Critical Thinking

PRESENTATION OUTLINE
 Course Technicalities
 Basic Concepts
 Language:
 Fallacies
 Categorical Propositions
 Categorical Syllogisms
 Deduction
 Induction
Preamble

Critical Thinking studies a process which

is indispensable to all educated persons--
the process by which we develop and
support our beliefs and evaluate the
strength of arguments made by others in
real-life situations.
It includes practice in inductive and deductive
reasoning, presentation of arguments in oral
and written form, and analysis of the use of
language to influence thought.
 The course also applies the reasoning process
to other fields such as business, science, law,
social science, ethics, and the arts.
GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
Successful completion of this course will enable you
to :
identify, evaluate, and construct inductive and
deductive arguments in spoken and written forms;
recognize common fallacies in everyday reasoning;
distinguish the kinds and purposes of definitions;
distinguish the functions of language and its
capacity to express and influence meaning; and
recognize and assess arguments in various forums
of reasoning.
The goals of the course are to help you
develop the habits of assessing and defending
the reasonableness of your beliefs and values
and those of others;
appreciate the importance of looking at an
issue from a variety of points of view and of
recognizing the complexity that surrounds
most controversial issues; and
appreciate the value of critical thinking in
both public and private decision-making.
After you have finished this course, you should
be more:
Self-aware, recognizing your own biases and
influences;
Inquisitive and curious, wanting to learn more
about issues before passing judgment;
Objective, basing your judgments on evidence
and avoiding twisting evidence to fit your
opinion;
Open-minded, having the ability to say, "I don't
know" or "I was wrong";
Sensitiveto language, avoiding slanted
language, recognizing ambiguous, vague,
emotionally laden language, defining key
terms;
Imaginative, approaching topics and problems
from various angles;
Fair and intellectually honest, avoiding
misrepresenting the ideas of others or
misinterpreting data and research to fit your
own purposes.
TEXTS AND MATERIALS  
The required text for the course is How to
argue: An Introduction to Critical Thinking by
David J. Crossley and Petter A. Wilson
since thinking critically depends largely on
your being aware of your world, I recommend
that you read a daily paper and familiarize
yourself with some of the periodicals available
in the library and with news sources available
on the Internet.
METHODS, REQUIREMENTS AND GRADING
 
Because this course is intended to help you
develop the skills necessary for making you an
effective thinker, there will be very little
lecturing. If you feel that the success of a course
is measured by the amount of lecture notes a
student can accumulate during a semester you
will be very disappointed in this course. The
course will consist almost entirely of discussion
and practice.
Your participation--which means coming to
class prepared, expressing and defending your
ideas clearly and constructively, contributing
relevant points of interest, making connections
between course material and material from
other classes and from the world outside
CUNIMA, demonstrating enthusiasm, and
completing in-class exercises.
Basically there will be two lecture hours per
week and one tutorial hour per week.
 
Method of assessment will be as follows: 40%
Continuous Assessment and 60% final
examination.
 
ATTENDANCE  
Attendance is mandatory in classes at
CUNIMA.
Introduction: Basic Concepts
In critical thinking we shall be using
arguments
An argument is simply putting together,
in a reasonable order, facts and bits of
evidence so we can reach a rational,
logical conclusion.
Sometimes we use an argument to try to convince
someone of something:
e.g. “someone must have been in the house while
we were away, the window was opened, there were
footprints in the flower garden under the window,
and the papers on my desk were messed up.”
At other times you try to figure out what you
should do in a given situation e.g. “since I am
going for a holiday to Italy in six months and will
want to know some Italian, I had better enroll
right away in that class of Italian”.
Sometimes there is emotion involved: “you
must be stupid to have talked to my wife”.
At other times we make attempts at
persuasion: “Smoke Tom Tom, the cigarette
with less nicotine and tar and more flavor”.
WHY DO WE USE ARGUMENTS?
There are four basic purposes you might have
for an argument:
1. Persuasion:
2. Decision
3. Explanation
4. Prediction
1. Persuasion: often we feel we must persuade
someone of our point of view or change
someone’s mind. An example might be to
have someone vote for one candidate rather
than another in the upcoming election.
2. Decision:
 when it is time to vote, you have to consider
the candidates carefully and look at all the
reasons for voting for one candidate rather
than the other.
 Only if you do this will you be voting
responsibly. The evidence you collect and the
conclusions will affect your vote.
3. Explanation:
 Why does a pot of water boil at less that
212⁰F at the top of a mountain? Because the
atmospheric pressure affects the temperature
at which liquids boil. Here we connect facts
with natural laws.
 Some liquids will boil at 212⁰F at sea level;

the water in our pot is a liquid;

