Hetvabhasas (Fallacies of Inference) MCQ Quiz in मल्याळम - Objective Question with Answer for Hetvabhasas (Fallacies of Inference) - സൗജന്യ PDF ഡൗൺലോഡ് ചെയ്യുക

Wherever there is fire, there is smoke - tihs argument is an example of the fallacy of Vyapyatvasiddha according to Nyaya (classical Indian school of Logic).

Key Points

Fallacy of Vyapyatvasiddha:

• The fallacy of Vyapyatvasiddha, according to Nyaya (a classical Indian school of Logic), is the fallacy of the "universality of concomitance."
• It occurs when one assumes that a property must always accompany its characteristic concomitant, or vice versa, without considering any exceptions or conditions.
• This argument assumes that wherever there is fire, smoke must always be present, without considering any exceptions or conditions.
• However, this argument is not necessarily true, as there may be instances where fire can exist without producing smoke, such as in certain stages of a fire or under specific environmental conditions.
• The fallacy lies in making a universal claim without accounting for any exceptions or variations in the relationship between fire and smoke.

Hence, the correct answer is Wherever there is fire, there is smoke.

The fallacy (hetvabhasha) produced when the middle is not uniformly related to the major term a defective hetu took place is known as Savyabhichara

Fallacy (hetvabhasha):

• It is a middle term or appears to a reason but not a valid reason.
• There are five fallacies lead by the violation in fallacies of inference. These are
  1. Savyabhichara
  2. Viruddha
  3. Satpratipaksha
  4. Asiddha
  5. Badhita

Savyabhichara:

• The fallacy of irregular middle
• A middle term may be irregularly related to the major term.
• When the middle is not uniformly related to the major term then that is called savyabhicâra hetu.
• It is a defective hetu.

For example:

• All bipeds are rational.
• Swans are bipeds.
• Therefore, swans are rational.

Hence, option 1 is the correct answer.

The correct answer is - Composition

Key Points

• Composition Fallacy
  • This fallacy occurs when one assumes that what is true for the parts is also true for the whole.
  • In this case, the statement assumes that because every part of the machine is light, the entire machine must be light.
  • This reasoning ignores other factors such as the number of parts and how they are assembled, which can affect the total weight.

Additional Information

• Division Fallacy
  • This is the opposite of the composition fallacy.
  • It occurs when one assumes that what is true for the whole must also be true for its parts.
  • For example, assuming that because a cake is sweet, each ingredient used to make the cake must also be sweet.
• Accent Fallacy
  • This fallacy arises from misleading emphasis or taking words out of context.
  • For example, misleadingly stressing certain words in a sentence to change its meaning.
• Amphiboly Fallacy
  • This fallacy occurs due to ambiguous grammatical constructions.
  • For example, a sentence that can be interpreted in multiple ways due to its structure.

In the argument, 'sky flower is fragrant because it is a lotus' e.g. whichever is a lotus, is fragrant e.g. lotus growing in that pond. The type of fallacy is Ashryasidha.

Hetvabhasa is a Sanskrit term that means fallacy in the English language. A fallacy occurs when the middle term appears to be the reason but it is not a valid reason.

Asiddha Hetvabhasa, also known as Sadhya Sama is further divided into three kinds: Ashryasidha, Svarupasiddha, and Vyapvyatvasiddha.

1. Ashraya Siddha: 

• When the minor term used in the argument is not real.
• So, the minor term is the locus of the middle term but when the minor term is unreal, the middle term cannot be present in it. In short, it is that reason whose subject is unknown. 
• For example; sky-lotus is fragrant, because it is a lotus, like the lotus of the pond. Here the subject, sky-lotus, is a non-existing thing and so unknown.

Thus, option 2 is the correct answer.

1. Swaroopa̅sidha: It occurs when the minor term is not unreal but because of the very nature of the middle term, the middle term cannot be present in the minor term. For example; the sound is quality because it can be seen. Here the sound is the minor term, it is real but the middle term 'seen' cannot be present in the minor term 'sound' because sound cannot be seen, it can be heard.

