Question.No.1
Assertion: The fallacy of Asidha occurs when the middle term is not proven to be present in the minor term.
Reason: The middle term must be always present in the minor term for the argument to be valid.
- Both assertion and reason are true and R is the correct explanation of A.
- Both assertion and reason are true but Ris is not the correct explanation of A.
- A is true but R is false.
- A is false but R is true
Solution:
- The assertion is true. The fallacy of Asidha occurs when the middle term is not proven to be present in the minor term. For example, the argument "All swans are white because all swans are fragrant" is an Asidha fallacy because it has not been proven that all swans are fragrant.
- The reason is also true. The middle term must be always present in the minor term for the argument to be valid.
However, the reason is not the correct explanation of the assertion because the Asidha fallacy can occur even when the middle term is always present in the minor term.
- For example, the argument "All swans are white because all swans are birds" is an Asidha fallacy even though the middle term "bird" is always present in the minor term "swan."
Therefore, the correct answer is (B).
Question.No.2
Which of the following arguments is an ignoratio elenchi fallacy?
- "We should not raise taxes because it will hurt the economy."
- "You should not vote for that candidate because he is a corrupt liar."
- "We should not build a new coal power plant because it will contribute to climate change."
- "You should not watch that movie because it is offensive to some people."
- The fourth argument is an ignoratio elenchi fallacy because the conclusion is irrelevant to the premises.
- The premises of the argument are that the movie is offensive to some people. However, the conclusion of the argument is that you should not watch the movie.
- The fact that the movie is offensive to some people does not mean that you should not watch it.
- The other arguments are not ignoratio elenchi fallacies.
- The first argument is a logical argument that is supported by evidence.
- The second argument is also a logical argument, but it is based on the candidate's past behavior.
- The third argument is a logical argument that is based on scientific evidence.
Therefore, the only argument that is an ignoratio Elenchi fallacy is the fourth argument
Question.No.3
"If it rains, then the ground gets wet. It didn't rain. Therefore, the ground didn't get wet." Which fallacy is committed in the above argument?
- Fallacy of affirming the consequent
- Fallacy of composition
- Fallacy of denying the antecedent
- Fallacy of circular reasoning
The fallacy committed in the argument "If it rains, then the ground gets wet. It didn't rain. Therefore, the ground didn't get wet." is the fallacy of denying the antecedent.
- The fallacy of denying the antecedent is a type of logical fallacy in which the converse of a conditional statement is assumed to be true.
- This is not a valid form of reasoning, as the converse of a conditional statement is not logically equivalent to the original statement.
- In the example given, the original conditional statement is "If it rains, then the ground gets wet." The converse of this statement is "If the ground is wet, then it rained."
- The fallacy occurs when the speaker denies the antecedent of the original statement ("It didn't rain") and concludes that the consequent of the converse statement must also be false ("Therefore, the ground didn't get wet").
- Here is a breakdown of the argument:
- Premise 1: If it rains, then the ground gets wet.
- Premise 2: It didn't rain.
- Conclusion: Therefore, the ground didn't get wet.
- The conclusion of the argument does not follow from the premises. The fact that it didn't rain does not necessarily mean that the ground didn't get wet. There are other ways that the ground could get wet, such as if someone sprayed it with water.
- Here are some other examples of the fallacy of denying the antecedent:
- "If I study hard, then I will get good grades. I didn't study hard. Therefore, I will not get good grades."
- "If you are a good person, then you will go to heaven. You are not a good person. Therefore, you will not go to heaven."
- "If it is a bird, then it can fly. This animal cannot fly. Therefore, it is not a bird."
- In all of these examples, the speaker denies the antecedent of a conditional statement and concludes that the consequent of the converse statement must also be false. However, this is not a valid form of reasoning.
- It is important to be aware of the fallacy of denying the antecedent so that we can avoid making it ourselves and to identify it when others are using it.
Which of the following arguments is an ad hominem fallacy?
- "This new law will hurt the economy, so we should not pass it."
- "You should not vote for this candidate because he has a history of corruption."
- "This scientific theory is not supported by the evidence, so we should not accept it."
- "This argument is ridiculous because you're a conspiracy theorist."
"This argument is ridiculous because you're a conspiracy theorist."
