Noida Institute of Engineering and Technology,

Greater Noida

Logic and Argumentation

Unit: 5

Subject: DESIGN THINKING I

Dr. Pratibha Pandey
Mr. Pitamber Adhikari
Course Details
B Tech 1st Sem

08/04/2021 Dr. Pratibha Pandey/Mr. Pitamber Adhikari Design Thinking 1 Unit 5

1
 Content

• The argument, claim, and statement

• Identifying premises and conclusion
• Truth and logic conditions
• Valid/invalid arguments
• strong/weak arguments
• Deductive argument
• Argument diagrams
• Logical reasoning
• Scientific reasoning
• Logical fallacies
• Propositional logic
• Probability and judgement
• Obstacles to critical thinking

08/04/2021 Dr. Pratibha Pandey /Mr .Pitamber Adhikari Design Thinking 1 Unit 5
2
 Course Objective

The objective of this course is to familiarize students with design thinking process
as a tool for breakthrough innovation. It aims to equip students with design
thinking skills and ignite the minds to create innovative ideas, develop solutions for
real-time problems.

Dr. Pratibha Pandey/Mr. Pitamber Adhikari Design Thinking 1 Unit 5

08/04/2021 3
 Course Outcome

After completion of this course, students will be able to-

CO1: Develop a strong understanding of the design process and apply it in a variety
of business settings

CO2: Analyze self, culture, teamwork to work in a multidisciplinary environment

and exhibit empathetic behavior

CO3: Formulate specific problem statements of real time issues and generate
innovative ideas using design tools

CO4: Apply critical thinking skills in order to arrive at the root cause from a set of
likely causes

CO5: Demonstrate an enhanced ability to apply design thinking skills for evaluation
of claims and arguments

Dr. Pratibha Pandey/Mr. Pitamber Adhikari Design Thinking 1 Unit 5

08/04/2021 4
 CO-PO and PSO Mapping

Dr. Pratibha Pandey/Mr. Pitamber Adhikari Design Thinking 1 Unit 5

08/04/2021 5
 Prerequisite and Recap

Prerequisite:
Student should have basic understanding of critical thinking, difference
between critical and ordinary thinking as well as five pillars of critical thinking.

Recap:
Revision of topics like fundamentals of critical thinking and critical thinking
skills.

Dr. Pratibha Pandey/Mr. Pitamber Adhikari Design Thinking 1 Unit 5

08/04/2021 6
 Argument, Claim, and Statement [CO5]

Topic Objective:
Helps in systematic evaluation or formulation of beliefs, or statements, by rational
standards.

Recap:

Discussion about critical thinking.

08/04/2021 Dr. Pratibha Pandey/Mr. Pitamber Adhikari Design Thinking 1 Unit 5

7
 Argument, Claim, and Statement [CO5]

 An argument is often taken to be a somewhat heated dispute between people. But in

logic and critical thinking, an argument is a list of statements, one of which is

the conclusion and the others are the premises or assumptions of the argument.

 The ability to construct, identify, and evaluate arguments is a crucial part of critical

thinking. Giving good arguments helps us convince other people, and improve our

presentation and debating skills.

 A claim is an assertion about the truth, existence, or value of something that is either

true or false. Claims are also called statements or propositions. When supported by

premises, a claim becomes a conclusion.

08/04/2021 Dr. Pratibha Pandey/Mr. Pitamber Adhikari Design Thinking 1 Unit 5
7
 Argument [CO5]

What is an argument?
An argument is a set of statements made up, at minimum, of the following parts:

A main conclusion: This statement is a claim that expresses what the arguer is

trying to persuade us to accept, whether or not it actually is true.

Evidence: 
 Also known as premises or support, the arguer provides these statements in
order to show us that the conclusion is true.
 Essentially, the evidence answers the question, “Why do you believe [the
conclusion] to be true?”
 The simplest arguments on the LSAT have just one piece of evidence; more
complex arguments will have several.
08/04/2021 Dr. Pratibha Pandey/Mr. Pitamber Adhikari Design Thinking 1 Unit 5
8
 Argument [CO5]

Dr. Pratibha Pandey /Mr. Pitamber Adhikari Design Thinking 1 Unit 5 9

 Identifying Premises and Conclusion [CO5]

Topic Objective:
Identify types of argument, and bias within arguments, in order to better
evaluate the strength of arguments

Recap:
Revision of the argument, claim, and statement.

