Mod-01 Lec-02 Non- arguments


Instead of an argument basically we said that
argument consists of a premise and a conclusion and the premises are leading to premises will
provide sufficient evidence to believe the conclusion to be true so then we also said
how to identify an argument in an given English language as such so one thing which we pointed
out is this that in an argument suppose if you if there are some indicated words for
the premises and there are indicated words for the conclusions then we can say that we
can identity premises and the conclusion. It is a task of legation to identify premises
in a conclusion and then that constitutes an argument so it so a task of legation to
find out the arguments in a given passage see usually any English language passage suppose
if your reading a newspaper or if reading any scientific text or anything sop usually
it is clouded with may be are some time argument sometimes non arguments etc. And all it is crowded with lot if information
so how to identify arguments in a given English language passage that is what is a going to
be our task and then yesterday we told we said that in a if you find some indicated
words such as because extra and all so all these phrases pointing out to the presence
of a premise suppose if you find conclusion indicator such as thus therefore it entails
that etc… There is a the list is not evasive and all
yesterday we talked about somewhat bigger kind of list and all so if you find these
indictor words then we are saying that there is a conclusion present in the given passage
so it is a task of legation first to indentify the conclusion and then he as to ask himself
what his conclusion is supported by so now today what we are going to do is that suppose
if you do not find any indicated words for the premises for the conclusion then what
one needs to do. So how do we know that a given passage consists
of an argument so basically a passage consists of an argument when it purpose to prove something
so proving is not in a scene of the one which we usually see in mathematics because it is
very difficult to do the same thing in the case of ordinary day to day language that
is English language passage. So proving in a sense that it as to satisfy
2 conditions now so the first one is it is well and good if you have in a given passage
the arguer is trying to make some kind of factual clime now so what is factual clime
so in the factual clime if there is at least one of the statements must claim to provide
evidence or reasons for the other, I means in a in an argument we have premises and we
have a conclusion and so these premises one of the premises. Provide at least some claim if we make some
claim it claims to provide some kind of evidence or reasons then it is said to have we have
said have provided factual claims so what I am trying to say simply is this that in
a given argument at least arguer is has to make some kind of a factual claim so if it
is there it is well and good in all not all the times it is possible in all because it
is not the task of a legation to come off with a factual claims. It is not the task of a legation to verify
each and every fact etc and all but one other most important conditions which is the most
important for judging a given English language passage consists of an argument is the inferential
claim so what is this inferential claim so it is like this so again there must be a claim
that a alleged evidence or reasons a alleged evidence in the scene that we are providing
seem kind of strong’s kind of positive kind of reasons in support are imply something. That is called as a another statement which
we are usually calling it as conclusion so in a net shell it is a claim that something
follows from the alleged evidence that you have provided in the form of premises. So the premises provides a versioned evidence
they believe the conclusion to be true then there seems to be some kind of inferential
claim present in the argument in all so what essentially an arguer should what essentially
we need to look for is this that you know there should be some of inferential claim
present in the argument and all. If not the facture claim so inferential claim
is what is consists to be the most important one so this inferential claim may be either
explicit in the scene that now you will come to now it by means of indicated words an all
for example if you find some kind of premise indicators because so hence forth and all
these things are may be some kind of conclusion words conclusion phrases which as therefore
thus etc… Then we can say that the inferential claim
is explicit so we all the time we may not find this explicit inferential claims and
all because in most of the English language passages these conclusion and premise indicator
words or phrases may be missing totally so in that scenes we call we call such kind of
claim as inferential claim implicit inferential claim so the internal core of an argument
in a nutshell is reason or providing some kind of set of reasons offered to support
some kind of claim the claim is usually called as conclusion of an argument so we need to
have some kind of reasons support of some kind of other claim. Which we call it as which we are calling as
a conclusion so now we have said what is an inferential claim at least it should have
factual claims or inferential claim present in an argument and all so what are then no
inferential passages supposes if your reading a text as a English text in reading a newspaper
or reading some other kind of scientific text etc… So how to indemnity that a given passage is
an inferential passage and hence it is an argument or it is a non inferential passage
and hence it is non argument and all so there is no formal kind of criteria involved in
this particularly kind of thing in judging that this is an inferential passage and that
is an non inferential passage etc and all but in general what we look for is that at
least one of the premises one of the statements seems to be providing some kind of support
