Hawassa University

Law And Governance

College School Of
Governance
LOGIC AND CRITICAL
THINKING
PHIL101
3crh
 Course Description
• This course aims
– To cultivate a critical attitude, both personally
and professionally
– Introduce the nature and concepts of
philosophy in general and logic in particular.
– Nurturing the skills required to construct good
arguments and ability to critically evaluate the
arguments of others
– Cultivate the habits of critical thinking and
develop sensitivity to the clear and accurate use
of language.
 Learning Objectives
• On successful completion of this course, the
students will be able to:
– Understand the main concern 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
 Contents
CHAPTER ONE
• Meaning and Nature of Philosophy
– Basic Features of Philosophy
– Core Fields of Philosophy
– Metaphysics and Epistemology
– Axiology and Logic
– Importance of Learning Philosophy
CHAPTER TWO
• Basic Concepts of Logic: Arguments,
Premises and Conclusions
– Techniques of Recognizing Arguments.
– Recognizing Argumentative Passages
– Recognizing Non-argumentative Passages
– Types of Arguments: Deduction and Induction.
– Differentiating Deductive and Inductive Arguments..
– Evaluating Arguments
– Evaluating Deductive Arguments: Validity, Truth,
and Soundness
– Evaluating Inductive Arguments: Strength, Truth,
and Cogency
CHAPTER THREE
• LOGIC AND LANGUAGE
– Philosophy of Language
– Debates and History of Philosophy of Language
– Logic and Meaning
– The Functions of Language: Cognitive and Emotive
Meanings
– The Intension and Extension of Terms
– Logic and Definition
– Meaning, Types, and Purposes of Definitions
– Techniques of Definition
– The Extensional (Denotative) Definitional Techniques
– The Intentional (Connotative) Definitional Techniques
– Criteria for Lexical Definitions
• CHAPTER FOUR
• BASIC CONCEPTS OF CRITICAL
THINKING
– Meaning of Critical Thinking
– Standards of Critical Thinking
– Codes of Intellectual Conduct for Effective Discussion
– Principles of Good Argument
– Principles of Critical Thinking
– Characteristics of Critical Thinking
– Basic Traits of Critical Thinkers
– Basic Traits of Uncritical Thinkers
– Barriers to Critical Thinking
– Benefits of Critical Thinking
CHAPTER FIVE
• INFORMAL FALLACIES
– Fallacy in General
– The Meaning of Fallacy
– Types of Fallacies
– Informal fallacies
– Fallacies of Relevance
– Fallacies of Weak Induction
– Fallacies of Presumption
– Fallacies of Ambiguity and Grammatical Analogy
– Fallacies of Ambiguity
– Fallacies of Grammatical Analogy .
CHAPTER SIX
• CATEGORICAL PROPOSITIONS
– Standard-Forms of Categorical Proposition
– The Components of Categorical Propositions
– Attributes of Categorical Propositions: Quality, Quantity,
and Distribution
– Venn Diagrams and the Modern Square of Opposition
– Representing Categorical Propositions in Diagrams
– Squares of Opposition: Traditional and Modern Squares
of Opposition
– The Traditional Square of Opposition
– Evaluating Immediate Inferences: Using Venn Diagrams
and Square of Oppositions
– Logical Operations: Conversion, Obversion, and
Contraposition
 Teaching and Learning Methods
• Presentation
– lecture,
– question and answer,
– group discussion
• Independent learning (Reading assignment)
• Collaborative learning (group discussion, and debates)
Methods of Assessment
• Mid-term Examination: 40% (it will cover chapter one
and two at the end of week five)
• Final-term Examination: 60% (it will cover from chapter
three to chapter six) Total: 100%
 COURSE INTRODUCTION
• This course 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
critical thinking is the reasonable, reflective,
responsible, and skillful thinking that focuses
on deciding what to believe or do.
• Critical thinking helps to
– 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
• Generally, this course is designed to help you
develop
– The ability to construct reliable and logically
defendable arguments and
– Rationally evaluate the arguments of others
 CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCING PHILOSOPHY
• Philosophy is the study of general and
fundamental problems
– concerning matters such as existence, knowledge, truth,
beauty, law, justice, validity, mind, and language.
• Logic is a branch of philosophy which treated
simultaneously as a field of study and as an
instrument.
• It study arguments and the principles and
methods of right reasoning
• As an instrument, it help us to formulate our own
rational arguments and critically evaluate the
soundness of others‘ arguments.
Meaning and Nature of Philosophy
• It is difficult to define philosophy because
philosophy has no a specific subject but it
primarily deals with issues
• Etymologically, the word philosophy comes
from two Greek words: philo and sophia, which
mean love and wisdom, respectively.
• Thus, the literal definition of philosophy is “love
of wisdom”. But this is not sufficient to
understand philosophy
• Pythagoras was the first to use the word
philosopher to call a person who clearly shows
a marked curiosity in the things he experiences
and analysis.
• Philosophy refers to the development of
critical habits, the continuous search for
truth, and the questioning of the apparent.
• 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.
• The wisdom that philosophers seek is not the
wisdom of the expertise or technical skills of
professionals
• Philosophy involves reason, rational
criticism, examination,
• For Socrates philosophy is a pursuit of
wisdom, i.e.
– The development of critical habits,
– The continuous search for truth, and
– The questioning of the apparent
• 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.
• Philosophy has a constructive side:- because it
formulate rationally defensible answers
concerning the nature of reality, value,
knowledge and truth.
• Philosophy is an activity. It is not something
that can be easily mastered or learned in schools
 Basic Features of Philosophy
1) Philosophy is a set of views or beliefs about life
and the universe, (informal sense of philosophy or
―having a philosophy)
2) Philosophy is a process of reflecting on and
criticizing our most deeply held conceptions and
belief(the formal sense of – doing philosophy)
 These two senses of philosophy-having and doing
cannot be treated entirely independent of each
other
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
4) Philosophy is the logical analysis of language and the
clarification of the meaning of words and concepts.
5) Philosophy is a group of perennial/constant problems
that interest people and for which philosophers always
have sought answers.
 Philosophy presses its inquiry into the deepest
problems of human existence.
e.g. -What is life and why am I here?
-Where does knowledge come from, and can we have
any assurances that anything is true?
• Philosophy is better seen as asking the right questions
rather than providing the correct answers.
 Generally, Philosophy is the various theories or
systems of thought developed by the great philosophers,
such as Socrates, Plato and Aristotle,
 Core Fields of Philosophy
• Philosophy has different primary and
secondary branches.
• This course deals only with the primary ones,
namely
– Metaphysics,
– Epistemology,
– Axiology, and
– Logic.
 Metaphysics
• Metaphysics is derived from the Greek words “meta” means
beyond, upon or after and physika, means physics.
• Metaphysics studies the ultimate nature of reality or existence.
• It deal with issues of reality, cause and effect relationship, and
other related issues.
• Some of the questions that Metaphysics primarily deals with
includes:
– What is reality? life? Time?
– What is mind, and what is its relation to the body?
– Is there a cause and effect relationship between
reality and appearance?
– Are human actions free, or predetermined by a
supernatural force?
• Metaphysical questions may be divided into
four subsets or aspects.
i) Cosmological Aspect:
 It deals about the origin, nature, and
development of the universe as an orderly
system.
 E.g. How did the universe originate and
develop? Does its existence have any purpose?
ii) Theological Aspect:
Theology is that part of religious theory that
deals with conceptions of and about God.
what is God’s relationship to human?‖
iii) Anthropological Aspect:
• Anthropology deals with the study of human
beings and asks questions like:-
– What is the relation between mind and body?
– Is mind more fundamental than body, with body
depending on mind, or vice versa?
– Are people born good, evil, or morally neutral?
– Do they have free will, or are their thoughts and
actions determined by their environment,
inheritance, or a divine being?
iv) Ontological Aspect:
• Ontology is the study of the nature of
existence, or what it means for anything to
exist.
– Is reality orderly and lawful in itself, or is it
merely orderable by the human mind?
– Is it fixed and stable, or is change its central
feature?
– Is this reality friendly, unfriendly, or neutral
toward humanity?‖
 Epistemology
• Etymologically, epistemology ― Greek words episteme,
meaning ―knowledge, understanding, and logos, meaning
―study of.
• Epistemology is referred to as ―theory of knowledge
• Epistemology studies about the nature, scope, meaning, source,
and validity and possibility of knowledge. It deals with issues
of knowledge, opinion, truth, falsity, reason, experience, and
faith.
• Thus, epistemology covers two areas: the content of thought
and thought itself.
– 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?
• The first issue in epistemology is asking whether
reality can even be known.
• In this regard, Skepticism(agnosticism) claiming
that people cannot acquire reliable knowledge
and that any search for truth is in vain.
• A second issue foundational to epistemology is
whether all truth is relative, or whether some truths
are absolute.
– Is all truth subject to change?
– Is it possible that what is true today may be false
tomorrow?
• If the answer is “Yes” to the above questions, such
truths are relative
• A major aspect of epistemology relates to the sources of
human knowledge.
• Central to most people‘s answer to that question is
empiricism (Empirical knowledge i.e. knowledge
obtained through the senses).
• However, data obtained from the human senses could be
both incomplete and undependable.
• Fatigue, frustration, and illness could distort and limit
sensory perception. In addition, there are sound and light
waves that are inaudible and invisible to unaided human
perception.
• In general, sensory knowledge is built upon
assumptions that must be accepted by faith in the
dependability of human sensory mechanisms.
• The advantage of empirical knowledge is that many
sensory experiences and experiments are open to
both replication and public examination.
• A second important source of human knowledge is
Reason(rationalism).it claim that the senses alone
cannot provide universal, valid judgments that
are consistent with one another
• Also rationalism claims that humans are capable of
arriving at certain knowledge independently of
sensory experience
• A third source of human knowledge is Intuition-
i.e. the direct apprehension of knowledge that is
not derived from conscious reasoning or
immediate sense perception
• The weakness of intuition is that it is not a safe
method when used alone. But it’s distinct
advantage is helps to bypass the limitations of
human experience.
• A fourth influential source of knowledge is Revelation.
It is the prime importance in the field of religion.
• It differs from all other sources of knowledge because it
presupposes a transcendent supernatural reality that
breaks into the natural order.
• Some people assert that a major disadvantage of
revealed knowledge is that it must be accepted by faith
and cannot be proved or disproved empirically.
• A fifth source of human knowledge, though not a
philosophical position, is Authority. It comes from
experts or has been sanctified over time as tradition.
E.g. textbook, teacher, or reference work.
• If authoritative knowledge is built upon a foundation of
incorrect assumptions, then such knowledge will surely
be distorted(one sided).
 Axiology
• The term Axiology stems from two Greek words-
– Axios‖, meaning ―value, worth,
– logos‖, meaning ―reason/ theory/ symbol / science
/study of.
• Axiology is the philosophical study of value(the
worth of something).
What is a value?
Where do values come from?
How do we justify our values?
What is the relationship between values and
knowledge?
Axiology deals three areas, namely Ethics,
Aesthetics, and Social/Political Philosophy.
 1.Ethics
• It is also known as Moral Philosophy, and it deals with
the philosophical study of moral principles, values, codes,
and rules,
• It used as standards for determining what kind of human
conduct/action is said to be good or bad, right or wrong.
• Ethics has three main branches: meta-ethics, normative
ethics, and applied ethics. Ethics raises various questions
including:
– What is good/bad? right/wrong?
– Is an action right because of its good end, or its right
principle?
– Are moral principles universal, conditional or unconditional?
– What is the ultimate foundation of moral principles? The
supernatural God? Human reason? Mutual social contract?
– Why we honor and obey moral rules? For the sake of our own
individual benefits?, or for the sake of others?
• Ethics can be grouped into three broad categories:
Normative ethics, Meta-ethics, and Applied Ethics.
Normative Ethics
• It deals with moral rules, principles, standards and
goals to evaluate conducts, actions and decisions.
• Consequentialism or Teleological Ethics,
Deontological Ethics, and Virtue Ethics are the
major examples of normative ethical studies.
Meta-ethics
• It deals with investigation of the meaning of ethical
terms, as good or bad and right or wrong than with
what we think is good or bad and right or wrong.
• Moral Intuitionism, Moral Emotivism, Moral
Prescriptivism, Moral Nihilism, and Ethical
Relativism are the main examples of meta-ethical
studies
 Applied Ethics
• It attempts to explain, justify, apply moral rules,
principles, standards, and positions to specific
moral problems, such as capital punishment,
euthanasia, abortion, adultery, animal right, and
so on.
 Aesthetics
• Aesthetics is the theory of beauty. It studies
about the particular value of our artistic and
aesthetic experiences. It deals with beauty, art,
enjoyment, sensory/emotional values,
perception, and matters of taste and sentiment.
