CHAPTER TWO

BASIC CONCEPTS OF LOGIC

2.1. The Meaning 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 also be defined as the study of methods and principles of correct reasoning.

The aim of logic is to develop a system of methods and principles that we may use as criteria for
evaluating the arguments of others and as guides in constructing arguments of our own. Hence, in
logic, as an academic discipline, we study reasoning itself, i.e:

- forms of argument,
- general principles and particular errors, and
- methods of arguing,

2.2. Basic Concepts of Logic

As it is stated previously, logic is a science that evaluates arguments. Arguments from logical point
of view, is a group of statements, one or more of which are claimed to provide support for, or
reason to believe to the other. As is apparent from the above definition, the term “argument” has a
very specific meaning in logic. It does not mean, for example, a mere verbal fight, as one might
have with one‘s parent, spouse, or friend.

Hence the basic features of argument based on the definition are:

a). An argument is a group of statements.

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 (either true or false).

Examples of statements:

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

b) Mekelle is the capital city of Tigray Region.

c) Ethiopia was colonized by Germany.

1
Accordingly, statement (a) and (b) are true, because they describe things as they are, or assert what
really is the case; hence, “truth‟ is their truth-value; whereas, statement (c) is false, because it
asserts what is not, and “falsity‟ is its truth-value.

However, there are also sentences that are not statements for they can’t be “true” or “false”; hence,
can’t make up an argument.

Examples:

a) Would you close the window? …………….…… (Question)

b) Let us study together. …………………..…….…… (Proposal)

c) Right on! ………………………………………………….. (Exclamation)

d) I suggest that you read philosophy texts. …. (Suggestion)

e) Give me your ID card, Now! …………..…………. (Command)

b). Argument contains premise(s) and conclusion.

An argument is a group statement, which contains at least one premise and one and only
one conclusion. Argument always attempts to justify a claim. The claim that the statement
attempts to justify is known as a conclusion; and the statement or statements that
supposedly justify the claim is/are known as the premises of the argument. In other words
a premise is a statement that set forth the reason or evidence which is given for accepting
the conclusion of an argument; and a conclusion is a statement, which is claimed to follow
from the given evidence (premise).

Example 1.

1) All Ethiopians are Africans. (Premise -1)

2) Tsionawit is Ethiopian (Premise- 2)

Therefore, Tsionawit is African. (Conclusion)

Example 2.

1) Some Africans are black. (Premise- 1)

2) Zelalem is an African. (Premise-2)

Therefore, Zelalem is black. (Conclusion)

Distinguishing premises from conclusion

2
One of the most important tasks in the analysis of arguments is to distinguish premises from
conclusion and vice versa. Since it is impossible to analyze arguments without identifying a
conclusion from premises, we need techniques that can help us to identify premises from a
conclusion and vice versa.

1. Looking at an indicator word.

Frequently, arguments contain certain indicator words that provide clues in identifying premises
and conclusion. These are:

i). Conclusion Indicator Words:-

In argument that contains any of the conclusion indicator words, the statement that follows the
indicator word can usually be identified as the conclusion.

Therefore Hence Wherefore Thus

Accordingly Consequently Provided that It must be that
We may conclude Entails that Hence It shows that
Whence Thus Consequently We may infer
It implies that As a result So It follows that
Example:

Women are mammals.

Zenebech is a woman.

Therefore, Zenebech is a mammal

By the process of elimination, the other statements in the argument can be identified as premises,
but only based on their logical importance to the identified conclusion.

