UNIT 4 TRUTH AND VALIDITY*

Structure

4.0 Objectives
4.1 Introduction
4.2 Truth and Logic
4.3 Validity and Logic
4.4 Assessment of Deductive Logic
4.5 Sound and Unsound Deductive Arguments
4.6 Significance of Validity in Deductive Logic
4.7 Assessment of Inductive Logic
4.8 Comparison of Deductive and Inductive Arguments
4.9A Brief Note on Indian Logic
4.10 Let us Sum Up
4.11 Key Words
4.12 Further Readings and References
4.13 Answers to Check Your Progress

4.0. OBJECTIVES
The objective of this unit is to introduce you to the concepts of Truth and Validity in Logic.
Understanding the concepts like Truth and Validity and their relationship plays a crucial role in
evaluating arguments, i.e., in distinguishing good from bad arguments. Through the analysis of
different aspects of Truth and Validity in Logic we can learn:

• the meaning and importance of truth in Logic

*
Mr. Ikbal Hussain Ahmed, Assistant Professor, Teaching Learning fenakshi, Tezpur University, Tezpur.
90
• the meaning and importance validity in Logic

• the relationship between truth and validity in Deductive Logic

• the application of similar concepts in Inductive Logic

• the application of similar concepts in Indian Logic

4.1 INTRODUCTION
The fundamental aim of Logic is to provide an apparatus for distinguishing between good and
bad argument. In the preceding units we have learnt about the nature of Logic and the nature of
Deductive and Inductive Logic. In this unit you shall learn the terminologies and concepts that
are used in formal logic to evaluate arguments and to distinguish between good and bad
arguments. Two such concepts are “Truth” and “Validity” and their inter-relationship. The
evaluation of an argument can be carried out through an exploration of following questions: (a)
Are all the premises of an argument true? (b) Do the premise/premises support the conclusion?
This second question is specifically more pertinent because an answer to this can help us
determine the value of an argument. Additionally, we also need to determine the manner and the
extent to which the truth or falsity of the premises effects the evaluation and the value of
argument. In the course of the present unit, we shall learn the concepts and terminology used in
this respect and explore these issues as they appear across deductive and inductive arguments.

4.2 TRUTH AND LOGIC

Let us first understand the concept of truth and its relevance in Logic. Truth is an attribute of a
proposition and it refers to what is really the case. A proposition is an assertive sentence that can
be either true or false. So “truth” and “falsity” are truth values of a proposition. A proposition
can be a premise of an argument and it could be true. Also a proposition could be a conclusion of
an argument and it could be false. Take the following argument:

All men are immortal. (Premise 1)

Hari is a man. (Premise 2)

Therefore, Hari is immortal. (Conclusion)

91
Here premise 1 is false, premise 2 is true, and the conclusion is false. The truth value of the
above propositions is known to us. But logic is not concerned about whether these propositions
are actually true or not. Logic tries to determine, in a case where the given premises are true, if
we can necessarily draw the conclusion from the premises. This leads to the issue of validity.

4.3 VALIDITY AND LOGIC

Validity is a fundamental concept of Logic. According to logician I. M. Copi, “Validity is a
formal characteristic; it applies only to arguments, as distinguished from truth, which applies to
[individual] proposition[s]”. Validity is an attribute of an argument. An argument is valid if the
relationship between its components are so that the premises conclusively prove the conclusion.
That means, validity is about the logical connection between the propositions. Take the
following example:

All men are saints.

Einstein is a man.

Therefore, Einstein is a saint.

The conclusion of this argument necessarily follows from the premises. In the above argument, if
the premises were true, then there is no possible scenario where the conclusion would be false.
Therefore, this argument is a valid one. Conversely, if the conclusion is not a logical necessity,
then the argument is not valid, and it will be called an invalid argument. Now one can raise a
question here concerning whether the validity of the argument is decided by the truth value of the
proposition; more precisely one may ask- what is the exact connection between truth and validity
in the context of an argument? We shall discuss that in a while. Before that we need to
understand two things clearly.

First, in ordinary language ‘validity’ can be used interchangeably with ‘truth’ and vice versa, but
in Logic, the concept of validity applies only to arguments, and the concept of truth applies
exclusively to propositions.

Second, the definition of validity as a “logical necessity” confines the concepts of validity and
invalidity to Deductive Logic only. Because, according to I. M. Copi, deductive arguments make

92
the claim that its premises conclusively support the conclusion, while in case of Induction, the
premises do not conclusively support the conclusion.