• The following are typical Aesthetic questions:
– What is art? beauty? the relation between art and
beauty and truth?
– What is artistic creativity and how does it differ
from scientific creativity?
– Does art have any moral value, and obligations or
constraints?
 Social/Political Philosophy
• It studies about the value judgments operating
in a civil society, be it social or political.
• It primarily deal with:
– What form of government is best?
– What economic system is best?
– What makes an action/judgment just/unjust?
– Does society exist? If it does, how does it come to
existence?
– How are civil society and government come to exist?
– Are we obligated to obey all laws of the State?
– What is the purpose of government?
 Logic
• Logic is the study or theory of principles of right
reasoning.
• It deals with formulating the right principles of reasoning;
and developing scientific methods of evaluating the
validity and soundness of arguments. The following are
among the various questions raised by Logic:
•  What is an argument; What does it mean to argue?
•  What makes an argument valid or invalid
•  What is a sound argument?
•  What relation do premise and conclusion have in
argument?
•  How can we formulate and evaluate an argument?

• What is a fallacy?; What makes an argument fallacious?

 Importance of Learning Philosophy

“The unexamined life is not worth living”.

philosophy provides us with the tools we need to
critically examine our own lives as well as the
world in which we live.
philosophy can assist us to actualize ourselves by
promoting the ideal of self-actualization.
– self-actualization is associated with self-fulfillment,
creativity, self-expression, realization of one‘s
potential, and being everything one can be. Although
philosophy may not necessarily lead to this
• There are many characteristics of self-
actualization to whose achievement studying
philosophy has a primordial contribution.
1) Intellectual and Behavioral Independence
– we can learn how to develop and integrate our
experiences, thoughts, feelings, and actions for
ourselves, and thus how to be intellectually and
behaviorally independent.
2) Reflective Self-Awareness
– Philosophy helps critically examine the essential
intellectual grounds of our lives
3) Flexibility, Tolerance, and Open-Mindedness:
– we become more tolerant, open-minded, more
receptive, and more sympathetic to views that
contend or clash with ours.
4) Creative and Critical Thinking
– we can learn how to refine our powers of analysis,
our abilities to think critically, to reason, to evaluate,
to theorize, and to justify.
5) Conceptualized and well-thought-out value
systems in morality, art, politics, and the like:
– studying philosophy provides us with an opportunity
to formulate feasible evaluations of value; and
thereby to find meaning in our lives.
 CHAPTER TWO
BASIC CONCEPTS OF LOGIC
• 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:
 It is a science that evaluates arguments.
 It is the study of methods for evaluating whether the premises
adequately support or provide a good evidence for the conclusions.
 It is a science that helps to develop the method and principles to
evaluate the arguments of others and construct arguments of 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,
– Methods of arguing.
• Logic can help us understand what is wrong or why someone
is arguing in a particular way. Logic is 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
– guides in constructing arguments of our own.
 Benefit of Studying Logic
“Logic sharpens and refines our natural gifts to think,
reason and argue” (C. S. Layman)
• The study of logic is one of the best ways to refine one‘s
natural ability to think, reason and argue.
• 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
 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.
• Thus, by studying logic, we able to increase our
confidence when we criticize the arguments of others and
when we advance arguments of our own.
• Generally, the goal of logic is to produce individuals who
are critical, rational and reasonable both in the sphere of
public and private life.
 What is an Argument?
• Argument is a systematic combination of two or more
statements, which are classified as a premise or premises
and conclusion.
• From logical point of view, arguments is a group of
statements(premise), which are claimed to provide
support for, one of the other, the (conclusion).
• But an argument has a very specific meaning in logic. It
does not mean, a mere verbal fight, as one might have with
one‘s parent. Because :-
• 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.
• A statement is a declarative sentence that has a truth-value of either
true or false
Example:-
a. Haile G/Selase is an Ethiopian athlete.
b. Ethiopia was colonized by Germany.
c. Ethiopia is a landlocked country
• Statement (a) and (c) are true, because they describe things as they
are and “Truth” is their truth-value.Whereas statement (b) is false
because it asserts what is not, and “Falsity” its truth-value.
• However, there are sentences that are not statements, and hence
should be used to construct an argument. E.g.
A. Would you close the window? (Question)
B. Right on! (Exclamation)
C. Give me your ID Card, Now! (Command)
D. I suggest that you read philosophy texts. (Suggestion)
E. Let us study together. (Proposal)
• 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.
• In other word an argument may contain more than one
premise but only one conclusion.
• Argument always attempts to justify a claim. Therefore:-
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. An
argument can be good or bad depending on the logical
and real ability of the premise(s) to support the
conclusion.
• Arguments can be divided into deductive and inductive
arguments.
• A deductive argument is thought that the premises
provide a guarontee of the truth of the conclusion.
• In a deductive argument, the premises are intended to
provide support for the conclusion that is so strong that, if
the premises are true, it would be impossible for the
conclusion to be false.
• 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.
• An inductive argument is a thought that the premises
provide reasons supporting the probable truth of the
conclusion.
• In an inductive argument, the premises are intended only
to be so strong that, if they are true, then it is unlikely that
the conclusion is false.
• 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 difference between the two comes from the sort of
relation the author or expositor of the argument takes there
to be between the premises and the conclusion.
• If the author of the argument believes that the truth of the
premises definitely establishes the truth of the
conclusion due to definition, logical entailment or
mathematical necessity, then the argument is deductive.
• If the author of the argument does not think that the truth of
the premises definitely establishes the truth of the conclusion,
but nonetheless believes that their truth provides good reason
to believe the conclusion true, then the argument is
inductive.
• 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
– Its argumentative form or structure.
• A deductive argument can be evaluated by its validity
and soundness.
• An inductive argument can be evaluated by its
strength and cogency
• Deductive argument can be valid if it is impossible
for the premises to be true and the conclusion false.
• Deductive argument can be invalid if it is possible for
the premises to be true and the conclusion false
• Inductive argument can be strong , if it is improbable for
the premises to be true and the conclusion false.
• Inductive argument can be weak, if it is probable for the
premises to be true and the conclusion false.
• A deductive argument can be sound if it is valid and
true.
• A deductive argument can be unsound if it fails to be
valid and true.
• An inductive argument can be cogent/convincing if it is
strong and probably true,
• An inductive argument can be uncogent if it fails to be
strong and probably true.
 What is premise
• Premise refers to the statement, which is claimed to provide a
logical support or evidence to the main point of the
argument, which is known as conclusion.
• It is a statement that set forth the reason or evidence, which is
given for accepting the conclusion of an argument.
• Generally premise is claimed evidence.
What is conclusion
• It 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.
• Example-1:
All Ethiopians are Africans. (Premise 1)
Tsionawit is Ethiopian. (Premise2)
Therefore, Tsionawit is African. (Conclusion)
Example-2:
Some Africans are black.(Premise1)
 Zelalem is an African. (Premise-2)
Therefore, Zelalem is black. (Conclusion)
• In the above 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”
• All arguments may be placed in one of two basic groups:
– those in which the premises really do support the
conclusion (good or well-supported arguments)
– those in which they do not, even though they are
claimed to. (bad or poorly-supported arguments)
• For example, in the above two examples in the first
argument, the premises really do support the conclusion,
they give good reason for believing that the conclusion is
true, and therefore, the argument is a good one.
• But the premises of the second argument fail to support
the conclusion adequately. Even if they may be true, they
do not provide good reason to believe that the conclusion
is true. Therefore, it is bad argument, but it is still an
argument.
 How Can We Distinguish Premises From
Conclusion And Vice Versa?
• Sometimes identifying a conclusion from premises is very
difficult
• The first technique that can be used to identify premises
from a conclusion and vice versa is looking at an
indicator word.
• arguments contain certain indicator words that provide
clues in identifying premises and conclusion.
• Some of conclusion indicators includes:
– Therefore ,Wherefore, Accordingly, Provided that, It must be
that,We may conclude, Entails that, Hence, It shows that,
hence ,Thus , Consequently ,We may infer ,It implies that ,As a
result ,So ,It follows that
• In argument that contains any of the conclusion
indicator words, the statement that follows the
indicator word can usually be identified as the
conclusion. Example:
– 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 i.e.
“therefore” and the other two statements are
premises.
• If an argument does not contain a conclusion
indicator, it may contain a premise indicator.
• Here are some typical Premise Indicators: Since ,As
indicated by, Because , wing to, Seeing that, Given
that , As , For , In that ,May be inferred from , In,
as much as , For the reason that
• In argument that contains any of the premise indicator
words, a statement that follows the indicator word can
usually be identified as a premise. Example:
– You should avoid any form of cheating on exams
because cheating on exams is punishable by the
Senate Legislation of the University.
• Based on the above rule, the premise of this argument
is “cheating on exams is punishable by the Senate
Legislation of the University” because it follows the
premise indicator word “because”,
• 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.
• In the middle place between the premise and the conclusion,
“for this reason” 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.
• 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 premises
“Ethiopian women are faithful wives‘‘ and “Tsionawit is an
Ethiopian”. By process of elimination, “Tsionawit is a faithful
wife” is the conclusion.
• Sometimes you may have an argument without
conclusion and 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?
– What is the main point in the passage?
• The answers to these questions should point to the
conclusion.
• Example:
– Our country should increase the quality and quantity
of its military. Ethnic conflicts are recently
intensified; boarder conflicts are escalating;
international terrorist activities are increasing.
• The main point of this argument is to show that the
country should increase the size and quality of its
military. The following is the standard form of this
argument:
– Ethnic conflicts are recently intensified. (P-1)
– Boarder conflicts are escalating. (P-2)
– International terrorist activities are increasing.
(P-3)
– Thus, the country should increase the quality and
quantity of its military. (C)
• If a statement has nothing to do with the conclusion or,
for example, simply makes a passing comment, it
should not be included within the context of the
argument. Example:
– Socialized medicine is not recommended because it
would result in a reduction in the overall quality of
medical care available to the average citizen. In
addition, it might very well bankrupt the federal
treasury. This is the whole case against socialized
medicine in a nutshell.
• The conclusion of this argument is “Socialized
medicine is not recommended” and the two statements
following the word, “because‘” are the premises
• The last statement makes only a passing comment
about the argument itself and is therefore neither a
premise nor a conclusion.
 Techniques of Recognizing Arguments
 Not all passages that contain two or more statements are
argumentative. There are various passages that contain
two or more statements but are not argumentative.
 Argumentative arguments are distinguished from such
kind of passages by their primary goal: proving
something.
 Recognizing Argumentative Passages
 In order to evaluate arguments we need to
– understand the nature of arguments
– understand what argument is not, because not all
passages contain argument.
• 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
 It is a passage that expresses a certain kind of reasoning
process- that something supports or implies something
or that something follows from something.
 It is an objective feature of an argument grounded in its
language or structure.
 An inferential claim can be either explicit or implicit.
An explicit inferential claim
– It exists if there is an indicator word that asserts an
explicit relationship between the premises and the
conclusions. e.g.
• Gemechu is my biological father, because my mother told
so.
 the word “because” expresses the claim that evidence
supports something.
An implicit inferential claim
 It exists if there is an inferential relationship between the
statements in a passage, but the passage contains no
indicator words. e.g.
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 mere occurrence of an indicator word is by no means
a guarantee for the presence of an argument.
 Thus, we need to 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 1st passage is not an argument. In the second passage
“since” is used in a logical sense, and so the passage is an
argument.
• 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.
Recognizing Non-argumentative Passages
• Non-argumentative passages are passages, which lack
an inferential claim.
• for a passage to be an argument, it should contain not
only premises and a conclusion but also an inferential
claim or a reasoning process.
• Some of the most important forms of non-argumentative
passages includes the following.
1. Simple Non-inferential Passages
• It contain statements that could be premises or
conclusions (or both), but what is missing is a claim that
any potential premise supports a conclusion or that any
potential conclusion is supported by premises.
• It include statements of warnings, advice, belief or
opinion, loosely associated statements, and reports.
2. Expository Passages
• It begins with a topic sentence followed by one or
more sentences that develop the topic sentence. If the
objective is not to prove the topic sentence but only
to expand it or elaborate it, then there is no argument.
• Expository passages differ from simple non-inferential
passages (such as warnings and pieces of advice) in that
many of them can also be taken as arguments.
• If the purpose of the subsequent sentences in the passage is
not only to flesh out the topic sentence but also to prove it,
then the passage is an argument.
• If the topic sentence makes a claim that many people do not
accept or have never thought about, then the purpose of the
remaining sentences may be both to prove the topic
sentence is true as well as to develop it, then the passage is
an argument.