So this water will be affected in the same those
liquids are – it will boil at 212⁰F at sea level.
4. Prediction.
 Explanation is connected with prediction in
the sense that if you know what is generally
true of a group or class of things, you know it
will be true of all members of that group or
class.
 E.g. if it is a chemical law that burning sodium
in chlorine gas produces common salt (sodium
chloride), then if you get some sodium
tomorrow and burn it in chlorine gas, you will
get common salt.
I
Argument
The subject matter of critical thinking
What is an argument?
Itis a group of statements, one or more of
which (the premises) are claimed to
provide support for, or reasons to believe,
one of the others (conclusion).
A term argument has a very specific
meaning in critical thinking. It does not
mean a mere verbal fight.
A group of statements: statement/proposition
is sentence that is either TRUE or FALSE.
The statements that make up an argument are
divided into one or more premises and one and
only conclusion.
The conclusion is the statement that is claimed
to follow from the premises e.g.
All crimes are violation of the law
Theft is a crime
Therefore, theft is a violation of the law.
One of the most important tasks in the analysis
of arguments is being able to distinguish
premises from conclusion.
Some of the conclusion indicators are: therefore,
thus, consequently, we may infer, accordingly, we
may conclude, it must be that, for this reason, so,
entails that, hence, It follows that, implies that ,
as a result, then, points to, shows that,……..
Whenever a statement follows one of these
indicators, it can usually be identified as the
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, for, in that, may be
inferred from, as given that, seeing that, for
the reason that, inasmuch as, owing to….
e,.g. Expectant mothers should never use
drugs, since the use of these drugs can
jeopardize the development of the fetus.
Reasoning and Thinking
Reasoning is that special type of thinking
called inference in which conclusions are
drawn from premises.
All reasoning has been said to be thinking
but not all thinking is reasoning.
Deductions and Inductions
Arguments are traditionally divided into
two groups: deduction and induction.
A deductive argument is an argument in
which the premises are claimed to support
the conclusion in such as way that it is
impossible for the premises to be true and
conclusion false.
In such argument the conclusion is claimed
to follow necessarily from the premises.
Example 1:
 All Mammals are Animals
 A Cow is a Mammal
 Therefore a Cow is an Animal

Example 2:
 All Masais are nomads
 Antony is a Masai
 Therefore Antony is a Masai.
 sometimes deduction is a mode of reasoning
from the universal (general) to the particular.
An inductive argument is an argument in
which the premises are claimed to provide
probable support for the conclusion.
In other words the conclusion of an inductive
argument is a matter of probability but not
certainty.
The premises in an inductive argument do not
give a conclusive support for the conclusion.
Example 1:
All cows are mammals and have lungs
All horses are mammals and have lungs
All men are mammals and have lungs
Therefore, probably all mammals have lungs.

Example 2:
Idi Amin was a dictator and was ruthless
Adolf Hitler was dictator and was ruthless
Peter is a dictator
Therefore Peter is probably ruthless
2
Words and Language
Using language
We use language for communication
however there are few general roles that
language plays.
1. We use language to describe the world,,
events and ourselves. Such descriptions
purport to offer information or facts.
2. We explain the connections between
facts and events. Sometimes we explain
the meaning of a word.
3 We express feelings or emotions, either to
communicate these to another person or to
exhort that person to sympathise with us.
4 We give orders, issue threats and use language
in other similar ways in order to influence the
actions of others.
5 We use language usually in conjunction with
particular actions or in special settings, to
perform tasks. E.g, you say “I do” in a court
of law as part of the action of swearing to tell
the truth.
Communicating