Keeping in view this clarification, in the next section we shall explore in greater detail the
concept of validity and its relationship with truth in Deductive Argument.

Check Your Progress I

Note: (a) Use the space provided for your answer

(b) Check your answers with those provided at the end of the unit.

1. In general what makes an argument valid?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Is validity dependent on the actual truth of propositions?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

4.4 ASSESMENT OF DEDUCTIVE LOGIC

It is clear that validity as a logical concept is exclusively applied on deductive arguments only
and therefore it is an important part of any discussion on Deductive Logic. Validity can be
properly defined in the context of deductive arguments. The objective of deductive arguments is
to establish that the conclusion undeniably follows from the premises. When it achieves this
objective, the argument is said to be valid, and when it fails to achieve this objective then the
argument is not valid and therefore it can be termed as being an “invalid” argument.

But how do we know that a deductive argument has achieved its objective? How do we ascertain
whether the argument is valid? In reply to this query, it may be noted that if the premises are true
93
in a deductive argument, and there is no logical possibility of the conclusion being false, then it
is a valid. Let us consider an example:

All Fast foods are unhealthy.

French Fry is a Fast Food.

Therefore, French Fry is Unhealthy.

We know that if the premises in this argument are true then the conclusion can never be false.
Therefore, this is a valid argument. The validity is determined by the relationship between the
premises and the conclusion. If the object “French Fry” is included in the group of “Fast Food”
(second premise) and if “Fast food” is included in the group of “unhealthy” things (first
premise), then the object “French Fry” is necessarily included in the group of “unhealthy”
things(conclusion). You can see that the above relationship gives a particular form of the
argument and this form is a valid one. Because, in this form, if we assume that the premises are
true, then the conclusion will be necessarily true, and to claim it as false will be contradictory.
Interestingly if we use an argument with utterly false propositions, yet fulfilling the same
argument “form” like the one given above, it will still be valid.

All mammals have wings.

All plants are mammals.

Therefore, all plants have wings.

All the propositions in the above argument are false, but the argument is still valid, because the
logical relationship of the propositions is such that if the premises were actually true, the
conclusion would be certainly true.

The two sets of examples discussed above, however raise a serious question with regard to the
nature of the relationship between truth and validity in deductive arguments. It may be asked
whether there is any connection between the truth value of the proposition and validity/
invalidity of the argument? Deductively Logic largely engages in answering these questions and
formulating rules and principles for determining validity. In this Unit, however, we shall develop
an outline of the critical and complicated relationship of truth and validity.

94
As we have seen earlier, the relationship between argument and propositions is a structural one.
The validity and invalidity of an argument depends on the logical relationship between its
propositions. Propositions are constituent parts of an argument. Every argument can have one
proposition as conclusion and at least two or more propositions as premises. Each proposition
can be true or false, and every argument must be either valid or invalid. Logicians have noted
that there are several arrangements of truth/falsity and validity/invalidity. These arrangements
will provide crucial clues to understand the relationship between truth and validity in Deductive
Logic. Let us explore those arrangements with examples.

Arrangement 1: True Premises, True Conclusion, Valid Argument

Example: All mammals are animals.

All cats are mammals.

Therefore, all cats are animals.

In this argument, all the propositions are known to be true. The premises conclusively establish
the conclusion; therefore, making the argument “valid”.

Arrangement 2: False Premises, False Conclusion, Valid Argument

Example: All mammals are six legged animals.

All Ostriches are mammals.

Therefore, all Ostriches are six legged animals.

In this argument, all the propositions are known to be false. But here the premises conclusively
establish the conclusion, because if the premises were actually true, the conclusion would have
been certainly true. Therefore, this argument is also valid.

Arrangement 3: True Premises, True Conclusion, Invalid Argument

Example: If I won the KBC Show, I would be a millionaire.

I did not win the KBC show.

Therefore, I am not a millionaire.

The premises and conclusion here are true, the argument is invalid because the conclusion does
not necessarily follow from the premises. This will be further clear from the next example.
95
Arrangement 4: True Premises, False Conclusion, Invalid Argument

Example: If Ratan Tata won the KBC Show, he would be a millionaire.

Ratan Tata doesn’t win the KBC show.

Therefore, Ratan Tata is not a millionaire.

