged language to arouse strong
feelings that may lead an audience to accept its conclusion. Appeals to emotion include appeals to fear,
envy, hatred, pity, pride etc., to hide the fact that no compelling rational reason exists for one's
position. Following are some examples of this fallacy:

1. A child does not want to eat her dinner, but her mother persuades her by asking her to think of
all the starving children in the world who do not have food at all.
2. A political advertisement that shows the candidate shaking hands with the community members
as he attends a religious ceremony.

To conclude, fallacies of relevance are a matter of unclear expression. They are created due to misuse of
language and of evidence. They are cases where irrelevant reasons are being invoked or relevant
reasons are being ignored.
Question: What is meant by Fallacies of Insufficient Evidence? Discuss two types of Fallacies of
Relevance.

Answer: Fallacies of insufficient evidence occur when an argument is based on insufficient or inadequate
evidence to support its conclusion. These fallacies can be persuasive on the surface, but lack the real
substance needed for a strong argument. Two common examples of such fallacies are the fallacies of
Inappropriate Appeal to Authority and Appeal to Ignorance.

Inappropriate Appeal to Authority: This fallacy occurs when someone relies on the opinion of an
authority figure in a particular field as evidence to support their argument, even though the authority figure
may not be an expert on the specific topic at hand.

Example 1: "Dr. Smith, a renowned dentist, claims that alien life exists on distant planets. Therefore, it must
be true."

In this example, Dr. Smith's expertise lies in dentistry, not astrobiology. Therefore, their opinion on the
existence of alien life cannot be considered definitive evidence without additional support. In this case, a
more credible source of information on the possibility of alien life would be an astrobiologist or a reputable
scientific organization working in this area.

Example 2: "My favourite celebrity says this new diet is amazing, so it must be true!"

This statement appeals to the authority of the celebrity in the area of nutrition. However, the celebrity's
expertise in nutrition may be limited, and their endorsement may be driven by financial incentives rather
than genuine expertise.

Appeal to Ignorance: This fallacy occurs when someone argues that a claim is true simply because it has
not been proven false, or that a claim is false simply because it has not been proven true. In other words,
something must be true because there is no evidence to disprove it, or something must be false because
there is no evidence to prove it.

Example 1: "There is no scientific evidence that ghosts do not exist, so they must be real."

In this example, the absence of evidence against the existence of ghosts is used to support the conclusion
that they must exist. However, the absence of evidence against something does not necessarily make it true.

Example 2: "We have not found a definitive explanation for the construction of the pyramids. Therefore,
aliens must have built them!"

Just because we don't fully understand how something was built with ancient technology does not mean it
was made by aliens. There could be explanations we have not discovered yet.

Both these fallacies highlight the importance of critically evaluating the evidence presented in arguments
and avoiding the temptation to rely solely on authority or absence of evidence as sufficient grounds for
believing something. By being aware of these fallacies, we can improve our critical thinking skills and avoid
being persuaded by arguments with weak foundations.

Following are some methods to avoid these fallacies:

• Check the credentials: When someone refers to an authority, make sure the authority’s expertise
aligns with the claim being made.
• Consider alternative explanations: The absence of evidence for something does not guarantee
its truth. There could be other reasons the evidence is not available.
• Look for strong, relevant evidence: Base your arguments on credible sources and data that
directly addresses the claim.