Logic and Critical Thinking Chapter Two

Chapter Two
Basic Logical Concepts

Introduction
In this chapter, we will learn logic and its basic concepts such as argument, conclusion, and
premise. In doing so, we will discuss the meaning of logic as the science which studies correct
reasoning, the benefits of logic and the major concepts of logic which we apply throughout the
course. The science of logic mainly emphasizes on the nature of argument. But what is
argument? Whether we realize it or not, we all engage in argument in our everyday lives. We
confront with arguments when we read different texts, magazine, newspaper, when we watch
TV, films, when we hear radio, when we communicate among each other with our parents,
friends, instructors, and so on. In general, when we reason about something we formulate
arguments. Then we may attempts to analyze and evaluate arguments of others that we encounter
and try to construct our own arguments. However, the major problem is how to evaluate and
construct arguments. Thus, the science of logic develops and provides the system of methods and
principles that we may use as criteria for evaluating the arguments of others and as guidelines to
construct arguments of our own.

1.1. What is Logic?

The word logic comes from Greek word logos, which means sentence, discourse, reason, truth
and rule. Logic in its broader meaning is the science which evaluates arguments and the study of
correct reasoning. It could be also defined as the study of methods and principles of correct
reasoning or the art of correct reasoning.

Here are some definitions of logic:

Logic is the attempt to codify the rules of rational thought. Logicians explore the structure of
arguments that preserve truth or allow the optimal extraction of knowledge from evidence. Logic
is one of the primary tools philosophers use in their inquiries; the precision of logic helps them to
cope with the subtlety of philosophical problems and the often misleading nature of
conversational language.8

Here we study reasoning itself: forms of argument, general principles and particular errors, along
with methods of arguing. We see lots of mistakes in reasoning in daily life and logic can help us
understand what is wrong or why someone is arguing in a particular way.9

Benefits of Logic:
8
Mark I. Vuletic, 2007, 2012
99
Paul Newall, 2004. Or at http://www.galilean.library.org/site/index.php?/users/4-hugo-holbling/

1
Logic and Critical Thinking Chapter Two

“Logic sharpens and refines our natural gifts to think, reason and argue.” (C. S. Layman)

We use logic in our day to day communications. As academicians, our arguments must be logical
and acceptable. And the tool to do so is provided by logic. Among the major benefits that we
gain from the study of logic are:
 It helps us to develop the skill needed to construct sound(good) and fallacy free
arguments of one’s own and to evaluate the arguments of others;
 It provides a fundamental defense against the prejudiced and uncivilized attitudes that
threaten the foundation of democratic society;
 It helps us to distinguish good arguments from bad arguments;
 It enables us to disclose ill-conceived policies in the political sphere, to be careful of
disguises, and to distinguish the rational from irrational and the sane from the insane and
so on.

The aim of logic, hence, is to develop the system of methods and principles that we may use as
criteria for evaluating the arguments of others and as guides in constructing the arguments of our
own in our day to day lives. Thus, by studying logic, we are able to increase our confidence
when we criticize the arguments of others and when we advance arguments of our own. But to be
full beneficial of the worth which logic provides, one must thoroughly and carefully understand
the basic concepts of the subject and be able to apply them in the actual situations.

1.2.Argument
What comes to your mind when you think about the concept of argument?
Argument is a technical term and the chief concern of logic. Argument might have defined and
described in different ways. When we define an arguments from logical point of view, it is a
group of statements, one or more of which (the premise) are claimed to provide support for, or
reason to believe, one of the other, the (conclusion). As is apparent from the above definition, the
term ‘‘argument’’ has a very specific meaning in logic. It does not mean, for example, a mere
verbal fight, as one might have with one’s parent, spouse, or friend. Let us examine the features
of this definition in greater detail. First of all, an argument is a group of statements.

A statement is a declarative sentence that has a truth value of either true or false. Hence truth
and falsity are the two possible truth values of statements. So we can say that statement is a
sentence that has truth value. A statement is typically a declarative sentence. In other words,
statement is a type of sentence that could stand as a declarative sentence.
For example:
a. Aksum was the capital city of Ethiopia.
b. Epistemology is the branch of philosophy.
c. The source of river Nile is in Egypt.
Statement (a) and (b) are true, because they describe things as they are, or assert what really is
the case. And statement (c) is false because it asserts what is not.
2
Logic and Critical Thinking Chapter Two

N.B: Logicians used proposition and statement interchangeably. However in strict (technical)
sense proposition is the meaning or information content of a statement. For the purpose of this
chapter we use the term statement to refer premises and a conclusion.
There are sentences that are not statements. Examples:
a) Would you tell me your age?(question)
b) Let us study together.(proposal)
c) Right on!(exclamation)
d) I suggest that you read philosophy texts.(suggestion)
e) Take off your socks, Now!(command)

In fact sentence is a group of words or phrases that enables us to express ideas or thought
meaningfully. However, unlike statements, all of the above sentences cannot be either true or
false. Hence, all of these sentences are not classified as statement.

Premises and Conclusion

The statements that make up an argument are divided into premises and conclusion. Hence,
argument is a group statement which contains at least one premise and one and only one
conclusion. An argument may contain more than one premise.
Argument always attempts to justify a claim. The claim that the statement attempts to justify is
known as conclusion of an argument. And the statements that supposedly justify are known as
premises.

The premises are; statements claimed evidence or that set forth the reason or evidence
which is given for accepting the conclusion of an argument.
The conclusion is; that statement claimed to follow from the evidence (premise). In other words,
the conclusion is the claim that an argument is trying to establish.
Examples:
1) All bachelors are male. (Premise 1) ( 2)Some crimes are misdemeanors.
Kebede is a bachelor. (Premise2) Genocide is a crime.
Therefore, Kebede is male. (Conclusion) Therefore, genocide is a misdemeanor.

In both arguments, the first two statements are premises, because these statements provide
evidence for the third statement. And the third statement is conclusion. The claim that the
premises support the conclusion is indicated by the word ‘‘therefore.’’

All arguments may be placed in one of two basic groups: those in which the premises really do
support the conclusion and those in which they do not, even though they are claimed to. The
former are said to be good (well-supported) arguments, the latter bad (poorly-supported)
arguments. For example compare the above two examples. In the first argument the premise
really do support the conclusion, they give good reason for believing that the conclusion is true
and therefore an argument is a good one. But the premises of the second argument fail to support

3
Logic and Critical Thinking Chapter Two

the conclusion adequately. Even if they may be true, they do not provide good reason to believe
that the conclusion is true. So, it is bad argument, but it is still an argument.

Though the purpose of logic, as the science that evaluates and analyses arguments, is to develop
methods and techniques that allow us to distinguish good arguments from bad, one of the most
important tasks in the analysis of arguments is to distinguish premises from conclusion.
Frequently, arguments contain certain indicator words that provide clues in identifying premises
and conclusion.

Here below are some Conclusion Indicators:

Therefore wherefore accordingly provided that it must be that
We may conclude entails that hence it shows that whence
Thus consequently we may infer it implies that as a result
So it follows that

Whenever a statement follows one of these indicators, it can usually be identified as the
conclusion. By the process of elimination, the other statements in the argument are the premises.

