Logic Bs-III

1

According to Karachi University Business School (KUBS) Syllabus

For affiliated Colleges

Karachi Institute of Management & Sciences (KIMS)Phase-I, Sector-4, Ahsanabad Gulshan -e- Maymar, Karachi

Phone: 36881347 Website: www.kims.net.pk

K I MS

K I MS

KIMS

Logic

BS-III

For BBA/BS-III Students

Course Code: BA (H)-421

Credit Hours: 03

S:No Topic Course contents Page

2

1 Book Title 12 Course contents 23 Syllabus 44 Acknowledgement 65 About the Book of Logic BS-III 76 1:00 Definition of Logic 87 Definition of Logic according to Karamat Husain 108 Benefits of Logic 149 1:01 Logic is Science or an Art 1410 1:02 The scope of Logic 1511 The scope of Logic According to Karamat Husain 1612 1:03 The Laws of Logic (Thoughts 1813 Characteristics of the law of Thought 2015 1:04 Induction and Essential characteristics of Induction 2116 Essential Characteristics of Induction 2217 Comparison between Deduction and Induction 2418 2:00 Categorical propositions and Classes 2619 2:01 Quality, Quantity and Distribution 2620 Diagrams of Quality, Quantity A and E 2721 Diagrams of Quality, Quantity I and O 2822 Very important rules for “Distribution and Undistribution 2923 2.02 The Traditional Square of Opposition 3124 2.03 Immediate inferences 3425 Conversion 3426 Obversion 3627 Contraposition 3828 Inversion 4129 First method: (By converting the obverted converse) 4230 Second method:

(By alternatively using the process of conversion and obversion)44

31 2.04 Existential import 4832 2.05 Symbolism and Diagram for categorical Proposition 5333 3.00 Three Basic Uses of Language 5634 3:01 Discourse Serving Multiple Functions 6135 3.02 The Forms of Discourse 6336 Rules about Grammatical and principal propositions 6437 The Four Kinds of Discourse 6538 3.03 Emotive Words 6739 3.04 Kinds of Agreement and Disagreement 7040 3.05 Emotively Neutral Language 7241 4.00 The Purpose of Definition 7342 Definition 7343 Three kinds of disputes 74

3

44 4.01 The Types of Definition 7645 Stipulative Definition 7646 Lexical Definition 7747 Précising Definitions 7848 Theoretical Definitions 7949 Persuasive Definitions 8050 4.02 Various Kinds of Meaning 8251 Extension and Intension or Denotation and Connotation 8252 Kinds of Extensional or Denotative Definitions 8353 Kinds of Intensional or Connotative Definitions 8454 4.03 Techniques for Defining 8655 5.00 Standard Form Categorical Syllogisms 8956 Major, Miner and Middle terms 8957 Mood 9058 Total 64 kinds of Mood are shown in the table 9159 Figure 9260 5.01 The Formal Nature of Syllogistic Arguments 9461 5.02 Venn Diagram Techniques for Testing Syllogisms 9662 5.03 Syllogistic Rules and Syllogistic Fallacies 9863 5.04 Reducing the Number of Terms in Categorical Syllogism 10464 6:00 Informal Fallacies 10665 Fallacies 10666 Kinds of Fallacies 10767 6.01 Fallacies of Relevance 10968 1. Appeal to Force 10969 2. Appeal to Pity 10970 3. Appeal to Emotion 11071 4. Appeal to Authority 11172 5. Ad Hominem Argument (Argument against the person) 11173 6. Appeal to Ignorance 11274 7. Irrelevant Conclusion 11375 6.2 Fallacies of Presumptions 11476 1. Accident 11477 2. Converse Accident 11578 3. False Cause 11579 4. Begging the Question 11680 5. Complex Question 11781 Fallacies of Ambiguities 11982 1. Equivocation 11983 2. Amphiboly 12184 3. Accent 12185 4. Composition 12286 5. Division 123

4

87 Passed Paper 125

88 Example of Solved Examination Paper Of Karachi University 13689 The End 192

5

KARACHI UNIVERSITY BUSINESS SCHOOL

UNIVERSITY OF KARACHI

BBA – III (Hons.)

Course Title : LOGICCourse Number : BA (H) – 421Credit Hours : 03

Objective

The Objective of this course is to sharpen the intellect of the students, develop their earning ability, strengthen their understanding and promote clear thinking. In order to achieve the desired goal, especially, in management of organizations the manager is expected to present his case with reasoning and logically. It is important to convince the people while negotiating in business. The knowledge of logic will help students to learn how to present their viewpoints before others.

Course Contents

1. Definition of Logic

1.1 Logic as a Science and an Art1.2 Scope of Logic1.3 The Laws of Logic1.4 Induction and Essential Characteristics of Induction

2. Categorical Propositions and Classes

2.1 Quality, Quantity and Distribution2.2 The Traditional Square of Opposition2.3 Immediate Inferences, Conversion, Obversion, Contraposition, Inversion2.4 Existential Import2.5 Symbolism and Diagram for Categorical Proposition

6

3. Three Basic Uses of Language

3.1 Discourse Serving Multiple Functions3.2 The Forms of Discourse3.3 Emotive Words3.4 Kinds of Agreement and Disagreement3.5 Emotively Neutral Language

4. The Purpose of Definition

4.1 The Types of Definition4.2 Various Kinds of Meaning4.3 Techniques for Defining

5. Standard Form Categorical Syllogisms

5.1 The Formal Nature of Syllogistic Arguments5.2 Venn Diagram Techniques for Testing Syllogisms5.3 Rules and Fallacies5.4 Reducing the Number of Terms in Categorical Syllogism

6. Informal Fallacies

6.1 Fallacies of Relevance6.2 Fallacies of Presumptions6.3 Fallacies of Ambiguities

Recommended Books

1. Hurley, Patric, A Concise Introduction to Logic, Belmont, Calif Wadsworth, 1988.2. Irving M. Copi, Introduction to Logic, New York, McMillan Co, 1990.3. Wernon and Nissen, Introduction to Logic, Arkansas University Press, 1985.

7

Acknowledgement

I would like to express my special and my deepest appreciation to my teacher and Director of Karachi Institute of Management and Sciences (KIMS) Mr. Imran Husain Quraishi Sahib who provided me the possibility to complete my research work of Logic BS-III on KIMS Office.

I would also like to acknowledge with much appreciation to my teacher and Principal of Karachi Institute of Management and Sciences (KIMS) Mr. Adnan Jami Sahib for helping and supporting me in many occasions.

Furthermore I would also like to acknowledge with much appreciation the crucial role of my sincere friend Mr. Muhammad Ahmad, for guidance and encouragement in carrying out the work on Logic book.

I am also very thankful of Mr. Shaikh Salman Sahib for making a beautiful title for this book.

Lastly, I would like to thank all my colleagues of Karachi Institute of Management and Sciences (KIMS) for helping me in the completion of my book on logic.

8

About the Book

I feel pleased to present the book of Logic for BS-III students.

This book is written as per the syllabus of Karachi University for BS-III students and describes the ancient and modern logic rules of Aristotle and Boolean.

The basic aim of the writer is to write precise and easy to understand, customize matter that could facilitate students. For this, the writer has defined and translated the difficult phrases and terminologies of Logic to Urdu and Arabic language.

Though the ancient and modern Subject matter of Logic, contravenes the basic Islamic Ideology, yet it is believed that logic sharpens the mind, so care is desired while co-relating logic, arguments with the bases of Islamic teachings and Sunnah of His prophet (P.B.U.H)

Some important characteristics of this book are described below:

1. Logic is the study of Greek Science. 2. It is according to the syllabus of Karachi University3. It provides the meanings of difficult words in Urdu and some times in Arabic.4. The study of this book is very easy for every student particularly for the Ulamas

who know the Arabic Logic.5. It presents the sequentially description of Topics.6. It is the complete and concise notes of logic.7. While compiling this book references are taken from the book of Irving M. Copi,

and some other writers, like Karamt Husain and other logic books.

In the end, care is taken while devising the contents of this book, yet any suggestion about text or Subject matter is always welcome on my e-mail ID ([email protected])

Gulab Khan

Head of faculty of Social Sciences

Karachi Institute of Management & Sciences (KIMS)

9

Topic No: 1:00 Definition of Logic

Accepted Definition of Logic:

According to Irving Copy:

“Logic is the study of methods & principles used to distinguish correct reasoning from incorrect reasoning.”

Not completely accepted Definitions of Logic:

1. It is not process of reasoning, so it is not correct to define logic as, “the science of reasoning.”

2. It is also not correct to define logic as, “the science of the laws of thoughts.” Because all reasoning is thinking, but not all thinking is reasoning.

3. “The science of order.” ( ت ہمادی حقائق س تعلق رکھن واال علم ی ب ہ ۔ ے ےہے۔عام اور منطق خاص ہے )

4. “Logic is Logic” that is all I say. ( ت عام اور منطق خاص ہے۔ی ب ہے ہ ہ )

5. The defense against trickery. ( ہدھوک اور شعبد بازی ک خالف دفاع ی ۔ ے ہ ہیں ۔ناقص تعریف کیونک منطق ک دوسر اوصاف بھی ہ ے ے ہ ہے )

Some good definitions as compare to above five:

1. Logic in general is the science of right thinking.

2. Studies reason as the tool of knowledge.

Other Logicians say in the definition of Logic:

1. The tool for distinguishing between the true and the false (Averroes).2. The science of reasoning, teaching the way of investigating unknown truth in connection with

a thesis (notion and idea) (Robert Kilwardby).3. The art whose function is to direct the reason lest it err (makes a mistake) in the manner of

inferring or knowing (John Poinsot).4. The art of conducting reason well in knowing things (Antoine Arnauld).5. The right use of reason in the inquiry after truth (Isaac Watts).6. The Science, as well as the Art, of reasoning (Richard Whately).7. The science of the operations of the understanding which are subservient (obedient) to the

estimation of evidence (John Stuart Mill).

10

8. The science of the laws of discursive (منطقی) thought (James McCosh).9. The science of the most general laws of truth (Gottlob Frege).10. The science which directs the operations of the mind in the attainment (accomplishment of

truth (George Hayward Joyce).11. The analysis and appraisal (investigation and assessment) of arguments (Harry J. Gensler).12. The branch of philosophy concerned with analysing the patterns of reasoning by which a

conclusion is drawn from a set of premisses (Collins English Dictionary)13. The formal systematic study of the principles of valid inference and correct reasoning

(Penguin Encyclopedia).

11

Definition of Logic according to Karamat Husain:

“Logic is a science that studies the laws of valid thoughts for things. This definition is consists of four things”.

1. Science 2.Laws 3.Valid 4.Thoughts

12

Natural Science

Science

( واقفیت کاComplete( اور مکمل )Systematicعلم مربوط )

نام ہے۔

طبعی علم کا تعلق مشاہدے اور تجربے سے ہوتا

ہے، جس سے مظاہر قدرت کی نوعیت کی

ا3 علم النباتات، یعنی پودے پہچان ہوتی ہے۔ مثل

کس طرح اگتے ہیں۔ اور کس طرح ہوا اور پانی

سے اپنی خوراک حاصل کرتے ہیں۔

Normative Science

معیاری علم کا تعلق اشیاء کی قدروقیمت سے

ا3 علم الاخل3ق، ایک معیاری علم ہوتا ہے۔ مثل

ہے۔ اس میں یہ دیکھنا ہے کہ ہمارے افعال

کیسے ہونے چاہیے۔ اچھائی اور برائی کے

متعلق، یہ علم فیصلہ کرتاہے۔منطق بھی اس

قبیلےہے۔فکر کی صحت و عدم صحت کو

دیکھنا ہے۔

۱

13

Political Laws

Laws

What must be?

ےکیا کرنا پڑ گا؟

They can be changed as well as violated.

Natural Laws

2

Normative or regulative Laws

What should be?

؟ ی ےکیا چا ہ

What Is?

ہےکیا ؟

They are neither being changed but can be violated.

(Contradictory attributes).

سرخ اور غیر سرخ اسی طرح مسلم اور

غیر مسلم۔

They are neither being changed nor violated Example: Law of gravitation.

14

Formal Validity

Valid (True)

Deductive Logic

استخراجیہ منطق

1. Men are mortal. 2. Students are men. Therefore, Students are not mortal.

Here our argument is not valid, it is self contradictory.

، کیونک ہی استدالل غلط ہے ہ اس میں اپنی تردید موجود

ہے۔

Validity or truth means, Free from self contradictionمثلث کو Mو، مثال ہفکرمیں اپنی تردید ن ہ ۔دائر تصور کرنا یا بالعکس ہ

3

Material Validity

Inductive Logic

استقرائیہ منطق

1. Men are tables. 2. Books are men. Therefore, book`s are tables.

What is said in this argument is not according to the actual reality.

یہ بیرونی حقیقت کے خل3ف ہے۔

Definition of Logic according to Karamat Husain:

So the complete definition is defined as, “Logic is a normative science that studies the normative or regulative laws of true valid result bringing thoughts for things.”

15

Production or results

Thoughts

Whishes

A concept means General idea or simple apprehension (ادراک) about some thing.

4

Process

ThinkingFeeling

ReasoningConcept Judgment

A judgment is Combination of two concepts, which has relation of agree or disagree between them.

Reasoning means Information which is drawn from one judgment or more then one.

Benefits of Logic:

1. Logic sharpens the intellect.2. It develops our reasoning ability.3. It strengthens our understanding power.4. It promotes clear thinking.5. It is a very good mental gymnastic.6. It saves us from being deceived by other’s clever arguing.7. It teaches us the laws of correct thinking.8. It saves from errors and confusion in our own reasoning.9. Other sciences lie simply in informing our minds but Logic lies forming our mind.10. The possession of a logical mind is the noblest treasure that a man can have.11. Logic is the light of all science.12. Logic is also very useful in daily life conversion.

Topic No: 1:01 Logic is Science or an Art1. Logic is a science because it is a systematic and complete study of a certain subject-matter (نفس_ موضوع). But it is also an art.2. Thompson says “It is that a science is a body of principles to explain some subject-matter, an art a body of precepts (ہضابط و قانون ), with practical skill, for the completion of work. A science is teaches us to know, and an art to do. 3. Science the theoretical and art is practical in nature.4. The science is the root of art and art is the fruit of science. Art without science is rootless, and science with out art fruitless.4. The science is the root of art and art is the fruit of science. Art without science is rootless, and science with out art fruitless.5. The science of logic is the basis of the art of correct thinking.6. Logic is both science and art.7. Logic is the science of sciences and art of arts.8. Logic is primarily science and secondary an art.9. Logic is directly science and indirectly an art.10. The primary aim of logic is the knowledge of principles of valid thinking, while secondary aim is to detect and avoid invalid thinking

Topic No: 1:02 the scope of Logic

16

The scope or province of a science means its subject matter the whole sphere or field of its study. The scope of logic is very wide. It covers always all types of knowledge weather it is related to science or arts: based or practice or theory, logic provides bases for them. The nature of logic is simply like a tree and all the fields of knowledge are its branches. The scope of logic can therefore be very large, ranging from core topics such as the study of fallacies and contradiction in terms, to specialized analyses of reasoning such as possibility, correct reasoning, and arguments involving causality. One of the aims of logic is to identify the correct (or valid) and incorrect (or fallacious) inferences. Logicians study the criteria for the evaluation of arguments.

Value and uses of Logic: It is of great value not only on individual but a collective level. The scope, value and uses of logic are the things which cannot be separately discussed. Logic differently described by different school of thoughts as everyone defines it in a way he use it. At different levels the scope, value and used of logic can be emphasized as follows:

For on Individual: Logic is of great value for an individual person. When two ore more persons have a discussion on the some matter but give different arguments to defend or oppose the reasons or salutation of that matter, but only that person will be considered best or efficient who will be strong in his argument no matter whether the arguments are given as opponents or defended personality.

For a Mathematician: Math is a tailor made to use logic in all its power, to set theory and number. In math various formulas theories and theorems are purely based on logic.

For a Scientist: Some is also closely related to logic. The expansion of knowledge in field of science is only because of logic.

In the field of Law: In the field of law, only those cases are acceptable which is fulfilled by the criteria of logic. Moreover the rules and law are developed on the bases of logical reasoning.

For a Philosopher: Philosophy provides explanation or reality. It is also based on the laws of logic.

Conclusion: In Short, we may be saying that the logic is a touchstone we can judge the rationality of the statements or arguments related to any field.

17

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_argument

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inference

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Validity

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causality

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacies

18

The scope of Logic

According to Karamat Husain

علم منطق کا تعلق صرف فکر سے

ہے۔ اس نظریہ کو نظریہ تصوریت )

Conceptualismکہتے ہیں۔ )

اس نظریہ کے حامی لوگوں کو

(Conceptualistsمتصورین یعنی)

کہتے ہیں۔

Formalists

Conceptualism

Or Formalism

علم منطق کا تعلق صرف زبان سے

نظریہ اسمیت ہے۔ اس نظریہ کو

(Nominalism)

کہتے ہیں۔ اس نظریہ کے حامی

لوگوں کو اسمیین یعنی(Nominalists)

کہتے ہیں۔

علم منطق کا تعلق نہ فکر سے ہے،

اور نہ زبان سے ہے، بلکہ اشیاء سے

ہے۔ اس نظریہ کو نظریہ موجودیت(Materialism)

کہتے ہیں۔ اس نظریہ کے حامی

لوگوں کوموجودیین یعنی )

Materialistsکہتے ہیں۔)

Realists

Materialism

Or Realism

Nominalism

The scope of Logic

According to Karamat Husain

Logic concerned with thought, and thought connected with language and things.

Logic directly deals with thought, and indirectly with language (through which thought is expressed) and things (to which thought must conform in order to be valid).

Topic No: 1:03 the Laws of Logic (Thoughts)

19

Concept

Science

A concept is a mental act means general Idea or Simple apprehension about some thing.

A concept which means expressed in language, is called term. Term is a verbal expression of concept.

Judgment

A judgment is a mental act means combination of two concepts, which has relation of agree or disagree between them.

Term Preposition

When judgment expressed in language is called preposition. Preposition is a verbal expression of judgment.

Reasoning when expressed in language is called an Argument.

Reasoning means an inference which is drawn from one judgment or more than one.

The proposition or propositions which are given and form which was argue are called the premises and the proposition which is drawn from them is called the conclusion.

ReasoningArgumentPremise or Premises and

Conclusion

We have defined logic as the science of the laws of valid thought. It depends upon correct thinking. It has some principles. 1. The law of identity ( عینیت (اصول12.The law of Non Contradiction. ( النقیضین اجتماع مانع (اصول13. The law of Excluded Middle. ( اوسط خارج (اصول14. The law of sufficient Reason. کافی وج ہاصول ) )

1. The law of identity

It indicates that a thing is what it is, every thing identical with itself. Every thing is what it is, and not another thing. A dog is dog: and a cat is cat. Everything is what it is. A is A or A is Identical with A. p is p at the same time and in the same respect.

Formula: If A is B, it is B. if in really Iron is a metal. It is a metal. Bat is Bat (Bird) not Bat of cricket. If man is mortal. He is mortal.G.W. Bush is G.W. Bush. Bush is the son of George Bush.

Thus the law of identity is an expression of the identity or sameness of things.

2. The law of Non Contradiction

A cannot be both B and non-B at the same time and in the same sense. Propositions cannot be both true and false. A cannot be A and not A at the same time.

A conjunctive proposition cannot be both true and false at the same time and in the same respect. Thus the proposition "p and not-p" cannot be true.

Formula: “A” cannot be both “B” and “Non-B” at the same time. According to this law, two contradictory things cannot be false. (“A” is a Muslim and “A” is Non Muslim.

For example, the proposition "It is raining and it is not raining" is a contradiction, and must be false.

Note: technically, the above example stated fully should read "It is raining and it is not raining at this location and at this time." This additional phrase encompasses the crucial factors of "at the same time" and "in the same respect," but in natural language it isn't common to state them explicitly.

20

3. The law of Excluded Middle

A more informal and common way of stating this is to simply say that a proposition is true or its negation (contradiction) must be true - thus, either p is true or not-p must be true.

Formula: “A must be either B or non-B.”It points out that between two contradictories there is no intermediate possibility. There is no middle course - the middle is excluded. A color must be red or non red. (A must be Muslim or Non Muslim).Contrary is not contradiction.

For example: Red and Yellow are not contradictories but contraries, and between contraries other alternative are possible. Contraries are mutually exclusive ( ہوسکتے نہیں جمع میں آ�پس دونوں (یعنیbut collectively exhaustive ( کا دونوں ہے اور نہیں ہونامنع پرنہ طور �جتماعی ).Two contraries can both be false. For example: This board must be white or not green, both be false when the board is black.

But two contradictories cannot be false.Hence, the law of Excluded Middle applies only in the case of contradictive, and not in the case of contraries.

4. The law of Sufficient Reason

It indicates that this law demands not only a cause for every thing, but a sufficient or adequate cause. When we say that hard work is the cause of a student`s success, we do not mean any amount of hard work, but sufficient for success. There is a sufficient cause for every thing. If a war breaks out, there must be a sufficient cause for it happened by chance. But chance does not mean that there is no cause.

