CHAPTER TWO

BASIC CONCEPTS OF LOGIC

Chapter Objectives:
 To understand the meaning and basic concepts of logic;
 To understand the meaning, components, and types of arguments;
 To recognize the major techniques of recognizing and evaluating
arguments.
 2. 1. Basic Concepts of Logic: Arguments, Premises and Conclusions

I. Meaning of Logic
 Etymologically, the term “logic” is derived from the Greek
word “Logos” which means reason, thought, principle, law,
etc.
 It is the science that evaluates arguments.
 It is a systematic study of reasoning, and reasoning is in what
we do when we draw a conclusion on the basis of other
claims.
 Logic deals with formulating the right principles of reasoning;
and developing scientific methods of evaluating the validity
and soundness of arguments.
 II. Purpose of Logic
 The purpose or objective of logic is:
 To test, evaluate and analyze arguments of one’s own and the
arguments of others.
 To increase confidence of arguers
 III. Benefit of Studying Logic?

 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 defence 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;
 Cont…
 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, and to distinguish the rational from irrational and the sane
from the insane and so on.
 The Meaning of Argument
 Argument :
 A sentence or group of sentences which contains at least one
premises and a conclusion.
 A systematic combination of two or more statements, which are
classified as a premise / premises and conclusion.
 An argument consists of one or more statements, called premises,
offered as reason to believe that a further statement, called the
conclusion, is true.
 Technically speaking, premises and conclusions should be made up
of statements.
 All arguments may be placed in one of two basic groups: those in
which the premises really do support the conclusion and those in
which they do not even though they are claimed to.
 The former are said to be good arguments, the latter is bad
arguments.
  Statement
 A statement is a declarative sentence, which is to say a sentence that
is capable of being true or false.
 In addition to declarative sentences, there are also interrogative,
imperative, and exclamatory sentences.
 The sentences that make up an argument are all declarative
sentences; that is, they are all statements.
 Note that all statements are sentences but not
all sentences are statements. Examples:
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) are all grammatically
correct sentences that are not statements.
 They are not statements because it makes no sense to say they are
true or false.
 Cont…
 Statements will always be true or false, never both, and never
neither. Example:
o 2+2 = 4 (T)
o Dr. Abiy Ahmed is the current Prime Minister of Ethiopia. (T)
o Ethiopia was colonized by Germany. (F)
 N.B. The mere fact that a passage contains two or more statements
cannot guarantee the existence of an argument.
 Hence, an argument is a group statement, which contains at least one
premise and one and only one conclusion.
 The reasoning process expressed by an argument is said to be
inference.
 Inference, in logic, derivation of conclusions from given information
or premises by any acceptable form of reasoning.
  Premise
 Is the statement which provides reason (evidence) for believing
the truth of the conclusion
 It is the statement on the basis of which the conclusion is
affirmed.
 The statement, which is claimed to provide a logical support or
evidence to the main point of the argument( conclusion).
 Conclusion
 The sentence which is inferred from the premises, or a sentence
which is represented as being true if true premises are true. .

 Is the statement that is claimed to follow from the premise/

 Cont…
 Let us now construct an argument:

Example-1: Example-2:

1) All Ethiopians are Africans. 2) Some Africans are black.

(Premise 1) (Premise-1)

Tsionawit is Ethiopian. Zelalem is an African. (Premise-

(Premise2) 2)

Therefore, Tsionawit is Therefore, Zelalem is black.

African. (Conclusion) (Conclusion)
 Cont…
 In both arguments, the first two statements are premises, because
they are claimed to provide evidence for the third statement,
whereas the third statement is a conclusion because it is claimed
to follow from the given evidences.
 The claim that the premises support the conclusion, and (the
conclusion that follow from the premises), is indicated by the
word “therefore”.
 Depending on the logical and real ability of the premise(s) to
support the conclusion, an argument can be either a good(well-
supported) argument or a bad (poorly-supported)argument.
 Cont…
 For example, compare the above two examples.
 In the first argument, the premises really do support the
conclusion, they give good reason for believing that the conclusion
is true, and therefore, the argument is a good one.
 But the premises of the second argument fail to support the
conclusion adequately.
 Even if they may be true, they do not provide good reason to
believe that the conclusion is true.
 Therefore, it is bad argument, but it is still an argument.
 How can we distinguish premises from conclusion and vice versa?

