Introduction to Logic (Handout)

Chapter One

1. Introduction

Meaning: Logic is a science of reasoning or a science that evaluates arguments. It comes from the Greek
word logos, which is concerned with reason or logical reasoning. We encounter arguments in our day-to-
day experience. We hear them on TVs, read them in books, and formulate them when communicating
with others. The aim of Logic: is to develop a system of methods/principles to evaluate arguments and to
construct arguments of our own. Thus, Logic is a systematic study of methods for evaluating whether the
premises of an argument adequately support (or provide good evidence for) the conclusion.

1.1. Conceptual Framework

I-A Statement: is a sentence/group of sentences that is either true or false, but not both (both at the same
time)

II- An Argument: is a group of statements with one or more premises which are in turn claimed to
support the conclusion. Two groups of arguments can be identified as:

1. Those in which the premises really support the conclusion_ are called Good arguments, and
2. Those in which the premises do not support even though they are claimed to_ are called Bad
arguments.

So, Logic as a science that evaluates arguments and allows us to distinguish good arguments from bad
ones.

Statements: Consider these examples:

Ex-1- Italy prevailed at Adwa in 1896. FS

-2- Titanic was sunk by German sub marines in 1912. FS

-3- Pumpkin is a good source of vitamin C. TS

-4- New York is a city in the U.S.A. TS

Truth Values: examples 1 and 2 are false while 3 and 4 are true. So, truth and falsity are the two possible
truth values of a statement. Unlike statements, many sentences cannot be said to be true or false. These
are non-statement expressions.

Non-Statements Expressions

1. Questions
Ex- What is your name?
2. Proposals
Ex- Let’s go to the party today.
3. Suggestions
Ex- You would better go by bus; it is better if you wait them at NB Hotel.
4. Commands
Ex- Stand up; shut up or
Turn to the left at the next corner.
5. Exclamations

1
 Ex- Bang up! Right on! Or, what a beautiful lady she is!

The statements that make up an argument are divided into one or more premises and one and only one
conclusion.

III- Premises: are statements that set forth reasons/evidence on the basis of which the conclusion is
affirmed.

Iv- Conclusion: is a statement that the evidence is claimed to support/imply. In other words, it is a
statement that is claimed to follow from the premises.

N.B. The premise/s of an argument are offered as support or evidence for the conclusion, but that support
may be adequate or inadequate. In a well-constructed argument, the premises give good support for
believing that the conclusion is true. Consider these examples:

Ex-1- All crimes are violations of the law.TP

Theft is a crime.TP

Therefore, theft is a violation of the law.TC

Ex-2- All uncles are male. TP

Daniel is an uncle. TP

So, Daniel is a male. TC

In these examples, the premises really support the conclusion with good reasons. And the arguments are
good ones.

But consider these examples:

Ex-3- Some crimes are misdemeanors. TP

Murder is a crime. TP

Therefore, murder is a misdemeanor. FC

In this argument, the premises do not support the conclusion, even though they are claimed to, and then
the argument is bad.

Ex-4- Some uncle are skinny. TP

Daniel is an uncle. TP

So, Daniel is skinny. T/FC

Though the premises seem to support the conclusion, their evidence is very weak and the argument is a
bad one.

Generally, any argument can be used:

1- To discover truth or
2- To persuade our readers/listeners.

2
Persuasion and truth seeking are often compatible goals. But one of these goals can interfere with the
other.

1.2. How to differentiate a conclusion from its premise/s

Arguments usually contain indicator words that provide clues in identifying the premise/s and the
conclusion.

1.2.1. Premise Indicators

Words like: Since, Because, As indicated by, May be inferred from, Owing to, In as much as, In that, For
the reason that, Given that, Seeing that, As, For,…etc.

1.2.2. Conclusion Indicators

Words like: Therefore, Hence, So, Wherefore, Accordingly, Whence, It follows that, It must be that,
Thus, As a result, We may infer, Consequently …etc. The position of the premise/s or the conclusion may
change. Consider these:

Ex-1- Since the use of recreational drugs can jeopardize the development of the fetus; expectant
mothers should never use these drugs.

Ex-2- The prevention of polio deserves increased expenditure in the years ahead. Not only polio
affects unborn babies, but the virus still impinges up on the health status of already born babies.

In Ex-1 the premise comes first followed by the conclusion.

In Ex-2 the conclusion comes first followed by the premises.

N.B. For the fact that both premise and conclusion indicators can be found even in non-arguments (in
passages that lacks an inferential claim) and there are some arguments that do not contains them, their
existence does not always guarantee us to determine arguments and to differentiate conclusion from
premises. The following argument for example has no any indicator.

Morally weak persons are not happy. Peter is morally weak person. Peter is not a happy person.

1.3. Recognizing Arguments

Not all passages contain arguments. In general, a passage may contain an argument if it purports to prove
something; if it does not do so, it does not 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/reason and

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

Premise/s -------- claimed evidence

Conclusion------- What is claimed to follow from the evidence

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 reason supports or implies something.

3
The 1st condition_ expresses a Factual Claim, that is, the truth or falsity of the premises.

The 2nd condition_ an Inferential Claim which is the claim that the passage expresses a reasoning process
or something follows from something/something supports something.

For factual claim, we ask “Are the premises all true?”

For inferential claim, we ask “Do the premises support the conclusion?”

1.4. Non-argument Expressions

Passages that lack an inferential claim are also called Unsupported Assertions. They are thus non-
argument expressions. These include:

1.4.1. Warnings

Ex-1- Watch out that you do not slip on the mud. Ex-2-Make it far from the children

1.4.2. Piece of Advice

Ex-1- I suggest/ advice you to stop chewing chat or smoking cigarette

These two could serve as the conclusion of an argument, but in their present form/context there is no
claim that they are supported or implied by reasons in evidence. Thus, there is no argument.

1.4.3. Statements of Belief/Opinion

These are expressions of what someone happens to believe in/think in a certain time.

Ex-1- I think a nation like ours, with its high moral traditions has a further responsibility to know how we
become involved into this conflict, and to learn the lessons it has to teach us for the future.

Ex-2- I believe in life after death or, in my opinion, there is no life after death

1.4.4. Loosely Associated Statements

It may be about some general subject, but they lack that one of them is provided by the other.

Ex-1-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.

1.4.5. Report

It consists of statements that convey information about some situation/event.

Ex-1- A bomb exploded outside the commercial bank near arat kilo, injuring 25 people and causing
millions of birrs damage to the nearby buildings, police said. A police statement said the 190-pound bomb
was packed into a basket hidden in the back of a stolen car.

Here no inferences are drawn and the passage merely contains a series of informational statements.

1.4.6. Expository Passage

It 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,

4
then there is no argument. But, if the objective is to prove the topic sentence, there will be an argument
that has an expository characteristic.

Ex-1-Words are slippery customers. The full meaning of words does not appear until it is placed in its
context…And even then the meaning will depend upon the listener, upon the speaker, upon the entire
experience of the language, upon the whole situation.

1.4.7. Illustration
It consists of statements about a certain subject combined with a reference to one or more specific
instance/s intended to exemplify that statement. It often confused with arguments because many
illustrations contain indicator words such as “thus.”

Ex.1. Mammals are animals that nourish their young with milk. For example, cats, dogs, goats,
monkeys and humans are mammals.

Ex.2. 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.

Ex.3. Whole numbers can be represented as factions. Thus, 2 can be represented as 8/4 and 5 can be
represented as 15/3.

N.B. Sometimes examples are given not merely to explain but to support/provide support for a thesis, in
which case the passage becomes an argument and not an illustration.

Consider this:

Ex.1. You said that no mammal can fly, but that is untrue. At least one mammal has wings and can
fly. For example, bats are mammals.

1.4.8. Conditional Statements

This is an “if…,then…”statement, taken by itself can never be an argument. Every conditional statement
is made up of two statements. The component statement that immediately follows the “if” is called the
Antecedent, and the one following the “then” is called the Consequent.

If…………………….., then……………………….. or

………………………..if……………………………..

Ex.1. If Daniel works hard, then he will get a promotion. This statement merely asserts that if
Daniel works hard, then he will get a promotion. So,

a) It doesn’t assert that he works hard and

b) It doesn’t assert that he gets a promotion.

By contrast consider this:

Ex.2. If Daniel works hard then, he will get a promotion.

Daniel has worked hard.

Therefore, Daniel will get a promotion.

5
Here the conclusion is asserted on the basis of the premises. So the statement is an argument. While no
conditional statement is an argument by itself, it can serve as either the premise or the conclusion (or
both) of an argument.

Ex.3. 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 smoking.

The relationship between a conditional statement and an argument can be summarized as:

a) A single conditional statement can’t be an argument,

b) A conditional statement can serve as either the premise or the conclusion (or both) of an
argument and
c) The inferential content of a conditional statement may be re-expressed to form an argument.

Conditions in Conditional Statements

Conditional statements express the relationship between necessary and sufficient conditions.

=A is said to be a sufficient condition for B whenever the occurrence of A is all that is needed for the
occurrence of B.

Ex.1. If I am stabbed by a dagger, then a scar will appear on my skin. (Sufficient condition for a
scar can appear it I am stabbed by a bayonet, if i am burnt with a fire or if I am shot by a gun)

=On the other hand, B is a necessary condition for A whenever A can’t occur without the occurrence
of B.

Ex.1. If “X” is an uncle, then “X” is a male. (Necessary condition for to be an uncle one must be
a male)

Ex.2. If water needs to be changed into an ice, then the temperature should be reduced below
degree Celsius.

1.4.9. Explanations

These are a statement/group of statements intended to shed light on some phenomenon that is accepted as
a matter of fact.

Every explanation consists of two distinct components: the Explandum and the Explanans.

Explandum: the statement that describes the event/phenomenon to be explained and

Explanans: the statement that purports to do the explaining.

