CHAPTER ONE

BASIC CONCEPTS IN LOGIC

Introduction

The term "logic" came from the Greek word “logos”, which is sometimes translated as "sentence",
"discourse", "reason", "rule", or "ratio". Of course, these translations are not enough to help us
understand the more specialized meaning of "logic" as it is used today.

So what is logic?

Logic may be defined as the science that evaluates arguments. It can also be defined as “the study and
formulation of the principles of right reasoning”. The most immediate benefit derived from the study
of logic is the skill needed to construct sound arguments of one‟s own and to evaluate the arguments of
others. In accomplishing this goal, logic instills a sensitivity for the formal component in language, a
thorough command of which is indispensible to clear, effective and meaningful communication.
Among the benefits expected from the study of logic is an increase in self confidence that we are
making sense when we criticize the arguments of others and when we advance arguments of our own.

On a broader scale, by focusing attention on the requirement for reasons or evidences to support our
views, logic provides a fundamental defense against the prejudiced and uncivilized attitudes that
threaten the foundations of democratic society. Finally, through its analysis of inconsistency as a fatal
flaw in any theory or point of view, logic proves a useful device in disclosing ill-conceived policies in
various spheres and, ultimately, in distinguishing the rational from the irrational, the sane from the
insane.

1.1 Arguments, Premises and Conclusions

All of us encounter arguments in our day-to-day life experience. We read them in books and news
papers, hear them on television, and formulate them when communicating with friends and associates.
The aim of logic is to develop the system of methods and principles that we may use as criteria for
evaluating the arguments of others and as guides in constructing arguments of our own.

An argument, as it occurs in logic, is a group of statements, one or more of which (the premises) are
claimed to provide support for, or reasons to believe, one of the others (the conclusion). Or; an
argument is a connected series of statements or propositions, some of which are intended to provide
support, justification or evidence for the truth of another statement or proposition. Arguments consist of
one or more premises and a conclusion. The premises are those statements that are taken to provide the
support or evidence; the conclusion is that which the premises allegedly support.

All arguments may be placed in one of two basic groups: those in which the premises really support the
conclusion and those in which they do not even though they claimed to. The former are said to be good

Introduction to Logic Page 1

arguments, the latter bad arguments. The purpose of logic, as a science that evaluates arguments, is
thus to develop methods and techniques that allow us to distinguish good arguments from bad.

As is apparent in the above definition, the term “argument” has a very specific meaning in logic. It does
not mean for example, a mere verbal fight, as one might have with one‟s parent, spouse or friend. Let
us examine the features of this definition in greater detail. First of all, an argument is a group of
statements. In English language there are four types of sentences. These are;

 Declarative sentences are used for assertions, e.g. "He is a clever student."

 Interrogative sentences are used to ask questions, e.g. "Is he here?"

 Imperative sentences are used for making requests or issuing commands, e.g. "Come here!"

 Exclamatory sentences are used for the expression of emotional feelings. e.g. “Oh My God!”
For present purposes, we shall take a statement to be any declarative sentence, which makes a claim.
Or we can define a statement as a sentence which is either true or false. Truth and falsity are called
the two truth values of a statement. So here are some examples of statements in logic:
 Ethiopia is located in North Africa.

 Carrot is a good source of vitamin A.

 George Bush was the first President of the United States of America.

 Italy was defeated at the Battle of Adwa.

As you can see, statements can be either true or false, and they can be simple or complex. But they
must be grammatical and complete sentences.

Unlike statements, many sentences cannot be said to be either true or false. Questions, proposals,
suggestions, commands and exclamations usually cannot, and so are not usually classified as
statements. The following sentences are not statements:

 Who is the class representative? (Question)

 Switch off your cell phones! (Command)

 Let‟s go to Axum next week. (Proposal)

 Oh my God! (Exclamation)

 It would be better for you to study hard to score best grades. (Suggestion)

The statements that make up an argument are divided into one or more premises and one and only one
conclusion. The premises are statements that set forth the reasons or evidence, and the conclusion is the

Introduction to Logic Page 2

statement that the evidence is claimed to support or imply. In other words, the conclusion is the
statement that is claimed to follow from the premises. Here is an example of an argument:

All business enterprises aspire to maximize their profits. Ethio-telecom is a business

enterprise. Therefore, Ethio-telecom aspires to maximize its profits.
The first two statements are the premises; the third is the conclusion. (The claim that the premises
support or imply the conclusion is indicated by the word “therefore.”) In this argument the premises
really do support the conclusion, and so the argument is a good one. But consider this one;

Some mathematicians are philosophers. Pythagoras is a mathematician. Thus,

Pythagoras is a philosopher.

In this argument the premises do not strictly support the conclusion, even though they are claimed to
do, and the argument is not a good one.

One of the most important tasks in the analysis of arguments is being able to distinguish premises from
the conclusion. If what is thought to be a conclusion is really a premise, and vice versa, the subsequent
analysis cannot possibly be correct. Frequently arguments contain certain indicator words that provide
clues in identifying premises and conclusion. Some typical conclusion indicators are;

Whenever a statement follows one of these indicators, it can usually be identified as a conclusion. By
the process of elimination the other statements are the premises. For example;

Artists and poets look at the world and seek relationships and order. But they translate their
ideas to canvas, or to marble, or to poetic images. Scientists try to find relationships between
different objects and events. To express the order they find, they create the hypotheses and
theories. Thus, the great scientific theories are easily compared to great art and great literature.

The conclusion of this argument is, “the great scientific theories are easily compared to great art and
great literature.” By the process of elimination the rest of the statements in this argument become the
premises of the argument.

If an argument does not contain a conclusion indicator, it may contain a premise indicator. Some typical
premise indicators are

Introduction to Logic Page 3

For example;

Expectant mothers should never use recreational drugs, since the use of these
drugs can jeopardize the development of the fetus.

The premise of this argument is the statement, “the use of these drugs can jeopardize the development of
the fetus.” The other statement is the conclusion of the argument.

One premise indicator which is not included in the above list is “for this reason.” This indicator is
special in that it comes immediately after the premise that it indicates. “For this reason” (except when
followed by a colon) means for the reason (premise) that was just given. In other words, the premise is
the statement that occurs immediately before “for this reason.” One should be careful not to confuse “for
this reason” with “for the reason that.”

Sometimes a single indicator can be used to identify more than one premise. Consider the following
argument;

The development of high temperature superconducting materials is technologically

justified, for such materials will allow electricity to be transmitted without loss over
great distance, and they will pave the way for trains that levitate magnetically.

The premise indicator “for” goes with both “such materials will allow electricity to be transmitted
without loss over great distances” and “they will pave the way for trains that levitate magnetically.”
These are the premises. By the process of elimination, “the development of high temperature
superconducting materials is technologically justified” is the conclusion.

Sometimes an argument contains no indicators. When this occurs, the reader/listener must ask such
questions as: (1) what single statement is claimed (implicitly) to follow from the others? (2) What is the
arguer trying to prove? (3) What is the main point in the passage? The answers to these questions point
to the conclusion. In the other way, if an argument has no indicator words at all, then good English
style suggests that the topic sentence of the paragraph is the conclusion of the argument.
For example, let us consider the following argument;

Marketing to consumers via the internet has many advantages for marketers. It allows
products and services to be offered 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. It allows products to
be offered globally in an efficient manner. And it is cost efficient, saving the need for
stores, paper catalogues, and sales people.

Introduction to Logic Page 4

In the above argument, the conclusion is “Marketing to consumers via the Internet has many
advantages for marketers.” The other statements in the argument are the premises. Because their main
task in this argument is to provide reasons or support to justify the claim of the conclusion, i.e., to
justify the fact that, marketing to consumers via the internet has many advantages for marketers.

Passages that contain arguments sometimes contain statements that are neither premises nor conclusion.
If a statement has nothing to do with the conclusion or, for example, simply makes a passing comment,
it should not be included within the context of the argument. Example:

Socialized medicine is not recommended because it would result in a reduction in the

overall quality of medical care available to the average citizen. In addition, it might very
well bankrupt the federal treasury. This is the whole case against socialized medicine in a
nutshell.

The last statement in the above argument makes only a passing comment about the argument
itself and is therefore neither a premise nor a conclusion.

Closely related to the concepts of argument and statement are those of inference and proposition. An
inference, in the technical sense of the term, is the reasoning process expressed by an argument.
Inferences may be expressed not only through arguments but through conditional statements as well. In
the loose sense of the term, “inference” is used interchangeably with “argument”.

Analogously, a proposition, in the technical sense of the term, is the meaning or information content of
a statement. For the purpose of this course, “proposition” and “statement” are used interchangeably.

1.2 Recognizing Arguments

Not all passages contain arguments. Because logic deals with arguments, it is important to be able to
distinguish passages that contain arguments from those that do not. In general, a passage contains an
argument if it purports to prove something; if it does not do so, it doesn‟t contain an argument.

Two conditions must be fulfilled for a passage to purport to prove something:

1) At least one of the statements must claim to present evidence or reasons.

2) There must be a claim that the alleged evidence or reasons supports or implies something- that
is, a claim that something follows from the alleged evidence.

 The statements that claim to present the evidence or reasons are premises.

 The statement that the evidence is claimed to support or imply is the conclusion.

It is not necessary that the premises present actual evidence or true reasons nor that the premises
actually support the conclusion. But at least the premises must claim to present evidence or reason, and
there must be a claim that the evidence or reasons supports or implies something.

Introduction to Logic Page 5

In the above case, the first condition expresses the factual claim, and deciding whether it is fulfilled
usually presents few problems. Thus most of our attention will be concentrated on whether the second
condition is fulfilled. This second condition expresses what is called an inferential claim. The
inferential claim is simply the claim that the passage expresses a reasoning process-that something
supports or implies something or that something follows from something. Such a claim can be either
explicit or implicit.

An explicit inferential claim is usually asserted by premise or conclusion indicator words

such as, “thus,” “since,” “because,” “hence,” “therefore,” and so on). Example:

The human eye can see a source of light that is as faint as an ordinary candle from a distance
of 27 kilometers, through a nonabsorbing atmosphere. Thus, a powerful searchlight directed
from a new moon should be visible on earth with naked eye.

The word “thus” expresses the claim that something is being inferred, so the passage is an
argument.

