Welcome back. It's time for our very first hot topic. I want to take a look at the troops that have been deployed to the South East by the Chief of Army staff to counter iPops sit-at-home order. That order was given by Finland-based pro-Biafra agitator Simon Ekba, who has said that with effect from Monday, July 31, that two weeks sit-at-home will be enforced in the South East to demand for the immediate and unconditional release of Masi Namdi Kano, amongst other requests that he has. I've been joined by Reverend Joseph John Hayap, Chairman, Cairn Cardinal State, who's joining us this morning from Cardinal State. Good morning to you, Reverend John Hayap. Good morning and best of the day to all our viewers. Thank you so much, Reverend. Reverend, how are you looking at this? How are you processing this latest development regarding the insecurity situation in the South East? The federal government is deploying troops down there to counter this order by pro-Biafra agitator Simon Ekba. Well, let me begin my response by applauding the Chief of Army staff. When General Laguagia was sent to the One Macanize Division in Kaduna, for those of us who followed his activities and antecedent, he came out in full force. He went out and led the troop to fish out bandits, to fish out terrorists that have been tormenting and denying the people of Kaduna peace. Unfortunately, the power that be at that time, for reason they know that we may not know, decided to pull him out immediately and sent him to a new post. I am happy to debate because we are still around that this same man that we applaud, this same man that we cherish, this same man that we believe had a good intention, is now the Chief of Army staff. And the essence of this change in the service chief was to inject a new spirit to checkmate the insecurity that has debatable the entire country, not just the South East. So to me, this is a welcome development. Now to the issue of the South East. It is sad and unfortunate that in this age, some characters or individuals for whatever reason would choose to straddle problems for their people. Every Nigeria, irrespective of region or identity, knows that things have not been going well across this country in the past years.  And you are not government.  You are saying that what you want is a Biafra Nation. If you want to be Biafra Nation, you don't go like that to get the Biafra Nation. That means that even if you get the Biafra Nation, the people you are claiming or you are parodying yourself to be defending, we are going to be terrorized. So I find the way and the approach of IPOC quite ridiculous, not matured to today's war. I feel that there are better ways that this group of people can point out their demands and insist their demands are met than what they are saying. Recently, the photos and the kind of information we read about those who parent themselves as the leaders of this group that are forced into innocent citizens to sit at home. They don't even have integrity. Neither do they have a good testimony of life. But they are just exploiting the pens and the sorrow, the poor leadership that we are having in this country and saying that they are fighting for the people. And in reality, they are only just fighting for themselves. I want to challenge those who care to listen. That unless our government sit up and show that in this country we have a government, we have powers that we have authority, we have a constitution, and no one will just come and terrorize fellow citizens. We will be in problem. If you think that what they are doing is good and you clap for them, another new group will come. Years back, the government of Nigeria faced the United States volunteers as they called themselves. They terrorized people. We knew how they were dealt with before they stopped. And we know the other group of Boko Haram. And we later came with bandits in Northwest. So we can allow our country to be hijacked by some people, hiding under whatever guise to say they want to fight for people. Well, in reality, they are enjoying themselves abroad. They are having a field day. They don't even care where those people go. Look, I have traveled to many parts of the South East. The fact is that in the last four months or three months, I have been to many places. I can see the commitment of local women, villagers, because I actually went to villages, not cities. I only slept in the city, but every day I go to certain villages. See the commitment, the desire by the people to come out and end a living. The desire by the people to come out and have something to feed their children. The desire by the people to come out and make sure they have something that they can feed their children's food. And you just sit and say, nobody comes out in the whole day. Have you have their economy? Have you have their life? Have you have them in anything?  I think something is wrong. So I applaud the Chippupamistab. And I pray that he's not just going to be with IFO. These kind of groups that I imagine from different areas in Nigeria or different regions in Nigeria and terrorizing Nigeria have a good feeling that they are quite important people. Should know that we have a government. Yeah, it's interesting to have you commend General Tariq Lagbajan saying that he's done well in the past. And I find that quite commendable. However, I also know that no government worth is sought would negotiate with terrorists, right? So indeed, move in the right direction. However, how would you respond to those who are saying, look, what is happening with this case is a very peculiar one in the sense that the I-POP man, Masi Kano Nandi has been, a court has ordered for his release. And the states, the Southeast Governors, a lot of them and their leaders indeed have called for the release of this man. Shouldn't the first step at arriving or achieving peace in that region be to release this man? Well, that's another issue altogether. I don't subscribe to government or the executive to refuse to obey the order of the court. We should be governed by the rule of law, which means as a citizen and also our government must obey our court. If we don't obey the judgment of our court we are calling for anarchy. So those who have the powers those who are responsible for this, most listening if the court have ruled that the man should be given on bail allow him go and then watch over and watch all his movement. After all, we know the effort government put in and the amount of the kind of investment government did to fetch this man out there or to arrest this man wherever they arrested him and brought him back to Nigeria. That means the man has nowhere to go and hide and they cannot fish him out. So government must learn to obey court orders. But we see as we ask government to obey court orders we must also tell those who are also taking the laws into their hands that what they are doing is wrong.  Can they exploit a way of dialogue? Can they exploit a way of putting some kind of pressure on government to release this Nnamdi Karnu and I think there's nothing wrong in the releasing him as long as the court has ruled so. But what we don't want is that some people hiding in the name of Nnamdi Karnu or hiding on the name of iPhone and terrorizing, unfortunately they are actually terrorizing their innocent brothers and sisters. They are denying them the peace and the joy they are supposed to have. They are hindering them from going out to do their business and to seek for their daily source of livelihood. So what kind of struggle is that? A struggle that you end up destroying yourself? That's not struggle. A struggle is to find peace for yourself, is to find freedom for yourself, is to find joy for yourself, is to find opening for yourself. But a freedom that you end up terrorizing your own. So after getting the freedom and the people are dead because of hunger who will succeed, who will remain in the Biafran nation? As much as I understand what they are agitating for and as much as we want fairness and justice in Nigeria but we should be to call this group that you are not doing it right, you are not doing it in a civilized way, you are not doing it in a mature way, you are not doing it as people who understand. You are instead terrorizing your people. So that's why government can hide and call them terrorists and will not negotiate with them. But if they are limited to the issue of really fighting for their people everybody will understand. After all, my people in South Dakota also have their consign and troubles with this government. Other people in other regions of this country also have their consign and trouble with this government. Let's assume all these groups just come out now. They wouldn't have a country. And we don't have a country then who are you going to be discussing with? I want them to do or to seek for the release of Nnamdi Kanu but not at the expense of the joy, the freedom of their local people who do not even understand what is going on. Indeed. We've seen videos. How did they survive? We've seen videos. We've heard reports of people who have been killed, maimed, properties burnt in the southeast. The growth of that region has been stunted. Definitely no investor would go to the southeast for anything. Matter of fact, being deployed or transferred. Any day they are enforcing that order of seat at home. You beat people. No, no, that's not human. That's the violation of the right of the people. They don't just love them. They also kill them. How do you violate the right of people when you want freedom? Reverend, my