FORMAL LOGIC

By MUTARAMBIRWA Francois, LLB, DLP & LLM

Email: [email protected]
Tel:0782472766
 Welcome note
•You are most welcome to this class of Formal
Logic.
•At the end of the course, you will be able to
understand the most fundamental logic concepts
and how to deal argumentatively with real
dilemmas and ambiguities of human language.
•You will have the capacity to conduct a more
rigorous self-reflection and critical assessment
of other people’s arguments.
 CHAPTER I.
GENERAL INTRODUCTION
• Aristotle (ancient Greek philosopher, logician
and scientist, student of Plato and teacher of
Alexander the Great) defined logic as "new
and necessary reasoning", "new" because it
allows us to learn what we do not know, and
"necessary" because its conclusions are
inescapable. It asks questions like "What is
correct reasoning?", "What distinguishes a
good argument from a bad one?", "How can
we detect a fallacy in reasoning?"
 THE NATURE AND AIM OF LOGIC

• The science which directs the operations of the

mind in the attainment of truth.

 Logic is the science which treats the conceptual

representation of the real order.

 Logic is the normative science which guides the

mental operations to correctness of thought.
 Logic as a Science or an Art

• Art has to do with the making of things. The

role of art is to give things a kind of order or
perfection which the things did not possess
naturally.
• This order or perfection is imposed on the
things by reason. In other words, it discovers
the rules according to which things must be
made if they are to be made well.
• It is in this sense that Logic qualifies as an art
insofar as it fulfills the function of putting
into order the various activities of thinking.
 How is Logic a science?

• In a broader sense, science is a situation

whereby there is a systematic body of securely
established principles and of conclusions
legitimately drawn from those principles.

• For example, in the science of Chemistry, we

begin with the chemical elements that exist in
nature and determine general laws that
describe their reactivity.
 Cont’d.

• We are rightly said to have a science of Logic,

for as we shall see, it consists of a body of
principles and legitimate conclusions.

• When Logic is defined as a science, the stress

is on Logic as a body of knowledge rather than
as a method of regulating reason itself.
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LOGIC AND OTHER
DISCIPLINES
 Logic and Psychology

• Psychology can rightly be referred to as the

study of or science of the soul. It seeks to
describe the operations of the mind which
include will, imagination, memory and
sensation.
• Thus, its object is far wider than that of Logic
which is concerned with only one operation of
the mind; namely, reasoning.
 Cont’d.
•Therefore, even as both sciences consider the mind, they do it
from different perspectives. Logic is concerned with the laws
of thought in as much as they have a bearing on right
reasoning. It is concerned with what the process of reasoning
ought to be in order for us to reach true conclusions free from
error.

•On the other hand, Psychology is concerned with what takes

place when we engage ourselves in the activity of thinking
regardless of whether we think correctly or erroneously. In other
words, Psychology is concerned with a description of “what is”
rather than “what ought to be”, which is the domain of Logic.
 Logic and Metaphysics

• The term metaphysics sometimes stands for philosophy in

general. However, with a more restricted meaning, it
stands for that part of philosophy known as Ontology. In
the latter sense, Metaphysics deals not with thoughts,
as does Logic, but with things; not with the conceptual
order but with the real order. (what we are and what our
purpose is?)
• Logic, on the other hand, deals with thoughts. Its
conclusions do not relate to things, but to the way in which
the mind represents things. The correctness of thought
which is the proper object of Logic is, however, founded on
the laws of thought and the first principles. However, the
justification of the first principles belongs to the science of
being, Metaphysics.
 Logic and Grammar

• Grammar gives rules for the correct form of

verbal expression in a language.

• Logic, on the other hand, is primarily concerned

with the relation of ideas themselves.

• Grammar depends on Logic. Semantics which

studies the theory of communication and
relation between thought and language has a
close affinity to Logic.
 Logic and Mathematics

• Mathematics is the study of numbers and

quantity, and generally follows the deductive
method. Traditional Logic is primarily
concerned not with numbers and symbols,
but with ideas.
• However, modern Symbolic Logic uses
algebraic expressions and method which has
been traditionally the domain of Mathematics.
• Symbolic Logic, unlike traditional Logic, is
able to use mathematical method to prove
the validity or the invalidity of arguments.
 Logic and Ethics

• Ethics is the science of the rightness and

wrongness of voluntary human acts, whereas
• Logic is concerned with the rightness and
wrongness of intellectual operations.
 THE DIVISIONS OF LOGIC

• Both validity and truth of our thoughts lead to

a fundamental division of Logic; namely,
Formal and Material Logic.
 Formal Logic

• Formal Logic, also referred to as Minor Logic, is

the part of Logic which examines the forms of
thought with a view to ensuring the correctness or
consistency of our reasoning activities.

• The three main subdivisions of Formal Logic are

therefore Simple Apprehension, Judgment and
Reasoning.

• Simple Apprehension is the stage of reasoning

when the mind forms concepts.
 Simple apprehension

• Simple apprehension is the act of perceiving

an object intellectually, without affirming or
denying anything concerning it.

• To apprehend is to take hold of a thing as if with

the hand; an apprehension, as an act of the
mind, is an intellectual grasping of an object.
 Material Logic

• Material Logic, also referred to as Major Logic, is

the part of Logic which investigates the content
of our thought with a view to determining the
truth of our reasoning. Truth is not something we
create, instead, we discover it.

• When the mind makes a true judgment, it bases

itself on the way in which things are in the
world outside the mind. Indeed, we find the world
already existing. Hence a statement or judgment is
true inasmuch as it squares with the fact or reality.
 LIMITATIONS OF LOGIC

• There is a tendency to imagine that with Logic,

we shall be able to solve all the problems in
life. This is very far from the truth. Logic is not a
panacea (cure-all) to problems in life.

• The responsibility of thinking remains the chief

task of the mind. Logic only helps the mind
proceed with consistency. In fact, contrary to
what others may claim, Logic may not tell
whether or not a given statement is true or
false.
 Cont’d.

• The knowledge of Logic will indeed help one

to face a problem in a more orderly,
systematic fashion, and will, in many cases,
make the solution of the problem less
difficult and more certain. Logic itself, will
not solve the problem.
 CHAPTER II:
THE FIRST OPERATION OF THE MIND
• Strictly speaking, knowledge begins when the
mind becomes aware of the intelligible aspects
of what is presented to it by the senses or
imagination.

• This operation of becoming aware of something

is referred to as the act of Simple
Apprehension. It is the act by which the mind
grasps or takes hold of something without
affirming or denying anything about it.
 Cont’d.

