UNIVERSITY OF GONDAR

COLLEGE OF SOCIAL SCIENCES AND THE HUMANITIES

DEPARTMENT OF POLITICAL SCIENCE AND GOVERNANCE STUDIES
LOGIC AND CRITICAL THINKING ASSIGNMENT
COURSE CODE: LoCT1011
NAME ID no
AMILAKIE ALELIGN GUR/01602/16
AFEWORK KINDE GUR/01857/16
ABEL GEDEFAW GUR01161/16
ADDISU ATALEL GUR/01022/16
ALEHEGN SHITIE GUR/00295/16
ANTENEH MEKETE GUR/01923/16
ASFAW BAZEZEW GUR/01727/16
BAMLAKU TESFA GUR/01742/16
BEIMNET ASMARE GUR/22850/16
BEZAWIT DEBALKE GUR/01018/16

1|Page
 Introduction
Logic is the systematic study of valid reasoning. It involves the principles and criteria of valid
inference and demonstration. Logic helps us distinguish between correct reasoning and incorrect
reasoning, allowing us to evaluate arguments critically. In essence, logic provides a framework
for understanding how conclusions can be drawn from premises through structured reasoning.

Errors in reasoning that compromise an argument's logic are known as logical fallacies. They
frequently seem convincing at first but fall flat when scrutinized more closely. Anyone involved in
debate, critical thinking, or persuasive writing must be aware of logical fallacies since they can
mislead listeners and misrepresent the facts.

2|Page
 1. What is the sweeping importance s of logic? The Sweeping
Importance s of Logic

Logic plays a crucial role in various aspects of reasoning, decision-making, and communication.
Understanding its importance can significantly enhance critical thinking skills and improve the
quality of arguments and conclusions drawn in both personal and professional contexts.
Some of them are;

1. Promoting Problem-Solving Skills: By applying logical reasoning, individuals can identify root
causes and develop effective solutions systematically rather than relying on guesswork or
intuition alone.

2. Evaluating Arguments: Logic provides the tools necessary to assess the validity of
arguments.

3. Encouraging Open-Mindedness: Engaging with logic fosters an open-minded approach to

differing viewpoints. By evaluating arguments based on their merits rather than personal beliefs
or emotions, individuals become more receptive to new ideas and perspectives.

4.Enhancing Decision-Making: In decision-making processes, logic helps individuals weigh

options systematically.

5. Fostering Clear Communication: When ideas are presented logically, they are easier for
others to understand and engage with. This is particularly important in persuasive writing or
speaking, where the goal is to convince an audience.

6. Supporting Scientific Inquiry: Logical reasoning ensures that conclusions drawn from
experiments are valid and based on empirical evidence rather than assumptions or anecdotal
observations.

In summary, the sweeping importance s of logic encompass enhancing critical thinking skills
across various domains such as argument evaluation, decision-making, communication clarity,
problem-solving abilities, scientific inquiry support, fostering open-mindedness, and building
ethical frameworks.

3|Page
 2 identify and name the following collection of words and justify your motives to
say that

A.Emperor Tewodros was the first king who planned modern and unified
Ethiopia.

To determine whether the statement “Emperor Tewodros was the first king who planned
modern and unified Ethiopia” is accurate, we need to analyze several key aspects of
Emperor Tewodros II’s reign and his contributions to Ethiopian history.

There are many evidences

 Historical Context of Emperor Tewodros II;.

 Centralization Efforts;

 Tewodros implemented several reforms aimed at strengthening the monarchy:

 Administrative Reforms:

 Judicial Reforms: Modernization Initiatives

In addition to centralization, Tewodros was keen on modernizing Ethiopia in various aspects:

 Education

 Industry

 Diplomacy

Thus, it can be concluded that while Emperor Tewodros II was indeed one of the first kings who
actively sought to plan for a modern and unified Ethiopia through various reforms aimed at
centralization and modernization. Therefore, it is accurate

4|Page
B, Ethiopia begun to apply ethnic federalism since the era of EPRDF.

To understand why this is a true statement, we need to examine the historical context, the
principles of ethnic federalism, and how these were implemented in Ethiopia.

 Historical Context

The EPRDF was established following a protracted civil war that led to the overthrow of the Derg
regime.

 Principles of Ethnic Federalism

Ethnic federalism is a political system where regions or states are defined primarily by ethnicity.

 Implementation in Ethiopia

Under the EPRDF’s leadership, Ethiopia was divided into ethnically based federal states

hence, it is accurate to state that Ethiopia began applying ethnic federalism during the era of
the EPRDF due to its constitutional reforms aimed at addressing historical grievances related to
ethnicity and governance.