Everything that has a sufficient reason that why it is.There should be sufficient reason to all happenings. The above "laws of logic" are part of the basic logical rules of inference. Everything that acts or changes has a reason or cause why it acts or changes.It can also be stated. Everything that begins to exist has a reason why it exists.

Characteristics of the law of Thought:

21

Fundamental:

They lie at the very root of every all thought. (یہ اصول اساسی ہیں)

Self evident:

They are so simple that they neither need nor are capable of any proof.

یں ی ۔ .ی اصول بدی ہ ہ اس کے ثبوت کے لیے دلیل کی ضرورت نہیں ہےہ

Necessary:

They are very important for correct thinking .

یں ۔ی اصول ضروری ہ ہ

Formal:

Not Material.

یں بتاتا کی آم ترش یا میں ی ن Mیں مثال یں، مادی ن ہےی اصول صوری ہ ہ ہ ۔ ہ ہ ہاور اگر میٹھا تو میٹھا ہے۔میٹھا بلک ی بتاتا ک اگر آم ترش تو ترش ہے ہے۔ ہے ہ ہے ہ ہ ۔

یںیہی اصول صور یں ، مادی ن ۔ ہ ہ

Apriority:

They are not derived from experience. They are inherent فطری principles of thoughts.

یہ اصول قبل از مشاہدہ اور تجربہ ہیں۔ یعنی یہ اصول استدلالی ہیں۔

Topic No: 1:04 Induction and Essential characteristics of Induction

Induction:

“An inductive argument claims that its premises give only some degree of probability, but not certainty to its conclusion.”

22

Essential Characteristics of Induction:

There are some important and unique characteristics of induction, which are described below.

1. Material Truth:

23

Deduction

Freedom from self contradiction

Induction

Logic

MaterialFormal

Agreement with facts or actual reality

Induction arrives on universal real propositions. The proposition which is established by induction must be a real and not merely a verbal proposition. Like, Man is mortal. Crows are black. Lions are fierce.

2. It depends on observation:

Induction depends on particular and common observation.Examples of observation: I observe that my dog is faithful. Your dog is faithful. This dog is faithful. From These particular observations, I infer the general proposition. “All dogs are faithful.”

Common observations of facts: “All men are mortal.” It is based on our observation of many cases of death of different persons.

3. It depends on causal connections among facts:

A generalization which is not based on causal connections cannot be accepted as valid. For example, “All crows are black.” It can be accepted as valid only, if a causal connection between. “Crowness” and “blackness” is proved.All red mangoes are sweet. It is also needed a connection between “redness and sweetness.”

4. It goes from particular to general:

In many cases this rule is valid, but in some cases the implementation of this rule is possible.Akram is mortal, Zahid is mortal, and therefore, all men are mortal. Other example is that inductive argument does move from particular to general is the following.Socrates is human and mortal. Xanthippe is human and mortal. Sappho is human and mortal.It is therefore, probability true that all humans are mortal.

24It goes from particular to general

Induction

25

But, some time, it goes from general to general.So, premises and conclusion both are general.For example:

All cows are mammals and have lungs. All whales are mammals and have lungs. All human are mammals and lungs. So, therefore, it is probable, that all mammals have lungs.

But in some cases it moves from particular to particular.For example: Hitler was a dictator (ےزبردستی حکومت کرن واال ) and was ruthless. (ظالم) Stain was a dictator and was ruthless.Castro is a dictator. Therefore, Castro probably is ruthless.

Comparison between Deduction and Induction

26

1 .It moves from General to particular to particular.

2 .What deduction begins with..……

3 .What deduction arrives with?…4 .Deduction has formal truth.

Deduction is the method of synthesis.

ہترکیب یعنی دو جملوں ک بعد نتیج ے ۔ی ترکیب ہے۔الو ی ہ ۔

Deduction Induction

But in spite of differences, deduction and induction are closely related. Induction supplies universal premises for deduction and deduction verifies the truth of the generalization of induction.

1 .It moves from particular to general.2 .Induction arrives.3 .Induction begins.

4 .Induction has matter truth.Induction is the method of Analysis.

ہیعنی تحلیل کرک معلوم کرنا ک ے۔مواد صحیح یا غلط ہے

But

Truth: Truth means the correspondence ( آاہنگ .of a statement to reality (ہم

Validity: An argument is valid, when it`s conclusion follows logically from it`s premises.

Soundness:

Truth, Validity and Soundness

2:00 Categorical propositions and Classes

Topic No: 2:01 Quality, Quantity and Distribution

27

Truth: Truth means the correspondence ( آاہنگ .of a statement to reality (ہم

Validity: An argument is valid, when it`s conclusion follows logically from it`s premises.

Soundness:

1. An argument can contain true premises and still be invalid. Likewise, it can be perfectly valid and contain false premises.

2. But if an argument is sound, its premises must be true and it must be valid.3. Validity may be predicated of deductive arguments, but not of inductive arguments.

4. An argument may be valid even when its conclusion and one or more of its premises are false.

For example: 1. All four legged creature have wings. 2. All spiders have four legs.

There fore, all spiders have wings.

Example of soundness: 1. All mammals have lungs. 2. All whales are mammals.

There fore. All whales have lungs. Example is offered of some invalid argument, which has true premises and true conclusions. 1. If I owned all the gold in front Knox, then I would be wealthy. 2. I do not own all the gold in front Knox. There fore, I am not wealthy.

Truth, Validity and Soundness

Categorical propositions can be categorized into four types on the basis of their "quality" and "quantity", or their "distribution of terms". These four types have long been named A, E, I and O.

Quality and quantity:

Quality refers to whether the proposition affirms or denies the inclusion of a subject within the class of the predicate. The two possible qualities are called affirmative and negative.

For instance, the A-proposition ("All S is P") is affirmative since it states that the subject is contained within the predicate. On the other hand, the O-proposition ("Some S is not P") is negative since it excludes the subject from the predicate.

Quantity refers to the amount of members of the subject class that are used in the proposition. If the proposition refers to all members of the subject class, it is universal. If the proposition does not employ (Utilize or Use) all members of the subject class, it is particular.

For instance, the I-proposition ("Some S is P") is particular since it only refers to some of the members of the subject class.

Note that "no" is both a quantifier and a qualifier.

Remember the following rule: The quantity of a standard form categorical proposition determines the distribution of

the subject. (Such that if the quantity is universal, the subject is distributed and if the quantity is particular, the subject is undistributed), and...

The quality of a standard form categorical proposition determines the distribution status of the predicate. (Such that if the quality is affirmative, the predicate is undistributed, and if the quality is negative, the predicate is distributed).

28

Affirmative Negative

Quality

Preposition

29

Quantity

ParticularUniversal

Affirmative Negative

Universal Affirmative

A E

Universal Negative

Quality

Preposition

All men are mortal.

All dogs are animals.

All men are human.

All mangoes are fruits.

All cows are mammals.

No men are angels.

No woods are men.

No tables are animals.

No Muslims are Hindus.

No men are stones.

موجبہ کلیہ سالبہ کلیہ

Very important rules for “Distribution and Undistribution”: ( اصول اہم لیے کے جزی اور (کلی

Distribution:

30

Quantity

ParticularUniversal

Particular Negative

I OParticular Affirmative

Some human are Muslims.

Some Egypt’s are Muslims.

Some mangoes are sweets.

Some men are brave.

Some men are doctors.

Some men are not Hindu.

Some Egypt’s are not Jews.

Some roses are not red.

Some men are not brave.

Some men are not doctors.

موجبہ جزئیہ سالبہ جزئیہ

The two terms (subject and predicate) in a categorical proposition may each be classified as distributed or undistributed? If all members of the term's class are affected by the proposition, that class is distributed; otherwise it is undistributed. Every proposition therefore has one of four possible distributions of terms.

A form:

An “A” -proposition distributes the subject to the predicate, but not the reverse. Consider the following categorical proposition: "All dogs are mammals". All dogs are indeed mammals but it would be false to say all mammals are dogs. Since all dogs are included in the class of mammals, "dogs" is said to be distributed to "mammals". Since all mammals are not necessarily dogs, "mammals" is undistributed to "dogs".

E form:

An E-proposition distributes bidirectional between the subject and predicate. From the categorical proposition "No beetles (insects) are mammals"; we can infer that no mammals are beetles. Since all beetles are defined not to be mammals, and all mammals are defined not to be beetles, both classes are distributed.

I form:

Both terms in an I-proposition are undistributed. For example, "Some Americans are conservatives"(Traditional). Neither term can be entirely distributed to the other. From this proposition it is not possible to say that all Americans are conservatives or that all conservatives are Americans.

O form:

In an O-proposition only the predicate is distributed. Consider the following: "Some politicians are not corrupt". Since not all politicians are defined by this rule, the subject is undistributed. The predicate, though, is distributed because all the members of "corrupt people" will not match the group of people defined as "some politicians". Since the rule applies to every member of the corrupt people group, namely, "all corrupt people are not some politicians", the predicate is distributed.

The distribution of the predicate in an O-proposition is often confusing due to its ambiguity.

In short, for the subject to be distributed, the statement must be universal (e.g., "all", "no"). For the predicate to be distributed, the statement must be negative (e.g., "no", "not").

Na

Form Example Quantity Quality Distribution

31

me

Subject Predicate

A All S is P All men are mortal.

universal affirmative distributed undistributed

E No S is P No men are angels.

universal negative distributed distributed

I Some S is P

Some mangoes are sweets.

particular affirmative undistributed

undistributed

O Some S is not P

Some animals are not dogs.

particular negative undistributed

distributed

2.02 The Traditional Square of Opposition

32

Mediate Inference

Reasoning or Inference

Conversion

Eduction

Immediate Inference

استنتاج یعنی نتیجہ دینے کا عمل

جج بدیہی جہتی استنتا

Opposition of Proposition

جج بدیہی نسبتی استنتا

جف قضایا یا اختل3

Obversion

جس مستوی جس نقیض علی مذہب المتاخرینعک عک

جج بدیہی یا استنتا

بل3 واسطہ قیاس

جج نظری یا استنتا

بالواسطہ قیاس

Definition:

The Traditional Square of Opposition is a diagram specifying logical relations among the four types of Categorical Propositions۔

Meaning of the difficult words:

Contraries (تضاد) Sub Contraries ( تحتانی (تضاد

Contradictories (نقیض) Sub alternation (تحکیم) Superaltern ( لہ (محکومSubaltern ( بہ (محکوم

The doctrine (principle) Aristotle begins in three claims:

33

Contraries

Sub alternation

A E

Sub

Altern

Sub alternation

Super

Altern

Sub

Altern

Super

Altern

Contradictorie

Sub ContrariesI O

1. That A and O are contradictories that E and I are contradictories.2. And that A and E are contraries.3. A and I (based on the word Affirmative, we refer to the affirmative Universal and

particular propositions as A and I.And based on the term Negative, we refer to the Negative universal and particular propositions as E and O:

(A) All S are P(E) No S is P(I) Some S is P (O) Some S is not P

Standard form categorical propositions having the same subject and same predicate terms may differ from each other in quantity or quality, or both. For example:

All men are poets (A) Some men are not poets (O)

...differ in both quantity and quality. This kind of differing was given the technical name of opposition by classic logicians and certain important truth relations were correlated with various kinds of opposition.

Immediate Arguments:

There are four types of immediate arguments, or oppositions: Contradictories, Contraries, Sub contraries and Subalterns.

Contradictories:

Contradictories are corresponding propositions differing from one another in both quantity and quality. One must be true and the other must be false. They cannot both be the same. These prepositions are middle excluded and there is no third option. This is the strongest type of opposition.

Example:

1. If A: "All dogs are animals" is true, then O:"Some dogs are not animals" must be false. Or vice versa.

2. If A: “All men are poets” is false, then O: “Some men are not poets” must be true.

3. If E: "No dogs are birds" is true, then I:"Some dogs are birds" must be false. Or vice versa.

4. If E: "No men are doctors" is false, then I:"Some men are doctors" must be true. Or vice versa.

Contraries:

34

Contraries are corresponding propositions in which both are universal but one is affirmative and the other negative, differing from one another only in quality. They cannot both be true but may both be false.

For example; they cannot both be true:

A: "All dogs are animals" and E:"No dogs are animals" at the same time.

A: "All men are mortal" and E:"No men are mortal".

For example; they may both be false:

1. “Texas will win the coming game with Oklahoma” and “Oklahoma will win the coming game with Texas” are contraries: if either of these prepositions is true, then the other must be false. But the two prepositions are not contradictories; both would be false, if the game is a draw.

2. A: “All mangoes are sweets” and E: “No mangoes are sweets”. Both are wrong, because

Sub contraries:

Sub-contraries are corresponding propositions in which both are particular but one is affirmative and the other negative, differing from one another only in quality. . They may both be true but cannot both be false.

I and O are sub contrary: "Some S is P" and "Some S is not P" can be true, but both cannot be false.

For example; they may both be true but cannot both be false:

1. I: “some mangoes are sweets” and O: “some mangoes are not sweets”.2. I: “Some men are doctors” and O: “Some men are not doctors”.

Sub alternation: Whenever two propositions have the same subject and the same predicate terms and agree in quality but differ only in quantity. They are called corresponding propositions.

In alternation, you can look at the Square of Opposition diagram and deduce (assume) that if the superior (universal) proposition is true, the inferior (particular) proposition is true as well and that if the inferior (particular) proposition is false then the superior (universal) proposition is false as well.

35

A and I propositions are related by sub alteration. Subalterns are a different sort of 'opposition', because a sub alternation does not imply (involve) a contradiction at all. The truth of I may be inferred by the truth of A. If "All S is P" is true, then we can be certain that "Some S is P" must be true. The reverse, from I to A, is invalid. The same goes for the negative propositions E and O. One can infer the truth of O from the validity of E, but not vice versa.

Thus the A Preposition has corresponding I preposition.

1. A: “All spiders are eight-legged animals”.I: “Some spiders are eight-legged animals.”

2. A: “All dogs are animals”.I: “Some dogs are animals.”

Thus the E Preposition has corresponding O preposition.1. E: “No whales are fishes”

O: “Some whales are not fishes”2. E: “No men are tables”

O: “Some men are not tables”.

36

Immediate inferences:

The operations of conversion, Obversion, and contraposition are applied to categorical propositions to yield new categorical propositions - these can become immediate arguments.

Conversion: “One standard-form categorical preposition is said to be the converse of another when it is formed by simply interchanging the subject and predicate terms of that other preposition.”

Rules of Conversion:

(1) The subject and predicate of the original preposition must be interchanged.

(2) The quality of the original proposition must not be changed. (Affirmative must be affirmative and negative must be negative)

(3) No term should be distributed in the converse, if it is not distributed in the original preposition.

Thus: "No pigs are dogs" becomes "No dogs are pigs."

“No men are immortal” is “No immortals are men”

Example of I proposition “Some man is mortal” is “Some mortal is man.”

The converses of E and I propositions are automatically true and logically equivalent. The converses of A propositions usually are not, unless the Subject and predicate are synonyms. There is however, another way:

An A proposition can be made converse through limitation. Recall from the square of opposition that we can create subalterns. The subaltern of an A proposition is an I proposition, and we can always create a converse of an I proposition. So we can create a converse of an A proposition through limitation.

The converse of O propositions is, in general, not valid.

An argument that offers a conclusion that is the converse of an E or I proposition is valid. We can make a conversion of an A statement through limitation.

37

Table of Valid Conversions

Name Convertened Example Name Converse Example

A All S is P All men are mortal. I Some P is S

Some mortal are men.

E No S is P No men are angels. E No P is S No angles are men.

I Some S is P Some mangoes are sweets.

I Some P is S

Some sweet things are mangoes.

O Some S is not P

Some animals are not dogs.

O Some P is not S

Some dogs are not animals. Wrong concept

Obversion:

“A valid form of intermediate inference from every standard form categorical preposition, to obvert a preposition we change its quality (from affirmative to negative, from negative to affirmative) and replace the predicate term with its complement.”

Rules of Obversion:

(1) The subject term is unchanged.

(2) The predicate is replaced by its contradictory.

(3) The quality of the proposition is changed from affirmative to negative or vice versa.

Thus the obverse of “Every man is mortal” is “No man is immortal.”

38

Table of Valid Obversion

Name Obvertend Example Name Obverse Example

AAll S is P All men are

mortal. E No S is non-P.No men are immortal.

ENo S is P No men are angels.

A All S is non-P.All men are nonangels.

ISome S is P Some mangoes are

sweets. O Some S is not non-P.

Some mangoes are not non-sweets.

OSome S is not P

Some animals are not dogs. I

Some S is non-P.

Some animals are non-dogs.

Obvertend Obverse

A: All residents are voters. E: No residents are nonvoters.A: All crows are black. E: No crows are non black.E: No Hindus are Muslims. A: All Hindus are non Muslims.E: No men are stones. A: All men are nonstones.I: Some fish are bass (deep). O: Some fish are not non-bass.I: Some dogs are brave. O: Some dogs are not non brave.O: Some men are not faithful. I: Some men are nonfaithful.O: Some men are not Muslims. I: Some men are non Muslims.

39

Contraposition: ( ہبرخالف یا مخالف: حقیقت میں ی عکس_ مستویل عکس نقیض بنانا ےاور عکس_ نقیض کا مجموع یعنی قضی کا پ ہ ہ ہے۔ ہ۔پھر عکس مستوی اور آخر میں عکس نقیض بنانا )

“To form the Contrapositive of given preposition, we replace its subject term by the complement of its predicate term, and replace its predicate term by the complement of its subject term.”

The contrapositives of A and O are logically equivalent to the originals. while E and I are usually not. We can make a contrapositive of an E proposition through limitation - by using the sub altern of an E proposition an O proposition. The contrapositives of I is not valid.

Rules of Contraposition: 1. Obvert the original preposition. 2. Then convert the obverse of the original preposition. 3. Then obvert the converse preposition.

Thus the contra positive of A preposition is A preposition. A: All members are voters A: All nonvoters are nonmembers. A: All dogs are mammals. A: All non-mammals are non-dogs.

Table of Contraposition

Name Statements Example Name

Contraposition Example

AAll S is P All men are

mortal. AAll nonp is nonS

All immortal are nonmen.

ENo S is P No men are angels.

OSome nonP is nonS.

Some nonangels are nonmen.(by Limitation)

ISome S is P Some mangoes are

sweets. … ……………… …………………

OSome S is not P

Some animals are not dogs. O

Some nonP is nonS

Some nondogs are nonanimals.

ORIGINAL CONTRAPOSITIVE VALID BY LIMITATIONAll S are P All nonP are nonS yesNo S are P No nonP are nonS no Some nonP are not nonSSome S are P Some nonP are nonS noSome S are not P Some nonP are not nonS yes

40

A----A:

A: All members are voters A: All nonvoters are nonmembers. A: All dogs are mammals. A: All non-mammals are non-dogs. A: All men are mortal. A: All immortal are nonmen.

E----O:

E: No men are angels. O: Some nonangels are nonmen. E: No men are stones. O: Some nonstones are nonmen.

I----x: the contraposition of I preposition is not valid, because when we attempt to drive the contrapositive of I preposition by obverting, converting and obverting. So the obverse of I preposition is O preposition, whose converse in general does not follow validly from it.

For example; I: Some animals are dogs. Obvert: O: Some animals are not nondogs. Convert: O: Some nondogs are not animals. Note: This is wrong statement, because there are many animals except dogs.

O----O:

O: Some men are not doctors. O: Some nondoctors are nonmen. O: Some mangoes are not sweet. O: Some nonsweet things are nonmangoes.

Contraposition A----AAll S is P:: All nonP is nonS

All men are mortal. All dogs are mammals.

All immortal are nonmen. All non mammals are nondogs.

Obversion No S is non P No men are nonmortal.Conversion No nonP is S No nonmortals are men.Obversion All nonP is nonS All non mortals are

nonmen.All nonmortals are nonmen

41

Contraposition E----ONo S is P:: Some nonP is not nonS

No men are angels Some nonangels are not nonmen.

Obversion All S is nonP. Some S is nonP

All men are nonangels.x Some men are nonangels.

By Limitation

Conversion Some nonP is S Some nonangels are menObversion Some nonP is not

nonSSome nonangels are not nonmen.

Contraposition I----xSome S is P Some animals are dogs.

Obversion Some S isnot nonP

Some animals are not nondogs.

Conversion Some nonP isnot S

Some nondogs are not animals.

This is wrong statement, because there are many animals except dogs.

Obversion x x x

Contraposition O----OSome S is not P:: Some nonP is not nonS

Some men are not doctors Some nondoctors are not nonmen

Obversion Some S is nonP Some men are nondoctorsConversion Some nonP is S Some nondoctors are

nonmenObversion Some nonP is not

nonSSome nondoctors are not nonmen

42

Inversion: ( لی قضایا کی مقام_ ترتیب یا ک ےمطلوب نتائج کو حاصل کرن ے ے ہ(تناسب کو اyلٹ دینا Inversion is the formulation of a new proposition whose subject is the contradictory of the original subject, and having the same or the contradictory predicate of the original. When the original predicate remains the same, the Inversion is called partial Inversion. And when the original predicate chanced into its contradictory, the Inversion is called complete Inversion. Kinds of Inversion: a. Partial Inversion b. Complete or Full Inversion

Note:Inver tend - the original propositionInverse - the new propositionInversion - the process itself

Rules for Partial Inversion: 1. The subject of the inverse is the contradictory of the original subject.2. The quality is changed. 3. The predicate is the same as the original proposition.4. Change in quantity, from universal to particular, in the case of contradictory.

