CHAPTER ONE

LOGIC AND PHILOSOPHY

Lesson 1: Meaning and Nature of Philosophy
 It is difficult to define philosophy in terms of a specific subject matter. Because philosophy has no a specific
subject matter to primarily deal with.
 Philosophy deals primarily with issues. What contents philosophy has are not the specific subject matters, but
issues, which are universal in nature.
 The best way to learn and understand philosophy is to philosophize; i.e., to be confronted with philosophical
questions, to critically think, to conceptualize, to analyze, to compare, to evaluate
 Socrates once stated that “Wonder is the feeling of a philosopher, and philosophy begins in wonder”.
 To find the clear-cut definition of philosophy, it is better to refer to the etymology of the word itself.
 Etymologically, the word “philosophy” comes from two Greek words: “philo” and “sophia”, which mean
“love” and “wisdom”, respectively. Thus, the literal definition of philosophy is “love of wisdom”.
 According to Socrates, wisdom consists of a critical habit and eternal vigilance about all things and a
reverence for truth, whatever its form, and wherever its place.
 Based on the Socratic understanding of wisdom, philosophy, as a pursuit of wisdom, is, thus, the development
of critical habits, the continuous search for truth, and the questioning of the apparent.
 To interrogate the obvious/ questioning of the apparent means
 to deal creatively with the phenomenal world
 to go beyond the common understanding
 to speculate about things that other people accept with no doubt.
 The philosophical enterprise is “an active imaginative process of formulating proper questions and resolving
them by rigorous, persistent analysis”. (Vincent Barry)
 philosophy
 is a rational and critical enterprise that tries to formulate and answer fundamental questions through an
intensive application of reason- an application that draws on analysis, comparison, and evaluation.
 involves reason, rational criticism, examination, and analysis.
 has a constructive and critical sides.
 Constructive side
 it attempts to formulate rationally defensible answers to certain fundamental questions concerning the
nature of reality, the nature of value, and the nature of knowledge and truth.
 Critical side
 is manifested when it deals with giving a rational critic, analysis, clarification, and evaluation of
answers given to basic metaphysical, epistemological, and axiological questions.
 Philosophy is an activity. It is not something that can be easily mastered or learned in schools.
 A philosopher is a great philosopher, not because he mastered philosophy, but because he did it
(philosophizes).

Lesson 2: Basic Features of Philosophy

 As an academic discipline, philosophy has its own salient features that distinguish it from other academic
disciplines.
 The general features of philosophy can be summarized as follows:
1) Philosophy is a set of views or beliefs about life and the universe, which are often held uncritically.
 We refer to this meaning as the informal sense of philosophy or “having” a philosophy.
 Usually when a person says “my philosophy is,” he or she is referring to an informal personal attitude to
whatever topic is being discussed.
2) Philosophy is a process of reflecting on and criticizing our most deeply held conceptions and beliefs.
 This is the formal sense of “doing” philosophy.
 These two senses of philosophy-”having” and “doing”- cannot be treated entirely independent of each other.
 If we did not have a philosophy in the formal, personal sense, then we could not do a philosophy in the
critical, reflective sense.
 However, having a philosophy is not sufficient for doing philosophy rather we have to philosophize on
different issues.
3) Philosophy is a rational attempt to look at the world as a whole.
 Philosophy seeks to combine the conclusions of the various sciences and human experience into some kind of
consistent worldview.
 Philosophers wish to see life, not with the specialized slant of the scientist or the businessperson or the artist,
but with the overall view of someone cognizant of life as a totality.
 Philosophy attempts to bring the results of human inquiry- religious, historical, and scientific into some
meaningful interpretation that provides knowledge and insight for our lives.
4) Philosophy is the logical analysis of language and the clarification of the meaning of words and concepts.
 Certainly, this is one function of philosophy.
 From the narrower point of view, the aim of philosophy is to expose confusion and nonsense and to clarify the
 meaning and use of terms in science and everyday affairs.
5) Philosophy is a group of perennial problems that interest people and for which philosophers always have
sought answers.
 Philosophy presses its inquiry into the deepest problems of human existence.
 Some of the philosophical questions raised in the past have been answered in a manner satisfactory to the
majority of philosophers.
 Many questions, however, have been answered only tentatively, and many problems remain unsolved.
 Examples of Philosophical questions
What is the distinction between right and wrong?
What is life and why am I here?
Is it intellectually valid to believe in God?
Is there a possibility of a “life after death?”…..
 The attempt to seek answers or solutions to them has given rise to theories and systems of thought, such as
idealism, realism, pragmatism, analytic philosophy, existentialism, phenomenology, and process philosophy.
 Philosophy also means the various theories or systems of thought developed by the great philosophers, such as
Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Augustine, Aquinas, Descartes, Spinoza, Locke, Berkeley, Kant, Hegel, Nietzsche,
Royce, James, Dewey, Whitehead, and others.
 Without these people and their thoughts, philosophy would not have the rich content it has today.

Core Fields of Philosophy

Lesson 3: Metaphysics and Epistemology
 The content of philosophy is better seen as asking the right questions rather than providing the correct
answers.
 It even can be said that philosophy is the study of questions.
 Philosophy has different branches. The primary branches of philosophy are Metaphysics, Epistemology,
Axiology and Logic.
3.1 Metaphysics
 Metaphysics
is the branch of philosophy that studies the ultimate nature of reality or existence.
It deal with issues of reality, God, freedom, soul/immortality, the mind-body problem, form and
substance relationship, cause and effect relationship, and other related issues.
 seek an irreducible foundation of reality or ‘first principles’ from which absolute knowledge or truth
can be induced and deduced.
The term metaphysics is derived from two Greek words
 “Meta” means (“beyond”, “upon” or “after”)
 “Physika” means (“physics”).
Literally, it refers ‘those things after the physics.’
 Aristotle’s writings on ‘first philosophy’ came after his treatise on physics, therefore, Aristotle’s editor,
Andronicus of Rhodes, named them metaphysics.
 Here are some of the questions that Metaphysics primarily deals with:
 What is reality?
 What is the ultimately real?
 What is the nature of the ultimate reality?
 Is it one thing or is it many different things?
 Can reality be grasped by the senses, or it is transcendent?
 What makes reality different from a mere appearance?
 What is mind, and what is its relation to the body?
 Is there a cause and effect relationship between reality and appearance?
 Does God exist, and if so, can we prove it?
 Are human actions free, or predetermined by a supernatural force?
 What is human being? A thinking mind? A perishable body? Or a combination of both?
 What is time?
 What is the meaning of life?
 Metaphysical questions are the most basic to ask because they provide the foundation upon which all
subsequent inquiry is based.
 Metaphysical questions may be divided into four subsets or aspects.
I. Cosmological Aspect:
 Cosmology consists in the study of theories about the origin, nature, and development of the universe as an
orderly system.
 Questions such as these populate the realm of cosmology:
 How did the universe originate and develop?
 Did it come about by accident or design?
 Does its existence have any purpose?
 II. Theological Aspect:
 Theology is that part of religious theory that deals with conceptions of and about God.
 “Is there a God? If so, is there one or more than one?
 What are the attributes of God?
 If God is both all good and all powerful, why does evil exist?
 If God exists, what is His relationship to human beings and the ‘real’ world of everyday life?”
III. Anthropological Aspect:
 Anthropology deals with the study of human beings and asks questions like the following:
 What is the relation between mind and body?
 Is mind more fundamental than body, with body depending on mind, or vice versa?
 What is humanity’s moral status?
 Are people born good, evil, or morally neutral?
 To what extent are individuals free?
 Do they have free will, or are their thoughts and actions determined by their environment, inheritance,
or a divine being?
 Does each person have a soul? If so, what is it?
IV. Ontological Aspect:
 Ontology is the study of the nature of existence, or what it means for anything to exist.
 Several questions are central to ontology:
 “Is basic reality found in matter or physical energy (the world we can sense), or is it found in spirit or
spiritual energy?
 Is it composed of one element (e.g., matter or spirit), or two (e.g., matter and spirit), or many?”
 Is reality orderly and lawful in itself, or is it merely orderable by the human mind?
 Is it fixed and stable, or is change its central feature?
 Is this reality friendly, unfriendly, or neutral toward humanity?”

3.2 Epistemology
 Epistemology
 is the other field of philosophy that studies about the nature, scope, meaning, and possibility of
knowledge.
 deals with issues of knowledge, opinion, truth, falsity, reason, experience, and faith.
 is also referred to as “theory of knowledge”.
 Etymologically, the word epistemology has been derived from the two Greek words
  Episteme, meaning “knowledge, understanding”
 Logos, meaning “study of”.
Therefore, Epistemology is the study of the nature, source, and validity of knowledge.
 The following are among the questions/issues with which Epistemology deals:
 What is knowledge?
 What does it mean to know?
 What is the source of knowledge? Experience? Reason? or both?
 How can we be sure that what we perceive through our senses is correct?
 What makes knowledge different from belief or opinion?
 What is truth, and how can we know a statement is true?
 Can reason really help us to know phenomenal things without being informed by sense experiences?
 Can our sense experience really help us to know things beyond our perception without the
assistance of our reasoning ability?
 What is the relationship and difference between faith and reason?
 Epistemology seeks answers to a number of fundamental issues.
1. Whether reality can even be known.
 Skepticism in its narrow sense is the position claiming that people cannot acquire reliable knowledge and that
any search for truth is in vain.( Gorgias, the Greek Sophist)
 Agnosticism (A term closely related to skepticism) is a profession of ignorance in reference to the existence or
nonexistence of God.
 Most people claim that reality can be known. However, once they have taken that position, they must decide
through what sources reality may be known.
2. Whether all truth is relative, or whether some truths are absolute.
 Relative truth:
 Truth is subject to changes.
 What is true today may be false tomorrow
 Absolute truth:
 Truth is eternally and universally true irrespective of time or place.
 Closely related to the issue of the relativity and absoluteness of truth are the questions of
 Whether knowledge is subjective or objective, and
 Whether there is truth that is independent of human experience.
 School of Thought in the Sources of Human Knowledge
1. Empiricism
 Knowledge obtained through the sense organs.
 Knowledge appears to be built into the very nature of human experience.
 Sensory knowledge is built upon assumptions that must be accepted by faith in the dependability of human
sensory mechanisms.
 The advantage of empirical knowledge is that many sensory experiences and experiments are open to both
replication and public examination.
 Limitations of empiricism
 Data obtained from the human senses have been demonstrated to be both incomplete and undependable
 There are sound and light waves that are inaudible and invisible to unaided human perception.
2. Rationalism
 Source of human knowledge is reason.
 Emphasizing humanity’s power of thought and the mind’s contributions to knowledge.
 Claim that the senses alone cannot provide universal, valid judgments that are consistent with one another.
 From this perspective, the sensations and experiences humans obtain through their senses are the raw material
of knowledge.
 These sensations must be organized by the mind into a meaningful system before they become knowledge.
3. Intuition
 The direct apprehension of knowledge that is not derived from conscious reasoning or immediate sense
perception.
 Source of human knowledge is “immediate feeling of certainty.”
 It occurs beneath the threshold of consciousness and is often experienced as a sudden flash of insight.
 It has been claimed under varying circumstances as a source of both religious and secular knowledge.
 Certainly many scientific breakthroughs have been initiated by intuitive hunches that were confirmed by
experimentation.
 The weakness or danger of intuition is that it does not appear to be a safe method of obtaining knowledge
when used alone.
 Intuitive knowledge has the distinct advantage of being able to bypass the limitations of human experience.
4. Revelation
 Revealed knowledge has been of prime importance in the field of religion.
 It differs from all other sources of knowledge because it presupposes a transcendent supernatural reality that
 breaks into the natural order.
 Christians believe that such revelation is God’s communication concerning the divine will.
 Believers in supernatural revelation hold that this form of knowledge has the distinct advantage of being an
omniscient source of information that is not available through other epistemological methods.
 The truth revealed through this source is believed by Christians to be absolute and uncontaminated.
 Some people assert that a major disadvantage of revealed knowledge is that it must be accepted by faith and
cannot be proved or disproved empirically.
5. Authority.
 Authoritative knowledge is accepted as true because it comes from experts or has been sanctified over time as
tradition.
 In the classroom, the most common source of information is some authority, such as a textbook, teacher, or
reference work.
 Generally.
 it is important to note that one source of information alone might not be capable of supplying people
with all knowledge.
 It might be important to see the various sources as complementary rather than antagonistic.
 However, it is true that most people choose one source as being more basic than, or preferable to, the
others, and then use it as a benchmark for testing other sources of knowledge.
 For example, in the contemporary world, knowledge obtained empirically is generally seen as the most
basic and reliable type.

Lesson 4: Axiology and Logic

4.1 Axiology
 Axiology is the study or theory of value.
 The term Axiology derived from two Greek words-
 “Axios”, meaning “value, worth”,
 “Logos”, meaning “reason/ theory/ symbol / science/study of”.
Hence, Axiology is the philosophical study of value, which originally meant the worth of something.
 Axiology asks the philosophical questions of values that deal with notions of what a person or a society
regards as good or preferable, such as:
 What is a value?
 Where do values come from?
 How do we justify our values?
  How do we know what is valuable?
 What is the relationship between values and knowledge?
 What kinds of values exist?
 Can it be demonstrated that one value is better than another?
 Who benefits from values? etc
 Axiology deals with the above and related issues of value in three areas, namely
1) Ethics
2) Aesthetics
3) Social/Political Philosophy.

1. Ethics
 Ethics (which is also known as Moral Philosophy)
 is a science that deals with the philosophical study of moral principles, values, codes, and rules, which
may be used as standards for determining what kind of human conduct/action is said to be good or bad,
right or wrong.
 Ethics raises various questions including:
 What is good/bad?
 What is right/wrong?
 Is it the Right Principle or the Good End that makes human action/conduct moral?
 Is an action right because of its good end, or it is good because of its right principle?
 Are moral principles universal, objective, and unconditional, or relative, subjective and conditional?
 What is the ultimate foundation of moral principles? The supernatural God? Human reason? Mutual
social contract? Social custom?
 Does God exist? If so, is He Benevolent and Omnipotent?
 If God is Benevolent, why He creates evil things? If God does not create evil things, then, there must
be another creator who is responsible to creation of the evil things? But, if it is so, how can God be an
Omnipotent creator?
 Why we honor and obey moral rules? For the sake of our own individual benefits?, or for the sake of
others?, or just for the sake of fulfilling our infallible duty?
Branches of Ethics
 Ethics, or ethical studies, can be grouped into three broad categories:
A. Normative ethics
 B. Meta-ethics
C. Applied Ethics

A. Normative Ethics
 refers to the ethical studies that attempt to study and determine precisely the moral rules, principles, standards
and goals by which human beings might evaluate and judge the moral values of their conducts, actions and
decisions.
 Examples of normative ethical studies
 Consequentialism or Teleological Ethics
 Deontological Ethics
 Virtue Ethics
B. Meta-ethics
 is the highly technical philosophical discipline that deals with investigation of the meaning of ethical terms
(good or bad and right or wrong), including a critical study of how ethical statements can be verified.
 Examples of meta-ethical studies.
 Moral Intuitionism
 Moral Emotivism
 Moral Prescriptivism
 Moral Nihilism
 Ethical Relativism
C. Applied Ethics
 is a branch of ethics that attempts to explain, justify, apply moral rules, principles, standards, and positions to
specific moral problems, such as capital punishment, euthanasia, abortion, adultery, animal right, and so on.
2. Aesthetics
 Aesthetics
 is the theory of beauty.
 It studies about the particular value of our artistic and aesthetic experiences.
 It deals with beauty, art, enjoyment, sensory/emotional values, perception, and matters of taste and
sentiment.
 The following are typical Aesthetic questions:
 What is art?
 What is beauty?
 What is the relation between art and beauty?
  What is the connection between art, beauty, and truth?
 Can there be any objective standard by which we may judge the beauty of artistic works, or beauty is
subjective?
 What is artistic creativity and how does it differ from scientific creativity?
 Why works of art are valuable?
 Can artistic works communicate? If so, what do they communicate?
 Does art have any moral value, and obligations or constraints?
 Are there standards of quality in Art?

3. Social/Political Philosophy
 Social/Political Philosophy studies about of the value judgments operating in a civil society; be it social or
political.
 The following are Social/Political Philosophy questions
 What form of government is best?
 What economic system is best?
 What is justice/injustice?
 What makes an action/judgment just/unjust?
 What is society?
 Does society exist? If it does, how does it come to existence?
 How are civil society and government come to exist?
 Are we obligated to obey all laws of the State?
 What is the purpose of government?

4.2 Logic
 Logic
 is the study or theory of principles of right reasoning.
 It deals with formulating the right principles of reasoning; and developing scientific methods of
evaluating the validity and soundness of arguments.
 The following are among the various questions raised by Logic:
 What is an argument; what does it mean to argue?
 What makes an argument valid or invalid
 What is a sound argument?
 What relation do premise and conclusion have in argument?
  How can we formulate and evaluate an argument?
 What is a fallacy?
 What makes an argument fallacious?

Lesson 5: Importance of Learning Philosophy

“The unexamined life is not worth living”.
 Philosophy provides various fundamental benefits to learners.
 It provides students with the tools they need to critically examine their own lives as well as the world
in which they live.
 Some modern psychologists point out that human beings have both maintenance and actualizing needs.
 Maintenance need refer to the physical and psychological needs that we must satisfy in order to maintain
ourselves as human beings: food, shelter, security, social interaction, and the like.
 Actualizing need appear to be associated with self-fulfillment, creativity, self-expression, realization of one’s
potential, and being everything one can be.
 Philosophy
 assists students to achieve the most important characteristic of self-actualization
Characteristics of self-actualization
1. Intellectual and Behavioral Independence
 This is the ability to develop one’s own opinion and beliefs.
 Studying philosophy helps us
 to know the alternative world views
 to know how philosophers have ordered the universe for themselves
 to develop and integrate our experiences, thoughts, feelings, and actions for ourselves, and thus
how to be intellectually and behaviorally independent

2. Reflective Self-Awareness
 Self-actualization means a clear knowledge of oneself and the world in which one lives.
 Philosophy helps us
 to intensify our self-awareness by inviting us to critically examine the essential intellectual grounds of
our lives

3. Flexibility, Tolerance, and Open-Mindedness

 By studying different philosophical perspectives we can understand the evolutionary nature of intellectual
 achievement and the ongoing development of human thought.

4. Creative and Critical Thinking: -

 This is the ability to develop original philosophical perspective on issues, problems, and events; and to engage
them on a deeper level.
 From the study of philosophy, we can learn how to refine our powers of analysis, our abilities to think
critically, to reason, to evaluate, to theorize, and to justify.

5. Conceptualized and well-thought-out value systems in morality, art, politics, and the like: -
 since philosophy directly deals with morality, art, politics, and other related value theories, studying
philosophy provides us with an opportunity to formulate feasible evaluations of value; and thereby to find
meaning in our lives
 Moreover, studying philosophy helps us to deal with the uncertainty of living, meaning it helps us to realize
the absence of an absolutely ascertained knowledge, and hence prepare ourselves to the ever growing human
knowledge.

CHAPTER TWO
 BASIC CONCEPTS OF LOGIC
Lesson 1: Basic Concepts of Logic: Arguments, Premises and Conclusions
What is the Meaning of Logic?
 The word logic comes from Greek word logos, which means sentence, discourse, reason, truth and rule.
 Logic can be defined in different ways. Here below are some definitions of logic:
 Logic
 is a science that evaluates arguments.
 is the study of methods for evaluating whether the premises of arguments adequately support or
provide a good evidence for the conclusions.
 is a science that helps to develop the method and principles that we may use as a criterion for
evaluating the arguments of others and as a guide to construct good arguments of our own.
 is the attempt to codify the rules of rational thought.
 is one of the primary tools philosophers use in their inquiries.
 In logic, as an academic discipline, we study reasoning itself: forms of argument, general principles and
particular errors, along with methods of arguing.

What is the Benefit of Studying Logic?

“Logic sharpens and refines our natural gifts to think reason and argue.” (C. S. Layman)
 the following are some of the major benefits that we can gain from the study of logic:
 It helps us to develop the skill needed to construct sound (good) and fallacy-free arguments of one’s
own and to evaluate the arguments of others;
 It provides a fundamental defense against the prejudiced and uncivilized attitudes that threaten the
foundation of a civilized and democratic society;
 It helps us to distinguish good arguments from bad arguments;
 It helps us to understand and identify the common logical errors in reasoning;
 It helps us to understand and identify the common confusions that often happen due to misuse of
language;
 It enables us to disclose ill-conceived policies in the political sphere, to be careful of disguises, and to
distinguish the rational from irrational and the sane from the insane etc..

What is an Argument?
 Argument
  is a technical term and the chief concern of logic.
 means arriving at a definite claim of conclusion over an issue or a subject based on acceptable
evidences, information or chain of reasons available at hand
 from logical point of view, it is a group of statements, one or more of which (the premise) are claimed
to provide support for, or reason to believe, one of the other, the (conclusion)
The features of this definition in detail is
First, an argument is a group of statements.
 A statement is a declarative sentence that has a truth-value of either true or false.
 Truth and falsity are the two possible truth-values of declarative sentence.
 Statement is a type of sentence that could stand as a declarative sentence (true or false).
Look the following examples:
A. Dr. Abiy Ahmed is the current Prime Minister of Ethiopia.
B. Mekelle is the capital city of Tigray Region.
C. Ethiopia was colonized by Germany.
 However, there are sentences that are not statements.
 Many sentences cannot be said either true or false or we may not evaluate them as either true or false.
 Questions, proposals, suggestions, hopes, wishes, commands, attitudes, exclamations, usually cannot be
considered as true or false and not important for argument.
 For example:
A. Would you close the window? (Question)
B. Let us study together. (Proposal)
C. Right on! (Exclamation)
D. I suggest that you read philosophy texts. (Suggestion)
E. Give me your ID card, now! (Command)
F. I wish I have study Anthropology. (Wish)
G. I hope Ethiopia will be 100% literate within the next two years (hope)

Second, the statements that make up an argument are divided into premise(s) and conclusion.
 An argument is a group statement, which contains at least one premise and one and only one conclusion.
 This definition makes it clear that an argument may contain more than one premise but only one conclusion.
 Argument always attempts to justify a claim.
Premise
 It is a statement that set forth the reason or evidence, which is given for accepting the conclusion of an
argument.
 It is the statement on the basis of which the conclusion is affirmed.
Conclusion
 It is a statement, which is claimed to follow from the given evidence (premise).
 It is the statement that is affirmed on the basis of the premise.
 It is the claim that an argument is trying to establish.
Examples of arguments
Example-1:
 All Ethiopians are Africans. (Premise 1
 Tsionawit is Ethiopian. (Premise2)
 Therefore, Tsionawit is African.(Conclusion)
Example-2:
 Some Africans are black. (Premise-1)
 Zelalem is an African. (Premise-2)
Therefore, Zelalem is black. (Conclusion)
 All arguments may be placed in one of two basic groups:
a) those in which the premises really do support the conclusion
b) those in which they do not, even though they are claimed to
 The former are said to be good (well-supported) arguments, the latter bad (poorly-supported) arguments.
Techniques used to distinguish premises from conclusion and vice versa
 In fact, there are two possibilities to identify premises and conclusion.
 The first rule is identifying logical indicator words from the given statements of the argument.
 An argument contains certain indictor words that provide clues in identifying premises and conclusion.
Here below are some Conclusion Indicators:
Therefore We may conclude Thus I conclude that
Wherefore Entails that Consequently So
Accordingly Hence We may infer It follows that
Provided that It shows that It implies that
It must be that Whence As a result

Example:
  Women are mammals.
 Zenebech is a woman.
Therefore, Zenebech is a mammal.
 Based on the above rule, the conclusion of this argument is “Zenebech is a mammal” because it follows the
conclusion indicator word “therefore”, and the other two statements are premises.
 If an argument does not contain a conclusion indicator, it may contain a premise indicator.
Here below are some typical Premise Indicators:
Since Given that Follows from
As indicated by As In as much as
Because For In as much as
Owing to In that For the reason that
Seeing that May be inferred from

Example:
 You should avoid any form of cheating on exams because cheating on exams is punishable by the
Senate Legislation of the University.
 Based on the above rule, the premise of this argument is “cheating on exams is punishable by the Senate
Legislation of the University” because it follows the premise indicator word “because”, and the other
statement is a conclusion.
 ‘‘for this reason.’’ is both premise and conclusion indicator.
 The statement that comes before ‘‘for this reason’’ is the premise of an argument and the statement that comes
after “for this reason” is the conclusion.
 Sometimes a single indicator can be used to identify more than one premise.
 Consider the following argument:
 Tsionawit is a faithful wife, for Ethiopian women are faithful wives and Tsionawit an Ethiopian.
 The premise indicator ‘‘for’’ goes with both ‘‘Ethiopian women are faithful wives’’ and ‘‘Tsionawit is an
Ethiopian”. These are the premises. By process of elimination, ‘‘Tsionawit is a faithful wife” is the
conclusion.
 The second rule to identify premises and conclusion is using the inferential claims.
 It implies by studying the nature of statements (statements that serve as evidence or a statement stated as the
final assertion).
 If a sentence is given as the main point of the argument or as a closing statement, it is a conclusion. On the
other hand, if the sentence is taken as information, reason or evidence, it is premise.
 While you are using this rule, it is advisable to raise the following questions.
 What single statement is claimed (implicitly) to follow from the others?
 What is the arguer trying to prove?
 What is the main point in the passage?
 The answers to these questions should point to the conclusion.
Example:
 Our country should increase the quality and quantity of its military. Ethnic conflicts are recently
intensified; boarder conflicts are escalating; international terrorist activities are increasing.
 The main point of this argument is to show that the country should increase the size and quality of its military.
All the rest are given in support of the conclusion.
 The following is the standard form of this argument:
 Ethnic conflicts are recently intensified. (P-1)
 Boarder conflicts are escalating. (P-2)
 International terrorist activities are increasing. (P-3)
Thus, the country should increase the quality and quantity of its military. (C)
 Passages that contain arguments sometimes contain statements that are neither premises nor conclusion.
 If a statement has nothing to do with the conclusion or, for example, simply makes a passing comment, it
should not be included within the context of the argument.
Example:
 Socialized medicine is not recommended because it would result in a reduction in the overall quality of
medical care available to the average citizen. In addition, it might very well bankrupt the federal
treasury. This is the whole case against socialized medicine in a nutshell.
 The conclusion of this argument is ‘‘Socialized medicine is not recommended,’’ and the two statements
following the word ‘‘because’’ are the premises.
 The last statement makes only a passing comment about the argument itself and is therefore neither a premise
nor a conclusion.

