• UNIT-2

• Meaning Analysis: The nature of meaning;

Meaning and reference;
• Argument Analysis: Identifying arguments;
Validity and Soundness; Inductive strength and
cogency;
• Fallacy Analysis: Common errors in thinking
including inconsistency, irrelevance, insufficiency,
and inappropriate assumptions.
 ARGUMENT
• An argument is the list/ set of statements. An
argument consists of premises/ assumptions and
conclusion.
• In other words, an argument is the series of
statements called the premise/premises intended
to determine the degree of truth of another
statement, the conclusion.
• Premises: are the reasons for accepting a
conclusion. It includes since, firstly, secondly, as
for, assuming that, follows from, in view of fact
that, after all, indicated by, as shown.
• Conclusion: is the end statement. It includes
therefore, hence, consequently, suggests/proves/
demonstrates, that entails, implies.
1.
TYPES OF ARGUMENT
Deductive Argument: An argument where the conclusion follows validity from the premises. In
other words, an argument where truth of the premises guarantees truth of the conclusion.
This argument asserts that the truth of the conclusion is a logical sequence of the premises. Based on
the premises, the conclusion follows necessarily.
Or,
The truth of the conclusion is a logical consequence of the premises, if the premise is true, then the
conclusion must be true. It would be self contradictory to assert the premises and deny the
conclusion because the negation of the conclusion is contradictory to the truth of the premises.
• It follows from GENERAL→ SPECIFIC/ PARTICULAR(always true)
E.g., P: all men are mortal (GENERAL)
P: Ram is a man
C: Ram is mortal (PARTICULAR)

P: If Raj is human then he is mortal(PARTICULAR)

` P: Raj is human
C: Raj is mortal (PARTICULAR)

P: All human are animal (GENERAL)

P: All animal are mortal
C: All human are mortal (GENERAL)

• If premise is true, conclusion has to be true.

• Premises if true, do provide conclusive ground for its conclusion.
• It can be valid or invalid
• If all the premises are true and conclusion is also true, hence it is a valid argument.
• If any of the statement is false, then argument is invalid argument. Or, the conclusion, if ,logically
incorrect then argument is invalid.
• Deductive arguments may be either valid or invalid. If an argument is valid, it
is a valid deduction, and if its premises are true, the conclusion must be true: a
valid argument cannot have true premises and a false conclusion.
Eg. All Greeks are human and all humans are mortal; therefore, all Greeks are
mortal. : Valid argument; if the premises are true the conclusion must be true.

Some Greeks are logicians and some logicians are tiresome; therefore, some
Greeks are tiresome. Invalid argument: the tiresome logicians might all be
Romans (for example or anyone else).
 DEDUCTIVE ARGUMENT

Valid Invalid

Premises True Premises False

Sound argument Unsound argument

2. Inductive Argument: An argument where the premises point several cases of some
pattern and the conclusion states that this pattern will hold in general.
An inductive argument will not be deductively valid, because even if a
pattern is found many times, doesn’t guarantee it will always be found.

Therefore an inductive argument provides weaker, less trustworthy support for

the conclusion than a deductive argument does.

This argument asserts that the truth of the conclusion is supported to some degree
of probability by the premises.
Arguments that involve predictions are inductive, as the future is uncertain.
E.g., P: we have seen 1000 swans and all of them have been white.
C: all swans are white
• It is based on probability.
• Premises only provide some support for the truth of conclusion.
• It flows from PARTICULAR → GENERAL (may/may not be true)
E.g., A is human and is mortal (PARTICULAR)
B is human and is mortal (PARTICULAR)
C is human and is mortal (PARTICULAR)
All human are mortal (GENERAL)
.
Inductive arguments are of two kinds:
(a) Cognent Inductive argument:
Argument that is (1) strong, (2) has all true premises and (3) doesn’t overlook
important evidence that would lead to another conclusion.
Cognent argument= strong argument+ all premises true

(b) non-cognent Inductive argument:

Argument that is either (1) strong, but has at least one false premise, OR
(2) is weak OR (3) overlooks important evidence that would lead to
another conclusion.
3. Abductive (Hypothetico- Deductive) Argument:
An argument that
(i) point out a certain fact
(ii) points out that if a certain hypothesis were true, we would get this fact, and
so
(iii) concludes that hypothesis is indeed true.
E.g., P: These coins conduct electricity (fact)
P: If these coins are made up of gold (hypothesis), then they would conduct
electricity (prediction)
C: These coins are made of gold.
• Here, we try to presume a fact by using supporting facts( or prediction).
E.g., P: Some people cannot see (fact)
P: Tim continue walking into objects. (supporting fact)
C: Tim cannot see. (abduction)
• These arguments seem to make an even bigger jump than inductive arguments:
inductive arguments generalize, while abductive arguments say that successful
predictions ‘prove’ a theory is true.
• These arguments are not deductively valid, because false theories can make
true predictions, so true predictions do not guarantee that the theory is true.
• It flows from INCOMPLETE OBSERVATION→ BEST PREDICTION(may/may not
be true)
Fallacies in Argument
CCT-UNIT 2
 Fallacies in Argument
• A fallacy is an argument which appears to be valid but in reality it is not so.
It is an invalid argument which is camouflaged and which can deceive or
mislead us by a show of truth.
• Being mistakes in reasoning, fallacies arises from the violation of one or
other of the principles on which the correctness of reasoning depends.
• A fallacy is the use of invalid or otherwise faulty reasoning, or "wrong
moves" in the construction of an argument. A fallacious argument may be
deceptive by appearing to be better than it really is.
• A fallacy is:
i. An incorrect or misleading notion or opinion based on inaccurate facts or
ii. Invalid reasoning.
iii. Unsound or invalid reasoning.
iv. The tendency to mislead.
v. (Logic) logic an error in reasoning that renders an argument logically
invalid.
 Types of Fallacies
• There are two types of fallacies:
1. Formal Fallacies: A formal fallacy is one that can be detected by analyzing
the form of an argument, such fallacies affect only deductive argument.
2. Informal Fallacies: An informal fallacy is one that can be identified only by
analyzing the content of an argument, such fallacies can affect both deductive
and inductive arguments.

• Types of Formal Fallacies:

• Appeal to Probability - This is a statement that takes something for granted
because it is probable or possible.
Example: I see a dark cloud on the horizon. Dark clouds mean rain. It’s going to
rain here today.

• Bad Reasons Fallacy - Also known as Argumentum ad Logicam, in this type

of fallacy, the conclusion is assumed to be bad because the arguments are bad.
Example: Her new friend drives an old car. She must be poor. She should not talk
to her.
• Masked Man Fallacy - Also known as the Intentional Fallacy it involves a
substitution of parties. If the two things that are interchanged are identical,
then the argument is assumed to be valid.
Example: A private investigator informed police that the murder is committed
by someone who has red car. Mr. A also has a red car. Hence, Mr. A is the
murderer.

• Non Sequitur - A fallacy wherein someone asserts a conclusion that does

not follow from the propositions or premise.
Example: All Dubliners are from Ireland. Ronan is not a Dubliner, therefore,
he is not Irish.

• Informal Fallacies: Following are the major types of informal fallacies:

 Fallacies of Relevance
 Fallacies of Defective Induction
 Fallacies of Presumption
 Fallacies of Ambiguity
 Fallacies of Relevance
• The fallacy of relevance share the common characteristics that the
argument in which they occur have premises that are logically irrelevant
to the conclusion.
• The premises are relevant psychologically, so the conclusion may seem to
follow from the premises, even though it does not follow logically.
• In an argument that commit fallacy of relevance, the connection between
premises and conclusion is emotional. To identify a fallacy of relevance, one
must be able to distinguish genuine evidence from various forms of emotional
appeal.

