assignment on fallacy

8/9/2019 Assignment on Fallacy

1/28

1

Fallacy and TruthTable

2010

ABDULLAH

Muslim Educational Complex Peshawar

4/21/2010


2/28

Abdullah Izam

2

Acknowledgement

Thanks to the ALLAH Almighty who gave me courage and willpower to

complete the task I have been given by my teacher Sir Asif Iqbal.

Dedication

This assignment is dedicate

to my parents and cousin

Mr. Farman ullah


3/28

Abdullah Izam

3

Table of Contents

S.No Subject Page No

1 Fallacy 2

2 Material fallacies 2

3 Verbal fallacies 5

4 Exercise 7 to 25


4/28

Abdullah Izam

4

Fallacy

In logic and rhetoric, a fallacy is a misconception resulting from incorrect reasoning in

argumentation. By accident or design, fallacies may exploit emotional triggers in thelistener or interlocutor (e.g. appeal to emotion), or take advantage of social relationshipsbetween people (e.g. argument from authority). Fallacious arguments are o ften structured

using rhetorical patterns that obscure the logical argument, making fallacies moredifficult to diagnose. Also, the components of the fallacy may be spread out over separate

arguments.

Material fallacies

The taxonomy of material fallacies is widely adopted by modern logicians and is basedon that ofAristotle, Organon (Sophistici elenchi). This taxonomy is as follows:

Fallacy of Accident: a generalization that disregards exceptionso Example

Argument: Cutting people is a crime. Surgeons cut people. Therefore, surgeonsare criminals.

Problem: Cutting people is only sometimes a crime.Argument: It is illegal for a stranger to enter someone's home uninvited.Firefighters enter people's homes uninvited, therefore firefighters are breaking the

law.Problem: The exception does not break nor define the rule.

o Also called destroying the exception, a dicto simpliciter ad dictumsecundum quid

Converse Fallacy of Accident: argues from a special case to a general ruleo Example

Argument: Every swan I have seen is white, so it must be true that all swans are

white.Problem: What one has seen is a subset of the entire set. One cannot have seen allswans.

o Also called reverse accident, destroying the exception, a dicto secundumquid ad dictum simpliciter

Irrelevant Conclusion: diverts attention away from a fact in dispute rather thanaddress it directly.

o Example
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logichttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhetorichttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasoninghttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumenthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_emotionhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authorityhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristotlehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organonhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sophistical_Refutationshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accident_(fallacy)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Converse_accidenthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignoratio_elenchihttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignoratio_elenchihttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Converse_accidenthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accident_(fallacy)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sophistical_Refutationshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organonhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristotlehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authorityhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_emotionhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumenthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasoninghttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhetorichttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic


5/28

Abdullah Izam

5

Argument: Billy believes that war is justifiable, therefore it must be justifiable.Problem: Billy can be wrong. (In particular this is an appeal to authority.)

o Special cases: purely personal considerations (argumentum ad hominem),

popular sentiment (argumentum ad populum--appeal to themajority; appeal to loyalty.), fear (argumentum ad baculum), conventional propriety (argumentum ad verecundiam--appeal to

authority) to arouse pity for getting one's conclusion accepted (argumentum

ad misericordiam) proving the proposition under dispute without any certain proof

(argumentum ad ignorantiam)

o Also called Ignoratio Elenchi, a "red herring"

Affirming the Consequent: draws a conclusion from premises that do not supportthat conclusion by assuming Q implies P on the basis that P implies Q

o Example:Argument: If a person runs barefoot, then their feet hurt. Billy's feet hurt.Therefore, Billy ran barefoot.

Problem: Other things, such as tight sandals, can result in sore feet.Argument: If it rains, the ground gets wet. The ground is wet, therefore it rained.Problem: There are other ways by which the ground could get wet (i.e. dew).

Denying the antecedent: draws a conclusion from premises that do not supportthat conclusion by assuming Not P implies Not Q on the basis that P implies Q

o ExampleArgument: If it is raining out, it must be cloudy. It is not raining out. Therefore, it

is not cloudy.Problem: There does not have to be rain in order for it to be cloudy.

Begging the question: demonstrates a conclusion by means of premises thatassume that conclusion.

o Example

Argument: The Bible says that God exists and the Bible is always right because itwas inspired by God, therefore God exists.