C.let us stay here

To determine whether “Let us stay here” is a statement, we need to analyze its grammatical
structure and function within the context of communication.

1. Understanding Sentence Types: In English grammar, sentences can be categorized into several
types based on their purpose: declarative (statements), interrogative (questions), imperative
(commands or requests), and exclamatory (expressing strong emotion).

2. Analyzing the Sentence: The phrase “Let us stay here” functions as an imperative sentence
because it expresses a request or suggestion for someone to allow the speaker and others to
remain in a particular place.

The subject of this imperative sentence is implied as “you,” referring to the person being
addressed. Thus, it can be interpreted as an invitation or request directed at someone else to
permit the action of staying.

3. Since “Let us stay here” does not present information or ask a question but rather requests
permission for an action to occur, it does not qualify as a statement in the declarative sense.
Instead, it serves as an imperative expression.

Therefore, “Let us stay here” is not a statement; it is an imperative sentence that makes a
request for permission to stay.

5|Page
3.identify the following groups of sentence,then validate your reason why
you to said that
A . if there is rain,then agricultural productivity will increase.

If agricultural productivity increases, then inflation will reduce.

Therefore, if there rain,then inflation will reduce.

To determine whether the argument presented is valid, we can analyze it using formal logic. The
argument consists of two premises and a conclusion:

Premise 1: If there is rain, then agricultural productivity will increase.

Premise 2: If agricultural productivity increases, then inflation will reduce.

Conclusion: Therefore, if there is rain, then inflation will reduce.

This structure can be represented in logical terms as follows:

P represent “there is rain.” Q represent “agricultural productivity increases.” R represent

“inflation will reduce.”

The premises can be rewritten in logical form:

𝑃→𝑄 (If 𝑃, then 𝑄) AND 𝑄→𝑅 (If 𝑄, then 𝑅)

From these premises, we want to derive the conclusion:

𝑃→𝑅(IF 𝑃, then 𝑅)

To assess the validity of this argument, we can apply a rule from propositional logic known as
hypothetical syllogism, which states that if we have two implications where the consequent of
the first implication matches the antecedent of the second implication, we can conclude a new
implication that connects the first antecedent to the second consequent.

In this case: From premise 1 (𝑃→𝑄), if it rains(𝑃), agricultural productivity increases (𝑄).

From premise 2 (𝑄→𝑅), if agricultural productivity increases (𝑄), inflation reduces (𝑅).

By applying hypothetical syllogism:

Since 𝑃 leads to 𝑄, and 𝑄leads to 𝑅, it logically follows that:𝑃 leads to 𝑅

.Thus, we conclude that if there is rain, inflation will indeed reduce. Therefore, based on this
logical analysis, the argument is valid.

6|Page
B The living condition of sex workers is risky. There are million sex workers in Ethiopia.

To determine if the statement “The living condition of sex workers is risky. There are million
sex workers in Ethiopia.” constitutes an argument, we need to analyze its components.

An argument typically consists of a claim (or conclusion) supported by premises (evidence

or reasons).

The first part of the statement, “The living condition of sex workers is risky,” serves as a
claim about the conditions faced by sex workers.

The second part, “There are million sex workers in Ethiopia,” provides a context or premise
that suggests a significant population potentially affected by these risky conditions.

However, the second part does not directly support the first claim with evidence or reasoning
that connects the number of sex workers to their living conditions being risky. It merely
states a fact without elaborating on how this fact relates to the riskiness of their living
conditions.

Since there is no clear logical connection or supporting evidence provided for the claim
about riskiness based on the number of sex workers, this statement does not qualify as a full
argument.

Answer: No, it is not an argument.

C. Leave this university within two days

To determine whether the statement “Leave this university within two days” constitutes an
argument, we need to analyze the components of what defines an argument in academic and
conversational contexts.

7|Page
An argument typically consists of a claim or thesis statement that is supported by evidence
or reasoning. It involves expressing a point of view on a subject and backing it up with logical
support. An effective argument not only presents a claim but also provides justification for
why that claim should be accepted.

The phrase “Leave this university within two days” is directive in nature. It instructs
someone to take a specific action (leaving the university) within a specified time-frame
(two days). This statement lacks the necessary components to be classified as an argument:

The statement does not present a claim that can be debated or supported with evidence. It
does not express an opinion or viewpoint about leaving the university; rather, it is a
command.

