Chapter Two

Basic Concepts of Logic

 Lesson One: Basic Concepts of Logic:
Arguments, Premises and Conclusions
Logic is defined in different was and here below are some
definitions of logic:
 Logic is a science that evaluates arguments.
 logic is the study of methods for evaluating whether the
premises of arguments adequately support or provide a good
evidence for the conclusions.
 Logic 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.
 Logic is one of the primary tools philosophers use in their
inquiries
 Benefits of Logic

1. Increases our confidence when we are making sense our

argument and criticize the arguments of others, and when we
advance arguments of our own
2.To develop our reasoning skills
3. Defending one’s own well-supported argument
4. construct sound (good) and fallacy-free arguments of one’s
own and to evaluate the arguments of others;
5. to defend against the prejudiced and uncivilized attitudes that
threaten the foundation of a civilized and democratic society;
6.to distinguish good arguments from bad arguments;
7. To clarify ambiguity and vagueness of words and statement
 What is an argument?
• arguments in logic,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).
• As is apparent from the above definition, the term
‘‘argument’’ has a very specific meaning in logic.
• It does not mean, for example, a mere verbal fight, as one
might have with one’s parent, spouse, or friend. Let us
examine the features of this definition in detail.
• First, an argument is a group of statements.
• That is, the first requirement for a passage to be qualified as
an argument is to combine two or more statements.
• But, what is a statement?
• Astatement is a declarative sentence that has a truth-value
of either true or false.
• That is, statement is a sentence that has truth-value.
• Hence, truth and falsity are the two possible truth-values
of a statement.
For instance, the following sentences are statements:
 Dr. Abiy Ahmed is the current Prime Minister of Ethiopia.
• Ethiopia was colonized by Germany.
 Argentina is located in North America.
N.B:Logicians used proposition and statement interchangeably.
However, in strict (technical) sense, proposition is the meaning
or information content of a statement. In this chapter, the term
statement is used to refer premises and a conclusion.
However, there are sentences that are not 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)
 unlike statements, none of the above sentences can be
either true or false.
 Hence, none of them can be classified as statement.
 As a result, none of them can make up an argument.
 Second, the statements that make up an argument are
divided into one or more premise(s) and one
conclusion.
 That means, the mere fact that a passage contains two
or more statements cannot guarantee the existence of
an argument.
Premises: are statements that set forth
reasons/evidence on the basis of which the
conclusion is affirmed.
Conclusion:
 is a statement that the evidence is claimed to
support/imply.
In other words, it is a statement that is claimed
to follow from the premises
Two groups of arguments can be identified as:
A. Good arguments :
Those in which the premises really support the
conclusion, and
B. Bad arguments:
 Those in which the premises do not support
even though they are claimed to
Examples of arguments
All Ethiopians are Africans. (Premise 1)
Tsionawit is an Ethiopian. (Premise2)

Therefore, Tsionawit is African. (Conclusion)

Some Ethiopians are Africans(premise 1)
Zelalem is an Ethiopian(premise 2)
Therefore, Zelalem is an African(conclusion)
The first one is an example of good argument,
where as the second is an example of bad
argument
If the premises are supposed to be true, it is
impossible for the conclusion to be false.
In the second one , it is possible for the
conclusion to be false if the premises are
assumed true
 How to differentiate a conclusion from its premise/s?

A. Indicator Word Test

 Arguments usually contain indicator words that provide
clues in identifying the premise/s and the conclusion.
A. Premise Indicators
 Words like: Since, Because, As indicated by, May be
inferred from, Owing to, in as much as, In that, For the
reason that, Given that, Seeing that, As, For…etc. are
premises indicator words.
 Note: a statement that comes after these indicator words
are usually premises of the argument.
Example;
1. You should avoid any form of cheating on
exams because cheating on exams is
punishable by the Senate Legislation of the
University
2. Expectant mothers should never use
recreational drugs, since the use of these
drugs can jeopardize the development of the
fetus
 B. Conclusion Indicators