• For example, if we should conceive or imagine the

idea of a triangle without attempting to say anything
about it, we have had a simple apprehension of it.
 Cont’d.

• When the mind apprehends something, it

merely grasps the whatness of the thing
grasped. The whatness of something may also
be referred to as its essence or nature. This is
a simple act which means that the mind does
not go beyond the mere grasping of the nature.
• We must note at this stage that we cannot say
of a whatness or nature that it is either true
or false. Truth or falsity will come at the second
stage when the mind commits itself to saying
something about this nature.
 THE FORMATION OF CONCEPTS

• A concept is the mental representation of a

class of objects. It is the end product of the
first operation of the mind – Simple
Apprehension.
• It is the universal likeness which the mind
produces within itself in order that it may know
the thing which it apprehends.
• Whenever we think about an object, we
simultaneously form a sensible picture of it
in our imagination. a phantasm (an illusion).
Phantasm (an illusion)
• A misleading image presented to the vision or
something that deceives or misleads intellectually

• Example:
 Cont’d.

• If for instance, we judge that a crocodile is a

reptile, or that the sun is round, we cannot do
so without imagining to ourselves of a sensible
representation of a snake or of the sun.
According to Aristotle the mind must operate,
always, in connection with
• A phantasm is however different from a
concept. When we make a judgment that “the
sun is round”, we must, in thought, have
separated the attribute of roundness from the
thing we call “the sun”.
 Cont’d.

• Again, if we say “this glass is transparent”,

we have, in thought, separated the attribute of
“transparency” from the thing “glass”.

• The power of separation requires a higher

faculty than that of imagination; namely, the
faculty of thought or intelligence. It is the mind
alone that has this wonderful power of
distinguishing two things which, in nature, are
inseparably conjoined.
 Cont’d.

• When we observe an object, we form a mental

picture of this object in the mind. This mental
picture is called a phantasm. The mind then
abstracts from this phantasm all the things that
are not necessary in this object.

• For instance, if the object of our observation is

a man, the mind will remove (abstract) from this
particular man certain characteristics that are
not necessary for this object to be what it is.
 Cont’d.

• What remains after this process of abstraction

is the nature or the essence of the object
observed. This nature is present in the mind as
a concept.

• It is this nature that the mind understands. And,

when the mind understands something, it is
said to possess a concept of this thing. For
example:
 Cont’d.

• Let us use an example of a mathematical set.

Set A contains whole numbers from 1 to 9. So,

A = {1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9}

• In this set, A, which is the name of the set, is

like the nature. The individual members of the
set like 3 and 7 are members of the class of
things called A. “3” is not A but it contains a
quality which makes it belong to A.
 Cont’d.

• When you talk about the meaning of a concept,

you are talking about its comprehension or
connotation. On the other hand, when you talk
about the members that make up the class
represented by the concept, you are talking
about its denotation or extension.
• For example, the concept of humanity
connotes a being which is an animal which is
capable of self-reflection. But the same concept
denotes Africans, Europeans, Asians, North
Americans and South Americans.
 Cont’d.

• Both comprehension and extension are

important because they can be used to define
something.
• There are two fundamental ways in which
concepts may be considered. In the first case,
we may consider concepts according to the
way in which they are able to serve as
predicates in a sentence.
• The relation of the predicate to the subject in a
proposition is known as a predicable.
 Cont’d.

• The term predicable comes from Latin

‘predicare’ which means to assert. In the
second case, we may consider concepts from
the point of view of what they stand for in
reality. In this case, they are called categories
or predicaments.
 CATEGORIES & PREDICABLES

• Aristotle said that concepts can be grouped

into ten different categories. Of these ten, one
refers to those concepts representing things
that can exist on their own.

• This category is called Substance. The other

nine categories are accidents because the
things they represent cannot stand on their
own.
 Cont’d.

• Consider the sentences:

The dog is white.
The house is big.
• In the above two sentences, there are four
different concepts; namely, dog, white, house
and big.
• Dog and House are capable of existing on their
own. This means that they are names of things
which do exist and can be seen distinctly.
• But White and Big cannot exist on their own.
 Cont’d.

• You cannot see White or Big alone.

• It must always be a White something or a Big
something. Thus, in this way White and Big
are accidents.
• This means that they are merely modifiers of
substances.
 Cont’d.

•The nine accidental categories are: Quality,

Quantity, Action, Relation, Passion, Posture,
Time, Place, and adornment (or Habitus).

•If we consider that a concept is something

understood by the mind, it means that the concept
must be inside the mind. When we speak out or
write this concept, we shall have removed it from
the mind. It will then be called a term.
 Predicable

•Predicable are universals which state all the

possible relations which the predicate may
express with regard to a subject.

•There are only five predicable or classes of

predicates. These are genus, species, specific
difference, property and Logical accident.
 Cont’d.

• In order to understand these predicable, first,

we need to equate them with predicaments or
categories.

• They are special types of predicaments. They

are also definitive in the sense that they
attempt to define subjects with which they are
used. At this point we shall consider the
definition of man thus:
 Man is a self-reflecting animal

• In this definition, animal is a broad class of

beings of which man is a member. It is the
genus in this definition.
• But, all definitions will, apart from giving the
broad class to which the thing being defined
belongs, also give something which
distinguishes this thing from other members of
the same broad class. Here we have a self-
reflecting animal. This attribute sets man
apart from the rest of other animals. It is the
species.
 Cont’d.

• Every definition attempts to articulate the

nature of a thing.
• This it does by giving the genus and the
specific difference of the thing. Every natural
thing belongs to a definite species. It has a
definite nature.
• This nature corresponds to the species to
which this thing belongs. The articulation of this
species entails determining both the genus and
the specific difference.
 Cont’d.

• In our present case, self-reflecting animal is the

species of man. Species therefore is genus
plus the specific difference.

• But we may also define man by using attributes

which do not belong, strictly speaking, to the
nature of the thing we call man, although such
attributes are inseparable from the nature of the
thing.
 Cont’d.

• For example, we may define man as an animal

which is capable of laughter, capable of
cooking food, capable of making and using
tools. When we do this, we are defining man by
using properties.
• This means that the ability to make and use
tools is a quality which is proper to man by
virtue of being man.
 Cont’d.

• Finally, we may also want to describe man by

quoting some special notes or characteristics
that a specific man has. For example, we may
describe man as clever, or tall, or good, or dark
or smartly dressed. Here we shall be using
logical accidents to describe man. Note that
we have moved from definition to description.
 Cont’d.

• This is because accidents do not define but

only describe things.

