Chapter1

Introduction
Subject Matter of Logic
LoGIC is a science of reasoning. The aim of logic is to provide
methods, techniques and devices which help in differentiating
right reasoning from wrong, and good reasoning from bad. But
it does not mean that only those who study logic can reason
correctly. However, it is true that those who study logic certainly
make less errors while arguing. Just as a trained athlete is a
better player than an untrained one, similarly a person
acquainted with logical principles is likely toput forth good
arguments. Knowledge of logic helps one to face a problem in a
more orderly and systematic way, and in many cases makes the
solution less difficult but more certain.
Science means a branch of coherently organized body of
knowledge. Since logic is the study of consistent reasoning, it is
certainly a science. Through logic we can judge, for example,
whether a piece of reasoning such as we find in newspapers,
magazines,or in everyday life is correct or not, and alsowhether
the conclusion follows correctly from the given evidences
(premisses). Correct reasoning means to discover the right order
between the evidences and conclusion. There is order and
sequence in our reasoning. The moment one is concerned with
the idea that one thought follows from another, he is being logical.
Correct and consistent reasoning means conclusion follows from
the evidences or the premisses. In other words, correct
reasoning means the premisses are strong enough to
support the conclusion, and when the premisses are
insufficient or inadequate to support the conclusion, then
the reasoning becomes incorrect.
 A
4
Textbook of Logic
Correct reasoning is the basis of all sciences, natural as
as social. In this sense it is very true to say that loggicwelisl
presupposed by all sciences, and hence, it becomes a basic and
primary science; a science of sciences.
But the logicians are not interested merely in the
methods or techniques of differentiating right study of
wrong; it is equallyimportant for them to acquire skill to
reasoning
from
these methods in determining the correctness of apply
reasoning. How efficiently or how skilfully one makes use of thes everyday
methods in practical life is nothing but demonstrating the artistic
aptitude. All arts are concerned with 'doing and 'making. Anyone
who knows logic does' good reasoning and 'makes' sound
arguments. He makes good definitions and good debates. Logie
prepares a man to make right reasoning and right decisions.
Practice makes a nman prefect" is true for all arts, and it is equally
true for logic as well.
Traditionally logic is defined as the study of laws of thought.
There are three lawswhich have been considered indispensable
for correct reasoning by the ancient logicians. They are :
1. Law of Identity
2. Law of Non-Contradiction
3. Law of Excluded-Middle
There is no doubt that these laws are absolutely indispensable
for correct reasoning; but there are other laws also which are
equally important for valid reasoning, for instance, various laws
of inference and deduction.*
Moreover, in defining logic as the science of laws of thought,
the word thought' needs clarification. It refers to thinking, to
mental processes, and to mental activity. Whereas it is absolutely
clear that reasoning is a reflective, a mental activity, and not a
physical activity like walking, talking, etc., yet every mental
activity is not reasoning. There are many mental activities, and
These laws are discussed in detail in chapter &.
Introduction 5

reasoning is one of them. ln other words, reasoning is merely

one of the mental processes. Every piece of reasoning is amental
nrocess (thinking) but every mental process is not reasoning.
Remembering, imagining, daydreaming are various types of
mental processes (mental activities) but none of them is reasoning.
The following diagram makes it clear:
Mental Processes

