LAKOMELIZA COLLEGE DEGREE PROGRAM

DEPARTMENT OF MANAGEMENT

DISTANCE EDUCATION PROGRAM

MODULE

FOR

LOGIC AND CRITICAL THINKING (Phil 1011)

September, 2024

DESSIE, ETHIOPIA
 Table of Contents
COURSE INTRODUCTION.........................................................................................................................7

COURSE OBJECTIVES................................................................................................................................9

CHAPTER ONE..........................................................................................................................................10

LOGIC AND PHILOSOPHY......................................................................................................................10

Chapter Overview....................................................................................................................................10

Lesson 1: Meaning and Nature of Philosophy.........................................................................................10

Lesson 2: Basic Features of Philosophy...................................................................................................14

Core Fields of Philosophy........................................................................................................................18

Lesson 3: Metaphysics and Epistemology...............................................................................................18

3.1 Metaphysics..............................................................................................................................19

3.2 Epistemology............................................................................................................................21

Chapter Summary.....................................................................................................................................32

Self Check Exercise.................................................................................................................................34

References................................................................................................................................................35

CHAPTER TWO.........................................................................................................................................36

BASIC CONCEPTS OF LOGIC.................................................................................................................36

Chapter Overview....................................................................................................................................36

Lesson 1: Basic Concepts of Logic: Arguments, Premises and Conclusions..........................................38

Lesson 2: Techniques of Recognizing Arguments...................................................................................47

2.1 Recognizing Argumentative Passages.....................................................................................48

2.2 Recognizing Non-argumentative Passages...............................................................................51

Lesson 3: Types of Arguments: Deduction and Induction.......................................................................62

3.1 Deductive Arguments...............................................................................................................63

3.2 Inductive Arguments................................................................................................................64

3.3 Differentiating Deductive and Inductive Arguments...............................................................65

Lesson 4: Evaluating Arguments.............................................................................................................72

2
 4.1 Evaluating Deductive Arguments: Validity, Truth, and Soundness........................................73

4.2 Evaluating Inductive Arguments: Strength, Truth, and Cogency............................................78

Chapter Summary.....................................................................................................................................82

Self Check Exercise.................................................................................................................................84

References................................................................................................................................................85

CHAPTER THREE......................................................................................................................................86

LOGIC AND LANGUAGE.........................................................................................................................86

Chapter Overview....................................................................................................................................86

Lesson 1: Philosophy of Language: An overview...................................................................................87

1.1 What is Philosophy of Language?............................................................................................87

1.2 A Brief Note on the Debates and History of Philosophy of Language....................................88

1.3 Some Philosophical Approaches to the Nature of Meaning....................................................89

Lesson 2: Logic and Meaning..................................................................................................................91

2.1 The Functions of Language: Cognitive and Emotive Meanings..............................................91

2.2 The Intension and Extension of Terms....................................................................................98

Logic and Definition..............................................................................................................................102

Lesson 3: Meaning, Types, and Purposes of Definitions.......................................................................102

3.1 The Meaning of Definition.....................................................................................................103

3.2 The Types and Purposes of Definitions..................................................................................103

Lesson 4: Techniques of Definition.......................................................................................................109

4.1 The Extensional (Denotative) Definitional Techniques.........................................................109

4.2 The Intensional (Connotative) Definitional Techniques........................................................112

Chapter Summary...................................................................................................................................121

Self Check Exercise...............................................................................................................................123

References..............................................................................................................................................124

CHAPTER FOUR......................................................................................................................................125
BASIC CONCEPTS OF CRITICAL THINKING.....................................................................................125

2
 Lesson 1: Meaning of Critical Thinking................................................................................................126

Lesson 2: Standards of Critical Thinking...............................................................................................130

Lesson 3: Codes of Intellectual Conduct for Effective Discussion........................................................135

Lesson 4: Characteristics of Critical Thinking.......................................................................................146

4.1 Basic Traits of Critical Thinkers............................................................................................146

4.2 Basic Traits of Uncritical Thinkers........................................................................................147

Lesson 6: Benefits of Critical Thinking.................................................................................................156

Chapter Summary...................................................................................................................................160

Self Check Exercise...............................................................................................................................161

References..............................................................................................................................................161

CHAPTER FIVE........................................................................................................................................162

LOGICAL REASONING AND FALLACIES..........................................................................................162

Chapter Overview..................................................................................................................................162

Lesson 1: Fallacy in General..................................................................................................................163

1.1 The Meaning of Fallacy.........................................................................................................164

1.2 Types of Fallacies...................................................................................................................165

Informal fallacies....................................................................................................................................167

Lesson 2: Fallacies of Relevance...........................................................................................................168

Lesson 3: Fallacies of Weak Induction..................................................................................................186

Lesson 4: Fallacies of Presumption........................................................................................................201

Lesson 5: Fallacies of Ambiguity and Grammatical Analogy...............................................................209

5.1 Fallacies of Ambiguity...........................................................................................................210

5.2 Fallacies of Grammatical Analogy.........................................................................................213

Chapter Summary...................................................................................................................................217

References..............................................................................................................................................218

CHAPTER SIX......................................................................................................................................219
CATEGORICAL PROPOSITIONS.......................................................................................................219

2
Chapter Overview..................................................................................................................................219

Lesson 1: General Introduction..............................................................................................................219

1.1 Standard-Forms of Categorical Proposition...........................................................................221

1.2 The Components of Categorical Propositions........................................................................223

Lesson 2: Attributes of Categorical Propositions: Quality, Quantity, and Distribution.........................225

Lesson 3: Venn Diagrams and the Modern Square of Opposition........................................................229

3.1 Representing Categorical Propositions in Diagrams..............................................................229

Chapter Summary...................................................................................................................................250

Self-Check Exercises..............................................................................................................................250

References..............................................................................................................................................251

2
MODULE INTRODUCTION

Dear learners,

The course, Logic and Critical Thinking, is a high-level thought course in the discipline of
philosophy. It is a philosophical inquiry that takes argumentation and reasoning as its basic objects
of investigation and attempts to introduce the fundamental concepts of logic and methods of logical
argumentation and reasoning and critical thinking. It includes evaluation of the methods by
which we form beliefs, weigh evidence, assess hypotheses and arguments, and analyze
reasoning. Logic is concerned with the study of arguments, and it seeks to establish the conditions
under which an argument may be considered as acceptable or good. It includes the development of
standard methods and principles of arguments. Critical thinking is an exercise, a habit, a
manner of perception and reasoning that has principles of logic as its fulcrum, and
dynamically involves various reasoning skills that ought to be human approach to issues
and events of life. Critical thinking means correct thinking in the pursuit of relevant and
reliable knowledge about the world. In another way, critical thinking is the reasonable,
reflective, responsible, and skillful thinking that focuses on deciding what to believe or do.
To think critically is to examine ideas, evaluate them against what you already know and
make decisions about their merit. A person who thinks critically can ask appropriate
questions, gather relevant information, efficiently and creatively sort through this
information, reason logically from this information, and come to reliable and trustworthy
conclusions about the world that enable one to live and act successfully in it.

Dear learners, this module consists of six important chapters or modules1. The first chapter
deals with the basic concepts of philosophy, the meaning and definition of philosophy, the
core branches of philosophy, and the importance of learning philosophy. The second
chapter of this module is devoted to the basic concepts of logic: the definition and
components of arguments, the techniques of recognizing arguments, types of arguments,
and evaluation of arguments. The third chapter deals with the relationship between logic
and language. It discusses the cognitive and emotive meaning of words, the intensional and
extensional meaning of terms, the types and purposes of definitions, and the intensional and
extensional definitional techniques, from a philosophical point of view. The basic concepts
of critical thinking, (i.e., the meaning and definition of critical thinking, the principles of
6
critical thinking, the factors that affect critical thinking, and the standards of good
arguments), is addressed in the fourth chapter. The fifth chapter discusses the various forms
of logical errors in arguments, which are commonly known as ‘fallacies’, with a special
emphasis on the categories of informal fallacies. The components, attributes and
representations of categorical propositions are discussed in the last chapter of the module.

MODULE OBJECTIVES
After the successful accomplishment of the module, students will able to:

 Understand the basic essence and areas of philosophy, and the necessity of learning it;
 Recognize the components and types of arguments;
 Develop the skill to construct and evaluate arguments;
 Understand the relationship between logic and language;
 Recognize the forms of meanings of words and terms;
 Comprehend the types, purposes and techniques of definitions;
 Understand the concept, principles, and criteria of critical thinking;
 Cultivate the habits of critical thinking and develop sensitivity to clear and
accurate usage of language;
 Recognize the various forms of formal and informal fallacies; and
 Understand the components, attributes and representations of categorical propositions.

7
 CHAPTER ONE
LOGIC AND PHILOSOPHY

Chapter Overview

Logic is often treated simultaneously as a field of study and as an instrument. As a field of

study, it is a branch of philosophy that deals with the study of arguments and the principles
and methods of right reasoning. As an instrument, it is something, which we can use to
formulate our own rational arguments and critically evaluate the soundness of others’
arguments. Before logic itself has become a field of study, philosophers have been using it
as a basic tool to investigate issues that won their philosophical attention, such as, reality,
knowledge, value, etc. Philosophy is the study of general and fundamental problems
concerning matters such as existence, knowledge, truth, beauty, law, justice, validity, mind,
and language. It is a rational and critical enterprise that tries to answer fundamental
questions through an intensive application of reason- an application that draws on analysis,
comparison, and evaluation.

Chapter Objectives:

Dear learners, after the successful completion of this chapter, you will be able to:

 Understand the meaning, nature and features of philosophy;

 Recognize the major fields of philosophy; and
 Understand why it is so important to learn logic and philosophy.

Activity # 1: - Dear learners, do you have a prior awareness of philosophy? If so, how do
you understand philosophy?

Dear learners, it is important to note first that giving a clear-cut definition of philosophy is
difficult. It may be easy to define other disciplines, such as, chemistry, physics, geography,
etc in terms of a subject matter, for they have their own specific subject matters to
8
primarily deal with. However, it is difficult to do the same with philosophy, 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. However, this should not lead us into thinking
that philosophy is incomprehensible. It is only to say that whenever you want to understand
philosophy, it is better to read different thoughts of philosophers, consciously see its salient
features by yourself, participate in it, and do it.

Philosophy is not as elusive as it is often thought to be. Nor is it remote from our various
problems. It is unanimously agreed that the best way to learn and understand philosophy is
to philosophize; i.e., to be confronted with philosophical questions, to use philosophical
language, to become acquainted with differing philosophical positions and maneuvers, to
read the philosophers themselves, and to grapple with the issues for oneself. Socrates once
stated that “Wonder is the feeling of a philosopher, and philosophy begins in wonder”. It
is true that most of us may not have a clear knowledge about the history, nature, language,
and issues of philosophy. But, we all think and reflect in our own way about issues that
matter us most. We all have touched and moved by the feelings of wonder from which all
philosophy derives. Thus, we

all participate, more or less, in philosophical issues, even though thinking alone cannot
make us philosophers.

Activity # 2: - Dear learners, what do you think is the wisdom that philosophers seek?

The wisdom that philosophers seek is not the wisdom of the expertise or technical skills of
professionals. Someone may be encyclopedic, and thus seemingly intelligent, but he may
actually be foolish when it comes to understanding the meaning and significance of what he
knows. 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.

Activity # 3: - Dear learners, what do you think does it mean to question the apparent?
Does it mean to deny the fa9ct or the practical reality?
To interrogate the obvious means to deal creatively with the phenomenal world, to go
beyond the common understanding, and to speculate about things that other people accept
with no doubt.

But, questioning/criticism is not the final end of philosophy, though raising the right
question is often taken not only as the beginning and direction of philosophy but also as its
essence. Raising the right question is an art that includes the ability to foresee what is not
readily obvious and to imagine different possibilities and alternatives of approaching the
apparent. When we ultimately wonder about the existing world, and thus raise different
questions about its order, each question moves us from the phenomenal facts to a profound
speculation. The philosophical enterprise, as Vincent Barry stated, is “an active
imaginative process of formulating proper questions and resolving them by rigorous,
persistent analysis”.

Therefore, 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. It involves reason, rational criticism, examination,
and analysis. Accordingly, we can say that Philosophy has a constructive side, for 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.
At the same time, its 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.

The other thing, which is worthy of noting, is that 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. It is not his theory,
but his extraordinary ability to critically think, to conceptualize, to analyze, to compare, to
evaluate, and to understand- i.e., to philosophize- that makes him so. Of course, the product
of philosophizing is philosophy as a product. However, what makes someone a great
philosopher is not the produced philosophy, but his/her outstanding ability to philosophize.

10
Basic Features of Philosophy

Dear learners, 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. A
genuine philosophical

attitude is searching and critical; it is open-minded and tolerant- willing to look at all sides
of an issue without prejudice. To philosophize is not merely to read and know philosophy;
there are skills of argumentation to be mastered, techniques of analysis to be employed, and
a body of material to be appropriated such that we become able to think philosophically.
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, according to this view, 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. In fact, nearly all philosophers have used
methods of analysis and have sought to clarify the meaning of terms and the use of
language. Some philosophers see this as the main task of philosophy, and a few claim this
is the only legitimate function of philosophy. Such persons consider philosophy a

11
specialized field serving the sciences and aiding in the clarification of language rather than
a broad field reflecting on all of life’s experiences. This outlook has gained considerable
support during the twentieth century. It would limit what we call knowledge to statements
about observable facts and their interrelations i.e., to the business of the various sciences.

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. What are philosophical questions? The
question “Did Ram make a false statement on his income tax return?” is merely a question
of fact. However, the questions “What is truth?” and “What is the distinction between right
and wrong?” have philosophical importance. Sometimes we think seriously about
fundamental life issues: What is life and why am I here? Why is there anything at all? What
is the place of life in this great universe? Is the universe friendly or unfriendly? Do things
operate by chance or through sheer mechanism, or is there some plan, purpose, or
intelligence at the heart of things? Is my life controlled by outside forces, or do I have a
determining or even a partial degree of control? Why do people struggle and strive for their
rights, for justice, for better things in the future? What do concepts like “right” and
“justice” means, and what are the marks of a good society? Often men and women have
been asked to sacrifice their lives, if need be, for certain values and ideals. What are the
genuine values of life and how can it attained? Is there really a fundamental distinction
between right and wrong, or is it just a matter of one’s own opinions? What is beauty?
Should religion count in a person’s life? Is it intellectually valid to believe in God? Is there
a possibility of a “life after death?” Is there any way we can get an answer to these and
many related questions? Where does knowledge come from, and can we have any
assurances that anything is true?

Core Fields of Philosophy

3.1 Metaphysics

Activity # 1: - Dear learners, what do you think is metaphysics? List any question that you
1 2
might think is a metaphy s ical question. Show your question to student(s)
beside you, and discuss about your questions together.
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. Metaphysicians 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 the Greek words “meta” means (“beyond”, “upon” or “after”) and 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?

At first, questions like, ‘What is real?’ seem too simple to bother asking. But consider
George Knight’s example about the existence of a floor and one will see that the question
has far reaching implications: What is exactly the nature of the floor upon which you stand?
It may seem

to have a rather straightforward existence. It is obviously flat, solid, and smooth; it has a
particular color; it is composed of an identifiable material, such as wood or concrete; and it
supports your weight. Suppose, however, that a physicist enters the room and questioned
about the reality of the floor. She will reply that the floor is made of molecules; that
molecules consist of atoms, electrons, protons, and neutrons; and these, finally, of electric
energy alone. A third position is offered by a passing chemist. To him the floor is a hotbed
of hydrocarbons associated in a particular way and subject to certain kinds of
environmental influences, such as heat, cold, wetness, dryness, and oxidation.

13
 3.2 Epistemology

Activity # 2: - Dear learners, what do you think is epistemology? List any question
that you might think is an epistemological question. Show your question
to student(s) beside you, and discuss about your questions together.

Epistemology is the other field of philosophy that studies about the nature, scope, meaning,
and possibility of knowledge. It deals with issues of knowledge, opinion, truth, falsity,
reason, experience, and faith. Epistemology is also referred to as “theory of knowledge”.
Etymologically, the word epistemology has been derived from the Greek words episteme,
meaning “knowledge, understanding”, and logos, meaning “study of”. In other words, we
can say that Epistemology is the study of the nature, source, and validity of knowledge. It
seeks to answer of the basic questions as “What is true?” and “How do we know?” Thus,
epistemology covers two areas: the content of thought and thought itself. The study of
epistemology deals with issues related to the dependability of knowledge and the validity
of the sources through which we gain information.

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?

Epistemology seeks answers to a number of fundamental issues. One is 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. That thought was well
expressed by Gorgias, the Greek Sophist who asserted that nothing exists, and that if it did,
we could not know it. A full-blown skepticism would make intelligent action impossible. A
term closely related to skepticism is agnosticism. Agnosticism is a profession of ignorance
in reference to the existence or nonexistence of God.

14
A major aspect of epistemology relates to the sources of human knowledge. If one accepts
the fact that there is truth and even Truth in the universe, how can human beings
comprehend such truths? How do they become human knowledge? Central to most
people’s answer to that question is empiricism (knowledge obtained through the senses).
Empirical knowledge appears to be built into the very nature of human experience.

Chapter Summary

Logic, as a field of study, is a branch of philosophy that deals with the study of arguments
and the principles and methods of right reasoning. Etymologically, the term ‘philosophy’
can be defined as “love of wisdom”, being wisdom a critical habit and eternal vigilance
about all things and a reverence for truth, whatever its form, and wherever its place.
Therefore, philosophy, as a pursuit of wisdom, is the development of critical habits, the
continuous search for truth, and the questioning of the apparent. It is, however, important to
note that ‘questioning the apparent’ does not mean denying the obviously real. It simply
refers to the extraordinary ability and curiosity to deal creatively with the phenomenal
world, to go beyond the common understanding, and to speculate about things that other
people accept with no doubt. Philosophy, as a rational and critical enterprise that tries to
formulate and answer fundamental questions through an intensive application of reason, is
a dual-sided universal discipline: critical and constructive sides. While, as a critical
discipline, it deals with giving a rational critic, analysis, clarification, and evaluation of
answers given to basic metaphysical, epistemological, and axiological questions, it attempts,
as a constructive discipline, 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.

Philosophy, as an academic discipline, has its own salient features that distinguish it from
other academic disciplines. Its systematic, logical and flexible approach to the ultimate
reality of the universe, human life, knowledge experience, truth and values and its holistic
and evolutionary nature are some the fundamental features of philosophy. Philosophy uses
its major branches to deal with the most important issues human beings face, namely
Metaphysics, Epistemology, Axiology, and Logic. Metaphysics deals with the studies of

15
ultimate reality and existence. Epistemology deals with the study of the meaning, nature,
source, scope and possibility of human knowledge. Axiology deals with the philosophical
studies of human values, such as moral values, aesthetic values, as well as political and
social values. Logic, on the other hand, is a philosophical study of arguments and the
methods and principles of right reasoning.

Self Check Exercise

1. Define philosophy as a pursuit of wisdom.

2. It is said that ‘seeking wisdom’ is one of the various essences of

philosophy. Explain the wisdom that philosophers seek.

