CHAPTER - 2

BASIC CONCEPTS OF
LOGIC
“Logic sharpens & refines our natural gifts to think,
reason & argue.”(C. S. Layman)
Prepared by:- Nebiyu A.
(Dilla University)
CHAPTER - TWO
BASIC CONCEPTS OF LOGIC
Chapter Overview
 Logic can be defined as the organized body of knowledge that evaluates arguments.
 Aim of logic: to dev‟p a system of methods & principles using as
 criteria for evaluating the arguments of others &
 guides in constructing arguments of our own.
 Argument: is a systematic combination of two or more statements, which are classified as a
premise/s & a conclusion.
 A Premise (P): is the statement which is claimed to provide a logical support/evidence
to conclusion (the main point of the argument).
 Ps are claimed to support the conclusion
 A Conclusion (C): a statement which is claimed to follow from the alleged evidence.
 C is the main point of the argument.
 Depending on the logical & real ability of the Ps to support the C, an argument can be
 a good argument or
 a bad argument.
 All arguments purport to prove something. Nebiyu A.
Cont,….

 Arguments can generally be divided into TWO: Deductive & Inductive arguments.
 Deductive A.: it is IMPOSSIBLE for the P to be True & the C- False.
 Inductive A.: an arg. that it is IMPROBABLE that the P to be True & the C- False.
 The Deductiveness or Inductiveness of an argument can be determined by
 the particular indicator word,
 the actual strength of the inferential r/p b/n its statements, &
 the form or structure of argumentation.
 A deductive argument can be evaluated by its Validity & Soundness.
 Likewise, an inductive argument can be evaluated by its Strength & Cogency.
 Depending on it actually maintain its inferential claim, a deductive argument can be
either Valid or Invalid. That is,
 Valid A.: If the Ps actually support its C in such a way that it is impossible for the Ps
to be true & the C false.
 Invalid A.: If its Ps actually support its C in such a way that it is possible for the Ps
to be true & the C false.
 Moreover, based on its actual ability to maintain its inferential claim & its factual claim, a
deductive argument can be either Sound or Unsound. That is,
 if a deductive argument actually maintained its inferential claim, (i.e., if it is valid), & its
factual claim, (i.e., if all of its Ps are true), then it will be a Sound argument.
 But, if it fails to maintain either of its claims, it will be an Unsound argument.Nebiyu A.
Cont,….

 Likewise, an inductive argument can be evaluated by its Strength & Cogency.

 An inductive argument can be either Strong or Weak based on its actually ability to
successfully maintain its inferential claim. That is,
 Strong A: if the Ps actually support its C in such a way that it is improbable for
the Ps to be true & the C false.
 Weak A: If its Ps actually support its C in such a way that it is probable for the Ps
to be true & the C false.
 Furthermore, depending on its actual ability to maintain its inferential claim & its factual
claim, an inductive argument can be either Cogent or Uncogent. That is,
 Cogent A: if an inductive argument actually maintained its inferential claim, (i.e., if it is
Strong) & its factual claim (i.e., all of its premises are probably true).
 Uncogent A: if it fails to maintain either of its claims.
 This chapter discusses:
 logic & its basic concepts,
 the techniques of distinguishing arguments from non-argumentative passages, &
 the types of arguments.
Chapter Objectives:
After the completion of this chapter, you will be able to:
 Understand the meaning & basic concepts of logic;
 Understand the meaning, components, & types of arguments;
 Recognize the major techniques of recognizing & evaluating arguments. Nebiyu A.
Lesson - 1:
Basic Concepts of Logic: Arguments, Premises & Conclusions

Lesson Overview
 Logic: is generally be defined as a philosophical science that evaluates arguments.
 Argument: is a combination of one or more than one statements which are claimed to provide
a logical support or evidence (i.e., premise/s) to another single statement which is claimed to
follow logically from the alleged evidence (i.e., conclusion).
 An argument can be either good or bad based on the logical ability of its P/Ps to support its C.
 The primary aim of logic is to develop a system of methods & principles that we may use as
criteria for evaluating the arguments of others & as guides in constructing arguments of our own.
 The study of logic increases students’ confidence to
 criticize the arguments of others &
 advance arguments of their own. Nebiyu A.
What is the Meaning of Logic?

 The word logic comes from Greek word “Logos” i.e. sentence, discourse, reason, truth & rule.
 Logic in its broader meaning is the science which evaluates arguments & the study of
correct reasoning.
 It is also defined as the study of methods & principles of correct reasoning or the art
of correct reasoning.
 Logic can also be defined in different ways:
 Logic is a science that evaluates & analyses arguments.
 More precisely, logic is the study of methods for evaluating whether the Ps of arguments
adequately support or provide good evidence for the Cs.
 Logic is a science that helps to develop the method & principles that can be used as a
criterion for evaluating the arguments of others & as a guide to construct good
arguments of our own. Nebiyu A.
Cont,….

 In logic, as an academic discipline, we study reasoning itself:

 forms of argument,
 general principles & particular errors,
 methods of arguing.
 We see lots of mistakes in reasoning in daily life, & logic can help us understand
 what is wrong or
 why someone is arguing in a particular way.

Nebiyu A.
Benefit of Studying Logic
 We use logic in our day-to-day communications.
 We all think, reason & argue; & are subject to the reasoning of other people.
 Some may think well, reason well & argue well,
 but some may not.
 The ability to think, reason & argue well might partially be a matter of natural gift.
 However, our natural gifts can be refined, improved & sharpened;
 Studying logic is the best ways to refine our ability to think, reason & argue.
 To mention the major benefits obtained, the study of logic helps or enables us:
 to dev’p the skill needed to construct sound arguments & to evaluate arguments of others;
 to distinguish good arguments from bad arguments;
 to understand & identify the common logical errors in reasoning;
 to understand & identify the common confusions that happen due to misuse of language;
 to disclose ill-conceived policies in the political sphere, & to distinguish the rational from
irrational, the sane from the insane & ...;
 It also provides a fundamental defense against the prejudiced & uncivilized attitudes.
 As to Layman, “Logic sharpens & refines our natural gifts to think, reason & argue.”
Cont,….

 Hence, the primary aim of logic is to develop a system of methods & principles that we may use as
criteria for evaluating the arguments of others & as guides in constructing arguments of our own.
 By studying logic, we are able to increase our confidence when we
 criticize the arguments of others &
 advance arguments of our own.
 In fact, one of the goals of logic is to produce individuals who are critical, rational &
reasonable both in the sphere of public & private life.
 To be full beneficial of the worth which logic provides, one must
 thoroughly & carefully understand the basic concepts of the subject &
 be able to apply them in the actual situations.

Nebiyu A.
What is an Argument?
 All of us encounter arguments in our day-to-day experience. We
 read them in books & newspapers,
 hear them on television, &
 formulate them when communicating with friends & associates.
 All definitions of logic, tell you one thing in common: argument
 Thus, argument is the primary subject matter of logic.

 Argument is a technical term & the primary/chief concern of logic.