question is this. Having looked at how this whole drama is affecting that region, would you say that the movers and shakers of the Igbo people, among the Igbo people, you just alluded to the fact that they have great people from that area. Would you accept the fact that, or accept the opinion in some quarters that they are not doing enough on their own to put an end to this, to arrest this situation, the Igbo people, the movers and shakers among the Igbo people? The response to that, your statement or that your question is a yes and no. It's no because if you look at the characters placing this seat at home order, their attitude, their lifestyle, you may be tempted to conclude that they are the kind who do not listen to anybody. It seems those leaders and those old great men of the Igbo land may have tried to help them see, but as far as they are concerned, they see those people as failure, so they just want to do things their own way. And there's a limit to how you can force yourself on people if you're advising them. Sometimes those people may have advised them and they terrorize the people or terrorize members of their families, and they are trying to avoid that and they don't want to go into this real conflict looking at the situation at the moment. So that is one side of it. The other side of it is well, most of those who are actually making this agitation, you know are not living in this country. They are actually having a field. Exactly. The Igbo man is based in Finland. I call it a field. They enjoy themselves going to the beach and having fun. Well, so who do you even talk to? Now, these are people that if you carry your phone and call them, the chances is that they will record your voice, go and change the whole conversation and present and blackmail you. So everybody is so scared of even discussing with them. And that's why as Nigerians we must collectively tell each other the truth. I am a Nigerian. My father fought in the Igbo war. The fact is that my father was among those Amis that were forced to retire prematurely because they were injured during the war. And I feel time has come that Nigerians must go together, work together and unite. But the way and manners of people will just take all of us for granted and to take us for a ride. I think we don't know what we are doing. It's not good enough for Nigeria. Yeah, but the fact that some of these... It's not good enough for the region that they are protecting. It's not good enough for even the future of the kind of governance we want to see in Nigeria. If our government is bad, we have other ways we can collectively put pressure on them to change and meet up with the current realities of the war. But you just come up and terrorise everybody and I give a picture that does not exist and I have met many part of the stories that comes out from typo. I am sad that over 85% of the stories are just fake stories that cannot make any sense. Reverend, the fact that some of these non-state actors are not based in Nigeria, like Simon Iqba, for instance, based in Finland, does it mean that their people should not... Iqba people are all over the place. All over the place. Very successful, very strong, very powerful men and women, home and abroad. It still doesn't mean that they shouldn't be able to arrest this situation. Nip it in the butt. Matter of fact, years back, they should have... I saw a video recently inditing some Iqba sons and daughters over the same matter. And I'm saying, can't they or couldn't they have done more or better in securing the lives of their people and their region before now? Well, in the past eight years, the drama surrounding these agitations and the crime was like a full analysation agenda. Unfortunately, unfortunately, for us now, that era is over. I can see effort by the current, some of the governors in some of the Southeast states beginning to storm the authority and say, no, no more. I just don't want them to speak to the media. I want them to act. I want them to join force with the Chief of Army staff and every other security agency to ensure that this evil stopped. So, if it has not started on time, now something has started. Let's even look at what the Chief of Army staff is doing. He needs the support of their governors. He needs the support of their stakeholders. Even in the past, they were afraid to talk. In the past, they have spoken by those group that didn't listen to them. Now that there's a commitment from government, now that there's a commitment from the security agency, please support them and let's bring to a stop this.  People shouldn't just have a particular day that they cannot go out. People shouldn't just have a particular day that some faceless individuals are denying them even to go out and seek for their death because so many innocent people out of their quest to get food or get their daily living came out on such dates and were killed or men or injured for no reason. I think that's where some of us as Nigerians are saying, stop this. Let's stop this. Let's do this. Okay. You can continue your Biafra agitation. You have other ways to do it. You may even have support from other places, but please don't torment and terrorize innocent people who have no understanding of exactly what you are doing, who are not even enjoying one quarter of what you are enjoying and you are claiming to be fighting for them. You can't fight for us and you are living such kind of life and you are putting us in pain. I think that's more fight. If it is a fight you want for us, let's fight and feel the pains together. Let's fight and feel the deprivation together. Let's fight and feel the denial together. If it is really sitting at home, come and let's sit at home together so that we know you really mean sitting at home. Are they, can they honestly tell Nigerians that on such date they also sit at home? No, they are somewhere doing their businesses. So that sit at home order to me does not make any impact because you've not stopped work in Ahuja. Neither have you stopped businesses in Kanu. Neither have you stopped businesses in Lagos. Neither have you stopped anything going on in Koyi. You just torment your people, particularly your people, the one you are claiming to be fighting for. I'm not sure that's the wise way of doing it. And now that there is an effort from the Chief Obamistar and I believe that back by the new president the key Igbo leaders, the responsible Igbo elders should support this. If anybody had accused in the past that you were not supportive now you've gotten an opening. And there was no opening for you to give support. Now there is an opening. So let's see what goes on from now forward so that we don't do too much in the past and do the blame game. Now that an opportunity has given itself, make itself available, let's capitalize on it and stop this. The people of Southeast Nigeria must be free. The people of Southeast Nigeria must be happy. The people of Southeast Nigeria should enjoy their freedom. No one should trample on their right, hiding under fighting for them when in reality he's actually doing his serve agenda. All right. There is also an anger to this whole Biafra agitation thing that I should probably ask you about. How would you respond to those who feel that the Nigerian state itself has not been fair to the region of the Southeast region? There have been lots of injustices and probably some have also said there's been lack of genuine concern for the welfare and well-being of people of the Southeast. And also, why do you think that governments, the last government and this government, does not appear from the body languages that we've seen to be interested in probably having some sort of discussion with Innamdikano as some have advocated? Okay. Well, let's put it this way. The previous government was not fair to more than 80% or 70% of Nigerians. It's not just the Southeast people. The last administration was not fair to my people, was not fair to all the sides of Nigerians. But the groups, because of certain reasons, didn't tarry dagger against government and do not show that they were not angry with government. We did voice out our concern. We did cry out and show Nigerians that things are not going well. There was this agenda that we didn't understand. So, the Southeast is not exempted. But let's quickly also go a little bit backward. Now, the Southeast is being honest with Nigeria and tell Nigeria what happened from 1999 to today. If you want to go and look at status, the Southeast has benefited from Nigerian government from 1999, till Bohari's government to be candid. Let's be honest to ourselves and stop this game. Look at the appointment. They've had central bank government. They've had the minister of finance. They have, even in the last document, one minister that served long was the minister of foreign affairs. He's either from Delta or at least of the Igbo Instruction. We have also other ministers that served long. It is not just like that. My tribe have not also produced precedent. Other tribes have not also produced precedent. So, this thing is a Nigerian challenge that we have to collectively sit down and address it, collectively sit down and fight it so that there will be a true federal character, a respected federal character in Nigeria. It's not just an Igbo thing. It is also about me. It's also about other tribes in Nigeria. So, as the Biafra or Apua are fighting, let them remember that there are other Nigerians who also are aggrieved with the way things are. So, why don't they seek to connect