• Arguments are ubiquitous.

• Deciding what to do alone. Economics vs Health Promotion? Rationality

entails following the course of action supported weightier reasons.
• Social interactions – Lovers, siblings, family, course mates, passengers,
citizens. Arguing is an instrument of peace or toleration.
• Professional/Career – academia as learners/students. Mergers, options for
you to gain a competitive advantage over your rivals. SWOT.
• Most people do not know how to argue!
• Poor decisions! Dangerous and deadly. – Wellbeing (medical, psychological,
social, etc.).
• Learn the principles, techniques, procedures for making sound judgements in
every domain i.e. all domains of our experiences.
• Concerns for critical thinking are tripartite: clarity, truth, logical sense.
• Practice makes improves!
 Definition of an Argument
• An argument is made up of statements. = special kind of sentences. They
state the way the world is. Declarative sentences – they declare that
something is such and such or not. Truth-statements. Knowledge-claims.
Propositions.
• Malama is Kunda. (There’s such a person such that her name is Malama
and her tribe is Kunda).
• The statement has a value. Truth-value = value of being true or false.
• Interrogatory; Imperative; Exclamatory.
• Truth can be actual/practice or in principle.
• There are 1 trillion grains of sand on the Samfya beach.
• A group of statements. Not just any group of statements.
• The arguer (the person who presents the argument), alleges or claims some (at
least one) of the statements supports one of the statements.
• The statement(s) that are claimed or purported to support one of them are known
as PREMISES.
• The statement that is claimed to follow from the premises is known as the
CONCLUSION.
• The alleged connection between premises and the conclusion must be checked or
evaluated to see whether indeed the conclusion follows from the premises AS
CLAIMED!
• An Argument is a set of statements in which one of them (conclusion) is purported
to follow from some of them (the premises).
• PREMISES

• (Claimed/advanced to support the )

• CONCLUSION
The Structure of an Argument

PREMISES

CONCLUSION
The arrow represents what is known as the inferential link.

In real life arguments can be messy.

1. Conclusion first.
2. Conclusion in the middle.
3. Conclusion at the end.
The aim of critical thinking is to tidy up arguments and evaluate arguments.
4. Rearrange statements into the standard. Premises ----> Conclusion
5. Remove excess redundant linguistic aspects. E.g. Remove figure of speech. KISS principle.
6. Remove any ambiguities.
7. Add or supply missing statements (premises or conclusions). Elliptical Arguments. (…)
P1: All men are liars.
P1: You (Cornelius) are a man. [Missing premise]
---------------------
C: You (Cornelius) are lying to me.
• 1. Men are untrustworthy.
• 2. You’re a man, Mzyamba. [Missing premise]
• 3. I cannot trust you, Mzyamba.

• All humans are mortal [Premise]

• Martha is human.
• Therefore, Martha is mortal. [Conclusion]
Indicator words or phrases.
• 1. Premise indicators: These point to reasons or evidence – Since, as,
because, seeing that, given that, for this/these reason….
• 2. Conclusion indicators: These point to the conclusion – Therefore,
hence, it follows that, consequently, we can conclude or infer that,
this entails/implies

• 3. Presence of an inferential link/claim. Will putting ‘therefore, before

one of the statements make sense? Can some of the statements be
taken as meant to support one of them? If the answer is ‘yes’, then
you have an argument. Proceed to tiding up and evaluating.
 Deductive vs Inductive Arguments
1. All men are dogs.
1. All shapes are rectangular.
2. Chitalu is a man. 2. Ideas are shapes
3. Therefore, ideas are rectangular.
--------------- IT FOLLOWS! IT IS LOGICAL!
3. Chitalu is a dog.

Is it possible for the conclusion (Chitalu is a dog) to be false?

