Argument Forms MCQ Quiz in मल्याळम - Objective Question with Answer for Argument Forms - സൗജന്യ PDF ഡൗൺലോഡ് ചെയ്യുക

Key Points

• The existential fallacy occurs when the conclusion of an argument asserts the existence of something that is not explicitly stated in the premises.
• In this case, the conclusion asserts that some men of infinite patience exist, even though the premises do not explicitly state this.
• The premises of the argument state that all men who understand women are potentially perfect husbands, and that all potentially perfect husbands are men of infinite patience.
• However, these premises do not state that there are any men who understand women or that there are any men who are potentially perfect husbands.
• Therefore, the conclusion that some men of infinite patience exist is not supported by the premises.

Additional Information

• Fallacy of Illicit Major occurs when the major term is distributed in the conclusion but not in the premises.
• Fallacy of Illicit Minor occurs when the minor term is distributed in the conclusion but not in the premises.
• Fallacy of Undistributed Middle occurs when the middle term is not distributed in either the premises or the conclusion.

Therefore, the fallacy committed in the argument is the Existential fallacy.

A syllogism consists of three categorical propositions and contains three terms each of which appears in propositions. 

Key Points

• Mood depends upon the type of propositions (A, E, I, O).

Valid Forms: There are 15 combinations of mood and figure that are valid from the Boolean standpoint.

For example, 

• All businessmen are self‐confident​ (A )
• No self‐confident men are religious(E)
• Therefore, No religious men are businessmen ( E )
• Based on the above chart mood of argument is AEE. 

Thus, the Mood of the argument is AEE. 

• The figure depends on the arrangement of the middle term in the proposition. 
• There are four types of figures in syllogism which are mentioned below: 

• All businessmen are self‐confident, whereas businessmen are Predicate and self‐confident are middle term. 
• No self‐confident men are religious, whereas No self‐confident is Middle term and religious is Predicate. 
• Based on the position of the middle term in the argument this belongs to Fourth Figure. 

Therefore, AEE ‐ IV is correct. 

The correct answer is 'Sound is eternal, because it is audible'

Key Points

• Fallacious Argument Due to Narrow Middle Term:
  • In logic, a fallacious argument is one that contains errors in reasoning.
  • The term 'middle term' in a syllogism is the term that appears in both premises but not in the conclusion.
  • An argument can be fallacious if the middle term is too narrow, meaning it does not sufficiently cover the scope needed to connect the premises.
  • The statement "Sound is eternal, because it is audible" is fallacious because the middle term "audible" is too narrow to substantiate the claim that "sound is eternal."

Additional Information

• Overview of Other Options:
  • All things are non-eternal because they are knowable:
    • This statement involves a different kind of logical error and does not specifically suffer from a narrow middle term.
  • Fire is cold because it is substance:
    • This statement is also fallacious but due to an incorrect premise rather than a narrow middle term.
  • Wherever there is fire, there is smoke:
    • This statement is generally a correct logical statement and does not involve a fallacious argument.

The statements that cannot both be false are B and C.

Important Points

• If statement B is false, it means that no metals are gases, which makes statement D true.
• But if statement D is true, then statement C must be false, which contradicts our assumption that statement B is false.
• Similarly, if statement C is false, it means that all metals are gases, which makes statement A true.
• But if statement A is true, then statement B must be false, which contradicts our assumption that statement C is false.

Therefore, the only possible combination of true statements is B and C.

The square of opposition is a diagram used in categorical logic to depict the logical relationship. 

Key Points 

Relationships between Propositions:

• Now, 'Some S is P ' as false then, A is False (Subalternation ), E is True (Contradictory) and O is (Sub-contrary) True. 
• So, 'All S is P' is false, 'No S is P' is true, and 'Some S is not P' is true. 

Therefore,  the correct answer from the options is (A), (D), and (E) only.

Key Points

Meaning of Argument

• An argument is a group of sentences where one sentence is claimed to follow from others, which are regarded as supplying conclusive evidence for its truth. Every argument has a structure, viz. premises, and a conclusion. Premises provide support to the conclusion. Therefore the premises can be regarded as evidence are based on which the conclusion is accepted.
• All arguments involve the claim that their premises provide evidence for the truth of conclusions. But it is important to note that only deductive argument claims that the premises provide absolutely conclusive evidence for the truth of the conclusion. This is the reason why deductive arguments are characterized as ‘valid’ or ‘invalid.’
• However, the inductive argument claims that the premises constitute some evidence for the conclusion. Therefore, the characterization ‘valid’ & ‘invalid’ cannot properly be applied to inductive arguments.

Important Points

Analogical reasoning

• Analogical reasoning means uniform or similarity when the comparison is made between two entities many things are found to be similar on the basis of which it is predicted that the remaining things in one entity would be found in the other one. This is called analogical reasoning.
• An analogical argument is analyzed by revealing the general framework of the argument.
• For e.g. when specific things are observed in Mars and Earth, it is found that both are planets. Both revolve around the Sun. Now, when it is predicted that Mars will have the human population because the Earth has it, this prediction is analogical reasoning.
• Men and women may have different reproductive strategies but neither can be considered inferior or superior to the other, any more than a bird’s wings can be considered superior or inferior to a fish’s fins is an example of analogical reasoning.