Lesson 2: Techniques of Recognizing Arguments

2.1 Recognizing Argumentative Passages
 Not all passages contain arguments.
 A passage contains an argument if it purports to prove something, otherwise, it does not.
 Two conditions must be fulfilled for a passage to purport to prove something.
1. At least one of the statements must claim to present evidence or reasons. (premise)
2. There must be a claim that the alleged evidence or reasons supports or implies something-
(conclusion)
 The first condition expresses a factual claim, while the second condition expresses an inferential
claim.
 An inferential claim
 is simply the claim that the passage expresses a certain kind of reasoning process- that something
supports something or that something follows from something.
 is an objective feature of an argument grounded in its language or structure.
 can be either explicit or implicit.
An explicit inferential claim is usually asserted by premise or conclusion indicator words (‘‘thus,’’ ‘‘since,’’
‘‘because,’’ ‘‘hence,’’ ‘‘therefore,’’ and so on).
Example:
 Gamachuu is my biological father, because my mother told so.
 In this example, the premise indicator word “because” expresses the claim that evidence supports something,
or that evidence is provided to prove something.
An implicit inferential claim exists if there is an inferential relationship between the statements in a passage,
but the passage contains no indicator words.
Example:
 The genetic modification of food is risky business. Genetic engineering can introduce unintended
changes into the DNA of the food-producing organism, and these changes can be toxic to the
consumer.
 The passage is an argument though it does not contain indicator word. The first statement is the conclusion,
and the other two are the premises.
 Sometimes it is difficult to identify whether a passage contain an argument.
First, the presence of an indicator word does not mean that the existing indicator word actually and always
indicate a premises or a conclusions.
 Before deciding that an indicator word indicates a premises or a conclusion, make sure that the existing
indicator word is used to indicate a premise or a conclusion.
 Example:
 Since Edison invented the phonograph, there have been many technological developments.
 Since Edison invented the phonograph, he deserves credit for a major technological development.
 In the first passage the word ‘‘since’’ is used in a temporal sense. It means ‘‘from the time that.’’ Thus, the
first passage is not an argument.
 In the second passage ‘‘since’’ is used in a logical sense, and so the passage is an argument.

Second, it is not always easy to detect the occurrences of an inferential relationship between statements in a
passage, and the reader may have to review a passage several times before making a decision.
 Deciding whether a passage contains an argument is very difficult. As a result, not everyone will agree about
every passage.
 Sometimes the only answer possible is a conditional one: “If this passage contains an argument, then these are
the premises and that is the conclusion.”

2.2 Recognizing Non-argumentative Passages

 Non-argumentative passages
 are passages, which lack an inferential claim.
 are passages may contain statements that could potentially be premises and conclusion or both.
 are passages that lack reasoning process
Forms of Non-Argumentative Passages
1. Simple non-inferential passages
2. Expository passages
3. Illustrations
4. Explanations
5. Conditional statements

1. Simple Non-inferential Passages

 Simple non-inferential passages
 are unproblematic passages that lack a claim that anything is being proved
 are passages contain statements that could be premises or conclusions (or both)
 are passages in which the potential premises do not support the conclusion
 are passages in which a potential conclusion does not follow from premises
 It contains several forms of non–argument expressions such as warning, piece of advice, statement of belief or
opinion, loosely associated statements and report.
Warning
 is a form of expression that is intended to put someone on guard against a dangerous or detrimental situation.
Example:
 Whatever you promise to tell, never confide political secrets to your wife.
 Follow that route only. If not, you will fall under enemy’s target.
 Watch out that you do not slip on the Ice.
Piece of advice
 is a form of expression that makes a recommendation about some future decision or course of conduct.
Example:
 After class hours, I would suggest that you give careful consideration to the subject
matter you have discussed.
 I advise you to stop chewing chat.
Statement of belief or opinion
 is an expression about what someone happens to believe or think about something.
 These are simply personal opinion or what somebody’s believes at a certain time. Because there is
no claim that this belief is supported by evidence, or in turn, that it supports some further conclusion.
Example:
 We believe that our university must develop and produce outstanding students who will perform with
great skill and fulfill the demands of our nation. (Expression of belief)
 In my opinion, leadership in Africa nowadays changed from bad to worse. (Expression of opinion)
 I believe that, in the near future, Ethiopian professional associations will get leaders of their own
choice. (Expression of belief)
Loosely associated statements
 It may be focus about the same general subject, but they lack a claim that one of them is proved by the others.
Example:
 Not to honor men of worth will keep the people from contention; not to value goods that are hard to
come by will keep them from theft; not to display what is desirable will keep them from being
unsettled of mind.
Report
 It consists of a group of statements that convey information about some topic or event.
 Example:
 The great renaissance dam of Ethiopia has opened an employment opportunity for thousands of
Ethiopians. In its completion, thirteen thousand Ethiopians are expected to be hired.
 Even though more of the world is immunized than ever before, many old diseases have proven quite
resilient in the face of changing population and environmental conditions, especially in the developing
world. New diseases, such as AIDS, have taken their toll in both the North and the South.

2. Expository Passages
 An expository passage
 is a kind of discourse that begins with a topic sentence followed by one or more sentences that develop
the topic sentence.
 If the objective is not to prove the topic sentence but only to expand it or elaborate it, then there is no
argument.
Example:
 There are three familiar states of matter: solid, liquid, and gas. Solid objects ordinarily maintain their
shape and volume regardless of their location. A liquid occupies a definite volume, but assumes the
shape of the occupied portion of its container. A gas maintains neither shape nor volume. It expands to
fill completely whatever container it is in.
 Expository passages different from simple non-inferential passages (such as warnings and pieces of advice) in
that many of them can also be taken as arguments.
 If the purpose of the subsequent sentences in the passage is not only to flesh out the topic sentence but also to
prove it, then the passage is an argument.
 In deciding whether an expository passage should be interpreted as an argument or not, ask yourself whether
the topic sentence makes a claim that everyone agrees or not.
 If agrees, the passage is probably not an argument. In real-life situations, authors rarely try to prove
something is true when everyone already accepts it.
 If the topic sentence makes a claim that many people do not accept or have never thought about, then
the purpose of the remaining sentences may be both to prove the topic sentence is true as well as to
develop it. If this be so, the passage is an argument.
 Finally, if even this procedure yields no definite answer, the only alternative is may be to say that if the
passage is taken as an argument, then the first statement is the conclusion and the others are the premises.
 3. Illustrations
 An illustration
 is an expression involving one or more examples that is intended to show what something means or
how it is done.
 It consists of a statement about a certain subject combined with a reference to one or more specific
instance that intended to exemplify that statement.
 It is often confused with arguments because many illustrations contain indicator words such as “thus.”
Example:
 Chemical elements, as well as compounds, can be represented by molecular formulas. Thus, oxygen is
represented by “O2”, water by “H2O”, and sodium chloride by “NaCl”.
 This passage is not an argument, because it makes no claim that anything is being proved. The word “thus”
indicates how something is done (how chemical elements and compounds can be represented by formulas).
 Like that of expository passages, many illustrations can be taken as arguments. Such arguments are often
called arguments from example.
For instance:
 Although most forms of cancer, if untreated, can cause death, not all cancers are life-threatening. For
example, basal cell carcinoma, the most common of all skin cancers, can produce disfigurement, but it
almost never results in death.
 In this passage, the example given is intended to prove the truth of “Not all cancers are life-threatening.” Thus,
the passage is best interpreted as an argument.
 In deciding whether an illustration should be interpreted as an argument or not, ask yourself whether the claim
being illustrated is one that practically everyone agrees or not.
 If agrees, the passage is probably not an argument. In real-life situations, authors rarely try to prove
something is true when everyone already accepts it.
 If the claim being illustrated is one that many people do not accept or have never thought about, then
the passage may be interpreted as an argument.

4. Explanations
 An explanation
is an expression that purports to shed light on some event or phenomenon, which is usually accepted as
a matter of fact.
It attempts to clarify, or describe such alike why something is happen that way or why something is
 what it is.
Example:
 Cows digest grass while humans cannot, because their digestive systems contain enzyme not found in
humans.
 Every explanation is composed of two distinct components: the explanandum and explanans.
 The explanandum is the statement that describes the event or phenomenon to be explained,
 The explanans is the statement or group of statements that purports to do the explaining.
 In the first example, the explanandum is the statement “Cows digest grass while humans cannot” and the
explanans is “their [cows’] digestive systems contain enzyme not found in humans.”
Argument Explanation

Premise Accepted fact Explanandum Accepted fact

Claimed to prove

Conclusion
Explanans

Claimed to shed light on

 Explanations are sometimes mistaken for arguments because they often contain the indicator word “because.”
 The basic difference between argument and explanations is that:
In an explanation, the explanans is intended to show why something is the case whereas in an
argument the premises are intended to prove something is the case.
 Explanations bear a certain similarities to an argument.
 The rational link between the explanandum and explanans may at times resemble the inferential link between
the premise and the conclusion of an argument.
 Some passages can be interpreted as both explanations and arguments.
Example:
Women become intoxicated by drinking a smaller amount of alcohol than men because men
metabolize part of the alcohol before it reaches the bloodstream, whereas women do not.
 The purpose of this passage could be to prove the first statement to those who do not accept it as fact, and to
shed light on that fact to those who do accept it. Thus, this passage can be correctly interpreted as both an
explanation and an argument.
 5. Conditional Statements
 Conditional statements
are compound sentences/statements of the form "if…then …” or “… if…"
Example:
If you study hard, then you will score ‘A’ grade.
 Every conditional statement is made up of two component statements/clauses.
 The component statement immediately following the “if” is called the antecedent (if-clause), and the one
following the “then” is called the consequent (then-clause).
 However, there is an occasion that the order of antecedent and consequent is reversed. When occasionally the
word ‘‘then’’ is left out, the order of antecedent and consequent is reversed.
Example:
You will score ‘A’ grade if you study hard.
 In the above example, the antecedent is “You study hard,” and the consequent is “You will score ‘A’ grade.”
Conditional Statements:

Antecedent Consequent

If ---------------------------- then ---------------------------------.

Consequent Antecedent

---------------------------- if ---------------------------------.

The Relationship between Conditional Statements and Arguments

1. A single conditional statement is not an argument.
For Example:
 If iron is dense than mercury, then it will float in mercury.
 If destroying a political competitor gives you joy, then you have a low sense of morality.
2. A conditional statement may serve as either the premise or the conclusion (or both) of an argument.
 This condition is only true if it consists of a conditional statement together with some other statement it may
be an argument, depending on the occurrence of indicator words and an inferential relationship between the
statements.
For example:
If EPRDF does not change its platform, it will not attract new supporters.
If EPRDF does not attract new supporters, it will lose the next election.
 Therefore, if EPRDF does not change its platform; it will lose the next election

 If he is selling our national secretes to enemies, then he is a traitor.

 If he is a traitor, then he must be punished by death.
Therefore, If he is selling our national secretes to enemies, then he must be punished by death.
3. The inferential content of a conditional statement may be re-expressed to form an argument.
For example:
If both Saturn and Uranus have rings, then the Saturn has rings.
The inferential content of this statement may be re-expressed to form argument:
Both Saturn and Uranus have rings.
Therefore, Saturn has rings.

 If he is selling our national secretes to enemies, then he is a traitor.

The inferential content of this statement may be re-expressed to form argument:
 He is selling our national secretes to enemies.
 Therefore, he is a traitor.

 The study of conditional sentences is important in logic to express the necessary and sufficient Conditions
between the antecedent and consequent
Necessary condition
 is the condition in the presence of which an event occurrence or exist
Sufficient condition
 is the condition in which it is an alternative for the presence necessary condition.
For example,
Being a dog is a sufficient condition for being an animal.
Y” is said to be a necessary condition for “X” whenever “X” cannot occur without the occurrence of
“Y”. Thus, being an animal is a necessary condition for being a dog.
 These relationships are expressed in the following conditional sentences:
If X is a dog, then X is an animal.
If X is not an animal, then X is not a dog.
The first statement says that being a dog is a sufficient condition for being an animal and the second that being
an animal is a necessary condition for being a dog.
 Here is another example:
 If oxygen is not present, then there can be no fire.
It means that oxygen is a necessary condition for the occurrence of fire; that is, in the absence of oxygen, fire
cannot exist.
 If there is rain, then streets are wet.
It means that rain is a sufficient condition for the occurrence of streets wet; of course rain makes streets wet,
but it is not the only one. Streets can be wet even without the presence of rain, like for example by leakage of
pipe water.
 In general in deciding whether a passage contains an argument, you should look for three things:
1) indicator words such as “therefore,” “since,” “because,” and so on;
2) an inferential relationship between the statements; and
3) Typical kinds of non-arguments.
 In many arguments that lack indicator words, the conclusion is the first statement. Furthermore, we have to
mentally insert the word “therefore” before the various statements before deciding that a statement should be
interpreted as a conclusion.

Lesson 3: Types of Arguments: Deduction and Induction

 Arguments can broadly be classified as deductive and inductive.
 The basic difference between deductive and inductive arguments is
Their difference in the strength of the inferential claim of the argument. i.e
 How strongly the premise claim to support the conclusion or
 How strongly the conclusion is claimed to follow from the premise.

I.1 Deductive Arguments

 A deductive argument
is an argument whose conclusion is claimed to follow from its premises with absolute necessity.
is an argument, which makes a claim that the conclusion follows from the reason, evidences, or
premises with the force of necessity.
is an argument that has necessary reasoning
is an argument incorporating the claim that it is impossible for the conclusion to be false given that the
premises are true and vice versa.
 Example-1: Example-2:
 All philosophers are critical thinkers.  All African footballers are blacks.
 Socrates is a philosopher.  Messi is an African footballer.
Therefore, Socrates is a critical thinker. It follows that, Messi is black.

 The above two examples are examples of a deductive argument.

 In both of them, the conclusion is claimed to follow from the premises with certainty; or the premises are
claimed to support their corresponding conclusion with a strict necessity.
 If we, for example, assume that all philosophers are critical thinkers and that Socrates is a philosopher, then it
is impossible that Socrates not be a critical thinker.
 Similarly, if we assume that all African footballers are blacks and that Messi is an African footballer, then it is
impossible that Messi not be a black. Thus, we should interpret these arguments as deductive.

I.2 Inductive Arguments

 An inductive argument
 is an argument, which makes the claim that the reasoning, evidences or premises offered in support of
the conclusion with the force of probability.
 is one whose conclusion is claimed to follow from its premises only with probability.
 is an argument that has probabilistic reasoning.
 is an argument incorporating the claim that it is improbable for the conclusion to be false given that the
premises are true and vice versa.
Example-1: Example-2:
Most African leaders are blacks. Almost all women are mammals.
Mandela was an African leader. Hanan is a woman.
Therefore, probably Mandela was black. Hence, Hanan is a mammal.

 Both of the above arguments are inductive.

 In both of them, the conclusions follow with some degree of probability or the premises are claimed to support
their conclusions with a probability.

I.3 Differentiating Deductive and Inductive Arguments

 In the deciding whether an argument is deductive or inductive, we must look at certain objective features of
the argument.
 There are three factors that influence the decision about the deductiveness or inductiveness of an argument’s
inferential claim. These are:
1. The occurrence of special indicator words
2. The actual strength of the inferential link between premises and conclusion
3. The character or form of argumentation the arguers use.

1. The occurrence of special indicator words.

 There are different sort of indicator words that indicate or mark the type of a certain argument.
 The following words signal deductive arguments: “certainly,’’ “necessarily,” ‘‘absolutely,’’ and ‘‘definitely’’
 The following words signal inductive arguments: “probable” ‘‘improbable,’’ ‘‘plausible,’’ ‘‘implausible,’’
‘‘likely,’’ ‘‘unlikely,’’ and ‘‘reasonable to conclude”
 The phrase ‘‘it must be the case that’’ is ambiguous; ‘‘must’’ can indicate either probability or necessity.
Example 1
 All members of the Republican Party are conservatives.
 Charles is a member of the Republican Party.
 Therefore, it necessarily follows that Charles is a conservative.
In this argument an indicator word “necessarily” shows the argument is deductive argument.

Example 2
 The rainfall in Hawassa has been more than 20 inches every year for the past ten years.
 Therefore, the rainfall next year will probably be more than 20 inches.
In this argument an indicator word “probably” shows the argument is inductive argument.

2. The actual strength of the inferential link between premises and conclusion.
 If the conclusion actually does follow with strict necessity from the premises, the argument is clearly
deductive. In such an argument, it is impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion false.
 If, on the other hand, the conclusion of an argument does not follow with strict necessity but does follow
probably, it is usually best to interpret it as inductive argument.
Example-1: Example-2:
All Ethiopian people love their country. The majority of Ethiopian people are poor.
Debebe is an Ethiopian. Alamudin is an Ethiopian.
Therefore, Debebe loves his country. Therefore, Alamudin is poor.
 In the first example, the conclusion follows with strict necessity from the premises.
If we assume that all Ethiopian people love their country and that Debebe is an Ethiopian, then it is
 impossible that Debebe not love his country. Thus, we should interpret this argument as deductive.
 In the second example, the conclusion does follow with some degree of probability.
If we assume that the premises are true, then based on that assumption it is probable that the
conclusion is true. Thus, it is best to interpret the second argument as inductive.
3. The character or form of argumentation the arguer uses.
 When an argument contains no special indicator words, and the conclusion does not follow either necessarily
or probably from the premises; (it does not follow at all) we use the form of argumentation the arguer uses.

Instances of Deductive Argumentative Forms

 Examples deductive argumentative forms are
1. Arguments based on mathematics
2. Arguments from definition
3. Categorical syllogism
4. Hypothetical syllogism
5. Disjunctive syllogism
1. Argument based on mathematics:
 It is an argument in which the conclusions depend on some purely arithmetic or geometric computation or
measurement.
 Numbers show the reality and essence of things. Therefore, there is accuracy in numerical expressions.
For Example:
A. The length of a square is 2cm and its width is also 2 cm. Therefore, this square has the area of 4 cm2.
B. Asfaw has 3 apples in his left pocket and 4 oranges in his right pocket. Therefore, Asfaw’s pockets
contain 7 pieces of fruits.
 All arguments in pure mathematics are deductive while arguments that depend on statistics are usually best
interpreted as inductive.
 Statistical arguments are based on random sampling of data gathering, it is impossible to arrive at absolutely
certain conclusion.
2. Arguments based on definition:
 It is an argument in which the conclusion is claimed to depend merely up on the definition of some words or
phrase used in the premise or conclusion.
For example, one may argue that
Angel is honest; it is follows that Angel tells the truth.
 Kebede is a physician; therefore, he is a doctor.
These arguments are deductive because their conclusions follow with necessity from the definitions
“honest” and “physician”.
Syllogisms
are arguments consisting of exactly two premises and one conclusion.
can be categorized into three groups; categorical, hypothetical, and disjunctive syllogism.
3. Categorical syllogism:
 A syllogism that consists of exactly two premises and one conclusion on which each statement begins with
one of the words “all”, “no” and “some”.
Example 1: Example 2:
All Egyptians are Muslims. Some merchants are pirates.
No Muslim is a Christian. All merchants are stingy
Hence, no Egyptian is a Christian. Therefore, some stingy are pirates.
4. Hypothetical syllogism:
 It is a syllogism having a conditional statement for one or both of its premises.
Example 1:
If you study hard, then you will graduate with Distinction.
If you graduate with Distinction, then you will get a rewarding job.
Therefore, if you study hard, then you will get a rewarding job.
Example 2:
 If we eat variety of food items, then we would be healthy.
 If we are healthy, then we would be productive.
 Therefore, if we eat variety of food items, then we would be productive.
5. Disjunctive syllogism:
 It is a syllogism having a disjunctive statement, that is, an “either…… or …… statement”, for one of its
premises.
Example 1: Example 2:
Rewina is either Ethiopian or Eritrean. People are either good or evil.
Rewina is not Eritrean. John is not good.
Therefore, Rewina is Ethiopian. Therefore, John is evil.
 Instances of Inductive Argumentative Forms
 Examples inductive argumentative forms are
1) An argument based on prediction
2) An argument from analogy
3) An inductive generalizations (an argument based on statistics)
4) An arguments from authority
5) An arguments based on signs
6) An arguments based on causal inferences
1. An argument based on Prediction:
 In this argument, the premises deal with some known event in the past or present, and the conclusion moves to
some event in the future.
 Arriving at conclusion about the future condition based on the past and present condition will not be certain
rather it is probable or likely to happen.
For Example:
Yesterday, there was rainfall in our city.
Today also there is rainfall.
Therefore, there will be rainfall tomorrow.
2. An argument from analogy:
 It is an argument that depends on the existence of an analogy or similarity between two things or state of
affairs.
For instance
One may conclude, after observing the similarity of some features of Computer A and computer B:
that both are manufactured in 2012; that both are easy to access; that Computer A is fast in processing;
it follows that Computer B is also fast in processing.
This argument depends on the existence of a similarity or analogy between the two computers. The certitude
attending such an inference is obviously probabilistic at best.
3. An inductive generalization (an argument based on statistics)
 It is an argument that proceeds from the knowledge of a selected sample to some claim about the whole group.
 Because the members of the sample have a certain characteristics, it is argued that all members of the group
have the same characteristics.
 A reasoning process that proceeds from particular facts to general truths is called inductive generalization.
 Example 1:
One may argue that because three out of four people in a single prison are black, one may conclude
that three-fourth of prison populations are blacks.
Example 2:
 There are 45 students in this class.
 I have evaluated the answer sheets of 20 students and all of them scored above 85%.
 It implies that all students of this class are smart.
4. An argument from authority:
 It is an argument in which the conclusions rest upon a statement made by some presumed authority or witness.
 It is argument based on citation, interview, or witness of a person who has a better position or access to the
required qualification.
For example:
A lawyer may argue that the person is guilty because an eyewitness testifies to that effect under oath.
One may argue that all matters are made up of small particles called “quarks” because the University
Professor said so.
Because the professor and the eyewitness could be either mistaken or lying, such arguments are essentially
probabilistic.
5. Arguments based on sign:
 It is an argument that proceeds from the knowledge of a certain sign (it may be a traffic sign, a trademark, a
cautionary mark, a symbol,) to the knowledge of a thing or situation that the sign symbolizes.
For instance
 The package material says that “keep it out of the reach of children.” Therefore, this package must
consist of some sort of medicine.
 One may infer that after observing ‘No Parking’ sign posted on the side of a road, the area is not
allowed for parking. But because the sign might be displaced or in error about the area or forgotten,
conclusion follows only probably.
6. Arguments based on causal inferences
 It is an argument which proceed from the knowledge of a cause to the knowledge of an effect, or conversely,
from the knowledge of an effect to knowledge of a cause.
For example
 From the knowledge that a bottle of water had been accidentally left in the freezer overnight, someone
might conclude that it had frozen (cause to effect).
  After tasting a piece of chicken and finding it dry and tough, one might conclude that it had been
overcooked (effect to cause).
 The cloud is becoming dark and the thunder is roaming. So, let us go home quickly, the rain is inevitable.
NB (Nota bene) --------- ATTENTION
 Deductive argument not always proceeds from the general to the particular.
 Inductive argument also not always proceeds from the particular to the general.
 There are some deductive arguments that proceed
 From the general to the particular
 From the particular to the general
 From the particular to the particular
 From the general to the general
 There are also some inductive arguments that proceed
 From the particular to the general
 From the particular to the particular
 From the general to the general
 From the general to the particular
 For example, the following argument proceeds from the particular to the general but it is a deductive
argument because the conclusion follows the premises with the force of necessity.
Kedija wears glasses. Three is a prime number.
Kemal wears glasses. Five is a prime number.
Leyla wears glasses. Seven is a prime number.
Therefore, ALL of them wear glasses. Therefore, all odd numbers between two and eight are prime numbers.
 Examples of inductive arguments that proceeds from the general to the particular:
Example 1
 All automobile cars imported into Ethiopia have been white in color.
 Therefore, the automobile car that Kebede is intending to import will also be white in color
Example 2
 All emeralds previously found have been green.
 Therefore, the next emerald to be found will be green.
 Lesson 4: Evaluating Arguments
4.1 Evaluating Deductive Arguments: Validity (valid and invalid), Truth, and Soundness
Deduction and Validity
 A deductive argument can be classified into valid and invalid arguments.
 A deductive valid argument can be further classified into valid-sound and valid-unsound.
 All invalid arguments are unsound arguments.
 Deductive arguments are evaluated using the following technical terms: valid, invalid, sound and unsound.
Valid deductive argument
 It is an argument such that if the premises are true, it is impossible for the conclusion to be false.
 The conclusion follows with strict necessity from the premises.
Invalid deductive argument
 It is a deductive argument such that if the premises are assumed true, it is possible for the conclusion to be
false.
 The conclusion does not follow with strict necessity from the premises, even though it is claimed to.
 If the conclusion follows with strict necessity from the premises, the argument is valid; if not, it is invalid.
Example-1: Example-2:
All men are mammals. All philosophers are rational.
All bulls are men. Socrates was rational.
Therefore, all bulls are mammals. Therefore, Socrates was a philosopher.

