Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 19

What is Logic?

Logic may be defined as the science that evaluates arguments. The purpose of logic, as the
science that evaluate arguments, is thus to develop methods and techniques that allow us to
distinguish good arguments from bad.

What is Argument?
An argument is a statement or group of statements of which the premises are claimed to provide
support to the conclusion. The term argument has a very specific meaning in logic. It does not
mean, for example: A mere verbal fight as one might have with friends, parents or spouse.

Types of Arguments:
There are two main types of argument. They are given below:

Good Argument:
The argument in which the premises support the conclusion.

Bad Argument:
The argument in which the premises do not support the conclusion though they claim to.

What is a Statement?
A statement is a declarative sentence, for example, the following sentences are statements:
Islamabad is the capital of Pakistan.
Orange is a good source of vitamin C.
Argentina is located in Asia.
Australia won 2011 Cricket World Cup.
Ahmad was a painter, and Iqbal was a poet.
The first two statements are true, the second two are false. The last one expressed two
statements, both of which are true.
Unlike statements, many sentences cannot be said to be either true or false. Question, proposals,
suggestions, commands and exclamation are not statements.
What is the capital of America? (Q)
Let us play cricket today. (Proposal)
We suggest that you travel by bus. (Suggestion)
Turn to the left at the next corner. (Command) All right (Exclamation)

What is Conditional Statement?
It is an if then statement, For Example:
If Ahmad works hard then he will pass.
Every conditional statement is made up of two component statements. The component statement
immediately following the if is called antecedent and the one following the then is called the
consequent. In the above example the antecedent is Ahmad works hard and the consequent is
he will pass.
There is a causal connection between the antecedent and the consequent. If the antecedent is true,
then so is the consequent. A conditional statement as a whole presents evidence because it asserts
a relationship between statements.
The conditional statement may serve as either the premises or the conclusion (or both) of an
argument. For Example:
If cigarette companies publish warning labels, then smoker will assume the risk of smoking.
If banks make bad loans, then they will be threatened with collapse.

What is Explanation?
An explanation consists of a statement or group of statements intended to shed light on some
phenomenon that is usually accepted as a matter of fact.
For example, the challenger space craft exploded after lift off because an o ring failed in one of
the booster rockets.
The sky appears blue after the earth surface because light rays from the sun are scattered by
particles in the atmosphere.
Cows can digest grass, while human cannot, because their digestive system contains enzymes not
found in humans.
Every explanation is composed of two distinct components: the Explanandum and the
Explanans.

What Is Explanandum?
The explanandum is the statement that describes the event or phenomenon to be explained.

What Is Explanans?
The Explanans is the statement or group of statement that purports to do the explaining. In the
first example above explanandum is the statement, the challenger space craft exploded after
liftoff and the Explanans is an o ring failed in one of the booster rocket.

What is Premise?
The premises are the statements that set forth the reasons or evidence and the conclusion.

What is Conclusion?
It is the statement that the evidence is claimed to support or imply. In other words, the
conclusion is a statement that is claimed to follow from the premises. For example:
All the students of BBA are intelligent.
Hannan is a student of BBA.
Therefore, Hannan is also intelligent.
The first two statements are premises, the third is the conclusion. In this argument the premises
really do support the conclusion and so the argument is a good one.

But consider this argument:
All the students of BBA are intelligent.
Hannan is a student of BBA.
Therefore, Hannan is not intelligent.

In this argument the premises do not support the conclusion, even though they are claimed to,
and so the argument is not a good one. Premises can be distinguished from conclusion by the
occurrence of indicator words.

Truth & Validity:
Validity:
The process through which we compare our test scores with Criterion standard scores is called
validity.

Valid Score:
The score which falls near to the standard scores are valid scores.

Invalid Scores:
If the scores fall away from the standard scores then it will be considered invalid scores.

Truth:
The value which is obtained from a valid test & which provides the same scoring results as
defined by the valid testis called truth value of the test.



The Language:
Language is a basic medium which facilitates the exchange of ideas messages & understanding,
Co-Operation & Co- Ordination among the members of the society so as to ensure smooth
relationship & multiplicity of social welfare.
As discussed, language is the medium of communication &communication fuels in the flouring
categories:
A. verbal communication
B. Non- verbal communication
C. Symbolic Communication

Verbal Communication:
Verbal Communication as the name signifies is a very common type of communication in which
we orally present ideas, messages and thoughts.