Example
Women are mammals.
Zenebech is a woman.
Therefore, Zenebech is a mammal.
Based on rule no. 1, the conclusion of this argument is “Zenebech is a mammal”‖ because it follows
the conclusion indicator word “therefore”, and the other two statements are premises. If an
argument does not contain a conclusion indicator, it may contain a premise indicator.
ii). Premise Indicator Words:
In argument that contains any of the premise indicator words, a statement that follows the indicator
word can usually be identified as a premise. By the process of elimination, the other remaining
single statement will be a conclusion.
Since As indicated by Because
Owing to Seeing that Given that

3
 As For In that May be
inferred from Inasmuch as For the reason that
Example:
You should avoid any form of cheating on exams because cheating on exams is punishable by
the Senate Legislation of the University.
Based on the above rule, the premise of this argument is “cheating on exams is punishable by the
Senate Legislation of the University because it follows the premise indicator word “because”, and
the other statement is a premise.
But remember that the mere occurrence of an indicator word does not guarantee the presence of an
argument. You must check to see that the statement identified as the conclusion is claimed to be
supported by one or more of the other statements. Also keep in mind that in many arguments that
lack indicator words, the conclusion is the first statement. Furthermore, it helps to mentally insert
the word “therefore”‖ before the various statements before deciding that a statement should be
interpreted as a conclusion of arguments..
iii). Inference:
Inference deals with the inferential link or connection between the premises and the conclusion.
That is whether one statement supports the other. As we have seen earlier:
- the statements that claim to present the evidence or reasons are the premises, this condition
expresses a factual claim, and
- the statement that the evidence is claimed to support or imply is the conclusion, this second
condition expresses what is called an inferential claim. The inferential claim is simply the
claim that the passage expresses a certain kind of reasoning process - that something
supports or implies something, or that something follows from something.
An inferential claim can be either explicit or implicit. An explicit inferential claim is usually
asserted by premise or conclusion indicator words. It exists if there is an indicator word that asserts
an explicit relationship between the premises and the conclusions. An implicit inferential claim
exists if there is an inferential relationship between the statements in a passage, but the passage
contains no indicator words. When this occurs, the reader must ask questions like:
- Which single statement is claimed (implicitly) to follow from the others?

- What is the arguer trying to prove?

- What is the main point in the passage? The answers to these questions should point to the
conclusion.
Example:
Our country should increase the quality and quantity of its military. Ethnic conflicts are
recently intensified; boarder conflicts are escalating; international terrorist activities are
increasing.
The main point of this argument is to show that the country should increase the size and quality of
its military. All the rest are given in support of the conclusion.
The following is the standard form of this argument:

4
 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)
2.3. Techniques of Recognizing Arguments
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. In a general way, a passage contains an argument if it purports to prove
something; if it does not do so, it does not contain an argument.
Two conditions must be fulfilled for a passage to purport to prove something:
i. At least one of the statements must claim to present evidence or reasons.

ii. There must be a claim that the alleged evidence or reasons supports or implies something-
that is, a claim that something follows from the alleged evidence.

2.3.1. Recognizing Non-argumentative Passages

Non-argumentative passages are passages, which lack an inferential claim. Passages that lack an
inferential claim may be statements, which could be premises, conclusion, or both. What is missed
is a claim that a reasoning process is being made. These include simple non-inferential passages
(these are unproblematic passages that lack a claim that anything is being proved.) Passages of this
sort include warnings, pieces of advice, statements of belief or opinion, loosely associated
statements, and reports), expository passages, illustrations, explanations, and conditional
statements.
A). A warning
Is a form of expression that is intended to put someone on guard against a dangerous or detrimental
situation. In this passage, no evidence is given to prove that the statement is true
Example:
Whatever you promise to tell, never confide political secrets to your wife.
B). A piece of advice
Is a form of expression that makes a recommendation about some future decision or course of
conduct. As with warnings, there is no evidence that is intended to prove anything in piece of
advices, and hence there is no argument in the above passage.
Example:
After class hours, I would suggest that you give careful consideration to the subject matter
you have discussed.
C). A statement of belief or opinion
is an expression about what someone happens to believe or think about something.
Example:
We believe that our university must develop and produce outstanding students who will
perform with great skill and fulfill the demands of our nation.
D). Loosely associated statements