3. List and discuss the major features of philosophy.

4. Discuss briefly the core branches of philosophy.

16
 CHAPTER TWO
BASIC CONCEPTS OF LOGIC
Chapter Overview

Logic, as field of study, may be defined as the organized body of knowledge, or science that
evaluates arguments. The aim of logic is to develop a system of methods and principles that we
may use as criteria for evaluating the arguments of others and as guides in constructing
arguments of our own. Argument is a systematic combination of two or more statements, which
are classified as a premise or premises and conclusion. A premise refers to the statement, which
is claimed to provide a logical support or evidence to the main point of the argument, which h
known as conclusion. A conclusion is a statement, which is claimed to follow from the alleged
evidence. Depending on the logical and real ability of the premise(s) to support the conclusion,
an argument can be either a good argument or a bad argument. However, unlike all kinds of
passages, including those that resemble arguments, all arguments purport to prove something.

Arguments can generally be divided into deductive and inductive arguments. A deductive
argument is an argument in which the premises are claimed to support the conclusion in such a
way that it is impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion false. On the other hand,
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.
The deductiveness or inductiveness of an argument can be determined by the particular indicator
word it might use, the actual strength of the inferential relationship between its component
statements, and its argumentative form or structure.

Chapter Objectives:

Dear learners, after the successful completion of this chapter, you will be able to:

 Understand the meaning and basic concepts of logic;

 Understand the meaning, components, and types of arguments; and
 Recognize the major techniques of recognizing and evaluating arguments.

17
Basic Concepts of Logic: Arguments, Premises and Conclusions

What is the Meaning of Logic?

Activity # 1: - Dear learners, how do you define Logic?

Dear learners, the word logic comes from Greek word logos, which means sentence, discourse,
reason, truth and rule. Logic in its broader meaning is the science, which evaluates arguments
and the study of correct reasoning. It could be also defined as the study of methods and
principles of correct reasoning or the art of correct reasoning.

Logic can be defined in different ways. Here below are some definitions of logic:

 Logic is a science that evaluates arguments.

 Logic is the study of methods for evaluating arguments. More precisely, 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 the attempt to codify the rules of rational thought. Logicians explore the structure of
arguments that preserve truth or allow the optimal extraction of knowledge from evidence.

In logic, as an academic discipline, we study reasoning itself: forms of argument, general principles
and particular errors, along with methods of arguing. We see lots of mistakes in reasoning in
daily life and logic can help us understand what is wrong or why someone is arguing in a
particular way.

What is the Benefit of Studying Logic?

“Logic sharpens and refines our natural gifts to think, reason and argue.” (C. S. Layman)

Activity # 2: - Dear learners, what do you think is the benefit of studying logic?
Discuss with the student(s) beside you.

We use logic in our day-to-day communications. As human beings, we all think, reason and

18
argue; and we all are subject to the reasoning of other people. Some of us may think well, reason
well and argue well, but some of us may not. In general, 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 and
so on.

The aim of logic, hence, is to develop the system of methods and principles that we may use as
criteria for evaluating the arguments of others and as guides in constructing the arguments of our
own in our day-to-day lives. Thus, by studying logic, we are able to increase our confidence
when we criticize the arguments of others and when we advance arguments of our own. In fact,
one of the goals of logic is to produce individuals who are critical, rational and reasonable both
in the sphere of public and private life. However, to be full beneficial of the worth which logic
provides, one must thoroughly and carefully understand the basic concepts of the subject and be
able to apply them in the actual situations.

What is an Argument?

Activity # 3: - Dear learners, what do you think is an argument? What comes to

your mind when you think of an argument? Discuss with the
student(s) beside you.

Dear learners, the word ‘argument’ may not be a new word to all of us. For all of us encounter
arguments in our day-to-day experience. We read them in books and newspapers, hear them on
television, and formulate them when communicating with friends and associates. If you look
back at the above different definitions of logic and characterizations, you will certainly find one
19
thing in common: argument. Moreover, we have said that of the various benefits of studying
logic, identifying, analyzing and evaluating arguments is the most important one. It follows that
argument the primary subject matter of logic. What is an argument then?

Argument is a technical term and the chief concern of logic. Argument might have defined and
described in different ways. When we define an arguments 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). 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?

A statement 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. A statement is typically a declarative sentence. In other words, statement is
a type of sentence that could stand as a declarative sentence. Look the following examples:

a) Dr. Abiy Ahmed the current Prime Minister of Ethiopia.

b) Mekelle is the capital city of Tigray Region.
c) Ethiopia was colonized by Germany.
Statement (a) and (b) are true, because they describe things as they are, or assert what really is
the case. Hence, ‘Truth’ is their truth-value. Whereas statement (c) is false because it asserts
what is not, and ‘Falsity’ its truth-value.

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, and hence should be used to construct an
argument. Examples:
a) Would you close the window? (Question)
b) Let us study together. (Proposal)

20
 c) Right on! (Exclamation)
d) I suggest that you read philosophy texts. (Suggestion)
e) Give me your ID Card, Now! (Command)

In fact, sentence is a group of words or phrases that enables us to express ideas or thought
meaningfully. However, 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 premise(s) and conclusion. That
means, 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. 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. The claim that the statement attempts to justify is known as a
conclusion of an argument; and the statement or statements that supposedly justify the claim is/are known
as the premises of the argument. Therefore, a premise is a statement that set forth the reason or evidence,
which is given for accepting the conclusion of an argument. It is claimed evidence; and a conclusion is a
statement, which is claimed to follow from the given evidence (premise). In other words, the conclusion is
the claim that an argument is trying to establish.

Activity # 5: - Dear learners, can you now try to construct an argument based
on the above definition of an argument?

Let us now construct arguments together.

Example-1: Example-2:

1) All Ethiopians are Africans. (Premise 1) 2) Some Africans are black. (Premise-1)
Tsionawit is Ethiopian. (Premise2) Zelalem is an African. (Premise-2)
Therefore, Tsionawit is African. (Conclusion) Therefore, Zelalem is black. (Conclusion)

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/or
that the conclusion follow from the premises), is indicated by the word ‘‘therefore.’’
21
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 (well-supported) arguments, the latter bad (poorly-supported)
arguments. 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.

But how can we distinguish premises from conclusion and vice versa?
The first technique that can be used to identify premises from a conclusion and vice versa is
looking at an indicator word. Frequently, arguments contain certain indicator words that provide
clues in identifying premises and conclusion.
Here below are some Conclusion Indicators:

Therefore We may conclude Entails Thus So

Wherefore that Hence Consequently It follows that
Accordingly It shows that We may infer
Provided that Whence It implies that
It must be that As a result

22
 In argument that contains any of the conclusion indicator words, the statement that follows the
indicator word can usually be identified as the conclusion. By the process of elimination, the
other statements in the argument can be identified as premises, but only based on their logical
importance to the identified conclusion.

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.

Here below are some typical Premise Indicators:

Since Seeing that In that
As indicated by Given that
May be inferred from Inasmuch
Because As
as
Owing to For
Forthe reason that

23
Example-1: Example-2:
In argument that contains any of the premise indicator words, a statement that follows the
indicator word can usually be identified as a premise. By same the process of elimination, the
other remaining single statement will be a conclusion.

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 premise.

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.’’

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.

Sometimes you may an argument that contains no indicator all: neither a conclusion indicator
word nor a premise indicator word. When this occurs, the reader/ listener must ask himself or
herself such questions as:
 What single statement is claimed (implicitly) to follow from the others?
 What is the arguer trying to prove?

24
 Example-1: Example-2:
 What is the main point in the passage?

Recognizing Argumentative Passages

Activity # 1: - Dear learners, what do you think are argumentative passages?

What qualifies a passage to be an argument?

Evaluating arguments about different issues in human life like those that address, religion, politics,
ethics, sport, science, love, culture, environment, society, culture etc. is the central concern of
logic. Therefore, as logicians, in order to evaluate arguments easily, we need to understand the
nature of arguments and further we need to understand what argument is not, because not all
passages contain argument. Since logic deals with arguments, it is important for students to
develop the ability to identify whether passages contain an argument. In a general way, 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
25
Example-1: Example-2:
process- that something supports or implies something or that something follows from something.
Also, you should recognize that this claim is not equitable with the intentions of the arguer.
Intentions are subjective and, as such, are usually not accessible to the evaluator. Rather, the
inferential claim is an objective feature of an argument grounded in its language or structure. In
evaluating arguments, therefore, most of our attention will be concentrated on whether the
second condition is fulfilled because it is not necessary, at least at this level, that the premises
present actual evidence or true reasons nor that do the premises actually support the conclusion.

An inferential claim 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). It 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 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. 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
26
Example-1: Example-2:
argument. The presence of an indicator word does not mean that the existing indicator word
actually and always indicate a premises or a conclusions. 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.

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. 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. Even with this mental experiment, however, 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.”

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.

Types of Arguments: Deduction and Induction

3.1 Deductive Arguments

Activity # 1: - Dear learners, how do you define a deductive argument?

A deductive argument is an argument incorporating the claim that it is impossible for the
conclusion to be false given that the premises are true. It 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

27
Example-1: Example-2:
true and the conclusion false. In such arguments, the conclusion is claimed to follow necessarily
(conclusively) from the premises. Thus, deductive arguments are those that involve necessary
reasoning.

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.

28
Example-1: Example-2:

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.

3.2 Inductive Arguments

Activity # 2: - Dear learners, how do you define an inductive argument?

An inductive argument is an argument incorporating the claim that it is improbable for the
conclusion to be false given that the premises are true. . It is an argument in which the premises
are claimed to support the conclusion in such a way that it is improbable for the premises to be
true and the conclusion false. 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 conclusion. In this case, we might
have sufficient condition (evidence) but we cannot be certain about the truth of the conclusion.
However, this does not mean that the conclusion is wrong or unacceptable, where as it could be
correct or acceptable but only based on probability. Thus, inductive arguments are those that
involve probabilistic reasoning.

Most African leaders are blacks. Almost all women are mammals.
Mandela was an African leader. Hanan is a woman.
Therefore, probably Mandela was Hence, Hanan is a mammal.
black.
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. But it is not impossible that Mandela not been a black. Similarly, if we assume that almost
all women are mammals and that Hanan is a woman, then it is improbable that Hanan not be a
mammal, or it is probable that Hanan is a mammal. But it is not impossible that Hanan not be a
mammal. Thus, the above arguments are best interpreted as inductive.

3.3 Differentiating Deductive and Inductive Arguments

Activity # 3: - Dear learners, how do you distinguish a deductive argument from

an inductive argument, and vice versa?

Dear learners, we have said earlier that the distinction between inductive and deductive
arguments lies in the strength of an argument’s inferential claim. In other words, the distinction
lies on how strongly the conclusion is claimed to follow from the premises, or how strongly the
premises are claimed to support the conclusion. However, in most arguments, the strength of this
claim is not explicitly stated, so we must use our interpretative abilities to evaluate it. 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, and
3) The character or form of argumentation the arguers use.

However, we must acknowledge at the outset that many arguments in ordinary language are
incomplete, and because of this, deciding whether the argument should best be interpreted as
deductive or inductive may be impossible. Let us see the above factors in detail in order to
understand and identify the different styles of argumentation.

The first factor that influences our decision about a certain inferential claim is the occurrence of
special indicator words. There are different sort of indicator words that indicate or mark the type
of a certain argument. 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,’’ and ‘‘definitely’’ 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. The point is 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).

Deductive and Inductive indicator words often suggest the correct interpretation. However, 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. If one takes these words at face value, then
one might wrongly leads into wrong conclusions. 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.

The second factor that bears upon our interpretation of an argument as inductive or deductive is
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. 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. 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. 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.

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.

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 arguments based on mathematics, arguments from definition, and syllogisms:
categorical, hypothetical, and disjunctive syllogisms.

Argument based on mathematics: it is an argument in which the conclusions depend on some

purely arithmetic or geometric computation or measurement. For example, you can put two
orange and three bananas in a bag and conclude that the bag contains five fruits. Or again you
can measure a square pieces of land and after determining it is ten meter on each side conclude
that its area is a hundred square meter. Since all 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.

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. Or again,
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. Syllogisms can
be categorized into three groups; categorical, hypothetical, and disjunctive syllogism.

Categorical syllogism: a syllogism is an argument consisting of exactly two premises and one
conclusion. 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.
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.

Such arguments are best interpreted as deductive.

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.
As with hypothetical syllogism, such arguments are usually best taken as deductive.
Instances of Inductive Argumentative Forms

In general, inductive arguments are such that the content of the conclusion is in some way
intended to “go beyond” the content of the premises. The premises of such an argument typically
deal with some subject that is relatively familiar, and the conclusion then moves beyond this to a
subject that is less familiar or that little is known about. Such an argument may take any of
several forms: predictions about the future, arguments from analogy, inductive generalizations,
arguments from authority, arguments based on signs, and causal inferences, to name just a few.

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.

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. Because of the existence of this analogy a
certain conditions that affects the better- known thing or situations is concluded to affect the less
familiar , lesser known-thing or situation. For instance, one may conclude, after observing the
similarity of some features of Computer A and car 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 cars. The certitude attending such an inference is obviously probabilistic at best.

An inductive generalization: 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. 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.

An argument from authority: it is an argument in which the conclusions rest upon a statement
made by some presumed authority or witness. A lawyer, for instance, may argue that the person
is guilty because an eyewitness testifies to that effect under oath. Or again 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.

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.

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.
4.1 Evaluating Deductive Arguments: Validity, Truth, and Soundness

Activity # 1: - Dear learners, how do you think are validity and soundness? How
do you think are the validity and soundness of a deductive
argument evaluated?

Deduction and Validity

The previous section defined a deductive argument as one in which the premises are claimed to
support the conclusion in such a way that if they are assumed true, it is impossible for the
conclusions to be false. If the premises do in fact support the conclusions in this way 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.
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:

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.

The above definitions of valid and invalid arguments, along with their corresponding examples,
lead us into two immediate conclusions. The first is that there is no middle ground between valid
and invalid. An argument is either valid or invalid. The second consequence is that there is only
an indirect relation between validity and truth. For an argument to be valid it is not necessary that
either the premises or the 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 (valid or invalid). To test an argument
for validity, we begin by assuming that all premises are true, and then we determine if it is
possible, in light of that assumption, for the conclusion to be false. Thus, the validity of argument
is the connection between premise and conclusion rather than 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 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.
Let us discuss these possibilities in detail with examples.

Validity and Truth Value

Possibility # 1: A combination of True premises and True conclusion (the first case) allows for both
valid and invalid arguments. Consider the following examples:

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.

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)
John Nash was a scientist. (Tp)
Therefore, John Nash was a biologist. (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. Thus, by definition, the argument is
invalid. After all such combinations are contrary to the inferential claim of a deductive argument:
if the premises are assumed to be true, then it is impossible for the conclusion to be false.
Therefore, the second combination allows only for invalid arguments.

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)
Based on the features of valid and invalid arguments, the above two examples, each of which
combine False premises and True conclusion, are valid argument and invalid argument,
respectively. Therefore, the third combination, as the first one, allows for both valid and invalid
arguments.

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)

Based on the features of valid and invalid arguments, the above two examples, each of which
combine False premises and False conclusion, are valid argument and invalid argument,
respectively. Therefore, the fourth combination also allows for both valid and invalid arguments.

In general, the basic idea of evaluating deductive argument, 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. Nevertheless, there is one arrangement of truth and falsity in the
premises and conclusion that does determine the issue of validity. Any deductive argument
having actually true premises and an actually false conclusion is invalid for the reason given
above. The idea that any deductive argument having actually true premises and a false
conclusion is invalid may be the most important point in the entire system of deductive logic.
The entire system of deductive logic would be quite useless if it accepted as valid any inferential
process by which a person could start with truth in the premises and arrive at falsity in the
conclusion.
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

We said earlier that the evaluation of every argument centers on the evaluation of two claims: the
inferential claim and factual claim of the argument. We have also said that we will always test the
inferential claim first, and only if the premises do support the conclusion will we test the factual claim
(that is, the claim that the premises present genuine evidence, or are true). Now that we have tested the
inferential claims of deductive arguments, it is time to proceed to the next step: evaluating the
factual claims of deductive arguments.

Depending on their actual ability, (assuming that they already have actually accomplished their
inferential claims by being valid), to accomplish their factual claims, deductive arguments can be
either sound or unsound. A sound argument is a deductive argument that is valid and has all true
premises. Both conditions must be met for an argument to be sound, and if either is missing the
argument is unsound. 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. 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.

Sound Argument = A valid argument + All true premises

 4.2 Evaluating Inductive Arguments: Strength, Truth, and Cogency
Activity # 2: - Dear learners, how do you think are strength and cogency? How
do you think are the strength and cogency of an inductive argument evaluated?

Induction and Strength

The previous section defined an inductive argument as 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. In such arguments, the conclusion follows probably from the premises. Conversely, a weak
inductive argument is an argument such that if the premises are assumed true, it is probable for
the conclusions to be false. In these arguments, the conclusion does not follow probably from the
premises, even though it is claimed to.
Strength and Truth Value

Just as what happened from definitions and examples of valid and invalid arguments earlier, two
immediate conclusions follow from the above definitions and examples of strong and weak
arguments. The first is that, unlike the validity and invalidity of deductive arguments, 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 weak nor the second absolutely strong. Both arguments would be
strengthened or weakened by the random selection of a larger or smaller sample. The
incorporation of additional premises into inductive arguments will also generally tend to strength
or weaken it. For example, if the premise “one un-tasty apple that had been found earlier was
removed” were added to the second argument, the argument would presumably be weakened.

The second consequence is that, as validity and invalidity, strength and weakness are only
indirectly related to the truth values of their premises. The central question in determining
strength or weakness is whether the conclusion would probably true if the premises are assumed
true. 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.
That is, we do not have to know whether the premise of an argument is actually true in order to
determine its strength (strong or weak). To test an argument for strength, what we need to do is
to assume the premise true and then to see whether the conclusion follows more/less probably
from the premise. Thus, 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.

We have said earlier that there are four possibilities with respect to the truth or falsity of the
premises and conclusion of a given argument: True premises and True conclusion, True premises
and False conclusion, False premises and True conclusion, and False premises and False
conclusion. These possibilities work in inductive arguments as well.

Note that all of the above possibilities, except the second case (true premises and false
conclusion), allow for both strong and weak arguments. That is, the second case does not allow
for strong arguments. As we have just seen, any argument having this combination is necessarily
weak.

In general, 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. 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.

The relationship between the strength of an inductive argument and the truth and falsity of its
premises and conclusions summarized as follows.
Table 1.2:
Premises Conclusion Strength
True True Strong/Weak
True False Weak
False True Strong/Weak
False False Strong/Weak
Induction and Cogency

We said earlier that the evaluation of every argument centers on the evaluation of two claims: the
inferential claim and factual claim of the argument. We have also said that we will always test the
inferential claim first, and only if the premises do support the conclusion will we test the factual claim

(that is, the claim that the premises present genuine evidence, or are true). Now that we have tested the
inferential claims of inductive arguments, it is time to proceed to the next step: evaluating the
factual claims of inductive arguments.

