 of an argument, basically we said that argument consist 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 a given English language passage. So one thing which we pointed out is this that in an argument, suppose if there are some indicator words for the premises and there are indicator words for the conclusions then we can say that we can identify premises and the conclusion. It is a task of a logician to identify premises and a conclusion and then that constitutes an argument. So it is a task of a logician to find out the arguments in a given passage. So usually any English language passage, suppose if you are reading a newspaper or if reading any scientific text or anything. So usually it is clouded with maybe sometimes arguments, sometimes non-arguments etc and all. It is clouded with lot of information and all. So how to identify arguments in a given English language passage. That is what is going to be our task and then yesterday we said that if you find some indicator words such as because etc 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 the list is not exhaustive and all. Yesterday we talked about somewhat bigger kind of list and all. So if you find these indicator words then we are saying that there is a conclusion present in the given passage. So it is a task of a logician first to identify the conclusion and then he has to ask himself what this conclusion is supported by. So now today what we are going to do is that suppose if you do not find any indicator words for the premises for the conclusion then what one needs to do. So how do we know that a given passage consist of an argument. So basically a passage consist of an argument when it purpose to prove something. So proving is not in the sense 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 has to satisfy two conditions. 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 claim. So what is a factual claim? So in the factual claim if there is at least one of the statements must claim to provide evidence or reasons for the other. I mean in an argument we have premises and we have a conclusion. And so these premises one of the premises provide at least some claim we make some claim it claims to provide some kind of evidence or reasons then it is said to have we have said to have provided factual claims. So what I am trying to say simply is this that in a given argument at least the arguer is has to make some kind of a factual claim. So if it is there it is well and good and all not all the times it is possible and all because it is not the task of a logician to come up with the factual claims it is not the task of a logician to verify each and every fact etc and all. But one of the most important conditions which is the most important for judging a given English language passage consist 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 the alleged evidence or reasons alleged evidence in the sense that we are providing some kind of strong kind of positive kind of reasons in support or imply something that something is called as another statement which we are usually calling it as conclusion. So in a nutshell it is a claim that something follows from the alleged evidence that you have provided in the form of premises. So the premises provide sufficient evidence to believe the conclusion to be true then there seems to be some kind of inferential claim present in the argument. So what essentially an arguer should look what essentially we need to look for is this that there should be some kind of inferential claim present in the argument if not the factual claim. So inferential claim is what is considered to be the most important. So this inferential claim may be either explicit in the sense that now you will come to know it by means of indicator words and all. For example if you find some kind of premise indicators because so hence forth and all these things or may be some kind of conclusion words conclusion phrases such as therefore thus etc then we can say that inferential claim is explicit. So we need all the time we may not find this explicit inferential claims and all because in most of the English language passes these conclusion and premise indicator words or phrases may be missing total. So in that sense we call it recall such kind of claim as inferential claim as implicit inferential claim. So the internal core of an argument in a nutshell is a reason or providing some kind of set of reasons offered to support some kind of claim that claim is usually called as a conclusion of an argument. So we need to have some kind of reasons in support of some kind of other claim which we calling it as which we are calling it 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 you know. So what are then non inferential passages suppose if you are reading a text as English text reading newspaper or reading some other kind of scientific text etc. So how to identify 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 a non argument and all. So there is no formal kind of criteria involved in this particular kind of thing in judging that this is an inferential passage and that is a 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 a non argument it is because of this that it is a non inferential passage and all. So in this passage we are not claiming we are not providing any reasons to support for some other kind of statement etc and all the inferential claim is missing in this particular 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 incidents incident either in the past and all historical kind of thing which we are trying to provide. So here why it got failed and all we are not providing any reasons. So that is why the inferential claim is missing in this particular kind of thing. So an argument is a one which purports to prove something it 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 passage. So here is an example of an argument so as you see clearly let me read out this thing since the average American consumes 30 times the amount of the earth's resources as does the average Asian Americans are selfish after