Symbols and their Partial Inversion: Note: (Only A & E can be inverted. O and I have no inversion. )1. A to O2. E to I

Example: 1. A---O: All men are mortal. Some nonmen are not mortal. 2. E----I: No men are angels. Some nonmen are angels.

Rules for Complete Inversion 1. The subject of the inverse is the contradictory of the original subject. 2. The quality is not changed. 3. The predicate is the contradictory of the original predicate. 4. Change in quantity, from universal to particular, in the case of alternation.

Symbols and their Complete Inversion:Note: (Only A & E can be inverted. O and I have no inversion. )1. A to I 2. E to O Example:

1. A---- I: All men are mortal. Some nonmen are non mortal.2. E--- O: No men are angels. Some nonmen are not non angels.

Inversions follow the laws of alternation. Thus1. If the invertend is true, the inverse is true.2. If the invertend is false, the inverse is doubtful.

43

Explanation: When original predicate remain the same, the inverse is called Partial Inversion. But the subject must be changed into its contradictory. The quality must be changed. For example, “All S is P”. And “Some non S is not P”. It is affirmative.

And when original predicate is changed into its contradictory, the inverse is called complete Inversion. But the subject must be changed into its contradictory. The quality will remain same. For example, “All S is P”. And “Some non S is nonP”.

So here the predicate is the contradictory of the original predicate.

Two methods of Inversion:The inverse of the preposition can be obtained in two ways. (1) By converting the obverted converse. (2) By alternative using the process of conversion and obversion, till we get the inverse.

First method: (By converting the obverted converse)


A:PrepositionAll S is P All dogs are animals.

Conversion Some P is S Some animals are dogs.Obversion Some P is not nonS Some animals are not nondogs.Conversion Some nonS is not P

(Not possible)


نیں جانور بعض عالو ک کتوں میں جانوروںہے۔ غلط بات یہ �ور ہیں۔

It cannot be converted, because it is an O preposition, with wrong concept.

Note: By converting the obverted converse, we cannot get the inverse of A.

44

Partial Inversion

Complete Inversion


E:Preposition No S is P No men are angels.

Conversion No P is S No angels are men.Obversion All P is nonS All angels are nonmen.Conversion All nonS is P All nonmen are angels. Partial Inversion


I:PrepositionSome S is p Some dogs are animals.

Conversion Some P is S Some animals are dogs.Obversion Some P is not nonS Some animals are not non dogs.Conversion Some nonS is not P Some non dogs are not animals.

ہیں۔ نہیں جانور بعض علاوہ کے کتوں میں جانوروں

Wrong concept


O:PrepositionSome S is not P Some animals are not dogs.

Conversion Some P is not S

(Not possible)

Some dogs are not animals.

ہوتے۔ نہیں جانور کتے بعض

Wrong concept

Note: Thus, By converting the obverted converse, we can get the inverse only in the case of E. In the case of A, I, and O, we cannot get the inverse by using this method.

Second method: (By alternatively using the process of conversion and obversion)

45

Let us begin with Conversion:

Second method: (By alternatively using the process of conversion and obversion)Let us begin with Conversion:


Conversion Some P is S Some animals are dogs.Obversion Some P is not nonS Some animals are not nondogs.Conversion Some nonS is not P

(Not possible)


ں ہی ن ر و ن ا ج ض ع ہب او ل کےع ں و کت ں ی م ں و ر و ن ا جہے۔ غلط بات یہ �ور ہیں۔

It cannot be converted, because it is an O preposition, with wrong concept.

Note: Thus, if we begin with conversion in the case of A preposition, we cannot get the inverse.

Let us begin with Obversion:

Second method: (By alternatively using the process of conversion and obversion)Let us begin with Obversion:


Obversion No S is nonP No dogs are nonanimals.Conversion No nonP is S No nonanimals are dogs.Obversion All nonp is non S All nonanimals are nondogs.Conversion Some nonS is nonp Some nondogs are nonanimals. Complete Inversion

Obversion Some nonS is not P Some nondogs are not animals. Partial Inversion

Note: Thus, if we begin with Obversion in the case of A preposition, we can get the inverse.


Second method:

46

(By alternatively using the process of conversion and obversion)Let us begin with Conversion:

E:PrepositionNo S is P No men are angels.

Conversion No P is S No angels are men.Obversion All P is nonS All angels are nonmen.Conversion Some nonS is P Some nonmen are angels. Partial InversionObversion Some nonS is not nonP. Some nonmen are not

nonangels.Complete Inversion

Note: Thus, if we begin with conversion in the case of E preposition, we can get the inverse.



E:PrepositionNo S is P No men are angels.

Obversion All S is nonP All men are nonangels.Conversion Some nonP is S Some nonangels are men.Obversion Some nonP is not

nonSSome nonangels are not nonmen.

Conversion (Not possible)

Note: Thus, if we begin with Obversion in the case of E preposition, we cannot get the inverse.


Second method:

47

(By alternatively using the process of conversion and obversion)Let us begin with Conversion:

I:PrepositionSome S is P Some animals are dogs.

Conversion Some P is S Some dogs are animals. Obversion Some P is not nonS Some dogs are not non

animals.Conversion (Not possible) xNote: Thus, if we begin with conversion in the case of I preposition, we cannot get the inverse.



I:PrepositionSome S is P Some animals are dogs.

Obversion Some S is not nonP Some animals are not nondogs.Conversion (Not possible) xNote: Thus, if we begin with Obversion in the case of I preposition, we cannot get the inverse. Whether, we begin with conversion or obversion, in the case of I, we cannot get the inverse. Thus, I cannot be inverted.


Second method: (By alternatively using the process of conversion and obversion)Let us begin with Conversion:

O:Preposition

48

Some S is not P Some animals are not dogs.

Conversion Some P is not S Some dogs are not animals. Wrong ConceptNote: Thus, if we begin with conversion in the case of I preposition, we cannot get the inverse.



O:PrepositionSome S is not P Some animals are not dogs.

Obversion Some S is nonP Some animals are nondogs.Conversion Some nonP is S Some nondogs are animals.Obversion Some nonP is not nonS Some nondogs are not nonanimals.Conversion Not possible xNote: Thus, if we begin with Obversion in the case of I preposition, we cannot get the inverse.

To sum up: We find that I and O cannot be inverted. Only universals (A and E) can be inverted. And the inverse is always a particular preposition.

2.4 Existential import (آامد کا عمل یا کسی صورت میں موجود ہونا (در

According Irving Copi:

“A proposition is said to have existential import if it typically is uttered to assert the existence of some class of objects”. Or

49

“A proposition is said to have existential import if the truth of the proposition requires a belief in the existence of members of the subject class.”

For example, the proposition “There are books on my desk” implies the existence of books. On the other hand, the statement: “There are no unicorns”, (گھوڑے کی شکل کا ایک افسانوی جانور) does not have any existential

implications.

The difficulty can be appreciated by reflecting on propositions with a particular quantity: “I” and “O” propositions. These propositions have existential import. The particular, affirmative “I” proposition “some soldiers are heroes”, says that there is at least one soldier who is a hero. And “O” proposition “some soldiers are not heroes”, says that there is at least one soldier who is not a hero.

This would seem to mean that universal statements also have existential import, as particular propositions “I” and “O” follow logically from their corresponding universal propositions through sub alternation. “A” and “E” propositions must also have existential import, since existential import could not be derived validly from a proposition without existential import. For example:

“A”: All spiders are eight legged animals. “I”: Some spiders are eight legged animals.

In the case of refuse of derivation of particular from universal creates a serious problem! For example, we know from the Traditional Square of Opposition that Universal “A” and “O” propositions are contradictories: “All Danes speak English” is contradicted by “Some Danes do not speak English”. Contradictories cannot both be true, since one of the pair must be false, nor can they both be false, since one of the pair must be true. But if corresponding “A” and “O” propositions have existential import, then both contradictories could be false! To illustrate: The A proposition “All inhabitants of Mars are blond” ( and its corresponding O proposition “Some (سارے مریخ والے لوگ گورے ہیں

inhabitants of Mars are not blond” are contradictories: Now, if they have existential import, then both of these propositions are false if Mars has no inhabitants. But if they can both be false, then they cannot be contradictories. We have the same problem with sub contraries and subalterns. Note: So some thing seems to have gone wrong with the traditional square of opposition in case of this kind.

The Solutions:What is to be done? Can the traditional square of opposition be rescued?

50

http://editthis.info/logic/Traditional_Square_of_Opposition

The notion of presupposition: (پہلے سے فرض کرنے کا خیال اور رائے): We would rehabilitate (دوبارہ بحال کرنا) square of opposition by introducing the

notion of presupposition. This existential presupposition accepted to protect the square of opposition of propositions really problematic۔ To rescue the Traditional Square of Opposition, we might simply assume that all propositions: “A”, “E”, “I” and “O” presuppose that the class that they make reference to is not empty. In this way, “A”, “E” remains contraries, “I” and “O” will remain sub contraries; subalterns will validly follow from their super alterns, and “A” and “O” as well as “E” and “I”, will remain contradictories. To hold to this, however, we must insist (claim) that all the classes we make reference to are not empty.

Example of presupposition: 1. “Did you spend the money you stole?” can be reasonably answered “yes” or “no” only if the presupposition that you stole some money be granted. (تسلیم کرنا) 2. If you are told, “All the apples in the barrel are Delicious” and find when you look into the barrel that is empty, what would you say? You would probably not say that the claim was false, or true, but would instead point out that there are no apples in the barrel.

Here are three introduced to rescue the traditional square of Opposition:

Firstly: If we invariably (قانونی طور پر) presuppose that the class designated has

members, we will never be able to formulate the proposition that denies that it has members.

Secondly: Some what we say does not suppose that there are members in the classes we are talking about. Consider this example. "All trespassers will be prosecuted". Here we do not intend to say that there are trespassers or that the class of trespassers is non-empty. We do not mean that there are actual trespassers who will be punished. We simply mean to say that if any person will trespass he or she will be punished. Thus, we do not assume anything about the existence of members of the class of trespassers.

Third: In science and other theoretical subjects, we often wish to reason without making any presuppositions about existence. Newton’s first law of motion: If there is no net force on an object, then its velocity is stable. The object is either at rest (if its velocity is equal to zero), or it moves with stable speed in a single direction.

51

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velocity

http://editthis.info/logic/Traditional_Square_of_Opposition

The law may be true; a physicist may wish to express and protect it without wanting to free suppose that there actually are any bodies that are not acted on by external forces.

The Modern Boolean Solution:

George Boole developed an interpretation of categorical propositions solves the dilemma by denying that universal propositions have existential import. Modern logic accepts the Boolean interpretation of categorical propositions. This interpretation has the following consequences:

1. I and O propositions continue to have existential import on the Boolean interpretation.

2. It also remains true in this interpretation that the universal propositions, A and E, are the contradictories of the particular propositions, O and I. That is, the proposition “All men are mortal” does contradict of the proposition “Some men are not mortal.”

3. Because “A”, “E” propositions have no existential import, sub-alternation is not valid. Because “A”, “E”, propositions have no existential import, super-alternation is not valid.

4. Contraries are eliminated because “A”, “E”, propositions can now both be true when the subject class is empty. A: “All unicorns have wings” and N: “NO unicorns have wings” may both be true, even if there are no unicorns.

5. Sub-contraries, on the other hand, are retained because “I” and “O” propositions always have existential import. Let us show that I and O-propositions having the same subject and same predicate can be false together. For example, "Some inhabitants of Mars are intelligent" and "Some inhabitants of Mars are not intelligent" would be both false if Mars has no inhabitants. I: “Some unicorns have horns” and O: “Some unicorns do not have wings” may both be false, if there are no unicorns. This shows that I and O propositions are not Sub-contraries.

6. In Boolean interpretation the sub-alternation (i.e. inferring an I-proposition from an A- proposition and an O- proposition from an E-proposition) is not generally valid.

7. The Boolean interpretation saves some of these relationships. Conversion for E and I propositions is still valid. Contraposition for “A”, “E” propositions are still valid. And obversion for any proposition remains valid. But conversion by limitation and contraposition by limitation is generally no longer considered to be valid.

Why Reject Existential Import?

52

Consider the claim "All swans are white". In order for that claim to be false, we need to know that there is at least one non-white swan. Imagine how you might argue with someone who claims that it is true that "A''All swans are white". You would produce as evidence for the falsity of the claim the existence of a non-white swan. "No," your might argue, "Not all swans are white, for here is a swan that is brown."

1. But now suppose for a minute that there were no swans at all. What sort of evidence could you produce, in the total absence of any swans, against the claim that all swans are white? Obviously you couldn't produce a non-white one because there aren't any swans at all. In the absence of any evidence for a falsifying instance to the universal claim, you should accept the claim. But now extend that reasoning to universal claims about empty classes and non-existent objects. Universal claims about empty sets are all true, because there are no falsifying instances.

The traditional Square of Opposition:

As we know, the square of opposition of propositions expresses the following relations holding between categorical propositions

1. A and O and E and I are contradictories,2. A and E are contraries.3. I and O are sub-contraries and4. Subalterns I and O follow validity from their super-alterns A and E respectively.

53

The Modern Square of Opposition: The Boolean interpretation transform the Traditional Square into the Modern Square, in the following way: relations along the sides of the square are undone, but the diagonal, contradictory relationship, is preserved (saved) and remains in force.

2.5 Symbolism and Diagram for categorical Proposition

John Venn, 1834-1923, developed a method for diagramming categorical propositions that let's us represent visually the informational content of the propositions. Venn's diagrams allow one to test a syllogistic argument for validity without having to resort to notions like the distribution of terms. Venn's diagrams involve 2 overlapping circles, each circle representing one of the classes mentioned in the proposition. The diagram contains 4 distinct regions, each of which represents a type of object having certain properties.

S: Spaniards

P: Painters

SP

54

S P

SP

SP

htto://www-gap.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/mathematicians/Venn.html

S P: It is the class of all Spaniards who are not Painters.

SP: It is the class of all Painters who are not Spaniards.

SP: It is the class of all Spanish Painters.

SP: It is the class of all those things that are neither Spaniards nor Painters.

Two rules apply to using Venn diagrams to represent categorical propositions:

1) Shading a region indicates that that region is empty۔

2) Placing a bar or an x in a region indicates that the term in that region has some extension (addition) and the region is not empty.

If a region is neither shaded nor empty you cannot legitimately draw any inferences about whether the region is occupied or empty. Using these 2 rules, we get the following basic Venn diagrams for our 4 basic categorical propositions:

1. A: Proposition (All S is P)

The A form, "All S is P," is shown in the diagram to the right. Notice that all of the S's are pushed out, into the P class. If S's exist, they must be inside the P circle since the left-hand Lune of the diagram is shaded and so is empty.

All S is P.

S P=0. It indicates that it has no members or it is empty.

55

2. E: Proposition (No S is P)

The E form, "No S is P," is shown in the diagram to the right. Notice that the lens area of the diagram is shaded and so no individual can exist in this area. The lens area is where S and P are in common; hence, "No S is P." All S are in the left-hand Lune, and all P are relegated to the right-hand Lune.

No S is P.

SP =0. It indicates that it has no members or it is empty.

3. I: Proposition (Some S is P)

The I form, "Some S is P," is much more easily seen. The "X" in the lens, as shown in the diagram to the right, indicates at least one individual in the S class is also in the P class. Note that the blank Lanes indicate that we do not know whether or not there are individuals in these areas. In fact, we have no information.

Some S is P.

SP ≠ 0. We insert an X into that part of the diagram that represents the class SP. This insertion indicates that the class product is not empty but has at least one member.

56

4. O: Proposition (Some S is not P)

The O form, "Some S is not P," is also easily drawn. The S that is not a P is marked with an "X" in the S-Lune. This area is not within the P circle and so is not a P.

Some S is not P.

S P≠ 0. We insert an X into that part of the diagram that represents the classS P. This insertion indicates that the class product is not empty but has at least one member.

3.0 Three Basic Uses of Language

We use language everyday in many ways and to meet countless different ends. We use verbal and non-verbal forms of language and our language is full of subtle tones that change the meaning of words and phrases. Language is the most common way to communicate with others.

The formal patterns of correct reasoning can all be communicated through common language, but then so can a lot of other things. In fact, we use language in many different ways, some of which are irrelevant to any attempt to provide reasons for what we believe. Without a doubt, identifying just these three basic functions is an overview, but an awareness of these functions is a good introduction to the difficulty of language.

Request, report and greetings are only some of the more obvious functions served by language. “How are you” not indicate the real purpose.

Our communications can be categorized into three primary purposes for language: informative, expressive and directive. And it is helpful to identify at least three distinct uses

of language:

57

1. Informative:

The informative use of language is to communicate some kind of content (substance or matter) that involves information. The general assumption is that the content is true. We use language to tell someone something, to ask a question, and to make notes to ourselves. For example, “today is my birthday” offers information. When we ask, “What time is it?” we are using language to attempt to receive information.

The informative use of language involves an effort to communicate some content. When I tell a child, "The fifth of May is a Mexican holiday," or write to you that "Logic is the study of correct reasoning," I am using language informatively. This kind of use presumes (assumes) that the content of what is being communicated is actually true, so it will be our central focus in the study of logic.

A. The informative function affirms or denies propositions, as in science or the statement of a fact...

B. This function is used to describe the world or reason about it (e.g.., whether a state of affairs has occurred or not or what might have led to it).

58

Informative

Directive uses of language aim to cause or to prevent some overt (obvious) action by a human agent.

Language

Reports feelings or attitudes of the writer (or speaker), or of the subject, or evokes feelings in the reader (or listener).

The informative use of language is to communicate some kind of content (substance or matter) that involves information.

DirectiveExpressive

http://www.philosophypages.com/dy/i9.htm#info

http://www.philosophypages.com/dy/d9.htm#dir

C. These sentences have a truth value; that is, the sentences are either true or false (recognizing, of course, that we might not know what that truth value is). It includes false or truth, correct and incorrect (in words) propositions. Hence, they are important for logic.

(a) Descriptive Use of Language:

Language is often used to describe something or to give information about something. So the descriptive use of language is also called informative use of language. When a sentence is used descriptively it reports that something has some feature or that something lacks some feature. Consider the following two sentences:

1. Birds have feather.

2. Birds are not mammals.

The first sentence reports that having feather is a feature of birds. The second sentence reports that birds do not have some essential qualities found in mammals. In, either case it provides information about the world. Both affirmation and denial about things in the world are examples of descriptive use of language. The following are some more examples of language functioning descriptively.

1. Crows are black.

2. Karachi is not the capital of Pakistan.

3. A spider has eight legs.

4. Logic is the study of correct reasoning.

5. The 14th of August is Pakistan Independence Day.

All these above statements happen to be true statements. However, it should be noted that only true sentences are instances of informative use of language, but also false sentences are instances of informative use of language. "A spider has six legs" is a false statement since spiders in fact have eight legs. Yet the statement "A spider has six legs", even though false, is nonetheless (however) an example of descriptive use of language.

When language functions informatively we can sensibly ask whether what is asserted is or false. In other words, the question "Is it true?" can be meaningfully asked of all such instances. When language is used to affirm or deny any proposition, its function is informative; Language used to present arguments serves informative function.

All descriptions of things, events, and their properties and relations consist of informative discourse. The language of science is a clear instance of descriptive use of language.

59

2. Expressive:

Reports feelings or attitudes of the writer (or speaker), or of the subject, or evokes feelings in the reader (or listener).

We use language to express our ideas and emotions. An expressive use of language “means only to find expression or to declare for some feeling, or … to evoke some feeling from other people,” according to Philosophy Pages. Expressive language may or may not include any real information as the purpose of an expressive use of language is to convey a feeling. Information may be assumed, but not expressed. For example, if someone says “Yuck”, (تھو، تف۔ ایسا لفظ جس سے بدمزگی پیدا ہو۔) the

word is used to express dislike. The information received tells that the object is not favorable, but the word “yuck” is not necessarily used to inform.

When I say, "Friday afternoons are dreary, (boring)" I am using language expressively. Although such uses don't express any information.

That’s too bad. What a pity. Curse or Pray.

A. Poetry and literature are among the best examples, but much of, perhaps most of, ordinary language discourse is the expression of emotions, feelings or attitudes.

B. Two main aspects of this function are generally noted: (1) Evoking certain feelings and (2) Expressing feelings.

Language is often used to express our feelings, emotions or attitudes. It is used either to express one's own feelings, emotions or attitudes, or evoke certain feelings, emotions or attitudes someone else, or both.

C. Expressive discourse, qua (بطور) expressive discourse, is best viewed as neither true nor false. Even so, the "logic" of "fictional statements” (invented story or imaginary tales) is an interesting area of inquiry.