 Words like: Therefore, Hence, So, Wherefore, Accordingly,

Whence, It follows that, It must be that, Thus, As a result,
We may infer, Consequently ,we may conclude, whence, so,
entails that, hence, it follows that, implies that, …etc. Note:
 A statement that always comes after these indicator words
are the conclusion of the argument.
Examples: All roses are flowers
All flowers are plants
Therefore, all roses are plants
• If an argument does not contain a conclusion indicator, it
may contain a premise indicator.
• 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.
• 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.
• One should be careful not to confuse ‘‘for this reason’’ with
‘‘for the reason that.’’. “for the reason that” is a premise
indicator.
• 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.
2. If there is no indicator word, we use the following tips in
finding the conclusion
 Find the main issue the speaker or the writer is taking as
his position. That is the conclusion.
 Ask yourself “what is the writer or the speaker is trying to
prove?” That will be the conclusion.
• Example1:
• 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.
 As you can see there are no indicator words.
 The following is the standard form of this argument:
Ethnic conflicts are recently intensified. (P-1)
Boarder conflicts are escalating. (P-
International terrorist activities are increasing. (P-3)
Thus, the country should increase the quality and quantity
of its military. (C)
Example.2
The space program deserves increased expenditures in the years
ahead. Not only does the national defense depend upon it, but the
program will more than pay for itself in terms of technological
spinoffs. Furthermore, at current funding levels the program cannot
fulfill its anticipated potential.
The premise and conclusion of the argument can be rewritten as
follow:
P1= The national defense depend upon the space program.
P2= The space program will more than pay for itself
P3= the space program cannot fulfill its anticipated potential.
C= The space program deserves increased expenditures in the years
• Passages that contain arguments sometimes contain
statements that are neither premises nor conclusion.
• Only statements that are actually intended to
support the conclusion should be included in the
list of premises.
• 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.
Inference is another concept.
• In the narrower sense it means the reasoning
process expressed by the argument.
• And broadly it refers the argument itself.
• For the purpose of this course, we use the
narrower sense of the term inference or
inferential link between the premises and the
conclusion of arguments.
 Lesson 2: Techniques of Recognizing
Arguments
 An argument is a systematic combination of one or more than
one statements, which are claimed to provide a logical support
or evidence (i.e., premise(s) to another single statement which
is claimed to follow logically from the alleged evidence (i.e.,
conclusion).
 However, not all passages that contain two or more statements
are argumentative.
 There are various passages that contain two or more statements
but are not argumentative.
 In a general , a passage contains an argument if it purports to
prove something; if it does not do so, it does not contain an
argument.
 But what does it mean to purport to prove
something?
 Two conditions must be fulfilled for a passage to
purport to prove something:
1). At least one of the statements must claim to present
evidence or reasons.
2). There must be a claim that the alleged evidence or
reasons supports or implies something- that is, a claim
that something follows from the alleged evidence.
 As we have seen earlier, the statements that claim to present the
evidence or reasons are the premises and the statement that the
evidence is claimed to support or imply is the conclusion.
 Hence, the first condition refers to premises as it tries to
provide or claim to provide reasons or evidences for the
conclusion; and the second condition refers to a conclusion.
 It is not necessary that the premises present actual evidence or
true reasons nor that the premises actually do support the
conclusion.
 But at least the premises must claim to present evidence or
reasons, and there must be a claim that the evidence or reasons
support or imply something.
The first condition expresses a factual claim,
and deciding whether it is fulfilled often falls
outside the domain of logic.
Thus, most of our attention will be
concentrated on whether the second condition
is fulfilled.
The second condition expresses what is called
an inferential claim.
 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.
 An inferential claim can be either explicit or implicit.
 An explicit inferential claim exists if there is an indicator word
that asserts an explicit relationship between the premises and the
conclusions.
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. Hence, the passage is an
argument.
 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 inferential relationship between the first statement and the other
two constitutes an implicit claim that evidence supports something,
 so, 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.
 In deciding whether there is a claim that evidence supports or
implies something keep an eye out for (1) indicator words, and
(2) the presence of an inferential claim between the statements.
 In connection with these points, however, a word of caution is
in order.
 First,the mere occurrence of an indicator word by no means
guarantees the presence of an argument.
 Thus, 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.
Example1: Since Edison invented the phonograph,
there have been many technological developments.
Example2: 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. Therefore, in deciding whether a
passage contains an argument one should try to insert
mentally some indicators words among the statements to
see whether there is a flow of ideas among the statements.
 To assists in distinguishing passages that contain
arguments from those that do not, it is important to
identify passages, which do not contain arguments: Non-
argumentative passages.
2.2. Recognizing Non-argumentative Passages