all excessive consumption is a form of greed and greed is a self decide suppose if you observe this paragraph or passage it looks that there are some kind of premise indicator words are there. So the first one you will find it is in the beginning of the passage that is since anything which follows after since will serve as a premise that is the average American consumes 30 times the amount of the earth's resources as does the average Asian. It looks like that you know the Americans are selfish seems to be the conclusion in this paragraph as I will talk about why it can be treated as a 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 is the central issue of this passage. So it passage is talking about why Americans are selfish and all its reasons are provided and 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 which follows after after all that is excessive consumption is a form of greed and again the greed is this kind of selfish desire each statement is supporting the other one. So what is the conclusion of this passage is Americans are selfish and all you have to note that there is no explicit inferential claim present in the passage in a sense that there are no explicit indicator words for the conclusion. Therefore thus it entails that it implies that etc all these things you may not find it in this particular kind of passage but still we can make out that using some kind of little bit of exercise then 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 across in day to day discourse and even in the English language text they are not well crafted in all so what one has to do is that without disturbing much of the content of the thing in all we need to rearrange the English language passes so that things will become little bit clearer now 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 and we are listing it out with 1, 2, 3, 4 etc. So the average American consumes certainly times the amount of the earth's resources as does the avarization that seems to be premise number one and then excessive consumption is a form of greed so that is another statement which also serves as a premise because it provides reasons to believe some other kind of claim so now greed is a kind of selfish desire 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 indicator words to make this in implicitly inferential kind of passage to explicitly inferential kind of passive 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 a conclusion Americans taken as a group as a class are considered to be shellfish based on the following reasons that you have provided in 1, 2, 3. So an inference implicit inferential passage can become an explicit inferential passage by inserting some kind of conclusion indicator words so now so far we have seen that how to identify an argument you identify an argument when you have a premise and a conclusion and once you once you identify premises and 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 or conclusion indicators then what you need to look for is either a factual claim if it is there is well and 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 is not the only strategy which we have but in general it works in most of the cases so how to identify an argument in a English language passage so first and foremost thing which we need to do is to identify an issue at hand what is the central issue that the passage is trying to indicate to us so that we need to find out that central issue surrounding which you will have some kind of conclusion that is the reason why we are trying to find out the central issue at hand so now based on the central issue at hand you will identify the conclusion of the main argument so now consider the burden of proof of the conclusion because the conclusion is not it proved and all so there is a burden of proof and all burden of proof in a sense that you are claiming something but it is not it supported by some of the other kind of statements and all so there 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 so now we need to identify the premises of the main argument once you identified the conclusion the central issue which is surrounding the central issue at hand or the central message or something like that which is the passage is trying to refer to us from that you will identify a conclusion and then you will identify the premises of the main argument and then you conduct an evaluative analysis of the inference expressed in the main argument in the relevance and you talk about the relevance of the main argument to the issue at hand conducting evaluative analysis of the inference means that you know whether these premises are able to support adequately supporting the conclusion or not is one which we rigorously look into then after following this one to five steps again you repeat steps from one through five one which I have listed above for each of the subsidiary arguments that lend supports to the main premises and ultimately you make some kind of final evaluation with the final evaluation you can make out that here is in conclusion and here is here are the premises the central issue of an argument is what is important which serves as some indication that there is a conclusion present in the argument and after finding out the conclusion you find out what supports this particular kind of conclusion is there any statement which seems to be supporting this kind of conclusion or not that is the one which you need to see if there is no adequate support in all then there is no such kind of inferential claim and this can be treated as a non inferential passage so this is the one which we have asked earlier also we in general we are saying that you know when there is a premise indicator then you say that it is the premise is present in given English language passage if the conclusion indicator thus therefore entails that etc. there and we say that some kind of conclusion is present in a given passage so there are some questions that we need to ask ourselves again there is no formal kind of criteria for judging that you know if you follow these