Depending on their actual ability, (assuming that they already have actually accomplished their
inferential claims by being strong), to accomplish their factual claims, inductive arguments can
be either cogent or uncogent. 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. An inductive argument that does not actually accomplish its
inferential claim, (that is not strong), cannot be cogent, regardless of the truth values of its
premises. Such an inductive argument is uncogent, by definition. Thus, an uncogent argument is
an inductive argument that is either strong with one or more false premises, or weak, or both.
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. 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

There is a difference, however, between sound and cogent arguments in regard to the true-
premise requirement. In a sound argument, it is only necessary that the premises be true and
nothing more. Given such premises and good reasoning, a true conclusion is guaranteed. In a
cogent argument, on the other hand, the premises must not only be true, they must also not
ignore some important piece of evidence that outweighs the given evidence and entails a quite
different conclusion. That is, if the premises reflect all the important factors, then the argument is
cogent; if not, then obviously the argument is not cogent. Thus, for cogency, the premises must
not only be true but also not overlook some important factor that outweighs the given evidence
and requires a different conclusion.
Chapter Summary

Logic is a science that evaluates arguments; and takes argumentation and reasoning as its
primary subject of study. The primary aim of logic is to develop a system of methods and
principles that we may use as criteria for evaluating the arguments of others and as guides in
constructing arguments of our own. The study of logic increases students’ confidence to criticize
the arguments of others and advance arguments of their own. An argument is a systematic
combination of one or more than one premises and one and only conclusion. A premise is a
statement, which is claimed to provide a logical support or evidence to a single another statement,
called conclusion. Conclusion is a statement, which is claimed to logically drawn from the
alleged evidence. An argument can be either good or bad argument, depending on the logical
ability of its premise(s) to support its conclusion.

Not all passages, however, contain an argument. In deciding whether a passage contains an
argument, you should look for three things: (1) indicator words: premise or conclusion indicator
words; (2) an inferential relationship between the premises and conclusion; and (3) typical kinds
of non-arguments. But remember that the mere occurrence of an indicator word does not
guarantee the presence of an argument. You must check whether the statement identified as the
conclusion is claimed to be supported by one or more of the other statements. It is also important
to keep in mind that in many arguments that lack indicator words, the conclusion is the first
statement. Furthermore, it helps to mentally insert the word “therefore” before the various
statements before deciding that a statement should be interpreted as a conclusion.

Arguments are generally divided into two: deductive arguments and inductive arguments. A
deductive argument is an argument in which the premises are claimed to support the conclusion
in such a way that if they are assumed true, it is impossible for the conclusions to be false. An
inductive argument is an argument in which the premises are claimed to support the conclusion
in such a way that if they are assumed true, it is improbable for the conclusions to be false. To
distinguish deductive arguments from inductive arguments, or vice versa, we look for: (1)
special indicator words, (2) the actual strength of the inferential link between premises and
conclusion, and (3) the character or form of argumentation. If the conclusion follows with strict
necessity from the premises, the argument is always deductive; if not, it could be either deductive or
inductive depending on the other factors.
Self Check Exercise

1. Define the following terms: Logic, Argument, Premise, Conclusion.

2. Explain how we can distinguish argumentative passages from no-argumentative passages.

3. Explain the meaning and functions of inferential and factual claims.

4. Discuss briefly the similarities and differences between deductive and inductive
arguments. Support your discussion with your own examples.
 CHAPTER THREE
LOGIC AND LANGUAGE
Chapter Overview

In the previous chapter, we have seen the methods of argument construction and the ways by
which we can evaluate arguments. Any good argument must be presented by clear, accurate and
understandable language. Correct reasoning can only be conveyed through language. The
clarification and analysis of terms and statements is the objective of philosophy in general and
logic in particular. In order to interpret, analyze, and evaluate arguments well, one must pay
close attention to language. Many errors in logic stem from a careless or imprecise use of
language, and many misunderstandings about the nature of language. Hence, logic requires
proper use of terms and statements. Therefore, in this chapter we will study about the purposes of
language, meaning and definitions of terms and different techniques of definitions of terms. We
will see an overview of philosophy of language, the formal meaning of words, how to define our
concepts, intention and extension of terms, types, purposes, and techniques of definition, the
standard criteria of lexical definitions, and finally, we will discuss about how to use definition to
evaluate arguments.

Chapter Objectives:

Dear learners, after the successful completion of this chapter, you will be able to:

 Recognize the relationship between logic and language.

 Identify the part of language important for logic.
 Identify the varieties of meaning of words.
 Appreciate the intensional and extensional meaning of terms.
 Recognize the types, purposes, and techniques of definitions.
 Appreciate the common rules for lexical definitions.
 Understand the purpose of using proper language in arguments.
 Comprehend how to use definitions to evaluate arguments.
 1.1 What is Philosophy of Language?

Activity # 1: Dear learners, what do you think 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, because 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. Chomsky begins with the study of people's internal language
(what he calls "I-languages"), which are based upon certain rules which generate grammars,
supported in part by the conviction that there is no clear, general and principled difference
between one language and the next, and which may apply across the field of all languages. Other
attempts, which he dubs "E-languages", have tried to explain a language as usage within a
specific speech community with a specific set of well-formed utterances in mind.

Translation and interpretation present other problems to philosophers of language. The resulting
view is called 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).
83
 1.2 A Brief Note on the Debates and History of Philosophy of Language

In the Western tradition, the early work was covered, by Plato, Aristotle and the Stoics of
Ancient Greece. Plato generally 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 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). 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, including the phenomena of vagueness
and ambiguity, the doctrines of proper and improper supposition (the interpretation of a term in a
specific context), and 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.

The philosophical study of language, finally, 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: the nature of meaning, language use, language cognition,
84
and the relationship between language, logic and reality. For continental philosophers, however,
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

The question, "what is meaning?", is not immediately obvious. Most frequently, “Meaning" can
be described as the content carried by the words or signs exchanged by people when
communicating through language. Arguably, there are two essentially different types of linguistic
meaning: conceptual meaning (which refers to the definitions of words themselves, and the
features of those definitions, which can be treated using semantic feature analysis) and
associative meaning (which refers to the individual mental understandings of the speaker, and
which may be connotative, collocative, social, affective, reflected or thematic).

There are several approaches to the philosophical nature of meaning. Among others, the
following are the major ones:

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
85
 sentence is determined by the consequences of its application?

2.1 The Functions of Language: Cognitive and Emotive Meanings

Activity # 1: Dear learners, what functions of language do you know? How do

you understand cognitive and emotive meanings of words?

Dear learners, we have discussed, in the preceding chapter, that 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, as most of us are at least vaguely aware, serves various functions in our day- to-
day lives. The twentieth-century philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein thought the number of these
functions to be virtually unlimited. Thus, among other things, language is used to:
Ask questions Tell jokes
Tell stories Flirt with someone
Tell lies Give directions
Guess at answers Sing songs

For our purpose, two linguistic functions are particularly important: (1) to convey information and
(2) to express or evoke feelings. Consider, for example, the following Statements:

Examples:
“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.”

“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. These statements accomplish
their respective functions through the distinct kinds of terminology in which they are phrased.
Terminology that conveys information is said to have cognitive meaning, and terminology that
expresses or evokes feelings is said to have emotive meaning. Thus, in Example 1 the words

86
‘‘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. Of course, these
latter words have cognitive meaning as well. ‘‘Cruel’’ means tending to hurt others, ‘‘inhuman’’
means inappropriate for humans, ‘‘hapless’’ means unfortunate, and so on.

Let us now consider emotive terminology as it occurs in arguments. In arguments, emotive

terminology accomplishes basically the same function as emotive 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.
Example:
Now that we know that the rocks on the moon are similar to those in our backyard and that
tadpoles can exist in a weightless environment, and now that we have put the rest of the world in
order, can we concentrate on the problems here at home? Like what makes people hungry and
why is unemployment so elusive?
The conclusion of this argument is that our government should take money that has been spent
on the space program and on international police actions and redirect it to solving domestic
problems. The author minimizes the importance of the space program by covertly suggesting that
it amounts to nothing more than work on ordinary rocks and tadpoles (which, by themselves are
relatively insignificant), and he exaggerates the scope of the international effort by covertly
suggesting that it has solved every problem on earth but our own. Also, the phrase ‘‘put . . . in
order’’ suggests that the international effort has been no more important than restoring order to a
room in one’s house. We might rephrase the argument in emotively neutral language, making the
implicit suggestions and value claims explicit, as follows:

P-1: The space program has been confined to work on ordinary rocks and tadpoles.

87
P-2: Ordinary rocks and tadpoles are less important than domestic hunger and unemployment.
P-3: Our international efforts have restored order to every nation on earth but our own.
P-4: These efforts have been directed to problems that are less important than our own domestic
problems.
C: Therefore, our government should redirect funds that have been spent on these projects to
solving our own domestic problems.

By restructuring the argument in this way, we can more easily evaluate the degree to which the
premises support the conclusion. Inspection of the premises reveals that the first, third, and
possibly fourth premises are false. Thus, the actual support provided by the premises is less than
what we might have first expected. If the argument were to be rephrased a second time so that
the premises turned out true (for example, the first premise might read ‘‘Part of the space
program has been devoted to research on ordinary rocks and tadpoles’’), the support given to the
conclusion would still be weaker than the author intended.

2.1.1 Deficiency of Cognitive Meanings: Vagueness and Ambiguity

Now that we have distinguished emotive meaning from cognitive meaning, let us explore some
of the ways that cognitive meanings can be defective. Two problems that affect our cognitive use
of language are vagueness and ambiguity. A linguistic expression is said to be vague if there are
borderline cases in which it is impossible to tell if the expression applies or does not apply.
Vague expressions often allow for a continuous range of interpretations. The meaning is hazy,
obscure, and imprecise. For example, words such as ‘‘love,’’ ‘‘happiness, “peace,’’
‘‘excessive,’’ ‘‘fresh,’’ ‘‘rich,’’ ‘‘poor,’’ ‘‘normal,’’ ‘‘conservative,’’ and ‘‘polluted’’ are vague.
We can rarely tell with any precision whether they apply to a given situation or not. How fresh
does something have to be in order to be called fresh?

Vagueness can also affect entire statements. Such vagueness may arise not so much from the
individual words as from the way in which the words are combined. For example, suppose
someone were to say, ‘‘Today our job situation is more transparent.’’ First, what is the meaning
of ‘‘job situation’’? Does it refer to finding a job, keeping a job, filling a job, completing a job,
or bidding on a job? And what exactly does it mean for a job situation to be ‘‘transparent’’? Does
it mean that the job is more easily perceived or comprehended? That the job is more easily
completed? That we can anticipate our future job needs more clearly? Or what else? Not all cases
88
of vagueness, however, are problematic. To describe an acquaintance as ‘‘tall’’ or ‘‘thin’’ often
causes no trouble in ordinary conversation. Indeed, it may be overly burdensome to describe this
person in more precise language. Trouble arises only when the language is not sufficiently
precise for what the situation demands.

The other way in which cognitive meanings can be defective is ambiguity. An expression is said
to be ambiguous when it can be interpreted as having more than one clearly distinct meaning in
a given context. For example, words such as ‘‘light,’’ ‘‘proper,’’ ‘‘critical,’’ ‘‘stress,’’ ‘‘mad,’’
‘‘inflate,’’ ‘‘chest,’’ ‘‘bank,’’ ‘‘sound,’’ and ‘‘race’’ can be used ambiguously. Thus, if one were
to describe a beer as a light pilsner, does this mean that the beer is light in color, light in calories,
or light in taste? If one were to describe an action as proper, does this mean proper in a moral
sense or proper in the sense of being socially acceptable? Or if one were to describe a person as
critical, does this mean that the person is essential for a certain task or that the person tends to
criticize others?

As is the case with vagueness, ambiguity can also affect entire statements. Such ambiguity often
results from the way in which certain words are combined.The difference between ambiguity and
vagueness is that 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? Similar remarks apply to ‘‘light,’’ ‘‘fast,’’ and ‘‘rich.’’

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. Now let us see
the two kinds of disputes in logic.

2.1.2 Forms of Disputes in Logic: Verbal and Factual Disputes

In order to understand these disputes better, we need to consider the following examples:

Example-1:

89
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. Given that Dagim has admitted to cheating in the exam, it is very likely
that he did indeed cheated in the exam and therefore is guilty of cheating in the exam in the
moral sense of the term. 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.

Disputes that arise over the meaning of language are called verbal disputes. 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. But not all disputes are of this sort. Some
disputes arise over a disagreement about facts, and these are called factual disputes.

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.

90
Here, the dispute centers on the factual issues of whether Aberash told the truth and whether
Fisseha stole the computer. Disputes arisen because of the truth or falsity of claims are factual
disputes. In dealing with disputes, the first question is whether the dispute is factual, verbal, or
some combination of the two. If the dispute is verbal, then the second question to be answered is
whether the dispute concerns ambiguity or vagueness.

2.2 The Intension and Extension of Terms

The main task of logic is the evaluation of arguments. However, as we saw in the previous
section, there are countless arguments, in which this task leads to the observation. Such an
observation usually indicates that the meaning of certain words in the argument is vague or
ambiguous. Clearing up the problem often involves supplying a definition. Thus, the study of
meaning and definition is closely related to the main task of logic. In this section, we will
continue our inquiry into aspects of linguistic meaning, and the results of this inquiry will
provide the basis for the theory of definition in the next lessons.

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
Person Those who study hard
Parliament Girmaa
House
Gamachuu
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

At this point, it is important to distinguish the use of a word from the mention of a word.

91
Without this distinction any word can be imagined to serve as the subject of a statement and,

92
therefore, to count as a term. The word ‘‘wherever,’’ for example, is not a term, but ‘‘wherever’’
(in quotes) can serve as the subject of a statement, such as ‘‘‘Wherever’ is an eight-letter word.’’
But in this statement, it is not the word itself that is the subject but rather the quoted word. The
word is said to be mentioned- not used. On the other hand, ‘‘wherever’’ is used in this statement:
‘‘I will follow you wherever you go.’’ In distinguishing terms from non-terms one must be sure
that the word or group of words can be used as the subject of a statement.

Words are usually considered to be symbols, and the entities they symbolize are usually called
meanings. Terms, being made up of words, are also symbols, but the meanings they symbolize
are of two kinds: intensional and extensional. The intensional meaning (which is otherwise
known as intension or connotation) consists of the qualities or attributes that the term connotes,
and the extensional meaning (which is otherwise known as extension or denotation) consists of
the members of the class that the term denotes. For example, the intensional meaning of the term
‘‘cat’’ consists of the attributes of being furry, of having four legs, of moving in a certain way, of
emitting certain sounds, and so on, while the extensional meaning consists of cats themselves- all
the cats in the universe. The term connotes the attributes and denotes the cats. ‘‘Intension’’ and
‘‘extension’’ are roughly equivalent to the more modern terms ‘‘sense’’ and ‘‘reference,’’
respectively. Also, it should be noted that logic uses the terms ‘‘connotation’’ and ‘‘denotation’’
differently from the way they are used in grammar. In grammar, ‘‘connotation’’ refers to the
subtle nuances of a word, whereas ‘‘denotation’’ refers to the word’s direct and specific meaning.

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 the attributes that the term commonly 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. The denotation of ‘‘currently living cat,’’ for example, is
constantly fluctuating as some cats die and others are born. The denotation of the term ‘‘cat,’’ on
93
the other hand, is presumably constant because it denotes all cats, past, present, and future.
Sometimes the denotation of a term can change radically with the passage of time. 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. Accordingly, these terms now
have what is called empty extension. They are 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
empty intension, for they connote a variety of intelligible attributes.

The fact that some terms have empty extension leads us to an important connection between
extension and intension- that intension determines extension. The intensional meaning of a term
serves as the criterion for deciding what the extension consists of. Because we know the
attributes connoted by the term ‘‘unicorn’’- a term with empty extension-,w for example, we
know that the term has empty extension. That is, we know that there are no four-legged
mammals having a single straight horn projecting from their forehead. Similarly, the intension of
the word ‘‘cat’’ serves as the criterion for determining what is and what is not a member of the
class of cats.

One kind of term that raises problems for the intension-determines-extension rule is proper
names. For example, the name ‘‘Abebe’’ might not appear to have any intension, but it denotes
the person who has this name. Although philosophers have disagreed about this, it would seem
that proper names must have some kind of intension or we would not know what persons, if any,
they denote. Thus, we solve the problem. One possible solution to this problem is that names are

shorthand symbols for descriptions or bundles of descriptions. For example, ‘‘Abebe’’ could be
shorthand for ‘‘the first year student of Civil Engineering department, since 2005 E.C.’’ or ‘‘the
person who is a representative of this section.’’

Another possible solution to the problem of proper names is that the intension of proper names
consists of the causal chain of events leading from the point at which the name is first assigned to
the point at which a certain person learns about the name. Thus, the first link in such a chain
might be the baptismal event at which the name ‘‘Abebe” is given to a certain infant, the second
link would be the event in which a certain third party is informed of the first event, and so on.
This entire chain of events extending through the linguistic community would then constitute the
intension of ‘‘Abebe.’’ Thus, we conclude that for all terms, including proper names, intension
94
determines extension.

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

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

Let us see the following examples:

Increasing intension: animal, mammal, feline, tiger
Increasing extension: tiger, feline, mammal, animal
Decreasing intension: tiger, feline, mammal, animal
Decreasing extension: animal, mammal, feline, tiger

These examples illustrate a fact pertaining to most such series: 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.

There are, however, some exceptions. Consider the following series:

Unicorn; unicorn with blue eyes; unicorn with blue eyes and green horn;
unicorn with blue eyes, green horn, and a weight of over 400 pounds

Each term in this series has empty extension; so, while the series exhibits the order of increasing
intension, it does not exhibit the order of decreasing extension.

Here is another, slightly different, example:

living human being; living human being with a genetic code; living human
95
 being with a genetic code and a brain; living human being with a genetic
code, a brain, and a height of less than 100 feet

In this series, none of the terms has empty extension, but each term has exactly the same
extension as the others. Thus, while the intension increases with each successive term, once
again the extension does not decrease.

Logic and Definition

3: Meaning, Types, and Purposes of Definitions

3.1 The Meaning of Definition

Activity # 1: Dear learners how do you understand a definition?

Dear learners, definition are a technical and structural organization of words and/or terms or
phrases in explaining the meaning of a given term. For most logicians, dentitions are intended
exclusively to explicate the meaning of words. Hence, we may define definition as a group of
words that assigns a meaning to some word or group of words. Accordingly, every definition
consists of two parts: the definiendum and the definiens. The definiendum is the word or group
of words that is supposed to be defined, and the definiens is the word or group of words that
does the defining. For example, in the definition ‘‘‘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. The definiens is not itself the meaning of the
definiendum; rather, it is the group of words that symbolizes (or that is supposed to symbolize)
the same meaning as the definiendum. Because we presumably know in advance what the
definiens symbolizes, we are led, via the definition, to understand what the definiendum
symbolizes. It is in this way that the definition ‘‘assigns’’ a meaning to its definiendum.

3.2 The Types and Purposes of Definitions

Activity # 2: Dear learners, what do you think are practical purposes of definitions?