with other Nigerians who also feel the same, so that the fight will not just be a tribal fight or one regional fight, but a larger Nigerian group who feel disenchanted, who feel not being carried along by Nigerian government. But if we are going to look at statutes, it is not fair for such group to actually say they are not. In the government of Good Luck, Jonathan, from the SSG to a key office, policy makers and certain office holders was, in the whole time of Obasenjo, the Senate presidents, demands that they were given the slot of the Senate President in the eight years because of certain things they know better than we do. They keep having issues that they change up to within one administration, the same administration, they had over four or five people who went from the same instruction, serving as Senate President. If at that time as lawmaker, and if it was Senate President of Nigeria that killed the third time of Obasenjo, how could that also have worked for them, for him to bring up certain laws during his time as Senate President that would have corrected some of the things we are doing. So sometimes people throw over accusation as if nothing has ever come to them. They should also look back that certain things actually came to them. We will not even have a deputy speaker in my village, or in my area, or a deputy, or a minority leader in the Senate, or in the House of Brave in my area. So they are better off. And you see, the problem we have in this country, which we must address is, people just think that everything in Nigeria falls down on Igbo, Hausa, and Europe. But no, the larger groups make up Nigeria are more than these three groups. But because the way and manner we present this country, people just assume there's no other person except these three, no. There are larger people. So let's think Nigeria, let's respect others in Nigeria, let's keep opportunity, let's understand that others too are not happy with the things going on. So let's now find a way of connecting, working together with those other people who feel the same way we feel so that we can force correction, we can force the change, we can force good governance in our country. But when we terrorize our people in the guys that we want government to listen to us, to me it is not right. For government, Namdikalu have been arrested by you. You've taken him to court. You have kept him long. The courts have ruled. So obey the law. You see, unless and until our government start understanding that the reason why we are having confessions and groups coming out to fight the nation is because we ourselves have not obeyed our rules. Once we obey court orders and then make it clear that if you violate our rules we will deal with you. That is a good place. We also must act in accordance with the law.  That is a perfect place to end this conversation Reverend Joseph Hayab. Let's think Nigeria. Thank you so much for your time. It's always a pleasure discussing with you. I hope things are getting better in Kaduna State. You had said that you were hopeful that with the new governor that things may take a new turn in Kaduna State. Are you seeing any signs, any ray of light there now? Well, at the moment the situation in the country is calming down and yet there are pockets of kidnappings and attacks but not as pronounced as it was in the past likely because the bandits or the terrorists are not so sure to follow up and they are careful not to put themselves in trouble and we want those in authority to keep that temple let the bandits be on the run not sitting down to be strategized. The reason why they had a few days eight years ago was they were sitting down comfortably just strategizing what to do next what to do next. Nobody was keeping them on the run and that's why they can keep people and have to give them food because they are living in comfort. Thank you so much Reverend Joseph Hayab. You're welcome. Reverend Joseph John Hayab Chairman Kent Kaduna State was our guest on the first hot topic. Time for our second hot topic. We'll bring that right now after this moment. Stay with us.


Hello friends, I am Sanjay Gupta. In this video, I am going to demonstrate you how you can use fgetc function in file handling Before starting, you can note how you can search my YouTube channel. You can type my name Sanjay Gupta in YouTube. My channel will be available there. You can watch various programming related videos here. Now I am going to demonstrate you the use of fgetc. First of all, I am going to include two header files. First one is std.h and second one is stdlib.h. Now I am going to define main function. Inside main function, I am declaring a file pointer that is fp. Then I am declaring a character variable that is ch. After declaration of this character variable, I am going to open the file using fopen function. So in fopen function, I have to pass the name of file which I want to open. So I am passing name of file contained.txt and I am going to open this file in read mode. So fgetc is a function which can read a character from file. So I am going to read the contents which are available in this file that is contained.txt. That's why I have opened it in read mode. Now I have to check whether this file is available or not. So for that purpose, I have implemented if condition fpw equals to null. So if file pointer is containing null, it means contained.txt is not available. Otherwise it will be available. So if fp is equals to null, then I have to show a message on output screen. Error cannot open file and then I have to terminate execution of the program. So exit function terminates execution of the program. So till now I have opened a file. I have checked whether it is successfully opened or not. Now I have to read the contents which are present in contained.txt file. So I am going to implement a while loop. This while loop is infinite loop because its condition is one and one is always true. Now inside this loop, I am going to call fgetc like this. So I am using fgetc. I have passed file pointer fp. So fgetc will read a character from this file pointer and the character will be stored inside ch. Now I have to check whether this ch is equals to EOF or not. EOF means end of file. So in every file at the end, EOF value is available. So if ch is equals to EOF, then I have to break this loop because after receiving EOF value, no characters are present in a particular file. So I can break the loop. If this condition ch equals to EOF is false, it means character is not equals to end of file. Then I can print that character on output screen using printf. So here you can see through fgetc, I am reading a character from file. Then I am checking whether it is equals to EOF or not. And then that character will be displayed on output screen with the help of printf function. So this way I have implemented this loop to read the contents of file and those contents will be displayed on output screen. After this, I can call fclose fp and then return 0. So this way I have implemented the complete program in front of you, which is demonstrating you the use of fgetc, which is responsible for reading a character from file. Now before execution of this program, I have to check whether this contain.txt is available or not. So I am going to check it through this program. So I am executing this. You can see it is showing an error message cannot open file. It means contain.txt file is not available right now. And the source folder is stored in C drive, tc folder and bin folder. So in this path, I have to create this contain.txt file so that this file can be linked with this test.c program. So I am moving to C drive, tc and bin folder. Here I have to create a file. So I am opening notepad. I am typing some text in this. My name is Sanjay Gupta. Now I am going to save this file. So you can see I have selected path C drive, then tc folder and then bin. Here I have to save this file with contain.txt. So I have successfully created this file. Now file is available in bin folder that is contain.txt and it is containing the text. My name is Sanjay Gupta. Now again I am going to execute the program. You can see the output. It is showing the content which is available in the contain.txt file. That is my name is Sanjay Gupta. So this way I hope you have understood how we can read all the characters which are available in the file using fgetc. If you want to watch more programming related videos, you can type my name in YouTube search that is Sanjay Gupta. My channel will be available there. You can watch various programming related videos there. You can also download my android app Techimus. Thank you for watching this video.


A man who says he was abused by a priest 46 years ago was suing Bishop Michael Hepner in the Diocese of Crookston in Minnesota, alleging that Bishop coerced him in deciding a document saying the abuse never happened. The lawsuit says Ronald Vasek was exploring whether to become a deacon in 2010 when he reported the abuse to Hepner. He says the Bishop advised him not to tell anyone. It also alleges Hepner suppressed his report by threatening to make it hard for him to become a deacon and threatening Vasek's son's career as a priest. Attorney Jeff Anderson says it's the first time a U.S. Bishop has been sued individually for coercion. The Diocese vicar general, Monsignor Michael Foltz did not immediately return a call from the Associated Press seeking comment. If you've enjoyed this segment of Lakeland News, please consider making a tax-deductible contribution to Lakeland Public Television.