3. Illustrations
• It is an expression involving one or more examples
that is intended to show what something means or
how it is done.
• Illustrations are often confused with arguments
because many illustrations contain indicator words
such as “thus”. Example:
– Chemical elements, as well as compounds, can be
represented by molecular formulas. Thus, oxygen is
represented by “O ”, water by “H O”, and sodium chloride
2 2

by “NaCl”.
• This passage is not an argument, because it makes no
claim that anything is being proved. The word “thus”
indicates how something is done - namely, how
chemical elements and compounds can be
represented by formulas.
• Illustrations can be taken as arguments. Such arguments are
often called arguments from example. Here is an instance of
one:
– Although most forms of cancer, if untreated, can cause
death, not all cancers are life-threatening. For example,
basal cell carcinoma, the most common of all skin
cancers, can produce disfigurement, but it almost never
results in death.
4. Explanations
• It is an expression that attempts to clarify, or
describe such alike why something is happen that
way or why something is what it is.
• Example:
– Cows digest grass while humans cannot, because their
digestive systems contain enzyme not found in humans.
• Every explanation is composed of two distinct
components:
– Explanandum:- it is the statement that describes the
event or phenomenon to be explained,
– Explanans:- is the statement or group of statements
that purports to do the explaining.
• In the above example, the explanandum is the statement
“Cows digest grass while humans cannot” and the
explanans is “their [cows‟] digestive systems contain
enzyme not found in humans.”
• The purpose of explanans is to show why something is
the case, whereas in an argument, the purpose of the
premises is to prove that something is the case.
• Moreover, in explanation, we precede backward from fact
to the cause whereas in argument we move from premise
to the conclusion.
• Thus, to distinguish explanations from arguments, first
identify the statement that is either the explanandum or the
conclusion
• However, some passages can be interpreted as both
explanations and arguments.
• Example:
– Women become intoxicated by drinking a smaller
amount of alcohol than men because men metabolize
part of the alcohol before it reaches the bloodstream,
whereas women do not.
Conditional Statements
 They are an “if . . . then . . .” statements.
 Every conditional statement is made up of two component
statements.
 antecedent (if-clause), The component statement immediately
following the “if”
 consequent (then-clause) the one following the “then”
 However, there is an occasion that the order of antecedent
and consequent is reversed.
 Conditional statements are not arguments, because in a
conditional statement there is no claim that either the
antecedent or the consequent presents evidence
 Also conditional statements are not evaluated as true or
false without separately evaluating the antecedent and the
consequent.
 A conditional statement may serve as either the premise
or the conclusion (or both) of an argument. examples:
– If he is selling our national secretes to enemies, then
he is a traitor.
– He is selling our national secretes to enemies.
– Therefore, he is a traitor.
 The relation between conditional statements and
arguments may now be summarized as follows:
I. A single conditional statement is not an argument.
II. A conditional statement may serve as either the
premise or the conclusion (or both) of an argument.
III. The inferential content of a conditional statement
may be re-expressed to form an argument.
 Conditional statements are especially important in logic
(and many other fields) because they express the
relationship between necessary and sufficient
conditions. example
– If X is a dog, then X is an animal.
– If X is not an animal, then X is not a dog.
 The first statement says that being a dog is a sufficient
condition for being an animal, and the second that being
an animal is a necessary condition for being a dog.
 However, a little reflection reveals that these two
statements say exactly the same thing.
 Generally, non-argumentative passages may contain
components that resemble the premises and conclusions of
arguments, but they do not have an inferential claim.
 However, some passages like expository passages,
illustrations, and explanations can be interpreted as
arguments; and the inferential contents of conditional
statements may be re-expressed to form arguments.
 Therefore, in deciding whether a passage contains an
argument, you should look for three things:
a) Indicator words such as “therefore,” “since,” “because,”
and so on;
b) An inferential relationship between the statements; and
c) Typical kinds of non-arguments.
 But the mere occurrence of an indicator word does
not guarantee the presence of an argument. You must
check that the conclusion is supported by one or
more of the premises.
 Also keep in mind that in many arguments that lack
indicator words, the conclusion is the first statement.
Differentiating Deductive and Inductive Arguments
• 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.
• Words like “certainly", 'necessarily”, “absolutely”,
and “definitely” indicate that the argument should be
taken as deductive.
• words like, “probable”, “improbable” “plausible”
“implausible”, ‘‘likely", “unlikely” and “reasonable to
conclude” suggest that an argument is inductive.
• 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
 If the conclusion actually does follow with strict necessity
from the premises, the argument is clearly deductive
 If the conclusion of an argument does not follow with strict
necessity but does follow probably, it is usually best to
interpret it as inductive argument.
• 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.
 The character or form of argumentation the arguers use
refers looking at some deductive or inductive
argumentative forms.
Instances of Deductive Argumentative
Forms
 Five examples of such forms or kinds of argumentation
are arguments based on mathematics, arguments from
definition, and syllogisms.
Argument based on mathematics
 Arguments in pure mathematics are deductive and
arguments that depend on statistics are usually best
interpreted as inductive.
 Statistical arguments are based on random sampling of
data gathering, it is impossible to arrive at absolutely
certain conclusion.
 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. example,
Angel is honest; therefore, Angel tells the truth.
Kebede is a physician; therefore, he is a doctor.
Arguments based on Syllogisms
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: It is consisting of exactly two
premises and one conclusion and the statement begins with
words like “all”,” “no” and “some”. Example:
• All Egyptians are Muslims.
• No Muslim is a Christian.
• Hence, no Egyptian is a Christian
• Hypothetical syllogism: It has a conditional statement for
one or both of its premises. Example:
– If you study hard, then you will graduate with Distinction.
• Disjunctive syllogism: it is a syllogism having a
disjunctive statement. (i.e. an “either … or” statement.)
• e.g. Rewina is either Ethiopian or Eritrean.
Rewina is not Eritrean.
Therefore, Rewina is Ethiopian.
Instances of Inductive Argumentative Forms
 Some examples of such forms or kinds of argumentation are
arguments based on predictions, analogy generalizations ,
authority, signs, and causal inferences
 In 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,
Certain clouds develop in the center of the highland,
therefore, rain will fall within twenty-four hours.
 An argument from analogy is an argument that depends on
the existence of an analogy or similarity between two
things or state of affairs. Example:
The Encyclopedia Britannica has an article on culture.
The Encyclopedia Americana, like Britannica, is an
excellent work. Therefore, the Americana probably also
has an article on culture.
 An inductive generalization (An argument based on
statistics) is an argument that proceeds from the
knowledge of selected sample to some claim about the
whole group. Example:
There are 45 students in this class. I have evaluated
the answer sheets of 20 students and all of them
scored above 85%. It implies that all students of this
class are smart.
 An argument from authority is argument based on
citation, interview, or witness of a person who has a
better position or access to the required qualification.
Example:
According to Ato Tewodros who is a lawyer in
Hawassa city, Kebede committed murder because an
eye witness testified to that effect under oath.
 An argument based on signs is an argument that proceeds
from the knowledge of a certain sign (may be it is a traffic
sign, a trademark, a cautionary mark, a symbol,) to a
knowledge of the thing or situation symbolized by the
sign. Example:
The package material says that “keep it out of the
reach of children.” Therefore, this package must
consist of some sort of medicine
An argument based on causation is an argument
that proceeds from the knowledge of a cause to
knowledge of the effect, or conversely, from the
knowledge of an effect to the knowledge of a
cause. Example:
The cloud is becoming dark and the thunder is
roaming. So, let us go home quickly, the rain is
inevitable.
 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.
 We have to take into consideration that deductive
argument not always proceeds from the general to the
particular and inductive arguments proceed from the
particular to the general.
 This is because there are some deductive or inductive
arguments that proceed from the general to the general or
from the particular to the particular or even from the
particular to the general.
 For example, here is a deductive argument that proceeds
from the particular to the general:
– Three is a prime number. Five is a prime number.
Seven is a prime number. Therefore, all odd numbers
between two and eight are prime numbers.
Here is an inductive argument that proceeds from
the general to the particular:
All emeralds previously found have been green.
Therefore, the next emerald to be found will be
green.
Here is an deductive argument that proceeds
from particular to general
The members of Mohammed’s family are
Kedija, Kemal and Leyla. Kedija wears glasses.
Kemal wears glasses. Leyla wears glasses.
Therefore, all members of Mohammed’s family
wear glasses.
 CHAPTER THREE
LOGIC AND LANGUAGE
Philosophy of Language
• According to semiotics(the study of sign processes in
communication), language is the manipulation and use
of symbols in order to draw attention to signified content.
• Philosophy of language is the reasoned inquiry into the
nature, origins, and usage of language.
• Philosophy of language has been concerned with four
central problems: the nature of meaning, language use,
language cognition, and the relationship between
language, logic and reality.
• 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?
• "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.
 Ordinary language serves various functions in our day-to-
day life. These functions are almost unlimited. Thus,
among other things, individuals use language:
 To tell stories,
 to ask questions,
 to guess at answers,
 to form hypotheses,
 to launch verbal assaults,
 to tell jokes,
 to give directions,
 to sing songs,
 to issue commands and to greet someone and so on.
 In general, language has three linguistic functions
namely, expressive (emotive), directive and
cognitive (informative) function.
 Of these functions of language, the cognitive
function of language is a relevant and an important
for logic
• A. Expressive (Emotive) Function
 It Is a function of language which is important for
individuals to express their feelings or emotions.
Both positive and negative feelings.examples
 She is smart —
 I like my English teacher
 I hate him.
 I dislike Abebe.
 B. Directive Function
 It gives direction to the speaker or writer in order to pass orders,
commands or instructions to others.
Examples:
 What is your name? —
 Leave me alone!
 Do not close that door! —
Give me your pen!
C. Cognitive (Informative) Function
 It used to convey information about the world’s objective
realities. For Example:
Ethiopia has its own prestigious airlines of its own. (True)
The capital city of the regional state of Afar is Hawassa.
(False)
Lake Tana is found in Amhara region. (True)
 The reason why we study about definitions is words
have meanings. Meanings are conveyed through
definitions
 Some times the meaning of certain words in the
argument is vague or ambiguous.
 On the other hand logic evaluates arguments, and an
argument consists of a group of statements, and
statements are made up of words.
 Meaning of term
 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.
• Proper Names Common Names Descriptive
Phrases
• Ayele house The first president of
Ethiopia
• John person The king of England
• South Ethiopia animal Those who study hard
Words that are not terms include verbs, non-
substantive adjectives, adverbs, prepositions,
conjunctions, and all non-syntactic arrangements
of words. Examples
dictatorial, run quickly, above and beyond,
moreover, craves, cabbages, into again, the
forest.
•
• The Intension and Extension meaning of Terms
 The intentional meaning, is also known as connotation,
refers to the qualities or attributes that the term
connotes.
 The extensional meaning, is also called denotation,
consists of the members of the class that the term denotes.
Examples:
 “Inventor” means a person who is, clever, intuitive, creative
and imaginative.
 “Inventor” means such as Thomas Edison, Alexander Graham
Bell, and Samuel F.B. Morse.
 The meaning of the first example is based on its attributes,
qualities or essential characteristics.
 The meaning of the second example is based on its class
members. This is because this sentence provides lists of
individuals who are the member of the class of the term being
defined - inventor
The denotation of a term remains the same from
person to person. For example,
The denotation (extensional meaning) of human being
refers to all human being in the universe, on which
everybody agrees.
This term either constantly fluctuating as some
human beings die and others are born or it is
presumably constant because it denotes all human
beings, past, present, or future.
Denotation of a term doesn’t remain the same
from time to time? For example,
‘the current king of Ethiopia. Is there any king in
Ethiopia now? No. Therefore, this term denotes an
empty extension.
An empty extension is said to denote: the empty or
“null” class - the class that has no members.
You may recognize from the above example that
emperor Haile Sillasie was the king of Ethiopia in
the past.
Therefore, ‘the current king of Ethiopia’, changed
over the passage of time.
Thereby, things that do not have current objective
reference include myth, spiritual realities, extinct
(died out) creatures, historical events, and so on do
not have extension. For instance, Dinosaur,
Dragon, Satan, fictional and mythical stories, etc.
They do not have objective references that could
serve as a living testimony for their existence.
•
Our knowledge of these things is based on their
properties and but not based on their living class
members’ characteristics.
However, the intentional meaning of a term serves
as the criteria for deciding what the extension
consists of. That is why intentional meaning
determines extensional meaning.
 Example:
Satan is an evil sprit that causes people to suffer.
Dinosaur is an extinct reptile of the Mesozoic era.