steps and all you will come up with the conclusion and all in general these are some of the steps that one follows in all after all why we are doing all these things because after all we are trying to each argue for an arguer what is important is the arguments so once you have an arguments and you can criticize you can say that the argument is valid or you can say that argument is invalid or strong weak all these things once follows once you identify an argument or once you identify an argument what type of argument it is etc all these questions follow answers to the questions follow after only when you identify what whether there is any argument present in a 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 and the content of the passage is you seems to be finding some kind of inferential claim then it is judged as inferential passage and hence it is an argument if it is non inferential passage then it is called as a non inferential passage non argument so as we have already said the most the single statement that claim to follow from the others will serve as a conclusion or if you ask yourself what is the argue trying to prove then that will serve as a conclusion or if you ask yourself what is the main point of the passage and that send the main point 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 the passage or not. So the inferential passage to conditions which we have expressed earlier one is the factual claim at least one of the statements must provide an evidence and in inferential claim it is a claim that something follows from it so at least one should ensure that you need to have some kind of inferential claim in on after all we need not have to verify each and every fact and all but still at least a claim that something follows from this particular kind of thing it is not the task of logician to verify the facts it is a job of some others like scientists etc to find out whether these facts are correct or not based on experimentation repeated observations etc logicians task is to take out any two statements in all and see whether these two statements combined together leading to another statement whether these two statements are adequately supporting the other statement are not which usually serve as a conclusion. So now so far we talked about an argument which consists of premises and a conclusion and then we talked about argument in the sense that it is an inferential passage consist of an argument non inferential passage consist of non arguments. So what are these non inferential passages non inferential passage are those passages in which the inferential claim that we talked about which consist of factual claim and inferential claim is totally missing in those kind of passages. So often we confuse these particular kind of non inferential passages as inferential and then logicians will have some kind of problems in mistakenly identifying argument as non argument. So non inferential passages are those they do not claim or prove or justify that something is the case suppose if you have some kind of statement which you are suspecting 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 inferential claim is missing that is what I am trying to prove that is what I am trying to say. So what are these 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 the case etc and all not proving anything etc or if you are just giving some kind of piece of advice to your friend or something like that and that also is a non inferential passage a statement of belief just a matter of belief or opinion you will have thousands of opinions beliefs etc that may not serve as inferential passage a loosely associated kind of statements reports expository passages and the last few things seems to be little bit is kind of debatable kind of issue whether explanations come under the category of arguments are not philosophers argue that it does come under the category of arguments which I will talk about it little bit later but the book which we are following concise introduction to logic by Patrick Hurley. So in that you know explanation treated as treated as non inferential passages so there is a 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 will not serve as an argument. So we will see why these things does not come under inferential passage and hence non arguments and hence not calling we are not calling it as arguments so what are warnings there are all general things and all which all of us mostly we are aware of these particular kind of things so just I will quickly go through some of these non inferential passages and all which we usually come across in day to day discourse and we should not after identifying these things we should not we mistakenly take it as arguments why you should not take it as arguments because one of the important things for an argument that is the inferential claim which is missing in these kinds of passages. So what are these warnings which you come across in day to day life these are the discourses aimed at modifying someone's behavior you will be warning someone else not to do certain kind of thing so if no evidence or reasons reason is given to prove that something should do something or avoid doing something then obviously there is no argument suppose if a teacher tells a student do not copy in the examination if you copy it then you will get 0 and all it is just warning him and all and he is not giving any reasons for saying that you know I should not copy why he should not copy why he should copy in the examination. So here are some of the examples we will talk about the second example it is just talking about straight forward warning and all whosoever do not obey the rules would be fine and all suppose we do not follow the traffic rules and all you will be fine etc. So these are the things which here it is non inferential kind of passage we are not in we are not claiming anything to be the conclusion and then conclusions in does not seem to be supported by any premises and all there are non inferential passage it is just a piece of warning 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 