Y cwestiwn yw yw Llyfrgell 12130 yn y ffnwysgwlad Tom Arthur, yn y Llyfrgell Gwmffinans Scotland Order 2024, yn ddigon i'r ffnwysgwlad, ac mae'n ddweud i'r ffnwysgwlad yn y ffnwysgwlad. Y ffnwysgwlad yn y ffnwysgwlad. Angela Constance yn y ffordd. Mae'r ffnwysgwlad ddim yn ddegon i'r ffordd, yn y ffnwysgwlad. Mae'n ddegon i'r ffordd. Yr ffnwysgwlad yw Llyfrgell 12130 yn y ffnwysgwlad Tom Arthur yn y ffnwysgwlad nifer bandsu, yn ni 0. Diolch i'r wych oddi этимbyeg, funding sydd yn eu difnogiad. Gwyingidol 이 tob able y nifer ar yr y carefullywyr iawn yn ddigon i'r ffordd ynghoron o ddigon i yw Llyfrgell yw Grimannau sportifol Yn Walkington, maeelyn pan ddegon. Yn coll мerwysgwlad yn y ffnwysgwlad? The Parliament is not agreed. Therefore, we will move to a vote and members should cast their votes now. The vote is closed. The result of the vote on amendment number 12317.1 in the name of Sandesh Gulhane is yes, 51, no 66. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. The next question is that motion 12317 in the name of Jackie Baillie on referral back to Leed Committee at stage 1, National Care Service Scotland Bill, be agreed. Are we all agreed? The Parliament is not agreed. Therefore, we will move to a vote and members should cast their votes now. The vote is closed. The result of the vote on motion 12317 in the name of Jackie Baillie is yes, 52, no 64. There were no abstentions. The motion is therefore not agreed. The next question is that amendment 12304.2 in the name of Liam Kerr, which seeks to amend motion 12304 in the name of Jenny Gilruth on recommendations of the independent review of qualifications and assessment be agreed. Are we all agreed? The Parliament is not agreed. Therefore, we will move to a vote and members should cast their votes now. The vote is closed. The result of the vote on amendment 12304.2 in the name of Liam Kerr is yes, 31, no 86. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. The next question is that amendment 12304.1 in the name of Pam Duncan-Glancy, which seeks to amend motion 12304 in the name of Jenny Gilruth on recommendations of the independent review of qualifications and assessment be agreed. Are we all agreed? The Parliament is not agreed. Therefore, we will move to a vote and members should cast their votes now. The vote is closed. Thank you, Presiding Officer. If I could have connected, I would have voted no. Thank you, Ms Burgess. We will ensure that she is recorded. I call Pam Duncan-Glancy for a point of order. I am not sure if my vote has connected, but I would have voted yes. I can confirm that your vote was recorded. Thank you. The result of the vote on amendment 12304.1 in the name of Pam Duncan-Glancy is yes, 51, no 66. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. The next question is that motion 12304 in the name of Jenny Gilruth on recommendations of the independent review of qualifications and assessment be agreed. Are we all agreed? The Parliament is not agreed. Therefore, we will move to a vote and members should cast their votes now. The vote is closed. The result of the vote on motion 12304 in the name of Jenny Gilruth is yes, 96, no 20. There were no abstentions. The motion is therefore agreed. I propose to ask a single question on three parliamentary bureau motions. Does any member object? No member objects. Therefore, the final question is that motions 12322 to 12324 on approval of SSIs in the name of George Adam on behalf of parliamentary bureau be agreed. Are we all agreed? The motions are therefore agreed. That concludes decision time and we will now move on to members business in the name of Sharon Douwey.


In the last few lectures we talked about what we mean by an argument and how to identify an argument that means recognizing an argument especially when what we have said was this that whenever you find some kind of indicator words for premises or indicator words for the conclusion then we are saying that there seems to be some kind of argument present in a given English language passage. So identifying or recognizing the argument is the most important thing for a logician. So once he identifies an argument then he can criticize or he can evaluate these arguments what type of argument it is etc. So in this lecture what we would be doing is simply this that once we identified the argument and then once we have distinguished it from non-arguments, non-arguments in the sense that reports, warnings, piece of advice, explanations, expositions, illustrations etc. Once you extract from these things once we have an argument then the immediate question that comes to us is what type of argument it is. So usually in logic we study two different kinds of arguments so one is inductive argument another one is deductive argument. So this lecture we will be focusing our attention on deductive arguments and then what are the characteristics of a deductive argument where do you come across these deductive arguments in what sense they are different from the other kind of argument which we are talking about that is the inductive argument. So in what sense these two are different and all. So the first and primary thing which we need to learn in any logic course is the distinction between the deduction and induction. So far we have what we have done is like this so what we have said is this that non inferential passages are non-arguments whereas inferential passages are whenever you find some kind of inferential claim in a given passage then we are saying that there is some kind of argument present in the given passage. So we will straight away move into the two different types of arguments one is inductive argument another one is deductive argument. So where do we find this inductive and deductive kinds of arguments. So what is the definition of a deductive argument any argument consist of premises and conclusion it depends upon how the premises are leading to the conclusion we have these two different kinds of arguments. So in the case of deductive arguments if the premises are true the conclusion has to be true and all. So it is by virtue of some kind of logical necessity the conclusion necessarily follows from the premises. So that means if it is a valid kind of argument which I will talk about a little bit later if you say something is a valid argument and all a deductive argument especially when if you have two premises you cannot have a false conclusion if you have a false conclusion then that is called as an invalid kind of argument. So one of the important things which you will observe in the case of deductive arguments is that the conclusion necessarily follows from the premises it is a kind of some kind of logical necessity. So if the premises are true the conclusion cannot be false enough. So the link between the premises and the conclusion in the case of deductive argument is stricter. So that means if the premises are accepted to be 100% true then the conclusion also accept accepted to be 100% true and all there is some kind of absolute certainty involved in deductive kind of arguments. So how to identify that there are deductive arguments in a English language passage that we are looking for. So again there will be some indicator words for identifying the deductive arguments especially when you look at the conclusion part and all in the given argument. So they end with these kinds of phrases necessarily certainly definitely etc and all. So there is some kind of absolute certainty involved in these kinds of arguments deductive arguments. So we find these kinds of arguments basically in mathematics accepted. So mathematics seeks some kind of certainty so usually we find these kinds of arguments in of course in some of the arguments you find it in day to day life but to what extent they will be useful and all we will talk about it little bit later. So if you want to say that a successful deductive argument these are the arguments in which the conclusion is completely guaranteed by the premises. Premises are true the conclusion cannot be false again and again I am saying the same thing. The conclusion must be contained in the premises and all. So it is in this sense that deductive arguments there is nothing new in the conclusion. So everything that is there in the conclusion is already there in the premises then what is so great about these deductive arguments and all. So whatever is there in the premises which is implicit which is made explicit in the conclusions. So there is nothing no new information which you are going to arrive at in the case of deductive arguments because the conclusion is already present in the premises which is implicit earlier it will become explicit. So this is the case of deductive arguments let us consider an example then we will talk about what are the characteristics of deductive argument. Suppose if you say that all police chiefs are honest we know that they are not all or anyhow honest and all but for time being assuming that all police chiefs chief of superintendent police etcetera and all they are all honest and all assume to be true. You have to note that in logic you need to have to be actually true and all even if you can assume some of the things to be true then based on your assumptions you will see whether the conclusion follows from that or not. So all police chiefs are honest practically speaking there is not the case anyway suppose if you say that Mr Kapoor is a police chief then it must be the case that Kapoor has to be honest and all there is no way in which Kapoor can be dishonest based on our assumptions that all police chiefs are honest is 100% true Mr Kapoor is a police chief is certainly true that means absolutely true or 100% true then it cannot go in