There is no accompanying rationale provided for why one should leave the university. An
argument would typically include reasons such as dissatisfaction with the institution, personal
circumstances, or other factors influencing the decision to leave.

, “Leave this university within two days” does not qualify as an argument because it does not
involve presenting a debatable claim supported by evidence or reasoning. Instead, it serves
as an imperative statement directing action without justification.

Thus, the answer is no; it is not an argument.

4. Identify the fallacies committed by the following arguments giving a

brief explanation for answer. If no fallacy is comitted, write no fallacy
A.You should bealu girmas novel right now he has sold over a thousand copies and
everyone in the campus is talking about it.

8|Page
 We must examine the statement's structure and implications in order to ascertain
whether it is a mistake regarding Bealu Girma's novel "Oromay." According to the statement, the
work has sold more than a thousand copies and is a topic of much discussion on campus,
indicating that these elements add to its worth or caliber.

Step 1: Understanding the Implicit Argument

The implicit argument in the statement can be summarized as follows:

If a book sells many copies and is popular among students, then it must be good or worth
reading.

This reasoning suggests a connection between popularity (sales and discussions) and
quality (the book being good).

Step 2: Identifying Potential Fallacies

It is possible to check the statement for logical flaws in its reasoning. Argument-um ad
populum, or appeal to popular opinion, is one possible error in this context. This fallacy happens
when something is accepted as true or beneficial just because a lot of others think it is or
because it is well-liked.

Step 3: Evaluating the Fallacy

In this instance, "Oromay" is not necessarily a great book merely because it has sold over a
thousand copies and is being debated on campus. Numerous elements unrelated to a book's
literary value, such as marketing tactics, literary trends, or peer pressure, might affect its level of
popularity.

Therefore, even while the book's sales numbers and campus conversations can suggest interest
in it, they don't offer enough proof of its caliber. Consequently, drawing the conclusion that
"Oromay" must be good based just on these considerations is an example of the appeal to
popularity fallacy.

Based on this analysis, we can conclude that the statement about Bealu Girma’s
“Oromay” does indeed represent a logical fallacy.

There fore: Yes, it is a fallacy; specifically, an appeal to popularity (argumentum ad

populum).

Regarding Bealu Girma’s ‘Oromay’

We must examine the statement's structure and implications in order to ascertain

whether it is a mistake regarding Bealu Girma's novel "Oromay." According to the statement, the
work has sold more than a thousand copies and is a topic of much discussion on campus,
indicating that these elements add to its worth or caliber.

Step 1: Understanding the Implicit Argument

9|Page
 The implicit argument in the statement can be summarized as follows:

If a book sells many copies and is popular among students, then it must be good or worth
reading.

This reasoning suggests a connection between popularity (sales and discussions) and
quality (the book being good).

Step 2: Identifying Potential Fallacies

It is possible to check the statement for logical flaws in its reasoning. Argumentum ad
populum, or appeal to popular opinion, is one possible error in this context. This fallacy happens
when something is accepted as true or beneficial just because a lot of others think it is or
because it is well-liked.

Step 3: Evaluating the Fallacy

In this instance, "Oromay" is not necessarily a great book merely because it has sold over
a thousand copies and is being debated on campus. Numerous elements unrelated to a book's
literary value, such as marketing tactics, literary trends, or peer pressure, might affect its level of
popularity.

Therefore, even while the book's sales numbers and campus conversations can suggest
interest in it, they don't offer enough proof of its caliber. Consequently, drawing the conclusion
that "Oromay" must be good based just on these considerations is an example of the appeal to
popularity fallacy.

Conclusion

Based on this analysis, we can conclude that the statement about Bealu Girma’s “Oromay” does
indeed represent a logical fallacy.

There fore: Yes, it is a fallacy; specifically, an appeal to popularity (argumentum ad

populum).

B.Fredrich nietzchie`s philosophy is not worth the paper it is printed on. Nietzchie was
an immoral reprobate who went completely in sane from syphilis before he died.
Understanding the Claim: The claim describes Nietzsche as a “immoral reprobate” who “went
completely insane from syphilis before he died” and claims that his theory is “not worth the
paper it is printed on.” This assertion blends personal criticisms of Nietzsche's character and
mental state with an assessment of his philosophical accomplishments.

10 | P a g e
 Identifying Logical Structure: By criticizing Nietzsche's persona rather than discussing his
ideas, the assertion can be interpreted as an effort to undermine his writings. This is a famous
illustration of an advertisement.We must dissect the claim's constituent parts and examine its
organization in order to ascertain whether the assertion regarding Friedrich Nietzsche is an
argument fallacy.The ominem fallacy occurs when one side criticizes the other side of an
argument rather than addressing the point of contention. .