• While it is natural for man to possess some

properties, whether he uses them or not, it is
not natural for man to possess certain
accidents.
 DEFINITION AND DIVISION

• A definition is a precise statement of the

meaning of a thing. It may also be considered
as a group of words expressing the meaning of
a term, the comprehension and extension of a
concept and the nature of an object.
• According to Aristotle, a definition is a phrase
signifying a thing’s essence. By essence of a
thing, he understood the set of fundamental
attributes which are necessary and sufficient
conditions for any concrete thing to be a thing
of that type
 Nominal and real definition

• We may distinguish between nominal and real

definitions.
• A nominal definition explains the meaning of
a term by expressing its etymology or its
translation.
• For example, Logic may be nominally defined
as the science or study of reasoning.
• Philosophy may be nominally defined as the
love of wisdom.
 Cont’d.

• A real definition, on the other hand, expresses

the essence of a thing. For example, man is
defined as a self-reflecting animal.
• A circle may be defined as a plane figure every
point of which is equidistant from the center.
• A real definition contains two important parts
which are the genus of the thing defined and
a specific difference.
 Cont’d.

• A good definition must be convertible.

• If, say, we define man as a self-reflecting
animal, rational animal which is the definition of
man must be convertible with man.
• We should be able to say that a rational animal
is man and still convey the same meaning.
Indeed, convertibility is the test for a good
definition.
 Attributes of a good definition

• A definition must be co-extensive with the thing defined.

This means that a definition must not be wider or
narrower than the thing defined. It is in this sense that a
definition will have the quality of convertibility.
• A definition must not contain difficult terms. The
essential purpose of a definition is to make something
easily understandable. If the definition contains bombastic
terms which are not easily understood, then it will not
make the thing defined to be understood.
• A definition must not be negative. For instance, one
cannot define a square as a figure which is not a circle.
Indeed, there are many things which are not circles. Such
a definition fails to express the meaning of a square.
 Cont’d.

• A definition must not contain the term being defined. This

will make the definition circular. For instance, defining
communication as a process of communicating something
fails to express the meaning of communication.
• A definition must not be obscure. This means that the words
used for defining something must be as clear as possible.
• A definition must express a commonality that all individual
members of a class have. This means that simple things or
individuals cannot be defined. For example, God cannot be
defined but only described. The reason for this is that God is
the sole member of his class. He does not have a
commonality with other things in his class. Any attempt to
provide a real definition of God will fail to give the genus
and specific difference for God.
 Division

• While a definition makes clear the

comprehension/connotation of a term, a
division makes clear the denotation/extension
of the term.
• A division is the resolution of a Logical whole
into its parts. When making a division, one
must consider three basic things; namely, the
whole, the parts and the basis of the division.
 Cont’d.

• For example, one may make a division of

humanity on the basis of races or continents. In
this way, no two parts will contain one another.
All the parts must be mutually exclusive.
• For instance, we may make a division of a
continent on the basis of its countries. East
Africa may be divided into Rwanda, Uganda,
Burundi, Kenya and Tanzania. If one should
include towns in such a division, then the basis
will not be uniform. For instance, one must not
divide East Africa into Rwanda, Uganda,
Burundi, Kenya, Tanzania and Nairobi. This is a
 Cont’d.

• A division is related to a definition because it

also makes something be understood. It must
be exhaustive. This means that, following the
basis of division, all the parts must be
enumerated.
• Look at the division of East Africa according to
its countries. If one should say that East Africa
is constituted by Rwanda, Uganda, Burundi and
Kenya. This will be wrong because two parts
have been omitted; namely, Tanzania and
South Sudan.
 CHAPTER III.
THE SECOND OPERATION OF THE MIND

• In the first operation of the mind, we are

presented with a nature or a meaning of
something. But the mind does not tell us what
kind of existence the thing has.
• Neither does it tell us whether the thing exists
or not. If the mind will remain at this stage of
merely grasping something, our knowledge will
be incomplete. It must move on to the next step
which is judgment.
 JUDGMENT AND PROPOSITION

• A judgment is a mental act by which we assert

the identity of diversity between two concepts.
It is considered the most perfect of the mental
acts because it is by judgment that the mind
attempts to represent the way things are in the
real order as observed above.
• When a judgment is expressed in spoken
words or writing, it becomes a proposition. So,
a proposition is a verbal expression of at least
one judgment.
 Cont’d.

• This should be clear because judgments may

be compound.
• For instance, the house is big and beautiful is
a compound proposition containing two simple
propositions.
• A proposition may also be defined as a Logical
sentence which expresses a judgment.
• This is to distinguish it from different kinds of
sentences which do not express judgments.
 Types of Propositions

There are different types of propositions

depending on how they express judgments.
 Conjunctive Propositions are compound
propositions which conjoin simple proposition
using a conjunction. A conjunction is expressed
by the term ‘and’ and its equivalents. For
instance, the house is big and beautiful is a
conjunctive proposition. The two parts of a
conjunction are called conjuncts.
 Cont’d.

• Disjunctive Propositions are also compound

propositions which use the terms ‘either – or’
and their equivalents. For example, the house
is either big or beautiful.

• It must be noted that the meaning of a

disjunctive proposition will still remain clear
even with the omission of ‘either’. The two
parts of a disjunctive proposition are called
disjuncts.
 Cont’d.

 Conditional Propositions are compound

proposition which use ‘if – then’. For instance, if
the house is big, then it is beautiful.

 Categorical Propositions are proposition

which make assertions about classes of things.
Our discussion will proceed with the categorical
propositions.
 Categorical Propositions

• A simple categorical proposition has two terms;

namely, the subject term and the predicate
term. These two are linked by a copula. Thus,
the formula for a categorical proposition is S c
P (Subject, copula and Predicate).
• A categorical proposition also has a quantity as
well as quality. The quantity of a categorical
proposition is determined by the quantity of the
subject term. This quantity may be either
universal or particular.
 Cont’d.

The quality may either be affirmative or negative.

It is determined by the copula. The copula is
always a present tense of the verb to be.

When we consider a proposition from the

standpoint of both quantity and quality, we may
have four standard types of propositions.
 Cont’d.

These are:

 Universal Affirmative: All men are rational

 Universal Negative: No man is immortal

 Particular Affirmative: Some men are black

 Particular Negative: Some men are not black

 Cont’d.

• Aristotle conveniently represented these four

standard types of propositions by the first four
vowels; namely, A for universal affirmative
propositions, E for universal negative
propositions, I for particular affirmative and O
for particular negative propositions.
• One may ask about singular propositions of the
type: Socrates is a wise man. This type of
proposition is classified as a universal
affirmative proposition and Socrates is not a
wise man is classified as a universal negative
proposition.
 Cont’d.