5
May be about the same general subject, but they lack a claim that one of them is proved by the
others.
Example:
Not to honor men of worth will keep the people from contention; not to value goods that are
hard to come by will keep them from theft; not to display what is desirable will keep them
from being unsettled of mind.
E). A report
Consist of a group of statements that convey information about some topic or event.
Example:
The great renaissance dam of Ethiopia has opened an employment opportunity for thousands
of Ethiopians. In its completion, thirteen thousand Ethiopians are expected to be hired.
F). Expository Passages
An expository passage is a kind of discourse that begins with a topic sentence followed by one
or more sentences that develop the topic sentence. If the objective is not to prove the topic
sentence but only to expand it or elaborate it, then there is no argument.
Example:
There is a stylized relation of artist to mass audience in the sports, especially in baseball. Each
player develops a style of his own-the swagger as he steps to the plate, the unique windup a
pitcher has, the clean-swinging and hard-driving hits, the precision quickness and grace of
infield and outfield, the sense of surplus power behind whatever is done.
G). Illustrations
An illustration is an expression involving one or more examples that is intended to show what
something means or how it is done. Illustrations are often confused with arguments because
many illustrations contain indicator words such as ―thus.‖
Example:
Chemical elements, as well as compounds, can be represented by molecular formulas. Thus,
oxygen is represented by “O2”, water by “H2O”, and sodium chloride by “NaCl”.
H. Explanations

An explanation is an expression that purports to shed light on some event or phenomenon,

which is usually accepted as a matter of fact. It attempts to clarify, or describe such alike why
something is happen that way or why something is what it is. Every explanation is composed
of two distinct components: the explanandum and explanans. The explanandum is the
statement that describes the event or phenomenon to be explained, and the explanans is the
statement or group of statements that purports to do the explaining. Explanations are
sometimes mistaken for arguments because they often contain the indicator word ―because.‖
Yet explanations are not arguments, because in an explanation the purpose of the explanans is
to shed light on, or to make sense of, the explanandum event, not to prove that it occurred.

Example:

6
 Cows digest grass while humans cannot, because their digestive systems contain enzyme not
found in humans.

I).Conditional Statements
A conditional statement is an “if . . . then . . .” statement.
Example: If you study hard, then you will score “A” grade

2.4. Types of Arguments: Deduction and Induction

Every argument makes a claim that its premises provide grounds for the truth of its conclusion. In
this part of the discussion, what we are going to address has to do with the strength of this claim.
Just how strongly is the conclusion claimed to follow from the premises.

The reasoning process (inference) that an argument involves is expressed either with certainty or
with probability. That is what the logician introduced the name deduction and induction for,
respectively.

2.4.1. Deductive Arguments

A deductive argument is an argument incorporating the claim that it is impossible for the conclusion
to be false given that the premises are true. It is an argument in which the premises are claimed to
support the conclusion in such a way that it is impossible for the premises to be true and the
conclusion false. In such arguments, the conclusion is claimed to follow necessarily (conclusively)
from the premises. Thus, deductive arguments are those that involve necessary reasoning.

Example-1:
All philosophers are critical thinkers.
Socrates is a philosopher.
Therefore, Socrates is a critical thinker.

Example-2:
All African footballers are blacks.
Yassin is an African footballer.
It follows that, Yassin is black.
The above two examples are examples of a deductive argument. In both of them, the conclusion is
claimed to follow from the premises with certainty; or the premises are claimed to support their
corresponding conclusion with a strict necessity, that it is impossible that Socrates not be a critical
thinker or, similarly, it is impossible that Yassin not be a black.
2.4.2. Inductive Arguments
An inductive argument is an argument that involves probabilistic reasoning. In this argument the
premises are claimed to support the conclusion in such a way that it is improbable for the premises
to be true and the conclusion false. In such arguments, the conclusion is claimed to follow only
probably from the premises. The premises may provide some considerable evidence for the