Types of Fallacies:

Ad Hominem Fallacy: This fallacy happens when someone refutes another person's
argument by disparaging their circumstances or character rather than addressing the argument's
core points. The act of characterizing Nietzsche as immoral and insane in this instance
undermines his intellectual achievements without offering a meaningful critique of them.

Appeal to Emotion: Additionally, the use of words like "immoral reprobate" and "insane"
may arouse feelings rather than reason, which might divert attention from a logical assessment
of Nietzsche's ideas.

Conclusion: The statement uses personal assaults that are unrelated to the merits or
validity of Nietzsche's writings rather than offering a thoughtful critique of his philosophical
concepts. As such, it is an example of an ad hominem fallacy.

Finaly The Answer is: The statement contains an Ad hominem fallacy.

c. Something is seriously wrong with high schools education these days. After some
years of decline, scores are extremely low, and high school gradates are practically
incapable of reading and writing. The obvious conclusion is that we should close the
schools.

11 | P a g e
To determine whether the argument presented is a fallacy, we need to break it down into its
components and evaluate the reasoning behind it.

Premise Identification: The argument states that “scores are extremely low” and “high school
graduates are practically incapable of reading and writing.” These premises suggest a significant
problem within the high school education system.

Conclusion: The conclusion drawn from these premises is that “we should close the schools.”
This is a drastic measure based on the identified issues in education.

:The argument makes the assumption that the issues of poor academic performance and
insufficient reading skills will be resolved by closing schools. Nevertheless, the premises do not
logically support this conclusion. Instead, it ignores other options like enhancing instructional
strategies, boosting financing, giving kids more resources, or changing the curriculum.

Furthermore, as it would completely deny pupils access to education who would benefit
from improvements rather than removal, closing schools would probably make educational
problems worse rather than better.

Fallacy Identification: The argument is a prime example of the error of premature

generalization. This kind of error happens when a wide judgment is reached based on a small
amount of data or when a conclusion is taken from insufficient evidence. Even while there might
be legitimate worries about the quality of education in this situation, deciding that all schools
should be shut down because of the flaws alone ignores other possible solutions and
oversimplifies a complicated problem.

Additional Considerations: Since the argument might arouse strong emotions on educational
failures without offering a logical justification for such an extreme response as closing schools,
there may also be elements of an appeal to emotion.

In conclusion, even though there are valid worries about high school education
nowadays, it is illogical to draw the conclusion that all schools ought to be shut down because of
poor test scores and low literacy rates.

Therefore: The argument contains logical fallacies primarily characterized by hasty

generalization.

12 | P a g e
D. Surely you welcome the opportunity to join our protective organization. Think of all
the money you will lose from broken windows, overturned trucks, and damaged
merchandise in the event of your not joining.

Identifying the Fallacy

We must examine the statement's structure and the logic it uses in order to ascertain whether it
contains a logical fallacy. According to the statement, in order to prevent financial losses due to
numerous damages (broken windows, overturned vehicles, and damaged merchandise), one
must join a protection group.

Step 1: Understanding the Argument Structure

The argument can be summarized as follows:

If you do not join our protective organization, you will incur significant financial losses.

Therefore, you should join our protective organization.

Step 2: Analyzing the Implicit Threat

This argument suggests that if one does not follow the recommendation to join the group, there
will be negative consequences (money loss). It instills a sense of urgency and anxiety about
possible consequences.

Step 3: Identifying the Type of Fallacy

Appeal to Fear, or more technically Argumentum ad Metum, is the kind of fallacy that is used in
this argument. This fallacy happens when an argument uses fear as its main driving force instead
than providing facts or rational justifications for action. It emphasizes the potential
consequences of not joining the organization rather than offering good reasons to do so based
on its advantages or virtues.

Conclusion Thus, the statement exemplifies an Appeal to Fear fallacy, as it attempts to

persuade by highlighting potential negative outcomes rather than rational arguments supporting
membership in the organization.

13 | P a g e
REFERENCES
 World Health Organization (WHO)

 Purdue Online Writing Lab (OWL)

 Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia Constitution (1995):

 Books on Ethiopian Politics:

 The History of Modern Ethiopia 1855–1995 by Bahru Zewde

 A Cultural History by Richard Pankhurst

 Critical Thinking” by Richard Paul and Linda Elder:

 The Elements of Reasoning” by Ronald Munson:

 University Textbooks on Logic:

14 | P a g e