Non-argumentative passages are passages, which lack

an inferential claim.
Passages that lack an inferential claim may be
statements, which could be premises, conclusion, or both.
 What is missed is a claim that a reasoning process is
being made.
As was discussed previously, 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.
The followings are a partial list of non arguments
NB: In all of the following simple non-argumntative passages,
no evidence is given to prove that the statement is true. So,
none of them is an argument
1. warning
Example:
Whatever you promise to tell, never tell political secrets to
your wife
2. Piece of Advice
Example: After class hours, I would suggest that you give
careful consideration to the subject matter you have discussed
3) Statements of Belief/Opinion
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.
4) Report
It consists of statements that convey information
about some situation/event.
Examples:
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, the Ethiopian government said.
A powerful car bomb blew up outside the regional
telephone company headquarters in Mogadishu, injuring
25 people and causing millions of dollars of damage to the
nearby buildings, police said. A police statement said the
198-pound bomb was packed into a milk churn hidden in
the back of a stolen car
5) Expository passages
 A kind of discourse that begins with a topic sentence followed
by one or more sentences that develop the topic sentence.
 Its purpose is not to prove but to develop the topic sentence.
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.
However, expository passages di ffer 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 elaboate the topic
sentence but also to prove it, then the passage is
an argument
6) Illustration
 It consists of statements about a certain subject combined with a reference
to one or more specific examples intended to exemplify that statement. Ex.
 Chemical elements, as well as compounds, can be represented by molecular
formulas. Thus, oxygen is represented by “O 2”, water by “H2O”, and
sodium chloride by “NaCl”
 However, as with expository passages, many illustrations can be taken as
arguments.
 Such arguments are often called arguments from example.
example
• Although most forms of cancer, if untreated, can cause death, not all
cancers are life-threatening. For example, basal cell carcinoma, the most
common of all skin cancers, can produce disfigurement, but it almost never
results in death
7) Explanation
 a statement/group of statements intended to shed-light on
some phenomenon that is accepted as a matter of fact.
 Every explanation consists of two distinct components:
 Explandum: the statement that describes the
event/phenomenon to be explained and
 Explanans: the statement that purports/claims to do the
explaining.
Example.
 Cows digest grass while humans cannot, because their
digestive systems contain enzyme not found in humans.
 Explanations are sometimes mistaken for arguments because they
often contain the indicator word “because.” Yet explanations are not
arguments, because in an explanation 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.
 Moreover, in explanation, we precede backward from fact to the
cause whereas in argument we move from premise to the conclusion.
 In the above example given, the fact that cows digest grass but
humans cannot is readily apparent to everyone. The statement that
cows’ digestive systems contain enzyme not found in humans is not
intended to prove that cows digest grass but humans cannot, but
rather to show why it is so.
 Explanations bear a certain similarities to an argument.
 Thus, to distinguish explanations from arguments, first identify
the statement that is either the explanandum or the conclusion
(usually this is the statement that precedes the word “because”).
 If this statement describes an accepted matter of fact, and if the
remaining statements purport to shed light on this statement,
then the passage is an explanation.
 This method usually works to distinguish arguments from
explanations.
 However, 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.
 Alternately, the passage could be intended to prove the first
statement to a person who accepts its truth on blind faith or
incomplete experience, and simultaneously to shed light on this
truth. Thus, this passage can be correctly interpreted as both an
explanation and an argument.
 Perhaps the greatest problem confronting the effort to
distinguish explanations from arguments lies in
determining whether something is an accepted matter of
fact.
 Obviously, what is accepted by one person may not be
accepted by another.
 Thus, the effort often involves determining which person
or group of people the passage is directed to- the intended
audience.
 Sometimes the source of the passage (textbook,
newspaper, technical journal, etc.) will decide the issue.
8) Conditional Statement
 This is an “if…,then…”statement.
 Every conditional statement is made up of two
statements or sentences.
 The component statement that immediately
follows the “if” is called the Antecedent, and the
one following the “then” is called the Consequent.
Example: If Daniel works hard, then he will get a
promotion
Note:
1. No single conditional statement is an argument.
2. However, conditional statements may serve as either the
premise or conclusion or both of an argument.
Examples:
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. Sometimes the inferential content of a
conditional statement can be re-expressed in the
form of argument
Example:
“If destroying a political competitor gives you
joy, then you have a low sense of morality” can be
re-expressed
Destroying a political competitor gives you joy.
Therefore, you have a low sense of morality
Conditional statements express the relationship between
necessary and sufficient conditions.
 ‘A’ is said to be a sufficient condition for ‘B’ whenever the
occurrence of A is all that is needed for the occurrence of B.
 ‘A’ is a necessary condition for ‘B’ whenever ‘B’ can’t
occur without the occurrence of ‘A’.
Example:
Being a female is a necessary condition to be a
mother(necessary condition but not a sufficient condition)
Being a lion is sufficient condition to be an animal(sufficient
condition, but not necessary condition)
Lesson 3: Types of Arguments: Deduction
and Induction
arguments