An implicit inferential claim exists when there is an inferential relationship between the
statements in the passage. Example;

Tattooing and body piercing pose serious health risks to those receiving them. The primary
concern is infection with blood-born pathogens like H.I.V. and hepatitis. Bacteria that live on
the skin are easily spread by unsterilized instruments or ungloved hands. And tongue and
genital piercing can also provide channels for bacteria and viruses to enter the bloodstream
after the piercing procedure.

The inferential relationship between the first statement and the other three constitutes an implicit claim
that evidence supports something, so we are justified in calling the passage an argument. The first
statement is the conclusion, and the other two are premises.

In deciding whether there is a claim that evidence supports or implies something, keep an eye out for
(1) indicator words and (2) the presence of inferential relationship between the statements. In
connection with these points, however, a word of caution is in order. First, the occurrence of an
indicator word by no means guarantees the presence of an argument. This is because; these words are
often used for purposes other than to indicate the occurrence of a premise or conclusion. The most
important way to know whether a given passage contains an argument or not is to focus whether there
is an inferential claim between the statements that construct the passage or not. This is because; there
are cases in which passages contain indicator words, but lack inferential claim between the statements.

Passages Lacking an Inferential Claim

Passages lacking an inferential claim contain statements that could be premises or conclusion or both,
but what is missing is a claim that a reasoning process is being expressed-that potential premises
support a conclusion or that a potential conclusion follows from premises. Passages lacking an
inferential claim are;
Introduction to Logic Page 6
  Passages in which there is no claim that something is being proved.

 They contain statements that could pass for premises or conclusions, or even both, but they are
not.

 They are passages in which there is no claim that a premise might support a conclusion, or that
a conclusion is supported by a premise.

Some of the examples of passages lacking an inferential claim are:

Warnings, (such as “watch out that you shouldn‟t sleep on the ice”) and Pieces of advice, (such as I
suggest you take accounting during your first semester”) are kinds of discourse aimed at modifying
someone‟s behavior. Each of these could serve as the conclusion of an argument; but in their present
context, there is no claim that they are supported or implied by reasons or evidence. Thus, there is no
argument.

For example

When you go to a job interview, be sure to dress neatly and be on time. Be sure to shake
your employer‟s hand and look him square in the eye. Try to show him you are interested in
and really want the job.

Statements of belief or opinions: they are expressions about what someone believes or thinks
about something. For example let‟s see the following passage;

I believe that our company must develop and produce outstanding products that will
perform a great service or fulfill a need for our customers. I believe that our business must
be run at an adequate profit and that the services and products we offer must be better than
those offered by competitors.

In the above passage, the author is making claims but he/she offers no evidence to support his/her
personal outlook or belief.

Loosely Associated Statements: are passages that contain statements that may be about a similar
subject but, they lack a claim that one is proved by the other. Example:

Not to honor men of worth will keep the people from contention; not to value goods that
are hard to come by will keep them from theft; not to display what is desirable will keep
them from being unsettled of mind.

In the above passage, all the statements don‟t offer any support for one another. Therefore, it is not an
argument.

Reports; consist of a group of statements that convey information about some situation or event. Let
us see the following report;

Introduction to Logic Page 7

 A powerful car bomb blew up outside the regional telephone company headquarters in
Melbourne, injuring 25 people and causing millions of dollars of damage to nearby
buildings, police said. A police statement said that 198-pound bomb was packed into a milk
churn hidden in the back of a stolen car.

The statements in the above report could serve as the premises of an argument; but because there is no
inferential claim that the statements support or imply any thing, it is not an argument. One must be
careful, though, with reports about arguments. Example:

500 prisoners were released from the Federal Corrective Center. A spokesman for the
Center said that the prisoners pose “no threat to the community” since they have showed
behavioral change and become persons of civic and moral virtues.

Properly speaking, this passage is not an argument, because the author of the passage does not
claim that anything is supported by evidence.

An Expository Passage; is a kind of discourse that begins with a topic sentence followed by one or
more sentences that develop the topic sentence. If the objective is not to prove the topic sentence but
only to expand or elaborate it, then there is no argument. For example;

There are three familiar states of matter; solid, liquid and gas. Solid objects ordinarily
maintain their shape and volume regardless of their location. A liquid occupies a definite
volume, but assumes the shape of the occupied portion of its container. A gas contains
neither shape nor volume. It expands to fill completely whatever container it is in.

The aim of this passage is not to prove that the first statement is true. It simply further expands the idea
of the first statement. Because of this passage cannot be considered to be an argument. Yet expository
passages can also be interpreted as arguments if there is good reason that a statement is being proved by
others. This is not to say that some expository are arguments but only that some passages can be
interpreted both as expository passages and as arguments.

An Illustration; consists of statements about a certain subject combined with a reference to one or
more specific instances intended to exemplify that statement. Illustrations are often confused with
arguments because many of them contain indicator words such as “thus.” For example

Chemical elements, as well as compounds, can be represented by molecular formulas.

Thus, oxygen is represented by “O2” Sodium Chloride by “NaCl” and Sulfuric Acid by
“H2SO4.”

This passage is not an argument, because there is no claim that anything supported by evidence. The
purpose of the word “thus” is not to indicate that something is being proved but merely to show how
something is done (how chemical elements and compounds can represented by formulas).

Introduction to Logic Page 8

Nevertheless, as with expository passage, many passages that give examples can be interpreted as
argument. There are arguments which illustrate a process but they do it to prove a point. Such
arguments are called arguments from example. Example:

Although most forms of cancer, if untreated can cause death, not all cancers are life
threatening. For example, basal cell carcinoma, the most common of all skin cancers, can
produce disfigurement, but it almost never result in death.

This passage illustrates the effects of skin cancer, but the point of the explanation is to prove that not
all cancers are life threatening. So it can be taken as an argument. Let us also see another example.

Water is an excellent solvent. It can dissolve a wide range of materials that will not
dissolve in other liquids. For example, salts do not dissolve in most common solvents,
such as gasoline, kerosene, turpentine and cleaning fluids. But many salts dissolve
readily in water. So do a variety of nonionic organic substances, such as sugars and
alcohols of low molecular weight.

In this passage the examples that are cited can correctly be interpreted as proving the water is an
excellent solvent. Thus, the passage may be considered as an argument.

The types of non arguments described here are not mutually exclusive. One passage can often be
interpreted as an illustration, as an expository passage, a statement of opinion, or a set of loosely
associated statements. The main issue here is not what kind of non arguments a certain passage
might be, but whether that passage is best interpreted as an argument or non argument.

Conditional Statements; a conditional statement is an “if …then…” statement. For example;

If air is removed from a solid closed container, then the container will weigh less than it did.

Every conditional statement is made up of two components. The component statement immediately
following the “if” is called antecedent, and the one following the “then” is called the
consequent. Occasionally, if the word “then” is left out then the order of antecedent and
consequent is reversed. In the above example, the antecedent is “air is removed from a solid closed
container,” and the consequent is “the container will weigh less than it did.”

Conditional statements are not arguments, because they fail to meet the criteria given earlier. In an
argument, at least one statement must claim to provide the evidence or reasons, and there must be a
claim that this evidence implies something. In conditional statement, there is no claim that either the
antecedent or the consequent present evidence. In other words, there is no assertion that either the
antecedent or the consequent is true. Rather there is only the assertion that if the antecedent is true,
then so is the consequent. Of course, a conditional statement as a whole may present evidence,
because it asserts a relationship between statements. Yet when conditional statements are taken in
this sense, there is still no argument, because there is no separate claim that this evidence implies
anything.

Introduction to Logic Page 9

Some conditional statements are similar to arguments, however, in that they express the outcome of
a reasoning process. As such, they may be said to have a certain inferential content. Consider the
following:

1. If both Saturn and Uranus have rings, then Saturn has rings. 2. If iron is less dense than
mercury, then it will float in mercury.

The link between the antecedent and consequent of these conditional statements resembles the
inferential link between the premises and conclusion of an argument. Yet there is a difference because
the premises of an argument are claimed to be true, whereas no such claim is made for the antecedent
of a conditional statement. Accordingly, these conditional statements are not arguments. Yet their
inferential content may be re-expressed to form arguments.
The relation between conditional statements and arguments may be summarized as the following
manner

1. A single conditional statement is not an argument.

2. A conditional statement may serve as either the premise or the conclusion or both of an
argument.

3. The inferential content of a conditional statement may be re-expressed to form an argument.

For example, let see us the following conditional statement and it can be re-expressed to form
an argument;

Conditional statement; If cigarette companies publish warning labels, then smokers assume the
risk of smoking.

Argument form; If cigarette companies publish warning labels, then smokers assume the risk of
smoking. Cigarette companies do publish warning labels. Therefore, smokers assume the risk of
reasoning.

Conditional statements are especially important in logic because they express the relationship
between the necessary and sufficient conditions.

 A is sufficient condition for B whenever the occurrence of A is all that is needed for the
occurrence of B.

 B is said to be a necessary condition for A, whenever A cannot occur without the occurrence
of B.

For example; 1. Being a human is sufficient for being a mammal. But being a mammal is necessary
before you can be a human.

2. Having gas in your car is necessary to driving, but it is not enough to actually
get you on the road. A sufficient condition for deriving would be to put the key
into the ignition, but without gas then driving won‟t happen.

Introduction to Logic Page 10

Explanations; an explanation consists of a statement or group of statements intended to shed light on
some phenomenon that is usually accepted as a matter of fact. For example;

The sky appears blue from the earth‟s surface because light rays from the sun are scattered
by particles in the atmosphere.

Cows can digest grass, while humans cannot, because their digestive systems contain
enzymes not found in humans.

Every explanation is composed of two distinct components: the explanandum and explanans. The
explanadum is a statement that describes the event or phenomenon to be explained, and the explanans
is the statement or group of statements that purports to do the explaining.

Explanations are sometimes mistaken for arguments because they often contain the indicator word
“because.” Yet explanations are not arguments for the following reason:

 In an explanation, the explanans is intended to show why something is the case, whereas in an
argument the premises are intended to prove that something is the case. In the first example
given above, the fact that the sky is blue is readily apparent. The intention of the passage is to
explain why it appears blue – not to prove that it appears blue. Similarly, in the second example,
virtually everyone knows that people cannot digest grass. The intention of the passage is to
explain why this is true.