In this argument the premises are true, but the conclusion is false in reality. Mr. Tata till now
didn’t participate in KBC show, but he is one of the richest persons in India.The argument is
invalid because the premises don’t conclusively establish the conclusion.

Arrangement 5: False Premises, True Conclusion, Valid Argument

Example: All Fishes are mammals.

All dolphins are fishes.

Therefore, all dolphins are mammals.

The conclusion here is true in reality, but the premises are unquestionably false. However, since
there is a logically necessary connection between the premises and the conclusion, because of
which the premises conclusively support the conclusion, the argument is valid.

Arrangement 6: False Premises, True Conclusion, Invalid Argument

Example: All mammals have wings.

All dolphins have wings.

Therefore, all dolphins are mammals.

This argument has two false premises and still the conclusion is true. However, the argument is
invalid, because the conclusion is not conclusively supported by the premises. We know that by
examining the form of the argument. Here, in the second premise the group “all dolphins”
belongs to the group “wings”, and in first premise, the group “all mammals” belong to the group
“wings”, and these don’t prove whether the group “all dolphins” belong to the group “mammals”

Arrangement 7: False Premises, False Conclusion, Invalid Argument

Example: All mammals have wings.

All dolphins have wings.

96
 Therefore, all mammals are dolphins.

In this argument both premises and conclusion are false. And the argument is invalid. Because
the conclusion is not supported by the premises. Like Arrangement 6 above, here also in the
second premise the group “all dolphins” belongs to the group “wings”, and in first premise, the
group “all mammals” belong to the group “wings”, and these don’t prove whether the group “all
mammals” belong to the group dolphins” (in most of the above examples we have used
particular form of Deductive Argument known as Categorical Syllogism. We shall learn more
about this type and the methods of checking the validity of such arguments in Block: 3
Categorical Syllogism)

Arrangement 8: True Premises, False Conclusion, Valid Argument

Example: Nil

By definition, in a deductively valid argument if the premises are true, it is impossible for the
conclusion to be false. If the conclusion is false, when premises are true, that means the
conclusion is not conclusively supported by the premises. Therefore, the argument will be
always invalid. That is why there is no example of Arrangement 8.

The above discussion on the eight possible arrangements (of which the 8th arrangement is, in
fact, impossible) of true and false propositions and valid and invalid arguments reveals that
firstly, truth or falsity of the conclusion of an argument cannot determine on its own the validity
or invalidity of an argument, and, secondly, validity of an argument does not guarantee the truth
of its conclusion. Valid argument can have all false propositions and invalid argument can have
all true propositions. Sometimes, false premises can lead to true conclusion in valid as well as
invalid arguments.

This complex and critical relationship can further be exposed in the following table.

Premise Conclusion Validity

True True Valid/Invalid

True False Invalid

False True Valid/Invalid

97
False False Valid/Invalid

This table shows that the validity or invalidity of an argument cannot be determined merely from
the truth and falsity of the propositions. Both valid and invalid arguments can have all true
propositions or all false propositions, or they can have false premises and a true conclusion. As
we have seen there are seven possible combinations of truth/falsity and validity/invalidity. The
combination that is impossible is a combination of valid argument with all true premises and a
false conclusion. To put it differently, we can say that if there is a false conclusion in a valid
argument, then at least one of its premises must be always false. Thus there is one instance where
truth and falsity is a determining factor for validity/invalidity. Any deductive argument having
actual true premises and actual false conclusion is always invalid. Because, if the premises are
actually true, and the conclusion actually false, then it is possible that that the premises can be
true and conclusion can be false. But we already know that in a valid deductive argument if the
premises are true, then it is impossible for the conclusion to be false.

4.5 SOUND AND UNSOUND DEDUCTIVE ARGUMENTS

The evaluation of deductive argument is not limited to identifying valid and invalid arguments.
Depending on its relationship with truth, arguments can be further classified as “sound” and
“unsound”. A sound argument is a deductive argument that is valid and it has true premise. It
must satisfy two conditions: the argument must be valid, and the premises must be true. If any of
this condition is not met, then no valid argument can be termed as sound. Consider the following
argument:

All planets of the solar system revolve around the Sun.

The Earth is a planet of the Solar System.

Therefore, the Earth revolves around the Sun.