- The fourth argument is an ad hominem fallacy because it attacks the character of the person making the argument, rather than the argument itself.
- The speaker is saying that the argument is ridiculous because the person making it is a conspiracy theorist.
- This is not a valid argument because it does not address the merits of the argument itself.
- The other arguments are not ad hominem fallacies.
- The first argument is a logical argument that is supported by evidence.
- The second argument is also a logical argument, but it is based on the candidate's past behavior.
- The third argument is a logical argument that is based on scientific evidence.
Therefore, the only argument that is an ad hominem fallacy is the fourth argument.
Question.No.5
Identify the formal fallacy committed in the following argument: "All birds have feathers. Penguins have feathers. Therefore, penguins are eagles."
- Fallacy of affirming the consequent
- Fallacy of denying the antecedent
- Fallacy of the undistributed middle
- Fallacy of equivocation
The argument is structured as follows:
- All birds have feathers.
- Penguins have feathers.
- Then, it concludes:
- Therefore, penguins are eagles.
- The formal fallacy in this argument is known as the "fallacy of the undistributed middle."
- This fallacy occurs when a middle term (in this case, "have feathers") is not properly distributed in the premises. In a valid categorical syllogism (a type of deductive argument), the middle term must be distributed at least once.
Question. No.6
Devdatta is fat and he does not eat during the day. Therefore, Devadatta is eating during the night. The above example, in classical Indian School of Logic, is a case of:
- Comparison
- Implication
- Perception
- Verbal Testimony
- Upamana ("comparison"), a means of having knowledge of something, in which observance of its similarities to another object provides knowledge of the relationship between the two.
- Pratyaksa or Perception is the only source of knowledge; i.e., what cannot be perceived through the senses must be treated as non-existent. Sense-experience is certainly one of the ways of how we come to know.
- Sabda (verbal testimony) the knowledge gained by means of texts.
- Arthapatti—(“the incidence of a case”), the knowledge gained by circumstantial implication, superimposing the known knowledge on an appearing knowledge that does not concur with the known knowledge circumstantial implication. "Therefore, (arthapatti), appeals to common sense. It is a Sanskrit term meaning "presumption" or "implication.
Given below are two statements :
Statement I: Vyāpti (relation of Universal concomitance) expresses the relation between two individual objects only.
Statement II: Vyāpti expresses the relation between the classes of individuals.
In the light of the above statements, choose the most appropriate answer from the options given below:
- Both Statement I and Statement II are correct
- Both Statement I and Statement II are incorrect
- Statement I is correct but Statement II is incorrect
- Statement I is incorrect but Statement II is correct
According to Nyaya philosophy, the term anumana literally means after knowledge i.e., the knowledge that follows other knowledge. The basis of the inference is invariable concomitance.
Statement I: Vyāpti (relation of Universal concomitance) expresses the relation between two individual objects only.
- The invariable relation between the hetu and the sadya is called Vyapti.
- It is considered as the logical ground of inference which is one of the means to knowledge.
- No conclusion can be inferred without the knowledge of vyapti.
- Vyapti guarantees the truth of the conclusion.
- Vyapti guarantees the truth of conclusion. It signifies the relation of invariable concomitance between "hetu" and "sadhya" and is of two kinds.
Hence, the statement I is true.
Statement II: Vyāpti expresses the relation between the classes of individuals.
- Vyapti is a universal statement that expresses the "niyata sahacharya" or relation of constant concomitance between hetu or the middle term and sadhya or the major term.
- It implies the "sahacara" i.e. the knowledge of invariable relation of causality or co-existence between sadhya and hetu in all the three instances of time, which is possible when the "anupadhik sambandha" i.e. the relation of unconditionality between the two is known.
- Vyapti between terms of unequal extension is called "asamavyavyapti" or "visamavyapti", and vyapti between equal extensions is called "samavyapti"
The above explanation indicates that the word "Vyapti" is actually used to show the relation between two individual objects.
Hence, statement II is incorrect.
Therefore, Statement I is correct but Statement II is incorrect.
Question.No.8
Which one of the following sources of knowledge (pramana) in classical Indian Philosophy is based on similarity of the unobserved object with a known object?