Consider this example:

Ex.1. The sky appears blue from the earth’s surface because light rays are scattered by particles
from the atmosphere.

The intention of this example is to explain why the sky appears blue and not to prove that it appears
blue. So, it is not an argument.

Argument Explanation

6
 Premise/s-Accepted Fact/s Explanans
Claimed to prove Claimed to explain
Conclusion Explandum-Accepted Fact/s

But many explanations can be re-expressed to form an argument.

Ex.2. Light rays from the sun are scattered by particles in the atmosphere. Therefore, the sky
appears blue from the earth’s surface.

One last example:

Ex.3. the dinosaurs are extinct because a large comet struck the earth some 6.5 million years ago,
lofting a cloud of dust into the sky and blocking sunlight, thereby suppressing photosynthesis and…
drastically lowering world temperatures.

(Explanation- so accepted fact which is scientific)

But:

Ex.4. “Three scientific evidences have been offered for the extinction of dinosaurs. First, a global
lowering in temperature caused the testes of male dinosaurs to stop functioning. Second, certain flowering
plants (namely, angiosperms) evolved after the dinosaurs evolved; these plants were toxic for dinosaurs,
which ate them and died. Thirdly,…” (An Argument-Premises prove the Conclusion)

1.5. Types of Arguments

Arguments can be divided into two groups: Deductive and Inductive Arguments.

A Deductive Argument: is an argument in which the premises are claimed to support the conclusion in
such a way that it is impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion false. In such arguments the
conclusion is claimed to follow necessarily from the premises. This means that deductive arguments are
those that involve necessary reasoning.

Consider these examples:

Ex.1. All fruits are beverages. TP

Oranges are fruits TP
So, oranges are beverages.TC

Ex.2. All mammals are vertebrates.TP

All humans are mammals.TP
Therefore, all humans are vertebrates.TC
Ex.3. All saleswomen in this super market are hospitable.TP
Elizabeth is a saleswoman in this super market.TP
So, Elizabeth is hospitable.TC
In these three arguments the conclusion follows from the premises with strict necessity. So, the arguments
are deductive.

An Inductive Argument: is an argument in which the premises are claimed to support the conclusion in
such a way that it is improbable that the premises be true and the conclusion false. In these arguments the
conclusion is claimed to follow only probably from the premises. Thus, inductive arguments are those
that involve probabilistic reasoning.

7
Consider these examples:

Ex.1. The vast majority of the saleswomen in this super market are hospitable.TP

Elizabeth is a saleswoman in this super market.TP

Probably, Elizabeth is hospitable.TC

Ex.2. 80 oranges selected at random from a basket containing 100 oranges were found to be ripe.TP

Probably, all the 100 oranges are ripe.TC

I- These arguments are inductive because the occurrence of the conclusion is based on
probable/improbable conditions.

Three factors that influence our decision to decide whether a given argument is deductive
or inductive are:

1. The occurrence of special indicator words

Deductive special indicator words (necessarily, actually, certainly, absolutely, definitely….)

Inductive special indicator words (probably, plausible, implausible, likely, unlikely,

and reasonable to conclude….)

Note: the Phrase “it must be the case that” is ambiguous; “must “ can indicate either
probability or necessity.

2. Actual strength of Inferential link

3. Form of argumentation that arguer uses

Deductive Form Argumentation

A. Arguments based on mathematics

These are argument in which their conclusion depends on some purely arithmetic/geometric
computation/measurements.

Ex.1 a shopper might place two apples and three oranges into a paper bag and conclude that the bag
contains five pieces of fruit.

B. An argument from definition

It is an argument in which the conclusion is claimed to depend merely up on the definition of some word
or phrase used in the premises or conclusion. Some might argue that Michel is mendacious, it follow that
he tells lies, or that because a certain paragraph is prolix, it follows that it is excessively wordy.

C) Categorical Syllogism

This a syllogism in which each statement begins with one of the words “all”, “no” or “some’.

Ex.1. No cats are dogs.TP

No dogs are mammals that can fly.TP

8
 Therefore, no cats are mammals that can fly.TC

D) Hypothetical Syllogism

This is a syllogism having a conditional statement for one or both of its premises.

Ex.1. If you tress pass campus compound illegally, then the campus police will catch

you.TP

If the campus police catch you, then you will face disciplinary penalty.TP

Therefore, if you tress pass the campus compound illegally, then you will face disciplinary penalty. TC

Ex.2. If a stone scratches glass, then it is harder than the glass.TP

Stone scratches glass.TP

So, stone is harder than glass.TC

E) Disjunctive Syllogism

This is a syllogism having a disjunctive statement of an “either…or…”statement for one of its premises.

Ex.1. Either breach of contract is a crime or it is not punishable by law.TP

Breach of contract is not a crime.TP

So, breach of contract is not punishable by law.TC

II- Inductive form of Argumentation

A) Arguments from Analogy

These are the ones that depend on the existence of analogy between two things.

Ex.1. Abebe’s 2006 model chevoloret has luxurious seats, an excellent gas mileage and a computer set.
TP

Matiyas’s 2006 model chevoloret has luxurious seats, and an excellent gas mileage.TP Probably,
Matiyas’s Chevoloret has a computer set. T/FC

B) Inductive Generalization

This is an argument that proceeds from the knowledge of a selected sample to some claim about the
whole group.

Ex.1. 10 apples selected at random from a basket containing 100 apples were found to be ripe (TP).
Probably, all the rest 90 apples are ripe (FC).

C) Arguments based on Signs

If signs like traffic symbols are placed or misplaced from the right position, then the conclusion rests on
chances of probability/improbability.

D) A Causal Inference

9
 1) It underlies arguments that proceed from the knowledge of a cause to the knowledge of an effect
or
2) It underlies from the knowledge of an effect to knowledge of a cause.

Ex.1. A bottle of wine was accidentally put in the freezer. Therefore, the bottle of wine had been frozen.
(Cause to Effect)

Ex.2. I have tasted a piece of chicken and found it dry and crunchy. Therefore, the chicken had been
overcooked. (Effect to Cause)

1.5.8. Deductive Argument

Every argument makes two basic claims: a claim that the evidence exists which is called factual claim and
a claim that the alleged evidence supports something (something follows from the alleged evidence). The
most crucial of the two is an 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 support the conclusion will we test the factual claim.

There are two types of deductive argument: Valid and Invalid deductive arguments.

I. Valid Deductive Argument

This is an argument such that if the premises are assumed true, it is impossible for the conclusion to be
false. In such a case, the conclusion follows with strict necessity from the premises.

II Invalid Deductive Argument

This is the one such that if the premises are assumed true, it is possible for the conclusion to be false.
Here the conclusion does not follow with strict necessity from the premises.

Mind you! First, there is no middle ground between valid and invalid arguments. As such there are no
“almost valid” or “almost invalid” arguments. Second, there is only indirect relationship between validity
and truth. For an argument to valid, it is not necessary that either the premises/conclusion or both be true,
but merely that if the premises are assumed true, it is impossible for the conclusion to be false.

Consider these examples:

Ex.1. All wines are beverages. TP Ex.1. All wines are beverages.TP

Gouder is a wine. TP Gouder is a beverage. TP

So, gouder is a beverage. TC So, gouder is a wine. TC

Valid Form: All A are B. Invalid Form: All A are B.

C is A. C is B.

So, C is B. So, C is A.

Ex.2. None Exist Ex.2. All wines are beverages.TP

Orange juice is a beverage.TP

So, orange juice is a wine. FC

10
 Invalid Form: All A are B.

C is B.

So, C is A.

Ex.3. All wines are soft drinks. FP Ex.3. All wines are whiskeys. FP

Coca Cola is a wine. FP Gouder is a whiskey. FP

So, Coca Cola is a soft drink.TC So, gouder is a wine. FC

Valid Form: All A are B. Invalid Form: All A are B.

C is A. C is B.

So, C is B. So, C is A.

Ex.4. All wines are whiskeys. FP Ex.4. All wines are whiskeys. FP

Coca Cola is a wine. FP Coca Cola is a whiskey. FP

So, Coca Cola is a whiskey. FC So, Coca Cola is a wine. FC

Valid Form: All A are B. Invalid Form: All A are B.

C is A. C is B.

So, C is B. So, C is A.

III Soundness and Unsoundness of Arguments

A Sound Argument: is a deductive argument that is valid and has all true premises. Every sound argument
by definition has true conclusion. It is meant a “good” deductive argument.

A Sound deductive Argument= Valid + All True Premises

Examples (Valid, Sound argument):

1) All biologists are scientists. TP

John is a biologist. TP

So, John is a scientist. TC

2) All dogs are animals. TP

All puppies are dogs. TP
So, all puppies are animals. TC

3) All planets are round. TP

The earth is a planet. TP
So, the earth is round. TC

4) If Helen stole my book, then Helen is a thief. TP

11
 Helen stole my book. TP
So, Helen is a thief. TC

Unsound Argument: falls into one of the following three categories.

a) It is valid but has at least one (more) false premise.

b) It is invalid but all true premises.
c) It is invalid but has al least one (more) false premises.

Examples:

1) All wines are soft drinks. FP

Coca Cola is a wine. FP
So, Coca Cola is a soft drink.TC (Valid argument-A)
2) All dogs are animals. TP
All cats are animals. TP
So, all cats are dogs. FC (Invalid argument-B)
3) All dogs are ants. FP
All mammals are ants. FP
So, all dogs are mammals. TC (Invalid argument-C)
4) All animals are living things. TP
All cabbages are living things. TP
So, all cabbages are animals. FC (Invalid argument-C)
5) All mammals are animals. TP
No reptiles are mammals. TP
So, no reptiles are animals. FC (this argument has a valid form but still has true premises and a
false conclusion, so it is invalid)

1.5.9. Inductive Argument

Here, the premises are claimed to support the conclusion with certain degree of probability or
improbability depending on the strength or weakness of the reasoning or presented evidence. There are
two types: Strong and Weak inductive arguments.