This argument is valid because the logical relation between the propositions are so that if the
premises were true, then the conclusion would be certainly true. This argument is valid and in
addition, the premises here are actually true. So this is a Sound deductive arguments. Now one
can ask whether the conclusion in such a case will also be true? The answer is always yes.

98
Because, by definition of validity, if the argument is valid and if its premises are true, then it is
impossible for the conclusion to be false. We already know that in a sound argument the
argument is valid and the premises are actually true, therefore, now we can say that the
conclusion will be actually true.

In contrast to Sound argument, unsound arguments are those which do not satisfy the conditions
of a sound argument. To put it clearly:

1. An argument which is invalid is unsound.

2. An argument which is valid but has false premises is unsound.

Following these conditions, if we consider the eight arrangements of truth and validity described
in section 4.4 we shall find that only Arrangement No.1 is sound. All other possible
combinations of truth/falsity and validity/invalidity are always unsound. Thus Arrangement
no.1 is an instance of a sound deductive argument which is valid and has actual true premises,
and therefore, by definition, always gives an actually true conclusion. A sound argument can also
be termed as a good deductive argument in the fullest sense of the term. All deductive arguments
are either sound or unsound.

4.6 SIGNIFICANCE OF VALIDITY IN DEDUCTIVE LOGIC

It is obvious from our discussions so far that logicians are interested in the evaluations of
arguments, rather than in the evaluation of propositions. The evaluation of deductive arguments
is measured in terms of validity and invalidity. Valid and invalid arguments are further evaluated
as sound and unsound arguments. Sound arguments are what can be termed as good arguments,
that can lead us to actually true conclusions with utmost certainty. In such a situation, one can
ask, why logicians do not confine themselves to the study of arguments with true premises only
as that may lead us to sound arguments? What is the importance of the non-sound valid
arguments? Specially, what is the importance of exploring valid arguments whose premises are
not true?

Actually the validity of arguments with premises not known to be true are more important than
they seem to be. In our day-to-day life, we often need to choose between alternative courses of
action where we do not know which alternative is in fact true. What we do is consider

99
consequences of these alternative courses. On considering the consequences, we decide which
course of action should be followed.We need to be serious in deciding the consequences of the
alternative courses. That is where our training in valid argument with false premises can help us.
Because, in case of valid argument with false premise, the logical relation between premises and
conclusion is such that if the premises were true, the conclusion would be also true. If we follow
a similar valid logical process in deciding the consequences, then we can correctly choose the
alternative course of action. Thus here we “make’ (as I. M. Copi puts it) the premises true out of
the available alternative courses. But if we deal with only already known true premises, then
there will be no point in considering alternative courses, we can accept the one which is true. The
purpose of applying logic here will be self-defeating. But the reality is that there will be always
alternative courses in life where truth of the alternatives may not be known us.

Another important aspect is the use of deductive logic in the Sciences. Scientists often verify
scientific theories using deductive method. Many theoretical premises cannot be verified as true.
But scientist can deduce particular testable instances from such theories. Such particular
instances can be tested for truth, which further confirms the theory in question. But this will only
work, if the process of such a deduction follows a valid path.

Check Your Progress II

Note: (a) Use the space provided for your answer.

(b) Check your answers with those provided at the end of the unit.

1. Give an example of a valid argument with all false propositions

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Give an example of an invalid argument with all true propositions

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

100
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. What is the difference between valid and sound argument?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

4.7 ASSESMENT OF INDUCTIVE LOGIC

Our understanding of Truth and Validity in Deductive Logic can be further enhanced by
considering the case of Inductive Logic. Every deductive argument claims that its conclusion
necessarily follows from the premises, that means that if the premises are true then it is
impossible for the conclusion to be false. The task of a logician is to verify these claims. If the
claim is correct the argument is valid, if the claim is incorrect, the argument is invalid. There is
no middle ground between valid and invalid. In contrast, an inductive argument claims that the
conclusion probably follows from the premises, i.e., to say if the premises are true, then it is
improbable for the conclusion to be false. Logicians examine these claims of probability. But
probability is a matter of degree. There is no certainty of the conclusion being true, even if the
premises are true, even if the procedure of induction is correctly followed. Therefore, the terms
“validity” and “invalidity” are not applicable here. In fact, there is no term fixed by logicians to
identify good and bad inductive arguments. However, the terms “Strong” and “Weak” are used
by some logicians for the evaluation of inductive arguments.