Deductive Inductive

Weak(all are
Invalid(all are uncogent)
Valid strong
unsound)

Sound unsound Cogent uncogent

 1. Deductive Arguments
 is the one in which the premise/s support its conclusion with
certain degree of possibility or impossibility.
 It attempts to show that its conclusion must be true given the
premise asserted (assumed true).
 In such arguments, the conclusion is claimed to follow necessarily
(conclusively) from the premises.
 Thus, deductive arguments are those that involve necessary
reasoning.
Example:
All philosophers are critical thinkers.
Socrates is a philosopher.
Therefore, Socrates is a critical thinker.
B. Inductive Argument
 is the one in which the premise/s support its conclusion with
certain degree of probability or improbability.
• Is a kind of argument in which the conclusion is probable or
likely, given the premises.
Example:
Most African leaders are blacks.
Mandela was an African leader.
Therefore, probably Mandela was black.
 In the above example, the conclusion does not follow from the
premises with strict necessity, but it does follow with some degree
of probability.
 Tips/ways to differentiate deductive and
inductive arguments
There are three factors that influence the
decision about the deductivenss 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 form of argumentation the arguers use.
1. Indicator word test
 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
 Deductive arguments indicators words
Certainly It logically follows that
Definitely It is logical to conclude that
Absolutely This logically implies
Conclusively This entails that
Necessarily Strictly follows
 Inductive arguments indicator words
Probably One Would Suspect
Likely
Unlikely It Is A Good Bet That
Plausible Chances Are That
Implausible Odds Are That
if an argument draws its conclusion, using either of the deductive
indicator words, it is usually best to interpret it as deductive, but if it
draws its conclusion, using either of the inductive indicator words, it
is usually best to interpret it as inductive. (Note that the phrase ‘‘it
must be the case that’’ is ambiguous; ‘‘must’’ can indicate either
probability or necessity).
 one should be cautious about these special indicator words, because if
they conflict with one of the other criteria, we should probably ignore
them.
 For arguers often use phrases such as ‘‘it certainly follows that’’ for
rhetorical purposes to add impact to their conclusion and not to suggest
that the argument be taken as deductive.
 Similarly, some arguers, not knowing the distinction between inductive
and deductive, will claim to ‘‘deduce’’ a conclusion when their
argument is more correctly interpreted as inductive.
 Therefore, the occurrence of an indicator word is not a certain
guarantee for the deductiveness or inductiveness of an argument unless
it is supported by the other features.
 This leads us to consider the second factor.
 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.
Examples:
All Ethiopian people love their country.
Debebe is an Ethiopian.
Therefore, Debebe loves his country.
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.
In the second example, the conclusion does
not follow from the premises with strict
necessity, but it 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.
3. Form of argumentation
 Occasionally, an argument contains no special
indicator words, and the conclusion does not follow
either necessarily or probably from the premises; in
other words, it does not follow at all.
 This situation points up the need for the third factor to
be taken into account, which is the character or form
of argumentation the arguer uses.
 Let us see some examples of deductive argumentative
forms and inductive argumentative forms.
 A. Deductive Argumentative Forms

Five examples of such forms of argumentation are arguments

based on mathematics, arguments from definition, and
syllogisms( categorical, hypothetical, and disjunctive
syllogisms)
A. Argument based on mathematics
 is an argument in which the conclusion depends on some
purely arithmetic or geometric computation or measurement.
 For example, you can put two oranges and three bananas in a
bag and conclude that the bag contains five fruits.
Normal body temperature of man is 37c0. Fasil’s body
temperature is 40c0 . Therefore, Fasil is abnormal.
2. Syllogistic Arguments:
2.1. Categorical Syllogism
 syllogism is in general an argument with two premises and
one conclusion.
 categorical syllogism is a syllogism in which each statement
begins with one of the words “all”, “no” or “some’.
EX.1.
All Egyptians are Muslims.
No Muslim is a Christian.
Hence, no Egyptian is a Christian.
2.2. Hypothetical Syllogism
is a syllogistic argument having a conditional
statement for one or both of its premises.
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
2.3. Disjunctive Syllogism
• This is a syllogism having a disjunctive statement or “either…
or…”statement for one of its premises.
Example
Rahel is either an Ethiopian or an Eritrean.
Rahel is not an Eritrean.
Therefore, Rahel is an Ethiopian.
3. Argument based on definition
 is an argument in which the conclusion is claimed to depend merely
upon the definition of some word or phrase used in the premise or
conclusion.
Example: Jallele is a cardiologist. Therefore, she is a doctor
 B. Inductive forms of Argumentation