08/04/2021 Dr. Pratibha Pandey/Mr. Pitamber Adhikari Design Thinking 1 Unit 5

10
 Identifying Premises and Conclusion [CO5]

 A premise includes the reasons and evidence behind a conclusion. A conclusion is

the statement that the premise supports and is a way of promoting a certain belief or
point of view. 
 An argument is a group of statements including one or more premises and one and
only one conclusion.
 A statement is a sentence that is either true or false, such as "The cat is on the mat."
Many sentences are not statements, such as "Close the door, please" , "How old are
you?"
 A premise is a statement in an argument that provides reason or support for the
conclusion. There can be one or many premises in a single argument.
 A conclusion is a statement in an argument that indicates of what the arguer is trying
to convince the reader/listener. What is the argument trying to prove? There can
be only one conclusion in a single argument.
08/04/2021 Dr. Pratibha Pandey/Mr. Pitamber Adhikari Design Thinking 1 Unit 5
10
 Truth and Logic Conditions [CO5]

Topic Objective:
Helps in problem solving in critical thinking.

Recap:
Revision of Identifying premises and conclusion.

08/04/2021 Dr. Pratibha Pandey/ Mr. Pitamber Adhikari Design Thinking 1 Unit 5
11
 Truth and Logic Conditions [CO5]

 A truth condition is the condition under which a sentence is true.

 Truth conditions of a sentence don't necessarily reflect current reality.
 They are merely the conditions under which the statement would be true.

08/04/2021 Dr. Pratibha Pandey/ Mr. Pitamber Adhikari Design Thinking 1 Unit 5
11
 Truth and Logic Conditions [CO5]

EXAMPLE

Cats with long hair shed all over the house so you should not get a long-haired cat.
I have heard that they also have lots of fleas.

P¹ Long-haired cats shed all over the house

P² Long-haired cats have a lot of fleas

C You should not get a long haired cat

08/04/2021 Dr. Pratibha Pandey/Mr. Pitamber Adhikari Design Thinking 1 Unit 5 12

 Deductive Arguments [CO5]

Topic Objective:
Helps to provide statements (premises) that give evidence for the conclusion.

Recap:
Revision of Truth and Logic Conditions.

Dr. Pratibha Pandey/Mr. Pitamber Adhikari Design Thinking 1 Unit 5

08/04/2021 16
 Deductive Arguments [CO5]

 A deductive argument is either valid or invalid. There is no in-between, no gray area.

 The test for validity of a deductive argument is the following: If there is any possible
way for an argument to have all true premises and a false conclusion, then the argument
is invalid.
 Again: to determine validity we are not concerned with whether the premises
are actually true, that is a separate step. We will just pretend or assume that they are.
 If a deductive argument is valid, then we go ahead and check the factual claim, because
only then is it possible that the argument might be sound. 
 An invalid argument is always unsound. An argument is sound if it is valid and
the premises are all actually true.

Dr. Pratibha Pandey/Mr. Pitamber Adhikari Design Thinking 1 Unit 5

08/04/2021 17
 Deductive Arguments [CO5]

 A deductive argument is an argument that is intended by the arguer to be

deductively valid, that is, to provide a guarantee of the truth of the
conclusion provided that the argument’s premises are true.

 This point can be expressed also by saying that, 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.

 An argument in which the premises do succeed in guaranteeing the

conclusion is called a (deductively) valid argument.

08/04/2021 Dr. Pratibha Pandey /Mr. Pitamber Adhikari Design Thinking 1 Unit 5 18
 Deductive Arguments [CO5]

 An argument is a set of statements that consists of a conclusion and the

statements said by the arguer to lead to that conclusion.

 Premises are the statements that lead to the conclusion.

 A deductive argument is an argument in which the arguer is maintaining that

the premises show that the conclusion is necessarily true.