come to justice it will be subjected to some kind of justice. So all these things are bit of piece of warning etc. and all the discourses aimed at modifying someone's behavior is not purporting to prove anything so that is why it is a non inferential passage and hence it is called as a non argument. So we will hold so many beliefs so many beliefs which we believe which we do not have reason why we are believing it and all I believe that God might exist but it may not be true all these things are quite common we believe lots of things. So statement of belief or opinion is an expression of what someone happens to believe or think at a certain time when no evidence or reasons is given to prove that what the other things is true then it is not called as an argument there is no argument present in this particular kind of passage it is just 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 that God exists etc. and all I am not trying to prove that the existence of God with so some kind of statements etc. or I am not trying to show why God does not exist etc. in this particular kind of thing. Let us take an example which serves as a non inferential passage which come under the category of statement of belief or opinion so it is an example it says I believe that it must be the policy of the United States to support free peoples who are resisting attempted subjugation by armed minorities or by outside pressures again another statement which is following after that is again saying I believe that we must assist free peoples to work out their own destinies in their own way and again is saying another with another belief I believe that our help should be primarily through economic and financial aid which is essential to economic stability and orderly political process. So this is the one which is mentioned by a president Truman and address to 1947 Congress. So why I am talking about all these things because of this that see it is a passage in which the factual claim is missing the inferential claim is also missing it is just talking about some kind of statements which the other is believed to be true in you might believe to be false also or even since you might be having some kind of otherity so the facts might be true in all but it is only its personal opinion or belief in all that is trying to express it is not supported by any reasons or any particular kind of thing which will serve as a premises and then he is not trying to claim anything which the statement which will serve as a conclusion. So the inferential claim is missing factual or 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 consists of more or one or more statements that taken together cause a certain picture to appear in the mind of reader so you are just giving some kind of description. So for example if you say at Rajgat a few hundred feet so what I am trying to talk about is suppose if you have some kind of report in all in newspaper you know there will be reporting so much of information and then you just say report in all so it will be like this it consists of one or more statements that taken together cause a general pictures to appear in the mind of a reader say some bomb blast took place somewhere else etc. And all it is 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 the news analyst is trying to piece together all the information and then putting it in one place it serves as some kind of report reports are also come under the category of non-arguments because again it is a non-inferential passage and inferential claim or factual claim is missing in that particular kind of thing. See there is an example which says like this at Rajgat a few hundred feet from the river a fresh Pairi has been built of stone Pairi is a kind of heap of sand on which you know dead bodies are kept and burnt it. So brick and earth it was 8 feet square and about 2 feet high it is giving some kind of description of that particular kind of thing where dead body was burnt long thin sandalwood log sprinkled with like incense was stacked on to it and Mahatma Gandhi's body was lay on the Pairi with his head to the north in that position Buddha had met his end all these things is a kind of some kind of description given by Gandhian scholar may be Louis Fisher is writing on Gandhi and his life and message to the world and all forget about what is described here and all. So what I am trying to talk about is a report is come under the category of non-arguments and all is just giving some kind of general description of an event which is which has taken place and all. So this passage is talking about Mahatma Gandhi how he was buried burnt and all his body was burnt etc. So it is just giving some kind of description and all peace wise information all is taken together it is giving the description of this particular kind of thing how his body was burnt. So report is a group of statements that conveys information about some kind of situation or event. So you are just talking about some kind of situation or some kind of an event which you know in newspapers you will find or someone who is giving some kind of report on some kind of instance which took place in the past or some kind of a fun event which happened in day to day discourse you are reporting it putting it in the Facebook etc and all they are all come under the category of reporting. So here is an example lines at the Kroger national park in South Africa dying of tuberculosis all of the lines in the park may be dead within 10 years because although the word because is here and still it will not come under the category of argument and all why it is a case you will talk about it because the disease is incurable and the lines have no natural resistance said all these things are in quotation marks and all that is what is the most important which you need to know. So this is told by someone else and all who has given this message the deputy director of the department of agriculture etc is just reporting this particular kind of incident about lines so again there is no inferential claim this kind