An inductive argument is strong when it achieves its objectives. The objective of an inductive
argument is to establish that it is improbable for the conclusion to be false when the premises are
true. The conclusion here has a probability of being supported by the premises. On the other
hand, a weak inductive argument is the one which fails its objective. So in a weak inductive
argument, the conclusion does not probably follow from the premises, even though it is claimed
so.

101
Now let us focus on the evaluation of inductive arguments through an examination of the
relationship between truth/falsity and strength/weakness of inductive arguments. The testing of
the strength of inductive arguments is comparable to testing of the validity of deductive
arguments. In inductive arguments also, we assume that the given premises are true, and on the
basis of this assumption we try to determine whether the conclusion is probable. Like deductive
arguments, here also we need to establish the connection between premises and conclusion. But
unlike deductive arguments, in inductive arguments we cannot just focus on the form of the
argument. The conclusion of an inductive argument could be a generalization, an analogy, a
prediction, etc. There is always a “leap” from certain to uncertain, from particular to general,
because the conclusion tends to contain more information than the premises. This “inductive
leap” is possible because of two principles, that are also known as the formal grounds of
induction. The first principle is the Law of Uniformity of Nature and the second principle is the
Law of Causation. According to the law of uniformity of nature there is uniformity in nature, i.e.,
under similar conditions nature behaves in a similar manner, that is to say that the future repeats
the past. The Law of Causality states that every event has a cause, so if X is the cause of Y,
whenever there is X, it will always be followed by Y. On the basis of these principles, if we
proceed from particular premises to a general conclusion in Induction, the argument will be
strong and the probability of the conclusion being true would be very high.

Now instead of considering the varieties of inductive arguments and the different methods of
justification of induction, let us consider how the truth and falsity of propositions of inductive
arguments are related to their strength and weakness. Here also we can find several arrangements
parallel to arrangement that we examined in case of deductive argument.

Arrangement 1: True Premises, Probably True Conclusion, Strong Argument

Example: Every year in last decade there were always heavy rainfall during monsoon in Assam.

Therefore, probably there will be heavy rainfall in the monsoon of this year in Assam.

In this argument the premise is actually true, as there was heavy rainfall every year in last decade during
monsoon in Assam. The uniformity of nature dictates that in the next monsoon also there will be heavy
rainfall in Assam. This is also what we naturally expect to happen. Thus the conclusion is probably true,
and the argument is strong.

Arrangement 2: True Premises, Probably True Conclusion, Weak Argument

102
Example: In 1917, 1996 and 2019, there were heavy rain fall during monsoon in Rajasthan.

Therefore, probably there will be heavy rainfall during next monsoon in Rajasthan.

In this argument, the premise is actually true, the conclusion is probably true. Here we can’t
apply the law of uniformity of nature as we have supporting information about only three years
in a range of more than 100 years. The argument, thus, is a weak one.

Arrangement 3: False Premises, Probably True Conclusion, Strong Argument

Example: Every Indian Prime Ministers was a poet.

Therefore, it is probable that the next Indian prime minister will also be a poet.

Here the premise is actually false (some of our prime ministers were good poets, but not
everyone was a poet). But if we assume that the premise is true, then we would naturally expect
that the prime minister will be a poet. So, the argument is strong.

Arrangement 4: False Premises, Probably True Conclusion, Weak Argument

Example: Some Indian Prime Ministers were logicians.

Therefore, it is probable that the next Indian prime minister will be a poet.

Here the conclusion is probably true, but the premise is clearly false and even if we assume the
premise as true, we cannot find any link between it and the conclusion. Therefore, the argument
is weak.

Arrangement 5: False Premises, Probably False Conclusion, Strong Argument

Example: Every Rhino discovered in Assam are two-horned.

Therefore, probably the next Rhino discovered in Assam will be two-horned.

In this argument the premise is clearly false, the conclusion has a high probability of being false.
But if we assume the premise as true, then we naturally expect that the conclusion would have
been also true. Therefore, the argument is strong.

Arrangement 6: False Premises, Probably False Conclusion, Weak Argument

Example: Few Rhinos discovered in Assam are two-horned.

Therefore, probably the next Rhino discovered in Assam will be two-horned.

103
In this argument, like the previous one, the premise is clearly false, the conclusion has a high
probability of being false. But even if we assume the premise as true, the premise does not
strongly support the conclusion as the considered instances are very few, so there is very low
probability of the conclusion being true, in other words, it has a probability of being false.
Therefore, the argument is weak.