Emotive or expressive discourse is neither true nor false. When language is used emotively, it cannot be characterized as true or false. We can, however, respond to it by asking questions such as "Is the person sincere?" and "How should I feel?" Expressive use of language is also different from directive use of language.

When one expresses feelings while alone, one is not expressing it to evoke feelings in others. But very often we attempt to move others by our expressions of emotions, in all such cases language is used emotively. Consider the following utterances:

1. Hi!

2. Cheers! (Joyfulness)

60

3. it’s disgusting! (Disliking)

4. it’s too bad!

5. it’s wonderful!

6. Let's win this game!

In appropriate contexts all these can count as instances of language functioning emotively.

If a sentence is followed by an exclamation mark, then very likely it is used emotively. The language of poetry also provides an example of language serving the expressive function Emotive use is different from descriptive use of language.

3. Directive:

We use language to direct the world around us. A directive use of language aims to tell others or ourselves how to act or behave in certain situations. “Be careful” is an example of a directive use of language. You may use directive language in self talk as in “stay away from chocolate for one week.”

Directive uses of language aim to cause or to prevent some overt (obvious) action by a human agent. When I say "Shut the door," or write "Read the textbook," or memo myself, "Don't rely so heavily on the passive (un acceptive) voice," I am using language directively. The point in each of these cases is to make someone perform or reject a particular action. This is a significant linguistic function, too, but like the expressive use, it doesn't always relate logically to the truth of our beliefs.

Directive Language is used for the purpose of causing or preventing obvious action.

A. The directive function is most commonly found in commands and requests.

B. Directive language is not normally considered true or false (although various logics of commands have been developed).

C. Example of this function:

Command: 1."Close the windows." 2. “Wash hands”

Request: Two tickets please.

Convert to one other by Tones or by addition of word please:

1. “Close the windows.” Please.

The sentence "You're smoking in a nonsmoking area," although declarative, can be used to mean "Do not smoke in this area."

61

http://www.philosophypages.com/dy/d9.htm#dir

(c) Directive Use of Language:

Language is often used to give direction to do or not to do something. Commands, requests, instructions, questions are instances of directive use of language. Consider the following examples:

1. Finish your homework.

2. Wash your clothes.

3. You should wear helmet when riding a scooter.

4. Don't smoke.

5. Are you feeling well?

6. Will you please help me?

In all these above examples language is functioning directively. Anyone who utters any of these sentences, in a typical situation, is directing someone to do something or to respond in an appropriate manner.

In all instances of language functioning directively, we can meaningfully ask the question "Should I respond?" You will notice that directive, discourse, like emotive discourse, is neither true nor false. But directive discourse, specially the imperative statements, can figure in some arguments.

A command such as "Close the window", or an advice such as "You should wear helmet while riding scooter" is either obeyed or disobeyed, but it is neither true nor false. Through commands, advices, and requests are neither true nor false, these can be reasonable or unreasonable, proper or improper.

3:01 Discourse Serving Multiple Functions

Almost any ordinary communication will probably exhibit all three uses of language. Thus a poem, which may be mostly expressive, also may have a moral and thus also be directive. And, of course, a poem may contain a certain amount of information as well. Effective communication often demands that language serve multiple functions.

Language usage is much more complicated than the above simple explanations, however. In many cases, we mix our use of language. It is rare (uncommon) for discourse just to serve only one function.

Examples:

1. “Stop that” is both directive and expressive. 2. To say “I’m tired” is informative, expressive, and could even be directive if it is

used to direct another person to end an activity so you can go to bed.

62

3. The simple declarative sentence, "I'm hungry," for example, could be used to report on a physiological condition, or to express a feeling, or implicitly (completely) to request that someone feed me.

We must avoid from bald (direct) commands which arouse resentment (anger and dislike) or antagonism (enmity and hostility) and often are self defeating. (Self beating)

Kinds of your audiences:

You aim to get your listeners to contribute to a particular charitable organization.

1. Assuming your listeners to be benevolent (مخیر اور فیض رساں) in

attitude: 1. 1. you may stimulate (inspire) them by informing them to a good works of organization. 2. Demand of their support for fine result. 3. Use directive language 4. Give information for getting the purpose of contribution. 5. Avoid from naked (unprotected) command and blunt (dull and dry) request.

2. Assuming your listeners are already persuaded in benevolent (مخیر اور فیض رساں) results:

1. Avoid from bold request for their money. 2. Cause them to contribute to your organization. 3. Enhance their benevolent feelings and emotions. 4. Make a moving (heart breaking) appeal with expressive discourse. 5. Use naturally mixes language, functioning both expressively and directively.

3. Assuming your listeners are already against in attitude and belief of your charitable organization:

1. Use language that is both expressive and informative. 2. Use language deliberately (knowingly) and essentially, as necessary for successful communication. 3. Use all three functions of language deliberately not accidentally (by chance). (Informative, expressive and directive)

Several uses of Language:

The ceremonial language: ritual and traditional language

1. Ceremonial discourse is the mixture of the expressive and directive language, not a separate kind. For example, ceremonial greetings (respects) at social gatherings express and evoke goodwill (friendliness) and sociability.

63

2. Some speakers say that the Ceremonial discourse is used for the directive purposes. For example, 1. It serves for causing their hearers to act in certain ways. 2. To patronize (support and utilize) the speaker’s business. 3. To offer employment. 4. To extend an invitation to dinner.

3. Marriage ceremony: 1. Expressive function: to perform new role with good way. 2. Directive function: to perform role for the seriousness of their marriage vows. (Promises and guarantees.

4. Performative utterances:

Language which performs the action it reports. When a person makes a Performative utterance (statement), that person is performing an action. Although the action could be performed in some other way, the person chooses to complete the action by uttering (completing) the Performative words. For example, a teacher could assign his class homework by simply stating, “I assign you pages 679 – 690 in the Richter text as homework.”

When you are asked to attend a meeting at a certain time and place, and you reply, ‘”I will, I promise” your words do more than report your attitude or predict your conduct (behavior); they have the function of making the promise itself.

Other examples: 1. “I congratulate you…..” . 2. “I apologize for my…..” 3. “I suggest that …..” 4. “I accept your offer …..” These words denote an action which is performed by using the verb.

3.2 The Forms of Discourse

Sentences are commonly divided into four grammatical forms: declarative, interrogative, imperative, and exclamatory.

Much discourse is intended (proposed) to serve two or possibly all three functions of language—informative, expressive, directive—at once. In such cases each aspect or function of a given passage is subject to its own proper criteria.

Much discourse serves all three functions--one cannot always identify the form with the function. Consider this chart for the following possibilities. But note that context often determines the purpose of an utterance. (Statement) "The room is cool" might be used in different contexts as informative (an observation), expressive (how one feels at the moment), or directive (to turn on the heat).

64

Name Mean UseDeclarative Assertion InformativeInterrogative QuestionImperative Command DirectiveExclamatory Exclamation Expressive

Note: The above functions indicate the flixilibility of language and the multiplicacity of its uses.

Rules about Grammatical and principal propositions:

It is mistake to suppose that every thing in the form of a declarative sentence is informative discourse. Infect there is no sure connection between principal propositions and grammatical propositions. Grammatical language serves any one of the three principal functions.

1. “I had a very nice time at your party.”It is a declarative sentence. It expresses a feel of friendliness and appreciation.

2. “I would like some coffee” It is a declarative sentence. It is not merely a report of the psychological (mentally) fact, but it is apparently asserts about an order or request for action.

3. “Do you realize that we are almost late” It is interrogative sentence. It is not necessarily a request for information about your state of mind; it may be a request for hurry.

65

There is no sure connection

GrammaticalPrincipal

Informative

Directive

Exclamatory

Imperative

Interrogative

Declarative

Expressive

4. The exclamation “Good Heaven, it’s late” May be in context of hurry.

5. And the exclamation “What a beautiful view” It is more directively than expressively.

6. “Come to the window” It is an imperative sentence, serving the directive function.

7. “The sea is calm to night” It is a declarative sentence serving information function.

8. “It is raining” The proposition asserted is about the weather, not about the speaker. Yet making the assertion that speaker believes it to be raining.

9. “I believe that gold should not be used as a standard for currency” It is the assertion of a specific desire and the belief of a speaker, not a report.

The Four Kinds of Discourse: The type of discourse determines how something is communicated. A discourse is a mode of communication that determines what is said and how it is said. The type of discourse that is used determines how a conversation or communication will proceed. The primary types of discourse are description, argument, narration and exposition.

1. Description: (report and explanation)

Description is a form of discourse that uses language to create a mood or emotion Description communicates what things are like according to the five senses; the way things sound, look, taste, feel and smell are given in detail. This type of discourse is good at evoking atmosphere or mood and is helped by the use of descriptions and symbols. In description, the intention is to make the reader as brightly aware as possible of what the writer has perceivedthrough his senses (or in imagination), to give the reader the "feel" of things described, the quality of a direct

66

experience. The thing described may be anything that we can grasp through the senses, a city street, the face of a person, the sound of a voice, the odor of an attic, a piece of music.

2. Argument: or Persuasion (influence and advice)Persuasion relies more on emotional appeals than on facts۔ Argument is a form of persuasion that appeals to reason instead of emotion to convince an audience to think or act in a certain way. One of the four forms of discourse which uses logic, ethics, and emotional appeals (logos, ethos, and pathos) to develop an effective means to convince the reader to think or act in a certain way.

The purpose of argumentative discourse is to get the listener or reader to agree with what is being said through evidence and reason. Argument tries to obtain agreement through the use of logic, figures, facts, descriptive examples and expert evidence; emotional appeals may also be used. An argument may be persuasive if its purpose is not only to get the reader or listener to agree but also to get them to act on that belief.

3. Narration: (describing)Narrative is the form of discourse that tells about a series of events. Narration involves telling a series of events, usually in the order that they happened. Narration is essentially storytelling, and is often used in forms such as fairy tales پریوں(۔

کہانیاں )کی . This type of discourse may relate events that are fictional or nonfictional. (خيالي غير أو خيالي ) Narration is the kind of discourse concerned with action, with events in

time, with life in motion. It answers the question "What happened?" It tells a story. As we use the word here, a story is a sequence of events historically trueor false -- so -- fictional or non-fictional -- presented that the imagination grasps the action.

In narration, the intention is to present an event to the reader-what happened and how it happened. The event itself may be grand or trivial, a battle or a ball game; but whatever it is, the intention is to give the impression of movement in time, to give the sense of witnessing an action.

4. Exposition: (Explanation)Exposition is one of the four major forms of discourse, in which something is explained or "describe"

Expository discourse is used to inform. Exposition can be used to compare and contrast, define, analyze, classify, show cause and effect or lay out a problem and its solution. This type of discourse usually has a distinct type of organization and structure that is easy to follow.

In the first of these, exposition, the purpose is to explain something: for instance, to make some idea clear to the reader, to analyze a situation, to define a term, to give directions. The

67

intention, in short, is to inform.

3.03 Emotive Words

The informative function derives from the literal (accurate and exact) meaning of the words in the sentence—the objects, events, or attributes they refer to—and the relationship among them asserted by the sentence. The expressive content (substance) emerges (appears) because some of the words in the sentence may also have emotional suggestiveness or impact.

Words, then, can have both a literal meaning and an emotive meaning. The literal meanings and the emotive meanings of a word are largely independent of one another. Language has a life of its own, independent of the facts it is used to describe.

68

Emotive Words

Informative Expressive Directive

Some times of the influence of words may be negative:

Words Meaning Words MeaningManure گوبر Bleakness اداس اور بھیانکSkunkweed بدبودار خودرو گھاس Annoyed ناراضگی کا اظہار کرنے والاFrustration محنت پر پانی پھیرنا Indignant غصے سے بھرا ہواObstinate ضدی Illicit amour ناجائز جنسی میل3نSadness غمگین Bewildment حیران اور پریشانPigheaded fool ضدی

بیوقوفDepression افسردگی

69

Words

Literal meanings Emotive meanings

Bureaucrat

Public Servant

G

Bureaucrat

Government Official

G

Express: Resentment: DisapprovalExpress: Respect: Approval

Fuss ہل چل مچانے والا

Some times of the influence of words may be positive:

Words Meaning Words MeaningHappiness خوشی Blissfulness شادمان و فرحانTuna fish سمندر کی کھائی و�لا مچھلی Jubilant لطف �ور خوشی کرنے و�لاCheerfulness زندہ دل �ور خوش و خرم euphoria خوشی کی لہرFirm مستقل مز�جRighteously �خلاقی طور پر درست

Examples:

I am “firm”; you are “obstinate” and he is “pigheaded fool”.

I am “Righteously Indignant”; you are “Annoyed”. He is making a “fuss” about nothing.

Proliferation of Euphemisms ( �لمتلطفۃ �لعبار�ت �نتشار �فز�ئش۔ کی تعبیر Nن (حس

1. In war time the defeat of one’s own army is likely to be called for popular consumption, a “temporary set back”

2. In a massive (huge) retreat (move back) may be reported as an, “orderly consolidation of forced” ( کے �ستحکام منظم �فو�ج )

3. In Vietnam war the defeated American army officer said, “we don’t declare war any more” ( علان �ب ہم� کا ہیں۔ جنگ کرتے نہیں ) he said, “we declare national defense”( دفاع ہم ہیں۔ قومی کرتے �علان کا )

New phrases to replace old one:

70

Words Meaning New Words Meaning New Words Meaning

Undertaker

گورکن۔ متعهد

دفنالموتى

Mortician تجہیز و تکفین کا پیشہ ور

منتظم

Funeral Director

جنازے کاڈائریکٹر

Janitor عمارت میں دیکھ بھال کرنے

والا

Maintenance man

بحالی کی خدمات والا

آادمی

Custodian نگران

3.04 Kinds of Agreement and Disagreement

In fact, an excessive reliance (an extreme confidence) on emotively charged (blamed) language can create the appearance of disagreement between parties who do not differ on the facts at all, and it can just as easily cover substantive disputes under a surface of emotive agreement. Since the degrees of agreement in belief and attitude are independent of each other, there are four possible combinations at work here:

1. Agreement in belief and agreement in attitude:

71

There aren't any problems in this instance, since both parties hold the same positions and have the same feelings about them. And they may be in full harmony.

2. Agreement in belief but disagreement in attitude:

This case, if unnoticed, may become the cause of endless (but pointless) shouting between people whose feelings differ sharply about some fact upon which they are in total agreement. 1. “A” and “B” may agree that the change of political candidate did occur, but A may think that splendid, (fine) while B finds it dreadful. (Shocking) A condemned the candidate for “listening for the voice of reasoning” and B condemned the candidate for “opportunistic inconsistency”. (غیر مستقل مزاج ابن الوقتی)

3. Disagreement in belief but agreement in attitude:

In this situation, parties may never recognize, much less resolve, their fundamental difference of opinion, since they are lulled by their shared feelings into supposing themselves allied.

ایک اس لی یں ےدو ساتھی بریانی ک ساتھ روٹی کھات ۔ ہ ے ےہکھاتا تاک جلدی بھوک ن لگ اور دوسرا اس لی کھاتا ک ہے ے ے ہ ہ ہے

وجائ ے۔میرا گل خشک ر اورخراب ن ہ ہ ہے ہ

ون کی وج وتا مفادات مشترک ہی ایک مشکل مرحل ے ہ ۔ ہے ہ ہ ہم یں ک M ی بتات را یں اور ظا ہس عارضی طور پر دب جات ہ ہ ے ہ ہ ہ ے ے

وت یں یں، حاالنک حقیقت میں ایک ن ے۔ایک ہ ہ ہ ہ

4. Disagreement in belief and disagreement in attitude:

Here the parties have so little in common that communication between them often breaks down entirely.

“A” believes that candidate has changed a position, may very strongly approve of that change as a product of “wise consideration” (wise thoughtfulness)

While “B” ” believes that the candidate’s position remains unchanged, may vigorously disapprove of the “stubborn refusal to admit error” (obstinate negative

response) ( انکار ضد و تسلیم کرنے سے غلطی )

It is often valuable, then, to recognize the levels of agreement or disagreement at work in any exchange of views. That won't always resolve the dispute between two parties, of course, but it will ensure that they don't waste their time on an inappropriate method of argument or persuasion.

When the resolution of disagreement is our goal, we must attend not only to the facts in given case, but to the varying attitudes of the disputants towards those facts.

72

Solving Process of Disputes:

Disagreement in belief:

1. Disagreement in belief can best be resolved by verifying the facts2. Witnesses could be questioned3. Documents could be consulted4. records could be examined

Note: When the facts are established and the issue decided the disagreement to be resolved.

Disagreement in attitude:

1. Efforts to resolve this disagreement may involve reference to factual questions.

2. Motives and intentions (اغراض و مقاصد کی طرف ترغیب دینا) may also be of importance.

3. Still other methods may sometimes resolve a disagreement in attitude.4. Persuasion may be attempted, with its broad use of expressive language.5. Rhetoric (public Speaking) may be effective in unifying the will of a group and in

achieving unanimity of attitude.6. Such words as “good” and “bad” “right” and “wrong”, in their strictly ethical uses,

tend to have a very strong emotive impact.

Additional Knowledge:

1. Disagreement in attitude rather than in belief, found the most vigorous (forceful) and genuine.

2. Differences of disagreement in belief or in attitude are some times difficult and sometimes may be obscured.(unclear)

3. Differences of disagreement in belief or in attitude are very useful and they provide awareness about uses of language in solving of disputes.

4. To understand the differences of disagreement in belief or in attitude are not solve the problem but it clarifies the discussion and reveal the kind and locus (موضع) of the conflict.

3.05 Emotively Neutral Language

The expressive use of language is just as legitimate (legal and valid) the informative. There is nothing wrong with expressive language, and there is nothing wrong with language that is non emotive or neutral. In some kinds of poetry emotively colored language is properly preferred to neutral language. So, neutral language is better than emotional language.Distractions will be frustrating (خلفشار پیدا کرنے والی چیزیں محنت پر پانی پھیردیتی ہیں) and

emotion is a powerful distraction. We must avoid from strongly emotive language, when we are trying to reason about the facts in a cool and objective fashion, because it is a big hindrance. (Difficulty and obstacle)

73

جr زبان مزاحمت اور ناکامی کا سبب بن ) حقائق اور مقاصد بیان کرنےکے دوران ہوr سے کام لینا چاہئے، جو(سکتا ہے۔

In controversial matters, (متنازعہ مسائل میں) we must keep language

neutral, and completely free from emotional change. Reduce the emotional loading of the term used in controversial matter. The aim of emotive neutrality may not be fully achievable. Language that is completely emotionally is not acceptable, but it is bound to distraction. (جذباتی زبان کے ساتھ خلفشار لازم ہے)

Interviewers are using emotive phrasing in questions, so you must be very careful not to prejudice the responses they receive. (انٹرویو لینے والے کے جذباتی سوالوں کے جوابات بغیر تعصب اور سمجھداری سے دےدیں۔)When this carefulness in interview is ignored the result may be worthless. ( جب انٹرویو میں اس احتیاط اورعقل مندی کو نظر انداز کر دیا جائے تو(نتیجہ بیکار ہو سکتا ہے۔If our aim to communicate information, we should use language with the least possible emotive impact.Use appealing to reason and avoid from playing on emotion, it is common device of successful.Avoid from emotion, particularly in the field of advertisement, because it is the most shameless displays in advertising field, where the dominant aims are always to persuade, to sell, and often to take advantage of, and develop.

Note: It will be most directly helpful to eliminate emotive meaning entirely whenever we can.

4.00 The Purpose of Definition

4.1 The Types of Definition4.2 Various Kinds of Meaning4.3 Techniques for Defining

Definition:

1. A definition attempts to explain a word using other words. . 2. Something that is expressed or indicated:3. Something that one wishes to express, especially by language:

74

A definition is a statement that explains the meaning of a term, the term to be defined is the definiendum. The term may have many different senses and multiple meanings. For each meaning, a definiens is a cluster (group) of words that defines that term (and clarifies the speaker's Purpose and goal.)

As an example: To successfully define the word "Mountain", the definiendum must be given a definiens (actually "Mountain" has at least two definiens: “A large natural height of the earth's surface rising abruptly (suddenly) from the surrounding level; a large steep (sharp) hill.”, and another definiens is " A region where there are many such characteristics, described by remoteness (faraway) and inaccessibility.").

Definition: A definition is a statement that explains the meaning of a term۔

Definiendum:

فف: جس کی رwر رع متعریف کی جائے۔

Definiens:

فف" کہتے ہیں۔ جwر رع فف: جس کے ذریعے کسی چیز کی تعریف کی جاتی ہے۔ اس کو "م جwر رع م

Mountain 1. A large natural height of the earth's surface rising abruptly (suddenly) from the surrounding level; a large steep (sharp) hill.