There are various kinds of definitions that are actually used in our practical life. Based on the

96
functions that they actually serve, definitions can be classified into five: stipulative, lexical,
précising, theoretical, and persuasive definitions. Let us discuss them in detail

1) Stipulative Definitions

A stipulative definition assigns a meaning to a word for the first time. This may involve either
coining a new word or giving a new meaning to an old word. The purpose of a stipulative
definition is usually to replace a more complex expression with a simpler one.

The need for a stipulative definition is often occasioned by some new phenomenon or
development. For example, the attempt, which has made a few years ago at a certain zoo to
crossbreed tigers and lions, has been succeeded because of the genetic similarity of the two
species- that offspring were produced from a male tiger and a female lion and from a male lion
and a female tiger. When the offspring were born, it became appropriate to give them names. Of
course, the names ‘‘offspring of male tiger and female lion’’ and ‘‘offspring of male lion and
female tiger’’ could have been used, but these names were hardly convenient. Instead, the names
‘‘tigon’’ and ‘‘liger’’ were selected. Any two new words would have sufficed equally well for
naming the offspring- ‘‘topar’’ and ‘‘largine’’, for example, but ‘‘tigon’’ and ‘‘liger’’ were
considered more appropriate, for obvious reasons. Hence, ‘‘Tigon’’ was taken to mean the
offspring of a male tiger and a female lion, and ‘‘liger’’ the offspring of a male lion and a female
tiger. These assignments of meanings were accomplished through stipulative definitions.

Another use for stipulative definitions is to set up secret codes. For example, during World War
II, ‘‘Tora, Tora, Tora’’ was the code name Admiral Yamamoto transmitted to the war office in
Tokyo signaling that the Japanese fleet had not been spotted in the hours preceding the bombing
of Pearl Harbor. More recently, ‘‘Operation Desert Storm’’ was the code name given to the
military invasion of Iraq. Law enforcement organizations have adopted similar code names for
sting operations against organized crime.

It is important to note that because a stipulative definition is a completely arbitrary assignment of

a meaning to a word for the first time, there can be no such thing as a ‘‘true’’ or ‘‘false’’
stipulative definition. Furthermore, for the same reason, a stipulative definition cannot provide
any new information about the subject matter of the definiendum. The fact that the word ‘‘tigon’’
was selected to replace ‘‘offspring of a male tiger and a female lion’’ tells us nothing new about

97
the nature of the animal in question. One stipulative definition may, however, be more or less
convenient or more or less appropriate than another.

2) Lexical Definitions

This definition is used to report the meaning that a word already has in a language. Dictionary
definitions are all instances of lexical definitions. Thus, in contrast with a stipulative definition, a
lexical definition may be true or false depending on whether it does or does not report the way a
word is actually used. Because words are frequently used in more than one way, lexical
definitions have the further purpose of eliminating the ambiguity that would otherwise arise if
one of these meanings were to be confused with another.

As we saw in the first section of this chapter, an expression is ambiguous when it can be
interpreted as having two or more clearly distinct meanings in a given context. Words such as
‘‘light,’’ ‘‘mad,’’ and ‘‘bank’’ can be used ambiguously. Because a lexical definition lists the
various meanings that a word can have, a person who consults such a definition is better prepared
to avoid ambiguous constructions of his or her own and to detect those of others. Undetected
ambiguity causes the most trouble. In many cases the problem lies not with the obvious
differences in meaning that words such as ‘‘light’’ and ‘‘bank’’ may have but with the subtle
shadings of meaning that are more likely to be confused with one another. For example, if a
woman is described as ‘‘nice,’’ any number of things could be intended. She could be fastidious,
refined, modest, pleasant, attractive, or even lewd. A good lexical definition will distinguish
these various shadings and thereby guard against the possibility that two such meanings will be
unconsciously jumbled together into one.

3) Précising Definitions

The purpose of a précising definition is to reduce the vagueness of a word. As we saw in the first
section of this chapter, an expression 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. Once the vagueness of such words is reduced by a précising definition, one
can reach a decision as to the applicability of the word to a specific situation. For example, if
legislation were ever introduced to give direct financial assistance to the poor, a précising
definition would have to be supplied specifying exactly who is poor and who is not. The

98
definition ‘‘‘Poor’ means having an annual income of less than $4,000 and a net worth of less
than $20,000’’ 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.

Sometimes the substance of a court trial may revolve around the precise usage of a term. A trial
in California addressed the question of whether a man who had driven a bicycle while
intoxicated violated the motor vehicle code. The question concerned whether, for these purposes,
a bicycle could be considered a ‘‘vehicle.’’ The court decided in the affirmative, and the decision
amounted to an incremental extension of an already existent précising definition of the word
‘‘vehicle.’’

Another example involves the practice of surgical transplantation of vital organs. Before a heart
transplant can be conducted, the donor must be dead; otherwise, the surgeon will be accused of
murder. If the donor is dead for too long, however, the success of the transplant will be imperiled.
But exactly when is a person considered to be dead? Is it when the heart stops beating, when the
person stops breathing, when rigor mortis sets in, or some other time? The question involves the
meaning of the term ‘‘moment of death.’’ The courts have decided that ‘‘moment of death’’
should be taken to mean the moment the brain stops functioning, as measured by an
electroencephalograph. This decision amounts to the acceptance of a précising definition for
‘‘moment of death.’’

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

4) Theoretical Definitions

99
A theoretical definition assigns a meaning to a word by suggesting a theory that gives a certain
characterization to the entities that the term denotes. Such a definition provides a way of viewing
or conceiving these entities that suggests deductive consequences, further investigation
(experimental or otherwise), and whatever else would be entailed by the acceptance of a theory
governing these entities. The definition of the term ‘‘heat’’ found in texts dealing with the kinetic
theory of heat provides a good example: ‘‘‘heat’ means the energy associated with the random
motion of the molecules of a substance.’’ This definition does more than merely assign a
meaning to a word; it provides a way of conceiving the physical phenomenon that is heat. In so
doing, it suggests the deductive consequence that as the molecules of a substance speed up the
temperature of the substance increases. In addition, it suggests a number of experiments-
experiments investigating the relationship between molecular velocity and the phenomena of
radiation, gas pressure, molecular elasticity, and molecular configuration. In short, this definition
of ‘‘heat’’ provides the impetus for an entire theory about heat.

5) Persuasive Definitions

The purpose of a persuasive definition is to engender a favorable or unfavorable attitude toward

what is denoted by the definiendum. This purpose is accomplished by assigning an emotionally
charged or value-laden meaning to a word while making it appears that the word really has (or
ought to have) that meaning in the language in which it is used. Thus, persuasive definitions
amount to a certain synthesis of stipulative, lexical, and, possibly, theoretical definitions backed
by the rhetorical motive to engender a certain attitude. As a result of this synthesis, a persuasive
definition masquerades as an honest assignment of meaning to a term while condemning or
blessing with approval the subject matter of the definiendum. Let us see the following examples:
“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 commonwealth is
preserved and sustained.
‘‘Taxation’’ means the procedure used by bureaucrats to rip off the people who
elected them.

100
 4.1 The Extensional (Denotative) Definitional Techniques

Activity # 1: Dear learners, how do you define extensional definition?

An extensional definition is one that assigns a meaning to a term by indicating the members of
the class that the definiendum denotes. There are at least three ways of indicating the members of
a class: pointing to them (demonstrative or ostensive definitions), naming them individually
(enumerative definitions), and naming them in groups (definitions by subclass).

1) Demonstrative (Ostensive) Definitions

Demonstrative (Ostensive) Definitions are probably the most primitive form of definition. All
one need know to understand such a definition is the meaning of pointing. Such definitions may
be either partial or complete, depending on whether all or only some of the members of the class
denoted by the definiendum are pointed to.

If you were attempting to teach a foreigner your own native language, and neither of you
understood a word of each other’s language, demonstrative definition would almost certainly be
one of the methods you would use.

Demonstrative definitions are also the most limited. In addition to the limitations affecting all
extensional definitions, there is the obvious limitation that the required objects be available for
being pointed at. For example, if one wishes to define the word ‘‘sun’’ and it happens to be
nighttime, 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. While
this conclusion may appear strange at first, it is supported by the fact that the ‘‘words’’ in many
sign languages consist exclusively of gestures.

2) Enumerative Definitions

Enumerative Definitions assign a meaning to a term by naming the members of the class the term

101
denotes. Like demonstrative definitions, they may also be either partial or complete.

Example:

“Actor’’ means a person such as Abebe Balicha, Samsom Taddesse, or Mahder Assefa.

Complete enumerative definitions are usually more satisfying than partial ones because they
identify the definiendum with greater assurance. However, relatively few classes can be
completely enumerated.

3) Definition by Subclass

Definition by Subclass assigns a meaning to a term by naming subclasses of the class denoted by
the term. Such a definition, too, may 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. See the following examples, the first is partial, the second is complete:

‘‘Tree’’ means an oak, pine, elm, spruce, maple, and the like.
“Fictional work’’ means a poem, a play, a novel, or a short story.

As with definitions by enumeration, complete definitions by subclass are more satisfying than
partial ones; but because relatively few terms denote classes that admit of a conveniently small
number of subclasses, complete definitions by subclass are often difficult, if not impossible, to
provide.

Extensional definitions are chiefly used as techniques for producing lexical and stipulative
definitions. Lexical definitions are aimed at communicating how a word is actually used, and one
of the ways of doing so is by identifying the members of the class that the word denotes.
Dictionaries, for example, frequently include references to the individual members (enumerative
definition), or to the subclasses of the class (definition by subclass) denoted by the word being
defined; and sometimes to the picture of the object that word symbolizes (demonstrative).

The task of stipulative definitions may be accomplished by all three kinds of extensional
definition. For example, a biologist engaged in naming and classifying types of fish might assign
names to the specific varieties by pointing to their respective tanks (demonstrative definition),

102
and then she might assign a class name to the whole group by referring to the names of the
specific varieties (definition by subclass). And an organizer of a children’s game might make the
stipulation: ‘‘John, Mary, and Billy will be called ‘Buccaneers,’ and Judy, George, and Nancy
will be ‘Pirates’’’ (enumerative definition).

Although it is conceivable that extensional definitions could also serve as techniques for
theoretical and persuasive definitions (though this would be highly unusual), extensional
definitions by themselves cannot properly serve as précising definitions, for the following
reason. The function of a précising definition is to clarify a vague word, and vagueness is a
problem affecting intensional meaning. Because the intension is imprecise, the extension is
indefinite. To attempt to render the intension precise by exactly specifying the extension (as with
an extensional definition) would be tantamount to having extension determine intension- which
cannot be done.

The principle 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

Activity # 1: Dear learners how do you define intentional definition?

An intensional definition one that assigns a meaning to a word by indicating the qualities or
attributes that the word connotes. There are at least four strategies that may be used to indicate
103
the attributes/qualities that a word connotes. These strategies result synonymous definitions,
etymological definitions, operational definitions, definitions 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- that the definiens is a synonym of the word being defined.

When a single word can be found that has the same intensional meaning as the word beng
defined, a synonymous definition is a highly concise way of assigning a meaning. However,
many words have subtle shades of meaning that are not connoted by any other single word. For
example, the word “wisdom” is not synonymous with either “knowledge”, “understanding”, or
“sense”.

2) Etymological Definition

Etymological Definition assigns a meaning to a word by disclosing the word’s ancestry in both
its own language and other languages. For example, the English word ‘‘license’’ is derived from
the Latin verb licere, which means to be permitted. Etymological definitions have special
importance for at least two reasons. The first reason is that the etymological definition of a word
often conveys the word’s root meaning or seminal meaning from which all other associated
meanings are derived. Unless one is familiar with this root meaning, one often fails to place other
meanings in their proper light or to grasp the meaning of the word when it is used in its most
proper sense. For example, the word ‘‘principle’’ derives from the Latin word principium, which
means beginning or source. Accordingly, the ‘‘principles of physics’’ are those fundamental laws
that provide the ‘‘source’’ of the science of physics.

The second reason why etymological definitions have a special importance is that if one is
familiar with the etymology of one word, one often has access to the meaning of an entire
constellation of related words. For example, if one is familiar with the etymological definition of
‘‘polygon’’ (from the Greek words poly, meaning many, and ganos meaning angle), one might
grasp the meanings of ‘‘polygamy’’ (from gamos, meaning marriage).

104
 3) Operational Definition

Operational Definition assigns a meaning to a word by specifying certain experimental

procedures that determine whether or not the word applies to a certain thing.

Examples:

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.

Each of these definitions prescribes an operation to be performed. The first prescribes that the
two substances in question be rubbed together, the second that the litmus paper be placed in the
solution and observed for color change. Unless it specifies such an operation, a definition cannot
be an operational definition. For example, the definition ‘‘A solution is an ‘acid’ if and only if it
has a pH of less than 7,’’ while good in other respects, is not an operational definition because it
prescribes no operation.

4) Definition by Genus and Difference

Definition by Genus and Difference assigns a meaning to a term by identifying a genus term and
one or more difference words that, when combined, convey the meaning of the term being
defined. It is is more generally applicable and achieves more adequate results than any of the
other kinds of intensional definition. To explain how it works, we must first explain the
meanings of the terms ‘‘genus,’’ ‘‘species,’’ and ‘‘specific difference.’

In logic, ‘‘genus’’ and ‘‘species’’ have a somewhat different meaning than they have in biology.
In logic, ‘‘genus’’ simply means a relatively larger class, and ‘‘species’’ means a relatively
smaller subclass of the genus. For example, we may speak of the genus animal and the species
mammal, or of the genus mammal and the species feline, or of the genus feline and the species
tiger, or the genus tiger and the species Bengal tiger.

The ‘‘specific difference,’’ or ‘‘difference,’’ for short, is the attribute or attributes that
distinguish the various species within a genus. Because the specific difference is what
distinguishes the species, when a genus is qualified by a specific difference, a species is

105
identified. Definition by genus and difference consists of combining a term denoting a genus
with a word or group of words connoting a specific difference so that the combination identifies
the meaning of the term denoting the species.

Let us construct a definition by genus and difference for the word ‘‘ice.’’ The first step is to
identify a genus of which ice is the species. The required genus is water. Next we must identify a
specific difference (attribute) that makes ice a special form of water. The required difference is
frozen. The completed definition may now be written out:
Species Difference Genus
“Ice” means frozen water

Therefore, it is easy to construct a definition by genus and difference. Simply select a term that is
more general than the term to be defined. Then narrow it down so that it means the same thing as
the term being defined. Let us see some other similar examples:
Species Difference Genus
“Daughter” means female offspring
“Husband” means married man

Definition by genus and difference is the most effective of the intensional definitions for
producing the five kinds of definition discussed in the previous lesson. Stipulative, lexical,
précising, theoretical, and persuasive definitions can all be constructed according to the method
of genus and difference. Lexical definitions are typically definitions by genus and difference, but
they also often include etymological definitions. Operational definition can serve as the method
for constructing stipulative, lexical, précising, and persuasive definitions, but because of the
limitations we have noted, it typically could not be used to produce a complete lexical definition.
Other techniques would have to be used in addition.

Chapter Summary

Language is the most important thing in the study of logic. Giving that logic is the study of
arguments, and language is the fundamental tool of communication, there is not only a strong
relationship between language and logic but also the former has a prominent position within the
discipline of the latter. Argument, as the most special subject matter of logic, is nothing but a
106
reasoning process that is constructed and conveyed through language. The clarification and
analysis of terms and statements is the objective of philosophy in general and logic in particular.
In order to interpret, analyze, and evaluate arguments well, one must pay close attention to
language. Many errors in logic stem from a careless or imprecise use of language, and many
misunderstandings about the nature of language. Hence, if we are to successfully evaluate the
logical correctness of arguments, it is important to pay a special attention to the language in
which the arguments are cast. More specially, meanings and definitions are very important both,
for clear, effective, and comprehensive communications, and for logical, scientific, and critical
evaluations of arguments. Before we decide whether the requirements of a certain argument are
fulfilled, it is necessary to understand the meanings of the words that make up the statements,
which in its turn, make up the given argument.

Language has two fundamental functions in logic, conveying information and expressing or
evoking feeling, which are expressed through some terminologies. Those terminologies that
convey information are said to have cognitive meanings, and those that expresses or evokes
feelings are said to have emotive meanings. Emotively charged statements usually have both
cognitive meaning and emotive meaning. However, since logic is concerned chiefly with
cognitive meaning, our primary concern should be to distinguish and disengage the cognitive
meaning of emotive statements from the emotive meaning, which is commonly known as a
value claim. Value claims are usually the most important part of the cognitive meaning of
emotive statements.

Vagueness and ambiguity are the two linguistic problems that affect our cognitive use of
language. A linguistic expression is said to be vague if there are borderline cases in which it is
impossible to tell if the expression applies or does not apply. Vague expressions often allow for a
continuous range of interpretations. An expression is said to be ambiguous when it can be
interpreted as having more than one clearly distinct meaning in a given context. 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. Disputes can be
verbal or factual. The former centers on a confusion of cognitive meanings between disputants,
while the later on a matter of fact.

Terms symbolize two kinds of meanings: intensional meaning and extensional meaning. The
107
intensional meaning, which is otherwise known as intension or connotation, consists of the
qualities or attributes that the term connotes, and the extensional meaning, which is otherwise
known as extension or denotation, consists of the members of the class that the term denotes. To
avoid the subjective elements that invades the notion of connotation, and of course that of
denotation, logicians typically restrict the meaning of connotation and denotation to the
conventional connotation and denotation. Sometimes extensions can be empty, but intensions.

Meanings are conveyed or explicated by definitions. A definition is a group of words that assigns
a meaning to some word or group of words; and consists of two parts: the definiendum, (the word
or group of words that is supposed to be defined ), and the definiens, (the word or group of words
that does the defining). It is, however, important to note that the definiens is not itself the
meaning of the definiendum; rather, it is the group of words that symbolizes (or that is supposed
to symbolize) the same meaning as the definiendum. There are various kinds of definitions that
are actually used in our practical life. Based on the functions they actually serve, definitions can
be classified as stipulative, lexical, précising, theoretical, and persuasive definitions. These
definitions can be produced by extensional definitional techniques, (demonstrative/ostensive,
enumerative, and subclass), and intensional definitional techniques, (synonymous, etymological,
operational, and genus and difference). Because lexical definition the most important and
common definition, it is important for it to fulfill some standard linguistic rules.

Self Check Exercise

1. Explain the relationship between logic and language.

2. Discuss the important functions of language that are relevant to logic.

3. Explain the meaning and function of a value claim in arguments.

4. Explain the differences between vagueness and ambiguity, and between verbal and
factual disputes.

108
 CHAPTER FOUR
BASIC CONCEPTS OF CRITICAL THINKING

Chapter Overview

This chapter is about the power of disciplined thinking. It is about learning to think for yourself
and being your own person. In many high schools, the emphasis of education tends to be on
“lower-order thinking.” Students are simply expected to passively absorb information and then
repeat it back on tests. In college and universities, by contrast, the emphasis is on fostering
“higher-order thinking”: the active, intelligent evaluation of ideas and information. As Martin
Luther King Jr rightly puts it as “The function of education is to teach one to think intensively
and to think critically”. The main goal of teaching Critical Thinking is therefore, to teach
students how to think; that is, how to become independent, self-directed thinkers and learners. It
is about the personal empowerment and enrichment that result from learning to use your mind to
its fullest potential. In short, it is about critical thinking. In this chapter, we deal with the
Meaning, Standards, Principles, Characteristics, Barriers, and Benefits of critical thinking,

Chapter Objectives:

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

 Define critical thinking.