 The first example is valid argument, because the conclusion actually followed from the premises with a strict
necessity.
 If all men are assumed as mammals and bulls as men, then it is impossible for bulls not be mammals.
Hence, the argument is valid.
 The second example is invalid argument, because the conclusion did not actually follow from the premises
with a strict necessity, even though it is claimed to.
 If we assume that all philosophers rational and Socrates is rational, it is not actually impossible for
Socrates not be a philosopher. (Socrates has a chance not to be a Philosopher).
 The validity of argument is the connection between premise and conclusion: not on the actual truth or falsity
of the statement formed the argument.
 There are four possibilities with respect to the truth or falsity of the premises and conclusion of deductive
argument:
 1) True premises and True conclusion
2) True premises and False conclusion
3) False premises and True conclusion
4) False premises and False conclusion
 Note that all of the above possibilities, except the second case (true premises and false conclusion), allow for
both valid and invalid arguments.
 The second case does not allow for valid arguments. As we have just seen, any argument having this
combination is necessarily invalid.

The following table demonstrates all possibilities of the validity (valid and invalid) of deductive arguments.

Deductive argument

Argument Evaluation of validity

Case Premises Conclusion Valid Invalid

1 True True  

2 True False None exist 

3 False True  

4 False False  

Validity and Truth Value

Possibility # 1: A combination of True premises and True conclusion (the first case) allows for both valid and
invalid arguments.
Example-1 (Valid): Example-2 (Invalid):
All women are mammals. (Tp) All philosophers are critical thinkers. (Tp)
My mother is a mammal. (Tp) Plato was a critical thinker. (Tp)
Therefore, my mother is a woman. (Tc) Therefore, Plato was a philosopher. (Tc)

Possibility # 2: A combination of True premises and false conclusion (the second case) allows only for invalid
arguments.

Example- (Invalid):
  All biologists are scientists. (Tp)
 John Nash was a scientist. (Tp)
 Therefore, John Nash was a biologist. (Fc)
 All Greeks are Mortal. (Tp)
 All US Senators are mortal. (Tp)
 Therefore, all Greeks are US senators. (Fc)
 Based on the features of validity, the above example, which combines True premises and False conclusion, is
an invalid argument.
 A valid argument with such combination does not exist.
 Any deductive argument having actually true premises and an actually false conclusion is invalid, because if
the premises are actually true and the conclusion is actually false, then it certainly is possible for the premises
to be true and the conclusion false.

Possibility # 3: A combination of False premises and True conclusion (the third case) allows for both valid and
invalid arguments. Consider the following examples:
Example-1 (Valid): Example-2 (Invalid):
All birds are mammals. (Fp) All birds are mammals. (Fp)
All women are birds. (Fp) All ostriches are mammals. (Fp)
Therefore, all women are mammals. (Tc) Therefore, all ostriches are birds. (Tc)

Possibility # 4: A combination of False premises and False conclusion (the fourth case) allows for both valid
and invalid arguments. Consider the following examples:
Example-1 (Valid): Example-2 (Invalid):
All Americans are Ethiopians. (Fp) All birds are mammals. (Fp)
All Egyptians are Americans. (Fp) All ants are mammals. (Fp)
Thus, all Egyptians are Ethiopians. (Fc) Therefore, all ants are birds. (Fc)

 In general, validity (valid and invalid) is not something that is determined by the actual truth or falsity of the
premises and conclusion. Rather, validity is something that is determined by the relationship between premises
and conclusion.
 The question is not whether premises and conclusion are true or false, but whether the premises support the
conclusion.
 Deduction and Soundness
 Depending on their actual ability, to accomplish their factual claims, deductive arguments can be either sound
or unsound.
Sound argument
 is a deductive argument that is valid and has all true premises.
 It is an argument which contains two essential features:
1) it is valid
2) it’s all premises are true with true conclusion

Sound Argument = Valid Argument + All True Premises

 Sound argument is a “good” or the most “perfect” deductive argument.

Example 1:
 All human beings are mortal.
 All Ethiopians are human beings.
 Therefore, all Ethiopians are mortal.
Example 2:
 Since Haile G/ Silassie is an Ethiopian, and Haile is a famous athlete, we may conclude that at least
one Ethiopian is a famous athlete.
 The conclusions of both arguments follow the premises with necessity.
 The arguments are valid and their premises are true, and they are deductively- sound arguments.

Unsound argument
 If a deductive argument fails to meet these two requirements (valid argument and all true premises), it is said
to be unsound argument.
 unsound deductive argument falls into one of the following three categories:
1) It is valid but has at least one false premise.
2) It is invalid but all its premises are true.
3) It is invalid and has at least one false premise.

For example
 All Ethiopians are Europeans. (Fp)
  Derartu Tulu is an Ethiopian. (Tp)
 Therefore, Derartu Tulu is a European. (Fc)
The argument involves plainly false premise, then it is unsound.

4.2 Evaluating Inductive Arguments: Strength, Truth, and Cogency

Induction and Strength
 Inductive arguments are evaluated using the following technical terms: strong, weak, cogent and un cogent.
 We are using these terms in accordance with degree of the probability of evidence provided in support of the
conclusion.
A Strong Inductive Argument
 The conclusion follows probably from the premises.
 It has this essential feature: if highly probably premises are true then the conclusion is probably true .
Weak Inductive Argument
 The conclusion does not follow probably from the premises, even though it is claimed to.
 It has this essential feature: if its premises are probably true, the conclusion is probably false.
Example-1:
This barrel contains one hundred apples.
Eighty apples selected at random were found tasty.
Therefore, probably all one hundred apples are tasty.

Example-2:
This barrel contains one hundred apples
Three apples selected at random were found tasty
Therefore, probably all one hundred apples are tasty
 The first example is strong argument, because the conclusion actually follows probably from the premises.
 The second example is weak argument, because the conclusion does not actually follow probably from the
premises, even though it is claimed to.

Strength and Truth Value

 The strength and weakness of inductive arguments admit certain form of degrees.
 To be considered strong, an inductive argument must have a conclusion that is more probable than
improbable.
 In inductive arguments, there is no absolutely strong; nor absolutely weak argument.
For instance
 The first is not absolutely strong nor the second absolutely weak. Both arguments would be
strengthened or weakened by the random selection of a larger or smaller sample.
 In other words, the likelihood that the conclusion is true must be more than 50 percent, and as the probability
increases, the argument becomes stronger.
 The strength or weakness of an inductive argument results not from the actual truth or falsity of the premises
and conclusion, but from the probabilistic support the premises give to the conclusion.

 There are four possibilities with respect to the truth or falsity of the premises and conclusion of a inductive
argument:
1. True premises and True conclusion
2. True premises and False conclusion
3. False premises and True conclusion
4. False premises and False conclusion
 Note that all of the above possibilities, except the second case (true premises and false conclusion), allow for
both strong and weak arguments.
 The second case does not allow for strong arguments. As we have just seen, any argument having this
combination is necessarily weak.
 The basic idea of evaluating inductive argument, strength is not something that is determined by the actual
truth or falsity of the premises and conclusion, but by the relationship between premises and conclusion.
 Any inductive argument having actually true premises and an actually false conclusion is weak.
 The following table demonstrates strength and weakness as well as all possible combinations of the truth and
falsity.

Inductive Argument

Argument Evaluation of strength

Case Premise Conclusion Strong Weak

1 True Probable True  

2 True Probable False None exist 

3 False Probable True  

4 False Probable False  

Induction and Cogency

 Depending on their actual ability, to accomplish their factual claims, inductive arguments can be either cogent
or un cogent.
Cogent argument
 contains the following two features:
1. It is strong and
2. It has all true premises with probably true conclusion
 It is a ‘‘good’’ or the most “prefect” inductive argument. Because the conclusion of a cogent argument is
genuinely supported by true premises, it follows that the conclusion of every cogent argument is probably true.

Cogent Argument = Strong Argument + All True Premises

Un cogent argument
 If an inductive argument fails to meet these two requirements (cogent argument and all true premises), it is
said to be un cogent argument.
 It is an inductive argument that is weak, has one or more false premises, or both.
 An argument is un cogent if it involves one of the following characteristics.
 1. All weak inductive arguments are un cogent.
2. It is strong but has at least one false premise.
3. It is weak and has at least one false premise.

CHAPTER THREE
LOGIC AND LANGUAGE
Lesson 1: Philosophy of Language:
1.1 What is Philosophy of Language?
 One of the most fundamental questions asked in Philosophy of Language is "what is language (in general
terms)?"
 According to semiotics, language is the mere manipulation and use of symbols in order to draw attention to
signified content.
 Semiotics is the study of sign processes in communication and of how meaning is constructed and understood.
 Philosophy of Language is the reasoned inquiry into the origins of language, nature of meaning, the usage and
cognition of language, and the relationship between language and reality.
 It is an important discipline in its own right, and hence, it poses questions like
 "What is meaning?"
 "How does language refer to the real world?",
 "Is language learned or is it innate?", "How does the meaning of a sentence emerge out of its
parts? and other related issues.
 Philosophy of language, however, should not be confused with Linguistics.
 Linguistics is the field of study that asks questions like:
 What distinguishes one particular language from another e.g. what is it that makes "English" English?
 What is the difference between Spanish and French?
 Linguists, like Noam Chomsky, a figure who has come to define the 20th century linguistics, have emphasized
the role of "grammar" and syntax (the rules that govern the structure of sentences) as a characteristic of any
language.
 Chomsky believes that humans are born with an innate understanding of what he calls "universal grammar"
(an innate set of linguistic principles shared by all humans) and a child's exposure to a particular language just
triggers this antecedent knowledge.
 Because of the problem of translation and interpretation of philosophers of language the view of Semantic
Holism is occurred.
 Semantic Holism a type of Holism which holds that meaning is not something that is associated with a single
word or sentence, but can only be attributed to a whole language (if at all).

1.2 A Brief Note on the Debates and History of Philosophy of Language

Ancient Era
 In the Western tradition, the early work was covered, by Plato, Aristotle and the Stoics of Ancient Greece.
Plato
 He considered that the names of things are determined by nature, with each phoneme (the smallest structural
unit that distinguishes meaning) representing basic ideas or sentiments, and that convention only has a small
part to play.
 Aristotle
 He held that the meaning of a predicate (the way a subject is modified or described in a sentence) is
established through an abstraction of the similarities between various individual things (a theory later known
as Nominalism).
 His assumption that these similarities are constituted by a real commonality of form, however, also makes him
a proponent of moderate Realism.
The Stoic philosophers
 made important contributions to the analysis of grammar, distinguishing five parts of speech: nouns, verbs,
appellatives, conjunctions and articles
 What they called the lektón (the meaning, or sense, of every term) gave rise to the important concept of the
proposition of a sentence (its ability to be considered an assertion, which can be either true or false).

Medieval era
 The Scholastics of the medieval era were greatly interested in the subtleties of language and its usage,
provoked to some extent by the necessity of translating Greek texts into Latin.
 They considered Logic to be a science of language, and anticipated many of the most interesting problems of
 modern Philosophy of Language,
 the phenomena of vagueness and ambiguity,
 the doctrines of proper and improper supposition (the interpretation of a term in a specific context)
 the study of categorematic and syncategorematic words and terms
 Linguists of the Renaissance period were particularly interested in the idea of a philosophical language (or
universal language), spurred on by the gradual discovery in the West of Chinese characters and Egyptian
hieroglyphs.

Modern Era
 The philosophical study of language began to play a more central role in Western philosophy in the late
19thand 20th Centuries, especially philosophical branches of Analytic Philosophy and philosophy as a whole
was understood to be purely a matter of Philosophy of Language.
 To sum up, philosophy of language is the reasoned inquiry into the nature, origins, and usage of language.
 As a topic, the philosophy of language, particularly for analytic Philosophers, has been concerned with four
central problems:
 1. the nature of meaning,
2. the usage and cognition of language
3. the relationship between language
4. language and reality
 For continental philosophers the philosophy of language tends to be dealt with, not as a separate topic, but as a
part of logic and other field of studies.

1.3 Some Philosophical Approaches to the Nature of Meaning

 Most frequently, “Meaning" can be described as the content carried by the words or signs exchanged by
people when communicating through language.
 There are two essentially different types of linguistic meaning
1. Conceptual meaning: refers to the definitions of words themselves, and the features of those definitions,
which can be treated using semantic feature analysis
2. Associative meaning: refers to the individual mental understandings of the speaker, and which may be
connotative, collocative, social, affective, reflected or thematic.

Approaches to the Philosophical Nature of Meaning

1. Idea theories:
 These theories claim that meanings are purely mental contents provoked by signs.
 This approach is mainly associated with the British Empiricist traditions of John Locke, George Berkeley and
David Hume, though some contemporary theorists have renewed it under the guise of semantic internalism.
2. Truth-conditional theories:
 These theories hold meaning to be the conditions under which an expression may be true or false.
 This tradition goes back to Gottlob Frege, although there has also been much modern work in this area.

3. Use theories:
 These theories understand meaning to involve or be related to speech acts and particular utterances, not the
expressions themselves.
 This approach was pioneered by Ludwig Wittgenstein and his Communitarian view of language.
4. Reference theories (or semantic externalism):
 These theories view meaning to be equivalent to those things in the world that are actually connected to signs.
Tyler Burge and Saul Kripke are the best known proponents of this approach.
 5. Verificationist theories:
 These theories associate the meaning of a sentence with its method of verification or falsification.
 This Verificationist approach was adopted by the Logical Positivists of the early 20th century.
6. Pragmatist theories:
 These theories maintain that the meaning or understanding of a sentence is determined by the consequences of
its application.

Lesson 2: Logic and Meaning

2.1 The Functions of Language: Cognitive and Emotive Meanings
 Argument is a group of statements; and statements are sentences that are declarative.
 Sentences are made up of words; and words have their own meanings that are to be conveyed through
definitions.
 Therefore, words are the most basic units in any language, and thus the most important thing in every
argument.
 Ordinary language serves various functions in our day-to-day lives., language is used to:
Ask questions Tell jokes
Tell stories Flirt with someone
Tell lies Give directions
Guess at answers Sing songs
Form hypotheses Issue commands
Launch verbal assaults Greet someone

 In general, language has three linguistic functions namely,

1. Directive function
2. Expressive (emotive) function
3. Cognitive (informative) function.
Of these functions of language, the cognitive function of language is a relevant and an important for logic.
Directive Function
 It gives direction to the speaker or writer in order to pass orders, commands or instructions to others.
For Example
 What is your name?  Leave me alone!
  Don’t close that door!  Give me your pen!
 The point in each of these cases/examples is to make someone to do or not to do something.
 Directive function does not convey information that could be evaluated as true or false. Therefore, directive
use of language is not significant to logic.
Expressive (Emotive) Function
 It is a function of language which is important for individuals to express their feelings or emotions.
 It us to express our negative or positive feelings in hopes of evoking a particular emotional response.
For Example
 She is smart.  I like my logic teacher
 I hate him.  I dislike Abebe.
 In the examples above, all sentences do not convey information that could be evaluated as true or false.
Cognitive (Informative) Function
 It is used to convey information about the world’s objective realities.
 It includes such functions as conveying information and communicating meanings.
 Moreover, it is used to describe and to reason about the world and to deny or affirm truth propositions.
For Example:
 Ethiopia has its own prestigious airlines. (True)
 The capital city of the regional state of Tigray is Hawassa. (False)
 Lake Tana is found in Amhara region. (True)
 It can be used to evaluate an argument as true or false. Hence, the sentences of cognitive function can serve as
premise or conclusion of an argument.
 For our purpose, two linguistic functions are particularly important: to convey information and to express or
evoke feelings. Consider, for example, the following Statements:
Example 1:
 “Death penalty, which is legal in thirty-six states, has been carried out most often in Georgia; however,
since 1977 Texas holds the record for the greatest number of executions.”
Example 2:
 “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 bloodlust of a vengeful public.”
 The statement in Example 1 is intended primarily to convey information while the statement in Example 2 is
intended, at least in part, to express or evoke feelings.
 Terminology that conveys information is said to have cognitive meaning, and terminology that expresses or
evokes feelings is said to have emotive meaning. (value claim)
 Thus, in Example 1 the words ‘‘legal,’’ ‘‘thirty-six,’’ ‘‘most often,’’ ‘‘Georgia,’’ ‘‘record,’’ etc. have
primarily a cognitive meaning, while in Example 2 the words ‘‘cruel,’’ ‘‘inhuman,’’ ‘‘hapless,’’ ‘‘dragged,’’
‘‘slaughtered,’’ ‘‘bloodlust,’’ and ‘‘vengeful’’ have a strong emotive meaning.

2.1.1 Emotive Terminologies in Arguments

 In arguments, emotive terminology accomplishes basically the same function as cognitive terminology in
statements.
 It allows the arguer to make value claims about the subject matter of the argument without providing evidence,
and it gives the argument a kind of steamroller quality by which it tends to crush potential counter arguments
before the reader or listener has a chance to think of them.
 This steamroller quality also tends to paralyze the logical thought processes of readers or listeners so that they
are not able to see illogical arguments in their true light.
 These effects of emotive terminology can be avoided if the reader or listener will disengage the value claims
and other cognitive meanings from the emotive meaning of the language and re-express them as distinct
premises.

2.1.2 Deficiency of Cognitive Meanings: Vagueness and Ambiguity

 Two problems that affect our cognitive use of language are vagueness and ambiguity.
Vague:
 if it is so imprecise and unclear, that is, it is impossible to tell about the applicability of the word.
 if there is a borderline case such that it is impossible to tell whether the word applies to them or not.
 If it allow for a continuous range of interpretations
 If the meaning is hazy, obscure, and imprecise
 Words such as “love”, “happiness”, “peace”, “fresh”, “normal”, “rich”, ”poor”, “polluted” ‘‘excessive’’,
‘‘normal’’, ‘‘conservative, ,etc are vague words.
 Can you draw a borderline case between rich/poor? It is impossible to do this
Ambiguous:
 if it has more than one meaning. This is when it can be interpreted as having two or more clearly
distinct meanings in a given context.
 words such as: “light”, “bank”, “sound”, “right” , “race”,‘ ‘mad’’, “defuse” , “humanity” ‘‘proper,’’
 ‘‘critical,’’ ‘‘stress,’’ ‘‘inflate,’’ ‘‘chest ,etc. can be used ambiguously.
For Examples
 ‘‘Light,’’ can mean light in weight or radiant energy.
 ‘‘Bank’’ can mean a finical institution or the edge of river.
The difference between ambiguity and vagueness
 Vague terminology allows for a relatively continuous range of interpretations, whereas ambiguous
terminology allows for multiple discrete interpretations.
 In a vague expression there is a blur of meaning, whereas in an ambiguous expression there is a mix-up of
otherwise clear meanings.
 However, there are many forms of expression that are ambiguous in one context and vague in another.
 For example, the word ‘‘slow’’ in one context could mean either mentally retarded or physically slow, but
when the word refers to physical slowness, it could be vague. How slow is slow
 The role of vagueness and ambiguity in arguments may be conveniently explored in the context of conflicting
arguments between individuals. Such conflicts are called disputes.

2.1.3 Forms of Disputes in Logic: Verbal and Factual Disputes

Verbal Disputes
 Disputes that arise over the meaning of language
 These are disputes in which the apparent conflict is not genuine and can be resolved by coming to agreement
about how some words or phrases is to be understood.
Example-1:
 Kassa: Mrs. Zenebech abuses her children. And how do I know that? I saw her spank one of her kids
the other day after the kid misbehaved.

 Jemal: Don’t be silly. Kids need discipline, and by disciplining her children,
Mrs. Zenebech is showing that she loves them.
Here, the problem surrounds the vagueness of the words ‘‘abuse’’ and ‘‘discipline.’’ When does discipline
become abuse? The line separating the two is hazy at best, but unless it is clarified, disputes of this sort will
never be resolved.
Example-2:
 Mullu: I’m afraid that Dagim is guilty of cheating in the exam. Last night he confessed to me that he
 was sate closer to Tsedale, who is the most excellent student in our class, and takes almost all answers
from her.
 Worku: No, you couldn’t be more mistaken. In this country, no one is guilty until proven so in a
court of law, and Dagim has not yet even been accused of anything.

In this example, the dispute arises over the ambiguity of the word ‘‘guilty.’’ Mullu is using the word in the
moral sense. Worku, on the other hand, is using the word in the legal sense. Because Dagim has not been
convicted in a court of law, he is not legally guilty of anything.

Factual Disputes
 Disputes arise over a disagreement about facts.
 Disputes arisen because of the truth or falsity of claims.
Example:
 Debebe: I know that Fisseha stole a computer from the old school house. Aberash told me that
she saw Fisseha do it.
 Maru: That’s ridiculous! Fisseha has never stolen anything in his life. Aberash hates Fisseha,
and she is trying to pin the theft on him only to shield her criminal boyfriend.
Here, the dispute centers on the factual issues of whether Aberash told the truth and whether Fisseha stole the
computer.

