Logic and Critical Thinking 2019AY

Chapter Two
Basic Concepts of Logic

2.1. The Meaning of Logic

Theword 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.

 Logic is the study of methods for evaluating arguments. More precisely, logic is the study of
methods for evaluating whether the premises of arguments adequately support or provide a
good evidence for the conclusions.
 Logic is a science that helps to develop the method and principles that we may use as a
criterion for evaluating the arguments of others and as a guide to construct good arguments of
our own.
 Logic is the attempt to codify the rules of rational thought. Logicians explore the structure of
arguments that preserve truth or allow the optimal extraction of knowledge from evidence.
 Logic is one of the primary tools philosophers use in their inquiries. The precision of logic helps them
to cope with the subtlety of philosophical problems and the often misleading nature of conversational
language.

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

2.2. The Benefits of Studying Logic

We use logic in our day-to-day communications. As human beings, we all think, reason and argue; and
we all are subject to the reasoning of other people. Some of us may think well, reason well and argue
well, but some of us may not. The ability to think, reason and argue well might partially be a matter of
natural gift. However, whatever our natural gifts, they can be refined, improved and sharpened; and
the study of logic is one of the best ways to refine one’s natural ability to think, reason and argue.

Page 1
 Logic and Critical Thinking 2019AY

In general, the following are some of the major benefits that we can gain from the study of logic:
 It helps us to develop the skill needed to construct good and fallacy-free arguments of one’s
own and to evaluate the arguments of others;
 It provides a fundamental defense against the prejudiced and uncivilized attitudes that threaten
the foundation of a civilized and democratic society;
 It helps us to distinguish good arguments from bad arguments;
 It helps us to understand and identify the common logical errors in reasoning;
 It helps us to understand and identify the common confusions that often happen due to misuse
of language;
 It enables us to disclose ill-conceived policies in the political sphere, to be careful of disguises,
and to distinguish the rational from irrational and the sane from the insane and so on.

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

2.3. Argument
Argument can be defined and described in different ways. When we define an arguments from logical
point of view, it is a group of statements, one or more of which (the premise/s) are claimed to provide
support for, or reason to believe, one of the other, the (conclusion). As we understand from this
definition an argument is:

First,it is a group of statements. The first requirement for a passage to be qualified as an argument is
to combine two or more statements. But, what is a statement?

Astatement is a declarative sentence that has a truth-value of either true or false. Hence, truth and
falsity are the two possible truth-values of a statement. Look the following examples:

Page 2
 Logic and Critical Thinking 2019AY

A. Dr. Abiy Ahmed is the current Prime Minister of Ethiopia.

B. Addis Ababa is the capital city of Ethiopia.
C. Ethiopia was colonized by Germany.

Statement (a) and (b) are true, because they describe things as they are, or assert what really is the
case. Hence, ‘Truth’ is their truth-value. Whereas statement (c) is false because it asserts what is not,
and ‘Falsity’is its truth-value.

However, there are sentences that are not statements, and hence may be used to construct 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)

In fact, sentence is a group of words or phrases that enables us to express ideas or thought
meaningfully. However, unlike statements, none of the above sentences can be either true or false.
Hence, none of them can be classified as statement. As a result, none of them can make up an
argument.

Second,the statements that make up an argument are divided into premise(s) and conclusion.An
argument contains at least one premise and one and only one conclusion. This definition makes it clear
that an argument may contain more than one premise but only one conclusion.

Argument always attempts to justify a claim. The claim that the statement attempts to justify is known
as a conclusion of an argument; and the statement or statements that supposedly justify the claim is/are
known as the premises of the argument. Therefore, a premise is a statement that set forth the reason or
evidence, which is given for accepting the conclusion of an argument. It is claimed evidence; and a
conclusion is a statement, which is claimed to follow from the given evidence (premise). In other
words, the conclusion is the claim that an argument is trying to establish.
Let us now construct arguments together.

Page 3
 Logic and Critical Thinking 2019AY

Example-1:Example-2:

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

In both arguments, the first two statements are premises, because they are claimed to provide evidence
for the third statement, whereas the third statement is a conclusion because it is claimed to follow from
the given evidences. The claim that the premises support the conclusion, (and/or that the conclusion
follow from the premises), is indicated by the word ‘‘therefore.’’

All arguments may be placed in one of two basic groups: those in which the premises really do support
the conclusion and those in which they do not, even though they are claimed to. The former are said to
be good (well-supported) arguments, the latter isbad (poorly-supported) arguments.