Have you ever thought how people

communicate?
On the surface it seems quite simple but it
is not. We listen to someone talking, or we
read a report or look at a work of art and
we try to determine what it is we heard,
read or saw.
Very often what we perceive is not what
was intended to be communicated*****
This unintentional alteration of language and
meaning is a complex human phenomenon
that psychologists, linguists and others have
spent years analyzing.
We tend not to read, listen, or look at
everything that is directed towards us by the
author, speaker or artist. This is because each
of us uses what experts call Perceptual
Selectivity.
PS is a built-in screen that lets key words or
pieces of information slip through while others
are excluded, even ignored.
The careful author, the astute speaker, the clever
artist have one thing in common: the ability to
influence our thinking. In other words, he knows
that some words will get through our selective
screen and make an impression.
What you must learn is the skill to choose words
effectively and also to be alert so as to notice
when others are trying to influence you e.g.
advertisers.
Psycholinguistics is the name given to the study
of words and how they influence thinking.
meaning
We communicate with words and since
arguments involve statements that, in turn, are
words in certain arrangement, we should first
pay some attention to the meanings of words.
There is a difficulty because it is not easy to
determine the meaning, if any, of certain
expression e.g. Fire!
Understanding a word requires knowledge of
the setting in which they are uttered and the
tones in which they are spoken or written.
Some Pitfalls: Vagueness and Ambiguity
Vagueness refers to a situation when the
meaning of a word or phrase has no
borderline cases such that it cannot be
determined to which meaning it implies;
love, rich, foolish etc
Ambiguity refers to a situation where a
word or a phrase has more than one possible
clear meaning, but it is used in a context in
which it is not clear which meaning is
intended.
A word is ambiguous when it is used in such a
way that is open to more than one possible
interpretation e.g. bank, race, right etc
Ambiguity often occurs because of poor
grammatical structure or sloppiness in the use
of pronouns or referring phrases e.g. The boys
has taken the kittens over to their parents’
apartment. They were then treated to a bath.
DEFINITION
A paramount aspect in Critical Thinking
(refer to the power-point presentation on Definition)
FALLACIES
Do not let them fool you
3. FALLACIES:
oLanguage is a powerful tool, but it can be
misused. People will try to persuade you by
means of all sorts of appeals – by playing
on your sympathies, your like and dislikes,
your fears or whatever.
oNow we shall point out some devises to
watch for and avoid, either by not using
them yourself or by not letting others use
them on you.
The key point about these devices is that they
are very frequently successful as persuasive
measures. But they do not succeed by logically
connecting facts and drawing reasonable
conclusion from them;
their effect depends on trickery, emotional
appeals, or threats of one sort or another.
Such tricks and illogical moves are called
fallacies.
In other words, a fallacy is a logical error in
reasoning
A fallacy occurs when the premises of a given
argument do not support the conclusion they are
purported to support.
In any argument there is a claim that the given
premises, if granted, support its conclusion either
necessarily, in the case of a deductive argument,
or by some probability, in the case of an inductive
argument.
However, in most cases, upon closer exami­nation
and analysis of most arguments, it is found that
the claim is not justifiable.
In such cases, the claim of the premises does not
support the claim of the conclusion, or weakly
support the conclusion. When such happens, it is
said that the argument has committed a fallacy.
A fallacy is therefore, a lack of coherence
between the claim or the meaning of the
premises taken together and conclusion of a
given argument.
The purpose of any argument is to assert or
advance a jus­tified position or view. And it is the
premises that offer that justification. But an
argument that commits a fallacy does not have
its conclusion justified by its premises.
In such a case, one can comfortably
accept the claims of the premises yet deny
the claim of the conclusion without
contradicting oneself since there is no
necessary or strong probable relationship
between the claims of the premises and
the claim of the conclusion of the
argument.
An argument that commits a fallacy is
sometimes referred to simply as a fallacy
or a fallacious argument.
A fallacious argument should be avoided
mainly because it fails in its purpose,
which is, to advance a justified claim —a
conclusion.
Therefore, the truth of the conclusion of a
fallacious argument is never justified or
established.
KINDS OF FALLACIES
There are two kinds of fallacies: - formal and
informal fallacies.
(1) FORMAL Fallacies
Formal fallacies are reasoning that deviate from
the established correct forms/structures of
reasoning/ an argument.
Any reasoning that does not conform to the
established structure or form of correct reasoning
definitely commits a formal fallacy.
Therefore, to detect a formal fallacy simply
requires an examination of any given argument
against the many known correct forms.
INFORMAL FALLACIES
(The reality of human life)
(2) INFORMAL Fallacies
an informal fallacy emanates from inconsistent
meanings within an argument.
 Therefore, to detect an informal fallacy requires an
interpretation of an argument and understanding
the meaning.
 Where the meaning of the premises collectively
does not justify the conclusion then an informal
fallacy is committed.
 So an informally fallacious argument may have a
perfect form so long as the meaning of the
premises, upon critical examination, does not
support the claim of its conclusion.
It should also be noted that informal
fallacies are too numerous to exhaust,
besides, new ones continue to be
identified or formulated.
It is with this realization that this work
only attempts to discuss some selected
forms of informal fallacies.
Further to note here is that even some of
the selected forms are named differently
by different authors.
Sub categories of INFORMAL Fallacies
Informal fallacies are categorized into
three groups, viz.
a. fallacies of relevance,
b. fallacies of presumption
c. fallacies of ambiguity.
a. Fallacies of relevance
The fallacies which are normally
categorized as fallacies of relevance may
perhaps be better referred to as fallacies of
irrelevance since in them the conclusions
are based on premises which are
irrelevant to their claims.
In such cases the given premises fail to
justify or establish the claims or truth of
the conclusions purportedly based on
them.
Therefore in these fallacies of irrelevance
there is an assumption that certain given
premises or considerations are relevant to
certain conclusions when in fact that is
not the case.
In these arguments, the given premises
are irrelevant to the inferred conclusions.
The following is a sample of Fallacies of
Relevance/Irrelevance:
1. Argument from Ignorance –
(Argumentum ad Ignorantiam)
This fallacy occurs whenever a conclusion or
a view is claimed to be true or correct simply
because its contrary has not been proved.
A conclusion of an argument is claimed to be
true because the given premises have not
proved it to be false, or it is claimed to be
false because the premises have not proved it
to be true. This is a fallacy because inability
to prove a conclusion false is not a proof of
its truth and vice versa.
In other words, ignorance of proof of a claim or
an assertion is not a proof to the contrary.
Example:
From time immemorial, many philosophers
especially logicians have been trying to
disapprove of God's existence but to no avail.
Therefore, it is obviously true that God exists.
Or, on the contrary, look at the following
argument:
The non-existence of God can no longer be
doubted given that the theologians have been
trying for centuries to logically prove His
existence but without any trace of success.
The failure of logicians to prove that God
does not exist, in itself, is not a proof that
God exist.
Perhaps God does not exist and the
logicians are only ignorant of how to
prove that.
2. Appeal to People ( Argumentum ad
Populum)
Nearly everyone wants to be loved, admired,
valued, recognized and accepted by others.
The appeal to the people uses these desires
to get the reader or listener to accept a