Remembering Imagining

Reasoning Daydreaming

The logicians are interested in reasoned thinking' which takes

place when we work at problems, tell stories, plan strategies and
so on. It involves elements that are both deductive (when we
solve problems by using a given set of rules as arithmetical task)
and inductive (when one solves problems on the basis of data
placed before us, as in working at a travel route).
Reasoning is a special type of thinking, a special type of
mental activity and a special type of mental process. When one
thought is more or less consciously connected with another in
order to elicit the conclusion towards which our thought is directed,
then it is reasoning. For reasoning to takeplace there should be
some basis, some ground, some evidences, some premisses which
imply conclusion. In non-rational thinking no evidence is provided
and no conclusion follows. Thus to define logic as the science of
laws of thought is too wide a definition. Though it hints what
logic is dealing with, yet it does not very specifically define it.
It is more appropriate to define logic as the science of
valid reasoning. A logician, however, is not concerned with
every aspect of reasoning. For instance, he is not dealing with
 ATexthorh of
6
reasoning as a'actual mental process. He is cOnCerned orl introd
incorrectness. Alogicianlooks
its correctnessor
a special toreas0u
angle, that is, from the viewpoint of ita valra
hand, studies reasoning frorn
other ha
psychologist, on the
angle. He studies all the mental processes, and in thia
studies reasoning also as one of the mental processeg B
interest is in the 'actual mental process' while Correctnc
him at all. The logician's
reasoning does not bother
correctness offarguments. His
other hand, is merelyin
is thus different
from that of a psychologist.Thepersperi
interested in knowing how actually do we reason and why
lattor for
i
study is onlyfactual. The former, on
the other hand. js
in telling how we should reason correctly. For him inten0rrns
reste Seg

standards and criteria of correct reasoning are essential, Since arg

bisinterest is in improving man's habit of reasoning.
Argument and Explanation
What does reasoning consist of? What is an argument?
means Reasoning
providing evidences for the conclusion in the clearest ot
term and supporting the conclusion with maximum evidences
The evidences provided to substantiate the conclusion are said
to be premisses. That which is drawn on the basis of the premisses f
isa conclusion. An argument or a piece of reasoning is thus a
relational arrangement of premisses and conclusion. An
argument may have just one premiss or more but both premisses
and conclusion should be there to form an argument. If the
premisses are given and noconclusion is drawn from them, then
it is not an argument. Similarly, if conclusion is given and no
premisses are cited then also it is not an argument. Let us see
some examples of arguments:
Allmen are mortal.
Socrates is a man.
Therefore, Socrates is mortal.
If there is rain, then we shall not go for
picniC.
Introduction 7

There is rain.
Therefore,we shallnot go for picnic.
IfAthen B.
If Bthen C.
Therefore, if A then C.
All observed crows are black.
Therefore, all crows are black.
It is very important that the student recognizes argumental
form, and should be able to differentiate non-argamental
sequençe from an argumental presentation.
Five kinds of passages that are sometimes confused with
argument are:
Reports
Unsupported statements of belief or opinion
Illustrations
Conditional statements
Explanations
Arguments consist entirely of statements as either true or
false. Questions, command_ and explanations cannot be part of
arguments because they do not have truth value nor are they
true or false.
Arguments sometimes resemble with explanations. People
often are not themselves clear whether they are arguing or
explaining something. The same type of words and phrases are
used in presenting explanations and arguments. It is thus
important to know whatis an explantion and howit is different
fróm an argument. An explanation is a set of statements
constructed to describe some facts, events or phenomena. An
explanation aims to describe how and why things occur as they
do. The reason one givesfor why something happened and how.
lit happened is called¡n explanation, It is often underpinned by
an understanding and uncovers new knowlege among the facts.
Following are the examples of explanation:
 8
ATexthook
1. Iam late for the meeting (x)
2. Apples fall on the ground (x)
because my train
Was \at
gravitational force in the earthfrom
(y). tree hecause
3. Sita took aspirin (x) because she
had
A She did not comne to headache
work today (x) because she ue
5. Many newcomers have won
mid-term
aven defeating strong
incumbents
not happy with the way the (x) electi
becauseon this
yrte
government (v). ruling party is
In all the above examples the
word 'because' 1s
running the
indicate that an explanation is being offered. used to
An explanation is comprised of two
(x) and explanans (y). The parts; the
explanandum
that describes the phenomenon which is (x) is the
to be
explsatnaatenrmdument.
explanans (y)is the: statement or set of
the explaining. explained.
statements that aim toThedo
The general form of an
explanation is
*because of
or

xis
The a'm apan therefore
explanandum
or an event which andy
is explanans.
has occrred, Inthat Frplanandum (x) is afact
fact orevent. The aim of sense it is an accepted
for thát fact or event explanation is to provide explanans (y)
that had occurred T'here can be
alternative explanans (y) for one various
there can be various explanandum(
(X), Forinstance
or how Miss X has reasonsyor why one is late for the meeting,
managed to get selected for the post.
An argument differs from an
have the same form as that of explanation. The argument can
explanation.
x because of y
y therefore x
Introduction 9