Terms may be put in the order of depending on the
increase or decrease of attributes and sets of things added
to the term being defined.
increasing intension, increasing extension, decreasing
intension, and decreasing extension
If the member of a class of things decrease, then the
attribute of particular objects increase. The order of
decreasing intension is the reverse of that of increasing
intension but not always.
If the member of a class size gets larger with each
consecutive term, then the attribute of the particular object
decreases. Decreasing extension is the reverse of this
order.
• Example:
• Increasing Intension: Africa, East Africa, Ethiopia,
Addis Ababa.
• Decreasing Intension: Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, East
Africa, Africa.
• Increasing Extension: Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, East
Africa, Africa.
• Decreasing Extension: Africa, East Africa, Ethiopia,
Addis Ababa.
•
•
• Definitions and Their Purposes
 Many logicians define the term ‘definition’ as a group of
words that assigns a meaning to some words or group
of words.
Accordingly, every definition consists of two parts: the
definiendum and the definiens.
The Latin term definiendum is the word or group of
words that is supposed to be defined, and the Latin term
definiens is the word or group of words that does the
defining or gives a meaning to the definiendum.
• Example:
diffident means lacking confidence in oneself.
In this definition, the term ‘‘diffident’’ is the definiendum,
and everything that comes the word “means” (lacking
confidence in oneself; characterized by modest reserve) is
the definiens.
•
The most important objective of definition is to
provide meaning for the terms that are not
clearly understood in the context of other terms.
• Purposes of Definitions in logic
Definition helps us
To avoid confusion or misleading use of words and
phrases;
To avoid obscurity(insignificance),unintelligibility(un
clearness), subjectivity(bias) , and complexity of
words;
To introduce new words and to persuade(ecourage)
others;
To avoid useless controversies, disputes,
disagreements and conflicts over the meaning of terms
,words, phrases and passages which considered as an
argument;
To prevent incorrect reasoning; and to develop the
ability to reason logically.
There are five different types of definitions,
namely, Stipulative, Lexical, Précising,
Theoretical, and Persuasive Definitions.
• A. Stipulative Definition
Stipulative definition assigns a meaning to a
word for the first time. This may involve either
creating a new word or giving a new meaning to
an old word.
The purpose of a stipulative definition is to
introduce unusual or unfamiliar words, which
have no pervious meaning in the language.
Stipulative definition is used to introduce new
meanings to some new discovered phenomenon
or things in the area of archeological findings, and
innovations, such as new modes of behaviors, new
kinds of fashion clothes, new dances, new food
inventions, etc
• Example:
 A few years ago the attempt was made at a certain
zoo to crossbreed male tiger and female lion by
biologists. As a result of this, the offspring was born
from male Tiger and female lion. Thus, this
suggests a need for assigning a new name.
 So, they may call the new offspring ‘‘Tigon’’ taking
the first three letters from tiger (tig) and the last two
letters from lion (on).
 Another use of stipulative definitions is to set up
Secret Codes. It was (and still is) common to give a
secret code for the military invasion.
• Examples:
 ‘‘Operation Barbarosa’’ was the name the
code Germans gave to the invasion of Russia;
 ‘‘Operation Desert Storm’’ was the code
name given to the military invasion of Iraq.
 “Operation Sun Set” was the code name
given to the military victory of Ethiopia armed
force against Eritrea, which is the most
recently.
• B. Lexical Definition
A lexical definition is used to report the meaning
that a word already has in a language. Dictionary
definitions are all the best examples of lexical
definitions.
The purpose of a lexical definition is to eliminate
ambiguity that would arise over the improper use of
word to its context.
A word is ambiguous if it has more than one
meaning.
Some words that are subjected to ambiguous usage
are: “light”, “bank”, “sound”, “right” , “race”,
‘‘mad’’, “defuse” , “humanity” ,etc. Examples:
 ‘‘Light,’’ can mean light in weight or radiant energy.
 ‘‘Bank’’ can mean a finical institution or the edge of river.
 A word is vague
 If it is so imprecise and unclear, that is, it is
impossible to tell about the applicability of the
word.
 If it is impossible to tell whether the word
applies to them or not.
 Words such as “love”, ”happiness”, “peace”, “fresh”,
“normal”, “rich”, ”poor”, “polluted” etc are vague
words.
 It is difficult to draw a line or a boundary between the
things to which those words apply or do not apply.
 We can not tell with any degree of precision who rich
is or how we counted as rich.
• C. Précising Definition
A précising definition provides a more precise,
specific, exact and restricting meaning to a term.
Its use is to reduce vagueness of the term.
For example, the word ‘poor’ is a vague word.
Suppose you are an administrator of one
humanitarian organization and want to give a direct
financial assistance to the poor.
Therefore, we may define Poor as: “Poor” means a
person having a monthly income of less than Birr
150 . This is an example of a précising definition.
Précising definition used to clarify a highly
systematic context such as science, mathematics,
medicine or law. Examples:-
‘‘force’’, ‘‘energy’’, ‘‘acid’’, ‘‘element’’, ‘‘number”
“equality’’, ‘‘contract’’, and ‘‘agent’’
A précising definition differs from a stipulative
definition in that
Stipulative definition involves a purely arbitrary
assignment of meaning
The assignment of meaning in a précising definition
is not at all arbitrary.
Care must be taken that the meaning in a précising
definition is appropriate and legitimate for the
context within which the term is to be employed.
• D. Theoretical Definition
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.
In other words, it gives us the way of seeing or
conceiving (imagining) theoretical (that is, non-
experimental or non- practical) entity.
Fore example there is no any way to see or view “heat”
except in theoretical way.
Not all theoretical definitions are associated with science.
Many terms in philosophy, such as ‘‘substance’’, ‘‘form’’,
‘‘cause’’, ‘‘change’’, ‘‘idea’’, ‘‘good’’, and ‘‘mind’’, have
been given theoretical definitions.
•
Most of the major philosophers in history have
given these terms their own peculiar theoretical
definitions, examples:
 ‘‘Good’’ means the greatest happiness of the
greatest number provided the underpinnings
for his utilitarian theory of ethics.
 “Substance” means something that up
supports different qualities.
 “Justice” means to give each individual what
he or she deserves his or her due.

•
 – E. Persuasive Definition
 The purpose of Persuasive definition is:
 persuading or convincing listeners or readers
over a certain issue;
 changing or influencing the attitude of others
towards one’s own point of view and to win the
acceptance of audience.
 The method employed to develop persuasive
definition is to use emotionally charged or
value laden words and phrases for the purpose
of inciting, striving or arousing the emotion of
audiences to make them to accept the definition.
 This definition may exaggerate or diminish
the definiendum.
 Here are some examples of opposing pairs of
persuasive definitions:
 ‘‘Abortion’’ means the ruthless murdering of
innocent human beings.
 ‘‘Abortion’’ means a safe and established
surgical procedure whereby a woman is
relieved of an unwanted burden.
• Techniques of Definition and Their Relation
with Kinds of Definitions
• Techniques of Extension (Denotative) Definitions
 Extensional definitions provide meaning to a term by
listing examples to the term which is being defined -
definiendum. It is indicating the members of the class
 There are at least three ways of indicating the members of
a class:
 by pointing physically to them,
 by naming them individually, and
 by naming them in groups.
 Thus, based these we identify three different kinds
of definitions, namely, demonstrative or
ostensive definitions, enumerative definitions,
and definition by subclass respectively
• Demonstrative (Ostensive) Definition
 It assigns a meaning to a term by pointing
physically to the thing or object to be defined.
 It is probably the most primitive form of
definition. This definition might be either partial
in a sense that when we point to only some part of
things or complete
 Therefore, ostensive definition attempts to define
a term showing the object physically.
• Examples:
‘‘Chair’’ means this and this and this—as you point
to a number of chairs, one after the other.
 ‘‘House’’ means this one—using a picture
demonstrating a house.
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.
•
 Enumerative Definition
 It the members of the class that the definiendum denotes
individually.
 It assigns a meaning to a term by naming individually
the members of the class the term denotes. Like
demonstrative definitions, they may also be either partial
or complete.
 It is carried out through listing some or all of the
objects or entities symbolized by the definiendum.
Examples:
 ‘‘Actor’’ means a person such as Nick Nolte, Al Pacino, or
Richard Gere.
 “Athlete” means a person such as Hail G/sillassie,
Kenensia Bekele, Derartu Tulu, etc.
• Definition by Subclass
 A definition by subclass assigns a meaning to a term
by naming subclasses of the class denoted by the
term.
 Definition by subclass assigns a meaning to a term by
naming either the subclass (a smaller part of
something).
 Such a definition, too, may be either partial or
complete,.
• Examples:
 ‘‘Tree’’ means an oak, pine, elm, spruce, maple, and the
like.
 ‘‘Flower’’ means a rose, lily, daisy, geranium, zinnia, and
the like.
 “Professional person” means a person such as a doctor,
or an architect.
• Techniques of Intentional (Connotative)
Definitions
 Intentional or connotative definition provides a
meaning to a term by describing the essential
characteristics or features possessed by the term
being defined.
 Kinds of intentional definitions includes:
 Synonymous Definition,
 Etymological Definition,
 Operational Definition, and
 Definition by Genus and Difference.
• A. Synonymous Definition
• A synonymous definition is one in which
 The definiens is a single word that connotes the same
attributes as the definiendum.
 The definiens connotes exactly the same attributes
as the definiendum.
• Examples:
 ‘‘Physician’’ means doctor.
 ‘‘Intentional” means willful.
 ‘‘Observe’’ means see.
Therefore, we can interchangeably use the
definiens and the definiendum of synonymous
definitions.
• B. Etymological Definition
 An etymological definition assigns a meaning to a
word by revealing the word’s root or ancestry in
both its own language and other languages.
That is why most ordinary English words have
ancestors either in Old or Middle English as well as
are derived or come from some other language such as
Greek, Latin, or French, etc.
• Examples:
The word “Democracy” is derived from the two Greek
words, ’demos’ and ‘crates’, which means people and
power respectively.
 The English word ‘‘License’’ is derived from the Latin
verb licere, which means to be permitted, and
The English word ‘‘Captain’’ derives from the
Latin noun caput which means head.
• C. Operational Definition
 It assigns a meaning to a word by specifying
certain experimental procedures and it is
carried out by performing the actions,
operations, activities and procedures that the
word implies .
 It can be identified by words “if and only if”
which is equivalent to ‘necessary and sufficient
condition.’
• 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.
• D. Definition by Genus and Difference
 It assigns a meaning to a term by identifying two
things: one ‘genus’ term and one or more
‘difference’ words.
In logic, ‘‘genus’’ means a relatively larger class,
and ‘‘species’’ means a relatively smaller subclass
or smaller of the genus.
For instance, if you may speak ‘animal’ as a genus,
and ‘mammal’ as species or if you take ‘mammal’
as genus and ‘feline’ can be species.
Again, if you take ‘feline’ as genus, ‘tiger’ (which
is the subclass of the class of cat family), can be
the species.
Where as the ‘‘specific difference,’’ or
‘‘difference” is the attribute or attributes that
distinguish the various species within a genus.
For example, the specific difference that
distinguishes tigers from other species in the
genus feline (a cat family) would include the
attributes of being large, striped, ferocious
(aggressive), and so on.
Therefore, these aforementioned qualities of tiger
are called the ‘specific difference’ or simply
‘difference’ of tiger.
When the genus is qualified, we get the ‘species’
(that is, the word to be defined).
 A definition by genus and difference is easy to
construct.
 The step is Simply select a term that is more
general than the term to be defined, and then
narrow it down so that it means the same thing as
the term being defined. Example
• Species Difference Genus
• Ice means frozen water.
• Husband means married man.
• Mother means female parent
• Tiger means a large, stripped and
• ferocious feline
 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 it
could not be used to produce a complete
lexical definition.
 Synonymous definition may be used to
produce only lexical definitions.
 Synonymous definition cannot be used to
produce stipulative definitions because the
definiendum must have a meaning before a
synonymous definition.
 Also Synonymous can not be used to construct
précising, theoretical, and persuasive
definitions because the definiens of
synonymous definitions contains no more
information than the definiendum.
 In other words, the definiens of a synonymous
definition adds nothing new to the
definiendum.
• Criteria for Lexical Definitions
• Rule1:A Lexical definition should match to the
standards of proper grammar.
 A definition should be grammatically correct.
Definitions that are grammatically incorrect create
disagreements and disputes among individuals over the
meaning of terms.
 Examples: Consider the following definitions that are
grammatically incorrect are as follows:
 Vacation is when you don’t have to go to work or school.
 Furious means if you’re angry at someone.
 The corrected versions are:
 ‘‘Vacation’’ means a period during which activity is suspended
from work or school.