 There are two ways of identifying conclusion and premises. These

are:
 Using indicator words and
 using inferential claim
I. Using indictors:
– Conclusion follows from the conclusion indicator and premises
follow from premise indicators.
– Mere occurrence of indicators is not guarantee for the existence
of an argument.
– E.g. since 1991, Ethiopia has adopted ethnic federalism
Premise Indicators Conclusion indicators

Since Therefore So
as indicated by Wherefore
because Accordingly
for Provided that
in that It must be that
may be inferred from We may conclude
as Entails that
given that Hence
seeing It shows that
for the reason that Thus
owing to Consequently
indicated by As a result
may be deduced from It implies that
 Cont…
 In argument that contains any of the conclusion indicator words,
the statement that follows the indicator word can usually be
identified as the conclusion.
 Example:

All dogs are mammals.

No mammals are birds.
Thus, no dogs are birds.
 Based on the above rule, the conclusion of this argument is “no
dogs are birds’’ because it follows the conclusion indicator word
‘Thus’, and the other two statements are premises.
 Cont…

 Similarly, in argument that contains any of the premise indicator

words, the statement that follows the indicator word can usually be
identified as the premise.

 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.
 Cont…
 One premise indicator not included in the above list is “for this
reason.”
 This indicator is special in that it comes immediately after the
premise it indicates and before the conclusion.
 We can say that in the middle place between the premise and the
conclusion, this indicator can be both premise and conclusion
indicator.
 Cont…
II. Using Inferential Claim
 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.
 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 that the country should increase
the size and quality of its military.
 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. (P3)
Thus, the country should increase the quality and quantity of its
military. (C)
 Cont…
 Passages that contain arguments sometimes contain statements that
are neither premises nor conclusion.
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.
 2.2. Techniques of Recognizing Arguments

 There are two criteria for a passage to be argument:

– Factual Claim (At least one of the statements must claim to

present evidence or reasons). A claim that something is true.
– Inferential claim (there must be a claim that something
follows from the alleged evidence).
 The inferential claim is simply the claim that the passage expresses
a certain kind of reasoning process- that something supports or
implies something or that something follows from something.
 It can be explicit (indicated by indicators) or implicit (identified
by inferential relationship between the statements in a passage).
 Example of Explicit inferential claim:
 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.
 Hence, the passage is an argument.

Example of Implicit inferential claim:

• 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.
 Cont…
 The inferential relationship between the first statement and the
other two constitutes an implicit claim that evidence supports
something, so we are justified in calling the passage an argument
though it does not contain indicator word.
 The first statement is the conclusion, and the other two are the
premises.
 2.2 Recognizing Non-argumentative Passages

 Non-argumentative passages are passages, which lack an

inferential claim. These include:
a) simple non-inferential passage
b) expository passages,
c) illustrations,
d) explanations, and
e) conditional statements.
 Therefore, for a passage to be an argument, it not only should
contain premises and a conclusion but also an inferential claim
or a reasoning process.
 Forms of non-argumentative passages