I Strong Inductive Argument

It is the one such that if the premises are assumed true, then it is probable that the conclusion is false.

II Weak Inductive Argument

It is the one such that if the premises are assumed true, then it is not probable that the conclusion is false.

Consider these examples:

Ex.1. All previous US presidents were men. TP

Probably, the next US president will be a man. Probably TC (Strong)

But: Some US presidents were Democrats. TP

Probably, the next US president may be a man. Probably TC (Weak)
Ex.2. Only one US president was impeached by congress. TP
Probably, the next US president may be impeached by congress. Probably FC (Weak)
But: No Strong argument with all true premises and a false conclusion exists.

12
Ex.3. All previous US presidents were TV debaters. FP
Probably, the next president may be a TV debater. Probably TC (Strong)
But: Very few US presidents were TV debaters. FP
Probably, the next US president may be a TV debater. Probably TC (Weak).
Ex.4. All previous US presidents were women. FP
Probably, the next US president may be a woman. Probably FC (Strong)
But: A Few US presidents were women. FP

Probably, the next US president may be a woman. Probably FC (Weak)

III Cogency and Uncogency of Inductive Arguments

A Cogent Inductive Argument: is the one that is strong and has all true premises. It is an inductive
analogy of a sound deductive argument. It is meant to be “a good” inductive argument. The conclusion of
every cogent argument is probably true.

Cogent= Strong + All True Premises

There is a difference between sound and cogent arguments in regard to true premises requirement. In a
sound argument it is only necessary that the premises be true. In a cogent argument, on the other hand, the
premises must not only be true, they must also ignore some important piece of evidence that outweighs
the given evidence.

Uncogent Argument: falls into one of the following three categories:

a) It is strong but has at least one (more) false premise/s.

b) It is weak but has all true premises.
c) It is weak but has at least one (more) false premise/s.

Examples:

1) All or nearly all lemons tasted so far were sour. Probably TP

So, all or nearly all lemons are sour. Probably TC (Strong, Cogent)
2) This barrel contains 100 apples. TP
85 apples selected at random were found to be ripe. TP
Probably, all the 100 apples are ripe. Probably TC (Strong, Cogent)

3) This barrel contains 100 apples. TP

5 apples selected at random were found to be ripe. TP
Probably, all the 100 apples are ripe. Probably FC (Weak, Uncogent)

4) Slightly 50% of Ethiopians are males. TP

“X” is an Ethiopian. TP
Probably, “X” is a male. Probably FC (Weak, Uncogent)

Consider this example:

Ex.1. Swimming in the Caribbean is usually lots of fun. Today, the water is warm, the surf is gentle, and
on this beach there are no dangerous currents. Therefore, it would be fun to go swimming right now.
(Strong, Cogent)

N.B. For both deductive and inductive arguments, two separate questions need to be answered:

13
 a) Do the premises support the conclusion?
b) Are the premises all true?

Question a- concerns the truth of the argument’s inferential claim; that is, the correctness of the
argument’s reasoning.

Answer= determines whether a deductive argument is valid or invalid and whether an inductive argument
is strong or weak.

Question b= concerns the truth of the argument’s factual claim. Assuming that an argument is valid or
strong,

Answer= determines whether a deductive argument is sound or unsound and whether an inductive
argument is cogent or uncogent.

Rules on Arguments

1) Premises or conclusion can be true or false, but cannot be valid, invalid, sound, unsound,
strong, weak, cogent or uncogent.

2) Statements can be true or false, but cannot be valid, invalid, sound, unsound, strong, weak,
cogent or uncogent.

3) Arguments can be valid, invalid, sound, unsound, strong, weak, cogent or uncogent, but cannot
be true or false.

14
Chapter Two

2. Language: Meaning and Definition

2.1. Cognitive and Emotive Meanings

Ordinary language is used for a number of functions. Among other things, language is used to:

 Ask questions

 Tell stories

 Tell jokes

 Tell lies

 Greet someone

 Flirt with some one

 Guess at answers

 Farm hypotheses

 Sing songs

 Issue directions

Two linguistic functions are however important (1) to convey information and (2) to express is/evoke
feelings.

Cognitive meaning: are terminologies that convey information.

Ex. 1: There are 20,000 homicides in South Africa each year, with hand guns being the most
frequent instruments of death.

Ex. 2: The CIA has engaged in political sabotage in some countries. For example, the CIA
collaborated in the overthrow president Edwardo Ayende of Chile.

These two examples simply provide information on certain situation issue, so they are cognitive in nature.

Emotive Meaning: is a terminology that expresses/evokes feelings (good or bad) and hence elicits
emotions and has thus emotive forces.

Ex. 1: The death penalty is a cruel and inhuman form of punishment in which hapless prisoners
are dragged from their cells and summarily slaughtered only to satiate the blood lust of a
vengeful public.

Ex. 2: The number of murders per year here is now so high that you have got to have a death
wish to walk the streets, day or night. Every lunatic and every thug carries a “heater”
just waiting to blow you away.

15
In ex. 1: words like “cruel,” in human, “hapless,” “blood just,” have an emotive face and evoke feelings.
Likewise in Ex. 2: words like “death wish,” lunatic,” and “thug” have emotive content.

1.1.1. Emotive Terminologies & Usage

Most of the time in advertising and the military, emotive expressions are used.

1. Advertising: Though its purpose is to convey information/message about a product or scene, it

does not most of the time give evidence for the claim. The claim uses/elicits a favorable
emotional response.

Ex. 1: Sport cola is the best, cheerful soft drink whose taste is so unbelievably remarkable that
you won’t help drinking it all day along! And the best is for you and not for anyone
else.

Ex. 2: Nyala Insurance is like a good neighbor. A good neighbor is a person who is always there
in time of need, which is exactly what every one wants from Nyala Insurance. Let our
company be your life time partner.

2. The Military: Because languages associate with military ventures often call forth negative
emotions. To counteract this effect, the military spokespersons use neutral terminologies to
evoke a neutral response like:

“Human targets”  ‘Soft targets’

“Dropping bomb”  ‘Servicing a site’

“Bombers” ’Face packages’

“A retreat”  ‘An adjustment on the front’

“A war”  ‘A police action”

1.1.2. Disputes in Cognitive Meanings

There are two disputes that center on a confusion of cognitive meanings between the disputants. They
may be verbal disputes and factual disputes.

Ex.1: Verbal disputes

Daniel: I’m afraid Abebe is guilty of arson. Last night he confided to me that he was the
one who set fire to the old school house.

Hailu: No, you could not be more mistaken. In this country no one is guilty until proven
so in a court of law, and Abebe has not yet even been accused of any thing.

This dispute centers on the meaning of the word “guilty”

Daniel: Uses the word in moral sense

Hailu: Uses the word in legal sense

Such disputes center on the meaning of a word and are called Verbal Disputes.

Ex. 2: Consider this however.

16
 Daniel: I know that Samuel stole a computer from the department; Almaz told me that
she saw Samuel do it.

Elias: This is ridiculous! Samuel had never stolen any thing in his life. Almaz hates
Samuel, and she is trying to pin the theft on him only to shield her criminal
boyfriend, Tesfaye.

Argument focuses on matter of fact: whether or not Samuel stole the computer. Such disputes are called
Factual Disputes.

Ex. 3:

Alemu: You friend Selam told us that she would be visiting her parents in Addis Ababa
this week end. Therefore, she must not be at home.

Helen: I agree that Selam is probably not at home, but you did not hear her right. She
said that her parents live in Nazareth.

Ex. 4:

Taye: King Tewodros II of Ethiopia could not have fought in the battle of Metemma in
1868; because it was there he was defeated by the British and committed suicide.

Solomon: You knowledge of history is atrocious! King Tewodros II did not fight in
Metemma though he fought and committed suicide in Maqdala that same year
(Factual dispute)

2.2. The Intension and Extension

The basic units of any ordinary language are words which have meanings. A term – is any word or
arrangement of words that may serve as a subject of a statement. Terms consists of proper names,
common names and descriptive phrases here are some examples:

Proper Name Common Name Descriptive Phrases

Daniel Animal - First prime minister of Ethiopia
Ethiopia House - Author of Hamlet
House of representatives Person - Those who study hard
Activity
Cat
Words that are not terms include:

 Verbs

 Non-substantive adjectives

 Adverbs

 Propositions

 Conjunctions and

 Non-syntactic arrangement

Ex. – Dictatorial

17
 - Runs quickly

- Moreover

- Above and beyond, etc.

Words are usually considered to be symbols, and the entities they symbolize are usually called Meanings.
The meanings words symbolize are of two kinds: intensional and extensional.

The Intentional meaning: consists of the qualities/attributes that the term connotes.

The Extensional Meaning: consists of the members of the class the term denotes.

Intentional meaning is also known as Intension or connotation, and Extensional meaning = Extension or
denotation.

Ex. “Cat”

Intension: a domestic animal which is furry, having four legs, moves in a certain way, emits certain
sounds (Mi’aw) and eats house mice and so on.

Extension: consists of the cats themselves – all the cats in the universe.

N.B: Because terms symbolize meanings to individual persons, it is inevitable for subjective elements to
invade the notion of connotation. For example, to a cat lover, the connotation of the word “cat”
might include the attribute cuddly and adorable, to the one who hates cats – it might include
those of being obnoxious and disgusting. Because of this subjectivity, logicians have tended to
use/restrict the connotation to conventional connotation.

The conventional connotation of a term consists of the properties/attributes that the term commonly
connotes to the members of the class. The denotation of a term however remains the same from person to
person, but it may change with the passage of time.

Ex.1. The denotation of “Currently living cat” is constantly changing/fluctuating as some cats die and
others are born. But, the denotation of the term “Cat” is presumably constant because it denotes all cats
past, present and future.

