Logic and CT Lecture Notes 5 (Chapters 1-5)

Introduction to Logic (Phil 201)
Chapter I first principles of the natural order

and "the ultimate generalizations
available to the human intellect."
Introduction Specifically, ontology seeks to
1.1 What is Logic? indentify and establish the
1.1.1 A Branch of Philosophy relationships between the categories,
∑ What is Philosophy? if any, of the types of existent things.
The word "philosophy" is derived What kinds of things exist? Do only

from the Greek words and word- particular things exist or do general
fragments: things also exist? How is existence
possible? Questions as to identity
¸ Philia/ phile /philo—love of,
and change of objects—are you the
affinity for, liking of
same person you were as a baby? as
¸ Sophia/ sophos / sophist
of yesterday? as of a moment ago?
wisdom
And this means love of wisdom. How do ideas exist if they have no
Philosophy is the systematic inquiry size, shape, or color? (My idea of the
into the principles and Empire State Building is quite as
presuppositions of any field of study. "small" or as "large" as my idea of a
book. I.e., an idea is not extended in
Branches of Philosophy
space.) What is space? What is time?
The main branches of philosophy
are divided as to the nature of the E.g., Consider the truths of
questions asked in each area. The mathematics: in what manner do
integrity of these divisions cannot be geometric figures exist? Are points,
rigidly maintained, for one area lines, or planes real or not? Of what
overlaps into the others. are they made?
1. Metaphysics or Ontology: the What is spirit? or soul? or matter?

study of what is really real. space? Are they made up of the
Metaphysics deals with the so-called same sort of "stuff"? When, if ever,
Fikadu Kenenisa (MA) Page 1 of 12

are events necessary? Under what Criteria of value: do objective or

conditions are they possible? universal standards apply?
2. Epistemology: the study of Status of value: how are values

knowledge. In particular, related to (scientific) facts? What
epistemology is the study of the ultimate worth, if any, do human
nature, scope, and limits of human values have?
knowledge.
Axiology is usually divided into two
Epistemology investigates the origin, main parts.
structure, methods, and integrity of
knowledge. 3.1 Ethics: the study of values in
human behavior or the study of
1. Consider the degree of truth of
moral problems: e.g., (1) the
the statement, "The earth is
rightness and wrongness of actions,
round." Does its truth depend
(2) the kinds of things which are
upon the context in which the
good or desirable, and (3) whether
statement is uttered?
actions are blameworthy or
praiseworthy.
3. Axiology or Value theory: the
study of value; the investigation of
3.2 Aesthetics: the study of value in
its nature, criteria, and
the arts or the inquiry into feelings,
metaphysical status.
judgments, or standards of beauty
and related concepts. Philosophy of
Some significant questions in
art is concerned with judgments of
axiology include the following:
sense, taste, and emotion.
Nature of value: is value a fulfillment

E.g., Is art an intellectual or
of desire, a pleasure, a preference, a
representational activity? What
behavioral disposition, or simply a
would the realistic representations
human interest of some kind?
in pop art represent? Does art

represent sensible objects or ideal contributed to the concept of

objects? Modal logic (involves possibilities
such as possibility, necessity,
Is artistic value objective? Is it
belief and doubt) and
merely coincidental that many forms
metalanguage.
in architecture and painting seem to
ß G. W Leibniz (1646-1716)
illustrate mathematical principles?
introduced symbolic logic , which
Are there standards of taste?
later developed by A. DeMorgan,
George Boole, W.S.Jevons and J.
Is there a clear distinction between
Venn
art and reality?
ß The British Philosopher J. S. Mill
4. Logic is a branch of philosophy (1806-1873) initiated the revival of
that deals with arguments. inductive logic.
ß Logic is also the science that ß Gottlob Frege (1848-1925) founded
evaluates arguments. modern Mathematical logic
ß This means that logic aims at ß Most recently logic has made a
criticizing the arguments of others major contribution to technology
and constructing arguments of our by providing a conceptual
own. foundation for the electronic
1.1.3 Brief on History of Logic circuitry of digital computers.
ß Aristotle (384-322 B.C) is the 1.2 The Nature of Arguments
father of logic. His logic is called 1.2.1 What is an Argument?
syllogistic logic. He also ß An argument, in logic, is a group of
catalogued a number of informal statements, one or more of which
fallacies. (the premises) are claimed to
ß The major logician of the middle provide support for, or reasons to
age was Peter Abelard (1079-1142). believe, one of the others (the
He refined Aristotle’s logic and conclusion).
originated a theory of universals Example:
ß The Oxford philosopher William Man is mortal.
Occam (C.1285-1349) also Professor Kitaw is man.
Professor Kitaw is mortal. may conclude, as a result, so, thus,

ß Based on the logical relation hence, entails that, consequently, it
between the premises and the follows that, we may infer, implies
conclusion arguments may be said that etc.
good or bad. ß Some premise indicators:
1.2.2. Components of Argument Since, as indicated by, because, for,
ß A statement is a sentence that has in that, may be inferred from, as,
a truth value (which is either true given that, seeing that, for the
or false). reason that, in as much as, owing to
ß A proposition is the meaning or etc.
information content of a statement. ß Inference is a reasoning process
(we can interchangeably used it with expressed by an argument.
a statement) ß In the loose sense inference is used
Example: Cairo is in Ethiopia. interchangeably with argument.
ß Statements in an argument contain ß An argument with one premise is
one or more premises and one and also called an immediate inference.
only one conclusion.
Example:
ß The premises are statements that
All Japan Cell phones are original
set forth the reasons or evidence for
apparatuses.
the conclusion.
Therefore, it is false that no Japan
ß The conclusion is the statement
Cell phones are original
that the evidence is claimed to
apparatuses.
support or imply. In other words, it is
1.3 Recognizing Arguments
what follows from the evidence or
ß A passage may contain arguments
premises.
if it purports to prove something,
ß Premises and conclusions may be
and not otherwise.
identified in arguments from their
ß A passage which purport to prove
indicators.
something is only the one that
Example:
fulfills the following two claims:
ßSome conclusion Indicators:
1.3.1 Factual & Inferential Claim
therefore, whence, accordingly, we
1. Factual Claim: at least one of the thousand such components.

statements must claim to present (Boikess and Edelson, in Hurley)
evidence or reasons. (This mainly ß To decide whether a passage
refers premises) contains an argument, we should
2. Inferential Claim: there must be look for three things:
a claim that something follows 1. Indicator words
from the alleged evidence. (This 2. The presence of inferential
mainly refers the logical relationship between the
relationship between premises statements
and the conclusion) 1.3.2 Typical kinds of Non-
ß The inferential claim may be arguments
explicit or implicit. A. Passages lacking an inferential

claim such as: warnings, statements
ß Explicit inferential claims are
of beliefs or opinions, loosely
asserted by the premise or
associated statements, report,
conclusion indicator words.
expository passage, illustration,
ß Implicit inferential claims exist if
B. Conditional statements
there is an inferential relationship
ß The reason is the antecedent
between the statements in a
and the consequent show a
passage but there are no indicator
causal connection; not inferential
words.
relationship.
Example:
ß Example:
The price reduction [seen with
If Alemu studies hard, (antecedent)
electronic calculator] is the result of
he will pass the exam. (consequence)
a technological revolution. The
Note that:
calculator of 1960s used integrated
ß A single conditional statement is
electronic circuit that contained
not an argument.
bout a dozed transistors or similar
ß A conditional statement may
components on a single chip. Today,
serve as either the premise or
mass production chips, only a few
the conclusion (or both) of an
millimeters square contain several
argument.
ß Many [particularly, scientific]
Example: explanations can be reexpressed to

form arguments.
If Alemu studies hard, he will pass
the exam. Example: (Hurley: 22-23)
The sky appears blue from the earth’s
Alemu really studies hard.
surface because light rays from the
Therefore, Alemu will pass the exam.
sun are scattered by particles in the
ß The inferential content of a
atmosphere. (Explanation)
conditional statement may be re-
Light rays from the sun are scattered
expressed to form an argument.
by particles in the atmosphere.
C. Explanations
Therefore, the sky appears blue from
ß The reason is statements in the earth’s surface. (Argument)
explanations intend to shed light ß Some passages may be interpreted as
on some accepted facts; but not either explanations or Arguments or
they use accepted facts as a both.
claim to prove a conclusion. Example: (Hurley: 23)
ß Just as arguments have premises Women become intoxicated by
and conclusions, so do drinking a smaller amount of alcohol
explanations have explanans and than men, because men metabolize
explanandum. part of the alcohol before it reaches
ß Explanandum: is the statment the bloodstream, whereas women do
that is to be explaind. not.
ß Explanans: is the statement or ß Some indicators have a twofold
group of statements that meaning.
purports to do the explaining. 1.4 Types of Arguments
ß As both express the outcome of a ß Based on the strengths of an

reasoning process, explanations and arguments inferential claim arguments
arguments have certain similarities, are divided in to deductive and
however, explanations do not claim to inductive.
prove anything. 1.4.1. Deductive Argument

ß In deductive arguments the 1.4.3. Three Factors to decide

conclusion is claimed to follow arguments as deductive or
necessarily or absolutely from the inductive
premises.
ß A deductive argument is an argument 1. Special indicator words
in which if the premises are assumed Deductive indicators:
to be true, it is impossible for the necessarily, certainly absolutely,
conclusion to be false. definitely
Example: Inductive indicators

Probably, improbable, plausible,
All Ethiopians love unity.
likely, unlikely and reasonably to
ILS students are Ethiopians.
conclude
Therefore, ILS students love unity.
2. The actual strength of inferential
1.4.2. Inductive Argument claim
ß In these arguments the conclusion 3. Form of Arguments
is claimed to follow only Typically Deductive Arguments:
probably from the premises. ß Arguments based on
ß It is an argument in which if the Mathematics
premises are assumed to be true, ß Argument from definition
then based on that assumption it ß Categorical Syllogism (Contains
is improbable that the words All, No, some)
conclusion is false. ß Hypothetical syllogism (if-then)
Example: ß Disjunctive syllogism (either-or)

Typically Inductive Arguments
The vast majority if AU students are
ß Prediction
from Tigray region.
ß Argument from Analogy
Engineering students are AU
(Vs. Arguments in geometry)
students.
ß Inductive Generalization
Therefore, Engineering students are
ß Argument from Authority
from Tigray region.
ß Argument based on signs
ß A causal inference
N.B. Argument from science can be ß There is no middle ground between

either inductive or deductive, valid and invalid arguments.
depending on the circumstances. A. Valid Deductive Argument
N.B. Traditional conception of ß It is the one in which the conclusion
Deductive and inductive follows from the premises with
arguments that involves necessity or certainty.
proceedings from particular to ß It is an argument in such that if the
general and vice versa is not premises are assumed true, it is
acceptable for modern logicians. impossible for the conclusion to be
1.5 Evaluating Arguments false.
ß Based on the factual and ß An argument can be valid regardless
inferential claims of the of the fact that the [content of the]
arguments. premises are false (because truth or
ß In other words to evaluate an falsity is irrelevant for validity).
argument one has to answer the B. Invalid Deductive Argument
following two questions: ß It is an argument such that if the
1. Do premises support the premises are assumed true, it is
conclusion? (Inferential claim) possible for the conclusion to be

false.
2. Are all the premises true?
ß In these arguments the conclusion
(Factual claim)
does not follow with strict
1.4.1 Evaluating Deductive
necessity from the premises, even
Arguments
though it is claimed to.
ß Deductive arguments will be
ß It is an argument having true
evaluated for:
premises and a false conclusion
1. Validity
Example:
2. Truthfulness
All cats are animals. True
3. Soundness
Dogs are animals. True
1. Validity Vs Invalidity
Therefore, dogs are cats. False
ß Validity is about whether premises
Thus, the argument is Invalid.
support the conclusion.
2. Truth and Falsity
ß The truth and falsity of premises ß Look at the following pictorial

and conclusion is irrelevant to the representation of the above
question of validity except in one argument.
case: (Have true premises and a
false conclusion), which is invalid. Non-alcoholic
ß The reason is an argument with
Coca-Cola
false premise and false conclusion
Soft
could be valid. Similarly, an drink
argument with true premise and

true conclusion could be invalid
Example:
All fruits are apples. False 3. Sound and Unsound Arguments
Potato is a fruit. False Truth and Falsity is relevant to
Therefore, potato is an apple. False evaluate arguments as Sound and
(But it is Valid) Unsound.
Sound Deductive Arguments
ß Look the pictorial representation ß A sound deductive argument is an
argument that is valid and has all
Apples true premises.

