TraditionalSquare of Opposition

A Contrariety E
1. WHAT IS LOGIC

In general, Logic is a competence developed through repeated experience. This type of

logic does not need any specialization. It characterizes the street knowledge or the knowledge of
the street person. This person “thinks” on the basis of habits, customs, traditions, and experience.
However, Logic can also be perceived from a technical perspective. That is to say, logic as
scientific discipline, can provide justifiable means to detect wrong ways of thinking and confirm
correct ways of reasoning. Let us consider the following arguments and try to say which one is
sound or makes sense.

Argument 1

• Every animated being is subject to death.

• Yet every human being is an animated being.

• Therefore, every human being is subject to death.

Argument 2:

• Every animated being is subject to death.

• Yet every human being is subject to death.

• Therefore, every human being is an animated being.

Argument 3.

• Every animated being is subject to death.

• Yet some animated beings are not human beings.

• Therefore, some human beings are not subjects to death.

By using our common sense, it is, if not impossible, but difficult to determine which of the three
arguments makes sense, unless there be a rule of thought thanks to which we can, after analysing
the claim, examine, evaluate, and establish its validity and evidence. That is what logic is all
about: to provide rules in order to guide our thinking as well as its expression called language.
Hence, logic is the traffic police of thinking. To think logically is to be capable of following the

1
 TraditionalSquare of Opposition

A Contrariety E
rules of thought and language or to be able to assess how these rules are observed by others in
their thinking and expressions.

Logic is a normative branch of philosophy which establishes guiding standards for sound
reasoning or thinking. It is the study of the methods and principles used to distinguish
good(correct) from bad (incorrect) reasoning. This conception of logic does not mean that
only the students of logic can reason well or correctly. To say that will be mistaken to mean
that to run well one require to study physics and physiology. For there are some athletes
who perform very well even without knowing the complex processes going on inside their
bodies. In any case, a person who has studied logic is more likely to reason correctly than
the one who has never been taught about the general principles involved in that activity.

Historically, Aristotle (384 – 322 BC) was the first to dedicate a special attention to logic. Prior
to him, logic was implicitly used in philosophical polemics. In his book Organon (meaning
instrument), Aristotle developed a systematic study of logic. From thence, logic became more
than a simple art. It acquired a scientific status: it became a scientific discipline. That is why
Aristotle is considered as the father (founder) of logic.

Nobody can develop philosophic knowledge without being trained and initiated to logic, on the
ground that philosophy being a thinking activity, logic regulates that activity.

2. USES OF LANGUAGE

Language appears to be a complicated instrument that we tend to lose sight of the multiplicity of
its uses. Although, there seems to be a real danger on the tendency to oversimplify language.
When people take too narrow a view of the legitimate uses of language, words are found often
being wasted. For instance, the complaint: A particular person often asks me, how I am. What a
hypocrite! He does not care in the least how I am. These kind of remarks reveal a failure to
understand the complex purposes for which language is used. This kind of failure is shown also
in the deplorable conduct of those, who when asked how they are, actually proceed to describe
the state of their health. Infact, “How are you” is a friendly greeting, not a request for a medical
report.

Hence, there are three ways in which Language can be used or the three functions of Language:

2
 TraditionalSquare of Opposition

A Contrariety E

 The informative
 The Expressive
 The Directive

The Informative use of Language is to communicate information. This is accomplished by

formulating and affirming or denying proposition. The kind of language used to affirm or deny
propositions or to present arguments, is said to be serving an informative function. Thus, we use
the word information to include misinformation, false as well as true proposition, correct as well
as incorrect arguments. In which case, information discourse is used to describe the world and to
reason about it.

On the Expressive function of the use of Language, lyric poetry provides us the best
examples like the following lines of Burns

“O my Love is like a red, red rose

That’s newly sprung in June

O my Love is like the melodie

That’s sweetly played in tune!”

Those are not actually meant to inform us of any facts or theories concerning the world. The
poets intention is not with knowledge but with feelings and attitudes. It is not written to report
any information, but to express certain emotions that the poet felt very keen about and to evoke
similar feelings in the reader. Hence, language serves the expressive function in its use to arouse
feelings or emotions.It can also be used not just to express emotions but also to express
opinions,beliefs and convictions.

In the third use of language as directive, its function is intended to cause or prevent overt
action. The obvious examples are commands and requests. Forinstance, when a parent tell her
child to wash the cutleries for dinner,the intention is not to communicate any information or to
express any particular emotion. The language is meant to get results, to cause action of the
indicated kind.Again, when a Cinema goer says to the ticket seller, “Two, please” the language is
used directively, to produce action.In the distinction between commands and requests, the

3
 TraditionalSquare of Opposition

A Contrariety E
differences are quite clear,for almost any command can be converted into a request with suitable
changes in the tone of voice or merely by the addition of the word, “please.” A question can also
be classified as a directive discourse when it is posed to request an answer.In its ordinary nature,
directive discourse is neither true nor false.A command like “close the window” cannot be either
true or false in any literal sense.One can either disagree about whether a command is true or
false, because those terms simply do not apply to it.Although,commands and requests do have
other characteristics like reasonableness or unreasonableness.It cogent to denote that,reasons can
be given for an action to be performed, and that when the statement of those reasons
accompanies the command, the whole can be connoted to be an argument.

It is generally known that language also serves mixed and multiple functions, like the
speaker surely need not be using it that way out of confusion. Instead, effective communication
demands certain combinations of functions. Beyond the context of clear and formal relationships,
parents to child, employer to employee, one cannot simply issue an order and expect to have it
obeyed; bald commands arouse resentment or antagonism and are often self-defeating. Usually,
to cause the action we seek, we do not flatly issue an imperative; a more subtle method of
producing the desired result is normally imperative or needed.