for another kind of statement that other kind of statement is we are calling it as a conclusion. So here is an example of non argument and
why it is an non argument it is because of this that it is a non inferential passage
among so in this passage we are not claiming we are providing any reasons to support for
some other kind of statement extra and all inferential claim is missing in this particularly
kind of passage so let us read out this passage from 1964 to 1972 the wealthiest and the most
powerful nation in the history of the world united states of America. Made a maximum military effort with everything
short of atomic bombs to defeat a nationalist revolutionary movement in a tiny peasant country
like Vietnam but it failed so this passage is talking about some kind of it is reporting
some kind of incidences incident in the past and all historical kind of thing which are
trying to provide so here why it got failed in all we are not providing any reasons. So that is why inferential claim is missing
in this particular kind of thing so in argument is a one which purpose to prove something
establishes something based on some kind of reasons so that is totally missing here so
that is why it is called as a non inferential translation that is it so here is an example
of an argument. So as you see clearly let me read out this
things since the average American consumes 30 times that amount of the earth resources
as does the average Asian Americans are selfish after all excessive consumption is a form
of greed and greed is a self desired suppose if absorb this paragraph or passage it looks
that have some kind of premise indicated words are there. So the first one you will find is in the beginning
of the passage that is since anything which follows after since will serve as the premise
that is the average American consumes 30 times the amount of the yes resources as does the
average Asian it looks like that in our Americans are selfish seems to be the conclusion in
this paragraph as well I will talk about why it can be treated as conclusion. What first you need to do is that what is
a single issue at hand and all in this particular kind of passage so what so the central issue
of this passage so it passage is talking about why Americans are selfish in all it is reasons
are provided in all and the first one is providing reasons to support this particular kind of
claim the claim is that Americans are selfish and it is further supported by the other thing
and it thing which follows after all that is excessive consumption is a form of greed. And again the greed is this kind of selfish
desired all each statement is supporting the other one so the what is the conclusion of
this passage is the Americans are selfish in all you have to note that there is no explicit
inferential claim present in the passage in a scene that there are no explicit indicator
words for the conclusion therefore thus it entails that it implies that extra all these
things even at find it in this particular kind of passage. But still we can make out that using some
kind of a little bit of exercise and we can find out that Americans are selfish seems
to be the conclusion which is seems to be supported by the other statements so now there
are many arguments which you will come cross in day to day discourse and even in the English
language text they are not well crafted in all so what one have as to do is the without
disturbing much of the content of the thing and all we need to rearrange the English language
passage. So that things will become little bit clearer
in all this argument can be can be put it in a better way like the following a better
well crafted argument without disturbing the content of the given passage is like this
we are listing it out with 1, 2, 3, 4 etc. so the average American consumes 30 times
the amount of the earth’s resources as does the average Asian that seems to be premise
number. And then excessive consume consumption is
a form of greed so that is another statement which also serves as premise because it provides
reasons to believe some other kind of claim so now greed is a kind of selfish desired
so this seems to be supporting the earlier statements that excessive consumption is a
form of greed and all so that means we are adding some we are inserting some kind of
conclusion indicated words to make this implicitly inferential kind of passage to explicitly
inferential kind of passage. So what is that we are trying to do we are
just inserting one kind of phrase that is so which is a conclusion indicator just to
indicate that anything which follows this is the conclusion Americans taken as a group
as a class are considered too selfish based on the following reasons that are you are
providing 1, 2, 3 so in inferential implicit inferential passage can become an explicit
inferential passage by inserting some kind of conclusion indicator words and all. So now so far we have seen that an now how
to indentify in argument you identify an argument when you have a premise in a conclusion and
once you identify premises in conclusion with some kind of indicator words then you say
that some kind of argument is present in a given English language passage suppose if
you do not have premise indicators are conclusion indicators. Then what you need to look for is either a
factual claim if it is there is well a good and if it is not there and at least you should
look for some kind of inferential claim at least one statement has to provide some kind
of reasons to believe the other conclusion other statement which usually we call it as
a conclusion. So now in general what seems to be what should
be our strategy in all is not the only strategy which we have put in general it works in most
if the cases so how to identify an argument in a English language passage so first and
for most thing which we need to do is to indentify an issue it. What is a central issue that the passages
is trying to indicated to us so that we need to find out that central issue surrounding