ß The only case of a Sound Deductive
Fruits
argument is true premises and true
Potato
conclusions.
Unsound Deductive Arguments
ß Regardless of their truth truth or
ß Similarly, an argument with true falsity all invalid deductive
premise and true conclusion could arguments are Unsound.
be invalid. Summary
Example: The relationship among
All Soft drinks are non-alcoholics. T Truthfulness, validity and
Coca-Cola is non-alcoholic. T soundness is summarized as
Therefore, Coca-Cola is Soft drink. T follows.
Pre. Con. Validity Soundness ß Strength is the feature of inductive

T T ? ? arguments
T F Invalid Unsound ß Strength of an inductive argument is
F T ? Unsound determined by the degree of
F F ? Unsound probability for the conclusion to
come out from the premises.
N.B The question mark (?) in the table ß The probability may be determined
indicates that based on the factual by various factors.
and/or the inferential claim the Example: The selection of a larger or
argument could be valid, invalid, smaller sample, the trustworthiness of
sound or unsound. the authorities or witnesses etc.
N.B The case: True Premise & False

Conclusion is impossible; if it A. Strong Inductive Argument
happened, the argument is ß It is an argument such that if the
necessarily invalid. premises are assumed true, then,

based on that assumption, it is
probable that the conclusion is
1.4.2 Evaluating Inductive
true.
Arguments
Example:
ß To evaluate an inductive
Famine had been occurring in every
argument one has to answer the
decade for the last several consecutive
following two questions:
decades in Ethiopia. T
1. Do premises support the
Therefore, probably there will be
conclusion?
famine in Ethiopia in the next decade.
2.Are all the premises true?
(Probably True)
ß Inductive arguments will be
ß If we assume the premises are
evaluated for
true, it is probable for the above
1. Strength
conclusion to be true. Indeed, the
2. Truthfulness
above premise is actually true.
3. Cogency
Therefore, it is a Strong Inductive
1.Strong and weak arguments:
Argument.
B. Weak Inductive Argument Example:

ß It is an argument such that if the All previous Soccer world cups were
premises are assumed true, then, won by the Ethiopian team. (False)
based on that assumption, it is not Therefore, probably the next world
probable that the conclusion is cup will be won by the Ethiopian
true. team. (Probably False)
Example:
The dreams that Weyzero Debre ß If we assume the premises are true,
repeatedly dreams sometimes occur it is probable for the above conclusion
directly. (True) to be true. Therefore, this is a Strong
Weyzero Debre dreamt that there will Inductive Argument.
be a government change in Ethiopia. ß Similarly an inductive argument
(True) having true premise and a probably
Therefore, probably there will be a true conclusion could be weak.
government change in Ethiopia. Example:
(Probably False) A few Ethiopian leaders were warriors.
ß If we assume the premises are (True)
true, it is NOT probable for the Therefore, probably the next
above conclusion to be true for it Ethiopian leader will be a man.
has the least probability (for her (Probably True)
dreams occur directly only
occasionally). Therefore, it is a In fact both the premises and the
Weak Inductive Argument. conclusion is true, however the above
2. Truth and Falsity argument is weak for the conclusion
ß Truth and falsity are irrelevant in do not probably come from the
evaluating arguments as strong or premise.
weak.
ß The reason is inductive argument 3. Cogent and Uncogent Arguments
having false premise and a ß A cogent argument is is an
probably false conclusion could be inductive argument that is strong
strong. and has all true premises, if either
condition is missing, the argument

is uncogent.
Summary
The relationship among
Truthfulness, strength and
cogency is summarized as follows.
Pre. Con. Strength Cogency
T probably T ? ?
T probably F Weak Uncogent
F probably T ? Uncogent
F probably F ? Uncogent

Introduction to Logic (Phil 201) Chapter 2
Chapter II social or psychological

complications.
Language: Meaning and Since this passage contains terms
Definition like safe and systematic relief it

evokes positive feeling towards
abortion and therefore is Emotive.
2.1. Cognitive and Emotive
Meaning
Abortion is a medical procedure in
which conception or pregnancy is
Cognitive Meanings: are terms or
discontinued for certain reason.
phrases in a language that conveys
information.
Since this definition simply gives
Emotive Meanings: are terms or
neutral information about abortion
phrases in a language that expresses
its meaning is Cognitive.
or evokes feelings.
ß Look at the meanings of the
2.2 The Intension and Extension
following three meanings of
of Terms
Abortion:
Abortion is an inhuman act of
Terms: A term is any word or
murdering innocent citizens which
arrangements of words that may
in most cases results in the death of
serve as the subject of a statement.
the mother.
Terms consists of proper names,
Since this passage contains terms
common names and descriptive
like inhuman, murdering, and
phrases.
innocent, it evokes negative feeling
Example:
and therefore is Emotive.
Minilik, dog, the first university of
Ethiopia, those who are poor, etc
Abortion is a safe and systematic
relief of women from unwanted
Intentional meaning: consists of
pregnancy that might lead the
qualities or attributes that the term
woman to certain economic, medical,
connotes. (Connotation)
It implies sense or intention. Empty Extension is a form of

Example: extensional meaning (denotation)
The connotation of the term cat when the term (class) has no
consists of the attributes of being members.
furry or having four legs, of moving This might happen for entities that
in certain way, of emitting certain have perished (disappeared) with
sounds, and so on. the passage of time.
Example:
Extensional Meaning: consists of Unicorn, elf, dinosaur, current king
members of the class that the term of Ethiopia etc
denotes. (Denotation) Intension determines extension

means connotation serves as the
Example:
criterion for deciding what extension
The denotation of the term cat
consists of.
consists of the cats themselves - all
Orders of Intension and Extension
the cats in the universe.
1. Increasing Intension: when each
term in the series (except the first)
N.B. The meaning of connotation
connotes more attributes (become
and denotation in logic is different
more specific) than the one
from their use in grammar.
preceding it.
Example:
Conventional connotation is
Living things, animals, insects, bee
connotation of a term consists of the
2. Decreasing Intension: when
properties or attributes that the
each term in the series (except the
term commonly connotes to the
first) connotes less attributes
members of the community who
(become more general) than the one
speaks the language in question.
preceding it.
This helps to avoid confusion and
Example:
decide on the appropriate
bee, insects, animals, Living things
connotation of a term.
3. Increasing extension: when each
term in the series (except the first)
denotes a class having more 1. Definiendum : the word or

members than the one preceding it. group of words that is
Example: supposed to be defined.
bee, insects, animals, Living things 2. Definiens: the word or group
4. Decreasing Extension: when of words that does the
each term in the series (except the defining.
first) denotes a class having fewer
Definiens is not the meaning of the
members than the one preceding it.
definiendum, but a symbol.
Example:
Other Philosophers: argue that
Living things, animals, insects, bee
since definition result in clarification
N.B Increasing Intension and
of language, they provide a means
Decreasing Extension on the one
for the discovery of deeper
hand, Decreasing Intension and
philosophical truths.
Increasing extension, on the other
hand are the same. Pragmatic Approach: tries to
explicate the purpose of definitions
2.3 Definitions and their by discussing the various kinds of
Purposes definitions.
Pilosophers have conflicting views on

1. Stipulative Definitions:
the purpose of definition.
Example:
Plato- to explicate the meaning of It assigns meaning for the first time.
certain eternal essence or forms It involves coining a new word or
Modern logicians: to explicate the giving a new meaning for an old
meaning of words. word.
Definition, for modern logicians, is
Example: tigon and liger,አማርዝኛ
a group of words that assign
“Tigon” means an animal which is
meaning for some word or group of
hybrid from male tiger and female
words.
lion.
Definition consists of two parts:
We use stipulative definition when A Vague word: when there are

new phenomena occur or to set up borderline cases such that it is
secret code. impossibele to tell whether the word
Due to its arbitrary nature, there applies to them or not.
can not be such a thing as true or Example: love, happiness, peace
false for Stipulative definition. rich, fresh, poor, normal, blind,
member, contract, equality, teacher,
2. Lexical Definitions: force, criminal, moment of death etc.
Example:
It is used to report the meaning that ”Blind” means, for federal income
a word already has in a language. tax purposes, either the inability to
They are dictionary definitions see better than 20/200 in the better
They may be true or false eye with glasses or having a field of
They have a purpose of eliminating vision
ambiguity. Unlike Stipulative definition, a great
Example: deal of care must be taken in
”Fiduciary” means a having to do assigning meaning in Précising
with a confidence or trust; a person definition.
who holds something in trust.
An Ambiguous word: when the 4. Theoretical Definitions
word can be interpreted as having
two or more clearly distinct It provides a theoretical picture or
meanings in a given context. characterization of the entity or
Example: sound, right, bank,race, entities denoted by definiendum.
light Example: scientific words such as:
light, force, mass, acceleration and
3. Précising Definitions philosophical words: good, mind
It gives precise definition of a word God, change, idea, cause.
for specific situation/ discipline. Example:
It is a definition which aims at “Sound” means a compression wave
reducing the vagueness of a word. in air or some other elastic medium
having a frequency ranging (for members of the class that the

humans) from 20 to 20,000 definiendum denotes.
vibrations per second. They are chiefly used for producing
Like stipulative definitions lexical and stipulative definitions.
theoretical definitions are neither Three kinds of denotations:
true nor false.
1. Demonstrative (ostensive)
5. Persuasive Definitions By pointing to one or all of the

members of that class
The purpose of this definition is to Example:
engender (create) a favorable or “Board” means this or this and this
unfavorable attitude toward what is and this (as you point it)
denoted by the definiendum.