1. Simple Non-inferential Passages

 Simple non-inferential passages are unproblematic passages that
lack a claim that anything is being proved.
 Such passages contain statements that could be premises or
conclusions (or both), but what is missing is a claim that any
potential premise supports a conclusion.
 Passages of this sort include warnings, pieces of advice,
statements of belief or opinion, loosely associated statements,
and reports.
 Cont…
 Example of Warning:
 Whatever you promise to tell, never confide political secrets to
your wife.
 Example of Advice:
 After class hours, I would suggest that you give careful
consideration to the subject matter you have discussed.
 Example of Statement:
 We believe that our university must develop and produce
outstanding students who will perform with great skill and fulfill
the demands of our nation.
 In the above passages, no evidence is given to prove that the
statement is true; and if no evidence is given to prove that the
statement is true, then there is no argument.
 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 is a stylized relation of artist to mass audience in the sports,
especially in baseball. Each player develops a style of his own-the
swagger as he steps to the plate, the unique windup a pitcher has,
the clean-swinging and hard-driving hits, the precision quickness
and grace of infield and outfield, the sense of surplus power behind
whatever is done.
 In this passage the topic sentence is stated first, and the remaining
sentences merely develop and flesh out this topic sentence. This
passage is not argument, because it lacks an inferential claim.
 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.
 Illustrations are 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 - namely, how
chemical elements and compounds can be represented by formulas.
 4. Explanations
 Is one of the most important kinds of non-argument
 It 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.
 Cont…
 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.”
 The explanandum is the statement that describes the event or
phenomenon to be explained, and the explanans is the statement or
group of statements that purports to do the explaining.
 In other words, the purpose of the explanans is to show why
something is the case, whereas in an argument, the purpose of the
premises is to prove that something is the case.
 5. Conditional Statements
 Conditional statements have two parts: antecedent and
consequent
If---antecedent-----then---consequent--------------
Consequent ------ if -----antecedent-----------------
 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).
Example:
 If you study hard, then you will score “A”grade.
 However, there is an occasion that the order of antecedent and
consequent is reversed.
 For example if we left out “then” from the above example the
antecedent and consequent is reversed: You will score “A‟
grade if you study hard.
 Cont…
 Single conditional statements are not arguments
E.g. If iron is dense than mercury, then it will float in mercury.
 Conditional statements are especially important in logic because
they express the relationship between necessary and sufficient
conditions.
 ‘A’ is a sufficient condition for ‘B’ = occurrence of A is need for
occurrence of ‘B’
 ‘A’ is a necessary condition for ‘B’ = B can’t occur without the
occurrence of A.
 Example:
– 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.
 Types of Arguments: Deduction and Induction
 Arguments can generally be divided into deductive and inductive
arguments.
Deductive Arguments
 A deductive argument is an argument in which the premises are
claimed to support the conclusion in such a way that it is
impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion false.
 A deductive argument claims (explicitly or implicitly) that if the
premises all are true, then the conclusion must be true.
 Deductive arguments thus aim to establish their conclusions with
complete certainty in such a way that the conclusion is guaranteed
to be true if the premises all are true.
 In such arguments, the conclusion is claimed to follow necessarily
(conclusively) from the premises.
Cont…
 Cont…
 The above two examples are instance 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.
 2.3.2 Inductive Arguments
 An inductive argument is an argument in which the premises are
claimed to support the conclusion in such a way that it is improbable
that the premises be true and the conclusion false.
 An inductive argument claims (explicitly or implicitly) that if the
premises all are true, the conclusion is thereby probably, or likely,
true, although not absolutely guaranteed.
 An inductive argument does not attempt to guarantee that its
conclusion is true; however, it aims to show that we have good
reasons to accept the conclusion as true.
 In such arguments, the conclusion is claimed to follow only probably
from the premises.
 The premises may provide some considerable evidence for the
conclusion but they do not imply (necessarily support) the
 Cont…
 In this case, we might have sufficient condition (evidence) but we
cannot be certain about the truth of the conclusion.
 An inductive argument can be either strong or weak, depending on
its actually ability to successfully maintain its inferential claim.
 That is, if the premise(s) of a certain inductive argument actually
support its conclusion in such a way that it is improbable for the
premises to be true and the conclusion false, then that particular
inductive argument is strong.
 If, however, its premise(s) actually support its conclusion in such a
way that it is probable for the premises to be true and the
conclusion false, then that particular inductive argument is weak.
 Cont…

 Depending on its actually ability to successfully maintain its

inferential claim as well as its factual claim, an inductive argument
can be either cogent or uncogent.
 That is, if an inductive argument actually maintained its inferential
claim, (i.e., if it is strong), and its factual claim, (i.e., if all of its
premises are probably true), then that particular inductive
argument will be a cogent argument.
 However, if it fails to maintain either of its claims, it will be an
uncogent argument.
 Cont…