YES:
NO:
 Deductive vs Inductive Reasoning
• A deductive argument is one in which it is purported
that the conclusion follows from the premises in
such a way that if the premises are assumed to be
true, it is impossible for the conclusion to be false.
• The conclusion follows necessarily or with strict
necessity from the premises. 100% in the
entailment.
• A deductive argument is one that moves from the
general to the specific.
- Some deductive arguments have specific premises
but general conclusions.
- Some deductive arguments have specific premises
and specific conclusions.
- Some deductive arguments have general premises
and general conclusions.
• An inductive argument is one in which it is
purported that the conclusion follows from the
premises in such a way that if the premises are
assumed to be true, it is improbable for the
conclusion to be false.
• Given these premises, it is improbable or
unlikely for the conclusion to be false.
• An inductive argument is one that moves from
the specific to the general.
- Some inductive arguments have specific
premises but general conclusions.
- Some inductive arguments have specific
premises and specific conclusions.
- Some inductive arguments have general
premises and general conclusions.
EXAMPLES OF THE TYPES
• 1. Disjunctive syllogism
P or Q.
1. John is married to a Chinese
woman or a John is married to
a Tumbuka woman.
2. John is not married to a
Chinese woman.
3. Therefore, John is married to a
Tumbuka woman.
• Argument from analogy
• Special kind of comparison. They
involve drawing an inference.
Therefore.
• X: P1, P2, P3, P4, P5, P6.
• W:
• Y: 1,2, 3, 4, 5, ?
• --------------------
• Therefore, Y (also) has property
#6.
• 2. Hypothetical syllogism
• If P, then Q.
• P = antecedent; Q = consequent.

• If a fruit is rich in vitamin C, then it will

boost immunity.
• Lemon (this fruit) is rich in vitamin C.
• Therefore, lemon will boost immunity.
• Modus pollens – (affirming the
antecedent).
• If a fruit is rich in vitamin C, then
it will boost immunity.
• Lemon will boost immunity.
• Therefore, Lemon is rich in
vitamin C
• Statistical Arguments
• Generalisations
• Sample – Population
• Inferential statistics
• Specifications
• Using general statement to infer
properties, traits about the
sample or individuals.
• If P, the Q • Inference to the Best
• Q Explanation (Abductive
• ------ reasoning)
• P • In many situations, you have
competing explanatory
hypotheses or theories.
• If Jane has biological children, then
Jane is a mother.
• Jane is a mother .
• Therefore, Jane has biological
children.
3. Mathematical arguments
(algebra, geometry but not
statistics)

1. 3>7
2. 7>4
3. Therefore, 3>4.
1. All Zambians eat vinkubala. [False]
21. Angelina Jolie is Zambia. [False]
-------------------------
3. Angelina Jolie eat vinkubala.

How is advanced? It is advanced in such a way that if the premises (1 and 2)

are assumed to be true, then it impossible for conclusion to be false.
Note: The actual truth-value of premises is irrelevant.
• A deductive argument is one that
moves from the general to the
specific.
• DEBUNK
• John takes critical thinking.
• John is male
• Mutinta is taking critical thinking.
• Mutinta is male.
• Therefore, there’s at least 2 males
taking critical thinking.
• An inductive argument is one
that moves from the specific to
the general.
• DEBUNK
• Most public health students are
health-conscious.
• Febby is a public health student.
• Febby is health-conscious.
Logical Evaluation
Does the conclusion follow?

Assuming the premises are true, is it Assuming the premises are true, is
possible for the conclusion to be it probable for the conclusion to
false? be false?
YES: Invalid YES: Weak
NO: Valid NO: Strong
If an argument is valid, it’s not
possible that it’s can be true but its
conclusion false. – Truth-preserving

Binary = either/or • Weak Strong

• God created the world.
• Dogs are mammals.
• Therefore, Jesus is God’s son.
• INVALID!
• God created the frogs.
• Everything God created is beautiful.
• Therefore, frogs are beautiful.
• VALID = truth-preserving.
• I have broken 4 eggs from the
tray and they are not rotten.
• Therefore, all the eggs in the tray
are okay.
WEAK
• I have broken 28 eggs from the
tray and they are not rotten.
• Therefore, all the eggs in the tray
are okay.
• STRONG
 Definitions: Importance, Types, Techniques, and
Criticism
• Meaning is the basis for communication.
• Confused or vague meanings of terms will result miscommunication.
• Miscommunication has dire practical consequences: conflict
(nonphysical, armed, unarmed), low uptake of public health
interventions (e.g. vaccines, research, preventative messages),
hostility from target community.
• Miscommunication could create a barrier in public health campaigns.
 Meaning of Definition
• Definition (X) means that which state or gives the meaning of a term.
(Y)
• A definition has two components.
• X means Y.
• X = Definiendum – That which is being given meaning.
• Y = Definiens – That which is providing the meaning.
 Types of Definitions
Note: Each has advantages and disadvantages. So, knowing the types enables to choose the appropriate
definition for your specific purpose or context.
1. Stipulative Definition: One assigned to a term for the first time. Appropriate
for inventions, discoveries. “meme”, “Twitter”, “laptop”, “jeggings”, “TikTok”.
A new term is created and assigned a new meaning or an old term is
assigned a new meaning besides and different from the old one.
“Twit” meant short high-pitched sounds made by birds.
By “girl”, I am going to stipulate that it means a female who has not being
romantically involved. “Coming up with your own non-standard meaning just for
a specific purpose”.
• 2. Lexical Definition. Lexicon = Dictionary: a book that assigns
meanings to words.
• LD means a definition derived a dictionary. An ordinary language
dictionary. Examples: Learner’s Oxford Dictionary, Chambers
Dictionary of English.
• This does not include specialised dictionaries such Dictionary of
Sociology, Dictionary of Biology.
• Examples of LD.
• “Girl” means “a female child”.
• “Bachelor” means “an unmarried man.”
• 3. Precising Definition: Makes gives more precise meanings to terms.
• Lexical definition tend to be vague. Although useful in everyday usage,
they come up short in various contexts such legislation, policy, science,
etc.
• LD: “Girl” means “a female child”.
• PD: “Girl” means (for the purposes of this policy) “a female aged
between 0-15 years”.
• Specialised dictionaries normally provide precising definitions.
Glossaries of reports. Laws e.g. Environmental Management Act, Public
Health Act = provide precising definitions. “Toxins”, “biodiversity”.
• Sexual and Reproductive Health Rights – child, young person,
adolescent.
• 4. Theoretical Definition – Assigns a meaning as a formular or principle
of something. Polygon, Energy, Velocity. State variables and the
relationship that exists among them.
• “Energy” means “the product mass and the speed of light.” (E=MC2)
• “Work” means “product of force and distance.”)
• 5. Persuasive Definition. Assigns a meaning a term in such a way as to
portray positively or negatively to the audience.
• “Capitalism” means “an economic system that thrives on exploiting the
masses to satisfy the insatiable greed of the rich few.”
• “Abortion” means “a liberated woman choosing to terminate a
pregnancy that would keep her chained to the whims of her husband or
society.”
 Techniques for Defining Terms
• Note: Not all techniques are possible or suitable for certain types of
definitions.
• Denotative or Extensional Definitions and Connotative/Intensional
Definitions.
• Refer to something outside the term being defined whereas intensional
techniques refer to properties within the term.