Example:
All Aksum University students are Ethiopians.
Kumssa is a student of Aksum University.
Therefore, Kumssa is Ethiopian.
The conclusion of this argument is “Kumssa” is Ethiopian. This is because the statement
followed by “therefore” is a conclusion.

If an argument does not contain a conclusion indicator, it may contain a premise indicator.
Some typical premise indicators are:
Since as indicated by because owing to seeing that given that as
For in that may be inferred from inasmuch as for the reason that

Any statement following one of these indicators can usually be identified as a premise.

Example:
Expectant mothers should never use recreational drugs, since the use of these drugs can
jeopardize the development of the fetus.
The statement followed by `since` is a premise. Therefore, the premise of this argument is ‘‘the
use of these drugs can jeopardize the development of the fetus,’’ and the conclusion is
“Expectant mothers should never use recreational drugs.’’

One premise indicator not included in the above list is ‘‘for this reason.’’ This indicator is special
in that it comes immediately after the premise it indicates and before the conclusion. We can say

4
Logic and Critical Thinking Chapter Two

that in the middle place between the premise and the conclusion, this indicator can be both
premise and conclusion indicator. The statement that comes before ‘‘forthis reason’’ is the
premise of an argument and the statement that comes after “for this reason” is the conclusion.
One should be careful not to confuse ‘‘for this reason’’ with‘‘for the reason that.’’

Sometimes a single indicator can be used to identify more than one premise. Consider the
following argument:
The development of high-temperature superconducting materials is technologically justified, for
such materials will allow electricity to be transmitted without loss over great distances, and they
will pave the way for trains that levitate magnetically.

The premise indicator ‘‘for’’ goes with both ‘‘such materials will allow electricity to be
transmitted without loss over great distances’’ and ‘‘they will pave the way for trains that levitate
magnetically.’’ These are the premises. By process of elimination, ‘‘the development of high-
temperature superconducting materials is technologically justified” is the conclusion.
Sometimes an argument contains no indicators. When this occurs, the reader/ listener must ask
himself or herself such questions as:
 What single statement is claimed (implicitly) to follow from the others?
 What is the arguer trying to prove?
 What is the main point in the passage?
The answers to these questions should point to the conclusion.

Passages that contain arguments sometimes contain statements that are neither premises nor
conclusion. Only statements that are actually intended to support the conclusion should be
included in the list of premises. If a statement has nothing to do with the conclusion or, for
example, simply makes a passing comment, it should not be included within the context of the
argument.

Example:
Socialized medicine is not recommended because it would result in a reduction in the overall
quality of medical care available to the average citizen. In addition, it might very well bankrupt
the federal treasury. This is the whole case against socialized medicine in a nutshell.

The conclusion of this argument is ‘‘Socialized medicine is not recommended,’’ and the two
statements following the word ‘‘because’’ are the premises. The last statement makes only a
passing comment about the argument itself and is therefore neither a premise nor a conclusion.
Inference is another concept. In the narrower sense it means the reasoning process expressed by
the argument. And broadly it refers the argument itself. For the purpose of this course, we use the
narrower sense of the term inference or inferential link between the premises and the conclusion
of arguments.

5
Logic and Critical Thinking Chapter Two

1.3. Recognizing Argument

In this section, we will try to differentiate between passages that are arguments and that are non-
arguments. Evaluating arguments about different issues in human life like those that address,
religion, politics, ethics, sport, science, love, culture, environment, society, culture and, etc. is the
central concern of logic. So as logicians to easily evaluate arguments we need to understand the
nature of arguments and further we need to understand what argument is not. Because not all
passage contain argument.

A passage contains an argument if it purports to prove something; if it does not do so, it does not
contain an argument. Two conditions must be fulfilled for a passage to purport to prove
something:
(1) At least one of the statements must claim to present evidence or reasons.
It is not necessary that the premises present actual evidence or true reasons nor that the premises
actually support the conclusion. But at least the premises must claim to present evidence or
reasons, and there must be a claim that the evidence or reasons support or imply something. This
condition expresses a factual claim.
(2) There must be a claim that the alleged evidence or reasons supports or implies
something- that is, a claim that something follows from the alleged evidence.

This second condition expresses what is called an inferential claim. The inferential claim is
simply the claim that the passage expresses a certain kind of reasoning process- that something
supports or implies something or that something follows from something.Most of our attention
will be concentrated on whether the second condition is fulfilled. Such a claim can be either
explicit or implicit.

An explicit inferential claim is usually asserted by premise or conclusion indicator words

(‘‘thus,’’ ‘‘since,’’ ‘‘because,’’ ‘‘hence,’’ ‘‘therefore,’’ and so on).

An implicit inferential claim exists if there is an inferential relationship between the statements in
a passage.

Example:
The price reduction [seen with the electronic calculator] is the result of a technological
revolution. The calculator of the 1960s used integrated electronic circuits that contained about a
dozen transistors or similar components on a single chip. Today, mass-produced chips, only a
few millimeters square, contain several thousand such components.
(Robert S. Boikess and Edward Edelson, Chemical Principles)

The inferential relationship between the first statement and the other two constitutes an implicit
claim that evidence supports something, so that we are justified in calling the passage an

6
Logic and Critical Thinking Chapter Two

argument though it does not contain indicator word. The first statement is the conclusion, and the
other two are the premises.

Statements are the building block of an argument. In any argument we affirm one statement on
the basis of some other statement. In doing this an inference is drawn. Therefore, inferential
claim is the necessary condition that makes any passage an argument. Passages that lack
inferential claim are naturally non argumentative.

Passages Lacking Inferential Claim (Non Argumentative Passages)

Having seen what argument is and how we recognize them, we will focus on what argument is
and what argument is not. Clearly we cannot correctly evaluate arguments until we have learned
how to recognize them. Non argument passages-passages that lack a claim that anything is being
proved- are unproblematic. Such passages contain statements that could be premises or
conclusions (or both), but what is missing is a claim that any potential premise supports a
conclusion or that any potential conclusion is supported by premises or what is known as
inference.

In distinguishing passages that contain arguments from those that do not, let us now investigate
some typical kinds of non-arguments. These includes simple noninferential passages, warnings,
piece of advice, statements of belief or opinion, loosely associated statements, reports, expository
passages, illustrations, explanations, and conditional statements.

 Warning

Warning is a form of expression that is intended to put someone on guard against a dangerous or
detrimental situation.
Examples: Watch out that you don’t sleep on the ice.
If no evidence is given to prove that such statements are true, then there is no argument.

 Piece of advice, suggestions and recommendations

Piece of advice is a form of expression that makes a recommendation about some future decision
or course of conduct. Suggestions and recommendations are passages or statements about one’s
personal points of view to help others make decisions.
These statements often start with; “I advise you, I suggest you, I recommend you….”

 Statement of belief or personal opinion

Statement of belief or opinion is an expression about what someone happens to believe or think
at a certain time.
Examples: 1. I believe in life after death.
2. In my opinion, the coming Ethiopian election will be free, fair and democratic.

7
Logic and Critical Thinking Chapter Two

Because there is no claim that any of these statements provides evidence or reasons for believing
another, there is no argument.

 Loosely associated statements

Loosely associated statements are groups of statement which naturally related to one another and
they may be about the same general subject, but they lack a claim and logical organization that
one of them is proved by the others.