2. Enumerative Definitions
It involves emotionally charged or
It assigns a meaning to a term by
value laden meaning to a word.
partially or completely naming the
Example:
members of the class the term
“Capitalism means” the economic
denotes.
system in which humanity is
Example:
scarified to the wanton quest for
“Actor” means a person such as
money, and mutual understanding
Fikadu Teklemariam, Mulualem,
and respect are replaced by
Serawit, or Tilahun
alienation, greed and selfishness.
3. Definition by subclass
2.4 Definitional Techniques
It assigns a meaning to a term by
Two kinds:
partially or completely naming
A. An Extensional (Denotative)
subclasses of the class denoted by
Definition
the term.
Example: “Philosophy” means
It is the one that assigns a meaning
metaphysics, epistemology, logic,
to a term by indicating the
ethics, or aesthetics.
3. Operational definition
B. Intentional (connotative)
Definitions It assigns a meaning to a word by
specifying certain experimental
It is one that assigns meaning to a procedures that determine whether
word by indicating the qualities or or not the word applies to a certain
attributes that the word connotes. thing.
Four kinds: Example:
1. Synonymous definition A solution is acid if and only if

litmus paper turns red when dipped
It is one which the definiens is a in to it.
single word that connotes the same

attributes as the definirndum. 4. Definition by Genus and
Difference
It is assigning a meaning to a term
Example:
by identifying a genus term and one
“Physician” means doctor
or more difference.
2. Etymological Definition
Example:
Ice means frozen water
It assigns a meaning to a word by
(Species) (Difference) (Genus)
disclosing the word’s ancestry in
both in its own language and other
Criteria for Lexical
language.
Definitions
Example:
Rule 1. It should conform to the
Logic, Philosophy, Orthodox,
standards of proper grammar.
ሥነምግባር
“Orthodox” is originated from two
Example:
Greek term ortho-straight or correct
“cardiac” is like something to do
and doxa-belief or opinion.
with the heart. (improper grammar)

Rule 2. It should convey the

essential meaning of the word Rule 6. It should not be expressed
being defined. in figurative, obscure, vague, or
ambiguous languages.
Example:
“Computer” is a machine which is Examples:
capable of storing a great deal of “Architecture” means frozen music.
information. (Not essential) (Figurative)
“Bunny” means a mammalian of the
Rule 3. It should be neither too family Leporidae of the order
broad nor too narrow. Lagomorpha whose young are born
furless and blind. (Obscure)
Example: “Democracy” means a kind of
“Bird” means a warm blooded government where the people are in
animal. (Broad) control.(vague)
“Bird” means any awarm blooded “Triangle” means a figure composed
animal, feathered animal that can of three straight lines in which all
fly. (Narrow) the angles are equal to 180˚.
(ambigious)
Rule 4.They should not be circular.
Rule 7. It should avoid affective
Example: terminology.
“Silence” means the state of being
silent. Example:
“Government” means the cruel and
Rule 5. It should not be negative irresponsible executive committee of
when it can be affirmative. the exploitation class (Incorrect)
Example: Rule 8. It should indicate the

“Concord” means the absence of context to which the definiens
discord. (negative) pertains. (Whenever the definiendum
is a word that means different things

in different contexts, a reference to
the context is important.)
Example:
“Strike” means (in baseball) a pitch
at which a batter swings and misses.

Introduction to Logic (Phil 201) Lecture Notes, Ch-3
Chapter III Example: Fallacy of affirming the

consequence
Informal Fallacies K…D
D____
K
3.1 Fallacies in General If Mohammed Amin was killed in a
Fallacy: is a defect in an argument plane crash, then Mohammed Amin
that consists in something other is dead.
than merely false premises. Mohammed Amin is dead.
Therefore, Mohammed Amin was
A fallacy is a bad argument. killed in a plane crash.
Conversely, any bad argument is (It is fallacious, because the
bad because either it contains a argument has true premises and a
fallacy or because it has one or false conclusion.)
more false premise or both.
Informal Fallacy: is the one that

It usually involves either a mistake can be detected only through
in reasoning or the creation of analysis of the content of the
some illusion that makes a bad argument.
argument appear good. Example: Fallacy of Accident
Whoever thrusts a knife in to
The tricks of fallacies fool not only another person should be arrested.
the listener but also the arguer. But surgeons precisely this when
operating. Therefore surgeons
Formal Fallacy: is the one that may should be arrested. (Hurley 129)
be identified through mere
inspection of the form or structure The fallacies in most, but not all
of the argument. deductive arguments may be
This will be studied in detail on the identified through mere inspection of
later chapters. the form.

Example 1:
All factories are plants. 3.2.1 Fallacies of Relevance
All plants are things that contain
chlorophyll. 1. Appeal to force (Argumentum ad
Therefore, all factories are things Baculum)
that contain chlorophyll. Is also called (appeal to the stick)
(The fallacious nature of this It occurs whenever an arguer uses a
argument cannot be identified physical or psychological threat
through the mere inspection of the (force), which is logically irrelevant
form, but through analysis of the to the subject matter of the
content) conclusion, and is simply to
Example 2: convince its opponent.
All valid deductive arguments with
all true premises are sound. Example:
All sounds can be measured in bel
A teacher to a student:
or decibel.
“You should attend the lecture
Therefore, all valid arguments can
regularly. If you miss a single lecture
be measured in bel or decibel.
you will be dismissed from the
(Fallacious, because there is an
university”
illusion in the meaning of the word
sound)
Example:
(Police inspector to suspected
3.2 Classification of Informal
criminal)
Fallacies
You have committed the crime; if
Aristotle and other logicians
you do not accept this you will be
classified informal fallacies in to
tortured the whole night.
many forms.
The major categories are fallacies of
2. Appeal to Pity (Argumentum ad
relevance, weak induction,
Misricordiam)
presumption, ambiguity and
grammatical analogy.
It occurs whenever an arguer communism. Therefore, it is logical

attempts to convince the listener or to accept Marxism.
reader by evoke pity.
2. Indirect Approach:
Example: In this case the arguer directs his
A tax payer to judge: Your Honor, I appeal not to the crowed as a whole
admit that I declared thirteen but to one or more individuals
children as dependents on my tax separately, focusing up on some
return, even through I have only aspect of relationship to the
two, and I realize that this was crowed.
wrong. But if you find me guilty of
tax evasion, my reputation will be Three forms:
ruined. I will probably lose my job, 2.1. Bandwagon Argument
my poor wife will not be able to have The idea is that you will be left
the operation that she desperately behind or left out of the group if
needs, and my kids will starve. you do not accept it.
Surely I am not guilty. (Hurley: 118) Example:
3. Appeal to the People Of course, you have to vote the
(Argumentum ad Populum) Social democrats, because majority
3.1. Direct Approach: of the people vote social democrats.
Occurs when an arguer, addressing
a large group of people, excites the 2.2. Appeal to Vanity
emotions and enthusiasm of the It attempts to persuade people by
crowed (arouse mob mentality) to associating the idea with a certain
win acceptance for his conclusion. celebrity who is admired and
Mob mentality usually created pursued.
through mass media. Example:
Example: You should buy Kangaroo foam
Communism is a political system because it is the mattress that Haile
where by men become the master of Gebresillsie uses.
itself and Mr. Marx is a fighter of
2.3. Appeal to snobbery It occurs when the second person

It attempts to persuade the responds the first person’s argument
individual to accept the idea by by discrediting the opponent’s
making feel he/she is among the argument by alluding (referring
few best. indirectly) to certain circumstances
that affect the opponent.
Example: Example:
Hummer automobiles are not for The dean's argument for 70-30
every one but only for the few rich, if policy is useless for he argues in
you qualify as one of the select few that way simply because he is
purchase it. member of the ruling political party.
4.3. The tu quoque (“you too”)
4. Argument against the person It begins when the second arguer
(Argumentum ad Hominem) attempts to convince by citing
It involves two arguers and is features in the life or behavior of the
occurred when one of the arguers first arguer that conflict with
attempts to convince the other not his/her conclusion.
by presenting convincing arguments; Example:
but through attacking the person by His son concluded that his father's
mentioning its weaker sides. argument against smoking is useless
Three forms: for his father smokes too.
4.1. The ad hominem abusive 5. Accident
It occurs when the second person It is committed when a general rule
responds the first person’s argument is misapplied to a specific case
by verbally abusing the first person. which was not intended to cover.
Example: Example:
Her argument for abortion is useless Property should be returned to its
because she argued that way for she rightful owner. The drunker man
aborted three times. who is starting a fight with his
4.2. The ad hominem opponents at the pool table lent you
circumstantial his pistol, and now he wants it back.
Therefore, you should return it to reestablishing the military

him now. (Adapted from Hurely: government.
123)
8. Red Herring
6. Straw Man It is committed when the arguer
It is committed when an arguer diverts the attention of the reader
distorts an opponent’s argument for or listener by changing the subject
the purpose of more easily to some totally different issue.
attacking it. Example:

Ato Belete is asked to report why he
has been late last night. He started
Example:
to talk about the amazing TV show
Wr/t Meron's argument for college
he watched that night, and smartly
love affair is useless. Obviously this
managed to change the attention of
love affair leads the students to
the requester.
unwanted pregnancy. And unwanted
pregnancy will definitely results in
N.B. While both Red herring and
college drop out, medical and
Straw man fallacies proceed by
psychological complications.
generating a new set of premises,
Therefore, her argument is useless.
but Missing the point draws
inappropriate conclusion from the
7. Missing the Point
original premise.
(Ignoratio Elenchi)
It occurs when the premises of an
3.2.2 Fallacies of Weak
argument supports one particular
Induction
conclusion, often vaguely related
They occur due to the weak
to the correct conclusion, is drawn.
connection between the premises
Example:
and the conclusion.
Democracy is a mock in most
African countries. The only
9. Appeal to unqualified
alternative is therefore,
Authority (Argumentum
ad verecundiam) Therefore, majority of the students

