24th-sep-2020-shift-1:

  1. Given 2 propositions
    1. all philosophers are fallible
    2. Socrates is not fallible
      1. In the classical square of opposition the correct answer is Contradictory.
      2. In the classical square of opposition,
      3. Contradictory statements has different quantity and quality.
  2. “Mahatma gandhi is called father of nation”
    1. This kind of Classical categorical proposition is Universal affirmative
  3. The pramanas accepted by vaisheshika philosophy
    1. pratyaksha
    2. Anumana
  4. The following are accepted in buddhism
    1. Apoha
    2. Pratyaksha
  5. the nature of logical argument  – Valid or invalid
    1. In Indian philosophy, nyaya advocates the theory of extrinsic validity
    2. The mimamsa advocates the self-validity of knowledge.

24th Sep_2020 shift -2:

  1. A: Substance is self caused, self-conceived and self-existent
    1. R: Substance is not caused by other causal sources but is conceived by something else and is also existent on that
    2. A is correct but R is not
  2. A: All perceptions seem entirely loose and separate. They are conjoined but not necessarily connected
    1. R: Since the perception of hardness is not necessarily connected with its color it can be said that perceptions are loosely connected
    2. Both A and R are correct R is the correct explanation of A
  3. A: If there is a contestation between sruti and smriti sruti prevails over smriti
    1. R: Sruti represents the philosophical aspect of the vedas and Upanishads while smriti is an application of the philosophical ideas
    2. Both A and R are correct and R is the correct explanation of A
  4. Quantity and quality of a categorical proposition decide
    1. Mood
      1. an attribute of every categorical proposition which is determined by whether the proposition affirms or denies class inclusion is quality.
    2. Between 2 universal propositions having the same subject and predicate but differing in quality  is Contrary
      1. All poets are dreamers’
      2. No poets are dreamers.
  1. The figure of a categorical proposition
    1. Middle term

25th-sep-2020-shift-1:

  1. Arrange the sequential order of syllogism in Nyaya philosophy
    1. Pratigna – proposition to be prroved
    2. Hetu – statement of reason
    3. Udharana – Universal concomitance with an example
    4. Upanaya – the application of the universal concomitance to the present case
    5. Nigamana – conclusion proved
  2. The sequential order of a comprehensible sentence in nyaya philosophy
    1. Akanksha
    2. Yogyata
    3. sannidhi
    4. tatpraya
      1. nyaya philosophy with deductive -inductive process
      2. Nyaya school proposes abhava concept
  3. To infer rain in the past by perceiving muddy water in the pond is
    1. sesvatanuman
      1. The distinction between purvavat and sesavat is made with reference to anumana (Inference)
      2. Purvat: It is the inference of unperceived effect from perceived cause Eg. rain from clouds
      3. Sesa’ means ‘effect’. infer the unpercieved cause(rain) from percieved effect(muddy water).
  4. The fallacy (Hetvabhasha) produced in the conclusion due to the repudiation of sadhya by hetu is known as
    1. Viruddha
      1. The hetu or middle term condradicts itself, Eg. sound is eternal, because it is produced – Here ‘produced’, instead of proving the eternality of sound, proves its non-eternality – Contradictory middle term
  5. Two of the following are related in such a way that they cannot be true although they can be false
    1. all men are honest
    2. No men are honest
      1. If two propositions are related in such a way that they cannot be true together although both may be false together then such a relation is considered to be Contrary.

25th-sep-2020-shift-2:

  1. List-1 theories and List-2 (Philosophers)
    1. episteme and doxa – Plato 
    2. Potential and actual being –  aristotle
    3. vyavaharika and  parmarthik – sankara
    4. rational and actual – hegel
  2. Type of cognition which is beyond the ambit of perception
    1. Nirvikalpaka pratyaksa
  3. ‘Golden mountain is fiery because it is smoky’ – The type of fallacy committed from above inference  Asrya siddhi 
  4. Actual statement – According to nyaya philosophy pratijna is the logical  statement to be proved
    1. The mountain is fiery
    2. Because it has smoke
    3. so it is inferred that wherever there is smoke, there is fire- relation of invariable concomitance between fire and smoke – vyapti
  5. The fallacy of Middle term not present in minor term, so unproven middle term becomes asiddhi.
    1. Ashrayasiddha – Minor term unreal to middle term – eg.Golden mountain is fiery because it is smoky.
    2. Vyaptavasiddha – conditioned middle term – the hill has smoke because it has fire’
  6. In a proposition which is particular affirmative
    1. Neither the subject nor the predicate is distributed
  7. List-1 concepts and list-2 Schools
    1. Abhava – Nyaya
    2. Anupalabdhi – vedanata
    3. Apoha – Buddhism
    4. Syadavada – Jainism