2.2 The Intension and Extension of Terms

 The main task of logic is
 The evaluation of arguments.
 The study of meaning.
 The study of definition.
 Logic is the science that evaluates arguments, and an argument consists of a group of statements, and
statements are made up of words. And words have meanings. Meanings are conveyed through definitions.
 Thus, Logic in one way or another is concerned with definition.
 The basic units of any ordinary language are words. Our main concern in this chapter, however, is not with
words in general but with terms.
 A term is any word or arrangement of words that may serve as the subject of a statement.
 Terms consist of proper names, common names, and descriptive phrases. Here are some examples:
 Proper Names Common Names Descriptive Phrases
Abebe Animal First Prime Minister of Ethiopia
South Ethiopia Activity Author of Oromay
The Ethiopian Parliament Person Those who study hard
Girmaa Gamachuu House The King of England

 Words that are not terms include verbs, non-substantive adjectives, adverbs, prepositions, conjunctions, and all
non-syntactic arrangements of words.
 The following words or phrases are not terms; none can serve as the subject of a statement:
Dictatorial above and beyond craves
Runs quickly moreover cabbages into again the forest
 Words are usually considered to be symbols, and the entities they symbolize are usually called meanings.
 Terms have two meanings: Intensional and extensional meanings.
 The intensional meaning (which is also known as connotation) consists of the qualities or attributes that the
term connotes.
 The extensional meaning (which is also known as denotation) consists of the members of the class that the
term denotes.
Example 1
 ‘‘cat’’ means an animal of being furry, of having four legs, of moving in a certain way, of emitting
certain sounds, and so on,
 “Inventor” means a person who is, clever, intuitive, creative and imaginative.
Example 2
 “cat” means such as tiger, lion, cheetah etc ( all the cats in the universe)
 Inventor” means such as Thomas Edison, Alexander Graham Bell, and Samuel F.B. Morse.
 The first example is the meaning of the terms based on their attributes, qualities or essential characteristics.
Therefore, these terms have an intentional meaning.
 The second example is the meaning of the terms r based on their class members. This sentence provides lists
of the member of the class of the terms being defined. Therefore, these terms have an extensional meaning.
 ‘‘Intension’’ and ‘‘extension’’ are roughly equivalent to the more modern terms ‘‘sense’’ and ‘‘reference,’’
respectively.
 Because terms symbolize meanings to individual persons, it is inevitable for subjective elements to invade the
 notion of connotation.
 To a cat lover the term ‘‘cat’’, for example, might connote the attributes of being cuddly and adorable, while
to someone who hates cats it might connote the attributes of being obnoxious and disgusting.
 To avoid this problem, logicians typically restrict the meaning of connotation to what is usually called the
conventional connotation.
 The conventional connotation of a term includes commonly the attributes that the term calls forth in the minds
of competent speakers of the language.
 Under this interpretation, the connotation of a term remains more or less the same from person to person and
from time to time.
 The denotation of a term also typically remains the same from person to person, but it may change with the
passage of time.
 Sometimes the denotation of a term can change radically with the passage of time.
 For example, think of the terms, ‘‘currently living dodo bird’’ and ‘the current king of Ethiopia.
 Is there any dodo bird in the world now? No.
 Is there any king in Ethiopia now? No. Therefore, these terms denotes an empty extension.
 The terms ‘‘currently living dodo bird’’ and ‘‘current king of France,’’ for example, at one time denoted
actually existing entities, but today all such entities have perished.
 An empty extension is said to denote: the empty or “null” class - the class that has no members. While these
terms have empty extension, however, they do not have intensional meaning.
 Things that do not have current objective reference include myth, spiritual realities, extinct (died out)
creatures, historical events, and so on do not have extension or empty extension.
 For instance, Dinosaur, Dragon, Satan, fictional and mythical stories, blue horse, unicorn, elf, Dodo bird etc.
They have empty extension. But these things do have intentional meaning.
 The fact that some terms have empty extension leads us to an important connection between extension and
intension- that intension determines extension. Therefore, the intensional meaning of a term serves as the
criterion for deciding what the extension consists of.
For Example
1. Satan is an evil spirit that causes people to suffer.
2. Dinosaur is an extinct reptile of the Mesozoic era.
 The distinction between intension and extension may be further illustrated by comparing the way in which
these concepts can be used to give order to random sequences of terms.
 Terms may be put in the order of increasing intension, increasing extension, decreasing intension, and
decreasing extension.
Increasing intension
When each term in the series (except the first) connotes more attributes than the one preceding it.
Each term in the series (except the first) is more specific than the one preceding it. (A term is specific to
the degree that it connotes more attributes.)
Decreasing intension
is the reverse of that of increasing intension.
When each term in the series (except the first) connotes less attributes than the one preceding it.
Each term in the series (except the first) is more general than the one preceding it. (A term is general to
the degree that it connotes more attributes.)
Increasing extension
When each term in the series (except the first) denotes a class having more members than the class
denoted by the term preceding it.
The class size gets larger with each successive term.
Decreasing extension
 is the reverse of that of increasing extension.
 When each term in the series (except the first) denotes a class having less members than the class
denoted by the term preceding it.
 The class size gets smaller with each successive term.
Let us see the following 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
 From the above example: The order of increasing intension is usually the same as that of decreasing extension.
Conversely, the order of decreasing intension is usually the same as that of increasing extension.
 Logic and Definition
Lesson 3: Meaning, Types, and Purposes of Definitions
3.1 The Meaning of Definition
 Definition
 is a technical and structural organization of words and/or terms or phrases in explaining the meaning of
a given term.
 is intended exclusively to explicate the meaning of words. (For most logicians)
 is defined as a group of words that assigns a meaning to some word or group of words.
 consists of two parts: the definiendum and the definiens.
Definiendum
 is the word or group of words that is supposed to be defined.

Definiens
 is the word or group of words that does the defining or gives a meaning to the definiendum.
 is the group of words that symbolizes (or that is supposed to symbolize) the same meaning as the definiendum.
For example
 ‘‘Tiger’ means a large, striped, ferocious feline indigenous to the jungles of India and Asia,’’
The word ‘‘tiger’’ is the definiendum, and everything after the word ‘‘means’’ is the definiens.

3.2 The Purposes and Types of Definitions

Purposes of Definitions in logic
 to avoid confusion or misleading use of words and phrases
 to avoid obscurity, unintelligibility, subjectivity, and complexity of word
 to introduce new words and to persuade others
 to avoid useless controversies, disputes, disagreements and conflicts over the meaning of terms or
interpretations of words, phrases and passages which considered as an argument
 to prevent incorrect reasoning; and to develop the ability to reason logically etc
Types of Definitions
 Based on the functions that they actually serve, definitions can be classified into five:
1) Stipulative definition
2) Lexical definition
 3) Précising definition
4) Theoretical definition
5) Persuasive definition

1. Stipulative Definitions
 It assigns a meaning to a word for the first time. This may involve either coining a new word or giving a new
meaning to an old word.
 The purpose of this definition is
 to introduce unusual or unfamiliar words, which have no pervious meaning in the language.
 to replace a more complex expression with a simpler one
 It is used to introduce new meanings/names to some new discovered phenomenon in the area of archeologist
findings, scientific invitations, new kinds of fashion clothes, new dances, new food inventions
For Example:
 A few years ago the attempt was made at a certain zoo to crossbreed male tiger and female lion by
biologists. As a result of this, the offspring was born from male tiger and female lion. Thus, this
suggests a need for assigning a new name. So, they may call the new offspring ‘‘Tigon’’ taking the
first three letters from tiger (tig) and the last two letters from lion (on).
 It also used to set up secret codes.
For Example
A. ‘‘Operation Barbarossa’’ was the code name the Germans gave to the invasion of Russia;
B. ‘‘Operation Desert Storm’’ was the code name given to the military invasion of Iraq.
C. “Operation Sun Set” was the code name given to the military victory of Ethiopian armed force against
Eritrea, which is the most recently.
 Stipulative definition cannot be evaluated (judged) as true or false. Because the term is new and there is no
already established synonym or antonym words for it.
 It involves a purely arbitrary assignment of meaning

2. Lexical Definitions
 This definition is used to report the meaning that a word already has in a language.
 is the most important and common type of definition that we often use in our day-to-day life
 Dictionary definitions are all instances of lexical definitions.
 For instance, the Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary defines “imminent” means ‘about to occur’.
Accordingly, this is the meaning of ‘imminent’, as it is actually used by people who speak English.
 In contrast with a stipulative definition, Lexical definition may be true or false depending on whether it reports
the meaning of the word contained in language.
 The purpose of a lexical definition is to eliminate ambiguity that would arise over the improper use of word to
its context.
 A word is ambiguous if it has more than one meaning. This is when it can be interpreted as having two or
more clearly distinct meanings in a given context.
 Some words that are subjected to ambiguous usage are: “light”, “bank”, “sound”, “right” , “race”,‘ ‘mad’’,
“defuse” , “humanity” ,etc.
For Examples
 ‘‘Light,’’ can mean light in weight or radiant energy.
‘‘Bank’’ can mean a finical institution or the edge of river

3. Précising Definitions
 is a definition which provides a more precise, specific, exact and restricting meaning to a term.
 Its purpose to reduce vagueness of the term.
 A word is vague if there are borderline cases in which it is impossible to tell if the word applies or does not
apply. Words such as ‘‘fresh,’’ ‘‘rich,’’ and ‘‘poor’’ are vague.
For example:
 The word ‘poor’ is a vague word. Suppose you are an administrator of one humanitarian organization
and want to give a direct financial assistance to the poor. Who is considered as poor and who is not?
How much a person should need to have in terms of material possession in order to be counted as
poor? Therefore, for your practical purpose you may define Poor as: “Poor” means a person having a
monthly income of less than Birr 150 is an example of a précising definition.
 Whenever words are taken from ordinary usage and used in a highly systematic context such as science,
mathematics, medicine, or law, they must always be clarified by means of a précising definition.
 The terms ‘‘force’’, ‘‘energy’’, ‘‘acid’’, ‘‘element’’, ‘‘number’’, ‘‘equality’’, ‘‘contract’’, and ‘‘agent’’ have
all been given précising definitions by specific disciplines.
 The assignment of meaning in a précising definition is appropriate and legitimate for the context within which
the term is to be employed.
 4. Theoretical Definitions
 Assigns a meaning to a word by suggesting a theory that gives a certain characterization to the entities that the
term denotes.
For example: we cannot conceive or view the term heat without theory. The kinetic theory of ‘‘heat” means
the energy associated with the random motion of the molecules of a substance.’’
 Many terms in philosophy, such as ‘‘substance’’, ‘‘form’’, ‘‘cause’’, ‘‘change’’, ‘‘idea’’, ‘‘good’’, ‘‘mind’’,
and ‘‘God’’ have been given theoretical definitions.
 In fact, most of the major philosophers in history have given these terms their own peculiar theoretical
definitions.
For example
 Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz’s definition of ‘‘substance’’ in terms of what he called ‘‘monads’’ laid the
foundation for his metaphysical theory
 John Stuart Mill’s definition of ‘‘good’’ as the greatest happiness of the greatest number provided the
underpinnings for his utilitarian theory of ethics.
 John Locke definition of “Justice” means to give each individual what he or she deserves his or her
due.
 Theoretical definitions are neither true nor false.
 Its purpose is to avoid disagreement over the use of different terms by providing theoretically adequate and
reliable description of the entities which are designated by different terms or words.

5. Persuasive Definitions
 Assigns to different terms using emotively charged or value laden words or phrases to create a favorable or
unfavorable attitude towards what is designated by the definiendum.
 It has the following purposes:
 persuading or convincing listeners or readers over a certain issue
 Changing or influencing the attitude of others towards one’s own point of view and to win the
acceptance of audience.
Examples of opposing pairs of persuasive definitions:
 ‘‘Abortion’’ means the ruthless murdering of innocent human beings.
 ‘‘Abortion’’ means a safe and established surgical procedure whereby a woman is relieved of an
unwanted burden.
 ‘‘Taxation’’ means the procedure by means of which our common wealth is preserved and sustained.
  ‘‘Taxation’’ means the procedure used by bureaucrats to rip off the people who elected them.
 Persuasive definitions can be evaluated as either true or false, the primary issue is neither truth nor falsity but
the effectiveness of such definitions as instruments of persuasion.
Lesson 4: Techniques of Definition
4.1 The Extensional (Denotative) Definitional Techniques
 An extensional definition is one that assigns a meaning to a term by indicating the members of the class that
the definiendum denotes.
 It provide meaning to a term by listing examples to the term which is being defined – definiendum
Ways of Indicating the Members of a Class
 There are at least three ways of indicating the members of a class:
1) by pointing physically to the object (demonstrative or ostensive definitions)
2) by naming the member of the class individually (enumerative definitions)
3) by naming the member of the class in groups (definitions by subclass)

1) Demonstrative (Ostensive) Definitions

 It assigns a meaning to a term by pointing physically to the thing or object to be defined.
 It is probably the most primitive form of definition.
 It is the meaning of pointing.
 It can be either partial or complete definition.
 Ostensive definition attempts to define a term showing the object, which is designated by a certain term or
word, physically. This way of providing meaning to a term is called demonstration.
For Example
 ‘‘Chair’’ means this and this and this—as you point to a number of chairs, one after the other.
 ‘‘House’’ means this one— using a picture demonstrating a house.
 Ostensive definition is important to teach a foreigner your own native language assuming that neither of you
understood a word of each other’s language.
 The limitation of ostensive definition is that when the required objects do not be available for being pointed at,
the demonstrative definition cannot be used.
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 cannot be used.
 Demonstrative definitions differ from the other kinds of definitions in that the definiens is constituted at least
in part by a gesture — the gesture of pointing.
 Since the definiens in any definition is a group of words, however, a gesture, such as pointing, must count as a
word.

2) Enumerative Definitions
 It assigns a meaning to a term by naming individually the members of the class the term denotes.
 It can be either partial or complete.
 It is carried out through listing some or all of the objects or entities symbolized by the definiendum.
For Example
 ‘‘Actor’’ means a person such as Abebe Balicha, Samsom Taddesse, or Mahder Assefa.
 “Athlete” means a person such as Hail G/sillassie, KenensiaBekele, Derartu Tulu, etc.
 A class having too many classes, such as the class of real numbers, stars and persons are impossible to give
complete enumerative definition of terms.

3) Definition by Subclass
 It assigns a meaning to a term by naming subclasses of the class denoted by the term.
 It assigns a meaning to a term by naming either the subclass (a smaller part of something) or the subset of the
class denoted by the term.
 It can be either partial or complete, depending on whether the subclasses named when taken together, include
all the members of the class or only some of them.
For Example
 ‘‘Tree’’ means an oak, pine, elm, spruce, maple, and the like.
 ‘‘Flower’’ means a rose, lily, daisy, geranium, zinnia, and the like.
 “Professional person” means a person such as a doctor, or an architect.
 “Fictional work’’ means a poem, a play, a novel, or a short story.
 Extensional definitions are used for producing stipulative, lexical, theoretical, and persuasive definitions.
 However, extensional definitions by themselves cannot properly serve as précising definitions for the
following reason.
 The function of a précising definition is to clarify a vague word, and vagueness is a problem affecting
intentional meaning.
 The principle that intension determines extension, whereas the converse is not true, underlies the fact that all
 extensional definitions suffer serious deficiencies.
For example:
 When we define the word ‘‘chair’’ by demonstration, if all the chairs pointed to are made of wood,
observers might get the idea that ‘‘chair’’ means ‘‘wood’’ instead of something to sit on.
 When we define the word ‘‘actor’’ by enumeration, readers /listeners might think that ‘‘actor’’ means
‘‘famous person’’- which would include persons who are not actors.
 When we define the word ‘‘tree’’ through a definition by subclass, they might get the idea that ‘‘tree’’
means ‘‘firmly planted in the ground,’’ which would also include the pilings of a building.
 In other words, it makes no difference how many individuals or subclasses are named in an extensional
definition, there is no assurance that listeners/readers will get the intensional meaning.
 Extensions can suggest intensions, but they cannot determine them.

4.2 The Intensional (Connotative) Definitional Techniques

 An intentional definition is one that assigns a meaning to a word by indicating the qualities or attributes that
the word connotes.
 It provides a meaning to a term by describing the essential characteristics or features possessed by the term
being defined.
 There are four kinds of intentional definitions
1. Synonymous definition
2. Etymological definition
3. Operational definition
4. Definition by genus and difference

1. Synonymous Definition
 Synonymous Definition is one in which the definiens is a single word that connotes the same attributes as the
definiendum.
For Example:
“Physician” means doctor.
“Observe” means see.
‘‘Intentional” means willful.
 It is difficult to find a single word for many English words that has the same quality as the word being defined.
 For example
 The word ‘‘wisdom’’ is not exactly synonymous with either ‘‘knowledge,’’ or ‘‘understanding,’’ or
‘‘sense.

2. Etymological Definition
 It assigns a meaning to a word by revealing the word’s root or ancestry in both its own language and other
languages
 For Example
The word “Democracy” is derived from the two Greek words, ’demos’ and ‘kratos’, which means
people and power/authority respectively.
The English word ‘‘License’’ is derived from the Latin verb licere, which means to be permitted
The English word ‘‘Captain’’ derives from the Latin noun caput which means head.
The English word ‘‘principle’’ derives from the Latin word principium, which means beginning or
source.
The English word ‘‘polygon’’ is derived from the two Greek words poly, meaning many, and ganos
meaning angle.

3. Operational Definition
 It assigns a meaning to a word by specifying certain experimental procedures that determine whether or not
the word applies to a certain thing.
 It carried out by performing the actions, operations, activities and procedures that the word implies and when
these actions, operations, and activities performed use as its meaning.
 It can be identified by words “if and only if” which is equivalent to ‘necessary and sufficient condition.’
For Example
One substance is ‘‘Harder than’’ another if and only if one scratches the other when the two are
rubbed together.
A solution is an ‘‘Acid’’ if and only if litmus paper turns red when dipped into it.

4. Definition by Genus and Difference

 It assigns a meaning to a term by identifying two things: one ‘genus’ term and one or more ‘difference’ words.
When these terms are combined, they convey the meaning of the term being defined.
 In logic, ‘‘genus’’ means a relatively larger class, and ‘‘species’’ means a relatively smaller subclass or
smaller of the genus.
For instance
 If you take ‘animal’ as a genus, and ‘mammal’ as species.
 If you take ‘mammal’ as genus and ‘feline’ can be species.
 If you take ‘feline’ as genus, ‘tiger’ can be the species.
 If you take ‘tiger’ as genus, ‘Bengal tiger’ can be the species.
 The ‘‘specific difference,’’ or ‘‘difference” is the attributes that distinguish the various species within a genus.
 For example, the specific difference that distinguishes tigers from other species in the genus feline (a cat
family) would include the attributes of being large, striped, ferocious (aggressive), and so on.
 Now let us construct a definition by genus and difference for the word ‘‘Tiger.’’
 The important step is to identify both genus and differences of tiger.
 The completed definition may now be written out: ‘‘Tiger’’ means a large, stripped and ferocious feline.
 The word feline implies genus while the rest words (large, stripped and ferocious) tells us difference.
Species Difference Genus
“Ice” means frozen water
“Daughter” means female offspring
“Husband” means married man
 Definition by genus and difference is the most effective of the intentional definitions for producing the five
kinds of definition, namely, stipulative, lexical, précising, theoretical, and persuasive definitions.
 Operational definition can serve as the method for constructing stipulative, lexical, précising, and persuasive
definitions.
 Etymological definition can serve as a method for producing lexical definition.
 Synonymous definition may be used to produce only lexical definitions.

Lesson 5: Criteria for Lexical Definitions

Rule 1: A Lexical Definition Should Conform to the Standards of Proper Grammar.
 A definition should be grammatically correct.
 Definitions that are grammatically incorrect create disagreements and disputes among individuals over the
meaning of terms.
For Example
 Consider the following definitions that are grammatically incorrect
 Vacation is when you don’t have to go to work or school.
 Furious means if you’re angry at someone.
The corrected versions are:
 ‘‘Vacation’’ means a period during which activity is suspended from work or school.
 ‘‘Furious’’ means a condition of being angry.
 Technically, the definiendum should be put in quotation marks or italics, but this convention is not always
followed.

Rule2: A lexical definition should convey or communicate the essential meaning or Characteristics of the
word being defined
 A lexical definition should focus on the essential meaning or characteristics of the defined word.
For Example
‘‘Human being’’ means a featherless biped.
This definition fails to convey the essential meaning of ‘‘human’’ as the word is used in ordinary English.
It says nothing about the important attributes that distinguish human beings from the other.
A correct and adequate definition would be “Human being” means “the rational animal that has the
capacity to reason and to speak” and not as a featherless biped.

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

 A good or correct definition should be proportionate, that is, the extent of the defining word (definiens) should
be equal to the extent of word to be defined (definiendum).
 In a too broad definition, the definiedum (the word to be defined) is less than the definiens (the explanation
words).
For Example
‘‘Birds’’ means any warm-blooded animal having wings.
“Pen” means an instrument used for writing.
These two definitions are broad.
In the first example, the phrase “any warm-blooded animal having wings” would include bats, and bats are not
birds.
In the second example, the phrase “an instrument used for writing” includes things like chalk, pencil, marker,
 pen, etc.

 In a too narrow definition case the definiedum is greater than the definiens.
For Example
‘‘Bird’’ means warm-blooded, feathered animal that can fly.
“Gun” means a tool used in the battle for defending the enemy.
These two definitions would be too narrow.
The first definition would exclude ostriches, which cannot fly.
In the second definition the term gun is defined using a few attributes, that is, the definiens fails to include
different attribute of gun.

Rule 4: A lexical definition should avoid circularity

 A circular definition presents the meaning of a word: either by using the same word with the same meaning in
the definiens, or by using grammatical variation of the same word (the definiendum) in the definiens.
 For Example
‘‘Religious ’’ means any one engaged in religious activity.
‘‘Scientist’’ means anyone who engages in science.
“Science’’ means the activity engaged in by scientists.
These definitions are circular. They are incorrect definitions, since they cannot provide any useful additional
information to the word being defined. In other words, their definiendums (the word to be defined) are
repeated in the other way.
 A definition may be intrinsically or essentially circular. If a definition is intrinsically circular, it is legitimate
or acceptable to define it in circular way.
 Of the following two examples the first is a synonymous definition, the second is a definition by genus and
difference.
‘‘Quiet’’ means quietude.
‘‘Silence’’ means the state of being silent.
 Certain operational definitions also run the risk of circularity:
“Time’’ means whatever is measured by a clock.
Surely a person would have to know what ‘‘time’’ means before he/she could understand the purpose of a
clock.
 A circular definition is not a synonymous definition.
 Synonymous definition is a correct definition of terms by providing a single word, which has similar meaning
with the word being defined.
Rule 5: A lexical definition should not be negative when it can be affirmative.
 The definition should explain what a term does mean rather than what it does not mean.
 Of the following two definitions, the first one is negative, and the second is affirmative/positive:
‘‘Concord’’ means the absence of discord/conflict.
“Concord’’ means harmony.
 Some words, however, are intrinsically negative. For them, a negative definition is quite appropriate.
For Example
‘‘Bald’’ means lacking hair.
‘‘Darkness’’ means the absence of light.
“Death” means the end of life.

Rule 6: A lexical definition should not be expressed in figurative, obscure, vague, or ambiguous language.
A definition is figurative
 When it involves based on metaphors. (A metaphor is a word or a phrase used in the imaginative way).
 When it tends to paint a picture (describes the thing in a particular way) instead of exposing the
essential meaning of a term.
For Example
 If you define ‘architecture’ as frozen music, you are expressing it in figurative language.
 If you define ‘camel’ as ship of the desert, you are also expressing it in figurative language.
A definition is obscure
 If its meaning is hidden as a result of defective or inappropriate language or expression
 One source of obscurity is excessively technical language.
For Example
 ‘‘Bunny’’ means a mammalian of the family Leporidae of the order Lagomorpha whose young are
born furless and blind.
 ‘‘Bunny’’ means a rabbit.
The problem lies with needlessly technical language. Because ‘‘bunny’’ is very much a no technical term, no
technical definition is needed.
 A definition is vague
If it lacks precision or if its meaning is unclear or blurred.
If there is no way of telling exactly what class of things the definiens refers to.
For Example
‘‘Democracy’’ means a kind of government where the people are in control.
This definition fails to identify the people who are in control, how they exercise their control, and what they
are in control of.
A definition is ambiguous
If it lends itself to more than one different interpretation.
For Example
‘‘Triangle’’ means a figure composed of three straight lines in which all the angles are equal to 1800.
Does this mean that each angle separately is equal to 180 0 or that the angles taken together are equal to 180 0?
Either interpretation is possible given the ambiguous meaning of ‘‘all the angles are equal to 180 0.’’

Rule 7: A lexical definition should avoid affective terminology

 Affective terminology is any kind of word usage that plays upon the emotions of the reader or listener.
 It includes
Sarcastic language (language that mean the opposite meaning)
Facetious language (inappropriate language)
Any other kind of language that is liable to influence attitudes.
 In short, it is an expression that influences others positively or negatively.
Example of sarcastic use of language
 ‘‘Communism’’ means that ‘‘brilliant’’ invention of Karl Marx and other foolish political visionaries
in which the national wealth is supposed to be held in common by the people.
The intended meaning is the opposite of what is meant by brilliant.
The objective in this particular case is to be unpleasant to Marxist ideas and to make fun of them. In other
words, it is asserting that it is not brilliant.
Examples of negatively affective terminology
 “Ethiopia” is a country of “illiterate” and “hungry” people.
 “Africans” are “uncivilized” and “have no history”.
These definitions are incorrect definitions since they influence Ethiopians and Africans negatively.
 Rule 8: A lexical definition should indicate the context to which the definiens pertains.
 A lexical definition should contain different meanings in the different context.
For Example
 ‘‘Strike’’ means (in baseball) a pitch at which a batter swings and misses.
 ‘‘Strike’’ means (in fishing) a pull and a line made by a fish in taking the bait.
 ‘‘Strike’’ means (in bowling) the act of knocking down all the pins with the first ball of a frame.
In the above definitions the term “strike” has three different meanings in the different contexts (baseball,
fishing and bowling).
 It is not always necessary to make explicit reference to the context, but at least the phraseology of the
definiens should indicate the context.