 Argument might have defined & described in d/ft ways.
 In logic, it is defined as a group of statements, consisting of one or more Ps & a C.
 a group of statements, one or more of which are claimed to provide support for or
reason to believe (i.e. the premise) one of the other (i.e. the conclusion).
 As is apparent from the above definition, the term „„argument‟‟ has a very specific
meaning in logic.
 It does not mean a mere verbal fight. Nebiyu A.
Cont,….

Features of this definition

First (1st), an argument is a group of statements. I.e.,

 the 1st requirement for a passage to be an argument is to combine two or more statements.
But, what is a statement?
 A statement is a sentence that has a truth-value.
 Hence, truth & falsity are the two possible truth-values of a statement.
 A statement is typically a declarative sentence.
For Examples:
A. Addis Abeba is the capital city of Ethiopia.
B. Ethiopia was colonized by Germany.
Statement “A” is true, b/z it describes a thing as it is (or asserts what really is the case). Hence,
„Truth‟ is its truth-value. Whereas statement “B” is false b/z it asserts what is not, & „Falsity‟ is
its truth-value. Nebiyu A.
Cont,….

N.B: 1. Logicians used proposition & statement interchangeably.

 But, in strict sense, proposition is the meaning or information content of a statement.
2. Sentence is a group of words/phrases that enables us to express ideas or thought meaningfully.
3. There are sentences that are not statements, & hence can‟t be used to construct an argument:
a) Question (Would you close the window?)
b) Command (Give me your ID Card, Now!)
c) Proposal (Let us study together.)
d) Exclamation (Right on!)
e) Suggestion (I suggest that you read philosophy texts.)
 None of these can be classified as statement & can make up an argument.

Second (2nd), the statements that make up an argument are P/Ps & C. I.e.,
 Merely containing two or more statements can‟t guarantee the existence of an argument.
 Thus, it must contain at least one P & exactly one C.
 An argument may contain more than one P but only one C. OR it is a combination
of P/Ps & C Nebiyu A.
What do you think are Premise & Conclusion?
 Argument always attempts to justify a claim.
 The claim that the statement attempts to justify is known as a conclusion; &
 the statement/s that supposedly justify the claim is known as the premises.
 To be more precise,
 Premise: is a statement that set forth the reason or evidence, which is given for
accepting the conclusion of an argument.
 It is claimed evidence; OR
 It is a statement that is claimed to provide evidence

 Conclusion: a statement which is claimed to follow from the given evidence (P).
 It is the claim that an argument is trying to establish. OR
 It is a statement that is claimed to follow from the given evidence

Example-1: Example-2:
1) Tsion is an African because 2) Some Africans are black.
all Ethiopians are Africans & Zelalem is an African.
Tsion is an Ethiopian. Therefore, Zelalem is black.
Cont,….

 All arguments may be placed in one of two basic groups: those in which
 the Ps really do support the C  Good (well-supported) Argument.
 the Ps don’t adequately support the C  Bad (poorly-supported) Argument.
For example, compare the above two examples.
 The 1st argument is a good one, b/z the Ps really do support the C,
- they give good reason for believing that the C is true.

 The 2nd argument is a bad one, b/z the Ps fail to support the C adequately.
- Even if the Ps may be true, they don‟t provide good reason to believe that the C is true.
Cont,….

Inference

 Inference is another concept.

 (In the narrower sense), It means the reasoning process expressed by the argument.
 Broadly, It refers the argument itself.
The narrower sense of the term inference or inferential link b/n the Ps & the C of arguments will
be used in this course.

Nebiyu A.
Revision
Discuss in a group of 3 for 5 minutes & define or
explain the following terms & concepts

G1 What is an Argument??

G2 What is P & what is C ??
G3 What is Inferential Claim? & Factual Claim?
G4 Good Argument &Bad Argument??

G5 Make/form an argument

Every argument involves an inferential claim – i.e.
 the claim that the C is supposed to follow from the Ps. Nebiyu A.
Distinguishing Premises from Conclusion

How can we distinguish Ps from C & vice versa?

 One of the most important tasks in the analysis of arguments is to distinguish Ps from C & vice ver
 Sometimes identifying a C from Ps (the Ps & a C) is difficult, for a number of reasons.
 Apart from Ps & a C, sometimes arguments may contain other sentences as elements.
 It is impossible to analyze arguments without identifying a C from Ps.

Techniques/methods

 There are TWO Methods of distinguishing the premise from the conclusion; these are
A) Conclusion Indicators
1. By Indicator Words/Terms;
B) Premise Indicators
2. By Appealing the Inferential claim;- By Responding to key questions Nebiyu A.
Cont,….

The 1st technique is by looking at an indicator word.

 Often, arguments contain certain indicator words that provide clues in identifying Ps & C.
Conclusion Indicators:
Therefore Hence It must be that Entails that It follows that
Wherefore Thus We may conclude We may infer
Accordingly So As a result It shows that
Consequently Whence It implies that Provided that

 The statement that follows the conclusion indicator word can usually be identified as the C.
 By the process of elimination, the other statements in the argument can be identified as
Ps, but only based on their logical importance to the identified C.
Example: Women are mammals. Zenebech is a woman. Therefore, Zenebech is a mammal.
 Based on the above rule, the C of this argument is “Zenebech is a mammal.”
 If an argument does not contain a conclusion indicator, it may contain a premise indicator.
Nebiyu A.
Cont,….

Premise Indicators:
Since, In that, As indicated by, Seeing that,
Because, For, For the reason that, Inasmuch as,
Given that, As, May be inferred from, Owing to,

 A statement that follows any of the premise indicator word can usually be identified as a P.
 By the process of elimination, the other remaining single statement will be a C.
Example:

“You should avoid any form of cheating on exams because cheating on exams is punishable
by the Senate Legislation of the University.”

 Based on the above rule, the P of this argument is “cheating on …”.

 One premise indicator not included in the above list is “for this reason.”
 It is special in that it comes immediately after the P it indicates (& before the C).
 This indicator can be both premise & conclusion indicator (while placing in the middle
b/n the P & the C).
 The statement that comes before “for this reason” is the P &
 the statement that comes after “for this reason” is the C.

[NOTE:- Indicator Words may not always guarantee to distinguish P from C, due to;-
i.) neither a C nor a P indicator word exist.
ii.) Though they exist, they may have some other purposes.] Nebiyu A.
Cont,….

[The 2nd technique is by Responding to key questions :- by Appealing the Inferential claim]
 If there may no premise & conclusion indicators,
 answering one of the below questions indicates to the conclusion of an argument
 What is the arguer trying to prove (claiming about)? Or
 What is the main point in the passage? Or
 What single statement is claimed (implicitly) to follow from the others?
 appealing to the inferential claim (reasoning process) of the argument that;-
 The statement/s that provide reason to the other is the P/Ps , &
 The other statement that follows from the evidences is the C.
Example: “Our country should increase the quality & quantity of its military. Ethnic conflicts are
recently intensified; boarder conflicts are escalating; international terrorist activities are increasing.”