Problem: The premises are circular in nature because each premise is assumingthe other.

o Also called Petitio Principii, Circulus in Probando, arguing in a circle,assuming the answer. It is worth noting that a circular argument mayactually be both logically and factually correct. Circularity itself has no
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominemhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_the_majorityhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_loyaltyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_baculumhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_authorityhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_pityhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_pityhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_ignorancehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignoratio_elenchihttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirming_the_consequenthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denying_the_antecedenthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_questionhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_questionhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denying_the_antecedenthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirming_the_consequenthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignoratio_elenchihttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_ignorancehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_pityhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_pityhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_pityhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_authorityhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_baculumhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_loyaltyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_the_majorityhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem


6/28

Abdullah Izam

6

bearing on the truth or falseness of the argument at all, the fallacy is to usea circular argument as a proof of truth.

Fallacy of False Cause or Non Sequitur: incorrectly assumes one thing is thecause of another. Non Sequitur is Latin for "It does not follow."

oExample

Argument: Our nation will prevail because God is great.

Problem: There is no necessary cause and effect between God's greatness and anation prevailing. Simply because God can be considered great does not mean a

nation will prevail.

o Special cases post hoc ergo propter hoc: believing that temporal succession

implies a causal relation.

ExampleArgument: After Billy had his vaccine, he developed autism. Therefore, thevaccine caused autism.

Problem: The characteristics of autism may generally become noticeable at theage just following the typical age children receive vaccinations.

cum hoc ergo propter hoc: believing that happenstance impliescausal relation (aka fallacy of causation versus correlation:assumes that correlation implies causation).

Example

Argument: More cows die in India in the summer months. More ice cream isconsumed in summer months. Therefore, the consumption of ice cream in thesummer months is killing Indian cows.

Problem: It is hotter in the summer, resulting in both the death of cows and theconsumption of ice cream.

Fallacy of Many Questions or loaded question: groups more than one question inthe form of a single question

o ExampleArgument: Is it true that you no longer beat your wife?

Problem: A yes or no answer will still be an admission of guilt to beating yourwife at some point. (See also Mu.)

o Also called Plurium Interrogationum and other terms Straw man: A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on

misrepresentation of an opponent's position.

o Example
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_sequitur_(logic)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_sequitur_(logic)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post_hoc_ergo_propter_hochttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cum_hoc_ergo_propter_hochttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_many_questionshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loaded_questionhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mu_(negative)#Cultural_referenceshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_manhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_manhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mu_(negative)#Cultural_referenceshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loaded_questionhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_many_questionshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cum_hoc_ergo_propter_hochttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post_hoc_ergo_propter_hochttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_sequitur_(logic)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_sequitur_(logic)


7/28

Abdullah Izam

7

Person A claims: Sunny days are good.Argument Person B: If all days were sunny, we'd never have rain, and without

rain, we'd have famine and death. You are obviously wrong.Problem: B has falsely framed A's claim to imply that A says that only sunny days

are good, and has argued against that assertion instead of the assertion A has

made.

Verbal fallacies

Verbal fallacies are those in which a conclusion is obtained by improper or ambiguous

use of words. They are generally classified as follows.

Equivocation consists in employing the same word in two or more senses, e.g. ina syllogism, the middle term being used in one sense in the major and another in

the minor premise, so that in fact there are four not three terms

Example Argument: All heavy things have a great mass; this is heavy fog;therefore this fog has a great mass.Problem: Heavy describes more than just weight. In the case of fog, it means that

the fog is dense, not that it has a great mass.

Connotation fallacies occur when a dysphemistic word is substituted for thespeaker's actual quote and used to discredit the argument. It is a form of

attribution fallacy.

Argument by innuendo involves implicitly suggesting a conclusion withoutstating it outright. For example, a job reference that says a former employee "was

never caught taking money from the cash box" implies that the employee was athief, even though it does not make (or justify) a direct negative statement.[1]

Amphibology is the result of ambiguity of grammatical structureExample: The position of the adverb "only" in the a sentence starting with "Heonly said that" results in a sentence in which it is uncertain as to which of the

other three words the speaker is intending to modify with the adverb.

