Unit VI – Logical Reasoning
1. Understanding the Structure of Arguments
Logical reasoning begins with understanding arguments – the basic building blocks of reasoning and critical thinking. An argument consists of a set of statements, some of which (premises) provide support for the conclusion. To critically analyze an argument, one must understand its forms, categorical propositions, and the distinctions between formal and informal fallacies.
Argument Forms: Arguments can be categorized into deductive and inductive forms. Deductive arguments claim that the conclusion necessarily follows from the premises. Inductive arguments suggest that the conclusion is probable, given the premises. Understanding the structure helps evaluate whether reasoning is valid or invalid.
Categorical Propositions: These are statements that assert or deny a relation between two classes of objects. The four main types are: Universal Affirmative (All A are B), Universal Negative (No A are B), Particular Affirmative (Some A are B), and Particular Negative (Some A are not B). The “Mood and Figure” of syllogisms describe the type and arrangement of these propositions to assess validity.
Formal and Informal Fallacies: Formal fallacies are errors in logical structure, while informal fallacies arise from ambiguous or misleading language. Recognizing these is crucial in evaluating arguments, avoiding cognitive errors, and enhancing critical thinking.
Connotations and Denotations: Language plays a vital role in reasoning. Connotation refers to the implied meaning of terms, while denotation is the literal meaning. Misunderstanding these can lead to flawed reasoning or misinterpretation.
2. Evaluating and Distinguishing Deductive and Inductive Reasoning
Deductive reasoning moves from general principles to specific conclusions. If the premises are true, the conclusion must be true. Inductive reasoning moves from specific instances to general conclusions, often involving probability rather than certainty. Evaluating arguments requires identifying whether the reasoning is deductive or inductive, assessing its validity, and testing for logical soundness.
Deductive reasoning examples include syllogisms, mathematical proofs, and formal logic. For instance, “All mammals have lungs. A whale is a mammal. Therefore, a whale has lungs.” Inductive reasoning examples include predicting trends, making generalizations, or scientific observations, e.g., observing that “the sun rises every day in the east” to conclude it always will.
Critical thinking involves not only identifying the type of reasoning but also recognizing limitations. Deductive arguments can be valid but unsound if premises are false. Inductive arguments can be strong or weak depending on the evidence. Understanding these nuances enables precise evaluation of real-world reasoning.
Inductive: “I saw 100 swans, all white. Therefore, all swans are white.” (Probabilistic, may be refuted by exceptions)
3. Analogies
Analogies involve establishing a relationship between two pairs of items. They are widely used in logical reasoning tests to measure abstract thinking and pattern recognition. The key is to identify the relationship in the first pair and find a similar relationship in the second.
Types of analogical reasoning include synonym analogies (happy:joyful :: sad:?), antonym analogies (hot:cold :: wet:?), part-whole analogies (wheel:car :: petal:flower), cause-effect analogies (exercise:fitness :: study:knowledge), and function analogies (pen:writing :: knife:cutting).
Analogies enhance cognitive abilities, especially the capacity to relate concepts and reason abstractly. They require attention to subtle relationships, hierarchical structures, and semantic patterns.
Tree:Forest::Star:? → Galaxy
4. Venn Diagrams: Simple and Multiple Use for Establishing Validity of Arguments
Venn diagrams visually represent relationships among sets and are effective in testing logical reasoning. They help in analyzing syllogisms, categorical propositions, and overlapping categories. A simple Venn diagram uses circles to represent sets, with intersections showing shared elements. Multiple Venn diagrams allow for complex scenarios with more than two sets.
Using Venn diagrams, one can determine the validity of arguments. For example, in the argument “All A are B. Some B are C. Therefore, some A are C,” the diagram shows whether the conclusion is logically supported. Venn diagrams are also used in problem-solving to illustrate unions, intersections, and complements of sets.
5. Indian Logic: Means of Knowledge (Pramanas)
Indian classical logic outlines six pramanas, or means of knowledge: Pratyaksha (Perception), Anumana (Inference), Upamana (Comparison), Shabda (Verbal Testimony), Arthapatti (Postulation/Implication), and Anupalabddhi (Non-apprehension/Negative knowledge). Each pramana provides a method to acquire valid knowledge and reason accurately.
Pratyaksha (Perception): Knowledge obtained directly through senses. Example: Seeing smoke and fire.
Anumana (Inference): Deriving knowledge indirectly through reasoning. Example: Seeing smoke and inferring fire.
Upamana (Comparison): Knowledge through analogy. Example: Learning what a zebra is by comparing it to a horse with stripes.
Shabda (Verbal Testimony): Knowledge from reliable sources. Example: Learning history from textbooks.
Arthapatti (Implication): Deriving facts from necessary conditions. Example: A person not seen eating but gaining weight implies they must be eating at some time.
Anupalabddhi (Non-apprehension): Knowledge by absence. Example: Inferring the absence of milk from an empty container.