 Report
A report consists of a group of statements that intended to convey information about some
situation, topic or event. Because the reporter makes no claim that these statements imply
anything, there is no argument in primary reports. One must be careful, though, with reports
about arguments:
‘‘The Air Force faces a serious shortage of experienced pilots in the years ahead, because
repeated overseas tours and the allure of high paying jobs with commercial airlines are winning
out over lucrative bonuses to stay in the service,’’ says a prominent Air Force official.
(Newspaper extract)
Properly speaking, this passage is not an argument, because the author of the passage does not
claim that anything is supported by evidence. Rather, the author reports the claim by the Air
Force official that something is supported by evidence. If such passages are interpreted as
‘‘containing’’ arguments, it must be made clear that the argument is not the reporter’s but one
made by someone about whom the writer is reporting.

 Expository Passages
An expository passage is a kind of discourse that begins with a topic sentence followed by one or
more statements that develop the topic sentence. If the objective is not to prove the topic
sentence but only to expand it or elaborate it, then there is no argument.

Example:
There are three familiar states of matter: solid, liquid, and gas. Solid objects ordinarily maintain
their shape and volume regardless of their location. A liquid occupies a definite volume, but
assumes the shape of the occupied portion of its container. A gas maintains neither shape nor
volume. It expands to fill completely whatever container it is in.
In this passage, the topic sentence is stated first, and the remaining sentences merely develop and
flesh out this topic sentence. Such passages are not arguments because they lack an inferential
claim. However, expository passages differ from simple non-inferential passages (such as
warnings and pieces of advice) in that many of them can also be taken as arguments. If the
purpose of the subsequent statements in the passages not only to flesh out the topic sentence but
also to prove it, then the passage can be interpreted as argument.

Example:

8
Logic and Critical Thinking Chapter Two

Skin and the mucous membrane lining the respiratory and digestive tracts serve as mechanical
barriers to entry by microbes. Oil gland secretions contain chemicals that weaken or kill
bacteria on skin. The respiratory tract is lined by cells that’s weep mucus and trapped particles
up into the throat, where they can be swallowed. The stomach has an acidic pH, which inhibits
the growth of many types of bacteria.
(Sylvia S. Mader. Human Biology, 4th ed.)
In this passage, the topic sentence is stated first, and the purpose of the remaining sentences is
not only to show how the skin and mucous membranes serve as barriers to microbes but to prove
that they do this. Thus, the passage can be taken as both an expository passage and an argument.
In deciding whether an expository passage should be interpreted as an argument, try to determine
whether the purpose of the subsequent statements in the passage is merely to develop the topic
sentence or also to prove it. In borderline cases, ask yourself whether the topic sentence makes a
claim that everyone accepts or agrees with. If it does, the passage is probably not an argument.
However, if the topic sentence makes a claim that many people do not accept or have never
thought about, then the purpose of the remaining sentences may be both to prove the topic
sentence as well as to develop it.

Finally, if even this procedure yields no definite answer, the only alternative maybe to say that if
the passage is taken as an argument, then the first statement is the conclusion and the others are
the premises.

 Illustrations
An illustration consists of a statement about a certain subject combined with an explanatory or
clarifying example. It is a form of description and clarifying a concept, topic or issue using
instances and demonstration. Illustrations are often confused with arguments because many of
them contain indicator words such as ‘‘thus.’’
Examples:
1. Chemical elements, as well as compounds, can be represented by molecular formulas.
Thus, oxygen is represented by ‘‘O 2,’’ water by ‘‘H2O,’’ and sodium chloride by
‘‘NaCl.’’
2. Mammals are animals that nourish their young with milk. For example, humans, goats,
cows and dogs are examples of mammals.
These selections are not arguments because they make no claim that anything is being proved. In
the first selection, the word ‘‘thus’’ indicates how something is done- namely, how chemical
elements and compounds can be represented by formulas. In the second selection, the example
cited is intended to give concrete meaning to the notion of mammals. It is not intended primarily
to prove that mammals nourish their young with milk. However, as with expository passages,
many illustrations can be taken as arguments. Such arguments are often called arguments from
example.

Example:

9
Logic and Critical Thinking Chapter Two

Although most forms of cancers, if untreated can cause death, not all cancers is life threatening.
For example, Basal Cell Carcinoma, the most common of all skin cancers, can produce
disfigurement, but it never resulted in death.
In this passage the examples that are cited can be interpreted as providing evidence that, “not all
cancers are life-threatening". Thus, the passage can be taken as both an illustration and an
argument, with the underlined statement being the conclusion.

In deciding whether an illustration should be interpreted as an argument, one must determine

whether the passage merely shows how something is done or what something means, or whether
it also purports to prove something. In borderline cases it helps to note whether the claim being
illustrated is one that practically everyone accepts or agrees with. If it is, the passage is probably
not an argument. But if the claim being illustrated is one that many people do not accept or have
never thought about, then the passage may be interpreted as both an illustration and as an
argument.

Thus, in reference to the first two examples we considered, most people are aware that elements
and compounds can be expressed by formulas- practically everyone knows that water is H2O- and
most people know that mammals nourish their young with milk. But people may not be aware of
the fact that some cancers may not cause death. This is one of the reasons for evaluating the first
two examples as mere illustrations and the last one as an argument.

 Explanations
An explanation is a group of statements that purports to shed light on some event or
phenomenon. The event or phenomenon in question is usually accepted as a matter of fact.
Explanation attempts to clarify, or describe such alike why something is happen that way or why
something is what it is. Example:
The sky appears blue from the earth’s surface because light rays from the sun are scattered by
particles in the atmosphere.

Every explanation is composed of two distinct components: the explanandum and explanans.
The explanandum is the statement that describes the event or phenomenon to be explained, and
the explanans is the statement or group of statements that purports to do the explaining, gives
reason why something is happen. In the above example, the explanandum is the statement ‘‘the
sky appears blue from the earth’s surface,’’ and the explanans is ‘‘light rays from the sun are
scattered by particles in the atmosphere.”.

Yet explanations are not arguments because in an explanation the explanandum is an accepted
fact, while the explanans is proposed to give clarification or description why or how something is
the case. But, in argument, the premise refer to the accepted fact, and intended to prove that
something is the case, while the conclusion is a new assertion followed from the already known
facts. In the above example, the intention of the passage is to explain why it appears blue—not to

10
Logic and Critical Thinking Chapter Two

prove that it appears blue. Moreover, in explanation we precede back ward from fact to the cause
whereas in argument we move from premise to the conclusion.

In the above example, the fact that the sky is blue is readily apparent. Explanations do not
purport to prove anything. Many explanations can, however, re-expressed to form arguments.
Example: The sky appears blue from the earth’s surface because light rays from the sun are
scattered by particles in the atmosphere.
The inference expressed in the blue sky may be re-expressed in the following argument.
Light rays from the sun are scattered by particles in the atmosphere. Therefore, the sky appears
blue from the earth’s surface.