Following are the various types of fallacies of relevance:

1. APPEAL TO FORCE (ARGUMENTUM de BACULUM): It occurs

when the arguer, instead of providing genuine evidence for a conclusion,
provides some sort of threat or harm to the listener or reader if the
conclusion is not accepted. E.g., Either you can pay me the ten thousand
you owe me, or you can pay your dentist.
 2. APPEAL TO PITY ( ARGUMENTUM ad MISERICORDIAN):
It occurs when the arguer, instead of providing genuine evidence for a
conclusion, attempts to get the conclusion accepted by evoking pity from the
listener or reader.
E.g., Our company is on the rocks, financially, if you sue us, we will go out of
business, and our children will not be able to go to college.
Example: TAX PAYER TO JUDGE: Your honor, I admit that I declared
thirteen children as dependents on my tax return, even though I have only two.
But if you find me guilty of tax evasion, my reputation will be ruined. I shall
probably lose my job, my poor wife will not be able to have the operation that
she desperately needs and my kids will starve. Surely I am not guilty.
The conclusion of this argument is “Surely I am not guilty”. The conclusion is
not logically relevant, although it is psychologically relevant.

3. APPEAL TO THE PEOPLE (ARGUMENTUM ad POPULUM): When

the arguer tries to get the conclusion accepted by playing upon the listener’s
desire to be loved, esteemed, admired, valued, recognized, or accepted.
E.g., Everybody knows that Smith cannot win, so you should vote for Connor in
the election. This is also known as APPEAL TO MAJORITY.
• The appeal to the people uses there desires to get the reader or listener to accept
a conclusion. Two approaches are involved:

• The Direct Approach: The direct approach occurs when an arguer, addressing
a large group of people, excites the emotions and enthusiasm of the crowd to
win acceptance for his or her conclusion. The objective is to arouse a kind of
mob mentality. This is a strategy used by nearly every propagandist. Politicians
and some state rulers are masters of this techniques.

• The Indirect Approach: In the indirect approach the arguer aims his or her
appeal not to the crowd as a whole but at one or more individuals separately.
The indirect approach includes such specific forms as the bandwagon
argument, the appeal to snobbery and the appeal to vanity.
 Bandwagon Argument: This argument is based on the fact that majority of the
society is following a trend so one should do the same.
Example: You should use colgate, because 90 percent of the population of India
uses colgate to brush their teeth.
 Appeal to Vanity: It often associates the product with someone, who is admired
and pursued if you use it. For Example: Raymond the complete man, the tag line
gives an argument that wearing Raymond clothes gives a presumption of being
strong, masculine and royal man.
 Appeal to Snobbery: Snob appeal refers to the qualities or attributes of a
product that might appeal to a consumer with "snobby" tastes. It may refer to the
actual product itself or the exclusivity the consumer could potentially experience
as a result of owning the product that is being advertised.
 Example: A Rolls Royce is not for every one. If you qualify as one of the select
few, this distinguished classic may be seen and driven at British Motor cars. (By
appointment only, please) or Rajni Gandha add showing royalties consuming it,
making an appeal that only royal people have taste for same.

4. ARGUMENT AGAINST THE PERSON (Argumentum ad Hominem):

• Ad hominems are a fallacy of relevance where someone rejects or criticizes
another person’s view on the basis of personal characteristics, background,
physical appearance, or other features irrelevant to the argument at issue. It
also known as Fallacy of Personal Attack.
• Example: You graduated with a PhD from NYU, I’m surprised that you don’t
believe that humans are responsible for climate change
• The Tu quoque (“you too”) fallacy begins when the second arguer attempts
to make the first appear to be hypocritical of arguing in a bad faith.
• Example: Child to parent: your argument that stop stealing candy from the
shop is no good. You told me yourself just a weak ago that you, too, stole
candy when you were a kid.

5. FALLACY OF ACCIDENT: When a general rule is wrongly or

unjustifiably applied to a specific case. E.g., Dogs have four legs; Fido just
had one of his legs amputated; so Fido is not a dog any more.

6. STRAW MAN FALLACY: It occurs when someone argues that a

person holds a view that is actually not what the other person believes.
Instead, it is a distorted version of what the person believes. So, instead
of attacking the person's actual statement or belief, it is the distorted version
that is attacked.
Example: Senator Smith says that the nation should not add to the defense
budget.
Senator Jones says that he cannot believe that Senator Smith wants to leave the
nation defenseless.
7. FALLACY OF MISSING POINT: It occurs when the premises of an argument
lead, or seem to lead, to one conclusion and then a completely different conclusion
is drawn.
E.g., Abuse of the welfare system is rampant nowadays. Our only alternative is to
abolish the system altogether.