CHAPTER FOUR
BASIC CONCEPTS OF CRITICAL THINKING
Lesson 1: Meaning of Critical Thinking
 Critical thinking
 means thinking clearly and intelligently.
 is the general term given to a wide range of cognitive skills and intellectual dispositions needed to
effectively identify, analyze, and evaluate arguments and truth claims.
  is thinking clearly, thinking fairly, thinking rationally, thinking objectively, and thinking
independently.
 leads to an impartial investigation of the data and facts that remains not swayed by irrelevant emotions.
Therefore, its aim is to arrive at well-reasoned, considered, and justifiable conclusions
 helps
 to discover and overcome personal preconceptions and biases
 to formulate and present convincing reasons in support of conclusions
 to make reasonable, intelligent decisions about what to believe and what to do
 to arrive at the most useful, helpful, and most likely destinations when evaluating claims for
scientific truth
 Many Philosophers’ like John Dewey, Edward Glaser, Robert Ennis, Richard Paul and Michael Scriven has
defined critical thinking differently.
 Critical thinking is sometimes referred to as ‘criticocreative’ thinking.
 This word is the combination of two words: critical and creative.
 Critical thinking is a kind of evaluative thinking
 which involves both criticism and creative thinking
 which is particularly concerned with the quality of reasoning or argument that is presented in support
of a belief, or a course of action

Lesson 2: Standards of Critical Thinking

 Critical thinking is a disciplined thinking governed by clear intellectual standards that can be used to identify
a critical thinking from the uncritical.
 Standard of critical thinking refers a conditions or a level that critical thinking should meet to be considered as
normal and acceptable.
 Clarity, precision, accuracy, relevance, consistency, logical correctness, completeness, and fairness are some
of the most important intellectual standards of critical thinking.

1) Clarity
 Clarity refers to clear understanding of concepts and clearly expressing them in a language that is free of
obscurity and vagueness.
 Before we effectively evaluate a person’s argument or claim, we need to understand clearly what the person is
saying.
 Clarity is a gateway standard. If a statement is unclear, we cannot determine whether it is accurate or relevant..
For example
 The question “What can be done about the education system in Ethiopia?” is unclear.
 A clearer question might be “What can educators do to ensure that students learn the skills and abilities
which help them function successfully on the job and in their daily decision-making?”
 To achieve our personal goals in life, we need a clear conception of our goals and priorities, a realistic grasp of
our abilities, and a clear understanding of the problems and opportunities we face. Such self-understanding
can be achieved only if we value and pursue clarity of thought.

2) Precision
 Precision is a matter of being exact, accurate and careful.
 To get precise understanding, we should pay close attention to details.
 Everyone recognizes the importance of precision in specialized fields such as medicine, mathematics,
architecture, and engineering.
 Critical thinkers also understand the importance of precise thinking in different contexts and try to answer
precision questions.
 What exactly is the problem we are facing?
 What exactly are the alternatives?
 What exactly are the advantages and disadvantages of each alternative?
Only when we habitually seek such precision are we truly become critical thinkers.

3) Accuracy
 Accuracy is about having and getting correct information.
 Critical thinking should care a lot about genuine information.
 If the ideas and thoughts one processes are not real, then once decision based on wrong and false information
will likely to result in distorting realities.
 John Rawls, in his book entitled as ‘A Theory of Justice’ argued that truth is the first virtue of systems of
thought.
 No matter how brilliant you may be, you are almost guaranteed to make bad decisions if your decisions are

based on false information.

 Critical thinkers do not merely value the truth; they also have a passion for accurate, timely information. As
 consumers, citizens, workers, and parents, they strive to make decisions and this decision should be based on
true information.

4) Relevance
 The question of relevance is a question of connections.
 When there is a discussion or debate, it should focus on relevant ideas and information. That is, only those
points that bear on the issue should be raised.
 Critical thinkers focus and carefully choose only the information that has logical relation with the ideas at
hands.
 Issues raised should have logical connection with the question at hand. Two ideas are relevant when they have
logical connection.

5) Consistency
 Consistency is about the quality of always behaving in the same way or of having the same opinions or
standards.
 Logic tells us that if a person holds inconsistent beliefs, at least one of those beliefs must be false.
 Critical thinkers prize truth and so are constantly on the lookout for inconsistencies, both in their own thinking
and in the arguments and assertions of others.
 There are two kinds of inconsistency that should be avoided.
1. Logical inconsistency, which involves saying or believing inconsistent things (i.e., things that cannot
both or all be true) about a particular matter.
2. Practical inconsistency, which involves saying one thing and doing another. Sometimes people are
fully aware that their words conflict with their deeds; in short people sometime are hypocrites.
 Critical thinking
 helps us become aware of unconscious practical inconsistencies
 allowing us to deal with them on a conscious and rational basis

 A critical thinker should be consistent logically and practically.

6) Logical Correctness
 To think logically is to reason correctly; that is, to draw well-founded conclusions from the beliefs held.
 To think critically, we need accurate and well supported beliefs.
 When we think, we bring a variety of thoughts together into some order.
  When the combinations of thoughts are mutually supporting and make sense in combination, the
thinking is logical.
 When the combination is not mutually supporting, is contradictory in some sense, or does not make
sense the combination, is not logical.

7) Completeness
 In most contexts, we rightly prefer deep and complete thinking to shallow and superficial thinking.
 However, thinking is better when it is deep rather than shallow, thorough rather than superficial.

8) Fairness
 Critical thinking demands that our thinking be fair - that is, open minded, impartial, and free of distorting
biases and preconceptions.
 It is probably unrealistic to suppose that our thinking could ever be completely free of biases and
preconceptions; to some extent, we all perceive reality in ways that are powerfully shaped by our individual
life experiences and cultural backgrounds.
 We naturally think from our own perspective, from a point of view, which tends to privilege our position.
 Fairness implies the treating of all relevant viewpoints alike without reference to one’s own feelings or
interests. Because we tend to be biased in favor of our own viewpoint, it is important to keep the standard of
fairness at the forefront of our thinking.

Lesson 3: Codes of Intellectual Conduct for Effective Discussion

3.1 Principles of Good Argument
1) The Structural Principle
 The structural principle of a good argument requires that one who argues for or against a position should use
an argument that meets the fundamental structural requirements of a well-formed argument.
 Such an argument
 does not use reasons that contradict each other
 does not use reasons that contradict the conclusion
 does not explicitly or implicitly assume the truth of the conclusion.
 does not draw any invalid deductive inferences.
 The first criterion used in determining whether an argument is a good one is the requirement that it be
structurally sound.
 2. The Relevance Principle
 This principle requires that one who presents an argument for or against a position should set forth only
reasons whose truth provides some evidence for the truth of the conclusion.
 The premises of a good argument must be relevant (provide reason or evidence) to the truth or merit of the
conclusion.

3. The Acceptability Principle

 This principle requires that one who presents an argument for or against a position should provide reasons that
are likely to be accepted by a mature, rational person and that meet standard criteria of acceptability.
 The reasons set forth in support of a conclusion must be acceptable. A reason is acceptable if it is the kind of
claim that a rational person would accept in the face of all the relevant evidence available.
 Some people believe that the acceptability principle should be replaced by the truth principle to connote the
idea that premises should be true to be acceptable.
 An argument can be a good one only if the premises are accepted or recognized as true.
4. The Sufficiency Principle
 This principle requires that one who presents an argument for or against a position should attempt to provide
relevant and acceptable reasons of the right kind, that together are sufficient in number and weight to justify
the acceptance of the conclusion.
 The feature of the sufficiency principle that is most difficult to apply is the assignment of weight to each piece
of supporting evidence.
 Indeed, disagreement over this issue probably causes most of the problems in informal discussions. What one
participant regards as the most important piece of evidence, another may regard as trivial by comparison with
other possible evidence.

5. The Rebuttal Principle

 This principle requires that one who presents an argument for or against a position should include in the
argument an effective rebuttal to all anticipated serious criticisms of the argument that may be brought against
it or against the position it supports.
 An argument cannot be a good one if it does not anticipate and effectively refute or blunt the force of the most
serious criticisms against it and the position that it supports.
 One must ask and answer several questions in applying the rebuttal principle to an argument.
 First, what are the strongest arguments against the position being defended?
  Second, does the argument address the counterarguments effectively?
 Third, what potentially serious weaknesses in the argument for the position might be recognized
by an opponent?
 Fourth, does the argument itself recognize and address those possible weaknesses?
 Finally, does the argument show why arguments for alternative positions on the issue are flawed
or unsuccessful?
3.2 Principles of Critical Thinking
1) The Fallibility Principle
 This principle requires that each participant in a discussion of a disputed issue should be willing to accept the
fact that he or she is fallible.
 One must acknowledge that one’s own initial view may not be the most defensible position on the question.
 An admission of fallibility is a positive sign that you are genuinely interested in the kind of honest inquiry that
may lead to a fair resolution of the issue.

2) The Truth Seeking Principle

 This principle requires that each participant should be committed to the task of earnestly searching for the
truth or at least the most defensible position on the issue at stake.
 One should be willing to examine alternative positions seriously, look for insights in the positions of others,
and allow other participants to present arguments for or raise objections to any position held on an issue.

3) The Clarity Principle

 It requires that the formulations of all positions, defenses, and attacks should be free of any kind of linguistic
confusion and clearly separated from other positions and issues.

4) The Burden of Proof Principle

 This principle requires that the burden of proof for any position usually rests on the participant who sets forth
the position.
 If, and when, an opponent asks, the proponent should provide an argument for that position.
 Just as a person is generally held accountable for his or her own actions, one who makes a positive or negative
claim about something has what is called the burden of proof.
5. The Principle of Charity
 It requires that if a participant’s argument is reformulated by an opponent, it should be carefully expressed in
its strongest possible version that is consistent with what is believed to be the original intention of the arguer.
 If we deliberately create and then attack a weak version of the original argument, we will probably fail to
achieve the very goals that discussion is designed to serve.
 If we are really interested in the truth or the best answer to a problem, then we will want to evaluate the best
version of any argument set forth in support of one of the options. .

6. The Suspension of Judgment Principle

 This principle requires that if no position is defended by a good argument, or if two or more positions seem to
be defended with equal strength, (lack evidence), one should, in most cases, suspend judgment about the issue.

7. The Resolution Principle

 This principle requires that an issue should be considered resolved
 if the argument for one of the alternative positions is a structurally sound
 if one that uses relevant and acceptable reasons that together provide sufficient grounds to justify the
conclusion
 if it include an effective rebuttal to all serious criticisms of the argument and/or the position it supports
Lesson 4: Characteristics of Critical Thinking
4.1 Basic Traits of Critical Thinkers
 A critical thinker simply is a person who exhibit some feature of critical thinking.
Critical Thinkers
 Are honest with themselves, acknowledging what they don't know, recognizing their limitations, and
being watchful of their own errors.
 Regard problems and controversial issues as exciting challenges.
 Strive for understanding, keep curiosity alive, remain patient with complexity, and are ready to invest
time to overcome confusion.
 Base judgments on evidence rather than personal preferences, deferring judgment whenever evidence
is insufficient. They revise judgments when new evidence reveals error.
 Are interested in other people's ideas and so are willing to read and listen attentively, even when they
tend to disagree with the other person.
 Recognize that extreme views (whether conservative or liberal) are seldom correct, so they avoid them,
practice fair-mindedness, and seek a balance view.
 Practice restraint, controlling their feelings rather than being controlled by them, and thinking before
acting.
4.2 Basic Traits of Uncritical Thinkers
Uncritical thinkers:
 Pretend they know more than they do, ignore their limitations, and assume their views are error-free.
 Regard problems and controversial issues as nuisances or threats to their ego.
 Are inpatient with complexity and thus would rather remain confused than make the effort to
understand.
 Base judgments on first impressions and gut reactions. They are unconcerned about the amount or
quality of evidence and cling to their views steadfastly.
 Are preoccupied with themselves and their own opinions, and so are unwilling to pay attention to
others' views. At the first sign of disagreement, they tend to think, "How can I refute this?"
 Ignore the need for balance and give preference to views that support their established views.
 Tend to follow their feelings and act impulsively.

The Difference between Critical Thinkers and Uncritical Thinkers

Critical Thinkers Uncritical Thinkers
1. Have a passionate drive for clarity, precision, 1. are unclear, imprecise, and inaccurate,
accuracy, egocentrism, socio centrism, relativistic thinking
unwarranted assumptions, and wishful thinking.

2. are skilled at understanding, analyzing, and 2. are often misunderstand or evaluate unfairly
evaluating arguments and viewpoints, reason arguments and viewpoints, illogical, and draw
logically, draw appropriate conclusions from unsupported conclusions from these sources.
evidence and data
3. are intellectually honest with themselves, 3. pretend they know more than they do and
acknowledging what they do not know and ignore their limitations, closed-minded, and
recognizing their limitations, listen open- resist criticisms of beliefs and assumptions
mindedly to opposing points of view, welcome
criticisms of beliefs and assumptions.
4. base their beliefs on facts and evidences, 4. base beliefs on mere personal preferences
aware of the biases and preconceptions or self-interests, lack awareness of their own
that shape the way they perceive the world biases and preconceptions.
 5. think independently and are not afraid to 5. tend to engage in “groupthink” uncritically
disagree with group opinion, have the intellectual following the beliefs and values of the crowd,
courage to face and assess fairly ideas that fear and resist ideas that challenge their basic
challenge even their most basic beliefs beliefs
6. pursue truth, are curious about a wide range 6. are often relatively indifferent to truth and
of issues and have the intellectual perseverance lack curiosity, tend not to persevere when
to pursue insights or truths despite obstacles or they encounter intellectual obstacles or
difficulties difficulties.

Lesson 5: Barriers to Critical Thinking

 The most common barriers to critical thinking are:
Egocentrism (self-centered thinking) Poor reading skills
Socio centrism (group-centered thinking) Lack of relevant background information
Unwarranted assumptions Bias, prejudice, superstition
Relativistic thinking, Peer pressure
Wishful thinking Conformism
Provincialism (narrow, unsophisticated thinking) Stereotyping
Narrow-mindedness, closed-mindedness, distrust in reason Scapegoating (blaming the innocent)
Rationalization (inventing excuses to avoid facing our real motives)

1) Egocentrism
 Egocentrism is the tendency to see reality as centered on oneself.
 Egocentrics are selfish, self-absorbed people who view their interests, ideas, and values as superior to
everyone else’s.
 Egocentrism can manifest itself in a variety of ways. Two common forms this are self-interested thinking and
the superiority bias.
 Self-interested thinking is the tendency to accept and defend beliefs that harmonize with one’s self-interest.
 Almost no one is immune to self-interested thinking.
 Self-interested thinking, however understandable it may seem, is a major obstacle to critical thinking.
 Everyone finds it tempting at times to reason that “this benefits me, therefore it must be good”; but from a
critical thinking standpoint, such “reasoning” is a sham.
 Implicit in such thinking is the assumption that “What is most important is what I want and need.”
 Superiority bias (also known as illusory superiority or the better-than average effect) is the tendency to
overrate oneself - to see oneself as better in some respect than one actually is.

2) Socio centrism
 It is group-centered thinking.
 It can hinder rational thinking by focusing excessively on the group.
 It can distort critical thinking in many ways. Two of the most important are group bias and conformism.
 Group bias (mine is better thinking) is the tendency to see one’s own group (nation, tribe, sect, peer group,
and the like) as being inherently better than others.
 Social scientists tell us that such thinking is extremely common throughout human history and across cultures.
 Most people absorb group bias unconsciously, usually from early childhood. It is common, for example, for
people to grow up thinking that their society’s beliefs, institutions, and values are better than those of other
societies.
 Conformism refers to our tendency to follow the crowd - that is, to conform (often unthinkingly) to authority
or to group standards of conduct and belief.
 We are impressed, influenced, and intimidated by authority, so much so that, under the right conditions, we
abandon our own values, beliefs, and judgments, even doubt our own immediate experience.

3) Unwarranted Assumptions and Stereotypes

 An assumption is something we take for granted - something we believe to be true without any proof or
conclusive evidence.
 Many of our daily actions are based on assumptions we have drawn from the patterns in our experience.
 Unwarranted assumptions, however, are unreasonable. An unwarranted assumption is something taken for
granted without good reason. Such assumptions often prevent our seeing things clearly.
 One of the most common types of unwarranted assumptions is a stereotype.
 Stereotype means treating individual on his or her membership in a particular group (not based on his/her
quality), we are assuming that all members of that group are alike.
 We arrived at stereotypes through a process known as hasty generalization, in which one draws a conclusion
about a large class of things(in this case, people) from a small sample.

4) Relativistic Thinking
 Relativism is the view that truth is a matter of opinion.
 There are two popular forms of relativism: subjectivism (cultural moral subjectivism) and cultural relativism
 (cultural moral relativism).
 Subjectivism is the view that truth is a matter of individual opinion (what he/she think good/bad).
 According to subjectivism, whatever an individual believes is true, is true for that person, and there is no such
thing as “objective” or “absolute” truth, i.e., truth that exists independent of what anyone believes.
For example
 Suppose Abdella believes that abortion is wrong and Obang believes that abortion is not always wrong
According to subjectivism, abortion is always wrong for Abdella and not always wrong for Obang.
Both beliefs are true – for them. And truth for one individual or another is the only kind of truth there is.
 Relativism is the view that truth is a matter of social or cultural opinion.
 It is the view that what is true for person A is what person A’s culture or society believes is true.
For example
 Drinking wine is widely considered to be wrong in Iran but is not generally considered to be wrong in
France.
According to cultural relativism, therefore, drinking wine is immoral in Iran but is morally permissible in
France.
Thus, for the cultural relativist, just as for the subjectivist, there is no objective or absolute standard of truth.
 What relativists usually claim that not all truth is relative, but that truth is relative in some important
domain(s) (for example 1+1=2. This is not relative truth)
 Cultural relativism seems to imply that we must be tolerant of other cultures’ moral beliefs and values.
 Despite these apparent attractions, however, there are deep problems with cultural moral relativism.
 First, does the fact that there is deep disagreement in ethics show that there is no objective moral truth - that
ethics is just a matter of opinion?
 Second, cultural moral relativism does not necessarily support the value of tolerance.
 Relativism tells us that we should accept the customs and values of our society. Thus, if you live in an
intolerant society, relativism implies that you too should be intolerant.

5) Wishful Thinking
 Wishful thinking refers to a state of believing something not because you had good evidence for it but simply
because you wished it were true.
 People fear the unknown and invent comforting myths to render the universe less hostile and more predictable.
 They fear death and listen credulously to stories of healing crystals, quack cures, and communication with the
 dead.

Lesson 6: Benefits of Critical Thinking

Critical Thinking: Skills and Dispositions
 Critical thinking teaches you
 How to raise and identify fundamental questions and problems in the community.
 How to reformulate these problems clearly and precisely.
 How to gather and assess relevant information, develop reasoned conclusions and solutions, testing
them against relevant criterion and standards.
 How to be open minded to alternative system of thought, recognize and assess your own assumptions,
implications and practical consequences.
 How to communicate effectively with others in figuring out solutions to complex problems.

Critical Thinking in the Classroom

 In university, the focus is on higher-order thinking: the active, intelligent evaluation of ideas and information.
For this reason critical thinking plays a vital role in universities.
 In a critical thinking students learn a variety of skills that can greatly improve their classroom performance.
These skills include:
1. Understanding the arguments and beliefs of others
 Critical thinking significantly improve your ability to understand the arguments and issues discussed in
your college textbooks and classes
2. Critically evaluating those arguments and beliefs
 Critical thinking can help you critically evaluate what you are learning in class.
3. Developing and defending one’s own well-supported arguments and beliefs
 Critical thinking helps you to develop your own arguments (with convincing evidence) on particular
topics or issues.
 Critical thinking is a transferable thinking skill in classroom, personal life, work place etc.

Critical Thinking in Life

 Critical thinking is valuable in many contexts outside the classroom.
 First, critical thinking can help us avoid making foolish personal decisions.
 Critical thinking can help us to think about important life decisions more carefully, clearly, and logically.
 Second, critical thinking plays a vital role in promoting democratic processes.
 In democracy, it is the people who have the ultimate say over who governs and for what purposes.
 Citizens should vote, should evaluate different public policies, and collectively determine their fate and etc.
 Many of today’s most serious societal problems - environmental destruction, poverty, ethnic conflicts,
decaying the morality of societies, high level of corruption, violating basic human rights, displacement, to
mention just a few - have largely been caused by poor critical thinking.
 Third, critical thinking is worth studying for its own sake, simply for the personal enrichment it can bring to
our lives.
 Throughout most of recorded history, people accepted without question that the earth was the centre of the
universe, that demons cause disease that slavery was just, and that women are inferior to men.
 Critical thinking, honestly and courageously pursued can help free us from the unexamined assumptions and
biases of our upbringing and our society.
 In short, critical thinking allows us to lead self-directed, “examined” lives. Such personal liberation is, as the
word itself implies, the ultimate goal of education. Whatever other benefits it brings, education can have no
greater reward.
 CHAPTER FIVE
LOGICAL REASONING AND FALLACIES
Lesson 1: Fallacy in General
1.1 The Meaning of Fallacy
 In ordinary language usage, the term ‘fallacy’ refers to a mistaken or false belief.
 From the logician point of view, the term fallacy refers to a defect in an argument.
 In general, fallacy is a violation of standard argumentative rules or criteria.
 A good argument must have four general criteria i.e the premises that are
 relevant to the truth of the conclusion
 acceptable to a logical person
 sufficient grounds for the truth of the conclusion
 effective rebuttal to all reasonable challenges to the argument or to the position supported by it
 Therefore, fallacy is the violation of one or more of these criteria of a good argument.
 An argument is good as far as it meets all the general criteria set for a good argument, and hence commits no
fallacy.
 Fallacies can be committed in many ways, but usually it involves either a mistake in reasoning or the creation
of some illusion that makes a bad argument appear good (or both).
 They are often committed because of the problem in the reasoning process or the form of the argument, or
defects in the contents of the statements used as premises or a conclusion.
 We can found fallacies in both deductive and inductive arguments.
 If deductive arguments are unsound or if inductive arguments are uncogent, then they will contain fallacies.
This is because such kinds of arguments have one or more false premises or they contain a fallacy (or both).
 1.2 Types of Fallacies
 Depending on the kind of the problems or defects they contain, (i.e., the problems or defects that make them
fallacious), arguments may commit either a formal or an informal fallacy.
Formal Fallacy
 A fallacy committed due to a structural defect of argument
 It may be identified through mere inspection of the form or structure of an argument.
 Formal fallacies are found only in deductive arguments that have identifiable forms, such as categorical
syllogisms, disjunctive syllogisms, and hypothetical syllogisms.
 The following categorical syllogism contains a formal fallacy:
 All tigers are animals.
 All mammals are animals.
 Therefore, all tigers are mammals.
 The above argument has the following form: Letter A, B, and C represents “tigers”, “animals”, and “birds”
respectively.
 All A are B.
 All C are B
 Therefore, all A are C.
The above argument is invalid. The inspection of the form of the above argument shows that the conclusion
does not follow from the premises.
As we can see from the form of the argument, the conclusion proves false for there is no any A which is also
found in C.