The Fundamental Concepts in Logic

Propositions and Arguments

A proposition is a statement or an expression that can be said to be true or false. It is itself not an
argument. In which case, we use different terms to describe the features of an argument like,
“correct or incorrect, valid or invalid, sound or unsound, demonstrative, plausible or fallacious”.
Thus, an argument is a set or group of propositions of which, the conclusion, is claimed to be
true on the basis of other propositions, the premises which are noted as providing grounds or
reasons for accepting the conclusion. In as much as a conclusion is drawn or inferred from the
premise(s), an argument then must have at least two propositions, one of which being a premise
and the other being a conclusion. Examples-

a. As we are in the month of January at the moment, next month must be February

4
 TraditionalSquare of Opposition

A Contrariety E
b. All those who drink alcohol get drunk. Those who are drunk fall asleep. Those who are
asleep commit no sin. Those who commit no sins go to heaven. Therefore, those who
drink alcohol go to heaven.

It is to be noted that in the first example, there is one premise and one conclusion that is the
premise- ‘As we are in the month of January at the moment’ and the conclusion is ‘Next month
must be February.’ Also, in an argument, the conclusion need not be stated last, it can be stated
first or within the premises. For instance, ‘Next month must be February, as we are in the month
of January at the moment.’

As already defined earlier, a proposition is a statement or a sentence that is either true of false.
The condition of a sentence being either true or false is referred to as true value. Example: St.
Augustine University is in Tanzania. Hence, a proposition is a declarative sentence as at opposed
to interrogative sentence (question), exclamation, imperative sentence(Command), suggestion
and performative sentence. For instance,

a. Interrogative Sentence: How many Children are in the field?

b. Imperative sentence: Close the Door Stephen
c. Exclamation: Wow, you look so beautiful!
d. Suggestion: I would like us to go clubbing tonight.
e. Performative sentence: I bless you with this oil.

Hence, as stated above the examples of arguments, a proposition is a premise or a conclusion

depending on the role it is performing in an argument.

Types of Propositions

Propositions are divided into simple and compound ones. A Simple proposition is often known
as a categorical proposition while compound propositions are hypothetical (conditional,
disjunctive, conjunctive or conditional. Example of conditional proposition is thus- “If a person
is a Tanzania then the person is an African= If p then q (p ⸧ q).” For Disjunctive Proposition-
“It is either one is a Kenyan or a Nigerian= p or q (p ˅ q).” For Conjunctive propositions- “Both
Peter and Andrew are Tanzanians= Both p and q (p ˄ q).” For a bi-Conditional form- “Stella is a
wife if and only if she has a husband= p if and only if q (p ↔q).”

5
 TraditionalSquare of Opposition

A Contrariety E
As earlier stated as the simple kind of proposition, Categorical proposition is such that the
subject class is either wholly or partially included or excluded from the predicate. For instance,
there are four parts of a standard Categorical proposition-

i. a quantifier
ii. a subject term (representing a subject class)
iii. a copula (form of verb to be, e. g is or are)
iv. a predicate term (Represents a predicate class)

Thus, a standard categorical proposition is represented in this form:

a. All Q are P= All human beings are mortal

b. No Q are P= No human beings are mortal
c. Some Q are P= Some human beings are mortal
d. Some Q are not P= Some human beings are not mortal.

In a situation where a proposition makes reference to all the members of its subject then, it is
called Universal as in (a and b) above. While, when a proposition makes reference to only some
members of its subject class, then it is called Particular as in (c and d) above.Although. when a
proposition affirms the inclusion of its subject class wholly or partially into its predicate class, it
is called Affirmative as seen in (a and c) above.But , when a proposition denies the inclusion of
its subject class wholly or partially from its predicate class,it is called, Negative or Negation as in
(b and d) above. Hence, any categorical proposition in the form of ‘All Q are P’ is referred to as
Universal affirmative proposition, No Q are P is referred to as Universal negative
proposition.Some Q are P is referred to as Particular affirmative proposition while Some Q are
not P is referred to as Particular negative. The above can be illustrated as thus;

A: All Q are P= Universal Affirmative

E: No Q are P= Universal Negative

I: Some Q are P= Particular Affirmative

O: Some Q are P= Particular negative.

Kinds of Arguments

6
 TraditionalSquare of Opposition

A Contrariety E
Arguments are generally divided into two types, namely, deductive and inductive. It is noted that
every argument involves the claim that its premises provide some grounds or reasons for the
truth of its conclusion, but only a deductive argument involves the claim that its premises
provide conclusive grounds for its conclusion. It is so in that, when the reasoning in a deductive
argument is correct, it is called a valid argument. While when the reasoning of a deductive
argument is probable and incorrect, it is referred to as invalid argument.

(a) Deductive Argument

This is an argument in which there is a claim that if the truth of its premises is granted, then its
conclusion is also true as a matter of logical necessity. Example:

All living things are mortals.

Human beings are living things.

Therefore Human beings are mortals.

This argument shows that, If all living things are mortals,and human beings are living things,
then, they are mortals. However, in a bad deductive argument, the truth of the conclusion does
not necessarily follow from the truth of its premises. This shows that, even if the truth of its
premises is granted, the truth of its conclusion must not be inferred necessarily.Example:

All animals breath.

All human beings breath.

Therefore, all human beings are animals.

In which case, the truth of the two premises taken together does not imply the truth of the
conclusion. Example:

All animals breathe.

All plants breathe.

Therefore, all plants are animals.