6. Structure and Kinds of Anumana, Vyapti, and Hetvabhasas
Anumana, or inference, is central to Indian logical tradition. Its structure involves a thesis (proposition), reason (hetu), and example (drstanta). Vyapti is the invariable relation between hetu and sadhya (the property to be proved). Hetvabhasas are fallacies of inference, representing common reasoning errors that invalidate arguments.
Kinds of Anumana:
- Purvavat: Inferring from cause to effect.
- Sheshavat: Inferring from effect to cause.
- Samanvayavat: Inferring by analogy or agreement.
MCQs – Logical Reasoning
- Which of the following is a deductive argument?
A) All humans are mortal; Socrates is human; therefore, Socrates is mortal.
B) All observed swans are white; therefore, all swans are white.
C) The sun rises every day; therefore, it will rise tomorrow.
D) None of the above.
Answer: A - “Some cats are black. All black things are dark. Therefore, some cats are dark.” What type of reasoning is this?
A) Deductive
B) Inductive
C) Analogical
D) None
Answer: A - Identify the formal fallacy:
A) All dogs are animals; all animals are dogs; therefore, all dogs are dogs.
B) If it rains, the ground is wet; the ground is wet; therefore, it rains.
C) All humans are mortal; Socrates is human; therefore, Socrates is mortal.
D) None
Answer: B - In Indian logic, Pratyaksha means:
A) Inference
B) Perception
C) Comparison
D) Verbal testimony
Answer: B - Which pramana represents knowledge by analogy?
A) Pratyaksha
B) Anumana
C) Upamana
D) Arthapatti
Answer: C - Vyapti refers to:
A) Premise
B) Invariable relation between hetu and sadhya
C) Conclusion
D) Fallacy
Answer: B - Hetvabhasas are:
A) Valid conclusions
B) Fallacies of inference
C) Premises
D) Analogies
Answer: B - Classical square of opposition illustrates:
A) Relations between premises
B) Relations between categorical propositions
C) Logical analogies
D) Indian pramanas
Answer: B - Which is an example of formal fallacy?
A) Affirming the consequent
B) Hasty generalization
C) False analogy
D) Slippery slope
Answer: A - Abhivyakti of Shabda pramana refers to:
A) Perception
B) Verbal testimony
C) Analogy
D) Inference
Answer: B
- Which of the following is an example of inductive reasoning?
A) All men are mortal; Socrates is a man; therefore, Socrates is mortal.
B) Every swan observed is white; therefore, all swans are white.
C) If it rains, the ground gets wet; it rains; therefore, the ground is wet.
D) None of the above.
Answer: B - Which is a part-whole analogy?
A) Finger:Hand::Toe:Foot
B) Hot:Cold::Wet:Dry
C) Run:Jog::Sleep:Rest
D) Tree:Forest::Star:Galaxy
Answer: A - All cats are animals. Some animals are pets. Therefore, some cats are pets. This argument is:
A) Valid
B) Invalid
C) Deductive
D) Inductive
Answer: B - Affirming the consequent is an example of:
A) Formal fallacy
B) Informal fallacy
C) Analogy
D) Syllogism
Answer: A - Which pramana refers to knowledge gained through inference?
A) Pratyaksha
B) Anumana
C) Upamana
D) Shabda
Answer: B - Arthapatti pramana is used for:
A) Knowledge through perception
B) Knowledge through implication or postulation
C) Knowledge through comparison
D) Knowledge through verbal testimony
Answer: B - Which type of analogy involves opposites?
A) Synonym analogy
B) Antonym analogy
C) Cause-effect analogy
D) Function analogy
Answer: B - Venn diagrams are mainly used to:
A) Calculate numbers
B) Represent logical relationships visually
C) Find percentages
D) Infer probabilities
Answer: B - All A are B. Some B are C. Therefore, some A are C. This conclusion is:
A) Always valid
B) Sometimes valid
C) Never valid
D) Always true
Answer: C - Upamana pramana is best illustrated by:
A) Learning a new animal by comparing it to a familiar one
B) Observing the sun rise
C) Reading a book
D) Inferring from smoke to fire
Answer: A - Which is a classic example of a formal fallacy?
A) Denying the antecedent
B) Hasty generalization
C) Circular reasoning
D) False analogy
Answer: A - All humans are mortal. Socrates is human. Therefore, Socrates is mortal. This is an example of:
A) Inductive reasoning
B) Deductive reasoning
C) Analogical reasoning
D) Causal reasoning
Answer: B - Which pramana is “knowledge by absence”?
A) Pratyaksha
B) Anupalabddhi
C) Anumana
D) Shabda
Answer: B - Which fallacy is committed when a conclusion is drawn based on insufficient examples?
A) Hasty generalization
B) Affirming the consequent
C) False cause
D) Slippery slope
Answer: A - Classical square of opposition is used to analyze:
A) Arithmetic sequences
B) Relations between categorical propositions
C) Logical analogies
D) Indian pramanas
Answer: B - Which type of reasoning is “observing smoke and inferring fire”?
A) Deductive
B) Inductive
C) Inference (Anumana)
D) Analogy
Answer: C - Synonym analogy example:
A) Big:Large::Small:Little
B) Dog:Animal::Cat:Animal
C) Run:Jog::Sleep:Rest
D) Finger:Hand::Toe:Foot
Answer: A - Which pramana relies on authoritative testimony?