Arrangement 7: True Premises, Probably False Conclusion, Weak Argument

Example: A few Indian Space Missions have failed.

Therefore, probably the next Indian Space Mission will fail.

Here the premise is actually true. But the conclusion has a high degree of being false because
relevant instances are very low leading to very low degree of probability. Therefore, the
argument is weak.

Arrangement 8: True Premises, Probably False Conclusion, Strong Argument

Example: Nil

If an inductive argument is strong, and if its premises are true, then the probability of the
conclusion being true will be high. Therefore, Arrangement 8 is not possible.

The discussions on these possible arrangements make it clear that the relationship between
truth/falsity and strong/weak inductive argument is a complex one. In most of the cases, truth of
the premise or strength of the argument do not correlate. That is because the strength of
argument is not dependent on the actual truth of the premises, but on the probabilistic support
given by the premises to the conclusion. All that the arrangement of truth and falsity establishes
is that if the premises are true and conclusion is probably false, then the inductive argument is
weak. In other words, if the argument is strong and the premises true, the conclusion is probably
true.

As logician Patrick J. Hurley emphasizes, we need to note two important points here. First, in
case of true premise in inductive argument, the term “true” shall be taken in its fullest sense. The
true premise, thus, should not miss or undermine any crucial information, so that no scope is left
for a different conclusion than the intended one. Secondly, in induction when we claim a

104
conclusion as probably false, it means probably false in the actual world in the context of
actually known evidence.

Now let us summarize the relationship between strength of Inductive argument and truth and
falsity of premises and conclusion.

Premise Conclusion Strength

True Probably True Strong/Weak

True Probably False Weak

False ProbablyTrue Strong/Weak

False ProbablyFalse Strong/Weak

This table makes it clear that merely from the truth and falsity of propositions the strength of
argument cannot be ascertained. But when the premises are true and the conclusion probably
false, then the argument is weak. Because if the premise is true in the sense explained above, and
the argument is strong, then conclusion would be probably true instead of being probably false.

The above table can be drawn parallel to the table drawn for deductive argument. However, there
is one major difference. In case of deductive argument, the truth of conclusion is absolute, i.e., it
can be either true or false. But in case of induction the truth of conclusion is a matter of degree.
In a strong argument it has a probability of being true, in weak argument, it has higher
probability of being false. The degree of probability depends on how the premises are supporting
the conclusion.

Thus if we consider Enumerative Induction which relies on simple enumeration of available

instances we can see how the degree of probability shifts depending on considered instances.

Example 1. The 5 mangos checked randomly from the bag of 100 mangos are ripe.

Therefore, probably all 100 mangos in the bag are ripe.

Example 2. The 80 mangos checked randomly from the bag of 100 mangos are ripe.

Therefore, probably all 100 mangos in the bag are ripe.

105
The first example is a weak argument and the second is a strong argument. But they are not
absolutely strong or weak. Adding additional instances in first case may increase its probability,
removing instances from the second will decrease its probability. Also, addition of new
information can also affect the strength of inductive argument. For example, if we add the
premises “3 mangos were checked and found to be unripe and removed from the bag” will make
both the arguments weaker.Thus, for inductive argument to be strong, the premises must provide
probabilistic support to the conclusion.

The categorization of strong and weak inductive argument helps a logician’s endeavor to
distinguish between good and bad arguments. But the process is not limited to this division only.
Some logicians further divide inductive arguments into Cogent and Uncogent Inductive
Arguments. A Cogent argument is an inductive argument which is strong and has true premises.
Here truth of premises means complete truth as defined earlier. Any argument which fails to
meet these criteria is Uncogent. Thus weak arguments and even strong arguments with false
premises or false conclusion is Uncogent. But it may be noted that it may not be possible to
always meet these conditions of Cogent arguments in real life situations. Therefore, the study of
strong and weak arguments is more relevant for real life, especially in sciences, than limiting it to
just cogent arguments.

