 So, today we get started with the basic concepts, so this is going to be the first part of the course, in the basic concepts what we will be doing is this, we will start with some of the basic definitions, there we will cover what we mean by an argument, and since each argument consist of a premise and a conclusion, and then we are going to talk about what constitutes a premise, and what constitutes a conclusion, and then when the premises are leading to the conclusion is the one which we will be interested in. So, first we will talk about some basic definitions, then we will talk about certain things which are which come under the category of non-arguments, so basically they are non-inferential passages, and then we move on to two different kinds of arguments, one is deductive argument, another one is inductive argument, basically we will be interested in studying the difference between the inductive and deductive arguments, so once we find out the deductive and inductive arguments, then we will move on to some of the basic and important properties of logic, so they are validity, validity talks about how the premises is leading to the conclusion, so after all logic is all about what follows from what, in this case the premises how the premises are leading to the conclusion is studied by what we call it as validity, it is not just enough that the arguments are valid, so it has to be sound also, for example if you have, there are many arguments which are valid but does not make any sense, for example if you take into consideration all circles are squares, the other way round it is all squares are circles, all circles are parallelograms, then all squares are parallelograms, although the conclusion seems to be true, but the premises are false enough, so soundness will take care of the fact that it is not enough that the argument is valid but your premises of your argument also has to be true enough, so in the argument that I explained the premises are false but the conclusion is true enough, so we want to avoid such kind of arguments in which the argument is valid but it is not sound, so we will talk about soundness of deductive arguments and then when it comes to inductive arguments we will talk about whether they are weak or whether they are strong etc, so then there is an important method with which you will come to know the invalidity of an argument, so that method is called as countering, counter example method, so what we will do in the counter example method is this that we will create an instance where you have true premises and a false conclusion, so if you can come across with an example where you have true premises and a false conclusion then the argument is invalid. So then one of the important things which we are going to study is one important model of an argumentation, basically we want to know when an argument is a good one, when an argument is a bad one, so if you want to study in detail what constitutes a good argument and what constitutes a bad argument then you need to know about it is one of the one model of an argumentation. So one of the important models of argumentation is due to philosopher his name is Stephen Tulmin he has come up with an interesting model where he talks about a model of an argumentation, so we will talk about the model of an argumentation at the end of this thing, after all this course is all about logic it is an introduction to logic course and basically logic is basically considered as a study of argument and reasoning, these are the two important things which will be interested in logicians would be interested in, so systematic study of arguments and reason. And one of the definitions which is given in one of the popular books of introductory introduction to logic by Patrick Hurley is this is the following, logic may be defined as an organized body of knowledge or science that evaluates arguments, so it is important to study arguments, what we mean by an argument and what constitutes argument and all. So one of the important questions that we will ask before going further is what is logic is one of the important most difficult things to define, it is not just like you know defining physics or defining mathematics such that such as this thing logic is almost everywhere it is used as basically a justificatory tool and all, so traditionally logic has been considered as the most general science is deals with the arguments and the task of logic is basically to discover fundamental principles for discover for distinguishing good and bad arguments, so we have good and bad arguments now how do we distinguish between good and bad arguments, that is what logic will take care of it. So the other thing is that the study of though it also talks about the study of those general principles that make certain patterns of argument valid and other patterns of arguments invalid enough, so this comes under the category of formal logic, there are certain arguments which are valid by virtue of the valid form and there are certain other arguments which are invalid just because it has got an invalid form and all. For example if you have A implies B and then A then B follows from these two, so that argument is a valid argument since it exhibits valid form, so the other case of invalid argument is that A implies if A then B then not A and then not B, so this is called as fallacy there is something mistake in the argumentation and it is an invalid form that is why the argument is invalid, so logic is also a study of those general principles that makes certain patterns like A implies B and A B follows from that which makes it valid whereas A implies B not A and then not B follows from these two things which is making this argument invalid. So logic takes studies about the distinction between these two different patterns of argumentation and all, one is valid another one is invalid and all, invalid because of the case that it has invalid form and valid because it exhibits valid form, so we are talking about the study of argumentation after all these arguments are composed in the language and then we have three different functions of a language, so logic is after all it