conclusion
in other words, they are used in such a way
that manipulates the beliefs and emotions of
a listener or reader so that he/she accepts the
irrelevant conclusion.
Appeal to people may take different forms.
a) Arousing a mob's mentality — this may
happen by use of certain phrases or acts like
patriotism, defender of workers, waving of
flags and playing blaring music.
• These are likely to make the individuals in
the audience want to share in the euphoria,
camaraderie, and excitement; and in the
process find themselves accepting a number
of unjustified views, claim, or conclusions
with ever increasing fervour.
This kind of appeal to people is commonly used
in public speech making and also in
advertisements. It is sometimes called appeal to
bandwagon fallacy e.g. Of course you want to
buy a Toyota Corolla. Why 90 percent of
Kenyan motorists drive it!
 In advertisement, appeal to people may also take
the form of appeal to snobbery as the following
example shows.
Rolls Royce is not for everyone. If you qualify
as one of the select few, this distinguished
classic may be seen and driven at British Motor
Car Ltd (By appointment only, please)
b) Appeal to vanity –
this is another common appeal to people
fallacy frequently used in advertisements. In
this form, certain products or commodities,
in their advertisements, are associated with
certain celebrities or personages. This is
intended to psychologically and emotionally
make some people buy and use such
products or commodities in the hope and
with the desire that they too would become
like those celebrities or personages and
subsequently would be admirable.
For example, ponder upon the following and
many other similar cases:
The breakfast cereal or margarine "is
associated with trim youthfulness, athletic
prowess, and vibrant health; whisky is
associated with luxury and achievement, and
beer with high adventure; the automobile
BMW to be sold is associated with romance,
riches and sex... the men who use the
advertised products are clear-eyed, broad-
shouldered and distinguished; the women are
slim, lovely, very well-dressed - or hardly
dressed at all!
The acceptance of certain products or
goods is not based on provable expected
results, but only on the basis of the belief
that those who use such products or goods
would become like the characters
associated with the advertisements of such
products or goods.
3. Fallacy of appeal to threats and
intimidation /appeal to force
(Argumentum ad Baculum)
This fallacy seems to be based on the belief that
“might make right”.
It is also a kind of appeal to emotion fallacy
It occurs when either physical or psychological
threat, be it direct or indirect, is used against
somebody in order to force or coerce one into
agreeing to one’s conclusion, suggestion or view.
In other words, if your opponent cannot see the
wisdom of your point of view, then you force him
into submission.
A Secretary to her employer: “ I deserve a raise
in salary for the coming year. After all you
know how friendly I am with your wife, and I
am sure you would not want her find out what
has been going on between you and that
sexpot client of yours”.
In this fallacy one makes it clear to a real or
possible opponent that if he/she does not agree
to his/her position then certain harm or
undesirable consequences will be meted out to
him/her.
In the above example the employer may be
forced to raise the salary of the secretary, not
because it is deserved but to save his face.
The premise of justification the secretary uses
to justify her demand for a raise in the salary is
a threat which should not be a consideration in
a salary rise.
The premise indeed does not justify the
conclusion and is irrelevant to it.
4. Fallacy of Appeal to Pity (playing
on your feelings)
This fallacy is committed when one evokes
pity or emotion from listeners, reader or
audience by appealing to his/her pitiable or
miserable condition in order for the listener,
reader or audience to accept his/her claim,
conclusion or view.
In this fallacy one appeals to mercy and
altruism from the audience, listener or
reader to have his or her conclusion
accepted.
E.g. Student to lecturer: “Sir, don’t fail me. You know
I am a refugee in this country and I am putting up
with a Christian community which is paying for my
education and taking care of me. If I fail they will not
keep me in the community. But I have nowhere to go;
I cannot go back to my country since I do not know
where any of my relatives live or even if they are
alive”.
One can see that the student’s condition evokes pity
and mercy. But it has nothing to do with whether the
student deserves so fail or pass. But the student uses
that condition as proof that he deserves to pass his
exams.
5. Fallacy of appeal to authority
(Argumentum ad Verecundiam)
The fallacy is committed when appeal is
made to an illegitimate or inappropriate
authority in order to have a conclusion or
view accepted.
An appeal to such authority may be due to
various reasons such us the cited authority,
lack of relevant expertise, bias or prejudice,
a motive to lie, or lack of ability to
accurately perceive certain situations.
TV commercial in which famous people endorse
certain products are often based on the same kind
of fallacious reasoning.
We should not be gullible enough to believe that
just because some football star tells us he eats a
certain cereal, it is the best cereal; or just because
a beautiful actress says she uses a certain soap, it
is the best soap.
If truthful, such ads simply give you one
person’s opinion; they do not provide a legitimate
and authoritative testimonial for a product.
Beware of appeals to authority.
6. Fallacy of arguing against the person
(Argumentum ad Hominem)
Sometimes people get off the track and
attack their opponent personally rather than
focusing on their opponent’s position and
beliefs.
The fallacy of argument against the person
occurs when someone who wishes to
oppose a certain view attempts to discredit
the person who holds the view rather than
assessing the merits of the view itself.
 Don’t waste your time studying the philosophy
of Nietzsche.
Not only was he an atheist, but he ended his
days in an insane asylum.
 Pay no attention to that rabble-rouser
can anything come from Nazareth.
 Of course John Paul II holds that birth control
and abortion are morally wrong.
He’s the pope any way.
B. Fallacies of Presumption
In the fallacies of presumption, the
premises presume the very conclusions
they are supposed to prove or justify.
In some cases, the arguments presume or
conceal some premises.
1. Fallacy of arguing in a circle/Begging
the Question (Petittio principia)
Petittio principia literary means "postulation
of the beginning".
In this context to 'postulate' means to use as
true a premise whose truth is contentious as
basis for a conclusion.
It is committed whenever the arguer creates
the illusion that inadequate premises provide
adequate support for the conclusion
… by leaving out a key premise, by
restating the conclusion as a premise or by
reasoning in a circle.
In other words, the arguer “begs” (avoids
or misses) the question at issue
Consider this example:
Peter: The Bible is the word of God
John: But that is only true if God exists.
Peter: oh, I know God exists.
John: How do you know?
Peter: The Bible says so.
John: But how can you trust the Bible?
Peter: It’s the word of God!
The observer is inclined to ask, “But how do
you know X?” where X is the needed
support.
Here the original question to be decided
was whether the Bible is the word of God.
But Peter assumes this both at the outset
and later in the argument, thereby begging
the question.
The argument ends in the place where it
began.
C. Fallacies of Ambiguity.
The arguments in this category use either
ambiguous terms or phrases (expressions)
which then render them defective and
hence fallacious.
An ambiguity of a word or term is
referred to as equivocation while an
ambiguity of a phrase or a proposition is
referred to as amphiboly.
When arguments use ambiguous words or
phrases whose meanings shift and change,
then the conclusions of such arguments
cannot be logically correct.
4.
Validity, Truth, Soundness,
Strength and Cogency
A deductive argument is either valid or
invalid.
A valid argument is an argument in which it is
impossible for the conclusion to be false given
that the premises are true;
e.g. All donkeys are mammals
All mammals have lungs
Therefore, all donkeys have lungs
An argument can also have false propositions
but can also be valid; e.g.;
All spiders have six legs (false)
