Bissoy.com
Doctors Medicines MCQs Q&A

Given below are two statements : Statement I:  The evaluation of an argument involves two steps namely evaluating the link between premises and conclusion and evaluating the truth of the premises. Statement II: Deductive arguments in which the conclusion actually follows from the premises are said to be valid, and those that also have true premises are said to be sound. In the light of the above statements, choose the correct answer from the options given below :

Given below are two statements : Statement I:  The evaluation of an argument involves two steps namely evaluating the link between premises and conclusion and evaluating the truth of the premises. Statement II: Deductive arguments in which the conclusion actually follows from the premises are said to be valid, and those that also have true premises are said to be sound. In the light of the above statements, choose the correct answer from the options given below : Correct Answer Both Statement I and Statement II are true 

An argument is a group of statements. 

Key Points

Statement I:  The evaluation of an argument involves two steps namely evaluating the link between premises and conclusion and evaluating the truth of the premises.

  • An argument can be broken down into three major components: premises, inferences, and a conclusion. Another aspect of understanding arguments is to examine the parts. 
  • Premises are statements of (assumed) fact which are supposed to set forth the reasons and/or evidence for believing a claim.
  • The claim, in turn, is the conclusion: what gets finished at the end of an argument. When an argument is simple, there are just a couple of premises and a conclusion:

Example

  1. Doctors earn a lot of money. (premise)
  2. I want to earn a lot of money. (premise)
  3. I should become a doctor. (conclusion)

​Statement II: Deductive arguments in which the conclusion actually follows from the premises are said to be valid, and those that also have true premises are said to be sound.

Arguments – Types of Reasoning

The two main types of reasoning involved in the discipline of Logic are deductive reasoning and inductive reasoning.

  • Deductive reasoning is an inferential process that supports a conclusion with certainty.
  • Inductive reasoning is an inferential process providing support strong enough to offer high probability (but not absolute certainty) for the conclusion.

Attributes of Deductive Arguments are validity and soundness.

Validity is the attribute of deductive arguments that denotes logical strength.

  • Validity is about the strength of the inference, or reasoning, between the premises and the conclusion.
  • A deductive argument is valid when all its premises were true, then its conclusion must be true, by necessity.
  • To determine if an argument is valid or invalid (not valid):
  1. First assume that the premises are true, even if they are not; pretend that they are true.
  2. Then ask yourself whether the conclusion would need to be true, assuming/pretending that the premises are true.

Valid arguments may have:

  1. True premises, a true conclusion
  2. False premises, false conclusion
  3. False premises, a true conclusion

Valid arguments can never have:

  1. True premises, false conclusion.

  2. In a valid deductive argument, if the premises are true, it is impossible for the conclusion to be false.

A deductive argument is sound when it is valid, and It has all true premises.

​Therefore, based on the above definitions and examples both the given statements are correct.