Hence, in a good deductive argument, it is impossible for a person to accept the truth of its
premises and at the same time deny the truth of its conclusion without a contradiction.This
7
 TraditionalSquare of Opposition

A Contrariety E
indicates that in any deductive argument, the claim that the truth of a conclusion follows
necessarily from that of the premises is either justifiable or not.In a case when the claim is
justified, then it is a good deductive argument whereas, when the claim is unjustifiable, then the
argument becomes a bad deductive argument.

(b) Inductive Arguments

In an Inductive argument, the truth of the premises, if granted, only offers a partial or probable
support to the truth of its conclusion.In this case, if the premises are true, then the conclusion is
probably true.Example:

i. Most Chaga people like eating Banana.

Richard likes eating Banana.

Therefore, probably Richard is a Chaga.

ii. There are 50 oranges in a basket

40 of the oranges picked at random are found to be rotten
Therefore, probably all the 50 oranges in the basket are rotten

Thus, in inductive arguments, the truth of the conclusion follows from the truth of the premises
only with some level of probability as seen in the two examples above.We can view that in those
arguments, the truth of the premises does not necessarily show or imply the truth of the
conclusion. Even with, the truth of the premises, the truth of the conclusion has only the
probability of being true, the conclusion can be either true or false.Hence, in inductive argument,
if the truth of its premises is given, then the truth of its conclusion is only a matter of probability.

Valid and Invalid Arguments

It is pertinent to note that true and falsehood may be predicated of propositions but never of
arguments.The features of valididty and invalidity can belong only to deductive arguments, never
to propositions.It is a known fact that there is a connection between the validity or invalidity of
an argument and the true or falsehood of its premises and conclusion, but the connection is by no
means a simple one.

Valid Arguments

8
 TraditionalSquare of Opposition

A Contrariety E
The valid arguments refers to a particular form or structure of a deductive argument that is
constituted by the relationship between the propositions of an argument.It is the nature of the
relationship between the premises and conclusion of deductive arguments.Thus, in a valid
arguments, the truth of the premises necessarily guarantees the truth of its conclusion.In which
case, to accept the truth of the premises of a deductive argument but deny the truth of the
conclusion is to assert a contradiction. Example:

All mammals have lungs.

All whales are mammals.

Therefore all whales have lungs.

However, an argument may also entirely be of false propositions and nevertheless be valid.
Forinstance;

All ten-legged creatures have wings.

All spiders have ten legs.

Therefore all spiders have wings.

The above argument is valid because, if its premises were true, its conclusion would have to be
true also, even though in fact they are all false.

Invalid Arguments

The Invalid arguments refer to the relational condition between the propositions of a deductive
argument, but such that the truth of its premises, if granted, does not guarantee the truth of its
conclusion. In such a situation, a person can accept the truth of the premises and still deny the
truth of the conclusion at the same time without any contradiction.This shows that invalid
deductive argument structure is a bad or incorrect one. Example:

All Tanzanians are Africans.

All Kenyans are Africans.

Therefore all Tanzanians are Kenyans.

9
 TraditionalSquare of Opposition

A Contrariety E
It is noted from the argument above that all the premises are true but the conclusion is false.It
shows that the truth of the conclusion does not necessarily follow from the premises. Hence, the
truth of the premises does not justify the truth of the conclusion.

(Write notes with examples on the following- ‘strength, truth and cogent’ as pertaining to
arguments-asignment-In not less than three pages but not more than 5 pages)

Sound and Unsound Arguments

The soundness or unsoundness of arguments applies only to deductive arguments. When an

argument is valid and all of its premises are true, it is called a sound argument. For the
conclusion of a sound argument must be true. Example:

All human beings breathe.

Otieno is a human being.

Therefore Otieno breathe

The argument is thus valid since, it is structured in such a way that it is impossible for one to
accept the truth of its premises but deny the truth of its conclusion. The two conditions for a
deductive argument to be true is that; it must be valid and at the same time ,must have all its
premises being actually true.

Unsound Arguments

This is when a deductive argument is either not valid or not all of its premises are true.It fails to
establish the truth of its conclusion even if in fact the conclusion is true.It is also same with an
argument which has atleast a false premise.Example;

All Catholic Brothers are unmarried.

And All catholic Sisters are unmarried

Therefore, all Catholic Nuns are Catholic Brothers.

The above deductive argument is invalid, in that even as both the premises are actually true, its
conclusion is actually false.The argument is also unsound not because it has any false premise,

10
 TraditionalSquare of Opposition

A Contrariety E
but because it is invalid.It is thus a defective argument because of its unsoundness, for the goal
of a sound argument is to justify the claim or truth of its conclusion.

Further illustrations for Validity, Invalidity and Sound and Unsound Deductive Arguments

Validity Invalidity
T F T T
T F T F
T F F T
Sound Unsound Unsound Unsound

DEFINITION AND MEANING

It is notable that, Language is a very complicated instrument, the principal tool for human
communication. However, when words are used carelessly, what was meant to advance mutual
understanding may in fact hinder it. This scenario happens when the words used in discussion are
ambiguous or excessively vague or imprecise, or emotionally loaded. Definitions, by exposing
and eliminating ambiguities, can effectively resolve disputes that are merely verbal, and to
expose and prevent the fallacies of ambiguity, definitions may be essential.

Definitions are thus, the description of symbols in terms of their utility and meaning. The
word “chair” can be defined, since it has meaning; but a chair itself we cannot define. We can sit
on a chair, or paint it, or burn it, or describe it, but we cannot define it because the chair is not a
symbol that has a meaning to explain.Hence, in expressing definitions, we do sometimes talk
about the symbol defined and sometimes about the thing referred to by the symbol. Another,
illustration can be the word, “triangle.” It can be defined as a plane figure enclosed by three
straight lines.

