Logic

The term "logic" came from the Greek word logos, which is sometimes translated as "sentence",
"discourse", "reason", "rule", and "ratio". Of course, these translations are not enough to help us
understand the more specialized meaning of "logic" as it is used today.
We might define logic as the study of the principles of correct reasoning or the science that
studies the formal processes used in thinking and reasoning.  Logic is a tool to develop
reasonable conclusions based on a given set of data. Logic is free of emotion and deals very
specifically with information in its purest form.

Logical reasoning
 The process of thinking about something in a logical way in order to form a conclusion or
judgment.
 The ability of the mind to think and understand things in a logical way

Argument
An argument is a group of statement or proposition, which consist of premises and conclusion.
The building blocks of a logical argument are propositions, also called statements.
A proposition is a statement which is either true or false.

Types of argument

Deductive argument

In a deductive argument, the premises are intended to provide such strong support for the
conclusion that, if the premises are true, then it would be impossible for the conclusion to be
false. A deductive argument is valid or else invalid. An argument in which the premises do
succeed in guaranteeing the conclusion is called a (deductively) valid argument. If a valid
argument has true premises, then the argument is said to be sound.

Inductive argument

An inductive argument is an argument that is intended by the arguer merely to establish or

increase the probability of its conclusion. In an inductive argument is strong or else weak, the
premises are intended only to be so strong that, if they were true, then it would be unlikely that
the conclusion is false. There is no standard term for a successful inductive argument. But its
success or strength is a matter of degree, unlike with deductive arguments.

Strength of arguments
The strength of your arguments is determined by the use of reliable evidence, sound reasoning
and adaptation to the audience. In the process of argumentation, mistakes sometimes occur.
Some are deliberate in order to deceive the audience. That brings us to fallacies.
Fallacy Definition
A fallacy is an erroneous argument dependent upon an unsound or illogical contention. There are
many fallacy examples that we can find in everyday conversations.

A "fallacy" is a mistake, and a "logical" fallacy is a mistake in reasoning. There are, of course,
other types of mistake than mistakes in reasoning. For instance, factual mistakes are sometimes
referred to as "fallacies". However, The Fallacy Files is specifically concerned with logical
errors, not factual ones.

Fallacies are common errors in reasoning that will undermine the logic of your

argument. Fallacies can be either illegitimate arguments or irrelevant points, and are often
identified because they lack evidence that supports their claim

Formal and Informal Fallacies

There are several different ways in which fallacies may be categorized. It’s possible, for
instance, to distinguish between formal fallacies and informal fallacies.

Formal Fallacies (Deductive Fallacies)

A formal fallacy is a pattern of reasoning rendered invalid by a flaw in its logical structure that
can neatly be expressed in a standard logic system,

The classic example of a deductively valid argument is:

(1) All men are mortal.
(2) Socrates is a man.
Therefore:
(3) Socrates is mortal.
It is simply not possible that both (1) and (2) are true and (3) is false, so this argument is
deductively valid.
Any deductive argument that fails to meet this (very high) standard commits a logical error, and
so, technically, is fallacious. This includes many arguments that we would usually accept as
good arguments, arguments that make their conclusions highly probable, but not certain.
Arguments of this kind, arguments that aren’t deductively valid, are said to commit a “formal
fallacy”.

Informal Fallacies
Inductive arguments needn’t be as rigorous as deductive arguments in order to be good
arguments. Good inductive arguments lend support to their conclusions, but even if their
premises are true then that doesn’t establish with 100% certainty that their conclusions are true.
Even a good inductive argument with true premises might have a false conclusion; that the
argument is a good one and that its premises are true only establishes that its conclusion is
probably true.
All inductive arguments, even good ones, are therefore deductively invalid and so “fallacious in
the strictest sense. The premises of an inductive argument do not, and are not intended to, entail
the truth of the argument’s conclusion, and so even the best inductive argument falls short of
deductive validity.
Because all inductive arguments are technically invalid, different terminology is needed to
distinguish good and bad inductive arguments than is used to distinguish good and bad deductive
arguments (else every inductive argument would be given the bad label: “invalid”). The terms
most often used to distinguish good and bad inductive arguments are “strong” and “weak”.
An example of a strong inductive argument would be:
(1) Every day to date the law of gravity has held.
Therefore:
(2) The law of gravity will hold tomorrow.
Arguments that fail to meet the standards required of inductive arguments commit fallacies in
addition to formal fallacies. It is these “informal fallacies” that are most often described by
guides to good thinking, and that are the primary concern of most critical thinking courses and of
this site.