 ‘‘Furious’’ means a condition of being angry.
• Rule 2:A lexical definition should convey or
communicate the essential meaning or
characteristics of the word being defined.
Thus, a correct definition attempts to point out the
attributes that are essential to the designation of
things as the members of the relevant group.
Example:
‘‘Human being’’ means a featherless biped.
 This definition fails to says nothing about the
important attributes that distinguish human beings
from the other.
A correct and adequate definition would be “Human
being” means “the rational animal that has the
capacity to reason and to speak” and not as a
featherless biped.
• Rule 3: A lexical definition should be neither
too broad nor narrow.
If a definition is too broad, the definiens includes
too much; if it is too narrow, the definiens includes
too little.
In other words, a good or correct definition
should be proportionate, that is, the extent of the
defining word (definiens) should be equal to the
extent of word to be defined (definiendum),
 A definition is too broad if the definiens applies to
things to which the definiendum does not. In a too
broad definition, the definiendum is less than the
definiens.
A definition is too narrow if the definiendum applies to
things to which the definiens does not.
In a too narrow definition the definiendum is greater than
the definiens.
Examples: The following definitions are broad
 ‘‘Birds’’ means any warm-blooded animals having
wings.
 “Pen” means an instrument used for writing.
In the first example, the phrase “any warm-blooded animal
having wings” would include bats, and bats are not birds.
In the second example, the phrase “an instrument used for
writing “ includes things like chalk, pencil, marker, pen,
etc.
Examples: The following definitions are narrow
‘‘Bird’’ means warm-blooded, feathered animal that
can fly.
“Gun” means a tool used in the battle for defending
the enemy.
These two definitions would be too narrow.
The first definition would exclude ostriches,
which cannot fly.
In the second definition the term gun is defined
using a few attributes, that is, the definiens fails it
include different attribute of gun.
• Rule 4: A lexical definition should avoid
circularity
A circular definition presents the meaning of a
word: either by using the same word with the same
meaning in the definiens, or by using grammatical
variation of the same word (the definiendum) in
the definiens. Examples:
‘‘Religious ’’ means any one engaged in religious
activity.
‘‘Scientist’’ means anyone who engages in science.
A circular definition cannot provide any useful
additional information to the word being defined
or their definiendum becomes visible in the
Rule 5: A lexical definition should not be negative
when it can be affirmative.
Of the following two definitions, the first one
negative, and the second affirmative: Example
‘‘Concord’’ means the absence of discord.
“Concord’’ means harmony.
Thus, definition should explain what a term does
mean rather than what it does not mean.
 Some words, however, are intrinsically negative.
For them, a negative definition is quite appropriate.
Example
‘‘Bald’’ means lacking hair.
‘‘Darkness’’ means the absence of light.
 “Death” means the end of life
• Rule6:A lexical definition should not be
expressed in figurative, obscure, vague, or
ambiguous language.
A definition is figurative when it involves and
based on metaphors. A metaphor is a word or a
phrase used in the imaginative way.
A definition is figurative when it also tends to paint
a picture (describes the thing in a particular way)
instead of exposing the essential meaning of a term.
Example1: If you define ‘architecture’ as frozen
music, you are expressing it in figurative language.
Example 2: If you define ‘camel’ as ship of the
desert you are also expressing it in figurative
language.
•
A definition is Obscure if its meaning is hidden as a
result of defective or inappropriate language or
expression. One source of obscurity is excessively technical
language. Examples
 ‘‘Bunny’’ means a mammalian of the family
Leporidae of the order Lagomorpha whose young are
born furless and blind.
‘‘Bunny’’ means a rabbit. The problem lies not with
technical language as such but with needlessly technical
language. Because ‘‘bunny’’ is very much a no
technical term, no technical definition is needed.
A definition is vague if it lacks precision or if its meaning
is unclear—that is, if there is no way of telling exactly what
class of things the definiens refers to.
• Example:
‘‘Democracy’’ means a kind of government where the
people are in control.
This definition fails to identify the people who are
in control, how they exercise their control, and
what they are in control of.
 A definition is ambiguous if it lends itself to
more than one different interpretation.
• Example:
‘‘Triangle’’ means a figure composed of three straight
lines in which all the angles are equal to 1800.
 Does this mean that each angle separately is equal to 1800
or that the angles taken together are equal to 1800?
• Rule7:A lexical definition should avoid
affective terminology.
 Affective terminology is an expression that influences
others positively or negatively. It includes Sarcastic and
facetious (inappropriate) language and any other kind of
language that is liable to influence attitudes. Examples:
‘‘Communism’’ means that ‘‘brilliant’’ invention of
Karl Marx and other foolish political visionaries.
 The intended meaning is the opposite of what is meant by
brilliant. This is what we call a sarcastic use of language.
Dear learner, again look at the following examples:
 “Ethiopia” is a country of illiterate and hungry people.
 “Africans” are uncivilized and have no history.
• Rule 8: A lexical definition should
indicate the context to which the
definiens pertains.
A reference to the context is important
definiendum means different meanings in the
different context. Examples:
‘‘Strike’’ means (in baseball) a pitch at which a
batter swings and misses.
‘‘Strike’’ means (in fishing) a pull and a line
made by a fish in taking the bait.
In the above definitions at term “strike” has two
different meanings in the different contexts given
above (baseball and fishing).
• CHAPTER FOUR
• 4.1.BASIC CONCEPTS OF CRITICAL
THINKING
• 4.1.1. Meaning of Critical Thinking
 Critical thinking can be defined as
A wide range of cognitive skills and intellectual
dispositions needed to effectively identify, analyze,
and evaluate arguments and truth claims.
Involving or exercising skilled judgment or
observation i.e. Thinking clearly and intelligently.
A wide range of cognitive skills and intellectual
dispositions needed to effectively identify, analyze,
and evaluate arguments and truth claims.
 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
 To formulate and present convincing reasons in
support of conclusions; and
 To make reasonable, intelligent decisions about
what to believe and what to do.
 Critical thinking, thus, is thinking clearly, thinking
fairly, thinking rationally, thinking objectively,
and thinking independently
 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
 ‘active’ ,refers 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.
 ‘persistent’ and ‘careful consideration’-- Dewey
contrasting critical thinking with the kind of unreflective
thinking we all sometimes engage in .
 For example, we sometimes jump to a conclusion or make a
quick decision without thinking about it.
 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.
Different scholars defined critical thinking differently.
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.
Robert Ennis-defined critical thinking as
reasonable, reflective thinking that is focused on
deciding what to believe or do.
So ‘deciding what to . . . do’, or decision-making is
an important part of critical thinking in Ennis’s
conception.
 For Richard Paul Critical thinking is Mode of thinking
about any subject, content or problem – in which the
thinker improves the quality of his or her thinking by
skillful thinking and imposing intellectual standards upon
them. Paul associates critical thinking with reflecting on
thoughts.
 Michael Scriven has defined critical thinking as skilled
and active interpretation and evaluation of observations
and communications, information and argumentation.
 interpretation‘ of texts, speech, film, graphics, actions
and e body language helps to construct and select the
best alternatives
evaluating the truth, probability or reliability of claims.
Evaluation is the process of determining the merit,
quality, worth, or value of something‘
According to Scriven to be critical, thinking has
to meet certain standards like clarity, relevance,
reasonableness and so on.
Critical thinking is sometimes referred to as
‘criticocreative’ thinking. This word is the
combination of two words: critical and creative.
This is because critical thinking is a kind of
evaluative thinking – which
involves both criticism and creative thinking –
and
particularly concerned with the quality of
reasoning or argument that is presented in
support of a belief, or a course of action.
• Standards of Critical Thinking
To identify a critical thinking from the uncritical, we
refer to some standards.
The most important intellectual standards are clarity,
precision, accuracy, relevance, consistency, logical
correctness, completeness, and fairness.
1. Clarity: refers to clear understanding of concepts
and clearly expressing them in a language that is
free of obscurity and vagueness.
2. Precision: refers a matter of being exact, accurate
and careful. Most ideas are vague and obscures
though we think we have precise understanding of
them.
• 3. Accuracy: refers to correct/genuine information.
 Decision based on wrong and false information will
likely to result in distorting realities.
• 4. Relevance: refers to the connections of ideas
Critical thinkers carefully choose only the
information that has logical relation with the ideas at
hands
• 5. Consistency:- refers to the quality of having the
same opinions or standards.
Logic tells us that if a person holds inconsistent
beliefs, at least one of those beliefs must be false.
There are two kinds of inconsistency that should be avoided.
Logical Inconsistency, which involves saying or
believing inconsistent things (i.e., things that cannot
both or all be true) about a particular matter.
Practical Inconsistency, which involves saying one
thing and doing another.
• 6. Logical Correctness:- When the
combinations of thoughts are mutually
supporting and make sense in combination, the
thinking is logical.
 To think logically is to reason correctly,
therefore we need to use accurate and well
supported beliefs.
• 7. Completeness: Deep and complete thinking
are more preferable than shallow and superficial
thinking. Thinking is better when it is deep rather
than shallow, thorough rather than superficial.
• 8. Fairness :- Refers open minded, impartial,
and free of distorting biases and preconceptions.
– Principles of Good Argument
• 1. The Structural Principle
 An argument should meet the fundamental
structural requirements of a well-formed
argument.
 In other words, it should be formed in such a
way that
 The conclusion either follows necessarily from its
premises, in the case of deductive arguments, or
 The conclusion Follows probably from its
premises, in the case of inductive arguments.
• 2. The Relevance Principle
An argument should set forth only reasons whose
truth provides some evidence for the truth of the
conclusion.
The premises of a good argument must be
relevant to the truth or merit of the conclusion.
• 3. The Acceptability Principle
The reasons set forth in support of a conclusion
must be acceptable.
• 4. The Sufficiency Principle
 An argument should attempt to provide
relevant and acceptable reasons of the
right kind, that together are sufficient in
number and weight to justify the
acceptance of the conclusion.
• 5. The Rebuttal Principle
 An argument should be with effective
rebuttal to all anticipated serious criticisms
that may be brought against it.
 –Principles of Critical Thinking
• 1. The Fallibility Principle
 Each participant in a discussion of a disputed
issue should be willing to accept the fact that
he or she is imperfect.
 One must acknowledge that one’s own initial
view may not be the most defensible position
on the question.
• 2. The Truth Seeking Principle
 Each participant should be committed to the
task of seriously searching for the truth
 One should be willing to examine alternative
positions seriously and look for insights in the
positions of others.
• 3. The Clarity Principle
It requires that the formulations of all positions,
defenses, and attacks should be free of any kind
of linguistic confusion and clearly separated from
other positions and issues.
• 4. The Burden of Proof Principle
This principle requires that the burden of proof for
any position usually rests on the participant
who sets forth the position.
If an opponent asks the proponent should provide
an argument for that position.
•
• 5. The Principle of Charity
If a participant’s argument is reformulated by an
opponent, it should be carefully expressed in its
strongest possible version that is consistent with
what is believed to be the original intention of the
arguer.
If there is any question about the argument, the
arguer should be given the benefit of any
doubt in the reformulation and/or, when
possible, given the opportunity to amend it.
• 6. The Suspension of Judgment Principle
This principle requires that if no position is
defended by a good argument, or if two or more
positions seem to be defended with equal strength,
one should suspend judgment about the issue.
If practical considerations seem to require a more
immediate decision, one should weigh the relative
benefits or harm connected with the consequences
of suspending judgment and decides the issue on
those grounds.
If suitable evidence is so lacking that one has no
good basis for making a decision either way, it may
be quite appropriate to suspend judgment on the
matter and wait until there is more of a basis for
decision.
7. The Resolution Principle
An issue should be considered resolved if the
argument is
a structurally sound
uses relevant and acceptable reasons
provide sufficient grounds to justify the
conclusion and
include an effective rebuttal to all serious
criticisms and/or the position it supports.
 Characteristics of Critical Thinking
Basic Traits of Critical Thinkers
There are some dispositions and attitudes, skills
and abilities, habits and values that every critical
person should manifest.
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/stimulating challenges.
 Strive for understanding, keep curiosity alive,
remain patient with complexity, and are ready to
invest time to overcome confusion.
 Base judgments on evidence rather than personal
preferences, deferring judgment whenever evidence
is insufficient.
 They revise judgments when new evidence reveals
error.
 Are interested in other people's ideas even when
they tend to disagree with the other person.
 Recognize that extreme views (whether
conservative or liberal) are seldom correct, so they
avoid them, practice fair-mindedness, and seek a
balance view.
 Practice restraint(controlling) their feelings rather
than being controlled by them, and thinking before
acting.