It occurs when the cited authority or of AU are addicted to the drug.
witness is not trustworthy.
Example: 12. False cause
Our mathematics professor said that It occurs whenever the link between
Ethiopia had no written philosophy premises and conclusion depends on
until C 20th. Therefore, it is true that some imaginary causal connection
Zerayacob’s C17th philosophy can that probably does not exist.
not be considered as a written Three types:
Ethiopian Philosophy. 12.1. Post hoc ergo
prompter hoc
10. Appeal to Ignorance
It occurs just because one event
(ad Ignoratiam)
precedes another event and the
It is occurred when the arguer
arguer concluded that the preceding
concludes something to be evident
cause is the cause for the current
because noting is known with
effect ="after this on account of
certainty, and vice versa.
this"
Example:
Example:
Noting is known with certainty about
During the past two months every
the existence of devil. Therefore,
Saturday a fox had crossed Ato
devil does not exist.
Adefris on his way for hunting and
he was unfortunate. Therefore, to be
11. Hasty Generalization
fortunate in his hunting task in the
(Converse Accident)
future Ato adefiris should change his
It is committed when a specific case
route.
(sample not representative) is
12.2. Non causa pro causa
applied to a general rule which was
It occurs when what is taken to be
not intended to cover.
the cause of the something is not
Example:
really the cause at all.
Last year three students of AU were
Example:
found to be addicted to marijuana.
Best medical doctors are those who is committed when the analogy is
are paid salaries in excess of 10,000 not strong enough to support the
Eth. Birr. Therefore, the best way to conclusion. Example:
ensure Dr. Dereje will become the Object A has a, b, c and z qualities.
best medical doctor is to raise his Object B has a, b, c, qualities.
salary to at least 10,000 Eth. Birr. Therefore, object b probably has
quality z.
12.3. Oversimplified cause 3.2.3 Fallacies of Presumption
It occurs when a multitude of Arguments containing these fallacies
cause is responsible for a certain presume (guess) what they purport
effect but the arguer selects just one to prove.
of these and represents it as if it is Four kinds:
the sole (only) cause. 15. Begging the question
Example: (Petitio Principii)
There are more laws on books today To commit this fallacy some form of
than ever before, and more crimes phraseology be used that tends to
are being committed than ever conceal the questionably true
before. Therefore, to reduce crime we character of a key premise.
must eliminate the laws. (Hurley In other words, the arguer creates
140) the illusion that premises provide
13. Slippery slope adequate support by:
It is another variety of false cause. It 1. Leaving out key premise
occurs when the conclusion of an (Ignoring the questionably true
argument rests up on an alleged premise which is needed to make the
chain reaction and there is no argument valid.)
sufficient reason (not likely to Example:
occur) to think that the chain of Murder is morally wrong. This being
reaction will actually takes place. the case, it follows that abortion is
14. Weak Analogy morally wrong.
It affects inductive argument from (It ignores the questionably true
Analogy. It premise which is
"Abortion is murder") 2. False bifurcation or Either-or fallacy

Restating the conclusion as a The arguer presents two unlikely
premise options as if they were the only ones
Example: available.
Anyone who does not have an innate Example:
ability could not be a great football Either you borrow me the money or
player. Therefore, any football player you don't deserve to be called my
has an innate ability. (The brother.
questionable [may be false] premise 18. Suppressed Evidence
says the same thing as the It is committed when the arguer
conclusion) ignores stronger evidence that
3. Reasoning in a circle Example: supports a different conclusion.
Democracy is the best political It occurs when an inductive
system. That is why it contains the argument ignores some important
most profound insights. Thus it piece of evidence that outweighs the
influences most countries in the presented evidence and entails a
world. Therefore, it is the best very different conclusion.
political system. Example:
16. Complex Question Typewriter repairmen have earned a
This fallacy consists in phrasing two good living in the past. Therefore,
or more questions in the form of a typewriter repairmen will earn a
single question and a single good living in the future.
answer is applies to both or all [It ignores a piece of evidence that
questions. computers have almost completely
Example: replaced typewriters in recent years.]
Have you stopped smoking? 3.2.4 Fallacies of Ambiguity
[If the answer is yes, it means the They arise from the use of
person has been smoking. If no, it ambiguous language in the premise
means the person at least has been or conclusion.
smoking.] 19. Equivocation
17. False Dichotomy It occurs when the conclusion of an
argument depends on a word or a has at least the courage to admit her

phrase being used in two different own mistake.
senses. Example:
Example: "Kill him not leave him."
All valid deductive arguments with Based on this written message from
all true premises are sound. his boss a solider should conclude
All sounds can be measured in bel that he is ordered to kill the man in
or decibel. question.
Therefore, all valid arguments can 3.2.5. Fallacies of Grammatical
be measured in bel or decibel. Analogy
(Fallacious, because there is an They are called grammatical analogy
ambiguity in the meaning of the because they occur in arguments
word sound which has two different that are grammatically similar to
meanings in different senses) other, non fallacious arguments.
You can also imagine arguments 21. Composition
that contain words like obtuse, law, It occurs when the arguer
right, fan, etc. erroneously (wrongly) transfers an
20. Amphiboly attribute from the parts of
It occurs when an arguer something onto the whole.
misinterprets an ambiguous Example:
statement and then draws a Each atom in this piece of chalk is
conclusion based on the faulty invisible. Therefore, the chalk is
interpretation. invisible.
The ambiguous statement is made [The attribute invisible is wrongly
by someone other that the arguer. transferred from the parts on to the
The ambiguity arises from, a whole.]
mistake in grammar or 22. Division
punctuation. It occurs when the arguer
Example: erroneously (wrongly) transfers an
Almaz told workinesh that she had attribute from the whole of
made a mistake. It follow that Almaz something onto the parts.
Example:
Salt is a nonpoisonous compound.
Therefore, its component elements
sodium and chlorine are
nonpoisonous.
[The attribute nonpoisonous is
wrongly transferred from the whole
on to the parts.

Chapter IV Categorical propositions may be

found either in ordinary or
Syllogistic Logic standard forms.

Compare the following pairs of
propositions which are presented in
4.1 Definition of concepts ordinary and standard forms
Syllogism is an argument with two respectively.
premises and a conclusion. All dogs bark.
4.2 Types of Syllogism All dogs are animals that bark.
1. Categorical syllogism is a Not a single horse is mule.
deductive argument consisting of No horses are mules.
three categorical propositions with Some laptops are expensive.
exactly three shared terms, two Some laptops are expensive
terms per proposition. computers.
Categorical Syllogism (Contains Not everyone who preaches is a
words All, No, some) theologian.

Some preachers are not theologians.
2. Hypothetical syllogism is a type
4.3.1 Standard form
of syllogism which is characterized
A categorical Proposition is in
by its use of conditional sentences
standard form when it contains the
as either a premise, or a conclusion ,
four components in the following
or both.-(if-then)
order:
3. Disjunctive syllogism is a type of
1 2 3 4
syllogism which is characterized by Quantifier Subject Copula Predicate
Term Term
its use of either-or type statements.
1 All 2 cats 3 are 4 animals.
4.3 Categorical proposition is a
¸ Component Parts
statement that relates two classes or
1. Quantifiers are words that show
categories. The
quantity.
Two categories of categorical
Example: All, No Some
syllogisms are subject term and
2. Subject term is a word or group
predicate term.
of words that can serve as the
subject of the statement. A and E have universal attribute

Example: Cats E and O have Particular attribute
3. Copula is a word or that connect 3. Distribution
the subject term and the predicate
It refers to whether the proposition
term.
makes an assertion about every
Example: are
member of the class denoted by the
4. Predicate Term is a word or
term; otherwise it is undistributed.
group of words that tell us
All cats (C) are mammals (M).
something about the subject.
M
The proposition "A"
Example: animals
C asserts about every
¸ Types and codes
member of the subject term "cat".
There are four types of categorical
Thus the subject term is
propositions which are codified in
distributed in proposition "A"
the first four vowel letters: A, E, I
No cats (C) are mammals (M).
and O.
M The proposition "E"
Example:
asserts about every
A All cats are mammals. C
member of the subject term "cat"

E No cats are mammals.
and the predicate term "mammals".
I Some cats are mammals.
Thus both the subject and
O Some cats are not mammals.
predicate terms are distributed in
4.3.2. Attributes of Categorical
proposition "E"
propositions
Some (at least one) cats (C) are
1. Quality
mammals (M).
It refers to whether the proposition
The proposition "I"
is in affirmative or in the negative. M
x cat assert about at least

A and I have negative attribute
one member of the subject and the
E and O have affirmative attribute
predicate terms. Thus neither the
2. Quantity
subject term nor the predicate
It refers to whether categorical
term is distributed in proposition
proposition is either universal or
"I"
particular.
Some (at least one) cats (C) are not developed the system of diagrams.
mammals (M). Categorical propositions can be
x cat
M
The proposition "O" represented by Venn diagrams.
assert about at least Steps
one member of the subject term To represent Categorical
but it asserts about every member propositions we should follow the
of the predicate term. Thus the three steps given below:
predicate term is distributed in 1. Represent the subject and
proposition "O" predicate term with letters.
Consider the following table 2. Draw overlapping circles in
Two mnemonic devices for distribution which the left hand represent
”Unprepared Students ”Any Student Earning
Never Pass“ B’s Is Not On Probation“ the subject term, and the right
Universals distribute A distributes Subject.

hand- the predicate term.
Subjects. E distributes Both.
Negatives distribute I distributes Neither.
Area 1 (SP)
Predicates. O distributes Predicate
Area 2 (SP)
Area 3 (SP)
Summary ¸ SP = S that are not P
Type Quantity Quality Distribution
¸ SP = S that are P
A Universal Affirmative S
¸ SP = P that are not S
E Universal Negative S&P
3. Indicate the various areas of the
Particular Affirmative None
I diagram whether they are
O Particular Negative P empty (by shading the area) or
contain at least one member of
the class (by putting letter x ).
4.3.3. Venn Diagrams
Universal affirmative proposition
Venn diagram is an arrangement of
(A) "All s is p." means
overlapping circles such that each
No members of S
circle represents the class denoted
is outside P.
by the term in categorical
propositions.
John Venn, the C19th logician,

Universal Negative proposition (E) Some instructors are not
"No s is P." means professional teachers. Therefore, it is
No members of S false that all instructors are
is inside P. professional teachers.
Particular affirmative proposition Step 1. Draw overlapping circles for

both the premise and conclusion as
(I) Some S is P." means at least
we have seen earlier.
one S exists and that S
Step 2. Compare the two, if they are
is a P.
identical the argument is valid; if not
it is invalid.
Particular negative proposition
I P I P
(O) Some S is not P." means
at least one S Premise Conclusion

exists and that S Since they are identical the
is not a P. argument is valid.
3.3.2 Immediate Inferences Example
∑ Immediate Inferences are It is false that that all animals are
arguments with single premise mammals. Therefore, no animals are
and conclusion. mammals.
∑ Venn Diagrams and Square of A M A M
oppositions, as well as the rules

of conversion, obversion and Premise Conclusion
contraposition can be used to It is invalid, because they are not
test the validity of these identical.
arguments. 4.3.4. Square of Oppositions

It is an arrangement of lines that
illustrates logically necessary
Let us practice to using Venn
relations among the four kinds of
Diagrams to test the validity of an
categorical propositions.
inference:
Types of squares
Example:
A. Aristotelian (Traditional)
B. Boolean (Modern) logically undetermined truth
While the modern square is neutral value.
about whether universal (A and E) ∑ Given the truth value of an I or E

propositions make claims about propositions, A and O
actually existing things, the propositions have logically
Aristotelian interpretation assumes undetermined truth value
that the subject term of universal Thus, if I is given True, we cannot
propositions denotes things that determine the truth value of the
actually exist. corresponding A or O propositions.
∑ Because of this existential Example:

assumption the traditional square All camels are mammals. Therefore,
contains more relations than the it is false that some camels are not
modern square. mammals.
A. Modern square of Opposition Since the premise is an A

proposition (which is given True) and
the conclusion is an O proposition
(which is given False), the argument
is Valid
B. Traditional (Aristotelian)
Square of opposition
∑ Modern square of opposition has

contradictory relations. And
they necessarily have opposite
truth value.
Thus, if A is true O must be false.
If I is true E must be false.
∑ Given the truth value of an A or There are four types of relations

E the Corresponding among the propositions according to
propositions E and I have Aristotelian interpretation.