is viewed as a language, it has three basic functions, so the first one is the logical function, language has the logical function especially when it is used to convey some kind of information. For example if the sentence uttered can be spoken as either true or false then these kinds of things are called as declarative sentences and all, so especially when the language is used to convey some kind of information and that information can be considered as either true or false then it is used in the logical sense and all, for example if I say there is only one door in this room and all, so this sentence can be spoken as either true or false and all, there is no middle value between this thing, you cannot say that it is neither true nor false or something like that, so this kind of a sentence can be spoken as either definitely as true or false and all, since there is only one door for this room, so the sentence is true, if there are no two doors and all then two doors are missing then it is considered to be false and all. Another historical thing is on September 1939 Adolf Hitler's army invaded Poland and all, it is an historical fact, of course we can verify with our historical facts and we can say that the sentence is true or false. So what is clear here is that the language is used to convey some kind of information that information is it can be spoken as either true or false, so language can also be used in an expressive sense, in the sense that it is indicative of some kind of emotions feelings etc. Example when you come across some kind of dirty cockroach or frog or something like that, immediately we will express our emotions etc by saying that it is dirty cockroach or something like that, so it is used in a sense of expressive sense and all, language can also be used in an evocative sense, the examples are like this, language is employed to evoke response in others and all, somebody is talking to someone then the other one person tries to evoke some kind of emotions in others and all. So for example you say if you are in a danger then you will cry you will shout and say save me and all, pardon me etc and all, so save me pardon me etc and all, these statements cannot be spoken as either true or false and all. So for example the other things which can come under the category of this thing is there are certain types of questions like what are we doing here etc and all, so these cannot be spoken as either true or false. So what we will be considering in this course is that those sentences which can be spoken as either true or false are the things which we are going to take into consideration, these are the basic units of our, the sentences are the propositions are the basic units of logic and all. So what are these propositions or what are these statements and all, so there is the precise nature of proposition is a matter of some kind of philosophical debate there is no consensus on what exactly we mean by a proposition and all, but if you take into consideration the Oxford English dictionary and it is proposition is considered to be a noun which is considered to be a statement expressing a kind of judgment or an opinion or it is a proposed scheme or plan or a matter to be dealt with or a formal statement of a theorem or a problem. It looks like that there is a last one a formal statement of a theorem or a problem seems to be coming closer to what we mean by a proposition. So in this course what we take into consideration is that a proposition is a simple sentence which can be spoken as either true or false. So it can also be called as a declarative sentences declarative sentence etc. So propositions statements sentences etc all these things are used in the same sense especially in this course. Since a proposition is also used as a claim or an assertion that affirms or denies that something is the case and all for example if you say that it is raining outside then suppose it is actually that is a fact that it is raining outside then the sentence is true otherwise it is false. So all propositions are either true or false and no proposition can be both true and both false are neither true nor false and all these things which we leave it out. So there are other logics which takes care of this particular kind of things and a sentence can be neither true nor false or a sentence can be both true both false will be taken care by some other logics which are which come under the category of non classical logics. The logics that we will be studying at least come under the category of standard logics or the classical logics. Another definition of propositions are these that propositions are the soul bearers of truth and false. Other things which come under the category of not under the category of propositions are these things questions commands exclamations usually they do not express any preposition because suppose if you say that what is your name and all if you ask someone what is your name and all that kind of sentence cannot be spoken as either true or false or if you say that shut up your shut up and all suppose something you say like this then that that also cannot be spoken as either true or false and it is not a declarative kind of sentence. So those things that do not come under the category of propositions. So now so far what we have said is like this that a preposition or a statement or sentence all these things we use it same kind of thing. So preposition is a sentence which can be spoken as either true or false. The examples of prepositions are like this all triangles have three sides it is a mathematical fact. So for example if you say Akhilesh other who is the current chief minister of Uttar Pradesh or if you say if today is Friday then tomorrow is Saturday all these things can be spoken as either true or false. So now we come to so far we have we talked about the basic units of an argument the basic unit of argument is the preposition a statement or a sentence there are one of the same. So now what we mean by an argument so again if you refer to Oxford English dictionary it is also considered as noun unfortunately in the dictionary it is used in a negative sense usually when we