7
conclusion but they do not imply (necessarily support) the conclusion. In this case, we might have
sufficient condition (evidence) but we cannot be certain about the truth of the conclusion.
Example-1:
Most African leaders are blacks.
Mandela was an African leader.
Therefore, probably Mandela was black.
Example-2:
Almost all women are mammals.
Hanan is a woman.
Hence, Hanan is a mammal.
In both of the above arguments the conclusions are claimed to follow from the premises only
probably; or the premises are claimed to support their corresponding conclusion with a probability.
Therefore,
- If we assume that most African leaders were blacks and that Mandela was an African leader,
then it is improbable that Mandela not been a black; but not impossible that Mandela not
been a black.
- Similarly, if we assume that almost all women are mammals and that Hanan is a woman,
then it is improbable that Hanan not be a mammal; but it is not impossible that Hanan not be
a mammal.
2.4.3. 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.
1). The occurrence of special indicator words.
Arguments may contain some words that indicate the arguer‘s certainty and confidence, or the
arguer‘s uncertainty or doubt, about the truth of his/her conclusion.
For example:
i) Certainly, necessarily, absolutely and definitely indicate that the argument should be
taken as deductive,
ii) Whereas words like, probable, improbable, plausible, implausible, likely, unlikely, and
reasonable to conclude suggest that an argument is inductive.
2). The actual strength of the inferential link between premises and conclusion.
If the conclusion actually does follow with strict necessity from the premises, the argument is
clearly deductive. In such an argument, it is impossible for the premises to be true and the
conclusion false. If, on the other hand, the conclusion of an argument does not follow with strict
necessity but does follow probably, it is usually best to interpret it as inductive argument.
Example-1:
All Ethiopian people love their country.

8
 Debebe is an Ethiopian.
Therefore, Debebe loves his country.
Example-2:
The majority of Ethiopian people are poor.
Alamudin is an Ethiopian.
Therefore, Alamudin is poor.
In the first example, the conclusion follows with strict necessity from the premises. If we assume
that all Ethiopian people love their country and that Debebe is an Ethiopian, then it is impossible
that Debebe not love his country. Thus, we should interpret this argument as deductive. In the
second example, the conclusion does not follow from the premises with strict necessity, but it does
follow with some degree of probability. If we assume that the premises are true, then based on that
assumption it is probable that the conclusion is true. Thus, it is best to interpret the second argument
as inductive.
3). The character or form of argumentation
i). Instances of Deductive Argumentative Forms: Many arguments have a distinctive character or
form that indicates that the premises are supposed to provide absolute support for the
conclusion. Five examples of such forms or kinds of argumentation are arguments based on
mathematics, arguments from definition, and syllogisms.
a) Argument based on mathematics: it is an argument in which the conclusions depend on
some purely arithmetic or geometric computation or measurement.
For Example:
You can put two orange and three bananas in a bag and conclude that the bag
contains five fruits.
b). 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,
One may argue that Angel is honest; it follows that Angel tells the truth. Or again,
Kebede is a physician; therefore, he is a doctor.
c). Syllogisms are arguments consisting of exactly two premises and one conclusion.
Syllogisms can be categorized into three groups; categorical, hypothetical, and disjunctive
syllogism.
C1). Categorical syllogism: a syllogism consisting of exactly two premises and one
conclusion. It is a syllogism in which the statement begins with one of the words all, no
and some.
Example:
All Egyptians are Muslims.
No Muslim is a Christian.
Hence, no Egyptian is a Christian.
C2). Hypothetical syllogism: It is a syllogism having a conditional statement for one or both
of its premises.
9
 Example:
If you study hard, then you will graduate with Distinction.
If you graduate with Distinction, then you will get a rewarding job.
Therefore, if you study hard, then you will get a rewarding job.
C3). Disjunctive syllogism: it is a syllogism having a disjunctive statement. (i.e. an either …
or statement.)
Example:
Rewina is either Ethiopian or Eritrean.
Rewina is not Eritrean.
Therefore, Rewina is Ethiopian.
ii). Instances of Inductive Argumentative Forms
Inductive arguments are such that the content of the conclusion is in some way intended to go
beyond‖ the content of the premises. The premises of such an argument typically deal with some
subject that is relatively familiar, and the conclusion then moves beyond this to a subject that is
less familiar or that little is known about. Such an argument may take any of several forms:
- predictions about the future,
In a prediction the premises deals with some known event in the present or the past and the
conclusions moves beyond this event to some event to relative future.
- arguments from analogy,
It is an argument that depends on the existence of an analogy or similarity between two
things or state of affairs. Because of the existence of this analogy a certain conditions that
affects the better- known thing or situations is concluded to affect the less familiar , lesser
known-thing or situation.
- inductive generalizations,
It is an argument that proceeds from the knowledge of a selected sample to some claim
about the whole group. Because the members of the sample have a certain characteristics, it
is argued that all members of the group have the same characteristics.
- arguments from authority,
it is an argument in which the conclusions rest upon a statement made by some presumed
authority or witness.
- arguments based on signs,
It is an argument that proceeds from the knowledge of a certain sign to the knowledge of a
thing or situation that the sign symbolizes.
- causal inferences,
It is an argument which proceed from the knowledge of a cause to the knowledge of an
effect, or conversely, from the knowledge of an effect to knowledge of a cause.
2.5. Evaluating Arguments
2.5.1. Evaluating Deductive Arguments
i). Deduction and Validity