which you will have some kind of conclusion and all that is a reason where we are trying
to find out the central issue at so now based on the central issue at hand you will indentify
the conclusion of the main argument so now consider the burden of proof of the conclusion
because the conclusion is not yet proved and all so it is a burden of proof and all. Burden of proof in a sense that you are claiming
something but it is not yet supported by some of the other kind of statements and all so
that is still some kind of burden of proof and all for the conclusion so first you identify
the conclusion then you will find out how this conclusion is supported by the other
statements which are called as premises in all so we need to indentify the premises of
the main argument. Once you identified the conclusion the central
issues which is surrounding the central issue at hand are the central message or something
like that which is the passage is trying to prefer to us from that you will indentify
a conclusion and then we will indentify the premises of the main argument and then you
conduct an evaluative analysis of the inference expressed in the main argument and the relevance
and you talk about the relevance of the main argument to the issue at hand. A conductive evaluative analysis of the inference
means that you know whether these premise are able to support the adequately supporting
the conclusion are not is one which you we regressively look into so then after following
this 1 to 5 steps again you repeat steps one and so five which have stated go for each
of the subsidiary arguments that lens supports to the main premise alone and ultimately to
make some kind of final evaluation the final evaluation can be we can make out that here
is an conclusion. The premises the central issue of an argument
is an important which serves some it gives us the some indication that is conclusion
presented in the argument and after finding out the conclusion you find out what suppose
this particular kind of curve is there any statement seems to be supporting this kind
of conclusion are the once which needs if there is no addict support and all then there
is no such kind of inferential claim. This can be treated as an non inferential
passage so this is one which we have asked in earlier also in general we are saying that
there is a premise indicator and you say that there is premise is present in given English
language passage is the conclusion indicated thus therefore enters the etc are there and
say that some kind of conclusion is present in a given passage so there are some questions
that we need to ask our self again there is no formal kind of criteria for Justify that you know if you fallow these
steps in all you will come with a conclusion in general these are some the steps that one
fallows and all after why we are doing all this things because after all we are trying
to each argue of a sorry a arguer what is important is the arguments so once you have
an arguments and you can critics you can say that argument is valid or you can say that
argument is invalid or strong weak all this things falls you identifies argue. Once you identify an argument what type of
argument it is etc all these questions fallow answers to the questions fallow after only
when you identify what are whether there is any argument presenting in English language
passage some questions one need to ask these questions are like this we need to ask questions
related to the content of the passage in the content of the passage is you seem to be finding
some kind of inferential claim it is jested as inferential passage. And hence it is an argument if it is non inferential
passage then it is called as an non inferential passage non argument so as we have already
said the most and the single statement that claim to fallow from the others will serve
as a conclusion our ask yourself what is your argue you trying to prove then that will serve
as a conclusion or if you ask yourself what is the main point of the passage understand
in the main part of the passage will consist of some kind of conclusion. This is some of the strategies are some questions
that we ask to come up with what is a conclusion in a given passage once you find out a conclusion
in a given passage then things will become easy in the sense that then you will talk
about whether the other statements seems to be supporting this particular kind of the
main point of passage so the inferential passage two conditions which we have expressed earlier
one is a fact statement must provide a evidence. And in a inferential claim it is claim that
something follows from so at least one should ensure that you need to have some kind of
inferential claim argument after all we need not have to verify each and every fact and
all but still at least claim that something fallows from this particular kind of things
this is not task of logicians to verify the facts this is job of some other scientists
etc to find out whether. This facts are correct or not based on expatriation
repeated observation etc logicians starts these two take out any two statements and
see whether this two statements combine together leading to another statement and these two
statements are equally supporting rather statements or not which usually survives conclusion. So now so far we talked about argument which
consist of premises conclusion and then we talked about argument in sense that it is
an inferential passage consist of an argument non inferential passage consist of non argument
so what are these non inferential passages non inferential passages are those passage
in which a inferential claim that we talked about which consist of actual claim. And in fractural claim these totally missing
in those kind of passages so often we confuse these particular kind of non inferential passage
as inferential and then logicians we have some kind of problem in mistakenly identifying
argument has no argument so non inflectional passage are those who do not claim. Through or justify where something is done