Hereconclusion x is not an accepted fact. Premiss y provides the

grounds which prove (or establish) the conclusion x. Let us see
the following illustrations:
1 Satish has just got admission in MBA course in one of
the best institutes of USA, so he will quit his job. This
is an argument. Satish has just got admission in MBA
course in one of the best institutes of USA is prermiss.
This premiss establishes and claims to prove the conclusion
that he will quit his job.
Premiss ’ claims to prove or establish conclusion
y claims to prove or establish x.
2.(Satish has quit his job because he has just got admission
in MB¢ course in one of the best institutes of USA. This
is an explanation.
Satish has quit his job (x) is accepted fact. This is explained
and elaborated (but not proved or established) by the statement
that he has just got admission in MBA course in one of the best
institutes of USA.
One simple method to distinguishexplanation from argument
is: Ifthe statement that precedes (comes before) because' deseribes
an accepted fact or event and the other remaining statements
which come after because aim just to elaborate that fact or event,
then it is explanation. If the statement that precedes because' is
not accepted fact but it has to be proved and established by the
other statements that come after because' then it is an argument.
An argument is consisted of premisses and conclusion. Both
premiss and conclusion of an argument are propositions. A
proposition isa sentence, but every sentence is not a proposition.
KOnly informative indicative sentences may be said to be
propositions, Interrogative or exclamatory sentences are nÍt
propositions, Aproposition is believed or disbelieved, asserted or
denied whereas interrogative or exclamatory. sentences are
neither asserted nor denied. Questions are asked, commands are
given and exclamations are uttered. But none of them can be
 10 A
Texthok of la
affirmed, denied or judged to be either true or falsc.
or
"Bring a glass of water" is not a proposition
essential for human beings" is aproposition. Hence,whereas inWatsta er
proposition is definitely a sentence, every
necessarily a proposition. Since logic deals with
only, so indicative sentences find place in
the
the ,thpronogpAlhe ry
8entence 1
This can be expressed as follows: preview of lh

Propositions
Sentenccs

Besides, a proposition is language neutrall

entity.
the sentence "This is a book can be translated and For instance.
various languages such as English, Hindi, expressed in
et., but there is only one proposition underlying German,in Japanese,
all these
differently expressed sentences. Logical propositions (statements
go beyond the language in which they are framed and
expressed.
The unit of reasoning is a proposition which is totally and wholy
languageneutral. Both premisses and conclusion of an argument
are propositions; but propositions by themselves do not carry any
tag suggesting that certain propositions are exclusively premisses
while some other propositions are exclusively conclusions. A
proposition becomes either a premiss or a conclusion only in the
context of an argument. Just as by entering into wedlock a woman
becomes wife, similarly by entering into an argument some
propositions become premisses and some other conclusions.
It is extremely important that we recognize which propositions
are premisses and which ones are conclusion in an argument.
Without this any attempt to establish correctness of an argument
is futile. There are words which help in identifying prenisse
and conclusions. The use of words like hence', therefore , 1
like
follows', thus', 'so',
´so', etc. are conclusion indicators, and words
because', for, 'since', implies', etc. are premiss indicators.
Introduction 11

Validity, correctness, rightness or soundnessof an argument

means premisses are suficient and efficient enough to support
the conclusion. Alogician is confronted with such a question,
"Are the premisses good evidences for accepting theconclusion?"If
premisses adequately support the conclusion, then the argument
is correct otherwise not. So evidences play a very vital role in
determining the correctness of an argument. In scientific inquiries
also the evidences play an extremely important role, In fact, all
scientific explanations are essentially_evidence-based, Even in
ordinary life often the evidences are produced to explain a certain
situation, event or phenomenon. For instance, ifa student comes
late in the class, then on asking why he is late, he gives some
explanation, some reason for his being late. Similarly, judges,
detectives,historians and sociologists are looking and assessing
the evidences for the events.
Form and Matter
Logic like pure mathematics is 'science of forms' and norms. An
argument consists both form and matter. The content of an
argument is matter, and the order in which the content is
arranged is form. Form, thus, is the manner in which all the
constituents of the reasoning (premisses as well as conclusion)
the
are arranged. The "form is not another constituent, but is
way the constituents are put together"!
Not only an argument but every object on the earth is made
of some type of matter and it has some kind of shape. Non-existent
objects can also beconceived or thought in the matrix of form
and matter. There is no matterless form and there is no formless
matter. Both form and matter, however, are changeable. The
same form can be given to different matter, for example same
type of chair can be made from wood, iron, cane or plastic.
Similarly different forms can be given to the same matter. For
instance, to wood one may give the shape of chair, table, almirah,