 Understand the standards of critical thinking.
 Appreciate the principles of good argument and critical thinking.
 Understand the characteristics of critical thinking.
 Identify the barriers of critical thinking.
 Recognize the benefits of critical thinking.

109
 Meaning of Critical Thinking

Activity # 1: Dear learners, what do you think is critical thinking?

Critical means involving or exercising skilled judgment or observation. In this sense, critical
thinking means thinking clearly and intelligently. More precisely, critical thinking 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. Moreover, it helps to discover and
overcome personal preconceptions and biases; to formulate and present convincing reasons in
support of conclusions; and to make reasonable, intelligent decisions about what to believe and
what to do.

However, it does not automatically follow that being intelligent means being able think critically or
reason about information in a useful, effective and efficient manner. Being smart and intelligent
is not sufficient. Critical thinking is a process or journey that helps us to arrive at the most useful,
helpful, and most likely destinations when evaluating claims for scientific truth. Critical thinking,
thus, is thinking clearly, thinking fairly, thinking rationally, thinking objectively, and thinking
independently. It is a process that hopefully leads to an impartial investigation of the data and
facts that remains not swayed by irrelevant emotions. Therefore, the aim of critical thinking is to
arrive at well-reasoned, considered, and justifiable conclusions.

The American philosopher, John Dewey, has defined critical thinking as an active, persistent, and
careful consideration of a belief or supposed form of knowledge in the light of the grounds,
which support it and the further conclusions to which it tends. In this definition, there are three
main points that we should focus on: active, persistent and grounds.

The first point is that critical thinking is an ‘active’ process. By defining critical thinking as an
‘active’ process, Dewey is contrasting it with the kind of thinking in which you just receive ideas
and information from other people – what you might reasonably call a ‘passive’ process. For
Dewey, critical thinking is essentially an active process – one in which you think things through
for yourself, raise questions yourself, find relevant information yourself and so on, rather than
learning in a largely passive way from someone else. The second point is that critical thinking is
persistent and careful consideration. Here, Dewey is contrasting critical thinking with the kind of

110
unreflective thinking we all sometimes engage in. For example, we sometimes jump to a
conclusion or make a quick decision without thinking about it. Of course, sometimes, we may
have to do this because we need to decide quickly or the issue is not important enough to warrant
careful thought, but we often do it when we ought to stop and think – when we ought to persist a
bit.

However, the most important point in Dewey’s definition lies in what he said about the ‘grounds
which support’ a belief and the ‘further conclusions to which it tends’. What Dewey is saying, to
express it in a more familiar language, is that what matters are the reasons we have for believing
something and the implications of our beliefs. It is no exaggeration to say that critical thinking
attaches huge importance to reasoning, to giving reasons and to evaluating reasoning as far as
possible. There is more to it than that, but skilful reasoning is a key element.

Dewey’s definition, though it is important, misses some important features of critical thinking.
Let us now see the other definition given by Edward Glaser. Edward Glaser defined critical
thinking as: (1) an attitude of being disposed to consider in a thoughtful way the problems and
subjects that come within the range of one’s experience; (2) knowledge of the methods of logical
enquiry and reasoning; and (3) some skill in applying those methods.

If we closely observe Glaser’s definition, it is immediately obvious that this definition owes a lot
to Dewey’s original definition. Glaser uses the term ‘evidence’ in place of ‘grounds’ but
otherwise the second sentence is much the same. But there are two points which stands out in
this definition. The first sentence speaks about an attitude or disposition to be thoughtful about
problems and recognizes that you can apply what he calls ‘the methods of logical enquiry and
reasoning’ with more or less ‘skill’. The tradition has picked up on both these elements,
recognizing that critical thinking is partly a matter of having certain thinking skills. But it is not
just a matter of having these skills; it is also a matter of being disposed to use them. Critical
thinking combines these habits and abilities in approaching and understanding our experience.

Here is another important definition of critical thinking is given by Richard Paul: Critical
thinking is that mode of thinking – about any subject, content or problem – in which the thinker
improves the quality of his or her thinking by skillfully taking charge of the structures inherent in
thinking and imposing intellectual standards upon them. Paul associates critical thinking with

111
reflecting on thoughts. This definition is interesting and somehow looks different from the other
definitions given above. It draws attention to a feature of critical thinking on which scholars in
the field seem to be largely agreed - that the only realistic way to develop one’s critical thinking
ability is through ‘thinking about one’s thinking’ (often called ‘meta-cognition’), and
consciously aiming to improve it by reference to some model of good thinking in that domain.

Critical thinking is sometimes referred to as ‘critico creative’ thinking. This word is the
combination of two words: critical and creative. There are two related reasons for this. The first
is that the term ‘critical thinking’ is sometimes thought to sound rather negative, as though one’s
only interest is in adversely criticizing other people’s arguments and ideas. This would be a
serious mistake since (and this is the second reason) to be good at evaluating arguments and
ideas, one often has to be very imaginative and creative about other possibilities, alternative
considerations, different options and so on. To be a good judge of issues, it is not enough to see
faults in what other people say. You need to base your judgment on the best arguments you can
devise in the time available; and this often requires you to think of relevant considerations other
than those presented, look at issues from different points of view, imagine alternative scenarios
and perhaps find other relevant information – in short, you will need to be quite creative. For
these reasons, some writers have wanted to speak of ‘criticocreative’ thinking to emphasize the
positive, imaginative aspects of critical thinking. Unfortunately, the result is a rather
cumbersome expression so we shall use the term ‘critical thinking’, which is now so widely used,
whilst understanding it in this positive, imaginative sense. In short, critical thinking is a kind of
evaluative thinking – which involves both criticism and creative thinking – and which is
particularly concerned with the quality of reasoning or argument that is presented in support of a
belief, or a course of action.

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. There are
some dispositions and attitudes, skills and abilities, habits and values that every critical person
should manifest. In this section, we will see some of the key intellectual traits of critical thinkers.

112
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.

4.2 Basic Traits of Uncritical Thinkers

We have in the previous section that every critical person manifests some dispositions and
attitudes, skills and abilities, habits and values. What about the uncritical thinker? In this section,
we will see some 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.

Let us now compare and contrasts the key intellectual traits of critical thinkers with the relevant
traits of uncritical thinkers:

First, critical thinkers have a passionate drive for clarity, precision, accuracy, and other critical
thinking standards while uncritical thinkers often think in ways that are unclear, imprecise, and
inaccurate. In addition to this, critical thinkers are sensitive to ways in which critical thinking can
be skewed by egocentrism, sociocentrism, wishful thinking, and other impediments, while
uncritical thinkers often fall prey to egocentrism, sociocentrism, relativistic thinking,

113
unwarranted assumptions, and wishful thinking.

Second, critical thinkers are skilled at understanding, analyzing, and evaluating arguments and
viewpoints whereas uncritical thinkers often misunderstand or evaluate unfairly arguments and
viewpoints. Moreover, critical thinkers reason logically, draw appropriate conclusions from
evidence and data, while uncritical thinkers are illogical, and draw unsupported conclusions from
these sources.

Third, critical thinkers are intellectually honest with themselves, acknowledging what they do
not know and recognizing their limitations while uncritical thinkers pretend they know more than
they do and ignore their limitations. Furthermore, critical thinkers listen open-mindedly to
opposing points of view, welcome criticisms of beliefs and assumptions, whereas uncritical
thinkers are closed-minded, and resist criticisms of beliefs and assumptions.

Fourth, critical thinkers base their beliefs on facts and evidence rather than on personal
preferences or self-interests, while uncritical thinkers often base beliefs on mere personal
preferences or self-interests. Again, critical thinkers are aware of the biases and preconceptions
that shape the way they perceive the world, whereas uncritical thinkers lack awareness of their
own biases and preconceptions.

Fifth, critical thinkers think independently and are not afraid to disagree with group opinion
whereas uncritical thinkers tend to engage in “groupthink” uncritically following the beliefs and
values of the crowd. Moreover, critical thinkers have the intellectual courage to face and assess
fairly ideas that challenge even their most basic beliefs whereas uncritical thinkers fear and resist
ideas that challenge their basic beliefs.

Finally yet importantly, critical thinkers pursue truth, are curious about a wide range of issues
and have the intellectual perseverance to pursue insights or truths despite obstacles or difficulties
whereas uncritical thinkers are often relatively indifferent to truth and lack curiosity, tend not to
persevere when they encounter intellectual obstacles or difficulties.
Benefits of Critical Thinking
Activity # 1: Dear learners, what benefits of critical thinking do you think of?

114
Critical Thinking: Skills and Dispositions

Critical thinking teaches you how to raise and identify fundamental questions and problems in
the community. It will teach you to reformulate these problems clearly and precisely. It will
teach you how to gather and assess relevant information, develop reasoned conclusions and
solutions, testing them against relevant criterion and standards. It teaches you 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 is what university is all about. University is not only about teaching students
with facts. It’s about teaching students to think- think critically. This chapter will introduce you
the skills and dispositions you need to become an independent, self-directed thinker and learner.
But you’ll only get out of this course what you put into it. Becoming a critical thinker is hard
work. Becoming a master thinker means toning up your mental muscles and acquiring habits of
careful, disciplined thinking. This requires effort, and practice. Critical thinking is an adventure.
Becoming mentally fit is hard work. But in the end you’ll be a smarter, stronger, more confident
thinker. Let us consider, more specifically, what you can expect to gain from a course in critical
thinking.

Critical Thinking in the Classroom

When they first enter university, students are sometimes surprised to discover that university
education seem less interested in how beliefs are acquired than they are in whether those beliefs
can withstand critical scrutiny. The question is not much about what you know, but how you
acquire what you know and whether your ideas stands critical examination.

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 chapter, students learn a variety of skills that can greatly improve their classroom
performance. These skills include:

Understanding the arguments and beliefs of others

115
 Critically evaluating those arguments and beliefs
Developing and defending one’s own well-supported arguments and beliefs

Let us look briefly at each of these three skills:

To succeed in university, you must, of course, be able to understand the material you are
studying. A course in critical thinking cannot make inherently difficult material easy to grasp,
but critical thinking does teach a variety of skills that, with practice, can significantly improve
your ability to understand the arguments and issues discussed in your college textbooks and
classes.

In addition, critical thinking can help you critically evaluate what you are learning in class.
During your university career, your instructors will often ask you to discuss “critically” some
argument or idea introduced in class. Critical thinking teaches a wide range of strategies and
skills that can greatly improve your ability to engage in such critical evaluation.

You will also be asked to develop your own arguments on particular topics or issues. In moral
and civic education class, for example, you might be asked to write a paper addressing the issue
of whether ethnic federalism is good or bad. To write such a paper successfully, you must do
more than simply find and assess relevant arguments and information. You must also be able to
marshal arguments and evidence in a way that convincingly supports your view. The systematic
training provided in a course in critical thinking can greatly improve that skill as well.

Critical thinking is a transferable thinking skill. These skills will be taught in ways that expressly
aim to facilitate their transfer to other subjects and contexts. If you learn how to structure
argument, judge the credibility of sources or make a reasonable decision by the methods of
critical thinking for instance, it will not be difficult to see how to do these things in many other
contexts such as in class rooms and personal life; this is the sense in which the skills we teach in
this text are transferable.

Critical Thinking in Life

Critical thinking is valuable in many contexts outside the classroom. Let us look briefly at three
ways in which this is the case. First, critical thinking can help us avoid making foolish personal

116
decisions. All of us have at one time or another made decisions about what profession to choose,
what relationships to enter into, what personal behavior to develop, and the like that we later
realized were seriously misguided or irrational. Critical thinking can help us avoid such mistakes
by teaching 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 et cetera.
It is vital, therefore, that citizens’ decisions be as informed and as rational as possible. 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. One of the most basic truths of the human condition is that most people,
most of the time, believe what they are told. 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. It lets us step back from the prevailing customs and
ideologies of our culture and ask, “This is what I’ve been taught, but is it true? 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 Summary

Critical also means, “involving or exercising skilled judgment or observation.” In this sense,
critical thinking means thinking clearly and intelligently. More precisely, critical thinking 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; to discover and overcome
personal preconceptions and biases; to formulate and present convincing reasons in support of
conclusions; and to make reasonable, intelligent decisions about what to believe and what to do.

117
It does not automatically follow that being intelligent means the student can think critically or
reason about information in a useful, effective and efficient manner. Critical thinking is a process.
It is, also, a journey that helps us to arrive at the most useful, helpful, and most likely
destinations when evaluating claims for scientific truth. Critical thinking, thus, is thinking clearly,
thinking fairly, thinking rationally, thinking objectively, and thinking independently. It is a
process that hopefully leads to an impartial investigation of the data and facts that remains not
swayed by irrelevant emotions. As part and parcel of logic, critical thinking ,also, teaches us
what logical principles we, as rational beings, should following in right reasoning. It is also
important to recall that, in this chapter, characteristics of critical and uncritical persons, criteria
for critical thinking, what it meant for a good argument and other related issues were addressed.

Self Check Exercise

1. Define critical thinking.

2. Discuss the major standards of critical thinking.

3. Explain the principles of good argument and critical thinking.

4. Compare and contrast critical and uncritical thinkers.

5. Explain the common barriers of critical thinking.

6. Discuss briefly the major benefits of critical thinking.

CHAPTER FIVE

118
 LOGICAL REASONING AND FALLACIES
Chapter Overview

We have seen in chapter two that an argument can be good or bad, depending on the relationship
between the premises and a conclusion. An argument is good as far as it meets all the general
criteria set for a good argument. If, however, it fails to do so, or violates them, it becomes bad,
and hence, fallacious. A fallacy is, therefore, a defect in an argument (or, a mistake frequently
committed in reasoning) that consists in something other than merely false premises. It 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).

Dear learner, in this chapter, we will learn the nature and major forms of fallacies, with a special
emphasis on the categories of informal fallacies. We will see, first, fallacies in general as an
introductory move, but we will invest most of our time on the varieties of informal fallacies.

Chapter Objectives:
At the end of this chapter, you will be able to:

 Define what a fallacy is in general.

 Differentiate formal and informal fallacies.
 Identify the defects of fallacious arguments.
 Recognize the major categories and varieties of informal fallacies.
 Identify the particular fallacy committed in a certain argument.

1.1 The Meaning of Fallacy

Activity # 1: Dear learners, are you familiar with the term ‘fallacy’? Have you ever
used the term for any purpose? If so, what do you mean by ‘fallacy’?

Dear learners, the word ‘fallacy’ is a general term that refers to a logical defect or flaw or fault
that a certain argument exhibits in its structural arrangement or reasoning process, or in the
contents of its statements used as premises or a conclusion, for various reasons, other than
merely false premises. In general, it is a violation of standard argumentative rules or criteria.

Activity # 2: Dear learners, what are the standard rules of a good argument?

119
Let us take a moment now and see the standard criteria or rules of a good argument, before
proceed to the detail discussion of fallacies.

There are four general criteria of a good argument, which specifically evaluate the relevance,
acceptability, sufficiency, and rebuttablity of the premises. A good argument must have premises
that: are relevant to the truth of the conclusion, are acceptable to a logical person, together
constitute sufficient grounds for the truth of the conclusion, and anticipate and provide an
effective rebuttal to all reasonable challenges to the argument or to the position supported by it.
A premise is relevant, if its acceptance provides some reason to believe, counts in favor of, or
makes a difference to the truth or falsity of the conclusion. Otherwise, it is irrelevant. A premise
is acceptable, if it is a reason, that the skeptic is likely to accept, or that a rational person is ought
to accept, or agreed on. However, an argument may not be good, even though its premises may
be relevant and acceptable, unless they are sufficient enough in number, kind and weight. Finally,
a good argument should also provide an effective rebuttal (refutation, or disproof) to the
strongest arguments against one’s conclusion and also perhaps to the strongest arguments in
support of the alternative position. Therefore, fallacy is the violation of one or more of these
criteria of a good argument. That is, an argument is good as far as it meets all the general criteria
set for a good argument, and hence commits no fallacy. It, however, becomes bad, if it violates
any one of them, and hence fallacious.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. For that matter, both deductive and inductive arguments may contain fallacies; if
they do, they are either unsound or uncogent, depending on the kind of argument. Conversely, if
an argument is unsound or uncogent, it has one or more false premises or it contains a fallacy (or
both).

1.2 Types of Fallacies

Fallacies are usually divided into two groups: formal and informal. 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. A fallacy committed due to a
structural defect of argument is known as a formal fallacy. Because the problem that causes

120
them is a structural defect, formal fallacies may be identified through mere inspection of the
form or structure of an argument. An informal fallacy, on the other hand, is a fallacy, which is
committed due to a defect in the very content of an argument, other than in its structure of form.
Because they have the ability to hide their true argumentative forms, informal fallacies cannot be
identified through mere inspection of the form or structure of an argument. Only a detail analysis
to be applied on the content of an argument can reveal the source of the trouble.

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.

This argument has the following form:

All A are B.
All C are B.

All A are C.
Through mere inspection of this form, one can see that the argument is invalid. The fact that A,

B, and C stand respectively for ‘‘tigers,’’ ‘‘animals,’’ and ‘‘mammals’’ is irrelevant in detecting
the fallacy. The problem may be traced to the second premise. If the letters C and B are
interchanged, the form becomes valid, and the original argument, with the same change
introduced, also becomes valid (but unsound).

Here is an example of a formal fallacy that occurs in a hypothetical syllogism:

If apes are intelligent, then apes can solve puzzles.
Apes can solve puzzles.
Therefore, apes are intelligent.

This argument has the following form:

If A, then B.
B.

A.
This type of fallacy is called affirming the consequent. In this case, if A and B are interchanged
in the first premise, the form becomes valid, and the original argument, with the same change,
also becomes valid. In this case, if A and B are interchanged in the first premise, the form

121
becomes valid.

In distinguishing formal from informal fallacies, remember that formal fallacies occur only in
deductive arguments. Thus, if a given argument is inductive, it cannot contain a formal fallacy.
Also, keep an eye out for standard deductive argument forms such as categorical syllogisms and
hypothetical syllogisms. If such an argument is invalid because of an improper arrangement of
terms or statements, it commits a formal fallacy.

Informal fallacies

Informal fallacies are those mistakes in reasoning process of an argument that cannot be
recognized by analyzing the structure of an argument, but only through analysis of the content of
the argument. Only the meaning of the words, how the statements are constructed and how
inferences are made that reveals the faulty reasoning. Consider the following example:
All factories are plants.
All plants are things that contain chlorophyll.
Therefore, all factories are things that contain chlorophyll.

A cursory inspection of this argument might lead one to think that it has the following form:
All A are B.
All B are C.

All A are C.

Since this form is valid, one might conclude that the argument itself is valid. Yet the argument is
clearly invalid because it has true premises and a false conclusion. An analysis of the content-
that is, the meaning of the words- reveals the source of the trouble. The word ‘‘plants’’ is used in
two different senses. In the first premise it means a building where something is manufactured,
and in the second it means a life form. Thus, the argument really has the following invalid form:
All A are B.
All C are D.