of passage so this comes under the category of non arguments. So we will be asked to write expository passages etc write an exposition on something let us say Raman effect or something like that. So exposition what are these expository passages and why these passages are non inferential passages etc is the one which we are going to talk about next so it often happens that another will begin with the paragraph with a topic sentence that it can be anything greenhouse effect or why something happens etc and all wise guys blue etc as a paragraph with a topic sentence and then go on to develop it everything is centered around some kind of topic sentence and it will not go beyond the boundaries of this particular kind of topic sentence the other same is not to prove that particular kind of topic sentence but merely to expand and develop it. So this is the case which happens when the students are writing some kind of PhD thesis etc so they will come up with some kind of thesis statement. So the entire PhD thesis of course entire thing which is in consist of PhD thesis which is centered around this particular kind of thesis statement. So here is a topics statement which constitutes the research problem and then everything is centered around that particular kind of thesis statement that serves as a topic sentence. So researchers have to develop this particular kind of skill especially in developing some kind of topic sentence or a thesis statement so they will be merely expanding it and developing this particular kind of topic sentence. Of course in the PhD thesis one does talk about ultimately he needs to define what is trying to argue in this particular kind of thesis but initially what he needs to look for is that you have to identify a problem and then come up with some kind of thesis statement and then everything will be centered around that particular kind of thesis state for the focus has to maintain that particular kind of thing. 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 artists to mass audience in the sports especially in baseball each player develops a style of his own the swagger as he steps to the plate a unique wind up a pitcher has a clean swinging and hard driving hits the precision quickness the grace of infield and outfield the sense of surplus power behind whatever is done forget about what is big big words which are explained in this particular kind of thing but the aim of the passage is not much to prove that the first statement is true first statement is this there is a stylized relation of artists to mass audience in the sports especially in any is talking about the baseball there is not much to prove that the first statement is true as it is to flesh out the notion of stylized relation to a mass audience. So it is the central the topic sentence of this passage is the first statement so there is a stylized relation of artists to mass audience in the sports especially in baseball is talking about one particular kind of topic sentence and then he is talking about entire thing about centred around that particular kind of the first sentence. So this is not trying to prove why prove that prove with any claim that there is a stylized relations if relation of artists to mass audience in the sports and all so that inferential claim is again missing and hence it is called as a non argument but again you should note that there is no such kind of formal criteria with which you judge that given passage is non inferential or inferential except I know this is in general we identify these things in this in this following way. So that is the reason why you know the first part of this course that is critical thinking which come under the category of little bit of informal logic and all but in the basic concepts we need to cover these particular kinds of things after all the study of logic is one of the central aims of logic is to identify the distinction between good argument and a bad argument and then find out whether an argument is present in a given passage etc and all. So once you identify the argument then you can talk about criticizing the particular kind of argument. So these confusions I will talk about little bit later and there are some other kinds of things which come under the category of non arguments they are illustrations all the time you know suppose if your friend ask you suppose if you are given some kind of abstract idea to your friend and all. So immediately we will ask you to give an example or instance give me an example and all. 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 the statement little bit clearer and all suppose if I give you some examples and all maybe some kind of abstract idea might be little bit clearer to person otherwise you know very difficult to find out the conceptual linkages in the particular kind of abstract kind of message your friend is trying to make you understand. So here is an example which come under the category of illustration you will find thousands of illustrations in any scientific text book or even in the day to day discourse also you will find lots of examples which the job of the explanation is to clarify the thing. In debates about here 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 the one which is the general statement which the argue is trying to make now whatever follows after that now for example is saying this thing when an environmentalist worry about the future of the blue whale they usually are thinking of blue whale as a species rather than the individual blue whales in all that seems to be making the first statement little bit clearer and all again the idea of the passage is to illustrate the statement which is mentioned in the first sentence of this paragraph but not to prove that particular kind is not trying to prove it is just showing that there are debates in all but debates that you know the environment the most important way of regarding living things collectively has been to regard them as species in all and the other is trying to provide some kind of examples to support this particular kind of thing. So