2.3.1. Recognizing premise and conclusion

One of the most important tasks in the analysis of arguments is to distinguish premises from
conclusion. Sometimes identifying a conclusion from premises is difficult. Thoughall arguments are
ideally presumed to be composed of premises and a conclusion, in reality, sometimes arguments may
contain other sentences as elements. 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.
The first technique that can be used to identify premises from a conclusion is looking at an indicator
word. Frequently, arguments contain certain indicator words that provide clues in identifying premises
and conclusion. Here are some Conclusion Indicators:

Therefore We may conclude Thus So

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

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

Page 4
 Logic and Critical Thinking 2019AY

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

Example:
Women are mammals.
Zenebech is a woman.
Therefore, Zenebech is a mammal.

Based on the above rule, the conclusion of this argument is “Zenebech is a mammal” because it
follows the conclusion indicator word “therefore”, and the other two statements are premises.

If an argument does not contain a conclusion indicator, it may contain a premise indicator. Here below
are some typical Premise Indicators:

Since Seeing that In that

As indicated by Given that May be inferred from
Because As Inasmuch as
Owing to For For the reason that

An 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.

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.

Page 5
 Logic and Critical Thinking 2019AY

Sometimes an argument might not containindicator words at all: neither a conclusion indicator word
nor a premise indicator word. When this occurs, the reader/ listener must ask himself or herself the
following questions:
 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. All the rest are given in support of the conclusion. As you can see there are no indicator
words. The following is the standard form of this argument:

Ethnic conflicts are recently intensified. (P-1)

Boarder conflicts are escalating. (P-2)
International terrorist activities are increasing. (P-3)
Thus, the country should increase the quality and quantity of its military. (C)

2.3.2. Techniques of Recognizing Arguments

An argument is a systematic combination of one or more than one statements, which are claimed to
provide a logical support or evidence (i.e., premise(s) to another single statement which is claimed to
follow logically from the alleged evidence (i.e., conclusion). However, not all passages that contain
two or more statements are argumentative. There are various passages that contain two or more
statements but are not argumentative. Argumentative arguments are distinguished from such kind of
passages by their primary goal: proving something. In this lesson, we will see the techniques of
distinguishing argumentative passages from non-argumentative passages.

Page 6
 Logic and Critical Thinking 2019AY

2.1 Recognizing Argumentative Passages

Since logic deals with arguments, it is important to develop the ability to identify whether passages
contain an argument or not.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:

1) At least one of the statements must claim to present evidence or reasons.
2) There must be a claim that the alleged evidence or reasons supports or implies something-
that is, a claim that something follows from the alleged evidence.

As we have seen earlier, the statements that claim to present the evidence or reasons are the premises
and the statement that the evidence is claimed to support or imply is the conclusion. Hence, the first
condition refers to premises as it tries to provide or claim to provide reasons or evidences for the
conclusion; and the second condition refers to a conclusion. It is not necessary that the premises
present actual evidence or true reasons nor that the premises actually do support the conclusion. But at
least the premises must claim to present evidence or reasons, and there must be a claim that the
evidence or reasons support or imply something.

The first condition expresses a factual claim, and deciding whether it is fulfilled often falls outside the
domain of logic. Thus, most of our attention will be concentrated on whether the second condition is
fulfilled or not. The second condition expresses what is called an inferential claim. The inferential
claim is simply the claim that the passage expresses a certain kind of reasoning process- that
something supports or implies something or that something follows from something.

An inferential claim can be either explicit or implicit. An explicit inferential claim is usually asserted
by premise or conclusion indicator words (‘‘thus,’’ ‘‘since,’’ ‘‘because,’’ ‘‘hence,’’ ‘‘therefore,’’ and
so on). It exists if there is an indicator word that asserts an explicit relationship between the premises
and the conclusions.

Example:Injibera University students are clever; it follows that they are outstanding.

Page 7
 Logic and Critical Thinking 2019AY

In this example, the premise indicator word “it follows that” expresses the claim that evidence
supports something, or that evidence is provided to prove something. Hence, the passage is an
argument.

An implicit inferential claim exists if there is an inferential relationship between the statements in a
passage, but the passage contains no indicator words.

Example:

The genetic modification of food is risky business. Genetic engineering can introduce unintended
changes into the DNA of the food-producing organism, and these changes can be toxic to the
consumer.

The inferential relationship between the first statement and the other two constitutes an implicit claim
that evidence supports something, so we are justified in calling the passage an argument though it does
not contain indicator word. The first statement is the conclusion, and the other two are the premises.

Sometimes it is difficult to identify whether a passage contain an argument. In deciding whether there
is a claim that evidence supports or implies something keeps an eye out for (1) indicator words, and
(2) the presence of an inferential claim between the statements. In connection with these points,
however, a word of caution is in order.

First,the mere occurrence of an indicator word by no means guarantees the presence of an argument.
The presence of an indicator word does not mean that the existing indicator word actually and always
indicate a premises or a conclusions. Thus, before deciding that an indicator word indicates a premises
or a conclusion, make sure that the existing indicator word is used to indicate a premise or a
conclusion.