1. Ostensive/Demonstrative definition
Pointing, touching, drawing, making.
“Nshima” means this (followed by touching, pointing to it.)
Common in books or dictionaries for new learners of a language.
• 2. Enumerative definition. Enumerate is to list or count. ED involves listing
specific and concrete individual things that fall under the term.
• Example: “Comedian” means Bob Nkosha, Shi Mumbi, Mr Bean, Chris Rock,
Trevor Noah.
• Rule of thumb: Mix example to avoid confusion.
• 3. Definition by subclass. Lists examples but of subclasses of the definiendum.
• “Performer” means actor, comedian, singer, pastor, magician.
• 4. Synonymous definition. Simply gives the meaning by providing a word a
similar meaning.
• “Clergy” means preacher.
• “Harlot” means prostitute.
• “Student” means learner.
• 5. Definition by difference and genus. Stating the genus and the
differentiating trait.
• Taxonomy – classifying organisms. Family>genus>species
• “Girl” means a female who is young or young female.
• “Ice” means frozen water.
• “Satan” means a fallen angel.
• 6. Operational definition. Describes the process or procedure which
amounts the definiendum.
• “Acid” means a chemical that turns blue litmus paper red.
• “Odd number” means a number which when divided by two leaves a
remainder.
• “Surrogacy” means when ….
 Evaluating Definitions
• 1. Definitions should not be affective or persuasive.
• Definitions should be neutral. Affective language or terms try to influence the
readers’ attitude for or against what is being defined.
• “Abortion is murder.”
• “Prostitution is immoral behaviour of selling one’s body to strangers.”
• 2. Definitions should not use figurative language.
• “Love” means the feeling of a thousand butterflies in one’s tummy.
• “Love” means positive disposition towards something.
• “Prostitution is immoral behaviour of selling one’s body to strangers.”
• “Selling one’s body” is a euphemism for having sex. It’s figurative language.
• “Prostitution” means the acting of earning money or other material things
through provision of sexual services. (Is this morally right).
• 3. A definition should not use ambiguous language.
• It should use precise terms. It should subject to multiple
interpretations.
• 4. A definition should not use overly technical jargon.
• “Machine”, “Pen” in the movie The Three Idiots.
• Anything that makes human work easier.
• Fulcrums, etc.
Rule of thumb: Do not define the unknown with the unknown. Doing so self-
defeating. The definiens should be simpler than the definiendum.
5. A definition should not be circular.
The definiens should not repeat the definiendum term.
“Childish” means behaving like a child.
• 6. A good definition should not too narrow.
• The definiens leaves out things which are part of the definiendum.
• E.g. “Prostitute” means a woman who exchanges sex for money.
• “Book” means something with pages that you read.

Define
ns
Definiendum
• 7. A definition should not be too broad.
• “Water” means a liquid people drink to quench their thirst.

Definiens
Definie
ndum
• 8. A definition should use proper grammar.
• A bird is any animal that flies.
• My father is a soldier.
• “Bird” means any animal that flies.

• 9. A definition should provide context for the meaning of the term.

• There are some term which different things in different contexts.
• “Race” {sociology, sports, humanity).
• “Strike”, in labour relations, means stopping work to express some grievances
or seek improved conditions of service.
• Epistemic Evaluation: How to decide what to believe.
• Counter-example for determining invalidity
• Evaluation inductive arguments
• Analogical reasoning
• Statistical reasoning
• Inference to the best explanation

• Fallacies -
• 1. Invalid Argument
• If Mubita is vaccinated with Astrazeneka, then Mubita will not
develop severe COVID-19 symptoms.
• Mubita has not developed severe symptoms of COVID-19.
• --------------------------------------------
• Thefore, Mubita is vaccinated with Astrazeneka.

• 2. Extract the form

• If A, then B
•B
• -------------
•A
• 3. Construct
• A: Humans have four legs.
• B: Humans are mammals

• If humans have 4 legs, then humans are mammals. [T]

• Humans are mammals. [T]
• ------------------
• Humans have 4 legs. [F]

• Verdict: Since the original argument has the same form as the constructed argument
which is invalid (it has true premises and a false conclusion), it follows that the original is
also invalid.
• Some toxic dumps (A) are sites that emit hazardous wastes (B).
• Some sites that emit hazardous wastes (B) are undesirable places to
live nearby (C).
• ------------------
• Some toxic dumps (A) are undesirable places to live nearby (C).

• Some A are B. A: mammals

• Some B are C B: biped (two-legged)
• ---------------- C: bird
• Some A are C
• Some mammals are biped. [TRUE]
• Some bipeds are birds. [TRUE]
• --------------------
• Some mammals are birds. [FALSE]

• VERDICT:
Analogical Reasoning
• Ordinary Comparison (statements):
• Form: X and Y have a shared feature/characteristic/property/trait.
• Bwalya is as tall as Juliet. = Same height.
• Sophie has the same hairstyle as Mutinta.
• Mubita has the same sirname as Njekwa.
• All the houses on this street are two-storey.

