BLS LLB 5 Years Sem 1 Logic 1 2021-22 Question Paper with Solutions

Answer: (a) Subject term, Predicate term.

On the reading the options allow, the question is about the parts of a proposition and what joins them: the copula combines the subject term and the predicate term, which are the constituents of the proposition.

Why the others are wrong. Universal and particular are the two quantities of a proposition, not its parts. Traditional and modern are two schemes of classification. Contrary and contradictory are relations between propositions.

Answer: (a) Categorical.

The square of opposition sets out the relations between the four CATEGORICAL propositions, A, E, I and O, which have the same subject and the same predicate and differ in quantity, in quality, or in both.

Why the others are wrong. A hypothetical proposition is of the form "if ... then", a disjunctive of the form "either ... or", and conditional is the genus covering both. None of them has a quantity or a quality, so none can stand at a corner of the square.

Why the others are wrong. Conversion interchanges subject and predicate and would give "Misery is life". Inference by converse relation turns "A is the father of B" into "B is the child of A". Inference by complex conception adds the same relation to both terms, as in "a horse is an animal, therefore the head of a horse is the head of an animal".

Answer: (b) Physical.

Physical division, also called partition, is the separation of an individual object into the separable parts of which it is made. A dial and a spring are parts of a watch, not kinds of watch, so what has been done is partition and not logical division.

Why the others are wrong. Verbal division separates a word into its several meanings, as "watch" into a timepiece and a sentry. Metaphysical division separates a thing into its inseparable attributes, as man into animality and rationality. Enumeration names the individuals of a class, not the parts of an object.

Answer: (c) Biverbal definition.

A biverbal definition, also called a definition by synonym, defines a word or phrase by giving another of the same meaning, often in another language: "sloth means laziness", "vidhi means law", "to be a pain in the neck means to be irritating".

Why the others are wrong. An ostensive definition points at an instance: "this is a pen". An extensive definition enumerates what the term denotes: "a metal is a substance such as gold, silver, copper". A lexical definition is a classification by purpose, meaning one that reports existing usage, and it may be given by any technique, including this one.

Answer: (c) Analogy.

Analogy is that form of inference in which, from the resemblance of two things in certain respects, we conclude that they resemble each other in some further respect. Its conclusion is probable only, and it moves from particular to particular.

Why the others are wrong. A dilemma is a compound argument combining a hypothetical and a disjunctive premise. A syllogism is a mediate deductive inference from two premises through a middle term. Deductive names the kind of inference in which the conclusion follows necessarily, which is the opposite of reasoning from similarity.

Answer: (c) Both Subject and Predicate.

The Universal Negative is the E proposition, "No S is P", and it distributes both its terms.

Why. It is universal, so the whole of the subject is spoken of and the subject is distributed. It is negative, and to shut the subject out of a class is to shut it out of every member of that class, so the predicate is distributed too.

Why the others are wrong. The A proposition distributes the subject only; the O proposition the predicate only; the I proposition neither. Verb is not a term.

Answer: (a) Conjunctive.

The sentence asserts two things at once, joined by "but": that he is the Prime Minister, and that he is not the President. "But" is a sign of conjunction exactly as "and" is; the difference between them is one of suggestion and not of truth value.

Let p = Mr Modi is the Prime Minister of India; q = Mr Modi is the President. The proposition is p · ~q.

Why the others are wrong. A disjunctive proposition offers alternatives, "either ... or". An implicative or conditional proposition asserts one thing on condition of another, "if ... then". A biconditional asserts equivalence, "if and only if". None of the three asserts either component outright, and this sentence asserts both.

Why the others are wrong. True is what the conditional is on the other three rows. Doubtful is a verdict in the doctrine of opposition, not in a truth table, where every row has a definite value. Meaningless would be the answer only if the sentence were not a proposition at all.

Answer: (b) True.

Circumstantial evidence is used constantly in criminal trials, and a conviction may rest on it alone. Direct evidence of the offence is frequently unavailable, and the law has developed a settled body of rules for when a chain of circumstances is enough.

Those conditions were laid down in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v State of Maharashtra AIR 1984 SC 1622: the circumstances must be fully established; they must be consistent only with the guilt of the accused; they must be conclusive in nature; they must exclude every hypothesis but guilt; and they must form a complete chain leaving no reasonable ground for innocence.

Answer: (c) Public and private.

Nuisance is an unlawful interference with a person's use or enjoyment of land, or of some right over it, and it is of two kinds.

Public nuisance causes common injury, danger or annoyance to the public or to people in general in the vicinity: Section 268 of the Indian Penal Code 1860, now Section 270 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023. It is a crime, and an individual may sue in tort only on proof of special damage.

Private nuisance is an unreasonable interference with a particular person's use or enjoyment of land. It is a tort, and only the occupier of the affected land may sue.

Why the others are wrong. None of the other three pairs names a recognised division of nuisance in the law of torts.

Definition

Logic is the science and the art of reasoning: the study of the methods and principles by which correct reasoning is distinguished from incorrect reasoning. The word is from the Greek logos, and the subject was founded by Aristotle, whose logical works are the Organon.

Two uses in law

1. The judgment is a syllogism. The rule of law is the major premise, the facts as found are the minor premise, and the order is the conclusion.