The main point of this argument is to show that the country should increase the size & quality of its military. All the
rest are given in support of the conclusion.
Nebiyu A.
Lesson 2:
Techniques of Recognizing Arguments

Lesson Overview
 An argument is a systematic combination of one or more than one statements which are
claimed to provide a logical support/evidence (i.e., P/Ps) to another single statement which is
claimed to follow logically from the alleged evidence (i.e., C).
 Not all passages that contain two or more statements are argumentative.
 There are various passages that contain two or more statements but not argumentative.
 Not all passages contain argument.
 Argumentative passages are distinguished from such kind of passages by their primary
goal: proving something.
In this lesson, we will see the techniques of distinguishing argumentative passages from non-
argumentative passages. Nebiyu A.
Cont,….

2.1. Recognizing Argumentative Passages

Activity # 1
: - What do you think are argumentative passages?

: - What qualifies a passage to be an argument?

Nebiyu A.
2.1 Recognizing Argumentative Passages
 Evaluating arguments about d/ft issues in human life is the central concern of logic.
 We need to understand the nature of arguments & to understand what argument is not, b/z
 not all passages contain argument.
 Students need to dev‟p the ability to identify whether passages contain an argument.
 In a general way, a passage contains an argument if it purports to prove something;
 if it doesn‟t do so, it doesn‟t contain an argument.

What does it mean to purport to prove something?

 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 reason. [P]
2) There must be a claim that the alleged evidence supports/implies something- i.e.,
 a claim that something follows from the alleged evidence.[C]
Nebiyu A.
Cont,….

st
 The 1 condition - refers to Ps as they try to provide or claim to provide reasons or evidences
for the C; & the 2nd condition - refers to a C.
 It is not necessary that the Ps present actual evidence (or true reasons) Factual
nor that the Ps actually do support the C. claim

 But, at least the Ps must claim to present evidence or reasons, & there Inferential
must be a claim that the evidence/reasons support or imply something. claim
(I.e., a claim that is supported or implied by the evidence/reasons).

 Deciding whether a factual claim it is fulfilled often falls outside the domain of logic.
 Most of our attention will be concentrated on whether an inferential claim is fulfilled.
Cont’d…

[Inference: Factual Claim & Inferential Claim]

Q1. Is it mandatory that the Ps provide genuine evidence (true reasons) to the C?
Q2. Is it mandatory the P to provide actual support to the C?

 Inference is an important concept in argument.

 In the narrower sense, inference means the reasoning process expressed by the argument.
 Broadly, it refers to the argument itself.

 In relation to argument, Inferential claim (inference) & Factual claim are important concepts.

Inferential Claim: a reasoning process that something supports/implies something, OR

 the C is supported by the Ps
Factual Claim: a claim that the Ps must provide actual, true or genuine evidence to the C; OR
 The C is supported by actually true reasons or genuine evidences
Cont,….

 Inferential claim: is the claim that the passage expresses a certain kind of reasoning process-
that something supports/implies something or something follows from something.
 This claim is not equitable with the intentions of the arguer.
 B/z intentions are subjective & are usually not accessible to the evaluator.
 Rather, the inferential claim is an objective feature of an argument grounded in its
language or structure.
 In evaluating arguments, therefore, most of our attention will be concentrated on the
inferential claim. B/z,
 at least at this level, it is not necessary that the Ps present actual evidence or true
reasons nor that do the Ps actually support the C.
Cont,….

 An inferential claim can be either explicit or implicit.

 An Explicit Inferential claim is usually asserted by P or C indicator words.
 It exists if there is an indicator word that asserts an explicit r/p b/n the Ps & the C.
Example: Gemechu is my biological father, because my mother told so.
In this example, the P indicator word “because” expresses the claim that evidence supports something.

 An Implicit Inferential claim: the passage contains no indicator words, but it exists if
there is an inferential r/p b/n the statements in a passage.
 [It exists Even if there is no indicator words that asserts the r/p b/n the Ps & C.]
 [The inferential r/p b/n the statements constitutes an implicit claim that evidence
supports something, but it does not contain indicator word.]
Example:
The genetic modification of food is risky business. Genetic engineering can introduce unintended changes
into the DNA of the food-producing organism, & these changes can be toxic to the consumer.
Cont,….

 Sometimes it is difficult to identify whether a passage contain an argument.

 In deciding whether there is a claim that evidence supports something keep an eye out for
1) indicator words, &
2) the presence of an inferential claim b/n the statements.
 In connection with these points, however, consider the following two points:
1st- the mere occurrence of an indicator word doesn‟t guarantee the presence of an argument.
Examples:
1. “Since Edison invented the phonograph, there have been many technological developments.”
2. “Since Edison invented the phonograph, he deserves credit for a major technological development.”

In the first passage the word „„since‟‟ is used in a temporal sense. It means „„from the time that.‟‟ Thus, it is not an argument.
In the second passage „„since‟‟ is used in a logical sense, & so the passage is an argument.

2nd- it is not always easy to detect the occurrences of an inferential r/p b/n statements in a
passage, & the reader may have to review a passage several times before making a decision.
 Therefore, try to see whether there is a flow of ideas among the statements.
 In distinguishing arguments, it is also important to identify Non-argumentative passages.
2.1 Recognizing Non-argumentative Passages

2.1 Non-argumentative Passages

Activity # 2:- What do you think are non-argumentative passages?
:- What do they lack to be arguments?

 Non-argumentative passages are passages which lack an inferential claim.

 These include
 simple non-inferential passages,
 expository passages,
 illustrations,
 explanations, &
 conditional statements.
 Passages that lack an inferential claim may be statements which could be Ps, C, or both.
 What is missed is a claim that a reasoning process is being made.
 For a passage to be an argument, it not only should contain Ps & a C, but also an
inferential claim or a reasoning process. Nebiyu A.
Cont,….

Typical Non-argumentative Passages

Simple Non-inferential Passages (SNIP)

 SNIPs are unproblematic passages that lack a claim that anything is being proved.
 Such passages contain statements that could be Ps or Cs (or both),
 but what is missing is a claim that any potential P supports a C or that any potential C
is supported by Ps.
 Passages of this type include:
 Warnings,  Expository Passages
 Pieces of advice,  Illustrations
 Statements of belief or opinion,  Explanations, &
 Loosely associated statements, &  Conditional Statements
 Reports

Nebiyu A.
Cont,….

Warning: is a form of expression that is intended to put someone on guard against a dangerous or detrimental situation.
Piece of advice: a form of expression that makes a recommendation about some decision or conduct.
Statement of belief or opinion: an expression about what someone happens to believe or think about something.
Loosely associated statements may be about the same general subject, but they lack a claim that one of them
is proved by the others.
 There is no claim that the statements provides evidence or reasons for believing another.
Report: consists of a group of statements conveying information about some topic or event.
 One must be careful, though, with reports about arguments.
Expository passage is a kind of discourse that begins with a topic sentence followed by one or
more sentences 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.
 But, If the purpose of the subsequent sentences in the passage is not only to flesh out
the topic sentence but also to prove it, then the passage is an argument. Nebiyu A.
Cont,….

