LOGIC AND CRITICAL THINKING (PHIL 1011)

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCING PHILOSOPHY

Meaning and Nature of Philosophy

Etymologically, the word ―philosophy‖ comes from two Greek words: ―philo‖ and ―sophia‖,
which mean ―love‖ and ―wisdom‖, respectively. Thus, the literal definition of philosophy is “love
of wisdom”. The ancient Greek thinker Pythagoras was the first to use the word ―philosopher‖ to
call a person who clearly shows a marked curiosity in the things he experiences. Anyone who
raises questions, such as Does God exists? What is reality? What is the ultimate source of Being?
What is knowledge? What does it mean to know? How do we come to know? What is value?,
and the like, is really showing a curiosity that can be described as a vital concern for becoming
wise about the phenomena of the world and the human experiences.
According to Socrates, wisdom consists of a critical habit and eternal vigilance about all things
and a reverence for truth, whatever its form, and wherever its place. Based on the Socratic
understanding of wisdom, philosophy, as a pursuit of wisdom, is, thus, the development of
critical habits, the continuous search for truth, and the questioning of the apparent.

The philosophical enterprise, as Vincent Barry stated, is “an active imaginative process of
formulating proper questions and resolving them by rigorous, persistent analysis”.

Basic Features of Philosophy

The general features of philosophy can be summarized as follows:

1) Philosophy is a set of views or beliefs about life and the universe, which are often held
uncritically.
2) Philosophy is a process of reflecting on and criticizing our most deeply held conceptions
and beliefs.
3) Philosophy is a rational attempt to look at the world as a whole.
4) Philosophy is the logical analysis of language and the clarification of the meaning of
words and concepts.
5) Philosophy is a group of perennial problems that interest people and for which
philosophers always have sought answers.

Core Fields of Philosophy

I. Metaphysics

Metaphysics is the branch of philosophy that studies the ultimate nature of reality or existence. It
deal with issues of reality, God, freedom, soul/immortality, the mind-body problem, form and
substance relationship, cause and effect relationship, and other related issues. Metaphysicians
seek an irreducible foundation of reality or ‗first principles‘ from which absolute knowledge or
truth can be induced and deduced. The term metaphysics is derived from the Greek words
“meta” means (―beyond‖, ―upon‖ or ―after‖) and physika, means (―physics‖).

1
Here are some of the questions that Metaphysics primarily deals with:
 What is reality?
 What is the ultimately real?
 What is the nature of the ultimate reality?
 Is it one thing or is it many different things?
 Can reality be grasped by the senses, or it is transcendent?
 What makes reality different from a mere appearance?
 What is mind, and what is its relation to the body?
 Is there a cause and effect relationship between reality and appearance?
 Does God exist, and if so, can we prove it?
 Are human actions free, or predetermined by a supernatural force?
 What is human being? A thinking mind? A perishable body? Or a combination of both?
 What is time?
 What is the meaning of life?

II. Epistemology

Epistemology is the other field of philosophy that studies about the nature, scope, meaning, and
possibility of knowledge. It deals with issues of knowledge, opinion, truth, falsity, reason,
experience, and faith. Epistemology is also referred to as ―theory of knowledge‖.
Etymologically, the word epistemology has been derived from the Greek words episteme,
meaning ―knowledge, understanding‖, and logos, meaning ―study of‖. In other words, we can
say that Epistemology is the study of the nature, source, and validity of knowledge. It seeks to
answer of the basic questions as ―What is true?‖ and ―How do we know?‖ Thus, epistemology
covers two areas: the content of thought and thought itself. The study of epistemology deals with
issues related to the dependability of knowledge and the validity of the sources through which
we gain information.

The following are among the questions/issues with which Epistemology deals:
 What is knowledge?
 What does it mean to know?
 What is the source of knowledge? Experience? Reason? Or both?
 How can we be sure that what we perceive through our senses is correct?
 What makes knowledge different from belief or opinion?
 What is truth, and how can we know a statement is true?
 Can reason really help us to know phenomenal things without being informed by sense
experiences?
 Can our sense experience really help us to know things beyond our perception without
the assistance of our reasoning ability?
 What is the relationship and difference between faith and reason?

III. Axiology

Axiology is the study or theory of value. The term Axiology stems from two Greek words-
―Axios‖, meaning ―value, worth‖, and ―logos‖, meaning ―reason/ theory/ symbol / science/study
of‖. Hence, Axiology is the philosophical study of value, which originally meant the worth of

2
 something. Axiology asks the philosophical questions of values that deal with notions of what a
person or a society regards as good or preferable, such as:
 What is a value?
 Where do values come from?
 How do we justify our values?
 How do we know what is valuable?
 What is the relationship between values and knowledge?
 What kinds of values exist?
 Can it be demonstrated that one value is better than another?
 Who benefits from values?
 Etc.

Axiology deals with the above and related issues of value in three areas, namely Ethics,
Aesthetics, and Social/Political Philosophy.

IV. Ethics

Ethics, which is also known as Moral Philosophy, is a science that deals with the philosophical
study of moral principles, values, codes, and rules, which may be used as standards for
determining what kind of human conduct/action is said to be good or bad, right or wrong. Ethics
has three main branches: meta-ethics, normative ethics, and applied ethics. Ethics raises various
questions including:
 What is good/bad?
 What is right/wrong?
 Is it the Right Principle or the Good End that makes human action/conduct moral?
 Is an action right because of its good end, or it is good because of its right principle?
 Are moral principles universal, objective, and unconditional, or relative, subjective and
conditional?
 What is the ultimate foundation of moral principles? The supernatural God? Human
reason? Mutual social contract? Social custom?
 Does God exist? If so, is He Benevolent and Omnipotent?
 If God is Benevolent, why He creates evil things? If God does not create evil things,
then, there must be another creator who is responsible to creation of the evil things? But,
if it is so, how can God be an Omnipotent creator?
 Why we honor and obey moral rules? For the sake of our own individual benefits?, or for
the sake of others?, or just for the sake of fulfilling our infallible duty?

V. Aesthetics

Aesthetics is the theory of beauty. It studies about the particular value of our artistic and aesthetic
experiences. It deals with beauty, art, enjoyment, sensory/emotional values, perception, and
matters of taste and sentiment.
The following are typical Aesthetic questions:
 What is art?
 What is beauty?
 What is the relation between art and beauty?

3
  What is the connection between art, beauty, and truth?
 Can there be any objective standard by which we may judge the beauty of artistic works,
or beauty is subjective?
 What is artistic creativity and how does it differ from scientific creativity?
 Why works of art are valuable?
 Can artistic works communicate? If so, what do they communicate?
 Does art have any moral value, and obligations or constraints?
 Are there standards of quality in Art?

VI. Logic

Logic is the study or theory of principles of right reasoning. It deals with formulating the right
principles of reasoning; and developing scientific methods of evaluating the validity and
soundness of arguments. The following are among the various questions raised by Logic:
 What is an argument; What does it mean to argue?
 What makes an argument valid or invalid
 What is a sound argument?
 What relation do premise and conclusion have in argument?
 How can we formulate and evaluate an argument?
What is a fallacy?; What makes an argument fallacious?

Importance of Learning Philosophy

If you ask any philosophy student ‗what is the necessity of studying philosophy‘, he/she may
give you the following famous philosophical statement BY Socrates: ―The unexamined life is
not worth living”. Some modern psychologists point out that human beings have both
maintenance and actualizing needs. The former refer to the physical and psychological needs
that we must satisfy in order to maintain ourselves as human beings: food, shelter, security,
social interaction, and the like. The later appear to be associated with self-fulfillment, creativity,
self-expression, realization of one‘s potential, and being everything one can be. Although
philosophy may not necessarily lead to this sort of self-actualization, it can assist us to actualize
ourselves by promoting the ideal of self-actualization. There are many characteristics of self-
actualization to whose achievement studying philosophy has a primordial contribution. Here
below are some of them.

1) Intellectual and Behavioral Independence: - This is the ability to develop one‘s own
opinion and beliefs
2) Reflective Self-Awareness:- Philosophy helps us to intensify our self-awareness by inviting
us to critically examine the essential intellectual grounds of our lives.
3) Flexibility, Tolerance, and Open-Mindedness:- As we confront with the thoughts of various
philosophers we can easily realize that no viewpoint is necessarily true or false- that the
value of any attitude is contextual
4) Creative and Critical thinking: - From the study of philosophy, we can learn how to refine
our powers of analysis, our abilities to think critically, to reason, to evaluate, to theorize,
and to justify.

4
 5) Conceptualized and well-thought-out value systems in morality, art, politics, and the like: -
since philosophy directly deals with morality, art, politics, and other related value theories,
studying philosophy provides us with an opportunity to formulate feasible evaluations of
value; and thereby to find meaning in our lives.

CHAPTER TWO: BASIC CONCEPTS OF LOGIC

Arguments, Premises, and Conclusion
Logic may be defined as the organized body of knowledge, or science that evaluates arguments.
Everyone thinks. Everyone reasons. Everyone argues. And everyone is subjected to the
reasoning and arguing of others. All of us encounter arguments in our day-to-day experience. We
read them in books and newspapers, hear them on television, and formulate them when
communicating with friends and associates.
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. Among
the benefits to be expected from the study of logic is an increase in confidence that we are
making sense when we criticize the arguments of others, and when we advance arguments of our
own.
Some people think well, reason well, and argue well. Some do not. The ability to think, reason,
and argue well is partly a matter of natural gifts. But whatever our natural gifts, they can be
refined and sharpened. And the study of logic is one of the best ways to refine one‘s natural
ability to reason and argue. Through the study of logic, one learns strategies for thinking well, to
avoid common errors in reasoning, and effective techniques for evaluating arguments.
An argument, in its most basic form, is a group of statements, one or more of which (the
premises) are claimed to provide support for, or reasons to believe, one of the others (the
conclusion). All arguments may be placed in one of two basic groups: those in which the
premises really do support the conclusion and those in which they do not, even though they are
claimed to. The former are said to be good arguments (at least to that extent), the latter bad
arguments.
The purpose of logic, as the science that evaluates arguments, is thus to develop methods and
techniques that allow us to distinguish good arguments from bad ones. The principles of logic
enable us to develop our confidence in critically and rationally evaluating arguments of others
and to construct our own persuasive and logical forms of speech.

As it has been stated before, the term ‗argument‘, unlike its ordinary meaning as a mere verbal
fight between or among different individuals, has a completely different and specific meaning in
logic. Accordingly, an argument is composed of statements, which have truth-values and
logically interconnected ideas as premises and conclusion. A statement is a sentence that is
either true or false-in other words, typically a declarative sentence or a sentence component that
could stand as a declarative sentence. The following sentences are statements:
Ethiopia is located in East Africa.
Carrot is good source of vitamin A
Political candidates always tell the complete truth.
No wives ever cheat on their husbands.
The battle of Adwa broke out between Ethiopia and Italy and Ethiopia was victorious.
The first two statements are true, the second two false. The last one expresses two statements,
both of which are true. Truth and falsity are called the two possible truth values of a statement.

5
Thus, the truth value of the first two statements is true, the truth value of the second two is false,
and the truth value of the last statement, as well as that of its components, is true.
Unlike statements, many sentences cannot be said to be either true or false. Questions, proposals,
suggestions, commands, and exclamations usually cannot, and so are not usually classified as
statements. The following sentences are not statements:
What is your name? (Question)
Let‘s go to a movie tonight. (Proposal)
I suggest you visit Lalibela. (Suggestion)
Turn off the TV right now. (Command)
Unbelievable! (Exclamation)
The statements that make up an argument are divided into one or more premises and one and
only one conclusion. The premises are the statements that set forth the reasons or evidence, and
the conclusion is the statement that the evidence is claimed to support or imply. In other words,
the conclusion is the statement that is claimed to follow from the premises. Here is an example of
an argument:
All business women are extrovert.
Aster is a business woman.
Therefore, Aster is extrovert.
The first two statements are the premises; the third is the conclusion. (The claim that the
premises support or imply the conclusion is indicated by the word ―therefore.‖) In this argument
the premises really do support the conclusion, and so the argument is a good one. But consider
this argument:
Some business women are extrovert.
Aster is a business woman.
Therefore, Aster is extrovert.
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.
Here our central task is to distinguish premise(s) from the conclusion within an argument. The
first strategy to accomplish this task is by using indicator words. This is to say that there are
some typical conclusion indicator words and some other premise indicator words. Thus, based
on those premise and conclusion indicator words, one can easily distinguish premises form the
conclusion. For that matter, some of the typical conclusion indicators are the followings:
Therefore accordingly entails that
Wherefore we may conclude hence
Thus it must be that it follows that
Consequently for this reason implies that
We may infer so as a result

Whenever a statement follows one of these indicators, it can usually be identified as the
conclusion. By process of elimination the other statements in the argument are the premises.
Example:
Tortured prisoners will say anything just to relieve the pain. Consequently, torture is not a
reliable method of interrogation.
The conclusion of this argument is ―Torture is not a reliable method of interrogation,‖ and the
premise is ―Tortured prisoners will say anything just to relieve the pain.‖ If an argument does not