 Both of the above arguments are inductive. In both of them, the

conclusion does not follow from the premises with strict necessity,
but it does follow with some degree of probability.
 That is, the conclusion is claimed to follow from the premises only
probably; or the premises are claimed to support their
corresponding conclusion with a probability.
 In other words, if we assume that the premises are true, then based
on that assumption it is probable that the conclusion is true.
 If we, for example, assume that most African leaders were blacks
and that Mandela was an African leader, then it is improbable that
Mandela not been a black, or it is probable that Mandela was black.
 Differentiating Deductive and Inductive Arguments
 The distinction between inductive and deductive arguments lies in
the strength of an argument‘s inferential claim. i.e. how strongly
the conclusion is claimed to follow from the premises, or how
strongly the premises are claimed to support the conclusion.
 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, and
3. The character or form of argumentation the arguers use.
 1. The Occurrence of Special Indicator Words

 Arguments may contain some words that indicate the arguer‘s

certainty and confidence, or the arguer‘s uncertainty or doubt, about
the truth of his/her conclusion.
 Words like “certainly,” “necessarily,” “absolutely,” “definitely”
Undeniably, and it must be that indicate that the argument should
be taken as deductive,
 Whereas words like, “probable” “improbable,” “plausible,”
“implausible,” “likely,” “unlikely,” and “reasonable to
conclude” suggest that an argument is inductive.
 2. The actual strength of the inferential link b/n premises
and conclusion
 This is the second factor that bears upon our interpretation of an
argument as inductive or deductive.
 If the conclusion actually does follow with strict necessity from
the premises, the argument is clearly deductive.
 If 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.
 Cont…

Consider the following examples.

 Example-1: All Ethiopian people love their country.

Debebe is an Ethiopian.
Therefore, Debebe loves his country
 Example-2: The majority of Ethiopian people are poor.

Alamudin is an Ethiopian.
Therefore, Alamudin is poor.
 In the first example, the conclusion follows with strict necessity
from the premises.
 Cont…
 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 not follow from the
premises with strict necessity, but it does follow with some degree
of probability.
 Thus, it is best to interpret the second argument as inductive.
 3. Instances of Deductive Argumentative Forms
 Many arguments have a distinctive character or form that indicates
that the premises are supposed to provide absolute support for the
conclusion.
 Five examples of such forms or kinds of argumentation are:

I. Arguments based on mathematics,

II. arguments from definition, and
III. syllogisms:
~ categorical,
~ hypothetical, and
~ disjunctive syllogisms.
 I. Argument Based on Mathematics:
It is an argument in which the conclusions depend on some purely
arithmetic or geometric computation or measurement. For example:
1. you can put two orange and three bananas in a bag and conclude that
the bag contains five fruits.

2. X has three times of the age of Y. Y is 9 years old. Thus, x is 27

years of age.
 Since this arguments in pure mathematics are deductive, we can
usually consider arguments that depend on mathematics to be
deductive as well.
 A noteworthy exception, however, is arguments that depend on
statistics are usually best interpreted as inductive.
 II. 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:
1. One may argue that Angel is honest; it is follows that Angel tells the
truth.
2. Kebede is a physician; therefore, he is a doctor.
3. A bachelor is an unmarried man. Bob is a man, and Bob is
unmarried, so Bob is a bachelor.
 These arguments are deductive because their conclusions follow with
necessity from the definitions ‘honest’ and ‘physician’ and
‘bachelor’.
 III. Syllogisms
 Syllogisms can be categorized into three groups; categorical,
hypothetical, and disjunctive syllogism.

A. Categorical syllogism:
 Categorical syllogism is a syllogism in which the statement begins
with one of the words “all”, “no” and “some”.
 Example: All Egyptians are Muslims.