10
A valid deductive argument is an argument such that if the premises are assumed true, it is
impossible for the conclusion to be false. In such arguments, the conclusion follows with strict
necessity from the premises. Conversely, an invalid deductive argument is an argument such that if
the premises are assumed true, it is possible for the conclusion to be false. In these arguments, the
conclusion does not follow with strict necessity from the premises, even though it is claimed to.
Example:
All men are mammals.
All bulls are men.
Therefore, all bulls are mammals.

Example:
All philosophers are rational.
Socrates was rational.
Therefore, Socrates was a philosopher.
- The first example is valid argument, because the conclusion actually followed from the
premises with a strict necessity. If all men are assumed as mammals and bulls as men, then
it is impossible for bulls not be mammals. Hence, the argument is valid.
- The second example is invalid argument, because the conclusion did not actually follow
from the premises with a strict necessity, even though it is claimed to. That is, even if we
assume that all philosophers rational and Socrates is rational, it is not actually impossible for
Socrates not be a philosopher.
The validity of argument is the connection between premise and conclusion rather than on the
actual truth or falsity of the statement formed the argument. There is only an indirect relation
between validity and truth.
ii). Validity and Truth Value
There are four possibilities with respect to the truth or falsity of the premises and conclusion of a
given argument:
1) True premises and True conclusion,

2) True premises and False conclusion,

3) False premises and True conclusion, and

4) False premises and False conclusion.

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

11
 Plato was a critical thinker. (Tp)
Therefore, Plato was a philosopher. (Tc)
Possibility # 2: A combination of True premises and false conclusion (the second case) allows only
for invalid arguments.
Example -1 (Invalid):
All biologists are scientists. (Tp)
John Nash was a scientist. (Tp)
Therefore, John Nash was a biologist. (Fc)
A valid argument with such combination does not exist. Any deductive argument having actually
true premises and an actually false conclusion is invalid.
Possibility # 3: A combination of False premises and True conclusion (the third case) allows for
both valid and invalid arguments. Consider the following examples:
Example -1- (Valid):
All birds are mammals. (Fp)
All women are birds. (Fp)
Therefore, all women are mammals. (Tc)
Example -2- (Invalid):
All birds are mammals. (Fp)
All ostriches are mammals. (Fp)
Therefore, all ostriches are birds. (Tc)
Possibility # 4: A combination of False premises and False conclusion (the fourth case) allows for
both valid and invalid arguments. Consider the following examples:
Example -1- (Valid):
All Americans are Ethiopians. (Fp)
All Egyptians are Americans. (Fp)
Thus, all Egyptians are Ethiopians. (Fc)
Example -2- (Invalid):
All birds are mammals. (Fp)
All ants are mammals. (Fp)
Therefore, all ants are birds. (Fc)
In general, the basic idea of evaluating deductive argument, validity (valid and invalid) is not
something that is determined by the actual truth or falsity of the premises and conclusion. Rather,
validity is something that is determined by the relationship between premises and conclusion.
The relationship between the validity of a deductive argument and the truth and falsity of its
premises and conclusions summarized as follows.