6
 contain a conclusion indicator, it may contain a premise indicator. Some typical premise
indicators are

Since in that seeing that

As indicated by may be inferred from for the reason that
Because as inasmuch as
For given that owing to
Any statement following one of these indicators can usually be identified as a premise.
Example:
Expectant mothers should never use recreational drugs, since the use of these drugs can
jeopardize the development of the fetus.
The premise of this argument is ―The use of these drugs can jeopardize the development of the
fetus,‖ and the conclusion is ―Expectant mothers should never use recreational drugs.‖
The other important point that should be noted is that indicator words (Premise as well as
conclusion indicators) are not always guarantees to distinguish or show premise (s) from
conclusion of a given argument because of two important reasons:
a) There might be cases where there are not indicator words in passages which contain
argument.
b) Though they exist, they might have some other purposes (explanation, illustration…) other
than showing argumentation accompanied by premises and conclusion.
As to the problem stated in (a) One can end up with successful solution by responding to one of
the following questions:
 Which statement is claimed to follow from others?
 What is the arguer trying to arrive at /prove? Or
 What is the main point of the passage?
And, the answer to these questions points out to the conclusion of an argument so that the rest
will be its premise(s). This is to say that in the absence of those indicator words, one should
carefully appeal to the inferential claim (reasoning process) that the claim (s) /evidence(s) which
the statement (s) hold (s) is/are considered to be premise(s) and the other statement that is to be
followed is the conclusion of a given argument. For example: the following passage, which
contains an argument, does not have any indicator word:
Example: A politician who does not have the courage to political life is not destined to the
discipline. Mohammed does not have any courage to it. Mohammed is not destined to political
life.
And, when we look at the inferential relationship among the above three statements of the
passage, the statement ―Mohammed is not destined to political life‖ is the statement which is
intended to be proved so that it is the conclusion and the remaining two statements are premises
of the above argument.
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 that of a
proposition means the information content or meaning of statements, which compose an
argument.
As to the problem stated in (b) that the existence of indicator words by themselves cannot always
guarantee the existence of premise(s) and conclusion or an argument in a passage.

7
One can look the following two examples which both contain the indicator word “since‖ that it
serves as time indicator in the first passage where as premise indicator in the next passage
(argument):-
 Ethiopia has a long history in constitutional traditions. And, since 1995 the country has
guided by a federal constitution. (Here since is used as time indicator and the passage in
fact doesn‘t contain an argument as there is not any inferential claim in it).
 Since the 1995 constitution of Ethiopia includes fundamental human and democratic
rights of the people, it is relatively better than all constitutions which had been
formulated before. (Here since is used as a premise indicator so that the passage
contains inferential claim, which in turn proves that it is an argument.
Recognizing Arguments
It has been partially clear that an argument is the primary focus of logic. But it should also be
underlined that not all forms of speeches as well as passages contain arguments. In short, any
form of speech or passage is labeled as an argument if and only if it fulfills the following two
conditions:
i. A minimum of one statement must claim to provide reason or evidence,
ii. There must be a claim that something is followed from the evidence.
As it has been stated before, premises refer to the statements claiming to provide evidence, and
conclusion refers to the statement that the evidence is claimed to imply or support. Here the
question is: Is it necessary for the premises to be true? No, it is not mandatory that the premises
provide actual or genuine support to the conclusion or it is not necessary for the premises
actually support the conclusion. But the premises must claim to provide evidences or reasons;
and there must be a claim that the evidences or reasons support or imply something. When we
say the premises must claim to provide evidence, it suggests that the reasons or evidence
presented have not proved to be true, but the assertion that it is true is there. As a result, the
premises may be either true or false. It may, therefore, be either factual evidence or not.
In any case the first condition stated in (a) expresses what is called factual Claim which is not
mandatory for a passage that contains an argument unlike the second condition stated in (b),
which is commonly called inferential Claim. The inferential claim is to mean the claim that the
passage expresses a reasoning process that something supports or implies something.
Thus, the second precondition implies that the existence of an inferential claim (the claim that a
passage/speech contains or expresses reasoning process) is mandatory to consider a given
passage or speech as an argument- i.e. something should be implied or followed from others in
any argument. And, such an inferential relationship of an argument can be expressed:-
a) Either explicitly through indicator (premise as well as conclusion indicators) words as it has
been witnessed before.
Example: Expectant Mothers should never use excessive alcoholic drinks and drugs as these
substances can endanger the development of the fetus.
Here the word ―as‖ shows that there is a reasoning process being expressed in the passage.
b) Implicitly through understanding the inferential relationship between premises and the
conclusion.
Example:
The genetic modification of food is risky business. Genetic engineering can introduce unintended
changes into the DNA of the food-producing organism, and these changes can be toxic to the
consumer.

8
There is an inferential relationship between the first and the other two sentences. Of course, this
relationship constitutes an implicit claim that evidence supports something. So we are justified in
calling this passage argument. And, the first statement is the conclusion and the other two are
premises.
In deciding whether there is a claim that evidence supports or implies something, keep an eye out
for (1) indicator words and (2) the presence of an inferential relationship between the statements.
In connection with these points, however, a word of caution is in order. First, the mere
occurrence of an indicator word by no means guarantees the presence of an argument. For
example, consider the following passages:
Since Edison invented the phonograph, there have been many technological developments.
Since Edison invented the phonograph, he deserves credit for a major technological
development. In the first passage the word ―since‖ is used in a temporal sense. It means ―from
the time that.‖ Thus, the first passage is not an argument. In the second passage ―since‖ is used in
a logical sense, and so the passage is an argument.
Moreover, the other alternative that enables us to differentiate passages, which contain
arguments from those which do not have, is through distinguishing non-inferential passages/non
argument forms with that of inferential passages/ argument forms. Based on this guideline,
passages which contain warnings, advices, statement of belief, reports and the like lack
inferential claim that they are non-inferential passages.
Simple Non-inferential Passages
Simple noninferential 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 is a claim that any potential premise supports a conclusion or that any
potential conclusion is supported by premises.
Warnings: are cautionary advices, which are intended to save someone from any bad or
dangerous incident or situation. And, such forms of speech are non-arguments as they clearly
lack inferential claim.
Example: Take care of these chemicals ! You might be poisoned !
Pieces of advice: are forms of expression, which contain counseling or guidelines to someone to
follow appropriate procedures, actions, and choices.
Examples:
a) I advise you to improve your behavior before you graduate.
b) 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?
Statements of Belief and Opinion: are forms of expression, which are basically accompanied
by 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.
Example: In my opinion, abortion is a crime against humanity.
Loosely associated statements are: 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 cannot be considered as arguments.
Example: Anything that a doctor does which requires cutting or injecting is a „Procedure‟.
Anything that a doctor does which requires thinking or counseling is a “cognitive services”.
Procedures pay much better than cognitive services.

9
 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.
 But there is the case when reports about arguments are delivered. In such case though the report
itself is not an argument, the reported passage can be interpreted as an argument since it is
accompanied by position, which is supported by evidences. However, the passage/argument in
the report is not performed by the author of the report, but by those whom the author of the
report is reporting.
Expository Passages (Elaborations):- are passages, which begin with topic sentences or
fundamental points. And, there are additional sentences, which are primarily there to develop or
elaborate those topic sentences rather than to prove them.
Example:- The speed of reading depends entirely upon the reader. He may read as slowly or as
rapidly as he can or wishes to read. If he does not understand something, he may stop and read
it, or go in search of elucidation before continuing.
But there are cases where expository passages can be counted as arguments when those
elaborating sentences, other than the topic sentence, are there not only to develop topic sentence,
but also to prove it.
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.
Examples:1. Mammals are vertebrate animals that nourish their young with milk. For example,
cats, horses, goats, monkeys, and humans are mammals.
2. Chemical elements, as well as compounds, can be represented by molecular formulas. Thus,
oxygen is represented by “O2,” water by “H2O,” and sodium chloride by “NaCl.”
However, there are passages, which give examples, can be interpreted as arguments. Such
arguments are often called arguments from example.
Example: 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.
Explanation- Consists of statements or group of statements intended to shed light on some
phenomenon that is usually accepted as a matter of fact.
Examples: 1. The sky appears blue from the earth‟s surface because light rays from the sun are
scattered by particles in the atmosphere.
2. The AIDS virus causes sickness and death because it infects certain white blood cells called T
cells, and these cells are essential to the body‟s immune system.
In an explanation, there are two distinct components: The explanandum and the explanans. The
explanandum is the statement that describes the event or phenomenon to be explained, and the
explanans is a statement that does the explaining. In the first example the explanandum is the
statement ―The sky appears blue from the earth‟s surface‖ and the explanans is ―light rays from
the sun are scattered by particles in the atmosphere.‖
Explanations usually contain indicator words such as ―because‖ and others so that they may be
confused with arguments. This is precisely because while in the explanation, the explanans are

10
intended to show why something is the case, where as in an argument the premises are intended
to prove that something is the case. In the above two examples, the arguers are intended to
explain the situations rather than proving them.
However, as with expository passages and illustrations, there are some passages that can be
interpreted as both explanations and arguments.
Example: Women become intoxicated by drinking a smaller amount of alcohol than men
because men metabolize part of the alcohol before it reaches the bloodstream, whereas women
do not.
The purpose of this passage could be to prove the first statement to those people who do not
accept it as fact, and to shed light on that fact to those people who do accept it. Alternately, the
passage could be intended to prove the first statement to a single person who accepts its truth on
blind faith or incomplete experience, and simultaneously to shed light on this truth. Thus, the
passage can be correctly interpreted as both an explanation and an argument.
Perhaps the greatest problem confronting the effort to distinguish explanations from arguments
lies in determining whether something is an accepted matter of fact. Obviously what is accepted
by one person may not be accepted by another. Thus, the effort often involves determining which
person or group of people the passage is directed to—the intended audience. Sometimes the
source of the passage (textbook, newspaper, technical journal, etc.) will decide the issue. But
when the passage is taken totally out of context, ascertaining the source may prove impossible.
In those circumstances the only possible answer may be to say that if the passage is an argument,
then such-and-such is the conclusion and such-and-such are the premises.
Conditional Statements: A sentence constructed through an ‗if … then…‖ statement is a
conditional statement. And, a statement that is following ‗then‘ is called consequent and a
statement following ‗if‘ is called an antecedent. Conditional statements do not usually contain
argument; rather they signify the causal connection between the antecedent and the consequent
as:
If antecedent, then consequent. or
Consequent if antecedent.
Example:
If you study hard, then you will score a good grade, or
You will score a good grade if you study hard.
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. Yet their inferential content may be re-expressed to form arguments:
If Aster is the wife of Abebe, then Abebe is the husband of Aster. Can be re-expressed as follows
Aster is the wife of Abebe.
Therefore, Abebe is the husband of Aster.
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, as the following examples
illustrate:
If Iran is developing nuclear weapons, then Iran is a threat to world peace.
Iran is developing nuclear weapons.
Therefore, Iran is a threat to world peace.

11
If borders are secure, then terrorists cannot enter the country.
If terrorists cannot enter the country, then acts of terrorism will be reduced.
Therefore, if borders are secure, then acts of terrorism will be reduced.
The relation between conditional statements and arguments may now be summarized as follows:
 A single conditional statement is not an argument.
 A conditional statement may serve as either the premise or the conclusion or both of an
argument.
 The inferential content of a conditional statement may be re-expressed to form an
argument.
Another important point is that conditional statements are useful in logic since they express the
relationship between sufficient and necessary conditions. ‘X‘ is said to be a sufficient condition
for ‗Y‘ whenever the occurrence of ‗X‘ is all that is needed for the occurrence of ‗Y‘. For
example, it is clear that being stabbed by a knife could cause a scare to appear. When we put this
in a conditional statement, it is as ―If you are stabbed by Knife, a scare will appear in your
body‖. Or to put this in terms of sufficient and necessary condition it can be presented as ―being
stabbed by a knife is a sufficient condition for the occurrence of scare.‖ However, being stabbed
by a knife is not a necessary condition for the occurrence of scare because many other things
may cause scare.
‗X‘ is said to be the necessary condition for ‗Y‘ whenever ‗Y‘ cannot occur without the
occurrence of ‗X‘. For example, air is a necessary condition for life. It is a necessary condition
because one cannot think of life without air. But it is not a sufficient condition since there are
other necessary conditions.
Types of Argument
Deductive and Inductive Arguments
Based on the kind of connection existed between the premises and the conclusion, arguments can
broadly be classified in to two; deductive and inductive. And, the difference in the strength of
the inferential claim or the degree of strength of the reasoning process existed between the
premises and the conclusion matters most to arrive at such dichotomy between the above two
categories of arguments.
Deductive arguments are arguments in which the arguer claims that it is impossible for the
conclusion to be false given that the premises are true. In such arguments the conclusion is
claimed to follow necessarily from the premises.

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.
On the other hand, inductive arguments are those, in which the arguer claims that it is
improbable that the conclusion be false given that the premises are true. In these arguments the
conclusion is claimed to follow only probably from the premises. Their premises simply suggest
the conclusion that 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, deductive arguments are those that involve necessary reasoning, and
inductive arguments are those that involve probabilistic reasoning.