Whoever commits theft shall be punished with imprisonment (Section 379 IPC).
The accused has committed theft.
Therefore the accused shall be punished with imprisonment.

Because the form is a syllogism, an attack can be aimed at either premise, and the whole distinction between an appeal on law and an appeal on fact is the distinction between attacking the major and attacking the minor.

The two defined

A component of a compound proposition is a part of it which is itself a proposition, and which, if replaced by any other proposition, would leave the whole a meaningful proposition.

A constituent is any part of a proposition whatever, whether or not it is itself a proposition, and whether or not it can be replaced in that way.

Illustrated

Where a part is both: in "Rama is honest and Shyam is diligent", the part "Rama is honest" is a constituent, and it is also a component: put any other proposition in its place, say "the sun is hot and Shyam is diligent", and the whole is still a proposition.

Where a part is only a constituent: in "The man who is tall is clever", the words "the man is tall" form a proposition and are a constituent, but they are not a component: substitute another proposition and you get "the man the sun is hot is clever", which is nonsense.

The definition

Logical division is the process of separating a class, called the genus, into the sub-classes or species contained under it, on the basis of a single attribute.

Its three elements are the totum divisum, the class divided; the membra dividentia, the dividing members; and the fundamentum divisionis, the single attribute on which the division rests.

Two fallacies

1. Cross-division, the breach of the rule that only one fundamentum divisionis may be used at each step.

Example: "Books into English, historical and cheap." Three bases are at work at once, language, subject and price, so there is no single question to which each book gives one answer. The members also overlap, because a book may be English and cheap together.

2. Incomplete division, the breach of the rule that the division must be exhaustive, that is, that the members taken together must equal the genus.

The distribution rule

Universals distribute the subject; negatives distribute the predicate.

(a) Every student is honest.

All students are honest persons. (A proposition)

Distributed: the subject, "students", only. "Every" is a universal sign; being affirmative, the predicate is undistributed.

The three laws

1. The Law of Identity. Whatever is, is. A is A, or p ⊃ p. Applied to propositions: a proposition keeps one and the same meaning throughout an argument, and a term in it keeps one sense.

2. The Law of Contradiction. Nothing can both be and not be at the same time and in the same respect. ~(p · ~p). Applied to propositions: two contradictory propositions cannot both be true.

3. The Law of Excluded Middle. Everything must either be or not be. p v ~p. Applied to propositions: two contradictory propositions cannot both be false, so exactly one of them is true.

As applied to the square of opposition

The three laws are what the square is built out of, and setting it out that way is the answer this question is asking for.

The statutory definition

Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 defines "industry" as any business, trade, undertaking, manufacture or calling of employers, and includes any calling, service, employment, handicraft, or industrial occupation or avocation of workmen.

The leading case: the triple test

Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board v A. Rajappa (1978) 2 SCC 213, a seven-judge Bench, laid down the triple test. An activity is an industry where there is:

1. systematic activity;
2. organised by co-operation between employer and employee;
3. for the production or distribution of goods and services calculated to satisfy human wants and wishes.

(a) State the obverse and converse of "No humans are perfect". (E)

An E proposition, as the paper's own note says.

Obverse (A): All humans are non-perfect, that is, all humans are imperfect.

Rule: change the quality from negative to affirmative and replace the predicate by its contradictory. The quantity is untouched.

Converse (E): No perfect beings are humans.

Rule: an E proposition converts simply, because both its terms are distributed in the original, so nothing can be distributed in the converse that was not distributed before.

(b) State the sub-contrary of "All crimes are punishable".

An A proposition.

The rule quoted

The sentence states the rule against circularity, and the fallacy of breaking it is circulus in definiendo, the circle in defining. The definiendum, the term to be defined, must not appear in the definiens, the defining expression.

The words "directly or indirectly" are the important part, because circularity comes in three degrees:

1. Directly, by repeating the term: "A compulsive gambler is a person who gambles compulsively."
2. Indirectly, by synonym: "Freedom is liberty."
3. Indirectly, by correlative: "A cause is that which produces an effect", since cause and effect are each intelligible only through the other.

Its connection with per genus et differentiam

Definition per genus et differentiam is what makes the rule satisfiable, and that is the connection the question asks for.

The definition

Analogy is that form of inference in which, from the resemblance of two things in certain respects, we conclude that they resemble each other in some further respect.

A and B resemble each other in the properties p, q and r.
A has the further property s.
Therefore B probably has s.

It moves from particular to particular and its conclusion is probable, so an analogy is never valid or invalid, only strong or weak.

The factors on which its strength depends

1. The number of resembling points. The more the two things agree in, the less likely the agreement is a coincidence.
2. The relevance of the resemblances to the property inferred. The decisive factor. A resemblance counts only if it is causally connected with the conclusion: two cars of the same colour tell us nothing about their engines, two of the same model tell us a great deal.

The two rules that decide every answer

The universal quantifier (x) takes an implication; the existential quantifier (∃x) takes a conjunction.

(a) Most Indians believe in karma. (Ix, Bx)

(∃x)(Ix · Bx)

An I proposition. "Most" is a sign of particular quantity: logic recognises only two quantities, so most, many, several and a few all reduce to "some", and the proposition asserts of a part of the subject without saying how large a part.

(b) Nothing is changeless. (Cx)

~(∃x)Cx, equivalently (x)~Cx