WELCOME TO UGC

NET/JRF
SUPERCLASSES
7006558054
LOGICAL REASONING
QUESTIONS AND SOLUTIONS
• Fallacy of appeal to ignorance (also known as argumentum ad ignorantiam)
occurs when someone asserts that a proposition is true because it has not
been proven false, or conversely, that a proposition is false because it has not
been proven true. It exploits the lack of evidence as a form of proof, which is
logically flawed.
• Example 1:
• Claim: "No one has ever proven that aliens don’t exist, so they must be real."
• Explanation: Just because there is no evidence against the existence of aliens
doesn’t mean that they do exist. Lack of evidence is not evidence of existence.
• Example 2:
• Claim: "We haven’t found life on other planets, so we are definitely alone in
the universe."
• Explanation: The absence of evidence of extraterrestrial life doesn’t confirm
that it doesn’t exist. This argument assumes that because life hasn’t been
found yet, it cannot be out there.
Hasty Generalization:
1.Small sample size: A conclusion is drawn from a sample that is too
small to be representative of the whole.
2.Unrepresentative evidence: A conclusion is drawn from a biased or
non-representative group of examples.
• Examples:
1.Example 1:
1. Claim: "I met two rude people from Mumbai, so everyone from Mumbai
must be rude.“
• Example 2:
• Claim: "Two of the politicians I know are corrupt, so all politicians are
corrupt."
Slippery slope fallacy
• occurs when someone argues that a relatively small first step will inevitably
lead to a chain of related events culminating in some significant (usually
negative) outcome, without providing evidence to support that progression.
The argument exaggerates the consequences and assumes that one action
will set off a series of uncontrollable events, which is often not the case.
• Example
• If I missed the class toady, I’ll fail final examination then I will not get
government job so no one will marry me.
• Fallacy of final cause, also known as the teleological fallacy, occurs when
someone incorrectly assumes that the purpose or final outcome of
something is the reason for its existence or cause. This fallacy confuses the
purpose (final cause) with the cause (efficient cause), which leads to flawed
reasoning.
• Example 1:
• Claim: "Rain falls so that crops can grow.“
• Example 2:
• Claim: "Trees produce oxygen so that humans can breathe.“
• 1. Increasing Intention/increasing connotation: GTP
• Increasing intention refers to making the definition of a term more specific by
adding more characteristics or details. As the intention increases, the concept
applies to a more limited set of things because the criteria for fitting the
definition become stricter.
• Example:
• Term: "Animal" → "Mammal" → "Dog" → "Golden Retriever."
• The term "Animal" is very broad and includes many living creatures.
• As we add more details (mammal → dog → golden retriever), we increase the
intention, making the term more specific.
• 2. Decreasing Intention/decreasing connotation: PTG
• Decreasing intention refers to making the definition of a term less
specific by reducing the number of characteristics that define it. As the
intention decreases, the concept becomes broader, and the term
applies to a larger set of things.
• Example:
• Term: "Golden Retriever" → "Dog" → "Mammal" → "Animal."
• Starting with the specific term "Golden Retriever," we can reduce the intention
by removing details, leading to broader categories (dog → mammal → animal).
• 1. Increasing Extension/Increasing denotation:
• Increasing extension refers to broadening the set of items that a term applies
to. As the extension increases, the term covers more things, and the concept
becomes more general.
• Example:
• Term: "Golden Retriever" → "Dog" → "Mammal" → "Animal."
• 2. Decreasing Extension/Decreasing denotation:
• Decreasing extension refers to narrowing the set of items that a term applies
to. As the extension decreases, the term becomes more specific, applying to
fewer things.
• Example:
• Term: "Animal" → "Mammal" → "Dog" → "Golden Retriever.
• Begging the question
• occurs when the conclusion of an argument is assumed in one of the
premises, instead of being proven or supported by evidence. Essentially,
the argument takes for granted what it's supposed to prove. In this circular
reasoning, the conclusion is used as evidence for itself, making the
argument logically invalid because it doesn't offer any real support for t
• Example 1:
• Claim: "Stealing is wrong because it's illegal."
• Explanation: This argument assumes that laws are inherently just or moral
without proving why something being illegal makes it wrong.
• Example 2:
• Claim: "Of course ghosts exist! I’ve read many accounts of people
encountering them, so they must be real.“
• Example 3:
• Claim: "Smoking is unhealthy because it's bad for your health."
• Appeal to inappropriate authority (also known as ad verecundiam or appeal
to false authority) is a logical fallacy that occurs when someone uses the
opinion or testimony of an authority figure or expert on a topic where they
lack relevant expertise, to support an argument. This fallacy misleads by
presenting an authority as credible in an area outside of their knowledge or
qualifications, implying that their endorsement validates the claim.
• Example 1:
• Claim: "A physicist says that astrology can predict the future, so it must be
true."
• Explanation: While the physicist may be an expert in science, they are not an
expert in astrology, and their opinion in this unrelated field does not carry
weight as valid evidence.
• False dichotomy (also known as a false dilemma or bifurcation fallacy) is a
logical fallacy that occurs when an argument presents two options or
outcomes as the only possible ones, when in reality, there are other
alternatives. This fallacy oversimplifies a complex issue by framing it as
"either/or" when there may be more nuanced or intermediate possibilities.
• Example 1:
• Claim: "You’re either with us or against us."
• Explanation: This statement presents only two extreme options: total support
or total opposition. However, there are more nuanced positions, such as
partial agreement, neutrality, or conditional support.
• Example 1:
• Claim: "If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem."
• complex question (also known as a loaded question) is a logical fallacy where
a question contains a presupposition, often implicitly, that forces someone to
accept a certain assumption before they can answer. It's structured in a way
that any direct answer (either "yes" or "no") implies agreement with
something that hasn't been proven or agreed upon.
• This fallacy is misleading because it unfairly traps the respondent into
affirming a claim they might not agree with, regardless of how they answer.
The classic example is the infamous "Have you stopped beating your wife?"
question. Whether the person answers "yes" or "no," they are forced to
assume that they were beating their wife, which may not be true.
• Example 1:
• Question: "Have you stopped cheating on exams?“
• Are you still beating your wife.
• The Classical Square of Opposition is a diagram that shows the logical
relationships between four types of categorical propositions, based on their
quantity (universal or particular) and quality (affirmative or negative). It helps
to visualize how these statements interact, whether they are contradictory,
contrary, subcontrary, or related by subalternation.
• Types of Categorical Propositions:
1.A (Universal Affirmative): "All S are P"
1. Example: "All dogs are mammals."
2.E (Universal Negative): "No S are P"
1. Example: "No dogs are cats."
3.I (Particular Affirmative): "Some S are P"
1. Example: "Some dogs are friendly."
4.O (Particular Negative): "Some S are not P"
1. Example: "Some dogs are not friendly."
• Relationships in the Square of Opposition:
1.Contradiction:
1. A and O (All S are P vs. Some S are not P) and E and I (No S are P vs. Some S are P) are
contradictions. If one is true, the other must be false.
2. Example: If "All dogs are mammals" (A) is true, "Some dogs are not mammals" (O) must be false.
2.Contraries:
1. A (All S are P) and E (No S are P) are contraries. They cannot both be true, but they can both be
false.
2. Example: "All dogs are mammals" and "No dogs are mammals" cannot both be true, but they can
both be false if some dogs are mammals and others are not.
3.Subcontrariety:
1. I (Some S are P) and O (Some S are not P) are subcontraries. They cannot both be false, but they can
both be true.
2. Example: "Some dogs are friendly" and "Some dogs are not friendly" can both be true, but they
cannot both be false.
4.Subalternation:
1. Truth flows downward from A to I and from E to O. Falsity flows upward.
2. Example: If "All dogs are mammals" (A) is true, then "Some dogs are mammals" (I) must also be
true. However, the reverse is not necessarily true: just because "Some dogs are mammals" (I) is
true does not mean "All dogs are mammals" (A) is true.
• Which of the following statements is contradictory to the statement-
"Some birds are mammals"?
• 1. Some mammals are not birds
• 2. Some birds are not mammals
• 3. Some mammals are birds
• 4. No bird are mammals