12
 Example: The majority of Ethiopian University students are seriously concerned about
employment opportunity. Daniel is a University Student. Therefore, Daniel is seriously
concerned about employment opportunity.
The premise of the above argument is supporting the conclusion with the degree of likelihood or
probability that there is no relationship of logical necessity between the premise and the
conclusion.
There are cases where inductive arguments are understood, as arguments, which reason from
part to whole and deductive argument, are those, which reason from whole to part. However,
this kind of approach does not always work. And, the following two examples show that the
above definitions do not always work.
Example 1:
Three is a prime number.
Five is a prime number.
Seven is a prime number.
Therefore, all odd numbers between two and eight are prime numbers.
1. This is reasoning from particular to general, however the argument is deductive.
Example 2:
All the last experiences in Ethiopian politics have shown that political power is not secured
through unconstitutional means. Therefore, Political power in Ethiopia will not be secured
through similar strategy in the coming years.
2. This is an inductive argument since it seems to argue to forecast the future based on past
experiences.
In any case, the strength of the inferential connection between the premises and the conclusion
should be taken as an indispensable criterion to differentiate or show the distinction between
inductive and deductive arguments.
To sum up there are three criteria, which are important to distinguish inductive arguments from
deductive arguments. These are:
A. The existence of indicator words such as necessarily, certainly, absolutely, and definitely
in arguments show that such arguments are deductive. And 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.
B. The actual strength of the inferential link between the premises and the conclusion of a
given argument is another criterion to distinguish deductive from an inductive argument. If the
conclusion is strictly or logically followed form the premises, the argument will be deductive
but if the conclusion is probably followed from the premises, the argument is inductive.
C. Typical deductive and inductive argument forms/styles.
Deductive Argument Forms
Mathematical argumentations are deductive argument forms since they are accompanied by
some arithmetic and geometric backgrounds. 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.
Example:
The sum of two odd numbers is always even. Thus, the result of 3 and 9 is an even number.
An argument from definition is a deductive argument form since the premises already define
the truth of the conclusion.

13
 Example: God is omniscient, it follows that He knows everything.
Syllogism is a form of argument having exactly two Premises and a Conclusion.
A. Categorical syllogism is a deductive argument form. It is a syllogism (an argument form
having exactly two premises) in which each of its statements usually begins with words: ‗all‘,
‗no‘ and ‗some.‘
Example: All X are Y
All Y are Z
Therefore, all X are Z

All animals are mammals.

All mammals are Living things
Therefore, all animals are living things.
B. Hypothetical syllogism is a deductive argument, which is basically accompanied by an
―If…then…‖ or conditional statement for one or both of its premises.
If electricity flows through a conductor, then a magnetic field is produced.
If a magnetic field is produced, then a nearby compass will be deflected.
Therefore, if electricity flows through a conductor, then a nearby compass will be deflected.
C. Disjunctive Syllogism is a syllogism which is accompanied by statements beginning through
an ―Either…or …‖ phrase for one of its premises.
 Example

Either x or y.
Not x .
Therefore, y.
Either Italy or Ethiopia won the military incident of Adwa. Italy did not win the military incident
of Adwa. Therefore, Ethiopia won the military incident of Adwa.
Inductive Argument Forms
Prediction is when somebody concludes about the future based on what was or is happening
before as well as now. This is an inductive argument in the sense that it cannot show the future
with certainty.
Example:
It has been raining for the whole day of this week, this shows that it will rain for the coming week.
An 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. For example, someone might argue that because car A
and car B have similar color and shape, it follows that car A and car B must also have the same
speed. The argument depends on the existence of a similarity, or analogy, between the two cars.
The certitude attending such an inference is obviously probabilistic at best.
An inductive generalization is when someone bases his/her conclusion on some particular
instances, cases or samples.
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.
An argument from authority is an argument that concludes something is true because a
presumed expert or witness has said that it is. For example, a lawyer might argue that Mr. "X"

14
committed the murder because an eyewitness testified to that effect under oath. Because the
eyewitness could be either mistaken or lying, such arguments are essentially probabilistic.
Argument based on signs, When knowledge about certain signs is attributed to certain
situations to which these signs symbolize, it will be an inductive argument. And, arguments
based on traffic signs; cautions of any marks and symbols usually contain inductive
argumentations. For 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 an error about the turns, the conclusion is only probable.
An argument based on causation, instances of cause and effect (cause to effect or effect to
cause) which can never be known with absolute certainty, is an inductive argumentation.
Example –
 Kebede is upset so that he is silent  cause to effect
 The meat is dry so that it had over cooked  effect to cause

Evaluating Arguments
When we expose arguments to critical and rational scrutiny, we may witness that the premises,
which are claimed to support the conclusion, fail to support the conclusion so that the
information of premises becomes irrelevant or inconsistent to the conclusion. Thus, arguments
having this nature can be evaluated as bad or illogical. On the contrary, if we witness an
argument having sufficient, genuine and precise evidences or premises to the conclusion, then
we can judge that the information of the premises are relevant, consistent and conducive to the
conclusion. And an argument that satisfies this requirement can be evaluated as good or logical.
Therefore, as it has been underlined before, inferential claim is an indispensable criterion to
evaluate arguments that if the premises of a given argument fail to logically support or imply the
conclusion, the argument is bad and if the case is on the contrary it will result in good argument.
And the primary task of this section is to evaluate arguments, particularly deductive and
inductive arguments. And, as it has been explained before, the relationship between the premises
and the conclusion of a deductive argument is a matter of necessity where as that of an inductive
argument is a matter of probability. In any case, logicians employ different terminologies
applicable so as to evaluate deductive and inductive arguments separately

Evaluating Deductive Arguments

Validity and Invalidity
The previous section defined a deductive argument as one in which the arguer claims that it is
impossible for the conclusion to be false given that the premises are true. As an introductory
insight, there are four technical terms employed so as to evaluate deductive arguments; valid,
invalid, sound and unsound. Initially a deductive argument can be divided into two forms:
Valid and invalid. And, a valid deductive argument is an argument such that if the premises
are assumed to be true, the conclusion must be true (it is impossible for the conclusion to be
false). In other words, the logical connection between the premises and the conclusion of a valid
deductive argument is a matter of strict necessity. If, on the other hand, the connection between
the premises and the conclusion of an argument is not a matter of strict necessity in the sense that
if the premises are assumed to be true, then if there is a possibility for the conclusion to be false,
such a deductive argument is invalid.

15
Moreover, there is no argument, which is partially or almost valid (there is not any third
alternative other than valid and invalid arguments) that if the conclusion is followed with strict
necessity from premises, the argument is valid; and if the case is on the opposite, the argument is
invalid.
To test an argument for validity we begin by assuming that all the premises are true, and then we
determine if it is possible, in light of that assumption, for the conclusion to be false. Here is an
Example:
All television networks are media companies.
EBC is a television network.
Therefore, EBC is a media company.
In this argument both premises are actually true, so it is easy to assume that they are true. Next
we determine, in light of this assumption, if it is possible for the conclusion to be false. Clearly
this is not possible. If EBC is included in the group of television networks (second premise) and
if the group of television networks is included in the group of media companies (first premise), it
necessarily follows that EBC is included in the group of media companies (conclusion). In other
words, assuming the premises true and the conclusion false entails a strict contradiction. Thus the
argument is valid.
Here is another example:
All automakers are computer manufacturers.
Ethiopian Airlines is an automaker.
Therefore, Ethiopian Airlines is a computer manufacturer.
In this argument, both premises are actually false, but it is easy to assume that they are true.
Every automaker could have a corporate division that manufactures computers.
Also, in addition to flying airplanes, Ethiopian Airlines could make cars. Next, in light of these
assumptions, we determine if it is possible for the conclusion to be false. Again, we see that this
is not possible, by the same reasoning as the previous example. Assuming the premises true and
the conclusion false entails a contradiction. Thus, the argument is valid.
Example:
All banks are financial institutions.
Amhara saving and Credit Institution is a financial institution.
Therefore, Amhara Saving and Credit Institution is a bank.
As in the first example, both premises of this argument are true, so it is easy to assume they are
true. Next we determine, in light of this assumption, if it is possible for the conclusion to be
false. In this case it is possible. If banks were included in one part of the group of financial
institutions and Amhara Saving and Credit Institution were included in another part, then
Amhara Saving and Credit Institution would not be a bank. In other words, assuming the
premises true and the conclusion false does not involve any contradiction, and so the argument is
invalid.
Validity and Truth
Another important point is that there is not any direct connection between validity and truth, in
the sense that, it is not mandatory to have either true or false premises as well as conclusion so as
to get a valid argument except an argument with true premises and false conclusion which is
always invalid.
Truth and falsity are attributes of individual propositions or statements, which assert what really
are the cases. When somebody asserts that Abay is the largest river in Ethiopia, he/she asserts
what really is the case, means what is true. But if he/she asserts that the largest river in Ethiopia

16
 is Awash, his/her assertion would not be in accord with the actual world; therefore, it would be
false. Thus, truth is the attribute of a proposition that asserts what really is the case, what is true;
however, validity and invalidity are attributes of arguments. Just as the concept of validity does
not apply to single propositions, the concept of truth does not apply to arguments.
In other words, the fact that statements of an argument are all true may not prove validity and the
fact that all the statements of an argument are false do not prevent the argument from being
valid. In any case, the following possible combinations of true and false premises in both valid
and invalid arguments:
I. Some Valid Arguments Contain all true Propositions-true premises and true conclusion:-
Example: - All Mammals are animals.
- All cows are Mammals.
- Therefore, all cows are animals.
II. Some Valid arguments have all false propositions-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. If they were
true, the conclusion would have to be true as well. It is impossible for the conclusion to be false
assuming that the premises are true. Thus, the above argument is valid.
III. Some invalid arguments have true premises and true Conclusion:-
Example:-
All Ethiopians are Africans.
Hailesellassie I is an African.
Therefore, Hailesellassie I is an Ethiopian.
The above argument is invalid because the truth of the conclusion does not follow the premises
with strict necessity.
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.
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.

17
 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 any case, as it has been underlined before, the above examples clearly witness that there is no
direct link between validity and truth in the sense that the truth or falsity of the proposition or
statement of an argument can never by itself guarantee the validity or invalidity of that argument.
An argument can be either valid or invalid depending primarily on whether the conclusion
follows the premises with strict necessity or not (regardless of the truth and falsity of the
premises and conclusion).
Another important exception in any deductive logic is indicated in the above table (in the second
combination) which contains an argument of true premises and false conclusion. And any
argument with such an arrangement is always invalid.
Validity and Soundness: A deductive argument can be considered as sound if and only if it is
valid and heaving all true premises. If one of these two conditions is violated, the argument
would rather be unsound.
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
On the other hand, a deductively 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.

Evaluating Inductive Arguments

Strength and Weakness
As it has been underlined before, an inductive argument 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. Therefore, a
strong argument is one such that it is unlikely, though possible, that its conclusion is false while
its premises are true. Or it is highly probable that if its promises are true, then its conclusion is

18
 true in any inductively strong argument. If the premises are true, its conclusion has a higher
probability of being true in any strong argument.
Example: All previous American presidents were men. Therefore, probably the next American
president will be man.
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 argument is strong.
Here is another example:
All previous American presidents were women. Therefore, probably the next American president
will be woman.
The premise of this argument is obviously false. But if we assume the premise is true, then based
on that assumption, the conclusion would probably be true. Thus, the argument is strong.
On the other hand, a weak inductive argument is one such that if the premises are assumed true,
then based on this assumption, it is not probable that the conclusion is true. In other words, a
weak inductive argument has this essential feature: It is not likely that if its premises are true,
then its conclusion is true.
Example: There has been rainfall throughout Ethiopia for the last few days. Therefore, probably
it will be raining for the coming week.
As it has been underlined before, validity does not admit of degree so that there is no any such
argument to be said more valid/ less valid, or less invalid or more invalid. However, strength and
weakness, unlike validity and invalidity, admit of degree so that we can have either stronger or
weaker when we compare to other arguments. Moreover, like validity and invalidity, strength
and weakness are only indirectly related to truth and falsity. The central question in determining
strength and weakness of argument is not the truth and falsity of premises and conclusion but
whether the conclusion would probably be true if the premises are assumed true. And, we can
have 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 a man.
II. A weak inductive argument with true premises and a probably true conclusion.
Example:
A few American presidents were federalists. 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.
IV. A strong inductive argument with false premises and a probably true conclusion.
Example:
All Previous American presidents were television debaters. 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.

19
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.
Depending on whether the conclusion has a higher probability of following the premises
(regardless of the truth and falsity of premises and the conclusion), the first, third and fourth
combinations show that the argument can be either strong or weak. This shows that strength, like
validity, is only indirectly related to truth and falsity.
However any inductive argument with true premises and probably false conclusion is
always weak, which is an exception of any inductive logic.
Strength and Cogency: An inductively cogent argument has two essential features: (a) it is
strong and (b) all its premises are true. If one of these two conditions is missed, the argument
would rather be un-cogent. Thus, an inductively cogent argument = a strong argument + all
true premises.
Example: All previous American presidents were men. Therefore, probably the next American
president will be a man.
This argument is strong, in that it is unlikely for the conclusion to be false given that the promise
is true. And, the premise is true so that the argument is inductively cogent.
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.