29th-sep-shift-1:

  1. A: All knowledge is a recollection, it is true on a certain account
    1. R: All men by nature desire understanding
    2. Both S-1 and S-2 are true
  2. S-1: When I look deep into myself, I always stumble with one perception or another. I can never catch myself
    1. S-2: Self is the logical presupposition of all knowledge. Therefore the concepts like substance and person can not be applied to it
    2. Both S-1 and S-2 are true
  3. S-1: Different communities exist independent of one another but jointly somehow they give the idea of communitarian life of a society
    1. S-2: earth exists either through a blind chance or through an inner necessity or through an external cause
    2. Both S-1 and S-2 are true
  4. List- 1 (Concepts) and List-2 (schools)
    1. Nirvana – Buddhism
    2. Nishreyasa – Upanishads
    3. Apavarga – Jainism
    4. Moksha – sankhya
  5. Deduction proceeds from
    1. Universal to particular
      1. The features of aristotlian syllogism  is only deductive and formal to be verbalistic.

29th-sep-shift-2:

  1. All flowers are toys. Some toys are trees. some butterflies are trees then
    1. Some toys are flowers
    2. Some trees are butterflies
  2. Wherever there is smoke, there is fire,
    1. There is smoke in Mr.Verma’s chamber
    2. there must be fire in Mr. verma’s chamber
    3. In accordance with indian logic this is an example of Vyapti (Invariable relation)
      1. It is the relation of invariably concomitant between major and middle terms in anumana
      2. Eg. smoke(major) in the hill(minor) means there is fire(inferred – vyapti)
  1. In order to authenticate the environmental values as advocated by our ancestors, a scholar cites examples from Vedas. The means of knowledge used by him/her in terms of Indian logic will be called
    1. Shabda (Verbal testimony)
      1. Verbal testimony is the statement of a trustworthy person and consists in understanding of its meaning.

30th-sep-shift-1:

  1. List-1 (Typical aristotellian syllogism) and list-2 (Technical names in nyaya philosophy)
    1. Socrates is a man – pratijna
    2. Because he is a man – hetu
    3. Whoever is a man , is a mortal eg. Pythagoras – udharana
    4. Socrates is a man who is invariably a mortal – Upanaya
    5. Therefore Socrates is mortal – Nigamana
  2. The type of fallacy implied in the following
    1. Fire is cold because it is a substance
    2. Badhita
      1. non-inferentially contradicted middle.
      2. Eg., fire is cold, because it is a substance’. Here the middle term ‘substance’ is perceptively contradicted to its major term ‘coldness’.

30th-sep-shift-2:

  1. In the statement ‘the hill has smoke because it has fire’ fallacy identified is
    1. Vyapyatvasidha
      1. The relation of invariable concomitance between fire and smoke
        1. Eg. Wherever there is smoke, there is fire.- vyapti
      2. Vyaptavasiddha – conditioned middle term – there are some cases where there is fire without smoke like a red hot iron ball.
  2. All knowable objects are nameable
    1. The pot is a knowable object
    2. Therefore the pot is nameable
    3. The above is an example of kevalanvayi type of inference
  3. List-1(Pairs) and List-2(Pairs of anglogies)
    1. Newspaper press  – Cloth-mill
    2. Dog-kennel-Mouse-Hole
    3. Hen- chick – cow-calf
    4. Darkness lamp – Thirst – water

1st-oct-shift-2:-

  1. All things which have smoke have fire
    1. This hill has smoke
    2. Therefore, the hill has smoke
    3. No non-fiery things have smoke
    4. this hill has smoke
    5. therefore, this hill is not non-fiery
      1. The above is an example of anvayavitireki type of inference in indian logic
  2. Asiddha is a fallacy when the middle term is
    1. Unproved
      1. The hill has smoke because it has fire’ – No statement to prove fire
  3. List-1 (Pairs) and list-2(pairs of analogies)
    1. Assign:allot – Mend:Repair
    2. Length:Meter – Mass:Kilogram
    3. Doctor:Hospital – Clerk:Office
    4. Lock:Key – Code:Password