In which case, two terms are common and useful.The symbol being defined is called the
“definiendum”; the symbol or symbols been used to explain the meaning of the definiendum is
called the “definiens. It would be a mistake to say that the definiens is the meaning of the

11
 TraditionalSquare of Opposition

A Contrariety E
definiendum.The main reason or use of definition in reasoning is the elimination of ambiquity.
Inorder to do away with ambiquity two kinds of definitions are used; “the stipulative and the
lexical definitions.”

Types of Definitions

1. Stipulative Definitions

The person who introduces a new symbol has complete freedom to stipulate what meaning is to
be given to it.Thus, the definition that arises from the deliberate assignment of meaning is called
“Stipulative.”New words are often at times introduced by stipulation for different reasons.One, it
may be for convenience; a single word may serve as “short for” many words in a cable code or
message.Another reason may be for Secrecy; the stipulation may be understood only by the
sender and the reciever of the message.Another reason may be for economy in expression;in the
sciences especially, there are many advantages in introducing a new and technical symbol
defined to mean what would otherwise require a long sequence of familiar words for its
expression. For example, B23 = C, instead of writing B 23
times……………………………………………..

2. Lexical Definitions

A Lexical definition does not give its definiendum a meaning it hitherto lacked but reports the
meaning the definiendum already has. It is obvious that a lexical definition may be either true or
false. Hence, the definition;

The word “ mountain” means a large mass of earth or rock rising to a considerable height above
the surrounding country.It is true, for it is a true report of how English-speaking people use the
word “mountain” i.e of what they mean by it.On another note, the word “mountain” means a
plane figure enclosed by three straight lines.It is false, being a false report of how English-
speaking people use the word “mountain”.

This then shows the difference between stipulative and lexical definitions.Because, a stipulative
definition’s definiendum has no meaning apart from or before the definition introducing it, that
definition cannot be false(or true).However, because the definiendum of a lexical definition does
have a prior and independent meaning, its definition is either true or false, depending on whether

12
 TraditionalSquare of Opposition

A Contrariety E
that meaning is correctly or incorrectly reported. What we are calling “lexical definitions” have
sometimes been referred to as a “real definition.”

3. Precising Definitions

Even as stipulative and lexical definitions tries to reduce ambiguity; Précising definitions serve
to reduce vagueness, also a source of confusion in argument. Vagueness and ambiguity are quite
different. It is noted that a term is ambiguous in a given context when it has more than one
distinct meaning and the context does not make clear that which is intended. While a term is
Vague when there exist “borderline cases” so that it cannot be determined whether the term
should be applied to them or not. For instance, a phrase in a heated moral controversy, like “right
to life” or “right to choice”, may be both ambiguous and vague.

4. Theoretical Definitions

It is connoted that when scientists, politicians and philosophers dispute amongst themselves
about definitions, there is usually more than precision or ambiguity involved. They are seeking
comprehensive understanding. The battle between Socrates and Thrasymachus over the
definition of “Justice” is recounted at length in the Republic, by Plato.The battle amongst
Physicists over the definition of “heat” continued for generations. Those who disagree in those
matters are seeking to develop a coherent theoretical account of the subject at hand. It is noted
that part of such account will be the definition of key terms and so they ask: What is Justice?
What is heat? Hence, a theoretical definition of a term is a definition that attempts to formulate a
theoretical adequate or scientifically useful description of the objects to which the term applies.

5. Persuasive Definitions

On another note, definitions may be formulated and used persuasively, to resolve disputes by
influencing the attitudes, or stirring the emotions, of readers or hearers. This is called “persuasive
definition.” We can see that the kinds of definitions discussed so far are all about the informative
use of language, but sometimes we define terms in ways deliberately calculated to affect feelings
and indirectly, to alter conduct. Persuasive definitions are common in political arguments. From
the left we experience, “socialism” defined as democracy extended to the economic field and
from the right we hear “capitalism” defined as freedom in the economic sphere. There is little
doubt what purposes are served by the emotive language in each of these definitions.

13
 TraditionalSquare of Opposition

A Contrariety E
Manipulation is seen also to be subtler; emotive coloration may be slightly injected into the
language of a definition that means to be accurate, and that appears on the surface to be
objective.

ANALOGY

According to Merriam Webster Dictionary, Analogy is a comparison of two otherwise

unlike things based on resemblance of a particular aspect. It gives the inference that if two or
more things agree with one another in such respects, they will probably agree in others.
Example; abandoning a project is like leaving a house partway built.

It is understood that many of our everyday inferences are by analogy. For instance, I
infer that a new pair of shoes will wear well on the grounds that I got good wear from other
shoes previously purchased from the same store. If a new book by a certain author is called to
my attention, I infer that I enjoy reading it on the basis of most of our ordinary reasoning from
past experience to what the future will hold. It is noted that no argument by analogy is intended
to be mathematically certain. Analogical arguments are not to be classified as either valid or
invalid. Probability is all that is claimed for them.

Also due to their frequent use in arguments, analogies are very often used in non-
arguments too, and these different uses should not be confused. In that, from earliest times,
writers have made use of analogy for the purpose of lively description. The literary uses of
analogy in metaphor and simile are tremendously helpful to the writer who strives to create a
vivid picture in the reader’s mind, e.g He runs fast like a Tiger or lion.

Analogy is again, used in explanation, where something unfamiliar is made intelligible

through being compared to something else, presumably more familiar, to which it has certain
similarities. For instance, Science is built up with facts, as a house is with stones. But a
collection of facts is no more a science than a heap of stones is a house. Thus, the use of
analogies in description and explanation is not the same as their use in argument, though in some
cases it may not be easy to decide which use is intended. However, whether used
argumentatively or otherwise, analogy is not difficult to define. For, to draw an analogy between
two or more entities is to indicate one or more respects in which they are similar. This hence
explicates what an analogy is, but there is still the problem of attributing an argument by

14
 TraditionalSquare of Opposition

A Contrariety E
analogy. We may approach this problem by examining a particular analogical argument and
analysing its structure. For instance, the argument that my new pair of shoes will wear well
because my old shoes, which were purchased from the same store, have worn well. The two
things said to be similar are the two pairs of shoes. There are three points of analogy involved,
three respects in which the two entities are said to resemble each other: First, in being shoes;
second, in being purchased from the same store; and third, I wearing well. The three points of
analogy do not play identical roles in the argument, anyways. The first two occur in the
premises, whereas the third occurs both in the premises and in the conclusion. In quite general
terms, the given argument may be described as having premises that assert, first, that two things
are similar in two respects and, second, that one of those things has a further feature, from which
the conclusion is drawn that the other thing also has that future feature.

An example of an Analogy: A man ought no more to value himself for being wiser than
a woman, if he owes his advantage to a better education, than he ought to boast of his courage
for beating a man when his hands were bound.

Answer: This is an analogical argument which is drawn between beating a man when his hands
are bound and being wiser than a woman as a consequence of a better education, one party
having an enormous advantage in both cases. In the first case, it is plain that one with such an
advantage ought not to boast of his courage; in the second case, it is equally inappropriate for
one with such an advantage to boast of his relative wisdom. Look out for more e.gs

Fallacies

Fallacies refer to logical errors in reasoning. It takes place when premises of a given argument do
not support the conclusion they are required to support. For, every argument involves the claim
that the truth of its conclusion follows from the truth of its premises. Thus, if its premises are not
true, the argument fails to establish the truth of its conclusion, even if the reasoning based on
those premises is correct. -----So, any argument whose premises do not support its conclusion is
one whose conclusion could be false even if all its premises were true. This argument is then said
to be bad or a fallacious one. In other words, an argument that commits a fallacy does not have
its conclusion justified by its premises. More so, a fallacy can be defined as a type of argument
that seems to be correct, but that proves on examination, not to be so.

15
 TraditionalSquare of Opposition

A Contrariety E
Fallacies are divided into two types: Formal and Informal fallacies. Formal fallacies are
reasoning that deviate from the established correct forms of reasoning. This concerns any
reasoning that does not conform to the established form of correct reasoning. While Informal
fallacy is bought about by inconsistent meanings within an argument. In order to detect an
informal fallacy, one requires an interpretation of an argument and understanding the meaning.
In a situation where the meaning of the premises collectively does not justify the conclusion,
then an informal fallacy is committed.

We shall be elaborating on informal fallacies which are the kind of fallacies which are
usually committed in simple or ordinary expressions or arguments, because inorder to detect
them, a person needs not examine the form or structure of arguments but to analyse the meaning
of the propositions used in the arguments in order to be sure whether or not the claims of the
premises indicate the alleged claim of its conclusion. The informal fallacies are divided into
three parts: Fallacies of Relevance, Fallacies of presumption and fallacies of ambiguity.

1. Fallacies of Relevance

Fallacies of relevance refers to arguments that rely on premises that are not relevant to its
conclusion, and that cannot actually establish it truth. Hence, in these fallacies, there is an
assumption that certain given premises are relevant to certain conclusions when in fact that is not
the case.For in these arguments,the given premises are irrelevant to the inferred conclusions.

i. The Argument from Ignorance- Argumentum ad ignoratiam

This fallacy is committed when it is argued that a proprosition is true simply on the basis that it
has not been proved false or that it is false because it has not been proved true.This shows that a
conclusion of an argument is claimed to be true because the given premises have not proved it to
be false or it is claimed to be false because the premises have not proved it to be true. It is thus a
fallacy because the inability to prove a conclusion false is not a proof of its truth and vice
vasa.In which case, ignorance of proof of a claim is not a proof to the contrary. Hence, if one
where to argue that a given conclusion is true because the premises of that argument have not
proven it false, then one would be arguing from ignorance. Example:

16
 TraditionalSquare of Opposition

A Contrariety E
For a long time now, many philosophers have been trying to disapprove of God’s
existence but to no avail. Therefore, it is clearly true that God exists, or

The non-existence of God can no longer be doubted given that the theologians have been trying
for years to logically prove God’s existence but without any success.

ii. Appeal to Authority- Argumentum ad Verecundiam

This fallacy is committed when appeal is made to an illegitimate authority in order to have the
conclusion accepted. The fallacy of appeal to authority is due to the following reason; lack of
relevant expertise, inappropriate authority,bias or prejudice, a motive to lie,lack of ability to
perceive certain situations.Example, In an argument about morality, an appeal to the opinions of
Darwin, a towering authority in biology, would be fallacious as would be an appeal to the
opinions of a great artist like Picasso, to settle an economic dispute.

iii. Appeal to People- Argumentum ad Populum

A fallacious argument is said to be an appeal to people when it replaces the laborious task of
presenting evidence and rational argument with expressive language or other devices calculated
to excite emotions like enthusiasm, excitememt, anger or hate inorder to have its conclusion
accepted.In this fallacy, premises are used in such a way that are not relevant to the conclusions
drawn from them but are used in such a way that manipulates the beliefs and emotions of a
listener so that he or she accepts the irrelevant conclusion.Example; The Speeches of Adolf
Hitler, which brought his German listeners to a state of patriotic frenzy, may be taken as a good
example.For the love of ones country is an honourable emotion, the use of that love to
manipulate one’s audience is inteelectually disreputable.More examples of this fallacy is seen in
advertisement and protests

iv. Argument against a person- Argumentum ad Hominem

An argument against a person is termed fallacious when the fallacious attack is mainly directed
not to the conclusion of the argument but to the person who asserts or defends it. This can be
shown in a situation whereby arguing against the person who presents an argument, the
respondent attacks the character or person of the arguer thus, casting aspersions upon the arguer
and subsequently dismisses the arguer’s argument, believing that the arguer’s argument has been

17
 TraditionalSquare of Opposition

A Contrariety E
disproved. Example: Poet Allen has argued in favour of abolishing censorship of pornographic
literature, but Allen’s argument are nothing but trash.Allen, you all know is a marijuana smoking
homosesxual and a thoroughgoing advocate of the drug culture.