mean when we say that you are arguing with someone else then it is usually considered as some kind of heated exchange of diverging or opposite views for example child is arguing with his father for something then there might be some exchange of words etc or a set of reasons in support of something that seems to be a better one which we can make use of. So this is not the one which we are going to talk about that means argument we mean it is not an exchange of heated exchange of diverging or opposite views. So what we mean in a mean by an argument is that it is a collection of statements that means those sentences which can be spoken as true or false leave out all the commands and other things and all questions etc it is a collection of statements called premises and I will talk about what we mean by premises and the final statement is what we call it as a conclusion. So the structure of an argument is this that it consists of a premise and it consists of a conclusion and especially in philosophy an argument is a group of two or more propositions that express some kind of inferential process and all the kind of inference and all inference is a mechanism at which you know you will come to know how the premises are leading to the conclusion. So what is an inference and inference is a mental process of linking propositions by offering support to one proposition on the basis of more other propositions and all suppose you have two propositions which serves as premises the other one is also another kind of proposition which will serve as a conclusion and all. So in an argument we need to distinguish what is a premise and what is a conclusion and all because ultimately the premises has to lead to some kind of conclusion and all if any one of these things is missing then it is not called as an argument and all and no argument you will not come across an argument which does not consist of a premise and it is in consist of a conclusion and all and there is something it is like some kind of description or something like that. So what we mean by conclusion is that conclusion is that single kind of proposition which is supported by the other propositions. So there are in an argument what we have is at least you know three propositions out of these three propositions two seems to be supporting the other one and all the one which supports the other proposition is called as a conclusion and those things which are going to support they are called as premises and all. So what we mean by a premise is a proposition that provides basis of support for the conclusion. So what I am talking about is simply this that in an argument we have a conclusion and we have a premise and all. So premises usually support the conclusions or conclusion is supported by the premises. So now what we mean by a support etc and all when I talk about validity etc I will talk about what exactly I mean by and a premise is supporting a conclusion and all. So usually in the beginning we said that logic is also a study of good and bad reasoning and all I mean good and so we need to talk about what we mean by a good inference. Good inferences are those in which the premises provide adequate support for the conclusion and the bad ones are those in which the premises are inadequate to this task and all. So in an argument we have we find found out that there are premises and there is a conclusion and if the premises are supporting adequately supporting the conclusion then it is called as a good argument and the premises are not adequate enough to believe the conclusion to be true then it is called as a bad argument. So then we basically we just we are talking about some of the basic definitions of basic concepts of logic and in that you know we need to talk about all these things. So then the next concept which we need to define is the inference. So again if you refer to Oxford English dictionary it is also considered to be a noun inference is a kind of conclusion reached on the basis of evidence and reasoning. So the process of relating the conclusion by some kind of inferring so in a technical sense it is the reasoning process expressed by an arguer in an argument. So the reasoning process employed in for example if you say all men are mortal, socrates is man and socrates is mortal then in that socrates is mortal is inferred by these two premises that you know all men are mortal and socrates is man. So this process of moving from all men are mortal, socrates is man, socrates is mortal this process is called as a kind of inference process. So then once we identify this arguments and all then it is important to distinguish between formal and informal arguments and formal argument is like this. Suppose if you say the IITK administration must either energetically support the development of battery powered autos in the campus or else suffer increasing atmospheric pollution and the premise to says this IIT Kanpur must not suffer increasing atmospheric pollution. So it is denying the in the first premise the first line suggests that it is an antecedent and the second one suggesting us that it is a consequent. So the conclusion is this that the IIT Kanpur must energetically support the development of battery powered autos in the campus and all. So this particular thing has this particular kind of format the format is like this, so this has this particular kind of structure. So the first one is A and the second one is B and then we are denying the conclusion and then you need to deny the antecedent. So this argument is by virtue of the form it is valid kind of argument since it exhibits valid form it is a valid argument for example if you say that A implies B and then not A then if you infer not B then this is not a valid argument. So why it is a case I will explain it little bit later but this is a valid form and this is an invalid form invalid form since it exhibits invalid form it is an invalid argument and it is interesting to note that in an invalid arguments which usually exhibits in invalid forms irrespective of what you take into consideration for A and B whatever you substitute here for A and B they are just representing some kind of