• The Logic behind the classification of a singular

proposition as a universal proposition is that in
such propositions, the entire subject term is
said to be contained in the predicate. Since all
propositions are statements about subjects, it is
the quantity of the subject terms that will
determine the quantities of the propositions.
• Some people are often tempted to place the
singular propositions with the particular
propositions. This confusion is probably
influenced by the misconception that universal
implies many. No! It actually implies “whole”.
 Cont’d.

• In particular affirmative or negative propositions, only

parts of the subject terms are contained or not
contained in the predicate terms. This, then, implies
that in all propositions in which only parts of the subject
terms are used must be quantitatively particular.
• In the proposition: Socrates is a wise man; the
statement is about the whole of Socrates. It does not
say that only part of Socrates is wise. Therefore, on this
account, the proposition cannot be particular. In order to
avoid such confusions, we should confine ourselves to
classes of terms rather than individual terms.
 Cont’d.

• We have indicated that the quantity of the

proposition corresponds to the quantity of the
subject term. But the predicate term also has a
quantity which may or may not be the same as
that of the subject term or the entire
proposition.
• From the below illustration one can easily
notice that the predicate terms of negative
propositions are universal while the predicate
terms of affirmative propositions are particular.
 Quantity of Terms Quality Proposition

Subject Predicate

A Universal Particular Affirmative All S are P

E Universal Universal Negative No S is P

I Particular Particular Affirmative Some S are P

O Particular Universal Negative Some S are not P

 Distribution of Terms

• A term is said to be distributed when it is

universal and not distributed when it is
particular.
• Therefore, the predicate terms of negative
propositions are distributed while the
predicate terms of affirmative propositions
are not distributed.
• The subject terms of universal propositions
are distributed while the subject terms of
particular propositions are not distributed.
 Cont’d.

• A subject is “distributed” if the proposition

tells us something about ALL of the things in
the subject class. Similarly,
• A predicate is “distributed” if the proposition
tells us something about ALL of the things in
the predicate class.
 Cont’d.

Type Of Categorical Proposition Subject Predicate

Distributed Distributed

Universal Affirmative: All S Are P Yes No

Particular Affirmative: Some S Are P No No

Universal Negative: No S Are P Yes Yes

Particular Negative: Some S Are Not P No Yes

 Cont’d.

• In A propositions, only the subject term (S) is

distributed.
• In E propositions both the subject term (S) and
the predicate term (P) are distributed.
• In I propositions, none of the terms (S and P) is
distributed.
• In O propositions, only the predicate (P) term is
distributed.
 RELATION BETWEEN
CATEGORICAL PROPOSITIONS
Relation by Inference
•This kind of relation is called eduction. Two propositions
are related by eduction when both of them express the
same meaning but in different ways.
•There are two major types of eductive relations; namely,
conversion and obversion.
•There are also contraposition and inversion which are
referred to as the combined forms of eduction by virtue of
the fact that they combine conversion and obversion
in different sequences and in different numbers.
 Cont’d.

• Definition of eduction: an opinion arrived at

through a process of reasoning, “the
policeman's eduction was that there was more
than one murderer involved.
• An inference is an idea or conclusion that's
drawn from evidence and reasoning. An
inference is an educated guess. We learn
about some things by experiencing them first-
hand, but we gain other knowledge by
inference. the process of inferring things based
on what is already known.
 Cont’d.

Conversion
• Two propositions are related by conversion
when they express the same meaning but
their subjects and predicates are
interchanged.
• The process of making a conversion therefore,
involves the interchanging of the two terms
of the proposition while retaining the
meaning and respecting the distribution of
the terms.
 Cont’d.

•This means that the conversion should not distribute a

term which was not originally distributed.
•The original proposition is called the convertend while
the resulting proposition after conversion is the converse.
•We shall now look at how the four standard categorical
propositions convert. For convenience, we shall begin
with the universal negative proposition.

• Convertend: No dog is a bird.

• Converse: No bird is a dog.
 Cont’d.

•These two propositions express the same meaning

even though the positions of the terms have been
changed. This means that an E proposition can be
converted to another E proposition.
• The A proposition does not convert as easily as the
E proposition. Consider the proposition: All men
are mortal. This proposition cannot be converted to:
All mortals are men. These two propositions have
totally different meanings.
 Cont’d.

•Besides, it distributes the term mortals in the converse

yet it was not distributed in the convertend. The
proposition which expresses the same meaning as the
convertend is: Some mortals are men. This is the
converse of or original proposition.
•Therefore, an A proposition converts to an I
proposition. This is conversion by limitation or
conversion per accidens for the reason that the
convertend and the converse differ in quantities.
 Cont’d.

•An I proposition converts just as easily as the E proposition.

The two are said to convert simply. Consider the following
propositions:

• Convertend: Some men are black.

• Converse: Some black (things) are men.

•O propositions cannot be converted. It is not difficult to

understand why this must be so. Remember that an O
proposition is a negative proposition. In every negative
proposition, the predicate term is distributed.
 Cont’d.

• Since conversion leaves the quality of the

proposition intact, the converse must retain the
quality of the convertend.
• This means that the predicate term of the
converse must be distributed while it was not
distributed in the convertend. Therefore, it is
not possible to convert an O proposition.
 Obversion

•Two propositions are said to be related by obversion when they

express the same meaning although:
 They differ in quality.
 The predicate term has been contradicted.
•When obverting propositions, the quality of the proposition is changed
and a complement of the predicate term is used. The original
proposition is called the obvertend and the second is called the
obverse. For example:
• Obvertend: All men are mortal.
• Obverse: No man is immortal.
• Complement, as used here, refers to the contradiction of the term.
For instance, the contradiction of mortal is immortal, for intelligent is
unintelligent, etc.
 Cont’d.

•It is possible to obvert all the four categorical propositions

simply. This means there is no obversion by limitation or per
accidens. See below:
•Obvertend: All men are mortal.
•Obverse: No man is immortal.
•Obvertend: No dog is a bird.
•Obverse: All dogs are non-birds.
•Obvertend: Some men are black.
•Obverse: Some men are non-black.
•Obvertend: Some men are intelligent.
•Obverse: Some men are not unintelligent.
 The Combined Forms

• The combined forms of eduction are

contraposition and inversion. These use both
conversion and obversion in order to attain the
inferred proposition which will retain the same
meaning as the original proposition. The
formula for Contraposition is obvert, convert
and obvert (oco).
• Inversion has variations. The formula for
inverting A propositions is different from that of
inverting the E proposition. The difference lies
in the sequence of conversion and obversion.
 Relation by Opposition

• For the man on the street, the two terms

opposition and contradiction mean exactly the
same. Reading through this section, a reader
will realize that the two may not mean the same
thing.
• Opposition is the general term under which
contradiction and other forms of opposition fall.
It is also a common practice to consider two
terms that are the most opposed in a class of
things as being contradictory. For instance,
some people will say the opposite of white is
black.
 Cont’d.