in case suppose we have some kind of statement which you are subscribing that it is a conclusion
but these premises etc and all which you are seems to be providing some kind of support
which they do not provide any kind of support to the conclusion is missing that is what
I am trying to prove that is what I am trying to say some water in this non inferential
passages a statement of warning can come under. The category of non inferential passage you
are just giving some kind of warning and all you are not trying to show why it is a case
etc not proving anything etc or if I am just giving some kind of piece of advice to your
friend or something like that and that also so it is an non inferential passage and statement
of belief just a matter of belief or opinion we will have thousands of opinions beliefs
etc. That may not serve us inferential passage
a loosely associated kind of statements reports exploratory passages and the last few things
since to be little bit is kind of debatable kind of issue whether explanations come under
a category of arguments or not philosophers argue that does come under category of arguments
which I will talk about it little bit later. But the book which we are fallowing consists
introduction to logic by Patrick hardly so in that you know explanation treated as treated
a non inferential passages so it is minute difference between explanations and arguments
which I will talk about it when I come to the come to explain this particular kind of
thing explanations and conditional statement. A single conditional statement we will not
survive us in we will see why this these things does not come under inferential passages and
hence not calling it has arguments so what I warn is this is all general things all which
all of us mostly we are aware of these particular kind of things so they started quickly go
through some of these non inferential passages and all which we come across in detail we
discussed. And we should not after identifying these
things we should not be mistakenly taken as arguments why you should not take it has arguments
because one of the important things for arguments that is inferential which is missing in these
kinds of passages etc so what are this warning which you come across day to day life. This is the disclosures aimed at modifying
someone’s behavior you will be warning some one less not to do certain kind of thing so
if no evidence are reasons, reason is given to proves that something should do something
are avoid doing something then obviously there is no arguments suppose if the teacher tells
the students do not copy in the exam if you copy it then you will get zero you know he
is just warning him. And all and he is not giving any reasons for
saying that you know you should not copy why you should not copy why you should copy in
the examination so here are some of the examples we will talk about the second examples we
are just talking about straight forward warning and all this also we do not obey the rules
would be find enough suppose we do not fallow the traffic rules in all your way find etc. So these are the things which is non inferential
kind of passage we are not claiming anything to be the conclusion and then conclusion is
supported by any premises and all there are non inferential passage in just a piece of
warning now the first example let everyone know that no message will be fall on any violator
of the law in this country anyone who violates the law will be will come just is subjected
to some kind of justice so all this things are bit of piece of warning etc in all this
disclosure named at modifying someone’s behavior not to per pending to prove anything
so that is why it is not inferential passage and hence it is called as in non. So we will hold so many people we believe
which we do not have reason why we are believing it all our believes god might exist but we
may not true all these things they believe lots of things so statement of believe are
opinion is an expression of what someone happens to believe or think it is certain line no
evidence are reasons is given to prove that what the other things is true when it is not
called as an argument. There is no argument presenting this particular
kind of passage insist a matter of opinion or belief you are expressing your opinion
but you are not trying to say why for example if you say I believe god exist etc and all
we are not trying to prove that the existence of god so this some kind of statement etc
I am not trying to show why god does not exist etc and this particular kind of thing. Let us take an example which sets as in non
inferential passage which come under the category of statement of belief or opinion take it
as an example says I believe that it must be the policy of the united states to support
free peoples through a resisting attempted subjugation by armed minorities or by outside
pressures again in another statement which is fallowing. After that again it I s saying I believe that
we must assist free peoples to work out they own densities in their own way and again you
saying with another believe I believe that our health should be primarily through economic
and financially which is essential to economic stability and orderly political process so
this is on which is mentioned by a president Truman and address to 1947 congress. So why I am talking about all of this things
because what is that so here is the passage in which fraction claim is missing the inferential
claim is also missing we just talking about some kind of statements which author is believed
to be proves you might believe to be false or you may in sense you might be having some
kind of authority. So facts might be true and all but it is only
its person opinion or belief and all that and all that he is trying to express this
is not supported by any reasons are any particular kind of thing which will serve as the premises
and then he is not trying to claim anything which the statement will serve as the conclusion
so the inferential claim is missing actual are even inferential claim, so that is why