Explanations bear a certain similarity to arguments. Like certain conditional statements, explanations
express the outcome of a reasoning process. The rational link between the explanandum and the
explanans may at times resemble the inferential link between the premises and conclusion of an
argument. Yet explanations are not arguments, because they do not purport to prove anything. If
explanations are said to have a certain inferential content, that content is not used for the same purpose
as the inferential content expressed in arguments.

In summary, in deciding whether a passage contains an argument, one should look for three
things:

1. Indicator words.

2. The presence of an inferential relationship between statements, and

3. Typical kinds of non arguments.

Also, in the absence of indicator words, remember that it is often helps to mentally insert the word
“therefore” before the various statements to decide whether it makes sense to interpret one of them as
following from the others.

1.3 Deduction and Induction

Introduction to Logic Page 11

 →So far we have seen the meaning and structures of an argument. Now the discussion more continues
on types of arguments. Generally speaking arguments can be classified into two folds: deductive and
inductive.

 A deductive argument is an argument in which the premises are claimed to support the
conclusion in such a way that if they are assumed true, it is impossible for the conclusion to be
false. The word “impossible” in strict sense implies that the conclusion is claimed to follow
necessarily from the premises. Let‟s see following two examples of a deductive argument;
1. Any university student must have passed entrance exam. Daniel is a university student.
Hence, he must have passed entrance exam.
2. All public servants pay income tax. Hana is a public servant. Therefore, she pays
income tax.
 An inductive argument is an argument in which the premises are claimed to support the
conclusion in such a way that if they are assumed true, then based on that assumption it is
improbable that the conclusion is false (that is, it is probable that the conclusion is true). These
are examples of an inductive argument;
1. Most famous philosophers of the world are theists. Fredric Nietzsche was one of the
well-known philosophers of the world. So, he was a theist.
2. From our past experience we realized that the sun rises in the east and sets in the west.
Hence, tomorrow the sun will rise in the east and set in the west.
→NB. The distinction between inductive and deductive arguments appears in the strength of an
argument‟s inferential claim. This is to mean that the difference between deductive and inductive
arguments lies in how strongly the conclusion is claimed to follow from the premises. Although it may
be sometimes difficult to know explicitly the strength of the claims in a given argument, it is advisable
to use one‟s interpretive skill to evaluate it. There are three (3) factors that influence our decisions
about this claim:

1) The occurrence of special indictor words

→Some of the indictor terms of a deductive argument are “definitely,” “certainly,” and “absolutely”-
these all show that an absolute (strong) connection between the premise(s) and a conclusion.

▪ E.g. Anyone who is trained in computer engineering must have an ample knowledge
about software programming and maintenance. Kiros is the newly employed computer
engineer in our organization. It certainly follows that he knows about software
programming and maintenance.

→These are some of special indictor words of an inductive argument; “Probable/Improbable,”

“Plausible/Implausible,” “Likely/Unlikely” and “Reasonable to conclude”.

▪ E.g. Many pregnant women in Ethiopia have lost their life because of malnutrition.
Three pregnant women recently died at Mekelle hospital. We may conclude that they
died due to malnutrition.

Introduction to Logic Page 12

→ NB: the indictor word “must” can imply either necessity or probability, so that it belongs to both
categories.

2) The actual strength of the Inferential Link

→ Here it is quite important the reader or listener to use the interpretive skill of her own by pondering
the strength of the inferential link between premise(s) and conclusion. If the conclusion actually does
follow with strict necessity from the premises, the argument is clearly deductive. In such argument it is
impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion false. On the other hand, if the conclusion
does not follow with strict necessity but does follow probably, it is usually best to consider the
argument inductive. Consider the following two contrasting examples.

1. All saleswomen have studies marketing. Elizabeth is a saleswoman. Therefore, Elizabeth has
studied marketing.
2. The vast majority of saleswomen have studied marketing. Elizabeth is a saleswoman. Therefore,
Elizabeth has studied marketing.

1) The Forms of Arguments

This is the third factor which can be used when an argument contains no indictor words, and the
conclusion does not follow either strictly or probably from the premises. There are five (5) deductive
and six (6) inductive widely recognized forms of arguments. Let us discuss them one by one.

A. Forms of a Deductive Argument

1. Argument based on mathematics: This includes argument based on some purely arithmetic or
geometric computation or measurement.

▪ E.g. The total number of fresh students who have joined Mekelle University in 2013/2014 is
12,000. For each of the four campuses of the University, 3000 new students are assigned to train
in different fields of study. Therefore, Adi Haki campus of Mekelle University has enrolled about
3,000 fresh students.

2. Argument from Definitions: This is an argument in which the conclusion is claimed to depend
merely upon the definition of some word or phrase used in the premise or conclusion

1. E.g. George is an egotist. Therefore, he has an inflated impression of his own importance.

2. Arthur is a polygamist. Therefore, he has more than one wife.

3. Syllogistic Arguments: Syllogism is an argument consisting of exactly two

premises and a conclusion.

There are three types of a syllogistic argument. These are;

1. Categorical Syllogism; it is a syllogism in which each statement starts with one of words “all,”
“no,” or “some.” For example;

Introduction to Logic Page 13

 1. All lawyers are politicians. Some lawyers are economists. Therefore, some politicians are
economists.

2. All essay contests are challenges that promote thinking. All challenges that promote thinking are
educational experiences. Thus, all essay contests are educational experiences.

2. Hypothetical Syllogism; is a syllogism having a conditional statement for one or both of its
premises.

1. If the public approves of same sex marriages, then same sex marriages will be legalized. The
public does not approve of same sex marriages. Therefore, same sex marriages will not be
legalized.
2. If the Club won the Championship, then the club received $50, 000 as reward from the National
Football Association. The Club received $50, 000 from the National Football Association.
Therefore, the Club actually won the Championship.

3. Disjunctive Syllogism; is a syllogism having a disjunctive statement (i.e., an “either…or…”

statement) for one of its premises.

E.g.1. Either colonel Muammar Gaddafi is killed by NATO‟s military force or by Libyan rebel
groups. Gaddafi is not killed by NATO‟s military power. Thus, he was killed by rebel
groups.

2. Either Leonardo da Vinci or Andrew Wyeth painted the Mona Lisa. But it clearly wasn't
Andrew Wyeth. Therefore, da Vinci painted the Mona Lisa.

B. Forms of an Inductive Argument

1. An argument based on prediction; in this type argument the premises deal with some known
event in the present or past, and the conclusion moves beyond this event to some event in the relative
future.

E.g. “Because Mekelle city has been 132 years old since its foundation, and because the rainfall
in it has been 20 inches every year for the past 128 years, it must be the case that next year the
rainfall will be more than 20 inches,” is a strong inductive argument.
2. An argument from analogy; this argument occurs when there is an analogy or similarity
between two things or states of affairs.

E.g. Canada is similar in many ways to the United States. Both countries share the same language,
values, and a free market economy. Also, they share a common border. Therefore, the Canadian flag
must look a lot like the U.S. flag.
3. An Inductive Generalization; this is an argument that proceeds from the knowledge of a
selected sample to some claim about the whole group. Since the members of the sample have a certain
attributes or characteristic(s), it is argued that all the members of the group have that same
characteristic(s).
Introduction to Logic Page 14
 E.g. Your sample shows that more than 60% of the class are highly interested in learning
Ethiopian traditional painting. Therefore, we may conclude that all students of the class are very
much interested in learning Ethiopian traditional painting.
4. An argument from Authority; this is an argument in which the conclusion rests upon a
statement made by some presumed authority or witness.

E.g. Mr. Thomas Michael, the director of World Food Program in Ethiopia mentioned that
almost three million people of the country are suffering because of food scarcity. On the basis
of Mr. Thomas Michael‟s authority, it is reasonable to conclude that millions of Ethiopians are
starved.
5. An argument based on Signs; this is an argument that proceeds from the knowledge of a certain
sign (symbol, symptom) to knowledge of the thing or situation that the sign stands for.

E.g. Look her shoulders, there is a tattoo of Emperor H/Sellasie. Therefore, she is probably a
Rastafarian.
6. A Causal Inference; this is an argument that proceeds from knowledge of a cause to knowledge
of the effect, or, conversely, from knowledge of an effect to knowledge of a cause.

E.g. Ato Wondemu was an alcoholic person throughout his life. The medical test shows that he
is infected with a liver cancer. Thus, he is infected by a liver cancer because he drunk for a
number of years.

1.4 Validity, Truth, Soundness, Strength, Cogency

We have seen that every argument make two basic claims: a claim that evidence exists and a claim that
the alleged evidence supports something (or that something follows from the alleged evidence). The
first is a factual claim; the second is an inferential claim. The evaluation of every argument centers on
the evaluation of these two claims. The most important of the two is the inferential claim, because if the
premises fail to support the conclusion (that is, if the reasoning is bad), an argument is worthless. Thus
we will always test the inferential claim first, and only if the premises do support the conclusion will
we test the factual claim (that is, the claim that the premises present genuine evidence, or are true).

A Valid Argument is a deductive argument in which, if the premises are assumed true, it is
impossible for the conclusion to be false. In such arguments, the conclusion follows with strict
necessity from the premises. For example;

All terrorist leaders are religious extremists.

Osama Bin Laden was a terrorist leader.
Therefore, Osama Bin Laden was religious extremist.

An Invalid Argument is a deductive argument such that if the premises are assumed true, it is
possible for the conclusion to be false. In these arguments the conclusion does not follow with strict
necessity from the premises, even though it claimed to.

Introduction to Logic Page 15

 All film makers are millioners.

Amanda is a millioner.

So, Amanda is a film maker.

Two immediate consequences follow from these two definitions. The first is that, there is no middle
ground between valid and invalid argument. That means there are no arguments that are “almost” valid
and “almost” invalid. If the conclusion follows with strict necessity from the premises, the argument is
valid, if not, it is invalid.

The second consequence is that there is only an indirect relation between validity and truth. For an
argument to be valid, it is not necessary that either the premises or the conclusion be true, but merely
that if the premises are assumed true, it is impossible that the conclusion be false. Here is an example of
valid argument having a false premise and false conclusion:

All auto makers are computer manufacturers;

NOKIA is an auto maker.

Therefore, NOKIA is a computer manufacturer.