 A deductive argument is said to be valid if the premises logically lead to the

conclusion.

 A deductive argument is said to be sound if it is valid and has true premises.

The conclusion of a sound deductive argument is necessarily true.

 A syllogism is a deductive argument with two premises. Here is one example of

a syllogism that is valid and sound:

All human beings are mortal.

Socrates is a human being.
Thus, Socrates is mortal.
08/04/2021 Dr. Pratibha Pandey /Mr. Pitamber Adhikari Design Thinking 1 Unit 5 19
 Deductive Arguments [CO5]

 Now consider this syllogism:

All dogs are cats.

All cats are birds.
Thus, all dogs are birds.

 This argument is valid, because the conclusions follows from the premises,
but it is clearly not sound since the premises are false.

 Of course, more complex deductive arguments may have more than two
premises.

 In many cases arguments are linked together. The conclusion of one

argument becomes a premise for the next argument. In analyzing complex
arguments, it is often important to break the argument down into its
component parts.

 In many cases parts of deductive arguments are missing. In order to critique

an argument, it may be important to uncover the missing premises.

08/04/2021 Dr. Pratibha Pandey /Mr. Pitamber Adhikari Design Thinking 1 Unit 5 20
 Inductive Argument [CO5]

Topic Objective:
The goal of inductive reasoning is to predict a likely outcome.

Recap:
Revision of deductive arguments.

Dr. Pratibha Pandey /Mr. Pitamber Adhikari Design Thinking 1 Unit 5

08/04/2021 21
 Inductive Argument [CO5]

 On the inductive side of things we classify arguments as strong and weak.

 This classification correlates loosely with the terms valid and invalid for deductive
arguments, except that with inductive arguments there is gray area; there is an in-
between. An inductive argument can be more or less strong, more or less weak.
 Generally, if there is more than a 50-50 chance that the conclusion will follow from the
(presumed) truth of the premises, then it is strong; otherwise it is weak.
 In judging some types of inductive arguments you will be looking at sample size as
scientists do when they are examining results of experiments. After all, they are engaged
in exactly the same project that you are: "is the 'proof' strong enough to warrant a
particular inference?"--They are judging inductive arguments too, albeit more
complicated ones than yours.
 Strong inductive argument with true premises is termed cogent. To say an argument is
cogent is to say it is good, believable; there is good evidence that the conclusion is true.
Dr. Pratibha Pandey /Mr. Pitamber Adhikari Design Thinking 1 Unit 5
08/04/2021 22
 Inductive Argument [CO5]

There are several key types of inductive reasoning:

Generalized — Draws a conclusion from a generalization. For example, “All the

swans I have seen are white; therefore, all swans are probably white.”

Statistical — Draws a conclusion based on statistics. For example, “95 percent of

swans are white” (an arbitrary figure, of course); “therefore, a randomly selected
swan will probably be white.”

Sample — Draws a conclusion about one group based on a different, sample

group. For example, “There are ten swans in this pond and all are white; therefore,
the swans in my neighbor’s pond are probably also white.”

Analogous — Draws a conclusion based on shared properties of two groups. For

example, “All Aylesbury ducks are white. Swans are similar to Aylesbury ducks.
Therefore, all swans are probably white.”

Dr. Pratibha Pandey /Mr. Pitamber Adhikari Design Thinking 1 Unit 5

08/04/2021 23
 Inductive Argument [CO5]

Predictive — Draws a conclusion based on a prediction made using a past

sample. For example, “I visited this pond last year and all the swans were white.
Therefore, when I visit again, all the swans will probably be white.”

Causal inference — Draws a conclusion based on a causal connection. For

example, “All the swans in this pond are white. I just saw a white bird in the pond.
The bird was probably a swan.”

Dr. Pratibha Pandey /Mr. Pitamber Adhikari Design Thinking 1 Unit 5

08/04/2021 24
 Inductive vs Deductive Arguments [CO5]

Dr. Pratibha Pandey /Mr. Pitamber Adhikari Design Thinking 1 Unit 5

08/04/2021 25
 Logic Reasoning [CO5]

Topic Objective:
Predictions from each algorithm can be used to compare solutions and decide on
the best one.