1 B.Russel, Logic as the Essence of Philosophy", Essay in Logic (ed.)

Ronald Jager, p. 126.
 A
12
Textbook of
etc. Take the example of admission form of acollege. All Logie
t form is
forms are same, but the content in each offthe
same is the case in currency. For instance, all ten
similar in orm but the number on each note is rupee notes aro
different.
thdief:edremint s m
The
Subject matter of an argument is the content. We
about political situations, educational Ipolicies,
policies, may argue
economic
etc. Form of an argument is order, pattern.
pattern,
all the elements (terms and propositions) stand arrangement systerns.
Iin
in which
another. Form is like a model, a mold, a die in
which
relation
to one

principlesdif erert,
kinds of stuff can be put. Logical methods
evaluate rightness of the arguments are
and which
constituted
to the forms of arguments. Innumerable
constituted having the same form. For arguments can be
according
following argument form, we can have many arguments: instance,
from the
All M is P.
All S is M.
Therefore, all S is P
One can make innumerable
arguments by giving different
values to S, P, M.AIl these arguments will differ from one another
only in the content. They all have same form;
they all have the
same arrangement of the terms and
propositions. The
pattern' of these arguments is the same. The form is 'general
of terms like S, P, Moccurring in the framework'
same position in every
argument.? Correctness or incorrectness of the argument is not
decided by the values of terms like S, P, Mbut by the manner in
which they occupy the places in the premisses and conclusion.
The interest of all the deductive logicians lies in the form of an
argument only because the correctness of an argument is decided
solely by the form of the argument. The form of the argument
must satisfy the logical principles in- order to be correct (valid).
Since the validity of an argument in deductiye logic is totally decided
by the form of the argument (content is absolutely irrelevant from
the viewpoint of validity), it is called a formal science.
2. Cf. P.F. Strawson, Introduction to Logical Theory, p. 45.
Introduction
13