9th Oct-shift-1:

  1. Fat krishnadatta eats either during day or night, Fat krishnadatta does not eat during day, therefore fat krishnadatta eats during night
    1. It is an example of Implication(Arthapati) type of inference
      1. Assumption of unpercieved fact under two apparently inconsistent perceived facts is arthapati(Implication or postulation).
  2. If the day before yesterday was Friday, what will be the third day after the day after tomorrow
    1. Friday
  3. Analogies list-1 and list-2
    1. Lizard:Reptile – Eagle:Bird 
    2. Tennis:Court – skating: Rink
    3. Bull:Cow – Wizard:witch
    4. Botany:Plant – Haemotology: Plant

17th-oct-shift-1:

  1. Interms of indian logic, “This hill has smoke which is invariably associated with fire” is called
    1. Upanaya – The application of the universal concomittance to the present case.
    2. Eg. Socrates is a man who is invariably a mortal 
      1. Thus socrates is mortal
  2. Identify the features of aristotlian syllogism from the following:
    1. It is only deductive and formal
    2. the major and minor terms stand apart in the premises
    3. It is verbalistic
  3. Wen the middle term is both positively and negatively related to the major term, the inference is called
    1. anavaya vyatireki
      1. Eg. No non-fiery things have smoke
      2. this hill has smoke
      3. So, this hill is not non-fiery – Negative as well as positive proposition for deriving conclusion.
  1. Identify those wich illustrate the fallacy of the unproven middle
    1. ashryasidha – sky lotus is fragrant because it is a lotus like the lotus of the pond
    2. svarupasidha – sound is a quality because it can be seen. Here sound cannot be seen but only can be heard. So, the minor term ‘sound’ which is real but the middle term ‘seen’ cannot be present with the minor term.
    3. vyapyatvasidha – whenever there is fire there is smoke, vyapti is conditional becasue there are some cases where there is fire without smoke like a red hot iron ball.
      1. Asiddha is a fallacy when the middle term is Unproved.
  2. S-1: Upamiti is defined as knowledge of the relation between a word and its denotation
    1. S-2: Verbal testimony is the statement of a trustworthy person and consists in understanding its meaning
    2. Both S-1 and S2 are true

17th Oct shift-2:

  1. Identify the characteristics of the middle term
    1. It must be present in the minor term
    2. It must be present in all positive instances in which the major term is present
    3. It is drawn from the preceding propositions
  2. ‘Upanaya’ in Indian ‘nyaya syllogism’ corresponds to the following Aristotelian syllogism
    1. Minor premise
      1. Cognition of the hetu (middle term) in the paksa or minor term is a condition in the indian logic for deriving inferential statements
      2. Socrates is a man who is invariably a mortal
  1. “Fire is not warm because it is produced such as water’ is an example of 
    1. Badhit-vishaya
      1. the middle term is contradicted by some other pramana and not by inference
      2. Through perception of fire itself means it’s warm, and by inference fire is not produced like water
      3. So badhita fallacy is non-inferentially contradicted.
  1. S-1: Keval vyatireki form of inference is that when the middle term is the differentium of the minor term
    1. S-2: Kevalanvayi form of inference is that when the middle term is both positively and negatively related to the major area
    2. S-1 is correct but S-2 is false
      1. kevala- vyatireki – The method of agreement is in absence
        1. Eg. earth is different from their elements since it has smell.
      2. Anvya vyatireki  form of inference is that when the middle term is both positively and negatively related to the major area
        1. All pevasiveness of the absolute is anvaya and the distinctness of the absolute is vyatireka
      3. Kevalanvayi form of inference has the middle term is positively related to the major term
        1. Eg. All knowable objects are nameable
          1. The pot is a knowable object
          2. Therefore the pot is nameable
  1. The knowledge of the relation between name and an object denoted by that name is called 
    1. Comparison
      1. In Indian logic, the means of knowledge which is drawn from the similarity between two objects Comparison
      2. So  is not a necessary step  inferential knowledge  according to the classical Indian school of logic
      3. But it is a major source of pramana –  Pratyaksha, Anumana, Upamana, Arthapatti, Anuplabdhi and

4th Nov-shift-1:

  1. The second member of the Nyaya syllogism which states the reason for the establishment of the proposition is called
    1. Hetu
      1. The fallacy (Hetvabhasha) produced in the conclusion is associated with hetu (Middle term)
  2. In the argument, ‘sky flower is fragrant because it is a lotus’ e.g. which ever is lotus, is fragrant e.g. lotus is growing in that pond. The type of fallacy is
    1. Ashryasidha
  3. List-1(Types of fallacies) and list-2 (Description)
    1. Asidha – It is the fallacy of unproved middle – sky lotus is fragrant because it is a lotus like the lotus of the pond -minor term sky lotus is unreal to middle term ‘real lotus’ of the pond.
    2. saryabhicara – It is the fallacy of irregular middle – hill has fire because it is knowable here knowable can be present in both fiery and non-fiery objects.
    3. satpratipaksha – here the middle term is contradicted by another middle term – inferentially contradicted middle – sound is eternal, because it is audible and ‘sound is non-eternal, because it is produced. 
      1. Here ‘audible’ is counter-balanced by ‘produced’ and both are equivalent to bring the fallacy of eternal concept of sound.
    4. Badhita – Here the middle term is contradicted by some other pramana like perception and not by inference
      1. non-inferentially contradicted middle – fire is cold, because it is a substance
      2. Fire perceptively is not a substance.
  4. A: Indian philosophy as seen intensely spiritual and as always emphasised the need of practical realization of truth
    1. R: The word ‘darshana’ means ‘vision’ and also the instrument of vision which stands for the direct immediate and intuitive vision of reality and also includes the means which leads to this realization.
    2. Both A and R true and R is the correct explanation
  5. S-1: In Indian philosophy, nyaya advocates the theory of extrinsic validity of knowledge called ‘pratah Pramanvad’
    1. S-2: The mimamsa advocates the self-validity of knowledge both in respect of its origin and ascertainment
    2. Both S-1 and S-2 are correct

4th Nov-shift-2:

  1. The following pramanas is accepted in vaisheshika philosophy
    1. Pratyaksha
    2. Anumana
      1. Nyaya- vaisesika –  the reality is composed of five substances (examples are earth, water, air, fire, and space
    3. Inductive genralisation theory which is similar to nyaya but more liberal. – 3 pramanas
      1. Inference of non-existence form from existent
      2. existence of some things from the non-existence of some other.
  1. List-1 (Concept/Doctrine) and list-2 (School)
    1. Pratiyasamudpada –  Buddhism
    2. abhava – nyaya
    3. Samyavastha – sankhya
    4. Adhyasa -vedant
  2. In the figure of categorical syllogism quantity and quality of a proposition determine
    1. Mood of the syllogism
      1. Based on quantity and quality moods of statements distinct as  Affirmative or  Negative
  3. List-1(Concept) and List-2 (Philosopher)
    1. phenomenon and noueman – kant
    2. Potential and actual being – Aristotle
    3. Mind and body dualism – Descartes
    4. primary and secondary abilities – Locke
  4. According to law of excluded middle
    1. a proposition is either true or false

5th-nov-shift-1:

  1. In terms of the relationship indicated below, the word which correctly pair to replace the question mark
    1. Worse: Bad ::Doting: Fond
  2. “The weather is very cold today”
    1. Which of the following according to nyaya is correct
      1. Jnanalakshana
  3. Arrange in sequence the theory of causality in Aristotle’s philosophy
    1. Material cause
    2. formal cause
    3. efficient cause
    4. Final cause
  4. Given below are two statements
    1. S-1 – Some examination are too long
    2. Some examination are too difficult
    3. Therefore, Some examination  are long and too difficult
      1. S-2: Some dongs chase cats
      2. All dogs have fleas
      3. Therefore, some cat-chasing dogs have fleas
        1. S-1 is incorrect but S-2 is true
  5. S-1: Human reason has this particular fate that it reaches at a stage when it can neither answer certain questions nor can it ignore such questions
    1. S-2: Human reason, by its own nature, is not competent to resolve certain questions concerning the ultimate reality
    2. Both S-1 and S-2 are correct

5th-nov-shift-2:

  1. In terms of relationship which term exactly match
    1. Frown:Pain :: Smile: Joy
  2. A:Since the perception of hardness is not necessarily connected with its color, it can be said that all the perceptions seen conjoined but never connected
    1. R: Causal relationship is always contingent and probable because it is derived from experience
    2. Both A and R true and R is the correct explanation of A
  3. Two propositions are given below
    1. All philosophers are fallible
    2. Hegel is not fallible
      1. In the classical square of opposition the correct option for this Contradictory.
  4. Two propositions are given below
    1. Some animals are fierce
    2. some animals are not fierce
      1. Sub-contrary
  5. List-1(Concept) and List-2(philosopher)
    1. Causality is apriori – kant – kant –  phenomenon and noueman –  Causality is apriori –  Knowledge is synthetic apriori.
    2. Causality is synthetic – Hume –
    3. causality is dialectical – hegel
    4. Causality is material – Aristotle
  6. S-1: Two triangles are said to be congruent if their corresponding angles are equal and corresponding sides are proportional.
    1. S-2: Two triangles are said to be similar if their corresponding angles and corresponding sides are equal.
      1. Both S-1 and S-2 are false

11th-Nov-shift-1:

  1. Arrange the sequential order of syllogism in Nyaya philosophy
    1. pratijna
    2. Hetu
    3. Udharana
    4. Upanaya
    5. Nigman
  2. Hetvabhasa (fallacy) produced in the conclusion due to refutation of sadhya by Hetu is known as
    1. Viruddha
      1. Refutation means objection 
      2. Eg.  ‘sound is eternal, because it is produced’.
    1. Here ‘produced’, instead of proving the eternality of sound, proves its non-eternality.
      1. Therefore the middle term is contradictory
  1. List-1 and List-2 
    1. Knowledge is recollection – Plato
    2. Knowledge is either analytic or synthetic – Hume
    3. Knowledge is synthetic apriori – Kant
    4. knowledge is perception and perception is knowledge – Berkley
  2. In universal negative proposition, how are the terms distributed? The correct options
    1. Both the terms are distributed
  3. List – 1 (Concepts ) and List-2 (Philosophers)
    1. Antinomies of pure reason – kant – kant –  phenomenon and noueman –  Causality is apriori –  Knowledge is synthetic apriori 
    2. Law of contradiction – aristotle – Potential and actual being – By theory of causality
    3. Clearness and distinction – descartes – Mind and body dualism
    4. Pre-establsihed harmony – leibinz

11th-Nov-shift-2:

  1. If some pens are pencils but no pencil is sharpener then
    1. all pencils are pen
    2. some pens are not sharpener
    3. some sharpeners are pencils
    4. some pencils are not pens
  2. Which of the following schools has not accepted anumana (inference) as a valid source of knowledge
    1. Charvaka
      1. Advaita vedanta
      2. visitadvaita
      3. sankhya
        1. Charvaka’s metaphysics is the logical culmination of his epistemology. 
        2. However it  rejects the concept of Akasa.
  1. A: Substance is always the subject of all predicates
    1. R: Substance is self-existent and self- conceived
    2. Both A and R are true but not the correct explanation of A
      1. The logical proposition of concepts like substance and person cannot be applied to self.
      2. so, substance is self caused, self-conceived and self-existent.
  1. The water of the pond is muddy. It must have rained last night.
    1. What kind of anumana (inference) has been used in the above statements
    2. Sesavat anumana
  2. List-1 (Philosophical doctrines) and List-2 ( Philosophical schools)
    1. Syadvada – Jainism
    2. Anuplabdhi – vedanta
    3. Apoha – Buddhism
    4. Abhava – Nyaya
  3. The following pramanas has been accepted in buddhism
    1. Pratyaksa

12th-Nov-shift-1:

  1. Which sentence cannot fit into the AEIO framework?
    1. The salt on the table has iodine
    2. But it includes
      1. No salt has iodine
      2. All salt has iodine
      3. Some salt has iodine.
  2. “God is great because He does great things”. This inference commits which kind of fallacy?
    1. Petitio Principii
      1. If someone says, “The Bible is true; it says so in the Bible” –
      2. No new conclusion as the conclusion of an argument which is stated
  3. The distinction between purvavat and sesavat is made with reference to which of the following pramanas?
    1. Anumana (Inference)
      1. Purvavat: It is the inference of unperceived effect from perceived cause Eg. rain from clouds
      2. Sesa’ means ‘effect’. infer the unpercieved cause from percieved effect. eg.  The water of the pond is muddy. It must have rained last night
      3. Sequence – Clouds–> Rain –> Muddy water

View Post

  1. “Everyone believes that there is a soul. Therefore. you should also believe it.” This inference commits which kind of fallacy?
    1. Ad populum
      1. Everyone is going to the party you should go too” This inference commits the kind of fallacy called ad populum
      2. Ad populum is when something is accepted because all other people agrees on it.
  1. Anil’s participation in classroom is indifferent. His parents do not find him to be active either.But his performance in examinations, ranges from being good to outstanding. Therefore, he must be studying privately, in a clandestine way. This is an example of which kind of Pramana?
    1. Arthapatti (Implication)
      1. Implication(Arthapatti)in indian logic  Assumption of unpercieved fact under two apparently inconsistent perceived facts is arthapati(Implication or postulation).