Fallacy of Composition "From Each to All". Arguing from some property ofconstituent parts, to the conclusion that the composite item has that property. This

can be acceptable (i.e., not a fallacy) with certain arguments such as spatialarguments (e.g. "all the parts of the car are in the garage, therefore the car is in the

garage")

Example Argument: All the band members (constituent parts) are highly skilled,therefore the band (composite item) is highly skilled.Problem: The band members may be skilled musicians but not in the same styles

of music.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivocationhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syllogismhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dysphemismhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_attributionhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy#cite_note-0#cite_note-0http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy#cite_note-0#cite_note-0http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy#cite_note-0#cite_note-0http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amphibologyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_compositionhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_compositionhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amphibologyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy#cite_note-0#cite_note-0http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_attributionhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dysphemismhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syllogismhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivocation


8/28

Abdullah Izam

8

Division, the converse of the preceding, arguing from a property of the whole, toeach constituent part

Example Argument: "The university (the whole) is 700 years old, therefore, all

the staff (each part) are 700 years old".

Problem: Each and every person currently on staff is younger than 200 years. Theuniversity continues to exist even when, one by one, each and every person on theoriginal staff leaves and is replaced by a younger person. See Theseus's Shipparadox.

Example Argument: "This cereal is part of a nutritious breakfast therefore thecereal is nutritious."

Problem: Simply because the breakfast taken as a whole is nutritious does notnecessarily mean that each part of that breakfast is nutritious.

Proof by verbosity, sometimes colloquially referred to as argumentum verbosium- a rhetorical technique that tries to persuade by overwhelming those considering

an argument with such a volume of material that the argument sounds plausible,superficially appears to be well-researched, and it is so laborious to untangle and

check supporting facts that the argument might be allowed to slide byunchallenged.

Accent, which occurs only in speaking and consists of emphasizing the wrongword in a sentence. e.g., "He is a fairly good pianist," according to the emphasison the words, may imply praise of a beginner's progress or insult of an expertpianist.[citation needed]

Figure of Speech, the confusion between the metaphorical and ordinary uses of aword or phrase.

Example: The sailor was at home on the sea.Problem: The expression 'to be at home' does not literally mean that one's

domicile is in that location.

Fallacy of Misplaced Concretion, identified by Whitehead in his discussion ofmetaphysics, this refers to the reification of concepts which exist only in

discourse.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_divisionhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theseus%27s_Ship_paradoxhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theseus%27s_Ship_paradoxhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_by_verbosityhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_neededhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_Misplaced_Concretionhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reification_(fallacy)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reification_(fallacy)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_Misplaced_Concretionhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_neededhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_by_verbosityhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theseus%27s_Ship_paradoxhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theseus%27s_Ship_paradoxhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theseus%27s_Ship_paradoxhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_division


9/28

Abdullah Izam

9

1. (A B) > (A . B)

A B

:: A . B

A B A.B AB P1

(AVB)>(A.B) P2

AB C*A.B

T T T T T T T

T T T T T T T

T F F T F T F

T F F T F T F

F T F T F T F

F T F T F T F

F F F F T F F

F F F F T F F

Valid R1, R2

Key:

P P C*

1st

Premise 2n

premise Conclusion


10/28

Abdullah Izam

10

2. (C D) > (C . D)

C . D

:: C D

C D C.D C D P (CD)>(C.D) P C.D C*CVD

T T T T T T T

T T T T T T T

T F F T F F T

T F F T F F T

F T F T F F T

F T F T F F T

F F F F T F F

F F F F T F F

Valid R1, R2

Key:

P P C*

1st

Premise 2n

premise Conclusion


11/28

Abdullah Izam

11

3. E > F

F > E

:: E F

E F P E>F P F>E C*EF

T T T T T

T T T T T

T F F T T

T F F T T

F T T F T

F T T F T

F F T T F

F F T T F

Invalid R7, R8

Key:

P P C*

1st

Premise 2n

premise Conclusion

4. (G H) > (G . H)

~ (G . H)

:: ~ (G H)


12/28

Abdullah Izam

12

G H G.H G H P1(G H) > (G . H) P

2~ (G . H) C*~ (G v H)