Additional Information

Hypothetical Syllogism 

A syllogism is simply a three-line argument that consists of exactly two premises and a conclusion. A hypothetical syllogism is a syllogism that conations at least one hypothetical or conditional (i.e., if-then) premise. So that such type of deductive reasoning is also known as conditional reasoning. Here is an example,

Premise-1: If there is heavy rain, the streets will be full of water.

Premise-1: There is rain. Conclusion: Therefore the streets are full of water.

The correct answer is - IIIrd figure

Key Points

• IIIrd figure
  • The syllogism provided follows the structure of the IIIrd figure.
  • In the IIIrd figure, the middle term is the subject in the first premise and the predicate in the second premise.
  • In the given argument:
    • All artists (middle term) are egoists (predicate).
    • Some artists (middle term) are paupers (predicate).
    • Therefore, some paupers are egoists.

Additional Information

• Syllogism Figures
  • There are four figures in syllogistic logic which describe the possible positions of the middle term in the premises:
    • Ist figure: Middle term is the subject in the first premise and the predicate in the second premise.
    • IInd figure: Middle term is the predicate in both premises.
    • IIIrd figure: Middle term is the subject in both premises.
    • IVth figure: Middle term is the predicate in the first premise and the subject in the second premise.
  • Understanding the structure of these figures is crucial in determining the validity of syllogistic arguments.
• Middle Term
  • The middle term in a syllogism is the term that appears in both premises but not in the conclusion.
  • Its correct placement is essential for the logical flow of the argument.

Arguments where the goal (to achieve strong and reliable beliefs) is to provide the best available evidence for the conclusion; the nature of the inferential claim is such that it is unlikely that the premises are true and the conclusion false. Therefore in inductive statements, arguments are not valid or invalid like in deduction. But they are either strong or weak in nature.

Key Points

• Inductive Reasoning is stat-based. It purely feeds on past observations and hence makes inferences on its understanding. Due to this, the conclusions are never absolute but probabilistic in nature.
• 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, unlike with deductive arguments.
• There is no standard term for a successful inductive argument, but this article uses the term “strong.”
• Inductive arguments that are not strong are said to be weak; there is no sharp line between strong and weak.
• The argument about the dog biting me would be stronger if we couldn’t think of any relevant conditions for why the next time will be different than previous times.
• The argument also will be stronger the more times there were when I did walk by the dog.
• The argument will be weaker the fewer times I have walked by the dog.
• It will be weaker if relevant conditions about the past time will be different next time, such as that in the past the dog has been behind a closed gate, but next time the gate will be open.

Therefore, the correct answer is option A and C only.

A fallacy is a type of arguing that appears to be valid, but actually invalid. The term fallacy comes from the Latin word ‘fallo,’ meaning ‘I deceive. Therefore any error in reasoning is a fallacy. 

Important Points

An ad hominem fallacy

• It uses personal attacks rather than logic.
• This fallacy occurs when someone rejects or criticizes another point of view based on the personal characteristics, ethnic background, physical appearance, or other non-relevant traits of the person who holds it.
• Ad hominem arguments are often used in politics, where they are often called "mudslinging."

Hence the fallacy committed in the given statement is Argument ad Hominem.

Additional Information

Argument from ignorance 

• it is also known as appeal to ignorance (in which ignorance represents "a lack of contrary evidence") and is a fallacy in informal logic
• Appeal to Ignorance occurs when a person mistakenly believes something to be true that is not, because he or she does not know enough about the subject, or has not been given enough evidence, to know otherwise.
• For Example, if you accuse a person of wrongdoing, it is up to you to prove it. It is an argument from ignorance to suggest someone is guilty because they can't prove their innocence.

An appeal to pity 

• It relies on provoking your emotions to win an argument rather than factual evidence.
• Appealing to pity attempts to pull on an audience's heartstrings, distract them, and support their point of view.
• For Example, Someone accused of a crime using a cane or walker to appear more feeble in front of a jury 

Appeal to Inappropriate Authority

• ​This fallacy is used when a person appeals to a false authority as evidence for a claim.
• These fallacious arguments from authority are the result of citing a non-authority as an authority.
• It is a fallacy "when the appeal is made to parties having no legitimate claim to authority in the matter at hand
• The statement "The policies suggested by him have no merit since he was once charged with embezzlement" is a clear case of Appeal to inappropriate authority where the person's policies are negated on the basis that he was once charged for corruption.

Assertion and reasoning-type questions have one assertion (A) and one reason (R). We must first determine whether the statement is true. If the statement is true, we must next determine whether the reason correctly explains the assertion. 

First, we will consider the statement of Assertion: 

Assertion (A): Defining the objectives of the topic of discussion is not necessarily the first step in classroom communication.

• The first and foremost concern of an effective teaching-learning system should be what a student will be able to do at the end of an instruction.
• The role of a good teacher is to clearly define the objectives of the subject that is to be taught in the class so that the students know what will they learn at the end of the lecture.
• This increases motivation and will to learn in students.

Therefore, the assertion is false.  

Now we will consider the statement of Reason:

Reason (R): Clear definitions of objectives make students understand the topic well.

• Clear defined objectives make learning easy in students.
• Students become aware of the contents of the topics and perform better in learning.

Therefore, the reason is true.

Hence, the assertion A is false, and the reason R is true.