it is it will come under the category of non arguments. There are some kind of descriptions it consist
of more or what are most. Statements are taken together cause certain
picture to appear in the mind of reader so you just are just giving some kind of description,
so for example if you say a Rajghat a few hundred feet so what I am trying to talk about
is suppose if you are have a some kind of report now in newspaper you know then the
reporting is so much of information and then it is just a report in all, so it will be
like this it consist of one or more statements that taken together cause a general pictures
to appear in the mind of a reader. Say some bomb blast to place somewhere else
etc and all it just giving some kind of description of that particular kind of event which occurred
at what time what happened when it got blasted all these things and news analyst is trying
to piece together all the information and then putting it in one place, it is also a
some kind of report, reports are also combined to the category of non arguments because there
again it is non inferential pass ways and inferential claim of actual claim is missing
in that particular kind of thing. See this in example which says like this a
Rajghat a few hundred feet from the river a fresh pyre has been built of stone, pyre
is a kind of heap of sand on which you know dead bodies are kept and burned, so brick
and earth it was 8 feet square or 2 feet high x ray is giving some kind of description of
that particular kind of thing where the dead body was burned long things sandalwood logs
sprinkle with light in stacked on it and Mahatma Gandhi’s body was lay on the pyre which
is head to the north in that position Buddha had met his end. All this things is kind of some kind of description
given by Gandhi’s color may be Louis Fisher as writing on Gandhi and his life and message
to the world what is described here and all, so what I am trying to talk about is a report
is combine to the category of non arguments and he is just giving some kind of general
description of an event which is taken place, so this passage is talking about Mahatma Gandhi
how he was burry and burned and all is body was burned etc. So he is just giving some kind of description
and all. Piece wise information all is taken together
it is giving the description of this particular kind of thing how his body was burned, so
report is a group of statements. Conveys information about some kind of situation
are event, so here just talking about some kind of situation or some kind of an events
which you know in newspapers you will find are someone who is giving some kind of report
on some of intense is to place in the pass or some kind of fun event which happened in
disclose you are reporting it and putting in the Face book etc and all there all some
other category of reporting, so it is in example Lions at Kruger National Park in South Africa
are dying of tuberculosis all of the lions in the park may be dead within 10 years. Because although there the word because it
is here and still it will not come on to the category of argument around why it is again
said top of because that disease is incurable and the lions have no natural resistance said
all these things are in cohesion marks you know, that is what is the most imposing which
you need to know, so this is told by someone else who has given this message deputy director
of the department of agriculture etc. He is just reporting this particular kind
of instant about life so again there is no inferential claim and this kind of passage,
so this comes under the category of non arguments so we will be ask to write expository passages
etc. Write an exposition on something let us say
prominent effect or something like so exposits what are these exposits as says and why these
passages and non inferential passages etc is only which we have going to tell next. So it often happens that an author will begin
with the paragraph with the topics sentence and then it can be anything green house effect
or why something happens etc and all why sky is blue etc as a paragraph with the topic
sentence and then go on to develop it everything is centered around some kind of topics and
it will not go beyond the boundaries on this particular kind of topics with other same
is not the prove that particular kind of topic sentence but mere relate to expand and developing. So this is the case which happens then the
students are writing some kind of Phd Ps etc so they will come up with some kind of these
statement you know, so the entire phd says is of course entire thing which is in consist
of Phd is which is centered around this particular kind of teachers statements, so here is a
topic statement which constitutes research problem and then everything is centered around
that particular kind of teachers statement that source is a topic sentence so researchers
have to develop this particular kind of skill. Especially in developing some kind of topic
sentence for the these statement so they will be merely explaining it and developing this
particular kind of topics sentence of course in the Phd TCS one just talk about ultimately
in is define what is trying to argue in this particular kind of TCs but initially what
in is to look for is to identify a problem and then come up with some kind of TCs statement
and then everything will be centered around that particular kind of TCs statement. For the focus A as to maintain that particular
kind of so here are some of the examples which are centered around some particular kind of
topic sentence the example is like this there is a stylized relation of artist to mass audience
in the sports especially in baseball each player develops a style of a zone the swagger
as he steps to the plate by unique or wind up the picture has a clean swinging in hard
driving hits the precision quickness the grace of infield and outfield sense of suppress
power behind. Whatever is done forget about what is big
words which are explained in this particular kind of thing but the aim of the passage is