8. RED HERRING FALLACY: It occurs when an arguer diverts the attention of

the reader or listener by going off on extraneous issues and points but ends by
assuming that some conclusion relevant to the point at hand has been
established.
Example: “I think there is great merit in making requirements stricter for graduate
students. I recommend, you support it too. After, all we all are in budget crisis and
we do not want our salaries affected.”

9. ATTACKING THE MOTIVE: When an arguer criticizes a person’s motivation

for offering a particular argument or claim rather than examining the worth of the
argument.
Example: Donald Trump has argued that we need to build a new campus but Trump
is the owner of Trump’s Construction Company. He will make fortune if his
company is picked to build a new campus. Obviously, Trump’s argument is a
senseless.
 Fallacies of Defective Induction
1.APPEAL TO IGNORANCE: Concluding that something is true because it has not been
proven false (or vice versa)
Or
When the premises state that nothing is known with certainty about a certain subject, and
the conclusion states something definite about that subject.
Example: God exists because no one deny it. You cannot prove that God does not exist,
therefore he exists. Or
‘We have no hard evidence that fairies exist. Which must mean they are so incredibly
magical that they can make themselves completely invisible to humans’.

2.APPEAL TO INAPPROPRIATE AUTHORITY: When an arguer cites the testimony or

belief of an authority who is not necessarily reliable or who is not an expert in the subject at
hand.
Or
Arguing that something is true because someone else has said so, but when the supposed
authority or expert really lacks the relevant expertise, or can be suspected to have a bias.
Example: He has a PhD in Physics, that makes him a doctor, so we should ask him if I have
Swine Flu.
3. FALSE CAUSE: When the link between premises and conclusion in an
argument depends on the supposition of some causal connection that does not
in fact exist.
Example: The clock chimed six times, and then the sun came up; the sun
would not have come up without the clock chiming six times.
Or: I prayed that the Patriots would win the Super Bowl, and they did! God
heard my prayer.

4. HASTY GENERALISATION: When a conclusion is drawn about all the

members of a group or population from premises about some sample of the
group that is not representative.
Example: “Attack on USA was done by a Muslim. Hence all Muslims are
terrorists.”
Or: Hitler was a vegetarian. Therefore, I don’t trust any vegetarians.
 Fallacies of Presumption
1. CONFIRMATION BIAS: Often we tend to seek, recognize, and value
information that is consistent with our attitudes, beliefs, and expectations.
If we form an initial impression, we may favor findings that support that
impression, and discount, ignore, or misconstrue data that don't fit.

 PREMATURE CONFIRMATION: when the arguer believes about

happening of an event and when that actually happens, he pre conceives or
confirms the conclusion in advance without obtaining all the facts.
 Example: “If devil existed then bad things would happen in the world. Bad
things do happen in the world. Therefore, devil exists.”
Fallacies of Inappropriate Presumption
• Fallacies of inappropriate presumption are cases where we have
explicitly or implicitly made an assumption that is not reasonable to
accept in the relevant context. Some examples:

• Consider the question "Have you stopped being an idiot?" Whether

you answer "yes" or "no", you admit that you are, or have been, an
idiot. Presumably you do not want to make any such admission. We
can point out that this question has a false assumption.
 Fallacy of Ambiguity
• Amphiboly
• An amphiboly can occur if the grammatical
construction of a sentence creates its own ambiguity.
• A reckless 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.
 Fallacy of Ambiguity
• Composition
• 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).
• My philosophy course in college was well-
organized. Therefore, my college education
was well-organized.
 Fallacy of Inconsistency
Inconsistency
(also known as: internal contradiction, logical inconsistency)
Description: In terms of a fallacious argument, two or more propositions are asserted that cannot both
possibly be true. In a more general sense, holding two or more views/beliefs that cannot all be true
together. Quotes from Yogi Berra are great examples of fallacies, especially inconsistencies.
Example #1:
"I never said most of the things I said." - Yogi Berra
Explanation: If he had said those things, then he said them, which is a contradiction to his claim that he
never said them. This is both an internal inconsistency It is internal because the inconsistency is
contained within the statement itself; it doesn't require any other premises or arguments.