prepositions. So whatever you substitute for A and B that is going to be since it exhibits invalid form and all it is going to be invalid. So the example that we spoke we are talking about come under the category of the first one this. So the IITK administration must either energetically support the development of battery powered autos in the campus or else suffer an increasing atmospheric pollution and all. So actually this is usually represented as PRQ that is the first thing and then just once again then it is IITK must not suffer an increasing atmospheric pollution so this Q is represented this thing then this there is a rule in logic which says that PRQ and not Q then leads to this. So this is the one which we have to represent it for this example so the IITK administration must either energetically support the development of battery powered autos is represented by P and or else it will suffer increasing atmospheric pollution is represented as Q. So now the second premise says that IITK must not suffer increasing atmospheric pollution that means it is not Q. So then PRQ and not Q is the case then obviously Q is ruled out so P has to be the case so IITK must energetically support the development of battery powered autos in the campus. So this comes into the category of disjunctive syllogism so this is going to be valid whatever you substitute for P Q or which constitutes prepositions and all in this particular kind of case and all. Suppose if you look into the other one the one which I showed it on the board the argument 1 numbered 1 so A implies B and not B and not A so that is also come under the category of valid arguments and all since it exhibits valid formula and the second one A implies B and not A and if you say not B then it is invalid argument one example which we can take for the second argument which is called as which is considered as invalid argument you can say that if the grass is wet then if it rained then the grass is wet for example it use this thing for the second one if it rained grass is wet this is the first sentence which we are talking about you are talking about example 2 and all so this is the third example if it rained then the grass is wet obviously if it rains in a grass will be wet only so this is represented as A and this is represented as B so now not A is it did not rain it did not so now from these two arguments if you infer that grass is not wet grass is not if it rained then the grass is wet and it did not rain then the grass is wet so suppose if you have said that if it rained in the grass is wet and it indeed rained and all then you can say that grass is wet so in the second example we can come up with some kind of counter example with which you know your premises are true and the conclusion can be false so this is an invalid form so that is why it is called as invalid kind of argument if it rained the grass is wet and all so it did not rain then suppose if you infer this particular kind of thing in second suppose if you say even this also grass is right for example if you take this example into consideration aim plus B and not a and then if you infer B and all so then you will see the difference that it rained then the grass is wet that is obviously true suppose if it did not rain that also is a matter of fact and all then you look at the conclusion grass is wet and all so you can come up with a counter example you know grass can be wet in several other ways also so you might it might be the case that sprinkler might be on or somebody has poured some kind of water into it or some water has come from somewhere etc and all apart from rain and all so what is clear from this argument is this that if you write aim plus B and not a and from this you infer B and all this is clearly an invalid kind of argument it is invalid argument in the sense that it is invalid form and all and even in the example also you can clearly see that if it rained the grass is wet may be true it did not rain is also true then but still it is difficult for us to believe that grass is wet and all because of the fact that grass can be wet in several other ways so the sprinkler might be on or may be some other reason and all so that means we have come up with some kind of counter example in which the premises are true and the conclusion is false and all so especially when the when it is a case that a premises are true and conclusion is false and that is called as an invalid kind of argument I will talk about the validity part little bit later but what I am trying to say is that just by seeing the form itself we can say that it is kind of formal kind of argument and all because the arguments that I have expressed on the board has a clear cut form and all we can talk about validity are invalid a little bit later and all all this the ones which I have expressed on the board I mean they are all formal kind of arguments and all so then what are considered to be the informal kind of arguments and all so informal arguments are those arguments in which they do not express specific kind of form and all then you need to analyze the content of the argument and all so what is important here is that formal arguments exhibit some kind of form and all just by the virtue of form you can say that this is a formal argument so for example in this case PRQ or not Q and P the example that we have mentioned earlier but look at this other example which is there here suppose if you say this particular kind of thing somebody is trying to argue in this way so you saying this thing why do I have to study logic a question mark and then N he says he goes on and says I am going to be either a movie star or a contractor like my dad he goes on and says that he could not factor his way out of brick and all so there is no need to study logic in so in this particular kind of argument it does not exhibit any specific form and all like the one which we have earlier we have PRQ and not Q and P but in this second example we do not have any specific form which we can see in this particular kind of argument unless and until you analyze the content of the argument you will not be able to conclude anything this