2. A region where there are many such characteristics, described by remoteness (faraway) and inaccessibility.

75

Obviously genuine dispute

Three kinds of disputes

Merely verbal dispute

Apparently verbal dispute that is really

genuine

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/definiens

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/definiendum


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meaning_(linguistic)

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/definiens


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meaning_(linguistic)

1. Obviously genuine dispute:

In which there is no ambiguity present and the disputers do disagree, either in attitude or in belief. If A cheers while B sulks when Yankees win the World Series, there disagreement in attitude is plainly real. Such genuine disputes cannot be resolved by definition or merely linguistic adjustment. But the dispute remains genuine if it is indeed about some facts, and can be resolved by ascertaining (establishing) facts of some kind.

2. Merely verbal dispute:

In which there is ambiguity present, but there is no genuine disagreement at all. Misunderstanding or the misuse of language is likely to be the culprit (criminal or cause) here. A dispute of this kind is difficult to find, once they recognized then the solving of problem very easy. Good definition may be a fairly solving process for mutual understanding.

3. Apparently verbal dispute that is really genuine:

When the parties misunderstand one another’s use of terms is likely to be confusion, and that confusion may come to be recognized. But sometimes happen that the quarrel really goes well beyond there differing using of terms. So it indicates that there remains some genuine disagreement possibly in belief, more likely in attitude between them.

For example:

76

1. A dispute about pornography: (جنسی فعل کی تصویر کشی سے ہیجان خیزی)

Two parties may dispute whether a given film, in which explicit sexual activity is depicted, (showed) should be dealt with as “pornography”. One party insists that its explicitness makes it “pornography”, and wicked. The other party insists that, in the light of its sensitivity and aesthetic merit, it is true art and not “pornography” at all. There dispute is not really about the applicability of the term “pornography”, they disagree more deeply about whether the sexually explicit nature of the film makes it bad. This dispute is verbal only on the surface; beneath the surface, it is very real. Dispute of this kind are sometimes called “criterial” or “conceptual”.

2. A dispute about “Marathon Race”:

بظاہر عورت کے دوڑنےاورنہ دوڑنے میں اختل3ف ہے، لیکن حقیقت میں عورت کے عفت کا مسئلہ ہے ۔ اور اس سے کلچر)آاتی ہے۔ (کی تبدیلی

3. A dispute about “TV Culture”:

بظاہر ٹی وی کی جواز اور عدم جواز ہے، لیکن حقیقت میں اختل3ف کلچر کا ہے۔ بے حیائی کے کلچر کو فروغ ملتا )(ہے۔

4.1The Types of Definition

1. Stipulative Definition: (شرطی تعریف)

Arbitrary (اندھا دھند انتخاب) (randomly and illogical) Definitions for New

Concepts

77

A stipulate definition is one in which a new symbol or term is introduced to which some meaning is arbitrarily (randomly) assigned. A Stipulative definition is neither true nor false, neither accurate nor inaccurate.

Stipulative definitions are those which specify or stipulate the meaning of a word or phrase. Sometimes these involve the introduction of new terms, or the stipulation of new meaning for old terms.

We have a stipulative definition any time a word is being defined for the first time or in a brand new way. Stipulative definitions are in a sense completely arbitrary — this means that they are basically non-binding proposals which no one needs to assent (agree) to.

A Stipulative definition freely assigns meaning to a completely new term, creating a usage that had never previously existed. Since the goal in this case is to propose the adoption of shared use of a novel term, there are no existing standards against which to compare it, and the definition is always correct.

Stipolative definitions normally are not productive in resolving genuine disagreement, but by clarifying informative discourse and by reducing the emotive role of language; they can help to prevent fruitless verbal conflict,

Stipulation for the variety of Reasons:

1. Convenience: (ولت اور کارآمد ہس )Connivance is one reason; a single word may serve as “short for” many words in a cable code or message.

2. Secrecy:Secrecy is another reason; the stipulation may be understood only by the sender and the receiver of the message.

3. Economy in expression:The scientists economize the space required for writing out reports and theories. They also save time. They also save a great amount of attention and mental energy.

For example:

We write briefly with Stipulation names the following mathematical equations.“Zetta”= “(10)21” and “Yotta”= “(10)24”.

78

2. Lexical Definition: (لغوی تعریف)

Explaining How a Word is Used In General Contexts

Lexical definitions attempt to report usage. All good dictionary definitions are lexical, since they state how native speakers employ (use) the words in all of their various senses.

A lexical definition is also the kind of definition found in dictionaries, reports the meaning or meanings that a term (definiendum) already has. It is, in other words, a description of the way the speakers of a particular language use a particular term in their language.

A lexical definition (sometimes also called a reportive definition) is any definition which explains how a word is actually used - it is thus distinct from stipulative definitions which simply propose a possible way to use a word.

Differences between Stipuative and Lexical Definitions:

1. It has a prior and independent definition.2. Its definition is either true or false.3. It depends on whether that meaning is correctly or incorrectly reported.4. It eliminates ambiguity.

3. Précising Definitions: ( مختصر اور جامع مانع تعریف)

Difference between Ambiguity and Vagueness:

Ambiguity (تذبذب): A term is ambiguous in a given context when it has more than one distinct meaning and the context does not make clear which is intended.

Vagueness (ابہام): A term is vague when there exist “borderline” cases,

so that it cannot be determined whether the term should be applied to them or not.

A précising definition serves to reduce vagueness. A term is ambiguous in a given context when it has more than one distinct meaning and the context does not make clear which is intended. Précising definitions are important in law and legislation.

79

Although a good lexical definition should reduce the ambiguity inherent (natural) in a term, it cannot reduce the term’s vagueness. For that, we need to move to a précising definition (also sometimes called an explicative definition).

Précising definitions serve to reduce vagueness and also a source of confusion in argument. The importance of Précising definitions in law is evident. (Obvious)

Examples of Précising Definition:

1. Horse power:Horsepower means the power of motor, but consumer may be deceived when definitions of this unit are indefinite (vague). So Precise definition of one horsepower is now as “the power needed to raise a weight of 550 pounds by one foot in one second”- calculated to equal 745.7 watts.

2. Meter: Originally intended to be one ten-millionth of the distance from the Earth's equator to the North Pole (at sea level), its definition has been periodically refined to reflect growing knowledge of metrology. So Precise definition of “Meter” is “the distance light travels in one 299,792,458th of a second”

4. Theoretical Definitions: Constructing a 'Theory' About the Nature of a Concept

A theoretical definition of a term is a definition that attempts to formulate a theoretically adequate or scientifically useful description of the objects to which the term applies. Theoretical definitions go hand in hand with the acceptance of a comprehensive theoretical framework for understanding the subject matter to which the defined terms pertain.

If a definition is supposed to help us better understand a concept, theoretical definitions are those which do the heaviest work in that regard.(View)

Lexical definitions try to help us understand how a concept is used, but theoretical definitions try to help us understand how a concept is and should be used in all cases.

Since the adoption of any theoretical definition commits us to the acceptance of the theory of which it is an integral part, we are rightly cautious (careful) in agreeing to it.

Newton's definition of the terms "mass" and "inertia" (inactivity) carried with them a commitment to (at least part of) his theories about the conditions in which physical objects move.

80

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metrology

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equator

Examples of Theoretical Definition:

1. “Justice”:The theoretical definition of “Justice” became a battle between Socrates and Thrasymachus. Thrasymachus defined justice as “the interests of the stronger”. Socrates sought to replace that account with another that he thought more satisfactory.

2. “Heat”: “Heat” is the second battlefield among physicists. Physicists long defined “heat” to mean “a subtle imponderable fluid”. Now they define it as “a form of energy possessed by a body by a virtue of irregular motion of its molecules”

3. “AIDS”: Theoretical definitions change day by day, because of different theories. Like AIDS. The definition of AIDS changed several time.

5. Persuasive Definitions: (منوالینے والی تعریف)

Using Definitions to Persuade Others to Accept a Claim

A persuasive definition is a definition formulated and used persuasively to resolve a dispute by influencing attitudes or stirring (inspiring) emotions, often relying on the use of emotive language.

A persuasive definition is an attempt to attach emotive meaning to the use of a term. Since this can only serve to confuse the literal meaning of the term, persuasive definitions have no legitimate use.

Whenever a definition is offered for the purpose of influencing a person’s attitude or feelings towards the subject in question, we are dealing with a persuasive definition. Persuasive definitions are common in political argument.

Examples of Persuasive Definition:

1. Abortion: The deliberate termination of a human pregnancy.

81

2. Democrat: (جمہوری) A leftist who desires to overtax the corporations and abolish freedom in the economic sphere" ( في اليساري يرغب و يرهق الذي االقتصادي حريةإلغاء الشركات المجال في ) A proponent (supporter) of democracy, rule of the people or rule by many A member of a Democratic Party

3. Republican: (جمہوری): An old white man who feels threatened by change." Republican A member of the Republican Party of the United States.

4. Fetus: An unborn person"( شخ نوزائید جنیN ہایک ص۔ )

5. Loyalty: (وفاداری) A tool to get people to do things they don't want to do."

Kinds of Definition:

TypesDefinition

Stipulative A definition in which a new symbol is introduced to which some meaning is arbitrarily assigned. As opposed to a lexical definition, a stipulative definition cannot be correct or incorrect.

LexicalA definition that reports a meaning the definiendum already has, and thus a definition that can usually be judged correct or incorrect.

PrecisingA definition devised to eliminate vagueness by delineating (defining) a concept more sharply.

TheoreticalA definition of a term that attempts to formulate a theoretically adequate or scientifically useful description of the objects to which the term applies.

PersuasiveA definition formulated and used to resolve a dispute by influencing attitudes or stirring emotions, often relying upon the use of emotive language.

82

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy

4.2 Various Kinds of Meaning

Extension and Intension or Denotation and Connotation

General terms:

General terms are class terms that may be applicable to more than one object. In reasoning, the definition of general terms is of special importance.

General terms, or class term have both an extension and an intension.

The extension of a general term (also called the denotation of the term) denotes the several objects to which it may correctly be applied. The collection of these objects constitutes (represents) the extension of the term.

Every general term has both an intensional meaning and an extensional meaning.

The extension of a term is determined by its intension, but the reverse is not true. Terms with different intensions may have the same extension, but terms with different extensions cannot possibly have the same intension.

Examples of Extension and Intension:

Intension and extension, in logic, correlative words that indicate the reference of a term or concept: “intension” indicates the internal content of a term or concept that constitutes its

83

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/198873/extension

formal definition; and “extension” indicates its range of applicability by naming the particular objects that it denotes.

For instance:

1. The intension of “ship” as a substantive is ( طورپر کے �صل vehicle for conveyance on“ (�یکwater,” whereas its extension embraces such things as cargo ships, passenger ships, battleships, and sailing ships.

2. The intension of “man” as a substantive is “rational animal,” whereas its extension embraces such things as Socrates, Imran Sharif, Zahid Khan, and Fatima Jinnah.

3. The intension of “planet” as a substantive is “A celestial (space) body moving in an

elliptical orbit around a star,” whereas its extension embraces such things as sun, moon, Venus, Jupiter, Mars, Mercury, and Saturn.

4. The intension of “skyscraper” as a substantive is “A very tall building of many stories, especially one for office or commercial use,” whereas its extension embraces such things as the World trade centre in New York, the Sears Tower in Chicago, the Shanghai World Financial Centre, the Petronas Twin Towers in Kuala Lumpur, and so on.

Kinds of Extensional or Denotative Definitions:

1. Definition by Examples:

Extensional definitions identify the collection of objects to which a general term applies. The most obvious and effective way to instruct someone about the extension of a term is to give examples of objects denoted by it. Thus, the extension of the word "chair" includes every chair that is (or ever has been or ever will be) in the world. The definition of “skyscraper” we may use the examples of Empire state building, Chrysler, Wool worth building and Twin tower of Petronas.

2. Ostensive definitions: (ظاہری)

Ostensive definitions indicate the meaning of a term by providing a sample of the things denoted. An ostensive definition refers to the examples by means of pointing, or by some other gesture. Ostensive definitions are invariably (habitually) ambiguous, however, because to point to an object is also to point to a part of it, or to any of its attributes. For example: Desk: This desk (pointing with a finger in the direction of desk or towards a part of desk or its color or its size)

84

Dog: This dog. House: This house

Notes: Obviously, ostensive definitions are risky, or unclear, in ways that extensional definitions are not. An extensional definition provides the complete extension of a term or concept, and hence leaves minimal margin for error in interpretation.

3. Quasi-ostensive definitions: (ری ر ظا ہبظا ہ )

Quasi-ostensive definitions attempt to resolve this ambiguity by adding a descriptive phrase to the definiens. But this presupposes a prior understanding of the descriptive phrase, defeating (overcoming) the purpose of the ostensive definition.

The ambiguity can sometimes be resolved by the addition of some descriptive phrase to the definition. Desk: This desk …which is made of wood or article of furniture. Dog: This dog ….. The barking animal sometimes bites.

House: This house….. A building for human habitation (انسان کے رہنے کےلیے ایک عمارت)

or one that is lived in by a family or small group of people

Kinds of Intensional or Connotative Definitions:

The intension of a term consists of the attributes shared by all the objects denoted by the term, and shared only by those objects. To develop useful intensional definitions, however, we need to distinguish three senses of intension:

1. A synonymous definition:

A synonymous definition is one that defines a word by providing another word—a synonym—whose meaning is already understood and has the same meaning as the first. Two words with the same meaning are called synonymous

“Adage” means “proverb”, and “bashful” means “shy”. It is useful when it is the meaning of words in other language that call for explanation.

In French, “chat” means “cat”. In Spanish, “amigo” means “friend”.

A synonymous definition can fail when the words have no synonym. A most serious limitation of synonymous definition is this, when the definiendum

itself is not understood. Thus the synonymous definitions are useless in the construction of Précising and

theoretical definitions.

85

2. An operational definition:

An operational definition is one that states that a term is correctly applied to a given case if and only if the performance of specified operations in that case yields a specified result. It is also a definition, method, or procedure used to measure or represents a concept or variable in a specific situation.

An example of a peanut butter sandwich might be simply "the result of putting peanut butter on a slice of bread with a butter knife and laying a second equally sized slice of bread on top"

Other example of an operational definition might be defining the weight of an object in terms of the numbers that appear when that object is placed on a weighing scale. The weight then, is whatever results from following the (weight) measurement procedure, which should be repeatable by anyone.

Note: We know that the synonymous definition is unavailable and an operational definition is inappropriate.

3. A Definition by genus and difference:

When the synonymous definition is unavailable and an operational definition is inappropriate, we can often use a “definition by genus and difference”. This type of definition is best explained in terms of classes.

A class is a collection of entities having some characteristic in common. Many classes can be divided into subclasses. We call the general class genus (جنس) and the subclasses species ( Each species of a given genus has a certain specific characteristic that distinguishes it .(نوعfrom all the other species of the genus. We can define a given species of a genus with the help of this specific characteristic (difference).

For example, we can define a human as "an animal capable (talented) of rational thought" ۔ “Animal” is genus and “capable of rational thought” is spices.

Other example, the word "chair” identifies "piece of furniture" as the genus to which all chairs belong and then specifies "designed to be sat upon by one person at a time" as the differentia that distinguishes them from couches (sofa and seats), desks, etc.

86

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weighing_scale

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peanut_butter

4.3 Techniques for Defining

Rules for Definition by Genus and Difference

These five rules are useful for evaluating primarily lexical definitions by genus and difference.

Copi and Cohen list five rules by means of which to evaluate the success of connotative definitions by genus and differentia:

1. Focus on essential features:

A definition should state the essential attributes of the species.

Although the things to which a term applies may share many distinctive properties, not all of them equally indicate its true nature. Thus, for example, a definition of "human beings" as "featherless bipeds" isn't very illuminating, (enlightening) even if does pick out (choose) the right individuals.

A good definition tries to point out (indicate) the features that are essential to the designation of things as members of the relevant group.

87

“Man” “a rational animal” but “which is mortal” is redundant (unnecessary), because the essential attributes of the spices of a man only rational animal.

“Man” “a rational animal who born of parents” or “who laughs”

2. Avoid circularity:

A definition must not be circular:

Since a circular definition uses the term being defined as part of its own definition, it can't provide any useful information; either the audience already understands the meaning of the term, or it cannot understand the explanation that includes that term. The definiens should not appear in the definiendum, as in the definition.

Thus, for example, there isn't much point in defining

"Cordless 'phone" as "a telephone that has no cord." "A compulsive gambler is a person who gambles compulsively." “Man is human being” “ Enjoyment is pleasure” “A ruler one who governs” “Force is power” “A king is a person possessing legal power”

3. Capture the correct extension:

A definition must be neither too broad nor too narrow:

A good definition will apply to exactly the same things as the term being defined, no more and no less. There are several ways to go wrong. Consider alternative definitions of "bird":

1. "Warm-blooded animal" is too broad, since that would include horses, dogs, and aardvarks ( خنزیر ک ےزمین ) along with birds.

2. "Feathered egg-laying animal" is too narrow, since it excludes those birds that happen to be male.

3. "Small flying animal" is both too broad and too narrow, since it includes bats (which aren't birds) and excludes ostriches (which are birds).

4. The definition, "A bird is an animal with wings," is too broad, since bats are also animals with wings, and bats are not birds.

5. "A bird is a feathered animal that can fly," is too narrow, since ostriches are birds, but they cannot fly.

Successful intensional definitions must be satisfied by all and only those things that are included in the extension of the term they define.

88

4. Avoid figurative or obscure (unclear) language: ( مجازی یا غیر واضح زبان سے تمثیلی،(بچیں

A definition must not be expressed in ambiguous, obscure, or figurative language:

Since the point of a definition is to explain the meaning of a term to someone who is unfamiliar (new and alien) with its proper application, the use of language that doesn't help such a person learn how to apply the term is pointless. (Useless)

Obscurity means difficult language:

For example; "Life" is continues adjustment of internal relations to external relations.

Figurative language:

Thus, "happiness is a warm puppy" ( گرم خوشی ہے پلا �یک ) may be a lovely thought, but it is a lousy (down) definition.

"Faith" as "true belief", but it is unclear whether this definition means "a belief which is truly held" or "a belief which is true,"

"Bread" as "the staff of life" ( کا عملہ زندگی ) is a poor definition per this condition. “Camel” is the ship of desert. “Logic” is the medicine of mind. “Work” is the salt of life. “Old age” is the evening of life.

5. Be affirmative rather than negative:

A definition should not be negative where it can be affirmative:

It is always possible in principle to explain the application of a term by identifying literally everything to which it does not apply. In a few instances, this may be the only way to go: a proper definition of the mathematical term "infinite" might well be negative, for example. But in ordinary circumstances, a good definition uses positive designations whenever it is possible to do so.

"Honest person" as "someone who rarely lies" is a poor definition. "Drunkard" as "a person who drinks excessively" rather than "a person who is

not temperate in drink." ( لیتا نہیں کام سے �عتد�ل میں پینے شر�ب جو شخص (�یسا “Mind” is that which not matter is. “Peace” is the absence of war. “Sleeping” is the opposite of awaking. “Ignorance” is the lake of Knowledge. “Failure” is the absence of success. “Pleasure” is the absence of pain. “A Liquid” is that which is neither solid nor gaseous.

Some terms are essentially negative in meaning and so require negative definitions.

89

“Orphan” means a child who does not have parents. “Bald” means the state of “not having hair on one’s head”.

Some times there is no basis for choosing between affirmative and negative.

“Drunkard” as “one who drinks excessively” and about equally well as “one who is not temperate (self-controlled) in drink”

5.00 Standard Form Categorical Syllogisms

5.1 The Formal Nature of Syllogistic Arguments5.2 Venn Diagram Techniques for Testing Syllogisms5.3 Rules and Fallacies5.4 Reducing the Number of Terms in Categorical Syllogism

5:0 Standard Forms Categorical Syllogisms

A categorical syllogism said to be in standard form when its premises and conclusion are all standard form categorical proposition. (A, E, I and O) and are arranged in a specified standard order.

Major, Miner and Middle terms

Major: (اکبر): The term that occurs as the predicate of the conclusion is called the major term of the syllogism.

90

Miner: (اصغر): The term that occurs as the subject of the conclusion is called the minor term of the syllogism.

Middle: ( اوسط جwد :(حThe third term of the syllogism, which does not occur in the conclusion, appearing in its place in both premises, is called the middle term.

Major premise: (یی :(کبرThe premise containing in the major term is called the major premise.

Miner premise: (یی :(صغرThe premise containing in the minor term is called the minor premise.

Example of all:

Major premise: No heroes are cowards

Miner premise: Some Soldiers are not cowards

Conclusion: (نتیجہ) Some Soldiers are heroes.

Mood: (حالت اور کیفیت)

The mood of a standard form syllogism is determined by the types (identified by letter (A, E, I, and O) of the standard form categorical proposition it contains. The mood of every syllogism is represented by three letters, in a specific order.

The first letter names the type of the syllogism’s major premise.

The second letter names the type of its minor premise.

And the third letter names the type of its conclusion.

For example, the categorical syllogism: EIO

E: No geese are felines. (کوئی مرغابی بلی نہیں ہے)

I: Some birds are geese.

O: Therefore, some birds are not felines.

91

Middle term

Miner term

Major term

Miner term Major term

Clearly, "Some birds are not felines" is the conclusion of this syllogism. The major term of the syllogism is "felines" (the predicate term of its conclusion), so "No geese are felines" (the premise in which "felines" appears) is its major premise. Similarly, the minor term of the syllogism is "birds “and” Some birds are geese" is its minor premise. "Geese" is the middle term of the syllogism.