All six legged creatures have wings (false)
Therefore all spiders have wings (false)
Validity by itself will not establish the truth of
the conclusion because if one or more of
premises is not true, then even if the argument
is valid, the conclusion will not have been
established as true e.g.
All men over 25 years of age are married
John is over 25 years of age
Therefore, John is married.
Invalid Deductive argument
An invalid argument is one where the
conclusion does not flow from the premises
with logical necessity i.e. The meaning of the
premises taken together does not entail the
meaning expressed in the conclusion.
In such a condition, one can accept the truth of
the premises and still deny the truth of the
conclusion at the same time without
contradiction.
An invalid argument, therefore has a bad or
incorrect structure such that the truth of its
premises, if granted, does not justify the truth
of the conclusion. Therefore it is a bad one e.g.
All Africans are black
All Malawians are black
Therefore, all Malawians are Africans.
An invalid argument, therefore has a bad or
incorrect structure such that the truth of its
premises, if granted, does not justify the truth
of the conclusion. Therefore it is a bad one e.g.
All Africans are black
All Malawians are black
Therefore, all Malawians are Africans.
All Kenyans are Africans
All Ugandans are Africans
Therefore, all Ugandans are Kenyans
Sound argument:
Soundness or unsoundness applies only to
deductive arguments and not to inductive
arguments,
A sound argument is deductive argument that
is both valid and has all actually true premises.
In such a case, the argument establishes the
truth of its conclusion e.g.
All human beings breathe,
Mr. Chawanda is a human being.
Therefore, Mr. Chawanda breathes.
Therefore, a sound argument is a deductive
argument that is not defective either factually
or logically.
 any sound argument must fulfill the following
two conditions:
a. It must be valid, and
b. It must have all its premises being
actually true.
Unsound Argument:
It is a deductive argument that is either invalid
or has at least a false premise.
The argument may be valid, but if it has some
false premises, it cannot justify or establish the
truth of its conclusion e.g:
All women are wise, (false)
Sheila is a woman,
Therefore, Sheila must be wise.
The argument is valid but unsound because
one of its premises(1) is false.
Another example:
All catholic priests are unmarried,
And all catholic nuns are unmarried,
Therefore, all catholic nuns are catholic priest.
This argument Is invalid.
Despite the fact that both premises are actually
true, its conclusion is actually false. It is not
true that catholic nuns are catholic priests.
The argument is unsound, not because it has
any false premise, but because it is invalid.
Strength:
It is normally used when referring to an
inductive argument, and not to deductive one.
Like validity and invalidity, strength is also a
relational condition that holds between the
proposition(premises and conclusion) of an
inductive argument.
An inductive argument is said to be strong
when it is such that if its premises are assumed
or granted to be true, then its conclusion is
most likely to be true. e.g..
There are 50 students in the CT class.
40 of them picked at random are found to be
poor in CT.
Therefore, probably all the 50 students in the
class are poor in CT.
A weak inductive argument is such that if its
premises are assumed true, then its conclusion
has little or no probability of being true. E.g.,
There are 50 students in the CT class.
10 of them picked at random are found to be poor
in CT.
Therefore, probably all the 50 students are poor
in CT.
From the fact that 10 of the students picked at
random are found to be poor in CT, it is least
likely that all remaining 40 students are also
poor in CT.
If the two (strong and weak) kinds of inductive
arguments are compared, then it is the case that in the
strong inductive argument, the truth of the premises
offers a greater probability of establishing the truth of
its conclusion.
But in the weak one, the truth of the premises offers
little probability of establishing the truth of its
conclusion.
Therefore, on the basis of the truth of their premises,
the conclusion is most likely to be true in a strong
inductive argument, and least likely to be true in a
weak one.
Truth:
Some people view Critical Thinking as merely
the study of arguments without or with less
concern for actual truth of propositions
constituting the arguments.
Such view is misrepresentation of CT.
The main aim of any reasoning is to establish
the truth of the assertions made (given
conclusions) on the basis of the truth of the
given premises (evidence).
Cogent and Uncogent Arguments:
Cogency or uncogency applies only to
inductive arguments, and not to deductive
arguments.
A cogent argument is an inductive argument
that is both strong and has all actually true
premises.
It has higher probability of establishing the
truth of its conclusion e.g.
e.g.
All the previous Vice-Chancellors of the
Catholic University of Malawi have been men.
Therefore, its next Vice-Chancellor will most
likely be a man.
An uncogent argument is an inductive
argument that is either weak or has some
actually false premises.
Unlike the validity and invalidity of deductive
arguments, the strength and the weaknesses of
inductive arguments admit degrees.
To be considered strong, an inductive
argument must have a conclusion that is more
probable than unprobable. i.e. the likelihood
that the conclusion is true must be more than
50% and as the probability increases, the
argument becomes stronger.
e.g.
a)
This barrel contains 100 apples
Three apples selected at random were found ripe
Therefore, probably all 100 apples are ripe.
b)
This barrel contains 100 apples
Eighty apples selected at random were found to
be ripe
Therefore, probably all 100 apples are ripe.
In conclusion we may say that a congent
argument is an inductive argument that is
STRONG and has ALL TRUE PREMISES.
Otherwise uncogent argument is an inductive
argument that is weak, has one or more false
premises or both.
5
Categorical Propositions
A proposition ( a statement, a claim) is a
sentence that is either true or false.
A proposition that relates two classes or
categories is called a categorical proportion.
The classes (categories) in question are
denoted respectively by the subject term and
the predicate term e.g. All human beings are
animals
The proposition asserts that either ALL or
PART of the class denoted by the subject term
is excluded from or included in the class
denoted by the predicate term. E.g.
a) All prisoners are human beings
b) Some convicted murderers get the death
penalty.
There are four kinds of categorical propositions :
a. Those that asserts that the whole subject class
is included in the predicated class (All s are
P).
b. Those that assert that part of the subject class
is included in the predicate class (Some S are
P)
c. Those that assert that the whole subject class
is excluded from the predicate class (No S
are P).
d) Those that assert that part of the subject class
is excluded from the Predicate class (Some S
are no P).
 Many categorical propositions are not in
standard form because they do not begin with
words: all, no or some e.g. Doing pastoral
work is a taxing exercise.
 The words: All, No and some are called
Quantifiers because they specify how much
of the subject class is excluded or included
from the predicate class.
 The words “are” and “are not” are called
copula because they link (or couple) the
subject term with the predicate term e.g.
All students of ICI are persons holding ordinary
level certificate from recognized schools.
 The quantity of a categorical proposition is
either universal or particular depending on
whether the statement makes claim about
“every” member or just “some” members of
the class denoted by the subject term.
 All S are P (universal)
 No S are P (Universal)
 Some S are P (Particular)
 Some S are not P (Particular)
 The four categorical propositions are always
referred to by the four vowels of Roman
Alphabet: A,E,I,O.
 All S are P (A)
 No S are P (E)
 Some S are P (I)
 Some S are not P (O)
 The quality of the categorical proposition is
either “affirmative” or “negative” depending
on whether it affirms or denies a class
membership.
 All S are P ( affirmative)
 No S are P (Negative)
 Some S are P (affirmative)
 Some S are not P (negative)
Categorical Syllogisms
Categorical Syllogisms
A syllogism is a kind of deductive argument
that has only three propositions.
It has only two premises and a conclusion e.g.