Related Questions

Which of the following statements correctly apply to deductive arguments? A. Deductive arguments are either valid or invalid B. There must be a necessary relation between the premises and the conclusion C. Adding new premises improves the validity D. False premises may lead to a true conclusion Choose the correct answer from the options given below :
Read the passage carefully and select the best answer to each question out of the given four alternatives.
What is Gandhian philosophy? It is the religious and social ideas adopted and developed by Gandhi, first during his period in South Africa from 1893 to 1914, and later of course in India. These ideas have been further developed by later "Gandhians", most notably, in India by, Vinoba Bhave and Jayaprakash Narayan. Outside of India some of the work of, for example, Martin Luther King Jr. can also be viewed in this light. Understanding the universe to be an organic whole, the philosophy exists on several planes - the spiritual or religious, moral, political, economic, social, individual and collective. The spiritual or religious element, and God, is at its core. Human nature is regarded as fundamentally virtuous. All individuals are believed to be capable of high moral development, and of reform. The twin cardinal principles of Gandhi's thought are truth and nonviolence. It should be remembered that the English word "truth" is an imperfect translation of the Sanskrit, "satya", and "non-violence", an even more imperfect translation of "ahimsa". Derived from "sat" - "that which exists" - "satya" contains a dimension of meaning not usually associated by English speakers with the word "truth". There are other variations, too, which we need not go into here. For Gandhi, truth is the relative truth of truthfulness in word and deed, and the absolute truth - the Ultimate Reality. This ultimate truth is God (as God is also Truth) and morality - the moral laws and code - its basis. Ahimsa, far from meaning mere peacefulness or the absence of overt violence, is understood by Gandhi to denote active love - the pole opposite of violence, or "Himsa", in every sense. The ultimate station Gandhi assigns non violence stems from two main points. First, if according to the Divine Reality all life is one, then all violence committed towards another is violence towards oneself, towards the collective, whole self, and thus "self"-destructive and counter to the universal law of life, which is love. Second, Gandhi believed that ahimsa is the most powerful force in existence. Had himsa been superior to ahimsa, humankind would long ago have succeeded in destroying itself. The human race certainly could not have progressed as far as it has, even if universal justice remains far off the horizon. From both viewpoints, non violence or love is regarded as the highest law of humankind.
According to Gandhiji, truth complies to which of the following?
Consider the following statements.
1. All valid arguments contain only true premises and a true conclusion.
2. Some valid arguments contain only false propositions - false premises and a true conclusion.
3. All valid arguments contain only false propositions all premises are false, conclusion is false as well.
Which of the above statements is correct?
Consider the following statements
1. All valid arguments have only true premises.
2. A sound argument must be valid.
3. An argument with a false conclusion cannot be valid.
4. All arguments with true conclusion are valid.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
Read the passage carefully and select the best answer to each question out of the given four alternatives.
What is Gandhian philosophy? It is the religious and social ideas adopted and developed by Gandhi, first during his period in South Africa from 1893 to 1914, and later of course in India. These ideas have been further developed by later "Gandhians", most notably, in India by, Vinoba Bhave and Jayaprakash Narayan. Outside of India some of the work of, for example, Martin Luther King Jr. can also be viewed in this light. Understanding the universe to be an organic whole, the philosophy exists on several planes - the spiritual or religious, moral, political, economic, social, individual and collective. The spiritual or religious element, and God, is at its core. Human nature is regarded as fundamentally virtuous. All individuals are believed to be capable of high moral development, and of reform. The twin cardinal principles of Gandhi's thought are truth and nonviolence. It should be remembered that the English word "truth" is an imperfect translation of the Sanskrit, "satya", and "non-violence", an even more imperfect translation of "ahimsa". Derived from "sat" - "that which exists" - "satya" contains a dimension of meaning not usually associated by English speakers with the word "truth". There are other variations, too, which we need not go into here. For Gandhi, truth is the relative truth of truthfulness in word and deed, and the absolute truth - the Ultimate Reality. This ultimate truth is God (as God is also Truth) and morality - the moral laws and code - its basis. Ahimsa, far from meaning mere peacefulness or the absence of overt violence, is understood by Gandhi to denote active love - the pole opposite of violence, or "Himsa", in every sense. The ultimate station Gandhi assigns non violence stems from two main points. First, if according to the Divine Reality all life is one, then all violence committed towards another is violence towards oneself, towards the collective, whole self, and thus "self"-destructive and counter to the universal law of life, which is love. Second, Gandhi believed that ahimsa is the most powerful force in existence. Had himsa been superior to ahimsa, humankind would long ago have succeeded in destroying itself. The human race certainly could not have progressed as far as it has, even if universal justice remains far off the horizon. From both viewpoints, non violence or love is regarded as the highest law of humankind.
According to the passage, which of the following statement is not true?
In making decisions about important questions, it is desirable to be able to distinguish between ‘strong’ arguments and ‘weak’ arguments. ‘Strong’ arguments are those, which are both important and directly related to the question. ‘Weak’ arguments are those, which are of minor importance and also may not be directly related to the question or may be related to a trivial aspect of the question. The questions below if followed by two arguments numbered I and II. You have to decide which of the arguments a ‘strong’ argument is and which a ‘weak’ argument is. Statement: Prohibiting the usage of artificial food colours in food items is correct? Arguments: I. Yes, as the chemicals used in these artificial colours would cause many health issues to humans if consumed. II. No, because by using those it makes food look more attractive and appealing.
which one of the following is not correct?
1. If one of the premises is invalid, the argument is not true
2. An argument cannot be sound if one of the premise is false
3. If premises entail the conclusion then the argument will be valid
4. A deductive argument may be valid without being sound
In making decisions about important questions, it is desirable to be able to distinguish between ‘strong’ arguments and ‘weak’ arguments. ‘Strong’ arguments are those, which are both important and directly related to the question. ‘Weak’ arguments are those, which are of minor importance and also may not be directly related to the question or may be related to a trivial aspect of the question. The questions below if followed by two arguments numbered I and II. You have to decide which of the arguments a ‘strong’ argument is and which a ‘weak’ argument is. Statement: Should banks provide special loans to farmers? Arguments: I. Yes, as with that amount the farmer would be able to afford modern equipment’s which will increase his earnings. II. No, because people may take advantage of this, even those who can afford to pay may not.
In making decisions about important questions, it is desirable to be able to distinguish between ‘strong’ arguments and ‘weak’ arguments. ‘Strong’ arguments are those, which are both important and directly related to the question. ‘Weak’ arguments are those, which are of minor importance and also may not be directly related to the question or may be related to a trivial aspect of the question. The questions below if followed by two arguments numbered I and II. You have to decide which of the arguments a ‘strong’ argument is and which a ‘weak’ argument is. Statement: Should government ban Cigarette industries? Arguments: I. Yes, as it is very injurious for any person consuming them and causes cancer. II. No, forbidding them would mean that those people who work in cigarette industries would lose their jobs. 
Consider the following statements.
1. All valid arguments have only true premises.
2. A sound argument must be valid.
3. An argument with a false conclusion can't be valid.
4. All arguments with true conclusion are valid.
Which of the following statements is/are correct?