1. Contradictory means there is 1. Conversion switching the subject

complete opposition between term with the predicate term.
propositions. Example
Example Proposition Example T/Value
A All S are P. Undetermined
If A = T, O must be false
Converse A All P are S.
If A=T, E or I is undetermined
E No S are P. Same
2. Contrary expresses only partial Converse E No P are S.
opposition. That is (at least one is I Some S are P. Same

Converse I Some P are S.
false, not both true)
O Some S are not P. Undetermined
Example
Converse O Some P are not S.
If A= True, E must be False
If A= False, E is undetermined Compare the Venn Diagrams
3. Sub contrary expresses only
partial opposition. That is (at least
one is True, not both false)
Example
If I= True, O is undetermined
If I= False, O must be True
4. Subalteration expresses truth
goes downward and falsity goes
upward.
Example
If A= True, I = True
2. Obversion
If A= False, I is undetermined
It involves two steps:
But:
1. Changing the quality without
If I= True, A is undetermined
changing the quantity
If I= False, A=F
2. Replacing the predicate term with
its term complement.
4.3.5. Categorical Operations
(Conversion, Obversion,
Contraposition)
Class (term) Complement

The complement of a class is the 3. Contraposition
group consisting of everything It involves two steps:
outside the class. 1. Converting the proposition
Example 2. Replacing the subject and
The complement of the class of
the predicate terms with
Ethiopian is the group that includes
their term complements
people who are not Ethiopian.
Proposition Example T/Value
A All S are P. Same
Contra pose A All non-P are non-S.
Non-Ethiopian Ethiopian
E No S are P. Undetermined
Contra pose E No non-P are non-S.
Look at the following table I Some S are P. Undetermined

Contra pose I Some non-P are non-S.
Proposition Example T/Value
O Some S are not P. Same
A All S are P. Same
Contra pose O Some non-P are not
Obverse A No S is non-P.
non-S.
E No S are P. Same
Obverse E All S are non-P.
I Some S are P. Same
Obverse I Some S are not non-P. Compare the Venn Diagrams
O Some S are not P. Same
Obverse O Some S are non-P.
Compare the Venn Diagrams

4.3.6. Formal Fallacies Illicit subalternation

In testing immediate inferences we Some A are not B.
may identify different formal fallacies Therefore, no A are B.
1. The fallacy of illicit contrary It is false that all A are B.
committed when we detect an Therefore, it is false that some A are
argument depends on an B.
incorrect application of the 4. Cases of the incorrect application
contrary relation. of the contradictory relation are
Example: so infrequent that an ‘‘illicit
Illicit contrary contradictory’’ fallacy is not
It is false that all A are B. usually recognized.
Therefore, no A are B. 5. Existential fallacy, is committed
It is false that no A are B. whenever contrary, subcontrary,

and subalternation are used (in
Therefore, all A are B.
an otherwise correct way) on
2. The fallacy of illicit subcontrary
propositions about things that do
committed when we detect an
not exist.
argument depends on an
In other words, if the traditional
incorrect application of the
square of opposition is used with
subcontrary relation.
propositions about things that do
Example:
not exist.
Illicit subcontrary
Example:
Some A are B.
All witches who fly on broomsticks
Therefore, it is false that some A are
are fearless women.
not B.
Therefore, some witches who fly on
Some A are not B.
broomsticks are fearless women.
Therefore, some A are B.
No wizards with magical powers are
3. Illicit subalternation. depend on
malevolent beings.
an illicit application
Therefore, it is false that all wizards
subalternation
with magical powers are malevolent
Example:
beings.
The first depends on an otherwise circled ‘‘X’’ signifies that something

correct use of the subalternation exists in the area in which it is
relation, and the second on an placed. However, the two symbols
otherwise correct use of the contrary differ in that the uncircled ‘‘X’’
relation. If flying witches and represents the positive claim of
magical wizards actually existed, existence made by particular (I and
both arguments would be valid. But O) propositions, whereas the circled
since they do not exist, both ‘‘X’’ represents the assumption of
arguments are invalid and commit existence made by universal (A and
the existential fallacy. E) propositions. The Aristotelian
4.3.7. Representing Aristotelian interpretation of universal
standpoint I Venn diagram propositions may now be
The difference between the Boolean diagrammed as follows:
standpoint and the Aristotelian
standpoint concerns only universal
(A and E) propositions.
The Boolean interpretation of these
propositions makes no assumption
that the subject term denotes
actually existing things, whereas the Example:
Aristotelian interpretation does. All sugar plum fairies are delicate
creatures.
Therefore, if we are to construct a Therefore, some sugar plum fairies
Venn diagram to represent the are delicate creatures. (Hurley 227)
First we test the argument from the
Aristotelian interpretation of such a
Boolean standpoint:
statement, we need to introduce
some symbol that represents this
assumption of existence.
The symbol that we will introduce
for this purpose is an ‘‘X’’
surrounded by a circle. Like the ‘‘X’’s
that we have used up until now, this
Again the argument is invalid from ∑ Middle term – the term occurring
the Boolean standpoint, so we in both the major and minor
proceed to the second step and place premises of a standard form
a circled ‘‘X’’ in the unshaded part of categorical syllogism, but not in the
the left-hand premise conclusion.
circle: ∑ Major premise – the premise of a
categorical syllogism that contains
an instance of the major term.
∑ Minor Premise – the premise of a
categorical syllogism that contains
an instance of the minor term.
Note: The major and minor premises
Thus this argument is Valid from the are not determined by their
Aristotelian standpoint. placement in a categorical syllogism,
but by terms that are contained
within them. Both premises of a
4.4. Categorical syllogism
syllogism contain the middle term,
but only the major premise and the
∑ Categorical syllogism is a deductive conclusion contain the major term,
argument consisting of three and only the minor premise and the
categorical propositions with exactly conclusion contain the minor term.
three shared terms, two terms per 4.4.2 Standard Form of
proposition.
categorical Syllogism
4.4.1. Basic Concepts A categorical syllogism is in
∑ Major term – the term occurring in standard form when it fulfills the
the predicate of the conclusion in a following four conditions:
standard form categorical syllogism. 1. All the propositions must be in
∑ Minor term – the term occurring standard form.
in the subject of the conclusion in a 2. Each term appears twice in the
standard form categorical syllogism. argument

3. Each term is used in the same Example

sense through out the argument. All Christians are men.
4. The major premise is listed first, All preachers are men.
the minor premise second and the All preachers are Christians.
conclusion last. Both of these arguments have a
Example mood of AAA, but they differ in how
Some disciples are preachers. the middle term is placed. The first
All disciples are Saints. argument places the middle term in
Therefore some saints are preachers. the subject of the major premise,
3.4.2. Mood and Figure and the predicate of the minor
All standard form categorical premise, but the second argument
syllogisms can be described in terms places the middle term in the
of their mood and figure. predicate of both major and minor
Mood premises. So, although both have
The mood of a syllogism is the same mood, they differ in form.
represented by the three letters that Figure
represent the type of each Figure refers to the placement of
proposition in the syllogism. the middle term in the argument.
Example: There are four different figures that
A standard form syllogism with three an argument can have as illustrated
universal affirmative propositions in this table:
has a mood of AAA. However, the M–P P–M
mood of a syllogism does not fully S–M S–M
characterize its form. For example S–P S–P
consider these two arguments each Figure 1 Figure 2
of which has a mood of AAA. M–P P–M
Example M–S M–S
All men are mortal. S–P S–P
All preachers are men. Figure 3 Figure 4
All preachers are mortal.

Notice the shirt collar to remember argument’s form. In general if an

the place of the middle term argument’s form is valid, the
argument is valid, and if an
argument’s form is invalid, the
argument will be invalid.
Example
The form of a standard form
All men are mortal.
categorical syllogism can be
All preachers are men.
represented by noting the
All preachers are mortal.
argument’s mood and figure.
This argument with the form AAA-1
In the two arguments given above
is a valid argument.
the first argument is AAA in the first
Example
figure (or AAA-1) and the second is
All Christians are men.
of the form AAA in the second figure
All preachers are men.
(AAA-2).
All preachers are Christians.
If we were to list all of the possible
This argument with the form AAA-2
moods that an argument could have,
is invalid. Because any argument
we would find that sixty four moods
with an invalid form is an invalid
are possible (4x4x4). Then if we add
argument, it is sometimes useful to
the figures to the number (64)
draw analogies between an
arguments of the first figure, 64 for
argument which is asserted as a
the second figure, and so on), we
proof and another argument of the
find that there are 256 possible
same form with an obviously false
argument forms which are possible
conclusion.
(4x4x4x4). Most of these forms,
Example:
however, are invalid forms.
All trees are plants.
The form of an argument is the most
All flowers are plaints.
important aspect of an argument
Therefore all flowers are trees.
when considering
The fact that this argument has true
its validity, because validity and
premises and an obviously false
invalidity depend exclusively on the
conclusion proves that the argument
form is invalid. The previous Venn diagram for categorical

argument is proven also to be syllogisms is the extension of Venn
invalid, and any argument of the diagrams for categorical
form AAA-2 is invalid. (See the table propositions. (See section 4.5)
below) Diagramming a categorical syllogism
Summary requires the addition of a third circle
Unconditionally Valid forms in order to represent the three
categories in the three terms of such
syllogisms.
Conditionally Valid Forms
In the diagram above three circles

are used to represent the three
The reason for these additional
categories of a standard form
valid forms is that the Aristotelian
categorical syllogism.
standpoint (when properly
The letters label the terms of the
adopted) recognizes that the
syllogism and in this case the S, P,
premises of a syllogism convey
and M terms which stand for the
information about existence
minor term (the subject of the
where as the Boolean stand point conclusion), the major term (the
does not. predicate of the conclusion) and the
4.4.3. Venn Diagrams middle term.
Venn diagrams introduced by John Just as the two circle diagram

Venn (1834-1923) provide one represents more than two categories,
means for testing the validity of the three circle diagram represents
categorical syllogisms. much more than three categories.