Explanations bear a certain similarities to an argument. The rational link between the
explanandum and explanans may at times resemble the inferential link between the premise and
the conclusion of an argument. Thus, to distinguish explanations from arguments, first, identify
the statement that is either the explanandum or the conclusion (usually this is the statement that
precedes the word ‘‘because’’). If this statement describes an accepted matter of fact, and if the
remaining statements purport to shed light on this statement, then the passage is an explanation.

 Conditional Statements
A conditional statement is an ‘‘if . . . then . . .’’ or “…if…” statement. Every conditional
statement is made up of two component statements. The component statement immediately
following the ‘‘if’’ is called the antecedent (if-clause), and the one following the ‘‘then’’ is
known as the consequent (then-clause).

Example: If we work hard, then Ethiopia will be one of the developed countries in the world.
In this example the antecedent is ‘‘we work hard,’’ and the consequent is ‘‘Ethiopia will be one
of the developed countries in the world.”. However, there is an occasion that the order of
antecedent and consequent is reversed that is when occasionally the word ‘‘then’’ is left out. For
example if we left out “then” from the above example the antecedent and consequent is reversed:
then Ethiopia will be one of the developed countries in the world if we work hard.

Conditional statements are not arguments, because they fail to meet the criteria given earlier. In a
conditional statement, there is no claim that either the antecedent or the consequent presents
evidence. In other words, there is no assertion that either the antecedent or the consequent is true.
Rather, there is only the assertion that if the antecedent is true, then so is the consequent. For
example the above example merely asserts that if we work hard, then we will be belongs to the
first world countries. It does not assert that we work hard. Nor does it assert we belongs to the
first world countries. Similarly, the conditional statement “if today is Monday then tomorrow
will be Tuesday”, does not assert that today is Monday for it did; it would be true if today were
Monday.

11
Logic and Critical Thinking Chapter Two

A single conditional statement is not an argument. The fact that a statement begin with “if”
makes it the idea conditional and not a final reasonable assertion. That is why also conditional
statements are not evaluated as true or false without separately evaluating the antecedent and the
consequent. They only claim that if the antecedent is true then so is the consequent.

Conditional statements, although taken by themselves are not argument. Yet, the inferential
content between the antecedent and the consequent may be re-expressed to form argument.
Example: If Abebe is the son of Molla, then Molla is the father of Abebe. (Conditional
statement)
Re-expressed: Abebe is the son of Molla. Therefore, Molla is the father of Abebe. (Argument)
Here, we clearly have a premise and conclusion structure. And the conclusion is asserted on the
basis of the premise.

Conditional statements by themselves are not an argument but can be part of an argument if
combined with other statement.

Let us consider the same example:

If we work hard, then Ethiopia will be one of the first world countries.
We work hard.
Therefore, Ethiopia is one of the first world countries.

Whenever conditional statements appear with two premises they can for man argument called
hypothetical syllogism.
Example:
If we work hard, then Ethiopia will be one of the first world countries
If Ethiopia is one of the first world countries, then we will donate to the third world countries.
Consequently, if we work hard, then we will donate to the third world countries.
Therefore conditional statements may serve as either the premise or the conclusion (or both) of
an argument. The relation between conditional statements and arguments may now be
summarized as follows:
1. A single conditional statement is not an argument.
2. A conditional statement may serve as either the premise or the conclusion (or both) of an
argument.
3. The inferential content of a conditional statement may be re-expressed to form an
argument.
The first two rules are especially pertinent to the recognition of arguments. According to the first
rule, if a passage consists of a single conditional statement, it is not an argument. But if it
consists of a conditional statement together with some other statement, then, by the second rule,
it may be an argument, depending on such factors as the presence of indicator words and an
inferential relationship between the statements.

12
Logic and Critical Thinking Chapter Two

Conditional statements are especially important in logic because they express the relationship
between necessary and sufficient conditions. A is said to be a sufficient condition for B
whenever the occurrence of A is all that is needed for the occurrence of B.
For example, being a dog is a sufficient condition for being an animal. On the other hand, B is
said to be a necessary condition for A whenever A cannot occur without the occurrence of B.
Thus, being an animal is a necessary condition for being a dog. These relationships are
expressed in the following conditional statements:
If X is a dog, then X is an animal.
If X is not an animal, then X is not a dog.
The first statement says that being a dog is a sufficient condition for being an animal and the
second that being an animal is a necessary condition for being a dog. However, a little reflection
reveals that these two statements say exactly the same thing. Thus each expresses in one way a
necessary condition and in another way a sufficient condition.

Note: A is a sufficient condition for B; if A occurs, then B must occur.

A is a necessary condition for B; if B occur, then A must occur.

In general, unsupported assertions may have premises and conclusion, but they haven`t
inference. However, one of them may be re-expressed to form an argument, if they contain
inferential claim. And also some passage like expository passage, illustrations, and explanation
can be interpreted as argument. In deciding whether a passage contains an argument, one should
look for three things:
1. By the use of indicator words such as ‘‘therefore,’’ ‘‘since,’’ ‘‘because,’’ etc. However, the
occurrence of an indicator words by no means guarantees the presence of an argument because,
as we seen, the word “thus” is often used to indicate the conclusion of an argument. Illustrations
are easily confused with arguments when the word “thus” is used to introduce examples. And
also explanations are easily confused with argument since the word “because” is often used to
indicate a premise of an argument. Also arguments sometimes appear without indicator words. In
the absence of indicator words, remember that it often helps to mentally insert the word
“therefore” before the various statements to decide whether it makes sense to interpret one of
them as following from the other.
2. The presence of an inferential relationship between the statements.
3. Identifying some typical kind of non-argumentative passages.

1.4.Types of Arguments: Deductive and Inductive Arguments

In this topic, we will learn the two great classes of argument: deductive and inductive.
What is deductive argument? What is inductive argument? And what is the difference and
similarity between them?

Every argument makes a claim that its premises provide grounds for the truth of its conclusion.
The reasoning process (inference) that an argument involves is express either with certainty or

13
Logic and Critical Thinking Chapter Two

with probability. That is what the logician introduce the name deductive and inductive
respectively. The distinction between deductive and inductive argument lies in the strength of
inferential claim of an argument, because every argument involves an inferential claim. If the
conclusion is claimed to follow with strict necessity or certainty, an argument is said to be
deductive and if it is claimed to follow only with probably an argument is inductive. Therefore,
there are two very different ways in which a conclusion may be supported by its premise. These
two different ways are the two great classes of argument. Understanding the distinction of the
classes is essential in the study of logic.

What is deductive argument?

Deductive argument is a type of argument in which if we assume the premise true, then based on
this assumption it is impossible for the conclusion to be false. In other words, in deductive
argument, the conclusion necessarily (conclusively) followed from the premises.
Example: Lions are bigger than hyenas and elephants are bigger than lion’s .Therefore,
elephants are much bigger than hyenas.
In the above example, if the premises were true, the conclusion would have to be true as well
(impossible to be false).Because the premises support the conclusion with the force of certainty.
This types of argument are `truth preserving` since the truth of their premise guarantees the truth
of their conclusion.

What is inductive argument?