Illustration is an expression involving one or more examples that is intended to show what
something means or how it is done.
 Illustrations are often confused with arguments b/z often they contain indicator words.
Example: Chemical elements, as well as compounds, can be represented by molecular formulas. Thus, oxygen is
represented by “O2”, water by “H2O”, & sodium chloride by “NaCl”.
 This passage is not an argument, b/z it makes no claim that anything is being proved.
 However, many illustrations can be taken as arguments. Such arguments are often called
arguments from example.
Example:
“Although most forms of cancer, if untreated, can cause death, not all cancers are life-threatening. For example, basal cell
carcinoma, the most common of all skin cancers, can produce disfigurement, but it almost never results in death.”

Explanation is an expression that purports to shed light on some event or phenomenon, which is
usually accepted as a matter of fact.
 It attempts to clarify, or describe such alike why something is happen that way or why
something is what it is.
 Any explanation is composed of two components: the Explanandum & Explanans.
 The explanandum is the statement that describes the event/phenomenon to be explained
 The explanans is the statement or group of statements that purports to do the explaining.
Cont,….

 Explanations are sometimes mistaken for arguments b/z they often contain indicator word “because”
 Yet explanations are not arguments, b/z the purpose of the explanans is to shed light on
(or to make sense of) the explanandum event, but not to prove that it occurred. I.e.,
 in explanation the purpose of the explanans is to show why something is the case,
whereas in an argument, the purpose of the Ps is to prove that something is the case.
 in explanation we precede backward from fact to the cause, whereas in argument we
move from P to the C.

Example:
Cows digest grass while humans cannot, because their digestive systems contain enzyme not found in humans .
Argument Explanation

Premise Accepted fact Explanans

Claimed to prove Claimed to shed light on

Conclusion
Explanations Accepted fact
Nebiyu A.
Cont,….

Conditional Statement (CS) is an “if . . . then . . .” statement.

Example: If you study hard, then you will score „A‟ grade.

 It is made up of two component statements: the Antecedent & the Consequent.

 The Antecedent (if-clause): a statement that immediately follows the “if”, &
 the consequent (then-clause): a statement that follows the “then”.
 However, there is an occasion that the order of antecedent & consequent is reversed.
 That is, when sometimes the word „„then‟‟ is left out, the order of antecedent & consequent is reversed.
Antecedent Consequent

If ----------------------------, then ---------------------------------.

Consequent Antecedent

---------------------------- if ---------------------------------.
Nebiyu A.
Cont,….

 CSs are not arguments, b/z 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 you study hard, then you will score „A‟. But, it
does not assert that you study hard. Nor does it assert you scored „A‟
 Of course, a CS as a whole may present evidence b/z it asserts a r/p b/n statements.
 Yet when CSs are taken in this sense, there is still no argument, b/z there is then no separate
claim that this evidence implies anything.
 Therefore, a single conditional statement is not an argument b/z CSs are not evaluated
as true or false without separately evaluating the antecedent & the consequent.
 They only claim that if the antecedent is true then so is the consequent.
 But, some CSs are similar to arguments in that they express the outcome of a reasoning
process.
 As such, they may be said to have a certain inferential content.
Example: If destroying a political competitor gives you joy, then you have a low sense of
morality.
 Although taken by itself isn‟t argument, the CS can be re-expressed to form an argument.
For example: Destroying a political competitor gives you joy. Therefore, you have a low
sense of morality.
Cont,….

 Finally, a CS may serve as either the P or the C (or both) of an argument.

Examples - 1: If he is selling our national secretes to enemies, then he is a traitor.
He is selling our national secretes to enemies.
Therefore, he is a traitor.

Examples - 2: If he is selling our national secretes to enemies, then he is a traitor.

If he is a traitor, then he must be punished by death.
Therefore, If he is selling our national secretes to enemies, then he must be punished by death.

NOTE: The relation b/n CSs & arguments may be summarized as follows:
1) A single CS is not an argument.
2) A CS may serve as either the P or the C (or both) of an argument.
3) The inferential content of a CS may be re-expressed to form an argument.
 Note that if a passage consists of a CS together with some other statement, then it may be an
argument depending on the presence of indicator words & an inferential r/p b/n the statements.
Nebiyu A.
Cont,….

 CSs are important in logic, b/z they express the r/p b/n „necessary’ & „sufficient conditions’.
1) “A” is said to be a sufficient condition for “B” - whenever the occurrence of “A” is all
that needed for the occurrence of “B”.
For example, being a dog is a sufficient condition for being an animal.

2) Conversely, “B” is said to be a necessary condition for “A”- whenever “A” can‟t occur
without the occurrence of “B”.
 Thus, being an animal is a necessary condition for being a dog.
 The difference b/n sufficient & necessary conditions is a bit tricky.
 This idea can be clarified & expressed in the following statements:
“If X is a dog, then X is an animal.”
“If X is not an animal, then X is not a dog.”
 The 1st statement says that being a dog is a sufficient condition for being an animal, & the 2nd 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 & 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‟ occurs, then „A‟ must occur.

Nebiyu A.
Cont,….

Nebiyu A.
Cont,….

 In general, non-argumentative passages may contain components that resemble the Ps & Cs of
arguments, but they don’t have an inferential claim.
 In deciding whether a passage contains an argument, you should look for three things:
1) Indicator words;
2) An inferential r/p b/n the statements; &
3) Typical non-arguments forms.
 But the mere occurrence of an indicator word doesn’t guarantee the presence of an argument.
 You must check that the statement identified as the C is claimed to be supported by one
or more of the other statements (P/Ps).
 In many arguments that lack indicator words, the C is the first statement.
Lesson 3:
Types of Arguments: Deduction & Induction
Lesson Overview
 As discussed, every argument involves an inferential claim- the claim that the C is supposed
to follow from the Ps (or that its Ps provide grounds for the truth of its C.)
 The question we now address has to do with the strength of this claim.
 Just how strongly is the C claimed to follow from the Ps.
 The reasoning process (inference) that an argument involves is expressed either with
certainty or with probability. That is, If the C is claimed to follow
 with strict certainty or necessity, the argument is said to be deductive;
 with probability or only probably, the argument is said to be inductive.
 Therefore, a C may be supported by its P in two d/ft ways.
 These two d/ft ways are the two great classes/groups of arguments:
1. Deductive arguments &
2. Inductive arguments. Nebiyu A.
1.1 Deductive Arguments (Proceeds from General to Particular)
 Deductive A: an argument incorporating the claim that it is impossible for the C to be FALSE
given that the Ps are TRUE.
 It is an argument in which the Ps are claimed to support the C in such a way that it is
impossible for the Ps to be T & the C - F.
 [i.e., if we assume that the Ps are T, then the C must be T.]
 In such arguments, the C is claimed to follow necessarily (conclusively) from the Ps.
 Thus, deductive arguments are those that involve necessary reasoning.
Example-1: Example-2:
All philosophers are critical thinkers. All African footballers are blacks.
Socrates is a philosopher. Messi is an African footballer.
Therefore, Socrates is a critical thinker. It definitely follows that, Messi is black.