particular kind of case so those things which those arguments which requires the analysis of content they are called as informal kind of arguments and all so now it comes to the important question that how to distinguish form and content of an argument because we are saying that any argument which exhibits special specific form and all like the one which you showed it on the board they are formal arguments and the other ones are informal kind of arguments and informal arguments are those arguments which can be for which requires the analysis of content so what is form of an argument and all so the form of an argument is this logical structure or the manner in which the premises offer support to the conclusion and all if you look at any one of these examples 1 2 3 and all forget about whether it is valid or invalid but they exhibit some kind of form and all so PRQ and you deny the deny Q and then obviously it leads to the other possibility in the same way in the first argument A implies B and if you deny the consequent you have to deny the antecedent also where A is antecedent and B is the consequent here so in the second example A implies B and not A and if you say that B follows and that is also exhibit some kind of form and all but it is an invalid form that is why it is invalid argument we will talk about validity little bit later but at this moment we are trying to distinguish between form and the content of the argument. So now form also describes the relationship between the premises and the conclusion so you have to note that an argument that means the formal structure which is exhibited by 1 2 3 which are exhibited on which are shown on the board they are not considered to be true or false and all an argument cannot be true or false and all an argument can only be valid or invalid and all in the same way if you look at look into the prepositions then a preposition cannot be valid or invalid a preposition can only be true or false. So this is a common mistake which most of the students make it and all so that is this that I have to clearly note that an argument cannot be true or false an argument can only be valid or invalid or may be sound may be strong or weak in case of inductive arguments. So only prepositions can be both can be true or false suppose if you say this particular kind of thing this argument is little bit funny and all suppose if you say if elephants can fly then the rocks can float in water so you know that elephants cannot fly that is why you know you are saying that rocks can float in water. So elephants can fly then the rocks can float in water and all so these are the examples which are far away from the reality that we come across in day to day discourse. So but the thing is that these kinds of arguments still exhibit some specific kind of form so they are considered to be in this case if elephants can fly then the rocks can float on water can be represented as a implies b and the elephants can fly is represented as a then the rocks can float in water is represented as b. So a implies b and a and from this b follows so this is a perfectly valid kind of argument and all but it does not make any sense to us so unless until you know the arguer is trying to make some fun out of fun of someone else and all or something like that you can use make use of this particular kind of argument but you have to note that this argument exhibits some kind of valid form that is why it is a valid kind of argument. So if you take the other thing into consideration content of the argument the content of an argument is the group of actual prepositions that comprise the argument so it is with respect to the content alone that we may consider its truth and falsehood of the preposition. So these prepositions are true or false with respect to some kind of context etc and all you have to analyze the content of the preposition so that then only you will come to know whether it is true or false you have to put it into the context and all. Suppose if you take into consideration this one this is a very funny example key is better than nothing obviously anyone who is hungry and all if he has nothing and all if he is presented with key and all obviously you will be very happy then the second preposition is this that nothing is better than eternal happiness and of course everyone is in this world is craving for is striving for some kind of eternal happiness after our purpose of life is to be happy enough. So nothing is better than eternal happiness if these two are considered to be true then obviously you infer that key is better than eternal happiness here is just some kind of material kind of need which we need it and all for coming out of hunger etc. But that may not give us some kind of eternal happiness. So clearly if you do not analyze the content of the argument and all that means the premises that you have used here this argument seems to be perfectly valid kind of argument. So unless until you analyze the content of the argument you will not come to know whether it is valid or invalid and all. So these arguments requires the analysis of content only if you can analyze the content of the argument and you will come to know that this is valid or invalid kind of argument and all. So at least you know we will not believe this particular kind of thing key is better than nothing nothing is better than eternal happiness then key is better than eternal happiness and all. Suppose if you follow some kind of formal structure for this one A implies B B implies C then A implies C you know but you know the argument if you do not take into consideration the content of an argument then there is no way to judge whether this argument is at least a good one or bad one and all. So now the second issue is that we have said that logic is a systematic study of argumentation and it is also a study of different forms of reasoning and all. So that content can deal with anything that is it can be mathematics, it can be cooking, it can be physics, it can be ethics and whatever. So logic is basically used as a tool a justificatory tool you know which appears in all the subjects and all. So that is why you know it