AAAAAEAAIAAO

EAAEAEEAIEAO

IAAIAEIAIIAO

OOOO

AEAAEE

EEAEEE

IEAIEE

OEAOEE

92

A

E

I

O

A

E

I

O

A

A

E

I

O

A

E

I

O

E

A

E

I

O

A

E

I

O

I

A

E

I

O

A

E

I

O

O

A

E

I

O

A

E

I

O

A

A

E

I

O

A

E

I

O

E

A

E

I

O

A

E

I

O

I

A

E

I

O

A

E

I

O

O

Total 64 kinds of Mood are shown in the below table.

AEIAEO

EEIEEO

IEIIEO

OEIOEO

AIAAIEAIIAIO

EIAEIEEIIEIO

IIAIIEIIIIIO

OIAOIEOIIOIO

AOAAOEAOIAOO

EOAEOEEOIEOO

IOAIOEIOIIOO

OOAOOEOOIOOO

Figure: The logical shape of a syllogism as determined by the position of the middle term in its premises. There are four figures.

1. The middle term is the subject term of the major premise and predicate term of the minor term.

2. The middle term is the predicate term of both premises.

3. The middle term is the subject term of both premises.

4. The middle term is the predicate term of the major premise and subject term of the minor term.

First Figure Second Figure Third Figure Fourth Figure

M ---- P

S ---- M

P ---- M

S ---- M

M ---- P

M ---- S

P ---- M

M ---- S

93

A

E

I

O

A

E

I

O

A

A

E

I

O

A

E

I

O

A

A

E

I

O

A

E

I

O

E

A

E

I

O

A

E

I

O

E

A

E

I

O

A

E

I

O

I

A

E

I

O

A

E

I

O

I

A

E

I

O

A

E

I

O

O

A

E

I

O

A

E

I

O

O

:- S ---- P :- S ---- P :- S ---- P :- S ---- P

Examples:

First Figure:

All men are mortal. Zahid is a man.

Therefore, Zahid is mortal

Second Figure:

All men are mortal. Zahid is mortal.

Therefore, Zahid is a man.

Third Figure:

All men are human being. All men are mortal.

Therefore, all human being are mortal.

94

Middle term

Middle term

Middle term

Fourth Figure:

All men are human being. Some human being are Muslims.

Therefore, some men are Muslims.

5.1 The Formal Nature of Syllogistic Arguments

The mood and figure of a syllogism uniquely determine its form and the form of a syllogism determines whether the syllogism is valid or invalid. Since each of the 64 moods may appear in all four figures. There are exactly 256 standard form categorical syllogisms of which only a few are valid.

Thus any syllogism of the form AAA-1 is a valid argument, no matter what terms we substitute for the letters S, P, and M.

Valid Example: AAA-I

95

Middle term

A: All Greeks are humans. A: All Athenians are Greeks. A: Therefore, all Athenians are humans.

In other words, in syllogisms of this and other valid forms, if the premises are true, then the conclusion must also be true. The conclusion could be false only if one or both premises were false.

Invalid Example: AII-II

Conversely, any argument in an invalid syllogistic form is invalid, even if both its premises and its conclusion happen to be true.

All rabbits are very fast runners. Some horses are very fast runners. There fore, some horses are rabbits.

A syllogistic form is invalid if it is possible to construct an argument in that form with true premises and a false conclusion.

Thus a powerful way to refute (تردید) an argument in an invalid form is to counter it with an analogous ( مماثل �ور argument—an argument in the same form—with obviously true (مطابقpremises and an obviously false conclusion.

Although this method of logical analogy can demonstrate that a syllogistic form is invalid, it is a cumbersome tool for identifying which of the 256 possible forms is invalid. What’s more, the inability to find a refuting analogy does not conclusively demonstrate that a valid form is valid. The rest of the chapter is devoted to an explanation of more effective methods for testing syllogisms.

Note: Invalid forms of syllogism (Syllogistic forms will over 200)

Valid and invalid Examples from 64 forms.Figures Valid Invalid Total

1 4 12 162 4 12 163 6 10 16

96

4 8 8 16Total 22 42 64

5.2 Venn Diagram Techniques for Testing Syllogisms

Venn diagram:

The iconic representation of categorical prepositions and of arguments, to display their logical forms using overlapping.

S: Swedes P: Peasants M: Musicians

97SP M

SPM

SPM

SPM SPM

SPM

S P M

(1) SP M : The class of all Swedish who are neither peasant nor musicians.

(2) SPM : The class of all Swedish peasants who are not musicians.

(3 ) SPM : The class of all Peasants who are neither Swedes nor Musicians.

(4) SPM: The class of all Swedish peasant musicians.

(5) SPM: The class of all Swedish musicians who are not Peasants.

(6) SPM: The class of all Peasants Musicians who are not Swedish.

(7 ) SPM: The class of all Musicians who are neither Swedish nor peasants.

(8)S P M : The class of all things that are neither Swedes nor peasants nor musicians.

Some Detail about Venn diagram:

Two-circle Venn Diagrams represent the relationship between the classes designated by the subject and predicate terms in standard-form categorical propositions. If we add a third circle, we can represent the relationship among the classes designated by the three terms of a categorical syllogism.

We use the label S to designate the circle for the minor term (the subject of the conclusion), the label P to designate the circle for the major term (the predicate of the conclusion), and the

98

SP M

SPM

SPM

SPM

SPM

SPM SPM

SPM

label M to designate the circle for the middle term. The result is a diagram of eight classes that represent the possible combinations of S, P, and M.

With this diagram we can represent the propositions in a categorical syllogism of any form to determine whether or not that form yields a valid deductive argument.

To do this, we diagram the premises and then examine the result to see if it includes a diagram of the conclusion. If it does, we know that the premises entail the conclusion—that together they say what is said by the conclusion—and that the form is valid. If not, we know that the conclusion is not implied by the premises, and the form is invalid.

5.3 Syllogistic Rules and Syllogistic Fallacies

Introduction:

Since the validity of a categorical syllogism depends solely upon its logical form, it is relatively simple to state the conditions under which the premises of syllogisms succeed in guaranteeing the truth of their conclusions. Here is provided a list of six rules, each of which states a necessary condition for the validity of any categorical syllogism. Violating any of these rules involves committing one of the formal fallacies, errors in reasoning that result from reliance on an invalid logical form. Here is concentrated on the rules required for a standard-form of categorical syllogism and the fallacies created for violating these rules.

The following rules must be observed in order to form a valid categorical syllogism:

99

Rule: 1: A valid categorical syllogism will have three and only three unambiguous categorical terms. Or avoid four terms.

The use of exactly three categorical terms is part of the definition of a categorical syllogism, and we saw earlier that the use of an ambiguous term in more than one of its senses amounts to the use of two distinct terms. In categorical syllogisms, using more than three terms commits the fallacy of four terms. The syllogism appears to have only three terms, but because one term plays two roles, it actually has four.

Fallacy: Four terms OR the fallacy of equivocation

Example: 1

Power tends to corrupt Knowledge is power Knowledge tends to corrupt

Explanation: There are really four since one of them; the middle term “power” is used in different senses in the two premises. To reveal the argument’s invalidity we need only note that the word “power” in the first premise means “the possession of control or command over people,” whereas the word “power” in the second premise means “the ability to control things.

Example: 2

All rare things are expensive things. All great novels are rare things. Therefore, all great novels are expensive things.

Explanation: This syllogism seems to be a valid AAA-1, Barbara, but because the middle term is used in the major premise in one meaning and then the meaning of the middle term is shifted in the minor premise, you actually have FOUR terms and not THREE as required by the very definition of any standard form categorical syllogism.

Rule: 2: In a valid categorical syllogism the middle term must be distributed in at least one of the premises. OR Distribute the middle term in at least one premise.

In order to effectively establish the presence of a genuine connection between the major and minor terms, the premises of a syllogism must provide some information about the entire class designated by the middle term. If the middle term were undistributed in both premises, then the two portions of the designated class of which they speak might be completely unrelated to each other.

The term "philosopher" is distributed in the proposition "All philosophers are thinkers," but the term "thinkers" is not. Because it is the middle term that links the terms of the conclusion, a syllogism cannot be valid unless either the subject or the predicate of the

100

conclusion is related to the whole of the class the middle term designates.hat violate this rule are said to commit the fallacy of the undistributed middle.

Fallacy: Undistributed middle

Example:

All sharks are fish All salmon are fish All salmon are sharks

Explanation: The middle term is what connects the major and the minor term. If the middle term is never distributed, then the major and minor terms might be related to different parts of them (Middle) class, thus giving no common ground to relate S (Subject) and P (Predicate).

Example: 2

All Popes are Catholics. Some Catholics are not pious people. Therefore, some pious people are not Popes

Explanation: This AOO-4 syllogism is not one of the 15 valid forms, the reason it is invalid is that the middle term, Catholics is not distributed in either premise. And since nothing is claimed about ALL members this category, Catholics, then no necessary inference can be related to the other two terms, Popes and pious people.

Rule: 3: In a valid categorical syllogism if a term is distributed in the conclusion, it must be distributed in the premises. OR any term distributed in the conclusion must be distributed in the premises. OR If MAJOR or MINOR term is distributed in the conclusion, then it must be distributed in the premises.

A premise that refers only to some members of the class designated by the major or minor term of a syllogism cannot be used to support a conclusion that claims to tell us about every member of that class, depending which of the terms is misused in this way; syllogisms in violation commit either the fallacy of the illicit major or the fallacy of the illicit minor.

Illicit process of the major term (illicit major) occurs when the major term is distributed in the conclusion but not in the premises.

Illicit process of the minor term (illicit minor) occurs when the minor term is distributed in the conclusion but not in the premises.

Fallacy: Illicit major; illicit minor

101

Examples:

All horses are animals Some dogs are not horses Some dogs are not animals

And:

All tigers are mammals All mammals are animals All animals are tigers

Explanation: When a term is distributed in the conclusion, let’s say that P is distributed, then that term is saying something about every member of the P class. If that same term is NOT distributed in the major premise, then the major premise is saying something about only some members of the P class. Remember that the minor premise says nothing about the P class. Therefore, the conclusion contains information that is not contained in the premises, making the argument invalid.

Example: 2

Illicit minor: All conservatives are mean-spirited people. All mean-spirited people are Republicans. Therefore, all Republicans are conservatives.

Explanation: In this AAA-4 syllogism the minor term, Republicans, IS distributed in the conclusion, yet it is not distributed in the minor premise. And since the premise does not tell us something about All Republicans, then the conclusion cannot tell us something about all Republicans either. This violation of Rule 3 is called the illicit minor.

Rule: 4: A valid categorical syllogism may not have two negative premises. OR Avoid two negative premises. OR No syllogism can have two negative premises.

A negative (E or O) categorical proposition denies that a certain term applies to a class, in whole or in part. Suppose now that we are dealing with two negative premises in a categorical proposition. One would say that the middle term M does not apply to the subject term S (or vice versa). The other premises would say that M does not apply to P (or vice versa). Together, they tell us nothing about the relationship between P and S. As a result, all syllogisms with two negative premises must be invalid.

102

The purpose of the middle term in an argument is to tie the major and minor terms together in such a way that an inference can be drawn, but negative propositions state that the terms of the propositions are exclusive (restricted) of one another. In an argument consisting of two negative propositions the middle term is excluded from both the major term and the minor term, and thus there is no connection between the two and no inference (conclusion) can be drawn. A violation of this rule is called the fallacy of exclusive premises.

Fallacy: Exclusive premises

Example:

No fish are mammals Some dogs are not fish Some dogs are not mammals

Explanation: If the premises are both negative, then the relationship between S and P is denied. The conclusion cannot, therefore, say anything in a positive fashion. That information goes beyond what is contained in the premises.

Example: 2

No citizens are people that need to own a hand gun. Some women are not people that need to own a hand gun. Therefore, some women are not citizens.

Explanation: From the two negative premises of this EOO-2 syllogism, no necessary conclusion can be inferred about 'some women' not being people that need to own a hand gun.

Rule: 5: If either premise of a valid categorical syllogism is negative, the conclusion must be negative.

An affirmative proposition asserts that one class is included in some way in another class, but a negative proposition that asserts exclusion cannot imply anything about inclusion. For this reason an argument with a negative proposition cannot have an affirmative conclusion. An argument that violates this rule is said to commit the fallacy of drawing an affirmative conclusion from a negative premise.

Fallacy: Drawing an affirmative conclusion from a negative premise, or drawing a negative conclusion from an affirmative premise.

Example:

All crows are birds

103

Some wolves are not crows Some wolves are birds

Explanation: Two directions, here. Take a positive conclusion from one negative premise. The conclusion states that the S class is either wholly or partially contained in the P class. The only way that this can happen is if the S class is either partially or fully contained in the M class (remember, the middle term relates the two) and the M class fully contained in the P class. Negative statements cannot establish this relationship, so a valid conclusion cannot follow. Take a negative conclusion. It asserts that the S class is separated in whole or in part from the P class. If both premises are affirmative, no separation can be established, only connections. Thus, a negative conclusion cannot follow from positive premises. Note: These first four rules working together indicate that any syllogism with two particular premises is invalid.

Example: 2

No pornographers are decent (honest) people. Some film producers are not pornographers. Therefore, some film producers are decent people.

Explanation: This EOI-1 violates Rule 5 in that it improperly infers an affirmative conclusion from two negative premises, and it violates Rule 4 that stipulates that no valid syllogism can have two negative premises.

Rule: 6: In valid categorical syllogisms particular propositions cannot be drawn properly from universal premises. OR From two universal premises no particular conclusion may be drawn. . OR No syllogism with a particular conclusion can have two universal premises.

This rule is based on the modern Boolean interpretation of categorical propositions according to which particular propositions have existential import but universal propositions do not. Following this interpretation, a particular conclusion cannot follow from universal premises. In traditional, Aristotelian logic, this rule did not apply. These six rules are jointly sufficient to distinguish between valid and invalid syllogisms.

To violate this rule is to commit the existential fallacy.

104

Fallacy: Existential fallacy

Example:

All mammals are animals All tigers are mammals Some tigers are animals

Explanation: On the Boolean model, Universal statements make no claims about existence while particular ones do. Thus, if the syllogism has universal premises, they necessarily say nothing about existence. Yet if the conclusion is particular, then it does say something about existence. In which case, the conclusion contains more information than the premises do, thereby making it invalid.

Example: 2

All people who write about flowers are inhabited by fairies. All poets are people that write about flowers. Therefore, some poets are inhabited by fairies.

Explanation: Neither universal premise of this AAI-1 syllogism establishes the existence of a single, individual poet, the MINOR term. Yet the conclusion asserts that "There exists at least one poet, such that, this poet is inhabited by ferries". Hence, this syllogism commits the existential fallacy.

5.4 Reducing the Number of Terms in Categorical Syllogism

Explanation: when an argument in ordinary language has an apparently syllogism form yet also appears more than three terms, we should not reject it, it is not the fallacy of four term. It is possible to translate in an argument in to a student form. Two techniques for accomplishing this goal must be described.

(1) By eliminating synonyms:

For Example: EAE-I

105

No wealthy persons are vagrants. All lawyers are rich people. Therefore no Attorneys are tramps.

Synonymous:

1. Wealthy = Rich2. Lawyers = Attorneys3. Vagrants = Tramps

Solution:

No wealthy persons are vagrants. All lawyers are wealthy persons. Therefore no lawyers are vagrants.

(2) By eliminating Compliments:

For Example: AEA-II

All mammals are warm-blooded animals. No lizards are warm-blooded animals. Therefore, all lizards are non mammals.

Note: 1: We can reduce the number of terms to three simply by “Obverting” the conclusion. AEE-II

All mammals are warm-blooded animals. No lizards are warm-blooded animals. Therefore, no lizards are mammals.

Note: 2: We can reduce the number of terms to three simply by “Contraposition” of the first and “Obverting” the second, leaving the “conclusion” unchanged. AAA-I

106

All non-warm-blooded animals are non-mammals. All lizards are non-warm-blooded animals. Therefore, all lizards are non mammals.

Six term syllogistic terms, that is perfectly valid: EAA

No non-residents are citizens. All non-citizens are non-voters. Therefore, all voters are residents.

Six terms: 1.Voters 2. Non-voters 3.Citizens 4.Non- citizens’ 5.Reisdents 6.Non-residents

Note: We can reduce the number of terms to three simply by “Converting” and “Obverting” the first primes, and taking the “Contraposive” of the second premise, yields the standard form.

First Premise: No non-residents are citizens. Conversion: No citizens’ are non-residents. Obversion: All citizens are residents.

Second Premise: All non-citizens are non-voters. Contraposition: All voters are citizens.

Then: AAA-I

All citizens are residents. All voters are citizens. Therefore, all voters are residents.

6:00 Informal Fallacies

6.1 Fallacies of Relevance6.2 Fallacies of Presumptions6.3 Fallacies of Ambiguities

107Fallacies

108

Formal fallacies indicate that the correct reasoning involves clear expression and valid form. Formal fallacies are a matter of invalid form. Formal fallacies deal with the logic of the technical structure. For example, the major, the minor, and the middle terms of any syllogism must be in the right order. Many times we argue without doing this. But it still sounds rational. When we make such a mistake of the rules that is a 'formal' fallacy.

Formal Fallacies Informal Fallacies


Kinds of Fallacies

A fallacy is a type of argument that may seem to be correct, but that proves at examination not to be so.

An 'informal' fallacy is when a valid argument that is not sound is accepted as sound. A valid argument does not have to be true and that is when we must to reject it. Informal fallacies are a matter of unclear expression. Informal fallacies deal with the logic of the meaning of language. The word "informal" does not here mean it is inferior (lower), casual or improper. It only means that our focus is not on the form of the argument, but on the meaning of the argument. An informal fallacy involves such things as: the misuse of language — words or grammar, misstatements of fact or opinion, misconceptions due to underlying presuppositions, or just plain illogical sequences of thought.

109

1. Avoid four terms.2. Distribute the middle term in at least one

premise.3. If MAJOR or MINOR term is

distributed in the conclusion, then it must be distributed in the premises.

4. Avoid two negative premises.5. If either premise of a valid categorical

syllogism is negative, the conclusion must be negative.

6. From two universal premises no particular conclusion may be drawn.


Kinds of Fallacies

6.1 Fallacies of Relevance (مناسبت)

Definition of Relevance: When an argument relies on premises that are not relevant to its conclusion, and that there for cannot possibly establish its truth, the fallacy committed is one of relevance.

110

Relevance Presumption Ambiquity

1. Appeal to Force (argumentum ad baculum)

2. Appeal to Pity (argumentum ad misericordiam)

3. Appeal to Emotion (argumentum ad populum)

4. Appeal to Authority (argumentum ad verecundiam)

5. Ad Hominem Argument

6. Appeal to Ignorance (argumentum ad ignoratiam)

7. Irrelevant Conclusion (ignoratio elenchi)

1. Accident

2. Converse Accident

3. False Cause

4. Begging the Question

(Petitio principii)

5. Complex Question

1. Equivocation

2. Amphiboly

3. Accent

4. Composition

5. Avoiding

Fallacies

1. Appeal to Force (argumentum ad baculum) ( ےکسی دعو کو مضبوط دلیلزور س ثابت کرنا ےکی بجائ ے )نتیجہ کو دلیل کی بجائے زور اور دھمکی سے ثابت کرنا۔ اس کو دلیل حربی کہتے ہیں۔ اصل میں یہ نامعقول لوگوں )

(کاحربہ ہے کیونکہ ان کے پاس دلیل نہیں ہوتی۔ اسی طرح سیاسی معامل3 ت میں بھی دلیل حربی سے کام لیا جاتا ہے۔

In the appeal to force, someone in a position of power threatens to bring down unfortunate consequences upon anyone who dares to disagree with a proffered proposition. Although it is rarely developed so explicitly, a fallacy of this type might propose:

If you do not agree with my political opinions, you will receive a grade of F for this course.

I believe that Herbert Hoover was the greatest President of the United States.

Therefore, Herbert Hoover was the greatest President of the United States.

It should be clear that even if all of the premises were true, the conclusion could nevertheless be false. Since that is possible, arguments of this form are plainly invalid. While this might be an effective way to get you to agree (or at least to pretend to agree) with my position, it offers no grounds for believing it to be true.

2. Appeal to Pity (argumentum ad misericordiam) ( گار کو ب گنا ثابت کیا ہگنا ے ہ Mا جائ ک اس کو سزا ن دیں کیونک اس۱ے۔جائ مثال ہ چور ک بار میں ک ہ ہ ے ہ ے ے ۔

وئی تو و بیچار کیا کریں اگر اس کو سزا یں ےک چھوٹ چھوٹ بچ ہ ہ ۔ ہ ے ے ے ےوال طالب علم کوفیل ن کیا جائ کیونک اس کا ۲ے۔گ ہ نقل کرن ے ہ ے ے ۔

وجائ گا ۔مستقبل تبا ے ہ ا ک ۳ہ ہ سقراط پر مقدم چالیا گیا تو کسی ن ک ہ ے ہ ۔ا ک بیوی بچوں کو النا دلیل رحم ہےاپن بچوں کو ل آئیں تو اس ن ک ہ ہ ے ۔ ے ے

ہے۔اور میر لی دلیل دین کافی ے ے )

Urging the hearer to accept the argument based upon an appeal to emotions, sympathy, etc. Turning this on its head, an appeal to pity tries to win acceptance by pointing out the unfortunate consequences that will otherwise fall upon the speaker and others, for whom we would then feel sorry.