Table 1.1 Premises Conclusion Validity

True True Valid/invalid
True False Invalid
False True Valid/invalid
False False Valid/invalid
12
iii). Deduction and Soundness
Depending on their actual ability to accomplish their factual claims, deductive arguments can be
either sound or unsound. A sound argument is a deductive argument that is valid and has all true
premises. Both conditions must be met for an argument to be sound, and if either is missing the
argument is unsound. A deductive argument that does not actually accomplish its inferential claim,
(that is not valid), cannot be sound, regardless of the truth values of its premises. Such a deductive
argument is unsound, by definition. Thus, an unsound argument is a deductive argument that is
either valid with one or more false premises, or invalid, or both. A sound argument, therefore, is
what is meant by a “good‘‘ deductive argument in the fullest sense of the term.
2.5.2. Evaluating Inductive Arguments
i). Induction and Strength
A strong inductive argument is an argument such that if the premises are assumed true, it is
improbable for the conclusion to be false. In such arguments, the conclusion follows
probably from the premises. Conversely, a weak inductive argument is an argument such
that if the premises are assumed true, it is probable for the conclusions to be false. In these
arguments, the conclusion does not follow probably from the premises, even though it is
claimed to.
Example -1-
This barrel contains one hundred apples.
Eighty apples selected at random were found tasty.
Therefore, probably all one hundred apples are tasty.
Example -2:
This barrel contains one hundred apples.
Three apples selected at random were found tasty.
Therefore, probably all one hundred apples are tasty.
ii). Strength and Truth Value
The central question in determining strength or weakness is whether the conclusion would probably
true if the premises are assumed true. For an argument to be strong it is not necessary that either the
premises or the conclusions be true, but merely that if the premises assumed true, it is improbable
for the conclusion be false. That is, we do not have to know whether the premise of an argument is
actually true in order to determine its strength (strong or weak). Thus, the strength or weakness of
an inductive argument results not from the actual truth or falsity of the premises and conclusion, but
from the probabilistic support the premises give to the conclusion.
The relationship between the strength of an inductive argument and the truth and falsity of its
premises and conclusions summarized as follows.
Premises Conclusion Strength
True True Strong/Weak
True False Weak
False True Strong/Weak
False False Strong/Weak
13
iv). Induction and Cogency
Inductive arguments can be either cogent or uncogent. A cogent argument is an inductive argument
that is strong and has all true premises. Both conditions must be met for an argument to be cogent,
and if either is missing the argument is uncogent. An inductive argument that does not actually
accomplish its inferential claim, (that is not strong), cannot be cogent, regardless of the truth values
of its premises. Such an inductive argument is uncogent, by definition.
There is a difference, however, between sound and cogent arguments in regard to the true-premise
requirement. In a sound argument, it is only necessary that the premises be true and nothing more.
In a cogent argument, on the other hand, the premises must not only be true, they must also not
ignore some important piece of evidence that outweighs the given evidence and entails a quite
different conclusion. That is, if the premises reflect all the important factors, then the argument is
cogent; if not, then obviously the argument is not cogent.

14