• This is not true. White and black are simply the most
opposed terms in the class of colours. The
contradiction of white, therefore, is not-white and the
contradiction of black is not-black.
• Two propositions are said to be logically opposed if
both of them have the same subject and predicate
terms but they differ in quantity or quality or both
quantity and quality.
• When two propositions differ only in quantity, they are
said to be subalterns or they have a subaltern relation.
When two propositions differ in quality alone, they may
be either contraries or sub-contraries.
 Sub-contraries

• If one should have two opposed propositions, it may be

possible to determine the truth-value of the second
proposition if the truth-value of one is known. For
example, starting with a universal proposition which is
true, its sub-altern must also be true. For example,
given that all men are mortal is true, then automatically,
some men are mortal must also be true. Given that No
whale is terrestrial is true, then some whales are not
terrestrial must also be true.
• This is the question of the whole and the part.
Whatever can be predicated of a logical whole may be
predicated of its parts, and what can be denied of the
logical whole, will also be denied of the parts.
 CHAPTER IV:
THE THIRD OPERATION OF THE MIND
THE THIRD OPERATION OF THE MIND

• This is the stage where the reasoning process

culminates. Strictly speaking, reasoning really
refers to that operation by which the mind is
able to generate new knowledge.
• At this stage, the mind uses at least three
concepts in order to establish the relationship
among them in an activity called reasoning.
When reasoning is expressed outwardly either
by speech or writing, it is called an argument.
 THE IMPORTANCE OF
REASONING
•It helps you to make important decisions,
discern the truth, solve problems, come up with
new ideas and set achievable goals.

•Reasoning is by far the most complex activity of

the mind. This notwithstanding, it is however
not the most important activity of the mind.
 Cont.

• Judgment, rather than reasoning, is the most important

activity of the mind. This is so because it is only through
judgment that the mind attempts to represent the real
order of things. It is also the activity through which we
attain the truth about things.
• However, it does not mean that reasoning is not
important. It is important by virtue of the fact that
through reasoning, the mind acquires new knowledge.
• But when the mind acquires new knowledge, it uses the
medium of other truths already known. So, the mind
discovers mediated truth.
INDUCTIVE, ABDUCTIVE & DEDUCTIVE
REASONING
• When reasoning, the mind may proceed in either
inductively, abductively or deductively.
• Inductive reasoning is the method employed by the
positive sciences.
• Inductive reasoning is a method of drawing
conclusions by going from the specific to the general. It's
usually contrasted with deductive reasoning, where you
proceed from general information to specific conclusions.
Inductive reasoning is also called inductive logic or
bottom-up
• It is a process by which the mind, basing itself on the
observation of certain phenomena, would draw some
general conclusions.
 Cont’d.

A rather simplistic definition of inductive

reasoning is when the mind begins from
particular facts and moves to general principles.
Examples:
• Mutarama is an excellent swimmer. His family
has a swimming pool. Mutarama’s sister
Gashyantare must also be an excellent
swimmer.
• Gicurasi is a Rwandese. She is smart.
Therefore, everyone from Rwanda is smart.
 Disadvantages of inductive reasoning

• You can reach incorrect conclusions since

there could be limitations with your knowledge
or evidence.
• Your conclusion might change since it requires
data and evidence to support your claim, and
new research may emerge and change your
result.
 Cont’d.

• Abductive reasoning usually starts with an

incomplete set of observations and proceeds to
the likeliest possible explanation for the group
of observations.
• It is based on making and testing hypotheses
using the best information available. It often
entails making an educated guess after
observing a phenomenon for which there is no
clear explanation.
 Cont’d.
• Abductive reasoning is often used by judges who make
decisions based on the evidence presented to them.
• For example, a researcher might observe the
phenomenon of increasing levels of violence shown by
children over the past few years. Further research may
discover that this tends to occur more in societies/
community where violence is prevalent on television.
• Abductive reasoning would then lead the researcher to
propose the most obvious hypothesis, that ‘If children are
exposed to more violence on TV, they are more likely to
exhibit violent behavior as adults.
 Cont’d.

• Abductive reasoning, or abduction, is making a

probable conclusion from what you know.
• For example: If you see an abandoned bowl of
hot soup on the table, you can use abduction to
conclude that the owner of the soup is likely
returning soon.
Disadvantages of Abductive reasoning

• Abductive reasoning is not very reliable, not as

much as deductive and inductive reasoning. It
can lead to false conclusions, leading to
serious errors and consequences.
 Cont’d.

• Deductive reasoning is a basic form of valid

reasoning. Deductive reasoning, or deduction,
starts out with a general statement, or
hypothesis, and examines the possibilities to
reach a specific, logical conclusion.
• Deductive reasoning usually follows steps.
First, there is a premise, then a second
premise, and finally an inference. A common
form of deductive reasoning is the syllogism,
in which two statements, a major premise and
a minor premise reach a logical conclusion.
 Cont’d.

Examples:
• if a = b and b = c, then a = c
• All numbers ending with 0 or 5 are divisible by
5, The number 35 ends with a 5, so it must be
divisible by 5.
• Acute angles are less than 90 degrees. This
angle is 40 degrees, so it must be acute.
• Macadamia is a plant and all plants perform
photosynthesis; therefore, macadamia
performs photosynthesis.
 Cont’d.

• According to California State University,

deductive inference conclusions are certain
provided the premises are true. It's possible to
come to a logical conclusion even if the
generalization is not true. If the generalization is
wrong, the conclusion may be logical, but it may
also be untrue.
• For example, the argument, "All bald men are
grandfathers. Harold is bald. Therefore,
Harold is a grandfather," is valid logically but it
is untrue because the original statement is false.
 Disadvantage of deductive reasoning

• The inference's validity does not guarantee the

premises' truthfulness.
• It relies on the validity and reliability of the data
and methods of analysis used.
• There is a risk of making incorrect conclusions
if statistical methods are not used correctly.
 THE SYLLOGISM

• A syllogism is a deductive argument in which a

conclusion is inferred from two or more premises.
• A syllogism must contain at least three categorical
prepositions which must contain three terms –
each of which occurring in two of the propositions.
• Syllogism represents the linking of propositions
about essential properties in such a way that the
conclusion necessarily follows. And what makes
the conclusion follow is that a particular term is
found in both of the premises.
 Cont’d.

• The term that serves this function of linking

propositions is called by Aristotle the middle
term.
• The predicate term of the conclusion of a
syllogism is called the major term
• The subject term of the conclusion is called
the minor term.
• The term that does not occur in the
conclusion but appears in both premises is
called the middle term.
 An example of a syllogism

• "All mammals are animals.

• All elephants are mammals. Therefore,
• All elephants are animals.“

• In a syllogism, the more general premise is called

the major premise ("All mammals are animals").
• The more specific premise is called the minor
premise ("All elephants are mammals").
• The conclusion joins the logic of the two
premises ("Therefore, all elephants are animals").
 Rules of Syllogism

• There are six known rules of syllogism.

However, they mainly apply to categorical
syllogism, since that is the only category that
requires three components:

• Major premise,
• Minor premise, and
• Conclusion.
 Exercises

• All men are mortal

• Socrates is a man, Therefore
• Socrates is mortal

Required: Identify the major term, the minor term and the
middle term in the above syllogism.

The premise containing the major term is called the major

premise while the one containing the minor term is called the
minor premise.

Required: identify the major premise and the minor premise

in the above argument.
 Cont’d.

• The major premise is always stated first then the

minor premise and the conclusion. But sometimes
people omit intentionally or not any of the premises
or even the conclusion.
• A syllogism with any gap is called an enthymeme.
• Example:
• All Rwandans are rich
• …………………………. Therefore,
• Mr. X is rich.
• This enthymeme has implied that Mr. X is Rwandan
so we are justified asserting it.
 Cont’d.

• Sometimes the argument is too long that we

cannot put it across in three propositions and
maintain a meaningful conclusion.

• All ULK students are smart

• Some soldiers are ULK students
• All ULK soldiers are poor men.

• We are not justified to conclude that some poor

people are smart, although it is attractive to
conclude so.
 Cont’d.

• With such a long argument we switch to a stepwise

process argument where each step becomes a
separate categorical syllogism and we have

• All ULK students are smart

• Some soldiers are ULK students
• Therefore, some soldiers are smart
• All ULK soldiers are poor men
• Therefore, some poor people are smart.

Such a chain of categorical syllogism is called a sorite.

 Cont’d

• Every categorical proposition is said to have

both quality and quantity.
• The Quality of a proposition is either
affirmative or negative. Depending on whether
it is talking about all or some – about a certain
class – is affirmed or denied by the proposition.

• We use letters, A, E, O, I as names for the four

standard forms of categorical propositions.
 Cont’d.

• Where:

• A = Universal affirmative e.g. All S are P

• E = Universal negative e.g. All S are not P
• I = Particular affirmative e.g. Some S are P
• O = Particular negative e.g. Some S are not P
 Cont’d.
• To make syllogism arguments shorter, for the purpose of analysis, there
are standard letters that are used. The Minor term is abbreviated as S, the
Major term as P, the Middle term as M and the three-dot symbol (. . . )
for therefore.

• Example:

• All good lecturers are doctors All P is M

• Some thieves are doctors Some S is M
• Therefore, some thieves are good lecturers . . . Some S is P
 Cont’d.
• Or

• All tall people are kind All M is P

• Some tall men are crazy Some M is S
• Therefore, some crazy men are kind. . . .Some M is P
Here are six rules that will ensure you're
making a strong and accurate argument.

• Rule One: There must be three terms: the major premise,

the minor premise, and the conclusion - no more, no less.
• Rule Two: The minor premise must be distributed in at
least one other premise.
• Rule Three: Any terms distributed in the conclusion must
be distributed in the relevant premise.
• Rule Four: Do not use two negative premises.
• Rule Five: If one of the two premises are negative, the
conclusion must be negative.
• Rule Six: From two universal premises, no conclusion
may be drawn.
 Types of Syllogism

Categorical Syllogism

• As we know, our first example about elephants

was a categorical syllogism.
• Categorical syllogisms follow an "If A is part of
C, then B is part of C" logic.
 Cont’d.

Conditional Syllogism
• Conditional syllogisms follow an "If A is true,
then B is true" pattern of logic. They're often
referred to as hypothetical syllogisms because
the arguments aren't always valid. Sometimes
they're merely an accepted truth.
• If Nyakanga is smart, then her parents must be
smart.
• Major premise: Nyakanga is smart.
• Conclusion: Nyakanga's parents are smart.
 Cont’d.

Disjunctive Syllogism

• Disjunctive syllogisms follow a "Since A is true,

B must be false" premise. They don't state if a
major or minor premise is correct. But it's
understood that one of them is correct.
For example: The breach is a safety violation,
or it is not subject to fines.
The breach is not a safety violation. Therefore,
it is not subject to fines.
 Enthymemes

• An enthymeme is not one of the major types of

syllogism but is what's known as rhetorical syllogism.
These are often used in persuasive speeches and
arguments.
• Generally, the speaker will omit a major or minor
premise, assuming it's already accepted by the
audience.
• For example, He couldn't have stolen the cow. I
know him.
• Major Premise: He couldn't have stolen the cow.
• Minor Premise: I know his character.
 CHAIN ARGUMENTS

• A chain argument, also referred to as a polysyllogism, is an

argument involving many simple syllogisms in which the conclusion
of one syllogism also doubles as a premise of the succeeding
syllogism. We shall use the example given by Kreyche:
• Anything that has life has a soul.
• All things that breathe have life.
• All things that breathe have a soul.
• Every animal is a thing that breathes.
• Every animal has a soul.
• Man is an animal.
• Man has a soul.
• John is a man.
• John has a soul.
 Cont’d.

• Polysyllogisms may be necessary in cases

where one simple syllogism fails to prove the
point sufficiently. In such cases, one may have
to include other supporting arguments.
 EPICHEIREMA

• An epicheirema is similar to the polysyllogisms in the

sense that it also has more than one syllogism.
• However, the other syllogisms of the epicheirema are
suppressed and are offered merely for the purpose of
validating the claims of the premises.
• In short, an epicheirema can be defined as a syllogism
in which either one of the premises or both of the
premises have supporting reasons attached to them.
• Depending on whether one or two premises have
supporting reasons, we may have single or double
epicheirema. The reasons are often introduced by
such words as: because, since and for.
 Cont’d.

• An example of an epicheirema:
• MAJOR: Every realistic system of education is
based on the needs of the student, because the
failure to cope with these needs defeats the very
purpose for which education is intended.
• MINOR: Some systems of education, however, are
not based on the needs of the student, because they
do not include adequate programs for vocational
guidance, which, clearly, is one of the student’s most
basic needs.
• CONCLUSION: Some systems of education are not
realistic.
 Cont’d.

• We should remember that we meet

epicheirema almost daily whenever we read
any article or book, or even a letter.
• Such pieces of literature will contain many
words and arguments, but all revolving around
only one or a few leading arguments.
 THE DILEMMA

• The dilemma form of an argument is

easily recognizable. As in a real-life debate,
this type of argument attempts to force one
to affirm at least one of two positions, neither
of which he/she wants to affirm.
• A dilemma certainly makes one think about the
implications of what one believes.
 Cont’d.

Examples:
• 1. If God exists, I have everything to gain by
believing in Him.
• 2. And if God does not exist, I have nothing to
lose by believing in Him.
• 3. Either God exists or God does not exist.
• 4. Therefore, I have everything to gain or
nothing to lose by believing in Him. (Pascal's
Wager!)
 Cont’d.

1. Was the baptism of John from heaven or

from men? (Mark 11:27.)
2. If we say "from heaven," he will say, "Why
did you not believe him?“
3. If we say "from men," the people will stone
us for they considered John a prophet.
4. John's baptism was either from heaven or
from men.
5. Therefore, either Jesus will condemn our
unbelief or the people will stone us.
 Rules for checking validity in
syllogism
1) A syllogism must have only three terms used in
the same sense throughout.
2) The middle term must be distributed in at least
one premise.
3) No term can be distributed in the conclusion if it
is not distributed in the premises.
4) It cannot have 2 negative premises.
5) If either of the premise is negative the
conclusion must be negative. But, a syllogism
with particular conclusion can have two
universal premises.
 CHAPTER V:
ERRONEOUS ARGUMENTS
 ERRONEOUS ARGUMENTS

• This section exposes how weird our thoughts

and arguments may at times be.
• Indeed, the purpose of studying Logic is, apart
from training our minds to get accustomed to
correct modes of reasoning, it also aims at
equipping our minds to detect errors in the
reasoning processes of others, both in speech
and in written.
 Cont’d.

• When one deliberately advances an argument

which leads to a false conclusion, this will be a
case of sophistry; otherwise it will be a fallacy.
 SOPHISTRY

• Sophism was a Philosophy that started around the fifth

century B.C. and was made famous by Plato, Aristotle,
and Aristophanes. Sophists were looked down upon, by
these three, as teaching anything for a price.
• Their teaching was practical instead of ethical and they
emphasized rhetoric rather than virtue.
• Sophism was thought capable of perverting the truth
because the sophists taught students to argue any side
of an issue.
• Sophistry has been considered as an argument
constructed with an express intention of misleading or
deceiving the audience. In other words, sophistry is
simply a deceptive argument
 FALLACIES

• A fallacy is an argument which has a

semblance of validity but it is not valid. It runs
counter to the statements of the syllogistic
axioms (assumptions).
• Logicians have categorized fallacies into three
broad groups; namely, formal fallacies,
linguistic fallacies and material fallacies.
 Cont’d.

• A Formal Fallacy is a breakdown in how you

say something. The ideas are somehow
sequenced incorrectly. Their form is wrong,
rendering the argument as noise and
nonsense.
• An Informal Fallacy denotes an error in what
you are saying, that is the content of your
argument. The ideas might be arranged
correctly, but something you said isn’t quite
right. The content is wrong.
 Cont’d.

• A linguistic fallacy is a type of informal fallacy

that relates to a language-related defect in an
argument. Linguistic fallacies might involve
using words or sentences that have vague,
unclear, or multiple meanings or other
inconsistencies.
• A material fallacy is an error in what the
arguer is talking about.
 Cont’d.

• Two subcategories of material fallacies are:

Fallacies of evidence, which refer to

arguments that do not provide the required
factual support (ground, evidence) for their
conclusions, and
Fallacies of irrelevance (or relevance) which
refer to arguments that have supporting
statements that are irrelevant.
 Cont’d.

15 types of logical fallacies that

one is likely to encounter
 1. Ad Hominem Fallacy

• When people think of “arguments,” often their

first thought is of shouting matches riddled with
personal attacks. Ironically, personal attacks
run contrary to rational arguments.
• Instead of advancing good sound reasoning, an
ad hominem replaces logical argumentation
with attack-language unrelated to the truth of
the matter. Example: “All people from Butare
are liars”
 2. Straw man Argument

• It’s much easier to defeat your opponent’s

argument when it’s made of straw. The Straw
man argument is aptly named after a harmless,
lifeless, scarecrow. In the strawman argument,
someone attacks a position the opponent
doesn’t really hold.
 Cont’d.

• A straw man argument is when someone sets

up and then disputes an assertion that is not
actually being made. For example, if someone
says they love the color blue and someone else
argues that red is better, asserting that the first
person obviously hates the color red, this would
be a straw man argument.
• An example in Personal Relationships: Your
partner claims you never listen to them, even
though you've only disagreed on a specific
issue.
 3. Appeal to Ignorance
(argumentum ad ignorantiam)
• Any time ignorance is used as a major premise
in support of an argument, it’s liable to be a
fallacious appeal to ignorance. Naturally, we
are all ignorant of many things, but it is cheap
and manipulative to allow this unfortunate
aspect of the human condition to do most of our
heavy lifting in an argument.
 Cont’d.

• An appeal to ignorance isn’t proof of anything

except that you don’t know something. If no
one has proven the non-existence of ghosts or
flying saucers, that’s hardly proof that those
things either exist or don’t exist.
• If we don’t know whether they exist, then we
don’t know that they do exist or that they don’t
exist. Appeal to ignorance doesn’t prove any
claim to knowledge.
 Cont’d.

• This fallacy (appeal to ignorance) occurs

when you argue that your conclusion must be
true, because there is no evidence against it.
• This fallacy (appeal to ignorance) wrongly
shifts the burden of proof away from the one
making the claim.
 Examples of Appeal to Ignorance

• There is no proof that God does not exist;

therefore, God exists.
• No one has ever proven UFOs (unidentified
flying object) have not visited the planet, which
means they have.
• Since the class has no questions concerning
the topics discussed in class; therefore, the
class must be ready for the test.
 4. False Dilemma/False Dichotomy

• This fallacy has a few other names: “black-and-

white fallacy,” “either-or fallacy,” “false
dichotomy,” and “bifurcation fallacy.” This line of
reasoning fails by limiting the options to two when
there are in fact more options to choose from.
• Sometimes the choices are between one thing, the
other thing, or both things together (they don’t
exclude each other). Sometimes there is a whole
range of options, three, four, five, or a hundred and
forty-five. For example: “Either we go to war, or we
appear weak.”
 Cont’d.