not much to prove that a first statement is true first statement is very stylize relation
of artist to mass audience in the sports especially in many is talking about the base part these
not much to prove that the first statement is true as it is true flesh out the notion
of stylish relation to a mass audience, so it is the central the topic sentence of this
passage is the first statement so there is a stylish relation of artist to mass audience
in the sports especially in base bound. He is talking about one particular kind of
topic sentence and then he is talking about entire thing about centered around that particular
kind of the first sentence, so he is not trying to prove why prove that prove with any claim
that there is a stylish relations, relation of artist to mass audience in the sports so
that inferential claim is again missing and hence it is called as a non argument but again
we should not that there is no such kind of formal criteria which is Z given passage is
non inferential or inferential etc. This is in general we identify these things
in this following way so that is the reason why the first part of this course that is
critical thinking which combined to the category of ultimate of informal or but in the basic
concepts we need to cover this particular kinds of things after the study of laws of
keys it is one of the central aims of logic keys to identify the distinction between good
argument and bad argument and then find out. Whether ultimate is present in given passage
etc and all so once you identify the argument then you can talk about and criticizing that
particular kind of argument, so these confusions I will talk about little bit later and there
are some other kinds of things which combined to the category of non arguments their illustrations
all the time you know suppose if your friend ask you suppose if you given some kind of
arc sect idea at your friend you know, so immediately we will ask you to give an example
are instance. Give me an example on that so these kinds
of illustrations consist of some kind of general statement and more one or more specific examples
you will be giving and whose purpose is to illustrate the general statement but not to
prove that particular kind of statement, so basically illustrations will make statement
little bit clearer, now suppose if I give you some examples you know may be some kind
of abstract idea might be little bit clearer to us. Otherwise you know it will be very difficult
to find the consumption linkages in the particular kind of the abstract kind of message your
friend is trying to make you understand. So here is the example which comes under the
category of illustration, you will find 1000 of illustrations in any Scientifics textbook
or even in day to day you will find lots of example which jobs of the explanation is to
clarify the thing. In debates it is an example; in debates about
the environment the most important way of regarding living things collectively has been
to regard them as species. So this is one which general statements which
the arguer is trying to make, now whatever follows after that. Now for example is saying when environmentalist
worry about the future of the blue whale they usually are thinking of the blue whale as
species rather than a individual blue whales, that seems to be making the 1st statement
little bit clearer and all again the idea of the passage is to illustrate the statement
which is mentioned in the 1st sentence of this paragraph but not to prove that particular
kind of it. He is not trying to prove it is just showing
that it is the debates and all but debates you know that environment the most important
way of regarding living things collectively as been to regard them as species enough. And the other is trying to provide some kind
of examples to support this particular kind of thing. So again the inflation claim is missing in
this one this also comes under the category of non arguments. So it is called as non influential kind of
passage, so the idea here is that our English language passage is crowded with illustration,
example, reports all these things. From all these things they are trying to extract
something which is influential kind of passages. So once you find this influential passage
and you have an argument and then you can start saying whether what kind of argument
it is, deductive or inductive. If it is deductive arguments then what are
the characteristics of that particular thing of argument, if it is inductive argument what
kind of what are the characteristics of that particular kind of argument etc then we can
talk about lots of other things. So here is another example which come under
the category of non arguments usually it is very difficult for us to accept that explanation
are come under the category of non arguments. But at the basic level you know treat explanation
as non argument in a particular sense. So an explanation is simply group of statements
that gives us some kind of reason why something is the case, usually by giving some kind of
its causes and all. Suppose if you say sky is blue and all if
you ask why this sky is blue then you will give some explanation for that particular
kind of thing and all. So you give a some kind of reason why it is
the case enough, so explanations are not arguments it is in the sense that argument attempt to
perceive a whereas explanations take the point of view of discovery, discovery is already
there sky is blue etc and some kind of understanding it gives us some kind of basic understanding
of sky is blue so and so because of some reasons. And explanations assume that what is being
explained is already true and all but in the case of argument that is not the case. In an explanation we are seeking some kind
of understanding that means you start with some kind of question that is why is the sky
is blue why the ocean water is blue and the ocean all these things we try to ask. And then explore evidence that answers that
particular kind of question with an explanation you are not trying to prove a conclusion again