any other way then this that Mr Kapoor has to be honest must be honest and all. So the first premise is taken to be an absolute universal generalization without any exception and all. In the deductive arguments suppose if it begins with all police chiefs are honest and all or if you say all crores are black etcetera that is an universal generalization which is taken for granted that it is taken for granted that there are no exceptions and all. So it is in this sense the first premise is 100% true second premise is 100% true then third premise you cannot say that it is 90% true or 50% true etcetera and all there is no element of degree of truth in the conclusion if you accept the premises to be true then the conclusion must be true if the premises are true the conclusion cannot be false enough if that is the case it is not a valid kind of argument it is the invalid kind of argument which we are going to talk about little bit later so validity tells us what follows what so which we will talk about it little bit later when we talk about validity of deductive arguments etcetera. So in this example if the two premises are assumed to be absolutely true then the conclusion cannot be false enough that means you cannot come up with a single counter example in which your premises all police chiefs are honest Mr Kapoor is a police chief is true then it cannot be the case that you cannot come up with any counter example in which the Kapoor is honest you cannot come across with any instance where you can show that Mr Kapoor is dishonest and all. So premises guarantees that the conclusion is true and all there is come some kind of necessity involved in these kinds of arguments and all necessity absolute certainty these are some of the important characteristics of deductive arguments. So what we mean to say that a deductive argument is valid to say that an argument is deductively valid means that it is logically impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion is false if you come across a situation where your premises are true and the conclusion is false then it is automatically an invalid kind of argument. So the set of three statements one of the important requirement is this that the set of three statements should be collectively consistent and all consistency in a sense that either you can show that x is the case or not x is the case and all. So if you can show both are the cases x and not x for example if you obtain if you derive something like it is raining and it is not raining simultaneously then there is something wrong with the argument. So the given premises are inconsistent if the premises taken together are inconsistent with the negation of the conclusion is another way of putting that a deductive argument is valid or invalid if the premises taken together are inconsistent with the negation of the conclusion not the conclusion and all negation of the conclusion then the then also the argument is said to be deductively valid. So this is an example which establishes this particular kind of thing all police chiefs are honest again the same example which will be taking Mr. Kapoor is a police chief therefore Mr. Kapoor is not honest suppose if you can come across with this kind of conclusion then it is considered to be an invalid kind of argument it has to be honest if it comes under the category of a police chief. So then we will talk about where do you come across deductive arguments little bit later how to identify this deductive arguments in a given language passage English language passage little bit later but we will talk about what we mean by inductive arguments. So these are the two different kinds of arguments that you come across in basically you come across in while you are reading a scientific text or reading some kind of newspaper or something like that this is commonly occurring kind of arguments which you come across even in day to day discosals. In an inductive argument on the other hand compared to the deductive arguments the link between the premises and the conclusion is not strict I mean that means conclusion can probably follow from the premises and all in the inductive arguments conclusion need not necessarily follow from the premises. So if the premises are true then the conclusion will only be probably true so probability has various connotations and all I will talk about it little bit later when I go into the details of inductive arguments but here especially to make these two arguments distinct and all on the one hand you have conclusion necessarily follows from the premises there is no way in which if premises are true the conclusion is false if you subscribe to two things and you have to you will buy two things automatically you will get the other one as free of cost you have to buy the other one else it will be given free of cost so you cannot give up the conclusion if your premises are accepted to be true the conclusion has to be must be true enough in the case of deductive arguments that is not the case in the case of inductive arguments. So the conclusion probably follows from the premises and one of the criteria is the nature of inferential link between the premises and the conclusion that is going to decide whether it is an inductive or deductive argument. So inductive arguments are based mostly based on probability and inductive arguments are based on statistical data etc and all so the support for an inductive argument is typically given by some kind of empirical evidence or direct observations etc.  So now you got up in the morning and then you observed that the next crow that you observed is also turned out to be black and all here in this case it is a swan we are talking about swan so this bird is a swan.  So on every single morning in the human history the sun appear to rise and all so therefore we say that usually we say that sun will also appear to rise tomorrow morning in the east so based on our repeated observations and all usually we infer that we predict something and we say that let us say thousands of instances you observed where sun rose in the east and then based on that information you will say that sun will also rise in the east maybe even tomorrow morning also. So there is no such kind of absolute necessity involved in these kinds of arguments and all. So before going into the details of what kind of things are inductive and what kind of things are deductive arguments let me talk about the distinction between the deductive and inductive argument in a better way. So here is the some of the questions that we need to ask ourselves to judge whether a given argument is a deductive or inductive argument so the first question we need to ask this is the case of deduction and on the other hand we have induction so these are the two different kinds of reasoning that you come across in day to day discourse. So the first thing which you need to note is that whether the conclusion contains some information conclusion contains some information that is not in premises that is not in premises. So now the first question that you need to ask yourself is that is it the case that conclusion contains some information that is not in the premises. So depending upon the answer we can say that it is a deduction or it is an induction in the case of deductive arguments the answer is the answer is no and in the case of inductive arguments the answer is yes. So what it says is this that if you observe the argument in greater detail then what we will see is that if you ask this question whether the conclusion contains some information which is some information that is not in the premises then in the case of deductive arguments it is not the case but in the case of inductive arguments it is the case for example if you say all men are mortal socrates is man socrates is mortal there is absolutely there is no new information in the conclusion socrates is mortal for example if you say this is the common example which everyone gives all men are mortal socrates is man something like that then you say that socrates is mortal. So now observe this kind of argument is the deductive argument and now we need to ask this particular kind of question whether the conclusion contains any new information that is not there in the premises. So socrates is mortal is already hidden in all men are mortal and socrates is man socrates is mortal is made explicit in the conclusion which is already hidden in the premises and all so there are some other things which come under the category of deductive arguments which usually come across in day to day discourse also for example if you say that somebody is a liar Ram is a liar and from that you can infer that Ram always tells lies. So this is by definition that follows from this thing Ram is a liar means it tells lies one so arguments based on definition or there are some kind of analytical truths which come under I mean which we will talk about in the examples little bit later but in this case absolutely there is no new information present in the conclusion whereas in the case of inductive arguments for example you say that most of the IITK students who graduated who graduated from so most of the students just a little bit of most of the students who graduated from IITK this institute after let us say 2007 or something like that who said was graded after this thing took a course course on let us say some course which is with the name PHI 142 introduction to logic. So this is the first premise and all so we are saying that most of the students who graduated from IITK after 2007 took this course and all it so happened incidentally that you know most of the students took this particular kind of course now let us say some example now