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. For example, if the size of the sample in the
second argument were reduced to seventy apples, the argument would be weakened. The
incorporation of additional premises into an inductive argument will also generally tend to
strengthen or weaken it. For example, if the premise ―One unripe apple that had been found
earlier was removed‖ were added to either argument, the argument would be weakened.
There is a difference, however, between sound and cogent arguments in regard to the true
premise requirement. In a sound argument it is necessary only that the premises be true and
nothing more. Given such premises and good reasoning, a true conclusion is guaranteed. In a
cogent argument, on the other hand, the premises must not only be true, but they must also not
ignore some important piece of evidence that entails a quite different conclusion.

20
 CHAPTER THREE
LANGUAGE: MEANINGS AND DEFINITIONS
Language and its application is one of the fundamental areas of the study of logic. Thus, among
other things, language is used to: ask questions, tell jokes, tell stories, flirt with someone, tell
lies, give directions, guess at answers, sing songs, form hypotheses, issue commands, launch
verbal assaults, greet someone, and so on. Cognitive meaning is primarily concerned with
conveying information about certain issues, events, phenomena and the like. While emotive
meaning is primarily concerned with expressing ones own feeing, and emotions. A Term is a
word or a group of words that can stand as a subject of a statement. Intensional definition is
related to the qualities, features, or characteristics of a thing to be defined; while extensional
definition is related to the members of the class to be defined. There are about five types of
definition with different purposes. There are also different methods we use to produce these
different definitions.
Cognitive and Emotive Meanings
To fit with our purpose, we select three of the main linguistic functions:
1. To convey information
2. To express or evoke feelings.
Examples:
1. The first written constitution of Ethiopia was formulated is 1931; however the first
federal constitution is effected since 1995.
2. Death Penalty is the final, cruel and inhuman form of all punishments, which hopeless
prisoners are taken from their cells and terribly slaughtered.
The above statements employ their own distinct terminologies to accomplish their respective
functions. The first statement conveys cognitive meaning, which uses terminologies such as
‗codified‘, ‗first‘ and ‗written‘, whereas the second statement contains emotive meaning and it
employs terminologies like ‗Cruel‘, ‗hopeless‘, ―terribly‘ and ‗slaughtered‘, and the third
statement includes words such as ‗Please‘, ‗carefully‘ and others to transmit command.
Emotively charged statements usually have both cognitive and emotive meanings, however, it is
logically advisable to distinguish the two and emphasis should be given to the former since logic
is mainly concerned with it. This is primarily because of the fact that emotively charged
sentences are mainly accompanied by expressions of prejudices and feelings rather than rational,
justifiable and factual information about an event or the subject concerned. Moreover, we cannot
use emotively charged sentences in arguments since the sentences cannot be evaluated as true or
false.
It is not logical to argue that emotively charged statements have no cognitive meanings; rather
the cognitive meanings of emotively charged statements have to do with value claims, which are
important parts of cognitive meaning of emotive statements. This will force readers or listeners
to separate value claims and cognitive meanings form emotive meanings so as to get the real
meaning of the argument proposed. And, it is important to separate value claims form emotive
meanings of emotively charged statements to secure the purpose of logic. Here, the logical
presumption is that value claims cannot stand by themselves; rather they normally have
evidences to support them. And, emotively charged statements are usually familiar with
disciplines such as; military, advertising, politics and other related fields.
The Intension and Extension of Terms
It is clear that arguments and their logical status is the main topic of logic. And, arguments are
consisting of statements, which are composed of words that have meanings are convoyed

21
through definitions. Moreover, logic is highly dependent on definitions to deliver specific
meanings to terms.
Though words is general are primary units of ordinary languages, we in this chapter, are not
mainly concerned with them, rather with terms.
A term is a word or group of words, which can be used as the subject of a statement. Proper
names, common names and descriptive phrases can be considered as terms. The followings
are some of the examples, which are used as terms.
Proper names Common names Descriptive Phrases
- Kebede - house - pen under the table
- South America - person - those who study hard
On the other hand, verbs, adjectives, prepositions, conjunctions and the like cannot be
considered as terms since they cannot serve as subjects of statement. For example, words such
as; ‗however‘, ‗argue fairly‘, ‗controversial‘…cannot be taken as terms. In short, to consider a
word or a group of words as a term or non-term, one should be aware whether or not it serves as
the subject of the statement. And one must distinguish when words are used from they are
mentioned. When words have been mentioned or quoted, they usually serve as subjects so that
they can be treated as terms.
Examples 1. „Carefully‟ is an eight-letter word.
2. We should derive carefully.
As far as the above two examples is concerned, the word ―carefully‖ is mentioned in the first
example so that it can be considered as a term where as the word ―carefully‖ is used as an adverb
in the second example so that it can never be considered as a term.
Words are symbols, which signify meanings. And, terms are made up of words having two kinds
of meanings: intensional and extensional. The intensional meaning contains the attributes or
qualities, which the term connotes where as extensional meaning consists of members of the
class that the term denotes. And, Extensional meaning is usually termed as extension or
denotation. Where as its intensional meaning is called intension or connotation. For example,
the intensional meaning of the terms ‗human being‘ contains attributes of being rational, social,
and moral as well as political animal and its extensional meaning consists of all human beings in
the universe.
Intensional definition is usually exposed to subjective application in the sense that individuals‘
positive or negative inclinations or attitudes towards the subject to be defined restricts us form
having similar connotative meaning about it. For example, the following two meanings of the
term abortion are as follows:
1. Abortion is an act, which is illegal, immoral and inhuman and it clearly violates the
fundamental human rights of an infant baby.
2. Abortion is an act, which is performed by responsible medical professionals so as to
save the endangered life of the mother.
Thus, one can understand two contradictory meanings given to the term abortion. Thus, to get rid
of such subjective or partial intensional meaning of a term, conventional definition can be
taken as an alternative. Conventional definition refers to the attributes in that the things that are
denoted by the term are supposed to have in the minds of competent speakers of the language in
question.
With regard to denotative definition, it is the same from person to person: however, it may
change with the passage of time. For example, there is having similar denotative definition from
person to person to terms: ―currently living cat‖ and ―cat‖. However, there will be differences

22
 with different time in the sense that the former denotes currently existing cats where as the latter
denotes all the past, present and future cats.
As to the relationship between intensional and extensional meanings of terms;
A. When we increase the intensional meaning of a term, we are decreasing its extensional
meaning and when we decrease the intensional meaning of a term, we are increasing its
extensional meaning.
This implies that the intensional meaning of a term is conversely or indirectly related with
its extensional meaning.
Increasing intension /decreasing extension
Biology, Natural sciences, Sciences
Increasing extension/decreasing intension.
 When we say we are increasing extension, we are to mean that we are denoting more
classes or members than the preceding terms in a series. And the converse is the case
when we say we are decreasing extension.
 When we say we are increasing intension, we are to mean that we are to be more
specific or we are attributing more about the term than its preceding and the converse is
the case when we mean we are decreasing intension.
B. Intensional definition of a given term usually determines its extensional definition in the
sense that when someone gives us clues about the attributes or qualities of a given term, we can
easily identify the class or categories, which satisfy the above attributes. But, extensional
definition of a term cannot determine, but can suggest, its intensional meaning. This rule
becomes problematic when we apply it to proper names. However, we can resolve this by giving
some identifying clues about the subject to be defined as it will be witnessed in the following
example.
Kebede, the person who lives in the next building.
Another important point is about those terms having no extensional meanings, which are
technically called terms with empty extension. These terms have no classes, members or
categories which are included in them. For example, words like ‘Satan’, ‘Unicorn’, ‘Dinosaur’
and the like are terms with empty extension since such entities do not have extensional
meanings.
Definitions and Their Purposes
Philosophers such as Plato and his contemporaries perceive the purpose of definitions as to
understand the essential forms of the object to be defined. However, as to the perception of most
logicians, definitions are usually destined to assign meaning to words or groups of words. Based
on this presumption, a definition is composed of two essential parts: Definiendum and definiens.
Definiendum is the word, which is supposed to be defined, and definiens is a word or group of
words, which does the defining.
And there are five different types of definitions categorized based on their respective purposes.
These are:
1. Stipulative Definition
Stipulative definition assigns meanings to words for the first time either through coining new
words or assigning new meanings to old words. The prime function of stipulative definition is to
substitute a more complex expression by simpler one. And, it is often caused by some new
phenomenon or development. Moreover, it is used to set up secret codes in areas of military
expression and other related developments. Thus new creations as well as developments demand
new names so that Stipulative definition may serve for this purpose. Since stipulative definitions

23
are completely arbitrary assignments of meanings to words, they cannot have any truth-value so
that they cannot be asserted as ―true‖ or ―false‖. And stipulative definitions cannot give any new
information about the subject to be defined; however, they may be more or less convenient or
appropriate than others.
Examples:
- ―Logophobia” means fear of taking logic course.

2. Lexical Definition
Lexical definition is usually called dictionary definition since it is used to report the meaning that
the subject to be defined has in a language. Unlike stipulative definition, lexical definition can be
evaluated as true or false with reference to the actual usage of the word. And, a good lexical
definition should avoid or resist ambiguous meanings.
Here, it should be underlined that ambiguity and vagueness are two different notions. A word is
said to be vague if it lacks precision of application words such as love, happiness, rich,
normal… are vague since they are employed in different situations so that they might have
different meanings. On the other hand, a word is said to be ambiguous when it contains two or
more distinct meanings in that particular situations. Words like ‗Sound‘, ‗light‘, ‗right‘…are
ambiguous words.
Examples:
- “Belt” means (1) a trap worn around the waist; (2) a trip of land
- “Even” means (1) equal in size; (2) calm or tranquil; (3) divided by 2.
3. Précising Definition
A précising definition is primarily intended to reduce the vagueness of the word. This helps us to
reach a decision to the applicability of the word to a specific situation. In areas where words are
taken from ordinary usage and applied to highly systematic field such as science, mathematics,
law, medicine and other related fields, they must be clearly stated through précising definition.
Moreover, précising definitions are different from stipulative definitions since their assignments
of meanings to words are not arbitrary. And, the assignment of meaning in any précising
definition should be appropriate and legitimate to the context in which the term is applied.
Examples:
- ―Antique” means, at least 100 years old.
- “High” means, in regard to the interest rates, at least two points alone the prime rate.
4. Theoretical Definition
A theoretical definition gives a theoretical meaning to the word to be defined or it provides a
way of viewing the definiendum which in turn suggests deductive consequences and further
investigation on scientific experimentation. But this does not mean that all theoretical definitions
are associated with science, rather many terms in philosophy such as substance, idea, God…
have been given theoretical definitions. Theoretical definitions, like stipulative definitions, can
never be evaluated as true or false; however, they can be considered as more interesting or
fruitful depending on the deductive consequences they imply and the result of experiment they
suggest.
Examples:
- ―Atom” means indivisible unit of matter having perceptible qualities.
- “Sin” means an intensional violation of the law of God.

24
5. Persuasive Definition
A persuasive definition is characterized through assigning emotively charged meaning to the
definiendum as if it were having such meaning in the language in which it is used. This would
create positive or negative attitude toward the subject to be defined. And, persuasive definitions
are attributed to the synthesis of stipulative, lexical, and theoretical definitions backed by
emotional appeals so as to impose a certain attitude up on audiences or readers. The central
objective of a persuasive definition is to influence the attitude of the readers or listeners, as it is
an instrument of persuasion. Finally persuasive definitions can be evaluated as true or false
though it is not its primary mission.
Examples:
“Abortion” means the ruthless murdering of innocent human beings.
“Abortion” means a safe and established surgical procedure whereby a woman is
relieved of an unwanted burden.

“Liberal” means a drippy-eyed do-gooder obsessed with giving away other people‟s
money.
“Liberal” means a genuine humanitarian committed to the goals of adequate housing
and health care and of equal opportunity for all of our citizens.
“Taxation” means the procedure by means of which our commonwealth is preserved and
sustained.
“Taxation” means the procedure used by bureaucrats to rip off the people who elected
them.
The objective of a persuasive definition is to influence the attitudes of the reader or listener; thus,
such definitions may be used with considerable effectiveness in political speeches and editorial
columns. While persuasive definitions may, like lexical definitions, be evaluated as either true or
false, the primary issue is neither truth nor falsity but the effectiveness of such definitions as
instruments of persuasion.

Definitional Techniques: (Extensional and Intensional)

Extensional Definition Techniques
 Demonstrative (ostensive) Definition
Demonstrative definition as a form of extensional definition, is the most primitive form of all
definitions. It is indicated through pointing towards the subject to be defined. Demonstrative
definitions may be either partial or complete depending on whether all or only some of the
members of the subject to be defined are pointed out.
This definition is important for someone to communicate with a foreigner who does not speak
the language of the former. It is limited by time and space. Moreover, sign languages to which
they usually consist of gestures are those, which this definition is supposed to be expressed.
Examples:
- “Tree” Means this and this  
- “House” Means this and this  
 Enumerative Definition
An enumerative definition is another form of extensional definition that assigns meanings to the
objects, which are supposed to be defined through naming them individually or in groups. Like
demonstrative definitions, enumerative definitions may also be either partial or complete, which
the latter is logically preferable.