Non- Verbal Communication:
Simply speaking non-verbal communication is that type of communication where we do not
orally presents our ideas& messages, but show it through body language, gestures, eye
expression, facial emersion.

Symbolic Communication:
Symbolic Communication is a special type of communication in which messages, ideas are
presented are derived through symbols such as beckon lights.





Functions of Language:
There are three basic functions of language.

A. Directive Function of Language:
Directive function of language represents the authoritative style of communication such as
instructions to subordinates through their bosses, it is the autocratic usage of language in order to
control, of language in order to control. Guide & direct the behaviors in a derided manner.

B. Expressive Function of Language:
Expressive function of language represents the expression of emotions of human beings such as
oh! In case of sorrow & Wava! In case of happiness.
C. Informative Function of Language:
As against the directive & expressive functions of language, it is a very normal
typefunction of language through which just information in a very normal style iscommunicated
such as information about scientific research advertisement regardingindustrial exhibitions &
weather forecast etc.

Motive Word & the Logic of Emotions
As the word signifies, emotive words are those words & sentences which directly influence
feelings & emotions of the individual such as exaggeration in the poetry. What are two basic
theories regarding the logic of emotion.
They are:
A. Games Lange Theory:
This theory highlights that emotions in the human being are emerged due to secretion of special
brain hormones in a particular are a hypothalamus.



B. Cannon Bord Theory:
This theory emphasis upon the importance of environment factors which provoke the individual
emotions in a specified manner. For example of the environment presents a friendly atmosphere,
the result will be positive response in the form of emotions i.e. Joy, happiness, co-operation will
be develop otherwise the negative response in the form of angriness, sadness, fear may be
provoke

Emotively Neutral Language:
Whenever, the words & sentences are presenting the literal meanings within a specified language
is called emotively neutral language. In this type of language emotions are replaced by actual
information provided to the individuals in the society.

Discourse Serving Multiple Functions:
It is a special type of functions of language which serves multiple purposes. This function
represents the combination of the aforesaid basic function & serves the purposes of the basic
functions singly. Such as the poetry of our national poet
Allama Muhammad Iqbal serves multiple functions.

The Forms of Discourse:
Discourse refers to general conversation. The form of discourse refers to the ways of
the presentation of conversation which either proves the correctness or incorrectness of conversat
ion such as grammatical structure (mistake or grammatical corrections) phonemes (accent) &
perception of the word & sentences.

Kinds of Agreement and Disagreement:
There are four kinds:
1. Pure Harmony - agreement in beliefs and attitudes:
Both agree that capital punishment is a deterrent, and that it should be legal.

2. Agreement in beliefs, disagreement in attitudes.
Both agree capital punishment is a deterrent, but one says that it should be legal, the other illegal.

3. Agreement in attitudes, disagreement in beliefs:
Both agrees that capital punishment should be legal, however one thinks it is a deterrent,
while the other doesnt.

4. Total disharmony - disagreement in beliefs and attitudes:
One states that capital punishment is a deterrent, while the other does not; and one states that it
should be legal, while the other does not.

What Is Dispute?
It means to argue, debate or quarrel about something.
They arise as a result of some linguistic misunderstanding.

Kinds of Dispute:

Obviously Genuine Dispute:
It is clear, unambiguous disagreement either in belief or in attitude.

Merely Verbal Dispute:
No real disagreement, a question of language.



Apparently Verbal but Really Genuine:
The parties in the dispute are using terms in a different sense so it appears to be merely verbal;
however, when we clarify the ambiguous use of terms through definitions we find that a real
disagreement remains - i.e., pornography. Sometimes called a criteria dispute. What is
pornographic and what is erotic? The dispute is whether or not something is porn. The argument
is just based on the definition of the word.

Fallacy
A fallacy is an argument which appears to be valid but in reality it is not so. It is an invalid
argument which is camouflaged and which can deceive or mislead us by a show of truth. It is, so
to speak, a trap, something Tricky or hidden.
Being mistakes in reasoning, fallacies arises from the violation of one or other of the principles
on which the correctness of reasoning depends.
A fallacy may be committed unintentionally or intentionally.
When the fallacy is committed unintentionally it is called paralogism.
And when it is committed intentionally then it is called sophism.

Normally the fallacy is divided into two main groups.
i. Fallacy of Ambiguity.
ii. Fallacy of Relevance.

Fallacy of Ambiguity:
The fallacy of Ambiguity is not used intentionally but it is used unintentionally. A phrase or
word can be ambiguous in a particular context if it can have two or moredifferent meanings in
that context.