 – Basic Traits of Uncritical Thinkers
Some traits of uncritical thinkers includes:-
Believe 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 remain confused than
make the effort to understand.
Base judgments on first impressions and gut/instinctive
reactions. And tend to follow their feelings
Are preoccupied with themselves and their own opinions,
and
Are unwilling to pay attention to others' views. At the
first sign of disagreement, they tend to think, "How can I
refute this?“
Ignore the need for balance and give preference to views
that support their established views.
• Key intellectual traits of critical thinkers and
the relevant traits of uncritical thinkers
First, critical thinkers have a passionate drive
for clarity, precision, accuracy, and other critical
thinking standards while uncritical thinker’s 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, unwarranted
assumptions, and wishful thinking.
 Second, critical thinkers are skilled at understanding,
analyzing, and evaluating arguments whereas uncritical
thinkers often misunderstand or evaluate unfairly
 Critical thinkers reason logically, draw appropriate
conclusions from evidence and data, while uncritical
thinkers are illogical, and draw unsupported conclusions
 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, whereas uncritical thinkers are
closed-minded, and resist criticisms.
Fourth, critical thinkers base their beliefs on facts and
evidence while uncritical thinkers often base beliefs on
mere personal preferences or self-interests.
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
despite obstacles or difficulties whereas uncritical thinkers
are often relatively indifferent to truth and lack curiosity.
• Barriers to Critical Thinking
Egocentrism, Sociocentrism, Unwarranted Assumptions
and Stereotypes, Relativistic Thinking and Wishful
Thinking are some of the barriers to Critical Thinking
• 1. Egocentrism
Egocentrism is the tendency to see reality as centered on
oneself.
Egocentrics are selfish, self-absorbed people who view
their interests, ideas, and values as superior to everyone
else’s.
Two common forms Egocentrism are self-interested
thinking and the superiority bias.
Self-interested thinking is the tendency to accept and
defend beliefs that harmonize with one’s self-interest.
Almost no one is immune to self-interested thinking.
For example, most doctors support legislation making it more difficult
for them to be sued for malpractice because they do not want to
punish for mistakes committed in the workplace.
• superiority bias (also known as illusory
superiority or the better-than average effect) is
the tendency to overrate oneself - to see oneself
as better in some respect than one actually is.
• 2. Sociocentrism
 It is group-centered thinking and it can hinder
rational thinking by focusing excessively on
the group.
 It can distort critical thinking in many ways.
Two of the most important types of
Sociocentrism are group bias and
conformism.
 Group bias is the tendency to see one’s own
group (nation, tribe, sect, peer group, and
the like) as being inherently better than
others.
 Most people absorb group bias
unconsciously, usually from early childhood.
 Conformism refers to our tendency to follow
the crowd unthinkingly to authority or to
group standards of conduct and belief.
3. Unwarranted Assumptions and Stereotypes
 An assumption is something we believe to be
true without any proof or conclusive evidence.
Almost everything we think and do is based on
assumptions.
 If the weather report calls for rain, we take an
umbrella because we assume that
 the meteorologist is not lying,
 the report is based on a scientific analysis of
weather patterns,
 the instruments are accurate, and so forth.
• 4. Relativistic Thinking
 Relativism is the view that truth is a matter of opinion. It
is strongest challenges to critical thinking.
 There is no objective or absolute standard of truth.
 There are two popular forms of relativism: subjectivism
and cultural relativism.
• A. Subjectivism
 It is the view that truth is a matter of individual
opinion.
 Whatever an individual believes is true, is true for that
person, and there is no such thing as “objective” or
“absolute” truth, i.e., truth that exists independent of
what anyone believes.
 For example, suppose Abdella believes that abortion is
wrong and Obang believes that abortion is not always
wrong. According to subjectivism, abortion is always
wrong for Abdella and not always wrong for Obang.
Both beliefs are true – for them.
• B. Cultural Relativism
 It believe that truth is a matter of social or cultural
opinion.What is true is whatever most people in a
society or culture believe to be true.
 e.g Drinking wine is widely considered to be wrong in
Iran but is not generally considered to be wrong in
France. Therefore, drinking wine is immoral in Iran but
is morally permissible in France.
 The most common form of relativism is moral
relativism.
 Moral subjectivism is the view that what is morally
right and good for an individual, A, is whatever A
believes is morally right and good.
 Moral subjectivism comes in two major forms: moral
subjectivism and cultural moral relativism.
• 5. Wishful Thinking
 It refers to a state of believing something not because
you had good evidence for it but simply because you
wished it were true.
 People fear the unknown and invent comforting myths
to render the universe less hostile and more predictable.
• Benefits of Critical Thinking
• Critical Thinking: Skills and Dispositions
Critical thinking teaches
how to raise and identify fundamental questions
and problems in the community.
How to reformulate these problems clearly and
precisely.
How to gather and assess relevant information,
How develop reasoned conclusions and solutions,
testing them against relevant criterion and
standards.
How to be open minded to alternative system of
thought, recognize and assess your own
assumptions, implications
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).
• Critical Thinking in the Classroom
Students learn a variety of skills that can greatly
improve their classroom performance. These skills
include:
Understanding the arguments and beliefs of others
Critically evaluating those arguments and beliefs
Developing and defending one’s own well-
supported arguments and beliefs
 Also, critical thinking can help us
 To avoid making foolish personal decisions.
 To promote 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.
 To have personal enrichment/improvement 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.
CHAPTER FIVE
Logical
Reasoning
&
Fallacies
3.1. The Meaning of ‘Fallacy’
In ordinary language usage, the term ‘fallacy’
refers to a mistaken or false belief.
However, from the logician point of view, the
term fallacy refers to a defect in an argument.
Generally, fallacies can be committed b/c of
Logical error (error in reasoning) or
The creation of some illusion that makes a bad
argument appear good.
If deductive arguments are unsound or if
inductive arguments are uncogent, then they
contain fallacies.
This is because such kinds of arguments have one
or more false premises or they contain a fallacy
(or both).
 CAUSES OF FALLACIES
 Causes of fallacies, among others, include:
The failure to provide genuine evidences or premises
for the conclusion;
The failure to provide premises that provide good
support of the premises and conclusion;
The failure to address the most important or relevant
aspects of the issue the arguer arguing for and so forth.
The Classifications of Fallacies
 Fallacies are usually divided into formal and informal.
 Formal fallacies are those fallacies that arise from an
error or mistake in the form or structure of an
argument and they are found only in deductive
arguments such as in categorical syllogisms, disjunctive
syllogisms, and hypothetical syllogisms.
 The following categorical syllogism contains a formal
fallacy:
All tigers are animals.
All mammals are animals.
Therefore, all tigers are mammals
 The above argument has the following form: Letter A,
B, and C represents “tigers”, “animals”, and
“mammals” ,respectively.
All A are B.
All C are B.
Therefore, all A are C.
 This argument is invalid, because the conclusion does
not follow from the premises and the conclusion
proves false for there is no any A which is also found
in C.
Informal fallacies are fallacies that can be
detected only through analysis of content
of the argument.
Informal fallacies are logical errors in the
content of the argument but not in the
structure or form of the argument.
Example:
All factories are plants.
All plants are things that contain chlorophyll.
Therefore, all factories are things that contain
chlorophyll.
This argument has the following form: Letter A,
B, and C represents “factories”, “plants” and
“chlorophyll”, respectively.
All A are B.
All B are C.
Therefore, All A are C.
Since this form is valid, one might conclude that
the argument itself is valid.
But the argument is invalid since it
has true premises and false conclusion
 The word “plant” is used in two different senses. In the
first premise it means a building where something is
manufactured, and in the second it means a life form.
 Hence, the argument has the following invalid form:
(Remember that, two letters are used to indicate the
different meaning of the word ‘plant’).
All A are B.
All C are D.
Therefore, All A are D.
 Formal fallacies are always invalid; however informal
fallacies can be valid. But Their validity is not
genuine and logical.
 The correctness of reasoning in informal fallacies is
only from psychological and rhetoric sense of the
argument.
 Therefore, the effect of an informal fallacy is to make a
bad argument appear good.
MAJOR CAUSES OF INFORMAL FALLACIES
 when the premise becomes irrelevant to the
conclusion(but the arguer presents it as if the premise is
relevant to the conclusion) see fallacies of relevance;
 when the premise becomes unacceptable to the claims of
the conclusion (the arguer however states the premise as if
it is correct) see fallacies presumption;
 when the premise becomes insufficient to provide
evidences to the conclusion(instead the arguer states the
premise having adequate evidence to the conclusion) see
fallacies of weak induction; and,
 when the premise is expressed by unclear language (the
arguer state the idea with the assumption that there is no
problem of linguistic confusion) see fallacies of ambiguity
and grammatical analogy.
 Characteristics Informal fallacies
They are frequently backed by some
motive on the part of the arguer to
deceive the reader or listener;
The arguer may not have sufficient
evidence to support a certain conclusion
and as a result may attempt to win its
acceptance by restoring to a trick; and
Sometimes the trick fools even the arguer
and may mislead him or herself into
thinking that he or she is presenting
genuine evidence when in fact he or she
is not.
 TYPES OF INFORMAL FALLACIES
We shall consider just 22 different types of
informal fallacies that are classified under five
major classifications of informal fallacies. This
includes:
fallacies of relevance,
fallacies of weak induction,
fallacies of presumption,
fallacies of ambiguity, and
fallacies of grammatical analogy.
 Fallacies of Relevance
 They are fallacies that fail to provide relevant and
acceptable premises to their conclusion.
 They are arguments that provide irrelevant premises
to the conclusion.
 The premises are relevant psychologically and the
connection between premises and conclusion is
emotional or not logical.
 Fallacies of Relevance contains eight different types of
informal fallacies. Namely, appeal to force, appeal to
pity, appeal to people, argument against the person,
straw man, red- herring, accident, and missing the
point.
1. Appeal to Force (Argumentum ad Baculum:Appeal
to the Stick)
 It occurs whenever an arguer creates a conclusion to
another person and tells the person either implicitly or
explicitly that some harm will come to him or her if
he or she does not accept the conclusion.
 In other words, an appeal to force fallacy occurs
whenever one irrelevantly appeals to force or threat
of force to win an argument.
 This fallacy always involves a threat by the arguer to
the physical or psychological wellbeing of the
listener or reader,
 Obviously, such a threat is logically irrelevant to the
subject matter of the conclusion.
 Premises of an argument are full of threat, intimidation,
scary words, etc.
 Thus, in this fallacy attempt is made to persuade others
of one’s point of view by using threat of force, or
psychological intimidation in any form,
 Indicating that some kind of unfortunate consequence
will occur upon those who challenge to disagree with
the idea presented in the argument.
Examples:
 ‘‘Meet ETV’’ is the best show on ETV; and if you do
not believe it, I am going to call my big brother over
here and he is going to beat you up.
 Anyone who believes the government has exceeded
its proper authority under the constitution will be
subjected to severe harassment by the provincial
police. Therefore, the government has not exceeded
its authority.
A teacher to his student: Aristotle has the only
correct philosophical view on this matter. If you do
not think so, wait to see what mark I give you on the
final exam.
These three arguments fail to provide logical
evidence to the truth of their conclusion. Instead
they provide a kind of harm or threat as a reason
to accept their conclusion. Thus, the first two
examples involve a physical threat whereas the
last example a psychological threat.
2. Appeal to Pity (Argumentum ad Misericordium)
 It occurs when an arguer attempts to support a conclusion by
simply evoking pity from the reader or listener in an effort to
get him or her to accept the conclusion.
 The pity does not have any logical connection or relevance to
the conclusion.
 But it is psychologically relevant for the conclusion as the
arguer can usually succeed in getting a pitting heart from his
audience.
 The appeal to pity is quite common and frequently appears in
schools between instructors and students; court rooms
between judges and defendants and their attorneys; streets
between traffic Police and illegal driver; offices between
employer and vacancy candidates; and the likes.
Examples:
 A student to his instructor: Professor, this paper deserves
at least a ‘B’ grade. I stayed up all the night working on it.
And if I do not get a ‘B’, I will be on academic probation.
 The conclusion of this argument is “this paper deserves
at least a ‘B’ grade.” And the student tries to support
his conclusion using pitiable ideas such as ‘I stayed up
all the night ‘and ‘I will be in academic probation’.
 The information the arguer has given might seem
relevant and might even get the audience to consider
the conclusion. It is psychologically relevant
 But evidences are not logically relevant to the
conclusion. so the argument is fallacious
Your honor, it is true that I killed my parents. I
fully admit that I murdered them in cold blood. But
I should get a light sentence. After all, I am an
orphan.