The arguments in deductive or pure logic are classified into

diferent categories according to the general form they possess.
Aruments having same pattern' and of the same type' are
treated similary even if the content in each argument is
different. The logicians are looking for 'formal similarity' among
the arguments. The logical principles or rules which determine
correctness (validity) incorrectness (invalidity) of an argument
is devised on the basis of 'common logical features' of the
argument. Thus, the logical form of an argument is the most
precious thing in logic. The formal logicians frame rules and
formulae for testing the validity of arguments on the basis of
logical form they possess. They (the logicians) are thus hunting
for formal analogy' among the arguments. The arguments
having same framework' of occurring words and terms are tested
by the same logical methods. Logicians' task consists in 'compiling
list of highly general rules' of reasoning and arguments. They
(the logicians) provide 'representative formulae' for testing the
validityinvalidity of the arguments. The arguments having the
same kind, sametype will be examined and tested by the same
general formulae. This makes the logicians' job a little simpler,
because if there is a separate rule for each concrete individual
argument, then the principles of logic will be longer than a
dictionary. In order to avoid that, all arguments of the same
type are bracketed together and are thus handled together. The
representative formulae' or the 'general rules' of arguments are,
however, not inconsistent to each other. They are connected and
provide ideal and organic system of logie.
Truth and Validity
Two sets of evaluative notions are generally used in elementary
logic: true/false and validinvalid. Aproposition iseither true or
false. Aproposition is true when it gives correct information, when
it mirrors the world'. If, on the other hand, a proposition states
thefacts incorrectly, then it is false. For example, All men are
3. Cf.P.F. Strawson, Introduction to Logical Theory, pp. 45-46.
 A
14
Textbook of
mortal", "All cat8 are mammals", "All cOWs are Loge
animals" are true propositions, for they descrihe the
whereas propositions like "All 1fruits
fruits are sweet","AI|
are literate" are false propositions for they
ffIancditosancnro-ergworeutelndyen
describe the
wrongly. Aproposition, however, 18 never evaluated as wfart
invalid.
Adeductive argument instead is evaluated as
and never as true or false. An argumernt is valid if
necessarily imply the conclusion. In other
conclusion necessarily follows from the words,
valid.rprwheninemivalsseeid
its
the
argument is considered valid otherwise not. premisses, then tho
are formal notions and hence are appliedValidity and
and formal logic only.
to formal lirneasoni
validintgy
Though we can isolate these
falsity, valid and invalid) from evaluative
each
notions (truth and
unconnected. There is a relation betweenother, yet they are not
truth and
premisses and conclusion, on the one falsity
hand, and validity
of the
invalidity of an argument, on the other hand. In fact, the
study of logic is intended to explore the entire
truth and falsity of relationship
propositions, and validity between
and invalidity of
arguments. Generally, it is believed that a valid
has a true conclusion and invalid argument argument
has false
conclusion. But it is wrong. Thinking of such kind is source
of seriouserrors in logic. The true conclusion does not
mean the argument is valid. Similarly, the false necessarilv
not necessarily mnean the argument is invalid. A
conclusion does
valid argument
can have a false conclusion or invalid
argument can have true
conclusion. But valid arguments having a false conclusion must
have at least one false premiss. If all the premisses are true
and the conclusion is false, then the argument is
definitely
invalid. In fact,the chief characteristic of deductive logie
is that it is impossible to have all true premisses and a
false conclusion. A deductive argument takes the form. "
you accept these premisses as true, then you must accept tns
conclusion as true as well".
Intrduction 15

Let us now examinethe various situations in which the truth

ofpremisses and conclusion make the argument valid
andfalsity
or invalid.
Considerasituation in which all propositions, premisses as
In certain cases they yield a valid
well as conclusion, are true.
argument and in some other an invalid argument depending on
conclusion. For example
the arrangement of premisses and
All human beings are mortal.
Al professors are human beings.
VTherefore, all professors are mortal,
premisses and a true
is avalid argument having all true
conclusion.
AllPresidents of India are Indian citizens.
Mr. Pranab Mukherjee is President of India.
Therefore Mr. Pranab Mukherjee is Indian citizen.
VBut the arguments having all true premisses and true
the
conclusion can be invalid also depending on the form of
argument. See the following examples.
Allcats are mammals.
Allcats are rat-eaters.
Therefore, some rat-eaters are mnammals,
conclusion
is invalid in spite of the fact that all premisses and
are true. Take another example:
Similarly:
All professors are mortal.
All income tax payers are mortal.
Therefore some income tax payers are professors.

is invalid argument in spite of the fact that all premisses and

conclusion are true.

On the other hand, all false propositions (premisses as well

as conclusions) may make an argument valid. For example:
 A
16
can fly.
Textbook of Logie
All vegetarians
vegetarians.
Alcats are
Therefore, allcats canfly, the fact
spite of the
is valid argument in
conclusion are allfalse.
premisses and th:
arguments having all
But there are invalid
false
(or at lAst
AM
one false
Presidents of
premiss)
India
and false conclusion,.
are industrialists
prernis eg
Presidents of India.
AllMPs are
industrialists.
Therefore, all MPs are
example:
Take yet another
scientists.
All Indiansare
an Indian.
Mr Barack Obama is
scientist.
Therefore, Mr Barack Obama is a
See some more examples:
creatures.
Allcats are wild
creatures.
All horses are wild
Therefore, all horses are cats,
All Indians are scientists
All Indians are Hindus.
Therefore, all Hindus are scientists.
AllPresidents of India are industrialists.
All MPs are industrialists.
Therefore, all MPs are Presidents of India.
are invalid having all false propositions.4
conciusion may
The combination of false premisses and true
depending on the
make an argument valid or invalid
arrangement of premisses and conclusion. For example:

4. Why and how the argument is invalid is discussed in chapter 1.

Introduction 17

All brickS are combustible.