No Muslim is a Christian.
Hence, no Egyptian is a Christian.
 Arguments such as these are nearly interpreted as deductive.
 Cont…
B. Hypothetical Syllogism:
 It is a syllogism having a conditional statement for one or both
of its premises. Example:
 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.
 If I do not wake up, then I cannot go to work.
If I cannot go to work, then I will not get paid.
Therefore, if I do not wake up, then I will not get paid
 Such arguments are best interpreted as deductive.
 Cont…
C. Disjunctive syllogism:
 It is a syllogism having a disjunctive statement. (I.e. an “either …
or” statement.) Example:
 Rewina is either Ethiopian or Eritrean.

Rewina is not Eritrean.

Therefore, Rewina is Ethiopian.
 The cake has either chocolate or vanilla frosting.

The cake does not have vanilla frosting.

Therefore, the cake has chocolate frosting
 Such arguments are usually best taken as deductive.
 3. Instances of Inductive Argumentative Forms
 Inductive arguments are such that the content of the conclusion is
in some way intended to “go beyond” the content of the premises.
 Such an argument may take any of several forms. The are:
 Predictions about the future,
 Arguments from analogy,
 Inductive generalizations,
 Arguments from authority,
 Arguments based on signs, and
 Causal inferences, etc
 A. Prediction:
 In a prediction the premises deals with some known event in the
present or the past and the conclusions moves beyond this event to
some event to relative future.
For example
 One may argue that because certain clouds develop in the center
of the highland, a rain will fall within twenty-four hours.
 Nearly everyone realizes that the future cannot be known with
certainty.
 Thus, whenever an argument makes a prediction about the future
one is usually justified considering the argument inductive
 B. 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
 Aster’s Car is blue in color, travels 300 kms.hr. and made in
Japan.
Hana’s Car is also blue in color, and travels 300kms/hr.
Hence, Hana’s car may be made in Japan.
 Computer A and Computer B both are manufactured by 2012.

Computer A is fast processing.

Hence, Computer B is fast processing.
 C. An Inductive Generalization:
 It is an argument that proceeds from the knowledge of a selected
sample to some claim about the whole group.
For example,
 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.
 This example illustrate the use of statistics in inductive
argumentation
 D. An argument from authority:
 It is an argument in which the conclusions rest upon a statement
made by some presumed authority or witness. Example:
1. A lawyer, for instance, may argue that the person is guilty because
an eyewitness testifies to that effect under oath.
2. One may argue that all matters are made up of a 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.
 E. Arguments based on sign:
 It is an argument that proceeds from the knowledge of a certain
sign to the knowledge of a thing or situation that the sign
symbolizes.
 For instance, 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.
 F. A causal inference:
 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).
 Conversely, after tasting a piece of chicken and finding it dry and
tough, one might conclude that it had been overcooked (effect to
cause).
 Because specific instances of cause and effect can never be known
with absolute certainty, one may usually interpret such an argument
as inductive
 Evaluating Arguments

Evaluating Deductive Arguments: Validity, Truth, and Soundness

Deduction and Validity
 If the premises do in fact support the conclusions, the arguments is said to be
valid; if not, it is invalid.
 Thus, a valid deductive argument is an argument such that if the premises are
assumed true, it is impossible for the conclusion to be false.
 In such arguments, the conclusion follows with strict necessity from the
premises.
 The truth or falsity of the premises and conclusion of an argument is not
crucial to the validity of the argument.
 To say that an argument is valid is simply to say that the conclusion follows
from the premises.
 Cont…
 Conversely, an invalid deductive argument is an argument such
that if the premises are assumed true, it is possible for the
conclusion to be false
 In these arguments, the conclusion does not follow with strict
necessity from the premises, even though it is claimed to.
Consider the following examples:
 Example-1: All men are mammals.
All bulls are men.
Therefore, all bulls are mammals.

