Maharashtra HSC Logic study plan

Define logic and distinguish it from psychology and rhetoric in your own words, citing at least three textbook definitions.

Classify ten given statements as term, proposition, or argument, and justify each classification in one sentence.

Break five short passages into premises and conclusion, stating whether each is deductive or inductive.

Explain the difference between truth and validity using two original examples of a valid argument with false premises and an invalid argument with true premises.

Write the four standard-form categorical propositions with their quantity, quality, and distribution patterns from memory.

Convert eight ordinary-language sentences into standard categorical form, resolving unclear terms.

Draw and label the traditional square of opposition and state all four relations (contradictory, contrary, subcontrary, subaltern).

Apply conversion, obversion, and contraposition to six propositions, noting which are validly inferred and which are not.

Identify the mood and figure of ten given syllogisms and write each in standard form.

State the rules of validity for categorical syllogisms and test five syllogisms against every rule, recording which rule each invalid form violates.

Use Venn diagrams to test five syllogisms for validity, shading premises and checking the conclusion.

Distinguish formal from material fallacies that arise inside syllogistic reasoning, such as illicit process and undistributed middle.

Memorise the truth tables for negation, conjunction, disjunction, conditional, and biconditional and reproduce all five without notes.

Translate fifteen English sentences into propositional symbols, using brackets correctly for scope.

Construct full truth tables for four compound formulas and classify each as tautology, contradiction, or contingent.

Test three pairs of formulas for logical equivalence using truth tables.

List the rules of inference and rules of replacement, and match each to a worked example.

Construct formal proofs for eight arguments, averaging no more than four lines beyond the premises.

Apply conditional proof and indirect proof to at least three arguments where direct proof is awkward.

Diagnose three faulty proofs by naming the misapplied rule at the exact line.

Distinguish induction from deduction and describe enumeration, analogy, and causal reasoning with one original example each.

Explain Mill's methods of agreement, difference, concomitant variation, and residues, and apply each to a short scenario.

Outline the steps of the hypothetical-deductive method and identify hypothesis, prediction, test, and confirmation in a described experiment.

Critique two weak inductive arguments by identifying sample size, representativeness, or causal confusions.

Build a checklist of at least twelve named fallacies with a definition and a fresh example for each.

Detect and name the fallacy in fifteen short passages, distinguishing formal from informal cases.

Explain the difference between a fallacy and a legitimate persuasive technique, with two borderline examples.

Rewrite three fallacious arguments so that they become logically acceptable.

Take two full-length timed mock papers under exam conditions and score them against the official marking scheme.

Re-derive every item missed on the mocks and write the corrected reasoning in a single error log.

Recite distribution patterns, syllogism rules, and truth tables from memory in one uninterrupted session.

Rank domains by mock accuracy and re-drill the two weakest with focused practice sets.