There are three types of the fallacy of Argumentum ad Hominen; Argumentum ad

hominem Abusive-the above example of Allen, and Argumentum ad hominem Circumstantial-
owner of a car company arguing in favour of his company as against other car companies,
Argumentum ad hominem You too- A Doctor who smokes arguing against smoking and being
attacked because he smokes too.

v. The Appeal to pity- Argumentum ad Misericordiam

This kind of fallacy is like that of the appeal to people because it also deals with emotions.It is
commited when one evokes mercy, pity or emotions from listeners by appealing to their pitiable
or miserable conditions in order for the listener or reader to accept his or her claim or
conclusion.Example; Your honour, I admit that I declared 13 children as dependents on my tax
return even though I have only two, and I realise that this was wrong.But if you find me guilty of
tax evasion, my reputation will be ruined.I will probably lose my job, my poor wife will not be
able to have the operation that she desperately needs and my kids will starve.Surely I am not
guilty.

Other kinds of the fallacies of Relevance-Assignment

2. Fallacies of Presumption

In this kind of fallacies, the premises presume the very conclusions they are supposed to prove or
justify and in some instances, the premises are presumed or concealed.

i. The Fallacy of Begging the Question-Petitio Principii

18
 TraditionalSquare of Opposition

A Contrariety E
This fallacy of to beg the question is to assume the truth of what one seeks to prove, in the effort
to prove it.This takes place whenever the premises of an argument assume the truth of the
conclusion they are meant to prove.It entails that, in a way, the very conclusion to be proved is
also used as a premise.Hence, the argument is circular.Example: Capital punishment is justified
for the crimes of murder and kidnapping because it is quite legitimate and appropriate that
someone be put to death for having committed such hateful and inhumn acts.The main concern
in the argument is to give reasons for capital punishment. In order to do that it should advance
reasons that would support it or prove that it is justified and therefore acceptable.Also, the
argument shows to have done that, yet on analysis, it has not done so and instead it has only
moved in a circle by using a phrase’ capital punishment is justified’ which it is to be proved as a
premise.This phrase is fundamentally the same as the phrases, ‘it is quite legitimate and
appropriate and someone be put to death.

ii. Fallacy of false Dichotomy or False Dilemma

This fsllacy happens when an arguer uses premises one of which presents only two alternatives
where there are in fact more than the two alternatives; and the other premise asserts the
unacceptability of one of the two alternatives, hence, rules it out.The conclusion of the argument
then a matter of logical consequence asserts the other alternative.The error in the argument is to
assume that there are only two alternatives, where that is not necessarily the case such that if one
of them is ruled out, then the other, must be asserted as a matter of necessity.Example: The
former US President George Bush in his campaign to garner world support for the American
intended military attack on Afganistan in an attempt to force it to handover Osama bin laden,
America’s prime suspect in the September 11, 2001 American planes hijack and subsequently
crashing them on the twin Towers of the World Trade Centre, in which hundreds of people were
alleged to have died argued: You are either with us or with the terrorists.And our war against
international terrorism will extend to all who support and harbour them.

iii. Fallacy of Suppressed Evidence

This kind of fallacy of presumption takes place whenever an arguer infers a conclusion based on
some selected evidence and ignores some other evidences that outweigh the ones considered, but
if they were to be considered then a different conclusion from the given would be required.Thus,

19
 TraditionalSquare of Opposition

A Contrariety E
for premises to truly support their conclusions, they are needed not to ignore some pertinent
pieces of evidence that outweigh the presented evidence.Example; Most dogs are friendly and
pose no threat to people who pet them.Hence, it would be safe to pet the little dog that is
approaching right now-dog forms at the mouth-rabies.

3. Fallacies of Ambiguity

The fallacies in this classification use either ambiguous words or phrases which then render them
defective and therefore fallacious.Hence, when arguments use ambiguous words or phrases
whose meanings shift and change, then the conclusions of such arguments cannot be logically
correct.There are different types of the fallacy of ambiguity:

i. Fallacy of Equivocation

It is pertinent to note that Equivocation entails, using a word which has more than one possible
meaning in such a way that it is not clear which of the possible meanings is intended.This
argument takes place when an arguer uses a word equivocally in a premise and then infers a
conclusion based on one of the possible meanings of the equivocated word.In otherwords, it can
occur when a word used in a premise points to a different meaning from the one on which the
conclusion of the argument is based.Example; “Who did you pass on the road”, the king went on,
holding his hand out to the messenger for some hay. “Nobody” said the messenger.Quite right,
said the King, this young lady saw him too so of course Nobody walks slower than you.This is
clear that ‘Nobody’ to which the messenger refers to mean ‘no person’, while the ‘Nobody’ to
which the King and the lady refer to menas somebody, for it is the name of somebody.Hence, the
conclusion that ‘Nobody’ walks slower than the messenger is not a valid inference.For, the word
nobody has been equivocated upon, and the conclusion is based on a meaning not intended by
the premise.