Example:

Since Edison invented the phonograph, there have been many technological developments.

Since Edison invented the phonograph, he deserves credit for a major technological development.

Page 8
 Logic and Critical Thinking 2019AY

In the first passage the word ‘‘since’’ is used in a temporal sense. It means ‘‘from the time that.’’
Thus, the first passage is not an argument. In the second passage ‘‘since’’ is used in a logical sense,
and so the passage is an argument.

Second, it is not always easy to detect the occurrences of an inferential relationship between
statements in a passage, and the reader may have to review a passage several times before making a
decision. Therefore, in deciding whether a passage contains an argument one should try to insert
mentally some indicators words among the statements to see whether there is a flow of ideas among
the statements. Even with this mental experiment, however, deciding whether a passage contains an
argument is very difficult. As a result, not everyone will agree about every passage. Sometimes the
only answer possible is a conditional one: “If this passage contains an argument, then these are the
premises and that is the conclusion.”

To assists in distinguishing passages that contain arguments from those that do not, it is important to
identify passages, which do not contain arguments: Non-argumentative passages.

2.3.3. Recognizing Non-argumentative Passages

Non-argumentative passages are passages, which lack an inferential claim. These include simple non-
inferential passages,expository passages, illustrations, explanations, and conditional statements.
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.

Simple Non-inferential Passages

Simple non-inferential passages are passages that lack a claim that anything is being proved. Such
passages 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. Passages of this sort include warnings, pieces of advice, statements of belief or opinion,
loosely associated statements, and reports.

A warning is a form of expression that is intended to put someone on guard against a dangerous or
detrimental situation.

Example:

Page 9
 Logic and Critical Thinking 2019AY

Whatever you promise to tell, never confide political secrets to your wife.

In this passage, no evidence is given to prove that the statement is true; and if no evidence is given to
prove that the statement is true, then there is no argument.

A piece of advice is a form of expression that makes a recommendation about some future decision or
course of conduct.

Example:

After class hours, I would suggest that you give careful consideration to the subject matter you have
discussed.

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.

A statement of belief or opinion is an expression about what someone to believe or think about
something.
Example:
We believe that our university must develop and produce outstanding students who will perform with
great skillsand fulfill the demands of our nation.

This passage does not make any claim; hence it does not contain an argument.

Loosely associated statements 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.(Lao-Tzu, Thoughts from the Tao TeChing)

Because there is no claim that any of these statements provides evidence or reasons for believing
another. Therefore, it is not an argument.

Page 10
 Logic and Critical Thinking 2019AY

A report consists 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.

These statements could serve as the premises of an argument, but because it makes no claim that they
support or imply anything, there is no argument.

One must be careful, though, with reports about arguments.

Example:
“The Air Force faces a serious shortage of experienced pilots in the years ahead, because repeated
overseas tours and the allure of high paying jobs with commercial airlines are winning out over
lucrative bonuses to stay in the service,” says a prominent Air Force official.(Newspaper clipping)

Properly speaking, this passage is not an argument, because the author of the passage does not claim
that anything is supported by evidence. Rather, the author reports the claim by the Air Force o fficial
that something is supported by evidence. If such passages are interpreted as “containing” arguments, it
must be made clear that the argument is not the author’s but one made by someone about whom the
author is reporting.

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 it cannot be an 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.
(Max Lerner, America as a Civilization)

Page 11
 Logic and Critical Thinking 2019AY

In this passage the topic sentence is stated first, and the remaining sentences merely develop and flesh
out this topic sentence. This passage is not an argument, because it lacks an inferential claim.

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 formulae. Thus, oxygen is
represented by “O2”, water by “H2O”, and sodium chloride 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 formulae.

Explanations
One of the most important kinds of non-argument is the explanation. 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.

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: 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. In the first
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.”

Argument Explanation

Premise Accepted fact Explanans

Page 12
 Logic and Critical Thinking 2019AY

Claimed to proveClaimed to shed light on

Conclusion
Explanations

Accepted fact

Conditional Statements

A conditional statement is an “if . . . then . . .” statement.

Example:If you study hard, then you will score ‘A’ grade.

Every conditional statement is made up of two component statements. The component statement
immediately following the “if” is called the antecedent (if-clause), and the one following the “then” is
called the consequent (then-clause). However, there is an occasion that the order of antecedent and
consequent is reversed. That is, when occasionally the word ‘‘then’’ is left out, the order of antecedent
and consequent is reversed. For example if we left out “then” from the above example the antecedent
and consequent is reversed: You will score ‘A’ gradeif you study hard. In the above example, the
antecedent is “You study hard,” and the consequent is “You will score ‘A’ grade.”

Conditional Statements:
Antecedent Consequent

If ---------------------------- then ---------------------------------.

Consequent Antecedent

---------------------------- if ---------------------------------.

The relation between conditional statements and arguments can be summarized as follows:
1) A single conditional statement is not an argument.
2) A conditional statement may serve as either the premise or the conclusion (or both) of an
argument.
3) The inferential content of a conditional statement may be re-expressed to form an argument.

Page 13
 Logic and Critical Thinking 2019AY

The first two rules are especially pertinent to the recognition of arguments. According to the first rule,
if a passage consists of a single conditional statement, it is not an argument. But if it consists of a
conditional statement together with some other statement, then, by the second rule, it may be an
argument, depending on such factors as the presence of indicator words and an inferential relationship
between the statements.

Conditional statements are especially important in logic (and many other fields) because they express
the relationship between necessary and sufficient conditions. A is said to be a sufficient condition for
B whenever the occurrence of A is all that is needed for the occurrence of B. For example, being a dog
is a sufficient condition for being an animal. On the other hand, B is said to be a necessary condition
for A whenever A cannot occur without the occurrence of B. Thus, being an animal is a necessary
condition for being a dog.

In general, 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:
1) indicator words such as “therefore,” “since,” “because,” and so on;
2) an inferential relationship between the statements; and
3) typical kinds of non-arguments.

But remember that the mere occurrence of an indicator word does not guarantee the presence of an
argument. You must check 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.

Page 14
 Logic and Critical Thinking 2019AY

2.3.4. Types of Arguments: Deduction and Induction

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: Example-2:
All philosophers are critical thinkers. All African footballers are blacks.
Socrates is a philosopher. Messi is an African footballer.
Therefore, Socrates is a critical thinker. It follows that, Messi is black.

The above two examples are examples of a deductive argument. In both of them, the conclusion is
claimed to follow from the premises with certainty; or the premises are claimed to support their
corresponding conclusion with a strict necessity. If we, for example, assume that all philosophers are
critical thinkers and that Socrates is a philosopher, then it is impossible that Socrates not be a critical
thinker. Similarly, if we assume that all African footballers are blacks and that Messi is an African
footballer, then it is impossible that Messi not be a black. Thus, we should interpret these arguments as
deductive.

2. Inductive Arguments

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

Page 15
 Logic and Critical Thinking 2019AY

Example-1: Example-2:

Most African leaders are blacks. Almost all women are mammals.
Mandela was an African leader. Hanan is a woman.
Therefore, probably Mandela was black. Hence, Hanan is a mammal.

Both of the above arguments are inductive. In both of them, the conclusion does not follow from the
premises with strict necessity, but it does follow with some degree of probability. That is, the
conclusion is claimed to follow from the premises only probably; or the premises are claimed to
support their corresponding conclusion with a probability. In other words, if we assume that the
premises are true, then based on that assumption it is probable that the conclusion is true. If we, for
example, assume that most African leaders were blacks and that Mandela was an African leader, then
it is improbable that Mandela not been a black, or it is probable that Mandela was black. But it is not
impossible that Mandela not been a black. Similarly, if we assume that almost all women are
mammals and that Hanan is a woman, then it is improbable that Hanan not be a mammal, or it is
probable that Hanan is a mammal. But it is not impossible that Hanan not be a mammal. Thus, the
above arguments are best interpreted as inductive.

2.3.5. 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.

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

The first factor that influences our decision about a certain inferential claim is the occurrence of
special indicator words. There are different sort of indicator words that indicate or mark the type of a

Page 16
 Logic and Critical Thinking 2019AY

certain argument. Arguments may contain some words that indicate the arguer’s certainty and
confidence, or the arguer’s uncertainty or doubt, about the truth of his/her conclusion. Words like
“certainly,’’ “necessarily,” ‘‘absolutely,’’ and ‘‘definitely’’ indicate that the argument should be
taken as deductive, whereas words like, “probable” ‘‘improbable,’’ ‘‘plausible,’’ ‘‘implausible,’’
‘‘likely,’’ ‘‘unlikely,’’ and ‘‘reasonable to conclude” suggest that an argument is inductive. The point
is that if an argument draws its conclusion, using either of the deductive indicator words, it is usually
best to interpret it as deductive, but if it draws its conclusion, using either of the inductive indicator
words, it is usually best to interpret it as inductive. (Note that the phrase ‘‘it must be the case that’’ is
ambiguous; ‘‘must’’ can indicate either probability or necessity).

Deductive and Inductive indicator words often suggest the correct interpretation. However, one should
be cautious about these special indicator words, because if they conflict with one of the other criteria,
we should probably ignore them. For arguers often use phrases such as ‘‘it certainly follows that’’ for
rhetorical purposes to add impact to their conclusion and not to suggest that the argument be taken as
deductive. Similarly, some arguers, not knowing the distinction between inductive and deductive, will
claim to ‘‘deduce’’ a conclusion when their argument is more correctly interpreted as inductive. If one
takes these words at face value, then one might wrongly leads into wrong conclusions. Therefore, the
occurrence of an indicator word is not a certain guarantee for the deductiveness or inductiveness of an
argument unless it is supported by the other features. This leads us to consider the second factor.

The second factor that bears upon our interpretation of an argument as inductive or deductive is the
actual strength of the inferential link between premises and conclusion. If the conclusion actually
does follow with strict necessity from the premises, the argument is clearly deductive. In such an
argument, it is impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion false. If, on the other hand,
the conclusion of an argument does not follow with strict necessity but does follow probably, it is
usually best to interpret it as inductive argument. Consider the following examples.

Example-1: Example-2:

All Ethiopian people love their country. The majority of Ethiopian people are poor.
Debebe is an Ethiopian. Alamudin is an Ethiopian.
Therefore, Debebe loves his country. Therefore, Alamudin is poor.

Page 17
 Logic and Critical Thinking 2019AY

In the first example, the conclusion follows with strict necessity from the premises. If we assume that
all Ethiopian people love their country and that Debebe is an Ethiopian, then it is impossible that
Debebe not love his country. Thus, we should interpret this argument as deductive. In the second
example, the conclusion does not follow from the premises with strict necessity, but it does follow
with some degree of probability. If we assume that the premises are true, then based on that
assumption it is probable that the conclusion is true. Thus, it is best to interpret the second argument as
inductive.

Occasionally, an argument contains no special indicator words, and the conclusion does not follow
either necessarily or probably from the premises; in other words, it does not follow at all. This
situation points up the need for the third factor to be taken into account, which is the character or
form of argumentation the arguer uses. Let us see some examples of deductive argumentative forms
and inductive argumentative forms.

Instances of Deductive Argumentative Forms

Many arguments have a distinctive character or form that indicates that the premises are supposed to
provide absolute support for the conclusion. Five examples of such forms or kinds of argumentation
are arguments based on mathematics, arguments from definition, and syllogisms: categorical,
hypothetical, and disjunctive syllogisms.

Argument based on mathematics: it is an argument in which the conclusions depend on some purely
arithmetic or geometric computation or measurement. For example, you can put two orange and three
bananas in a bag and conclude that the bag contains five fruits. Or again you can measure a square
pieces of land and after determining it is ten meter on each side conclude that its area is a hundred
square meter. Since all arguments in pure mathematics are deductive, we can usually consider
arguments that depend on mathematics to be deductive as well. A noteworthy exception, however, is
arguments that depend on statistics are usually best interpreted as inductive.

Arguments based on definition: it is an argument in which the conclusion is claimed to depend merely
up on the definition of some words or phrase used in the premise or conclusion. For example, one may
argue that Angel is honest; it is follows that Angel tells the truth. Or again, Kebede is a physician;

Page 18
 Logic and Critical Thinking 2019AY

therefore, he is a doctor. These arguments are deductive because their conclusions follow with
necessity from the definitions “honest” and “physician”.

Syllogisms are arguments consisting of exactly two premises and one conclusion. Syllogisms can be
categorized into three groups; categorical, hypothetical, and disjunctive syllogism.

Categorical syllogism: a syllogism is an argument consisting of exactly two premises and one
conclusion. Categorical syllogism is a syllogism in which the statement begins with one of the words
“all”, “no” and “some”.Example:

All Egyptians are Muslims.

No Muslim is a Christian.
Hence, no Egyptian is a Christian.

Arguments such as these are nearly interpreted as deductive.

Hypothetical syllogism: It is a syllogism having a conditional statement for one or both of its
premises.

Example:

If you study hard, then you will graduate with Distinction.

If you graduate with Distinction, then you will get a rewarding job.
Therefore, if you study hard, then you will get a rewarding job.

Such arguments are best interpreted as deductive.

Disjunctive syllogism: it is a syllogism having a disjunctive statement. (I.e. an “either … or”

statement.)

Example:

Rewina is either Ethiopian or Eritrean.

Rewina is not Eritrean.
Therefore, Rewina is Ethiopian.

Page 19
 Logic and Critical Thinking 2019AY

As with hypothetical syllogism, such arguments are usually best taken as deductive.

Instances of Inductive Argumentative Forms

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

Prediction: in a prediction the premises deals with some known event in the present or the past and the
conclusions moves beyond this event to some event to relative future. For example, one may argue
that because certain clouds develop in the center of the highland, a rain will fall within twenty-four
hours. Nearly everyone realizes that the future cannot be known with certainty. Thus, whenever an
argument makes a prediction about the future one is usually justified considering the argument
inductive.

An argument from analogy: It is an argument that depends on the existence of an analogy or

similarity between two things or state of affairs. Because of the existence of this analogy a certain
conditions that affects the better- known thing or situations is concluded to affect the less familiar ,
lesser known-thing or situation. For instance, one may conclude, after observing the similarity of some
features of Computer A and car B: that both are manufactured in 2012; that both are easy to access;
that Computer A is fast in processing; it follows that Computer B is also fast in processing. This
argument depends on the existence of a similarity or analogy between the two cars. The certitude
attending such an inference is obviously probabilistic at best.

An inductive generalization: it is an argument that proceeds from the knowledge of a selected sample
to some claim about the whole group. Because the members of the sample have a certain
characteristics, it is argued that all members of the group have the same characteristics. For example,
one may argue that because three out of four people in a single prison are black, one may conclude
that three-fourth of prison populations are blacks. This example illustrates the use of statistics in
inductive argumentation.

Page 20
 Logic and Critical Thinking 2019AY

An argument from authority: it is an argument in which the conclusions rest upon a statement made
by some presumed authority or witness. A lawyer, for instance, may argue that the person is guilty
because an eyewitness testifies to that effect under oath. Or again one may argue that all matters are
made up of a small particles called “quarks” because the University Professor said so. Because the
professor and the eyewitness could be either mistaken or lying, such arguments are essentially
probabilistic.

Arguments based on sign: it is an argument that proceeds from the knowledge of a certain sign to the
knowledge of a thing or situation that the sign symbolizes. For instance, one may infer that after
observing ‘No Parking’ sign posted on the side of a road, the area is not allowed for parking. But
because the sign might be displaced or in error about the area or forgotten, conclusion follows only
probably.

A causal inference: it is an argument which proceed from the knowledge of a cause to the knowledge
of an effect, or conversely, from the knowledge of an effect to knowledge of a cause. For example,
from the knowledge that a bottle of water had been accidentally left in the freezer overnight, someone
might conclude that it had frozen (cause to effect). Conversely, after tasting a piece of chicken and
finding it dry and tough, one might conclude that it had been overcooked (effect to cause). Because
specific instances of cause and effect can never be known with absolute certainty, one may usually
interpret such an argument as inductive.

A final point need to be made about the distinction between inductive and deductive arguments, there
is a tradition extending back to the time of Aristotle that holds that inductive arguments are those that
proceed from the particular to the general, while deductive arguments are those that proceed from the
general to the particular. (A particular statement is one that makes a claim about one or more particular
members of a class, while a general statement makes a claim about all the members of a class.) In fact,
there are deductive arguments that proceed from the general to the general, from the particular to the
particular, and from the particular to the general, as well as from the general to the particular; and
there are inductive arguments that do the same. For example, here is a deductive argument that
proceeds from the particular to the general:

Three is a prime number.

Five is a prime number.

Page 21
 Logic and Critical Thinking 2019AY

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.
2.4. Evaluating Arguments

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

A. Deduction and Validity

The previous section defined a deductive argument as one in which the premises are claimed to
support the conclusion in such a way that if they are assumed true, it is impossible for the conclusions
to be false. If the premises do in fact support the conclusions in this way the arguments is said to be
valid; if not, it is invalid. Thus, a valid deductive argument is an argument such that if the premises
are assumed true, it is impossible for the conclusion to be false. In such arguments, the conclusion
follows with strict necessity from the premises. Conversely, an invalid deductive argument is an
argument such that if the premises are assumed true, it is possible for the conclusion to be false. In
these arguments, the conclusion does not follow with strict necessity from the premises, even though it
is claimed to. Consider the following examples:

Example-1: Example-2:

All men are mammals. All philosophers are rational.

All bulls are men. Socrates was rational.
Therefore, all bulls are mammals. 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

Page 22
 Logic and Critical Thinking 2019AY

to. That is, even if we assume that all philosophers rational and Socrates is rational, it is not actually
impossible for Socrates not be a philosopher.

The above definitions of valid and invalid arguments, along with their corresponding examples, lead
us into two immediate conclusions. The first is that there is no middle ground between valid and
invalid. An argument is either valid or invalid. The second consequence is that there is only an indirect
relation between validity and truth. For an argument to be valid it is not necessary that either the
premises or the conclusions be true, but merely that if the premises assumed true, it is impossible for
the conclusion be false. That is, we do not have to know whether the premise of an argument is actually
true in order to determine its validity (valid or invalid). To test an argument for validity, we begin by
assuming that all premises are true, and then we determine if it is possible, in light of that assumption,
for the conclusion to be false. Thus, the validity of argument is the connection between premise and
conclusion rather than on the actual truth or falsity of the statement formed the argument.

There are four possibilities with respect to the truth or falsity of the premises and conclusion of a
given argument:
1) True premises and True conclusion,
2) True premises and False conclusion,
3) False premises and True conclusion, and
4) False premises and False conclusion.

Note that all of the above possibilities, except the second case (true premises and false conclusion),
allow for both valid and invalid arguments. That is, the second case does not allow for valid
arguments. As we have just seen, any argument having this combination is necessarily invalid. Let us
discuss these possibilities in detail with examples.

Validity and Truth Value

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

Example-1 (Valid): My mother is a mammal. (Tp)

Therefore, my mother is a woman. (Tc)
All women are mammals. (Tp)

Page 23
 Logic and Critical Thinking 2019AY

Example-2 (Invalid): Plato was a critical thinker. (Tp)

Therefore, Plato was a philosopher. (Tc)
All philosophers are critical thinkers. (Tp)

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

Possibility # 2: A combination of True premises and false conclusion (the second case) allows only for
invalid arguments. Consider the following example:

Example-1 (Invalid):

All biologists are scientists. (Tp)

John Nash was a scientist. (Tp)
Therefore, John Nash was a biologist. (Fc)

Based on the features of validity, the above example, which combines True premises and False
conclusion, is an invalid argument. A valid argument with such combination does not exist. Any
deductive argument having actually true premises and an actually false conclusion is invalid, because
if the premises are actually true and the conclusion is actually false, then it certainly is possible for the
premises to be true and the conclusion false. Thus, by definition, the argument is invalid. After all such
combinations are contrary to the inferential claim of a deductive argument: if the premises are
assumed to be true, then it is impossible for the conclusion to be false. Therefore, the second
combination allows only for invalid arguments.

Possibility # 3: A combination of False premises and True conclusion (the third case) allows for both
valid and invalid arguments. Consider the following examples:

Example-1 (Valid): Example-2 (Invalid):

All birds are mammals. (Fp) All birds are mammals. (Fp)
All women are birds. (Fp) All ostriches are mammals. (Fp)
Therefore, all women are mammals. (Tc) Therefore, all ostriches are birds. (Tc)

Page 24
 Logic and Critical Thinking 2019AY

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

Possibility # 4: A combination of False premises and False conclusion (the fourth case) allows for
both valid and invalid arguments. Consider the following examples:

Example-1 (Valid): Example-2 (Invalid):

All Americans are Ethiopians. (Fp) All birds are mammals. (Fp)
All Egyptians are Americans. (Fp) All ants are mammals. (Fp)
Thus, all Egyptians are Ethiopians. (Fc) Therefore, all ants are birds. (Fc)

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

In general, the basic idea of evaluating deductive argument, validity (valid and invalid) is not
something that is determined by the actual truth or falsity of the premises and conclusion. Rather,
validity is something that is determined by the relationship between premises and conclusion. The
question is not whether premises and conclusion are true or false, but whether the premises support the
conclusion. Nevertheless, there is one arrangement of truth and falsity in the premises and conclusion
that does determine the issue of validity. Any deductive argument having actually true premises and an
actually false conclusion is invalid for the reason given above. The idea that any deductive argument
having actually true premises and a false conclusion is invalid may be the most important point in the
entire system of deductive logic. The entire system of deductive logic would be quite useless if it
accepted as valid any inferential process by which a person could start with truth in the premises and
arrive at falsity in the conclusion.

The relationship between the validity of a deductive argument and the truth and falsity of its premises
and conclusions summarized as follows.

Table 1.1

Page 25
 Logic and Critical Thinking 2019AY

Premises Conclusion Validity

True True Valid/invalid

True False Invalid

False True Valid/invalid

False False Valid/invalid

B. Deduction and Soundness

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

Depending on their actual ability, (assuming that they already have actually accomplished their
inferential claims by being valid), to accomplish their factual claims, deductive arguments can be
either sound or unsound. A sound argumentis 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 missingthe
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 thatis either
valid with one or more false premises, or invalid, or both. Because a valid argument is onesuch that it
is impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion false, andbecause a sound argument does
in fact have true premises, it follows that everysound argument, by definition, will have a true
conclusion as well. A sound argument,therefore, is what is meant by a ‘‘good’’ deductive argument in
the fullest senseof the term.