25
 Examples:
- ―Politician” means someone as Nelson Mandela, Barrack Obama or Robert Mugabe.
- “Planet” means like earth, Saturn and Neptune.
 Definition by Subclass
A definition by subclass is another type of extensional definition to assign a meaning to a term
by naming the subclasses of the class denoted by the term and it can be partial or complete like
that of enumerative definition. And, a complete definition by subclass is more preferable than
that of the partial one.
Examples:
- “Fruit” means something such as an apple, peach, pear, or banana.
The above three types of extensional definitions are crucial techniques in producing lexical and
Stipulative definitions. Moreover, extensional definitions could also serve as techniques for
theoretical and persuasive definitions. Extensional definition, on the other hand, cannot serve as
précising definition since the purpose of précising definition is to clarify vague words and
vagueness is exclusively an issue of intensional meaning.
Intensional Definitions techniques:
 A Synonymous Definition
It is a kind of intensional definition that the definien is a synonym of the word being defined. If a
single word is found having the same intensional meaning with the definiendum, synonymous
definition is highly appropriate way of assigning intensional meaning. But, the problem is on the
difficulty of getting a single word to satisfy this requirement.
Examples
- “Obese” Means fat
- “Skinny” means thin
 An Etymological Definition assigns meanings to a word through showing its root, origin
or ancestors in both its own language as well as other languages. Most of the time,
English words have ancestors in other language such as Greek, Latin, French and others.
This definition gives the word‘s original meaning, which other meanings can be derived.
It also enables us to get the historical details of the word to be defined as well as other
related words.
Example “Philosophy” is a word derived from the Greek philo, which mans love, and Sophia,
which means wisdom.
 An Operational Definition
It gives meaning to a word through setting experimental procedures, which will be applied to it.
It describes an operation to be performed. This kind of definition is assigned to bring abstract
concepts to the empirical reality. It delivers only part of the intensional meaning of a term and
this problem in more serious when this definition is outside the framework of science.
Examples
- A knife is “Sharp” if it produces a thin scratch when very gently drawn over one‟s thumbnail.
- A liquid is “Viscous” if one feels resistance when drawing one‟s hand through it.
 Definition by Genus and Difference
It assigns a meaning to a term by identifying a genus term and one or more difference words. It is
more applicable and adequate definition than any other intensional definitions. In logic, ―genus‖
means a relatively larger class, as ‗Species‖ is a relatively smaller subclass of genus and
―Specific difference‖ is the attribute that differentiate species from genus. To construct this
definition, we should first select or find the genus term and then identify the specific difference.

26
And this definition is the most effective of all intensional definitions to produce stipulative,
lexical, précising, theoretical and persuasive definitions.
Examples:
Species Difference Genus
―Daughter‖ means female offspring.
―Husband‖ means married man.
―Skyscraper‖ means very tall building

CHAPTER FOUR
BASIC CONCEPTS OF CRITICAL THINKING
Meaning of Critical Thinking
Critical thinking is the general term given to a wide range of cognitive skills and intellectual
dispositions needed to effectively identify, analyze, and evaluate arguments and truth claims.
Moreover, it helps to discover and overcome personal preconceptions and biases; to formulate
and present convincing reasons in support of conclusions; and to make reasonable, intelligent
decisions about what to believe and what to do.
Critical thinking is a process or journey that helps us to arrive at the most useful, helpful, and
most likely destinations when evaluating claims for scientific truth. Critical thinking, thus, is
thinking clearly, thinking fairly, thinking rationally, thinking objectively, and thinking
independently. It is a process that hopefully leads to an impartial investigation of the data and
facts that remains not swayed by irrelevant emotions. Therefore, the aim of critical thinking is to
arrive at well-reasoned, considered, and justifiable conclusions.

The American philosopher, John Dewey, has defined critical thinking as an active, persistent,
and careful consideration of a belief or supposed form of knowledge in the light of the grounds,
which support it and the further conclusions to which it tends.

Edward Glaser defined critical thinking as: (1) an attitude of being disposed to consider in a
thoughtful way the problems and subjects that come within the range of one‟s experience; (2)
knowledge of the methods of logical enquiry and reasoning; and (3) some skill in applying those
methods.

The other most famous contributors to the development of the critical thinking tradition is Robert
Ennis. He defined critical thinking as reasonable, reflective thinking that is focused on deciding
what to believe or do.

Here is another important definition of critical thinking is given by Richard Paul: Critical
thinking is that mode of thinking – about any subject, content or problem – in which the thinker
improves the quality of his or her thinking by skillfully taking charge of the structures inherent in
thinking and imposing intellectual standards upon them. Paul associates critical thinking with
reflecting on thoughts

One last definition is worth reviewing. Michael Scriven has defined critical thinking as skilled
and active interpretation and evaluation of observations and communications, information and
argumentation.

27
Standards of Critical Thinking

Standard of critical thinking refers a conditions or a level that critical thinking should meet to be
considered as normal and acceptable. Clarity, precision, accuracy, relevance, consistency,
logical correctness, completeness, and fairness are some of the most important intellectual
standards of critical thinking.

1). Clarity

Clarity refers to clear understanding of concepts and clearly expressing them in a language that is
free of obscurity and vagueness.

2). Precision

Precision is a matter of being exact, accurate and careful. Most ideas are vague and obscures
though we think we have precise understanding of them. When we try to meticulous these ideas,
we will find that they are imprecise. To get precise understanding, we should pay close attention
to details.

3). Accuracy

Accuracy is about correct information. Critical thinking should care a lot about genuine
information. If the ideas and thoughts one processes are not real, then ones decision based on
wrong and false information will likely to result in distorting realities.

Accuracy is about having and getting true information. There is a well-known saying about
computers: ―Garbage in, garbage out.‖Simply put, this means that if you put bad information into
a computer, bad information is exactly what you will get out of it

4). Relevance

The question of relevance is a question of connections. When there is a discussion or debate, it

should focus on relevant ideas and information. That is, only those points that bear on the issue
should be raised.

5). Consistency

Consistency is about the quality of always behaving in the same way or of having the same
opinions or standards. It is easy to see why consistency is essential to critical thinking.

There are two kinds of inconsistency that should be avoided. One is logical inconsistency, which
involves saying or believing inconsistent things (i.e., things that cannot both or all be true) about
a particular matter. The other is practical inconsistency, which involves saying one thing and
doing another. Sometimes people are fully aware that their words conflict with their deeds; in
short people sometime are hypocrites.

28
6). Logical Correctness

To think logically is to reason correctly; that is, to draw well-founded conclusions from the
beliefs held. To think critically, we need accurate and well supported beliefs. But, just as
important, we need to be able to reason from those beliefs to conclusions that logically follow
from them.

7). Completeness

In most contexts, we rightly prefer deep and complete thinking to shallow and superficial
thinking. Thinking is better when it is deep rather than shallow, thorough rather than superficial.

8). Fairness

Critical thinking demands that our thinking be fair - that is, open minded, impartial, and free of
distorting biases and preconceptions. We naturally think from our own perspective, from a point
of view, which tends to privilege our position. Fairness implies the treating of all relevant
viewpoints alike without reference to one‘s own feelings or interests.

Codes of Intellectual Conduct for Effective Discussion

Principles of Good Argument

1) The Structural Principle

The structural principle of a good argument requires that one who argues for or against a position
should use an argument that meets the fundamental structural requirements of a well-formed
argument. Such an argument does not use reasons that contradict each other, that contradict the
conclusion, or that explicitly or implicitly assume the truth of the conclusion. Neither does it
draw any invalid deductive inferences.

The first criterion used in determining whether an argument is a good one is the requirement that
it be structurally sound. An argument must look and works like an argument. In other words, it
should be formed in such a way that the conclusion either follows necessarily from its premises,
in the case of deductive arguments, or follows probably from its premises, in the case of
inductive arguments.

A good argument should also provide us with reasons to believe that the conclusion deserves our
acceptance. Since most discussions about controversial issues are initiated because the
argument‘s conclusion has not yet been accepted by all participants, the arguer will use premises
that are more likely to be accepted than the conclusion. If those premises are accepted and they
lead to the conclusion, it is more likely that the conclusion will also be accepted.

29
 2) The Relevance Principle

This principle of a good argument requires that one who presents an argument for or against a
position should set forth only reasons whose truth provides some evidence for the truth of the
conclusion.

The premises of a good argument must be relevant to the truth or merit of the conclusion. There
is no reason to waste time assessing the truth or acceptability of a premise if it is not even
relevant to the truth of the conclusion. A premise is relevant if its acceptance provides some
reason to believe, counts in favor of, or has some bearing on the truth or merit of the conclusion.
A premise is irrelevant if its acceptance has no bearing on, provides no evidence for, or has no
connection to the truth or merit of the conclusion.

3) The Acceptability Principle

Acceptability principle requires that one who presents an argument for or against a position
should provide reasons that are likely to be accepted by a mature, rational person and that meet
standard criteria of acceptability. The reasons set forth in support of a conclusion must be
acceptable. A reason is acceptable if it is the kind of claim that a rational person would accept in
the face of all the relevant evidence available.

4) The Sufficiency Principle

This principle of a good argument is the sufficiency principle, which requires that one who
presents an argument for or against a position should attempt to provide relevant and acceptable
reasons of the right kind, that together are sufficient in number and weight to justify the
acceptance of the conclusion.

5) The Rebuttal Principle

The last principle of a good argument is the rebuttal principle. This principle requires that one
who presents an argument for or against a position should include in the argument an effective
rebuttal to all anticipated serious criticisms of the argument that may be brought against it or
against the position it supports.

Since an argument is usually presented against the background that there is another side to the
issue, a good argument must address that other side directly. An argument cannot be a good one
if it does not anticipate and effectively refute or blunt the force of the most serious criticisms
against it and the position that it supports.

Principles of Critical Thinking

1) The Fallibility Principle

The first principle of a critical thinking is the fallibility principle. This principle requires that
each participant in a discussion of a disputed issue should be willing to accept the fact that he or

30
she is fallible, which means that one must acknowledge that one‘s own initial view may not be
the most defensible position on the question.

2) The Truth Seeking Principle

The second principle of a critical thinking is the truth seeking principle. This principle requires
that each participant should be committed to the task of earnestly searching for the truth or at
least the most defensible position on the issue at stake. Therefore, one should be willing to
examine alternative positions seriously, look for insights in the positions of others, and allow
other participants to present arguments for or raise objections to any position held on an issue.

3) The Clarity Principle

The clarity principle is the third principle of a critical thinking. It requires that the formulations
of all positions, defences, and attacks should be free of any kind of linguistic confusion and
clearly separated from other positions and issues. Any successful discussion of an issue must be
carried on in language that all the parties involved can understand.

4) The Burden of Proof Principle

The fourth principle of a critical thinking is the burden of proof principle. This principle requires
that the burden of proof for any position usually rests on the participant who sets forth the
position. If, and when, an opponent asks, the proponent should provide an argument for that
position.

5) The Principle of Charity

This is the fifth principle of a critical thinking that requires that if a participant‘s argument is
reformulated by an opponent, it should be carefully expressed in its strongest possible version
that is consistent with what is believed to be the original intention of the arguer. If there is any
question about that intention or about any implicit part of the argument, the arguer should be
given the benefit of any doubt in the reformulation and/or, when possible, given the opportunity
to amend it.

6) The Suspension of Judgment Principle

The sixth principle of a critical thinking is the suspension of judgment principle. This principle
requires that if no position is defended by a good argument, or if two or more positions seem to
be defended with equal strength, one should, in most cases, suspend judgment about the issue. If
practical considerations seem to require a more immediate decision, one should weigh the
relative benefits or harm connected with the consequences of suspending judgment and decides
the issue on those grounds.

31
 7) The Resolution Principle

The last principle of a critical thinking is the resolution principle. This principle requires that an
issue should be considered resolved if the argument for one of the alternative positions is a
structurally sound, one that uses relevant and acceptable reasons that together provide sufficient
grounds to justify the conclusion and that also include an effective rebuttal to all serious
criticisms of the argument and/or the position it supports. Unless one can demonstrate that the
argument has not met these conditions more successfully than any argument presented for
alternative positions, one is obligated to accept its conclusion and consider the issue to be settled.