it is non- inferential and you are simply trying to find the best explanation possible
for the blueness of the sky etc. Sometimes they do work together arguments
and explanations are clouded together and explanation can provide evidence and support
of an argument the main point is to determine the intention behind what is being presented
and all. So here are some of the things which we need
to talk about the explanation why you know it is the case that there is a confusion between
explanations and argument is because of this fact that both of them seem to be having relatively
similar kind of structure and all, in the argument what is important are premises any
conclusion premises provides adequate reasons to believe the conclusion to be true in the
case of explanation we have something called ex-pronounce results is premises looks like
they are closer to premises and ex-nonrandom the one which needs to be explained as sky
is blue etc. So that seems to be serving like a conclusion
and all but actually that is not the case see here is an example the sky appears to
be blue from the earth surface now he is giving the reason because the air molecules scatter
blue light more than the other colors. Because of the roman effect etc, you have
saying that is sky is blue. The question that is try to answer is why
the sky is blue and all the explanation is this thing. The air molecules scatter blue light more
than the other colors because of this you know it appears to be in blue color, so here
we are seeking only understanding of why the sky is blue, the arguer is not proving that
sky is blue and all. So we will talk about explanations in little
bit detail when in the context comes, so in nuptials what explanations does is this is
that it tells us why it is the case whereas the arguments the general structure of arguments
we have premises and a conclusion premises claim to provide some kind of adequate support
to the conclusion and all, we should not mistake explanations with arguments and all. In explanations we are trying to provide some
kind of reasons why it is the case and all, so there are some other kinds of things which
come under the category of non- arguments, they are conditional statements, conditional
statements are usually expresses as if p then q were p is called as an antecedent, and q
is called as a consequent. So we need to note that a single conditional
statement can never be treated as an argument and all, usually it is treated as non- argument
and all, if it rain then the grass is wet, so that is the single conditional kind of
sentence where it rained is called consider as antecedent. The grass is wet is a consequent. A single conditional statement will come another
category of non- arguments and all. But if the conditional statement and then
some kind of a preposition will make it as an argument and all if it rain the grass is
wet and it need it rain and the grass is wet if we say that thing then that will become
an argument and all. A single conditional sentence in isolation
will never come under the category of argument and all. So again in that particular kind of statement
you trained and the grass is wet there is no claim that either the antecedent that is
drained are the consequent presents some kind of evidence. So there is no assent that antecedent and
consequent is true, so one example is if the air pressure lowest then the power of meter
false, so the conditionals why we talk about conditional sentences because it express is
necessary and sufficient conditions. So suppose if you say p is necessary for q
that is equivalent to p is required for q and all, p is sufficient for q is nothing
but p is enough for q and all. Necessary means it is required without that
you know nothing is possible for example if you say oxygen is necessary for our life and
all there is no oxygen it is very difficult for us to survey, you can say water is sufficient
for us to leave and all, water or the food stuff that you taken and all, but without
oxygen without thing and all it is difficult in, sufficiency talking about inference. So this is the example makes this point clear
oxygen is necessary for the life but not enough or sufficient we need water carbohydrates
extra apart from oxygen and all what we need is carbohydrates extra fact ,proteins etc. So this I will come to the end of this lecture
so let us talk, or about the necessary and sufficient conditions being a bachelor is
sufficient condition for being a male and being male is necessary being a bachelor,
first is a sufficient condition, second one is a necessary conditions,so there are some
other translations in all which I will talk about professional logic usually this comes
under the category of basic concepts and all. Q unless P ,Q is P is stated has Q is necessary
for P suppose if you want to express the necessary the condition between P implies Q then the
necessary the condition is expressed has Q implies P and the sufficient condition is
expressed has P implies Q ,so in this lecture what we talked about is simply is that ,we
talked about different kinds of non-arguments in the non-arguments P suffered wise warning
,report ,exporter passage explanations, a single conditions statement isolation and
we are seeing that all this things come under the category of non-inferceniable passage. Since they are all non-inferceniable passages
these are called as non-arguments in the next lecture we will talk about different kinds
of arguments types of arguments and all now since we have identified what is an argument,
what is an non-argument then we will focus our attention on various types of arguments
we say that there are two kinds of arguments which we commonly study they are deductive
and inductive arguments. So distinguishes deductive and inductive arguments
we will occupied in next lecture.

3 Replies to “Mod-01 Lec-02 Non- arguments”

  1. in the end the examples for conditional statements are unclear to me, is it explained further on ?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *