Chapter Two

Basic Concepts of Logic

What is logic? Definition and Purpose
 Logic is a science that evaluates arguments.
We encounter arguments in our day-to-day experience.
We hear them on TVs, read them in books, and
formulate them when communicating with others.

 Thus, the aim of logic is to develop a system of methods and

principles that
we may use as criteria for evaluating the arguments of others, and
as guides in constructing arguments of our own.

 Benefit: an increase in confidence that

we are making sense when we criticize the arguments of others, and
 when we advance arguments of our own.
 Conceptual Framework
1) Statement: is a sentence or group of sentences
 that is either true or false, but not both (both at the same time).

For instance, the following sentences are statements:

• Aluminum is attacked by hydrochloric acid.
• Broccoli is a good source of vitamin A.
• Argentina is located in North America.
2) Argument: an argument is
a group of statements with one or more premises
which are in turn claimed to support or reason the conclusion.

Two groups of arguments can be identified as:

A) Good arguments : Those in which the premises really support the
conclusion, and
B) Bad arguments: those in which the premises do not support even
though they are claimed to. 3
Truth Values
Consider the following examples:
 Italy prevailed at Adwa in 1896. FS
 Orange is a vegetable. FS
 Mengistu H/mariam was the president of Ethiopia. TS
 New York is a city in the U.S.A. TS
→ Examples 1 and 2 are false while 3 and 4 are true.
→ So, truth and falsity are the two possible truth values of a statement.
Non-statement: unlike statements, many sentences can not be said to be
true or false.
 These are non-statement expressions.
Consider the following
What is your name? (Question)
Let’s go to the party today. (Proposal)
You would better go by bus. (Suggestion)
Stand up! / Turn to the left at the next corner. (Commands)
Bang up! /All right! (Exclamations)
4
 Fundamental laws of Logic
 logic enables anyone to deliver logically coherent, consistent and
rational arguments as well as any form of speech to his/her
audience/s.
 For such reason, there are generally three principles or laws of
logic, which are crucial to our day-to-day thinking processes.
 These laws are considered to be bases of our thought without
which thinking logically is impossible.
A)The Law of Non-contradiction- is the first law of thought, which
advocates the fundamental notion that
 nothing can both be and not be at the same time and in the
same respect.
 i.e., a statement cannot be both true and false at the
same time in the same respect.
 For example, a blackboard may be white and not white
at different times; however, it can never be otherwise at
the same time and in same situation. 5
B)The Law of excluded Middle: is the second law of thought, which
propounds the principle that
 something either is or it is not.
 It states that either something is X or it is not
X,
 white or not white, black or not black, etc…
C) The Law of identity: is the last law of thought,
which states the notion that

something is what it is.

It states that A=A
i.e., if any statement is true, then it is true.
6
Argument, Premises and Conclusion
The statements that make up an argument are divided into
one or more premises and
one and only one conclusion.
1) Premises: are statements that set forth reasons/evidence on the
basis of which the conclusion is affirmed.
2) Conclusion: is a statement that the evidence is claimed to
support/imply.
In other words, it is a statement that is claimed to follow
from the premises.

Premise= claimed evidence

Conclusion= what is claimed to follow from the
evidence
7
 Here is an example of an argument
All crimes are violations of the law.(P1)
Theft is a crime.(P2)
Therefore, theft is a violation of the law.(C)

 The first two statements are the premises; the third is the conclusion.
 In this argument the premises really do support the conclusion, and
so the argument is a good one.

But consider this argument:

Some crimes are misdemeanors (less serious).(P1)
Murder is a crime.(P2)
Therefore, murder is a misdemeanor.(C)

 In this argument the premises do not support the conclusion, even

though they are claimed to, and so the argument is not a good one.

8
 How to differentiate a conclusion from its premise/s?
 One of the most important tasks in the analysis of arguments is being able
to distinguish premises from conclusion.
 If what is thought to be a conclusion is really a premise, and vice versa, the
subsequent analysis cannot possibly be correct.

Arguments usually contain indicator words that provide clues in identifying the
premise/s and the conclusion.
 Premise Indicators
 Words like: Since/Because/As indicated by/ May be inferred from/ Owing
to/ in as much as/ In that/ For the reason that/ Given that/ Seeing that/ As/
For…etc.
 Conclusion Indicators

 Words like: Therefore/ Hence/ So/ Wherefore/ Accordingly/ Whence/ It

follows that/ It must be that/ Thus/ As a result/ We may infer/ Consequently
…etc.
 Thus, any statement following one of these indicators can usually be
9
identified as a premise or a conclusion.
 Sometimes an argument contains no indicators. When this occurs,
the reader/listener must ask himself or herself such questions as:

I. What single statement is claimed (implicitly) to follow

from the others?
II. What is the arguer trying to prove?
III. What is the main point in the passage?
 And thus, 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.

10
The conclusion of this argument is the first statement, and all of the
other statements are premises.
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)
The argument illustrates the pattern found in most arguments that
lack indicator words:
the intended conclusion is stated first, and
the remaining statements are then offered in support of
this first statement.
However, when the argument is restructured according
to logical principles, the conclusion is always listed
after the premises.
11
 Sometimes, passages that contain arguments contain statements that
are neither premises nor conclusion.
 If a statement has nothing to do with the conclusion or, for
example, simply makes a passing comment, it should not be
included within the context of the argument.
Example:
→ Socialized medicine is not recommended because it would result in a
reduction in the overall quality of medical care available to the average
citizen. In addition, it might very well bankrupt the federal treasury. This
is the whole case against socialized medicine in a nutshell.

 In this argument
The first statement is the conclusion
The next two are the premises, and
The last statement makes only a passing comment about the
argument – neither a premise nor a conclusion.

12
 In relation to the concept of argument, inference and proposition
are the two common notions.

 Inference is nothing but the reasoning process expressed by an

argument, and

 a proposition means the information content or meaning of

statements, which compose an argument.
 A proposition is what is meant by a statement (the idea or notion
it expresses)

13
Recognizing Arguments
 Not all passages contain arguments. Because logic deals with
arguments, it is important to be able to distinguish passages that
contain arguments from those that do not.
 A passage contains an argument if it purports(allow) to prove
something; if it does not do so, it does not contain an argument.
In short, two conditions must be fulfilled for a passage to purport/
to prove something:
1) At least one of the statements must claim to present reason or
evidence, i.e., the premise or premises
2) There must be a claim that something is followed from the
evidence. i.e., the conclusion

14
Factual and inferential claim
 It is not necessary that the premises present actual evidence or true reasons nor
that the premises actually support the conclusion.
 But at least the premises must claim to
 (a) present evidence or reasons, and there must be a claim that the evidence or reasons
 (b)support or imply something.

Factual claim; the first condition stated in (a) expresses what is called
factual Claim, and deciding whether it is fulfilled usually presents few
problems.
 Inferential claim; The second condition stated in (b) expresses in 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.
 Such a claim can be either explicit or implicit. 15
I Explicit / have indicator words
An explicit inferential claim is usually asserted by
premise or conclusion indicator words.
Example:
“Expectant Mother should never use excessive alcoholic
drinks and drugs as these substances can endanger the
development of the fetus”.
• The word ‘‘as’’ expresses the claim that something is
being inferred, so the passage is an argument.

16
II. Implicit/No indicator words
An implicit inferential claim exists if there is an inferential
relationship between the statements in a passage.
Example:
“The price reduction in calculators is the result of a technological
revolution. The calculator of the 1960s used integrated electronic
circuits that contained about a dozen transistors or similar components
on a single chip. Today, mass-produced chips, only a few millimeters
square, contain several thousand such components”.

• 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.
• The first statement is the conclusion, and the other two are the
premises.
17
Non-arguments/s.shi R

In order to distinguish passages that contain arguments

from those that do not, let us now investigate some
typical kinds of non-arguments.
These include
Simple non-inferential passages,
expository passages,
Illustrations, and
conditional statements.

18
i. Simple non-inferential passages
Simple non-inferential passages are unproblematic 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 tis a claim hat 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. 19
(A) Warning: a warning is a form of expression that is intended to
put someone on guard against a dangerous or detrimental
situation.
Examples:
– Watch out that you don’t slip on the ice.
 If no evidence is given to prove that such statements are true, then
there is no argument.
(B) Pieces of advice: are forms of expression, which contain
counseling or guidelines to someone to follow appropriate
procedures, actions, and choices.
Examples:
• Before accepting a job after class hours, I would suggest that you
give careful consideration to your course load. Will you have
sufficient time to prepare for classes and tests, and will the job
produce an excessive drain on your energies?
• I advice you to improve your behavior before you graduate.
 As with warnings, if there is no evidence that is intended to prove
anything, then there is no argument. 20
(C) Statements of Belief and Opinion:- it is somebody’s beliefs,
thinking, opinions as well as judgments on different events, or
courses of action.
 But these opinions or judgments might not be supported through
proofs or evidences rather than showing individual’s perceptions
on those events or courses of action. Thus, there is no argument.
Examples:
o In my opinion, abortion is a crime against humanity.
(D) Loosely associated statements: forms of expression accompanied
by various statements which are mainly concerned with the
same general theme,
 however, they are not logically connected or they lack inferential
claim so that they can not be considered as arguments.
Examples:
– 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.21
(E) Reports: are sets of statements, which are basically there to
convey or deliver information about different events or incidents.
 Reporters or journalists are basically destined to deliver
information about different incidents rather than arguing on them.
Examples:
– A powerful car bomb blew up outside the regional telephone company
headquarters in Medellin, injuring 25 people and causing millions of
dollars of damage to nearby buildings, police said. A police statement
said the 198-pound bomb was packed into a milk churn hidden in the
back of a stolen car.
 These statements could serve as the premises of an argument; but
because the author makes no claim that they support or imply
anything, there is no argument.
 But there are cases, where reports can convey with argument.

22
ii. Expository passages:
 is a kind of discourse that begins with a topic sentence followed by
one or more sentences that develop the topic sentence.
 If the objective is not to prove the topic sentence but only to expand
it or elaborate it, then there is no argument.
Examples:
– There are three familiar states of matter: solid, liquid, and gas. Solid objects
ordinarily maintain their shape and volume regardless of their location. A
liquid occupies a definite volume, but assumes the shape of the occupied
portion of its container. A gas maintains neither shape nor volume. It expands
to fill completely whatever container it is in.
 In the passage the topic sentence is stated first, and the remaining
sentences merely develop and flesh out this topic sentence.
 These passages are not arguments because they lack an inferential
claim.

23
iii. Illustrations:
 are forms of exemplifying or clarifying instances on
concepts, issues or different subject matters.
 This is to say that when a statement about a certain issue is
accompanied by different instances to exemplify it, it is
considered as an illustration.
“Mammals are vertebrate animals that nourish their
young with milk. For example, cats, horses, goats, monkeys,
and humans are mammals”.

 However, there are passages which give examples and can

be interpreted as arguments.

24
 Cont.
“Water is an excellent solvent. It dissolves many minerals that
do not readily dissolve in other liquids. For example, salts
do not dissolve in most common solvent such as gasoline,
kerosene, etc. But many salts dissolve readily in water”.

Here this example is intended to prove that water is

an excellent solvent so that it can be considered as
an argument.
Thus, like expository passages, some illustrations
are considered as arguments if there is an inferential
relationship or reasoning process among their
statements.

25
iv. Conditional Statements
 A sentence constructed through an ‘if … then…” statement is a
conditional statement.
 The component statement following the ‘if’ is called an antecedent, and
the one following ‘then’ is called consequent.
Conditional statements do not usually contain argument; rather they
signify the causal connection between the antecedent and the consequent.
 there is no claim that either the antecedent or the consequent presents
evidence.

• If antecedent, then consequent.

• Consequent if antecedent.

Example:
• If you study hard, you will score a good grade.
or
• You will score a good grade if you study hard.
26
 However, it is not always the case that all conditional statements express
only causal connections.
 There are cases where conditional statements are interpreted as arguments,
when they express the outcome of a reasoning process.
 As such, they may be said to have a certain inferential content.

Example
• If both Saturn and Uranus have rings, then Saturn has rings.
• If iron is less dense than mercury, then it will float in mercury.

 The link between the antecedent and consequent of these conditional

statements resembles the inferential link between the premises and
conclusion of an argument.
 Yet there is a difference because
 the premises of an argument are claimed to be true,
 whereas no such claim is made for the antecedent of a
conditional statement.
 Accordingly, these conditional statements are not arguments. 27
 Yet their inferential content may be re-expressed to form
arguments:
→Both Saturn and Uranus have rings.
Therefore, Saturn has rings.
→Iron is less dense than mercury.
Therefore, iron will float in mercury.
While no single conditional statement is an argument, a conditional
statement may serve as either the premise or the conclusion (or
both) of an argument.
Example
→If cigarette companies publish warning labels, then smokers
assume the risk of smoking.
Cigarette companies do publish warning labels.
Therefore, smokers assume the risk of smoking.

28
 The relation between conditional statements and arguments may
now 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.
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. 29
Sufficient and necessary conditions
Conditional statements are especially important in logic because they express
the relationship between necessary and sufficient conditions.
(1) Sufficient condition:-: 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.

(2) Necessary condition: 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.
These relationships are expressed in the following conditional statements:

– If X is a dog, then X is an animal.

– If X is not an animal, then X is not a dog.

• The first statement says that being a dog is a sufficient condition for being an
animal and
• the second that being an animal is a necessary condition for being a dog.
30
Summary on recognizing arguments
In deciding whether a passage contains an argument or
not, one 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.

31
Types of Argument:- Deduction and Induction
Based on the kind of connection existed between the
premises and the conclusion, arguments can broadly be
classified in to two; deductive and inductive.
1. Deductive arguments: are arguments, which
 their premises guarantee the conclusion in the sense that if
we assume that the premises are true, the conclusion must
be true.
 In other words, the connection between the premises and
the conclusion in any deductive argument is a matter of
necessity or certainty

32
 Cont.

 that the conclusion in a deductive argument

cannot be otherwise (false) if its premises are
true.
Example:
All human beings are mortal.
Kebede is a human being.
Therefore, Kebede is Mortal.
• In this example, the premises support the
conclusion with certainty so that the conclusion is
inferred with logical necessity from the evidences
or premises.
33
2. Inductive arguments
 if we assume that the premises are true, the conclusion will probably
be true.
 This implies that there is a probable connection between the
premises and the conclusion of an inductive argument.
 Thus, the inferential link between the premises and the conclusion
of any inductive argument is matter of likelihood or probability
unlike that of any deductive argument.
Example:
The majority of Ethiopian University students are seriously
concerned with employment opportunity.
Rahma is a University Student.
Therefore, Rahma is seriously concerned about employment
opportunity.
 Thus, deductive arguments are those that involve necessary
reasoning, and inductive arguments are those that involve
probabilistic reasoning. 34
 The distinction between inductive and deductive arguments
lies in the strength of an argument’s inferential claim.
 In other words, the distinction lies in how strongly the
conclusion is claimed to follow from the premises.
 Unfortunately in most arguments the strength of this claim is
not explicitly stated, so we must use our interpretive abilities to
evaluate it.
Three factors that influence our decision about this claim 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 arguer uses.

35
1. The occurrence of special indicator word
 The existence of words such as necessarily, certainly, absolutely,
and definitely in arguments show that such arguments are
deductive.
 the existence words such as likely, probably, unlikely, plausibly
in arguments shows that such arguments are inductive.
 But, these deductive and inductive indicator words cannot always
show the distinction between the two argument forms so that it is
mandatory to appeal to other criteria.
2. The actual strength of the inferential link between premises and
conclusion argument is another criterion to distinguish deductive
from an inductive argument.
 If the conclusion is strictly or logically followed from the
premises, the argument will be deductive.
 but if the conclusion is probably followed from the premises, the
argument is inductive. 36
Consider the following example:

→All saleswomen are extroverts.

Elizabeth Taylor is a saleswoman.
Therefore, Elizabeth Taylor is an extrovert.

→The vast majority of saleswomen are extroverts.

Elizabeth Taylor is a saleswoman.
Therefore, Elizabeth Taylor is an extrovert.
In the first example, the conclusion follows with strict necessity from
the premises.
 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.
 Thus, it is best to interpret the second argument as inductive. 37
3. The character or form of argumentation the arguer uses
 But, sometimes, an argument contains no indicator words, and the
conclusion does not follow either necessarily or probably from the
premises.
 In this case, we need to look at the third factor - the character or
form of argumentation the arguer uses.
 Both deductive and inductive arguments have their typical
character or types of arguments.
Deductive arguments have five typical argumentations/instances

1. Mathematical argumentations
2. Arguments from definition, and
3. Syllogisms -Categorical Syllogisms
-Hypothetical syllogisms
-Disjunctive syllogisms
38
1. Mathematical argumentations: is an argument in which the
conclusion depends on some purely arithmetic or geometric
computation or measurement.
 All arguments in pure mathematics are deductive, we can usually
consider arguments that depend on mathematics to be deductive as
well.
Example:
A surveyor might measure a square piece of land and, after
determining that it is 100 feet on each side, conclude that it contains
10,000 square feet.
 But this does not mean that statistical argument forms are deductive
since they are characterized by probabilistic or
sampling procedures to arrive at a conclusion.
Thus, such statistical arguments are usually best
interpreted as inductive.
39
2. Arguments from definition: is an argument in which
 the conclusion is claimed to depend merely upon the
definition of some word or phrase used in the premise or
conclusion.
Example:
God is omniscient, it follows that =He knows
everything.
Honesty= truth person
 These argument is deductive because its conclusions
follow with necessity from the definitions of ‘‘omniscient.’’

40
 syllogism
3. Syllogism : is an argument consisting of exactly
two premises and one conclusion
A. Categorical syllogism: is a syllogism in which each
statement begins with one of the words ‘‘all,’’ ‘‘no,’’ or
‘‘some.’’

All lasers are optical devices.

Some lasers are surgical instruments.
Therefore, some optical devices are surgical instruments. Or
All X are Y.
All Y are Z .  This is a deductive argument form.
Therefore, all X are Z. 41
B. Hypothetical syllogism: is a syllogism having a
conditional statement for one or both of its premises.
Examples:
If quartz scratches glass, then quartz is harder than glass.
Quartz scratches glass.
Therefore, quartz is harder than glass.
C. Disjunctive syllogism: is a syllogism having a disjunctive
statement (i.e., an ‘‘either . . . or . . .’’ statement) for one of
its premises.
Example:
Either breach of contract is a crime or it is not punishable
by the state.
Breach of contract is not a crime.
Therefore, it is not punishable by the state. 42
Inductive forms of argumentations
 Generally, 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.
 Inductive argument have six typical argumentations
1. predictions about the future,
2. Arguments from analogy,
3. inductive generalizations,
4. arguments from authority,
5. arguments based on signs, and
6. causal inferences.

43
1. Prediction: the premises deal with some known event in the present
or past, and the conclusion moves beyond this event to some event in
the relative future.
Example
It has been raining for the whole days of this week, this
shows that it will rain for the coming weak.
 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 in considering the argument inductive.
2. Argument from analogy: is an argument that depends on the existence
of an analogy or similarity, between two things or states of affairs.
 Because of the existence of this analogy, a certain condition that
affects the better-known thing or situation is concluded to affect the
similar, lesser-known thing or situation.
 on the existence of a similarity or analogy, between the two

44
3. Inductive generalization: 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 characteristic, it
is argued that all the members of the group have that same
characteristic.
Example:
→There are 100 students who are taking the course introduction to
logic. Among these students 10 of them were selected at
random and found to be intelligent. Therefore, this shows that
all of these students are intelligent.
→One might argue that because three oranges selected from a
certain crate were especially tasty and juicy, all the oranges from
that crate are especially tasty and juicy.
 The above examples illustrate the use of statistics in inductive
argumentation.
45
4. Argument from authority: is an argument in which the conclusion rests
upon a statement made by some presumed authority or witness.
Example:
A lawyer might argue that Mack committed the murder because an
eyewitness testified to that effect under oath.

 Because the the eyewitness could be either mistaken or lying, such

arguments are essentially probabilistic.
5. Argument based on signs: is an argument that proceeds from the
knowledge of a certain sign to a knowledge of the thing or situation that
the sign symbolizes.
Example:
when driving on an unfamiliar highway one might see a sign indicating
that the road makes several sharp turns one mile ahead. Based on this
information, one might argue that the road does indeed make several
sharp turns one mile ahead.
 Because the sign might be misplaced or in error about the turns, the
46
conclusion is only probable.
6. Causal inference: underlies arguments that proceed from
knowledge of a cause to knowledge of the effect, or,
 conversely, from knowledge of an effect to knowledge of
a cause.
Example:
→From the knowledge that a bottle of wine 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 crunchy, 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 arguments as inductive. 47
 Validity, Truth, Soundness, Strength,
Cogency/Sush. R
This section introduces the central ideas and terminology required to
evaluate arguments.
We have seen that every argument makes two basic claims:

 a claim that evidence or reasons exist (factual claim) and

 a claim that the alleged evidence or reasons support something
(inferential claim).
 The evaluation of every argument centers on the evaluation of these
two claims.
 The most important of the two is the inferential claim, because if the
premises fail to support the conclusion (that is, if the reasoning is
bad), an argument is worthless.
 Thus 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).48
 Evaluating Deductive Arguments
Validity and Invalidity
Deductive argument is one 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.
 If the premises do in fact support the conclusion in this way, the
argument is said to be valid.

Valid deductive argument: is an argument such that

 it is impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion false.
 In these arguments the conclusion follows with strict necessity from the
premises.

Invalid deductive argument: is a deductive argument such that

 it is possible for the premises to be true and the conclusion false.
 In invalid arguments the conclusion does not follow with strict necessity
49
from the premises, even though it is claimed to.
 If the conclusion follows with strict necessity from the
premises, the argument is valid; if not, it is invalid.
 To test an argument for validity we begin by assuming
that all premises are true, and then we determine if it is
possible, for the conclusion to be false.

50
 Validity and Truth
In addition to illustrating the basic idea of validity, these
above examples suggest an important point about validity
and truth.

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.
In the examples of valid arguments the premises do
support the conclusion, and in the invalid case they do not.

51
52
 Valid Invalid

True All wines are beverages. All wines are beverages.

p Guder is a wine. Guder is a beverage.
True Therefore, Guder is Therefore, Guder is a wine.
C a beverage.

True All wines are beverages.

p None exist Sprite is a beverage.
False Therefore, Sprite is a wine.
C

False All wines are soft drinks. All wines are whiskeys.
p Sprite is a wine. Guder is a whiskey.
True Therefore, Sprite is a Therefore, Guder is a wine.
C soft drink.

False All wines are whiskeys. All wines are whiskeys.

p Sprite is a wine. Sprite is a whiskey.
False Therefore, Sprite is Therefore, Sprite is a wine.
C a whiskey.

53
 The relationship between the validity of a deductive argument and the
truth or falsity of its premises and conclusion, as illustrated in Table is
summarized as follows:

Premises Conclusion Validity

T T ?
T F invalid
F T ?
F F ?

To summaries the above, the following possible combinations of true and

false premises in both valid and invalid arguments can exist.

I. Some valid Arguments contain true premises and true conclusion:-

Example:
All Mammals are animals.
All cows are Mammals.
Therefore, all cows are animals. 54
II. Some valid arguments have false premises and false conclusion:-
Example :
All Sharks are birds.
All birds are politicians.
Therefore, all Sharks are Politicians.

 Although the premises of the above argument are in fact false, the
argument is valid.

III. Some invalid arguments have true premises and true Conclusion:-
Example:-
All birds are animals.
All grizzly bears are animals.
Therefore, all grizzly bears are birds.

 The above argument is invalid because the conclusion does not follow
the premises with strict necessity. 55
IV. Some invalid arguments contain all true premises have false
conclusion:-
Example:
All banks are financial institutions.
Ethiopian Insurance is a financial institution.
Therefore, Ethiopian Insurance is a bank.
 The premises of the above argument are true; however, the conclusion is
false. Such an argument cannot be valid because it is impossible for the
premises of a valid argument to be true and its conclusion to be false.
V. Some valid arguments have false premises and true conclusion.
Example
All Asians are Africans.
All Ethiopians are Asians.
Therefore, all Ethiopians are Africans.
 The conclusion of this argument is true;
 Moreover, it may be validly inferred from the two premises, both of which
are plainly false. 56
VI. Some invalid arguments also have false premises and true Conclusion:-
Example:
All Mammals have wings.
All Whales have wings.
Therefore, all whales are mammals.
VII. Some invalid arguments contain all false propositions - false premises
and false conclusion:-
Example:
All Americans are Europeans.
All Ethiopians are Europeans.
Therefore, all Ethiopians are Americans.
In conclusion, as it has been underlined before, the above examples
clearly witness that
 there is no direct link between validity and truth
 the truth or falsity of the proposition or statement of an argument can
never by itself guarantee the validity or invalidity of that argument. 57
 Validity and Soundness

Sound argument is a deductive argument

 that is valid and has all true premises.
 Both conditions must be met for an argument to be sound, and
 if either is missing the argument is unsound.
Unsound argument is a deductive argument that is invalid, has one or
more false premises, or both.
Because a valid argument is
 one such that it is impossible for the premises to be true and the
conclusion false, and because a sound argument does in fact have true
premises,
 it follows that every sound argument will have a true conclusion as
well.
 A sound argument, therefore, is what is meant by a ‘‘good’’ deductive
argument in the fullest sense of the term.
58
Example:
All Mammals are animals.
All humans are mammals.
Therefore, all humans are animals.

 The conclusion of the above argument follows the

premises with strict necessity so that the argument is
valid.
 In addition to this, its premises are all true.
 Therefore, the above deductively valid argument is sound.
Sound argument = a valid argument + all true premises

59
 On the other hand, a deductive unsound argument falls
into one of the following three categories:
 Valid but at least one false premise.
 Invalid but all its premises are true.
 Invalid and at least one false premise.
Example:
All Animals are mammals.
All birds are animals.
Therefore, all birds are mammals.
 Though the above argument is valid (because if we
assume that the premises are true, the conclusion would be
necessary true),
 it is unsound because the argument involves
plainly false premises. 60
 2.Evaluating Inductive Arguments
Strength and Weakness
An inductive argument, as defined earlier, is the one in
which its premises are claimed to support the conclusion in
such a way that
 if they are assumed to be true, then based on this assumption it
is only probable that the conclusion is true.
 If the premises do in fact support the conclusion in this way,
such an inductive argument can be considered as strong.
Strong inductive argument: is an inductive argument such that
 it is improbable that the premises be true and the conclusion
false.
 In such arguments, the conclusion follows probably from the
premises.
61
Weak inductive argument: is an inductive argument such that
 the conclusion does not follow probably from the premises, even
though it is claimed to.
 It is not likely that if its premises are true, then its conclusion is true.
The procedure for testing the strength of inductive arguments runs
parallel to the procedure for deduction.
First we assume the premises are true, and
 then we determine whether, based on that assumption, the conclusion
is probably true.
Example:
All dinosaur bones discovered to this day have been at least 50
million years old. Therefore, probably the next dinosaur bone to be
found will be at least 50 million years old.
 In this argument the premise is actually true, so it is easy to assume
that it is true.
 Based on that assumption, the conclusion is probably true, so the
62
argument is strong.
 Here is another example:
All meteorites/rocks found to this day have contained gold.
Therefore, probably the next meteorite to be found will contain gold.
 The premise of this argument is actually false. Few, if any, meteorites
contain any gold.
 But if we assume the premise is true, then based on that assumption,
the conclusion would probably be true. Thus, the argument is strong.
The next example is an argument from analogy:
When a lighted match is slowly dunked into water, the flame is
snuffed out. But gasoline is a liquid, just like water. Therefore, when
a lighted match is slowly dunked into gasoline, the flame will be
snuffed out.
 In this argument the premises are actually true and the conclusion
is probably false.
 Thus, if we assume the premises are true, then, based on that
assumption, it is not probable that the conclusion is true. Thus, the
argument is weak. 63
 To sum, the following combinations so as to reveal the indirect
relationship between strength or weakness and truth or falsity.
I. A strong argument with true premises and a probably true conclusion
Example:
All previous American presidents were men. Therefore; probably the
next American president will be man.
II. A weak inductive argument with true premises and a probably true
conclusion.
Example:
A few American presidents were men. Therefore, probably the next
American president will be a man.
III. A weak inductive argument with true premise and a probably false
conclusion.
Example:
A few American presidents were federalists. Therefore, probably the
next American president will be a federalist.
64
IV. A strong inductive argument with false premises and a
probably true conclusion.
Example:
All Previous American presidents were television
debates. Therefore, probably the next American
president will be a television debater.
V. A weak inductive argument with false premise and probably
true conclusion.
Example:
A few American presidents were libertarians.
Therefore, probably the next American president will be a
television debater.