 In both of the above examples, the C is claimed to follow from the Ps with certainty; or the Ps
are claimed to support their corresponding C with a strict necessity.
 If we, for example, assume that all philosophers are critical thinkers & that Socrates is a philosopher, then it
is impossible that Socrates not be a critical thinker.
 Similarly, if we assume that all African footballers are blacks & that Messi is an African footballer, then it
is impossible that Messi not be a black. Nebiyu A.
1.2 Inductive Arguments (Proceeds from Particular to General )
 Inductive A: an argument incorporating the claim that it is improbable for the C to be FALSE
given that the Ps are TRUE.
 It is an argument in which the Ps are claimed to support the C in such a way that it is
improbable for the Ps to be T & the C - F.
 [i.e., if we assume that the Ps are T, then it is probable that the C is T.]
 In such arguments, the C is claimed to follow only probably from the Ps.
 The Ps may provide some considerable evidence for the C
 but, the Ps don’t imply (necessarily support) the C.
 In this case, we might have sufficient condition (evidence) but we can’t be certain about
the truth of the C.
 However, this doesn’t mean that the C is wrong or unacceptable,
 where as it could be correct or acceptable but only based on probability.
 Thus, inductive arguments are those that involve probabilistic reasoning. Nebiyu A.
Cont,….

Example-1: Example-2:
Most African leaders are blacks. Almost all women are mammals.
Mandela was an African leader. Hanan is a woman.
Therefore, probably Mandela was black. Hence, Hanan is a mammal.

 In both arguments, the C does follow from the Ps with some degree of probability, but not
with strict necessity.
 That is, the C is claimed to follow from the Ps only probably; or the Ps are claimed to
support the C with a probability. In other words,
 if we assume that the Ps are T, then it is probable that the C is T.
 If we, for example, assume that most African leaders were blacks & that Mandela was an
African leader, then it is improbable that Mandela not be a black, (or it is probable that
Mandela was black).
 But it is not impossible that Mandela not be a black. Nebiyu A.
1.3 Differentiating Deductive & Inductive Arguments
 As said earlier, the distinction b/n inductive & deductive arguments lies in the strength of an
argument‟s inferential claim.
 That is (the distinction lies on):
 how strongly the C is claimed to follow from the Ps, or
 how strongly the Ps are claimed to support the C.
 In most arguments, however, the strength of this claim is not explicitly stated, so we must
use our interpretative abilities to evaluate it.
 Deciding whether the argument should be best interpreted as deductive or inductive may be impossible.

 In deciding whether an argument is deductive or inductive, we must look at certain

objective features of the argument.
 There are THREE factors determining the deductiveness or inductiveness of an argument:-
1) The occurrence of special indicator words,
2) The actual strength of the inferential link b/n Ps & C, &
3) The form or character of argumentation the arguers use. Nebiyu A.
Cont,….

The 1st factor is Special indicator words.

 There are d/ft sort of indicator words that indicate or mark the type of arguments.
 Arguments may contain some words that indicate
 the arguer‟s certainty & confidence, or
 the arguer‟s uncertainty/doubt, about the truth of his/her C.
a) Deductive indicators words: words such as
 certainly,
 necessarily, suggest that an
 absolutely, & argument is deductive
 definitely .
 If an argument draws its C using the above words, it is often best to interpret as deductive.
b) Inductive indicator words: such as
 probable
 improbable,
 plausible, suggest that an
 implausible, argument is inductive.
 reasonable to conclude,
 likely, &
 unlikely
 If it draws its C using either of these words, it is usually best to interpret as inductive argume
Cont,….

NOTE that:- The phrase “it must be the case that” is ambiguous;
 “must” can indicate either probability or necessity.

 Deductive & Inductive indicator words often suggest the correct interpretation.
 However, one should be cautious about these special indicator words, b/z 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 C & not to suggest that the argument be taken as deductive.
 Some arguers, not knowing the distinction b/n inductive & deductive, will claim to “deduce” a C when
their argument is more correctly interpreted as inductive.
 Thus, the occurrence of an indicator word is not a certain guarantee for the deductiveness
or inductiveness of an argument unless it is supported by the other features. Nebiyu A.
Cont,….

The 2nd factor is the actual strength of the inferential link b/n Ps & C.

 If the C actually does follow with strict necessity from the Ps, the argument is deductive.
 In such an argument, it is impossible for the Ps to be true & the C false.

 If the C of an argument does follow probably from the Ps (but not with strict necessity), the
argument is usually best to interpret as inductive.
 In such an argument, it is improbable for the Ps to be true & the C false.
Example-1: Example-2:
All Ethiopian people love their country. The majority of Ethiopian people are poor.
Debebe is an Ethiopian. Alamudin is an Ethiopian.
Therefore, Debebe loves his country. Therefore, Alamudin is poor.
 In Eg.- 1, the C follows with strict necessity from the Ps.
 If we assume that all Ethiopian people love their country & that Debebe is an Ethiopian, then it is
impossible that Debebe not love his country.
 In Eg-2, the C doesn‟t follow from the Ps with strict necessity, but does follow with some degree of probability.
 If we assume that the Ps are true, then based on that assumption it is probable that the C is true.
Cont,….

The 3rd factor is the form or character of argumentation

 Sometimes, an argument contains no special indicator words, & the C doesn‟t follow either
necessarily or probably from the Ps; (i.e., it doesn‟t follow at all).
 In such situation, the third factor to be taken into account.
 the below are examples/instances of deductive & inductive argumentative forms.

A) Typical Deductive Argumentative Forms

 Many arguments have a distinctive character or form that indicates that the Ps are supposed to
provide absolute support for the C.
 FIVE typical forms/kinds of deductive argumentation are:
1. Arguments based on mathematics;
2. Arguments from definition;
3. Categorical syllogism,
4. Hypothetical syllogism, &
5. Disjunctive syllogism. Nebiyu A.
Cont,….

Argument based on mathematics:

 It is arguments in which the Cs depend on some purely arithmetic or geometric measurement.

 in which the C depends on some arithmetic, geometric or algebraic measurement or procedure.
 Since all arguments in pure mathematics are deductive, we can usually consider
arguments that depend on mathematics to be deductive as well.
 An exception, however, is arguments that depend on statistics are usually best interpreted
as inductive.
Arguments based on definition:
 It is an argument in which the C is claimed to depend merely up on the definition of some
words or phrase used in the P or conclusion.
 in which the C depends merely on the definition of some words/phrases already used in the Ps.
For example,
“Angel is honest; it is follows that Angel tells the truth.”
“Kebede is a physician; therefore, he is a doctor.”
 These Cs of these arguments follow with necessity from the definitions “honest” & “physician”.
Nebiyu A.
Cont,….

Syllogisms
 Syllogisms are arguments consisting of exactly two Ps & one C.
 Syllogisms are categorized into 3 groups: categorical, hypothetical, & disjunctive syllogism.

Categorical syllogism:
 Categorical syllogism is an argument consisting of exactly two Ps & one C.
 It is a syllogism in which all three statements begin with words “all”, “no” & “some”.
All X are Y.
All Y are Z .
 The form of a categorical deductive argument is; Therefore, all X are Z.