Categories of informal Fallacies

Here are a few well-known kinds of fallacies you might experience when making an argument:

• Fallacies of relevance
The conclusion is logically irrelevant to the premises, even if it is psychologically or emotionally relevant
to the conclusion and so as to give us the impression that the conclusion is supported by them.

Following are the examples of fallacies of relevance.

1.1 Appeal to Emotion

This fallacy is committed when someone manipulates peoples' emotions in order to get them to
accept a claim as being true. More formally, this sort of "reasoning" involves the substitution of
various means of producing strong emotions in place of evidence for a claim. If the favorable
emotions associated with X influence the person to accept X as true because they "feel good
about X," then he has fallen prey to the fallacy.
 Mohammad Amir, I have make a mistake(involving in spot-fixing)
and now I want second chance in cricket to make a strong comeback.

"I believe cricket suffered because of me," Amir had said in January 2014, when he was
interviewed for the documentary Death of Gentleman due to release this year. "Fans were
disheartened because of me. I want to make them happy and win them over again. They felt bad
for cricket I have to tell them that cricket is a gentleman's game and I am going to prove it. I will
be playing for the fans of and not only for Pakistani cricket, fans but all those around the world
who followed me, supported me."

Explanation:

Amir committing fallacy of emotion because he manipulate people emotions instead of providing actual
evidence, that what he claim is true, that he was make a mistake to involve in spot-fixing . He uses
persuasive language to develop the foundation of an appeal to emotion to win back his fans
based on arguments instead of facts. Therefore, the validity of the premises that establish such an
argument does not prove to be verifiable.

1.2 Appeal to popularity

Using the popularity of a premise or proposition as evidence for its truthfulness.  This is a fallacy
which is very difficult to spot because our “common sense” tells us that if something is popular,
it must be good/true/valid, but this is not so, especially in a society where clever marketing,
social and political weight, and money can buy popularity.

1.2.1 Example:
Mobilink and Warid TV commercial ad, Now together we have 50 million
customers, Are you one of them?
Explanation:

Advertisers often use this tactic when they attempt to sell products by claiming that everyone
uses and loves their products. In such cases they hope that people will accept the approval of
others as a good reason to buy the product. It is clearly fallacious to accept the approval of the
majority as evidence for a claim. Here Mobilink and Warid trying to prove that together we have
lots of people using our network connection that’s why you should too. This argument is an
appeal to popularity because it suggests that you should to use our network based solely on the
popularity of using it.

1.3 Appeal to Authority

An appeal to authority is an argument from the fact that a person judged to be an authority
affirms a proposition to the claim that the proposition is true.
Appeals to authority are always deductively fallacious; even a legitimate authority speaking on
his area of expertise may affirm a falsehood, so no testimony of any authority is guaranteed to be
true.

1.3.1 Example:

Panama leaks proof of PM Sharif's corruption: Imran

July 07, 2016|By Web Desk|Pakistan

 LAHORE: Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) Chairman Imran Khan on Thursday said that the
Panama Papers have clearly revealed that Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif is involved in corruption
and money laundering.

Explanation:

In the above example Imran khan claim that panama papers proof that Prime Minister Nawaz
Sharif is involved in corruption and money laundering. In other words Imran khan claims that he
is right, because panama leaks say so.  And because the panama leaks say so, it must be true.
This is defective induction because panama is never 100% right, all the time. Here Imran khan
committed fallacy of appeal to authority because he using panama papers as evidence in his
argument instead of providing evidence himself that Nawaz Sharif is involved in corruption.

2. Fallacies of weak induction

A fallacy of weak induction occurs when an argument, premises are not strong enough to support
the conclusion. The premises are logically relevant, but that isn’t enough for them to be
supportive enough. These fallacies also involve an emotional appeal to make their case.
Following are the examples of fallacies of weak induction.

2.1 Fallacy of hasty generalization

(converse accident)
Drawing a conclusion based on a small sample size, rather than looking at statistics that are
much more in line with the typical or average situation. A hasty generalization is a fallacy in
which a conclusion is not logically justified by sufficient or unbiased evidence. Also called
insufficient sample, converse accident, faulty generalization, biased generalization, jumping to a
conclusion and neglect of qualifications.
2.1 Example:

People of Balochistan, Kashmir thanked me: Modi on

India's Independence Day
"People of Balochistan, Gilgit and POK (Pakistan Occupied Kashmir) want freedom from
Pakistan and have thanked me a lot in past few days, I am grateful to them," said Modi
in his Monday address.

Explanation:

Modi committed fallacy of Hasty Generalization and it is extremely unreasonable to draw a

universal conclusion about the people of Balochistan that they have thanked me a lot because
this conclusion is based on insufficient evidence. Balochistan Chief Minister Nawab Sanaullah
Khan Zehri said that not even one percent of baloch wants freedom from Pakistan. There is only
a few number of baloch activist who support him but Modi directly jump to the conclusion about
the people of Balochistan.