Ex.2. The term “Current King of Ethiopia”, at one time denoted actually existing entity, but today this
entity “King” has perished. Accordingly, the term now has what is called Empty Extension- such terms
denote the empty (or null) class, the class that has no members.

Ex.3. terms like “Dinosaurs”

N.B: Intension determines extension. The intensional meaning of a term serves as a criterion for deciding
what the extension consists of. Even though it is very difficult to find out, sometimes proper names can
have intensional meaning.

For Example: the name “Dawit” denotes the person who has this name. But “Dawit” could be shorthand
for “the person who live next door”, “the person who works at the corner store” or “the person who drives
a black limousine.”

When we see sequences of terms, terms maybe put in order of:

o Increasing Intension

18
 o Decreasing Intension
o Increasing Extension and
o Decreasing Intension.

Increasing Intension: a series of terms is in order of increasing intension when each term in the series
(except the first) connotes more attributes than the one preceding it. That is, each term in the series is
more specific that the one preceding it. The reverse is true for decreasing intension

Increasing Extension: a series of terms is in order of increasing extension when each term I n the series
(except the first) denotes a class having more members. That is the class size gets larger with each
successive term. The reverse is true for decreasing extension.

Examples:

 Increasing Intension: Animal, Mammal, Feline, Tiger.

 Decreasing Intension: Tiger, Feline, Mammal, Animal.
 Increasing Extension: Tiger, Feline, Mammal, Animal.
 Decreasing Extension: Animal, Mammal, Feline, Tiger.

Increasing Intension= Decreasing Extension

Decreasing Intension= Increasing Extension

But there is an exception, consider this:

Ex.1. Dinosaurs; dinosaurs with blue eyes; dinosaurs with blue eyes and big teeth; dinosaurs with blue
eyes; dinosaurs with blue eyes and big teeth and a weight of 9000 kilograms.

This example illustrates increasing intension. But since it has empty extension, it does not exhibit the
order of decreasing extension.

Ex.2. Living human being; living human being with a genetic code; living human being with a genetic
code and a brain; living human being with a genetic code, a brain and a height of less than 100 feet.

Again, here intension increases; the extension however does not decrease because each term has exactly
the same extension.

2.3. Definition and Their Purpose

Definition: means a group of words that assigns a meaning to some word or groups of words. Every
definition had two parts: the definiendum and the definiens.

Definiendum: the word or group of words that is supposed to be defined, and Definiens: word or group
of words that does the defining.

Ex: “Tiger” means a large, striped, ferocious beast indigenous to the jungles of India and Asia.

“Tiger” = definiendum

Everything after “Tiger” = definiens

Definiendum Definiens

19
 Word to be Words that do the
2.3.1. Kinds of Definitions defined defining

There are five kinds:

 Stipulative definition,
 Lexical definition,
 Précising definition,
 Theoretical definition and
 Persuasive definition.

A) Stipulative Definition

 Assigns a meaning to a word for the first time which may involve either:

 Coining a new word or

 Giving a new meaning to an old word.

Its purpose is to replace a more complex expression with a simplest one.

Ex:- A male tiger and a female lion were interbred & given a new

name “Tigon”

 A female tiger and a male lion – “Liger”

Another use of stipulative definitions is to set up secret codes:

Example:

“Operation Barbarosa” a name Germans gave to the invasion of Russia

“Operation desert storm” – a code name given to the 1991 military invasion of Iraq.

N.B.: Since stipluative definition is completely arbitrary arrangement/assignment of a meaning to a word

for the first time, there can be no such things as “true” or “false” stipulative definition.

B) Lexical Definition

This is used to report the meaning that a word already has in a language. Dictionary definitions are all
instances of lexical definitions. A lexical definition can be either true or false depending on whether it
does or does not report the way a word is actually used. Its purpose is to reduce/eliminate the ambiguity
of words

1. A word is Vague  if there are borderlines causes such that it is impossible to tell whether the
word applies to them or not.

Ex: Words such as “Love” “happiness” “peace”, “rich”, “poor,” etc are vague.

20
 2. A word is Ambiguous when it can be interpreted as having two or more clearly distinct
meanings in a given context.

Ex: Words like “light”, “bank”, “sound”, “right” or “race”

C) Précising Definitions

They reduce the vagueness of a word

Ex.1. “Poor” is vague

A legislation was introduced to give direct financial assistance to the poor. Now, who is the poor? Here
was can use a précising definition like:

_ “Poor” means having an annual income of less then 4,000 birr.

This definition systematically applies ordinary languages in contexts such as science, mathematics,
medicine or law.

Ex.2. “Dead” person – vague

Medical Science  “who is dead?”

Options = Person whose heart stops beating,

= Person who has stopped breathing, or

= Persons whose brain stops functioning permanently.

Precision definition: in medical science a “dead” person is a person whose brain stops functioning
permanently.

A précising definition differs from stipulative definition in that the latter involves a purely arbitrary
assignment of meaning, whereas the assignment of meaning in a précising definition is not at all arbitrary.
A great deal of care must be taken to give précising definition which can be either true or false.

D) Theoretical Definition

This provides a theoretical picture or characterization of entity denoted by the definienum.

Ex 1: “Heat” means the energy associated with the random notion of

molecules of a substance.

This definition provides the impetus for an entire theory about “heat”.

Ex 2: “Light” means a form of electromagnetic radiation.

NB: Not all theoretical definitions are linked with hard sciences. Many terms in philosophy have
theoretical definition.

Ex.1. John Stuart Mill’s definition of “Good” is the greatest happiness for the

greatest number of people.

21
Such definitions, strictly speaking are neither true nor false. But, they may be more or less interesting or
more or less fruitful, depending on the deductive consequences they entail and on the outcome of
experiments they suggest.

E) Persuasive Definition

Their purpose is to engender a favorable or unfavorable attitude toward what is denoted by the
definiendum. This is done by assigning an emotionally changed or value laden meaning to a word.

Here are some examples of opposing pairs of persuasive definitions.

Ex 1: “Abortion” means the ruthless murdering of innocent human beings.

“Abortion” means of a safe and establish surgical procedure whereby

a woman is relieved of an unwanted burden.

Ex 2: “Taxation” means the procedure by means of which our common

wealth is presented and sustained.

“Taxation” means the procedure used by bureaucrats to rip off the

people who elected them.

Ex 3: “Capitalism” means the economic system in which individuals are

afforded the God – given freedom to own property and conduct

business as they choose.

“Capitalism” means the economic system in which humanity is

sacrificed to the wanton quest for money; and mutual understanding

and respect are replaced by alienation, greed.

The objective of a persuasive definition is to influence the attitudes of the reader or listener. But they
may be either true or false

Consider this:

Ex.4. “Football” means a sport in which modern – day gladiators brutalize one another while trying to
move or a ridiculously shaped ball from one end of the playing field to the other.

2.3.2. Definitional Techniques

The techniques can be classified as intensional and extensional.

I. Extensional (Denotative) definition

An extensional definition  is the one that assigns a meaning to a term by indicating the members of the
class that the definiendum denotes: There are three ways:

A) Pointing to the member/s of a class- called demonstrative (ostensive)

22
 B) Naming them individually- enumerative and

C) Naming them in group- Definition by sub class.

A) Demonstrative (ostensive) Definitions

 Are probably the most primitive form of definition

 Meaning by pointing to things.

 May be partial or complete.

Ex: “Chair” means this, this and that, as you point to a number of chairs, one after the other.

“Axum obelisk” means this – as you point to it.

These definitions are the most limited because:

1. First, the required objects must be available for being pointed at. For example, if one wishes to define
the word “Sun” and it happens to be night time or the word “Dog” and none happens to be in the
vicinity, a demonstrative definition can not be used.

2. In addition, such definition do not involve a group of words rather gesture

like pointing.

B) Enumerative Definitions

 Assign meaning to a term by naming the members of a class the term denotes.

 May be partial or complete.

Examples: “Actor” means a person such as Al Pacino, Nicholas Cage or Richard Gene (Partial)

“Planet” means one of the following: Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn,
Uranus, Neptune or Pluto. (Complete)

C) A Definition by Subclass

 Assigns a meaning to a term by naming subclasses of the class denoted by the term. It may be
either partial or complete.

Examples: “Tree” means an oak, pine, elm, spruce, maple and the like

(Partial)

“Fictional Work” means either a poem, a play, a novel or a

short story. (Complete)

Extensions can suggest intensions, but cannot determine them. There is no assurance that
listeners/readers will get the intensional meaning.

II. Intensional (Connotative) Definitions

23
This is the one that assigns a meaning to a word by indicating the qualities or attributes that the word
connotes. There are four strategies:

a) Synonymous definition,

b) Etymological definition,

c) Operational definition and

d) Definition by genus and difference.

A. Synonymous Definition

This is the one in which the definiens is a single word that connotes the same attributes as the
definiedum.

Ex: “Physician” means a doctor.

“Intentional” means willful.

“Observe” means see.

However, many words are not connoted by a single word. For example, the word “wisdom” is not
exactly synonymous with either “knowledge,” “understanding,” or “sense.”

B. Etymological Definition

o Assigns a meaning to a word by disclosing the word’s ancestry in both its’ own language
and other languages.

Example: “License” is derived from the latin verb “Licere,” which means to be

permitted.

“Captain” derives from the latin noun “caput” which means head.

These definitions have special importance for two reasons. First, they convey the word’s root meaning
or seminal meaning. Secondly, that if one is familiar with the etymology of one English word; one often
has access to the meaning of an entire constellation of related words. For example, the word “Orthodox.
derives from the two Greek words, “Ortho”, meaning right or straight, and “Doxa”, meaning belief or
opinion. From this, one might grasp that “Orthodontic” has to do with straight teeth (“Odon” in Greek
means tooth). Similarly, “Polygon” (Greek “Poly” means many, and “Ganos” means angles) and
“Polygamy” means having many wives, Greek “Gamus” means wives/partners”).