• A false dilemma is a fallacy that misrepresents

an issue by presenting only two mutually
exclusive options rather than the full, nuanced
range of options.
• For example: If we don't order pizza for dinner,
we'll have to eat the week-old spaghetti in the
fridge.
 5. Slippery Slope Fallacy

• The slippery slope fallacy is an argument that

claims an initial event or action will trigger a
series of other events and lead to dangerous
outcome. The slippery slope fallacy anticipates
this chain of events without offering any
evidence to support the claim.
• The slippery slope fallacy works by moving
from a seemingly benign premise or starting
point and working through a number of small
steps to an improbable extreme.
 Cont’d.

• An example usually committed by some

children “But, you have to let me go to the
party! If I don’t go to the party, I’ll be a loser
with no friends. Next thing you know I’ll end up
alone and jobless living in your basement when
I’m 30 years old!”
• The slippery slope fallacy, however, suggests
that unlikely or ridiculous outcomes are likely
when there is just not enough evidence to think
so.
 Cont’d.

• “If I don't pass tomorrow's exam, this might

affect my GPA, which in turn might impact my
chances of going to a good college.”
• Here, the slippery slope (A leads to B, B
leads to C, etc.) is in the form of a logical
extrapolation to a possible outcome.
 6. Circular Argument (petitio principii)

• When a person’s argument is just repeating

what they already assumed beforehand, it’s not
arriving at any new conclusion. We call this a
circular argument or circular reasoning.
• If someone says, “The Bible is true; it says so
in the Bible”—that’s a circular argument. They
are assuming that the Bible only speaks truth,
and so they trust it to truthfully report that it
speaks the truth, because it says that it does.
 Cont’d

• The circular reasoning fallacy is an argument

that assumes the very thing it is trying to prove
is true. Instead of offering evidence, it simply
repeats the conclusion, rendering the argument
logically incoherent.
• For example: Eighteen-year-olds have the
right to vote because it's legal for them to
vote. This argument is circular because it goes
right back to the beginning.
 7. Hasty Generalization

• A hasty generalization fallacy is a claim

made on the basis of insufficient evidence.
Instead of looking into examples and evidence
that are much more in line with the typical or
average situation, you draw a conclusion about
a large population using a small,
unrepresentative sample.
• A hasty generalization is a general statement
without sufficient evidence to support it.
• For example: “People nowadays only vote with
their emotions instead of their brains.”
Example Hasty generalization fallacy

• “I've met two people in Greece so far, and

they were both nice to me. So, all the people
I will meet in Greece will be nice to me.”
Here, the speaker makes an absolute
statement. In other words, they imply zero error
margin (“all the people”).
 8. Red Herring Fallacy (ignoratio
elenchi)
• A red herring fallacy is an attempt to redirect
a conversation away from its original topic. A
red herring is used by introducing an irrelevant
piece of information that distracts the reader or
listener.
• For example, an argument against raising
salaries might go something like this: "We
can't raise salaries, but we still provide
great benefits for our employees." This
argument is a red herring because the
mention of employee benefits distracts from the
real point, that salaries will not be raised.
 9. Tu Quoque Fallacy

• The “tu quoque,” Latin for “you too,” is also

called the “appeal to hypocrisy” because it
distracts from the argument by pointing out
hypocrisy in the opponent.
• This tactic doesn’t solve the problem, or prove
one’s point, because even hypocrites can tell
the truth.
• For example: “But, Dad, I know you smoked
when you were my age, so how can you tell me
not to do it?”
 10. Causal Fallacy

• The causal fallacy is any logical breakdown

when identifying a cause. You can think of the
causal fallacy as a parent category for several
different fallacies about unproven causes.

• One causal fallacy is the false cause or non

causa pro causa ("not the-cause for a cause")
fallacy, which is when you conclude about a
cause without enough evidence to do so.
Consider, for example, “Since your parents
named you ‘Harvest,’ they must be farmers.”
 Cont’d.

• This fallacy (causal fallacy ) occurs when a

causal connection is assumed without proof. All
too often claims to a causal connection are
based on a mere correlation. The occurrence of
one event after the other or the occurrence of
events simultaneously is not proof of a causal
connection. For example:
• Whenever I wear my lucky jersey, my team
loses. So it must actually be my unlucky jersey!
• Every time they see a rainbow in the sky,
something good happens.
 11. Fallacy of Sunk Costs

• The sunk cost fallacy is our tendency to

continue with something we've invested money,
effort, or time into—even if the current costs
outweigh the benefits.
• For example: continuing to watch a boring
movie you've purchased. or more serious
matters like refusing to pull out of a failing
business investment.
 12. Appeal to Authority (argumentum
ad verecundiam)
• Appeal to authority fallacy occurs when we accept a
claim merely because someone tells us that an
authority figure supports that claim.
• This fallacy happens when we misuse an authority. This
misuse of authority can occur in a number of ways.
• We can cite only authorities — steering conveniently
away from other testable and concrete evidence as if
expert opinion is always correct. Or we can cite
irrelevant authorities, poor authorities, or false
authorities.
• For example: “One day robots will enslave us all. It’s
true. My computer science teacher says so.”
 13. Equivocation fallacy
(ambiguity)
• Equivocation happens when a word, phrase, or
sentence is used deliberately to confuse,
deceive, or mislead by sounding like it’s saying
one thing but actually saying something else.
• Equivocation comes from the roots “equal”
and “voice” and refers to two-voices; a single
word can “say” two different things. Another
word for this is ambiguity. shows up in the form
of euphemisms, replacing unpleasant words
with “nicer” terminology.
 Example of the equivocation
fallacy
• A euphemism might be replacing my “criminal
background” with my “youthful
indiscretions,” or replacing “fired from my
job” with “taking early retirement.”

• When I asked you if I should turn left, you said

right. Therefore, I was correct and you cannot
get mad at me." In this argument, "right" is
being used equivocally because in one place it
means "correct," and in another place, it
indicates a “direction to turn”.
14. Appeal to Pity fallacy
(argumentum ad misericordiam)
• The appeal to pity fallacy occurs when
someone attempts to persuade others by
provoking feelings of guilt or pity.
• Appeals to pity often appear as emotional
manipulation.
• For example: “Lecturer, please consider
raising my grade. I had a terrible semester: my
car broke down, my laptop got stolen, and my
cat got sick.”
 15. Bandwagon Fallacy

• The bandwagon fallacy, also known as the

appeal to the masses or appeal to common
belief fallacy, is the logical fallacy of claiming
that something is true because everyone
believes it.
• The bandwagon fallacy assumes something is
true (or right, or good) because other people
agree with it.
• For example: It's okay to cheat on exams
because everybody does it.