Example: All Egyptians are Muslims. No Muslim is a Christian. Hence, no Egyptian is a Christian.

Hypothetical syllogism:
 It is a syllogism having a conditional statement for one or both of its Ps.
 an argument consisting of exactly two Ps & one C, & one or both Ps are a conditional statement
If X, then Y.
 The form of a Hypothetical deductive argument is; If Y, then Z.
Therefore if X, then Z

Example:
If you study hard, then you will graduate with Distinction.
If you graduate with Distinction, then you will get a rewarding job.
Nebiyu A.
Therefore, if you study hard, then you will get a rewarding job.
Cont,….

Disjunctive syllogism:
 It is a syllogism having a disjunctive statement. (I.e. an “either … or” statement.)
 which is accompanied by exactly two Ps & one C, & one P is a disjunctive statement,
Either X or Y.
 The form of a Disjunctive deductive argument is; Not X.
Therefore, Y.

Example:
Either Ethiopia or Italy won the battle of Adewa.
Italy did not win.
Therefore, Ethiopia won the battle of Adewa.

Rewina is either Ethiopian or Eritrean.

Rewina is not Eritrean.
Therefore, Rewina is Ethiopian.

 Such arguments are usually best taken as deductive.

Nebiyu A.
Cont,….

A) Typical Inductive Argumentative Forms

 In general, inductive arguments are such that the content of the C is in some way intended to
“go beyond” the content of the Ps.
 The Ps of such an argument typically deal with some subject that is relatively familiar, &
the C then moves beyond this to a subject that is less familiar or that little is known about.
 SIX typical forms of inductive argumentation are:
1. Predictions,
2. Arguments from analogy,
3. Inductive generalizations,
4. Arguments from authority,
5. Arguments based on signs, &
6. Causal inferences. Nebiyu A.
Cont,….

Prediction:
 In which an arguer Cs about the future based on the Ps which relate to the present or past
(what was or is happening before as well as now).
For example: “Since certain clouds develop in the center of the highland, a rain will fall
within twenty-four hours.”
 Everyone realizes that the future can‟t be known with certainty.
 Thus, whenever an argument makes a prediction about the future one is usually justified
considering the argument inductive.

An argument from analogy:

 It is an argument that the C depends on the existence of similarity b/n two things or situations.
 B/z of the existence of this analogy a certain conditions that affects the better- known
thing or situations is concluded to affect the less familiar, lesser known-thing or situation.
 [After observing the similarity of some features]
For example: “Senite‟s & Tizeta‟s hair is so shiny, black, long & straight. Senait‟s hair
is not natural, but an artificial. Thus, Tizeta‟s hair is also an artificial.”
 The certitude attending such an inference is obviously probabilistic at best.
Nebiyu A.
Cont,….

An inductive generalization:
 It is an argument that proceeds from the knowledge of a selected sample to a claim about the
whole group.
 When an arguer C about the whole group based on some particular samples, instances or cases.
 Since the members of the sample have a certain characteristics, it is argued that all
members of the group have the same characteristics.
Example: There are 60 students who are taking Logic course. Among these students, 40 of them
were selected at random & found to be intelligent. Therefore, this shows that all of these
students are intelligent.

An argument from authority:

 It is an argument in which the Cs rest upon a statement made by some presumed authority or
witness.
 when someone argues based on the witness of another person who lacks the experience,
knowledge as well as ability (to take as a reference person).
Example:-According to Dr. Kebede, who is an electrical engineer in DU, Ethiopian economy is
growing rapidly. Therefore, Ethiopian economy is growing fast as per the account of Dr. Kebede.
Example:- A lawyer may argue that the person is guilty b/z an eyewitness testifies to that
effect under oath.
 B/z the eyewitness could be either mistaken or lying, such arguments are essentially probabilistic.
Nebiyu A.
Cont,….

Arguments based on sign:

 It is an argument that proceeds from the knowledge of a certain sign to a claim about the
thing/situation that the sign symbolizes (is attributed to certain situations to which these signs symbolize).
 Arguments based on traffic signs; cautions of any marks & symbols usually contain inductive
argumentations. B/z:
 The sign might be mistaken, misplaced or in error about the thing/situation, the
conclusion is only probable.
Example: The tag in this package of cookies says that each cookie has 60 calories. Thus, each
cookie must have about 60 calories.
Example: One may infer that after observing „No Parking‟ sign posted on the side of a
road, the area is not allowed for parking.
 But b/z the sign might be displaced or in error about the area or forgotten, C follows only probably.

A causal inference:
 It is an argument that proceeds from the knowledge of a cause to the knowledge of an effect,
or vice versa, from the knowledge of an effect to knowledge of a cause.
 Which (specific instances of cause & effect) can never be known with absolute certainty.
Example 1–Kebede is upset so that he is silent.  cause to effect
2- Netsanet looks on her mobile so that she is less interested in logic. effect to cause
3 -A bottle of water had been accidentally left in the freezer overnight, someone
might conclude that it had frozen.  cause to effect
4- After tasting a piece of chicken & finding it dry and tough, one might conclude
that it had been overcooked.  effect to cause
 Such specific instances of cause & effect can never be known with absolute certainty. Nebiyu A.
Lesson 4:
Evaluating Arguments
Lesson Overview
 As discussed in previous lesson, every argument makes two basic claims:
 a factual claim (i.e., a claim that the Ps present genuine evidence or are actually true); &
 an inferential claim (i.e., a claim that the alleged evidence or reasons support something or
that something follows from the alleged evidence or reasons).
 The evaluation of arguments centers on the evaluation of these two claims.
 In the inferential claim, if the reasoning is bad (i.e., if the Ps fail to support the C
sufficiently), an argument is worthless.
 Thus, we will always test:
1st - the inferential claim (& only if the Ps do support the C); & then
2nd - the factual claim (i.e., the claim that the Ps present genuine evidence, or are true).
 The primary purpose of this lesson is to
 introduced with the central ideas & terminologies required to evaluate arguments.
 introduce you with the natures of good arguments both in deductive & inductive arguments.
 learn effective techniques & strategies for evaluating arguments. Nebiyu A.
4.1 Evaluating Deductive Arg’ts: Validity, Truth, & Soundness

Deduction & Validity

 Previously, a deductive argument is defined as one in which the Ps are claimed to support the
C in such a way that if they are assumed T, it is impossible for the C to be F.
 If the Ps do in fact support the Cs in this way the arguments is said to be valid; if not, it is
invalid. Thus,
Valid argument: is a deductive argument such that if the P is assumed T, it is impossible
for the C to be F.
 In such arguments, the C follows with strict certainty or necessity from the Ps.
 [OR the C actually follows from the Ps.]
Invalid argument: is a deductive argument such that if the P is assumed T, it is possible for
the C to be F.
 The C doesn‟t follow with strict necessity from the Ps, even though it is claimed to.
 If the C does only follow with strict possibility from the Ps, the argument is Invalid
Cont,….

 There are THREE CONDITIONS for any deductive argument to be Invalid;-

1. If the Ps are actually true & the C actually false
2. If the Ps merely possible to be true & the C false
3. If the inferential link b/n the Ps & the C is a matter of Strict Possibility (Not Certainty).