3. Appeal to People (Argumentum ad Populum)
 It occurs when the arguer attempts to persuade the
reader or listener about a certain issue on the ground
that most people approve it or disapprove the issue
being in question.
 It consist arguments with language that is calculated to
excite enthusiasm, excitement, anger, or hate.
 It has two approaches, namely, direct and indirect
approaches .
 The direct approach occurs when an arguer,
addressing a large group of people, excites the
emotions and enthusiasm of the crowd to win the
acceptance for his/her conclusion.
 The objective of direct approach is to arouse a kind of
mob mentality. This strategy is usually used by
propagandists, demagogues, preachers, advertisement
workers and so forth.
 direct approach consist in the handling of one’s
audience by appealing inappropriately to that
love.
 Indirect approach is appeal to some or more
individuals separately, focusing up on some aspect
of their relationship to the crowd.
 The heaviest reliance on this approach in particular
is to be found in advertising industry where the
products advertised are often associated with things
that we like: luxury, success, riches, and so on.
 Individuals associated with the advertisement are
also usually beautiful or handsome, famous, clever,
etc.
 There are three varieties of the indirect
approach. These are appeal to bandwagon, appeal
to vanity, and appeal to snobbery.
A. Appeal to Bandwagon
 It emphasizes that the majority choice is a correct one
 It is fallacious because peer pressure urges the acceptance of a
claim on the ground of the approval of friends or associates.
Examples:
 Chewing chat can not be all wrong because 70% of
Werabe university students see nothing wrong with it.
 A film is good because there are long lines of people
waiting to see it.
 They tell us nothing more than what large number of people
does or believes and about the quality of a thing or the truth
of the idea.
 The idea can be believed by everyone and yet not be true. So,
it is fallacious.
 loyalty to a group and the need to belong can give people very
strong reasons to agree to the views and positions of those
groups
B. Appeal to Vanity
It associates the product with certain celebrities
such as artists, athletes, footballers, respected
leaders, etc. and informs the audiences that if you
buy and use the item you also will be admired.
Examples:
“Who is going to wear this new fashion T-shirt worn
by the famous artist Gosaye for the new Ethiopian
Millennium?”
“Who is going to buy this new fashion Shoes, a shoe
used by the famous Haile G/ Sellassie in the
London Marathon.”
In the above examples T- shirt and shoe are
associated with the famous persons Gosaye and
Haile and if others managed to buy these products
they will be admired like these two artists.
C. Appeal to Snobbery
 It is an appeal to the desire to be regarded as
superior to others.
 It occurs when an arguer associates a product with a
selected few persons (distinguished person) that have
an exaggerated social position, health and some other
qualities.
Examples:
 This is not for ordinary people. If you want to be from
among the selected few dignitaries buy the shoe.
 Look at the mark of this cell phone-it is Nokia and Nokia is
not for everyone. Buy Nokia and join the selected few.
 First of all, did you see the mark of the shoe-its Clark? You
should know that Clark is not for the ordinary citizens buy
Clark and join with the dignitaries.
4. Argument Against the Person (Argumentum ad
Hominem)
 This fallacy always involves two arguers.
 One can commit this fallacy if someone refuses to
consider his or her opponent’s argument on its merit
alone, and instead attacks his or her opponent on the
ground of his belief, motive, religion, character, practice.
 The argument against the person occurs in three forms:
the ad hominem abusive, the ad hominem
circumstantial, and the tu quoque (You Too).
4.1 Ad hominem abusive
 Here the second person responds to the first person’s
argument by verbally abusing the first person and
discredits the character of the opponent; deny his or her
intelligence or reasonableness.
The person can be abused for being ugly, smoker,
gambler, and conservative.
But the character of the individual is logically
irrelevant to the truth or falsehood of what that
person says, or to the correctness or incorrectness
of that person’s reasoning.
Examples:
How a stingy person can tell us about charity. Hence,
let us stop discussing about these issue raised by
Tamirat.
These arguments commit the fallacy ad hominem
abusive because they are directed to attack or abuse
the person who made the claim instead of attacking
the claim or argument itself.
4.2. Ad hominem circumstantial
 Instead of focusing on verbal abuse on his or her
opponent, the respondent attempts to discredit the
opponent’s argument by mentioning to certain
circumstances that affect the opponent.
 It involves substituting an attack on person’s
circumstances such as the person’s religion, political
affiliation, ethnic background, position, etc for
evidences in an argument.
 It has the form “of course Mr. X argues this way; just
look at the circumstance that affects him.”
 Examples:
 Dr. Tewodros advocates a policy of increasing financial
spending for higher education. But that is not innocent
advocacy, for the reason that he is a college professor and
would benefit financially from such a policy.
4.3. Tu quoque (‘‘you too’’): it is pronounced as
“too kwo_kway”
 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.
 “You also or you do it, too” implies that person’s
action are not consistent (contradicts) with that for
which he or she is arguing.
 In this you too fallacy, the second arguer usually
accomplishes this by citing features in the life or
behavior of the first arguer that conflict with the
latter’s conclusion. In effect, the second arguer says,
‘‘How dare you argue that I should stop doing X;
why, you do (or have done) X yourself.’’
Examples:
 Child to parent: Your argument that I should stop
stealing candy from the corner store is no good. You
told me yourself just a week ago that you, too, stole
candy when you were a kid.
 Obviously, whether the parent stole candy is
irrelevant to whether the parent’s premises support
the conclusion that the child should not steal candy.
 This is committed when one of the arguers (the
second arguer) rejects the other arguer (the first
arguer) opinion by attacking or abusing him or
herself (their personality, character, motives, and
qualification) other than their argument.
 My doctor told me to lose some weight. Why
should I listen to a doctor who is himself
overweight?
 Determining what kind of person someone is includes
determining whether that person is trustworthy.
 Thus personal comments are often relevant in evaluating
whether a person’s proclamations or statements,
unsupported by evidence, warrant our belief.
 Examples of such statements include promises to do
something, testimony given by a witness, and testimonials
in support of a product or service.
 Here is an example of an argument that discredits a witness:
Geremew has testified that he saw Belay set fir
to the building. But Geremew was recently
convicted on ten counts of perjury, and he hates
Belay with a passion and would love to see him
sent to jail. Therefore, you should not believe
Geremew’s testimony.
 This argument commits no fallacy. The conclusion is
not that you should reject Geremew’s’ argument but
rather that you should reject his testimony.
 Testimony is not argument, and the fact that the
witness is a known liar and has a motive to lie now
is relevant to whether we should believe him.
 Furthermore, note that the conclusion is not that
Geremew’s statement is literally false but rather that
we should not believe the statement.
 It is quite possible that Geremew really did see
Belay set fire to the building and that
Geremew’s statement to that effect is true. But
if our only reason for believing this statement
is the mere fact that Mickey has made it, then
given the circumstances, we are not justified
in that belief.
Personal factors are never relevant to truth
and false.
In general, ad hominum arguments are
effective due to the following reasons:
Close connection between truth and
believability.
They engaged the emotion of readers and
listeners and their by motive them to transfer
their negative feelings about the arguer on the
argument.
5. Fallacy of Accident
 It is committed when a general rule is applied to a specific
case that was not intended to cover. In this fallacy, the
general truth, law or principle is either applied to particular
instance whose circumstance by accident or to a situation to
which it cannot be applied.
 The general rule is cited in the premises and then wrongly
applied to the specific case mentioned in the conclusion.
Because of the “accidental’ features of the specific case, the
general rule does not fit or is misplaced.
Examples:
 Freedom of speech is a constitutionally guaranteed right.
Therefore, Abebe should not be arrested for his speech that
inspired the riot last week.
 Kidist! All good patients obey the order of their doctors. Hence,
you should not refuse when your doctor invites you for bed.
6. Straw Man Fallacy
 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. In short, this fallacy occurs when the arguer
attack misrepresentation of the opponent’s view.
Example:
Mengesha: It would be a good idea to ban advertising
beer and wine on radio and television. These
advertisements encourage teenagers to drink, often
with disastrous consequences.
Tsegaye: You cannot get people to give up drinking;
they have been doing it for thousands of years.
 The straw man fallacy has three essential components.
1. The first is that there is a pair of arguers taking part in a
dialogue.
2. The second component is that each is arguing with the other.
3. The third is that each is advocating a position opposed to that
of the other party.
 In the above example, you can observe that Tsegaye attempts
to oppose Mengasha’s idea but with a distorted form.
 Mary: We must not betray the principles of justice and
democracy. Suspected terrorists must be granted basic
rights as well as legal representation and access to a fair
court.
 Tom: Mary is advocating the release of known terrorists.
We cannot afford to allow our enemies to move freely in
our society.
7. The Fallacy of Missing the Point (Ignoratio
Elenchii)
This fallacy occurs when the premise of an
argument support one particular conclusion. In
other words, it occurs when the premise of an
argument support one particular conclusion, but
then a different conclusion, often vaguely related
to the correct conclusion is drawn.
Examples:
Crimes of theft and robbery have been
increasing at an alarming rate lately.
The conclusion is obvious: We must reinstate
death penalty immediately.
 At least two correct conclusions are implied by the
premises of the argument. Either “we should provide
increased police protection in the invulnerable
neighborhoods” or “we should initiate programs to
eliminate the cause of the crimes.”
 The punishment for theft and robbery should be very
serious. But it does not support the claim that the death
penalty, therefore, reinstating the death penalty is not a
logical conclusion at all.
KKC University has a lot of problems. Students’
services and facilities are inadequate. Many of the
instructors are inexperienced. It follows that, the
university should be entirely closed.
 The conclusion of the example misses logical
implication from the premise.
The logical conclusion for the premise is not
closing the university but it could have been stated
in other ways like:
providing additional facilities for students,
getting experienced instructors from other
countries, developing the capacity of the
administration of the university, and the like.
In general, the fallacy of missing the point is called
ignoratio elenchi which means ‘‘ignorance of the
proof.’’
This means the arguer is ignorant of the logical
implications of his or her own premises and, as a
result, draws a conclusion that misses the point
entirely
8. Red-Herring (Off the Truck Fallacy)
 The red herring fallacy is committed when the arguer diverts
the attention of the reader or listener by changing the subject
to a different but sometimes subtly related one.
 It usually appears in the form of appeal to humor, ridicule or
appeal to thought provoking questions for the purpose of
diverting the attention of the audiences, which is logically
irrelevant to the subject, issue or topic of the debate raised
first.
Examples:
 The minister: The new education policy is appreciative. Bezawit:
Did you hear about his first son? The important question confronting
this great nation is the question of terrorism. Let me tell you how I
plan to defeat it. He is going to marry an orphanage girl. Before the
minister is talking about in practical education policy; he should give
a lesson for his son to get a good wife. So, his new education policy
is not appreciative.
 This argument commits the fallacy of red-herring
because the arguer diverts the subject or topic of the
argument for “new education policy appreciative” to
marry an orphanage girl and get a good wife_ a topic
which is irrelevance to the topic or the subject under
discussion.
 Interviewer: Your opponent has argued for immigration
reform. Do you agree with her position?
 Candidate: I think the more important question confronting
this great nation is the question of terrorism. Let me tell you
how I plan to defeat it.
 B. Fallacies of Weak Induction
 It appear usually in inductive arguments
 It is committed if the arguer made a kind of
mistakes or errors in appeal to authority, argument
based on prediction, sign, analogy, inductive
generalization, and causal inference.
 Fallacies of weak induction involve premises that
are in some degree relevant to their conclusion but
do not provide sufficient support for them.
 In other word it occur not because the premises are
logically irrelevant to the conclusion, as is the case
with the fallacies of relevance, but because the
connection between premises and conclusion is not
strong enough.
Fallacies of Weak Induction Include:
 Appeal to Unqualified Authority
(Argumentum ad Verecundiam)
 Appeal to Ignorance (Argumentum ad
Ignorantiam)
 Hasty Generalization (Converse Accident)
 False Cause
 Slippery Slope
 Weak Analogy
1. Appeal to Unqualified Authority (Argumentum ad
Verecundiam)
 It is committed because of the person who presents
argument who has no a legitimate authority on the
subject or the issue which he or she is arguing about.
 It occurs due to the problems of lack of expertise in a
certain profession, bias or prejudice, a motive to lie,
lack of the requisite ability to perceive or recall, and
personality problem to disseminate wrong information.
Examples:
It is always better to drink white wine with fish. Tony
Blair says so, he must know what he is talking about,
and he is the prime minister.
In this example, you can see the following structure in
the argument:
 If some one is prime minister, then they must always have
knowledge about all the Subjects they talk about. Therefore, it
is always better to drink white wine with fish.
2.Appeal to Ignorance (Argumentum ad Ignoratio)
 It is committed when lack of evidence or proof for
something is used to support the truth of the
conclusion.