1. Equivocation:
An informal fallacy in which two or more meanings of the same word or phrase have been
confused.

2. Amphiboly:
In this type of ambiguity the grammatical structure is so loose that it can be interrupted intwo or
more than two ways. If a fallacious statement may be true on one interpretation &false on other
e.g. he is scholarshpoing.
3. Accent:
An informal fallacy committed when a term or phrase has a meanings in the conclusionof an
argument different from its meanings in one of the premesis, the different araisingchiefly from a
change in emphasis given to the words used.
For example: Arabs Chinese Germans Africans.

Fallacies of Relevance:
When an argument relies upon the premises that are not relevant to its conclusion. These
fallacies are used intentionally; there are 5 types fallacy of relevance.

1. The Argument from Ignorance:
this type of fallacy is committed whenever it is urged that a proposition is true is simply on the
basis that it has been proved true, this fallacy appears to know the logical meanings while
ignorance appear most commonly in misunderstanding of developing sciences. Example during
war the propaganda & rumors are the example of argument from ignorance.

2. The Appeal To In Appropriate Authority:
Some people appeal to inappropriate authorities to accept or reject contain issues of subject
matters with in specified population. These inappropriate authorities are example of some model
Sportsmen. For example, we are argued to drive an automobile or special models or sport cur
of given make. Because of a famous player confirms superiority. We are urged to drink a
beverage of certain brand because some moves star or football player express enthusiasm about
it.

3. Complex Question:
In this type of fallacious statement such questions are asked which are unanswerable, the main
aims in complex questions are to divert an individual from actual subject matter. They
presuppose the truth of some conclusion. The question itself is likely to be awkward which beck
no answer. Normally they put the questions very seriously, for example how one can climb the
sky.

4. Accident:
The fallacy of accident is committed which we move carelessly or too quickly toward
generalization. Here the conclusion which is drawn accidentally and is already generalized is
always considered true in general populations.
For example when in any particular situation or events which results in object or events which
results in bad luck or good luck then that situation is always associated with good or bad luck.

5. False Cause:
Some individual induces such fallacy which can secure their right in general population by
violating of the correct methods of law & order & therefore providing false causes or proof.
For example during war in Afghanistan the capitalist got sympathy of common people that
communist people are going to humiliate our ISLAMIC value & culture and therefore, they
secure their capital by using such propaganda.

Fallacy of Ambiguity:
The fallacy of Ambiguity is not used intentionally but it is used unintentionally. A phrase or
word can be ambiguous in a particular context if it can have two or more different meanings in
that context.

Fallacy of Argument against Men
This fallacy always involves two arguers, one of them advances a certain argument, and the other
then responds by directing his or her attention not to the first persons argument but to the first
person himself. When this occurs, the second person is said to commit an argument against the
person. This argument against the person occurs in three forms. The ad hominem abusive, the ad
hominem circumstantial and the tu quoque. In the ad hominem abusive, the second person
responds to the first persons argument by verbally abusing the first person. Example poet Allen
has argued in favor of abolishing censorship of pornographic literature. But Allens arguments
are nothing but trash. Allen, you know, is a thorough going advocate of the drug culture. This
argument is irrelevant and fallacious.

The ad hominem circumstantial begins when the respondent attempts to discredit the opponent,
argument by alluding to certain circumstances that affect the opponent.
Bill Gates has argued at length that Microsoft Corporation does not have a monopoly on
computer disc operating systems. But Gates is chief executive officer of Microsoft, and he want
to avoid antitrust action against his company .Therefore we should ignore Gates arguments the
author of this passage ignore the substance of Gates argument and attempts instead to discredit
it by calling attention to certain circumstances that affect Gates.

Straw Man
The straw man fallacy is committed when an arguer distort an opponents argument for the
purpose of more easily attacking it, demolishes the distorted argument and then concludes that
the opponents real argument has been demolished. By so doing, the arguer is said to have set up
a straw man and knocked it down, only to conclude that the real man has been knock down as
well. Example Karl Marx has argued against prayer in the public schools. Obviously Karl Marx
advocates atheism. But atheism is what they used to have in Russia. Atheism leads to the
suppression of all religions and the replacement of God by an omnipotent state. Is that what we
want for this country? I hardly think so. Clearly Karl Marxs argument is non-sense.

Missing the Point:
It means (ignorance of Proofs). This fallacy occurs when the premises of an argument support
one particular conclusion, but then a different conclusion, often vaguely related to the correct
conclusion, is drawn.