I am a single parent, solely responsible for the financial support of my children.

If you give me this traffic ticket, I will lose my license and be unable to drive to work.

If I cannot work, my children and I will become homeless and may starve to death.

Therefore, you should not give me this traffic ticket.

Again, the conclusion may be false (that is, perhaps I should be given the ticket) even if the premises are all true, so the argument is fallacious.

111

http://www.philosophypages.com/dy/p5.htm#pity

http://www.philosophypages.com/dy/f5.htm#force

Second Example: "I've got to have at least a B in this course, Professor Angeles. If I don't, I won't stand a chance for medical school, and this is my last semester at the university."

3. Appeal to Emotion (argumentum ad populum) نچ اور اس کا غلط ) ےلوگوں ک جذبات ابھارنا تاک و صحیح نتیج پرن پ ہ ہ ہ ہ ہ ے۔نتیج قبول کریں ہ )

۱ ہے۔ سیاسی جلسوں میں سامعین ک جذبات کو اس طرح ابھارا جاتا ے ۔یں۲ ی حرب استعمال کرت ۔پیش ور اور پبلک سپیکر ی ہ ے ہ ہ ہ ہ عوام کو دھوک۳۔ ۔

ے۔دینا: مثالMی سرمای دار کب تک تم پر ظلم کریں گ ہ ہ

In a more general fashion, the appeal to emotion relies upon emotively charged language to arouse strong feelings that may lead an audience to accept its conclusion:

As all clear-thinking residents of our fine state have already realized, the Governor's plan for financing public education is nothing but the bloody-fanged wolf of socialism

cleverly disguised in the harmless sheep's clothing of (شوشلزم بھڑیے کے نوکیلے دانت)

concern for children.

Therefore, the Governor's plan is bad public policy.

The problem here is that although the flowery language of the premise might arouse strong feelings in many members of its intended audience, the widespread occurrence of those feelings has nothing to do with the truth of the conclusion.

4. Appeal to Authority (argumentum ad verecundiam) ( ےکسی مسئل ک بار میں غیر متعلق شخص س پوچھنا ہ ے ے ۔ے )

( ۔ کسی دنیاوی ۳۔ کسی متقی مولوی سے گانوں کے بارے میں پوچھنا۔ ۲۔ ایکٹر سے دینی مسائل پوچھنا ۱مثالیں۔

یی دینا۔ (سیاسی لیڈر سے مسئلہ پوچھنا۔ یا اس کا کسی مسئلے کے بارے میں فتو

112

http://www.philosophypages.com/dy/e.htm#emot

Appealing to authority (including customs, traditions, institutions, etc.) in order to gain acceptance of a point at issue and/or appealing to the feelings of reverence or respect we have of those in authority, or who are famous. Each of the next three fallacies involve the mistaken supposition that there is some connection between the truth of a proposition and some feature of the person who asserts or denies it. In an appeal to authority, the opinion of someone famous or accomplished in another area of expertise is supposed to guarantee the truth of a conclusion. Thus, for example:

Federal Reserve Chair Alan Greenspan believes that spiders are insects.

Therefore, spiders are insects.

As a pattern of reasoning, this is clearly mistaken: no proposition must be true because some individual (however talented or successful) happens to believe it. Even in areas where they have some special knowledge or skill, expert authorities could be mistaken; we may accept their testimony as inductive evidence but never as deductive proof of the truth of a conclusion. Personality is irrelevant to truth.

Second Example: "I believe that the statement ‘You cannot legislate morality’ is true, because President Eisenhower said it."

5. Ad Hominem Argument (Argument against the person)

( ۔کسی کے نظریات اور خیالات کو رد کرنے کےلیے اس کے ذات پر حملہ کرنا اور اس کو بدنام کرنا )

( آادمی دوسرے پر اعتراض کرتے ہوئے کہتا ہے کہ تم تو توھم پرست ہو۔دوسرا جواب میں کہتا ہے کہ۱مثالیں: ۔ایک

۔ کمزور مقدمے میں وکیل مئوکل کی طرف سےدوسرےوکیل کو کوستا ہے کہ تمہارے۲تعویذ تو تم نے بازو پر باندھا ہے۔

پاس قالین کی تحریر نہیں ہے۔ دوسرے نے کہا کہ روٹی خریدتے وقت بھی تحریر ہوتا ہے ؟ تواس نے کہا کہ کیا روٹی

(بچھاتے ہیں؟ تو دوسرے نے کہا کہ کیا تم قالین کھاتے ہو۔

Fallacy of argumentum ad hominem (argument against the man).-The Latin means "argument to the man." Arguing against, or rejecting a person's views by attacking or abusing his personality, character, motives, intentions, qualifications, etc., as opposed to providing evidence why the views are incorrect.

The mirror-image of the appeal to authority is the ad hominem argument, in which we are encouraged to reject a proposition because it is the stated opinion of someone regarded as

113

http://www.philosophypages.com/dy/a.htm#ad-h

http://www.philosophypages.com/dy/a9.htm#auth

disreputable in some way. This can happen in several different ways, but all involve the claim that the proposition must be false because of who believes it to be true:

Example: 1: What John said should not be believed because he was a Nazi sympathizer. (Supporter)

Example: 2:

Harold maintains that the legal age for drinking beer should be 18 instead of 21.

But we all know that Harold. . .

o . . . Dresses funny and smells bad. or

o . . . is 19 years old and would like to drink legally or

o . . . believes that the legal age for voting should be 21, not 18 or

o . . . Doesn't understand the law any better than the rest of us.

Therefore, the legal age for drinking beer should be 21 instead of 18.

In any of its varieties, the ad hominem fallacy asks us to adopt a position on the truth of a conclusion for no better reason than that someone believes it’s opposite. But the proposition that person believes can be true (and the intended conclusion false) even if the person is unsavory (unpleasant) or has a stake in the issue or holds inconsistent beliefs or shares a common flaw (error and defect) with us. Again, personality is irrelevant to truth.

6. Appeal to Ignorance (argumentum ad ignoratiam)ی ) یں دیتا ک و سچا ونا ی معنی³ ن ہے۔کسی چیز کی جھوٹ ثابت ن ہ ہ ہ ہ ہ ہ ہ

یں ہے۔عدم ذکر شی عدم وجود کو مستلزم ن ہ )

“Arguing that something is true because no one has proved it to be false, or arguing that something is false because no one has proved it to be true. Our ignorance how to prove or disprove a proposition does not establish their truth or falsehood.

An appeal to ignorance proposes that we accept the truth of a proposition unless an opponent can prove otherwise. Thus, for example:

No one has conclusively proven that there is no intelligent life on the moons of Jupiter.

Therefore, there is intelligent life on the moons of Jupiter.

114

http://www.philosophypages.com/dy/i.htm#ignf

But, of course, the absence of evidence against a proposition is not enough to secure its truth. What we don't know could nevertheless be so.

Example: 2:

Spirits exists since no one has as yet proved that there are not any.

Example: 3:

Spirits do not exist since no one has as yet proved their existence.

7. Irrelevant Conclusion (ignoratio elenchi)

(دلائل سے غیر متعلقہ نتیجہ نکالنا)

(۱ ۔ کبھی حریف کو ۳۔مخاطب کو دھوکہ دینا مقصود ہوتا ہے۔ ۲بات ایک ہوتی ہے اور مقصد دوسرا بیان کرتے ہیں۔ ۔

۔اصل موضوع چھوڑ کردوسری طرف جانا بھی اس میں شامل ہے۔۴کہتا ہے کہ میری غلطی ثابت کرو۔ )

Finally, the fallacy of the irrelevant conclusion tries to establish the truth of a proposition by offering an argument that actually provides support for an entirely different conclusion. An argument that is irrelevant; that argues for something other than that which is to be proved and thereby in no way refutes (or supports) the points at issue.

All children should have ample (sufficient) attention from their parents.

Parents who work full-time cannot give ample attention to their children.

Therefore, mothers should not work full-time.

Here the premises might support some conclusion about working parents generally, but do not secure the truth of a conclusion focused on women alone and not on men. Although clearly fallacious, this procedure may succeed in distracting its audience from the point that is really at issue.

Example: 2:

A lawyer is defending his alcoholic client who has murdered three people in a drunken spree argues that alcoholism is a terrible disease and attempts should be made to eliminate it.

6.2 Fallacies of Presumptions (فرض کرنا)

Unwarranted Assumptions

115

http://www.philosophypages.com/dy/i9.htm#irr

http://www.philosophypages.com/lg/e9.htm#evid

The fallacy of presumption may occur when something is assumed to be true though it is not reasonable to accept it in the relevant context.

In these the mistaken arguments arise from reliance upon some proposition that is assume to be true, but is infect false, dubious, or without warrant. The fallacies of presumption also fail to provide adequate reason for believing the truth of their conclusions. Again, we'll consider each of them in turn, seeking always to identify the unwarranted assumption upon which it is based.

1. Accident (غیر متوقع)ےایک عام قاعد کی وج س خاص حالت ک متعلق حکم لگانا) ے ہ ے ) الرجل خیر من المراۃ یعنی مرد کی ماہیت عورت کی ماہیت سے بہتر ہے نہ کہ ہر فرد مرد کا عورت کے ہر فرد)

یہذا ایک اس پتھر کو ہر ایک ۱سے بہتر ہے۔ مثالیں: آادمی ستر کلومیٹر تک لے جا سکتے ہیں۔ ل ۔ یہ پتھر ستر

یہذا فوج میں بھرتی صحیح نہیں ہے کیونکہ وہ ۲آادمی ستر کلو میٹر تک لے جا سکتا ہے۔ ۔قتل جرم ہے۔ ل

(دشمنوں کو قتل کرتےہیں۔

The fallacy of accident begins with the statement of some principle that is true as a general rule, but then errs (goes wrong) by applying this principle to a specific case that is unusual or atypical in some way.

1. Women earn less than men earn for doing the same work.

Oprah Winfrey is a woman.

Therefore, Oprah Winfrey earns less than male talk-show hosts.

2. The law states that one should not drive faster than 50 km per hour. Therefore, even when the road is empty and you are rushing an emergency patient to the hospital you should not drive faster than 50 km per hour.

3. One should return the thing one has borrowed when asked for. Therefore, you should return the pistol to its owner even when he going to commit suicide.

As we'll soon see, a true universal premise would entail the truth of this conclusion; but then, a universal statement that "Every woman earns less than any man." would obviously be false. The truth of a general rule, on the other hand, leaves plenty of room for exceptional cases, and applying it to any of them is fallacious.

2. Converse Accident ( عام حالت ک ےایک خاص قاعد کی وج س ے ہ ے(متعلق حکم لگانا

116

http://www.philosophypages.com/lg/e5.htm#ent

http://www.philosophypages.com/lg/e07a.htm#qualquan

http://www.philosophypages.com/dy/a.htm#accf

( یہذا جمہوریت ہر جگہ کامیاب ہے۔ ۱مثالیں: ۔بیماری میں ورزr نقصان دہ ہے ۲۔برطانیہ میں جہہوریت ہے ل

یہذا ورزr صحیح نہیں ہے۔ یہذا فوجی ہر ایک مارسکتا ہے۔ ۳ل ۔ ۴۔مارشل لا میں گولی چل3نا صحیح ہے ل

یہذا ڈاکٹر ہر ایک کو چیر پھاڑ سکتا ہے۔ آاپریشن کے وقت ڈاکٹروں کےلیےچیر پھاڑ صحیح ہے ل )

The fallacy of converse accident begins with a specific case that is unusual or atypical (uncommon) in some way, and then errs (makes a mistake) by deriving from this case the truth of a general rule. It indicates the error of generalizing from atypical or exceptional instances.

Dennis Rodman wears earrings (بالیاں) and is an excellent rebounder.

Therefore, people who wear earrings are excellent rebounders. (ےردعمل کرن واال )

It should be obvious that a single instance is not enough to establish the truth of such a general principle. Since it's easy for this conclusion to be false even though the premise is true, the argument is unreliable.

Example: 2:

"A shot of warm brandy each night helps older people relax and sleep better. People in general ought to drink warm brandy to relieve their tension and sleep better."

3. False Cause (و ہجس چیز کو علت تسلیم کرلیں حاالنک و علت ن ہ ہ ہ )

( ہے۔پاکستان اس لی غریب ک اس کی آبادی زیاد ۱مثالیں: ہ ہ ہے ے ےامریک ن اس ۲۔ ہ ۔ہے۔لی ترقی کی ک ادھر ب حیائی زیاد ہ ے ہ ہے لوں کی زندگیاں اس لی ساد ۳ے ہ پ ے ہ ۔

یں تھ ے۔تھیں ک ان ک پاس وسائل ن ہ ے وگیا ک کمر ۴ہ ہطالب علم اس لی فیل ہ ہ ے ۔۔امتحان دیر س آیا ے )

False cause is defined as assuming that the effect is related to a cause because the events occur together. The fallacy of false cause infers the presence of a causal connection simply because events appear to occur in correlation or (in the post hoc, ergo propter hoc variety) temporal succession.

The moon was full on Thursday evening.

On Friday morning I overslept (sleep too long).

Therefore, the full moon caused me to oversleep.

117

http://www.philosophypages.com/dy/p7.htm#posthoc

http://www.philosophypages.com/dy/f.htm#falcau

http://www.philosophypages.com/dy/c7.htm#cvac

Later we'll consider what sort of evidence adequately supports the conclusion that a causal relationship does exist, but these fallacies clearly are not enough.

Second Example: When the rooster crows, the sun rises. Therefore, the rooster causes the sun to rise.

Third Example: When the fuel light goes on in my car, I soon run out of gas. Therefore, the fuel light causes my car to run out of gas.

4. Begging the Question (petitio principii)یں،اس ) ت م مقدم س بطور نتیج اخذ کرنا چا ےجس چیز کو ہ ے ہ ہ ے ے ہ

ی مقدم میں فرض کرلیا ل ہے۔پ ے ہ ے ہ )آاور ہے۔ ۔۱مثالیں: ) آاتی ہےکیونکہ یہ خواب ۔زمین میں کشش ثقل ہے اس لیے ہر چیز ۲افیون سے

یہذا غل3می قدرتی ۳کھینچتی ہے۔ ۔ارسطو کہتے ہیں کہ یونان کے گرد ونواح کے لوگ یونانیوں کے غل3م ہیں ل

یہذا امرتسر لاہور سےشمال کی طرف ہے۔۴چیز ہے۔ ۔لاہور امرتسر کے جنوب میں ہے ل )

Arriving at a conclusion from statements that themselves are questionable and have to be proved but are assumed true.

Begging the question is the fallacy of using the conclusion of an argument as one of the premises offered in its own support. Although this often happens in an implicit or disguised fashion, an explicit version would look like this:

All dogs are mammals.

All mammals have hair.

Since animals with hair bear live young, dogs bear live young.

But all animals that bear live young are mammals.

Therefore, all dogs are mammals.

Unlike the other fallacies we've considered, begging the question involves an argument (or chain of arguments) that is formally valid: if its premises (including the first) are true, then the conclusion must be true. The problem is that this valid argument doesn't really

118

http://www.philosophypages.com/dy/b2.htm#beg

http://www.philosophypages.com/lg/e14.htm

http://www.philosophypages.com/lg/e14.htm

http://www.philosophypages.com/lg/e9.htm#evid

provide support for the truth its conclusion; we can't use it unless we have already granted that.

Second Example: The universe has a beginning. Every thing that has a beginning has a beginner. Therefore the universe has a beginner called God. This assumes (begs the question) that the universe does indeed have a beginning and also that all things that have a beginning have a beginner.

Third Example: "Everything has a cause. The universe is a thing. Therefore, the universe is a thing that has a cause.

5. Complex Question

When question is asked in such a way as to propose the truth of some assumption buried in

this question. The desired answer is already tacitly assumed (ضمنی طور پر فرض کیا گیا ہوتا ہے) in the

question.

The fallacy of complex question presupposes the truth of its own conclusion by including it implicitly in the statement of the issue to be considered:

Have you tried to stop watching too much television?

If so, then you admit that you do watch too much television.

If not, then you must still be watching too much television.

Therefore, you watch too much television.

In a somewhat more subtle fashion, this involves the same difficulty as the previous fallacy. We would not willingly agree to the first premise unless we already accepted the truth of the conclusion that the argument is supposed to prove.

The classic example of a complex question "Have you stopped beating your wife?” in which the respondent is asked to answer in simple 'yes' or 'no'. Either answer would lead to an apparent admission of wickedness.

Q: why are the private development resources so much more efficient than any government own enterprises? It is assuming the great efficiency of the private sector.

The following are some more examples of complex questions:

119

http://www.philosophypages.com/dy/c5.htm#cplq

1. "Have you stopped smoking?"2. "Where are you hiding the money you have stolen?"3. "What hair dye (color) are you using?"4. "How long will you interfere in our affairs?”

But some time Complex question is not a fallacy, but it is used for the intelligent of the respondent. And some time it is used, because of shame, not to clearly ask the question.

ہر جگہ مغالطہ بھی نہیں ہوتا کیونکہ بہت سی جگہوں پر یہکمپلیکس کوئسچن

ا3 کبھی حیا کی وجہ سے صراحت کرنا مشکل ہوتا ہے یا مغالطہ کے عل3وہ اورفائدے دیتا ہے۔ مثل

کسی کا امتحان لینا مقصود ہوتا ہے۔مثال کے طور پر:

یی عنہما۱ یی عنہ نے عبداللہ بن عباس رضی اللہ تعال جم حدیث ہے کہ عمر فاروق رضی اللہ تعال ۔ مفہو

یی عنہ نے فرمایا کہ اس میں رسول آاپ رضی اللہ تعال سے پوچھا کہ سورۃ النصر کا کیا مطلب ہے؟ تو

اللہ صلی اللہ علیہ وسلم کے اجل کی طرف اشارہ ہے۔

جم حدیث ہے کہ رسول اللہ صلی اللہ علیہ وسلم نے عبداللہ بن مسعود رضی اللہ۲ ۔ اسی طرح مفہو

یی عنہ نے آاپ رضی اللہ تعال آایت کون سی ہے تو یی عنہ سے پوچھا کہ قران میں سب سے بڑی تعال

آایۃ الکرسی۔ فرمایا کہ

یی عنہ کے دربار میں ایک۳ جم ہے کہ عمر فاروق رضی اللہ تعال ۔ اسی طرح ایک اورحدیث کا مفہو

عورت نے اس انداز میں اپنے شوہر کی تعریف کی کہ میرا شوہر ساری رات نماز پڑھتا ہے اور

یی عنہ نے اس عورت کے شوہرکی تعریف کی۔ سارادن روزہ رکھتا ہے۔ تو عمر فاروق رضی اللہ تعال

یی عنہ نےفرمایا کہ امیرالمومنین: اس عورت نے ساتھ میں بیٹھے ایک دوسرے صحابی رضی اللہ تعال

اپنے شوہر کی شکایت کی ہے کیونکہ اس کا شوہر اس کا حق ادا نہیں کرتااور اسے دن رات میں

آاپ اتنے یی عنہ نے فرمایا کہ جب کوئی وقت نہیں دیتا۔ اس پر امیرالمومنین عمر فاروق رضی اللہ تعال

یی عنہ نے فرمایا کہ آاپ رضی اللہ تعال آاپ اس کے بارے میں فیصلہ بھی کرلیں۔ تو زیرک ہیں۔ اب

اگراس مرد کےچار بیویاں ہوں اور یہ مرد ہر عورت کے ساتھ کے ایک ایک رات گزارے تو ہرچوتھی

120

یہذا شوہر کو چاہیے کہ تین دن رات عبادت کرتے رہے اور ہر چوتھی رات اس عورت کا حق ہے۔ ل

رات اس عورت کے ساتھ رہے۔

6.3 Fallacies of Ambiguities

Ambiguous LanguageIn addition to the fallacies of relevance and presumption we examined in our previous lessons, there are several patterns of incorrect reasoning that arise from the imprecise use of language. An ambiguous word, phrase, or sentence is one that has two or more distinct meanings. The inferential relationship between the propositions included in a single argument will be sure to hold only if we are careful to employ exactly the same meaning in each of them. The fallacies of ambiguity all involve a confusion of two or more different senses.

Fallacy of ambiguity is defined as an argument that has at least one ambiguous word or statement from which a misleading or wrong conclusion is drawn.

1. Equivocation ( (ذو معنی³Using the same term in an argument in different places but the word has different meanings. It is defined as an argument in which a word is used with one meaning (or sense) in one part of the argument and with another meaning in another part.