Example-1: Example-2:
All men are mammals. All philosophers are rational.
All bulls are men. Socrates was rational.
Therefore, all bulls are mammals. Therefore, Socrates was a philosopher.

The 2nd example is invalid argument, b/z if we assume that all philosophers rational & Socrates is rational, it is not
actually impossible for Socrates not be a philosopher [or it is actually possible for Socrates not be a philosopher].
Cont,….

 The above definitions of valid & invalid arguments lead us into two immediate conclusions.
The 1st - There is no middle ground b/n valid & invalid.
 An argument is either valid or invalid.
 there is No almost valid or almost invalid argument
 there is No more valid or more invalid

The 2nd - There is only an indirect relation b/n validity & truth.
 There is No Direct connection (Uniform relation) b/n Validity & Truth/Falsity. i.e.
 Validity is determined by the degree of strength of the inferential r/p b/n the Ps & the
C, but not by the truth or falsity of the Ps & C; i.e.
 Validity is proved based on the Content of the statements
 For an argument to be valid it is not necessary that either the Ps or the C be true.
 It is not mandatory to have either true or false Ps & C so as to get a valid or invalid a.
 Having all true statements does not prove validity, & likewise
 Having all false statements does not make the argument invalid or valid.Nebiyu A.
Cont,….

 But, any deductive argument with True Ps & a False C is always Invalid, which is
the only exception of any deductive logic.
 Thus, any deductive argument may possibly be valid or invalid (based on the content
of the statements) in all the possible combinations of truth & falsity of the Ps & C, (with
only one exception).

 For an argument to be valid it is not necessary that either the Ps or the C be true,
 but merely that if the Ps assumed T, it is impossible for the C be F. I.e.,
 no need to know whether the Ps of an argument is actually true.
 To test for validity, follow two steps:
1st - assuming that all Ps are T, &
2nd - then determine if it is possible for the C to be F.
 Thus, the validity of argument is the connection b/n P & C, rather than on the actual truth
or falsity of the statements. Nebiyu A.
Cont,….

 There are FOUR possibilities with respect to the truth or falsity of the Ps & C of an argument:
Premises Conclusion
Validity
Possibility/Case (Ps) (C)
1 T T ??
2 T F always Invalid
3 F T ??
4 F F ??

NOTE that:
 The 1st, 3rd, & 4th case of the above possibilities allow for both valid & invalid arguments.
 But, the 2nd possibility/case (true Ps & false C) does not allow for valid arguments.
 Any argument having this combination is necessarily invalid.
Nebiyu A.
Cont,….

Validity & Truth Value

 In general, validity is not somthg that is determined by the actual truth or falsity of the Ps & C.
 Rather, validity is determined by the r/p b/n Ps & C.
 The question is whether the Ps support the C, but not whether Ps & C are true or false.
 Nevertheless, there is one arrangement of truth & falsity in the Ps & C that does
determine the issue of validity.
 Any deductive argument having actually true Ps & actually a false C is invalid.
 A deductive logic would be quite useless if it accepted as valid any inferential process by
which a person could start with truth in the Ps & arrive at falsity in the C.
 The r/p b/n the validity of arguments & the truth & falsity of its Ps & C summarized as follows.
Premises Conclusion
Validity
Possibility/Case (Ps) (C)
1 T T Valid or Invalid
2 T F always Invalid
3 F T Valid or Invalid
4 F F Valid or Invalid
Nebiyu A.
Cont,….

Example 1: Valid deductive argument with both P=T & C=T

All dogs are Mammals. M
A
All Mammals are animals. D D
Therefore, all dogs are animals.

Example 2: Valid deductive argument with both P=F & C=F

B
All dogs are snakes.
D S
All snakes are birds.
Therefore, all dogs are birds.

Example 3: Invalid deductive argument with both P=T & C=T

All dogs are animals. A
All mammals are animals. D M
Therefore, all dogs are mammals.
Nebiyu A.
Cont,….

Example 4: Valid (Unsound), if you assume that both P=T, then the & C=F
Some birds are mammals.
All mammals are animals. A
B M
Therefore, some birds are animals.= F

Example 5: Invalid deductive argument with both P=T & C=F

All dogs are animals. A
D C
All cats are animals.
Therefore, all dogs are cats.

Example 6: Valid deductive argument with both P=F & C=T

All Asians are Africans.
All Ethiopians are Asians.
Therefore, all Ethiopians are Africans.
Nebiyu A.
Cont,….

Deduction & Soundness

 Now, it is time to proceed to the next step, i.e.:

 evaluating the factual claims of deductive arguments.
 Depending on their actual ability, to accomplish their factual claims, deductive arguments can
be either Sound or Unsound.
Sound argument: is a deductive argument that is valid & has all true Ps.
 Both conditions must be met for an argument to be sound, &
 But, if either is missing the argument is unsound.
 A deductive argument that doesn‟t actually accomplish its inferential claim, (that is not
valid), cannot be sound, regardless of the truth values of its Ps.

 A sound argument is a “good” deductive argument in the fullest sense of the term.

Sound Argument = Valid arg. + All true Ps Nebiyu A.

Cont,….

 Evaluating soundness involves TWO Steps:-

1st - Check for Validity of the argument, (If the argument is found valid, then)
2nd - Check for whether all the Ps are actually true.

Unsound argument: is a deductive argument that is either valid with one or more false Ps,
or invalid, or both.
 [If one of or all of these conditions occur the argument is unsound.]

Unsound Argument = Invalid arg. or/& One or more false Ps

 An Unsound argument falls into one of the following 3 categories:

 Valid but at least one false P, or
 Invalid, but all its Ps are true, or
 Invalid & at least one false P.

 A sound argument, therefore, is a perfect argument. B/z:

1. All the Ps are actually true,
2. The C is actually true, &
3. A Good reasoning process. Nebiyu A.
Evaluating Inductive Arguments: Strength, Truth, & Cogency

Induction & Strength

 As defined earlier, an inductive argument is one in which the Ps are claimed to support the Cs
in such a way that if Ps are assumed T, it is improbable for the Cs to be F.
 Initially, an inductive argument can be divided into TWO Forms: Strong & Weak.
Strong argument: is an argument such that if the Ps are assumed T, it is Improbable for the C
to be F.
 If the Ps are assumed T, then it is only Highly Probable that the C is T. i.e.,
 In such arguments, the C follows probably from the Ps.
Weak argument: an argument such that if the Ps are assumed T, it is Probable for the C to be F.
 In such arguments, the C doesn‟t follow probably from the Ps, even though it is claimed to.
 [It is not probable that if its Ps are T, then its C is T].
Example-1: Example-2:
This barrel contains one hundred apples. This barrel contains one hundred apples.
Eighty apples selected at random were found tasty. Three apples selected at random were found tasty.
Therefore, probably all one hundred apples are tasty. Therefore, probably all one hundred apples are tasty.