Nopaper is combustible.
Therefore, nopaper is brick,
isvalid argument having false premisses but a true conclusion.
Similarly,
No living creatures need air to breathe.
All stones are living creatures.
Therefore, no stone needs air to breathe,
is valid though both the premisses are false, and the conclusion
is true.
A1lPresidents of India are below forty years of age.
Sachin Tendulkar is President of India.
Therefore, Sachin Tendulkar is below forty years of age.
But look at the following examples where all premisses are false
but conclusion is true, and yet the arguments are invalid
All literate beings are women.
All Indian Prime Ministers are women.
Therefore, all Indian Prime Ministers are literates,
Similarly the following examples are invalid having all false
premisses and true conclusion.
All Presidents of India were industrialists.
Mr. Abdul Kalam is an industrialist.
Therefore, Mr. Abdul Kalam was President of India
All scientists are Indians
Isaac Newton was Indian
Therefore, Isaac Newton was scientist
Ifall the premisses are true and the conclusion is false,
then adeductive argument is bound to be invalid. In fact,
the chief characteristic of deductive reasoning is that it is
impossible to have all true premisses and a false conclusion. A
true proposition or a set of all true propositions can imply only
 18 A
Texthonk
true propositions. For example the
following
invalid:
All cows are four-legged creatures.
Allhorses are four-legged creatures.
nrgimenta
Therefore, all horses are cows,
All Presidents of India are Indiancitizens
Anna HaZare is an Indian citizen
Therefore,Anna Hazare is President of India
Allprofessors are mortal
All inconme tax payers are mortal.
Therefore, all income tax payers are professors.
Why all true premisses and false conclusions: make the
invalid? There is a reason. In the formal logic the
already contained in the premisses. The premisses
ar gument
conclinheriusitontheis
conclusion in theimplicit form. The conclusion does not go
the premisses. Thus, if the premisses are true, the beyond
must necessarily be true, for the conclusion says conclusion
nothing new or
different from the premisses. To have all true premisses and
conclusion means to contradict oneself. We accept the truthfalseof
certain facts in the premisses and in the conclusion we deny the
same thing. How can this be possible? It is inconsistent to assams
and deny the same thing. No one, specially the logician, must
not contradict himself. Thus, "an argument is valid only ifit would
be inconsistent (or self-contradictory) to assert the premisses while
denying the conclusion6
From the above discussion it is absolutely clear that the
relationship between truth and falsity of propositions on the one
hand, and validity and invalidity of the argument
hand, is ofpeculiar type. In the following chapters you willlear
this relationship in detail.