• Analogical comparisons (argument)

• They involve making a conclusion (and this implies premises).
• They inductive arguments = even if premises are true and the argument is strong, the
truth of the conclusion is not guaranteed.
•
• Compare two or more things. Analogates.
• A, B, C, D = analogates. (ideas, people, cars, students, wives, shapes, restaurants,
house plans, beverages, pathogens, symptoms).
• Some (at least one) of the analogates have features all known but one of the
analogates has all the shared features but one or more.
• All (A, B, C, D) have (highlighted) properties in common except D lack a
property/quality which A, B, C, possess.
• A: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 …..
• B: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 …..
• C: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 …..
• D: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, ? …..
• --------------
• Therefore, D possess property #6.
Evaluating Arguments from Analogy
This is an inductive argument – weak/strong.
1. Number of analogates.
• i. Dads – Origin, manufacturer, make, year, MT/AT, FE
• ii. Mums -
• Uncles
• Iii. Neighbour’s –
• Yours –
• The more the number analogates, the stronger your analogy.
• 2. Number of similarities
• The more similarities shared among the analogates, the stronger the
argument, i.e. the more it is improbable for the conclusion to be
false, assuming that the premises are true.
• 3. Relevance of the similarities
• Dads: Dad’s car has 4 tyres, white, CII
• Yours: Mine has 4, white, CII
• These similarities are irrelevant to fuel efficiency.

• 4. Diversity of analogates
• Toyota
• Fiat
• Nissan
• Golf
• BMW
• Make X:
• 5. Presence of a serious dissimilarity
• A serious difference weakens the argument.
 Argument from Design
• William Paley
• Contrivance, coordination. = time. Watch.
• Watch: Order > purpose => A watchmaker (mind/designer)
• Bird’s wing
• Bird’s wing: Order > purpose (flying) => Maker/Creator
(mind/designer)