the second premise is one student with the name shaker is a student of student who graduated who graduated after let us say 2007 so the first premise is that most of the students who graduated from IITK from after 2007 so happened that they took this introduction to logic course now shaker is a student who graduated after 2007 so then you say that probably shaker took a course in logic so this is the conclusion which follows from these two premises and it appears to be the case that it is a strong argument conclusion seems to be probably following from the premises because most of the students who graduated let us say you know 90% of the students who graduated from IITK after 2007 took the course in logic and not 90% of the students in every batch so now shaker as graduated let us say in 2008 or something like that and probably shaker also would have taken this particular kind of course in logic you need to note that the conclusion only probably follows from the premises it might be the case that shaker might not have taken this particular kind of course he might not have fallen under the category of most of the students so suppose if you convert this argument reinterpret this argument in a different way for example if you say that all the students who graduated in IITK after 2007 took a course graduated took a course in PHA 142 and it so happened that PHA 142 is compulsory or something like that every student must do and all then this argument may turn out to be the case that you know shaker also took a course in logic and all but in this case the way this argument is interpreted the conclusion only probably follows from the premises and all so now again coming back to this or from initial question that whether the conclusion contains some information that is not in the premises definitely it is not a certain kind of information which is not present in the premises and then what we are trying to do is that the conclusion probably shaker also took course in logic seems to be going beyond what is stated in the premises and all. So the idea here is this that whether or not the conclusion contains some information which is not there in the premises if the answer is no then it is a deductive argument because there is no absolutely there is no new information in the conclusion in the case of inductive arguments the conclusion contains some information which is not there in the premises and all. So one example another example of an inductive argument could be is that all of us travel in commercial flights and all Indigo, Air India etc all these things two different places and it so happened that in a 99.99% it is not 100% and all 99.99% of commercial airline flights completed have completed without any incident and all it so happened that they landed safely and all. Also based on that kind of premise you can infer that the next plane that you are going to take from Lucknow airport or something like that will all most certainly arrive safely and all. So there is no guarantee that it 100% it will land safely and all though our information or we have trust in our safety of our public safety etc of flights etc and all even then you cannot say with 100% certainty that the next flight that you are going to take will also land safely and all it might be the case that you know some technical problem or something might wrong might happen in the engine etc so many things might happen and all. So in that case also the conclusion goes beyond what is stated in the premises and all there is no absolute certainty involved in these kinds of argument. So the other important feature that distinguishes inductive and deductive argument is the next question that you need to ask is and based on whether your answer is yes or no and that is going to decide whether it is a deduction or induction so now the next question that you need to ask is it truth preserving is your argument truth preserving. So deductive arguments preserves a truth one of the definitions of value deductive argument is that if the premises are true the conclusion cannot be false and all that means it is preserving the truth and all so if the premises are true the conclusion must be true and all that means the truth is preserved throughout the argument and all. So one example is all men are mortal socrates is man socrates is mortal and all you will be bored by this example but in the classic textbooks this is the example which everyone gives so in that particular kind of example all men are mortal if is assumed to be true socrates is man is true then socrates must be true and all that is what is called as truth preserving kind of argument so the answer for this question is yes then it is a deductive argument if it is not truth preserving then it is called as inductive argument what does it mean if the in the case of inductive arguments the conclusion only probably follow from the premises that means you can come up with an instance where your premises are true but your conclusion can be probably false in most of the cases it might happen your observations etc tells us that the next thing that you are going to predict is also true and all but there is no absolute guarantee that you know conclusion is true and all but that is not the case in the case of arguments that you commonly come across in the case of in the field of mathematics etc if something is true then it has to be absolutely true and all in mathematics we did not say that the premises are 90 percent true 70 percent true except I know once you accept that something is true and that is absolutely true certainly true except I know so this is the reason why you know if mathematics does not strive for some kind of certainty then other fields I mean we do not have anything to say about other fields so mathematics definitely seek some kind of certainty and all so this is the kind of ideal kind of situation the ideals which we want to achieve so the question is whether do we come across these kinds of argument in day-to-day discourse are not little bit patient they will come to know about these things a little bit later so truth preserving then the answer is yes in the case of induction the answer is no now the third one is is the argument is having some kind of variable strength so these are the questions and all answer will be like this in the case of deductive arguments it is no and in the case of inductive argument is yes that means conclusion is accepted with some degree of truth so since in the case of inductive arguments conclusion need not necessarily follow from the premises conclusion only probably follow from the premises then it is having some kind of variable strength and all so this is not permitted in the case of deductive arguments conclusion necessarily follows from the premises there is no kind of variable strength which you will come across in the case of deductive arguments the answer here is no the answer here is yes is the argument is having some kind of variable strength if you ask yourself this question if your answer is no then that is a deductive argument if your answer is yes then it is an inductive argument and one of the another final thing which you need to notice this thing is it an open ended argument or not open ended argument or not so if your answer is that means additional premises can weaken or strengthen the argument open in the sense that you know if the argument is closed then additional premises will not invalidate the conclusions that you have drawn earlier if it is an open ended argument then then addition of new premises will weaken or strengthen the argument so in the case of deductive arguments the answer is no suppose if you ask yourself this is the case that your argument is an open ended argument that means addition of new premises or new information we can strengthen the conclusion that you have drawn earlier then the answer clear cut answer in the case of deductive argument is no in the case of inductive arguments answer is yes so that means inductive arguments are open ended kind of arguments so this is the main distinction between the deductive and inductive arguments so in a nutshell it is like this that in the case of deductive arguments the conclusion necessarily follows from the premises there is no new information in the conclusion which is not stated in the premises suppose if it is something some new information is present in the conclusion then that means the whatever is stated in the conclusion goes beyond whatever stated in the premises that means it is not a deductive kind of argument and then the conclusion necessarily follows from the premises that means your premises are true the conclusion cannot be false and then it is not an open ended kind of argument is logically closed that means even if you add thousands of premises etc and all suppose if you have derived some kind of conclusion that is not going to violate the conclusion that you have derived earlier and all so usually you will find these kinds of arguments in a specific form of reasoning and all that is mathematical kind of reasoning we employ this deductive arguments you might ask suppose if the conclusion nothing is new nothing new is stated in the conclusion what is so great about this deductive arguments and all now one of the strengths of a deductive argument is that you know you will achieve some kind of certainty and then deductive arguments does not have any variable strength once you accept it you accept it as 100% true even the conclusion is also 100% true and absolutely true etc there is no way in which you can say that the conclusion is 90% true or 70% true etc and all so in the case of inductive arguments the conclusion probably follows from the premises