All Africans are black people (1st

premise)
All Malawians are Africans (2nd premise)
Therefore, all Malawians are black
people. (conclusion)
A categorical syllogism is composed of
categorical propositions.
It must fulfill the following conditions:
a. Be composed of exactly three categorical
propositions
b. Contains three terms.
c. Each of the terms must appear twice in the
argument, but
d. Each term appears only once in one proposition.

All Africans are black people

All Malawians are Africans
Therefore, all Malawians are black people
The three terms of a categorical syllogism are:
1. Major term: this is the predicate term of the
conclusion
2. Minor term: this is the subject term of the
conclusion
3. Middle term: this appears in the two premises
but does not appear in the conclusion
All Africans are black people
All Malawians are Africans
Therefore all Malawians are black people.
Of the two premises of a categorical syllogism,
one is a major premise and the other is a minor
premise.
The major premise is the one which contains
the major term (and of course the middle term as well).
The minor premise is that one which contains
the minor term (and the middle term as well)
All Africans are black people (major premise)
All Malawians are Africans (minor premise)
Therefore all Malawians are black people.
A categorical syllogism is said to be in standard
form when its propositions are in standard form
i.e., they explicitly express the four
components, Viz: quantifier, subject term,
copular and predicate term
And the propositions are arranged such that the
major premise is stated first, followed by minor
premise and finally the conclusion
DETERMINING THE VALIDITY
OF CATEGORICAL SYLLOGISM
BY USE OF VENN DIAGRAM
TECHNIQUE
MOOD AND FIGURE
 After CS has been put into standard form its
validity or invalidity may be determined
through mere inspection of the form.
 The individual form of a syllogism consists of
two factors – mood and figure.
 The mood of the CS is determined by the kind
of propositions that make it up. E.g. if the
major premise is A proposition, the minor
premise an I proposition and the conclusion is
also I proposition, the mood is AII
Examples:
All M is P All P is M
Some S is M No S is M
:. Some S is P :. No S is P
The mood is AII The mood is AEE

All M is P No P is M
Some M is not S All M is S
:. Some S is not P :. No S is P
The mood is AOO The mood is EAE
Figure
The figure of a syllogism is determined
solely by the position of the middle term.
Four different arrangements are possible.
If we let S represent the subject of the
conclusion(minor term) , P the predicate
of the conclusion (major term) and M the
middle term, the four possible
arrangements may be illustrated as
follows:
1st
figure 2ndfigure
M–P P–M
S–M S -M
S–P S–P

3rd
Figure 4th
Figure
M–P P–M
M–S M–S
S–P S–P
To describe a syllogism completely we must
indicate both the mood and figure, always
beginning with the former. E.g;

All renowned philosophers are university graduates.

Some businessmen are university graduates.
:. some businessmen are renowned philosophers.