ii. Fallacy of Amphiboly

The word Amphiboly entails an ambiguity of a phrase or expression.it is brought about as a

result of improper grammatical construction which hence, makes meaning indeterminate. The
fallacy of amphiboly thus occurs when an amphibolous proposition is used as a premise in which
it has a different meaning from the one it has in the conclusion.Hence, this means that in this
fallacy, the conclusion is based on a different interpretation of the ambiguous proposition from

20
 TraditionalSquare of Opposition

A Contrariety E
its interpretation in the premise.Example; Professor said that he will give a lecture about Kidney
failure in the biology lecture hall.It must be the case that a number of kidney failures have
occurred there recently.

iii. Fallacy of Composition

This kind of ambiguous fallacy take place when there is an illegitimate transference of attribute
of parts or members to a whole or collectivity. There are two kinds of this fallacy. One, is a
situation where the attributes of parts are wrongly or illegitimately transferred to the whole.
Example: Sodium and Chlorine, the atomic elements of table salt, sodium chloride, are each
highly poisonous. Hence, the table salt, sodium chloride, is highly poisonous. It thus can be
viewed from the above argument that, the attributes of the parts cannot be transferred to the
whole, and to do that as in the argument is to commit the fallacy of composition. Second kind of
the fallacy; takes place whenever attributes of the members are wrongly or illegitimately
transferred to the collectivity. Example; Each player in the Brazilian football team is a world
star. Therefore, the Brazilian football team is a world star. In this instance too, it can be seen that
even if it is true that each player in the Brazilian football team is a star this does not necessarily
mean that the team as a collectivity is a star.

Categorical Propositions

It is cogent to state that there four forms of categorical propositions which are illustrated
as thus:

i. All politicians are liars, All S are P

ii. No Politicians are liars, No S are P
iii. Some Politicians are liars, Some S are P
iv. Some Politicians are not liars
It is connoted that categorical propositions posit that its subject class is wholly
or partially included in or excluded from its predicate class.
1. Quality and Quantity in Categorical Proposition

It is worthy of note to state that, the quality of a categorical proposition connotes, the
proposition of being either affirmative or negative.Affirmative categorical proposition
states that, its subject call is either wholly or partially included in its subject class whole

21
 TraditionalSquare of Opposition

A Contrariety E
negative categorical proposition states that, its subject class is either wholly or partially
excluded from its predicate class.Thus, A and I categorical propositions are affirmative
while E and O categorical propositions are negative.

Quantity of categoricsl proposition denotes, to whether the proposition refers to

all or only some memebers of its subject class.The ‘A’ categorical proposition is hence,
Universal affirmative while the E categorical proposition is universal negative.The I
categorical proposition is particular affirmative while O categorical proposition is
particular negative.

2. Inferences based on the Categorical Propositions

The basic way of making inferences based on the categorical propositions is derived from the
logical relationship that is seen between the four forms of the categorical propositions.This is
viewed between the A, E, O, I.The logical relationships can be explicated through the use of a
square commonly known as the Traditional or Aristotelian Square of opposition.The square
shows all the possible logical relationships that exist between the categorical propositions.

contrariety

Contradiction

Subalternation I subcontrariety O

 Contrariety

This is the relationship that exist begtween Aand E forms of categorical propositions.In this
relationship the A and E propositions are called contraries, for their relationship is such that both
the categorical propositions cannot be true at the same time.It means that when one is given as
true then the other must be false.

22
 TraditionalSquare of Opposition

A Contrariety E

 Subcontrariety

This is the relationship that exists between the I and O forms of categorical propositions which
are called subcontraries.They are such that both can be true at the same time but they cannot be
fqlse at the same time.The relationship here is such that if one subcontrary is given as true then
the truth-value of the other cannot be determined.

 Subalternation

This is the relationshipthat exist between the universal propositions and their particular
propositions.It is between A and I on one hand and E and O on the otherhand.The relationship is
called subaltern or superaltern.The subalternation is such that when the subaltern is given as true
then its corresponding subaltern must be true also.However,if the subaltern is given as false then
the true-value of the corresponding subaltern cannot be determined.

 Contradiction

This is the relationship that occurs between the universal and tha particular categorical
propositions having opposite qualities.This relationship exist between the A and O on one hand
and the E and I on the otherhand and it is called contradictiories.The contradiction found here is
that, the contradictories have opposite true values.Hence, if one proposition is given as true then
its contradictory must be false.However if one proposition is given as false then its contradictory
must be true.This shows that both the contradictories cannot be true or false at the same time

It is noted that the relationship in the square of opposition was believed to provide a
logical basis for validating certain elementary forms of argument.In this connection it is
customary to distinguish between mediate and immediate inference.,Any inference is the drawinf
of a conclusion from one or more premises.Where there is more than one premiss involved as in
aa syllogism, which has two premises the inference is said to be mediate because the conclusion
is supposed tobe drawn from the first premiss thro the mediation of the second.Where a
conclusion is drawn only from one premiss, there is no such mediation and the inference is said
to be immediate.Thus, From the Traditional square of opposition, if an A is taken as premise,
then one can validly infer that the corresponding O proposition is false.Also, from the same

23
 TraditionalSquare of Opposition

A Contrariety E
premise one can immediately infer that the corresponding I proposition is true.From the true of
an I proposition, the truth of its corresponding A proposition does not follow,but the falsehood of
its contradictory E proposition does.Again, is noted that the traditional square opposition
provides the foundation for a considerable number of such immediate inferences.In as much as
the truth or falsehood of any one of the four standard-form categorical proposition is given, the
true or falsehood of some or all of the others can be inferred immediately.In which case, the
immediate inferences based on the traditional square of opposition is enlisted as thus;

When A is given as true: E is false, I is true, O is false.