and no there is a new new new information in the premises that means you know especially when in the case of when you are predicting something you will go beyond what is stated in the premises and all so based on today's whether you can infer some of the other things and all so predictions whether predictions etc there all arguments which come under the category of inductive arguments I will talk about a little bit later. So inductive arguments are open ended arguments in a sense that you keep on adding new information then it will weaken a strength in the argument and all for example if you say that let us say 75% of the commercial airlines lane fries completed without incident and all the next plane you will take almost certainly arrive safely and all if this percentage of safety increases and all then you are strengthening this particular kind of argument and all let us say you went from 75 to 99.99% and all means you are increasing the strength of the argument and all. So now we spoke about the distinction between inductive and deductive arguments and then we need to look into this aspect that where do we come across this inductive arguments just like in the case of arguments where you know first you need to identify premises and for identifying the premises you need to have premise indicators in the case of conclusion indicator in the case of identifying the conclusion you need to have conclusion indicators suppose if these two are missing then you need to find out whether there is any inferential claim present in the passage it can be factual or inferential claim if one of these things are present then you say that is an argument present in the English language passage and all. So our English language passage is crowded with all these kinds of things and all arguments non-arguments etc. So now once you identify that this is an argument then the next question arises is what kind of argument it is let us say you have identified that it is an inductive argument usually inductive arguments you have to look for the indicator words so in the argument in an argument you will find these kinds of phrases then you can say that seems to be some kind of inductive argument present in a English language passage probably less likely or more likely reasonable plausible all these things are the phrases which you commonly see in inductive arguments and other kinds of arguments that you commonly come across in the everyday discourse are these things statistical data once you are trying to come up with once you come up with the statistical data you will interpret it and you will say with some kind of certainty some kind of degree you will make some kind of claims etc and all probably 90% of ITK students are bright or something like that some data you will infer some of the things or generalizations from past experience in the past sun always risen in the east so now you will say with this thing with confidence that sun also rises in the east even today also or you observed all the close to be most of the close to be black and all the next row that you are going to observe is also turned out to be black appeals appeal to science evidence based on evidence otherity most of the cases you know causal relationships come under the category of inductive argument causal inferences in particular that means the reasoning from cause to effect so these are the things which you commonly come across in the today discourse sun now once you identify that it is an inductive argument the next question that arises is whether it is strong or weak a strong inductive argument is a one in which it is probable but definitely it is not necessary that the premises are true the conclusion is probably true enough a weak inductive argument is a one in which it is not probable that if the premises are true the conclusion is true conclusion may probably be false enough we will talk about these particular kind of distinction little bit later and once you identify that it is a weak or strong inductive argument a strong inductive argument can be a cogent argument for it so happened that all the premises are probably true and it is called as a pro cogent argument it so happens that one of the premises is probably false then it is called as an uncogent argument this is the main there is the main differences which you came across while distinguishing deductive and inductive arguments the main difference lies in the sort of relationship the other or expositor of the argument takes there to be between the premises and the conclusion the relationship between the conclusion and premises if it is necessary that is a deductive argument it is probable then it is the inductive argument if the other are other of the argument believes that the truth of the premises definitely establishes the truth of the conclusion due to some kind of definition logical entailment or mathematical necessity and so on and so forth then it is called as a deductive argument so we will talk about where do we come across this deductive arguments in a while from now and even inductive arguments also the third distinction is this that if the other of the argument does not think that the truth of the premises definitely establishes the truth of the conclusion that means the conclusion only probably follows premises but nonetheless believes that the truth provides good reason to believe that the conclusion is true then the argument is inductive so an inductive argument the fourth distinction is this that an inductive argument expresses an inference in which the conclusion goes beyond what is implicit in the premises there is a new information in the conclusion this is what we already talked about in the last few slides a valid deductive argument is a one in which the conclusion can be inferred merely by unpacking what is already stated in the premises whatever is already implicit in the premises you are trying to make it explicit so here is a very interesting story which is formulated by Bertrand Russell the great philosopher in mathematician on he shows an instance of his inductivist Turkey this is an example so the story goes like this imagine a situation where your turkey is a kind of looks like hen and all so the turkey found that on his first morning at the turkey form he was fed at 9 am and all so the turkey is experiencing that you know his master is every day is feeding this turkey at 9 am and all is giving breakfast something or other however being a good inductivist the turkey did not jump to the conclusion if he is a good inductivist there is no guarantee that the next day also you will give the give this you food at 9 am and all he waited until he had collected large number of observations of the fact that he has that he was fed at 9 am and all.  So here in this case in this story the turkey was fed at 9 am every day and he has collected large number of observations every day was fed at 9 am only and he made this observations under a wide variety of circumstances etc it is not enough that you know under various circumstances his master fed him at 9 am only despite the fact that you know he is busy or maybe training all kinds of situations circumstances and all his food he did not miss his food and all turkey and he made those observations under wide variety of circumstances these are the important things for a good inductive argument and all on Wednesdays Thursdays and warm days and even cold days etc and all and in fact even in the rainy days and even the dry days also it so happened that he was fed at 9 am only sharp master was so good that he fed him at 9 am only each day he added another observation statement to his list and all his strengthening his argument based on his observations and all. So finally his inductive his conscience was satisfied and then he carried out an inductive inference to conclude that I am always fed at 9 am only so this is what you know even the most of the scientists will also do and all when they are trying to come up with some kind of inferring conclusions and all then they will base their experiments thousands of experiments they will do and then once they are convinced and satisfied with so many experiments etc and all they will infer some other things they conclude something. So in this case the turkey concluded that repeated observations he was fed at 9 am Thursdays warm day cold day all days he was fed up at 9 am so at last this so now he came to the conclusion that I am always fed at 9 am so based on the repeated observations is a story is a story and all so turkey came to this conclusion that I am going to be fed at 9 am even tomorrow also so this conclusion was shown to be false in no uncertain manner when let us say in one fine Christmas Eve and all instead of being fed at 9 am and all it is he had his throne cut and all so they I mean several days etc and all he was fed at 9 am and all that does not give us guarantee that he is going to be fed the next day also it so happened that in a fine Christmas Eve and all his master took him for this thing he had cut his throat and all. So poor inductive is turkey what is he has to do is the question despite is repeated observations and then you need to see that under wide variety of circumstances etc based on all this information etc and all he came to this particular kind of there is nothing wrong with the inductive is turkey but this argument shows that argument that the turkey has come up with I am going to be fed at 9 am based on all the repeated observations etc this conclusion is shown to be false and inductive is inference with two premises and led to false kind of conclusion this is what is stated in David Chalmers book what is what is this thing called science