 In other word this fallacy is committed when the
premises of an argument state that nothing has been
proved one way or the other about some thing due to
lack of evidence rather than by knowledge or tangible
information.
 There are two ways for appeal to ignorance fallacy to
be committed:
 arguing that some thing is true because no one has proved
to be false, and
 arguing that some thing is false because no one has proved
to be true.
Examples:
Nobody has ever proved to me the benefit of
federalism for our country, so I know federalism is not
important for us.
After centuries of trying no one has been able to prove
that Ethiopia has no natural gas. Therefore, we have
natural gas.
The best way we have to do is simply to suspend
our judgment about things which are incapable of
being proved. If we judge either way, our
judgment would be fallacies.
3. Hasty Generalization (Converse Accident)
 It is just the opposite of accident and it is also called
converse accident, because it proceeds from
particular to general.
 It is committed whenever one arrives to a conclusion,
on the basis of very little evidence or inadequate
information, and unrepresentative sample.
 The premises deal with a particular issue, but the
conclusion generalizes that something is true or false
merely based on the knowledge of the particular
issue(the sample) while accident proceeds from the
general to the particular (the premises deal with a
general issues, but the conclusion deals with
something particular),
Examples:
 I have met two persons in Hawassa town so far, and they
were both nice to me. So, all people I will meet in Hawassa
will be nice to me.
 Freshman Governance and Development Studies
students of 2009 are one – hundred sixty in number.
Blood is taken out of three students and upon
examination of all, three students are found to have their
blood type “B”. Therefore, on the basis of this, I
conclude that the rest of the students will also have the
same blood type, which is “B”.
4. The Fallacy of False Cause
• It is committed when the link between premises and
conclusion depends on some imagined causal
connection that probably does not exist.
• In this fallacy, when the arguer in his or her argument
oversimplified the cause of a certain event, makes a
kind of confusion between the cause and effect, or
identifies a certain event as the cause of another event
merely on the ground that the first event, which the
arguer identifies as a cause, occurs before the new
action.
 There are three varieties of false cause fallacy, namely,
Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc Fallacy,
Non Causa pro Causa Fallacy, and
Oversimplified cause.
A. Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc Fallacy (Post Hoc
Fallacy)
 It traditionally refers to “after this, therefore because
of this, or after this, therefore the consequence of
this”. Sometimes this fallacy is called Post Hoc
Fallacy.
 It occurs when it is concluded that one event causes
another simply because the proposed cause occurred
before the proposed effect.
 This fallacy presupposes just because one event
precedes another event. The first event causes the
second. That is event Y is caused by event X because
event “Y” follows event “X”, or X precedes Y in time.
This is way of reasoning has the following form:
event “X” occurs before event “Y”; therefore,
event “X” is the cause for event “Y”.
• Examples:
– During the last two months, the football team
has worn red ribbons in their hairs, and the team
was defeated. Therefore, to prevent defeats in
the future, the team should get rid of those red
ribbons.
– Every time I wash the car, it starts to rain
shortly afterwards. Therefore, my car-washing
activities are causing outbursts of precipitation
in the clouds.
B. Non Causa Pro Causa Fallacy
It is interpreted as “not the cause for the cause”.
It 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.
In general, this fallacy considers something as
the cause of an effect when in reality it is not;
and on the other hand when a kind of confusion
occurs between the causes and effect of a certain
event.
Examples:
There are more churches& Mosques in Ethiopia
today than ever before, and more HIV victims
than ever before, so, to eliminate the pandemic
we must abolish the churches& Mosques .
Successful business executives are paid salaries
in excess of $5,000. Therefore, the best way to
ensure that Ferguson will become a successful
executive is to raise his salary to at least $5,000.
A. Over Simplified Cause Fallacy
 It is more probably committed than the other two
varieties.
 It occurs when a large number of causes are
responsible for an effect, but the arguer selects just
one of these causes and represents it as if it is the sole
cause of the event.
Example:
The quality of education in our grade schools and
high schools has been declining for years. Clearly
our teachers just are not doing their jobs these
days.
5. The Fallacy of Slippery Slope
 It occurs when we assume that series of events happen, after
one other event as a result of the first cause.
 This fallacy is occurred when a certain argument rests on
chains of events and the arguer fails to provide sufficient
reasons why this chain of events committed.
 In other words, it is committed when one affirms an
unjustifiable “chain reaction” of causes which, if it is allowed
to continue leads inevitably to disaster.
Example:
 I know the reason for the whole tragedy in her life. She was
jobless and has no other choice but to join bar ladies. While
she was working in bars, she becomes infected with
HIV/AIDS. Then, she becomes bed ridden patient and lost
her life. All these misfortune fall up on her due to her
dismissal from the university in the first semesters of the first
year.
6. The Fallacy of Weak Analogy
 It is an inductive argument in which the conclusion
depends on the existence of analogy, or similarities
between two things.
 Argument based on analogy would be strong when
relevant differences between the objects are taken
into consideration.
 The fallacy of weak analogy is committed when
important differences between two things or more
things compared are not real similar in the relevant
respects or when the analogy is not strong enough to
support the conclusion.
 This fallacy has the following form:
Object “A” has attributes a, b, c, and z.
Object “B” has attributes a, b, c.
Therefore, object B probably has attributes z also.
Examples:
Kebede’s new car is bright blue in color and has
leather upholstery/cover/ and gets excellent gas
mileage. Taye’s new car is also bright blue in
color and has leather upholstery. Therefore, it
probably gets excellent gas mileage, too.
These arguments commit the fallacy of weak
analogy, because the color of a car and the
choice of upholstery have nothing to do with
gasoline consumption.
C. Fallacies of Presumption: Definition and Types
 It occurs when the fallacy contains tricky/complicted/ and
confusing expressions for the purpose of concealing/hiding/
the wrong assumption stated in the premise is called
presumption fallacy.
 The fallacies of presumption arise not because the
premises are not irrelevant to the conclusion or provided
insufficient reason for believing the conclusion.
 Even though the ideas stated in the premises are not
supported by logical evidence or proof, the arguer
invites readers or listeners to accept his or her argument
as if it does not need proof or evidence.
 It include four different types of fallacies, namely:
begging the question, complex question, false
dichotomy, and suppressed evidence.
I. Begging the Question Fallacy (Petito Principii)
 It occurs when an arguer uses some form of phraseology
that tends to conceal the questionably true character of a
key premise.
 It is committed when the arguer,, asks the readers or
listeners to simply accept the conclusion of his or her
argument, without providing real evidence.
 Some times this argument is known as circular
reasoning since the argument depends upon premises
that states the same thing as the conclusion.
 The conclusion (with the other premises) claims to
prove the questionable character of key premises that is
why the fallacy is otherwise called as the circular
reasoning.
Examples:
I believe the prime minister is telling the truth
since he says he is telling the truth.
The premise in the above example is relevant to
the conclusion, but the idea stated in the premise
(which is repeated in the conclusion) is
questionable because
 it ignores an important premise which is
needed to make the argument acceptable, and
 proof is not given on the truth of the prime
minister’s speech.
II. The fallacy of Complex or Loaded Question
 This happens when the conclusion (that is, answer) is
supported by confusing and tricky questions (that is,
premises).
 This fallacy is committed when a single question that is
really two or more questions is asked and a single
answer is then applied to both questions.
Examples:
Have you stopped cheating on exams?
 Obviously, the above question is really two questions:
Did you cheat on exams in the past? If you did cheat in
the past, have you stopped now?
 If the answers is ‘‘Yes’’ the following argument comes
out:
You were asked whether you have stopped cheating
on exams. You answered ‘‘Yes’’ to the question.
Therefore, it follows that you have cheated in the
past.
 If is answers ‘‘No’’ then we have the following
arguments:
You were asked whether you have stopped cheating
on exams. You answered ‘‘No.’’ Therefore, you
continue to cheat.
 Therefore, this argument commits the fallacy of
complex question. Because the arguer in his argument
gives two different questions as if they are one.
III. The Fallacy of False Dichotomy
 It can be also known as “false bifurcation”, false
dilemma, black and white thinking, and
“either…or…fallacy”.
 It is committed when the premise of an argument is an
either… or… statement or a disjunctive statement that
presents two alternatives as if they were jointly
exhaustive (as if no third alternative was possible).
 It is occurred when a person provides two alternatives,
which are false, as the only option in the argument and
then eliminates one alternative and it seems that we are
left with only one option.
Example:
 Well, it is time for a decision. Will you contribute $10 to
our environmental fund, or are you on the side of
environmental destruction?
 The two options are not exhaustive and there are many
alternatives that the arguer fails to provide.
 For instance, there seems to other possibilities such as
contributing less than $10 or contributing nothing but
supporting the environmental protection by other means.
 The fallacious nature of false dilemma lies in the attempt by the
arguer to mislead the reader or listener into thinking that the
disjunctive premise jointly exhaustive alternatives, and is
therefore true by necessity.
IV. The Fallacy of Suppressed Evidence
 It is committed when the inductive argument ignores some
important piece of evidences and entails an extremely different
conclusion.
 The arguer intentionally or unintentionally suppresses or omits
important evidence and emphasizes on some other reasons that
are not such important to the conclusion of the argument.
Example:
 Hawassa University is the best university in Ethiopia;
because it has very fat and tall teachers, finest buildings
and a number of students.
D. Linguistic Fallacies
 Linguistic fallacies are the result of a misuse of
language, such as
incorrect use of words,
grammatical lack of clarity,
vagueness and
other linguistic impressions.
 There are two types of linguistic fallacies, namely;
fallacies of ambiguity and
fallacies of grammatical analogy.
I. Fallacies of Ambiguity
 It is committed when misleading or wrong conclusion of
an argument is drawn from ambiguous words or
sentences.
 It include two types of fallacies: equivocation and
amphiboly.
A. Equivocation Fallacy
 It equivocation occurs when the conclusion of an
argument depends on the fact that one or more words
are used in two different senses in the argument.
Examples:
 All factories are plants. All plants are things that contain
chlorophyll. Therefore, all factories are things that
contain chlorophyll.
B. Amphiboly Fallacy
 It is caused by the error in grammatical construction of
statements that can be interpreted in two more distinctly
different ways without making clear which meaning is
intended.
 It is a structural defect in a statement due to 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.
Examples:
Solomon told Dawit that he had made a mistake. It follows that
Solomon has at least the courage to admit his own mistakes.
 Mr. Markos signed a contract that reads, ‘‘In
exchange for painting my house, I promise to pay
Asenafi $5000 and give him my new Cadillac only if
he finishes the job by May 1.’’
Therefore, since Asenafi did not finish until May
1, it follows that he gets neither the $5000 nor the
Cadillac.
 In the example, the conclusion favors Mr. Markos.
Asenafi will argue that the condition that he finishes by
May 1 affected only the Cadillac and that he therefore is
entitled to the $5000.
 The dispute could have been avoided by properly
inserting a comma in the language of the promise.
II. . Fallacy of Grammatical Analogy
It is caused by the wrong association of the
attributes of the parts of some thing onto the whole
entity; or conversely, the fallacies of grammatically
analogy are caused by the erroneous association of
the attributes of the whole entity of something onto
its parts.
It is grammatically analogous to other arguments
that are good in every respect. Because of this
similarity in linguistic structure, such fallacious
arguments may appear good yet be bad.
The fallacies of grammatical analogy are divided
into two types; namely, composition and division.
A. Fallacy of Composition
 It is committed when the arguer wrongly transfers the attributes
of the parts of something onto the whole. In other words, it is
committed when some one argues that what is true of each part of
a whole is also (necessarily) true of the whole itself, or what is
true of some parts of a whole is also (necessarily) true of the
whole itself.
Examples:
 Each atom in a piece of chalk is invisible. Therefore, the
chalk is invisible.
 You have to take into account that not every such
transference is illegitimate.
Examples:
 Every atom in this piece of chalk has mass. Therefore,
the piece of chalk has mass.
B. Fallacy of Division
 It is the direct opposite or converse of composition and
it is committed when attributes are wrongly transferred
from whole to parts. In other words, it is committed
when some one argues that what is true of a whole is
also (necessarily) true of its parts, or what is true of a
whole is also (necessarily) true of some of its part.
Examples:
 This chalk is visible. Therefore, each atom in a piece of
chalk is visible.
 The USA is the wealthiest country in the world. Hence,
my uncle who live there must be wealthy.
These examples show that; the attributes of the collective
of the parts is considered as the distributive property of the
parts.
This kind of transference is not always
illegitimate. The following arguments contain no
fallacy:
This piece of chalk has mass. Therefore, the
atoms that compose this piece of chalk have
mass.
THANKYOU!!