C. Operational Definition

This assigns a meaning to a word by specifying certain experimental procedures that determine whether
or not the word applies to a certain thing.

Example 1: One substance is “harder than” another if and only if one scratches the other when the two
are rubbed together.

Example 2: A solution is an “acid” if and only if litmus paper turns red when dipped into it.

24
Example 3: A subject has “brain activity” if and only if an electroencephalograph shows oscillations
when attached to the subject’s head.

But Consider this:

 A solution is an “acid” if and only if it has a PH of less than 7. This is not operational definition
because it prescribes no operation.

N.B. Operational definitions are developed for the purpose of clarifying abstract concepts to the ground of
empirical reality.

However, as a limitation, they convey only part of the intensional meaning of a term. This limitation is
especially true when one attempts to apply operational definitions to terms outside the framework of
science. For example, words like “love,” “respect,” “freedom” and so on can not have adequate
operational definitions.

D. Definition by Genus and Difference

This 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 definiendum.

Genus: means a relatively larger class,

Species: means a relatively smaller subclass of the genus.

Difference: means the attribute/s that distinguish the various species

with in a genus.

Examples: “Ice” means frozen water.

“Daughter” means female offspring.

“Husband” means married man.

“Doe” means female deer.

“Ewe” means female sheep.

“Ram” means male sheep.

“Skyscraper” means very tall building.

However, there are other examples which are more sophisticated.

Example: “Tent” means a collapsible shelter made of canvas or other

material that is stretched and sustained by poles.

2.3.3. Criteria for Lexical Definitions

Rule 1: A lexical definition should conform to the standards of proper Grammar. It should be
grammatically correct.

Examples of incorrect definitions:

25
_“Furious” means if you’re angry at some one

_“Cardiac” like something to do with the heart.

The Corrected versions are:

_“Furious” means a condition of being angry

_“Cardiac” means pertaining to, situated near, or acting on the heart.

Rule 2: A lexical definition should convey the essential meaning of definiedum.

Example 1: “Human” a featherless biped.

Such definition fails to convey essential meaning of “human” and it fails to explain attributes that
distinguish humans from the other animals

But correct:

Example 2: “Human” means the animal that has the capacity to reason or to speak.

Rule 3: A lexical definition should be neither too broad nor too narrow.

A definition is too broad  the definiens includes too much and applies outside the extension of the
definiendum.

Too narrow  definitions include too little, or fail to apply to some objective in the extension.

Example 1: “Bird” means any warm – blooded animals, having wings.

Too broad  because it would include bats and insects which are not birds.

Example 2: “Bird” means any feathered warm – blooded animal that can fly.

Too narrow  It would exclude ostriches, which can not fly.

Such problems are observed in synonymous definitions and definitions by genus and difference.

Example 3: “King” means ruler, is too broad because many rulers are not kings.

Rule 4: A lexical definition should not be circular.

A definition is circular when the definiendum (or some grammatical form there of) appears in the
definiens.

Example 1: “Science” means activity engaged by scientists.

“Scientist” means anyone who engages in science.

Example 2: “Quiet” means quietude (Synonymous definition)

“Silence” means the state of being silent (definition by

genus and difference).

Rule 5: A lexical definition should not be negative when it can be affirmative.

26
Example 1: “Concord” means absence of discord,

but – “Concord” means harmony (correct).

Example 2: “A mineral” is a substance that is not an animal and not a

vegetable.

But some other words are intrinsically negative. For them, a negative definition is quite appreciated.

Ex 1: “Bald” means lacking hair.

“Darkness” means absence light.

Rule 6: A lexical definition should not be expressed in figurative, obscure, vague or ambiguous
language.

Figurative definition: involves metaphors or tends to point a picture.

Ex: “Architecture” means frozen music.

“Camel” means a ship of the desert.

Obscure definition: meaning is hidden as a result of defective language.

Consider these examples:

Ex.1. “Bunny” means a mammalian of the family leporidae, of the order lagomorpha whose
young are born furless and blind (more technical).

But= “Bunny” means a rabbit (appropriate).

Ex.2. “Desire” means the actual essence of man, in so far as it is

conceived, as determined to a particular activity by some

given modification of itself.

Vague definition: lacks precision or its meaning is blurred.

Ex 1: “Democracy” means a kind of government where people are

in control.

Ambiguous definition: tends itself to more than one distinct interpretation.

Ex 1: “Triangle” means a figure composed of three straight lines in which all of angles are equal
to 1800.

Does this mean that each angle separately is equal to or 180 0 that the angles taken together are equal to
1800?

Rule 7: A lexical definition should avoid affective terminology.

Affective Terminology: any kind of word usage that plays upon the emotions of the reader or listener. It
includes sarcastic and facetious language to influence others’ attitudes.

27
 Ex 1: “Communism” means the “brilliant” invention of Karl Marx and other foolish political
visionaries in which the national wealth is supposed to be held in common by people.

Rule 8: A lexical Definition should indicate the context to which the definiens

pertains. It should not be flawed.

Ex 1: “Strike” means a pitch at which a batter swings and misses (in baseball).

“Strike” means the act of knocking down all the pins with the first ball of a frame (in bowling).

“Strike” means a pull on a line made by a fish in taking the bait (in fishing).

“Strike” means action of refusal to proceed working by workers in a factory or a plant in a form
of demonstration, absenteeism in work or any other actions against ill treatment of the
management or government.

But wrong definitions:

Ex 1: “Triangle” means my favorite figure.

Ex 2: “Seven” means the number of days in a week.

Such definitions pick the light extension via unsuitable attributes.

28
 Chapter- Three
Informal Fallacies

3. Fallacies in General

Some errors in reasoning are obvious that no one is apt to be taken in by them. But other errors
in reasoning tend to be psychologically persuasive, these are called fallacies. A fallacy is a defect
in an argument that consists is something other than merely false premises. Both deductive and
inductive arguments may contain fallacies. If they contain, they are either unsound or uncogent
and if an argument is Unsound or Uncogent, it has one or more false premises or it contains
fallacy.

Types of fallacy

Fallacy is divided into two as formal fallacy and informal fallacy.

1.1. Formal fallacy: is the one that may be identified though the mere inspection of
the form or structure of an argument. It is usually observed in deductive argument--
disjunctive syllogism and hypothetical syllogism are forms of formal fallacy

Syllogism: comes from Greek roots meaning ‘to reason A1.

together” or to put statements together into a pattern
of reasoning
Hypothetical syllogism

Ex.1. If tuition continues to increase, and then only the healthy will be able to afford college
education

2. If only the wealthy will be able to afford a college education, then

class divisions will be strengthened. So if tuition continues to

increase, then class divisions will be strengthened

We can represent the form as follows; it is called hypothetical (conditional) syllogism.

Hy 1. If A, then B

2. If B, then C

3. So, if A, then C

The argument involves only hypothetical (i.e. conditional) statements. Every argument that
exemplifies the form of hypothetical syllogism is valid. Here is another example of this form.

29
Ex. If I am morally responsible, then I can choose between good and evil

If I can choose between good and evil, then some of my actions are free.

Therefore, if I am morally responsible, then some of my actions are free.

Note that: the conclusion of hypothetical syllogism is a conditional statement.

A2. Disjunctive syllogism

Some arguments make central use of disjunctions as opposed to conditional statements.

Disjunctions are statements of the form” Either A or B” For example:

1. Either Michelangelo painted Monalisa or Davincci painted it.

2. Michelangelo did not paint Monalisa .So, Davincci painted Monalisa
This argument has the following forms which is called disjunctive syllogism, because of its
“either –or “ Premise.

1. Either A or B 3. So, B.

2. Not A,

N.B Arguments having this form are always valid

1. The statements comprising a disjunction are called its Disjuncts, for instance, the
disjuncts of premise of the above argument are “Michelangelo painted monalisa” and “
Davincci painted monalisa”
2. We will take “ Either A or B” –as having the inclusive sense of “or”
3. We can also speak of an excusive sense of “or” claiming that “either A or B” some times
mean “either A or B (not both)”
N.B. Formal fallacy involves the explicit use of an invalid form.

3.1.2. Informal fallacy

It is the one that can be defected only through analysis of the content of the argument

Ex.1. All factories are plants. All plants are things that contain chlorophyll.

Therefore, all factories are things that contain chlorophyll.

The form is valid:

- All A are B
- All B are C
- So All A are C

30
But the argument is clearly invalid because it has true premises and a false conclusion. Because
here the word “plants” is used in two different senses. In the first premise, it means a building
where something is manufactured and in the second premise, it means a life form.

N.B The effect of informal fallacy is to make a bad argument appear “good.” But informal
fallacies are errors in reasoning that do not involve the explicit use of an invalid form. Further
more, exposing an informal fallacy requires an examination of the argument’s content.

Since the time of Aristotle, logicians have attempted to classify the various informal fallacies.
Aristotle himself identified 13 and separated them into 2 groups.

The presentation that follows divides Informal fallacies into five groups as:

 Fallacies of Relevance
 Fallacies of Weak Induction
 Fallacies of Presumption
 Fallacies of Ambiguity and
 Fallacies of Grammatical Analogy
I- Fallacies of Relevance

They share the common characteristic that the argument in which they occur have premises that
are logically irrelevant to the conclusion. Yet, the premises are relevant psychologically, so the
conclusion may seem to follow the premises. These fallacies are classified as fallacies involving
irrelevant premises because the connection between premises and the concision is emotional.

Emotional Appeals

A-Appeal to Force

It is some times also called “Appeal to “stick” or Ad Baculum Fallacy. The appeal to
force occurs when ever a conclusion is defended by a threat to the well-being of those who do
not accept it (Bacculum is a Latin for “Staff,” the staff being a symbol of power) In other words,
this fallacy always involves a threat ( may be either explicit or implicit) by an arguer to the
physical or psychological well- being of the listener or reader. Here, some body poses of
conclusion to another person and tells that person either explicitly or implicitly that some harm
will come to him/her if he/she does not accept the conclusion.