Avoiding Fallacies:
Three factors that underlie the commission of fallacies in real life argumentation are the intent of
the arguer, mental carelessness combined with unchecked emotions, and unexamined world
views.
The first factor is intent. Many fallacies are committed intentionally. The arguer may know well
that his reasoning is defective but goes ahead with it because of some benefit for himself or some
other persons. The key to avoiding fallacies that are intentionally committed probably lies in
some form of moral education. The arguer must realize that using intellectual dishonest means to
acquire something he does not deserve it is another form of cheating.
The second factor that leads to the commission of fallacy is mental carelessness combined with
unchecked emotions. The key to avoiding such fallacies lies in developing a thorough familiarity
with the informal fallacies combined with the habitual realization of how emotions effect peoples
reasoning. Everyone should realize that unchecked emotions are an open invitation to illogical
reasoning.
The third factor is unexamined world view. To avoid this fallacy the arguer must acknowledge
and critique his presupposition. Doing so inclines the arguer to express his argument in language
that takes those presuppositions into account. The result is always an argument that is more
intelligently formed, and is more persuasive.

Deduction & Induction:
An argument can be divided into two groups: Deductive and Inductive:

Deductive Argument:
It is an argument in which the premises are claimed to support the conclusion in such a way that
it is impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion false. In such arguments the
conclusion is claimed to follow necessarily from the premises.

Inductive Argument:
It is an argument in which the premises are claimed to support the conclusion in such a way that
it is improbable that the premises be true and the conclusion false. In these arguments the
conclusion is claimed to follow only probably from the premises.
Thus, deductive arguments are those that involve necessary reasoning, and inductive arguments
are those that involve probabilistic reasoning e.g.
Mr. Jan is closely related to Mr. Ahmad.
Mr. Ahmad is a student of BBA.
Therefore probably Mr. Jan is a student of BBA.
Akbar is a student of BBA.
All students of BBA are married.
Therefore, it necessarily follows that Akbar is married.
The first of these arguments is inductive and the second is deductive.
The distinction between deductive and inductive argument lies in the: The occurrence of special
indicator words, the actual strength of the inferential link between the premises and the
conclusion, the character of the argumentation the arguer uses.

Typically Deductive Arguments Argument Based On Mathematics:
It is an argument in which the conclusion depends on some purely arithmetic or geometric
computation or measurement. For example a shopper might place two apples and three oranges
into a bag and then conclude that the bag contains five pieces of fruit. Or a surveyor might
measure a square piece of land and after determining that it is 100 feet on each side; conclude
that it contains 10,000 square feet.

Argument from Definition:
It is an argument in which the conclusion is claimed to depend merely upon the definition of
some word or phrase used in the premises or conclusion e.g. Mr. A is mendacious, it follows that
he tells lies, or a certain paragraph is prolix, it follows that it follows that it is excessively wordy.

Categorical Syllogism:
It is syllogism in which each statement begins with one of the words all no or some
e.g. All lasers are optical devices Some lasers are surgical instruments therefore, some optical
devices are surgical instruments.
A Hypothetical Syllogism:
It is a syllogism having a conditional statement for one or both of its premises e.g. If electricity
flows through a conductor, then a magnetic field is produced. If a magnetic field is produced
then a nearby compass will be deflected. Therefore, if electricity flows through a conductor, then
a nearby compass will be deflected.

Disjunctive Syllogism:
It is a syllogism having a disjunctive statement (i.e. an either.. or . statement) for one of
its premises e.g. either breach of contract is a crime or it is not punishable by the state. Breach of
contract is not a crime. Therefore, it is not punishable by the state.

Some Typical Inductive Form of Argumentation:
Prediction:
In a prediction, the premises deals with some known event in the present or past, and the
conclusion moves beyond this event to some event in the relative future e.g. someone might
argue that because certain meteorological phenomena have been observed over NWFP, a storm
will occur there in coming two hours. Again one might argue that because certain fluctuations
occurred in the prime interest rate on Friday, the value of the dollar will decrease against foreign
currencies on Monday.

Argument from Analogy:
It is an argument depends on the existence of similarity between two things or states of affairs
e.g. Alis Mercedes is a great handling car, it follows that Jans Mercedes must also be a great
handling car. This argument is based on analogy which is obviously probabilistic.

An Inductive Generalization:
It is an argument that proceeds from the knowledge of a selected sample to some claim about the
whole group. Because the members of the sample have a certain characteristics, it is argued that
all the members of the group have the same characteristics e.g. one might argue that because
three apples selected from a certain crate were especially tasty and juicy, all the apples from that
crate are especially tasty and juicy.