Inductive argument is an argument in which, if the premises are assumed true it is probable for
the conclusion to be true. In such arguments the premises may provide some considerable
evidence for the conclusion but they do not imply (necessarily support) the conclusion. In this
case, we might have sufficient condition (evidence) but we can’t be certain about the truth of the
conclusion. However, this does not mean that the conclusion is wrong or unacceptable where us
it could be correct or acceptable but based on probability. Though the premises of an argument
can`t be certain about the truth of the conclusion.
Example: Every man that has ever been observed is mortal. Therefore, in general all men are
mortal.
In this example, the premises may provide correct evidence though the premises support the
conclusion with probability because the future can`t be known with certainty.

How can we distinguish deductive argument from inductive?

In the deciding whether an argument is deductive or inductive, we look at certain objective
features of the argument. There are three factors that influence our decision:
1. The occurrence of special indicator words,
2. The actual strength of the inferential link between premises and conclusion, and
3. The character or form of argumentation the arguer uses
Let us see the factors in detail in order to understand and identify different style of
argumentation.

14
Logic and Critical Thinking Chapter Two

The first factor is the occurrence of special indicator words. There are different sort of indicator
words that indicate or mark the types of argument. The word like certainly,’’ “necessarily,”
‘‘absolutely,’’ and ‘‘definitely.’’ indicate that the argument should be taken as deductive. And
the word like, “probable” ‘‘improbable,’’ ‘‘plausible,’’ ‘‘implausible,’’ ‘‘likely,’’ ‘‘unlikely,’’
and ‘‘reasonable to conclude suggest that an argument is inductive. (Note that the phrase ‘‘it
must be the case that’’ is ambiguous; ‘‘must’’ can indicate either probability or necessity).
Inductive and deductive indicator words often suggest the correct interpretation. However, if
they conflict with one of the other criteria, we should probably ignore them. Arguers often use
phrases such as ‘‘it certainly follows that’’ for rhetorical purposes to add impact to their
conclusion and not to suggest that the argument be taken as deductive. Similarly, some arguers,
not knowing the distinction between inductive and deductive, will claim to ‘‘deduce’’ a
conclusion when their argument is more correctly interpreted as inductive.

The second factor that bears upon our interpretation of an argument as inductive or deductive is
the actual strength of the inferential link between premises and conclusion. If the conclusion
actually does follow with strict necessity from the premises, the argument is clearly deductive. In
such an argument it is impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion false.
Example:
1. All section `B` students are clever. 2. Most section `B` students are clever.
David is section `B` students. David is section `B` students.
Therefore, David is clever. Therefore, David is clever.
In the first example, the conclusion follows with strict necessity from the premises. If we assume
all section `B` students are clever and David is section `B` student, then it is necessary for David
to be clever. Thus, we should interpret this argument as deductive. While the second example the
conclusion only probably follows from the premises. There is a probability for David not to be
clever. Thus, it is best to interpret the argument as inductive.

Occasionally, an argument contains no indicator words, and we fail to detect whether the
conclusion follows either necessarily or probably from the premises; leads us to take the third
factor into account, which is the character or form of argumentation the arguer uses.

1.4.1. Instances of Deductive Argument forms

Three examples of argumentation that are typically deductive arguments are argument based on
mathematics, arguments from definition, and syllogisms.

A. Argument based on mathematics

Argument based on mathematics is an argument in which the conclusion depends on some purely
arithmetic or geometric computation or measurement.
Example:

15
Logic and Critical Thinking Chapter Two

A shopper might place two apples and three oranges into a paper bag and then conclude that the
bag contains five pieces of fruit. Or a surveyor might measure a square piece of land and, after
determining that it is 100 feet on each side, conclude that it contains 10,000 square feet.
Since all arguments in pure mathematics are deductive, we can usually consider arguments that
depend on mathematics to be deductive as well. A noteworthy exception, however, is arguments
that depend on statistics. As we will see shortly, such arguments are usually best interpreted as
inductive.

B. Argument from definition

It is an argument in which the conclusion is claimed to depend merely upon the definition of
some word or phrase used in the premise or conclusion.
Example:
Someone might argue that because Claudia is mendacious, it follows that she tells lies, or that
because someone is bachelor, it follows that he is unmarried man.
In both arguments, the underlined words are the same meaning. Therefore these arguments are
deductive because their conclusions follow with necessity from the definitions of ‘‘mendacious’’
and ‘‘bachelor.’’

C. Syllogism
Syllogisms are arguments consisting of exactly two premises and one conclusion. Syllogisms can
be categorized into three groups; categorical, hypothetical, and disjunctive syllogism.

I. Categorical syllogism is a syllogism in which each statement begins with one of the
words ‘‘all,’’ ‘‘no,’’ or ‘‘some.’’
Example:
All lasers are optical devices.(Premise 1)
Some lasers are surgical instruments.(Premise 2)
Therefore, some optical devices are surgical instruments.(Conclusion)
Arguments such as these are nearly always best treated as deductive.

II. Hypothetical syllogism is a syllogism having a conditional statement for one or both of
its premises.
Example:
If you work hard, then you will succeed.(Premise 1)
If you succeed then you will be happy.(Premise 2)
Therefore, if you work hard, then you will be happy. (Conclusion)

III.Disjunctive syllogism is a syllogism having a disjunctive statement (i.e., an “either . . . or

. . .’’ statement) for one of its premises.
Example: Either Axum or Mekele is headquarter of state of Tigray. (Premise 1)
Axum is not head-quarter of state of Tigray. (Premise 2)

16
Logic and Critical Thinking Chapter Two

Therefore, Mekele is head-quarter of state of Tigray. (Conclusion)

1.4.2. Instances of inductive argument.

Let us consider some typically inductive forms of argumentation. In general, inductive
arguments are such that the content of the conclusion is in some way intended to ‘‘go beyond’’
the content of the premises. The premises of such an argument typically deal with some subject
that is relatively familiar, and the conclusion then moves beyond this to a subject that is less
familiar or that little is known about. Such an argument may take any of several forms and some
of them are the following:

A. Prediction
In prediction the premises deal with some known event in the present or past, and the conclusion
moves beyond this event to some event in the relative future. Prediction reaches on conclusion
about future based on some known event in the present or past. The best example is metrological
forecast.
Example: The sun has come up every day of recorded history. Therefore, the sun has come up
tomorrow morning.
Nearly everyone realizes that the future cannot be known with certainty; thus, whenever an
argument makes a prediction about the future, one is usually justified to consider the argument as
inductive.

B. Argument from analogy

Argument from analogy is an argument that depends on the existence of an analogy, or
similarity, between two things or states of affairs. Because of the existence of this analogy, a
certain condition that affects the better-known thing or situation is concluded to affect the
similar, lesser-known thing or situation.
Example: Someone might argue that because Dereje`s dell computer is manufactured in 2012
and Girum`s dell computer also manufactured in 2012. Both Dereje’s and Girum’s computers
are easy to access. Dereje’s computer is fast in processing. And it follows that, Girum’s
computer is also fast in processing.
The argument depends on the existence of a similarity, or analogy, between the two computers.
The certitude attending such an inference is obviously probabilistic at best.

C. Inductive generalization: Inductive generalization is an argument that proceeds from

the knowledge of a selected sample to some claim about the whole group. Because the members
of the sample have a certain characteristic, it is argued that all the members of the group have
that same characteristic.
Example: There are nine instructors 52 students in this class. 27students selected at random
were from Addis Ababa. Therefore it implies that all of them are from Addis Ababa.
These examples illustrate the use of statistics in inductive argumentation.