5 W.V. Quine, Methods of Logic,p. 4.

6 P.F.Strawson, op.cit. p. 2.
Introduction 19

Deductionand Induction
There are two types of relationships necessary and probable
hetween premisses and conclusion. Consequently, there are two
types of reasoning and two types of logic: deductive and inductive.
Though the nature of reasoning in both of them is different,
their aim is none the less same. Both deductive and inductive
logie provide methods and criteria to differentiate correct
reasoning from incorrect ones.
The relationship between the premisses and the conclusion
in deductive reasoning is of implication and 'entailment. The
implicative and 'entailment relationship justifies the assertion
that the conclusion necessarily follows from the premisses in
accordance with the logical principles. This is because the
conclusion is already inherited in the premisses. For instance in
the argument.
All men are mortal.
Socrates is a man.
Therefore, Socrates is mortal.
The conclusion "Socrates is mortal is already inherited in the
premisses "All men are mortal" and "Socrates is a man". The
conclusion is present in the premisses in the implicit form. The
reasoning makes the implicit form of the conclusion explicit. The
conclusion, thus, provides no new information.
Besides, the set of premisses AIl men are mortal" and
"Socrates is a man" are conclusive ground for the conclusion
"Socrates is mortal". Conclusive ground means complete evidence,
sufficient and total evidences to support the conclusion. Only
deductive logic has the privilege of supporting the conclusion
with conclusive evidences. In the above-cited example, the
conclusion "Socrates is mortal" follows necessarily from the
premisses "All men are mortal" and "Socrates is a man.Any
addition to already given set of premisses, for instance "Socrates
was a philosopher", He was a Greek", "He was a
teacher of
famous philosopher Plato', etc, makes no difference to the
 20
ATextbook
is mortal".The. given
"Socrates two
conclusion
and "Socratesis a man" are sufficient. premissOg
are mortal" "Socrates is mortal In this Senge and
imply the conclusion
in this sense
evidences in deductive reasoning are enogt
and complete.
As we have seen the conclusion is already inherited COnclevi
premisses, it isimpossible:then for a valid deductive
have all true premisses and afalse conclusion. All
means to
arg
trueument
contradict onesel. prem1se,
tn
implyingfalse conclusion
already present in the premisses and
conclusion is
Since tho
all
are true, then how
can the
'contradictory oneself.
conclusion be
false prewirntihsouse
But very oftenthe conclusion of. an argument does not stand t,
logical relation as that of
the premisses in so necessary a
impied or entailed by the premisses. Most offthe reasoning thatbeinWeg
do in everyday life is non-deductive (inductive). Doctors use ne
deductive reasoning in diagnosing the probable causes of apatient's
symptoms. Legal scholars often use non-deductive methods to
determine what law governs in a particular case. Non-deductive or
inductive arguments are tentative, provisional and probable.
There is nothing contradictory in accepting all true premisses
and a false conclusion in non-deductive arguments. For instance
in the following example.
Professor Xis a writer and he is rich.
ProfessorY is a writer and he is rich.
Professor Zis a writer and he is rich.
Therefore, allprofessors who are writers are rich,
All the premisses are true but the conclusion is false, and still
it is not contradictory to accept the truth of the premisses and
falsity of the conclusion. Thus the chief characteristic of deductive
logic that it is impOssible to have all true premisses and talse
conclusion is not applicable to the arguments of inductihve
reasoning.
Introduction
21
Moreover, in the inductive reasoning the evidences do not
conclusively supportthe conclusion. The evidences may be
weighty and strong yet they are inconclusive ground for verythe
conclusion. They (evidences) do not imply the
conclusiorn with
utmost certainty. That is why, the conclusions in
inductive
reasoning are merely probable. Look at this example:
Crow X is black.
Crow Y is black.
Crow Z is black.
Therefore, probably all crows are black.
Here one can never be sure that all crows are black. It is
Dossible that in future one may come across a crow which is of
non-black colour. Since one cannot conceptually rule out the
possibility of non-black coloured crow, the conclusion All crows
are black" is merely probable. Thismeans the conclusion and the
premisses are not related by strict implicative relation in inductive
arguments. The evidences may be very strong in favour of a
certain conclusion still the conclusion is not as certain as we find
in deductive reasoning. The conclusions of experimental sciences
have very high degree of probability but they still are not certain
in thestrict sense of the term. The strength of the conclusions of
inductive reasoning vary in degrees: some conclusions are highly
probable whereas some others are less probable. Evidences also
vary in their strength. Evidences in some cases are very strong,
overwhelming while in other cases they may be merely »slender
or poor. The evidences (premisses) only support the conclusion
and do not 'entail it. That is why the evidences in inductive
inferences (reasoning) are inconclusive and incomplete.
An inductive argument is neither true nor false; also
it is neither valid nor invalid either. An inductive
argument is characterized or evaluated as sound or
unsound, good or bad, right or wrong, appealing or non
appealing, convincing or unconvincing, ete. The relative
notions which carry degrees of changeability as good/better,
convincing/not so convincing, appealing/not so appealing
 characterize inductive arguments,
differ among themselves
or worse. But in
in kinds:
inductive argument is totallykivalid
nds;
valid
deductive arguments
th
or
ey Inductive
differ
inval1d.
ar