A. Prediction
Is a kind of argument in which we forecast
about the future based on the past or present
situation. Example.
It has rained in Debre Berhan every March
since the weather record has been kept.
Therefore, it will probably rain in Debre
Berhan in the next March
B. Argument from Analogy
 This is the one that depends on the existence of lists
of similarities between two things.
Examples:
Abebe’s 2006 model Lifan automobile has luxurious
seats, an excellent gas mileage and a computer set.
Matiyas’s 2006 model Lifan automobile has luxurious
seats, and an excellent gas mileage. Probably,
Matiyas’s Lifan automobile has a computer set.
C. Inductive Generalization
 This is an argument that proceeds from the knowledge of a
selected sample to some claim about the whole group.
 It is an argument in w/c generalization (a statement that
attributes some characteristics to all or to most members of
a given class) is claimed to be probably true based on
information about some members of a particular class.
Examples:
 10 apples selected at random from a basket containing 100
apples were found to be ripe. Probably, all the rest 90
apples are ripe.
D. Arguments based on Signs
 is an argument that proceeds from the knowledge of a certain
sign to a knowledge of the thing or situation that the sign
symbolizes.
 If signs like traffic symbols are placed or misplaced from the
right position, then the conclusion rests on chances of
probability/improbability
example
 When driving on highway from Addis to Adama one might see
a sign indicating that the road makes several sharp turns one
mile ahead. Based on this information, one might argue that the
road does indeed make several sharp turns one mile ahead.
E. Statistical argument
 An argument rests on statistical evidence, that is,
evidence that some percentage of some group has some
particular characteristics.
 As opposed to pure mathematics, most arguments in
statistics are inductive.
Example:
83% of H/Mariam Mamo’s students join DBU.
Assefu is a H/Mariam Mamo’s student.
Therefore, Assefu probably joins DBU
F. Argument from authority
 Asserts a claim and then supports that claim by citing a
presumed authority who has said the claim is true.
Example:
Judge Thomas argues that John committed the murder
because an eyewitness testified to that effect under oath.
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
 Furthermore Considerations

 It should be noted that the various subspecies of inductive

arguments listed here are not intended to be mutually exclusive.
 Overlaps can and do occur. For example, many causal
inferences that proceed from cause to effect also qualify as
predictions.
 We should take care not to confuse arguments in geometry,
which are always deductive, with arguments from analogy or
inductive generalizations.
 One broad classification of arguments not listed in this survey
is scientific arguments.
 Arguments that occur in science can be either inductive or
deductive, depending on the circumstances
 In general, arguments aimed at the discovery of a law of nature are usually
considered inductive.
 but the science that applies known laws in specific circumstances ,this sort
of arguments are often considered to be deductive, but only with certain
reservation
 A final point needs to be made about the distinction between inductive and
deductive arguments.
 There is a tradition extending back to the time of Aristotle that holds that
inductive arguments are those that proceed from the particular to the general,
while deductive arguments are those that proceed from the general to the
particular.
 In fact, there are deductive arguments that proceed from the general to the
general, from the particular to the particular, and from the particular to the
general, as well as from the general to the particular; and there are inductive
arguments that do the same.
 For example, here is a deductive argument that proceeds from the
particular to the general:
Three is a prime number.
Five is a prime number.
Seven is a prime number.
Therefore, all odd numbers between two and eight are prime numbers.
Here is an inductive argument that proceeds from the general to the
particular:
All emeralds previously found have been green.
Therefore, the next emerald to be found will be green.
 In sum up, to distinguish deductive arguments from inductive, we look for
special indicator words, the actual strength of the inferential link between
premises and conclusion, and the character or form of argumentation.
 Lesson 4: Evaluating Arguments
Evaluating deductive Argument: Validity, Truth, and Soundness
I. Valid Argument
 This is an argument such that if the premises are assumed
true, it is impossible for the conclusion to be false.
 In such a case, the conclusion follows with strict necessity
from the premises.
II. Invalid Argument
 This is the one such that if the premises are assumed true, it is
possible for the conclusion to be false.
 Here the conclusion does not follow with strict necessity from
the premises.
Example1:
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
 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. 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.
For an argument to be valid it is not necessary
that either the premises or the conclusions be
true, but merely that if the premises assumed
true, it is impossible for the conclusion be
false.
That is, we do not have to know whether the
premise of an argument is actually true in
order to determine its validity
The relationship between the validity of a deductive argument and the truth
and falsity of its premises and conclusions summarized as follows.