To see this argument is valid one must ignore the fact that the premises are false and attempt to
determine that would be true, if the premises were true. Clearly, if the premises were true, it would
follow necessarily that NOKIA is a computer manufacturer. Thus, the argument is valid.

Just the occurrence of false premises and a false conclusion does not prevent an argument from being
valid, so the occurrence of true premises and a true conclusion does not guarantee validity. Here is an
example of an invalid argument having true premises and a true conclusion:

All wines are beverages.

Vodca is a beverage.
Therefore, Vodca is a wine.

Note that the truth and falsity of premises and conclusion is irrelevant to the question of validity except
in the case of true premises and a false conclusion. Any deductive argument having true
premises and a false conclusion is necessarily invalid. This is perhaps the most important
fact in all of deductive logic. The entire system of deductive logic would be quite useless if it accepted
as valid any inferential process by which a person could start with truth in the premises and arrive at
falsity in the conclusion. Here is an example of an invalid argument having true premises and a false
conclusion:

All banks are financial organizations.

Nyala Insurance Company is a financial organization.

Therefore, Nyala Insurance Company is a bank.

Introduction to Logic Page 16

A Sound Argument is a deductive argument that is valid and has all true premises. Both
conditions must be met for an argument to be sound, and if either is missing the argument is unsound.
For example

All trees are plants.

Acacia is a tree.
Therefore, acacia is a plant.

Unsound Argument is a deductive argument that is invalid, has one or more false premises, or
both. Because a valid argument is one such that, if the premises are true, it is impossible for the
conclusion to be false and because a sound argument does in fact have true premises, it follows that
every sound argument, by definition, will have true conclusion as well. A sound argument therefore, is
what is meant by a “good” deductive argument in the fullest sense of the term.

In connection with definition of soundness, a single provision is required: for an argument to be

unsound, the false premise or premises must actually be needed to support the conclusion.

 All invalid deductive arguments are unsound.

A Strong Argument is an inductive argument such that if the premises are assumed true, then
based on the assumption it is probable that the conclusion is true.

E.g. More than 99% of all airplane flights land safely. Therefore, probably the next flight to depart from Bole
International Airport will land safely.

A weak Argument is an inductive argument such that if the premises are assumed true, then
based on that assumption it is not probable that the conclusion is true.

→ Unlike validity and invalidity, strength and weakness generally admit of degrees. The central
question in determining strength or weakness is whether the conclusion would probably be true if the
premises are assumed true. The following examples demonstrate that the first argument is not
absolutely weak nor the second absolutely strong. Both arguments would be strengthened or weakened
by the random selection of a larger or smaller sample. The incorporation of additional premises into an
inductive argument will also generally tend to strengthen or weaken it.

E.g. 1) In a random sample of 50 students, 15 said that they regularly read a newspaper. Therefore, probably
more than 50% of the students regularly read a newspaper. (Weak)
2) In a random sample of 50 students, 30 said that they regularly read a newspaper. Therefore, probably
more than 50% of the students regularly read a newspaper. (Strong)
→ As with validity and invalidity, strength and weakness are only indirectly related to truth and falsity
except in the case of true premises and a probably false conclusion. Any inductive argument
having true premises and a probable false conclusion is always weak. Inductive

Introduction to Logic Page 17

 logic would be useless if it accepted as strong any inductive argument having true premises and a
probably false conclusion.

→ A cogent Argument is an inductive argument that is strong and has all true premises; if
either condition is missing the argument is “uncogent”. Thus, an uncogent argument is an
inductive argument that is weak, has one or more false premises, or both. A cogent argument is
the inductive analogue of a sound deductive argument and is what is meant by a “good‟ inductive
argument without qualification. Because the conclusion of a cogent argument is genuinely
supported by true premises, it follows that the conclusion of every cogent argument is probably
true. Also note that all weak inductive arguments are uncogent.

 There is a difference between sound and cogent arguments in regard to the true-premises
requirement. In a sound argument it is only necessary that the premises be true and nothing more.
Given such premises and a good reasoning, a true conclusion is guaranteed. In a cogent argument, on
the other hand, the premises must not only be true, they must also not ignore some important piece
of evidence that outweighs the given evidence and entails a quite different conclusion.

E.g. 1) The famous economist Sir Isaac Newton stated that World Bank‟s structural adjustment
program cannot be effectively implemented in the Third-World nations due to governmental
mismanagement. In views of Newton, we may conclude that World Banks structural adjustment
program is ineffective. (Uncogent)

2) Almost all African countries were colonized. Kenya is one the of African countries. Thus,
most probably, Kenya was colonized. (Cogent)

CHAPTER TWO

LOGIC AND LANGUAGE: MEANING AND DEFINITION

2.1 Cognitive Meaning and Emotive Meaning

Ordinary language serves various functions in our day-to-day lives. Among other things, language is
used to

ask questions tell jokes tell stories

flirt with someone tell lies give directions

guess at answers sing songs form hypothesis

issue commands launch verbal assault greet someone and so on.

Introduction to Logic Page 18

However, two linguistic functions are particularly important:

1) to convey information
2) express or evoke feelings
For example, consider the following statements:

The death penalty, which is legal in thirty-six states, has been carried out most often in
Georgia; however, since 1977 Texas holds the record for the greatest number of
executions.

The death penalty is cruel and inhuman form of punishment in which hapless prisoners are
dragged from their cells and summarily slaughtered only to satiate of a vengeful public.

The first statement is intended primarily to convey information; the second is intended, at least in part,
to express or evoke feelings.

Terminology that conveys information is said to have Cognitive Meaning, and terminology that

expresses or evokes feelings is said to have Emotive Meaning.

Note: a) Emotively charged statements usually have both cognitive and emotive meaning. But since
logic is concerned chiefly with cognitive meaning, it is important that we be able to distinguish and
disengage the cognitive meaning of such statements from the emotive meaning.

b) Part of the cognitive meaning of emotively charged statements is a value claim. Such value
claims are often the most important part of the cognitive meaning of emotive statements.

Value claims as such, however, require evidence to support them. But when value claims are couched
in emotive terminology, the emotive “clothing” tends to obscure the fact that a value claim is being
made, and it simultaneously gives psychological momentum to that claim. Indeed, this technique of
couching value claims in emotive terminology is so effective that in some circles it has reached the
level of a a science. The world of advertising and the military are the prime examples.

In arguments, emotive terminology accomplishes the same function as in statements. That means, it
allows the arguer to make value claims about the subject matter without providing evidence, and it
gives the argument a kind of steamroller quality by which it tends to crush potential counterarguments
before the reader or listener has a chance to think them. These effects of emotive terminology can be

Introduction to Logic Page 19

avoided if the reader or listener will disengage the value claims and other cognitive meanings from the
emotive meaning of the language and re-express them as distinct premises.

Disputes can center on a confusion of cognitive meanings between the disputants. Disputes that center
on the meaning of a word are called verbal disputes. And disputes that center on a matter of fact are
called factual disputes.

Consider the following examples;

BRENDA: I'm afraid that Smiley is guilty of arson. Last night he confided to me that he was one who
set fire on the old schoolhouse.

WARREN: No, you couldn't be more mistaken. In this country no one is guilty until proven so in a
court of law, and Smiley has not yet even been accused of anything.

(This dispute center on the meaning of the word “guilty”. Therefore, it is a verbal dispute)

KEITH: I know that Freddie stole a computer from the old schoolhouse. Barbara told me that she saw
Freddie do it.

PYLLIS: That's ridiculous! Freddie has never stolen anything in his life. Barbara hate Freddie, and she
is trying to pin the theft on him only to shield her criminal boyfriend.

(This dispute centers not the meaning of words, but on a matter of fact; whether or not Freddie stole the
computer. Therefore, it is a factual dispute)

2.2 The Intension and Extension of Terms

Although the primary aim of logic is the analysis and evaluation of arguments, the interrelated topics of
meaning and definition have long occupied a prominent position within the discipline, for a number
of reasons. Among them, arguments are composed of statements, statements are made up of words,
words have meanings, and meanings are conveyed through definitions. In addition, logic, especially
formal logic, is heavily dependent on definitions to attribute highly specific meanings to its technical
terminology.

The basic units of any ordinary language are words. But our concern in this chapter is on terms.

A term is any word or arrangement of words that may serve as the subject of a statement.

Introduction to Logic Page 20

Terms consist of proper names, common names, and descriptive phrases. Examples:

Napoleon (Proper name), school (common name), first president of the United States

(Descriptive phrase)

Words that are not terms include verbs, nonsubstantive adjectives, adjectives, adverbs, prepositions,
conjunctions, and all nonsyntactic arrangements of words. Example: dictatorial, runs quickly,
moreover, above and beyond, cabbages into again the forests

Intensional meaning consists of the qualities or attributes that the term connotes. The intensional

meaning is known as the intension or connotation. Extensional meaning consists of the members

of the class that the term denotes. Extensional meaning is known as extension or denotation. For
example, the intension (or connotation) of the term “cat” consists of the attributes of being furry, of
having four legs, of moving in a certain way, of emitting certain sounds, and so on, and the extension
(or denotation) consists of all the cats in the universe.

“Intension” and “extension” are roughly equivalent to the more modern terms “sense” and “reference,”
respectively. These two kinds of meaning will provide the basis for the definitional techniques.

Because terms symbolize meanings to individual persons, it is inevitable for subjective elements to
invade the notion of connotation. Because these subjective elements inevitably lead to confusion when
it it comes to identifying the connotation of specific terms, logicians typically restrict the meaning of
“connotation” to what may be called conventional connotation.

Conventional Connotation of a term consists of the properties or attributes that the term
commonly connotes to the members of the community who speak the language in question.

Under this interpretation;

1. The connotation of a term remains more or less the same from person to person and time to
time.
2. The denotation of a term also typically remains the same person to person but may change from
time to time.
3. Sometimes the denotation of a term can change radically with the passage of time.

Introduction to Logic Page 21

Sometimes, terms may have Empty Extension. Such terms are said to denote empty (“null”) class,
the class that has no members. The fact that some terms have empty extension leads us to an important
connection between extension and intension, namely, that intension determines extension; which
implies that the intensional meaning of a term serves as the criterion for deciding what extension
consists of.

The distinction between intension and extension may be further illustrated by comparing the way in
which these concepts can be used to give order to random sequences of terms. Terms may be put in the
order of increasing intension, increasing extension, decreasing intension, and decreasing extension.