When E is given as true: A is false, I is false, O is true.

When I is given as true: E is false, A and O are undetermined

When O is given as true: A is false, E and I are undetermined

When A is given as false: O is true, E and I are undetermined

When E is given as false: I is true, A and O are undetermined

When I is given as false: A is false, E is true, O is true.

When O is given as false: A is true, E is false and I is true.

Test Assessment year one*****************************************

Categorical Syllogism and their Validity

It is essential to denote that Syllogism is a deductive argument in which a conclusion is

inferred from two premises.While a Categorical syllogism is also a deductive argument that is
made up of three categorical propositions that together contain exactly three terms, each of
which occurs in exactly two of the constituent propositions.There are generally four types of
syllogism- Categorical, hypothetical, disjunctive and conjunctive syllogism.However, Our focus
will be on the Categorical syllogism.

In categorical syllogism, there are special logical terms used which are; Major, Minor,
and the Middle terms.In which case, the term that occurs as the predicate of the conclusion is

24
 TraditionalSquare of Opposition

A Contrariety E
called the Major term of the syllogism.While the term that occurs as the subject term of the
conclusion is called the minor term of the syllogism.Again, the third term of the syllogism
which does not occur in the conclusion, seen instead in both premises is called the middle
term.

Example: No heroes are cowards

Some Soldiers are cowards

Therefore some soldiers are not heroes.

From the above we can dedue that; the term Soldier is the minor term and the term heroes is the
major term and lastly the term cowards which did not appear in the conclusion is the middle
term.Hence, the premise containing the major term is called the “ Major premise” while the
premise containing the minor term is called the “ Minor premise”.Thus, from the above
syllogism, “ No Heroes are cowards” is a major premise while “ Some Soldiers are cowards” is
a minor premise.It is to be noted that, syllogisms are in standard form when its premises are
arranged in spefic standard order.Therefore, in standard form syllogism, the major premise is
noted first, the minor premise second and the conclusion is the last.It pertinent to state that, the
major premise is not defined in termsof its position but as the premise that contains the major
term which by definition is the predicate of the conclusion.While the minor premise too is not
defined in terms of its position but as the premise that contains the minor term which is usually
the subject term in the conclusion of a categorical syllogism.

 Mood in Categorical Syllogism

It is expounded that Mood in a standard-form syllogism is determined by the types of the

standard-form categorical propositions( A,E,I or O) it has.For Mood of every syllogism is
represented by three letters in a sequential order: the first letter names the type of the syllogism’s
major premise, the second letter names the type of its minor premise and the third letter names
the type of its conclusion.For instance with reference to the example shown above;the major
premise is an E proposition, the minor premise is an I proposition, and the conclusion is an O
proposition.Hence, the Mood of the syllogism is EIO.

Figure in Categorical Syllogism

25
 TraditionalSquare of Opposition

A Contrariety E
It is significant to highlight that, the Mood of a stansard-form syllogism does not
outrightly characterise its form.Forinstance;

i. All great scientists are college graduates

Some professional attlethes are college graduates
Therefore, some professional athlethes are great scientist
ii. All artists are egotists
Some artists are paupers
Therefore, some paupers are egotists

All the above two examples of syllogism are in a mood.However, they have different
forms.There forms can be illustrated by naming the minor term as S, the major term by P and the
middle term by M and the symbol “⸫” as therefore.The form of the two syllogisms are shown
as thus;

i. All P is M

Some S is M

⸫ Some S is P

ii. All M is P

Some M is S

⸫ Some S is P

As it can be seen above, the first syllogism(i), the middle term is the predicate term of both
premises while in the second (ii), the middle term is the subject term of both premises.The
examples above indicate that,even as the form of a syllogism has the same mood, it differs
sometimes in their form depending on the positions of their middle term. The form of a
syllogism can thus, be explicated by stating both its mood and its figure, in which, the figure
shows the position of the middle term in the premises.Hence, in syllogism, there may be different

26
 TraditionalSquare of Opposition

A Contrariety E
positions of the middle term constituting the first, second, third and fourth figure
sequentially.These can be illustrated as thus;

M-P P-M
S-M S-M
⸫S-P ⸫S-P Second Figure
First figure

M-P
M-S
⸫S-P Third Figure
P-M
M-S
⸫ S-P Fourth figure
Hence, the categorical syllogism form in (i) is AAA. Determine the rest.

Five Rules for Valid Categorical Syllogism

There are often five rules of categorical syllogism.Hence,a categorical syllogism or argument
that violates any of these rules commits a fallacy.
i. A valid categorical syllogism must have the middle term distributed atleast in one of
the premises.The violation of this rule leads to the fallacy of undistributed middle.It
means that the middle term is not distributed in any of the two premise.Forinstance;

All animals are breathing creatures

All Goats are breathing creatures
Therefore, all Goats are animals
The middle term- ‘breathing creatures’ is not distributed in any of the premises.In both the
premises it does not refer to all the members of the class of breathing creatures.Unlike the
following example;

All animals are breathing creatures

All human beings are animals

27
 TraditionalSquare of Opposition

A Contrariety E
Therefore, all human beings are breathing creatures
In this second example, the middle term-animals is distributed in the major premise.The whole
class represented by the term is asserted to be included in the class of breathing creatures(major
term).
ii. In a valid categorical syllogism, any term which is distributed in the conclusion must
be distributed in the premise in which it occurs.A violation of this rule results in the
commission of the fallacy of illicit process.This means that, a violation happens when
a term that is not distributed in the premise is distributed in the conclusion.

28
TraditionalSquare of Opposition

A Contrariety E

29