Informal Fallacy
 A fallacy which is committed due to a defect in the very content of an argument
 Fallacies that can be detected only through analysis of content of the argument
 Logical errors in the content of the argument but not in the structure or form of the argument
For Example:
 All factories are plants.
 All plants are things that contain chlorophyll.
 Therefore, all factories are things that contain chlorophyll.
The above argument has the following form: Letter A, B, and C represents “factories”, “plants” and
 “chlorophyll”, respectively.
 All A are B.
 All B are C.
 Therefore, All A are C.
The argument is invalid since it has true premises and false conclusion.
The word “plant” is used in two different senses. In the first premise it means a building where something is
manufactured, and in the second it means a life form.
Hence, the argument has the following invalid form: (Remember that, two letters are used to indicate the
different meaning of the word ‘plant’).
Thus, the argument really has the following invalid form:
 All A are B.
 All C are D.
 Therefore, All A are D.
 Formal fallacies are always invalid; however informal fallacies can be valid.
 Informal fallacies validity is not genuine and logical.
 The correctness/validity of reasoning in informal fallacies is only from psychological and rhetoric sense of the
argument. Therefore, the effect of an informal fallacy is to make a bad argument appear good

Types of Informal Fallacies

 There are twenty- two/22 different types of informal fallacies that are classified under five major
classifications. This includes:
1. Fallacies of relevance
2. Fallacies of weak induction
3. Fallacies of presumption
4. Fallacies of ambiguity
5. Fallacies of grammatical analogy

Lesson 2: Fallacies of Relevance

 Fallacies of relevance are those, (except missing the point) which are committed chiefly due to a provision
premises that are logically irrelevant to the conclusion.
 Unlike the others, the fallacy of missing the point is committed due to an irrelevant conclusion.
 The premises are relevant psychologically.
 The connection between premises and conclusion is emotional or not logical.
 They are also sometimes called argumentative leaps, which suggest that since no connection is seen between
the premises and the conclusion, a huge leap (jump) would be required to move from one (the premises) to the
other (the conclusion).
Types of Fallacies of Relevance

 Fallacies of relevance contain eight different types of informal fallacies. Namely,

1. Appeal to force 5. Fallacy of accident
2. Appeal to pity 6. Straw man fallacy
3. Appeal to people 7. The fallacy of missing the point
4. Argument against the person 8. Red-Herring Fallacy

1) Appeal to Force (Argumentum ad Baculum: Appeal to the ‘‘Stick’’)

 The fallacy of appeal to force occurs whenever
 An arguer creates a conclusion to another person and tells the person that some harm will come to him
or her if he or she does not accept the conclusion.
 One irrelevantly appeals to force or threat of force to win an argument.
 It always involves a threat by the arguer to the physical or psychological well-being of the listener/s or
reader/s.
 Obviously, such a threat is logically irrelevant to the subject matter of the conclusion, so any argument based
on such a procedure is fallacious.
 In appeal to force fallacy, premises of an argument are full of threat, intimidation, scary words, etc. while you
should accept or believe conclusion as correct without providing evidences that are logically reliable.
For Example:
I. Mr. Kebde you accused me of fraud and embezzlements. You have to drop the charge you filed against
me. You have to remember that I am your ex-boss; I will torture both you and your family members if
you do not drop your case. Got it?
II. Child to playmate: ‘‘Ethiopis’’ is the best show on Ebs; 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.
III.A teacher to his student: Aristotle has the only correct philosophical view on this matter. If you do
not think so, wait to see what mark I give you on the final exam.
 These three arguments fail to provide logical evidence to the truth of their conclusion.
The arguments provide a kind of harm or threat as a reason to accept their conclusion. Thus, the first two
examples involve a physical threat whereas the last example a psychological threat.

2) Appeal to Pity (Argumentum ad Misericordiam)

 The appeal to pity fallacy occurs when an arguer attempts to support a conclusion by simply evoking pity
from the reader or listener in an effort to get him or her to accept the conclusion.
 The pity does not have any logical connection or relevance to the conclusion. But it is psychologically
relevant for the conclusion as the arguer can usually succeed in getting a pitting heart from his audience.
For Example:
I. A student to his instructor: Professor, this paper deserves at least ‘B’ grade. I stayed up all the night
working on it. And if I do not get ‘B’, I will be on academic probation.
The conclusion of this argument is “this paper deserves at least ‘B’ grade.” The others are pitiable
ideas.
II. The Headship position in the department of accounting should be given to Mr. Oumer Abdulla. Oumer has
six hungry children to feed and his wife desperately needs an operation to save her eyesight.
The conclusion of this argument is “The Headship position in the department of accounting should be
given to Mr. Oumer Abdulla”
These evidences/premises are not logically relevant to the conclusion but it is psychologically relevant. So, the
argument is fallacious.

3) Appeal to the People (Argumentum ad Populum)

 The appeal to people
 Uses people’s desires to get the reader or listener to accept a conclusion.
 Occurs when the arguer attempts to persuade the reader or listener about a certain issue on the ground
that most people approve it or disapprove the issue being in question.
 Consist arguments with language that is calculated to excite enthusiasm, excitement, anger, or hate
 Two approaches are involved in appeal to people fallacy, namely, the direct approach and in direct approach.

The Direct Approach

 It occurs when an arguer, addressing a large group of people, excites the emotions and enthusiasm of the
crowd to win the acceptance for his/her conclusion.
 The objective is to arouse a kind of mob mentality.
 This strategy is usually used by propagandists, demagogues, preachers, advertisement workers and so forth.

Indirect Approach
 The arguer directs his or her appeal not to the crowd as a whole but, to some or more individuals separately,
focusing up on some aspect of their relationship to the crowd.
 It is common in advertising industry.
 There are three varieties of the indirect approach. These are
A. Appeal to bandwagon
B. Appeal to vanity
C. Appeal to snobbery
A. Appeal to Bandwagon
 The bandwagon argument emphasizes that the majority choice is a correct one and advises or informs
audiences to join it.
 It is a fallacy in which a threat of rejection by one’s peer pressure is substituted for evidence in an argument.
 For Example
1. Chewing chat cannot be all wrong because 70% of Hawassa university students see nothing wrong with it.
2. A film is good because there are long lines of people waiting to see it.
3. The majority of people in Ethiopia accept the opinion that child circumcision is the right thing to do. Thus,
you also should accept that child circumcision is the right thing to do.
The above examples tell us nothing about the quality of a thing or the truth of the idea. The idea can be
believed by everyone and yet not be true. So, it is fallacious.
B. Appeal to Vanity
 Appeal to vanity associates the product with certain celebrities/famous such as artists, athletes, footballers,
respected leaders, etc. and informs the audiences that if you buy and use the item you also will be admired.
 For Example
1. “Who is going to wear this new fashion T-shirt worn by the famous artist Gosaye for the new Ethiopian
Millennium?”
2. “Who is going to buy this new fashion Shoes, a shoe used by the famous Haile G/ Sellassie in the London
Marathon.”
In the above examples T- shirt and shoe are associated with the famous persons Gosaye and Haile and if others
managed to buy these products they will be admired like these two artists.
3. BBC may show the famous footballer, Frank Lampard, wearing Adidas shoe, and says: Wear this new
 fashion shoe! A shoe, which is worn only by few respected celebrities! ADIDAS SHOE!!!
The message is that if you wear the shoe, then you, too, will be admired and respected, just like the famous
footballer, Frank Lampard.

C. Appeal to Snobbery
 Snob means
 a person who admires people in higher classes too much and has no respect for people in the lower
classes
 a person who thinks individuals from higher social classes are much better than other people because
they like things many people do not like.
 Appeal to snobbery is an appeal to the desire to be regarded as superior to others.
 It is occurred when an arguer associates a product with a selected few persons (distinguished person) that have
an exaggerated social position, and some other qualities.
 For Example
I. This is not for ordinary people. If you want to be from among the selected few dignitaries buy the shoe.
II. Look at the mark of this cell phone- it is Nokia and Nokia is not for everyone. Buy Nokia and join the selected
few.
III. The newly produced Gebeta Guder wine is not for everyone to drink. But you are different from other people,
aren’t you? Therefore, the newly produced Gebeta Guder wine is for you.

4) Argument against the Person (Argumentum ad Hominem)

 This fallacy always involves two arguers. One of them advances a certain argument, and the other then
responds not to the first person’s argument but to the first person himself or herself.
 One can commit this fallacy
 if someone refuses to consider his or her opponent’s argument on its merit alone, and
 attacks his or her opponent on the ground of his or her belief, motive, religion, character, practice,
and soon
 When this occurs, the second person is said to commit an argument against the person.
 The argument against the person occurs in three forms:
A. The ad hominem abusive
 B. The ad hominem circumstantial
C. The tuquoque
A. Ad Hominem Abusive
 In the ad hominem abusive, the second person responds to the first person’s argument by verbally abusing the
first person.
 The second person discredits the character of the opponent; deny his or her intelligence or reasonableness, etc.
 The person can be abused for being untidy, ugly, smoker, gambler, conservative, sick, member of this or that
political party, and etc.
 But the character of the individual is logically irrelevant to the truth or falsehood of what that person says, or
to the correctness or incorrectness of that person’s reasoning.
 For Example
1. How a stingy person can tell us about charity. Hence, let us stop discussing about the issue raised by
Tamirat.
2. Her foreign policy plans are idiotic. Do not you know that she got bad grades in history when she was at
university?
3. Kebede is a person of bad character. Therefore, Kebede’s argument should not be accepted.
These arguments are directed to attack or abuse the person who made the claim instead of
attacking the claim or argument itself
B. Ad Hominem Circumstantial
 It begins the same way as the ad hominem abusive, but the respondent attempts to discredit the opponent’s
argument by mentioning to certain circumstances that affect the opponent.
 This fallacy, in some case, involves substituting an attack on person’s circumstances such as the person’s
religion, political affiliation, ethnic background, position, etc for evidences in an argument.
 This fallacy since it has the form “of course Mr. X argues this way; just look at the circumstance that affects
him.” it is done by not attacking the person, but the person’s circumstance.
 For Example
1. Dr. Tewodros advocates a policy of increasing financial spending for higher education. But that is not
innocent advocacy, for the reason that he is a college professor and would benefit financially from such a
policy.
2. Haileselassie I of Ethiopia argued in the League of Nations that member states should give hand to Ethiopia
to expel the fascist Italy from the country. But the member states should not listen to the king. Haileselassie I
 argue in this way because he wants to resume his power once the Italian are expelled from Ethiopia.

C. Tuquoque (‘‘you too’’): it is pronounced as “too kwo kway”

 It begins the same way as the other two varieties of the ad hominem argument, except that the second arguer
attempts to make the first appear to be hypocritical or arguing in bad faith.
 “You also or you do it, too” implies that person’s action are not consistent (contradicts) with that for which he
or she is arguing.
 In this you too fallacy, the second arguer usually accomplishes this by citing features in the life or behavior of
the first arguer that conflict with the latter’s conclusion.
 In effect, the second arguer says, ‘‘How dare you argue that I should stop doing X; why, you do (or have
done) X yourself.’’
 For Example
1. Child to parent: Your argument that I should stop stealing candy from the corner store is no good. You told
me yourself just a week ago that you, too, stole candy when you were a kid.
The above example tells us the second arguer rejects the first arguer opinion by attacking or abusing him or
her personality, character, motives, and qualification other than the argument.
2. Look Doctor, you cannot advise me to quit smoking cigarette because you yourself is a smoker. How do
you advise me to quit smoking while you yourself is smoking?

5) Fallacy of Accident
 It is committed when a general rule, truth or principle is applied to a specific case by accident that was not
intended to cover.
 The general rule is cited in the premises and then wrongly applied to the specific case mentioned in the
conclusion.
 Because of the “accidental’ features of the specific case, the general rule does not fit or is misplaced.
 For Examples
1. Freedom of speech is a constitutionally guaranteed right. Therefore, Abebe should not be arrested for his
speech that inspired the riot last week.
2. Kidist! All good students obey the order of their teachers. Hence, you should not refuse when your teacher
invites you for bed.

6) Straw Man Fallacy

 It is committed when an arguer distorts an opponent’s argument for the purpose of more easily attacking it,
demolishes the distorted argument, and then concludes that the opponent’s real argument has been
demolished.
 By so doing, the arguer is said to have set up a straw man and knocked it down, only to conclude that the real
man (opposing argument) has been knocked down as well.
 This fallacy occurs when the arguer attack misrepresentation of the opponent’s view.
 For Example:
1. Mary: We must not betray the principles of justice and democracy. Suspected terrorists must be granted
basic rights as well as legal representation and access to a fair court.
Tom: Mary is advocating the release of known terrorists. We cannot afford to allow our enemies to move
freely in our society.

2. Mr. Belay believes that ethnic federalism has just destroyed the country and thus it should be replaced by
geographical federalism. But we should not accept his proposal. He just wants to take the country back to the
previous regime. Geographical federalism was the kind of state structure during Derg and monarchical regime.
We do not want to go back to the past. Thus, we should reject Mr. Belay’s proposal.

The Main Features of Straw Man Fallacy

 First, there are two individuals or groups discussing about some controversial issues; the two has
opposite views. One of the arguers presents his views about the issues and the other is a critic.
 Second, the critic does not rationally criticize the main or the substantive argument of the opponent.
Rather he criticizes ideas which are the misrepresentation of the main content of the argument. He does
so for easy attacking the argument.
 Third, the critic concludes, by criticizing the misrepresented ideas that he knock down the main ideas.

7) Missing the Point (Ignoratio Elenchi)

 It occurs when the premise of an argument support one particular conclusion, but then a different conclusion,
often vaguely related to the correct conclusion is drawn.
 For Example
1. Crimes of theft and robbery have been increasing at an alarming rate lately. The conclusion is obvious: We
must reinstate death penalty immediately.
The premise of this argument supports several conclusions. At least two correct conclusions are
 implied by the premises of the argument.
 “we should provide increased police protection in the invulnerable neighborhoods”
 “We should initiate programs to eliminate the cause of the crimes.”
The punishment for theft and robbery should be very serious. But it does not support the claim that
the death penalty, therefore, reinstating the death penalty is not a logical conclusion at all.

2. Hawassa University has a lot of problems. Students’ services and facilities are inadequate. Many of the
instructors are inexperienced. It follows that; the university should be entirely closed.
The conclusion of the example misses logical implication from the premise.
The logical conclusion for the premise is not closing the university but it could have been stated in
other ways like:
 providing additional facilities for students,
 getting experienced instructors from other countries,
 developing the capacity of the administration of the university, and the like
 In general, the fallacy of missing the point is called ignoratio elenchi which means ‘‘ignorance of the proof.’’
 This means the arguer is ignorant of the logical implications of his or her own premises and, as a result, draws
a conclusion that misses the point entirely.

8) Red Herring
 It is committed when the arguer diverts the attention of the reader or listener by changing the subject to a
different but sometimes subtly related one.
 It usually appears in the form of appeal to humor, ridicule or appeal to thought provoking questions for the
purpose of diverting the attention of the audiences, which is logically irrelevant to the subject, issue or topic of
the debate raised first.
 For Example
1. The minister’s new education policy appreciative. Bezawit: Did you hear about his first son? He is going
to marry an orphanage girl. Before the minister is talking about in practical education policy; he should give
a lesson for his son to get a good wife. So, his new education policy is not appreciative.
This argument commits the fallacy of red-herring because the arguer diverts the subject or topic of
the argument for “new education policy appreciative” to marry an orphanage girl and get a good wife.
A topic which is irrelevance to the topic (the subject under discussion).
2. Interviewer: Your opponent has argued for immigration reform. Do you agree with her position?
 Candidate: I think the more important question confronting this great nation is the question of terrorism.
Let me tell you how I plan to defeat it.
3. Professor Conway complains of inadequate parking on our campus. But did you know that last year
Conway carried on a torrid love affair with a member of the English Department? The two used to meet
every day for clandestine sex in the copier room. Apparently they didn’t realize how much you can see
through that fogged glass window. Even the students got an eyeful. Enough said about Conway.

Lesson 3: Fallacies of Weak Induction

Definition of Fallacies of Weak Induction
 Usually fallacies of weak induction appear in inductive arguments and contain appeal to authority, argument
based on prediction, sign, analogy, inductive generalization, and causal inference.
 If the arguer made a kind of mistakes or errors in these forms of argumentation, the fallacies of weak induction
are committed.
 Fallacies of weak induction
 involve premises which are in some degree relevant to their conclusion but do not provide sufficient
support for them
 involve insufficient evidence because their premises provide shred or little evidence to the conclusion
 evaluated with respect to the degree of probability that they offer for their conclusion
 Like fallacies of relevance, the fallacies of weak induction involve emotional grounds for believing the
conclusion.
Types of Fallacies of Weak Induction
 Fallacies of weak induction contain six different types of informal fallacies. Namely,
1) Appeal to Unqualified Authority 4) The Fallacy of False Cause
2) Appeal to Ignorance 5) The Fallacy of Slippery Slope
3) Hasty Generalization (Converse Accident) 6) The Fallacy of Weak Analogy

1) Appeal to Unqualified Authority (Argumentum ad Verecundiam)

 It commits because of the person who presents argument which has not a legitimate authority on the subject
or the issue which he or she is arguing about.
 More specifically, when an individual we relied on to provide the information that we seek might be
unreliable due to the problems of
  lack of expertise in a certain profession
 bias or prejudice
 a motive to lie
 lack of the requisite ability to perceive or recall
 personality problem to disseminate wrong information
 For Example:
1. The famous artists, artist Woriku said that Vera Pasta is the most nutritious food. So Vera pasta must be the
most nutritious food.
Artist Worku could be good artists but we want to know whether he is an expert on nutrition and the
argument leave us in doubt about that.
2. Prof. Kebede, who is an expert in animal science, argued that, in more complex societies, there is higher
level of division of labor and in less complex societies; there is less division of labor.
This argument as you can see is flawed. This is because the expert’s field of specialization and the
conclusion he made are unrelated. He is an expert in biology but he gives us a witness on society.

2) Appeal to Ignorance (Argumentum ad Ignorantiam)

 It implies that lack of evidence or proof for something is used to support the truth of the conclusion.
 This fallacy is committed when the premises of an argument state that nothing has been proved one way or
the other about something due to lack of evidence rather than by knowledge or tangible information.
 There are two ways for appeal to ignorance fallacy to be committed:
 Arguing that something is true because no one has proved to be false.
 Arguing that something is false because no one has proved to be true.
 For Example:
1. Nobody has ever proved to me there’s a God, so I know there is no God.
2. After centuries of trying no one has been able to prove that God does not exist. Therefore, God exists.
The premises of the above arguments tell us nothing about the existence of God.
Rather concluding that God exists or does not exist based on the mere ground that no one has proved or
disproved it, the best way we have to do is simply to suspend our judgment about things which are incapable
of being proved. If we judge either way, our judgment would be fallacies.
Exceptions of Appeal to ignorance Fallacy
 Appeal to ignorance has two exceptions:
 I. The first stems from the fact that if qualified researchers investigate a certain phenomenon within their
range of expertise and fail to turn up any evidence that the phenomenon exists, this fruitless search by itself
constitutes positive evidence about the question.
 For Example:
 Teams of historian have tried for long time to verify the proposition that King Tewodros II of Ethiopia
did not commit suicide during the British attack of Maqdella but they failed to do so. Therefore, we
must conclude that King Tewodros actually committed suicide at Maqdella.
II. The second exception to the appeal to ignorance relates to courtroom procedure.
 In Ethiopia, a person is presumed innocent until proven guilty.
 If the prosecutor in a criminal trial fails to prove the guilt of the defendant beyond reasonable doubt, counsel
for the defense may justifiably argue that his or her client is not guilty.
 For Example:
 Members of the jury, you have heard the prosecution present its case against the defendant. Nothing,
however, has been proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Therefore, under the law, the defendant is not
guilty.
 This argument commits no fallacy because “not guilty” means, in the legal sense, that guilt beyond a
reasonable doubt has not been proved.
 The defendant may indeed have committed the crime of which he or she is accused, but if the prosecutor fails
to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, the defendant is considered “not guilty.”

3) Hasty Generalization (Converse Accident)

 The fallacy of hasty generalization is just the opposite of accident.
 This fallacy is committed whenever
 one arrives to a conclusion, on the basis of very little evidence
 generalization is asserted or concluded based on: very limited information, inadequate information,
and unrepresentative sample
 For Example:
1. I have met two persons in Hawassa town so far, and they were both nice to me. So, all people I will meet in
Hawassa will be nice to me.
2. Freshman Governance and Development Studies students of 2009 are 160 in number. Blood is taken out of
three students and upon examination of all, three students are found to have their blood type “B”. Therefore,
on the basis of this, I conclude that the rest of the students will also have the same blood type, which is “B”.
 3. Addis Zemen Gazeta carried an interview to know the reading skill among young people. It has found out
that, among ten young people it interviewed, none of them read a book for the last two years. The conclusion
is obvious: all young people in the country do not have the culture of reading books.

In the above examples, two persons, three students and ten young people are too small to represent
Hawassa town, 160 students and the young people in the country respectively.
 The mere fact that a sample may be small and large does not necessarily mean that it is atypical.
 In the case of small samples, various factors may intervene that render such a sample typical of the larger
group.
 For Example:
 On three separate occasions I drank a bottle of Meta beer and found it flat and bitter. Probably I would
find every bottle of Meta beer flat and bitter.
The above argument is not commits the fallacy of hasty generalization because the sample it takes is a
typical of the group.
The fact that the taste of beer typically remains constant from bottle to bottle causes the argument to be
strong, even though only three bottles were sampled.
 Hasty generalization is also called converse accident, because it proceeds from particular to general while
accident proceeds from the general to the particular.
4) False Cause Fallacy
 Argument from causality is a kind of argument which argues either
 from the knowledge of causes to the knowledge of effects or
 from the knowledge of the effect to the knowledge of causes
 The fallacy of false cause commits when the link between premises and conclusion depends on some imagined
causal connection that probably does not exist.
 There are three varieties of false cause fallacy, namely,
A. Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc Fallacy
B. Non Causa pro Causa Fallacy
C. Oversimplified cause
A. Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc Fallacy (Post Hoc Fallacy)
 The Latin expression Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc Fallacy traditionally refers to “after this, therefore, because
of this, or after this, therefore the consequence of this”.
 Sometimes this fallacy is called Post Hoc Fallacy.
 The post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy occurs when it is concluded that one event causes another because the
proposed cause occurred before the proposed effect.
 Post hoc fallacy presupposes that one event precedes another event. The first event causes the second. That is
event Y is caused by event X because event “Y” follows event “X”, or X precedes Y in time. This is way of
reasoning has the following form: event “X” occurs before event “Y”; therefore, event “X” is the cause for
event “Y”.
 For Example
1. During the last two months, the football team has worn red ribbons in their hairs, and the team was
defeated. Therefore, to prevent defeats in the future, the team should get rid of those red ribbons.
2. Every time I wash the car, it starts to rain shortly afterwards. Therefore, my car-washing activities are
causing outbursts of precipitation in the clouds.
The above two arguments commit the post hoc fallacy.
The first argument, for instance, considers the wearing of red ribbons in their hairs as a cause for the
defeating of the football team.
The second argument also considers the car-washing activity as the cause for outburst of precipitation
in the clouds.
B. Non Causa Pro Causa Fallacy
 The Latin phrase Non causa pro causa fallacy has been traditionally interpreted as “not the cause for the
cause”.
 This fallacy considers something as the cause of an effect when in reality it is not; and on the other hand when
a kind of confusion occurs between the causes and effect of a certain event.
 For Example
 There are more churches in Ethiopia today than ever before, and more HIV victims than ever before,
so, to eliminate the pandemic we must abolish the churches.
 Successful business executives are paid salaries in excess of $100,000. Therefore, the best way to
ensure that Ferguson will become a successful executive is to raise his salary to at least $100,000.

C. Over Simplified Cause Fallacy

 It is more probably committed than the other two varieties.
 The Over simplified cause fallacy occurs when a large number of causes are responsible for an effect, but the
arguer selects just one of these causes and represents it as if it is the sole cause of the event.
 For Example:
 The quality of education in our grade schools and high schools has been declining for years. Clearly
our teachers just are not doing their jobs these days.
 In Ethiopia, the grades of fresh students in universities have been dropping for several years. What
accounts for this? Well, during these same years, the average time students spend on face book (per
day) has increased. So, the cause is obvious: students are spending much of their time surfing on face
book when they need to be reading instead.

5) Slippery Slope Fallacy

 It occurs when
 We assume that series of events happen, after one other event as a result of the first cause.
 A certain argument rests on chains of events and the arguer fails to provide sufficient reasons why this
chain of events committed.
 One affirms an unjustifiable “chain reaction” of causes which, if it is allowed to continue leads
inevitably to disaster.
 For Example:
1. I know the impetus for the whole tragedy in her life. She was jobless and has no other choice but to join bar
ladies. While she was working in bars, she becomes infected with HIV/AIDS. Then, she becomes bedridden
patient and in the lost her life. All these misfortune fall up on her due to her dismissal from the university in
the first semesters of the first year.
The arguer, in the example, associated the death of a girl with her dismissal from the university,
without considering other factors that led her to join bar ladies, such as poverty, the problem of parents
that could advise her to head a good life even after she dismissed from the university.
2. Against cultural, social and religious norms of Ethiopia, a Chinese firm was authorized to run donkey
slaughter house in Bishoftu. But this company should be closed. If donkeys are continuously slaughtered and
exported, then Ethiopian who works in the abattoir will start to eat donkey meat. Then members of the family
of these workers will be the next to eat donkey meat. This gradually leads their neighbors and the village to
accept the same practice. Finally, the whole country will follow which in turn leads to the total collapse of
Ethiopian food culture.
The links in this alleged chain are weak. Opening donkey slaughter house in the country necessary
leads to adopting donkey meat as a culture is plainly to make a claim that is insufficiently supported by
the evidence.
 6) Weak Analogy

 It is an inductive argument in which the conclusion depends on the existence of analogy, or similarities
between two things.
 The fallacy of weak analogy is committed when
 important differences between two or more things compared are not real similar in the relevant
respects
 The analogy is not strong enough to support the conclusion.
 This fallacy has the following form:
Object “A” has attributes a, b, c, and z.
Object “B” has attributes a, b, c.
Therefore, object B probably has attributes z also.
 For Example:
1. Kebede’s new car is bright blue in color and has leather upholstery and gets excellent gas mileage. Taye’s
new car is also bright blue in color and has leather upholstery. Therefore, it probably gets excellent gas
mileage, too.