 A series of terms is in the order of increasing intension when each term in the series (except the
first) connotes more attributes than the one preceding it. In other words, each term in the series
(except the first) is more specific than the one preceding it. A term is specific to the degree that
it connotes more attributes.
The order of decreasing intension is the reverse.

 A series of terms is in the order of increasing extension when each term in the series (except the
first) denotes a class having more members than the class denoted by the term preceding it. In
other words, the class size gets larger with each successive term. The order of decreasing
extension is the reverse.

Example: Increasing intension: Animal. Mammal, Feline, Tiger

Decreasing intension: Tiger, Feline, Mammal, Animal

Increasing extension: Tiger, Feline, Mammal, Animal

Decreasing extension: Animal. Mammal, Feline, Tiger

Note that;

I. The order of increasing intension is usually the same as that of decreasing extension.
II. The order of decreasing intension is usually the same as that of increasing extension.
However, there are some exceptions. Note the following examples.

Introduction to Logic Page 22

E.g. 1. Unicorn; unicorn with blue eyes; unicorn with blue eyes and green horn; unicorn with blue eyes,
green horn, and a weight of over 400 pounds... (Each term in this series has empty extension; so, while
the series exhibits the order of increasing intension, it does not exhibit the order of decreasing
extension).

2. Living human being; living human being with genetic code; living human being with genetic
code and a brain; living human being with a genetic code, a brain, and a height of less than 100 feet...
(In this series none of the terms has empty extension, but each term has exactly the same extension as
the others. Thus, while the intension increases with each successive term, the extension does not
decrease).

2.3 Definitions and Their Purposes

for most logicians today, definitions are intended exclusively to explicate the meaning of words. We

may define definition as a group of words that assigns a meaning to some word or group of words.

Accordingly, every definition consists of two parts; the definiendum and the definiens.

Definiendum:- is the the word or group of words that is supposed to be defined.

Definiens:- is the word or group of words that does the defining.

E.g. “Tiger” means a large, stripped, ferocious feline indigenous to the jungles of India and Asia. Here,
the word “tiger” is the definiendum, and everything after the word “means” is the definiens.

Types of Definitions

1) Stipulative Definition: assigns a meaning to a word for the first time. This may involve

either coining a new word or giving a new meaning for an old word.
The Purpose of a stipulative definition is usually to replace a more complex expression with a simpler
one. The need for this type of definition is often occasioned by some new phenomenon.

E.g. tigon (to designate offspring of male tiger and female lion), liger (to designate male lion and
female tiger)

Introduction to Logic Page 23

Another use of this type of definition is to set up secrete codes. For example, “Operation Barbarosa”
was the name the Germans gave to the invasion of Russia, and, “Operation Desert Storm” was the code
name given to the military invasion of Iraq.

Since a stipulative definition is completely arbitrary assignment of a meaning to a word for the first
time, there can be no such a thing as true or false stipulative definition. For the same reason, a
stipulative definition cannot provide any new information about the subject matter of the definiendum.
One stipulative definition, however, be more or less convenient or more or less appropriate than
another.

2) Lexical Definition: is used to report the meaning that a word already has in a language.

Dictionary definitions are all instances of lexical definitions.

In contrast with a stipulative definition, a lexical definition may be true or false depending on whether
it does or does not report the way a word is actually used. Because words are frequently used in more
than one way, lexical definitions have further purpose of eliminating the ambiguity that would
otherwise arise if one of these meanings were to be confused with another. A word is ambiguous when
it can be interpreted as having two or more clearly distinct meanings in a given context. Some words
that are subject to ambiguous usage are “light”, “bank”, “right”, “race”. Because a lexical definition
lists the various meanings that a word can have, a person who consults such a definition is better
prepared to avoid ambiguous constructions of his or her own and to detect those of others. A good
lexical definition will distinguish various shadings and thereby guard against the possibility that two
meanings will be unconsciously jumbled together into one.

3) Precising Definitions: the purpose of a precising definition is to reduce the vagueness of

a word (as to the applicability of the word to a specific situation).

A word is vague if there are borderline cases such that it is impossible to tell whether the word applies
to them or not. For example, words like “conservative”, “peace”, “excess”, “poor”, “love” are vague.
Once the vagueness has been reduced, one can reach a decision as to the applicability of the word to a
specific situation.

Whenever words are employed in a highly systematic context, such as science, mathematics, medicine,
or law, they must always be clarified by means of a precising definition. Sometimes the substance of a
court trial may revolve around the precise usage of a term.

Introduction to Logic Page 24

A precising definition differs from a stipulative definition in that the assignment of meaning in a
precising definition is not at all arbitrary. A great deal of care must be taken to ensure that the
assignment of meaning in a précising definition is appropriate and legitimate for the context within
which the term is to be employed.

4) Theoretical Definition: provides a theoretical picture or characterization of the entity or

entities denoted by the definiendum. In other words, it provides a way of viewing or conceiving these
entities that suggests deductive consequences, further investigation and whatever else would be
entailed by the acceptance of a theory governing these entities (more than merely assigning a meaning
to a word). Not all theoretical definitions are associated with science. Many terms in philosophy, such
as “substance,” „form,” „cause,” “God,” have been given theoretical definitions.
e.g. “heat” means the energy associated with the random motion of the molecules of a substance.

Like stipulative definitions, theoretical definitions are neither true nor false, strictly speaking. They
may, however, be more or less interesting or more or less fruitful, depending on the deductive
consequences they entail and on the outcome of the experiments they suggest.

5) Persuasive Definition: the purpose of persuasive definition is to engender a favorable or

unfavorable attitude toward what is denoted by the definiendum. This is accomplished by assigning an
emotively charged or value-laden meaning to a word while making it appear that the word really has
(ought to have) that meaning in the language in which it is used.
Persuasive definition amounts to a certain synthesis of stipulative, lexical, and theoretical definitions
backed by the rhetorical motive to engender a certain attitude.

The objective of a persuasive definition is to influence the attitudes of the reader/listener. While
persuasive definitions may, like lexical definitions, be evaluated as either true or false, the primary
issue is neither truth nor falsity but the effectiveness of such definitions as instruments of persuassion.

e.g. 1. “Abortion” means the ruthless murdering of innocent human being.

2. “Abortion” means a safe and established surgical procedure whereby a woman is relieved of an
unwanted burden.

Introduction to Logic Page 25

2.4 Definitional Techniques

Some of the techniques used to produce the different kinds of definitions in terms of intensional and
extensional meanings are discussed below.

Extensional (Denotative) Definitions

An extensional definition is one that assigns a meaning to a certain term by indicating members of the
class that the definiendum denotes. There are at least three ways of indicating the members of a class:
pointing to them, naming them individually, and naming them in groups.

A) Demonstrative (Ostensive) Definitions are probably the most primitive form of

definition. Demonstrative definition can be either partial or complete. Such definition is good to
teach one's language for foreigner.
Demonstrative definitions are also the most limited (limitation that the required objects be available for
being pointed at). Demonstrative definition differs from the other types of extensional definition in that
the definiens is constituted at least in part by a gesture- the gesture of pointing.

B) Enumerative Definition: assigns a meaning to a term by naming the members of the

class the term denotes. And this may be either partial or complete; but it is difficult to
enumerate all and which have no names.
e.g. “Planet” means one of the following: Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Saturn, Jupiter, Neptune,
Uranus, or Pluto.

C) Definition by subclass: assigns a meaning to a term by naming subclasses of the class

denoted by the term. May also be either partial or complete; but complete definitions by
subclass are often difficult.
e.g. “Flower” means a rose, lily, daisy, geranium, zinnia, and the like.

“Tree” means an oak, pine, elm spruce, eucalyptus, maple, and the like.

“Fictional work” means either a poem, a play, a novel, or a short story.

 Extensional definitions are chiefly used as techniques for producing lexical and stipulative
definitions. Although it is inconceivable that extensional definitions could also serve as

Introduction to Logic Page 26

 techniques for theoretical and persuasive definitions (though this would be highly unusual),
extensional definitions by themselves cannot properly serve as précising definitions for the
following reason. The function of a précising definition is to clarify a vague word, and
vagueness is a problem affecting intensional meaning. Because the intension is imprecise, the
extension is indefinite. To attempt to render the intension precise by exactly specifying the
extension (as with an extensional definition) would be tantamount to having extension
determine intension-which cannot be done.
 The principle intension determines extension, whereas the reverse is not true, underlies the fact
that all extensional definitions suffer serious deficiencies. Sometimes, it makes no difference
how many individuals or subclasses are named in an extensional definition, there is no
assurance that listeners or readers will get the intensional meaning. Note that extensions can
suggest intensions, but they cannot determine them.

Intensional (Connotative) Definitions

An intensional definition is one that assigns a meaning to a word by indicating the qualities or attributes
that the word connotes. Four strategies may be used to indicate the attributes a word connotes.

A) A synonymous Definition is one in which the definiens is a single word that connotes

the same attributes as the definiendum; the definiens is the synonym of the word being defined.
Examples: “Physician” means doctor.

“Observe” means see

“Intentional‟ means willful.

A synonymous definition is a highly concise way of assigning a meaning. However, many words have
subtle shades of meaning that are not connoted by any other single word. For example, “wisdom” is not
exactly synonymous with either “knowledge,” “understanding.”

B) Etymological Definition assigns a meaning to a word by indicating the word's ancestry

in both its own language and other languages. It has special importance for:
i. The etymological definition of a word often conveys the word's root/seminal meaning from
which all other associated meanings are derived.
ii. If one is familiar with the etymology of one English word, one often has access to the meaning

Introduction to Logic Page 27

 of an entire constellation of related words.
Examples: 1. The word “orthodox” derives from the two Greek words ortho, meaning right or straight,
and doxa, meaning belief or opinion.

2. The word “principle” derives from the Latin word principium, which means beginning or
source.

3. The word “captain” derives from the Latin noun caput which means head.

C) Operational Definition: assigns a meaning to a word by specifying certain

experimental procedures that determines whether or not the word applies to a certain thing. But
they involve certain deficiencies. Among them, operational definitions usually convey only part
of the intensional meaning of a term. This deficiency becomes more acute when one attempts to
apply operational definitions to terms outside the framework of science.
Examples: 1. A solution is an “acid” if and only if litmus paper turns red when dipped into it.