17
Logic and Critical Thinking Chapter Two

D. Argument from authority: Argument from authority is an argument in which the

conclusion rests upon a statement made by some presumed authority or witness either
professional expert in the area or someone socially respected person.
Example: The medical doctor asserted that the patient will die after ten days. Hence, it is
hopeless to give him a medical treatment.
The conclusion of this argument might or might not be the case that is why we consider the
argument as inductive. And the arguer bases his evidence in some presumed authority to support
his conclusion. There are probabilities that the conclusions of arguments from authorities can be
biased because of internal and/or external influences on the arguers.

E. Argument based on signs: these are arguments that proceeds from the knowledge of a
certain sign such as trademarks, cautionary marks, traffic sign, symbol, and so on and concluding
about the reality of the thing or situation that the sign symbolizes or indicate.
Example: When driving on an unfamiliar highway one might see a sign indicating that the road
makes several sharp turns one mile ahead.
Based on this information, one might argue that the road does indeed make several sharp turns
one mile ahead because the sign might be misplaced or in error about the turns, the conclusion is
only probable. But, there may be misplacement of the sign and hence, the probability that the
conclusion become false.

F. A Causal Inference: A causal inference underlies arguments that proceed from

knowledge of a cause to knowledge of the effect, or, conversely, from knowledge of an
effect to knowledge of a cause.
Example: From the knowledge that a bottle of wine had been accidentally left in the freezer
overnight, someone might conclude that it had frozen (cause to effect). Conversely, after tasting
a piece of chicken and finding it dry and crunchy, one might conclude that it had been
overcooked (effect to cause).
Because specific instances of cause and effect can never be known with absolute certainty, one
may usually interpret such arguments as inductive.

Note that the various subspecies of inductive arguments listed here are not intended to be
mutually exclusive. Overlaps can and do occur. For example, many causal inferences that
proceed from cause to effect also qualify as predictions. The purpose of this survey is not to
demarcate in precise terms the various forms of induction but rather to provide guidelines for
distinguishing induction from deduction. Keeping this in mind, we should take care not to
confuse arguments in geometry, which are always deductive, with arguments from analogy or
inductive generalizations. For example, an argument concluding that a triangle has a certain
attribute (such as a right angle) because another triangle, with which it is congruent, also has
that attribute might be mistaken for an argument from analogy. Similarly, an argument that
concludes that all triangles have a certain attribute (such as angles totaling two right angles)
because any particular triangle has that attribute might be mistaken for an inductive

18
Logic and Critical Thinking Chapter Two

generalization. Arguments such as these, however, are always deductive, because they are
deductive arguments based on mathematics and the conclusion follows necessarily and with
complete certainty from the premises.

One broad classification of arguments not listed in this survey is scientific arguments. Arguments
that occur in science can be either inductive or deductive, depending on the circumstances. In
general, arguments aimed at the discovery of a law of nature are usually considered inductive.
Suppose, for example, that we want to discover a law that governs the time required for a falling
body to strike the earth. We drop bodies of various weights from various heights and measure
the time it takes them to fall. Comparing our measurements, we notice that the time is
approximately proportional to the square root of the distance. From this we conclude that the
time required for anybody to fall is proportional to the square root of the distance through which
it falls. Such an argument is best interpreted as an inductive generalization.

Another type of argument that occurs in science has to do with the application of known laws to
specific circumstances. Arguments of this sort are often considered to be deductive—but only
with certain reservations. Suppose, for example, that we want to apply Boyle’s law for ideal
gases to a container of gas in our laboratory. Boyle’s law states that the pressure exerted by a
gas on the walls of its container is inversely proportional to the volume. Applying this law, we
conclude that when we reduce the volume of our laboratory sample by half, we will double the
pressure. Considered purely as a mathematical computation, this argument is deductive. But if
we acknowledge the fact that the conclusion pertains to the future and the possibility that Boyle’s
law may not work in the future, then the argument is best considered inductive.

A final point needs to be made about the distinction between inductive and deductive arguments.
There is a tradition extending back to the time of Aristotle which holds that inductive arguments
are those that proceed from the particular to the general, while deductive arguments are those
that proceed from the general to the particular. (A particular statement is one that makes a claim
about one or more particular members of a class, while a general statement makes a claim about
all the members of a class.) It is true; of course that many inductive and deductive arguments do
work in this way; but this fact should not be used as a criterion for distinguishing induction from
deduction. As a matter of fact, there are deductive arguments that proceed from the general to the
general, from the particular to the particular, and from the particular to the general, as well as
from the general to the particular; and there are inductive arguments that do the same. For
example, here is a deductive argument that proceeds from the particular to the general:
Three is a prime number.
Five is a prime number.
Seven is a prime number.
Therefore, all odd numbers between two and eight are prime numbers.
And here is an argument that proceeds from the particular to the particular:
Gabriel is a wolf.

19
Logic and Critical Thinking Chapter Two

Gabriel has a tail.

Therefore, Gabriel’s tail is the tail of a wolf.
Here is an inductive argument that proceeds from the general to the particular:
All emeralds previously found have been green.
Therefore, the next emerald to be found will be green.

The other varieties are easy to construct. Thus, the progression from particular to general, and
vice versa, cannot be used as a criterion for distinguishing induction from deduction.
In summary, to distinguish deductive arguments from inductive, we look for special indicator
words, the actual strength of the inferential link between premises and conclusion, and the
character or form of argumentation. If the conclusion follows with strict necessity from the
premises, the argument is always deductive; if not, it could be either deductive or inductive
depending on the other factors.

1.5. Evaluating Arguments: “validity-soundness” and “strength-cogency”

In this final section of this chapter, we will learn central criteria and qualities required to evaluate
arguments. And the primary purpose of this topic is familiarizing you with the natures of good
arguments both in deductive and inductive arguments. Hence, you will learn effective techniques
and strategies for evaluating arguments.

We have seen that every argument makes two basic claims: factual claim and inferential claim.
The evaluation of every argument centers on the evaluation of these two claims. The more
important of the two is the inferential claim. An argument evaluated from the stand point of
whether the premise of argument provide adequate supporting evidence for conclusion. So we
will always test first, the inferential claim of an argument.

The distinction between truth and falsehood of premises and conclusion, and validity or
invalidity, strength or weakness, cogency or soundness of argument is one of the most important
and useful points of that we will encounter in our study of logic. We would use the term sound,
unsound, valid, invalid, cogent, uncogent, strong, and weak for arguments whereas, truth and
falsity are properties of statements. In the study of logic we must never say that an argument is
true or false, truth and falsity are the two possible truth value of a single statement. Therefore we
can’t apply them to argument.

Arguments can be evaluated through certain terms that are specially designated for these
purposes. There are eight (for both deductive and inductive) fundamental words designated for
the purpose of evaluating the correctness or incorrectness of an argument.

1.5.1. Evaluating Deductive Argument: Validity and Soundness

A valid deductive argument is an argument such that it is impossible for the premises to be true
and the conclusion false. In these arguments the conclusion follows with strict necessity from the

20
Logic and Critical Thinking Chapter Two

premises. Conversely, an invalid deductive argument is a deductive argument such that it is

possible for the premises to be true and the conclusion false. In invalid arguments the conclusion
does not follow with strict necessity from the premises, even though it is claimed to.

