Name: - Kamran Tamboli Roll No: - 2020 043

Subject: - Law and logic Section: - A

Q1
Ans: - 1. Argument: In this example we can conclude that the passage
presents an argument as we know that to score in a test we need to
study, which Maria does so we can conclude that the passage is an
argument to the conclusion that she will likely score well.
2. Non argument: No this is not an argument as the facts which show
similarity between the two are not related in any way to the
conclusion of the passage
3. Argument: The passage is not an argument as the facts clearly
show that Rene Descartes the facts do not prove the conclusion and
are not related to each other
4. Non-Argument: This passage is not an argument as there is no
conclusion and the statements are mere facts which do not lead to
any conclusion in the statement.
5. Argument: This statement is an argument as the facts in the first
two statement prove the conclusion.

Q2.
Answer: -
The "counterexample method" is a powerful way of exposing what is
wrong with an argument that is invalid. If we want to proceed
methodically, there are two steps: 1) Isolate the argument form; 2)
Construct an argument with the same form that is obviously invalid.
Premise: No logic students are completely irrational people.
Premise: Some logicians are mathematicians.
Conclusion: C: Some completely irrational people are not
mathematicians.
P: No L are C
P: Some L are M
C: Some C are not M
Conclusion “Some completely irrational people are not
mathematicians” is absolutely false, First Premise one “Some
logicians are mathematicians” is absolutely true. The second Premise
“Some logicians are mathematicians” also absolutely true.

Counterexample: Premise: No dogs are cats. (obviously true)

Premise: Some dogs are animals. (obviously true)
Conclusion: Some cats are not animals. (obviously
false)

By this Counterexample, we can say that “completely irrational

people are not mathematicians” are invalid.

3. No eagles are mammals. Thus, since no mammals are fish, no

eagles are fish.
Answer:- Premise: No eagles are mammals. P: No E are M
Premise: No mammals are fish. P: No M are F
 Conclusion: No eagles are fish. C: No E are F

Counterexample: -
P: No tigers are monkeys. (Obviously true)
P: No monkeys are cats. (Obviously true)
C: No tigers are cats. (Obviously False)
Therefore by the Counterexample, we can say that No eagles are fish
is an invalid argument. Here the structure of the argument is No E
are M, No M are F hence No E are Fand the two-step
counterexample method can be applied to show that the argument
is false and invalid as Let us assume that No Tiger are Monkeys,
Some monkeys are cats hence no tigers are Cat. This is a false
conclusion as no higher can never be a concert but both of them can
be individually.
4. 4. Some dogs are not pigs, because some pigs are animals and
some animals are not dogs.
Answer:- The "counterexample method" is a powerful way of
exposing what is wrong with an argument that is invalid. If we want
to proceed methodically, there are two steps: 1) Isolate the
argument form; 2) Construct an argument with the same form that is
obviously invalid.
Conclusion: Some dogs are not pigs. C:
Some D are not P
Premise: Some pigs are animals. P: Some P are A
Premise: Some animals are not dogs. P: Some A are not D

Counterexample: - C: Some cats are not mammals. (Obviously False)

 P: Some mammals are bears. (Obviously true)
P: Some bears are not cats. (Obviously true)

Therefor by counterexample, we can say that Some doges are not

pig. Because, Some P are A, Some A are not D hence the structure
Some D are not P are invalid. two-step counterexample method can
be applied to show that the argument is false and invalid as Let us
assume that, Some Bears are not cat, Some mammals are not bears
but we cant say Some cats are not mammals. This is a false
conclusion as no higher can never be a concert but both of them can
be individually.

Q.3
ANS:
1. Ad hominem (Abusive): This passage Ad Hominem fallacy as the
narrator attacks the person making the argument and the arguments
are irrelevant to the fact or in this case opinion of the person making
the claim.
2. Accident: This is an accident fallacy as a general rule is being
applied to a situation which is an exception to that rule, thus making
it irrelevant and false.
3. Amphiboly: This statement is an Amphiboly fallacy as the
grammar and punctuations are used in such a way that they can
mean more than one thing. Also, conclusion is does not reflect that
which can be seen by the facts.
4. Genetic fallacy: This is a Genetic fallacy as the origin line of the
argument was considered as the evidence and was falsely
discredited. The origin line was not necessarily the only thing on
which the claim was based.
5. Ad hominem (tu quoque): This is an You Too or Ad hominem
(tu quoque) fallacy as the claim was discredited on the basis of the
persons previous actions.
6. Is ought fallacy: This claim is a is - Ought to fallacy as the claim
is made on the basis of the assumption that if things ought to be a
certain way.
7. Appeal to the people and is ought fallacy: This is a fallacy of
Appeal to Popularity as the claim is made on the basis of something
in this case wearing ripped jeans being popular and therefore
wearing them is right.
8. Composition: This is a fallacy of Composition as the claim is
being made on the basis of the qualities and efficiency of the
departments individually which might not be true when the
departments work together.
9. Genetic fallacy, again the conclusion is questioned because of
the source of the premise.
10. Straw man, there is an unnecessary trashing of the weaker miss
interpreted version of without cloths in public view
11. Ad hominem (Circumstantial):The argument is rejected because
roger is arguing for the whole class based on his skills and not on the
skills of the whole class.
12. Denying the antecedent: /modus Tollens, classic form of If A,
then B ; Not B thus, not A is clearly seen with the voting scenario in
this question.

Q.4
ANS:1.The pattern of inference used: Subalternation It is an invalid
immediate inference
2.The pattern of inference used: Contraposition It is a valid
immediate inference
3.The pattern of inference used: Subcontrary It is a valid immediate
inference
4.The pattern of inference used: Conversion It is an invalid
immediate inference
5.The pattern of inference used: Subalternation It is an invalid
immediate inference
6.The pattern of inference used: Contradiction It is a valid immediate
inference

Q5.

Problem A
1.A

2.(A v B) ⊃ S/S

3.A v B 1. Addition

4.S 2.3 MP

Problem B
1. ˜ G
2.G v ˜ D

3.F ⊃ D/ F

4. ˜ D 1.2 DS

5. ˜ F 3.4 MT

Problem C
1.T &M v S

2.T ⊃ ˜ M/T&S

3.T 1. Simp

4.M v S 1. Simp

5. ˜M 2, 3 MP

6.S 4, 5 DS

7. T & S 3, 6 Conj.

Problem D
1. ˜ A ⊃ B

2. ˜ A vD

3. ˜ D ⊃ H/ (B v H) v ˜ M

4. B v H 1,2,3 CD

5. (B v H) v ˜ M 4. Add

Problem E
(R • P) ⊃ (Q v I)

2. (~Q v A) ⊃R

3. (~Q v J) ⊃ P

4. ~Q • N / [I • (~Q v A)] v (P ⊃ I)

5. ~Q 4 Simp

6. ~Q v A 5 Add

7. ~Q v J 5 Add
8. R 2, 6 MP

9. P 3, 7 MP

10. R • P 8, 9 Conj

11. Q v I 1, 10 MP

12. I 5, 11 DS

13. I • (~Q v A) 6, 12 Conj

14. [I • (~Q v A)] v (P ⊃ I) 13 Add