Recap:
Revision of deductive and inductive arguments.

Dr. Pratibha Pandey /Mr. Pitamber Adhikari Design Thinking 1 Unit 5

08/04/2021 26
 Logic Reasoning [CO5]

Logical reasoning is the umbrella term for at least three different types of
reasoning. These are known as deductive reasoning, inductive reasoning and
abductive reasoning and are based on deduction, induction and abduction
respectively.

Dr. Pratibha Pandey /Mr. Pitamber Adhikari Design Thinking 1 Unit 5

08/04/2021 27
 Logic Reasoning [CO5]

Dr. Pratibha Pandey /Mr. Pitamber Adhikari Design Thinking 1 Unit 5

08/04/2021 28
 Logic Reasoning [CO5]

Dr. Pratibha Pandey Design Thinking 1 Unit 5

08/04/2021 29
 Logic Reasoning [CO5]

Dr. Pratibha Pandey Design Thinking 1 Unit 5

08/04/2021 30
 Scientific Reasoning [CO5]

Topic Objective:
Skill to develop throughout medical education due to the recent emphasis on
evidence-based medicine.

Recap:
Revision of logical reasoning.

08/04/2021 Dr. Pratibha Pandey/Mr. Pitamber Adhikari Design Thinking 1 Unit 5 31

 Scientific Reasoning [CO5]

Dr. Pratibha Pandey Design Thinking 1 Unit 5

08/04/2021 32
 Scientific Reasoning [CO5]

Dr. Pratibha Pandey Design Thinking 1 Unit 5

08/04/2021 33
 Logical fallacies [CO5]

Topic Objective:
A logical fallacy is a flaw in reasoning or a flawed structure that undermines the
validity of an argument. A fallacious argument can make productive conversation
impossible.

Recap:
Revision of scientific reasoning.

08/04/2021 Dr. Pratibha Pandey /Mr. Pitamber Adhikari Design Thinking 1 Unit 5 34
 Logical fallacies [CO5]

What is fallacy?

 Fallacies are defects that weaken arguments.

 First, fallacious arguments are very, very common and can be quite
persuasive, at least to the causal reader or listener. You can find dozens
of examples of fallacious reasoning in newspapers, advertisements, and
other sources.

 Second, it is sometimes hard to evaluate whether an argument is

fallacious.

 An argument might be very weak, somewhat weak, somewhat strong,

or very strong. An argument that has several stages or parts might have
some strong sections and some weak ones.

08/04/2021 Dr. Pratibha Pandey /Mr. Pitamber Adhikari Design Thinking 1 Unit 5 35
 Logical fallacies [CO5]

08/04/2021 Dr. Pratibha Pandey /Mr. Pitamber Adhikari Design Thinking 1 Unit 5 36
 Logical fallacies [CO5]

What is logical fallacy?

 A fallacy is an error of reasoning. These are flawed statements

that often sound true.

 Logical fallacies are often used to strengthen an argument, but if

the reader detects them the argument can backfire, and damage
the writer’s credibility.

08/04/2021 Dr. Pratibha Pandey /Mr. Pitamber Adhikari Design Thinking 1 Unit 5 37
 Logical fallacies [CO5]

08/04/2021 Dr. Pratibha Pandey /Mr. Pitamber Adhikari Design Thinking 1 Unit 5 38
 Propositional logic [CO5]

Topic Objective:
To understand the concept of propositional logic where proposition is a declarative
statement which is either true or false, but not both.

Recap:
Revision of Logical fallacies.

Dr. Pratibha Pandey /Mr. Pitamber Adhikari Design Thinking 1 Unit 5

08/04/2021 39
5
 Propositional logic [CO5]

Dr. Pratibha Pandey /Mr. Pitamber Adhikari Design Thinking 1 Unit 5

08/04/2021 40
5
 Propositional logic [CO5]

What is a Proposition?

 Propositions are the meanings of statements.

 I have no money

 I want to play football.

 We want to study.

 Meanings are the thoughts, concepts, ideas we

are trying to convey through speech and writing.