We do not have to know whether the premise of an argument is actually true in order to
determine its validity (valid or invalid).To test an argument for validity we begin by assuming
that all premises are true, and then we determine if it is possible, in light of that assumption, for
the conclusion to be false. Thus, the validity of argument is the connection between premise and
conclusion rather than on the actual truth or falsity of the statement formed the argument.

There are four possibilities with respect to the truth or falsity of the premises and conclusion of a
given argument.
1) True premises and True conclusion.
2) True premises and False conclusion.
3) False premises and True conclusion.
4) False premises and False conclusion.

Valid Arguments
A valid argument can have all, except the second case (true premises and false conclusion).
Now let us discuss in detail the above four possibilities with examples.
True premises and true conclusion:
Example: Two and two always make four.
Ababa and Belete are two and so are Chaltu and Demeke
Therefore, Ababa and Belete and Chaltu and Demeke are four.
This argument is valid because the conclusion implied by the premises with certainty.
If the premises do in fact support the conclusion in this way, the argument is said to be valid.
And also if it had true premises then it would have a true conclusion, impossible to have false
conclusion. Let us see another example:
All biologists are a scientist.
Barack Obama is not a scientist.
So, Barack Obama is not a biologist.
In this argument, both premises are actually true, so it is easy to assume that they are true. Next
we determine, in light of this assumption, it is impossible for the conclusion to be false. Valid
argument with true premises and false conclusion does not exist. It is best interpretation of
invalid argument.

There may be one or more false premises and true conclusion.

Example:
1. All cats are ants. 2. All men are mortal.
All ants are mammals. All Ethiopians are men.
Therefore, all cats are mammals. Therefore, All Ethiopians are mortal.

21
Logic and Critical Thinking Chapter Two

In the first argument, both premises are actually false, but it is easy to assume that they are true.
The second argument contains actually a false premise but, if we assume it to be true it is
impossible for the conclusion to be false. Therefore, the arguments are valid.
There may be one or more false premises and false conclusion. The occurrence of false premises
and false conclusion does not prevent an argument from being valid. Suppose an argument is
valid and has a false conclusion, it has necessarily had at least one false premise.
Examples:
1. All sharks are birds. 2. All ants are mammals.
All birds are politician All mammals are animals.
Therefore, all sharks are politician Therefore, all ants are animals.
In the above examples some of premises and the conclusion of the first argument are actually
false. Nonetheless, the idea stated in the conclusion which is false is correctly inferred from the
premises and if the premises are assumed as true the conclusion would have to be true as well.

Invalid Arguments
Invalid deductive argument is a deductive argument in which it is possible for the conclusion to
be false and for the premises to be true. Unlike valid arguments, invalid arguments can have all
four possibilities. The premises may be all true and true conclusion. We can’t rightly conclude
that an argument is valid simply on the grounds that its premises all true and true conclusion. It
may also invalid, what matter is its reasoning. The reasoning in the invalid argument is logically
bad or incorrect. Despite the fact that the premises and conclusion are all true, the conclusion of
invalid argument does not follow with strict necessity from the premise.
Example:
All cats are animals.
All mammals are animals.
Consequently, all cats are mammals.
The source of the problem is that, the premises of this argument do not indicate anything about
the relation between cats and mammals but the conclusion say so. Where did we get the
information that “all cats are mammals”, the two premises does not support it.
Another example:
All psychologists are scientists.
Wilhelm Wundt was a scientist.
Therefore, Wilhelm Wundt was a psychologist.
In this example, the premises and the conclusion are actually true. Hence, an argument is invalid
because, in fact the premises are true there is a possibility for the conclusion to be false. The
premises of an argument do not imply that Wundt was a psychologist. There is a possibility for
Wundt was not a psychologist. Wilhelm Wundt might be a chemists, astronomer, geneticist,
meteorologist, or other. Therefore, an argument is invalid.
The premises may be all true then false conclusion.
Example:

22
Logic and Critical Thinking Chapter Two

1. Monkeys live in trees. 2. All psychologists are scientist.

But no birds are monkeys. Roger Kornberg is a scientist
Therefore, no birds live in trees. Therefore, Roger Kornberg is a psychologist.

The occurrence of true premises and false conclusion of deductive argument is necessary invalid.
In both above examples the premises are actually true but the conclusion is false. So the
arguments are invalid.
There may be one or more false premises and true conclusion.
Example:
All mammals are two footed animal.
Human beings are two footed animal.
Therefore, Human beings are mammals.
In this example, an argument contains actually false premise and true conclusion. If we assume
both premises as true there is a possibility for the conclusion to be false. Hence, an argument is
invalid.
There may be one or more false premises and false conclusion.
Example:
All politicians are millionaires.
All ambassadors are millionaires.
Therefore all politicians are millionaires.
In the above examples, the premises and conclusions are actually false. Nonetheless, the idea
stated in the conclusion which is false is incorrectly inferred from the premises and if the
premises are assumed as true the conclusion would have a possibility to be false.

In general, the basic idea of evaluating deductive argument, validity (valid and invalid) is not
something that is determined by the actual truth or falsity of the premises and conclusion. Rather,
validity is something that is determined by the relationship between premises and conclusion.
The question is not whether premises and conclusion are true or false, but whether the premises
support the conclusion. Nevertheless, there is one arrangement of truth and falsity in the
premises and conclusion that does determine the issue of validity. Any deductive argument
having actually true premises and an actually false conclusion is invalid. The reasoning behind
this fact is fairly obvious. If the premises are actually true and the conclusion is actually false,
then it certainly is possible for the premises to be true and the conclusion false. Thus, by
definition, the argument is invalid. The idea that any deductive argument having actually true
premises and a false conclusion is invalid may be the most important point in the entire system
of deductive logic.

Sound Argument: a sound argument is a deductive argument that is valid and has all true
premises. Both conditions must be met for an argument to be sound, and if either is missing the
argument is unsound. Because a valid argument is one such that it is impossible for the premises
to be true and the conclusion false, and because a sound argument does in fact have true

23
Logic and Critical Thinking Chapter Two

premises, it follows that every sound argument, by definition, will have a true conclusion as well.
A sound argument, therefore, is what is meant by a ‘‘good’’ deductive argument in the fullest
sense of the term.

Sound argument = valid argument + All true premises.

Example:
All Ethiopians are human beings.
All Human beings are rational.
Therefore, All Ethiopians are rational.
In this example, the reasoning is valid and also both premises are actually true. So an argument is
sound.

Unsound Argument: an unsound argument is a deductive argument that is invalid, and has one
or more false premises, or both. All invalid arguments and valid argument with at least one false
premise are unsound arguments. In connection with this definition of soundness, a single
condition is required: For an argument to be unsound, the false premise or premises must
actually be needed to support the conclusion. When we try to determine deductive arguments as
sound or unsound, we look at both the truth value and validity of the argument. Evaluate the
table below in terms of the given truth value.

validity soundness
Premise conclusion Valid (example) invalid sound unsound
valid invali valid invalid
d
True True  .     
True False -     
False True      
False False      

1.6.2. Evaluating Inductive Arguments: Strength and cogency

An inductive argument is one in which the premises are claimed to support the conclusion in
such a way that it is improbable that the premises be true and the conclusion false. We evaluate
an inductive argument by saying strong, weak, cogent, and uncogent.