Characteristics of Critical Thinking

Basic Traits of Critical Thinkers

Critical thinkers:

 Are honest with themselves, acknowledging what they don't know, recognizing their
limitations, and being watchful of their own errors.
 Regard problems and controversial issues as exciting challenges.
 Strive for understanding, keep curiosity alive, remain patient with complexity, and are
ready to invest time to overcome confusion.
 Base judgments on evidence rather than personal preferences, deferring judgment
whenever evidence is insufficient. They revise judgments when new evidence reveals
error.
 Are interested in other people's ideas and so are willing to read and listen attentively,
even when they tend to disagree with the other person.
 Recognize that extreme views (whether conservative or liberal) are seldom correct, so
they avoid them, practice fair-mindedness, and seek a balance view.
 Practice restraint, controlling their feelings rather than being controlled by them, and
thinking before acting.
Basic Traits of Uncritical Thinkers
Uncritical thinkers:
 Pretend they know more than they do, ignore their limitations, and assume their views
are error-free.
 Regard problems and controversial issues as nuisances or threats to their ego.
 Are inpatient with complexity and thus would rather remain confused than make the
effort to understand.
 Base judgments on first impressions and gut reactions. They are unconcerned about the
amount or quality of evidence and cling to their views steadfastly.
 Are preoccupied with themselves and their own opinions, and so are unwilling to pay
attention to others' views. At the first sign of disagreement, they tend to think, "How
can I refute this?"
 Ignore the need for balance and give preference to views that support their established
views.
 Tend to follow their feelings and act impulsively.

32
Barriers to Critical Thinking

There are a number of factors that impede a critical thinking. Some of the most common barriers
to critical thinking are: Lack of relevant background information, poor reading skills, bias,
prejudice, superstition, egocentrism (self-centered thinking), sociocentrism (group-centered
thinking), peer pressure, conformism, provincialism (narrow, unsophisticated thinking), narrow-
mindedness, closed-mindedness, distrust in reason, relativistic thinking, stereotyping,
unwarranted assumptions, scapegoating (blaming the innocent), rationalization (inventing
excuses to avoid facing our real motives).

1) Egocentrism

One of the most powerful barriers to critical thinking is egocentrism. Even highly educated and
intelligent people are prey to egocentrism. Egocentrism is the tendency to see reality as centered
on oneself. Egocentrics are selfish, self-absorbed people who view their interests, ideas, and
values as superior to everyone else‘s.

2) Sociocentrism

The second powerful barrier that paralyze the critical thinking ability of most people including
intellectuals is sociocentrism. It is group-centered thinking. Just as egocentrism can hinder
rational thinking by focusing excessively on the self, so sociocentrism can hinder rational
thinking by focusing excessively on the group. Sociocentrism can distort critical thinking in
many ways. Two of the most important are group bias and conformism.

Group bias is the tendency to see one‘s own group (nation, tribe, sect, peer group, and the like)
as being inherently better than others.

Conformism refers to our tendency to follow the crowd - that is, to conform (often unthinkingly)
to authority or to group standards of conduct and belief.

3) Unwarranted Assumptions and Stereotypes

The third factor that impedes critical thinking is unwarranted assumptions and stereotype. An
assumption is something we take for granted - something we believe to be true without any proof
or conclusive evidence. An unwarranted assumption is something taken for granted without good
reason. Such assumptions often prevent our seeing things clearly.

One of the most common types of unwarranted assumptions is a stereotype. The word stereotype
comes from the printing press era, when plates, or stereotypes, were used to produce identical
copies of one page. Similarly, when we stereotype, as the word is now used, we assume that
individual people have all been stamped from one plate, so all politicians are alike, members of
ethnic groups, professors, women, teachers, and so forth.

33
 4) Relativistic Thinking

One of the strongest challenges to critical thinking is relativistic thinking. Relativism is the view
that truth is a matter of opinion. There are two popular forms of relativism: subjectivism and
cultural relativism. Subjectivism is the view that truth is a matter of individual opinion.
According to subjectivism, whatever an individual believes is true, is true for that person, and
there is no such thing as ―objective‖ or ―absolute‖ truth, i.e., truth that exists independent of what
anyone believes.

The other common form of relativism is cultural relativism. This is the view that truth is a matter
of social or cultural opinion. In other words, cultural relativism is the view that what is true for
person A is what person A‘s culture or society believes is true.

5) Wishful Thinking

Wishful thinking refers to a state of believing something not because you had good evidence for
it but simply because you wished it were true.

CHAPTER FIVE
INFORMAL FALLACIES
Fallacies in General
A fallacy in general can be defined as an error in reasoning process; or a fallacy is a defect in an
argument that consists in something other than merely false premises. As we will see, fallacies
can be committed in many ways, but usually they involve either a mistake in reasoning or the
creation of some illusion that makes a bad argument appear good (or both). Both deductive and
inductive arguments may contain fallacies; if they do, they are either unsound or uncogent,
depending on the kind of argument. Conversely, if an argument is unsound or uncogent, it has
one or more false premises or it contains a fallacy (or both).
Ordinarily speaking, fallacy can be understood as false or mistaken belief; however, logic
perceives it as a defect in reasoning processes of arguments. Thus, as logic dictates us, fallacy
can broadly be understood as a defect or mistake committed in arguments or processes of
reasoning. To further understand the notion of fallacy, it forces us to go back to the etymological
origin of the word. For that matter, the term fallacy comes from the Latin ―fallo‖, ―fallcia‖,
which signifies deception, trick or cheating. This implies that fallacy is a defect of an argument
which deceives or tricks the readers or audiences since it makes an argument appear good,
correct or logical, when in fact is not. Thus, fallacies can logically be understood as mistakes in
reasoning; however, they do not easily be identified as such. In other words, fallacies basically
trick readers and listeners in to thinking that the argument forwarded to them is logical or
correct.
Fallacies are committed by writers or speakers unintensionally or intensionally so as to
manipulate the weakness of audiences in fulfilling their motives through diverting or modifying
the audiences‘ attention or position without any reasonable ground. And as it has been stated
before, fallacies are logical mistakes in arguments, which are deceptive as they make arguments
seem good arguments though they are bad in logical terms. And, they employ emotive
terminologies instead of logical evidences so as to influence audiences in concealing logical
mistakes in arguments.

34
Fallacies can broadly be classified into two types: formal and informal. Though the focus of this
chapter is on informal fallacies, it sounds logical to raise some preparatory notions about both of
these classifications. For that matter formal fallacies are committed when the form or logical
structure of arguments are violated where as informal fallacies are committed when the content
of an argument is problematic.
Formal fallacies, which are committed because of structural defects of arguments, involve an
explicit use of an invalid deductive argument forms. And, a deductive argument is invalid and
fallacious formally usually because the premises fail to support the conclusion with strict
necessity or when the premises of an argument are true and followed by a false conclusion. In
other words, through identifying the form or structure of invalid deductive arguments, one can
detect those formal fallacies. And, like informal fallacies, formal fallacies may appear or
resemble correct though they are not in reality.
The following categorical syllogism contains a formal fallacy:
All bullfights are grotesque rituals.
All executions are grotesque rituals.
Therefore, all bullfights are executions.
This argument has the following form:
All Aare B.
All Care B.
All Aare C.
Through mere inspection of this form, one can see that the argument is invalid. The fact that A,
B, and C stand respectively for ‗‗bullfights,‘‘ ‗‗grotesque rituals,‘‘ and ‗‗executions‘‘ is
irrelevant in detecting the fallacy. The problem may be traced to the second premise. If the letters
C and B are interchanged, the form becomes valid, and the original argument, with the same
change introduced, also becomes valid (but unsound).
Here is an example of a formal fallacy that occurs in a hypothetical syllogism:
If apes are intelligent, then apes can solve puzzles.
Apes can solve puzzles.
Therefore, apes are intelligent.

This argument has the following form:

If A then B.
B.
A.
In this case, if A and B are interchanged in the first premise, the form becomes valid, and the
original argument, with the same change, also becomes valid. This fallacy and the one that
precedes it will be discussed in later chapters.
In distinguishing formal from informal fallacies, remember that formal fallacies occur only in
deductive arguments. Thus, if a given argument is inductive, it cannot contain a formal fallacy.
Also, keep an eye out for standard deductive argument forms such as categorical syllogisms and
hypothetical syllogisms. If such an argument is invalid because of an improper arrangement of
terms or statements, it commits a formal fallacy. Previously, investigated some of these forms
and gave instruction on distinguishing the form from the content of an argument. All of the
exercises at the end of that section commit formal fallacies.

35
 Informal fallacies, which are the focus of this chapter, are errors in reasoning which are detected
through examining the content of an argument, not through detecting the form of an argument.
Consider the following example:
All factories are plants.
All plants are things that contain chlorophyll.
Therefore, all factories are things that contain chlorophyll.
A cursory inspection of this argument might lead one to think that it has the following form:

All Aare B.
All Bare C.
All Aare C.
Since this form is valid, one might conclude that the argument itself is valid. Yet the argument is
clearly invalid because it has true premises and a false conclusion. An analysis of the content-
that is, the meaning of the words—reveals the source of the trouble. The word‗‗plants‘‘is used in
two different senses. In the first premise it means a building where something is manufactured,
and in the second it means a life form. Thus, the argument really has the following invalid form:

All A are B.
All C are D.
All A are D.
The various informal fallacies accomplish their purpose in so many different ways that no single
umbrella theory covers them all. Some fallacies work by getting the reader or listener to feel
various emotions, such as fear, pity, or camaraderie, and then attaching a certain conclusion to
those emotions. Others attempt to discredit an opposing argument by associating it with certain
pejorative features of its author. And then there are those that appeal to various dispositions on
the part of the reader or listener, such as superstition or mental laziness, to get him or her to
accept a conclusion. By studying the typical ways in which arguers apply these techniques, one
is less likely to be fooled by the fallacious arguments posed by others and is less likely to
stumble blindly into fallacies when constructing arguments for one‘s own use.
Though there are very many informal fallacies, there is no absolute consensus on how can they
be classified. However, through considering some communality among them, informal fallacies
can be divided in to five groups: Fallacies of relevance, fallacies of weak induction, fallacies of
presumption, fallacies of ambiguity and fallacies of grammatical analogy.

I. Fallacies of Relevance
When an argument is based on premises, which are not logically relevant to its conclusion, yet
psychologically relevant and that therefore, cannot possibly establish its truth, fallacies of
relevance will be committed. In other words, those fallacies, which are included under relevance,
involve premises, which are logically irrelevant to the conclusion, but for psychological
reasons, they may seem relevant. In any case, all fallacies of relevance commonly share the
following basic features:
 The premises of an argument are logically irrelevant to the conclusion of an argument;
however, they are psychologically relevant as they seem correct or persuasive.
 The connection between the premises and the conclusion is emotional, not logical.

36
 Thus, the task of distinguishing genuine and logical evidence from various forms of emotional
appeal is mandatory to identify those fallacies of relevance. And, there are around eight fallacies
under fallacy of relevance to which their details are as follows:

1. Appeal to force or stick fallacy

(Argumentum ad Baculum). To understand fallacy of relevance, it sounds logical to go back to
the etymological origin of the word Baculum. The word Baculam is originated from Latin, which
means ‗Staff‘, which is a symbol of power. And it basically implies that ad baculum fallacy
occurs whenever a conclusion is defended through possessing physical or psychological threats
to those who do not accept it. In other words, logical evidences are replaced by implicit as well
as explicit threats or pressures on the audiences to make them accept the arguer‘s conclusion.
Thus, an arguer will commit appeal to force fallacy when, S/he imposes her/his position through
employing threats of force or any psychological intimidation in its premises so as to make the
audiences or readers accept her/his conclusion. This is achieved through indicating that some
danger will be happen on those who do not accept the position. But, those psychological as well
as physical threats do not have any logical relevance; threats that are emotional appeals with no
logical foundation.
Examples:
a. Child to its Playmates: Arsenal is the best football club in the world, if you don‟t
accept this, I am going to call my brother and he will throw you out!
b. Wife to husband: I deserve a weekend in Langano and if you don‟t‟ agree to take
me there; I am going to pack up the kinds and leave.
2. Appeal to Pity (Argumentum ad Misericordiam)
The word ‗Misericordiam‘ is originally from Latin which literally means ‗a pitying heart‘ which
in turn implies the request of someone to others so as to get mercy, sympathy or any a kind of
excuse. Thus an appeal to pity fallacy basically occurs when an arguer tries to pose a conclusion
by evoking pity from the listeners or readers. In other words, the fallacy is committed when the
emotional appeal which raises the pity of the listeners or readers replace logical evidences or
justifications.
Examples:
a. an attorney to the judge; Members of the jury, I realize there is a good deal of evidence that
these two brothers killed their parents. But they are now orphans. They have no one to take care
of them. They must now face the cruel world afraid and alone. Surely they are not guilty of these
heinous crimes.
b. A Student to her professor; Professor Kebede, it would be wrong for you to flunk me for
cheating. I am a single mother, and to provide for my two kids. I have to work three jobs. At the
end of the day, I am absolutely exhausted, and after I drag my weary body home. I have neither
the time nor the energy to study.
C. Taxpayer to judge: Your Honor, I admit that I declared thirteen children as dependents on my
tax return, even though I have only two. But if you find me guilty of tax evasion, my reputation
will be ruined. I‟ll probably lose my job, my poor wife will not be able to have the operation that
she desperately needs, and my kids will starve. Surely I am not guilty.
The conclusion of argument 'C' is ‗‗surely I am not guilty.‘‘ Obviously, the conclusion is not
logically relevant to the arguer‘s set of pathetic circumstances, although it is psychologically
relevant. If the arguer succeeds in evoking pity from the listener or reader, the latter is likely to
exercise his or her desire to help the arguer by accepting the argument. In this way the reader or