2. A subject has „brain activity” if and only if an electroencephalograph shows oscillations

when attached to the subject‟s head.

3. One substance is “harder than” another if and only if one scratches the other when the
two are rubbed together.

 Each of these definitions prescribes an operation to be performed. Unless it specifies such an

operation, a definition can‟t be an operational definition. For example, “A solution is an “acid”
if and only if it has a pH of less than 7,” while good in other respects, is not an operational
definition because it prescribes no operation.
 Operational definitions were invented for the purpose of tying down relatively abstract concepts
to the solid ground of empirical reality. But they involve certain deficiencies. One of these
deficiencies concerns the fact that operational definitions usually convey only part of the
intensional meaning of a term. This deficiency becomes more acute when one attempts to apply
operational definitions to terms outside the framework of science.

D) A Definition by Genus and Difference: assigns a meaning to a term by

identifying a genus term and one or more difference words that, when combined, convey the
meaning of the term being defined. It is more generally applicable and achieves more adequate
results than any of the other kinds of intensional definitions.

Introduction to Logic Page 28

  In logic, genus simply means a relatively larger class and species means a relatively smaller
subclass of the genus. In other words, genus and species are merely relative classifications.
 The “specific difference” or “difference” is the attribute(s) that distinguish the various species
within the genus.
 Because the specific difference what distinguishes the species, when a genus is qualified by a
specific difference, a species is identified. Definition by genus and difference consists of
combining a term denoting a genus with a word or group of words connoting a specific
difference so that the combination identifies the meaning of the term denoting the species.
Examples: Species Difference Genus

Daughter means female offspring.

Husband means married man.

Ice means frozen water.

 Other examples are more sophisticated. Look at the following.

“Tent” means a collapsible shelter made of canvas or other material that is stretched and sustained by
poles.

 A definition by genus and difference is easy to construct; and it is the most effective of the intensional
definitions for producing the five kinds of definitions.
 Definition by genus and difference is the most effective of the intensional definitions for
producing the five kinds of definitions (stipulative, lexical, précising, theoretical, and
persuasive).
 Lexical definitions are typically definitions by genus and difference, but they also often include
etymological definitions. Operational definition can serve as the method for constructing
stipulative, lexical, précising, and persuasive definitions, but it typically couldn‟t be used to
produce a complete lexical definition. Synonymous definition may be used to produce only
lexical definitions; but it can‟t be used used to produce stipulative definitions, and the fact that
the definiens of such a definition contain no more information than the definiendum prohibits its
use in constructing précising, theoretical, and persuasive definitions.

Introduction to Logic Page 29

 Chapter Three

Informal Fallacies
A fallacy is a defect in an argument that consists in something other than merely false premises.
Fallacies can be committed in many ways. But they usually involve either a mistake in reasoning or the
creation of some illusion that makes a bad argument appear good (or both). If both deductive and
inductive arguments contain fallacies, they are either unsound or uncogent. If an argument is unsound
or uncogent, it has one or more false premises or it contains a fallacy (or both).

Fallacies are usually of two types: formal and informal. A formal fallacy is one that may be identified
through mere inspection of the form or structure of an argument. It is a mistake with respect to the
form; or which is resulted from breaking some rule of validity. Fallacies of this kind are usually found
only in deductive arguments that have clearly recognized form: categorical, disjunctive and
hypothetical syllogisms.

Examples of formal fallacy,

1) All tigers are animals. All mammals are animals. Therefore, all tigers are mammals.
This argument has the following form which is incorrect;
In Incorrect The correct form is this

All A are B All A are B

All C are B All B are C
All A are C All A are C

2) If nepotism is wrong, then it is destructive. And it is destructive. Hence, nepotism is wrong.

The form of this argument is: If A, then B
B
Therefore, A (Fallacy of affirming the consequent)
3) If it is raining, then the ground is wet. It is not raining. So, the ground is not wet.
The argument has this form: If A, then B
Not A
So, not B (Fallacy of denying the antecedent)
Informal fallacies are those that can be detected only through the analysis of the content of the
argument. They are errors which arise from carelessness with respect to the relevance of ideas or with
respect to the clarity and consistency of language.
Examples: 1) All factories are plants. All plants are things that contain chlorophyll. Therefore, all factories are
things that contain chlorophyll.
When we analyze the content of this argument it will have the following form;
All A are B
All C are D
All A are D

Introduction to Logic Page 30

In this argument we represent the same word, i.e., plants by two different letters. This is because the
contextual meaning of the word “plants” in the first premise is quite different from the contextual
meaning it has in the second premise. In the first premise it represents a building where something is
manufactured; whereas in the second premise it represents a life form/living thing.
2) My wife's brother is a real pig; you should see him eating! And if he is pig, then he is not a human. So,
he is not human.
Here, the arguer uses the word “pig” in two contexts; a person who habitually over eats and a kind of
animal.
The informal fallacies accomplish their purposes in varies ways:
a) They obscure the form of the argument so that the reader or listener is deluded into thinking that
the argument is valid when in fact it is not.
b) They tend to prevent the reader or listener from acknowledging a missing premise that, if
acknowledged, would be clearly seen to be false (or at least questionable).
c) They delude the reader or listener into thinking that an acknowledged premise is true when it is
either false or questionable.
Informal fallacies are frequently backed by some motive on the part of the arguer to deceive the reader
or listener. The arguer may also delude himself into thinking that he or she is presenting genuine
evidence. In any event, the effect of informal fallacy is to make bad argument appear good.

Fallacies of Relevance
Arguments in which the fallacies of relevance occur have premises that are logically irrelevant to the
conclusion. Yet the premises are relevant psychologically, so the conclusion may seem to follow from
the premises, even though it does not follow logically. In such arguments the connection between the
premise and conclusion is emotional. The following are some examples of fallacies of relevance.
1) Appeal to Force (Argumentum ad Baculum: Appeal to “Stick”)
This fallacy occurs whenever an arguer poses a conclusion to another person and tells either implicitly
or explicitly some harm will come to him or her if he does not accept the conclusion. It always involves
a threat by the arguer on the physical or psychological wellbeing of the reader or listener. Obviously
such a threat is logically irrelevant to the subject matter of the conclusion.
1. Addis Ababa is the most attractive city in the world. If you don't agree, I am going to tell the police and you
will be arrested and detained.
2. Secretary to boss: I deserve a raise in salary for the coming year. After all, you know how friendly with your
wife, and I'm sure you wouldn't want her to find out what's been going on between you and that sexpot client of
yours.
2) Appeal to Pity (Argumentum ad Misericordiam)
This fallacy occurs whenever an arguer poses a conclusion and then attempts to evoke pity from the
reader or listener in an effort to get him or her accept the conclusion. Example:
1. Sir! At the end of the semester, you must give me a grade of “A”. If you don't do this, my girl friend will
hate me and the respect that I have from my friends will be ruined.
2. The position open in the accounting department should be given to Frank Thomson. Frank has six
hungry children to feed, and his wife desperately needs an operation to save her eyesight.

Introduction to Logic Page 31

 3) Appeal to People (Argumentum ad Populum)
It occurs when an arguer attempts to persuade a person or group of persons by appealing to the desire to
be accepted or valued by others. Two approaches are involved here: direct and indirect.
 The direct approach occurs when an arguer, addressing a large group of people, elicits the
emotions and enthusiasm of the crowd to win acceptance for his conclusion. The objective is to
arouse mob mentality. The direct approach is not limited to oral argumentation but also similar
effect can be accomplished in writing.
Example: Ladies and gentlemen, the Republican Party will emerge victorious! We are the true party of the
American people! We embody the values that all real Americans hold sacred! We cherish and protect our
founding fathers' vision that gave birth to the Constitution!
 In the indirect approach the arguer directs his/her appeal not to the crowd as a whole but to one
or more individuals separately, focusing upon some aspects of their relationship to the crowd.
The indirect approach has three forms. These are the bandwagon argument, the appeal to vanity,
and appeal to snobbery. All are standard techniques of the advertising industry.
 The following is an example of the bandwagon argument;
Of course you want to buy Zest toothpaste. Why, 90 percent of America brushes with Zest.
(The idea here is you will be left behind or left out of the group if you don't use the product).
 The appeal to vanity often associates the product with a certain celebrity who is admired and
pursued, the idea being that you, too, will be admired and pursued if you use it. Example;
Do you want to have modern shoes? Then, you should choose Ambessa Shoe Factory. This is
because our products are the first choice of the famous athlete Haile G/Selassie.
 The following is an example of appeal to snobbery
Coca cola is not for everyone. It is consumed only by those who have the ability to distinguish high
quality soft drink from others.
(Here the point is if you qualify as one of the selected few, you should prefer the product.)
 Both the direct and indirect approaches of the appeal to people fallacy have the following
structure:
You want to be accepted/included/loved/esteemed....Therefore, you should accept “xyz” as true.
4) Argument against the Person (Argudmentum ad Hominiem)
This fallacy always involves two arguers. One of them advances either directly or indirectly a certain
argument, the other then responds by directing his or her attention not on the first person's argument,
but to the first person himself. When this occurs the second person is said to commit an argument
against the person. It has three forms: ad hominiem abusive, ad hominiem circumstantial and tu quoque
(“you too” fallacy).
 In ad hominiem abusive, the second person responds to the first person's argument by
verbally abusing the first person. Look at the following example;
Sigmund Freud's psychoanalysis theory is nonsensical and unacceptable. Freud, you know, is a stupid
sexist Jewish.
 Unlike to ad hominiem abusive, ad hominiem circumstantial rather than verbally abusing
the opponent, the arguer tries to find certain circumstances that affect his/her opponent.
Example;