2. Vyaptytvasidha: It occurs when the vyapti instead of being unconditional in nature is conditional (sopadhika). For example, whenever there is fire there is smoke. Here, the vyapti is conditional in nature because there are some cases where there is fire without smoke, like, a red hot iron ball. 

3. Viruddha: It occurs when we have contradicted the middle term. For example, the sound is eternal, because it is produced. Instead of proving the major term, the middle term proves the opposite.

"Fire is cold because it is a substance" - Badhita fallacy is implied in this case.

Fallacy (hetvabhasha):

• It is a middle term or appears to a reason but not a valid reason.
• There are five fallacies lead by the violation in fallacies of inference. These are
  1. Savyabhichara
  2. Viruddha
  3. Satpratipaksha
  4. Asiddha
  5. Badhita

Key Points If it is raining, then the ground is wet. The ground is wet. Therefore, it is raining.

• This question commits the affirming the consequent fallacy.
• The first premise is "If it is raining, then the ground is wet".
• The second premise is "The ground is wet". The conclusion is "It is raining".
• The fallacy occurs because the second premise affirms the consequent of the first premise.
• This means that the conclusion is no longer supported by the premises. In other words, the conclusion could be false even if the premises are true.

The correct answer is option 3

Key Points

• The three criteria for causality are:
• 1. The cause must come before the effect.
• 2. The two variables must occur together.
• 3. The link between the two variables cannot be explained by the influence of any other variable.
• There are three conditions for causality: covariation, temporal precedence, and control for “third variables.” The latter comprise alternative explanations for the observed causal relationship.
• To establish causality you need to show three things–that X came before Y, that the observed relationship between X and Y didn’t happen by chance alone, and that there is nothing else that accounts for the X -> Y relationship.

Therefore, the correct answer is there must be a positive relationship between the two variables.

Meaning of fallacy

• The fallacy is the English term, which means Hetvabhasa in Sanskrit.
• In other words, in Indian logic, a fallacy is called Hetvabhasa.
• A fallacy occurs when the middle term appears to be the reason but it is not a valid reason.
• There are five kinds of fallacies according to Nyaya school.
• All five fallacies are regarded as material fallacies.
• Material fallacies occur when the reasoning is unsound because of an error concerning the subject matter of the argument.

Savyabhicara Hetvabhasa:

• It is also known as anaikantika.
• It is also called the fallacy of irregular middle term.
• It is of three kind: Sadharna, Asadharna and Anupasamhari

Important Points

The five kinds of fallacies are:

​Asiddha Hetvabhasa:

• Also known as Sadhyasama.
• It is the fallacy of unproved middle term.
• It occurs when the middle term is not present in the minor term.
• It is further divided into three kind Ashryasiddha, Svarupasiddha, and Vyapvyatvasiddha

Hence, B, D, and E are correct options.

The correct solution is "Ad hoc"

Important Points

A Fallacy is 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 can be of two types:

• Formal fallacy: arguments that have invalid structure or form.
• Informal fallacy: arguments that have incorrect or irrelevant premises.

In the above question, the fallacies given are informal fallacies.
Key PointsAd hoc:

•  An ad hoc argument isn't really a logical fallacy, but it is a fallacious rhetorical strategy that is common and often hard to spot. 
• It occurs when someone's claim is threatened with counter-evidence, so they come up with a rationale to dismiss the counter-evidence, hoping to protect their original claim
• Ad hoc fallacy is a fallacious rhetorical strategy in which a person presents a new explanation – that is unjustified or simply unreasonable – of why their original belief or hypothesis is correct after evidence that contradicts the previous explanation has emerged.
• As such, it’s an attempt to protect one’s claim from any potential refutations and thus preserve their existing beliefs.
• Furthermore, the explanation is specifically constructed to be used in a particular case and is created hastily at the moment rather than being the result of deliberate, fact-based reasoning.