A) Pratyaksha
B) Shabda
C) Upamana
D) Anumana
Answer: B - Denotation of a term refers to:
A) Implied meaning
B) Literal meaning
C) Analogy
D) Inference
Answer: B - Connotation refers to:
A) Literal meaning
B) Implied meaning
C) Premise
D) Conclusion
Answer: B - Which fallacy involves assuming a causal link without evidence?
A) False cause
B) Affirming the consequent
C) Denying the antecedent
D) None
Answer: A - All mammals have lungs. Dolphins are mammals. Therefore, dolphins have lungs. Type of reasoning:
A) Deductive
B) Inductive
C) Analogical
D) Abductive
Answer: A - Analogical reasoning example:
A) Tree:Forest::Star:Galaxy
B) All cats are mammals
C) If it rains, the ground gets wet
D) None of the above
Answer: A - Which is an informal fallacy?
A) Hasty generalization
B) Affirming the consequent
C) Denying the antecedent
D) All of the above
Answer: A - Which pramana is exemplified by “inferring unseen events through necessary implication”?
A) Arthapatti
B) Pratyaksha
C) Shabda
D) Upamana
Answer: A - “All birds can fly. Penguins are birds. Penguins can fly.” This is an example of:
A) Valid reasoning
B) Fallacy due to exception
C) Deductive reasoning
D) Analogy
Answer: B - Venn diagram with three overlapping sets is used to:
A) Represent only two categories
B) Show multiple relationships
C) Solve arithmetic problems
D) None of the above
Answer: B
- All squares are rectangles. All rectangles are quadrilaterals. Therefore, all squares are quadrilaterals. This reasoning is:
A) Deductive
B) Inductive
C) Analogical
D) Fallacious
Answer: A - Which fallacy is committed when one assumes correlation implies causation?
A) False cause
B) Slippery slope
C) Hasty generalization
D) Circular reasoning
Answer: A - Which is an example of analogical reasoning?
A) Pen is used for writing; knife is used for cutting
B) All humans are mortal
C) The sun rises every day
D) None of the above
Answer: A - In a Venn diagram, intersection of two sets represents:
A) Union
B) Common elements
C) Difference
D) Complement
Answer: B - Which pramana is verified by direct sensory experience?
A) Anumana
B) Pratyaksha
C) Shabda
D) Upamana
Answer: B - Which fallacy occurs when irrelevant information is used to distract from the main argument?
A) Red herring
B) Hasty generalization
C) Affirming the consequent
D) None of the above
Answer: A - Which pramana involves learning through comparison?
A) Upamana
B) Shabda
C) Pratyaksha
D) Anupalabddhi
Answer: A - All humans are rational. Some rational beings are leaders. Therefore, some humans are leaders. This conclusion is:
A) Always valid
B) Sometimes valid
C) Never valid
D) Deductive
Answer: B - Which type of reasoning involves probable conclusions rather than certain ones?
A) Deductive
B) Inductive
C) Analogical
D) None
Answer: B - Classical square of opposition deals with:
A) Relationships between four types of categorical propositions
B) Arithmetic operations
C) Logical analogies
D) Indian pramanas
Answer: A - All roses are flowers. Some flowers are red. Therefore, some roses are red. This reasoning is:
A) Valid
B) Invalid
C) Deductive
D) Analogical
Answer: B - Which pramana helps to conclude based on implication?
A) Arthapatti
B) Anumana
C) Upamana
D) Shabda
Answer: A - Which of the following is a non-deductive reasoning example?
A) Observing many swans are white and concluding all swans are white
B) All humans are mortal; Socrates is human; therefore Socrates is mortal
C) Finger is to hand as toe is to foot
D) Both B and C
Answer: A - Which fallacy arises when a conclusion is drawn from an insufficient sample?
A) Hasty generalization
B) False cause
C) Circular reasoning
D) Red herring
Answer: A - All lions are animals. All tigers are animals. Therefore, all lions are tigers. This argument is:
A) Deductive and valid
B) Deductive and invalid
C) Inductive
D) Analogical
Answer: B - Venn diagram with three sets is used to analyze:
A) Single relationships
B) Multiple overlapping relationships
C) Only numeric data
D) None
Answer: B - All cats are mammals. Some mammals are pets. Therefore, some cats are pets. Is this conclusion valid?
A) Yes
B) No
C) Sometimes
D) Cannot say
Answer: B - Which fallacy occurs when one assumes the future will exactly follow the past?
A) Hasty generalization
B) False analogy
C) Slippery slope
D) Inductive fallacy
Answer: D - All mammals breathe air. Dogs are mammals. Therefore, dogs breathe air. Type of reasoning:
A) Deductive
B) Inductive
C) Analogical
D) Abductive
Answer: A - “Seeing smoke and inferring fire” illustrates:
A) Pratyaksha
B) Anumana
C) Shabda
D) Upamana
Answer: B
Post a Comment