so what does it this story tells us is simply this that despite you know you have various I mean you have evidence and your gut feeling says that it is going to be the case and all in the case of inductive arguments there is no guarantee that your conclusion necessarily follows from the premises this is different in the case of deductive arguments if the conclusions are true premises are true the conclusion cannot be false so this is the story tells us that in the case of induction the conclusion probably follows from the premises and then despite all the evidence etc and all we cannot justify that this inductive argument is justified and all so we will talk about this particular kind of story little bit later but in this particular kind of course will be mainly focusing our attention on the deduction part so basically you know we will not talk much about the induction so basically we are trying to capture some kind of mathematical reasoning which can be done with the help of deduction so where do we come across deductive arguments so deductive arguments usually you will come across in mathematics etc and all and whenever you come across some kind of valid forms which I talked about in the last class a valid form is considered to be a valid kind of argument if the argument is having a valid form then that particular kind of argument is valid if it is having invalid form then it is called as an invalid kind of argument so in this lecture what I spoke about is like this first we identified the once we recognizing recognize the arguments and all the next question that comes to us is what type of argument it is then we asked some set of questions with which they are depending upon whether our answer is yes or no we classified the argument into deductive or inductive argument so there is one thing which is which I missed it out usually this is the mistake which we commonly traditionally speaking this is the case deductive argument is a one in which you know move from particulars to general whereas in the case of inductive arguments we move from general to particular and all but that definition will not serve us well and all because we can have particular arguments but you can still have a general kind of conclusion now so there are some kind of deductive arguments we move from particulars to general also where there are some there may be some inductive arguments to move from the particular general to particular also so these are some of the problems which we commonly encounter so this is not a appropriate definition and all what is important here is that is it true preserving whether the conclusion necessarily follows from the premises or is there any argument is having variable strength these are some of the important questions that we need to ask to judge whether it is an inductive argument or deductive argument usually inductive arguments which you come across in the arguments of science predictions etc and all which will talk about it in detail little bit later and deductive arguments are the ones which you will find it in the arguments of mathematics etc sometimes you come across some kind of valid forms which I am going to talk about in the next lecture so these are some of the important distinctions between the deductive and inductive arguments and in the next lecture what we are going to talk about is where do we come across this deductive and inductive arguments what is the significance of this deductive and inductive arguments and then we also talk about whether a deductive argument is when do you say that a deductive argument is valid when do you say that deductive argument is invalid is there any method with which you can judge whether the argument is valid or invalid in the case of inductive arguments if the argument is whether the argument is strong or weak how do we judge these things and once it is strong or weak whether it is a cogent argument or uncogent argument These are the questions that we are going to answer in the next lecture.


My car broke down, stranded me in the middle of nowhere, some god-forsaken forest. On a plus side, I just got done seeing the revenant, Leonardo DiCaprio, a new flick. On a negative, I'm in the woods, no food, haven't eaten in what feels like minutes, if not tens of minutes, so I'm pretty hungry. My phone's dead, which of course would have been nice because then I could contact somebody via social networking sites like Twitter and let them know how much it sucks that I'm stranded and just at least update the fan base that things aren't great. I wish I had an Instagram account because it's a pretty looking place, but the good news is my cameras are all functioning and I did see a really good movie, so let's talk about it before I freeze to death. The revenant or the reverent, I can't remember what it's called, it's a terrible title. I don't think there's been a movie titled this bad since Ballistic, X versus Sever, or Shark Boy and Lava Girl, but regardless, the quality of the movie's there and that's all that really counts. I'm gonna die out here. It may be a blistery negative nine here in Minnesota, but I stay pretty warm just thinking about how great the performance was by Leonardo DiCaprio. This is a guy who's yet to win an Oscar as pretty much everybody knows by now and this is the role that he definitely is going for one.   They had issues on the film, so they had to move it to Canada, all sorts of crap. Bottom line is the last film that the director did, I can't remember his name, I'm not gonna bother looking it up. I can't look it up, my phone's dead. That's the shtick we're going with today, my phone's dead.  I thought it was all right. It was a little too artsy for me.  It's just art for the sake of art.  This was beautiful, all around. Like I said, DiCaprio nails it. He, as this guy named Glass, he's got a son who does a terrific job. There's that kid with the spaced eyes from Maze Runner. He's in it, he does fine. Tom Hardy, once again, transforming himself. He's different in every film, Bane, Mad Max. And here we are now.  That's really all I'll say. This is a spoiler free review. Not that it matters. I'm sure most people see it before my reviews even go out. Running at two and a half hours long, you'd think that it might get a little slow. It's a little long in the tooth, but this one holds up pretty well. This is one of the most intense movies I've ever seen. The Martian also came out this year. There's some parallels you can make by it's kind of the journey of one man trying to survive in the elements, but how they handle it, of course, is much different. The Martian is a much more family friendly affair. It's all about science. It's all about working together. Whereas the Revenant is really one man's journey to see how far he can push himself to stay alive for reasons I won't say. It did remind me of a film called The Patriot with Mel Gibson, only in the terms that it's a long movie and you see a lot of bad shit happen to the lead character. So much so that you're kind of like, it'd be nice if something good happened. Can you see like a rainbow or something at least? Just something to get his spirits up? That you don't really get much of that. It is a very heart-wrenching, gut-wrenching flick. He's in the wilderness, he's in the fray so anything can happen and really everything does happen to this guy. I feel real bad for him, poor glass. He never had a chance, really.  Let's just have it happen to him. And they did that like seven or eight times.  There's also a Star Wars Empire Strikes Back reference in there, it's a pretty awesome scene. It's a pretty awesome scene. I gotta find some sustenance or something. I mean, I've been out here for at least 20 minutes now. I don't know how people did it back in the day. I just don't understand it. I don't know what I'm gonna do. I mean, I gotta get the review out somehow, find a way to upload it to YouTube. That's really all that matters right now. You know, it's good. What else do you want from me? What do you want me to say here? I mean, what do you want me to do? It's a good movie. See it if you haven't. Jesus.    Hot seat. That's ironic. I'm in the coldest seat in the house right now. All right. I don't have much else to say. It's a cinematic masterpiece. It's a tour de force. You know, the thing looks gorgeous. It's all practical effects. They shot using real daylight for the however many days, 80 days, I think they shot for off and on for those nine months spread.  I felt like I was in the picture the whole time. There wasn't a scene where I thought, that's CGI. That's CGI. No, I'm all in. Everybody's in. You know, it's gut wrenching. It's violent. It's gory. But there's some drama there. There's some emotion and it's a beautiful movie. It's a beautiful film. One of the best of the year. I'm going to give this a 10 out of 10. I'm not begrudgingly. There's nothing wrong with the film.  I don't know. This isn't a movie for everybody, but it's a movie for the right people. You can take that to the bank and then ask someone to come pick me up out here in the woods because I'll be dead within the hour. All right. Try this one more time. Okay. Okay. Let's go home. I didn't think I was going to live to see another day, honestly. Yeah, so I said it's a 10 out of 10 film. One of the best of the year. I don't know if it's better than the Martian. It's so different than the Martian. It just depends on what kind of movie you want to see. But yeah, it really wowed me and I mean, if I was going to die out there, at least I had one more film to enjoy first. So yeah, that's something, you know? But, you know, I made it. I survived and now I'm home. So I'm going to let you go with that.