Child to play mate

Ex. 1. “ Mr.x is the best show on TV and if you do not believe it, I am going to call my big
brother over here and he is going to beat you up.”

Secretary to Boss

31
Ex.2. “I deserve a raise in salary for the coming year. After all, you know how friendly I am with
your wife, and I am sure you would not want her to find out what has been going on between you
and that sex pot client of yours.”

The first example involves a physical threat while the second one involves a psychological threat

The two examples just given can be interpreted as concealing the following premises, both of
which are most likely false

1. If my brother forces you to admit that Mr.x is the best show on TV, then Mr.x is indeed
the best show.
2. If I succeed in threatening you, then I deserve a raise in salary.
B. Appeal to Pity
Also called ad misericordiam fallacy (misericordiam- Latin word for pity’ or “mercy”). This
form of fallacy occurs whenever an argument poses/ creates a conclusion and then attempts, to
evoke pity form the reader or listener in an effort to get him/ her to accept the conclusion

In other words, it attempts to support the conclusion merely by evoking pity in one’s audience
when the statements that evoke the pity are logically unrelated to the conclusion.

Consider this example:

Tax payer to judge:

Ex.1. Your honor I admit that I declared 13 children as dependants on my tax return, even
though I have only2, and I realize that this was wrong but if you find me guilty of tax evasion,
my reputation will be ruined. I will probably lose my job, my poor wife won’t be able to have
the operation that she desperately needs, and may kids will starve. Surely, I am not guilty.

The conclusion- “surely, I am not guilty” is not relevant logically but it is relevant
psychologically.

Ex.2. As a result of war and famine, thousands of children in country x are malnourished. You
can help by sending money to Relief agency. So, please send whatever you can spare to relief
Agency Y.

However, the above is not an ad misericodiam fallacy because the information in the premises of
this sort of argument is apt to evoke pity but the information is also logically relevant to the
conclusion.

C. Appeal to people ( Ad populum Fallacy)

-Appeal to people is an attempt to convince a person (a group) by appealing to the desire to be

accepted or valued by others

32
-Because every one wants to be loved, esteemed, admired, valued, recognized and accepted by
others. The appeal to people uses these desires to get the reader or listener to accept a conclusion

- (Populum is Latin for “people” or “nation”)

- Here two approaches are involved, I .e direct and indirect approaches

C.1. The direct approach: occurs when an arguer, addressing a large group of people, excites
the emotions and enthusiasm of the crowd to win acceptance of the conclusion. It can be oral or
written as polemist writing

Adolf Hitler was a master of the technique. The objective is to arouse a kind of mob mentality

Consider this speech

“I look out at you all, and I tell you, I am proud to be here. Proud to belong to a party that stands
for what is good for Ethiopia. Proud to stand with men and women who can get our Ethiopia
back on its feet….”

C.2. The Indirect Approach: The arguer directs his/her appeal not to the crowd as a whole but
to one or more individuals separately focusing up on some aspects of their relation ship to the
crowd.

---Appeal to people is common in advertising (Bandwagon Argument)

Ex.1. The new Peugeot 2006 is not for every one. But then, you’ve always stood apart from the
crowd, haven’t you? So, Peugeot 2006 is the car for you.

Ex.2. Of course you want to buy Colgate toothpaste. Why, 90 percent of Ethiopia brushes with
Colgate.

---Appeal to Vanity is another form which associates product with certain celebrity who is
admired/pursued, the idea being you too will be admired and pursued if you use it.

Ex.1. You have the best soft drink of the year, Coca Cola. Even, Haile G/Selasie likes its taste.
Never miss it!

D. Argument against the People

-Also called “Argumentum Ad hominem fallacy” (Ad Hominem is a Latin phrase meaning
“against the man”)

-Always involves two arguers

-One of them either advances directly or implicitly a certain argument and the other respond by
directing his/her attention not to the first person’s argument but to the first person himself.

33
One arguer: advances argument “X”, the second person responds not directly to argument but
to the first person himself/herself. So, the second person commits the fallacy.

In other words, this fallacy involves attacking the person who advances an argument (or asserts a
statement) as opposed to providing a rational critique of the argument (or the statement) it self.

Ex-1- X has argued in favor of legalizing drugs such as cocaine and heroin. But Y argues, X is
just another one of those upper- crust intellectuals who is out of touch with real life. No sensible
person shows or listens to his pseudo –solutions

E. Tuquoque ( “You too”)

Pronounced as ‘Tu Kwo Kway’, in this fallacy the person being attacked is not an arguer, but the
personal comments made by the attacker may well be relevant to the conclusion.

Child to mother

Ex.1. Your argument that I should stop stealing candy from the cornerstone is no good. You told
me yourself just a week ago, you, too, stole candy when you were a kid.

F. Accident

Accident fallacy is committed when a general rule is applied to a specific case.

Ex.1. Freedom of speech is a constitutionally guaranteed right. Therefore, CUD leaders should
not be arrested for their speech that incited the riot last October

Ex.2.Whoever thrusts of knife into and their person should be arrested.

But surgeons do precisely this when operating. So, surgeons should be arrested.

G. Straw man fallacy

Fallacy occurs when an arguer defends an opponent’s argument for the purpose of more easily
attacking it. This fallacy can be very effective from a rhetorical point of view if one’s audience
is not aware that the misrepresentation has taken place.

But still, the premise is irrelevant to the conclusion

Premise: A mispresentation of the view is false

Conclusion: The view is false

N.B Straw man fallacies often appear in political contexts.

Consider this example

34
Ex.1. Susan advocates the legalization of cocaine. But I can not agree with any position based on
the assumption that cocaine is good for you and that a society of drug addicts can flourish. So, I
disagree with Susan.

One might believe that though drugs are harmful to health, but legalizing drugs can eliminate the
illegal drug traffic (and hence, the violence associated with it)

H. Missing the point

Also called ignoratio elenchi ( ignorance of a proof)

It illustrates especial form of relevance which occurs when the premises of an argument support
one particular conclusion.

Ex.1. Crimes, theft and robbery have been increasing at an alarming rate lately. The conclusion
is obvious we must reinstate the death penalty at once.

I. Red herring Fallacy

It is closely associated with missing the point. It is committed when the arguer diverts the
attention of the reader or listener by changing the subjects to some totally different issue.

Ex.1. The position open in the accounting department should be given to Abebe. Abebe has six
hungry children to feed, and his wife desperately needs an operation to save her eye sight.

II- Fallacies of weak Induction

These sets of fallacies involve premises that are in some degree relevant to their conclusions but
nevertheless provide insufficient support for them. We call these fallacies involving insufficient
evidence.

A. Appeal to unqualified Authority

Also called ad verecundiam fallacy, it occurs when the reliability of the authority may
reasonably be doubted. A reliable authority can provide correct information in a given area. If
there is legitimate doubt about whether an authority is reliable, then the appeal to authority is
weak. Such an appeal may provide some evidence for the conclusion, but not enough to
establish it

Ex.1. Pianist Ray Charles says that Sinclair plants are groovy. We can only conclude that
Sinclair plants are very groovy.

Ex.2. Our chemistry teacher says that federalism is not the best solution for Ethiopia. We all
believe that our chemistry teacher’s comment is quite correct that federalism must be avoided.

Ex.3. Ato Alemu who is practically blind has testified that he saw the suspect stab the victim
with a bayonet while he was standing 100 meters away from the incident. Therefore, members of
the jury, you must find the suspect guilty.

35
 B. Appeal to Ignorance

_also called argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy. It involves the following either:

A. The claim that a statement is true (or may be reasonably believed true) simply because it
has not been proven false or
B. The claim that a statement is false (or may be reasonably believed false) simply because
it has not been proven true. Here are two corresponding examples:
Premises: state that nothing has been proved/disapproved about something. But it draws the
conclusion or

Premises: Nothing is known with certainty about “X”, but in the Conclusion we know
something definite about “X”

Ex.1. After centuries of trying no one has been able to prove that reincarnation occurs. So, at
this point, I think we can safely conclude that reincarnation does not occur.

Ex.2. After centuries of trying, no one has been able to show that reincarnation does not occur.
So, at this point, I think we can safely conclude that reincarnation does occur.

Another instance of such fallacy occurs in organizations during periods of change.

Consider these opposing examples(1&2):

Ex.1 It has not been proven that the proposed changes will be beneficial. Therefore, they will not
be beneficial.

Ex.2 There is no solid evidence showing that the proposed changes will not be beneficial.
Therefore, they will be beneficial.

Consider another example

Ex.1. No one has even been able to prove the existence of UFOS. We must therefore conclude
that UFOs does not exist

Ex.2. “No one has ever been able to disprove that UFOs do not exist. We must therefore
conclude that UFOs exist”

Ex.3 No one has ever seen Mr.x drinking a glass of beer, wine or any other alcoholic drink.
Probably, Mr.x is a non-drinker.

C. Hasty Generalization

It is a fallacy that affects the inductive generalization. It occurs when there is no reasonable
likelihood that the sample is representative of the group. Specific case which is not
representative of the group is applied as a general rule.

36
Ex.1. During the past two months a pharmacy was robbed and the suspect is a black man.
Yesterday, a black teenager snatched an old lady’s purse while she was waiting at the corner of
the bus stop. Clearly, blacks are nothing but a pack of criminals.

N.B. But sometimes, reasonable and scientific samples can be acceptable/not fallacious.
Consider this:

Ex.1. 10 milligrams of substance Z was fed to four mice, and with in two minutes all four went
into shock and died. Probably, substance Z, in this amount, is fatal to the average mouse.
(Strong, no fallacy).