• Dissimilarity: David Hume: Watch is mechanical but the bird’s wing is

organic/biological. Darwinian theory of evolution.
• Precedents in law.
• Case A: A, B, C, etc. => Acquitted
• Case B:
• Case C:
INFERENCE TO THE BEST EXPLANATION
• Competing theories or hypotheses.
• Theories and hypotheses are conceptual explanatory tools.
• Hypotheses are tentative; they are yet to be subjected to rigorous tests.
• Theories have undergone very many tests and have been confirmed.
• There are always bound to be some competing theories or hypotheses.
• Examples
• 1. COVID-19 emerged from a biological lab leak versus COVID-19 emerged
from a wet game meat market.
• 2. Vaccines are there to protect from serious COVID-19 infection versus
Vaccines are meant to implant electronic devices to control or monitor us.
• How do choose the best explanation?
• An explanation tells us why something happened.
• E.g. Why the water is boiling; the sun appears to move; high maternal
mortality in Sinazongwe; RTA around Xmas and New Year; flooding.
• Criteria for making an inference to the best explanation.
• 1. Explanatoriness:
• Does this candidate actually explain the phenomenon?
• Observations, evidence = phenomena.
• 2. Simplicity – KISS: Keep It Simple, Stupid. Occam’s Razor: “Do multiply
entities beyond necessity.” Keep the number of hypotheses to the minimum.
Between two theories or hypotheses, other things being equal, choose the
simpler one.
• 3. Falsifiability
• Explanations must be falsifiable.
• False = Not true.
• Falsifiable means, having the property, in principle, to be shown to be false.
• “The time is 19:24.” This is falsifiable, for example, if the time is 20: 20 or 19:23.
• “Taonga is a girl”.
• “Today is Tuesday.”
• Falsification: “Today is Wednesday.” Therefore, “Today is Tuesday”, is false.
• Mutinta and Mainza. “Mutinta or Mainza drunk the sour milk”.
• It is compatible with any observation. None of the observations will contract the
explanation. Therefore, the statement is unfalsifiable.
• “I got 100% in the critical thinking test because the Holy Spirit was telling the
answers.”
• 4. Power: An explanation must be powerful. Mr Mubiana is a powerful mathematician. Dr Luchembe is a
powerful gynaecologist. This means that they highly accomplished/capable individuals in their fields. It’s
superlative adjective. It means something or someone is highly capable of accomplishing something or a task.
• A powerful hypothesis or theory or model is one that is able to explain more things.
• Power is relative or comparative term – a theory can be more or less strong.
• Between theory A and B, other things being equal, you should choose B if B is explains more things
(phenomena of a certain kind) than A does.
• Epidemiological theories
• Theory A explain the spreading of epidemic 1, 2, 3
• Theory B explain 1, 2, 3, 4, 5.
• B > A.
• Explanatory prowess – quantity and variety.
• Max Weber – accumulation of capital in the US: Calvinism’s doctrine of predestination. Newtonian mechanics.
{Very massive objects, very fast objects, subatomic particles}
• Theory of general relativity
• Quantum physics
• 5. Elegant: Closely related to simplicity. Whereas simplicity is about
the number of hypotheses, elegance is more about how the
hypotheses or statements in a theory are arranged. They are arranged
neatly, aesthetically pleasing. Orderly, well-coordinated, fitting
together nicely.
• Both theory A and B have the same number of statements. So, they’re
equal on simplicity.
• However, the statements and logically related differently. It’s here
where A and B can be deemed more elegant than the other.
• 6. Deep: Not shallow; not superficial; thorough; satisfactory.
• An explanation is deep if it does not generate further questions. An explanation
should be question-begging.
• Explanandum: Why does Jane want to marry John?
• Explanans: Because John asked for Jane’s hand in marriage.
• It does not get to the bottom of the problem; it does not even to genuinely attempt
to address the problem.
• 7. Modest: Not boastful. Not grandiose. Not excessive. Not too farfetched or
fantastical.
• Explanandum: Left side mirror is missing.
• Explanans A: Some junkies malingering around the car park stole it.
• Explanans B: My ex came and removed as vengeance.
• Explanans C: Some extraterrestrial beings (aliens) came and got it.
FALLACIES
“Fallacy” means an error in reasoning. Fallacies are ubiquitous,
commonplace. Deliberate or unintentional. Quite appealing to the
logically untrained mind.
Importance
• You avoid fallacies yourself
• Avoid being duped (intentionally or not)
• Fallacies are fun
• Argumentum Ad Hominem
• Homo = man/human/person
• Ad hominem fallacies are attacks against the person instead of the argument or
premise.
• Ad hominem abusive – plain insulting your opponent.
• PF cadre – Our party built a lot of schools.
• Opponent – What you tell me you thieves!
• Mwanza – Quite alright, you built schools. However, the school lack teacher and
equipment.
• Lwando – You built sub-standard infrastructure at a huge cost.
• When your opponent abuses you, it’s good sign. You’re winning the argument. Remain
calm.
• When the law and the evidence are against you, attack the person.
• Ad Hominem circumstantial. Here you point to vested interests of your opponent.
• Prosecutor: My Lord (the jury), Blood is thicker than water. Surely this lady is saying this
only to protect her sister.
• Prosecutor: The phone record of the accused shows she never left town and was within
the area of the crime scene at the time.

• Tu Quoque (You too!)

• This involves accusing your opponent of being guilty of the same thing.
• Party X: You’re rigging the elections. And that is wrong!
• Party Y: Are you forgetting how many times your party rigged when you were in power?!
• Two wrong don’t make a right! Look who’s talking. That’s rich coming from you!
• Argumentum misericordiam (Appeal to pity)
• This occurs when someone argues for some conclusion by alluding to
some facts or circumstances that invoke emotions of pity.
• Q: Why should we give you this job?
• A: My landlord will evict me if I don’t pay my rent in a months time.
• I am the oldest of 7 orphans who are still in school.
• Therefore, I deserve this job more than other candidates.
• The question about your suitability for the job; your skills set, your
performance history.
• Argumentum ad baculum (Appeal to force; threatening consequences that
are not entailed by the premises)
• Do this, or else!
• Vote for my candidate, or else your area will be developed.
• Come home by 6pm or else, I will not give you the money for the Agric Show.