4.8 COMPARISON OF DEDUCTIVE AND INDUCTIVE

ARGUMENTS
We can compare the conceptual difference between the evaluation of induction and deduction as
follows. Here we shall compare the status of the conclusion in each type of arguments assuming
the premises are true;

DEDUCTIVE ARGUMENT INDUCTIVE ARGUMENT

STATUS OF VALID INVALID STRONG WEAK

ARGUMENT

106
STATUS OF THE IMPOSSIBLE POSSIBLE TO IMPROBABLE PROBABLE
CONCLUSION TO BE BE FALSE TO BE
TO BE
FALSE FALSE FALSE

The above table clearly shows the conceptual difference between deduction and induction in
regard to their assessments. While in valid deductive argument if the premises are true, there is
absolute certainty of the conclusion being true, on the other hand, even if the premises are true,
in case of even a strong inductive argument, there is no such certainty, but only high degree of
probability. The table also helps us to realize how truth or falsity of premises are related to good
and bad deductive and inductive arguments.

Check Your Progress III

Note: (a) Use the space provided for your answer.

(b) Check your answers with those provided at the end of the unit.

1. In respect of truth, what is the difference between a valid deductive argument and a strong
inductive argument?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. In a inductive argument with true premise what is the condition of “truth”?

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

107
4.9 A BRIEF NOTE ON INDIAN LOGIC
There are several approaches to logic in Indian Philosophy from its different schools. But none
can be drawn as an exact parallel to either western deductive or inductive logic. In this account it
will not be possible to give a detailed account of Indian Logic. We shall instead consider the
Syllogism of the Nyāya School which is often compared with Aristotelian Categorical Syllogism,
which we have largely dealt with in our discussion of Deductive Arguments. A Nyāya Syllogism,
unlike Categorical Syllogism, has five terms. The arguments consist of typically 5 propositions.
Let us begin with an example:

1. This hill has fire. (pratijn͂ ā)

2. Because it has smoke. (hetu)

3. Whatever has smoke has fire, e.g., an earthen oven. (udāharaṇa)

4. The hill has smoke, which is invariably associated with fire. (upanaya)

5. Therefore, this hill has fire. (nigamana)

In this argument, the first is the logical statement that needs to be proved, the second states the
reason for the establishment of the statement, the third is universal concomitance along with
example, the fourth is the application of the universal concomitance in the present case, and the
fifth is the conclusion drawn from the preceding propositions. In this argument smoke is
equivalent to middle term of Aristotelian Syllogism. In Nyāya Syllogism validity of arguments
depends on the middle term, how it connects the major and minor term (here, fire and hill
respectively). However, in order for the middle term to actually become a valid reason it needs to
satisfy several conditions. When it fails to do so, it leads to fallacies. However, it may be noted
that such fallacies are material fallacies and not formal fallacies. Also, when we talk about
validity it is not confined to formal validity only like deductive argument.

The interesting fact is that in Indian Philosophy, inference is largely seen as integral part of
epistemology. Inference is a means to arrive at true knowledge. Therefore, Indian Logicians are
not particularly concerned about formal soundness and validity or the distinction between the
two. Another important point is that, Indian Logic is both deductive and inductive in nature. That

108
is why the assessment criteria that are applied in the case of deductive arguments and inductive
arguments in the previous sections are not properly applicable in case of Indian Logic.

4.10 LET US SUM UP

In this unit we have learnt about the concepts that are used to distinguish between good and bad
arguments and how the value of arguments is related to the value of propositions.

Truth is a value of propositions and as such the premises of an argument can be either true or
false.

We have learnt that in Logic the term validity exclusively applies to deductive argument only, an
argument can be valid only when the relationship between premises and conclusion is such that
the premises conclusively establishes the conclusion. Such relation can exist only in deductive
argument. When a deductive argument fails to provide conclusive support to its conclusion, it is
known as invalid deductive argument. So validity is purely a formal quality of an argument.

The validity or invalidity of argument is not effected by the actual truth of the proposition. We
can find varying arrangement of true and false propositions in both valid and invalid arguments.
However, the definition of validity is such that if the premises are actually true, then the
conclusion cannot be false. Thus when there is a valid argument with actual true premises, it is
termed as a sound argument. But we have also learnt focusing only on sound deductive argument
does not serve the purpose of logic.

In case of Inductive arguments, we have learnt that the term “strong” and “weak” are used for
evaluation of the correctness of the argument instead of “valid” and “invalid”. Because in
inductive arguments the relationship between the premises and conclusion are such that the
premises only provide probabilistic support to the conclusion. Thus in a strong argument if the
premise are true, then it is improbable for the conclusion to be false. Probability is a matter of
degree which depends on the level of support provided by the premise. When the probability of
the conclusion being true is low, the argument is weak. A strong inductive argument with actual
true premises is called a cogent argument.