D. False cause Fallacy

The link between the premises and conclusion depends on some imagined causal connection that
probably does not exist. It occurs when one possible cause of a phenomenon is assumed to be a
cause although reasons are lacking for excluding other possible causes. This fallacy occurs in
various forms. There are three types:

D.1. Post Hoc Ergo propter Hoc (‘after this, therefore, on account of this’)

This presupposes that just because one event precedes another event, the first event causes the
second.

Ex.1. A black cat crossed my path and later I tripped and sprained my ankle. It must be that
black cats are really bad luck.

Ex.2. “There are many laws on the books to day than ever before, and more crimes are being
committed than even before. There fore, to reduce crimes we must eliminate the laws.”

D.2. Non Causa Pro Causa (‘not the cause for the cause’)

What is taken to be the cause of something is not really the cause at all.

Ex.1. During the past two months, every time that the cheer leaders have worn blue ribbons in
their hair, the basket ball team has been defeated. Therefore, to prevent defeats in the future, the
cheer leaders should get rid of those blue ribbons.

D.3. Oversimplified Cause

A multitude of causes is responsible for a certain effect but the arguer selects just one of these
causes and represents it as if it were the sole cause.

Ex.1. The quality of education in our colleges has been declining for years. Clearly, our teachers
just are not doing their job these days.

Other possible causes can be:

37
  Lack of discipline in the home,
 Parental non involvement,
 Too much television or
 Drug use by students.
E. Slippery slope

This fallacy occurs when the conclusion of an argument rests up on an alleged chain of reaction
and there is no sufficient reason to think that the chain reaction will actually take place.

Ex.1. The secretaries have asked us to provide lounge area as where they can spend their coffee
breaks. This request will have to be refused. If we give them lounge areas, next time they will
be asking for swimming pools. Then it will be bowling, and tennis courts and fitness centers.
Expenditures of these facilities will drive us into bankruptcy.

F. Fallacy of weak Analogy

This is committed when the analogy (Similarity between two or more things or Situations) is not
strong enough/weak or inadequate to support the conclusion that is drawn.

Consider this:

Ex.1. Daniel’s new car is bright blue, has leather upholstery and gets excellent gas mileage.
Tesfaye’s new car is also bright blue and has a leather upholstery. Therefore, it probably gets
excellent gas mileage too.

In its form, this example becomes:

Entity X has attributes ‘a’, ‘b’, ‘c’, and’s’

Entity Y has attributes ‘a’, ‘b’, and ‘c’

Therefore, entity y probably has‘d’ also

Ex.2. No one would buy a pair of shoes with out trying them on. Why should any one be
expected to get married without premarital sex?

III- Fallacies of Presumption

All of these fallacies involve the use of unwarranted premises. We will now examine forms of
this fallacy.

A. Begging the Question

It is also called “petitio principii” An argument begs the question when it assumes the point to be
proved. Begging the question is also known as arguing in a circle.

Ex.1. The defendant is not guilty of the crime for he is innocent of having committed it.

38
Ex.2. Boeing makes the best airliners in the world. Why? Because Boeing has the best
aeronautical engineers. And why is that? Because Boeing pays the highest salaries. Of course,
the Boeing Company can afford this because they make the best airliners in the world.

Ex.3.God exists because the Bible says so. But how do I know that what the Bible says is true?
Because it is God’s word.

B. False Dichotomy

This fallacy occurs when one uses a premise that unjustifiably reduces the number alternatives to
be considered, i.e. occurs whenever it contains unjustified promises.

Ex.1. I am tired of all these young people criticizing their own country. What I say is this,
“Ethiopia-love it or leave it!” And since these people can not leave Ethiopia, they should love it
instead of criticizing it.

IV- Fallacies of Ambiguity

Arguments are sometimes flawed because they contain ambiguous words (phrases or
statements), that is, they involve subtle confusion between two closely related concepts. These
are fallacies involving ambiguity. And there are two types of such fallacy.

A. Equivocation
This fallacy occurs when two (or more) meanings of a word (or phrase) are used in a context in
which validity requires a single meaning, for a single term. Consider this:

Ex1. I agree with Christians in their claim that God is love. But unlike Christians, I’m not afraid
to draw the obvious logical consequence: love is God.

Ex.2.The earth is round. So, roundness is identical with the earth.

In its form, the second example implies: X has attribute Y. So, Y is identical with x.

B. Amphiboly
The fallacy of Amphiboly is similar to equivocation except that the double meaning is due to a
syntactic deficiency, such as grammatical error or a mistake in punctuation (rather than to an
ambiguous word or phrase)

Ex.1. Author X. warns about the negative effects of subtle lies in his book “liars Tell lies”. So,
given that Author X’s Book contains subtle lies, perhaps it is best not to read it.

-V-Fallacies of grammatical Analogy

This form of fallacy contains two types namely: fallacies of composition and division.

39
 A. Composition
This fallacy applies to two similar types of invalid inference. The first type is an invalid
inference from the nature of the parts to the nature of the whole. For instance:

Ex.1. Each of the parts of this air plane is very light. Therefore, the air plane it self is very light.

Here is another example of the parts-to-whole type of fallacy of composition:

Ex.2. Each player on the football tem is out standing. Hence, the team it self is outstanding.

The second type of fallacy of composition is an invalid inference from attributes of members of
a group to attributes of the group itself. Here is an example: ----Elephants eat more than
humans. So, elephants taken as a group eat more than humans taken as a group.

B. Division
It is the reverse of the fallacy of composition. It involves an invalid inference from the nature of
the whole inference to the nature of the parts, or from the nature of a group to the nature of its
members. Here is an example of the whole-to-part type of fallacy.

Ex.1. The air plane is heavy. So each of its parts is heavy.

Ex.2. The soccer team is excellent. Hence, each member of the team is excellent. The fallacy of
division may also involve an inference from a group (or collective) to its members.

40
 CHAPTER FOUR

SYLLOGISTIC LOGIC & CATEGORICAL

PROPOSITIONS

The components of categorical propositions

Proposition that relates two classes, or categories is called a categorical proposition. The classes in
question are denoted respectively by the subject term and the predicate term and the proposition asserts
that either all or part of the class denoted by the subject term is included or excluded from the class
denoted by the predicated term. Here are some examples of categorical propositions:

- Light rays travel at a fixed speed.

- Not all convicted murderers get the death penalty.
When we consider these two examples (above), the first statement asserts the entire class of light rays is
included in the class of things that travel at a fixed speed, the second asserts that the part of the class of
convicted murderers is excluded from the class of persons who get the death penalty

There are four types of categorical propositions.

1. Those that assert that the whole subject class is included in the predicate class.
2. Those that assert that the part of the subject class is included in the predicate class
3. Those that assert that the whole subject class is excluded from the predicate class, and
4. Those that assert that part of the subject class is excluded from the predicate class.

A categorical proposition that expresses these relations with complete clarity is the one that is in standard
form. A categorical proposition is in standard from if and only if it is a substitution of any one of the
following four forms.

- All S are P.
- No S are P.
- Some S are P.
- Some S are not P.
N.B: Many categorical propositions are not in standard form because they do not begin with “all”, “no”
or “some”. The words “all”, “no” “some” are called quantifiers because they specify how much of the
subject class is included or excluded from the predicate class.

- All S are P asserts that the whole subject class is included in the predicate class,
- No S are P asserts the whole subject class is excluded from the predicate class,
- Some S are P asserts that the part of the subject class is included in the predicate class, and
- Some S are not P asserts that the part of the subject class is excluded from the predicate class.
The letters “S” and “P” stand respectively for the subject and predicate terms while the words “are” and
“are not” are called the Copula b/c they link (or couple) the subject term with the predicate term.

Example 1- All members of the Ethiopian medical Association are persons holding

Degrees from recognized academic institutions.

41
This standard form categorical proposition is analyzed as follows.

Quantifier: All

Subject term: Members of the Ethiopian medical association

Copula: are

Predicate term: Persons holding degrees from recognized academic institutions.

Use the same approach and identify quantifier, subject term, copula and predicate term of the
following.

Example 2- No persons who live near air ports are persons who appreciate the noise

of jets.

Quality, Quantity and Distribution

Quality and quantity are attributes of categorical proposition.

Proposition Meaning in class notation

All S are P Every member of the S class is a member of

the P class, that is S class is included in the

P class.

No S are P No member of the S class is a member of

the P class, which is the S class is excluded

from the P class

Some S are P At least one member of the S class is

a member of the P class.

Some S are not P At least one member of the S class is

not member of the P class

Quality:- The quality of a categorical proposition is either affirmative or negative depending on

whether it affirms or denies class membership, Accordingly, “All S are P and” some S are P” have
affirmative quality, and “No S are P” and “Some S are not P” have negative quality.

Quantity:- Might be either universal or particular depending on whether the statement makes a claim
about every member or just some member of the class denoted by the subject term.“All S are P” and “No

42
S are P” each assert something about every member of the S class and then are universal. But “some S are
P” and “some S are not P” assert something about one or more members of the S class and hence are
particular. N.B. Quantity can be determined through mere inspection of the quantifier. “All” and “No”
immediately imply universal quantity, while “some” implies particular. But categorical propositions have
no qualifiers. In universal proposition the quality is determined by the quantifier and in particular
propositions it is determined by the copula.

Some S are P does not necessarily imply that some S are not P.

Example – The substitution instances of these statement forms are both true

- “Some apples are Red” is true

- As is “Some apples are not red”
But the fact that one is true does not necessitate the other to be true

- “Some zebras are animals” is true but “Some zebras are not animals” is false. There fore, the
fact that one of these statement forms is true does not logically imply that the other is true.There are four
kinds of categorical proportions that lave commonly been designated by the letter names corresponding to
the first four vowels of the Roman alphabet , A,E,I,O.