Nebiyu A.
Strength & Truth Value

Strength & Truth Value

 From the above definitions of Strong & Weak arguments, two conclusions follow.
1st - Unlike to validity, there are degree of strength & weakness in inductive arguments. So that,
 Some inductive arguments are Stronger [more Strong] than others, &
 Some are Weaker than the others when we compare to other inductive arguments
 An inductive argument may have a C that is more probable than improbable.
 In inductive argument, there is no absolutely Strong nor absolutely Weak argument.

2nd - Strength & Weakness are only indirectly related to the truth values of their Ps.
 Strength & Weakness are not directly related to truth & falsity.
 The key question is whether the C would probably T if the Ps are assumed T in order
to determining Strength or Weakness. Nebiyu A.
Cont,….

 Strength & Weakness are determined by the r/p b/n the Ps & C, but not by the truth &
falsity of the Ps & C.
 But, any inductive argument with true-Ps & probably a false-C is always Weak.
 Therefore, we can have the following variety of possible combinations that reveal the
indirect relationship b/n Strength or Weakness & truth or falsity:

Ps C Strength
1. T…….. Probably T…….. Strong or Weak
2. T…….. Probably F…….. always Weak
3. F…….. Probably T…….. Strong or Weak
4. F…….. Probably F…….. Strong or Weak

Note that: all of the above possibilities, except the second case (true Ps & false C), allow for
both strong & weak arguments.
 i.e, the second case does not allow for Strong arguments.
 Any argument having this combination is necessarily Weak. Nebiyu A.
Cont,….

 For an argument to be strong it is not necessary that either the Ps or the Cs be T, but merely
that if the Ps assumed T, it is improbable for the C be F. I.e.:-
 No need to know whether the P of an argument is actually T to determine its strength (Strong or
 To test an argument for strength, we need to do the following steps:
1st – assume the Ps true, &
2nd –then see/test whether the C follows more/less probably from the Ps.
 Thus, the strength of an inductive argument results from the probabilistic support the Ps
give to the C, but not from the actual truth or falsity of the Ps & C, but.

 In general, in evaluating inductive argument, strength is determined by the r/p b/n Ps & C, but
not by the actual truth or falsity of the Ps & C.
 But, there is one arrangement of truth & falsity that does determine the strength. I.e.:-
 any inductive argument having actually true Ps & actually a false C is Weak.
Cont,….

Example 1: Strong argument with P=true & C= probably true

All previous American presidents were men. Thus; probably the next American president will be a man.

Example 2: Strong inductive argument with P= false & C= probably true

All Previous American presidents were business persons. Therefore, probably the next American
president will be a business person.

Example 3: Weak indicative argument with P= true & C= probably false

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

Example 4: Weak inductive argument with P= false & C= probably false

A few American presidents were Liberals. Thus, probably the next American president will be a Liberal.
Nebiyu A.
Induction & Cogency
Induction & Cogency

 Now, it is time to evaluating the factual claims of inductive arguments.

 Depending on their actual ability, inductive arguments can be either Cogent or Uncogent.
Cogent argument: is an inductive argument that is strong & has all true Ps.
 Any inductively cogent argument has TWO essential features:
1. It is Strong, &
2. All its Ps are true.
 Both conditions must be met for an argument to be cogent.
 B/z the C of any cogent argument is genuinely supported by true Ps, it follows that
its C is probably true.
 If one of these two conditions is missed, the argument would be Uncogent.
 Any inductive argument that is not Strong cannot be cogent, regardless of the truth
values of its Ps.
Cogent argument = a strong argument + all true Ps

Uncogent argument: is an inductive argument that is either strong with one or more false Ps, or
weak, or both.
 A cogent argument is a “good” inductive argument without qualification.

Uncogent Argument = Weak or/& has one or more False Ps Nebiyu A.

Cont,….

NOTE that:
 There is a difference b/n Sound & Cogent arguments in regard to the true-P requirement.
 In a sound argument, it is only necessary that the Ps be true (& nothing more).
 Given such Ps & good reasoning, a true C is guaranteed.

 In a cogent argument (for cogency), the Ps must not only be true, but they must also not
ignore (overlook) some important evidence (or factors) that outweighs the given evidence
& requires/entails a d/ft C. I.e.:-
 If the Ps reflect all the important factors/evidence, then the argument is Cogent;
 if not, the argument is not cogent.

Nebiyu A.
SUMMARY
 Logic is a science that evaluates arguments; & takes argumentation & reasoning as its primary
subject of study.
 The primary aim of logic is to develop a system of methods & principles used as criteria
for evaluating the arguments of others & as guides in constructing arguments of our own.
 The study of logic increases students‟ confidence to criticize the arguments of others &
advance arguments of their own.
 Argument: is a systematic combination of one or more than one Ps & one & only C.
P: is a statement, which is claimed to provide a logical support or evidence to the C.
C: is a statement, which is claimed to logically drawn from the alleged evidence.
 An argument can be either good or bad argument, depending on the logical ability of its
P/Ps to support its C.
 Not all passages, however, contain an argument. In deciding whether a passage contains an
argument, you should look for three things:
1) Indicator words: P or C indicator words;
2) The inferential r/p b/n the Ps & C; &
3) Typical kinds of non-arguments.
 But, the mere occurrence of an indicator word doesn‟t guarantee the presence of an argument.
 You must check whether the statement identified as the C is claimed to be supported
by one or more of the other statements.
 It is also important to keep in mind that in many arguments that lack indicator words,
the C is the first statement. Nebiyu A.
Cont,….

 Arguments are generally divided into TWO: Deductive arguments & Inductive arguments.
 Deductive argument: is an argument in which the Ps are claimed to support the C in such
a way that if they are assumed T, it is impossible for the Cs to be F.
 Inductive argument: is an argument in which the Ps are claimed to support the C in such
a way that if they are assumed T, it is improbable for the Cs to be F.
 To distinguish deductive arguments from inductive arguments, or vice versa, we look for:
1) Special indicator words,
2) The actual strength of the inferential link b/n Ps & C, &
3) The character/form of argumentation.
 If the C follows with strict necessity from the Ps, the argument is always deductive;
 if the C does not follow with strict necessity from the Ps, it could be either deductive or
inductive depending on the other factors. Nebiyu A.
Cont,….

 To evaluate an argument‟s actual accomplishment of its inferential & factual claims, two
separate questions need to be answered:
1st - do the Ps support the C?
2nd - are all the Ps true?
 To answer the first question, we begin by assuming the Ps-T. Then,
 For Deductive arguments, we determine whether it necessarily follows that the C is T.
 If it does, the argument is Valid;
 If does not, it is Invalid.
 For Inductive arguments, we determine whether it probably follows that the C is T.
 If it does, the argument is Strong;
 If does not, it is Weak.
 Finally, to answer the second question (Soundness or Cogency)
 In the case of deduction, if the argument is Valid, then determine whether the Ps are
actually T.
 If all the Ps are factually T, the argument is Sound.
 All Invalid deductive arguments are Unsound.

 In the case of induction, if the argument is Strong, then determine whether the Ps are
actually T.
 If all the Ps are T, the argument is Cogent.
Nebiyu A.
 All Weak inductive arguments are Uncogent.