All A are D.

Since the time of Aristotle, logicians have attempted to classify the various informal fallacies.
Aristotle himself identified thirteen and separated them into two groups. The work of subsequent
logicians has produced dozens more, rendering the task of classifying them even more difficult.
The presentation that follows divides twenty-two informal fallacies into five groups: fallacies of

122
relevance, fallacies of weak induction, fallacies of presumption, fallacies of ambiguity, and
fallacies of grammatical analogy.

Fallacies of Relevance

Activity # 1: Dear learners, do you remember the principle of relevance we have

discussed in the previous chapter? Do you relate the principle of
relevance with the fallacy of relevance?

The fallacies of relevance share the common characteristic- that the arguments, in which they
occur, have premises that are logically irrelevant to the conclusion. Yet the premises are relevant
psychologically, so the conclusion may seem to follow from the premises, even though it does
not follow logically. In a good argument the premises provide genuine evidence in support of the
conclusion. In an argument that commits a fallacy of relevance, on the other hand, the connection
between premises and conclusion is emotional. Such arguments are often called non sequiturs,
which means that the conclusion does not seem to follow from the premises. 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). To identify a fallacy of relevance, therefore, one must be
able to distinguish genuine evidence from various forms of emotional appeal.

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

Activity # 2: Dear learners, how do you define the fallacy of appeal to force?

The first type of fallacy of relevance is appeal to force. It occurs when an arguer poses a
conclusion to another person and tells that person either implicitly or explicitly that some harm
will come to him if he does not accept the conclusion. In other words it occurs when a
conclusion defended by a threat to the well- being of those who do not accept the conclusion.

This fallacy always involves a threat by the arguer to the physical or psychological well- being of
the listener. But this threat is logically irrelevant to the subject matter of the conclusion even
though it seems psychologically relevant. Consider the following argument in which the arguer

123
uses unjustified physical threat on the listeners.

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?

This is a fallacious argument; the arguer is threatening the listener to abandon his charge. The
above argument can be re-written to expose the faulty reasoning most clearly.

Mr. Kebede you have to drop your charge, otherwise you will face accident.

You can see that the conclusion is supported by force. The threat “accident” has no logical
bearing on the conclusion however (you have to drop your charge).

Appeal to force need not use sheer physical force to support a certain conclusion. Consider the
following argument.

Lately there has been a lot of negative criticism of our policy on dental benefits. Let me tell you
something, people. If you want to keep working here, you need to know that our policy is fair and
reasonable. I won’t have anybody working here who doesn’t know this.

Now this is a blatant example, which shows an explicit use of psychological force to impose a
conclusion. The arguer is trying to impose the conclusion that you (workers) should accept the
dental benefit policy as fair and reasonable. The reason given however does not support the
conclusion. It says that ‘any worker who does not accept this conclusion would be fired.’ But a
threat to loss a job cannot constitute a reason to support the proposition that the dental policy is
reasonable and fair. Thus, it is unjustified appeal to force. Such kinds of argument have the
following form:

Premise: You can avoid harm by accepting the conclusion that the policy is fair and reasonable.
Conclusion: Thus, the policy is fair and reasonable.

The appeal to force fallacy usually accomplishes its purpose by psychologically impeding the
reader or listener from acknowledging a missing premise that, if acknowledged, would be seen to
be false or at least questionable. Finally, a note of caution: The fact that an argument mentions a
threat does not necessarily make it a fallacy.

124
 2) Appeal to Pity (Argumentum ad Misericordiam)

Activity # 3: Dear learners, how do you define the fallacy of appeal to pity?

The second type of fallacy relevant is appeal to pity. The appeal to pity (or ad misericordiam
fallacy) is the attempt to support a conclusion merely by evoking pity in one’s audience when the
statements that evoke the pity are logically unrelated to the conclusion. The appeal to pity is not,
generally speaking, very subtle. But if the arguer succeeds in evoking sufficiently strong feelings
of pity, he or she may distract the audience from the logic of the situation and create a desire to
accept the conclusion. The appeal to pity fallacy has the following form.

Premises: You have reason to pity this person, thing or situation (or group).
Conclusion: You should do X for the benefit of this person (or group), although doing X is not
called for logically by the reason given.

Consider the following argument.

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 Oumer Abdulla”. But the conclusion is not logically relevant to the pathetic
condition of the arguer though they do psychologically. It may be pitiful to see people under
these conditions; but this does not mean that such conditions are logically relevant in every
situation to decide. A certain position should be open to people to fill when they have the
necessary qualification. The relevant logical reason in this situation for Oumer Abdulla to qualify
for the position is if he fulfills the necessary educational experience. But ‘he has six hungry
children to feed and his wife needs operation’ does not lend reason to accept the conclusion. So
this is illegitimate appeal to pity.

There is a tendency to take argument from pity as inherently fallacious. But this is not always the
case. There are arguments from pity, which are reasonable and plausible. There are situations

125
where compassion or sympathy could be a legitimate response for some situations.

Most society values helping people in time of danger; showing compassion and sympathy is a
natural response in some situation. If some group of people are in danger, helping out may
require appeal to the compassion or pity of other people. Consider the following argument.

Twenty children survive earthquakes that kill most people in the village. These children lost their
parents. They are out of school, and home in the street. Unless we each of us contribute money
their life will be in danger in the coming days. We should help these children as much as we can.

As you can see this is argument from compassion, in which the conclusion is based on the
feeling of sympathy. The natural response of compassion and pity is a legitimate and reasonable
response. These children deserve special consideration or compassion; they deserve help from
the community. One of the main reasons for this deservingness is that the situation in which they
found themselves in is due to factor beyond their control. They are not responsible for the

situation in which they are in. If people are not responsible for the situation in which they are in;
it is perfectly reasonable and sensible to show compassion for these people.

In fact, this is the main justification for some social policies to help out old people, disables,
orphan and other people who are in bad situation due to factor which is beyond their control.
Helping people in problem when they are not responsible is reasonable. But if the people are in
bad situation in which they are responsible as a cause, showing of compassion may be
illegitimate and argument in which the conclusion is depend on illegitimate appeal to
compassion is a fallacy - appeal to pity fallacy.

3) Appeal to the People (Argumentum ad Populum)

Activity # 4: Dear learners, how do you define the fallacy of appeal to people?

Nearly everyone wants to be loved, esteemed, admired, valued, recognized, and accepted by
others. Feeling of being part of community and belongingness are some of the most important
humans needs. The appeal to the people strikes these desires and needs to get acceptance for

126
conclusion. Or the appeal to the people (or ad populum fallacy) is an attempt to persuade a
person (or group) by appealing to these desires and needs. Consider the following argument.

I look out at you all, and I tell you, I am proud to be here. Proud to belong to a party that stands
for what is good for the country. Proud to cast my lot with the kind of people who make this
nation great. Proud to stand with men and women who can get our nation back on its feet. Yes,
there are those who criticize us, who label our view of trade agreements as “protectionist.” But
when I look at you hard-working people, I know we’re right and the critics are wrong.

The speaker wants the audience to accept his conclusion that ‘the trade agreement is not a
protectionist’. But look how he supports his thesis. He appeals to the emotions of the crowd, the
strong feelings of the crowd, however, do not lend logical support to anyone’s view about trade
agreements. Premises to the effect that “I am proud to be associated with you” and “you are
hard-working people” are irrelevant to the conclusion (that “our view of trade agreements is
right”). As you can see, the arguer uses the feeling of individuals to be part of the group to accept
his conclusion. And anyone who wants to be part of the group, who does not want to be deviated
from the mob mentality, accepts the conclusion as true.

However, one does not have to be addressing a large group to commit the ad populum fallacy.
Any attempt to convince by appealing to the need for acceptance (or approval) from others
counts as an ad populum fallacy. Consider the following argument.

Mrs. Riley, are you saying that President Bush made a moral error when he decided to go to war
with Iraq? I can’t believe my ears. That’s not how Americans feel. Not true Americans, anyway.
You are an American, aren’t you, Mrs. Riley?

The mere fact that Ms. Riley is an American provides her with no logical support for the
conclusion that America’s war with Iraq was just or moral. But like most Americans, Ms. Riley
may wish to avoid being regarded as unpatriotic, and so an appeal to the people may influence
her thinking.

Two approaches are involved in appeal to people fallacy: direct and indirect. The direct
approach occurs when an arguer, addressing a large group of people, excites the emotions and
enthusiasm of the crowd to win acceptance for his or her conclusion. The objective is to arouse a

127
kind of mob mentality. This is the strategy used by nearly every propagandist and demagogue.
Because the individuals in the audience want to share in the camaraderie, the euphoria, and the
excitement, they find themselves accepting any number of conclusions with ever-increasing
fervor.

In the indirect approach, the arguer aims his or her appeal not at the crowd as a whole but at one
or more individuals separately, focusing on some aspect of their relationship to the crowd. The
indirect approach is very common in most advertising industries. There are three recognizable
forms in indirect approach: Bandwagon, Vanity, and Snobbery.

I. Bandwagon fallacy

Bandwagon fallacy is a kind of fallacy that commonly appeals to the desire of individuals to be
considered as part of the group or community in which they are living. One of the characteristics
of community or group is that they share some values and norms. Not only they share but also
every individual are expected to manifest group conformity to these shared values. Bandwagon
fallacy just uses these emotions and feelings to get acceptance for a certain conclusion. For
instance, consider the following example.

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.

This argument presents appeal to bandwagon and if the person considers that child circumcision
is the right thing to do because the majority of people accepts it, then this argument commits the
fallacy of bandwagon.

Dear learners, do you see any relationship between sociocentrism and bandwagon fallacy?

II. Appeal to Vanity

The appeal to vanity often associates the product with someone who is admired, pursued, or
imitated, the idea being that you, too, will be admired and pursued if you use it. For example,
BBC may show the famous footballer, Frank Lampard, wearing Addidas shoe, and says:

Wear this new fashion shoe! A shoe, which is worn only by few respected celebrities!
ADIDDAS SHOE!!!

128
The message is that if you wear the shoe, then you, too, will be admired and respected, just like
the famous footballer, Frank Lampard.

III.Appeal to Snobbery Fallacy

Before discussing about snobbery fallacy, let us look into the meaning of snob. Snob means a
person who admires people in higher classes too much and has no respect for people in the lower

classes or 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 fallacy is based on this desire to be regarded as superior to others. This
fallacy appeal individuals and their desires to be regarded as different and better. Consider the
following argument.

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.

As you can see, it is a kind of advertisement and it appeal to the desire of, particularly of those
who are most famous and successful people, to be different from the mass; it appeals their desire
to be different from the demos. And if the individuals want to be part of those who perceive
themselves as different from the mass, then he can easily be cheated by this advertisement.

Are all appeal to people arguments inherently fallacious? Not all appeal to people arguments are
inherently fallacious. There are arguments from people, which are plausible, and it is reasonable
and safe to accept the conclusion as good. Consider the following argument.

It is generally accepted by those who live in and around polar region that penguin give birth to
their children when the winter getting stronger. Thus, most probably penguin gives birth to their
children when the winter is getting stronger.

The implicit assumption that makes this appeal to popular opinion plausible is that since the
people who live in and around polar region are normally familiar with the area, they may be
assumed to be in a position to know whether penguin give a birth when the winter become

129
stronger or not. Therefore, if the people who live in and around polar region think that penguin
give birth when the winter becomes stronger, it is a plausible and reasonably safe assumption (in
the absence of any evidence to the contrary) that penguin give birth when the winter gets
stronger.

In still other cases, the argument from popular opinion is based not on a position to know
argument but on an assumption that people have deliberated on a particular policy or practice

and have come to accept it because they have found it a useful or good thing to do. Consider the
following argument concerning killing of human being:

Everyone in society should accept the proposal that killing of human being, at least within one’s
own community, is wrong. The right to life is an important right in which all other rights are
based. The right to life is one of the basic rights in all societies, and almost all societies accept
as an important element of moral and legal law. Thus, the right to life should be considered as
an established moral principle that has some weight of practical justification as a policy.

Here, the assumption is that people have generally accepted the right to life and even codified it
in their systems of ethics. Such popular acceptance lends a certain weight of presumption in
favor of the right to life as an ethical principle to take seriously. It does not mean that the right to
life cannot be questioned or criticized. It only means that the right to life should be taken
seriously in a discussion on ethical principles, because people have put some thought into such
matters in the past, and their unanimity on accepting this principle indicates a presumption in its
favor.

to sum up, in the direct approach the arousal of a mob mentality produces an immediate feeling
of belonging for each person in the crowd. Each person feels united with the crowd, which
evokes a sense of strength and security. When the crowd roars its approval of the conclusions
that are then offered, anyone who does not accept them automatically cuts himself or herself off
from the crowd and risks the loss of his or her security, strength, and acceptance. The same thing
happens in the indirect approach, but the context and technique are somewhat subtler.

4) Argument against the Person (Argumentum ad Hominem)

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

130
Argument against the person is another type of relevance fallacy. This fallacy always involves
two arguers. One of them advances (either directly or implicitly) a certain argument and the other
then responds by directing his or her attention not to the first person’s argument but to the first
person himself. When this occurs, the second person is said to commit an argument against the
person. In any of the kinds of conversational frameworks in which people reason with each other,
despite the opposition and partisanship characteristic of many kinds of dialogue, there must also
be a presumption that in order to achieve collaborative goals, participants must observe rules of
polite conversation.

Arguers must be able to trust each other, to some extent at least, to be informative and relevant,
to take turns politely, and to express their commitments clearly and honestly. Without this kind
of collaboration in contributing to a dialogue, argument of a kind that uses reasoning to fulfill its
goals of dialogue interaction would not be possible.

Attacking the other party’s honesty or sincerity in argument is a powerful move. Such an
argument leads one to the conclusion that such a person lacks credibility as an arguer who can be
trusted to play by the rules. This argument is so powerful because it suggests that such a person
cannot ever be trusted and that therefore whichever argument they use, it may simply be
discounted as worthless. Thus, the person attacked cannot meaningfully take part in the dialogue
any longer, no matter how many good arguments they seem to have. Because they are so
powerful and dangerous, ad hominem arguments have often been treated in the past as fallacious.

The argument against the person occurs in three forms: the ad hominem abusive, the ad hominem
circumstantial, and the tu quoque.

I. Ad Hominem Abusive Fallacy

In the ad hominem abusive, the second person responds to the first person’s argument by
verbally abusing the first person. The following is the form of ad hominem argument:

Premise: A is a person of bad character.

Conclusion: A’s argument should not be accepted.

In this type of argument, A is the proponent of an argument that has been put forward. The

131
premise that is alleged is that A is a person of bad character. What is normally cited is some
aspect of A’s character as a person, and often, character for veracity is the focus of the attack.
The attack is directed to destroying the person’s credibility, so that his argument is discounted or
reduced in plausibility because of the reduction in credibility of the arguer. Thus, this type of
attack is particularly effective where a person’s argument depends on his presumed honesty or
good character for its plausibility. Consider the following example.

In defending animal rights, Mr. Abebe argues that the government should legislate a minimum
legal requirement to any individuals or groups who want to farm animals. He argues that this is
the first step in avoiding unnecessary pain on animals and protecting them from abuse. But we
should not accept his argument because he is a divorced drunk person who is unable to protect
even his own family.

The conclusion of the argument says that we should reject the idea of legislating a minimum
legal requirement to protect animals. But what reason is offered to support the conclusion? That
Abebe is a drunk and divorced person is the only reason given. But it is impossible to conclude
that we should reject legislation a minimum legal requirement to protect animals from the idea
that Abebe is a drunk and divorced person. This is just an explicit and direct personal attack.

II. Ad Hominem Circumstantial Fallacy

The second type of against the person fallacy is ad hominem circumstantial. The ad hominem
circumstantial begins the same way as the ad hominem abusive, but instead of heaping verbal
abuse on his or her opponent, the respondent attempts to discredit the opponent’s argument by
alluding to certain circumstances that affect the opponent. By doing so the respondent hopes to
show that the opponent is predisposed to argue the way he or she does and should therefore not
be taken seriously. Consider the following example:

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.

This argument is fallacious because the arguer does not pay serious attention to the substance of

132
the argument of the king. He just tried to discredit the idea of the king by association it with the
circumstance with the Italian evacuation. He did not attack directly why member states should
not help the country. The ad hominem circumstantial is easy to recognize because it always takes

this form: ‘‘Of course, Mr. X argues this way; just look at the circumstances that affect him.’’

III. Tu Quoque (You too) Fallacy

The tu quoque (“you too”) fallacy 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. 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. This
fallacy has the following form: ‘‘How dare you argue that I should stop doing X; why, you do
(or have done) X yourself.’’

See the following example:

Patient to a Doctor: 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?

The argument is fallacious because whether the doctor smokes is irrelevant to whether the his
premises support the conclusion that the patient should quit smoking cigarette; and the fact tha
the doctor himself smokes does not make smoking right. Smoking is wrong whether the advisor
himself did the action or not.

Dear learners, what relationships do you observe between tu quoque fallacy and the standard of
consistency?

Are all arguments against the person fallacious? They are not. There are reasonable arguments
against the person. Let us consider the first two types of against the person fallacy: abusive and
circumstantial. In many textbooks, the direct ad hominem argument is called ‘abusive’,
suggesting that it is a fallacious argument and is always wrong. But it can sometimes be
reasonable argument. For example, in legal argumentation in a trial, it can be legitimate for a
cross examining attorney to question the ethical character of a witness. The lawyer may even

133
argue that the witness has lied in the past and use this argument to raise questions about h of the
person character, and often, character for veracity is the focus of the attack. For example, the
allegation may be, “He is a liar!” The attack is directed to destroying the person’s credibility, so
that his argument is discounted or reduced in plausibility because of the reduction in credibility
of the arguer. Thus, this type of attack is particularly effective where a person’s argument
depends on his presumed honesty or good character for its plausibility.

The same is true in the case of circumstantial fallacy. It involves the attempt to discredit an
opponent by suggesting that the opponent’s judgment is distorted by some factor in his or her
background condition. In some circumstances and conditions, the kind of belief people entertain
or the kind of argument they advance could be purely the function of their circumstances. It is
mere sociological facts that societies are segmented into many groups depend on their economic,
social, religious, political and other factors. It is also true that the kind of political, economic and
religious system one belongs to determine to a certain extent of what kind of ideas and beliefs
people advocate. In general, what people accept as true to a greater or lesser degree determine by
the particular position they assume in the society. In other word, most often people judgment
blinded by their circumstances.

Thus, it is not always false that ad hominem fallacies are inherently unacceptable. Sometimes it
could be reasonable and plausible to consider some judgment of individuals as blinded and
limited by their circumstance. Capitalists and rich people want a free market economy where
they can easily produce as much fortune as possible. They do not see the consequence of their
action on the environment or on other people. Workers also want increase of salary without
regard to its effects on the economy of the country or to the company. This shows that the
circumstance of people affects their idea. Consider the following argument, which is advanced
by director of medical association.