12th-Nov-shift-2:

  1. “Planets are big. Therefore, the atoms from which they are made big”. This inference commits which kind of fallacy
    1. fallacy of division
      1. Equivocation fallacy – when a word, phrase, or sentence is used deliberately to confuse deceive, or mislead it’s saying one thing but actually saying something else.
  2. “Some teachers are not sincere” is an example of  which category of proposition
    1. particular negative
  3. The following is correct about the sentence ” Some men are not married”
    1. The predicate is distributed
      1. neither subject form nor predicate term are distributed – Some birds are mammals – a particular affirmative proposition
      2. Distributes Subject alone – All poets are dreamers
      3. Distributed predicate – Some girls are not students
      4. Distributes both subject and predicate – No dogs are reptiles
  1. The following is not a sense organ according to Classical Indian school of logic
    1. Savikalpaka
      1. In the Yoga Sutras of Patanjali, savikalpa samadhi, is meditation with support of an object.
      2. In the Yoga Sutras of Patanjali Nirvikalpaka pratyaksa refers to meditation without an object – Type of cognition which is beyond the ambit of perception
  2. “Have you stopped telling lies”. This type of question commits which kind of fallacy
    1. Fallacy of complex question

13th-Nov-shift-1:

  1. The proportions ” All Indians eat rice” and “some Indians eat rice ” are an example of 
    1. Sub-alternation
      1. When the subject and predicate of both the premises is the same but they differ only in quantity.
      2. Eg. No television is a computer and Some televisions are not computer – Sub altern
  1. In Indian logic, the means of knowledge which is drawn from the similarity between two objects
    1. Comparison
      1. Upaman (comparison) comes under the pramanas of means of acquiring knowledge like   Pratyaksha, Anumana, Upamana, Arthapatti, Anuplabdhi and sabda.
      2. Eg. “This gavaya is like my cow”
  1. The following statements express information use of language
    1. she is very caring and cooperative
  2. “Mr.X is penniless. Therefore, he should be preferred for admission to college” This reasoning represents the kind of fallacy – Admisericordiam
    1. The fallacy appeals to compassion and emotional sensitivity of others when these are irrelevant for a rational argument.
  3. Of the four options which does not belong to the class of other three
    1. Neurologist, cardiologist, Alchemist, Gynecologist

13th-Nov-shift-2:

  1. The following conditions are necessary for anumana (inference) according to classical Indian logic
    1. Cognition of the hetu (middle term) in the paksa or minor term
    2. The relation of invariable concomittance between the middle term and major term
      1. smoke(major) in the hill(minor) means there is fire(inferred – vyapti)
      2. Wherever there is smoke, there is fire –  The relation of invariably concomitance between fire and smoke.
    3. according to the classical Indian school of logic,  with reference to anumana
      1. Hetu is the middle term  gives statement of reason.
      2. Paksa is the  minor term gives predicate
      3. Sandhya is the major term gives subject
  2. Major Premise: No squares are rectangles
    1. Minor premise:  All rectangles are circles
    2. Conclusion: Some circles are not squares
    3. Mood of the proposition is EAO
      1. If two propositions are related in such a way that they cannot be true together although both may be false together then such a relation is considered to be Contrary.
  3. ‘Some animals are not harmful’ is an example of Particular negative proposition
  4. The fallacy committed in the following argument
    1. ” Mr.X is wrong in what he said because he is undisciplined by nature” Adhominem
      1. A personal attack is called ad hominem that often is contrary to rational arguments.
      2. Ad misericordia – Like the ad hominem the fallacy appeals to compassion and emotional sensitivity.
  5. No television is a computer
    1. Some televisions are not computer
    2. According to square of opposition the above opposition is called as sub-alternation.
      1. When the subject and predicate of both the premises is the same but they differ only in quantity, it is known as Subaltern
      2. Eg, ” All indians eat rice” and “some indians eat rice “
UGC NTA NET paper 1
Logical reasoning