A strong argument is an inductive argument such that if we assume the premise to be true the
based on this assumption is improbable for the conclusion to be false. In such arguments, the
conclusion follows probably from the premises. Conversely, a weak inductive argument is an
inductive argument such that the conclusion does not follow probably from the premises, even
though it is claimed to.

24
Logic and Critical Thinking Chapter Two

Like validity of deductive argument, when we evaluate inductive argument we do not have to
know whether the premise of an argument is actually true in order to determine its strength or
weakness. What we need to do is to assume the premise true and then to see whether the
conclusion follows more/less probably from the premise. If the conclusion follows more
probably from the premise then, the argument is strong, otherwise, it is weak. Thus, the strength
of argument is the linkage between premise and conclusion rather than on the actual truth or
falsity of the statement formed the argument.

We evaluate inductive argument like deductive concerns to the four possibilities which are bases
on the truth or falsity of the premises and conclusion of a given argument.
1) True premises and True conclusion.
2) True premises and False conclusion.
3) False premises and True conclusion.
4) False premises and False conclusion

Strong Argument: a strong argument can have all cases, except the second case (true premises
and false conclusion). There is no strong inductive argument that has true premises and probably
false conclusion. Strong argument is that if the premises are assumed true, then based on that
assumption it is probable that the conclusion is true. In other words strong inductive arguments
are the analogies of valid deductive arguments. So, strong argument, would establish its
conclusion with high degree of probability if the premises were true.

Now let us discuss the four possibilities of strong argument in detail with examples:

 True premises and probably true conclusion.

Example: All dinosaur bones discovered to this day have been at least 50 million years old.
Therefore, probably the next dinosaur bone to be found will be at least 50 million years old.
In this argument the premise is actually true, so it is easy to assume that it is true. Based on that
assumption, the conclusion is probably true, so the argument is strong.

 True premises and probably false conclusion.

This condition does not exist in strong inductive argument. The occurrence of true premises and
probably false conclusion makes an argument weak.

 False premises and probably true conclusion.

Example: There is intelligent life on the following planets, Mercury, Venus, Earth Jupiter,
Uranus, Neptune, and Pluto. So there is intelligent life in Mars.
The premise of this argument is actually false. Few, if any, life exists on planet. If we assume
there is an intelligent life on (mentioned planet) more than half of the recognized planet, an
argument is strong because there is high degree of probability to exist life in mars. So if we

25
Logic and Critical Thinking Chapter Two

assume the premise is true, then based on that assumption, the conclusion would probably be
true. Thus, the argument is strong.

 False premises and probably false conclusion.

Example: All previous American presidents were women. Therefore, probably the next
American president will be a woman.
The premise of this example is actually false. However, if assume that it is true .Based on that
assumption, it is probable for the conclusion to be true.

Weak Argument: a weak inductive argument is an inductive argument such that, if the premises
are assumed true, based on that assumption it is not probable or less probable that the conclusion
is true. The same is true for weak inductive arguments like invalid deductive arguments; they
satisfy all four cases regarding the truth values of the premises and the conclusion of a given
argument.

 True premises and probably true conclusion.

Example: A few American presidents were federalists. Therefore, probably the next American
president will be a man.

 True premises and probably false conclusion.

Example: A few American presidents were federalists. Therefore, probably the next American
president will be a federalist.

 False premises and probably true conclusion.

Example: A few American presidents were libertarians. Therefore, probably the next American
president will be a television debater.

 False premises and probably false conclusion.

Example: A few American presidents were libertarians. Therefore; probably the next American
president will be a libertarian.

In all of the above examples, if we assume the premises as true, based on that assumption it is
improbable for the conclusion to be true. Thus, these four examples show that the strength or
weakness of an inductive argument results not from the actual truth or falsity of the premises and
conclusion, but from the probabilistic support the premises give to the conclusion.

Unlike the validity and invalidity of deductive arguments, the strength and weakness of inductive
arguments admit of degrees. To be considered strong, an inductive argument must have a
conclusion that is more probable than improbable. In other words, the likelihood that the
conclusion is true must be more than 50 percent, and as the probability increases, the argument
becomes stronger. For this purpose, consider the following pair of arguments:

26
Logic and Critical Thinking Chapter Two

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

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

The first argument is weak and the second is strong. However, the first is not absolutely weak
nor the second absolutely strong. Both arguments would be strengthened or weakened by the
random selection of a larger or smaller sample. For example, if the 50 size of the sample in the
second argument were reduced to 70 apples, the argument would be weakened. The
incorporation of additional premises into an inductive argument will also generally tend to
strengthen or weaken it. For example, if the premise ‘‘One unripe apple that had been found
earlier was removed’’ were added to either argument, the argument would be weakened.

Cogent and Uncogent Argument: a cogent argument is an inductive argument that is strong
and has all true premises; if either condition is missing, the argument is uncogent. A cogent
argument is the inductive analogue of a sound deductive argument and is what is meant by a
‘‘good’’ inductive argument without qualification. Because the conclusion of a cogent argument
is genuinely supported by true premises, it follows that the conclusion of every cogent argument
is probably true.

Cogent argument = Strong argument + All true premises

There is a difference, however, between sound and cogent arguments in regard to the true-
premise requirement. In a sound argument it is only necessary that the premises be true and
nothing more. Given such premises and good reasoning, a true conclusion is guaranteed. In a
cogent argument, on the other hand, the premises must not only be true, they must also not
ignore some important piece of evidence that outweighs the given evidence and entails a quite
different conclusion. As an illustration of this point, consider the following argument:

Swimming in the Caribbean is usually lots of fun. Today the water is warm, the surf is gentle,
and on this beach there are no dangerous currents. Therefore, it would be fun to go swimming
here now.

If the premises reflect all the important factors, then the argument is cogent. But if they ignore
the fact that several large dorsal fins are cutting through the water, then obviously the argument
is not cogent. Thus, for cogency the premises must not only be true but also not overlook some
important factor that outweighs the given evidence and requires a different conclusion.

27
Logic and Critical Thinking Chapter Two

Evaluate the table below in terms of the given truth value.

strength cogency
Premise conclusion strong (example) weak cogent uncogent
strong weak stron weak
g
True True  .     
True False -     
False True      
False False      

In summary, for both deductive and inductive arguments, two separate questions need to be
answered: first, do the premises support the conclusion? Second, are all the premises true? To
answer the first question we begin by assuming the premises to be true. Then, for deductive
arguments we determine whether, in light of this assumption, it necessarily follows that the
conclusion is true. If it does, the argument is valid; if not, it is invalid. For inductive arguments
we determine whether it probably follows that the conclusion is true. If it does, the argument is
strong; if not, it is weak. Finally, if the argument is either valid or strong, we turn to the second
question and determine whether the premises are actually true. If all the premises are true, the
argument is sound (in the case of deduction) or cogent (in the case of induction). All invalid
deductive arguments are unsound, and all weak inductive arguments are uncogent.

28