The form is AII-2

TESTING FOR VALIDITY: Table of
valid argument forms
There are 256 forms of syllogism that are
theoretically possible.
Only a few are valid. Actually only 15 are
valid argument forms for categorical
syllogisms. (See hand out)
The table of valid argument forms
provide yet another methods to test the
validity of syllogisms.
The method is as follows:
Restate the argument in schematic form
Identify the mood and the figure of the
argument
Determine whether or not an argument of
that mood and figure is listed in the table
of valid argument; if not, the argument is
invalid.
Table of Unconditionally Valid Forms

Aristotelian and Boolean Standpoints

Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Figure 4

AAA EAE IAI AEE
EAE AEE AII IAI
AII EIO OAO EIO
EIO AOO EIO
Testing for Validity: Venn Diagrams
Venn diagrams can also be used to test the
validity of Standard Form Categorical
syllogism.
Three overlapping circles must be used
The three circles represent respectively,
the major term (P), the minor term (s) and
the middle term(M).
To diagram a syllogism, we diagram only
the two premises.
Procedure of Venn diagramming and
interpretation

Only premises are to be represented on

the Venn diagram.
Always begin diagramming with
universal premise.
Universal premise is represented by
shading while particular is represented by
X.
Once the two premises have been
diagrammed, then one needs only to
check whether or not what the conclusion
asserts has been expressed by the
premises collectively (taken together).
If it is the case then the syllogism is valid,
but if not the syllogism is invalid.
Example
All artists are individualists
Some artists are Philosophers
Therefore, some philosophers are individualists.
We first determine the identity of S, P, M by
examining the conclusion of the argument.
In this argument, S = Philosophers,
P=individualists and M= artists.
Next, we exhibit the form of the argument as
follows:
All M is P
Some M is S
:. Some S is P
Now we are ready to diagram our two
premises:
6
INDUCTIVE REASONING
Inductive Reasoning
Premises1: The first Martian I saw was green
and has three eyes.
Premise 2: The second Martian I saw was green
and had three eyes.
Premise 50: The fiftieth Martian I saw was
green and had three eyes.
Conclusion: Therefore all Martians are
green and have three eyes.
Inductive reasoning moves from specific
individual facts to a general conclusion.
In the above example, the speaker has taken
individual facts, based on his own observation
and worked to the general conclusion.
In the example above, the speaker generalized
on the basis of a number of particular
examples encountered in his experience; hence
her conclusion encompassed Martian not
mentioned in the premises.
For this reason, inductive arguments cannot
guarantee that their conclusions are absolutely
true. E.g. it is always possible that the next
Martian he meets will not be green.
Induction in the classical sense of
generalization from particular, specific
examples is extremely useful provided we
recognize its limitations.
We often use inductive reasoning of this type
to formulate hypotheses when searching for an
explanation.
The majority of the general propositions expressing
scientific laws and general truths about the world are
inductive generalizations based on experience.
This point deserves special attention.
Inductive reasoning is crucial to our ability to think
correctly about things and to argue logically,
Inductive and deductive reasoning go together and
sometimes deductive reasoning depends on inductive
reasoning. E.g. you cannot draw deductive
conclusions about whales and their properties if you
have no information about whales.
DANGERS IN INDUCTIVE
REASONING
One must be aware of the pitfalls of
induction.
There are some general things to watch
for in using and in analyzing inductive
arguments.
1. Never jump to a conclusion
2. Evidence must be relevant.
 Never jump to a conclusion:
Although an inductive argument involves going
beyond the premises in that an inductive
argument offers a conclusion that exceeds the
evidence offered in its premises one cannot reach
a reasonable and acceptable inductive conclusion
from just any set of premises.
e.g. the vegetables are all terribly overcooked at
Phiri’s Restaurant because the vegetables I had
the first time I went to Phiri’s a couple of weeks
ago was overcooked. And I have never gone back.
On the basis of one and only one experience, the
speaker has claimed that all the vegetables at
Phiri’s are always overcooked.
The moral to be drawn is that one must have
enough evidence to feel justified in drawing the
conclusion.
With inductive argument it is often a matter of
judgment to decide when one has enough
evidence.
The error of jumping to a conclusion is sometimes
called the “fallacy of hasty generalisation”
 Evidence must be relevant:
Consider the following example:
When we went to Phiri’s last night my vegetable
was overcooked. And Peter was given a soiled
napkin, and the lighting was harsh. Obviously
they just don’t know how to cook food at Phiri’s.
While this argument appears to provide several
pieces of evidence for the conclusion that “they
just do not know how to cook food at Phiri’s,” it
is based on the one overcooked vegetable.
The other issues –the soil napkin and the
lightning – are not related to the cooking and
therefore do not to the general conclusion that
the food is poorly prepared.
The key idea is that when either formulating
or analysing an argument, you must stick to
the point.
Statistical arguments
Statisticalarguments are inductive
arguments by virtue of having conclusions
that go beyond the evidence stated in the
premises.
Conclusion of statistical arguments are
only probable.
The advantage of such arguments is that
they allow us to formulate a useful
conclusion that has application beyond the
range of items mentioned in the premises.
Suppose for example that we were grading the apples
in a basket of apples. Our procedure would be to take
a few samples from here and there in the basket.
Imagine that 90% were found to be Grade A. We
would then conclude that 90% of all the apples in the
basket were Grade A.
In other words, we would have moved from the
evidence that 90% of the apples we observed in the
sampling were Grade A to the general conclusion that
90% of all the apples in the basket were Grade A.
This is obviously a useful method, because no one
would want to have a look at every apple in a carload
to decide whether they were Grade A.
However, one must be alert to the dangers of
statistical arguments that employ insufficient
statistics.
Here is an example in which a conclusion is