They difer in kinds, and not

is either valid or invalid.
not in
degrees. there
A
is a
lear r
The
deductive arguments whereasphrase
reasoning very comfortably.
itit. can he'moderately
applie d
The basic principle
behind every deductive :
conclusion can never be wider than
In a valid deductive
argument
less than the premisses whereas
the sum total of
a conclusion js the

inductive argument can be more, less or conclusiointher ea

the
argurnenti
prr
equal to the
Deductive logic like mathematics is a for
form' of an argument alone decides the formal
prermls e
validity of an
the matter has absolutely no role in
determining argurMert
the
an argument. The 'pure form' of an argument is ideal
deductive logicians and they are interested only in for the
validity of an argument depends on it. becalsethat
Thus, while form is the only deciding factor in
assesSIng the
validity of a deductive argument, it is both form and matter which
evaluate inductive arguments. The logical form of an inductiye
argument is as follows:
Allobserved crows are black.
Therefore, allcrows are black.
All observedMs are Ns.
Therefore, all Ms are Ns.
"The above argumental form, however, may not be true tor al
arbitrary values of M and Nunlike the case of deductive argument.
A deductive logician never questions the status o
premisses; he does not bother whether the given premisses he
given' to him and
actually true or false. The premisses are they are.
takes for granted their truth value and accept them as
examine what
The job of a deductive logician is merely to
Introduction 23

necessarilyfollows from the 'given' set of premisses. In the case

inductive reasoning, however, the job of a logician is not that
of
simple. The premisses are not 'given' to him. The inductive
logicianhunts and collects the premisses which are in the form
evidences and data. The evidences are actually experienced
of
events which are witnessedlby the arguer or by some other being.
After collectingsufficienttnumber of data or evidences,the arguer
establishes conclusion. For instance, from the evidences that all
the crOWS
observed so far are black, one establishes that "Al]
Crows are black". But the conclusion is merely established and
not entailed. Entailment relation is a strict and necessary
inferences.
relation which is not applicable to any of the inductive
In other words, it is 'reasonable' and not rational' to establish
a conclusion on the basis of collected data. It is only reasonable
the basis ofAII
todraw theconclusion "Al crows are black" on
being
observed crows are black". In logic 'being rational' means
formally valid' whereas being reasonable means acceptably
sound. Non-deductive arguments (inductive arguments) can at
best be reasonably sound and not rationally valid.
collect
Thus, the job of an inductive logician is twofold: first to
a reasonably
the data (premisses) and second, to establish
The deductive
acceptable conclusion on the basis of collected data.
examining
logician, on the other hand, hasonly one task, that of
what follows necessarily from a given set of premisses.
deduction and induction
Itis, however, very wrong to consider
to be considered as
as opposed reasonings. They are not complementary and
contradictory to each other but rather as
of inductive
supplementary to one another. The conclusion
deductive reasoning. The
reasoning may serve as the premiss for
is more like
relation between deductive and inductive reasoning
induction ends. They differ
arelay race. Deduction begins where
only in their 'starting points'.
mathematics, inductive
Just as deductive logic has affinity with
scientists. A
logic has affinity with the methods employed by the
the scientific
question may arise; why a logician is interested in
24 ATexthonh
methods? Alogician is interested in the
scientific methodology because a scientist scientific
concerned with the evidences which
which support the \ike metht
Exercises a\cn chigaiman
1. "Logic is a science of valid reasoning". Explain
2. Differentiate betweentruth and
validity. Does
with truth or validity or both?
Explain with Ingir Aoa
conclusioen?xample
3. Can a valid argument have false
explain how?
4. All true premisses anda false
conclusion
any deductive argument invalid. Do you always make
Support your answer with examples, agree with thi
5. What is meant by form of an argument?
Are
withlogicboth?
ians
concerned with form or with content or
Explain.
6. Do you think form' of. an argument and its
related? If yes, then explain how? validity are
7. Explain and illustrate the similarities and
between an argument and an explanation.
dissimilar1ties
8. Explain with examples the difference between deductiye
and inductive argument.
9. Explain very briefly the following terms:
1. Premiss and conclusion
2. Argument
3. Explanation
4. Form of an argument
5. Validity of an argument
6. Truth and falsity of a proposition
7. Deduction and Induction.