Chapter 2

Basic concepts of Logic

Tips of the Chapter

2.1. Basic Concepts of Logic: Arguments, Premises and Conclusions

2.2. Techniques of Recognizing Arguments

2.3. Types of Arguments: deduction and induction

2.4. Evaluating arguments

2.1. Basic concepts of Logic: Argument, premise and conclusion

I. Meaning:

• Etymologically, the term” logic” is derived from the Greek word “Logos” which means
reason, thought, principle, law, etc.

• It is the science that evaluates arguments

• Logic is the science of those principles, laws, rules and methods which the mind of man
in its thinking must follow for accurate and secure treatment of truth.

• In other words, logic is the study of methods for evaluating arguments.

II. Purpose of Logic

• The primary task of logic is to setup criteria for distinguishing good arguments from bad
ones.

• The purpose or objective of logic is to test, evaluate and analyze arguments of one’s own
and the arguments of others.

• To increase confidence of arguers.

1
The meaning of Argument

µ Argument

 In logic, argument is a group of statements in which one (premise) provides support to

believe in another (conclusion).

 It doesn’t mean verbal fight!!!

 Analyzing arguments is important to distinguish premises from conclusion.

 The reasoning process expressed by an argument is said to be inference. Sometimes, it is

used alternatively with the term argument.

µ Premise

• is the statement which provides reason (evidence) for believing the truth of the
conclusion

• It is the statement on the basis of which the conclusion is affirmed.

µ Conclusion

• is the statement that is claimed to follow from the premise

It is the statement that is affirmed on the basis of the premise

µ Statement (proposition)

 a sentence that is either true or false but not both

 a sentence used to assert or deny something and evaluated as true or false

 This type of sentence is called declarative sentence.

 Truth and falsity are called the two possible truth values of statements.

2
Example:

• Hawassa is the capital city of Tigray Region. (F)

• Ethiopia is endowed with various heritages. (T)

• Note that all statements are sentences but not all sentences are statements.

Example:

• How old are u? (Question)

• Stop cheating! (Command)

• Let us go Lake Langano today (proposal)

• We suggest welfare state to Ethiopia (suggestion)

• You are beautiful! (Exclamation

Recognizing Premise and Conclusion

 There are two ways of identifying conclusion and premises

1. Using indictors:

 Conclusion follows from the conclusion indicator and premises follow from premise
indicators.

 Mere occurrence of indicators is not guarantee for the existence of an argument.

E.g. since 1991, Ethiopia has adopted ethnic federalism

Premise indicator Conclusion indicator

since There fore
As indicator by Where fore
Because accordingly
for Hence
In that We may conclude

3
May be inferred from Entail that
as Consequently
Given that It follows that
Seeing Implies
For the reason that For this reason
Owing to In consequence
Indicated by Proves that
May be deducted from I conclude that

Example:

• All students of this class are cleaver. Yoseph is a student of this class. Therefore, Yoseph is
cleaver.

• He scored “F” grade since he didn’t study hard.

 conclusion comes next to conclusion indicator and before premise indicator

Premise comes next to premise indicator and before conclusion indicator

II. Using inferential claim

• It implies by studying the nature of statements (statements that serve as evidence or a

statement stated as the final assertion).

• If a sentence is given as the main point of the argument or as a closing statement, it is a

conclusion.

On the other hand, if the sentence is taken as information, reason or evidence, it is

premise.

Example:

1. Women of the rural society are not empowered. The majority of them lack education
opportunity and equal access to resources.

4
2. These days quality of Education has reduced in our country. Student’s scope has
reducing yearly.

3. The sky is dark. There will be rain today.

2.2. Recognizing Arguments

 There are two criteria for a passage to be argument:

• Factual Claim (At least one of the statements must claim to present evidence or reasons). A claim that
something is true.

• Inferential claim (there must be a claim that something follows from the alleged evidence).

 Inferential claim cab be explicit (indicated by indicators) or implicit (identified by inferential

relationship).

The following are non-argument forms:

 Passage lacking an inferential claim

 Piece of advice

 An illustration

 Loosely associated statements may

 A report

 An expository passage

 Statement of belief or opinion

 Warning

 Conditional Sentences

 Explanations

5
Conditional statements have two parts: antecedent and consequent

• If---antecedent---------then---consequent---------

• ------Consequent ------ if -----antecedent------ --

• E.g. If you study hard, then you will score ‘A’.

• Summary on Conditional Sentences:

 Single conditional statements are not arguments

E.g. If iron is dense than mercury, then it will float in mercury.

 A conditional statement may serve as either the premises or conclusion (or both) of an
argument.

E.g. If FDRE does not change its platform, it will not attract new supporters.

If FDRE doe not attract new supporters, it will lose the next election.

Therefore, if FDRE does not change its platform; it will lose the next election

 The inferential content of a conditional statement may be re -expressed to form an argument.

 E.g. If both Saturn and Uranus have rings, then the Saturn has rings. The inferential
content of this statement may be re-expressed to form argument:

 Both Saturn and Uranus have rings.

 Therefore, Saturn has rings.

 Conditional statements are especially important in logic because they express the
relationship between necessary and sufficient conditions.

 ‘A’ is a sufficient condition for ‘B’ = occurrence of A is need for occurrence of ‘B’

‘A’ is a necessary condition for ‘B’ = B can’t occur without the occurrence of A

6
Example:

• 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.

Here is another example:

• If oxygen is not present, then there can be no fire.

It means that oxygen is a necessary condition for the occurrence of fire; that is, in the
absence of oxygen, fire cannot exist.

• If there is rain, then streets are wet.