Lesson 4: Fallacies of Presumption

Definition of Fallacies of Presumption

 The fallacies of presumption committed when the arguer provides an argument that has premises which try to
presume what they purport to prove.
 The fallacies of presumption frequently have tricky and confusing phraseologies for the purpose of concealing
or hiding the wrong ideas stated in the premise.
 Even though the ideas stated in the premises are not supported by logical evidence or proof, the arguer invites
readers or listeners to accept his or her argument as it does not need proof or evidence.
Types of Fallacies of Presumption

 The fallacies of presumption include four different types of informal fallacies. Namely:
1) Begging the question 3) False dichotomy
2) Complex question 4) Suppressed evidence
 1. Begging the Question Fallacy (Petito Principii)
 The fallacy of begging the question occurs when
1) Leaving a possibly false key premise out of the argument while creating the illusion that nothing more
is needed to establish the conclusion.
For example:
Murder is morally wrong. This being the case, it follows that abortion is morally wrong.
Of course humans and apes evolved from common ancestors. Just look how similar they are.
The first of these arguments begs the question “How do you know that abortion is a form of murder?”
The second begs the question “Does the mere fact that humans and apes look similar imply that they evolved
from common ancestors?”
2) The conclusion of an argument merely restates a possibly false premise in slightly different language.
In such an argument, the premise supports the conclusion, and the conclusion tends to reinforce the
premise.
For example:
Capital punishment is justified for the crimes of murder and kidnapping because it is quite legitimate
and appropriate that someone be put to death for having committed such hateful and inhuman acts.
Saying that capital punishment is “justified” means the same thing as saying that it is “legitimate and
appropriate,”
3) Circular reasoning in a chain of inferences having a first premise that is possibly false.
For example:
Harar brewery clearly produces the finest beer in Ethiopia. We know they produce the finest beer
because they have the best chemist. This is because they can afford to pay them more than other
brewery. Obviously they can afford to pay them more because they produce the finest beer in the
country.

2. The Fallacy of Complex or Loaded Question

 Questions become fallacies when only they are dealt with their answers.
 The question is used as a premise and the response to it as a conclusion.
 This happens when the conclusion (that is, answer) is supported by confusing and tricky questions (that is,
 premises).
 This fallacy is committed when a single question that is really two or more questions is asked and a single
answer is then applied to both questions.
 For Example
I. Have you stopped cheating on exams?
 Let us suppose the respondent answers ‘‘Yes’’ to the question. The following argument comes out:
You were asked whether you have stopped cheating on exams.
You answered ‘‘Yes’’ to the question.
Therefore, it follows that you have cheated in the past.
 Let us suppose that the respondent answers ‘‘No’’ to the question. The following arguments comes out:
You were asked whether you have stopped cheating on exams.
You answered ‘‘No.’’
Therefore, you continue to cheat.
 Obviously, the above question is really two questions:
Did you cheat on exams in the past?
If you did cheat in the past, have you stopped now?
Therefore, this argument commits the fallacy of complex question. Because the arguer in his argument
gives two different questions as if they are one.
II. [Reporter's question] Mr. President: Are you going to continue your policy of wasting taxpayer’s money on
missile defense?
 The fallacy of complex question should be distinguished from another kind of question known in law as a
leading question.
 A leading question is one in which the answer is in some way suggested in the question.
 Whether or not a question is a leading one is important in the direct examination of a witness by counsel.
 For Example:
 Tell us, on April 9, did you see the defendant shoot the deceased? (Leading question)
 Tell us, what did you see on April 9? (Straight question)
 Leading questions differ from complex questions in that they involve no logical fallacies.
 They do not attempt to trick the respondent into admitting something he or she does not want to admit.

3. The Fallacy of False Dichotomy

 It can be also known as false bifurcation, false dilemma, black and white thinking, and “either…or…fallacy”.
 It is committed when
 The premise of an argument is an either… or…statement or a disjunctive statement that presents two
alternatives as if they were jointly exhaustive (as if no third alternative was possible)
 A person provides two alternatives, which are false, as the only option in the argument and then
eliminates one alternative and it seems that we are left with only one option. The one the arguer wanted
to choose. But, there are many different alternatives that the arguer fails to provide.
 For Example:
1. Classical democracy is originated either from the Gada System or from Athens.
Classical democracy did not originated from ancient Athens
Thus, it must originate from the Gada System.

2. Either you are going to buy me a new car or I will divorce you.
You do not want me divorce you
Thus, you have to buy me a new car
3. Well, it is time for a decision.
Will you contribute $10 to our environmental fund, or are you on the side of environmental destruction?

4. The Fallacy of Suppressed Evidence

 It is committed when the inductive argument ignores some important piece of evidences and entails an
extremely different conclusion.
 In such argument, the arguer intentionally or unintentionally suppresses or omits important evidence that fails
to support his or her position and emphasizes on some other reasons that are not such important to the
conclusion of the argument.
 For Example:
I. Hawassa University is the best university in Ethiopia; because it has very fat and tall teachers, finest
buildings and a number of students.
The key evidences omitted in the example such as the organization of the university, the qualification
and experience of instructors, equipment available for instruction, student services, and the likes.
The argument consists of insignificant evidences for determining the standard of a good university.
Thus, this argument commits the fallacy of suppressed evidence.
II. Somalia is a good place for investment for the following reasons. First there are cheap raw materials.
 Second there is cheap labor. Third there is good market for our product. Forth there is a port that helps us to
export our product. Thus we have to consider investing in Somalia.
The arguer ignores the fact that there is no peace and stability in Somalia then the argument commits a
suppressed evidence fallacy.
Linguistic Fallacies
 Linguistic fallacies are the result of a misuse of language, such as incorrect use of words, grammatical lack of
clarity, vagueness and other linguistic impressions.
 There are two types of linguistic fallacies, namely; fallacies of ambiguity and fallacies of grammatical
analogy.

Lesson 5: Fallacies of Ambiguity and Grammatical Analogy

5.1 Fallacies of Ambiguity
Definition of Fallacies of Ambiguity
 Fallacies of ambiguity arise from the occurrence of some form of ambiguity in either the premises or the
conclusion (or both).
 They are committed when misleading or wrong conclusion of an argument is drawn from ambiguous words or
sentences.
Types of Fallacies of Ambiguity
 The fallacies of ambiguity include two types of informal fallacies. Namely:
1. Equivocation
2. Amphiboly.

1. Equivocation

The fallacy of equivocation occurs when the conclusion of an argument depends on the fact that a word or
phrase is used, either explicitly or implicitly, in two different senses in the argument. Such arguments are
either invalid or have a false premise, and in either case they are unsound.

Examples:

Some triangles are obtuse. Whatever is obtuse is ignorant. Therefore, some triangles are ignorant.

Any law can be repealed by the legislative authority. But the law of gravity is a law. Therefore, the law of
gravity can be repealed by the legislative authority.

We have a duty to do what is right. We have a right to speak out in defence of the innocent.

Therefore, we have a duty to speak out in defence of the innocent.

In the first argument, “obtuse” is used in two different senses. In the first premise it describes a certain kind of
angle, while in the second it means dull or stupid. The second argument equivocates on the word “law.” In the
 first premise it means statutory law, and in the second it means law of nature. The third argument uses “right”
in two senses. In the first premise “right” means morally correct, but in the second it means a just claim or
power.

To be convincing, an argument that commits an equivocation must use the equivocal word in ways that are
subtly related. Of the three examples given above, only the third might fulfill this requirement. Since both uses
of the word “right” are related to ethics, the unalert observer may not notice the shift in meaning. Another
technique is to spread the shift in meaning out over the course of a lengthy argument. Political speechmakers
often use phrases such as “equal opportunity,” “gun control,” “national security,” and “environmental
protection” in one way at the beginning of a speech and in quite another way at the end.

7) Amphiboly

Activity # 3: Dear learners, what do you think is the fallacy of amphiboly?

The fallacy of amphiboly occurs when the arguer misinterprets an ambiguous statement and then draws a
conclusion based on this faulty interpretation. The original statement is usually asserted by someone other than
the arguer, and the ambiguity usually arises from a mistake in grammar or punctuation - a missing comma, a
dangling modifier, an ambiguous antecedent of a pronoun, or some other careless arrangement of words.
Because of this ambiguity, the statement may be understood in two clearly distinguishable ways. The arguer
typically selects the unintended interpretation and proceeds to draw a conclusion based upon it. Here are some
examples:

The tour guide said that standing in Mesqel Square, the new federal police building could easily be seen. It follows that
the Empire State Building is in Greenwich Village.

Habtom told Megeressa that he had made a mistake. It follows that Habtom has at least the courage to admit his own
mistakes.

The premise of the first argument contains a dangling modifier. Is it the observer or the building that is
supposed to be standing in Greenwich Village? The factually correct interpretation is the former. In the second
argument the pronoun “he” has an ambiguous antecedent; it can refer either to Habtom or Megressa. Perhaps
 Habtom told Megressa that Megreesa had made a mistake. Ambiguities of this sort are called syntactical
ambiguities.

Two areas where cases of amphiboly cause serious problems involve contracts and
wills. The drafters of these documents often express their intentions in terms of ambiguous statements, and
alternate interpretations of these statements then lead to different conclusions.

Examples:

Mrs. Zenebu stated that in her will that “I leave my house and my clothes to Lemma and Mengistu.”Therefore, we
conclude that Lemma gets the house and Mengistu gets the car.

In the first example, the conclusion obviously favors Lemma. Mengistu is almost certain to argue that the gift
of the clothes and the house should be shared equally by her and Lemma. Mrs. Zenebu could have avoided the
dispute by adding either “respectively” or “collectively” to the end of the sentence.

Amphiboly differs from equivocation in two important ways. First, equivocation is always traced to an
ambiguity in the meaning of a word or phrase, whereas amphiboly involves a syntactical ambiguity in a
statement. The second difference is that amphiboly usually involves a mistake made by the arguer in
interpreting an ambiguous statement made by someone else, whereas the ambiguity in equivocation is
typically the arguer’s own creation. If these distinctions are kept in mind, it is usually easy to distinguish
amphiboly from equivocation. Occasionally, however, the two fallacies occur together, as the following
example illustrates:

The Great Western Cookbook recommends that we serve the oysters when thoroughly stewed. Apparently the
delicate flavor is enhanced by the intoxicated condition of the diners.

First, it is unclear whether ‘‘stewed’’ refers to the oysters or to the diners, and so the argument commits an
amphiboly. But if ‘‘stewed’’ refers to the oysters it means ‘‘cooked,’’ and if it refers to the diners it means
‘‘intoxicated.’’ Thus, the argument also involves an equivocation.

5.2 Fallacies of Grammatical Analogy

The fallacies of grammatical analogy are grammatically analogous to other arguments that are good in every
respect. Because of this similarity in linguistic structure, such fallacious arguments may appear good yet be
 bad.

8) Composition

Activity # 4: Dear learners, what do you think is the fallacy of composition?

The fallacy of composition is committed when the conclusion of an argument depends on the erroneous
transference of an attribute from the parts of something onto the whole. In other words, the fallacy occurs
when it is argued that because the parts have a certain attribute, it follows that the whole has that attribute too
and the situation is such that the attribute in question cannot be legitimately transferred from parts to whole.

Examples:

Each player on this basketball team is an excellent athlete. Therefore, the team as a whole
is excellent.
Each atom in this piece of chalk is invisible. Therefore, the chalk is invisible.

Sodium and chlorine, the atomic components of salt, are both deadly poisons. Therefore,
salt is a deadly poison.

In these arguments, the attributes that are transferred from the parts onto the whole are
designated by the words “excellent,” “invisible” and “deadly poison,” respectively. In each case the
transference is illegitimate, and so the argument is fallacious. Not every such transference is illegitimate,
however. Consider the following arguments:

Every atom in this piece of chalk has mass. Therefore, the piece of chalk has mass.
Every component in this picket fence is white. Therefore, the whole fence is white ..

In each case, an attribute (having mass, being white) is transferred from the parts onto the whole, but these
transferences are quite legitimate. Indeed, the fact that the atoms have mass is the very reason why the chalk
has mass. The same reasoning extends to the fence. Thus, the acceptability of these arguments is attributable,
at least in part, to the legitimate transference of an attribute from parts onto the whole.
Further caution is required by the fact that composition is sometimes confused with hasty generalization. The
only time this confusion is possible is when the “whole” is a class (such as the class of people in a city or the
class of trees in a forest), and the “parts” are the members of the class. In such a case, composition proceeds
from the members of the class to the class itself. Hasty generalization, on the other hand, proceeds from the
specific to the general. Because it is sometimes easy to mistake a statement about a class for a general
statement, composition can be mistaken for hasty generalization. Such a mistake can be avoided if one is
careful to keep in mind the distinction between these two kinds of statements. This distinction falls back on
the difference between the collective and the distributive predication of an attribute. Consider the following
statements:

Statement One: Fleas are small.

Statement Two: Fleas are numerous.

The first statement is a general statement. The attribute of being small is predicated distributively; that is, it is
assigned (or distributed) to each and every flea in the class. Each and every flea in the class is said to be small.
The second statement, on the other hand, is a statement about a class as a whole, or what we will call a ‘‘class
statement.’’ The attribute of being numerous is predicated collectively; in other words, it is assigned not to the
individual fleas but to the class of fleas. The meaning of the statement is not that each and every flea is
numerous but that the class of fleas is large.

To distinguish composition from hasty generalization, therefore, the following procedure should be followed.
Examine the conclusion of the argument. If the conclusion is a general statement- that is, a statement in which
an attribute is predicated distributively to each and every member of a class- the fallacy committed is hasty
generalization. But if the conclusion is a class statement- that is, a statement in which an attribute is predicated
collectively to a class as a whole- the fallacy is composition.

Example:

Less gasoline is consumed by a car than by a truck. Therefore, less gasoline is consumed in the United States
by cars than by trucks.

At first sight this argument might appear to proceed from the specific to the general and, consequently, to
commit a hasty generalization. But in fact the conclusion is not a general statement at all but a class statement.
 The conclusion states that the whole class of cars uses less gas than does the whole class of trucks (which is
false, because there are many more cars than trucks). Since the attribute of using less gasoline is predicated
collectively, the fallacy committed is composition.

9) Division

Activity # 5: Dear learners, what do you think is the fallacy of composition?

The fallacy of division is the exact reverse of composition. As composition goes from parts to whole, division
goes from whole to parts. The fallacy is committed when the conclusion of an argument depends on the
erroneous transference of an attribute from a whole (or a class) onto its parts (or members).

Examples:

Salt is a non-poisonous compound. Therefore, its component elements, sodium and chlorine, are non-
poisonous.

The Royal Society is over 300 years old. General Merid Hussein is a member of the Royal Society. Therefore,
General Merid Hussein is over 300 years old.

In each case the attribute, designated respectively by the terms “non-poisonous,” and “over 300 years old,” is
illegitimately transferred from the whole or class onto the parts or members. As with the fallacy of
composition, however, this kind of transference is not always illegitimate. The following argument contains
no fallacy:

This piece of chalk has mass. Therefore, the atoms that compose this piece of chalk have mass.

Just as composition can sometimes be confused with hasty generalization (converse

accident), division can sometimes be confused with accident. As with composition, this confusion can occur
only when the “whole” is a class. In such a case, division proceeds from the class to the members, while
accident proceeds from the general to the specific. Thus, if a class statement is mistaken for a general
statement, division may be mistaken for accident. To avoid such a mistake, one should analyze the premises of
the argument. If the premises contain a general statement, the fallacy committed is accident; but if they contain
a class statement, the fallacy is division.

CHAPTER SIX

CATEGORICAL PROPOSITIONS

Chapter Overview:

Dear students, in the fifth chapter of this course, we have seen Logical Reasoning and Fallacies.
However, this chapter emphasizes the standard forms of categorical statements and their
immediate inferences, difference between the modern and traditional squares of opposition what
otherwise are called Boolean and Aristotelian Square of Oppositions, evaluating immediate
inferences: Venn Diagrams and Square of Oppositions and Logical Operations: Conversion,
Obversion, and Contraposition.

Chapter Objectives:

Having studied this lesson, you will be able to:

 Define what a categorical proposition is
 Explain the four standard categorical Propositions
 Explain the attributes of a categorical proposition in terms of quality and quantity
 Understand the immediate inferences based on the rules of conversion, obversion and
contraposition
 Describe the logical oppositions between the four propositions based on their square
of relations.

Lesson 1: General Introduction

Lesson overview:

Dear students, it is clear that the discussions so far, in the previous chapters, provide you clue
insights to what it means, in logic, categorical and proposition. A 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 in or excluded from the class denoted
by the predicate term. To put the same ideas in different words, a categorical proposition is a
statement that relates two sets, classes, groups or categories which are presented in their subject
or predicate positions that could be connected based on inclusion (partial/whole) or exclusion
(partial/whole) relations.

Lesson objectives:

At the end of this lesson, students will be able to:

 Understand what it categorical proposition mean.

 Recognize the various components of a standard forms of categorical proposition
 Distinguish the feasible difference between traditional and modern squares of opposition
What is Categorical Propositions?

Dear learners, , the term category or categorical, in this respect, refers to set of things, such as,
human beings, animals, plants, workers, ladies, and so on. In a categorical proposition, these and
other set of things appears in the subject and predicate part of a proposition. The term
proposition refers to the information content or meaning of a statement. However, to avoid
inconvenience, we can use the terms statement and proposition interchangeably for this purpose.
Categorical propositions are in general simple, easy or plain statements that relate two classes of
things based on the rule of exclusion or inclusion principles.

Here are some examples of categorical propositions:

 Every human being is mortal

 Nothing that is a human which is eternal
 There exists a fish that is a shark.
 There are plants which are not edible.

All the above statements are categorical propositions. This is due to the fact that in each
statement two sets of things are related either in the form of inclusion or exclusion. In the first
example, two set of things are given: human being (which is the subject of the statement) and
mortal (the predicate of the statement). And we see that these two classes (human beings and
mortal beings) are related based on inclusion relation, that is, without exception all human beings
are included part of in the class of mortal beings. This proposition is contrary to the third
proposition, because it says that human beings are not belonged (not included) in to the class of
eternal beings. This is to say that human beings are entirely excluded from the class of eternal
beings. In all the above cases, there are certain difficulties. The amount of the set of things is not
clearly stated based on fixed quantifiers. It is very difficult to determine the type of relation of
the two classes in the form of inclusion or exclusion. It is ambiguous to decide the attribute
(nature) of statements either negatively or positively and to determine their logical relation with
other statements. These and other related problems urge us to study categorical propositions
based on fixed logical standard-forms. Since any categorical proposition asserts that either all or
part of the class denoted by the subject term is included in or excluded from the class denoted by
the predicate term, it follows that there are exactly four types of categorical propositions:

 Those that assert that the whole subject class is included in the predicate class
 Those that assert that part of the subject class is included in the predicate class
 Those that assert that the whole subject class is excluded from the predicate class
 Those that assert that part of the subject class is excluded from the predicate class.

1.1 Standard-Forms of Categorical Proposition

Dear learners, to determine the validity and invalidity of the immediate inferences of categorical
statements and to identify the formal fallacies committed in invalid arguments based on the
criteria of logical rules, categorical propositions should be stated in standard form. A categorical
proposition that expresses these relations with complete clarity is called a standard-form
categorical proposition.

Dear learners, before we start dealing with the standard forms of categorical statements, you
need to recapitulate the main points of the previous discussions.

Activity # 1. Attempt the following Questions.

 What is Category?
  What is Proposition?
 Identify role of inclusion and exclusion.
The standard form of categorical propositions is designed in accordance with the rules of the
partial or whole inclusion and exclusion of the two classes stated in the subject and predicate of
the proposition. The whole subject class is included in the predicate class.( the principle of total
inclusion).

Example:

All men are mortal.

All birds are feathery.
All mammals are animals.

The whole subject class is excluded from the predicate class. (the principle of total exclusion).

Example:

No men are eternal.

No Muslims are Christians.
No blacks are white.

Partially the subject class is included in the predicate class.(the principle of partial inclusion).

Example:
Some birds are mammals.
Some politicians are liars.
Some students are lazy.

Partially the subject class is excluded from the predicate class.(the principle of partial exclusion).

Example:
Some snakes are not poisonous.
Some plants are not edible.
Some Ethiopians are not friendly.
 1.2 The Components of Categorical Propositions

Dear learners, We have defined Proposition in the technical sense, as

the meaning or information content of a statement.

Note that: For the purposes of this course, “proposition” and

“statement” are used interchangeably.” Thus for the purpose of this
course we will use “proposition” and “statement” interchangeably.

A proposition or statement is a sentence that is either true or false. This being the case,
categorical proposition is defined as a proposition that relates two classes, or categories. The
classes in question are denoted respectively by the subject term and the predicate term. The
proposition asserts that either all or part of the class denoted by the subject term is included in or
excluded from the class denoted by the predicate term. Accordingly, we have four propositions
and each of these propositions has quantifier, subject term, sentential connective and predicate
term. These are, in general, known as the components of a categorical proposition. Study the
following points.

▪ Quantifier = ‘All’, ‘No’ and ‘Some’ indicate the quantity or amount of the subject class.
▪ Subject term = any term (word) or phrase that consists of set of things.
▪ Copula = ‘Are’ and are ‘not’. The Latin copula is a sentential connective that relates the
subject and predicate terms.
▪ Predicate term – A term consisting set of things, which has some kind of relation with
the subject term.
Dear students, please note that the four components of standard form can, otherwise, be summarized as follow:
(1) Those that assert that the whole subject class is included in the predicate class
(2) Those that assert that 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,
(4) Those that assert that part of the subject class is excluded from the predicate class
The following is, therefore, the correct order of the standard form of a categorical proposition.

=Quantifier + subject term + copula + predicate term.

Consider the following example:

All members of the Ethiopian Medical Association are people holding degrees from recognized
academic institutions. This standard-form categorical proposition is analyzed as follows:
Quantifier: all

Subject term: members of the Ethiopian Medical Association

Copula: are

Predicate term: people holding degrees from recognized academic institutions

A categorical proposition is in standard form if and only if it is a substitution instance of one of

the following four forms:
 All S are P.
 No S are P.
 Some S are P.
 Some S are not P.
Given the subject an predicate terms and its four components, categorical propositions could be
stated in standard form symbolically -as follows.
All S are P = All members of S is in P class.
No S are P = No members of S is in P class.
Some S are P = At least one member of S is in P class.
Some S are not P = At least one member of S is not in P class.

Note: In logic, the quantifier “some” always mean “at least one”.

Example: Some businesses are not profitable.

Quantifier: Some
Subject term: businesses
Copula: are not
Predicate term: Profitable
Standard form: Some S are not P
 Lesson 2: Attributes of Categorical Propositions: Quality, Quantity, and
Distribution

Lesson overview:

Quality and quantity are attributes of categorical propositions. Here, it is useful to rephrase the
meaning of categorical propositions in class terminology:

Proposition Meaning in class notation

All S are P. Every member of the S class is a member of the P class; that is, the
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;
that 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 a member of the P class.

These are the three fundamental concepts that would help us to deal with the properties of the
four standard forms of categorical statement.

Lesson objectives:

At the end of this lesson, you will be able to:

 Know the four attributes of categorical proposition

 Understand how to represent different categorical propositions in ‘Letter’ ‘Names’.
Activity # 1: Dear students, please attempt the following questions:

1. What do you think of the need for representing categorical propositions by letter names?
2. Guess what are the four components of categorical proposition and their functions in
logical arguments?
A. Quality:
It refers to those set of things stated in the subject term that are included or excluded from
those set of things stated in the predicate term. If the subject term refers to those classes of things,
which are included (partially/entirely) in the predicate term, the proposition is said to be
affirmative, while if the subject term refers to those classes of things that are excluded
(partially/entirely) the proposition is said to be negative. Study the following table.
 Standard form Quality
All S are P Affirmative
No S are P Negative
Some S are P Affirmative
Some S are not P Negative

B. Quantity: The quantity of a categorical proposition is determined by the amount or quantity

of those set of things stated in the subject term. Accordingly, if the subject term
refers entirely, the quantity of the proposition is said to be universal, whereas, if
the amount of the subject class is stated partially, the quantity of the proposition
is said to be particular. Study the following table.