37
listener may be fooled into accepting a conclusion that is not supported by any evidence. The
appeal to pity is quite common and is often used by students on their instructors at exam time
and by lawyers on behalf of their clients before judges and juries.
3. Appeal to the People (Argumentum ad Populum).
Naturally, every one of us wants to be accepted, loved, and esteemed by others. However, the
problem lies on how (is that through appealing to emotion or through forwarding rational
justifications or evidences) can we secure this desire. And, argument ad populum, which appeals
to emotion, is usually employed by speakers and writers so as to get acceptance from others. This
is usually the case when propagandists and demagogues deliver their speech to the crowds or
public. In other words, these public figures usually commit appeal to people fallacy since they
forward premises with contents of emotive and expressive languages and devices so as to raise
the Mob mentality of the crowds and make the crowds accept their side or conclusion. Such an
effort in an argument replaces the laborious task of presenting evidences and justifications with
some logically irrelevant appeals to emotion, which ultimately results in the fallacy concerned.
The speeches of Adolph Hitler and Bonito Mussolini, for example, in the Second World War
were accompanied by emotional devices intended to raise the enthusiasm, excitement, and anger
of the German and Italian people. These political figures or propagandists were effective in
manipulating the emotional support of their respective crowds in the name of patriotism on their
fight against the allies. Moreover, arguments ad populum are now to be found in advertising
industries in the sense that every attempt in the industry is made to associate some products
being advertised with things of which we can be expected to approve strongly, or which excite us
favorably.
Thus to understand appeal to people fallacy, there are two approaches: direct and indirect
approaches. The fallacy will be committed directly when the arguer, addressing a large group of
people through writing or speech, excites the emotions and enthusiasm of the crowds so as to
win acceptance or to raise the mob mentality from them. As it has been stated before, political
candidates for election, military leaders and other public figures usually employ propaganda so
as to raise their subject and make them accept their conclusion. In other words, these
propagandists, in one way or another, directly penetrate or manipulate the crowds‘ consciousness
with relentless appeals to emotions of any kind.
Examples:
A. A leader of demonstration to his/her followers: ―Fellow citizens! Today we are threatened
with the loss of our sacred to bear arms. A pack or gutless, liberal politicians wants to outlaw
the sale of handguns. But they won‟t get away with it. The right to bear arms is guaranteed in the
constitution! Our blessed forefathers created this right and bestowed it on all Americans. Protect
the constitution! Hear our cry! Down with the gutless Pinkos!”
B. A political leader who opposes federalism would propagate as: ―Today the prospect of
creeping federalism threatens to rib each of us of our cherished way of life. Government is
invading every aspect of our lives. The feds want to tell us what to think and how to speak. They
want to tell us how to raise our kids and run our schools. Enough of this mind control! Abolish
the federal income tax.”
On the other hand, ad populum fallacy is committed indirectly in the sense that the arguer directs
his or her appeal not to the crowd as a whole directly, rather to some aspects of their
relationship to the crowd. And this is also an illogical attempt to exploit the emotion of the
people for same private motives. This approach is usually common in advertising industry. Most
of the time, products are advertised in association with things, which excite us favorably. Fore

38
example, food items could be advertised with strength, youth fullness and good health and New
Mobile technologies or automobiles could be advertised as beauty, dignity and, such
advertisements have the power to catch up the feeling of the audiences as buyers emotionally
associate themselves with the strength, dignity and health which are wrongly fulfilled by the
products. Thus commercial advertisements usually attempts to attract customer‘s emotional
approval for the purpose of getting purchasers informing that the products are ‗comfortable‘,
‗best selling‘; ‗delicate‘, etc. These emotively charged terminologies in advertisement industry
make the customers not to raise questions about the durability, quality, expiring date, etc…Thus
reaching a certain conclusion based on the premises of such advertisement is fallacious. However
there are three types of indirect approach to ad populum fallacy; appeal to bandwagon, appeal to
vanity and appeal to snobbery.
A. Appeal to Bandwagon emphasizes that the majority‘s choice is the correct one and urges the
audiences to join them. In other words, if some argue as you will be left behind or left out of the
group/majority if you do not use the product.
Example: Sure, this is a very fantastic gum with lovely flavor. That is why the majority of the
people in Addis Ababa chew it than any other gums.
B. Appeal to Vanity is committed when an arguer associates products with celebrities and
popular figures such as artists, athletes, footballers, etc. and informs the audiences that
if they buy the item they will also be admired too.

Example:
You have got to see Serawit Fikre‟s latest film immediately. It is breaking the country‟s film
records in terms of audiences, and everyone is talking about it.
C. Appeal to snobbery committed when an arguer propounds the position that ―if you want to
be a member of the selected few you should use this product‖ i.e.-products are usually associated
with persons with high social positions (Business man, Kings, queens, and princes).
Example:
Fiendship café, no doubt, is the best café in Addis Ababa. That is why distinguished persons like
Teddy Afro, Ephrem Tamiru,... are always there on weekends. Come and enjoy your weekends at
Friendship café!!!
In any case, the common nature of both direct and indirect approaches holds the position that ―if
you want to be accepted or included in the group loved or esteemed…, you should accept X, Y,
and Z as true.‖ Thus, the model of the fallacy can shortly be stated as:
Because of the majority accepted it or because admired peoples are using it, you should also
accept it or you should also use it.
4. Argument against the person (Argumentum ad Hominem)
As to its etymological origin, the word ‗ad hominem‘ is from Latin that means ―to the man‖ and
this in turn implies that it is not the subject matter or the idea rather it is the person who raises
the idea who is being refuted. In other words, instead of responding to the argument forwarded
by Mister ‗X‘, Mister ‗Y‘ tries to attack against Mister ‗X‘ himself. Here, mister ‗Y‘ clearly
commits argument against the person fallacy. And there are three types of the fallacy of ad
hominem:
A. Fallacy of ad hominem Abusive: This is the fallacy committed when an arguer engages in
direct personal attacks or abuses against his opponent and makes them as grounds to reject his
claim. Thus, rejecting our opponent by directing our attack towards his personality rather than
the contents of his argument will result in the fallacy concerned.

39
Example: Ato Gebeyehu has argued for increased funding for the disabled. But nobody should
listen to his argument. Ato Gebeyehu is a Slob who cheats on his wife, beats his wife, beats his
kinds, and never pays his bills on time.
B. Fallacy of ad hominem Circumstantial: This is the fallacy committed by an arguer who
tries to discredit his opponent‘s arguments by alluding to certain circumstances (situations) that
affect them (his opponents). In other words, this fallacy is not directed on attacking the person,
rather on the circumstance he belongs.
When someone argues that his opponents‘ argument is false since they, in that position or state
of mind, could be expected to raise such claims or their circumstances make it impossible for
them to sincere or to tell the truth.
Example:Ato Mohammed has just argued that we replace the public school system with private
education. But of course he argues that way. He has no kids, and he does not want to pay any
more taxes for public education.
C. Fallacy of ad hominem tu quoque (you too) The word ―tu quoque‖ is originally from Latin
which literally means ‗you too‘ or ‗you did it too‘ which in turn implies that the arguer‘s action
is not consistent or it is contrary with what he argues for. Thus the fallacy is committed when we
argue that our opponents claim is false since his/her argument is contrary with what he has said
or done before.
Example: Ato Gemechu has just given us reason why we should place more emphasis on family
values. But he has no business talking. Just a week ago he got divorce.
5. Accident Fallacy
This is the fallacy committed by an arguer who intends to wrongly apply general rule to specific
case that cannot cover the former. In other words, this fallacy is committed when the general
rule, principle or truth is wrongly applied to particular instance or situation.
Example: Children should obey their parents. Therefore, little Abush should follow his alcoholic
fathers orders to drop out of school and get a job.
6. Straw Man
This fallacy occurs when someone distorts his/her opponent‘s argument for the purpose of more
easily attacking or demolishing it. In other words,, when someone distorts and substitutes the
original version of his/her opponent‘s argument by a deliberately weakened version and tries to
attack the distorted one, s/he commits straw man fallacy.
Example:
Dr. Kebede has just argued against affirmative action for women. It seems what he is saying
is that women should stay out of the work place altogether. Just keep them barefoot and
pregnant. That is what Dr. Kebede wants. Well! I think we are all smart enough to reject his
argument.
7. Missing the point (Ignorantio Elenchi)
Missing the point illustrates a special form of irrelevance, which occurs when the premise of an
argument supports the concussion, which has nothing to do with correct conclusion. In other
words, when someone draws a conclusion, which completely misses the point, s/he commits
missing the point fallacy. In any case the fallacy, which is represented by the Latin word,
ignoratio elenchi, which means ignorance of the proof, implies that the argument has a problem
of the logical implication of the premise.
Examples:

40
A. Haile Gebresilassie has won many cross country championships. He is still dedicated, hard
worker, disciplined, courageous and determined to win marathon. Therefore, Ethiopians should
save their lives from HIV-AIDS.
B. Wage earners cannot currently live on the minimum wage. Therefore, the minimum wage
should be abolished.
8. Red Herring
Red herring fallacy will be committed when an arguer diverts the attention of the listeners or
readers by changing the original subject to some totally different issue without the listeners or
readers notifying it. In other words, this fallacy is an attempt to divert the attention of audiences
to a totally different issue. The fallacy is sometimes called ―Off the track‖ fallacy since an arguer
who commits this fallacy ignores the topic under discussion and shifts the attention of his
audiences to another issue. All at a sudden, an arguer changes the subject to a completely
different idea and makes a conclusion upon this changed idea. In any case the model for red
herring fallacy is as follows:
An idea under discussion will be changed in to a totally different issue and then the
conclusion will be drawn based on this changed subject.
Example:
Ato Shiferaw, a senior official in water resource management, has argued that clean water Act
should never be weakened. But the point is that water is one of the most common substances on
earth. Over two-thirds of our planet‟s surface is covered with water, and massive amounts of
frozen water cover both poles. If the ice caps were ever to melt, ocean levels would rise several
feet. Obviously the official has been misinformed.

II. Fallacies of Weak Induction

Those fallacies included in weak induction occur not because the premises are logically
irrelevant to the conclusion; rather it is because the connection between the premises and
conclusion is not strong enough. Those fallacies under this category provide shared evidences
to the conclusion. The evidences; however, are not good to make any reasonable person believe
the conclusion. And, like those fallacies included in relevance, fallacies of weak induction
employ emotional grounds to support the conclusion. At any rate, fallacies of weak induction are
commonly characterized by an argument with:
 Its premises are not sufficient to arrive at the conclusion,
 Its premises probably support the conclusion and they are accompanied by
emotional appeals.
And, there are at least six fallacies included in weak induction with their details as follows:
9. Appeal to unqualified authority (Argumentum ad Verecundiam )
It is customary that individuals need to get information; suggestion, comment, opinion and
advice from others so as to achieve a certain conclusion. However, there are cases where those
individuals who are entitled to deliver information might not be trustworthy because:
 They lack the expertise in a certain profession,
 They might be biased or prejudiced,
They might have the motive to lie or disseminate “misinformation‖.
Thus, the fallacy of unqualified authority is committed when we attempt to support our claim by:
 Citing the statement of another person who is not an authority in the field of
Specialization
 Referring the judgment of an authority that is likely to be biased.

41
  Referring a person who has the habit of telling lies or disseminating wrong
information
Example:
Omer, who is a well-known astronomer, says that AIDS epidemic is caused by a perverse
alignment of the planets, and that there is nothing anyone can do about it. Therefore, we
can only conclude that all of these efforts to find a cure for AIDS are a waste of time.

10. Appeal to ignorance (Argumentum ad Ignorantiam)

This fallacy is committed when the lack to evidence or proof for something is used to support the
conclusion. In other words, when the premises of an argument state that nothing has been proved
in one way or other about something and the conclusion then makes a definite assertion about
that thing. Thus, one‘s ignorance, lack of evidence, knowledge or information about something
definitely supports the conclusion in appeal to ignorance fallacy. In any case, ad ignorantiam
fallacy will be committed when:
 Someone argues that something is the case (true) because no one has proved to be
false.
 Someone argues that something is not the case (false) because no one has proved it
to be true.
Example -
Nobody has ever proved the existence of ghosts. Therefore, we have no alternative but to
conclude that ghosts are mere figments of the imagination.