The universal affirmative is called A proposition

The universal negative E proposition

The particular affirmative I proposition

The particular negative O proposition

Proposition Letter name Quantity Quality

All S are P A Universal Affirmative

No S are P E Universal Negative

Some S are P I Particular Affirmative

Some S are not P O Particular Negative

DISTRIBUTION

Unlike quality and quantity, which are attributes of proposition, distribution is an attribute of the
term (subject and predicate) of proposition. A term is said to be distributed if the proposition makes an
assertion about every member of the class denoted by the term, other wise it is undistributed. A term is
distributed if and only if the statement assigns (distributes) an attribute to every member of the class
denoted by the term. Thus if a statement asserts something about every member of the S class, then S is
distributed; if it asserts something about every member of the P class, then P is distributed; otherwise S
and P are Undistributed.

43
S
Diagram

“All S are P” P

The S circle is contained in the P circle which indicates the fact that every member of S is a member of P.
This statement however does not make a claim about every member of the P class, since there may be
some members of P that are outside S. So, S is distributed and P is not. In other words, for any universal
affirmative (A) proposition, the subject term is distributed but the predicate term is not distributed.“No S
are P” universal negative (E) proposition states that the S and P classes are separate. So it makes an
assertion about every members of both terms. Hence, the subject and predicate terms are distributed.

S P

“Some S are P” asserts something about al least one member of S is not a P. So, S is not distributed. Also,
it does not make a claim about every member of the P class. So, P is also not distributed. And “Some S
are not P” asserts that at least one S is not a P. So S is not distributed. But it asserts that the entire P is
excluded from S class. So, P is distributed.

Activity

i. Change the quality but not the quantity

1. All drunk drivers are threats to others on the high way.

2. Some CIA operatives are not champions of human rights.
ii. Change the quantity but not the quality.

1. No tax proposals that favor the rich are fair proposals.

2. All human contacts with benzene are potential causes of cancer.

4.3. VENN DIAGRAMS AND THE SQUARE OF OPPOSITION

There are two different interpretations of categorical propositions.

A- Aristotelian Interpretation
Aristotle, the famous Greek philosopher who developed the theory of categorical proposition over 2000
years ago restricted his theory to things that actually exist. Thus according to the Aristotelian

44
interpretation, the statement form “All S are P” asserts that all members of the S class are included in the
P class, and it is assumed that members of S actually exist. His interpretation more or less prevailed up to
the 19th century. But it became important to make statements about things that actually do not exist. In
response to this need, the logicians George Bole developed an interpretation that was neutral about
existence.

B- Boolean Interpretation
According to the Boolean Interpretation, the statement form “All S are P” asserts that all members of the
S class are included in the P class, and it is not assumed that members of S class actually exist. Another
way of expressing this concept is by saying that no members of the S class are excluded from the P class.

The difference between the Aristotelian and the Boolean interpretation also extends to E-type proposition.
Thus, under Aristotelian interpretation ‘No S are P” asserts that no members of the S class are included in
the P class, and it is assumed that members of S actually exist. Under the Boolean interpretation,
however, it asserts that no members of the S class are included in the P class, and it is not assumed that
members of S actually exist.The two interpretations differ from one another only with regard to universal
A and E propositions. The two interpretations are in agreement with regard to particular I and O
propositions. Thus, for both “some S are P” asserts that at least one member of the S class exits, and it is
also a member of the P class. And “some S are not P” asserts at least one member of the S class exists,
and it is not a member of the P class. Thus, under both interpretations, I and O statements make positive
claims about existence.

Boolean Interpretation of the four kinds of categorical proposition.

All S are P = No members of S are outside P.

No S are P = No members of S are inside P.

Some S are P = At least one S exists, and that S is a P.

Some S are not P= At least one S does exist, and that S is not a P.

Adopting this interpretation of categorical propositions, the (19 th century) logician John Venn developed
a system of diagrams to represent the information they express. These diagrams have come to be known
as Venn diagrams.

A Venn diagram is an arrangement of overlapping circles in which each circle represents the class
denoted by a term in a categorical proposition. Because every categorical proposition has exactly two
terms, the Venn diagram for a single categorical proposition consists of two other lapping circles, each
circle represents one of the terms. Accordingly, the left-hand circle represents the subject term and the
right – hand circle the predicate term. Such diagram looks like this.

45
 S

--The members of the class denoted by each term should be situated inside the corresponding circle.
Thus, the members of the S class (if any such members exist) are situated inside the S circle, and the
members of the p class (if any such members exist) are situated in side the P circle.

--If any members are situated inside the area where the two circles overlap, then such members belong to
both the class and P class.

Suppose, for example, that the S class is the class of Ethiopians and the P class is the class of farmers.
Then, if we select E and F to label the two circles, and if we use numerals to identify the four possible
areas, the diagram looks like this.

E F

Area marked”1” is an Ethiopian but not a farmer, any thing in the area marked “2” is both an Ethiopian
and a farmer, and “3” represents a farmer but not an Ethiopian. The area marked ‘4” is the area outside
both circles , any thing in this area is neither an Ethiopian nor a farmer. To represent the four types of
categorical propositions using Venn diagram, we use two kinds of marks. These are shading the area and
placing an “x” in the area.

Shading the area means that the shaded area is ‘empty”, and placing an “x” in the area means that at
least one thing exists in that area. But if no mark appears in that area, this means that nothing is known
about that area, it may contain members or it may be empty. Shading is always used to represent the
content of universal (A and E) propositions, and placing an “x” in the area is always used to represent the
content of particular (I and O) propositions. The content of the four categorical propositions is
represented as follows:

A: All S are P

S P

46
E: No S are P

S P

I: Some S are P

S P

O: Some S are not P

S P

A proposition asserts that no members of S are outside P. This is represented by shading the part of the
S circle that lies outside the P circles. E proposition asserts that no members of the S are inside P. This
is represented by shading the part of the S circles that lies inside the P circles. The I proposition asserts
that at least one S exists and that S is also a P. This is represented by placing an “x” in the area where the
two circles overlap. The O proposition asserts at least one S exists, and that S is not a P. This is
represented by placing an “x” in the part of the S circle that lies out side the P circles. This “x” represents
an existing thing that is an S but not P.

For example, the diagram for the A proposition merely asserts that nothing exists in the part of the S
circles that lies outside the P circles. The area where the two circles overlap and the part of the P circles
that lies outside the S circle contain no marks at all. This means that something might exist in these areas,
or they might be completely empty.

Similarly, in the diagram for the E proposition, no marks appeal in the left- hand part of the S circle and
the right-hand part of the P circle. This means that these two areas might contain something or, on the
other hand they might not. Now compare the diagram for the A proposition with the diagram for the O
proposition. The former asserts that the left hand part of the S circle is empty, whereas the latter asserts
that the same area is not empty. These two diagrams make assertions that are the exact opposite of each
other. As a result, their corresponding statements are said t contradict each other.

47
Analogously, the diagram for the E proposition asserts that the area where the two circles overlap is
empty, whereas the diagram for I proposition asserts that the area where the two circles overlap is not
empty. Accordingly, their corresponding propositions are also said to contradict each other. This
relationship of mutually contradictory pairs of propositions is represented in a diagram called the modern
square of opposition. This diagram arises from the modern (or Boolean) interpretation of categorical
propositions, and is represented as follows:

A E E

I O

If two propositions are related by the contradictory relation, they necessarily have opposite truth value.
Thus, if a certain A preposition is given as true, the corresponding O proposition must be false and vice
versa. Similarly, if a certain I oppression is given as false, the corresponding E proposition must be true
and vice versa.

However, given the truth value of an A or O proposition, nothing can be determined about the truth value
of the corresponding E or I propositions. Because these propositions could be either true or false
depending on whether their subject terms denote actually existing things or do not. Thus, from the
Boolean interpretation, they are said to have logically undermined truth value. Similarly, given the
truth value of an E or I proposition, nothing can be determined about the truth value of the corresponding
A or O proposition. They, too, are said to have logically undermined truth value. Contradictory
relationship is logically necessarily and can provide the basis for evaluating certain arguments as valid or
invalid. Consider this argument.

--Some word processors are not complicated devices. There fore, it is false that all word processors are
complicated devices.

Arguments of this sort are called immediate inferences because they have only a single premise, and so
there is no transition in thought from one premise to another and then to the conclusion. To evaluate this
argument using the modern square of opposition, we begin by assuming that the premise, which is an O-
proposition, is true. By the modern square, if an O-proposition is true, then it follows necessarily that its
corresponding A proposition is false. The argument is valid. We can use to evaluate/determine whether
immediate references are valid or invalid. Consider this:

--Some W are Not C

--There fore, it is false that all W are C.

48
We draw a Venn diagram for the premise and then a Venn diagram for the concussion. Premise – we
place an”x” in the left- hand part of the W circle .But the conclusion asserts that something is false. How
are draw this? The answer is that we first consider what we would do if the conclusion said that is true all
W are C. We do shade the left hand part of the W circle. But since the conclusion says that this
statement is false, we do just the opposite: we place an “x” in the left- hand part of the W circle. Here are
the completed diagrams:

Some W are not C

W C

If is false that all W are C

W C

The Conclusion diagram asserts that something exists in the left-land part of the W circle. Since this
information is also expressed in the premise diagram, the argument is valid. The premise and the
conclusion assert exactly the same thing.

Consider this argument:

It is false that all humans are cats. Therefore, no humans are cats.

This argument has a form:

It is false that all H are C. Therefore, no H are C.

In diagramming the premise, we do just the opposite of what would do to the diagram “All H are C”
instead of shading the left-hand part of the H circle, we place “x” in that area. For the conclusion, We
shade the area where the two circles overlap:

It is false that all H are C

H C

No H are C H C

Here, the conclusion diagram asserts that the overlap area is empty. Since this information is not
contained in the promises diagram, the argument is invalid. Finally, it should be noted that the modern
square of opposition and the Venn diagram technique for evaluating arguments are applicable regardless
of whether the terms in a particular argument denote actually existing things.

49
1. we can see that Hailu’s argument is totally wrong.

50