Mr. Abdella argued that medical doctors in the country burden many responsibilities. They are
working day and night to satisfy the demand for good health. Thus, the government should
increase the salary, housing and other necessary facilities for doctors

This argument seems that it is unreasonable and thus it is a fallacy of circumstance. But close
inspection may reveals that it may not be a fallacy. This argument argues for increment of salary.

134
Before judging whether it is a fallacy or not, we need to consider the economic conditions of the
country and the relative income of medical doctor. If, in fact the country cannot afford salary
increment and medical doctors a as profession receives reasonably adequate income, it would be
promoting self- interest to claim for additional salary.

5) Accident

Activity # 6: Dear learners, what do you think is the fallacy of accident?

The fallacy of accident is committed when a general rule is applied to a specific case it
was not intended to cover. Typically, the general rule is cited (either directly or implicitly) in the
premises and then wrongly applied to the specific case mentioned in the conclusion.
Consider the following example:

Freedom of speech is a constitutionally guaranteed right. Therefore, John Q. Radical should not
be arrested for his speech that incited the riot last week.

In this example, the general rule is that freedom of speech is normally guaranteed, and the
specific case is the speech made by John Q. Radical. Because the speech incited a riot, the rule
does not apply.

The fallacy of accident gets its name from the fact that one or more accidental features of the
specific case make it an exception to the rule. In the example, the accidental feature is that the
movement transgress the right to private property.

6) Straw Man

Activity # 7: Dear learners, what do you think is the fallacy of straw man?

The straw man fallacy 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.

135
The following are 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 however
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. Since the critic does not attack the main ideas, rather he
criticized the misrepresented argument, one can argues he did not criticize the argument at all.
Consider the following argument.

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.

This argument involves two persons: Mr. Belay and his critic. Mr. Belay argues for geographical
federalism and his critic opposing the view. This critics show that the critic do not refute or
oppose the idea of geographical federalism. Rather he first misrepresented geographical
federalism as going back to the past and then he criticizes the past regime and by doing so he
believed the real argument knocked down. But he did not criticize the substance of the argument;
he criticizes distorted ideas which do not represent his opponent. This is an example of how
straw man fallacy is committed.

When the fallacy of straw man occurs readers should keep in mind two things. First, they have to
try to identify the original argument, which is misrepresented by the critic. Second, they should
look for what gone wrong in the misrepresentation of the argument. Is the critic exaggerated the
original argument or is he introduced a new assumption which is not presumed by the original
argument.

Dear learners, do you see any relationship between straw man fallacy and the principle of
charity?

136
 7) Missing the Point (Ignoratio Elenchi)

Activity # 8: Dear learners, what do you think is the fallacy of missing the point?

All the fallacies we have discussed thus far have been instances of cases where the premises of
an argument are irrelevant to the conclusion. Missing the point, however, illustrates a special
form of irrelevance. It occurs when the premises of an argument support one particular
conclusion, but then a different conclusion, often vaguely related to the correct conclusion, is
drawn. Whenever one suspects that such a fallacy is being committed, he or she should be able to
identify the correct conclusion, the conclusion that the premises logically imply. Ignoratio
elenchi means “ignorance of the proof.” 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. Consider
the following argument.

The world is in the process of globalizing more than ever. The world economy is becoming more
and more interconnected. Multinational companies and supra national institutions are taking
power from local companies and national governments. The livelihood of people is randomly
affected by action and decision made on the other side of the planet and this process benefits
only the rich nations at the expense of the poor. What should be done? The answer is obvious:
poor nations should detach themselves from the process.

Are the premises and the conclusion in this argument related? It is unrelated. The correct
conclusion would be to redirect globalization in a way that is beneficial for both the poor and the
rich, not to detach countries from the process. The above conclusion however is logically not
related with the premises. After all, detachment from globalization process is more costly for
poor countries. It is better to regulate the process of globalization than to detach altogether from
the system if that is possible.

8) Red Herring

Activity # 9: Dear learners, what do you think is the fallacy of missing the point?

This fallacy is closely associated with missing the point. It is committed when the arguer diverts
the attention of the reader or listener by changing the subject to a different but sometimes subtly

137
related one. He or she then finishes by either drawing a conclusion about this different issue or
by merely presuming that some conclusion has been established. By so doing, the arguer
purports to have won the argument.

The fallacy gets its name from a procedure used to train hunting dogs to follow a scent. A red
herring (smoked and dried fish species) is dragged across the trail with the aim of leading the
dogs astray. Since red herrings have an especially potent scent (caused in part by the smoking
process used to preserve them), only the best dogs will follow the original scent.

To use the red herring fallacy effectively, the arguer must change the original subject of the
argument without the reader or listener noticing it. One way of doing this is to change the subject
to one that is subtly related to the original subject. Consider the following argument to
understand the point clearly.

The editors of Addis Flower newspaper have accused our company of being one of the city’s
worst water polluters. But Addis flower newspaper is responsible for much more pollution than
we are. After all, they own a Paper Company, and that company discharges tons of chemical
residues into the city’s river every day.

Dear learners, do you think this is a good argument. Let us analyze this argument. There are two
individuals here: a certain editor accusing a certain company about its impact on water quality
and the response of representative of the company. The editor accused the company as a worst
water polluter. But the response from the representative is not about why it is not a worst polluter;
rather it changes the topic into the activity of the paper company in which the editor is working
and accused the company as a worst water polluter. In other words, attention is diverted from the
original topic into a new topic.

Now the question is: is it a right response? The answer is no; because even if the paper company
is the worst water polluters that does not mean that the editor accusation is wrong. The editor’s
accusation is wrong only if evidence is given which proof to the contrary. But no evidence is
given to proof it; rather the activity of another company is discussed which is logically irrelevant
with the original topic. So it is called red herring fallacy because the topic is slightly changed
into another but closely related topic. But if the readers do not have experience in following ideas,

138
they will not notice that there is change of the topic.

A second way of using the red herring effectively is to change the subject to some flashy, eye-
catching topic that is virtually guaranteed to distract the listener’s attention. Topics of this sort
include sex, crime, scandal, immorality, death, and any other topic that might serve as the subject
of gossip. Here is an example of this technique:

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.

The red herring fallacy can be confused with the straw man fallacy because both have the effect
of drawing the reader/listener off the track. This confusion can usually be avoided by
remembering the unique ways in which they accomplish this purpose. In the straw man, the
arguer begins by distorting an opponent’s argument and concludes by knocking down the
distorted argument. In the red herring, on the other hand, the arguer ignores the opponent’s
argument (if there is one) and subtly changes the subject. Thus, to distinguish the two fallacies,
one should attempt to determine whether the arguer has knocked down a distorted argument or
simply changed the subject. Also keep in mind that straw man always involves two arguers, at
least implicitly, whereas a red herring often does not.

Both the red herring and straw man fallacies are susceptible of being confused with missing the
point, because all three involve a similar kind of irrelevancy. To avoid this confusion, one should
note that both red herring and straw man proceed by generating a new set of premises, whereas
missing the point does not. Straw man draws a conclusion from new premises that are obtained
by distorting an earlier argument, and red herring, if it draws any conclusion at all, draws
onefrom new premises obtained by changing the subject. Missing the point, however, draws a
conclusion from the original premises. Also, in the red herring and straw man, the conclusion, if
there is one, is relevant to the premises from which it is drawn; but in missing the point, the
conclusion is irrelevant to the premises from which it is drawn. Finally, remember that missing
the point serves in part as a kind of catchall fallacy, and a fallacious argument should not be
identified as a case of missing the point if one of the other fallacies clearly fits.

139
 Fallacies of Weak Induction

Activity # 1: Dear learners, do you remember the principle of sufficiency we have

discussed in the previous chapter? Do you relate the principle of
sufficient with the fallacy of weak induction?

9) Appeal to Unqualified Authority (Argumentum ad Verecundiam)

Activity # 2: Dear learners, what do you think is the fallacy of appeal to

unqualified authority?

We saw in the second chapter that argument from authority is inductive argument. It is discussed
that appeal to authority or otherwise called appeal to expert opinion is an argument in which the
conclusion depends on a testimony of expert or knowledgeable people.

It is frequently the case in personal, social, and political deliberations that one does not know all
the relevant facts. One may get information from another person who has the facts. For example
if you want to know whether the sun is the centre of the universe or not, or if you want to know
whether all matters are made of subatomic particle, you can ask people who are knowledgeable
in the area. One can improve chances of getting correct information by choosing a source that
has reason to think is reliable. But to some extent, you will have to rely on presumption or trust
that your source is knowledgeable and honest and is not misinforming you.

However, the cited authority or witness could lacks credibility for different reasons. The person
might lack the requisite expertise, might be biased or prejudiced, might have a motive to lie or
disseminate “misinformation,” or might lack the requisite ability to perceive or recall.The appeal
to unreliable authority (or ad verecundiam fallacy) is an appeal to an authority when the
reliability of the authority may be reasonably doubtable. When an appeal to unreliable authority
is made, the arguer assumes, without sufficient warrant, that the authority in question is reliable.
When there is legitimate doubt about whether an authority is reliable, then the appeal to authority
is fallacious. Ad verecundiam fallacies are common in advertising when celebrities who lack the
relevant expertise endorse products. Consider the following example.

140
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.

A more subtle appeal to unreliable authority occurs when a well-known expert in one field is
cited as an expert in another field even though he or she lacks expertise in it. This form of fallacy
is especially subtle if the two fields are related. Consider the following example.

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.

This argument also reminds us of another point to keep in mind when evaluating an appeal to
authority, namely, that the appeal to authorities in matters of controversy is often problematic.
After all, in such matters, the authorities themselves often disagree. And when this occurs, if we
have no good reason to suppose that one authority is more likely to be correct than another, then
the appeal to authority should be unconvincing. For instance, in matters involving religious and
moral issues it is difficult to find an ultimate authority to give final decision. Whatever the
expertise of the authority, it is safe not to depend on this authority for knowledge.

10) Appeal to Ignorance (Argumentum ad Ignorantiam)

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

When the premises of an argument state that nothing has been proved one way or the other about
something, and the conclusion then makes a definite assertion about that thing, the argument
commits an appeal to ignorance. The issue usually involves something that is incapable of being
proved or something that has not yet been proved. Observe the following example:

141
People have been trying for centuries to provide conclusive evidence for the claims that
Haileselassie I of Ethiopia is the descendant of King David of Israel and no one has ever
succeeded. Therefore, we must conclude that Haileselassie I of Ethiopia is not the descendant of
King David of Israel.

Conversely, the following argument commits the same fallacy:

People have been trying for centuries to prove the claims that Haileselassie I of Ethiopia is not
the descendant of King David of Israel, and no one has ever succeeded. Therefore, we must
conclude that Haileselassie I of Ethiopia is in fact the descendant of King David of Israel. .

The premises of an argument are supposed to provide positive evidence for the conclusion. The
premises of these arguments, however, tell us nothing about the alleged relationship between
Haileselassie I of Ethiopia and Kind David of Israel; rather, they tell us about what certain
unnamed and unidentified people have tried unsuccessfully to do. This evidence may provide
some slight reason for believing the conclusion, but certainly not sufficient reason.

However, these examples do lead us to the first of two important exceptions to the appeal to ignorance.
The first stems from the fact that if qualified researchers investigate a certain phenomenon within their
range of expertise and fail to turn up any evidence that the phenomenon exists, this fruitless search by
itself constitutes positive evidence about the question. Consider, for example, the following argument:

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.

The premises of this argument are true. Given the circumstances, it is likely that the historian in
question would have proved if King Tewodros II did not commit suicide. Since they did not
proof it, it likely that he did commit suicide. Thus, we can say that the above argument is
inductively strong.

As for the two arguments about the alleged relationship between Haileselassie I of Ethiopia and
Kind David of Israel, if the attempts to prove or disprove the historical claims had been done in a
systematic way by qualified experts, it is more likely that the arguments would be good. But as
these arguments stand, the premises state nothing about the qualifications of the investigators,

142
and so the arguments remain fallacious.

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 defence may justifiably argue
that his or her client is not guilty. 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.”

11) Hasty Generalization (Converse Accident)

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

Hasty generalization is a defective form of argument from inductive generalization. A

generalization 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 characteristic, it
is argued that all the members of the group have that same characteristic. For example, if we
wanted to know the opinion of the student body at a certain university about whether to adopt a
law prohibiting the use of face book in campuses, we could take a poll of 10 per cent of the
students. If the results of the poll showed that 80 percent of those sampled favored the law, we
might draw the conclusion that 80 percent of the entire student body favored it. These illustrate
the use of statistics in inductive argumentation.

The problem that arises with the use of samples has to do with whether the sample is
representative of the population. Samples that are not representative are said to be biased.
Depending on what the population consists of, whether machine parts or human beings, different

143
considerations enter into determining whether a sample is biased. These considerations include
(1) whether the sample is randomly selected, (2) the size of the sample, and (3) psychological
factors.

A sample is random if and only if every member of the population has an equal chance of being
selected. The requirement that a sample be randomly selected applies to practically all samples,
but sometimes it can be taken for granted. The randomness requirement must be given more
attention when the population consists of discrete units. The randomness requirement presents
even greater problems when the population consists of human beings.

Suppose, for example, that a public opinion poll is to be conducted on the question of
environmental protection. It would hardly do to ask such a question randomly capitalists and
owner of multinational companies. Such a sample would almost certainly be biased in favor of
the corporations. A less biased sample could be obtained by randomly selecting phone numbers

from the telephone directory, but even this procedure would not yield a completely random
sample. Among other things, the time of day in which a call is placed influences the kind of
responses obtained. Most people who are employed full time are not available during the day,
and even if calls are made at night, a large percentage of the population have unlisted numbers.

A poll conducted by mail based on the addresses listed in the city directory would also yield a
fairly random sample, but this method, too, has shortcomings. Many dwellers may not be listed,
and others move before the directory is printed. Furthermore, none of those who live in rural
areas are listed. In short, it is both difficult and expensive to conduct a large-scale public opinion
poll that succeeds in obtaining responses from anything approximating a random sample of
individuals.

Size is also an important factor in determining whether a sample is representative. Given that a
sample is randomly selected, the larger the sample, the more closely it replicates the population.
In statistics, this degree of closeness is expressed in terms of sampling error. The sampling error
is the difference between the relative frequency with which some characteristic occurs in the
sample and the relative frequency with which the same characteristic occurs in the population. If,
for example, a poll were taken of workers and 60 percent of the members sampled expressed
their intention to vote for Gudeta but in fact only 55 percent of the whole union intended to vote

144
for Gudeta, the sampling error would be 5 percent. If a larger sample were taken, the error would
be less.

Now we can discuss about hasty generalization. It is a fallacy that affects inductive
generalizations. The fallacy occurs when there is a reasonable likelihood that the sample is not
representative of the group. Such likelihood may arise if the sample is either too small or not
randomly selected. Consider the following examples.

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 these arguments, a conclusion about a whole group is drawn from premises that mention only
a few instances. Because such small, atypical samples are not sufficient to support a general
conclusion, the argument commits a hasty generalization.

The mere fact that a sample may be small, however, does not necessarily mean that it is atypical.
On the other hand, the mere fact that a sample may be large does not guarantee that it is typical.
In the case of small samples, various factors may intervene that render such a sample typical of
the larger group.

12) False Cause Fallacy

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

False cause fallacy is a defective and flawed form of argument from causality. Before discussing
about false cause, we need to discuss about causal inference first. 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. In such argument two things are
presented as having causal connection.

However, it seems that there is no settled scientific theory of causality. It seems that the causal
relationship is practical and contextual in nature. What it means to say that, one state of affairs A

145
causes another state of affairs B, is that A is something that can be brought about and when it is
brought about (or stopped), then B is also brought about (or stopped).

Whatever causality means, the most important kind of evidence that event A causes event B in
any particular case, is that there is a statistical correlation between A and B: event A and event B
are correlated. For example, if a significant statistical correlation is found between reduced
incidence of heart attacks and drinking of red wine, the tentative conclusion may be drawn as a
hypothesis is that drinking red wine is the cause of the reduction in heart attacks.

A correlation is a purely statistical relationship, determined by counting up numbers where one

event occurs in a case where another event also occurs. One problem with arguments from
correlation to cause is that there may not be a real correlation between two events, but people
might believe that relation exists. Another problem is that a statistical correlation between two
events can simply be a coincidence. Consider the following example.

A sophisticated statistical study by Dr. Zemenu Ahmed and Pro. Wakjira Negera citing studies
from 141 countries found that the larger the per cent of its gross national product a country
spends on weapons, the higher is its infant death rate. Dr. Zemenu Ahmed and Pro. Wakjira
concluded that there is a plausible link between military spending and the infant death rate.

However, critics questioned whether their finding represents anything more than a coincidence.
Dr. Bilal Ahmed a statistician at the Ethiopian statistics authority said that the same statistical
approach could be used to show a causal link between infant mortality and the consumption of
bananas. He questioned whether statistical correlation between two things, in cases like these, is
a reason to conclude that one thing causes the other.

Another critical question is whether both things correlated with each other are really caused by
some common factor that is causing both of them. The following case is a classic example.

At a conference on the bond between humans and pets in Boston in 1986, researchers reported
that pets can lower blood pressure in humans, improve the survival odds of heart patients, and
even penetrate the isolation of autistic children. According to a report in Newsweek researchers
at the conference reported on the beneficial effects of pet companionship. Studies showed that
women who had owned dogs as children scored higher on self-reliance, sociability, and

146
tolerance tests than petless women. Men who had owned a dog “felt a greater sense of personal
worth and of belonging and had better social skills.” Children with pets also showed greater
empathy.

In this case, there was a genuine correlation between pet ownership and health improvement, but
both factors could well be the result of the better than average social qualities of the people who
acquire pets. In a case like this, there may be a genuine correlation between two factors A and B,
but the reason for the correlation is that some third factor C, is causing both A and B. In such a
case, it is not correct to draw the conclusion that A causes B. Argument from correlation to cause
is extremely useful for practical purposes in guiding action in practical matters. But in many
cases, there is a natural human tendency to leap too quickly to a causal conclusion once a
correlation has apparently been observed. In such cases, it is better to ask appropriate critical
questions before placing too much weight on an argument from correlation to cause.

The fallacy of false cause occurs whenever the link between premises and conclusion depends on
some imagined causal connection that probably does not exist. Whenever an argument is
suspected of committing the false cause fallacy, the reader or listener should be able to say that
the conclusion depends on the supposition that X causes Y, whereas X probably does not cause
Y at all. There are many varieties of false cause fallacy. Perhaps the most common form is post
hoc, ergo propter hoc, which means in Latin “after this, therefore because of this.” This form of
the false cause fallacy occurs whenever an arguer illegitimately assumes that because event X
preceded event Y, X caused Y. Here is an example:

Since I came into office two years ago, the rate of violent crime has decreased significantly. So,
it is clear that the longer prison sentences we recommended are working.

The longer prison sentences may be a causal factor, of course, but the mere fact that the longer
sentences preceded the decrease in violent crime does not prove this. Many other possible causal
factors need to be considered. For example, have economic conditions improved? Are more jobs
available? Have the demographics of the area changed so that the population of young men is
smaller relative to the population as a whole? Has there been an increase in the number of police
officers on patrol? Obviously, mere temporal succession is not sufficient to establish a causal
connection. Nevertheless, this kind of reasoning is quite common and lies behind most forms of

147
superstition.