T T T T T F F

T T T T T F F

T F F T F T F

T F F T F T F

F T F T F T F

F T F T F T F

F F F F T T T

F F F F T T T

Valid R7, R8

Key:

P P C*

1st

Premise 2n

premise Conclusion


13/28

Abdullah Izam

13

5. (IvJ) > (I.J)

~ (IvJ)

:: ~ (I.J)

I J I v J I.J P (I v J) > (I . J) P ~ (I v J) C*~ (I . J)

T T T T T F F

T T T T T F F

T F T F F F T

T F T F F F T

F T T F F F T

F T T F F F T

F F F F T T T

F F F F T T T

Valid R1, R2

Key:

P P C*

1st

Premise 2n

premise Conclusion


14/28

Abdullah Izam

14

6. KvL

K

:: ~ L

K L P1KvL P

2K C*~ L

T T T T F

T T T T F

T F T T T

T F T T T

F T T F F

F T T F F

F F F F T

F F F F T

Invalid R1, R2

Key:

P P C*

1st

Premise 2n

premise Conclusion

7. M v (N. ~ N)

M

:: ~ (N . ~N


15/28

Abdullah Izam

15

M N ~N N.~N P1M v (N.~ N) P

2M C*~ (N.~N)

T T F F T T T

T T F F T T T

T F T F T T T

T F T F T T T

F T F F F F T

F T F F F F T

F F T F F F T

F F T F F F T

Valid R1, R2, R3, R4

Key:

P P C*

1st

Premise 2n

premise Conclusion


16/28

Abdullah Izam

16

8. (O v P) > Q

Q > (O . P)

:: (O v P) > (O . P)

O P Q OvP O.P P (OvP) > Q P Q > (O.P) C*(OvP) > (O.P)

T T T T T T T T

T T F T T F T T

T F T T F T F F

T F F T F F T F

F T T T F T F F

F T F T F F T F

F F T F F T F T

F F F F F T T T

Valid R1, R8

Key:

P P C*

1st Premise 2n premise Conclusion


17/28

Abdullah Izam

17

9. (R v S) > T

T > (R . S)

:: (R . S) > (R v s)

R S T R v S R.S P (R v S) > T P T > (R . S) C*(R . S) > (R v s)

T T T T T T T T

T T F T T F T T

T F T T F T F T

T F F T F F T T

F T T T F T F T

F T F T F F T T

F F T F F T F T

F F F F F T T T

Valid R1, R8

Key:

P P C*

1st Premise 2n premise Conclusion

10. U > (V v W)

(V . W) > ~ U


18/28

Abdullah Izam

18

:: ~ U

U V W V v W V . W ~ U P U > (V v W) P (V . W) > ~ U C*~ U

T T T T T F T F F

T T F T F F T T F

T F T T F F T T F

T F F F F F F T F

F T T T T T T T T

F T F T F T T T T

F F T T F T T T T

F F F F F T T T T

Invalid R2, R3

Key:

P P C*

1s

Premise 2n

premise Conclusion


19/28

Abdullah Izam

19

11. (D v C) > B B . G :: D > B

B C D G DvC B.G P1(DvC) > B P

2B.G C*D>B

T T T T T T T T T

T T T F T F T F T

T T F T T T T T T

T T F F T F T F T

T F T T T T T T T

T F T F T F T F T

T F F T F T T T T

T F F F F F T F T

F T T T T F F F F

F T T F T F F F F

F T F T T F F F T

F T F F T F F F T

F F T T T F F F F

F F T F T F F F F

F F F T F F T F T

F F F F F F T F T



20/28

Abdullah Izam

20

12. (Y v Z) v (Z . Y)

~ (Y > Z)

:: (Y v Z)

Y Z Y v Z Z.Y (Y > Z) P1(Y v Z) v (Z . Y) P

2~ (Y > Z) C*(Y v Z)

T T T T T T F T

T T T T T T F T

T F T F F T T T

T F T F F T T T

F T T F T T F T

F T T F T T F T

F F F F T F F F

F F F F T F F F

Valid R3, R4

Key:

P P C*

1st

Premise 2n

premise Conclusion


21/28

Abdullah Izam

21

13. (M > N) . (N > P)

M v N

~ (~N . ~p)

M N P ~

N

~

P

MvN M>N N>P (~N.~p) P (M>N) .