109
Finally, we have also learnt that the complex relationship between truth and validity is not
exactly applicable in case of Indian logic because Indian logic which is a complex mixture of
deductive-inductive procedure.

4.11 KEY WORDS

Cogency: Cogency is a criterion used to further categorize Strong and Weak arguments. A
strong argument with true premises is known as a cogent inductive argument. Strong arguments
with false premise/premise and all weak inductive arguments are Uncogent arguments.

Soundness: Soundness is another criterion for categorizing deductive arguments. A sound

argument is a deductive argument that is valid and all its premises are true. Valid arguments with
false premise/premises and all invalid arguments are unsound.

Strength: The term strength is applied by some logicians to evaluate inductive argument as the
term validity cannot be applied here. Depending on the probabilistic support provided by the
premises to the conclusion an argument could strong or weak. Induction relies on the probability
of the conclusion and probability is a matter of degree. An inductive argument is strong when it
establishes that it is improbable for the conclusion to be false when the premises are true. When
the premises fail to provide such support the argument is weak.

Truth: Truth is an attribute of a proposition and it refers to what is really the case. A proposition
is an assertive sentence that can be either true or false. So “truth” and “falsity” are truth values of
a proposition.

Validity: The term “validity” is applied to deductive argument only. An argument can be valid
or invalid. An argument is valid if the relationship between its components is so that the
premises conclusively prove the conclusion. When premises cannot support the conclusion
conclusively, the argument is invalid. So, validity is about the logical connection between the
propositions.

4.12 FURTHER READINGS AND REFERENCES

• Barlingay, S. S. A Modern Introduction to Indian Logic. Delhi: National Publishing

House, 1965

110
 • Cohen, Morris R. and Nagel, Ernest. An Introduction to Logic and Scientific Method.
New Delhi: Allied Publishers Ltd, 1998

• Copi, I. M., and Cohen, Carl. Introduction to Logic. 9th ed. New Delhi: Prentice Hall of
India, 1997

• Dasti, Matthew R. “Nyāya”. In The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

https://iep.utm.edu/nyaya/, accessed on 15 January, 2021.

• Ganeri, Jonardon. ed. Indian Logic: A Reader. Surrey: Curzon Press, 2001

• Hurley, Patrick J. A Concise Introduction to Logic. 12th ed. Stamford: Cengage Learning,
2008.

• Jain, Krishna. A Textbook of Logic, 1st ed. Delhi: D. K. Print World Ltd., 2007.

• Restall, Greg. Logic: An Introduction. London: Routledge, 2006

• Priest Graham. Logic: A Very Short Introduction. London: Oxford University Press,
2001

4.13 ANSWERS TO CHECK YOUR PROGRESS

Answers to Check Your Progress I

1. An argument is valid if the relationship between its components are so that the premises
conclusively prove the conclusion. So, validity is dependent on the logical connection between
the propositions

2. Validity is not dependent on actual truth of propositions. In a valid argument the propositions
are related in such a manner that if the premises are true, the conclusion cannot be false.

Answers to Check Your Progress II

1. Example of Valid argument with all false propositions

All birds are four-winged animals.

111
 All cows are birds.

Therefore, all cows are four-winged animals.

2. Example of an invalid argument with all true propositions

Some men are adventurous.

Some men are writers.

Therefore, some writers are adventurous.

3. Sound argument is a type of valid argument in which the premises are true. By definition the
conclusion of a sound argument is also true. One can thus say that sound argument is a valid
argument with all true propositions. There are many valid arguments where premises and
conclusion are false. Therefore, we can say that all sound arguments are valid arguments, but all
valid arguments are not sound arguments.

Answers to Check Your Progress III

1. In valid deductive argument, if the premises are true, it is impossible for the conclusion to be
false. In contrast, in a strong inductive argument, if the premises are true, then it is improbable
for the conclusion to be false. Thus the truth of the premises in valid deductive argument gives
absolute certainty of a true conclusion, but in case of strong inductive argument, the truth of
premises proves only a probabilistic support to a true conclusion.

2. In case of inductive argument with true premises, the term “true” shall be taken in its fullest
sense. The true premise, thus, should not miss or undermine any crucial information, so that no
scope is left for a different conclusion than the intended one. Thus helps in reaching a high
degree of probability a true conclusion.

112