(1) M, (2) SM, (3) MSP, (4) MP, (5) S 4. When inspecting a complete
(6) SP, (7) P, (8) non-S, (9) non-P, diagram to see whether it supports a
(10) non-M, (11) S non-P, etc. particular conclusion, one should
Such a diagram as that above says remember that particular statements
nothing about the categories assert two things. "Some S are P."
represented. In order to represent means "at least one S exists and
the propositions of a syllogism we that s is a P.";
use shading to represent empty
"Some S are not P." means "at least
classes, and the letter “x” to
one S exists and that s is not a P."
represent where at least one member
of a class exists. 5. When shading an area, one
Preliminary Pointers to represent must be careful to shade all of
categorical syllogisms with Venn the area in question.
diagrams
1. Marks (shading or placing "x") are
entered only for the premises; no
marks are made for the conclusion.
2. If the argument contains one
universal premise, this premise
should be entered first in the
6. The area where an "x" goes is
diagram. If there are two universal
always initially divided in to two
premises, either one can be done
parts. If one of these two parts is
first.
already been shaded, the "x" goes
3. When entering the information
in the unshaded part. If one of
contained in a premise, one should
the two parts is not shaded, the
concentrate on the circles
"x goes on the line separating the
corresponding to the two terms in
two parts." This means that the
the statement. While the third circle
"x" may be in either (or both) of
cannot be ignored altogether, it
the two areas- but it is not known
should be given only minimal
which one.
attention.
represents that there are no

members of S that are not M. This
represents the minor premise.
Now we can ask if the premises of
the proposition justify the
conclusion, “All S are P,” and we can
7. An "x" should never be placed in see that it does. The only non-
such a way that it dangles outside of shaded part of S is within the P
the diagram, and it should never be circle, and that represents the
placed on the intersection of two conclusion that all S are indeed P.
lines. Because we have shown with this

example that the AAA-1 syllogism is
valid in this argument, we know that
AAA-1 syllogisms are valid in for all
arguments where it occurs.
Let’s note a few examples first
Note:
involving only universal
The position of the three circles may
propositions.
vary. In the above example the
Example 1
middle term was represented with
AAA-1. This argument has the
the circle at the top, (recommended)
following format:
however, in the following examples
All M are P.
you will find the middle tem at the
All S are M.
bottom. You can use either; but you
All S are P.
need to be consistent.
First we shade the part of M that
Example 2
does not overlap P. This says that
Now let us look at an argument of
there are no members of M that exist
the form AAA-2, which has this
outside of P. This represents the
form:
major premise of the argument.
All P are M.
Next we shade the part of S that
All S are M.
does not overlap M. Again this
All S are P.
As usual we start with the major justify the conclusion. Note this
premise. This is not necessary now, example AAA-2 argument:
but to prevent confusion, it is a good All Priests are Men.
place to start when it is allowed. We All Saints are Men.
shade out all parts of P that are not All Saints are Priests.
part of M (green).
This argument has a true
Next we represent the minor
conclusion, but the conclusion is not
premise by shading all parts of
proven from the premises given.
S which are not M (grey). In this
Example 3: AEE-2
case part of S was already shaded
All P are M.
when we represented the major
No S are M.
premise.
No S are P.
Now we can see if the conclusion,
We start as we did in the preceding
“All S are P,” is represented in the
example by shading all of P that is
diagram, and we see that it is not.
not a part of M (green). Again this
There is still a part of S that falls
represents the proposition that “All P
outside of P, so we are not justified
are M.”
in drawing the stated conclusion.
The minor premise states that no
The diagram represents categories in
part of S is a part of M, so we shade
which the major premise and the
out the part of S that intersects with
minor premise are true, but the
the circle that represents M.
conclusion is false. No valid
Now we can see if we can correctly
argument can have true premises
infer the conclusion of the
and a false conclusion, so the
proposition, and it is easy to see that
argument format AAA-2 is invalid
no part of S can be part of P, so the
wherever it is found.
diagram proves that the argument is
It is important to note that proving
valid, and that the argument form
that an argument is invalid is not
AEE-2 can be properly used with
the same thing as proving that the
other arguments.
conclusion is false. It proves only
Example 4
that the truth of the premises do not
Let’s consider a proposition of the In this case the major premise is

type EEE-3. This is an example of universal, and the minor premise is
such an argument: particular, so we start by
No M are P. diagramming the major premise
No M are S. which states that there is no M
No S are P. which is not P. To indicate this on
Starting with the major premise we the diagram we shade out all of M
shade out all of P that which is not P (yellow).
intersects with M (burnt orange). The minor premise indicates that
Next we shade out the part of S that there is at least one thing that is
intersects with M to represent the both S and M. This is indicated in
minor premise (light blue). the diagram by placing an “x” in the

white space that is shared by S and
Then we note if the conclusion is
M.
represented in the diagram.
Don’t place the “x” in the shaded
The conclusion says that no part of
area, because the other
S could be part of P, but that is not
proposition says there is nothing
represented in the diagram, so the
there.
syllogism is invalid.
Now we can check to see if the
A little extra care is necessary when
conclusion is justified. The
diagramming categorical syllogisms
conclusion says that there is at
with particular propositions within
least one thing that is both S and P,
them. When doing so, diagram
and we can see that the diagram
universal propositions before the
confirms that conclusion. The
particular propositions.
argument is a valid argument.
Example 5
Example 6
Let’s diagram an AII-1 proposition
Let us see how an invalid argument
first.
with particular propositions appears
All M are P.
in a diagram.
Some S are M.
Consider this AII-2 argument:
Some S are P.

All P are M. Example 7

Some S are M. This argument is invalid from the
Some S are P. Boolean standpoint but valid from
Again we start with the universal the Aristotelian.
proposition (we would do this No fighter pilots are tank
whether or not it was the major commanders.
premise) which says that there is no All fighter pilots are courageous
P that is not M, so we shade out the individuals.
part of P that is not M (grey). Therefore, some courageous
The minor premise states that there individuals are not tank
is at least one S that is commanders.
also an M. To indicate this we need
Step 1
to put an “x” in the white area that
We test the syllogism from the
is shared by S and M, but should it
Boolean standpoint:
go in the area within P or without P?
No F are T.
The propositions do not tell us,
All F are C._____
so we avoid saying more than the
Some C are not T.
propositions by placing the letter on
The conclusion asserts that there is
the line between the two areas.
an ‘‘X’’ that is inside the C circle and
The next thing to do is to check to
outside the T circle. Inspection of the
see if the diagram indicates that the
diagram reveals no ‘‘X’’s at all, so the
conclusion has been proven true.
syllogism is invalid from the Boolean
The conclusion says that there is at
standpoint.
least one S that is also a P, but the
Step 2
diagram does not say that! We
However, proceeding to step 2, we
cannot tell where the “x” should go
notice that the F circle is all shaded
relative to P, so the conclusion does
except for one area. Thus, we place a
not follow from the premises, and
circled ‘‘X’’ in the one remaining area
the argument form is invalid.
of the F circle: (assume F exists)

The conclusion asserts that there is

No F are T. an ‘‘X’’ in the area where the C and S
All F are C._____ circles overlap. Since the diagram
Some C are not T. contains no ‘‘X’’s at all, the
argument is invalid from the
Now the diagram indicates that the Boolean stand point.
argument is valid, so we proceed to Step 2
step 3 Proceeding to step 2, we notice that
We will determine whether the the C circle is all shaded except for
circled ‘‘X’’ represents something one area. Thus, we place a circled
that actually exists. This is ‘‘X’’ in the unshaded area of the C
equivalent to determining whether F circle: (assume C exists)
denotes something that exists. Since All R are S.
All C are R.
F stands for fighter pilots, which do
Some C are S.
exist, the circled ‘‘X’’ does represent
something that exists. Thus, the
The diagram now indicates that the
syllogism is valid from the
syllogism is valid.
Aristotelian standpoint.
Step 3
Now we proceed to the third step
Example 2:
and determine whether the circled
All reptiles are scaly animals.
‘‘X’’ stands for something that
All currently living dinosaurs are
actually exists. In other words, we
reptiles.
determine whether C denotes
Therefore, some currently living
existing things. Returning to the
dinosaurs are scaly animals.
original argument, we see that C
Step 1
stands for currently living
First we test the syllogism from the
dinosaurs, which do not exist. Thus,
Boolean standpoint:
the circled ‘‘X’’ does not stand for
All R are S.
something that actually exists, so
All C are R.
Some C are S. the syllogism is invalid.

Note: Rule 1: The middle term must be
In determining whether the circled distributed at least once.
‘‘X’’ stands for something that exists, Fallacy: Undistributed middle

we always look to the Venn circle Example:
that is all shaded except for one All animals are living things.
area. If the term corresponding to All plants are living things.
that circle denotes existing things, All plants are animals.
then the circled ‘‘X’’ represents one Rule 2: If a term is distributed in
of those things. In some diagrams, the conclusion, then it must be
however, there may be two Venn distributed in the premise.
circles that are all shaded except for Fallacy:
one area, and each may contain a ∑ Illicit major
circled ‘‘X’’ in the unshaded area. In All professors are scholars.
these cases we direct our attention Some lecturers are not professors.
only to the circled ‘‘X’’ needed to Some professors are not scholars.
draw the conclusion. If that circled ∑ Illicit minor
‘‘X’’ stands for something that exists,
All tigers are mammals.
the argument is valid; if not, it is
All mammals are animals.
invalid.
All animals are tigers.
4.4.4 Rules and Fallacies Rule 3 Two negative premises are
Today's logicians generally settle on not allowed
five rules, and if any one of these Fallacy: Exclusive premise
rules is violated, a specific formal Example:
fallacy is committed and No B are A.
accordingly, the syllogism is invalid. Some B are not C.
The first two rules are based on the Some C are not A.
concept of distribution and the last Rule 4: A negative premise requires
three are based on the concept of a negative conclusion, and a
quality and quantity. negative conclusion requires a
negative premise.

Fallacy:
∑ Drawing an affirmative Example:
conclusion from a negative All A are B. (A exists)
premise. All C are A.
All A are B. Some C are A.
Some C are not B. Compare the Two examples

Some C are A.
All unicorns are mammals.
∑ Drawing a negative conclusion
Some unicorns are animals.
from affirmative premises.
Invalid (unicorns do not exist)
All A are B.
All B are C.
All tigers are mammals.
Some A are not C. Some tigers are animals.
Valid (because tigers exist)
Rule 5. If both premises are Note
universal, the conclusion cannot be Both of the above syllogisms are
particular. invalid from the Boolean perspective.
Fallacy: Existential fallacy They commit Existential fallacy for
If a categorical syllogism breaks only their premises are universal and
Rule 5, it is valid from the their conclusions are particular.
Aristotelian standpoint but not from However, based on the existential
the Boolean standpoint. The nine condition of the terms, the argument
syllogistic forms that fall into this may be valid. Thus, in the above
category are those that are included syllogisms (AAI-1) the argument is
in the ‘‘conditionally valid’’ list in valid when the subject term tiger
Section 3.4.2. For each of these represents a class of terms which
forms, the list specifies one term exists, but invalid when it contains
that must denote existing things the subject term unicorn which does
before the syllogism will be valid. not exist.