2.2. Fallacies of false cause

The link between the conclusion and the premises depends on the assumption of a non-existent
or minor causal connection.
A causes B (without real proof that this causal relationship actually exists).
This causal relationship is often claimed when there is correlation between A and B (that they
vary together) or a relatively distant causal connection.
.

2.2.1 Example
Drinking coke open happiness in life.
Explanation:

When people drink coke the happiness open for him in his life, this ad shows the false effect of
drinking coke because there is no relation between coke and happiness and there is no proof of it
in real life. Coke committed fallacy of false cause because the link between drinking coke and
happiness depends on the assumption of a non-existent or minor causal connection.

2.3 Fallacy of slippery slope

The link between the conclusion and the premises depends on the claim that a certain event or
situation will initiate a more or less long chain of events leading to some desirable and
undesirable consequences, and when there is not sufficient reason to think that the chain of
events will actually take place.
When we think too far back or ahead, we fall into the slippery slope.
2.3.1 Example

Explanation:

Malala Yousafzai committed fallacy of slippery slope because Education and terrorism has no
direct relationship but getting education will lead to more desirable events which would result in
eliminating terrorism. If a person get education, he would respect others as equals regardless of
faith, culture or nationality and to live peacefully within a community, it is also the way forward
for promoting egalitarian attitudes and mindsets which are immune to radicalization and
extremism...Or a person who gets education will get a good job which would improve their
living standard, which would eliminate poverty and then it would help in eliminating terrorism.
The questions are, is it must to happen that a person getting education would lead to these
consequences, is education the single factor of terrorism. The answer is no because it is not
necessary that the education would result to the above consequences and there are certain other
factors which cause terrorism such as boarder interference, government policies, security issues
etc. so with just getting education we cannot kill terrorism.
3. Fallacies of Presumption
These fallacies occur when the arguments presume - in some way - what they are trying to prove,
or they presume evidence of some type.
Following are the examples of fallacies of presumption.

3.1 Circular Reasoning

This fallacy is committed when the argument fails to prove anything because it takes for granted
what it is supposed to prove. Circular Reasoning is an attempt to support a statement by simply
repeating the statement in different or stronger terms.  In this fallacy, the reason given is nothing
more than a restatement of the conclusion that poses as the reason for the conclusion."
Example:

Nine Zero sealed illegally, despite MQM's dissociation from Altaf Hussain:
Farooq Sattar

” Sattar said while addressing a press conference in the metropolis.

“When we say that we have disconnected with London, it means that we are no more in contact
with them, stop doing speculations, Stop doubting our intention. If somebody is misguided, he
should consult some Urdu linguistic for explanation of what we have said,

The senior party leader said that MQM has parted ways with Altaf 'Saahb' and the latter has been
totally disconnected from the party affairs.

“Stop our victimization through media. Stop pressurizing us through these ‘so-called’ analysts,
we won’t take dictation from anyone.”

“You cannot seal the headquarter of a political party, only because of the controversial
statements issued by an individual — who is already dissociated from the party,” said Sattar.

Explanation:
Farooq Sattar committed fallacy of circular reasoning because what he conclude that to stop
illegally sealing the headquarter of our political party because we declare dissociation from Altaf
Hussain is also claimed in premises that don’t doubt on our intention because When we say that
we have disconnected with London, it means that we are no more in contact with them. So here
Sattar does not providing any reasonable evidence to support his claim and he begins with what
they are trying to end with.

3.2 Suppressed Evidence

This fallacy is committed when relevant evidence is purposely omitted in the argument because
it is contrary to what the author is trying to prove. Important evidence which would undermine
an inductive argument is excluded from consideration. “In an induction, the total relevant
information needs to be examined. The fallacy occurs when relevant evidence which would
undermine an inductive argument is excluded from consideration. The requirement that all
relevant information be included is called the principle of total evidence.

Example:

4. Fallacies of Ambiguity
When an unclear phrase with multiple definitions is used within the argument; therefore, does
not support the conclusion.  Some will say single words count for the ambiguity fallacy, which is
really a specific form of a fallacy known as equivocation.

4.1 Composition
The fallacy of composition involves an inference from the attribution of some feature to every
individual member of a class (or part of a greater whole) to the possession of the same feature by
the entire class (or whole).

Example:
4.2 Division
Similarly, the fallacy of division involves an inference from the attribution of some feature to an
entire class (or whole) to the possession of the same feature by each of its individual members
(or parts).