in Mathematical Logic edited by
5,597 views
28 votes

Consider the following logical inferences.

$I_{1}$: If it rains then the cricket match will not be played.
The cricket match was played.
Inference:  There was no rain.

$I_{2}$: If it rains then the cricket match will not be played.
It did not rain.
Inference: The cricket match was played.

Which of the following is TRUE?

  1. Both $I_{1}$ and $I_{2}$ are correct inferences
  2. $I_{1}$ is correct but $I_{2}$ is not a correct inference
  3. $I_{1}$ is not correct but $I_{2}$ is a correct inference
  4. Both $I_{1}$ and $I_{2}$ are not correct inferences
in Mathematical Logic edited by
by
5.6k views

3 Comments

Given: $R\rightarrow \ \sim C$

Hence: $C\rightarrow \ \sim R$

 

When it rains, we can imply there's no cricket match.

When it doesn't rain, we can' say anything. (because $\sim R$ doesn't imply anything)
0
I think it is first question added on Gateoverflow.
0
I1 is true due to “modus tollens” (or “rule of contrapositive”)

I2 is false because of “fallacy of assuming inverse”

So, option B is true.
0

Subscribe to GO Classes for GATE CSE 2022

4 Answers

43 votes
 
Best answer
$I_1$ is a correct inference. $I_2$ is not a correct inference as it was not mentioned what would have happened if it hadn't rained- They might have played or they might not have played.
selected by
by

4 Comments

This is an example of Modus tollen. Isn't it ?
6
yes it is example of modus tollens
1

Only I1 is example of Modus Tollen. I2 does not look like Modus Tollen. Pooja Palod mam. please confirm. 

0

I2 is an example of Logical Fallacy.Usually fallacy occurs in two forms:

Form 1)The Fallacy of affirming the consequence

If p then q.  AND
q

Then we cannot conclude anything.

Form 2) The fallacy of denying the antecedent.

If p then q.  AND

NOT P

Then we cannot conclude anything.

 

1
23 votes

Let us assume p=It rains, the q=cricket match will not be played.

I1: If it rains then the cricket match will not be played   (p->q)

The cricket match was played. (~q)
Inference:  There was no rain.(~p)

p->q

~q


~p    (Modus tollens )

Thus I1 is a correct inference.

I2: can be written as 

p->q   
 ~p


Given inference - ~q 
Not a correct inference. When p is false and q is true, both the premises becomes true but conclusion becomes false

Hence answer is B 

edited by

2 Comments

Nice detailed answer .....
0

I2 is a famous Fallacy.
This type of incorrect reasoning is known as Fallacy of denying the hypothesis.

Another one is -
p->q
q


p
It is known as Fallacy of affirming the conclusion.  


 

2
22 votes

B) I1 is correct but I2 is not a correct inference.

7 votes

No, the inference 'I' is not Correct.

Let P = it rains.

Q = Cricket match will not be played.

For P $\rightarrow$ Q to be true.

If P is true then Q has to be true. (There is no other choice for Q).

But if P is false then Q can be anything (True or False). Still P $\rightarrow$ Q is true.

This is also known as "The fallacy of denying the antecedent".

P $\rightarrow$ Q
~P

$\therefore$ (Nothing can be concluded).

2 Comments

edited by
but ,

P -> Q

 ~Q

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

This is possible right ?

~P
0

P $\rightarrow$ Q
~Q

$\therefore$   ~P

This is also known as Modus Tollen

2
Answer:

Related questions

Ask
Quick search syntax
tags tag:apple
author user:martin
title title:apple
content content:apple
exclude -tag:apple
force match +apple
views views:100
score score:10
answers answers:2
is accepted isaccepted:true
is closed isclosed:true