1.7k views

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
edited | 1.7k views

$I_1$ 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
+3
This is an example of Modus tollen. Isn't it ?
+1
yes it is example of modus tollens
0

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.

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

edited by
0
+2

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.

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

1
2