65
 Cont.
VI. A strong inductive argument with false premise and
a probably false conclusion.
Example:-
All previous American presidents were women. Therefore,
probably the next American president will be a woman.
VII. A weak inductive argument with false promise and
probably false conclusion.
Example:-
A few American presidents were Libertarians. Therefore,
probably the next American president will be a Libertarian.

66
The relationship between the strength of an inductive argument and
the truth or falsity of its premises and conclusion, can be illustrated
as follows:

Premises Conclusion Strength

T prob. T ?
T prob. F weak
F prob. T ?
F prob. F ?

The following table also presents the various possibilities of truth

and falsity in the premises and conclusion of inductive arguments.

67
68
 Unlike the validity and invalidity of deductive arguments, the
strength and weakness of inductive arguments admit of
degrees.

To be considered strong, an inductive argument must have

 a conclusion that is more probable than improbable.
 In other words, the likelihood that the conclusion is true must
be more than 50 percent, and
 As the probability increases, the argument becomes stronger.

For this purpose, consider the following pair of arguments:

→This barrel contains 100 apples.
Three apples selected at random were found to be ripe.
Therefore, probably all 100 apples are ripe.

69
 Cont.
→This barrel contains 100 apples.
Eighty apples selected at random were found to be ripe.
Therefore, probably all 100 apples are ripe.

 The first argument is weak, and the second is strong.

 However, 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.

70
 Strength and Cogency
Cogent argument is an inductive argument
 that is strong and has all true premises;
 if either condition is missing, the argument is uncogent.

Uncogent argument: is an inductive argument

 that is weak, has one or more false premises, or both .

 A cogent argument is the inductive analogue of a sound deductive

argument and is what is meant by a ‘‘good’’ inductive argument
without qualification.
 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.
 cogent argument = a strong argument + all true
premises. 71
Summary

Note that in logic one never speaks of

an argument as being ‘‘true’’ or ‘‘false,’’ and
one never speaks of a statement as being ‘‘valid,’’
‘‘invalid,’’ ‘‘strong,’’ or ‘‘weak.’’

In addition, The various alternatives open to statements and

arguments may be diagrammed as follows.

72
73
 Argument forms: Proving invalidity
In the previous section, we have seen that
 validity is determined by the truth of a deductive argument’s
inferential claim.
 If the inferential claim is true, then the conclusion follows with
strict necessity from the premises, and the argument is valid.
 For such an argument, it is impossible for the premises to be true
and the conclusion false.
This section will explore that
 the truth of a deductive argument’s inferential claim (that is, the
correctness of the argument’s reasoning) is determined by the form
of the argument.
 In other words, validity is determined by form.

74
Consider the following argument:
Argument
All oaks are trees.
All trees are plants.
Therefore, all oaks are plants.

We can represent the above two different arguments in terms of

content by the following similar form.
Valid formula
All A are B.
All B are C.
Therefore, all A are C.

 A stands for Oaks in argument

 B stands for trees in argument
 C stands for plants in argument
75
Considering the above examples,
 Argument and its form are clearly valid. This is because of the fact that
 if all members of A (Oaks) are members of class B (trees), and
 all members of class B (trees) are members of class C (Plants)
 then all members of A (Oaks) are members of C (plants).

And, any argument having this form has the following

feature:
 its conclusion cannot be false while its premises are
true.
From this, one can understand the nature of validity in
the sense that the validity of an argument is
guaranteed by its form and does not depend on its
content. 76
On the other hand, the followings are invalid arguments with their form:
Arguments
All Birds are animals.
All dogs are animals.
Therefore, all birds are dogs.
The above arguments have the following similar argument forms, which is
invalid.
Invalid formula
All A are B.
All C are B.
Therefore, All A are C.
 any argument that has the above argument form is always invalid.
 An argument form is a pattern or structure of reasoning that substitutes
terms.
 And an argument that results from uniformly replacing letters in an argument
form with terms (or statement) is called a substitution instance of that form.
77
 Cont.
A good counter example must have the following
features:
It must have the correct form.
Its premises must be true.
Its conclusion must be false.

78