again the inferential claim is missing in this one this also comes under the category of non-argument so it is called as non-inferential kind of passage. So the idea here is this that our English language passes is crowded with illustrations examples expository passages reports all these things from all these things we are trying to extract something which are inferential kind of passages. So once you find this inferential passages and you have an argument at hand and then you can start saying what kind of argument it is deductive or inductive or if it is deductive argument then what are the characteristics of that particular kind of argument there is an 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 in another example which come under the category of non-ex non-arguments usually you know it is very difficult for us to accept that explanations are come under the category of non-arguments but at the basic level you know we usually treat explanations as non-argument in a particular sense. So an explanation is simply a group of statements that give us some kind of reason why something is the case and usually by giving some kind of its causes suppose if you say sky is blue and if you ask why the sky is blue then you will give some explanation for that particular kind of thing you know. So you give us some kind of reason why it is the case you know. So explanations are not arguments it is in the sense that arguments attempt to persuade whereas explanations take the point of view of 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. An explanation assumes 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 the sky is blue why the ocean water is blue in 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 an explanation can provide evidence in support of an argument the main point is to determine the intention behind what is being presented in all. So here are some of the things which we need to talk about the explanation why you know it is a case that there is a confusion between explanations and an argument is because of this fact that both of them seem to be having relatively similar kind of structure in the argument what is important are premises and a conclusion premises provides adequate reasons to believe the conclusion to be true in the case of explanation we have something called exponents which serves as premises looks like that they are closer to premises and explain and them the one which needs to be explained the sky is blue etc. So that seems to be serving like a conclusion but actually that is not the case so here is an example the sky appears to be blue from the edge surface now he is giving the reason because the air molecules scatter blue light more than the other colors because of the Raman effect etc you are saying that the 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 argue is not proving that sky is blue so I will talk about explanations in little bit detail when in the context comes so in a nutshell what explanation does is this that it tells us why it is a case whereas the arguments in 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 expressed as if P then Q if P then Q where 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 rained then the grass is wet so that is a single conditional kind of sentence where it rained is called a considered as antecedent the grass is wet is a consequent a single conditional statement will serve will come under the category of non arguments and all but if the conditional statement and then some kind of a preposition will make it as an argument if it rained the grass is wet and indeed it rained and the grass is ready to say that thing then that will become an argument a single conditional sentence in isolation will never come under the category of argument so again in that particular kind of statement you trained in the grass is wet there is no claim that either the antecedent that is trained are the consequent presents some kind of evidence so there is no assertion that antecedent and consequent is true so one example is if the air pressure lowest then the barometer falls so the conditionals why we talk about conditional sentences because it expresses 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 there is no oxygen it is very difficult for us to survey you can say water is sufficient for us to live and all water or the foodstuff that you take you know but without oxygen without you know it is difficult in sufficiency is talking about enough so this is this example makes this point clear oxygen is necessary for the life but not enough are sufficient you know we need water carbohydrates etc apart from oxygen and all what we need is carbohydrates etc fat proteins etc so this I will come to the end of this lecture so let us talk more about the necessary and sufficient conditions being a bachelor is sufficient condition for being a male and being male is necessary for being a bachelor and all the first is a sufficient condition second one is a necessary condition so there are some other translations in all which I will talk about when I talk about propositional logic usually this comes under the category of basic concepts in all Q unless P Q if P Q if P is treated as this thing Q is necessary for P suppose if you want to express the necessary condition between P implies Q then the necessary condition is expressed as Q implies P and the sufficient condition is expressed as P implies Q so in this lecture what we talked about is simply this that we talked about different kinds of non arguments in the non arguments piece of advice warning report expository passage explanations a single conditional statement in isolation and we have seen that all these things come under the category of non inferential passages and all since they are all non inferential 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 we see what is an argument and what is a 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 in logic they are deductive and inductive arguments so what distinguishes deductive and inductive arguments will occupy the next lecture.