Example #2:
"Nobody goes there anymore. It's too crowded." - Yogi Berra
Explanation: If "nobody" went there, then it could not possibly be crowded, since "crowded" implies too
many people are there. This is both an internal inconsistency and a logical inconsistency.
 Fallacy of Inconsistency
• A person commits the fallacy of inconsistency when he or she makes
contradictory claims.
Examples:
• There is no evil in this world. Though evil exists in some parts of the world, we
will overcome it sooner or later.
• Of course consenting adults should be able to do whatever they want. We are
in a free country. But some things violate the laws of nature, and if people get
caught doing those things, we should send them to jail.
• I'm all for equal rights for women. I just think a woman's place is in the home.
• There are few philosophic truths more certain that this: all claims to truth in
the realm of morality are subjective and arbitrary.
• Although religious beliefs are the proper object or faith, not reason, it would
be hard to deny that some religious beliefs are simply irrational.
 Fallacy of Insufficiency
• Fallacies of insufficiency are cases where insufficient evidence is
provided in support of a claim. Probably most common fallacies fall
within this category. Here are a few popular types:

• Limited sampling
• Momofuku Ando, the inventor of instant noodles, died at the age of
96. He said he ate instant noodles everyday. So instant noodles
cannot be bad for your health.
• A black cat crossed my path this morning, and I got into a traffic
accident this afternoon. Black cats are really unlucky.
• In both cases the observations are relevant to the conclusion, but a
lot more data is needed to support the conclusion, e.g. Studies
show that many other people who eat instant noodles live longer,
and those who encounter black cats are more likely to suffer from
accidents.
 Fallacy of insufficiency
• Appeal to ignorance
• We have no evidence showing that he is innocent. So he must be
guilty.
• If someone is guilty, it would indeed be hard to find evidence
showing that he is innocent. But perhaps there is no evidence to
point either way, so lack of evidence is not enough to prove guilt.

• Naturalistic fallacy
• Many children enjoy playing video games, so we should not stop
them from playing.
• Many naturalistic fallacies are examples of fallacy of insufficiency.
Empirical facts by themselves are not sufficient for normative
conclusions, even if they are relevant.
 OBJECTIVE
The subject aims at making the students
understand the importance of critical and
creative thinking skills. It provides the
conceptual framework to identify problems in
everyday life to make the right and appropriate
decisions.
 MEANING
LITERAL MEANING is a property of linguistic expressions. The
literal meaning of a sequence of words is determined by its
grammatical properties and the meanings that are conventionally
assigned to those words.
The literal meaning of a statement should be distinguished from
its conversational implicature - the information that is implicitly
conveyed in a particular conversational context, distinct from the
literal meaning of the statement.
 Nature of Meaning
• Knowing the meaning of a term is just a
matter of being in a certain psychological state
• The meaning of a term determines its
extension (in the sense that sameness of
intension entails sameness of extension).
 REFERENCE AND MEANING
• Two ways of talking about the meaning of
words and other expressions

• Meaning; we deal with relationships inside

the language.
• Reference; we deal with relationships
between language and world.
 Argument analysis

• Argument is a claim defended with reason.

• Argument has two parts; PREMISES AND
CONCLUSION.
• Premises are statements in an argument
offered as evidence or reasons why we should
accept another statement, the conclusion.
• The conclusion is the statement in an
argument that the premises are intended to
prove or support.
 IDENTIFYING ARGUMENTS
( CONCLUSION AND PREMISES)
• In identifying premises and conclusions, we
are often helped by indicator words. Indicator
words are words or phrases that provide clues
that premises or conclusions are being put
forward.
• Premise indicators indicate that premises are
being offered
• Conclusion indicators indicate that
conclusions are being offered.
 SOME COMMON PREMISE
INDICATORS