11. Hasty generalization (Converse Accident)

The fallacy of hasty generalization, which is the opposite of accident, is committed when an
arguer tries to generalize about a thing or an event based on insufficient evidence; vary limited
information and unrepresentative samples about it. In other words, drawing a conclusion or
generalization based on unrepresentative or small evidence or information will result in an
argument with hasty generalization fallacy. And the fallacy is usually committed by individuals
who develop a negative attitude or prejudice towards others‘ belief, language, political position,
ethnic origin, color and others.
Example A reporter in the local newspaper exaggerated her story just to make it more exciting,
and a reporter on the evening news got her facts mixed up. The conclusion is apparent that you
just cannot trust the news media today.
12. False Cause
False cause fallacy occurs whenever the link between premises and conclusion depends on some
imagined causal connection that properly does not exist, an attempt to suppose that ‗X‘ causes
‗Y‘ where as ‗X‘ probably does not cause ‗Y‘ at all. In other words, the fallacy is committed
when someone infers causal explanations from premises, which cannot provide sufficient
evidence to it. And, the fallacy can further be divided in to three types:
A. Post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy
As a Latin phrase post hoc erogo propter hoc fallacy may be translated as ―after this, therefore
on account of this.‖ And, the fallacy is shortly named as post hoc fallacy and it is committed
when we arrive at a certain conclusion by claiming that one thing is the cause of another thing
because it precedes in time. A particular event ‗X‘ is caused by event ‗Y‘ merely because ‗X‘
follows ‗Y‘ or ‗Y‘ precedes ‗X‘ chronologically.

42
Though chronological relationship is one of the indicators of causal relationship, it can never be
the only one as there are additional inputs such as spatial relations, economic, political and social
factors should be considered so as to arrive at a definite assertion about the thing or event
concerned. Thus, drawing a certain conclusion only because of temporal precedence would not
be logically sufficient and it will result in post hoc fallacy to occur.
Post hoc fallacy usually occurs in cultural superstitions. Particularly, in our cases when we
encounter some accidental misfortunes, we usually associate them with bad lucks. However,
such kinds of assertion are not logically convincing as they confuse consequences with temporal
precedence.
Example: A black cat crossed my path and later I tripped and sprained my ankle. It must be that
black cats really are bad luck.

B. Non Causa pro causa fallacy

The Latin phrase non causa pro causa can be translated as ‗not the cause for the cause‘. The
fallacy is committed when someone argues that something is the cause of an effect when it is not
in reality and confusion occurs between cause and effect.
Example:
There are more laws in Ethiopia today than ever before and more crimes ever before; so,
to eliminate crimes we must abolish laws.

C. Oversimplified cause fallacy

Oversimplified cause fallacy is committed when relevant causal antecedents of an event are
oversimplified by introducing factors insufficient to the account of the effect. And, it will be
committed when the roles of one or more of those factors are deliberately or intensionally
overemphasized at the expense of others.
Example: Why most students fail in logic is because teachers do not come to class regularly.
13. Slippery Slope fallacy
Slippery slope fallacy is a Variety of false cause fallacies. In other words when false cause
fallacy (an argument that considers an event ‗X‘ is the cause of event ‗Y‘ simply because ‗X‘
happens before ‗Y‘) takes place in series of events or actions (chain reaction), slippery slope
fallacy will occur. If an arguer assumes that series of events happen or follow one from the other
as a result of the first cause in a series, it will result in slippery slope fallacy. This is of the fact
that because it is logically mistaken for someone to consider a particular action or event (usually
the first one) in series of events causes for series of consequences. In other words, considering
the first event, action or cause responsible for all events or actions in series of events or actions is
not convincing.
Example:-
It is not a good idea to put your child in a day care center. Separation from parents causes
isolation and alienation soon the child becomes incapable of relating to other children, and this
inability to relate causes depression. As the child gets older, the depression leads to psychosis.
The final result is either suicide or a life wasted in a mental institution.
14. Fallacy of Weak analogy
Fallacy of weak analogy is committed basically when the analogy or similarity between two
things or situations is not strong enough to support the conclusion to be drawn. In other words,
weak analogy fallacy will be committed when the significant differences between two or more

43
things compared are ignored or when two contrasted things are considered alike only in
unimportant ways. It has the following form;

Entity A has attributes a, b, c, and z.

Entity B has attributes a, b, c.
Therefore, entity B probably has attribute z also.
Example:
Abebe‟s new car is bright blue, has leather upholstery, and gets excellent gas mileage.
Kebede‟s new car is also bright blue and has leather upholstery. Therefore, it probably gets
excellent gas mileage, too.

However, there will be a strong or correct link between the premises and the conclusion so that
the argument is good or it is with no fallacy when properties cited are relevant between two or
more things and when the differences between the objects have taken in to account.
III. Fallacies of Presumption
To presume means to take something for granted or to assume a given idea as true or correct
which in fact needs further proof, explanation or evidence. And, the fallacy of presumption will
be committed when the assumption given in the premise is not supported by proof but the arguer
maintains that it does not need proof and s/he invites his/her audiences accept it as it is.
Moreover, the fallacy contains tricky and confusing expressions for the purpose of concealing
the wrong assumptions stated in the premise. In any case, fallacies of presumption are usually
characterized by:
 Drawing a conclusion from statements that they are questionable.
 The conclusion or consequence of an unjustifiable assumption and presumption
with their details.
15. Begging the question (Petitio Principii)
Begging the question fallacy basically occurs when someone uses some form of phraseology,
which tends to conceal the questionably true character of a key premise, and, if the audience is
deceived into this argument as sound, when in facts it may not be.
In any case, there are two requirements to be fulfilled for this fallacy to occur:
 The argument must be valid,
 Some form of phraseology must be used to conceal the questionably true character
of a key premise.
Moreover, though the kind of phraseology used differs from argument to argument, it is
inevitable for the conclusion to support the questionable premise. One way of doing so is through
formulating premise and conclusion of an argument in two slightly different ways; however, they
have essentially the same meaning.
Example
We can be certain that this photo is of Emperor Tewodros because the person in the photo
looks just like him.
Here, the premise and the conclusion mean the same thing so that they both are true and valid as
well. However, the logical question to be raised here is whether the premise is true regardless of
the context of the argument i.e. the truth of the premise is unavoidably questionable. But, when
the premise is preceded by the conclusion, the alleged truth is strengthened; however such
strength is attributed to the psychological illusion that results from saying the same thing in two
slightly different ways. And, when a single proposition is repeated in two slightly different ways

44
without the repetition becoming obvious, the suggested truth of the proposition is reinforced.
And, begging the question can be presented in chains of arguments. And, the final conclusion
will be stated or will be having the same meaning with that of the first premise. Thus, begging
the question is usually called circular reasoning that:
 The premise is restated in the conclusion in different phrases or words in reality, or
 The premise is not essentially different from the conclusion.
And, circular argumentation as a fallacious reasoning is not explicitly detected as it is presented
in:
 Chain of intervening sentences,
 Ignoring entirely questionable idea in the premise.
16. Complex Question
One commits the fallacy of complex question when s/he asks two or more questions in a way
that makes it appear that only one question has been asked. When we forward question to
someone we make presuppositions of answers within it. Asking questions to respondents to
answer it genuinely without being confused and tricked is not wrong. But, when the question is
complex and aimed only at trapping the respondent to acknowledge something that he/she is not
willing to tell, it becomes fallacious.
A Complex question is not an argument as such, but involves an implicit argument and this
becomes explicit when the response is added to the complex question. Most complex questions
are familiar devices to lawyers and judges when examining defendants to admit crimes. To see
how a complex question can prejudge an issue in the form of a question, look in to the following
example:
Example
Have you stopped in involving such crimes?
Here, what the defendant can answer is either ―Yes‖, or ―No‖. And if he answers ―Yes‖, so it
implies that he has previously been involved in such crimes so that he is guilty. And if he
answers ―No‖ it means he has continued in criminal ways, and is guilty. Therefore, he would be
trapped in both cases. Depending on the answer given by the defendant the prosecuting attorney
may therefore establish arguments like:
 ―You are asked whether you give up your criminal ways. You answered, ‗Yes‘. It
follows that, you have previously been a criminal.‖
 ―You are asked whether you give up your criminal ways, you answered ‗No‘. It
follows that, you have previously continued involving in crimes‖

However, in both arguments the prosecuting attorney may establish are fallacious precisely
because no information is really being sought. The questions are actually formulating hidden
arguments in the complex questions.
17. False Dichotomy
The fallacy of false dichotomy can be otherwise called as ―false bifurcation‖, ―either… or‖, or
―false dilemma‖ fallacy. And this fallacy is committed when the arguer insists that only two
alternatives are possible in a given situation (when in fact the alternatives presented are not
exhaustive i.e. because more alternatives are still possible). In other words, the fallacy of false
dichotomy occurs whenever one is faced with a very limited numbers of alternatives, and when
one attempts to bring a premature end to a debate by declaring a dilemma when none exists.
Other alternatives may be possible, or other courses of action can be persuaded. Thus, one
commits the fallacy of false dilemma when he poses a restrictive set of undesirable alternatives

45
when other legitimate alternatives may be possible. And, the fallacious nature of false dichotomy
lies in the attempt by the arguer to delude the reader or listener into thinking that the disjunctive
premise presents jointly exhaustive alternatives, and is therefore true by necessity.

Example:
a. Either we elect our party, or the country‟s fate will be worsened. The choice should be
obvious.
b. Either you financially support the construction of Great Ethiopian Renaissance Dam,
or you have not patriotic feeling for Ethiopia.
None of the disjunctive premises in these arguments presents alternatives that are jointly
exhaustive. Yet in each case the arguer wants to make it appear that it does.

18. Suppressed Evidence

This is an inductive argument that overlooks an important piece of evidence (premise) that if it
were considered, the conclusion to be drawn would be very different from the one drawn. In
other words, this fallacy is committed when the argument ignores some important evidence/s that
outweigh/s the presented evidence and entails a different conclusion. The evidence that is
suppressed must be so important that it outweighs the presented evidence, and it must require a
different conclusion than the one drawn. Usually suppression is intensional as the arguer
deliberately omits the key evidence (premise) and instead emphasizes a certain point in order to
hide the relevant premise that would entail totally different point.
Example: Addis Ababa University deserves to be one of the best Universities in Africa as it has
impressive buildings, beautiful gates, and an attractive fountain.

IV. Fallacies of Ambiguity

Two fallacies arise from the occurrence of some form of ambiguity in either the premise or the
conclusion (or both). The fallacies of ambiguity include Equivocation and Amphiboly.

19. Equivocation
The fallacy of equivocation occurs when a word or phrase in a single argument are used in two
different senses or connotations which in turn leads to a conclusion which is not supported by its
premises. In other words, this fallacy leads toward unintended conclusion by making a word or
words to have two different meanings in a single argument. Thus, when a single word in the
premise of an argument is used in two different contexts and when these two contexts of a single
word are wrongly assumed as one or similar in the conclusion, the fallacy of equivocation will
occur.
Example: Some triangles are obtuse. Whatever is obtuse is ignorant. Therefore same triangles
are ignorant.

20. Amphiboly
The fallacy of amphiboly occurs when someone misinterprets a statement which is ambiguous
because of some structural defects and draws a conclusion based on such misinterpretation. And,
someone other than the arguer usually asserts the original statement. Moreover, the structural
defect is usually a mistake in grammar, punctuation, a pronoun, an ambiguous antecedent of a
pronoun, careless arrangements of words and the like. Because of these and other related defects,

46
the statement may be interpreted or understood in two distinct senses. The arguer usually selects
the unintended interpretation and draws a conclusion based up on it.
Example: Beza said that she painted her picture hanging on the wall of her bedroom. Obviously
Beza is quite an acrobat.
Contracts and wills are areas where a case of amphiboly causes serious problems or
controversies. Ambiguous statements and alternative interpretations would lead to different
conclusions.
There are two important ways in which amphiboly differ from equivocation. First, equivocation
is always because of ambiguity of meaning of one or more words; however, amphiboly involves
structural defects in a statement. Another important difference between the two is that amphiboly
usually involves a mistake committed by the arguer in interpreting an ambiguous statement made
by someone else; where as the ambiguity in equivocation is typically the arguer‘s own creation.

V. Fallacies of Grammatical Analogy

Arguments that commit these fallacies are grammatically analogous to other arguments that are
good in every respect. Because of this similarity in linguistic structure, such fallacious arguments
may appear good yet be bad.
21. Composition
The erroneous transference of an attribute from parts of something onto the whole as a base for
the conclusion of an argument will lead to the fallacy of composition to occur. In other words
this fallacy would occur when attributes of parts of a thing are wrongly applied or associated to
the whole entity of a thing. Thus, if an arguer argues as: what is true of each part of a whole is
also true of the whole or what is true of some parts of a whole is also true of the whole, s/he
commits fallacy of composition.
Example: Each atom in this table is invisible to the naked eye. Therefore, the table is invisible to
the naked eye.
However, if there is a legitimate transference of an attribute from parts on to the whole, fallacy
of composition will never be occurred.
Example: Each atom in this piece of chalk has mass. Therefore, the piece of chalk has mass.

22. Division
The fallacy of division is the exact opposite of composition. As composition goes from parts to
whole, division goes from whole to parts. The fallacy occurs when the conclusion of an
argument depends on the erroneous transference of an attribute from a whole (a class) onto its
parts (members). Thus, the fallacy of composition is committed when an arguer argues that what
is true of a whole is also true of its parts or what is true of a whole is also true of some of its
parts.
Example: Carbon monoxide is a poisonous gas. Therefore, its two components, carbon and
oxygen must be non poisonous.
However, such an illegitimate or erroneous transference of attribute from a whole or class onto
its parts or members is not always illegitimate or illogical.
Example:-
This piece of chalk has mass. Therefore, the atoms that compose this piece of chalk have
mass.

47