Sound Argument = A valid argument + All true premises

Page 26
 Logic and Critical Thinking 2019AY

2. Evaluating Inductive Arguments: Strength, Truth, and Cogency

A. Induction and Strength

The previous section defined an inductive argument as one in which the premises are claimed to
support the conclusions in such a way that if they are assumed true, it is improbable for the
conclusions to be false. If the premises do in fact support the conclusions in this way the arguments is
said to be strong; if not, it is weak. Thus, a strong inductive argument is an argument such that if the
premises are assumed true, it is improbable for the conclusion to be false. In such arguments, the
conclusion follows probably from the premises. Conversely, a weak inductive argument is an
argument such that if the premises are assumed true, it is probable for the conclusions to be false. In
these arguments, the conclusion does not follow probably from the premises, even though it is claimed
to. Consider the following examples:

Example-1: Example-2:
This barrel contains one hundred apples. This barrel contains one hundred apples.
Eighty apples selected at random were found Three apples selected at random were found tasty.
tasty. Therefore, probably all one hundred apples are
Therefore, probably all one hundred apples are tasty.
tasty.

The first example is strong argument, because the conclusion actually follows probably from the
premises. The second example is weak argument, because the conclusion does not actually follow
probably from the premises, even though it is claimed to. The procedure for testing the strength of
inductive arguments runs parallel to the procedure for deduction.

Strength and Truth Value

Just as what happened from definitions and examples of valid and invalid arguments earlier, two
immediate conclusions follow from the above definitions and examples of strong and weak arguments.
The first is that, unlike the validity and invalidity of deductive arguments, the strength and weakness
of inductive arguments admit certain form of degrees. To be considered strong, an inductive argument
must have a conclusion that is more probable than improbable. In inductive arguments, there is no
absolutely strong nor absolutely weak argument. For instance, the first is not absolutely weak nor the
second absolutely strong. Both arguments would be strengthened or weakened by the random selection
of a larger or smaller sample. The incorporation of additional premises into inductive arguments will
also generally tend to strength or weaken it. For example, if the premise “one un-tasty apple that had

Page 27
 Logic and Critical Thinking 2019AY

been found earlier was removed” were added to the second argument, the argument would presumably
be weakened.

The second consequence is that, as validity and invalidity, strength and weakness are only indirectly
related to the truth values of their premises. The central question in determining strength or weakness
is whether the conclusion would probably true if the premises are assumed true. For an argument to be
strong it is not necessary that either the premises or the conclusions be true, but merely that if the
premises assumed true, it is improbable for the conclusion be false. That is, we do not have to know
whether the premise of an argument is actually true in order to determine its strength (strong or weak).
To test an argument for strength, what we need to do is to assume the premise true and then to see
whether the conclusion follows more/less probably from the premise. Thus, the strength or weakness
of an inductive argument results not from the actual truth or falsity of the premises and conclusion, but
from the probabilistic support the premises give to the conclusion.

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

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

In general, the basic idea of evaluating inductive argument, strength is not something that is
determined by the actual truth or falsity of the premises and conclusion, but by the relationship
between premises and conclusion. Nevertheless, there is one arrangement of truth and falsity in the
premises and conclusion that does determine the issue of strength. Thus, any inductive argument
having actually true premises and an actually false conclusion is weak.

The relationship between the strength of an inductive argument and the truth and falsity of its premises
and conclusions summarized as follows.

Table 1.2:

Page 28
 Logic and Critical Thinking 2019AY

Premises Conclusion Strength

True True Strong/Weak

True False Weak

False True Strong/Weak

False False Strong/Weak

B. Induction and Cogency

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

Depending on their actual ability, (assuming that they already have actually accomplished their
inferential claims by being strong), to accomplish their factual claims, inductive arguments can be
either cogent or uncogent. A cogent argumentis 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 missingthe
argument is uncogent. An inductive argument that does not actually accomplish its inferential claim,
(that is not strong), cannot be cogent, regardless of the truth values of its premises. Such an inductive
argument is uncogent, by definition. Thus, an uncogent argument is an inductive argument thatis
either strong with one or more false premises, or weak, or both. Because the conclusion of a cogent
argument is genuinely supported by true premises, it follows that the conclusion of every cogent
argument is probably true.A cogent argument is the inductive analogue of a sound deductive argument
and is what is meant by a ‘‘good’’ inductive argument without qualification.

Cogent Argument = A strong argument + All true premises

There is a difference, however, between sound and cogent arguments in regard to the true-premise
requirement. In a sound argument, it is only necessary that the premises be true and nothing more.
Given such premises and good reasoning, a true conclusion is guaranteed. In a cogent argument, on the
other hand, the premises must not only be true, they must also not ignore some important piece of

Page 29
 Logic and Critical Thinking 2019AY

evidence that outweighs the given evidence and entails a quite different conclusion. That is,if the
premises reflect all the important factors, then the argument is cogent; if not, then obviously the
argument is not cogent. Thus, for cogency, the premises must not only be true but also not overlook
some important factor that outweighs the given evidence and requires a different conclusion.

Page 30