• Since
• For
• Seeing that
• Because
• Given that
• Considering that
 Tips on finding conclusion
• Find the main issue and ask yourself what
position the writer or speaker is taking on that
issue.
• Look at the beginning or end of the passage;
the conclusion is often (but not always) found
in one of those places.
• Ask yourself, “What is the writer or speaker
trying to prove?” That will be the conclusion.
 VALIDITY AND SOUNDNESS
EVALUATING AN ARGUMENT:
The validity of an argument is based on the following points;

1. CLARITY: Is the argument clear and unambiguous (Boss,

2012).
2. CREDIBILITY: Are your reasons supported by proof.
3. RELEVANCE: Are the reasons directly connected to your
conclusions.
4. 4. COMPLETENESS: Are there any unstated reasons and
conclusions.
 VALIDITY

• In a valid argument, the conclusion follows from the

premises.
• In other words, if the premises are (or were) true, then the
conclusion must also be true.
• That is, it is impossible for the premises of the valid
argument all to be true and its conclusion to be false.
• In order to determine whether an argument is valid or not,
ask yourself: Supposing that the premises are or were true
(whether they really are or not), must the conclusion be
true? If the answer is yes, then the argument is valid. If the
answer is no, then the argument is invalid.
• Notice: valid arguments may have false premises and false
conclusions.
 Some examples of valid arguments
All examples above are valid arguments. Here are a few more:
• Mahatma Gandhi is a Texan. (F)
• All Texans wear sombreros. (F)
• Thus, Gandhi wears a sombrero. (from 1, 2) (F)

• All native Texans are at least one inch tall. (T)

• Stefan is a native Texan. (F)
• Stefan is at least one inch tall. (from 1, 2) (T)

• All women are Romans. (F)

• Caesar was a woman. (F)
• Caesar was a Roman. (from 1, 2) (T)

• Notice, these examples illustrate the fact that a valid argument may have all combinations of truth
a falsity of premises and conclusion with one exception: if the premises of a valid argument are
true, then so is its conclusion. It is never th case that an argument is valid and has all true premises
but its conclusion is false.
 SOUNDNESS
• A sound argument is both valid; and all of its premises are true.
• Sound arguments prove that their conclusions are true. They are
proofs.

Some examples of sound arguments

• All men are mortal. (T)
• Socrates is a man. (T)
• Hence, Socrates is mortal. (from 1,2) (T)

• No vegetarians eat met. (T)

• Gandhi was a vegetarian. (T)
• Gandhi did not eat meat. (from 1,2) (T)
 INDUCTIVE STRENGTH
• An inductive argument is an argument that is
intended by the arguer to be strong enough
that, if the premises were to be true, then it
would be unlikely that the conclusion is false.
So, an inductive argument's success or
strength is a matter of degree.
 COGENCY
• A strong inductive argument with true
premises is termed cogent.To say an argument
is cogent is to say it is good, believable; there
is good evidence that the conclusion is true. A
weak argument cannot be cogent, nor can a
strong one with a false premise(s)
 FALLACIES IN ARGUMENTS
A fallacy is an argument which appears to be
valid but in reality it is not so.
It is an invalid argument which is camouflaged
and which can deceive or mislead us by a show
of truth. It is, so to speak, a trap, something
Tricky or hidden.
A fallacy may be committed unintentionally or
intentionally. When the fallacy is committed
unintentionally it is called paralogism AND
when it is committed intentionally then it is
called sophism.
 THE FALLACY OF RELEVANCE
The fallacy of relevance share the common
characteristics that the argument in which they
occur have premises that are logically irrelevant
to the conclusion. Yet the premises are relevant
psychologically, so the conclusion may seem to
follow from the premises, even though it does
not follow logically.
 FALLACY OF AMBIGUITY
The fallacies of ambiguity include equivocation
and amphibology. There fallacies arises from the
occurrence of some form of ambiguity in either
the premise or the conclusion (or both). A term
is ambiguous, if it is susceptible to different
interpretations in a given context.
 LEARNING OUTCOMES

• To understand the concepts related to meaning and

reference.
• To develop the attitude and techniques for valid
arguments
• To apply the basic skills for working in innovative
teams.
THANK YOU