Lahore, Pakistan: Former Prime Minister Imran Khan has said that Dr. Yasmeen Rashid has been acquitted by Court in the vandalism Case and she is the Central President of PTI, therefore, PTI is acquitted by Court in the vandalism Case.
His two first premises are not contrary to fact although she is just acquitted from a lower court and there are higher courts to decide her fate but she has been acquitted and it is not untrue. However, the result that Imran Khan is inferring out of two true premises is contrary to fact and not logical rather it is a classic example of conceptual blending. In conceptual blending, one can get the support of outer-space elements if elements are not shown in input 1 and input 2. In his statement, input one is “Dr. Yasmeen Rashid had been acquitted”. Input two he used “she is central president of PTI”. Nevertheless, he inferences “therefore PTI is not involved in vandalism” is his own opinion based on his own memories so he is using outer space elements to justify his claim. It can be blending but not logical indeed. Moreover, he tried to use inductive logic but his inference is contrary to even inductive logic theory though he tried his best.
If we used his logic in the following propositions, then one can understand easily:
I bought five hens from a local shop
One of them died last night without reason
Therefore, the other four will die also without reason
We said above that if a deductive argument is valid and its premises are true, then its conclusion must be true. What do we mean by valid, and what do we mean by true?
Validity – the quality of being valid – refers to how an argument is constructed, and the relationship among the premises (propositions) and the conclusion (Syllogism). In logic, premises must be the reasons that support the conclusion. An argument is valid if the premises “necessarily entail” the conclusion. In other words, based on the way the premises fit together, there is only one conclusion that can be made. Said another way, “In some sense ‘the truth’ of the conclusion is ‘contained in’ the truth of the premises” (Van Heuveln 2011). That may be difficult to understand, so let’s look at an example. Consider this syllogism:
All licensed doctors in Pakistan passed the Licensing Board Exam.
My doctor is a licensed doctor in Pakistan.
Therefore, my doctor passed the Licensing Board Exam.
We can represent this argument as a picture. In the diagram below, the blue circle represents my doctors. The yellow circle represents all licensed doctors in Pakistan. The green circle represents people who have passed the Licensing Board Exam. Since all of the people who are licensed to practice as doctors in Pakistan have passed the licensing board, and since my doctor is in that group, then it must be true that my doctor has passed the Licensing Board Exam. It is necessarily the case that the blue circle is inside the green circle, since all of the blue circle is inside the yellow circle, and all of the yellow circle is inside the green circle. That is what we mean by “necessarily entailed”.
A valid argument is one whose conclusion is “contained” within the premises, or “necessarily entailed” by the argument structure. In other words, validity is a fact about the argument itself, and the relationship between the premises and the conclusion.
On the other hand, the logical truth of the conclusion doesn’t guarantee that the argument is valid (true). Consider this syllogism:
All humans are animals.
Some animals live in Rawalpindi.
Therefore, some humans live in Rawalpindi.
Each of the premises is true: All humans are animals, in the sense that they are living things that eat and move around. It’s also true that some animals live in Rawalpindi. It happens to be true, too, that some humans live in Rawalpindi. But this argument is not valid. We know that all humans are animals, but not all animals are in Rawalpindi. The fact that some animals are in Rawalpindi does not necessarily mean that some humans are in Rawalpindi.
In the real world, we know that some humans are in Rawalpindi, but this fact does not follow logically from our argument. The “conclusion” turns out to be true, but only accidentally; the argument is not valid and this is under the Law of Excluded Middle. Imran Khan mostly applies the Law of Excluded Middle and is successful for those who do not have a relation with logical thinking. However, he cannot make all the fools all the time.
Having so clear data and facts, if foreign media does not give attention to reality then one can say that things are not as simple as they look
Now we will look directly at Imran Khan’s statement and would do its dissection.
Former Prime Minister Imran Khan said that Dr. Yasmeen Rashid has been acquitted by Court in the vandalism Case and she is the Central President of PTI, therefore, PTI is acquitted by Lower Court in the vandalism Case.
First, he did not mention that she is acquitted by the lower court which is not the Final Authority in CrPc. Now the case will go to appeal at High Court and then there would be another window that is Supreme Court.
Moreover, Dr. Yasmeen Rashid is not the Only PTI leader who was found involved in vandalism several leaders are on the run and are avoiding courts for their cases. Moreover, her acquittal is a unique case in which the court did not follow the laid down procedure of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPc) and the Punjab government is going to appeal and produced Facebook and other social media accounts in which the said judge who acquitted Dr. Yasmeen Rashid is a true follower of PTI and she is not only aligned to PTI but an active member of the PTI social media team.
What law on earth says that if one accused is acquitted then the whole case against all other co-accused is dissolved?
The second point Imran Khan raised is that Dr. Yasmeen Rashid is the Central President of the Party and she is acquitted therefore PTI was not involved in vandalism. This is just a conceptual blending that has nothing to any kind of logic. Dr. Yasmin Rashid is an over 72-year-old activist and the court might free her by taking her age into consideration while hundreds of PTI leaders who were along with Dr Yasmin Rashid are still either in jails or fugitives and running from court. Moreover, what law on earth says that if one accused is acquitted then the whole case against all other co-accused is dissolved?
We take this example for ready reference:
Five men were arrested for murder and tried.
One of them was acquitted.
Therefore, the rest of the four were also innocent.
The inference that the “rest of four were also innocent” is neither logical nor included in any of the two premises. There are thousands of cases in which one or two accused are acquitted while the rest of three or four got punished.
Majority of PTI leaders involved in vandalism are either running away from courts or are under lockups so Yasmeen Rashid case can not be cited for innocence of PTI
In conclusion, it is stated that Imran Khan’s illogical inferences are accepted by his followers, and unfortunate to say that even the majority of foreign media is not confronted him as the BBC interviewer did in her interview. Strangely, whatever he says in an interview, the majority of foreign media without contesting his illogical statements asks him next questions and he then successfully develops his illogical case. His followers then cite such interviews in his defense believing Imran Khan has valid points to share with international media. Imran Khan had never been challenged in the past and this is the first time that foreign investigative media like France 24 and highly professional IGP Punjab Dr. Usman are contesting his lies with facts and figures.
The Inspector General Police (IGP) Punjab, Dr. Usman Anwar provided unchallengeable call data from the riots that took place on March 8 and May 9 showing significant similarities, leading to the arrest of perpetrators after successful identification. Addressing a press conference, he stated that out of the total calls analyzed, 154 calls were found to be identical, while Yasmin Rashid was responsible for 41 calls. He also added that the identities of 170 individuals involved in the incidents were traced through WhatsApp groups. He was of the view that the attacks were planned and carried out simultaneously at specific targets, including Jinnah House, GHQ, and Radio Pakistan, among others. He shared the following data that is self-explanatory leading to culprits including Dr Yasmeen Rashid.
Imran Khan had been instigating the public long against the state and had been demanding mutiny against law-enforcing agencies.
He provided the data for the whole of Punjab but only Lahore Data is being reproduced hereunder while complete data can be downloaded to click this link for the whole of Punjab:
His press conference was also self-explanatory and is hereunder:
Having so clear data and facts, if foreign media does not give attention to reality then one can say that things are not as simple as they look.