¸ Any upper case letter can be used

Chapter V to represent
Example:
ASTU is a model University. [A]
Propositional Logic
2. Compound Statement
& ¸ A compound statement is one
Natural Deduction that contains one simple
statement as a component
¸ Can be represented by any upper
5.1. Propositional Logic case letter and a logical operator
Example:
¸ Propositions are statements that Abel is a teacher and Rahel is a
are either true or false. director.
¸ Propositional Logic, is also known It is not the case that Vampires
as sentential logic and statement are paranormal.
logic.
¸ It is the branch of deductive logic 3. Logical Operators
that studies ways of joining and
/or modifying entire propositions, These are symbols which represent
statements or sentences to form logical functions.
more complicated propositions, A. Tilde ( ~ ) Negation
statements or sentences, as well Not, it is not the case that, it is false
as the logical relationships and that,
properties that are derived from Example:
these methods of combining or It is not the case that Walia Ibex is
altering statements. Ethiopian endemic animal. ~W
Walia Ibex is not Ethiopian endemic
animal. ~W
5.1.1. Symbols and Translation
It is not the case that Walia Ibex is
Ethiopian endemic animal. ~W
All simple and compound These statements are all negations.
statements, logical functions as well The main operator is a tilde.
as arguments can be represented by ~B
symbols. ~ (G …H)
~ [(A ≡ F) • (C ≡ G)]
1. Simple Statement B. Dot ( • ) Conjunction
¸ Simple statement is one that does And, yet, but, however, moreover,
not contain any other statement nevertheless, still, also, although,
as a component both
Example: Gonder is a city if Addis Ababa is a

Abel is a teacher and Rahel is a Mega city. A … G
director. A • R Gonder is a city only if Addis Ababa
Abel is a teacher but Rahel is a is a Mega city. G … A
director. A • R Note:
Abel is a teacher however Rahel is a
To avoid mistakes in translating ‘‘if’’
director. A • R
and ‘‘only if’’ remember this rule:
These statements are all
The statement that follows ‘‘if’’ is
conjunctions.
always the antecedent, and the
The main operator is a dot.
statement that follows ‘‘only if’’ is
K • ~L always the consequent. Thus ‘‘G only
(E v F) • (G v H)
if A’’ is translated G … A, whereas ‘‘G
[(R … T) v (S … U)] • [(W ≡ X) v (Y ≡ Z)] if A’’ is translated A … G.
These statements are all
C. Wedge ( ٧ ) Disjunction
conditionals (material implications).
Or, either…or, unless
The main operator is a horseshoe.
Example
H … ~J
Logic is a common course or
Hydraulics is a major course. L ٧ H (A v C) … (D • E)
Either Logic is a common course or [K v (S • ~T)] … [~F v (M • O)]
Hydraulics is a major course. L ٧ H
Unless Logic is a common course, E. Triple Bar ( ∫ ) equivalence
Hydraulics is a major course. L ٧ H If and only if, sufficient and
Logic is a common course unless necessary condition for
Hydraulics is a major course. L ٧ H Event A is said to be a sufficient
These statements are all condition for event B whenever the
disjunctions. occurrence of A is all that is required
The main operator is a wedge. for the occurrence of B. On the other
~C v ~D hand, event A is said to be a
(F • H) v (~K • ~L) necessary condition for event B
[S • (T … U)] v [X • (Y ≡ Z)] whenever B cannot occur without
D. Horseshoe ( … ) Implication the occurrence of A.
If, only if, given that, in case, Place the statement that names the
provided that, on condition that, sufficient condition in the
sufficient condition for, necessary antecedent of the conditional and
condition for the statement that names the
Example: necessary condition in the
If Gonder is a city, then Addis Ababa consequent.
is a Mega city. G … A Note:
The mnemonic device ‘‘SUN’’ may be 5.1.2. Truth Functions

conveniently used to keep this rule
in mind. Turning the ‘‘U’’ sideways A. Function (Truth Function)
creates S … N, wherein S and N It is the truth value of a compound
designate sufficient and necessary proposition expressed in terms of
conditions, respectively. one or more logical operators.
Example
Abel is a teacher if and only if Rahel B. Statement Variables
is a director. These are lower-case letters (p, q, r,
Biconditional is logically equivalent s) that can stand for any statement
to two conditionals (simple or compound).
A ∫ R is logically equivalent to: Example:
(A … R) • (R … A) A p
Do not confuse these three A…B q
statement forms: BvC r
A if B B…A C. Statement Form
A only if B A…B It is an arrangement of statement
A if and only if B A≡ B variables and operators such that
These statements are all the uniform substitution of
biconditionals (material statements in place of the variables
equivalences). results in a statement.
The main operator is a triple bar. Example
M ≡ ~T ~p and p … q are statement forms
(B v D) ≡ (A • C) because substituting the statements
[K v (F … I )] ≡ [~L • (G v H)] A and B in place of p and q,
Parentheses, Brackets and Braces respectively, results in the
Whenever more than two letters and statements ~A and A … B.
operators appear in the translated D. Truth Table
statement, we will use one or more It is an arrangement of truth values
of them to separate. that shows in every possible case
Example how the truth value of a compound
[K v (F … I )] ≡ [~L • (G v H)] proposition is determined by the
Well-formed formulas (WFFs) truth values of its simple
A well-formed formula is a components.
syntactically correct arrangement of
symbols. E. Truth Table for Compound
Propositions

bring the operators and parentheses

1. Truth Table for Negations down.
2. Use the truth values of simple
propositions to compute the truth
value of the longer proposition
(follow the rules given below).
2. Truth Table for Conjunctions
Rules to compute truth values

1. Individual letters representing
simple propositions
2. Tildes immediately preceding
individual letters
3. Operators joining letters or
3. Truth Table for Disjunctions
negated letters
parentheses
5. Operators joining parenthesis, or
negated parenthesis with letters,
parenthesis or negated parenthesis.
4. Truth Table for Implications
brackets
Example:
Step 1
5. Truth Table for Bi-implications

Step 2
G. Procedures for constructing

Truth Table
Steps:
1. Determine the number of lines
F. Computing the Truth Value Use the formula L= 2n where “L”
for Longer Propositions is number of lines and “n” the
Steps number of different simple
1. Write the truth values of the propositions.
simple propositions immediately 2. Divide the number of lines in half
below the respective letters and and assign true and half false.
3. Divide that number in half and Construct a truth value for

assign true and half false (follow (C • ~D) … E
the same procedure foe every Steps 1-3 Steps 4 & 5
simple proposition).
4. Duplicate the truth values
5. Compute the remaining column
following the rules given above.
Example 1:
To construct a truth table for the
following compound proposition
(A v ~B) … B follow the steps given in
section 5.3.2. H. Classifying Statements
Step 1. Step 2
Column Under
Main Operator Classification
All True Tautologous
(Logically true)
All False Self-contradictory
(logically false)
At least one True, Contingent
Step 3 Step 4 at least one false
Examples:
A. Tautologous
Step 5a Step 5b
B. Self-contradictory
Step 5c
C. Contingent
Example 2:
I. Comparing Statements 5.1.3. Truth Table for Arguments

Column Under Main
Truth tables provide the standard
Operator Relation technique for testing the validity of
Same truth value Logically arguments in propositional logic.
each line equivalent Steps
Opposite truth value 1. Symbolize the arguments using
each line Contradictory
letters to represent the simple
At least there is one
line on which truth Consistent propositions.
values are both true 2. Write out the symbolized
There is no line on argument, placing a single slash
which the truth Inconsistent between the premises and a double
values are both true
slash between the last premise and
the conclusion.
Examples:
3. Draw a truth table for the
A. Logically Equivalent
symbolized argument as if it were a
proposition broken into parts,
outlining the columns representing
the premises and conclusion.
4. Look for a line in which all of the
B. Contradictory premises are true and the
conclusion is false. If such a line
exists, the argument is invalid; if
not, it is valid.
Example: 1
C. Consistent If juvenile killers are as responsible

for their crimes as adults, then
execution is a justifiable
punishment. Juvenile killers are not
as responsible for their crimes as
adults. Therefore, execution is not a
D. Inconsistent justifiable punishment.
Step 1
Step 2

Notes:
Any argument having inconsistent
premises is valid regardless of what
Step 3 & 4 its conclusion may be.
Example:
The sky is blue.
The sky is not blue.
Therefore, Paris is the capital of
France.
Inspection of the third line reveals

that both of the premises are true
and the conclusion is false. The
argument is therefore invalid.
Any argument having a tautologous
Example 2 conclusion is valid regardless of
If insider trading occurs, then what its premises may be.
investors will not trust the securities Example:
markets. If investors do not trust the Bern is the capital of Switzerland.
securities markets, then business in Therefore, it is either raining or it is
general will suffer. Therefore, if not raining.
insider trading occurs, then
business in general will suffer.
Steps 1-5
5.1.4. Indirect Truth table for

Arguments
Indirect truth tables provide a

shorter and faster method for testing
the validity of arguments than that
Inspection of the truth table reveals provided by ordinary truth tables.
that there is no line on which both Because an argument with 5
premises are true and the propositions demands 32 lines in L=
conclusion is false. The argument is 2n
therefore valid. Steps:
1. Assume that the argument is If an indirect truth table requires

invalid. That is, we assume that it is more than one line, the method to be
possible for the premises to be true followed is this. Either select one of
and the conclusion false. the premises and compute all of the
2. Enter True under the main ways it can be made true, or select
operator of the premises and False the conclusion and compute all of
beneath the conclusion. the ways it can be made false. This
3. Derive the truth values of the selection should be dictated by the
separate components by working requirement of simplicity.
backward. Example:
4. Inspect: if no contradiction is Step 1
obtained in the process, this means
that the argument is invalid. But if
Step 2 (Let’s select the conclusion)
contradicts at any spot, it is valid.
Example:1
Step 3
Step 1
Step 2 Since a contradiction is obtained on

each line, the argument is valid. If a
contradiction had not been obtained
Step 3 on every line, the argument would,
of course, be invalid, because it
would be possible for the premises
Step 4 to be true and the conclusion false.
Our inspection witnesses that the
truth values of the propositions 5.1.5. Argument Forms and
perfectly fit to our assumption: the Fallacies
premises true and the conclusion
false. The argument is therefore An argument form is an
invalid. arrangement of statement variables
Note: and operators such that the uniform
In deriving the truth values of the replacement of the variables by
propositions through indirect truth statements results in an argument.
table, Sometimes a single row of
truth values may not be sufficient to
prove an argument valid.
Common Argument Forms 2.
A. Common Valid Argument Forms
A valid argument form is any

Procedures of using Argument
argument form that satisfies the
Forms to test Validity
truth table test.
1. Disjunctive Syllogism 1. Symbolize the argument using
upper case letters
2. Check if the symbolized argument
fits the pattern of one of the forms.
2. Hypothetical syllogism Note:
Keep these points in mind:
1. The statement form p v q is
3. Asserting mode (MP) logically equivalent to q v p.
is similar to
4.Denying Mode (MT)
2. Negated letters, as well as non-
negated letters, may be interpreted
as substitution instances of the p, q,
r, and s in the argument forms.
5. Constructive Dilemma (CD)
When _A is substituted in the place

of p and B in the place of q, the
6.Destructive Dilemma (DD) above argument will be seen to have
the form of modus ponens.
3. The simple statement form p is
logically equivalent to __p.
B. Common Invalid Argument
forms
1.
is similar to
4. The order of the premises does
not affect the form of an argument.
of inference and the last of which is

the conclusion of the original
Modus Tollens argument.
C. Rules of Inference
Pure Hypothetical Syllogism There are eighteen rules of inference
in propositional logic.
5.2. Natural Deduction in Once we are supplied with all
eighteen rules together with
Propositional Logic
conditional proof, we can derive the
conclusion of any valid argument in
A. Natural deduction
propositional logic.
It is a method for establishing the
validity of propositional type
5.2.1. Rules of Implication I
arguments that is both simpler and
more enlightening than the method
1. Modus Ponens (MP)
of truth tables.
Natural deduction resembles the
method used in geometry to derive
theorems relating to lines and
figures.
The following instances are also MP
The method of natural deduction is
thus equal in power to the truth
table method as far as proving
validity is concerned. However,
since natural deduction cannot be
used with any facility to prove
invalidity, we still need the truth
table method for that purpose. 2. Modus Tollens (MT)
Each step in a logical proof
depends on a rule of inference.
The following instances are also MT
B. Logical proof in Natural
Deduction (ND)
It consists of a sequence of
propositions, each of which is either
a premise or is derived from
preceding propositions by
application of a rule
3. Hypothetical Syllogism (HS) B. Steps to Proof
1. Symbolize the argument.