Example-2:All philosophers are rational

Socrates was rational.
Therefore, Socrates was a philosopher.
 Cont…
 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.
 That is, even if we assume that all philosophers rational and
Socrates is rational, it is not actually impossible for Socrates not be
a philosopher.
 Cont…
 There are four possibilities with respect to the truth or falsity
of the premises and conclusion of a given argument:
1) True premises and True conclusion,
2) True premises and False conclusion,
3) False premises and True conclusion, and
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.
 That is, the second case does not allow for valid
arguments.
 As we have just seen, any argument having this
combination is necessarily invalid.
 Validity and Truth Value
 Possibility1: A combination of True premises and True conclusion
(the first case) allows for both valid and invalid arguments.
Consider the following examples:
 Example-1 (Valid): All women are humans(Tp)
All human are mortal (Tc)
Therefore, all women are mortal (Tp)
Example-2 (Invalid): All philosophers are critical thinkers. (Tp)
Plato was a critical thinker. (Tp)
Therefore, Plato was a philosopher. (Tc)
 Based on the features of valid and invalid arguments, the above two
examples, each of which combine True premises and True
conclusion, are valid argument and invalid argument, respectively.
 Therefore, the first combination allows for both valid and invalid
arguments.
 Cont…
 Possibility 2: A combination of True premises and false
conclusion (the second case) allows only for invalid arguments.
Consider the following example:
 Example-1 (Invalid):
All biologists are scientists. (Tp)
A. Einstein was a scientist. (Tp)
Therefore, Einstein was a biologist. (Fc)
 Based on the features of validity, the above example, which
combines True premises and False conclusion, is an invalid
argument.
 Cont…
 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):
All birds are mammals. (Fp)
All women are birds. (Fp)
Therefore, all women are mammals. (Tc)

Example-2 (Invalid):
All birds are mammals. (Fp)
All ostriches are mammals. (Fp)

 Cont…
 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):
All Americans are Ethiopians. (Fp)
All Egyptians are Americans. (Fp)
Thus, all Egyptians are Ethiopians. (Fc)

Example-2 (Invalid):
All birds are mammals. (Fp)
All ants are mammals. (Fp)
Therefore, all ants are birds. (Fc)
 Cont…
 The relationship between the validity of a deductive
argument and the truth and falsity of its premises and
conclusions summarized as follows.
Table 1.1

Premises Conclusion Validity

True True Valid/invalid
True False Invalid
False True Valid/invalid
False False Valid/invalid
 Deduction and Soundness
 A sound argument is a good deductive argument that is valid
and has all true premises.
 Both conditions must be met for an argument to be sound, and
if either is missing the argument is unsound.
 A deductive argument that does not actually accomplish its
inferential claim, (that is not valid), cannot be sound,
regardless of the truth values of its premises. Such a deductive
argument is unsound, by definition.
 Thus, an unsound argument is a deductive argument that is
either valid with one or more false premises, or invalid, or
both. .
 Evaluating Inductive Arguments: Strength, Truth, and Cogency
Induction and Strength
 An inductive argument is one in which the premises are claimed to
support the conclusions in such a way that if they are assumed true, it
is improbable for the conclusions to be false.
 If the premises do in fact support the conclusions in this way the
arguments is said to be strong; if not, it is weak.
 Thus, a strong inductive argument is an argument such that if the
premises are assumed true, it is improbable for the conclusion to be
false.
 Conversely, a weak inductive argument is an argument such that if
the premises are assumed true, it is probable for the conclusions to be
 Consider the following examples:
 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.
 The r/ship b/n the strength of an inductive argument and the truth
and falsity of its premises and conclusions summarized as follows:
Premises Conclusion Strength

True True Strong/Weak

True False Weak

False True Strong/Weak

False False Strong/Weak

 Induction and Cogency
 A cogent argument is an inductive argument that is strong and
has all true premises.
 Both conditions must be met for an argument to be cogent, and
if either is missing the argument is uncogent. That is;
 Uncogent argument is an inductive argument that is either
strong with one or more false premises, or weak, or both.
 A cogent argument is the inductive analogue of a sound
deductive argument and is what is meant by a good‘‘ inductive
argument without qualification.
Cogent Argument = A strong argument + All true premises
 Evaluation of Arguments
Argument type Evaluation Criteria

Deductive  Valid
 Invalid
 Sound(Valid Argument + all true
Premises).
 Unsound

Inductive o Strong
o Weak
o Cogent (Strong argument + all true
premises).
o Uncogent
Summary of Argument Types
THANK YOU FOR YOUR KIND ATTENTION