Standard form Quantity

All S are P Universal
No S are P Universal
Some S are P Particular
Some S are not P Particular

According to the quality and quantity of categorical propositions, logicians devised letter names
of the four propositions. Letter names of the standard forms of categorical propositions, in this
regard, would help us to:

 Save time and space

 Recapitulate the standard forms easily
 Apply various logical rules and study immediate inferences easily

Accordingly, the four letter names: A, E, I and O are devised to represent the four standard forms
of categorical propositions and it is summarized as follows.

Standard form Letter Name

All S are P A
 No S are P E
Some S are P I
Some S are not P O
Activity # 2
1. Write a proposition in which its letter name is “O”
Example: Some students are not clever.

__________________________________________________________________

2. Fill the blank space by writing “same” or “different”

A. Proposition A and I are __________ in quality and _________ in quantity.
B. Proposition E and O are __________ in quality and _______ in quantity.
3. Write the correct letter name and standard form on the given empty space.

Some S are P

E
All S are P
O

C. Distribution: The concept of distribution emphasizes the terms (the subject & predicate
terms) and not the proposition as such. If a term refers unambiguously the set of things
stated in it entirely the term is said to be distributed. It implies that attribute of the class is
distributed to each & every member of the class and we know clearly that the attribute is
shared similarly by every member of the class. If a term does not state the class of things
in this way, the term is said to be undistributed. Study the following table:

Standard form A term distributed A term undistributed

All S are P S P
 No S are P S and P None

Some S are P None S and P

Some S are not P P S

Dear learners, please consider that all the above discussions are summarized as follows.

Letter Name Standard form Quality Quantity Distribution

A All S are P Affirmative Universal S
E No S are P Negative Universal S&P
I Some S are P Affirmative Particular None

O Some S are not P Negative Particular P

How to determine the quality, quantity & distribution? Study the following example.

In a proposition: Some birds are mammals:-

It’s Letter name is I

Its Standard form is Some S are P
Its quality is Affirmative
Its quantity is Particular

A term, which is distributed, is none of the two terms.

A term, which is undistributed, is both terms (birds and mammals) are not distributed.

Lesson 3: Venn Diagrams and the Modern Square of Opposition

Lesson Overview:

The primary goal of our inquiry into categorical propositions is to disclose the role that such
propositions play in the formation of arguments. Accordingly, in such interpretations, an
argument might be valid or invalid. The standard forms of categorical statements can be
represented in diagrams. The first known diagram of categorical propositions is called Euler
diagram, after the 18th mathematician L. Euler. Later on, however, Euler diagram was found to
be ineffective in identifying valid & invalid categorical syllogistic arguments and thereby new
diagram for categorical propositions become indispensable.

Lesson Objectives:

At the end of this lesson, you will be able to:

• Understand what venn diagram ,in its broader sense, mean
• How to represent propositions/arguments in in diagram
• Distinguish the difference between modern and traditional square of opposition.

Activity #1:-
 What do you think of to represent arguments/categorical propositions in a diagram?
 Make a group of five and discuss the feasible difference and similarities, if any, between
modern and traditional squares of opposition.

3.1 Representing Categorical Propositions in Diagrams

Adopting this interpretation of categorical propositions, the nineteenth-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. 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 overlapping circles. Each circle is labeled so that it
represents one of the terms in the proposition. Unless otherwise required, we adopt the
convention that the left-hand circle represents the subject term, and the right-hand circle of the
predicate term. In such a diagram:

 The two categories (set of things) stated in the subject and predicate terms are
represented by two overlapping circles.
 The shading part of the diagram depicts that there no member of the class exists; that
 is it is null or empty.
 The “*” or simply “X” shows that there is at least one member of the class exists.

Study the following Venn diagrams.

1. Proposition A= All S are P

Ex. All Marists are revolutionary

The shaded part does not represent the proposition
All S are P, hence it is empty.

2. Proposition E = No S are P
Ex. No Marxists are revolutionary
The shaded part shows that the intersection area is
empty. For the proposition “No S are P” no middle
ground exists, hence the intersection area consists
no member of S and P

3. Proposition I = Some S are P

Ex. Some Marxists are revolutionary
The “X” sign depicts that there is at least one
member of the class of S which exists in the class of
P.
4. Proposition O = Some S are not P
5. Ex. Some Narcissists are not revolutionary.
The “X” sign is found outside the “P” circle, depicting that at least one member of S is not found
in P class.

Recall that the 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 circle. The E proposition asserts that no
members of S are inside ‘P’. This is represented by shading the part of the S circle that lies inside
the P circle. 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 S and P circles overlap. This X represents an
existing thing that is both an S and a P.

Finally, the O proposition asserts that 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 outside the P circle. Please note
that ‘X’ represents an existing thing that is an S but not a P.

3.2 Squares of Opposition: Traditional and Modern Squares of Opposition

Dear students, to understand the modern and traditional square of opposition, let us compare the
diagram for the A proposition with the diagram for the O proposition. The diagram for the A
proposition asserts that the left -hand part of the S circle is empty, whereas the diagram for the O
proposition asserts that this 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 to contradict
each other. Analogously, the diagram for the E proposition asserts that the area where the two
circles overlap is empty, whereas the diagram for the 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.
It is represented as follows:

If two propositions are related by the contradictory relation, they necessarily have opposite
truth value. Thus, if a certain ‘A’ proposition is given as true, the corresponding ‘O’ proposition
must be false. Similarly, if certain ‘I’ proposition is given as false, the corresponding ‘E’
proposition must be true. But no other inferences are possible. In particular, 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. These propositions are said to have logically undetermined truth value.
Like all propositions, they do have a truth value, but logic alone cannot determine what it is.
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 propositions. They, too, are said to have logically
undetermined truth value.

3.3 The Traditional Square of Opposition

In the previous lessons, we have adopted the Boolean standpoint, and we saw how the modern
square of opposition applies regardless of whether the propositions refer to actually existing
things. In this lesson, we adopt the Aristotelian standpoint, which recognizes that universal
propositions about existing things have existential import. For such propositions, the traditional
square of opposition becomes applicable. Like the modern square, the traditional square of
opposition is an arrangement of lines that illustrates logically necessary relations among the four
kinds of categorical propositions. However, because the Aristotelian standpoint recognizes the
additional factor of existential import, the traditional square supports more inferences than does
the modern square.
It is represented as follows:

The four relations in the traditional square of opposition may be characterized as follows:

Contradictory = opposite truth value

Contrary = at least one is false (not both true)

Sub contrary = at least one is true (not both false)

Sub alternation = truth flows downward, falsity flows upward

The contradictory relation is the same as that found in the modern square. Thus, if a certain A
proposition is given as true, the corresponding O proposition is false, and vice versa, and if a
certain A proposition is given as false, the corresponding O proposition is true, and vice versa.
The same relation holds between the E and I propositions. The contradictory relation thus
expresses complete opposition between propositions. The contrary relation differs from the
contradictory in that it expresses only partial opposition. Thus, if a certain A proposition is given
as true, the corresponding E proposition is false (because at least one must be false), and if an E
proposition is given as true, the corresponding A proposition is false. But if an A proposition is
given as false, the corresponding E proposition could be either true or false without violating the
“at least one is false” rule. In this case, the E proposition has logically undetermined truth value.
Similarly, if an E proposition is given as false, the corresponding A proposition has logically
undetermined truth value.

These results are borne out in ordinary language. Thus, if we are given the actually true A
proposition “All cats are animals,” the corresponding E proposition “No cats are animals” is
false, and if we are given the actually true E proposition “No cats are dogs, ”the corresponding A
proposition “All cats are dogs” is false. Thus, the A and E propositions cannot both be true.
However, they can both be false. “All animals are cats” and “No animals are cats” are both false.
The sub contrary relation also expresses a kind of partial opposition. If a certain I proposition is
given as false, the corresponding O proposition is true (because at least one must be true), and if
an O proposition is given as false, the corresponding I proposition is true. But if either an I or an
O proposition is given as true, then the corresponding proposition could be either true or false
without violating the “at least one is true” rule. Thus, in this case the corresponding proposition
would have logically undetermined truth value. If we are given the actually false I proposition
“Some cats are dogs,” the corresponding O proposition “Some cats are not dogs” is true, and if
we are given the actually false O proposition “Some cats are not animals,” the corresponding I
proposition “Some cats are animals” is true. Thus, the I and O propositions cannot both be false,
but they can both be true. “Some animals are cats” and “Some animals are not cats” are both
true. The sub alternation relation is represented by two arrows: a downward arrow marked with
the letter T (true), and an upward arrow marked with an F (false). These arrows can be thought of
as pipelines through which truth values “flow.” The downward arrow “transmits” only truth, and
the upward arrow only falsity. Thus, if an A proposition is given as true, the corresponding I
proposition is true also, and if an I proposition is given as false, the corresponding A proposition
is false. But if an A proposition is given as false, this truth value cannot be transmitted
downward, so the corresponding I proposition will have logically undetermined truth value.
Conversely, if an I proposition is given as true, this truth value cannot be transmitted upward, so
the corresponding A proposition will have logically undetermined truth value. Analogous
reasoning prevails for the sub alternation relation between the E and O propositions. To
remember the direction of the arrows for sub alternation, imagine that truth “trickles down,” and
falsity “floats” up.

Lesson 4: Evaluating Immediate Inferences: Using Venn Diagrams and

Square of Oppositions

Lesson Overview:

Dear learners, Since the modern square of opposition provides logically necessary results, we
can use it to test certain arguments for validity. We begin by assuming the premise is true, and
we enter the pertinent truth value in the square. We then use the square to compute the truth
value of the conclusion. If the square indicates that the conclusion is true, the argument is valid;
if not, the argument is invalid.

Arguments of this sort are called immediate inferences because they have only one premise.
Instead of reasoning from one premise to the next, and then to the conclusion, we proceed
immediately to the conclusion.

Lesson objectives:

At the end of this lesson, student will be able to:

 Understand different logical inferences and represent them on appropriate diagram

 Test the validity and invalid of different arguments in different diagrams
 Perform the operations of conversion, obversion, and contraposition as indicated
Activities # 1 please study following argument and attempt to evaluate it by using Venn
Diagrams and Square of Oppositions:
Some trade spies are not masters at bribery.
Therefore, it is false that all trade spies are masters at bribery.

Dear learners, in order to have better understanding on to evaluate inferences or to test argument
for validity, let’s reconsider ,once again the above example that:
Some trade spies are not masters at bribery.
Therefore, it is false that all trade spies are masters at bribery.

To evaluate this argument, we begin by assuming that the premise, which is an O proposition, is
true, and we enter this truth value in the square of opposition. We then use the square to compute
the truth value of the corresponding A proposition. By the contradictory relation, the A
proposition is false. Since the conclusion claims that the A proposition is false, the conclusion is
true, and therefore the argument is valid. Arguments that are valid from the Boolean standpoint
are said to be unconditionally valid because they are valid regardless of whether their terms
refer to existing things.

Note that the conclusion of this argument has the form “It is false that all S are P.” Technically,
statements of this type are not standard-form propositions because, among other things, they do
not begin with a quantifier. To remedy this difficulty we adopt the convention that statements
having this form are equivalent to “‘All S are P’ is false.” Analogous remarks apply to the
negations of the E, I, and O statements. We begin by assuming that the premise is true. Since the
premise claims that an A proposition is false, we enter “false” into the square of opposition. We
then use the square to compute the truth value of the corresponding E proposition. Since there is
no relation that links the A and E propositions, the E proposition has undetermined truth value.
Thus, the conclusion of the argument has undetermined truth value, and the argument is invalid.
We can also use Venn diagrams to test immediate inferences for validity. However, using this
technique often requires that we diagram statements beginning with the phrase “It is false that.”
Let us begin by showing how to diagram such statements. Here are two examples:

It is false that all A are B.

It is false that some A are B.

The first statement claims that “All A are B” is false. Thus, to diagram it, we do the exact
opposite of what we would do to diagram “All A are B.” To diagram “All A are B,” we shade the
left -hand part of the A circle:

To diagram “It is false that all A are B,” we enter an X in the left-hand part of the A circle.
Entering an X in an area is the opposite of shading an area:

Any statement that is diagrammed by entering an X in an area is a particular proposition. Thus,

as the diagram shows, “It is false that all A are B” is actually a particular proposition. By similar
reasoning, “It is false that no A are B” is also a particular proposition. To diagram “It is false that
some A are B,” we do the exact opposite of what we would do to diagram “Some A are B.” For
“Some A are B,” we would enter an X in the overlap area. Thus, to diagram “It is false that some
A are B,” we shade the overlap area:

If the information expressed by the conclusion diagram is contained in the premise diagram, the
argument is valid; if not, it is invalid. Here is the symbolized form of the trade spies inference
that we tested earlier.

Some T are not M.

Therefore, it is false that all T are M.

The next step is to draw two Venn diagrams, one for the premise and the other for the
conclusion. For the premise we enter an X in the left -hand part of the T circle, and for the
conclusion, as we have just seen, we enter an X in the left -hand part of the T circle:

To evaluate the inference, we look to see whether the information expressed by the conclusion
diagram is also expressed by the premise diagram. The conclusion diagram asserts that
something exists in the left -hand part of the T circle. Since this information is also expressed by
the premise diagram, the inference is valid. In this case, the diagram for the conclusion is
identical to the diagram for the premise, so it is clear that premise and conclusion assert exactly
the same thing.
Here is the symbolized version of the second inference evaluated earlier:

It is false that all M are C.

Therefore, no M are C.

To diagram the premise, we enter an X in the left -hand part of the M circle, and for the
conclusion we shade the overlap area:

Here, the conclusion diagram asserts that the overlap area is empty. Since this information is not
contained in the premise diagram, the inference is invalid. We conclude with a special kind of
inference that: the information of the conclusion diagram is not contained in the premise
diagram, so the inference is invalid. However, if the premise were interpreted as having
existential import, then the C circle in the premise diagram would not be empty. Specifically,
there would be members in the overlap area. This would make the inference valid.

Arguments of this sort are said to commit the existential fallacy. From the Boolean standpoint,
the existential fallacy is a formal fallacy that occurs whenever an argument is invalid merely
because the premise lacks existential import. Such arguments always have a universal premise
and a particular conclusion. The fallacy consists in attempting to derive a conclusion having
existential import from a premise that lacks it.

The existential fallacy is easy to detect. Just look for a pair of diagrams in which the premise
diagram contains shading and the conclusion diagram contains an X. If the X in the conclusion
diagram is in the same part of the left -hand circle that is unshaded in the premise diagram, then
the inference commits the existential fallacy. In the example we just considered, the premise
diagram contains shading, and the conclusion diagram contains an X. Also, the X in the
conclusion diagram is in the overlap area, and this area is unshaded in the premise diagram.
Thus, the inference commits the existential fallacy. All of these forms proceed from a universal
premise to a particular conclusion.
Existential fallacy:

All A are B.
Therefore, some A are B.
It is false that some A are not B.
Therefore, it is false that no A are B.
No A are B.
Therefore, it is false that all A are B.
It is false that some A are B.
Therefore, some A are not B.

Finally, while all of these forms proceed from a universal premise to a particular conclusion, it is
important to see that not every inference having a universal premise and a particular conclusion
commits the existential fallacy. For example, the inference “All A are B; therefore, some A are
not B” does not commit this fallacy. This inference is invalid because the conclusion contradicts
the premise. Thus, to detect the existential fallacy, one must ensure that the invalidity results
merely from the fact that the premise lacks existential import. This can easily be done by
constructing a Venn diagram.

4.1 Logical Operations: Conversion, Obversion, and Contraposition

Dear students, Conversion, Obversion, and Contraposition are operations that can be performed
on a categorical proposition, resulting in a new statement that may or may not have the same
meaning and truth value as the original statement. Venn diagrams are used to determine how the
two statements relate to each other.

 Conversion
Conversion-the rule of conversion emphasizes the change of the position of the subject to the
predicate and vice versa. Accordingly, by conversion the four propositions look like the
following. Study the following table.

Letter Name Given Proposition New statement by conversion

A All S are P All P are S
E No S are P No P are S
I Some S are P Some P are S
O Some S are not P Some P are not S

The simplest of the three operations is conversion, and it consists in switching the subject term
with the predicate term. For example, if the statement “No foxes are hedgehogs” is converted,
the resulting statement is “No hedgehogs are foxes.” This new statement is called the converse of
the given statement. To see how the four types of categorical propositions relate to their
converse, compare the following sets of Venn diagrams:

According to the rule of conversion:

Propositions E and I always gives the same truth-value. Hence, we can form a valid conversion
from the two propositions, taking the given proposition as premise and the converted one as
conclusion. If the given proposition is true, then the new converted proposition will be again
true. If the premise is false, then the conclusion will be false too. Symbolically:

No S are P = No P are S
Some S are P = Some P are S

Both propositions are equivalent and give us the same truth-value.

Example 1:

No birds are featherless (T) = given. No featherless are birds (T) = New (converted)

Based on the given and converted true statements we can form valid immediate inference.
Immediate inference is an argument consisting of only one premise and one conclusion.

Accordingly, the above propositions form a valid argument:

 Since no birds are featherless, therefore no featherless are birds.

 In other words, we can state this assumption by saying that
No birds are featherless, it implies that no featherless are birds.

The same is true for proposition I .

Some businesses are profitable = True (given)
Some profitables are businesses = True (converted)

However, proposition A and O would not give us the same truth-value always as in the case of
proposition E and I. The truth-value of the converted statements of A and O are undetermined,
that is, sometimes it gives us the same truth-value as the truth-value of the given proposition, in
another occasion they can give us a different truth-value than a given proposition.

Example 1: In proposition ‘A’

A. All men are mortal - True

All mortals are men = False which is different in truth value from the given
proposition.

B. All Muslims are Christians = False

 All Christians are Muslims = False – which is the same truth value as the given
proposition.

2. In Proposition (I)

A. Some athletes are not drug users = True

Some drug users are not athletes = True, same

B. Some Ethiopians are not Africans = False

Some Africans are not Ethiopians = True , different

These examples clearly show that we cannot form valid arguments form propositions A
and O

Activity # 2 Dear students, do you remember how a deductive argument is evaluated as valid or
invalid?

We have the confidence in you that, you did not forget the two basic factors for an argument to
be invalid:

1. When the premise is true and the conclusion is false

2. When the premise become unsupportive and irrelevant to the claims of the conclusion:

Based upon these two requirements the immediate fallacies of propositions A and O in
conversion:

 Would give us inconsistent truth values

 The information content of the premise is unsupportive and not harmonious to the
conclusion
Dear learners,

Do you know about fallacies? You have to know that fallacies are mistakes committed
in arguments which deludes us into thinking that the mistaken argument as correct one.
They are classified as formal and informal fallacies. Informal fallacies can be detected
by examining the logical problem in the argument, while formal fallacies can be known
simply by their logically incorrect forms that are by the position of terms, quantifiers
and statements. The diagram for the A statement is clearly not identical to the diagram
for its converse, and the diagram for the O statement is not identical to the diagram for
its converse. Also, these pairs of diagrams are not the exact opposite of each other, as is
the case with contradictory statements. This means that an A statement and its converse
are logically unrelated as to truth value, and an O statement and its converse are
logically unrelated as to truth value. In other words, converting an ‘A’ or ‘O’ statement
gives a new statement whose truth value is logically undetermined in relation to the
given statement. The converse of an A or O statement does have a truth value, of
course, but logic alone cannot tell us what it is. Because conversion yields necessarily
determined results for E and I statements, it can be used as the basis for immediate
inferences having these types of statements as premises. The following inference forms
are valid:

No A are B.
Therefore, no B are A.
Some A are B.
Therefore, some B are A.

Since the conclusion of each inference form necessarily has the same truth value as the premise,
if the premise is assumed true, it follows necessarily that the conclusion is true. On the other
hand, the next two inference forms are invalid. Each commits the fallacy of illicit conversion:

All A are B.
Therefore, all B are A.
Some A are not B.
Therefore, some B are not A.

Here are two examples of inferences that commit the fallacy of illicit conversion:

All cats are animals. (True)

Therefore, all animals are cats. (False)
Some animals are not dogs. (True)
Therefore, some dogs are not animals. (False)
Accordingly, the immediate inferences of proposition A and O in the case of conversion are
invalid and the formal fallacy committed in the invalid arguments of these propositions is called
illicit conversion. It is a logically incorrect conversion; hence, it is named as illicit conversion.

 Obversion The logical rule of obversion has two steps:

a. Change the quality without changing its quantity

b. Change the predicate by its term complement. A term which has opposite
meaning against the meaning of a given term is called term complement. A
term complement for black is white, and for the term Ethiopians is non-
Ethiopians or those that are not Ethiopians.

Study the following tabular demonstration:

Letter Name Given Proposition New Statement

By Obversion

A All S are P No S are non-P

E No S are P All S are non-P

I Some S are P Some S are not non-P

O Some S are not P Some S are non –P

We now have everything we need to form the obverse of categorical propositions. First, we
change the quality (without changing the quantity), and then we replace the predicate term with
its term complement. For example, if we are given the statement “All horses are animals,” then
the obverse is “No horses are non-animals”; and if we are given the statement “Some trees are
maples,” then the obverse is “Some trees are not non-maples.” To see how the four types of
categorical propositions relate to their obverse, compare the following sets of Venn diagrams:
Do you understand how the standard forms of the four propositions are obverted? To make the
first rule of obversion, change the quality without changing its quantity. The affirmative
quantifier “all “has to be replaced by the negative quantifier “no.” This is to change the
affirmative quality of the proposition into negative quality. And again the quantity of these
propositions are universal, that is the propositions that begins by “All S are “and “No S are” are
both universal in quantity.

3. The affirmative proposition “some S are “should be replaced as “some S are not” for the
purpose of changing its quality. Besides, the predicate should be replaced by its opposite
term, which has different meaning than a given term, symbolically represented as “non-P”.
According to the rule of obversion, all the four propositions would give us the same truth-
value as it is in the given proposition. This is to mean that if the given proposition is true, like
for example, all S are P is true, then the new obverted statement, No S are non-P, is also be
true. If the given proposition is false, the new obverted statement will be false too. It is the
 same for all propositions. Example: I = Some student are clever. (True)
Some students are not lazy. (True) by obversion.
E= No leaders are liars (False
All leaders are honest. (False)
Since the truth value of the given and obverted statement have the same truth-value and the
information content of the two propositions are the same, if we consider the given proposition as
premise and the obverted statement as conclusion, the immediate inference is always valid,
hence commits no formal fallacy. The following inference forms are valid:

All A are B. Some A are B.

Therefore, no A are non-B. Therefore, some A are not non-B.
No A are B. Some A are not B.
Therefore, all A are non-B. Therefore, some A are non-B.

Because the conclusion of each inference form necessarily has the same truth value as its
premise, if the premise is assumed true, it follows necessarily that the conclusion is true.

 Contraposition
According to the rule of contraposition, we have to change the position of the subject to the
predicate and vice versa; and, we should to replace the predicates and the subject terms by their
term complements.
Study the following table.

Latter Name Given Proposition New statement by

Contraposition
A All S are P All non-S are non-P
E No S are P No non- S are non-P
I Some S are P Some non- S are non –P
O Some S are not P Some non –S are not no –P

According to the rule of contraposition, proposition ‘A’ and ‘O’ would give us the same truth
value, while proposition E and I do not. This is just the opposite of what we have observed in the
case of conversion. Please the following contrapositions.

A = All worshipers are believers = True

All non- believers are non- worshipers = True
When it is correctly phrased:-
All atheists are un worshipers
O = Some delicious foods are not good for health = True
Some that are bad for health are bad foods = True

Like obversion, contraposition requires two steps: (1) switching the subject and predicate terms
and (2) replacing the subject and predicate terms with their term complements. For example, if
the statement “All goats are animals” is contraposed, the resulting statement is “All non-animals
are non-goats.” This new statement is called the contrapositive of the given statement. To see
how all four types of categorical propositions relate to their contrapositive, compare the
following sets of diagrams:

As with conversion and obversion, contraposition may provide the link between the premise and
the conclusion of an immediate inference. The following inference forms are valid:
All A are B.
Therefore, all non-B are non-A.
Some A are not B.
Therefore, some non-B are not non-A.

On the other hand, the following inference forms are invalid. Each commits the fallacy of illicit
contraposition:

Some A are B.
Therefore, some non-B are non-A.
No A are B.
Therefore, no non-B are non-A.

Here are two examples of inferences that commit the fallacy of illicit contraposition:

No dogs are cats. (True)

Therefore, no non-cats are non-dogs. (False)
Some animals are non-cats. (True)
Therefore, some cats are non-animals. (False)

Note that both illicit conversion and illicit contraposition are formal fallacies: They can be
detected through mere examination of the form of an argument.