08/04/2021 Dr. Pratibha Pandey /Mr. Pitamber Adhikari Design Thinking 1 Unit 5 41
 Propositional logic [CO5]

Simple Propositions

 Fast foods tend to be unhealthy.

 Parakeets are colourful birds.

 Simple propositions are grammatically independent expressions of information.

08/04/2021 Dr. Pratibha Pandey /Mr. Pitamber Adhikari Design Thinking 1 Unit 5 42
 Propositional logic [CO5]

Compound Propositions

 If fast foods tend to be unhealthy, then you

shouldn't eat them.

 Parakeets are colourful birds, and colourful birds

are good to have at home.

 People are free, if and only if they can choose

their actions and there are no forces compelling
those actions.

08/04/2021 Dr. Pratibha Pandey /Mr. Pitamber Adhikari Design Thinking 1 Unit 5 43
 Propositional logic [CO5]

Types of relations between propositions

 One proposition is offered in support of another

(simple argument).

 First proposition expressed the condition under which

a second proposition is true (conditional statement).

 First sentence offers two proposed alternatives, and

a second proposition negates one of these
alternatives (disjunctive syllogism).

08/04/2021 Dr. Pratibha Pandey /Mr. Pitamber Adhikari Design Thinking 1 Unit 5 44
 Probability and judgement [CO5]

Topic Objective:
To understand the concept of probability and judgement. The probability estimate
is computed using mathematical equations that manipulate the data to determine
the likelihood of an independent event occurring.

Recap:
Revision of propositional logic.

08/04/2021 Dr. Pratibha Pandey /Mr. Pitamber Adhikari Design Thinking 1 Unit 5 45
 Probability and judgement [CO5]

08/04/2021 Dr. Pratibha Pandey /Mr. Pitamber Adhikari Design Thinking 1 Unit 5 46
 Probability and judgement [CO5]

Absolute probability judgement

 Absolute probability judgement is a technique used in the field of human

reliability assessment (HRA), for the purposes of evaluating the probability of
a human error occurring throughout the completion of a specific task.

 From such analyses measures can then be taken to reduce the likelihood of
errors occurring within a system and therefore lead to an improvement in the
overall levels of safety.

 There exist three primary reasons for conducting an HRA; error identification,
error quantification and error reduction.

08/04/2021 Dr. Pratibha Pandey /Mr. Pitamber Adhikari Design Thinking 1 Unit 5 47
 Obstacles to critical thinking [CO5]

Topic Objective:
To understand the different barriers or obstacles that hampers the concept of
critical thinking.

Recap:
Revision of probability and judgement.

08/04/2021 Dr. Pratibha Pandey /Mr. Pitamber Adhikari Design Thinking 1 Unit 5 48
 Obstacles to critical thinking [CO5]

08/04/2021 Dr. Pratibha Pandey /Mr. Pitamber Adhikari Design Thinking 1 Unit 5 49
 Obstacles to critical thinking [CO5]

Barriers to critical thinking

 An over-reliance on feelings or emotions.

 Self-centred or societal/cultural-centred thinking (conformism, dogma and

peer-pressure).

 Unconscious bias, or selective perception.

 An inability to be receptive to an idea or point of view that differs from your

own (close-mindedness).

 Unwarranted assumptions or lack of relevant information.

 Fear of being wrong (anxious about being taken out of your ‘comfort zone’).

 Poor communication skills or apathy.

 Lack of personal honesty.

08/04/2021 Dr. Pratibha Pandey /Mr. Pitamber Adhikari Design Thinking 1 Unit 5 50
 THANK
YOU
08/04/2021 51
 Faculty Video Links, Youtube & NPTEL Video Links and Online
Courses Details

Youtube/other Video Links:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iaiF9cn5I2s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W6CSCuxrheE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SM-OgBxfbi4

08/04/2021 Dr. Pratibha Pandey /Mr. Pitamber Adhikari Design Thinking 1 Unit 5 52
 Daily Quiz

 1. If you are attempting to put your plan into action, what part of the
problem-solving process are you working on?
a). Define
b). Prepare
c). Try
d). Reflect