Hence, option 3 is the correct answer.

Additional Information

Ad Hominem

• It is also known as Argumentum ad hominem (argument against the person)
• This fallacy occurs when, instead of addressing someone's argument or position, you irrelevantly attack the person or some aspect of the person who is making the argument. 
• It's an insult used as if it were an argument or evidence in support of a conclusion. For example:
• Ravi teaches youth to speak the truth but his son lies.
• Mr. X is wrong in what he said because he is undisciplined by nature

Ad Populum:

• Ad Populum is also known as Argumentum ad Populum (Appeal to people/emotions) Appealing to popularity
• It is a fallacious argument that concludes that a proposition must be true because many or most people believe it, often encapsulated as If many believe so, it is so. 
• For example, This girl should come first because she is cute and beautiful.

Ad Misericordia:

• (Appeal to pity) in which someone tries to win support for an argument or idea by exploiting his or her opponent's feelings of pity or guilt.
• It is a specific kind of appeal to emotion. 
• For example, you should not find the defendant guilty of murder, since it would break his poor mother's heart to see him sent to jail"

"Mr. X is penniless. Therefore, he should be preferred for admission to college". This reasoning represents Ad misericordiam.

Ad misericordiam (appeal to pity): An appeal to pity is a fallacy in which someone tries to win support for an argument or idea by exploiting his or her opponent's feelings of pity or guilt. It is a specific kind of appeal to emotion.

• The name "Galileo argument" refers to the scientist's suffering as a result of his house arrest by the Inquisition.
• Examples: "You should not find the defendant guilty of murder, since it would break his poor mother's heart to see him sent to jail." The argument attempts to persuade by provoking irrelevant feelings of sympathy.
• Another example: Mr. X is penniless. Therefore, he should be preferred for admission to the college.

1. Ad hominem: Ad hominem, short for argumentum ad hominem, refers to several types of arguments, some but not all of which are fallacious.

• Typically, this term refers to a rhetorical strategy where the speaker attacks the character, motive, or some other attribute of the person making an argument rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself.
• This avoids genuine debate by creating a diversion to some irrelevant but often highly charged issues.
• Ad hominem means “against the man,” and this type of fallacy is sometimes called name-calling or the personal attack fallacy. This type of fallacy occurs when someone attacks the person instead of attacking his or her argument.
• An example is a dialogue at the court, where the attorney cross-examines an eyewitness, bringing to light the fact that the witness was convicted in the past for lying. This might suggest the conclusion that the witness should not be trusted, which would not be a fallacy.
• Another example, Person A: I am for raising the minimum wage in our state, Person B: She is for raising the minimum wage, but she is not smart enough to even run a business.

2. Ad baculum: Argumentum ad baculum is the fallacy committed when one makes an appeal to force or threat of force to bring about the acceptance of a conclusion. One participates in argumentum ad baculum when one points out the negative consequences of holding the contrary position.

•  Example -believe what I say, or I will hit you. It is a specific case of the negative form of an argument to the consequences.
• Another example:
  • General: "If we capitulate, the enemy will take the chance to slaughter us all".
  • Colonel: "So far they have treated captives adequately."
  • General: "This time they won't. And you better believe me if you don't want to find yourself rotting in a mass grave."

3. Ignoratio elenchi: An irrelevant conclusion, also known as ignoratio elenchi or missing the point, is the informal fallacy of presenting an argument that may or may not be logically valid and sound, but fails to address the issue in question. It falls into the broad class of relevance fallacies.

• Example: Hippos can't be dangerous to humans, because they are so calm and look so cute. Proving an irrelevant conclusion.
• The President's policies on healthcare may be popular, but he is secretly a Nazi and should probably be investigated.

In the sentence "Mr. X is penniless. Therefore, he should be preferred for admission to college", someone is trying to win the argument by exploiting the feeling or financial condition of the opponent. It is a special kind of appeal to emotion. Hence, option (2) is correct.