• निम्िलिखित में से कौि सा कथि इसकथि का विरोधाभासी है -

"कुछ पक्षीस्तिधारी हैं"?
• 1. कुछ स्तिधारी पक्षी िहीीं हैं
• 2. कुछ पक्षी स्तिधारी िहीीं हैं
• 3. कुछ स्तिधारी पक्षी हैं
• 4. कोई पक्षी स्तिधारी िहीीं है
• Which of the following statements is contradictory to the statement-
"Some birds are mammals"?
• 1. Some mammals are not birds
• 2. Some birds are not mammals
• 3. Some mammals are birds
• 4. No bird are mammals

• निम्िलिखित में से कौि सा कथि इसकथि का विरोधाभासी है -

"कुछ पक्षीस्तिधारी हैं"?
• 1. कुछ स्तिधारी पक्षी िहीीं हैं
• 2. कुछ पक्षी स्तिधारी िहीीं हैं
• 3. कुछ स्तिधारी पक्षी हैं
• 4. कोई पक्षी स्तिधारी िहीीं है
Q. If the statement-"Some animals are not birds" is given as false, then which
of the following statements can be immediately inferred to be false?
• a. All animals are birds.
• b. No animals are birds.
• c. Some animals are birds.
• d. Some animals can fly.

• Q. यदि कथि- "कुछ जाििर पक्षी िहीीं हैं"को असत्य के रूप में दिया जाता
है , तोनिम्िलिखित में से कौि सा कथि तरु ीं तअसत्य होिे का अिमु ाि
िगाया जा सकताहै ?
• a. सभी जाििर पक्षी हैं
• b. कोई जाििर पक्षी िहीीं है
• C. कुछ जाििर पक्षी है
• d. कुछ जाििर उड़ सकते हैं।
Q. If the statement-"Some animals are not birds" is given as false, then which
of the following statements can be immediately inferred to be false?
• a. All animals are birds.
• b. No animals are birds.
• c. Some animals are birds.
• d. Some animals can fly.

• Q. यदि कथि- "कुछ जाििर पक्षी िहीीं हैं"को असत्य के रूप में दिया जाता
है , तोनिम्िलिखित में से कौि सा कथि तरु ीं तअसत्य होिे का अिमु ाि
िगाया जा सकताहै ?
• a. सभी जाििर पक्षी हैं
• b. कोई जाििर पक्षी िहीीं है
• C. कुछ जाििर पक्षी है
• d. कुछ जाििर उड़ सकते हैं।
A E I O
T f t F

f T F t

ud F T ud

F ud ud T
A E I O
T f t F
f T F t
ud F T ud
F ud ud T
A E I O
T f t F
f T F t
ud F T ud
F ud ud T
A E I O
T f t F
f T F t
ud F T ud
F ud ud T
A E I O
T f t F
f T F t
ud F T ud

F ud ud T