Rain makes streets wet, but it is not the only one. Streets can be wet even without the
presence of rain, like for example by leakage of pipe water.

2.3. Types of Arguments

 Arguments can broadly be classified as deductive and inductive.

 Deductive and inductive arguments differ in the strength of the inferential claim of the
argument.

 They differ with respect to the ways in which the premise supports the conclusion
 Deductive Arguments
– Conclusion is claimed to follow from its premises with absolute necessity.
– Makes a claim that the conclusion follows from the reason, evidences, or premises with
the force of necessity.
– Involve necessary reasoning
Examples:
• All human beings are mortal. Taye is a human being. Therefore, Taye is mortal.

7
• All sub- Saharan countries are least developed countries. Ethiopia is found in sub-
Saharan region. It follows that Ethiopia is a least developed country.

3. The Character or Form of Argumentation the Arguer Uses

I. Argument based on mathematics

E.g. I have one red pen and two black pens. Hence, I have three pens.
II. An argument from Definition
E.g. God is omniscient. Hence, he knows everything.
Angel is honest; it is follows that Angel tells the truth.

III. Syllogism

 Categorical syllogism(two premises and one conclusion)

 Hypothetical syllogism (syllogism having a conditional statement for one or both of its
premises.)
 Disjunctive syllogism (syllogism having “either…… or” statement)

Example 1:

• All Egyptians are Muslims.

• No Muslim is a Christian.
• Hence, no Egyptian is a Christian.

Example 2:

If there is democracy in one country, then there would be rule of law. If there is rule of
law, there would be development. Hence, if there is democracy in one country, then there
would be development.

Example 3:

Robert is either an American or Ethiopia. Robert is not an American. Hence, Robert is an

Ethiopian.

8
2. Inductive Arguments:

• It is one whose conclusion is claimed to follow from its premises only with probability.
• It is improbable for the conclusion to be false if the premises are true.
• Involves probabilistic reasoning process
• We can identify deductive argument using 3 methods:

I. Using Indicator words (probably, improbably, plausible, implausible, likely, unlikely,

reasonable to conclude, etc.)

II. Studying the Actual Strength of the Premise and the Conclusion

• Example:
The majority of Alkan University College Students are cleaver.
Alemitu is Alkan University College student.
Therefore, Alemitu is cleaver student.

III. The Character or Form of Argumentation the Arguer Uses

A. Argument based on prediction:

E.g. yesterday and today, Bahir Dar is sunny. Hence, Bahir Dar may be sunny by tomorrow

B. Argument from analogy:

Aster’s Car is blue in color, travels 300 kms.hr. and made in Japan.

Hana’s Car is also blue in color, and travels 300kms/hr. Hence, Hana’s car may be made in
Japan.

Computer A and Computer B both are manufactured by 2012.

Computer A is fast processing.

Hence, Computer B is fast processing.

C. Inductive generalization:

E.g. I have got 10 out of 10 in the first quiz of logic. Hence, I probably will score A.

9
D. Argument from authority:

E.g. According to Dr. Abiy, Ethiopia is growing fast. Hence, the country is on the right truck
of development.

E. Argument based on signs:

E.g. Across the road, I am looking a flag. Hence, there may be a school around.

F. Argument based on causation:

E.g. The cloud is becoming dark and the thunder is roaming. So, let us go home quickly, the
rain is inevitable

Summary:

• Mostly, inductive argument proceeds from particular to general and deductive from general
to particular.

• However, sometimes deductive arguments may proceed from particular to general, general to
general, and particular to particular. The same fashion works for inductive arguments.

Example 1: (Deductive from particular to 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.

Example 2 (inductive from general to particular)

All GC previous awards of BDU were taken by Economics dep’t.

Therefore, the next award will be for economics dep’t.

10
2.4. Evaluation of Arguments

Argument type Evaluation criteria

Deductive  Valid
 In valid
 Sound [valid arguments +all true
premises].it is the most perfect DA
 Unsound
Inductive  Strong
 Weak
 Cogent [ strong argument + all true
premises ]it is the most prefect IA
 Un cogent

Valid: is an argument in w/c it is impossible for the conclusion to be false and the premise is
true.

Deductive arguments
case Arguments Evaluation
Premises Conclusion Valid Invalid
1 T[true ] T  
2 T F – 
3 F T  
4 F F  
Case 1: True P + True C (Valid)

E.g. 1:

• All television networks are media companies.

• ASRAT is a television network.

• Therefore, ASRAT is a media company

11
• This argument is an example of sound argument.

Sound Argument = Valid Argument + All Premises True

E.g2. True Ps + True C (Invalid)

• All cows are animals.

• All mammals are animals.

• Therefore, all cows are mammals

Case 2: True premises and false conclusion (Always invalid)

E.g. 1:

All Ethiopians are mortal (T)

President Trump is mortal (T)

Hence, Pr. Trump is an Ethiopian (F)

E.g. 2:

• All birds are animals (T)

• All dogs are animals (T)

Therefore, all birds are dogs (F

Case 3: False Premises and True Conclusion

I. Valid:

All birds are Mammals. (Fp1)

All Women are birds (Fp2)

So, all women are mammals. (Tc)

12
II. Invalid:

All birds are mammals.

All Ostriches are mammals

All ostriches are birds

Case 4: False premises and False Conclusion

Valid:

All Americans are Ethiopians

All Egyptians are Americans.

So, All Egyptians are Ethiopians.

Invalid:

All Birds are Mammals

All ants are Mammals

So, All ants are Birds

Summary

Statements = true & false

Deductive arguments =valid & invalid [All are unsound]

Valid = sound & unsound

Inductive arguments =strong & weak [All are uncogent]

Strong = cogent & uncogent

13