(N>P)

P MvN C* ~

(~N.~p)

T T T F F T T T F T T T

T T F F T T T F F F T T

T F T T F T F T F F T T

T F F T T T F T T F T F

F T T F F T T T F T T T

F T F F T T T F F F T T

F F T T F F T T F T F T

F F F T T F T T T T F F

Valid R1, R5

Key:

P P C*

1st

Premise 2n

premise Conclusion

14. (A v B) . (~A v ~B)

~A > ~B


22/28

Abdullah Izam

22

:: ~ B

A B ~A ~B AvB ~A v ~B P (AvB) . (~A v ~B) P ~A > ~B C*~B

T T F F T F F T F

T T F F T F F T F

T F F T T T T T T

T F F T T T T T T

F T T F T T T F F

F T T F T T T F F

F F T T F T F T T

F F T T F T F T T

Valid R3, R4

Key:

P P C*

1st

Premise 2n

premise Conclusion


23/28

Abdullah Izam

23

15. ~ E > ~F

~F v ~G

:: E v G

E F G ~E ~F ~G P ~E > ~F P ~F v ~G C*E v G

T T T F F F T F T

T T F F F T T T T

T F T F T F T T T

T F F F T T T T T

F T T T F F F F T

F T F T F T F T F

F F T T T F T T T

F F F T T T T T F

Invalid R8

Key:

P P C*1

stPremise 2

npremise Conclusion

16. (S > T) . (T v S)

S v ~S


24/28

Abdullah Izam

24

:: T

S T ~S S>T TvS P (S > T) . (T v S) P Sv ~S C*T

T T F T T T T T

T T F T T T T T

T F F F T F T F

T F F F T F T F

F T T T T T T T

F T T T T T T T

F F T T F F T F

F F T T F F T F


Key:

P P C*

1s

Premise 2n

premise Conclusion

17. (B . C) > (D . E) Bv ~D :: E > C

B C D E ~D B.C D.E P1(B.C) > (D.E) P

2Bv ~D C*E > C

T T T T F T T T T T


25/28

Abdullah Izam

25

T T T F F T F F T T

T T F T T T F F T T

T T F F T T F F T T

T F T T F F T T T F

T F T F F F F T T T

T F F T T F F T T F

T F F F T F F T T T

F T T T F F T T F T

F T T F F F F T F T

F T F T T F F T T T

F T F F T F F T T T

F F T T F F T T F F

F F T F F F F T F T

F F F T T F F T T F

F F F F T F F T T T

Invalid R5, R7, R15

18. ~ (H v I) v ~(J . K) (H > J) . I :: ~ K

H I J K HvI J.K ~

(HvI)

~

(J.K)

H>J P1~ (HvI) v

~(J.K)

P2(H>J) .

I

C*~

K


26/28

Abdullah Izam

26

T T T T T T F F T F T F

T T T F T F F T T T T T

T T F T T F F T F T F F

T T F F T F F T F T F T

T F T T T T F F T F F F

T F T F T F F T T T F T

T F F T T F F T F T F F

T F F F T F F T F T F T

F T T T T T F F T F T F

F T T F T F F T T T T T

F T F T T F F T T T T F

F T F F T F F T T T T T

F F T T F T T F T T F F

F F T F F F T T T T F T

F F F T F F T T T T F F

F F F F F F T T T T F T

Invalid R11


27/28

Abdullah Izam

27

19. (V. ~W) > X

W v ~X

~ (V . W)

V W X ~W ~X V. ~W V.W P (V. ~W) > X P Wv ~X C*~ (V.W)

T T T F F F T T T F

T T F F T F T T T F

T F T T F T F T F T

T F F T T T F F T T

F T T F F F F T T T

F T F F T F F T T T

F F T T F F F T F T

F F F T T F F T T T

Invalid R1, R2

Key:

P P C*

1st

Premise 2n

premise Conclusion


28/28

28

20. (K > L) . (K . L)

~ (K v L)

:: L

K L K>L K.L KvL P (K > L) . (K . L) P ~ (K v L) C*L

T T T T T T F T

T T T T T T F T

T F F F T F F F

T F F F T F F F

F T T F T F F T

F T T F T F F T

F F T F F F T F

F F T F F F T F

Valid

assignment on fallacy

Documents