- Arthapatti
- Anumana
- Upamana
- Unuplabdhi
- Knowledge can be valid or invalid.
- Valid knowledge is called praman and non-valid knowledge is known as apraman.
- Pramana is a valid means of knowledge and its important four means include perception (pratyaksa), inference (anumana), verbal testimony (sabda), and comparison (upamana).
COMPARISON (UPAMANA)
- It is knowledge derived from similarity.
- It has been defined as the knowledge of the relation between a word and its denotation.
- According to the Nyāya Philosophy, comparison (upamāna) is the third source of valid knowledge.
- The expression ‘upamāna’, is derived from two words, ‘upa’ and ‘māna’. The word ‘upa’ means similarity or ‘sādrusya’ and the word ‘māna’ means ‘cognition’.
- Example of Upamāna: A person does not know what a ‘squirrel’ is? S(he) is told by a forester that it is a small animal-like rat, but it has a long furry tail and strips on its body. After some period of time, when s(he) sees such an animal in the forest, s(he) knows that it is a squirrel.
Therefore, upamana is the sources of knowledge (pramana) in classical Indian philosophy that is based on the similarity of the unobserved object with a known object.
Question.No.9
The knowing self knows objects through the instrumentality of the sense organs (Indriyas) but the existence of Indriya is proved by
- Anumana Pramana
- Śabda pramana
- Arthapatti Pramana
- Upamana Pramana
Pramana is valid knowledge. Knowledge can be valid or invalid, valid knowledge is called pramana and non-valid knowledge is known as apraman. Pramana is valid means of knowledge and its important four means include
- perception (pratyaksa),
- inference (anumana),
- verbal testimony (sabda)
- comparison (upamana)
Anumana pramana
- It is a means of knowledge.
- Here, the knowledge is acquired through guessing, interpretation, and analysis.
- The term anumana literally means after knowledge i.e., the knowledge that follows other knowledge
- It is described as reaching a new conclusion and truth from one or more observations and previous truths by applying reason.
- Example: The knowing self knows objects through the instrumentality of the sense organs (Indriyas) but the existence of Indriya is proved by this.
The distinction between laukika and alaukika is made with reference to which one of the following pramanas?
- Anumana(Inference)
- Upamana(Comparison)
- Pratyaksa (Perception)
- Sabda (Verbal Testimony)
Pramana is a valid means of knowledge. Knowledge can be valid or invalid, valid knowledge is called prama and non-valid knowledge is known as aprama and its important four means include:
- Pratyaksa (Perception)
- Anumana (Inference)
- Upamana (Comparison)
- Shabda (Verbal testimony)
Pratyaksha (Perception)
- It is basically which is before one’s eyes, ‘aksa’ means sense organ, and ‘prati’ means the function of each sense organ.
- A perception is a valid form of knowledge produced by the contact of an object with a sense organ.
- It is the first of the five means of knowledge or pramanas, that enable a person to have correct cognitions of the world.
- Pratyaksha is of two kinds,
- Anubhava: Direct perception
- Smriti: Remembered perception
- The knowledge arises by contact of sense organs (indriya) with an object. Such contact is not the sole condition of perception, but it is its distinctive feature or extraordinary cause (karana) of perception. The actual process is given below:
- The self comes into contact with the mind (manas)
- The manas with the senses
- The senses with the object
- The modern school of Nyaya gives a new definition of perception as it is direct or immediate cognition that is not derived through the instrumentality of any other cognition. It applies to all cases of perception, human or divine. Even God’s omniscience has the highest degree of immediacy conceivable. It excludes inference, analogy and verbal testimony. It excludes ‘memory’ as well.
- Perception is divided into the following two categories.
- Ordinary (Laukika)
- Extraordinary (Alaukika)
- According to later logicians, there are two kinds of verbal testimony as given below.
- Vaidika or Alukika: It is also known as divine or scripture.
- Laukika or secular
- The former relates to the words of God. The Vedas are created by God and therefore, valid perfectly. The latter relates to the words of trustworthy people.
- According to Nyayikas, since human beings are not perfect, only the words of trustworthy people can be considered as Laukika Shabda.
Hence, The distinction between laukika and alaukika is made with reference to Pratyaksha.
No comments:
Post a Comment