cannot be studied separately independent subject and all but it is part and parcel of all these things and all. So let us use tools of logic, physics also use tools of logic etc. So when you learn logic what you are simply doing is learning the tools of reasoning that can be applied to any subject and all. For example the rules that I have used on the board there are inferential rules which can be used in any subject matter, subject matter can be anything it can be mathematics, it can be cooking, it can be even physics etc. So basically logic is used as a justificatory tool. So now we have said that an argument consists of premises and a conclusion. So now we will go into the details of what we mean by premises and what we mean by a conclusion of an argument and then how to identify premises and how to identify a conclusion in a given argument. So one of the definitions of premise is that premises are the statements that means the sentence can be spoken as a true or false that is the meaning of a statement that set forth reasons are evidence you know. So the statements for example if you are given a passage which consists of different group of statements. So in the passage suppose if you want to identify the premises and identify the conclusions then we need to define what we mean by premises. The premises are those statements which set forth reasons are evidence. So if you take into consideration Oxford English dictionary it says this thing and a conclusion can be treated as this thing and end or a finish or summing up of an argument or a text or a judgment or a decision reached by reasoning the settling of a treaty or an agreement etc is called as a conclusion. But in the course in logic what we use is this thing a conclusion is statement that the evidence is claimed to support or imply a particular kind of thing. So premises set forth reasons are evidence etc and all and that is these premises support some other kind of proposition the other proposition which we are calling it as a conclusion. For example if you say all metals expands upon heating and iron is a metal then iron expands upon heating in this particular kind of argument iron expands upon heating is a conclusion whereas it is supported by these two premises and all metals expands upon heating and iron is a metal. So the premises seems to be supporting the conclusion if it adequately supports the conclusion it is called as a good argument if it premises are not adequate enough to believe the conclusion to be true then it is a bad argument. We are not interested in good and bad kind of things we are subjective kind of judgments but we use a different kind of term and all validity etc. So what are the questions that we need to ask ourselves to identify premises and conclusion in a given English language passage and all first we need to identify what are premises and what are conclusions then once you identify premises and conclusion then you will look into whether the premises are leading to the conclusion whether the premises are giving sufficient evidence to believe the conclusion to be true or not is the one which we will think of. So now the most important question that we will ask is how do we recognize arguments that means recognizing argument in a sense that we need to recognize the premises we need to recognize the conclusion and then how these premises are leading to the conclusion is the one which we need to see. How one distinguishes arguments from non-arguments suppose in an English language passage and you found out some premises and your conclusion then the premises are leading to conclusion then you call it as an argument and it has a specific structure and all the structure is that it has premises and it has a conclusion and there is an inferential claim made in the arguments and all suppose if this kind of inferential claim is missing in some kind of passages let us say a group of statements leading to another one and all but this inferential claim is missing then it is called as a non inferential passage and that comes under the category of non-arguments. So basically what is that we are trying to do is that we are trying to distinguish between arguments and non-arguments. Arguments exhibit some specific type of structure whereas non-arguments we do not have such kind of structure. Arguments are inferential whereas non-arguments are non-inferential so we talk about what we mean by inferential and non-inferential little bit later. So only when an argument has been identified we will be able to critically examine in a clear and objective fashion is the task of a logician to identify what he means by an argument what he has to come up with some kind of arguments then only he can judge whether he can start criticizing that particular kind of argument you can say that the argument is not good enough or you can say that argument is strong weak or all these things you can come up with for that you need to have you need to come up with an argument for an argument what we need is premises and conclusion. So first and foremost thing which we will be doing is we will identify the conclusion and all. So the conclusion there are some indicators for identifying the conclusion in a given English language passage and all. So what is happening here is you know you are given an English language passage which consists of group of statements and all it is covered with so many other things and all exclamatory or languages used in so many senses and all that is what we have seen earlier. So how to identify a conclusion in a given passage and all English language passage suppose if you are reading a newspaper reading something else science scientific text or something like that. So how do you identify the conclusion in group of statements and all. So usually conclusion indicators are these things. So the statements which which and begins with so therefore consequently accordingly thus hence the most basic commonly used one is therefore and consequently and all this is the one which you usually come across in most of the English language passages. Suppose if you come across another word which begins sentence which begins with