Argument from Authority:
It is an argument in which the conclusion rests upon a statement made by some presumed
authority or witness. E.g. A person might argue that earning for Z- Jan Medicine Company will
be up in the coming quarter because of a statement to that effect by an investment counselor.

Argument Based On Sign:
It is an argument that proceeds from the knowledge of a certain sign to a knowledge of the things
or situation that the sign symbolizes e.g. when driving on an unfamiliar highway one might see a
sign indicating that the road makes several sharp turns one mile ahead. Based on this
information, one might argue that the road does indeed make several sharp turns one mile ahead.
Because the sign might be misplaced or in error about the turns, the conclusion is only probable.

Causal Inference:
It underlines argument that proceeds from knowledge of a cause to knowledge of the effect, or
conversely from knowledge of the effect to knowledge of the cause. e.g. From the knowledge
that a bottle of medicine had been accidentally left in the freezer overnight, someone might
conclude that it had frozen (cause to effect) conversely, after tasting a piece of chicken and
finding it dry and crunchy, one might conclude that it had been overcooked (effect to cause)

Truth Validity Soundness Strength and Cogency
Every argument has two basic claims; a claim that evidence exist and a claim that something
follows from the alleged evidence. The first is factual claim, and the second is inferential claim.
The evaluation of every argument is based the evaluation of these two claims. The most
important of these two is the inferential claim, because if the premises fail to support the
conclusion, an argument is worthless.

Valid Deductive Argument:
Valid argument is an argument such that it is impossible for premises to be true and the
conclusion false means in which the conclusion follows with strict necessity from the conclusion
e.g. all television networks are media companies. NBC is a television network. Therefore NBC is
a media company. All television networks are media companies. NBC is a television network.
Therefore NBC is a media company.

Invalid Deductive Argument:
An invalid argument is an argument such that it is possible for premises to be true and
conclusion false. In invalid arguments the conclusion does not follow with strict necessity from
premises, even though it claimed to e.g. all banks are financial institutions. Wells Fargo is a
financial institution. Therefore, Wells Fargo is a bank.

Sound Argument:
A sound argument is a deductive argument that is valid and has all true premises. Both condition
must be met for an argument to be sound. A sound argument, therefore, is what is meant by a
good deductive argument in the fullest sense of the term.

For example: All dictionaries are books.
Kitabistan is a dictionary.
Therefore Kitabistan is a book.


Unsound Argument:
An unsound argument is a deductive argument that is invalid has one or more false premises, or
both. For an argument to be unsound, the false premise or premises must actually be needed to
support the conclusion.
For example: All students are intelligent.
Akbar is intelligent.
Therefore, Akbar is a student.

Inductive Argument:
Inductive argument is the one in which the premises are claimed to support the conclusion in
such a way that it is improbable that the premises be true and the conclusion false.

Strong Inductive Argument:
It is an inductive argument such that it is improbable that the premises be true and the conclusion
false. In such arguments, the conclusion follows probably from the premises e.g.
All dinosaur bones discovered to this day have been at least 50 million years old. Therefore,
probably the next dinosaur bone to be found will be at least 50 million years old. In this
argument the premise is actually true, the conclusion is probably true. So the argument is strong.

Weak Inductive Argument:
It is an inductive argument such that the conclusion does not follow probably from the premises,
even though it claimed to. E.g.
During the past fifty years, inflation has consistently reduced the value of Pakistani rupee.
Therefore, industrial productivity will probably increase in the years ahead.
In this argument, the premises are actually true and the conclusion is probably true in the actual
world, but the probability of the conclusion is no way based on the assumption that the premises
are true. Because there is no direct connection between inflation and increased industrial
productivity, the premise is irrelevant to the conclusion and it provides no probabilistic support
for it. The conclusion is probably true independently of the premise. As a result the conclusion is
weak.
Cogent Argument:
It is an inductive argument that is strong and has all true premises. In a cogent argument the
premises must not only be true, they must also not ignore some important piece of evidence that
outweighs the given evidence and entail a quite different conclusion. e.g.
For example: All previous Pakistani presidents were men. Therefore, probably the next Pakistani
president will be a man.

Uncogent Argument:
An uncogent argument is an inductive argument that is weak has one or more false premises or
both. E.g. all previous Pakistani presidents were women. Therefore, probably the next Pakistani
president will be a woman.