2. Give numbers for each premise
The following instances are also HS separately
3. Write the conclusion to the right
of the last premise, separated by a
slash mark. (NB. Writing the
conclusion does not mean proving
the conclusion)
4. Derive the conclusion from the
premises (write the justification fro
4. Disjunctive Syllogism (DS)
each line you add to the immediate
right.)
The following instances are also DS C. Strategies to Rules of

Implication I
Strategy 1
Always begin by attempting to
‘‘find’’ the conclusion in the
premises.
Strategy 2
Proving Propositional Arguments If the conclusion contains a letter
that appears in the consequent of a
A. About Proof conditional statement in the
premises, consider obtaining that
Proof is a thought process thus, we letter via modus ponens (MP)
should never write down a line in a Strategy 3
proof unless we know why we are If the conclusion contains a negated
doing it and where it leads. letter and that appears in the
Typically, good proofs are not antecedent of a conditional
produced haphazardly or by luck; statement in the premises, consider
rather, they are produced by obtaining the negated letter via
organized logical thinking. modus tollens (MT)
Occasionally, of course, we may be Strategy 4
baffled by an especially difficult If the conclusion is a conditional
proof, and random deductive steps statement, consider obtaining it via
noted on the side may be useful. hypothetical syllogism (HS)

Strategy 5
If the conclusion contains a letter Example 3
that appears in a disjunctive
statement in the premises, consider
obtaining that letter via disjunctive
syllogism (DS)
Follow the steps 1-4 and strategies
D. Examples 1& 4 above
Use the first four rules of inference
to derive the conclusions of the Example 4
following arguments:
Example 1
If Adama is a city then Bahirdar is a
Mega city. Either Chancho is a town Follow the steps 1-4 and strategies 1
or Adama is a city. Adama is a city. & 5 above
It follows that, Bahirdar is a Mega
city. Example 5
If the Aster wins the game, then
Bekele will lose the medal. If the
Aster does not win the game, then
either Challa or Demeke will be
Follow the steps 1-4 and strategies fired. Bekele will not lose the medal.
Furthermore, Challa will not be
1& 2 above
fired. Therefore, Demeke will be
fired.
Example 2
If Chancho is a town then Bahirdar
is a Mega city. If Adama is a city
then Bahirdar is a Mega City. But
Bahirdar is not a mega city.
Therefore, Adama is not a city.
Follow the steps 1-4 and the

strategies 1,2,3,5 above
Follow the steps 1-4 and strategies 1

& 3 above

5.2.2. Rules of Implication II
5. Constructive Dilemma (CD)
Strategies to the Rules of

The following instances are also (CD)
Implication II
Strategy 6
If the conclusion contains a letter
that appears in a conjunctive
statement
6. Simplification (Simp) in the premises, consider obtaining
that letter via simplification:
Strategy 7
If the conclusion is a conjunctive
The following instances are also
statement, consider obtaining it via
(Simp) conjunction by first obtaining the
individual conjuncts:
Strategy 8
If the conclusion is a disjunctive
statement, consider obtaining it via
7. Conjunction (Conj) constructive dilemma or addition:
Strategy 9
If the conclusion contains a letter
not found in the premises, addition
The following instances are also must be used to obtain that letter.
(Conj) Examples
Use the above four rules of inference
to derive the conclusions of the
Example 1
8. Addition (Add)
Follow the steps 1-4 and the

The following instances are also strategies 1& 6 above
(Add)
Example 2 9. DeMorgan’s Rule (DM)
DeMorgan’s Rule (named after the

19th century logician Augustus
DeMorgan). It indicates ‘‘Not both p
Follow the steps 1-4 and the and q’’ is logically equivalent to ‘‘Not
strategies 1& 7 above p or not q,’’ and that ‘‘Not either p or
q’’ is logically equivalent to ‘‘Not p
Example 3 and not q.’’
10. Commutativity (Com)
Follow the steps 1-4 and the The commutativity rule asserts
strategies 1& 8 above that the meaning of a conjunction or
disjunction is unaffected by the
Example 4 order in which the components are
listed. In other words, the
component statements may be
commuted, or switched for one
another, without affecting the
Follow the steps 1-4 and the meaning.
strategies 1& 9 above
5.2.3. Rules of Replacement I

11. Associativity (Assoc)
The ten rules of replacement are
stated in the form of logical The associativity rule states that
equivalences. For this purpose, a the meaning of a conjunction or
new symbol consisting of four dots disjunction is unaffected by the
(::) will be used to designate logical placement of parentheses when the
equivalence. same operator is used throughout.
Underlying the use of the rules of
replacement is an axiom of
replacement, which asserts that 12. Distribution (Dist)
within the context of a proof,
logically equivalent expressions may The distribution rule, like
replace one another. DeMorgan’s Rule, pertains only to
conjunction and disjunction. When a
proposition is conjoined to a
disjunctive statement in parentheses
or disjoined to a conjunctive
statement in parentheses, the rule
Strategy 13:
allows us to put that proposition
together with each of the Distribution can be used in two
components inside the parentheses, ways to set up disjunctive syllogism:
and also to go in the reverse
direction.
13. Double negation (DN):

The double negation rule is fairly
obvious. The rule states simply that
pairs of tildes immediately adjacent
to one another may be either deleted
or introduced without affecting the Strategy 14:
meaning of the statement.
Distribution can be used in two
ways to set up simplification
Replacement I
Strategy 10:
Conjunction can be used to set up
DeMorgan’s Rule
Strategy 15:
If inspection of the premises does
Strategy 11: not reveal how the conclusion
Constructive dilemma can be used should be derived, consider using
to set up DeMorgan’s Rule: the rules of replacement to
‘‘deconstruct’’ the conclusion.
Examples
Use the above rules of inference to
derive the conclusions of the
Strategy 12:
Addition can be used to set up
DeMorgan’s Rule: Example 1

Replacement II
Strategy 16
Material implication can be used to
set up hypothetical syllogism
Example 2
Strategy 17:
Exportation can be used to set up
Example 3 modus ponens
Strategy 18:
Exportation can be used to set up
modus tollens
5.2.4. Rules of Replacement II
14. Transposition (Trans)
15. Material implication (Impl) Strategy 19:

Addition can be used to set up
16. Material equivalence (Equiv) material implication
17. Exportation (Exp)
18. Tautology (Taut) Strategy 20:

Transposition can be used to set up
hypothetical syllogism:
Strategy 21: Example 3

Transposition can be used to set up
constructive dilemma
Strategy 22:
Constructive dilemma can be used
to set up tautology
Strategy 23:
set up tautology
Strategy 24:
set up distribution
Example 1
Example 2

Logic and CT Lecture Notes 5 (Chapters 1-5)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Logic and CT Lecture Notes 5 (Chapters 1-5)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Logic and CT Lecture Notes 5 (Chapters 1-5)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Introduction to Logic (Phil 201)

Chapter I first principles of the natural order

The word "philosophy" is derived What kinds of things exist? Do only

1. Metaphysics or Ontology: the What is spirit? or soul? or matter?

Fikadu Kenenisa (MA) Page 1 of 12

are events necessary? Under what Criteria of value: do objective or

2. Epistemology: the study of Status of value: how are values

Nature of value: is value a fulfillment

Fikadu Kenenisa (MA) Page 2 of 12

represent sensible objects or ideal contributed to the concept of

Professor Kitaw is mortal. may conclude, as a result, so, thus,

1. Factual Claim: at least one of the thousand such components.

ß The inferential claim may be arguments

explicit or implicit. A. Passages lacking an inferential

ß Many [particularly, scientific]

Example: explanations can be reexpressed to

ß As both express the outcome of a ß Based on the strengths of an

Fikadu Kenenisa (MA) Page 6 of 12

ß In deductive arguments the 1.4.3. Three Factors to decide

to be true, it is impossible for the necessarily, certainly absolutely,

conclusion to be false. definitely

Example: Inductive indicators

Example: ß Disjunctive syllogism (either-or)

N.B. Argument from science can be ß There is no middle ground between

inferential claims of the of the fact that the [content of the]

arguments. premises are false (because truth or

ß In other words to evaluate an falsity is irrelevant for validity).

argument one has to answer the B. Invalid Deductive Argument

following two questions: ß It is an argument such that if the

1. Do premises support the premises are assumed true, it is

conclusion? (Inferential claim) possible for the conclusion to be

ß The truth and falsity of premises ß Look at the following pictorial

argument with true premise and

Apples true premises.

Pre. Con. Validity Soundness ß Strength is the feature of inductive

indicates that based on the factual by various factors.

and/or the inferential claim the Example: The selection of a larger or

argument could be valid, invalid, smaller sample, the trustworthiness of

sound or unsound. the authorities or witnesses etc.

N.B The case: True Premise & False

happened, the argument is ß It is an argument such that if the

necessarily invalid. premises are assumed true, then,

B. Weak Inductive Argument Example:

condition is missing, the argument

Pre. Con. Strength Cogency

Fikadu Kenenisa (MA) Page 12 of 12

Chapter II social or psychological

Definition like safe and systematic relief it

It implies sense or intention. Empty Extension is a form of

Extensional Meaning: consists of Unicorn, elf, dinosaur, current king

members of the class that the term of Ethiopia etc

denotes. (Denotation) Intension determines extension

denotes a class having more 1. Definiendum : the word or

Pilosophers have conflicting views on

We use stipulative definition when A Vague word: when there are

having a frequency ranging (for members of the class that the

5. Persuasive Definitions By pointing to one or all of the