• If you have unprotected sex, you will find yourself bedridden with STIs.
• If you walk alone in the night in Chibolya compound, you’ll be mugged.
• Ad Buculum – If you do not accept Jesus as your personal Saviour, you’ll burn
in eternity.
• If you reject my proposal, I will withdraw my sponsorship.
• Argumentum Verecundiam (Appeal to Authority)
• Appeal to irrelevant or inappropriate authority.
• Authority: a person or institution that has legitimate trust regarding knowledge in
a particular field based on training, experience, reputation.
• Hierarchy of authority: Professor>PhD>MSc/MA>BSc/BA (ceteris puribus)
• Fallacy of universal expertise.
• Fiance: Let’s have sex.
• Fiancee: No!
• Fiance: Why?
• Fiancee: The pastor said we shouldn’t have sex until we get married.
• You know what? I do not want us to ruin the essence and excitement of our
honeymoon.
• Appeal to Tradition
• You back up your conclusion with some reference to your culture or how
things have been done in the past.
• Child marriage; wearing ivory, FGM, sexual cleansing.
• Homosexuality – “It is unAfrican.”

• Genetic Fallacy – Condemning or praising something based on where it

comes froms, its origins.
• Homosexuality – That’s a Western thing.
• Tribe A vs Tribe B.
• “We can’t do that because it is practiced by Tribe B.”
• Why not?
• Composition Fallacy: From the part to the whole.
• Reasoning from qualities of the parts of something to infer qualities of the
whole thing made up of the parts.
• I make something from cheap materials. Does it mean that the whole thing
is cheap? No.
• This substance X is made from substance A, B, C, and D. A, B, C, D are
poisonous. Therefore, X is poisonous.
• Fallacy of Division:
• Reasoning from qualities of the whole infer qualities of the parts that make
the whole.
• Whole: Family/Country
• Part: You/Smith, an American citizen
• Hasty Generalisation
• Making conclusions based on a tiny sample.
• Lady M meets a rich and generous white male.
• Lady M meets another white male and concludes he is rich and generous too.
• Breeding ground of stereotypes.

• Accident
• This is the opposite of hasty generalisation. It involves denying exceptional
cases.
• General truths. This does not rule outlier cases.
• Many rules or generalisations have exceptions.
• Let’s not paint everyone with same coat of paint/brush.
• Red Herring – Change of subject; drawing attention away from the
subject by bringing in something totally different.
• Lungu allowed PF cadres to terrorise people in markets and bus stops.
• Response: Lungu built the state-of-the-art KKIA.
• But teacher’s houses were left dilapidated.
• Losing track of your quarry.
• Ignoratio Elenchi – Missing the point. Idi Amini was cruel man. But he
was a very loving husband and father.
• Non Sequitur – Every fallacy or invalid argument is non-sequitur. I am
40 years today. Therefore, it’s gonna an awesome day!
• Circular reasoning (Begging the question)
• The conclusion is not different from the premise.
• A: God exists
• B: Why?
• A: The Bible says so.
• B: The Bible untrue.
• A. No ways! It’s the word of God!
• Equivocation – “Equal”. A word is equivocal when it has two meanings.
• A: My co-workers are a headache. (sense 1)
• My doctor prescribed panado for my headache. (sense 2). So, if you take
some, your workmate problem will go away.

It is wrong to have sex with family members. (close blood relation)

Humans are part of one big family. (community, species)
Therefore, it wrong to have sex with other humans.

Moral: Look out for shift in meaning of terms in the premises and in the
conclusion.
• Amphiboly: This change in meaning of the entire sentence;
grammatical.
• The mother beat up the daughter because she was drunk.
• Therefore, drunkenness causes violent conduct.
• Affirming the consequent
• If Jane has unprotected sex with her HIV+ boyfriend, Jane will contract
HIV.
• Jane has contracted HIV.
• Therefore, Jane must have had unprotected sex with his HIV+ boyfriend.

• Denying the antecedent

• If it rains, then it will be wet outside.
• It is not wet outside.
• Therefore, it has not rained outside.