This fallacy is committed when a key word or phrase is used with two or more different meanings in the same argument. An equivocation trades upon the use of an ambiguous word or phrase in one of its meanings in one of the propositions of an argument but also in another of its meanings in a second proposition.

Really exciting novels are rare. (نایاب) But rare ( ایت عمد ہن ہ ) books are expensive. Therefore, really exciting novels are expensive.

Here, the word "rare" is used in different ways in the two premises of the argument, so the link they seem to establish between the terms of the conclusion is spurious (نقلی اورجعلی). In its more subtle ( نازک اور عسیرم ہالف ) occurrences, this fallacy can undermine the reliability of otherwise valid deductive arguments.

Other examples:

121

http://www.philosophypages.com/dy/f9.htm#fourt

http://www.philosophypages.com/dy/f9.htm#fourt

http://www.philosophypages.com/dy/e5.htm#eqvn

http://www.philosophypages.com/dy/a4.htm#amb

First: Since a criminal is a law breaker. A criminal lawyer too is a law breaker.

It can be noticed that the term 'criminal' has been used in two different senses in the argument. A criminal lawyer is not a criminal.

Second: The signboard says "fine for parking here". A driver notices the signboard and reasons as follows: "Since it is fine. I will park my vehicle here."

This surely is a misinterpretation. The word 'fine' has been used in two different senses here. In the signboard 'fine' means penalty. But the driver thinks that it means 'all right'.

Third: Nature is governed by laws. Laws are the work of law makers. So, laws of nature are the work of some law maker.

In this argument the term 'law' has been used ambiguously. It means descriptive law in the first premise but used in the sense of prescriptive law in the second. Only prescriptive laws are the work of law makers. Laws of nature are descriptive laws and not prescriptive.

Fourth: A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush. Therefore, a bird is worth more than President Bush.

Fifth: Evolution states that one species can change into another. We see that cars have evolved into different styles. Therefore, since evolution is a fact in cars, it is true in species.

Sixth: Logic teaches you how to argue.People argue entirely too much.Therefore we don't need to teach people Logic.

In this "argument" the word "argue" is used in two entirely different senses. In the first line, the word "argue" is used to mean only the process of arranging propositions to flow logically from a premise to a conclusion. In the second line, the word "argue" is used to include such meanings as a heated discussion, a bitter disagreement, a contentious altercation, a dispute or a controversy.

122

Seventh: "The end of a thing is its perfection; death is the end of life; hence, death is the perfection of life."

Eighth: He has faith in:

He has faith in president ………. That he is Exist

He has faith in Telepathy……………that occurs sometimes

He has faith in God…… Believes that there is perfectfuly and powerful God exist.

2. Amphiboly (ابہام)

Amphiboly occurs when an arguer misinterprets a sentence that is syntactically or grammatically ambiguous and goes on to draw a conclusion on this faulty interpretation. An amphiboly can occur even when every term in an argument is univocal, if the grammatical construction of a sentence creates its own ambiguity.

A reckless (wild and irresponsible) motorist Thursday struck and injured a student who was jogging through the campus in his pickup truck.

Therefore, it is unsafe to jog in your pickup truck.

In this example, the premise (actually heard on a radio broadcast) could be interpreted in different ways, creating the possibility of a fallacious inference to the conclusion.

یں ک جب جمل س ایک س زیاد( ت ام اس کو ک ہاب ے ے ہ ہ ہ ے ہ ہوں ۔معانی سمجھ میں آتی ہ

و ۔ مثالM کسی ک روکن یا ن روکن کی بات ہ ے ہ ے ۔۔۔ ۱ے ۔۔روکو، مت جان دو روکو مت، جان دو ے ۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔ ے

وئی اور کسی کوی۲ اں بچ کی پیدائش ہ کسی ک ہے ہ ے ہ ے ۔یں ک لڑکا یا لڑکی اور اس سوال ک جواب میں ی ہمعلوم ن ے ہ ہ

، ا جائ ک لڑکا، ن لڑکی لڑکا ن ہک ۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔ ہ ہ۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔ ے ہ۔لڑکی لڑکا ن لڑکی ہ ۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔

123

http://www.philosophypages.com/dy/a4.htm#amph

3. Accent: (pronunciation or tone of voice) (۔تاکید زور دینا )

The fallacy of accent is defined as, arguing to conclusions from undue emphasis (accent, tone) upon certain words or statements.

The fallacy of accent occurs when emphasis is used to suggest a meaning different from the actual content of the proposition.

The fallacy of accent arises from an ambiguity produced by a shift of spoken or written emphasis. Thus, for example:

Jorge turned in (حوالہ کرنا) his assignment on time today .

Therefore, Jorge usually turns in his assignments late.

Here the premise may be true if read without inflection, (tone) but if it is read with heavy stress on the last word seems to imply (involve) the truth of the conclusion.

Second example, if a teacher remarks, "Ravi has done the homework today" with undue (too much) emphasis on 'today', that might suggest that Ravi normally comes to school without doing homework.

مزید مثالیں:

بعض دفعہ لفظ پر غلط طورپر زور دینے سے مطلب بگڑ جاتا ہے۔۔ ۱

ا3 تمہیں اپنے پڑوسی پر رحم کھانا چاہئے اور لفظ پڑوسی پر زور دے۔ ۲ ۔ مثل

آاواز نکالنا یا کسی چیز یا انسان کی طرف اشارہ کرنا۔ ۳ ۔ لفظ بولتے وقت تیز

۔ ایک جگہ زور کی نہیں ہے اور تم زور دیتے ہو۔ ۴

124

http://www.philosophypages.com/dy/a.htm#accent

4. Composition ( : ب ی ک ر ئ اس ت فرداM فرداM لینا چا ے ایسی چیز جس ے ہ ےےاکٹھا لیا جائ )

This fallacy occurs when an attribute true of the parts of something is erroneously (wrongly) transferred to the whole. The fallacy of composition involves an inference from the attribution of some feature to every individual member of a class (or part of a greater whole) to the possession of the same feature by the entire class (or whole).

Every course I took in college was well-organized. Therefore, my college education was well-organized.

Even if the premise is true of each and every component of my curriculum, the whole could have been a chaotic mess, so this reasoning is defective.

Notice that this is distinct from the fallacy of converse accident, which improperly generalizes from an unusual specific case (as in "My philosophy course was well-organized; therefore, college courses are well-organized."). For the fallacy of composition, the crucial fact is that even when something can be truly said of each and every individual part, it does not follow that the same can be truly said of the whole class.

Other Examples:

First Example: Each player in the team plays well. Therefore, the whole team plays well.

This argument commits the fallacy of composition. From the fact that each individual player is a good player it doesn't follow that the whole team plays well.

Second Example: Every part of this machine is light in weight. Therefore, the machine is a whole light in weight.

This argument commits the fallacy of composition. From the fact that every part of this machine is light in weight it doesn't follow that the whole machine is light in weight.

5. Division ( ئ اس فرداM فرداM لی جائ ےایسی چیز جس اکٹھا لینا چا ے ے ہ ے )

125

http://www.philosophypages.com/lg/e06b.htm#convacc

http://www.philosophypages.com/dy/c5.htm#comp

Arguing that what is true of a whole is also (necessarily) true of its parts and/or also true of some of its parts.

Assuming that what is true of the whole is true for the parts. This fallacy occurs in an argument when an attribute true of a whole (or a class) is erroneously (wrongly) transferred to its parts (or members).

The fallacy of division involves an inference from the attribution of some feature to an entire class (or whole) to the possession of the same feature by each of its individual members (or parts).

First Example:

Ocelots (جنگلی بلیاں) are now dying out. (ختم)

Sparky is an ocelot. Therefore, Sparky is now dying out.

Although the premise is true of the species as a whole, this unfortunate fact does not reflect poorly upon the health of any of its individual members.

Again, be sure to distinguish this from the fallacy of accident, which mistakenly applies a general rule to an atypical specific case (as in "Ocelots have many health problems, and Sparky is an ocelot; therefore, Sparky is in poor health"). The essential point in the fallacy of division is that even when something can be truly said of a whole class, it does not follow that the same can be truly said of each of its individual parts.

Second Example: Men are numerous. (Many) Aristotle is a man. Therefore, Aristotle is numerous.

The argument is fallacious. It is true that "man" as a class has many members. So the class "man" as a whole is numerous. But we cannot draw the conclusion that each individual human being is numerous.

Third Example: That car is blue. Therefore, its engine is blue.

Fourth Example: Your family is weird. (Strange) That means that you are weird too.

Fifth Example: The community of Pacific Palisades is extremely wealthy. Therefore, every person living there is must be extremely wealthy or therefore Adam, who lives there, is must be extremely wealthy.

126

http://www.philosophypages.com/lg/e06b.htm#accf

http://www.philosophypages.com/dy/d9.htm#div

Sixth Example: This Corporation is very important. Mr. Doe is an official (دیدار ہمسئول اورع ) of that corporation. Therefore, Mr. Doe is very important.

تمت بالخیرPassed Papers

Of KARACHI UNIVERSITY BUSINESS SCHOOL

UNIVERSITY OF KARCHI

FINAL EXAMINATION DECEMBER 2012; AFFILIATED COLLAGES

LOGIC BA (H)-421

BS-III

Time Allowed: 3 Hrs Max Marks: 60

Note: Attempt any six questions.

Q1. Define the following. (10)

a) Complex question b) Truth and Validity

c) Euphemism d) Conversion

e) Amphiboly

Q2. Differentiate between the following. (10)

a) Expressive and Informative language b) Denotation & Connotation

c) Verbal Disputes & apparently verbal but really genuine disputes.

d) Illicit Minor/ major and undistributed middle

e) Definiendum and dejiniens

127

Q3. Write down the rules for definition by genus & difference with examples.

Q4. What do you understand by induction and deduction in logic? Discuss.

Q5. Define categorical syllogism. What do you understood by mood &figure?

Q6. What do you understand by traditional square of opposition? Explain by showing a diagram.

Q7. Explain Categorical propositions with the help of diagrammatic expressions. What are its kinds?

Q8. Logic is a positive science. Elaborate.

Q9. What is definition? Differentiate between précising and theoretical definition.




LOGIC BA (H)-421

BS-III

Date: December 21, 2012 Max Marks: 60

Max Time: 3 Hrs

Instruction:

1. Attempt any five questions, all carry equal marks. Do not write anything on the question paper.

2. Use of mobile phones or any other communicating device will not be allowed in the examination room. Students will have to remove the batteries of these devices before entering the examination hall.

Q1. Define the following with examples.

a) Logicb) Obversionc) Conversiond) Contraposition

Q2. Explain in detail Truth and Validity in Logic.

Q3. Discuss ten informal famous fallacies at length with help of examples.

Q4. Define definition and elucidate the different types of definition with examples.

128

Q5. Work out the traditional square of opposition by showing the diagram.

Q6. Discuss categorical syllogism with its defining components. Give examples to indicate the different parts of categorical syllogism.

Q7. What is the significance of language in Logic? Elucidate different functions of language.

Q8. Elaborate all the formal fallacies in detail.



FINAL EXAMINATION JUNE 2012; AFFILIATED COLLAGES

LOGIC BA (H)-421

BS-III

Date: June 16, 2012 Max Marks: 60

Max Time: 3 Hrs

Instruction:



Q1. Discuss the rules for definition by genus and difference with examples.

Q2. Explain various kinds of “Disputes” in language with the help of examples.

Q3. Differentiate between the following.

a) Inductive and Deductive argumentsb) Stipulate and Lexical definitions

129

c) Informative and Expressive functions of Language.d) Obversion and Conversion

Q4. Work out the traditional square of opposition by showing a diagram.


a) Contradictories

b) Ostensive definition

C) Categorical Propositions

d) Logic

Q6. What do you understand by formal fallacies? Discuss any four with the help of examples.

Q7. Explain any six formal fallacies with examples.

Q8. Re write the following passage in standard form “categorical syllogism” by identifying all the essential elements.

a) No stubborn (obstinate) individuals who never admit a mistake are good teachers, so, some well-informed people are stubborn individuals who never admit a mistake, and some good teachers are not well- informed people.

b) All artificial satellites are important scientific achievements; therefore some important scientific achievements are not American inventions, inasmuch as some artificial satellites are not American invention.

c) Some conservatives are not advocates of high tariff rates, because all advocates of high tariff rates are Republicans, and some Republicans are not conservatives.

130




LOGIC BA (H)-421

BS-III


Max Time: 3 Hrs

Attempt any six questions.

Q1. What do you understand by categorical propositions? Discuss in detail. (10)

Q2. Explain various kinds of Agreement of disagreement in a language with the help of examples.


a) Formal & informal Logicb) Persuasive & précising definitionsc) Truth & Validity

Q4. What do you understand by definition by genus and difference? Also discuss its rules.

Q5. Define the following.

a) Inference b) Categorical Syllogism

C) Obversion d) Argument

131

Q6. Discuss any four formal fallacies with the help of examples.

Q7. What is the relevance of Logic for business studies? Elaborate.

Q8. Work out the traditional square of opposition in detail with the help of diagram.

Q9. Explain any six informal fallacies with examples.




LOGIC BA (H)-421

BS-III


Max Time: 3 Hrs

Note:

Attempt any six of the followings. Question no.9 &10 are compulsory. All carry equal marks.

Q1. Define Logic. What is the significance of Logic in business studies?

Q2. Differentiate between inductive and deductive argument with the help of examples.

Q3. Critically evaluate basic language functions and forms and their relationship. Give examples for explanation.

Q4. What do you know about definition? Also discuss various kinds of definitions with examples.

Q5. What do you know about conversion, Obversion and contraposition? Explain with the help of tables.

Q6. Define informal fallacies and classify them. Explicate fallacy of relevance and ambiguity with examples.

132

Q7. Define categorical syllogism along with the constitutive elements. Give examples.

Q8. Describe the formal fallacies in detail with examples.

Q9. Rewrite each of the following syllogisms in standard form and name its mood and figure.

a) All proteins are organic compounds, whence all enzymes are proteins, as all enzymes are organic compounds.

b) Some evergreen are objects of worship, because all fir trees are evergreens, and some objects of worship are fir trees.

Q10. Name the quality and quantity of each of the following propositions and state whether their subject and predicate terms are distributed or undistributed.

a) All new labor devices are major threats to the trade union movement.b) Some advocate of the major political, social and economic reforms are not responsible

who have a stake in maintaining the status quo.




LOGIC BA (H)-421

BS-III

Time Allowed: 3 Hrs Max Marks: 60

Note: Attempt any six questions.

Q1. Define the following. (10)

a) Complex question b) Truth and Validity

c) Euphemism d) Conversion

e) Amphiboly

Q2. Differentiate between the following. (10)

a) Expressive and Informative language b) Denotation & Connotation

133

c) Verbal Disputes & apparently verbal but really genuine disputes.

d) Illicit Minor/ major and undistributed middle

e) Definiendum and dejiniens

Q3. Write down the rules for definition by genus & difference with examples.

Q4. What do you understand by induction and deduction in logic? Discuss.

Q5. Define categorical syllogism. What do you understood by mood &figure?

Q6. What do you understand by traditional square of opposition? Explain by showing a diagram.

Q7. Explain Categorical propositions with the help of diagrammatic expressions. What are its kinds?

Q8. Logic is a positive science. Elaborate.

Q9. What is definition? Differentiate between précising and theoretical definition.




LOGIC BA (H)-421

BS-III


Max Time: 3 Hrs

Instruction:




e) Logicf) Obversion

134

g) Conversionh) Contraposition

Q2. Explain in detail Truth and Validity in Logic.

Q3. Discuss ten informal famous fallacies at length with help of examples.

Q4. Define definition and elucidate the different types of definition with examples.

Q5. Work out the traditional square of opposition by showing the diagram.

Q6. Discuss categorical syllogism with its defining components. Give examples to indicate the different parts of categorical syllogism.

Q7. What is the significance of language in Logic? Elucidate different functions of language.

Q8. Elaborate all the formal fallacies in detail.



FINAL EXAMINATION JUNE 2012; AFFILIATED COLLAGES

LOGIC BA (H)-421

BS-III

Date: June 16, 2012 Max Marks: 60

Max Time: 3 Hrs

Instruction:



Q1. Discuss the rules for definition by genus and difference with examples.

Q2. Explain various kinds of “Disputes” in language with the help of examples.


135

e) Inductive and Deductive argumentsf) Stipulate and Lexical definitionsg) Informative and Expressive functions of Language.h) Obversion and Conversion

Q4. Work out the traditional square of opposition by showing a diagram.


a) Contradictories

b) Ostensive definition

C) Categorical Propositions

d) Logic

Q6. What do you understand by formal fallacies? Discuss any four with the help of examples.

Q7. Explain any six formal fallacies with examples.

Q8. Re write the following passage in standard form “categorical syllogism” by identifying all the essential elements.

d) No stubborn (obstinate) individuals who never admit a mistake are good teachers, so, some well-informed people are stubborn individuals who never admit a mistake, and some good teachers are not well- informed people.

e) All artificial satellites are important scientific achievements; therefore some important scientific achievements are not American inventions, inasmuch as some artificial satellites are not American invention.

136

f) Some conservatives are not advocates of high tariff rates, because all advocates of high tariff rates are Republicans, and some Republicans are not conservatives.




LOGIC BA (H)-421

BS-III


Max Time: 3 Hrs

Attempt any six questions.

Q1. What do you understand by categorical propositions? Discuss in detail. (10)

Q2. Explain various kinds of Agreement of disagreement in a language with the help of examples.


d) Formal & informal Logice) Persuasive & précising definitionsf) Truth & Validity

Q4. What do you understand by definition by genus and difference? Also discuss its rules.

Q5. Define the following.

a) Inference b) Categorical Syllogism

C) Obversion d) Argument

Q6. Discuss any four formal fallacies with the help of examples.

Q7. What is the relevance of Logic for business studies? Elaborate.

Q8. Work out the traditional square of opposition in detail with the help of diagram.

Q9. Explain any six informal fallacies with examples.

137

Example of Solved Examination

Paper Of

Karachi University




LOGIC BA (H)-421

BS-III


Max Time: 3 Hrs

Note:

Attempt any six (all) of the followings. Question no.9 &10 are compulsory. All carry equal marks.

Q1. Define Logic. What is the significance of Logic in business studies?

Q2. Differentiate between inductive and deductive argument with the help of examples.

Q3. Critically evaluate basic language functions and forms and their relationship. Give examples for explanation.

Q4. What do you know about definition? Also discuss various kinds of definitions with examples.

Q5. What do you know about conversion, Obversion and contraposition? Explain with the help of tables.

138

Q6. Define informal fallacies and classify them. Explicate fallacy of relevance and ambiguity with examples.

Q7. Define categorical syllogism along with the constitutive elements. Give examples.

Q8. Describe the formal fallacies in detail with examples.

Q9. Rewrite each of the following syllogisms in standard form and name its mood and figure.

c) All proteins are organic compounds, whence all enzymes are proteins, as all enzymes are organic compounds.

d) Some evergreen are objects of worship, because all fir trees are evergreens, and some objects of worship are fir trees.

Q10. Name the quality and quantity of each of the following propositions and state whether their subject and predicate terms are distributed or undistributed.

c) All new labor devices are major threats to the trade union movement.d) Some advocate of the major political, social and economic reforms are not responsible


Example of Solved Examination

Paper Of

Karachi University

Answer of Question No.1

The significance of Logic in business studies:

Definition of Logic:

See page: 9

Benefits of Logic

See page: 15

Logic is Science or ArtsSee page: 15

The scope of Logic:

139

See page: 17

Answer of Question No.3:

Three Basic Language Functions with Examples for Explanation:

See page: 57


Various kinds of definitions with examples:

Stipulative Definitions:

See page: 77


Definition of Conversion:

See page: 36


Definition of informal fallacies:

See page: 107


Definition of categorical syllogism:

See page: 90


Explanation of the formal fallacies in detail with examples:

See page: 99

140


Rewrite each of the following syllogisms in standard form and name its mood and figure.

a) All proteins are organic compounds, whence all enzymes are proteins, as all enzymes are organic compounds.

b) Some evergreen are objects of worship, because all fir trees are evergreens, and some objects of worship are fir trees.

Solution:

a) Syllogisms in standard form:Premise no 1: A: All proteins are organic compounds.Premise no 2: A: All enzymes are organic compounds.

Conclusion: A: Whence all enzymes are proteins.

Mood and figure:

Mood: AAA

Figure: 2

So, it indicates the mood and figure in this form: AAA-2

b) Syllogisms in standard form:Premise no 1: A: All fir trees are evergreens.Premise no 2: I: Some evergreen are objects of worship.

Conclusion: I: Some objects of worship are fir trees.

Mood and figure:

Mood: AII

Figure: 1

So, it indicates the mood and figure in this form: AII-1

141

Middle term

Middle term

Major term

Minor term

Minor term

Major term

Major term

Minor term

Major term

Minor term


Name the quality and quantity of each of the following propositions and state whether their subject and predicate terms are distributed or undistributed.

a) All new labor devices are major threats to the trade union movement.b) Some advocate of the major political, social and economic reforms are not responsible


Solution:

Quality, Quantity and Distribution

See page: 27

تمت بالخیر

The End

142

143