Introduction to Logic Page 32

 George Bush argued against the inhuman attack of Israel on the innocent Palestinians. He said, “the
Israelites are defending themselves.” He is saying this because he is the president of America who is
the close friend of Israel. Therefore, his argument lacks trustworthiness.
 In the tu quoque (you too) fallacy the arguer usually cite features in the life or behavior
of the first arguer that conflicts with the latter's conclusion. The nature of this fallacy looks like
this;
“How do you argue that I should stop doing “X”; why you do or have done X yourself”
Example: My teacher told me that cheating on exam is a bad habit. But he himself told me that he used
to cheat on exam when he was in university. Therefore, his argument is foolish.
5) Accident
The fallacy of accident is committed when a general rule is applied to specific case was not intended to
cover. The general rule is cited in the premise and wrongly applied to the specific case mentioned in the
conclusion. The following is a good example;
1. Whoever pierces a person's body with a knife should be brought to court. But surgeons often do this when
operating. Therefore, surgeons should be brought to court.
2. Freedom of speech is constitutionally guaranteed right. Therefore, Mr. Raul should not be arrested for his
speech that incited the riot last week.
6) Straw man Fallacy
Like the argument against the person, the straw man fallacy always involves two arguers. It is
committed when an arguer distorts an opponent's argument for the purpose of more easily attacking it,
demolishes the distorted argument, and then concludes that the opponent's real argument has been
demolished. Exaggeration of the first person's argument by the second arguer is common. Example;
1. So many people these days are against prayer in public schools. Of course, the assumption underlying
this view includes, there is no God only matter exists and life is essentially meaningless. That is why we must
fight against these who seek to remove prayer from our public school.
2. The student status committee has presented us with an argument favoring alcohol privileges on campus.
What do the students want? Is it their intention to stay boozed up from the day they enter as freshmen till the
day they graduate? Or maybe a chain of bars all over the campus? Such a proposal is ridiculous!
7) Missing the point (Ignoratio Elenchi)
It occurs when the premises of an argument support one particular conclusion, but then a different
conclusion, often vaguely related to the correct conclusion is drawn. Ignoratio Elenchi means
“ignorance of the proof”. The arguer is ignorant of the logical implication of his/her premises, and
draws a conclusion that misses the point. See the following examples;
1. Crimes of theft and robbery have been increasing at alarming rate lately. Therefore, we must restate the
death penalty immediately.
2. Abuse of the welfare system is rampant today. Our only alternative is to abolish the system.

8) The Red Herring Fallacy

It is committed when an arguer diverts the attention of the reader/listener by changing the subject to
some totally different issue. He/she often finishes by either drawing a conclusion about this different
issue or by merely presuming that some conclusion has been established.

Introduction to Logic Page 33

  To commit red herring fallacy effectively, the arguer must change the original subject of the
argument without the reader/listener noticing it. One way of doing so is to change it to some
flashy, eye-catching topic that is virtually guaranteed to distract one's attention: sex, crime,
death, immorality, and so on.
 Another way of committing red herring fallacy is by changing the subject to one subtly related
to the original subject.
Example: The Consumers Digest reports that Sylvania light bulbs last longer than GE bulbs. But do you realize
that GE is this country's major manufacturer of nuclear weapons? The social cost of GE's irresponsible behavior
has been tremendous. Among other things, we are left with thousands of tons of nuclear waste with nowhere to
put it. Obviously, the Consumers Digest is wrong.
 Note that this fallacy can be confused with straw man fallacy because both have the effect of
drawing the reader/listener off the track. But in the straw man the arguer begins by distorting an
opponent's argument and concludes by knocking down the distorted argument whereas in the
red herring, the arguer ignores the opponent's argument and subtly changes the subject.
 Both straw man and red herring fallacies are susceptible of being confused with missing the
point because all three involve a similar kind of irrelevance. However, both red herring and
straw man proceed by generating a new set of premises whereas missing the point does not.
Missing the point draws the conclusion from the original premises. In the red herring and straw
man, the conclusion is relevant to the premises from which it is drawn. In missing the point, the
conclusion is irrelevant to the premises from which it is drawn.

Fallacies of Weak Induction

The fallacies of weak induction occur not because the premises are logically irrelevant to the
conclusion, as in the case with fallacies of relevance, but because the connection between premises and
conclusion is not strong enough to support the conclusion. The premises provide at least a shred of
evidence in support of the conclusion, but the evidence is not nearly good enough to cause a reasonable
person to believe in the conclusion. Like the fallacies of relevance, however, the fallacies of weak
induction often involve emotional grounds for believing the conclusion.
1) Appeal to Unqualified Authority (Argumentum ad Verecundiam)
An argument from authority is an inductive argument in which the arguer cites the testimony of another
person in support of some conclusion. The appeal to unqualified authority fallacy occurs when the cited
authority or witness is not trustworthy. There are several reasons why the authority or witness might
not be trustworthy: the person might lack the requisite expertise, might be biased or prejudiced, might
have a motive to lie or disseminate “misinformation,” or might lack the requisite ability to perceive or
recall. Consider the following examples;
1. President Clinton stated that while he was a student at Oxford University he smoked marijuana but he
never inhaled. Therefore, we can only conclude that President Clinton never got high from smoking
marijuana during those years. (the President may lie because that time he was on election campaign)
2. Ato Tekle, the deaf person who lives in Mekelle, stated that hearing the voice of birds at the early
morning gives delightful pleasure. From this we can conclude that it is pleasurable to hear the voice of
birds in every morning.

Introduction to Logic Page 34

-In deciding whether someone is a qualified authority, there are two important points to keep in mind.
First, someone might be an authority in more than one field. The second point is that there are some
areas of argumentation where practically no one can be considered an authority: politics, morals, and
religion. Many questions in these areas are so hotly contested that there is no conventional wisdom an
authority can depend on.
2) Appeal to Ignorance (Argumentum ad Ignorantiam)
When the premises of an argument state that nothing has been proved one way or the other about
something, and the conclusion then makes a definite assertion about that thing, the argument commits
an appeal to ignorance. The issue usually involves something that has not yet been proved. Examples;
1) People have been trying for centuries to provide conclusive evidence for the claims of astrology, and no
one has succeeded. Therefore, we must conclude that astrology is a lot of nonsense.
2) Many scientists have tried for decades to get cure for HIV/AIDS, but could not succeed. From this, we
can conclude that no one will succeed in getting cure for HIV/AIDS.
Two important exceptions to the appeal to ignorance; the first stems from the fact that if qualified
researchers investigate a certain phenomenon within their range of expertise and fail to turn up any
evidence that the phenomenon exists, this fruitless search by itself constitutes positive evidence about
the question. It is not always necessary, however, that the investigators have special qualifications. The
kinds of qualifications needed depend on the situation. Sometimes the mere ability to see and report
what one sees is sufficient. The second exception relates to courtroom procedure. If the prosecutor in a
criminal trial fails to prove the guilt of the defendant beyond reasonable doubt, counsel for the defense
may justifiably argue that his or her client is not guilty.
3) Hasty Generalization (Converse Accident)
Hasty generalization is a fallacy that affects inductive generalizations. An inductive generalization is an
argument that draws a conclusion about all members of a group from evidence that pertains to a
selected sample. The fallacy occurs when there is a reasonable likelihood that the sample is not
representative of the group. Such likelihood may arise if the sample is either too small or not randomly
selected. Example;
1) Two weeks ago the Ajax Pharmacy was robbed and the suspect was a black man. Yesterday a black
teenager snatched an old lady's purse while she was waiting at the corner bus stop. Clearly, blacks are
nothing but a pack of criminals.
2) Both Haile G/Selassie and Kennenisa Bekele are world athletics record holders. From this, we can
conclude that all Ethiopian athletes are world athletics record holders.
The mere fact that a sample may be small, however, does not necessarily entail that it is atypical.
Sometimes other factors intervene that cause the argument to be strong in spite of the fact that the
sample may be small.
Hasty generalization is otherwise called “converse accident” because it proceeds in a direction opposite
to that of accident (it goes from the specific to the general).
4) False Cause
The fallacy of false cause occurs whenever the link between premises and conclusion depends on some
imagined causal connection that probably does not exist. Whenever an argument is suspected of
committing the false cause fallacy, the reader or listener should be able to say that the conclusion
depend on the supposition that X causes Y, whereas X probably does not cause Y at all.
Introduction to Logic Page 35
There are three varieties of false cause fallacy. The First variety is called post hoc ergo propter
hoc (“after this, therefore on account of this”). This fallacy presupposes that just because one event
precedes another event the first event causes the second. Obviously, mere temporal succession is not
sufficient to establish a causal connection. Look at the following examples;
1) During the past two months, every time that the cheerleaders have worn blue ribbon in their hair, the
basketball team has been defeated. Therefore, to prevent defeats in the future, the cheerleaders should
get rid of those blue ribbons.
2) A black cat crossed my path and later I tripped and sprained my ankle. It must be that black cats really
are bad luck.
The second variety is known as non causa pro causa (“not the cause for the cause”). This variety is
committed when what is taken to be the cause of something is not really the cause at all and the mistake
is based on something other than mere temporal succession. Obviously, the mere fact that one event is
coincidental with another is not sufficient reason to think that one caused the other. For example;
1) Successful business executives are paid salaries in excess of $50, 000. Therefore, the best way to ensure
someone will become a successful executive is to raise his salary to at least $50, 000.
2) There are more laws on the book than ever before and more crimes are being committed than before.
Therefore, to reduce crimes we must eliminate the laws.
The third variety is called oversimplified cause. This fallacy occurs when a multitude of causes are
responsible for a certain effect but the arguer selects just one of these causes and represents it as if it
were the sole cause. See the next example;
The quality of education in our grade schools and high schools has been declining for years. Clearly, our
teachers just aren't doing their job these days.
The oversimplified cause fallacy is usually motivated by self-serving interests (or may be due to some
kind of affiliation). It can resemble the other varieties in that the alleged cause can occur either prior to
or concurrently with the effect. It differs from the others in that the single factor selected for credit or
blame is often partly responsible for the effect, but responsible to only a minor degree.
5) Slippery Slope
The fallacy of slippery slope is a variety of the false cause fallacy. It occurs when the conclusion of an
argument rests upon an alleged chain of reaction and there is no sufficient reason to think that the chain
of reaction will actually take place. It has a notion that states a single step in the wrong direction will
result in an inevitable slide all the way to the bottom. Many slippery slopes rest on a mere emotional
conviction on the part of the arguer that a certain action or policy is bad, and the arguer attempts to
trump up support for his/her position by citing all sorts of dire consequences that will result if the action
is taken or the policy is followed. For example
Immediate actions must be taken against the mass production of weapons. If not, every individual will
harm a weapon and rise against each other. This will lead to a frequent action of killing each other in the
society. This in turn will result in the execution of human race from the universe.
6) Weak Analogy
This fallacy affects inductive arguments from analogy. An argument from analogy is an inductive
argument in which the conclusion depends on the existence of an analogy, or similarity, between two
things or situations. The fallacy of weak analogy is committed when the analogy is not strong enough
to support the conclusion that is drawn.
Introduction to Logic Page 36
 1) If a car breaks down on the freeway, a passing mechanic is not obliged to render emergency road
service. For similar reason if a person suffers a heart attack on the street, a passing physician is not
obligated to render emergency medical asssistance.
2) No one would buy a pair of shoes without trying them on. Why should anyone be expected to get married
without premarital sex?