Premises conclusion validity

True True Valid/invalid

True False Always invalid

False True Valid/invalid

False False Valid/invalid

Possibility # 1: 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 mammals. (Tp)
My mother is a woman. (Tp)
Therefore, my mother is a mammal (Tc)
Example-2 (Invalid):
All philosophers are critical thinkers. (Tp)
Plato was a critical thinker. (Tp)
Therefore, Plato was a philosopher. (Tc)
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 wines are alcoholic beverages (Tp)
All Whiskies are alcoholic beverages. (Tp)
Therefore, all whiskies are wines(Fc)
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 wines are soft drinks(FP)
Coca cola is a wine(FP)
Therefore, coca cola is a soft drink(TP)
Example-2 (Invalid):
All birds are mammals. (Fp)
All ostriches are mammals. (Fp)
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):
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)
 Deduction and Soundness

Sound argument = Valid argument + All true premises.

Unsound Argument falls into one of the following three categories.
1. It is valid but has at least one (more) false premise.
2. It is invalid and all true premises or
3. It is invalid & has at least one (more) false premises.
Because a valid argument is one such that it is impossible for the
premises to be true and the conclusion false, and because a sound
argument does in fact have true premises, it follows that every
sound argument, by definition, will have a true conclusion as well.
A sound argument, therefore, is what is meant by a ‘‘good’’
deductive argument in the fullest sense of the term.
 4.2. Evaluating inductive Argument:
Strength, Truth, and Cogency
 Depending on the strength or weakness of the reasoning, there
are two types: Strong and Weak inductive arguments.
A. Strong argument :
 is an inductive argument such that if the premises assumed
true it is improbable for the conclusion to be false.
 In such argument, the conclusion does in fact follow probably
from the premises.
Example
This barrel contains one hundred apples.
Eighty apples selected at random were found tasty.
Therefore, probably all one hundred apples are tasty.
B. Weak argument :
is an inductive argument such that if the premises
are assumed true it is probable for the conclusion to
be false
Example:
This barrel contains one hundred apples.
Three apples selected at random were found tasty.
Therefore, probably all one hundred apples are
tasty
 Strength and Truth Value

strength and weakness are only indirectly related to the

truth values of their premises.
For an argument to be strong it is not necessary that either
the premises or the conclusions be true, but merely that if
the premises assumed true, it is improbable for the
conclusion be false
 Nevertheless, there is one arrangement of truth and falsity
in the premises and conclusion that does determine the
issue of strength.
Thus, any inductive argument having actually true premises
and an actually false conclusion is weak.
 Induction and Cogency

Cogent argument= strong argumnt +all true premises

Uncogent Argument
It falls into one of the following three categories:
1. It is strong but has at least one (more) false premise/s.
2. It is weak & has all true premises, or
3.It is weak & has at least one (more) false premise/s.
Note
Statements can be true or false, but can not be valid, invalid,
sound, unsound, strong, weak, cogent or uncogent.
Arguments can be valid, invalid, sound, unsound, strong, weak,
cogent or uncogent, but can not be true or false
 Methods to prove validity and invalidity

There different forms of valid argument .

A. Form 1:
All A are B.
All B are C.
So, all A are C.
Form 2:
All A are B
All C are B
So, all A are C
Form 3
All A are B.
Some C are not B.
So, some C are not A
All puppies are dogs. TP
Some animals are not dogs. TP
some animals are not puppies. TC (Valid,
Sound)
Form 4:
All A are B.
Some B are not C.
So, some C are not A.
Example: All dogs are animals. TP
Some animals are not puppies. TP
So, some puppies are not dogs. FC (Invalid,
Unsound)
Form 5
If A , then B
A
So, B
Ex. if it is raining, then the ground is wet
It is raining
So, the ground is wet
Form 6
If A, then B
B
So, A
If it is raining, then the ground is wet
The ground is wet
So, it is raining