hence or it can be inferred that suppose it begins with a phrase it follows that or from these facts it can be concluded that and then so and so and all or if you say that this implies that something follows after that this entails that it follows that etc. All these things are will come under the category of conclusion indicators and you should note that this is not an exhaustive list. So there may be several other indicators and all which connotes the some of the meanings of which we have used already it might come closer to maybe thus or hence or something like that therefore etc there may be many other phrases which come under the category of conclusion. So now once we identify with the help of a conclusion indicator that here is a conclusion in a given English language passage then the next question that we need to ask is what are the premises what are going to be the indicator phrases for identifying the premises. Premises can be identified by these indicators and again the list is not exhaustive and we are not saying that these are the only things which constitutes the premise indicators there may be many things which comes closer to one of these things. So just you know this is our task to identify the premises in a conclusion once you identify the premises in a conclusion then we can say that this is the presence of argument and all once you have an argument then you can start criticizing it and all. So after all we are all talking about critical thinking so what is the premise is a previous statement from which another statement is inferred and all what is inferred is a conclusion and the previous statements are all premises and all. There are many phrases and words that provides clues to the presence of a premise and these are the indicators and all because for since the most basically most commonly used word is since and all whenever you come across something which begins with since or given that for the reason that as from the fact that etc or for the following reason this follows from a seeing that etc all these things comes under the premise indicators once you identify one of these phrases and it begins with these kinds of sentences which follows after these things and we can say that premises are present in a given passage and all. So here are some of the examples in which you know we can identify what are premises and what are conclusions in all so the first look into the first example IIT education is a good thing but costly somebody is arguing like this a lot of students depend on bank loans scholarships to pay their tuition fees etc now suppose all of a sudden if banks discontinue loans scholarships and that would mean that fewer students could afford this IIT education because it is costly and all of a sudden they stop this scholarships etc and all they will know way in which they can they can pay the tuition fees and all. So now in this kind of English language passes the one which we have said earlier is that you have to identify the premise and conclusion indicators so now the first thing which you need to find out a strategy is to find out the conclusion indicators so now we can clearly see that in the last line of the first argument therefore is there so whatever follows after therefore is considered as a conclusion so hence the conclusion here is this thing discontinuing bank loans and scholarships would be a bad thing so that is called as a conclusion now once you identify the conclusion you need to find out what supports this particular kind of conclusion because what supports this kind of statement are considered to be the premises in all so the one which is previously followed by this conclusion are said to be the premises in all for example all these things IIT education is a good thing but costly a lot of students depend upon bank loans scholarships pay the tuition fees etc discontinuing bank loans etc all seems to be supporting this the final fact that bank loans discontinuing bank loans and scholarships would be would be a very costly if I become costly for the student. Now consider the second example with this we will end this first lecture so smoking is bad for your health so now the one in the bold letters is a premise indicator so because it destroys the healthy functioning of your lungs anything that destroys the healthy functioning of your lungs is bad for your health so now the first sentence smoking is bad for your health why it is the case you know is your it is supported by the statements which followed follows after the phrase because so that is why smoking is bad for your health is a conclusion and then whatever follows after that seems to be supporting why smoking is bad etc so in the same way in the third example punishment does not deter crime unless it it is swift and certain unless until you give some kind of strong punishment and all this crime will continue and all the punishment is not shift swift and and certain in the justice system of India therefore whatever follows therefore the punishment does not deter crime in the justice system of India that is seems to be the conclusion and whatever is before that the punishment does not deter crime unless it is swift etc they are all considered to be premises so in this lecture what we all considered is simply this that we have identified what we have talked about what we mean by an argument we said that argument consists of a premise and a conclusion then we also talked about how to identify premise and a conclusion in a English language passage we said that whenever you have a premise indicators you say that the English language passes consist of a premise and if you have a conclusion indicator then you can say that there is a conclusion present in the given passage now so now the next question which arises is that suppose if the premise and conclusion indicators are absent in a given English language passage how to identify that it is an argument or in the next lecture we will consider what we mean by a non-argument how to distinguish arguments from non-argument and what kind of specific structure argument will have all these questions which we will try to answer in the next lecture.