Fallacies of Presumption, Ambiguity, and Grammatical Analogy

Fallacies of presumption arise not because the premises are irrelevant to the conclusion or provide
insufficient reason for believing the conclusion but because the premises presume what they purport to
prove. The fallacies of presumption include begging the question, complex question, false dichotomy,
and suppressed evidence.
1) Begging the Question (Petitio Principii)
Begging the question occurs when an arguer uses some form of phraseology that tends to conceal the
questionably true character of a key premise. If the reader or listener is deceived into thinking that the
key premise is true, he or she will accept the argument as sound, when in fact it may not be.
Two requirements must be met for this fallacy to occur:
I. the argument must be valid
II. Some form of phraseology must be used to conceal the questionably true character of a key
premise.
The kind of phraseology used varies from argument to argument, but it often involves using the
conclusion to support the premises. One way of accomplishing this is to phrase the argument so that the
premise and conclusion say the same thing in two slightly different ways. Example:
Capital punishment is justified for the crimes of murdering and kidnapping because it is quite legitimate
and appropriate that someone be put to death for having committed such hateful and inhuman acts.
Since the premise and the conclusion mean the same thing, if the premise is true, then the conclusion is
true; hence the argument valid.
Another form of begging the question affects chains of arguments. Look at the following example;
Ford motor company clearly produces the finest cars in the United States. We know they produce the finest
cars because they have the best design engineers. The reason why they have the best design engineers is
because they can afford to pay them more than other manufacturers. Obviously, they can afford to pay them
more because they make the finest cars in the United States.
In this chain of arguments the final conclusion is stated first. The truth of this conclusion depends on
each link in the chain, and ultimately on the first premise which asserts the same thing as the final
conclusion. This example illustrates why begging the question is frequently called circular reasoning.
A third form of begging the question occurs when a questionably true premise, which is needed to
make the argument valid, is completely ignored. For example;
Murder is morally wrong. This being the case, it follows that abortion is morally wrong.
The questionable premise that is ignored is, “Abortion is a form of murder.” If the reader or listener
concentrates on the truth of the stated premise and overlooks the fact that a highly questionable premise
is needed to complete the argument, he or she is liable to accept the argument as immediately sound.

Introduction to Logic Page 37

 2) Complex Question
The fallacy of complex question is committed when a single question that is really two (or more)
questions is asked and a single answer is then applied to both questions. Every complex question
presumes the existence of a certain condition. When the respondent's answer is added to the complex
question, an argument emerges that establishes the presumed condition. Thus, although not an
argument as such, a complex question involves an implicit argument. This argument is usually intended
to trap the respondent into acknowledging something that he or she might otherwise not want to
acknowledge. Examples:
1. Have you stopped cheating on exams?
2. Where did you hide the book you stole?
The following argument emerges if the respondent answers “yes” to the first question.
You were asked whether you have stopped cheating on exams. You answered “yes.” Therefore,
it follows that you have cheated in the past.
3) False Dichotomy
The fallacy of false dichotomy (otherwise called “false bifurcation” and the “either-or fallacy”) is
committed when one premise of an argument is an “either...or...” (disjunctive) statement that presents
two alternatives as if they were jointly exhaustive (as if no third alternative were possible). One of these
alternatives is usually preferred by the arguer. The fallacious nature of false dichotomy lies in the
attempt by the arguer to delude the reader or listener into thinking that the disjunctive premise presents
jointly exhaustive alternatives and is therefore true by necessity. Examples:
1. Either you buy only American-made products or you don't deserve to be called a loyal American. Yesterday you
bought a new Toyota. It's therefore clear that you don't deserve to be called a loyal American.
2. Either you let me attend the concert or I'll be miserable for the rest of my life. I know you don't want me to be
miserable for the rest of my life, so it follows that you'll let me attend the concert.

False dichotomy is classified as a fallacy of presumption because the soundness of the argument
depends on the presumption that the two alternatives presented are the only ones that exist. If they are
not the only ones, the “either...or...” statement is false, and the argument is unsound.
4) Suppressed Evidence
The fallacy of suppressed evidence is committed when an arguer ignores some important piece of
evidence that outweighs the presented evidence which might entail a very different conclusion. This
fallacy is classified as a fallacy of presumption because it works by creating the presumption that the
premises are both true and complete when in fact they are not. Consider the following arguments:
1. Most dogs are friendly and pose no threat to people who pet them. Therefore, it would be safe to pet the little
dog that is approaching us now. (the person ignores the fact that the dog can cause rabies)
2. Smoking cigarette excites. So, if you always want to be excited, you should smoke cigarette. (the arguer
ignores the fact that smoking will be a cause for a lung cancer)
Another form of suppressed evidence is committed by arguers who quote passages out of context from
sources such as religious books, constitution, and others to support a conclusion that the passage was
not intended to cover.

Introduction to Logic Page 38

Fallacies of Ambiguity include equivocation and amphiboly. These fallacies arise from the
occurrence of some form of ambiguity in either the premise or the conclusion (or both). Ambiguity can
affect not only terms but whole statements. When the conclusion of an argument depends on a certain
interpretation being given to an ambiguous term or statement, the argument commits a fallacy of
ambiguity.
1) Equivocation
The fallacy of equivocation occurs when the conclusion of an argument depends on the fact that one or
more words are used, either explicitly or implicitly, in two different senses in the argument. Such
arguments are either invalid or have a false premise, and in either case they are unsound. Examples:
1. Some triangles are obtuse. Whatever is obtuse is ignorant. Therefore, some triangles are ignorant.
2. Any law can be repealed by the legislative authority. But the law of gravity is a law. Therefore, the
law of gravity can be repealed by the legislative authority.
The fallacy of equivocation often occurs in protracted, drawn out arguments of the sort found in
political speeches. Another strategy used by speech makers is to use a certain word in one sense when
addressing one group of people and in quite another sense when addressing an opposing group.
2) Amphiboly
The fallacy of amphiboly occurs when the arguer misinterprets a statement that is ambiguous owing to
some structural defect and proceed to draw a conclusion based on this faulty interpretation. The original
statement is usually asserted by someone else other than the arguer, and structural defect is usually a
mistake in grammar or punctuation-a missing comma, a dangling modifier, an ambiguous antecedent of
a pronoun, or some other careless arrangement of words. Here are some examples:
1. John told Henry that he had made a mistake. It follows that John has at least the courage to admit his own
mistakes. (the pronoun “he” has an ambiguous antecedent; it can refer either to John or Henry)
2. Professor Johnson said that he will give a lecture about heart failure in the biology lecture hall. It must be the
case that a number of heart failures have occurred there recently. (What takes place in the biology lecture
hall; is it the lecture or the heart failure?)
Amphiboly differs from equivocation in two important ways. First, equivocation is always traced to an
ambiguity in the meaning of one or more words, whereas amphiboly involves a structural defect in a
statement. The second difference is that amphiboly usually involves a mistake made by the arguer in
interpreting an ambiguous statement made by someone else, whereas the ambiguity in equivocation is
typically the arguer's own creation.
Fallacies of Grammatical Analogy include composition and division. Arguments that
commit these fallacies are grammatically analogous to other arguments that are good in every respect.
Because of this similarity in linguistic structure, such fallacious arguments may appear good yet be bad.
1) Composition
The fallacy of composition is committed when the conclusion of an argument depends on the erroneous
transference of an attribute from the parts of something onto the whole. In other words, the fallacy
occurs when it is argued that because the parts have a certain attribute, it follows that the whole has that
attribute too and the situation is such that the attribute in question cannot be legitimately transferred
from parts to whole. Examples:

Introduction to Logic Page 39

1. Each atom in this piece of chalk is invisible. Therefore, the chalk is invisible.
2. Sodium and chlorine, the atomic components of salt, are both deadly poisons. Therefore, salt is a deadly
poison.
Not every such transference is illegitimate, however. Consider the following argument:
Every atom in this piece of chalk has mass. Therefore, the piece of chalk has mass.
Further caution is required by the fact that composition is sometimes confused with hasty
generalization. Composition proceeds from members of a class to the class itself. Hasty generalization,
on the other hand, proceeds from the specific to the general. Because it is sometimes easy to mistake a
statement about a class for a general statement, composition can be mistaken for hasty generalization.
Such a mistake can be avoided if one is careful to keep mind the distinction between a general statement
and a class statement. Examine the conclusion of the argument. If the conclusion is a general
statement, a statement in which an attribute is predicated distributively to each and every
member of a class, the fallacy committed is hasty generalization. But if the conclusion is a class
statement, a statement in which an attribute is predicated collectively to a class as a whole, the
fallacy is composition. Consider the following statements:
1. Fleas are small. (a general statement; the attribute of being small is predicated distributively)
2. Fleas are numerous. (a class statement; the attribute of being numerous is predicated collectively)
2) Division
The fallacy of division is the exact reverse of composition. As composition goes from parts to whole,
division goes from whole to parts. The fallacy is committed when the conclusion of an argument
depends on the erroneous transference of an attribute from a whole (or a class) onto its parts (or
members). Examples:
1. Salt is a nonpoisonous compound. Therefore, its component elements, sodium and chlorine, are
nonpoisonous.
2. The Royal Society is over 300 years old. Elisabet is a member of the Royal Society. Therefore, Elisabet is over
300 years old.
As with the fallacy of composition, however, this kind of transference is not always illegitimate. The
following argument contains no fallacy:
This piece of chalk has mass. Therefore, the atoms that compose this piece of chalk have mass.
Division is sometimes prone to being confused with accident. If a class statement is mistaken for a
general statement, division may be mistaken for accident. To avoid such a mistake, one should analyze
the premises of the argument. If the premises contain a general statement, the fallacy committed is
accident; but if they contain a class statement, the fallacy is division. Example;
Stanely Steamers have almost disappeared. This car is Stanely Steamer. Therefore, this car has
almost disappeared.

Introduction to Logic Page 40