2. The "Try" step means:

Look at the results of your work and think about what you should
do to improve it.
a). True
b). False

3. During which step do you see the problem from another person's
perspective?
a). Prototype
b). Ideate
c). Empathize
d). Define
08/04/2021 Dr. Pratibha Pandey /Mr. Pitamber Adhikari Design Thinking 1 Unit 5 53
 Daily Quiz

5. Which statement about the Prototype step is true?

a). A prototype needs to be perfect
b). You shouldn't worry about how someone might use it
c). The point is to make something that people can test.
d). You shouldn't make it online

08/04/2021 Dr. Pratibha Pandey /Mr. Pitamber Adhikari Design Thinking 1 Unit 5 54
 Weekly Assignment

1. What are the problems that are associated in designing the user interface?
2. Explain strong and weak arguments.
3. Discuss the term logical fallacies in context of design thinking.
4. Explain the benefits of good design.
5. Write down the various obstacles to critical thinking.

08/04/2021 Dr. Pratibha Pandey /Mr. Pitamber Adhikari Design Thinking 1 Unit 5 55
 MCQ s

1. Which statement about the Prototype step is true?

a). A prototype needs to be perfect
b). You shouldn't worry about how someone might use it
c). The point is to make something that people can test.
d). You shouldn't make it online

2. During which step do you see the problem from another

person's perspective?
a). Prototype
b). Ideate
c). Empathize
d). Define

3. Which is NOT something you do during the Define step of

design thinking?
a). Make sure there is only ONE problem
b). Come up with lots of ideas
c). State the problem from the user's point of view
d). Come up with "How might we" questions
08/04/2021 Dr. Pratibha Pandey /Mr. Pitamber Adhikari Design Thinking 1 Unit 5 56
 MCQ s

4. During which step do you create an interactive

representation or model of your idea or solution?
a). Prototype
b). Ideate
c). Test
d). Define

5. Which is NOT true about the Test step?

a). It is an opportunity to make your idea better.
b). You should come up with new ideas during the Test step
c). You should assume that you will make mistakes.
d). You only want positive or "good job" feedback

6. During which stage would you:

Want to try to "think outside of the box".
a). Prototype
b). Define
c). Ideate
d). Empathize
Dr. Pratibha Pandey /Mr. Pitamber Adhikari Design Thinking 1
08/04/2021 57
Unit 5
 MCQ s

7. Which stage would you consider to be an experimental phase

where you are trying out solutions you previously brainstormed?
a). Prototype
b). Define
c). Ideate
d). Test

8. Which is NOT something you do for the ideate step of design

thinking?
a). Decide if the idea is good or not before sharing it
b). Look at your "How might we" question a lot
c). Come up with as many ideas as possible
d). Share any idea that matches the problem

Dr. Pratibha Pandey /Mr. Pitamber Adhikari Design Thinking 1 Unit

08/04/2021 58
5
 Old Question Papers

NA

08/04/2021 Dr. Pratibha Pandey /Mr. Pitamber Adhikari Design Thinking 1 Unit 5 59
 Expected Questions for University Exam

1. Explain the concept of propositional logic.

2. Explain strong and weak arguments.
3. Discuss the term logical fallacies in context of design thinking.
4. Explain the benefits of good design.
5. Write down the various obstacles to critical thinking.
6. Differentiate between valid and invalid arguments.
7. What do you understand by the term deductive argument?
8. Explain the importance of probability in design thinking.

08/04/2021 Dr. Pratibha Pandey /Mr. Pitamber Adhikari Design Thinking 1 Unit 5 60
 Summary

After the completion of the unit, students should understand the

concepts of various truth and logic conditions, valid and invalid
arguments, strong and weak arguments, logical reasoning, scientific
reasoning, propositional logic and probability.

08/04/2021 Dr. Pratibha Pandey /Mr. Pitamber Adhikari Design Thinking 1 Unit 5 61
 Thank You

08/04/2021 Dr. Pratibha Pandey /Mr. Pitamber Adhikari Design Thinking 1 Unit 5 62