The second type of fallacy are called non causa pro causa (“not the cause for the cause”). This
variety is committed when what is taken to be the cause of something is not really the cause at all
and the mistake is based on something other than mere temporal succession.

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.In this argument success as an executive causes increases in salary—not the other way around— so the
argument mistakes the cause for the effect.

A third variety of the false cause fallacy, and one that is probably committed more often than
either of the others in their pure form, is oversimplified cause. This variety occurs when a
multitude of causes is responsible for a certain effect but the arguer selects just one of these
causes and represents it as if it were the sole cause. Consider the following example.

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
facebook (per day) has increased. So, the cause is obvious: students are spending much of their
time surfing on facebook when they need to be reading instead.

The increase in time spent surfing on face book is a likely contributor to a drop in scores of fresh
students. But insufficient evidence is provided for the conclusion that the time spent surfing on
face book is the sole cause. Other factors may be at work, such as a decrease in parental
involvement or deficiencies in the university system.

The oversimplified cause fallacy is usually motivated by self-serving interests. Sometimes the
arguer wants to take undeserved credit for himself or give undeserved credit to some movement
with which he or she is affiliated. At other times, the arguer wants to heap blame on an opponent
or shift blame from himself or herself onto some convenient occurrence.

Instances of the fallacy can resemble either the post hoc or the non causa pro causa varieties in
that the alleged cause can occurs either prior to or concurrently with the effect. It differs from the
other varieties of false cause fallacy in that the single factor selected for credit or blame is often
partly responsible for the effect, but responsible to only a minor degree.

148
 13) Slippery Slope Fallacy

Activity # 6: Dear learners, what do you think is the fallacy of slippery slope?

Slippery slope fallacy is a defective form of argument from slippery slope. Before discussing
about slippery slope fallacy, some points should be raised about slippery slope argument. One
very common form of argumentation is used when one party in a dialogue says to the other,
“This action would not be good, because it could have bad consequences.” For example, suppose
you are thinking of taking a certain medication and your doctor says, “You have high blood
pressure, and taking this medication raises blood pressure, so in your case there would be a bad
side effect of taking it.” This form of argumentation is called argument from consequences.

It cites allegedly foreseeable consequences of a proposed action as the premise, and the
conclusion is then inferred that this course of action is or is not recommended. This form of
reasoning can be used in a positive or negative way, as an argument to respond to a proposal that
has been put forward when two parties are having a dialogue on what to do. In argument from
positive consequences, a policy or course of action is supported by citing positive consequences
of carrying out this policy or course of action. In argument from negative consequences, a policy
or course of action is argued against by citing negative consequences of carrying it out.

A slippery slope argument is a species of negative reasoning from consequences, used where two
parties are deliberating together and one warns the other not to take a contemplated action,
because it is a first step in a sequence of events that will lead to some horrible outcome. What is
distinctive about the slippery slope argument as a special subtype of argument from
consequences is that there is said to be a connected sequence of actions, such that once the first
action in the series is carried out, a sequence of other actions will follow, so that once the
sequence starts there is no stopping it, until (eventually) the horrible outcome comes about. This
particularly horrible outcome is the final event in the sequence and represents something that
would very definitely go against goals that are important for the participant in the deliberation
who is being warned, for example, it might be his personal safety or security.

149
The characteristic idea of the slippery slope argument is that once you take that first action in the
sequence, it is like pushing off from the top of an Olympic ski-jump run. Once you have kicked
off, turning back becomes harder and harder. At some ill-defined point or grey area, there is no
turning back. Once you are into this area, there is only one way to go: faster and faster down the
slope until you hit the bottom. So if you don’t want to go careening down the slope out of control
and hit the bottom (with disastrous consequences of personal injury), the message is that you had
better not take that first step at all.

Slippery slope fallacy occurs when the arguer assumes that a chain reaction will occur but there
is insufficient evidence that one (or more) events in the chain will cause the others; when there is
no actual or real connection among the chain of events. The chains of causes are supposedly like
a steep slope - if you take one step on the slope; you’ll slide all the way down. And since you
don’t want to slide all the way down, don’t take the first step. Consider the following example.

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. This is not to say that donkey slaughter house is risk
free practice. It is only to say that, logically speaking, when causal connections are claimed,
there needs to be sufficient evidence that the connections are genuine. And to claim that 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.

The fallacy of slippery slope is a variety of the false cause fallacy. Deciding whether a slippery
slope fallacy has been committed can be difficult when there is uncertainty whether the alleged
chain reaction will or will not occur. But many slippery slopes rest on a mere emotional
conviction on the part of the arguer that a certain action or policy is bad, and the arguer attempts
to trump up support for his or her position by citing all sorts of dire consequences that will result

150
if the action is taken or the policy followed. In such cases there is usually little problem in
identifying the argument as a slippery slope.

14) Weak Analogy

Activity # 7: Dear learners, what do you think is the fallacy of weak analogy?

Weak analogy is a defective or flawed argument from analogy. Argument from analogy is a very
commonly used kind of case-based reasoning, where one case is held to be similar to another
case in a particular respect. Since the one case is held to have a certain property, then the other
case, it is concluded, also has the same property (because the one case is similar to the other).

Two things, situations or cases could be similar to each other in certain respects, but dissimilar in
other respects. While one case may be generally similar to another, it does not mean that the two
cases will be similar in every respect. If they were similar in every respect, they would be
identical case. However, two cases can be generally similar, even though there are quite
important differences between them. Consider the following example.

After ingesting one milligram of substance alpha per day for ninety days, white mice developed
genetic abnormalities. Since white mice are similar in many ways to humans, it follows that
substance alpha probably produces genetic abnormalities in humans.

This argument compares two cases, the effects of some substances on human and mice. It argues
that this substance produce genetic abnormalities on mice, then postulates comparable
consequences on humans. It is built onto an argument from analogy; based on a comparison
between the two cases. Of course, the two cases are different in certain respects, but by
comparing them, it puts forward a plausible argument.

The fallacy of weak analogy is committed when the analogy between things, situations and
circumstance is not strong enough to support the conclusion that is drawn. Evaluating an
argument having this form requires a two-step procedure: (1) Identify the attributes a, b, c,. . that
the two entities A and B share in common, and (2) determine how the attribute z, mentioned in

151
the conclusion, relates to the attributes a, b, c, . . . If some causal or systematic relation exists
between z and a, b, or c, the argument is strong; otherwise it is weak.

In the example above about the similarity between mice and human being, it was evaluated as
strong argument because there is systematic relation between the two. For example both are
mammals and as such they share common similarities that belong to all mammals. In addition to
this, being animals is the bases for further similarities. Since they share similarity in terms of
biological metabolism, this tendency will provide a strong reason for the conclusion to be true.
Most probably both will respond in similar way for the substance alpha. Consider the following
weak analogy argument.

When an individual is diagnosed as having cancer, every effort is made to kill the cancerous
growth, whether by surgery, radiation treatment, or chemotherapy. But murderers and
kidnappers are cancerous growths on society. Therefore, when these criminals are apprehended
and convicted, they should be treated like any other cancer and eliminated by capital punishment.

This argument is based on a similarity between the growth of cancer in human body and the
existence of criminals in society. It is true that when a certain cell is identified as cancer every
effort would be made to kill it because it is impossible to rehabilitate the cell and the only safe
measure is to kill the cell. But this is not true in human being. Even if a criminal is bad for
society, society avoids crime not by killing criminals but by educating and rehabilitating
individual criminals. Thus this analogy is fallacy because the conclusion is based on weak or
inadequate analogy between a human being and a cell.

152
 Fallacies of Presumption

15) Begging the Question (Petitio Principii)

Activity # 1: Dear learners, what do you think is the fallacy of begging the question?

The fallacy of begging the question is committed whenever the arguer creates the illusion that
inadequate premises provide adequate support for the conclusion by leaving out a possibly false
(shaky) key premise, by restating a possibly false premise as the conclusion, or by reasoning in a
circle. The Latin name for this fallacy, petition principii, means “request for the source.” The
actual source of support for the conclusion is not apparent, and so the argument is said to beg the

question. After reading or hearing the argument, the observer is inclined to ask, “But how do you
know X?” where X is the needed support.

The first, and most common, way of committing this fallacy is by leaving a possibly false key
premise out of the argument while creating the illusion that nothing more is needed to establish
the conclusion. Examples:

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.

It’s obvious that the poor in this country should be given handouts from the government. After all,
these people earn less than the average citizen.

Clearly, terminally ill patients have a right to doctor-assisted suicide. After all, many of these
people are unable to commit suicide by themselves.

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?” The third and fourth beg the questions “Just
because the poor earn less than the average citizen, does this imply that the government should
give them handouts?” and “Just because terminally ill patients cannot commit suicide by
themselves, does it follow that they have a right to a doctor’s assistance?”

These questions indicate that something has been left out of the original arguments. Thus, the

153
first argument is missing the premise, “Abortion is a form of murder”; the second is missing the
premise, “If humans and apes look similar, then they have common ancestors;” and so on. These
premises are crucial for the soundness of the arguments. If the arguer is unable to establish the
truth of these premises, then the arguments prove nothing. However, in most cases of begging
the question, this is precisely the reason why such premises are left unstated. The arguer is not
able to establish their truth, and by employing rhetorical phraseology such as “of course,”
“clearly,” “this being the case,” and “after all,” the arguer hopes to create the illusion that the
stated premise, by itself, provides adequate support for the conclusion when in fact it does not.

The same form of begging the question often appears in arguments concerning religious topics to
justify conclusions about the existence of God, the immortality of the soul, and so on. Example:

The world in which we live displays an amazing degree of organization. Obviously this world
was created by an intelligent God.

This argument begs the question, “How do you know that the organization in the world could
only have come from an intelligent creator?” Of course the claim that it did come from an
intelligent creator may well be true, but the burden is on the arguer to prove it. Without
supporting reasons or evidence, the argument proves nothing. Yet most people who are
predisposed to believe the conclusion are likely to accept the argument as a good one. The same
can be said of most arguments that beg the question, and this fact suggests another reason why
arguers resort to this fallacy: Such arguments tend to reinforce pre-existing inclinations and
beliefs.

The second form of petito principii occurs when 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. Examples:

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.

Anyone who preaches revolution has a vision of the future for the simple reason that if a person
has no vision of the future he could not possibly preach revolution.

154
In the first argument, saying that capital punishment is “justified” means the same thing as
saying that it is “legitimate and appropriate,” and in the second argument, the premise and the
conclusion say exactly the same thing. However, by repeating the same thing in slightly different
language, the arguer creates the illusion that independent evidence is being presented in support
of the conclusion, when in fact it is not. Both arguments contain rhetorical phraseology (“hateful
and inhuman,” “simple reason,” and “could not possibly”) that help effect the illusion. The first
argument begs the question, “How do you know that capital punishment really is legitimate and

appropriate?” and the second beg the question, “How do you know that people who preach
revolution really do have a vision of the future?”

The third form of petito principii involves circular reasoning in a chain of inferences having a
first premise that is possibly false. Here is an 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.

Upon encountering this argument, the attentive reader is inclined to ask, “Where does this
reasoning begin? What is its source?” Since the argument goes in a circle, it has no beginning or
source, and as a result it proves nothing. Of course, in this example the circularity is rather
apparent, so the argument is not likely to convince anyone. Cases in which circular reasoning
may convince involve long and complex arguments having premises that depend on one another
in subtle ways and a possibly false key premise that depends on the conclusion.

16) Complex Question

Activity # 2: Dear learners, what do you think is the fallacy of complex question?

The fallacy of complex question is committed when two (or more) questions are asked in the
guise of a single question and a single answer is then given to both of them. Every complex
question presumes the existence of a certain condition. When the respondent’s answer is added
to the complex question, an argument emerges that establishes the presumed condition. Thus,

155
although not an argument as such, a complex question involves an implicit argument. This
argument is usually intended to trap the respondent into acknowledging something that he or she
might otherwise not want to acknowledge.

Examples:

Have you stopped cheating on exams?

Where did you hide the corpse of the person you killed?

Let us suppose the respondent answers “yes” to the first question and “under the bed” to the
second. The following arguments emerge:

You were asked whether you have stopped cheating on exams. You answered “yes.”Therefore, it
follows that you have cheated in the past.

You were asked where you hide the body of the person you killed. You replied “under the bed.”
It follows that you were in fact killed the person.

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. Example:

Tell us, on April 9, did you see the defendant shoot the deceased?
Leading questions differ from complex questions in that they involve no logical fallacies—that is,
they do not attempt to trick the respondent into admitting something he or she does not want to
admit. To distinguish the two, however, it is sometimes necessary to know whether prior
questions have been asked.

17) False Dichotomy

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

The fallacy of false dichotomy is committed when a disjunctive (“either . . . or . . .”)premise

presents two unlikely alternatives as if they were the only ones available, and the arguer then
eliminates the undesirable alternative, leaving the desirable one as the conclusion. Such an

156
argument is clearly valid, but since the disjunctive premise is false, or at least probably false, the
argument is typically unsound. The fallacy is often committed by children when arguing with
their parents, by advertisers, and by adults generally. Here are three examples:

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.

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.

In none of these arguments does the disjunctive premise present the only alternatives available,
but in each case, the arguer tries to convey that impression. For example, in the first argument,
the arguer tries to convey the impression that democracy cannot originates in other places than
Athens or the Gada System and that no other alternatives are possible. Clearly, however, this is
not the case.

The fallacious nature of false dichotomy lies in the illusion created by the arguer that the
disjunctive premise presents jointly exhaustive alternatives. If it did, the premise would be true of
necessity. For example, the statement “Either Awash River is in Afar, or it is not in Afar”
presents jointly exhaustive alternatives and is true of necessity. But in the fallacy of false
dichotomy, the two alternatives not only fail to be jointly exhaustive, but they are not even
likely. As a result, the disjunctive premise is false, or at least probably false. Thus, the fallacy
amounts to making a false or probably false premise appear true. If one of the alternatives in the
disjunctive premise is true, then fallacy is not committed. For example, the following argument
is valid and sound:

Either Abay River is in Ethiopia or it is in South Africa.

River Abay is not in South Africa.
Therefore, River Abay is in Ethiopia.

False dichotomy is otherwise called “false bifurcation” and the “either-or fallacy.”Also, in most
cases the arguer expresses only the disjunctive premise and leaves it to the reader or listener to

157
supply the missing statements.

Fallacies of Ambiguity and Grammatical Analogy

5.1 Fallacies of Ambiguity

These fallacies arise from the occurrence of some form of ambiguity in either the premises or the
conclusion (or both). An expression is ambiguous if it is susceptible to different interpretations in
a given context. When the conclusion of an argument depends on a shift in meaning of an
ambiguous word or phrase or on the wrong interpretation of an ambiguous statement, the
argument commits a fallacy of ambiguity.

Activity # 1: Dear learners, do you remember the principle of clarity we have

discussed in the previous chapter? Do you relate the principle of
clarity with the fallacy of ambiguity?

Equivocation

Activity # 2: Dear learners, what do you think is the fallacy of 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

158
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.

18) 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

159
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.

Chapter Summary

A fallacy is a mistake in an argument that arises from something other than merely false
premises. Usually fallacies involve defects in reasoning or the creation of an illusion that makes
a bad argument appear good. Fallacies can be either formal or informal. A formal fallacy is one
that can be detected by analyzing the form of an argument; such fallacies affect only deductive
arguments. An informal fallacy is one that can be identified only by analyzing the content of an
argument; such fallacies can affect both deductive and inductive arguments.

The fallacies of relevance occur when the premises of an argument are not relevant to the
conclusion. Cases of such irrelevance occur in premises that threaten the observer, elicit pity
from the observer, create a mob mentality in a group of observers, appeal to the observer’s
desire for security, verbally abuse an opposing arguer, present an opposing arguer as predisposed
to argue as he does, present an opposing arguer as a hypocrite, misapply a general rule, distort an
opponent’s argument, or lead the observer off the track. A kind of catch-all fallacy, missing the
point, occurs when an arguer draws a conclusion different from the one implied by the premises.

160
The fallacies of weak induction occur when the premises, although possibly relevant to the
conclusion, provide insufficient support for the conclusion. Cases of such inadequate support
occur when the arguer cites an authority who is not qualified, draws a conclusion from premises
that give no positive evidence, draws a conclusion from an atypical sample, depends on a non -
existent or minor causal connection, depends on a chain reaction that is unlikely to occur, or
draws a conclusion from an analogy that is not close enough to support it.

References

Hurley, Patrick. A Concise Introduction to Logic. 2006. Routledge, USA. 9th ed.

Howord, Snyder, et al, The Power of Logic, MacGrewHill, USA.

Gensler, Harry, Introduction to Logic. Routledge, USA. 2ND ed.

Walton, Douglas. Fundamentals of Critical Argumentation. 2006. Cambridge University, USA.

161
 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.

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:

162
  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

163
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:

164
 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.

165
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.

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”.

166
 Example: Some businesses are not profitable.

Quantifier: Some
Subject term: businesses
Copula: are not
Predicate term: Profitable
Standard form: Some S are not P

Attributes of Categorical Propositions: Quality, Quantity, and Distribution

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.

167
 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

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:

168
 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 ParticularNone

O Some S are not P Negative ParticularP

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.

Venn Diagrams and the Modern 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.

169
 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.

170
 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

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.

171
Chapter Summary

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. In this chapter, you have, also, learnt the
different components of categorical proposition, the difference between modern and traditional
square of opposition and how to evaluate arguments/inferences using different propositional
representation.

=====================================================================

Self-Check Exercises

Dear learners, please attempt the following Questions.

1. What is the significance of determining categorical propositions in standard form?

2. What problems would occur if categorical propositions are not settled in standard form?

3. Write a categorical proposition in which its quantifier is “No”.

4. Write a categorical proposition in which its quantifier is “some”, its subject

term “soldier” and predicate term “cowards” and its copula “are not”

5. If a categorical proposition states that “there is at least one X and that X is in Y”, its
symbolic representation will be

6. The standard form of “All S are not P” is not a correct standard form.
Why?

172
 7. Write a categorical statement in which its subject class is entirely included in the
predicate class.

References

Textbooks

Hurley, Patrick J. (2014) A Concise Introduction to Logic, 12th Edition, Wadsworth, Cengage
Learning.

Hurley, Patrick J. (2012) A Concise Introduction to Logic, 11th Edition, Wadsworth, Cengage
Learning.

Reference Books

Copi, Irving M.and Carl Cohen, (1990) Introduction to Logic, New York: Macmillan Publishing
Company.

Damer, Edward. (2005). Attacking faulty reasoning. A practical guide to fallacy free argument.
Wadsworth Cengage learning, USA.

Fogelin, Robert, J, (1987) Understanding Arguments: An Introduction to Informal Logic, New York:
Harcourt Brace Jvanovich Publisher.

Guttenplan, Samuel: (1991) The Language of Logic. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers

Simico, N.D and G.G James. (1983) Elementary Logic, Belmont, Ca: Wadsworth Publishing Company.

Stephen, C. (200) The Power of Logic. London and Toronto: Mayfield Publishing Company.

Walelign, Emuru, (2009) Freshman Logic, Addis Ababa.

173