based on insufficient statistics:
Our representative, in his speech to
Parliament, reported that the people in his
constituency were for capital punishment. He
claimed he had talked to people at one of the
local markets for half-hour on Monday
morning.
Clearly, sampling a few people in one location
in a short space of time is not very reliable in
determining the opinions of the whole
constituency. The inductive argument fails to
be convincing because it employs insufficient
evidence.
As the example illustrates, you should watch
for insufficient statistics when formulating and
evaluating arguments.
Ways to evaluate Inductive Arguments
In looking critically at an inductive
argument, you should always ask three
basic questions:
1. Is the evidence sufficient?
2. Is the evidence biased or specially
selected?
3. Is the evidence relevant?
A great danger with both statistical and
analogical arguments is that there may not be
adequate or sufficient evidence.
A statistical sampling may be too small to
warrant conclusion.
The similarities upon which someone bases an
analogy may be too few.
ANALOGIES
Another form of inductive argument is the
analogy.
Basically, an argument by analogy
compares two or more things or classes
of things and argues that because they are
similar in certain respects, it is reasonable
to conclude that they are similar in a
further respect that we have not been able
to observe directly.
Consider the case of an agricultural researcher
testing new enriched feeds. One group of
sheep is given normal feed while another is
given an enriched diet. The researcher
discovers that all the sheep given the enriched
diet are more active, less disease-prone, and
have thicker wool than the sheep that received
ordinary feed. From this the researcher decides
that all sheep of the farmers in the district
would benefit similarly from enriched diet.
When the statements are expressed one by
one, the argument involves the following
steps:
1. The enriched diet benefitted the sheep in the
test group
2. The farmers’ sheep are similar to the sheep in
the test group.
3. Therefore the farmers’ sheep will benefit from
the enriched diet.
Premise 1 was something
the researcher discovered
by observation.
1. The enriched diet Premise 2 is actually a
benefitted the sheep summing up of a number
in the test group. of known facts about
2. The farmers’ sheep similarities in
are similar to the physiological structure,
sheep in the test body chemistry and
group. environment that exist
3. Therefore the farmers’ between the researcher’s
sheep will benefit sheep and the farmers’
from the enriched sheep.
diet.
Thus we have an analogy that involves a
comparison of two different groups that have
certain similarities.
From a knowledge or observation of some
similarities between the individuals of the two
groups, we argue that they may be similar in
other respects.
In our example, the further suggested
similarity has to do with the animals’ thriving
on an enriched diet.
In summary we can say that an argument by
analogy points out similarities between two
things and then draws the conclusion – that is,
argues – that they will be similar in further
respect. E.g
The red ball and the yellow ball are exactly
alike in weight, texture and diameter; since the
red ball can be made to bounce over the wall,
therefore it should be possible to make the
yellow ball bounce over the wall too.
We can express the structure of an argument
by analogy more precisely in the following
way;
1. Thing X and Thing Y have property P.
2. Thing X and Thing Y have property of Q
3. Thing X and Thing Y have property of R
4. Thing X and Thing Y have property of S
5. Thing X had property of T
6. Therefore Thing Y also (probably) had
property of T
Here we have four premises – 1 through 4 –
stating relevant similarities between the two
items X and y.
Premise 5 states that we have evidence that X
has further property T.
The proposition 6 concludes from theses
premises that Thing Y will (probably) also have
the further property T.
We can see this structure in the case of the
example of red and yellow balls just
mentioned:
Let “R” stand for “red ball” and “Y” stand for
“yellow ball”. We then have:
1. R and Y both have the same weight.
2. R and Y both have the same texture.
3. R and y both have the same diameter.
4. R will bounce over the wall
5. The Y will (probably) bounce over the wall.
Legal Reasoning
Many of the arguments used by lawyers to
support a case trial are analogical arguments.
The essential feature is its dependence on
precedent (previously established decision).
According to the requirement of precedent,
similar cases must be decided similarly i.e. in
arguing a case, a lawyer will often attempt to
show that the case is analogous to some earlier
case that was decided in a favourable way.
For example: suppose that you own a factory and one
of your machines, a drill press, breaks down, causing the
entire operation to come to a halt. Urgently you call a
repair company and explain the whole situation. The
company promises to have the drill press back in
operation within two days. Unfortunately however, there
are delays, and two weeks elapse before the drill press is
repaired. In the mean time your company loses an
additional K23,000,000.00 in profits. Because you relied
on the companies assurance that the drill press would be
fixed in two days, you demand that the repair company
reimburse you for the additional lost profits. When the
repair company refuses your demand, you file suit.
Applying this result to the drill press case,
your lawyer will argue that because the repair
company was informed that delays in repairing
the drill press would result in lost profits, it
should reimburse you for the losses incurred.
GENERALIZING
Generalization is the process of moving from specific
observation about some individuals within a group to
general claims about the members of the group.
Most frequently, generalizations are based on a series
of observation or experiences.
By recording a series of experiences or observations,
researchers who conduct polls, survey and studies try
to determine whether the majority of the population
favours the capital punishment, whether mandatory
seatbelt legislation really reduces injuries in traffic
accidents by 40%, and so on.
Generalizations are, by definition, based on an
incomplete survey of the evidence. In most
cases this is because a complete survey is , for
practical reasons, impossible.
Consider the following example:
Suppose you operate a small business that assembles cell
phones, and you have ordered a thousands microchips for
them from a firm in Japan. The firm has agreed to produce
them to your exact specification. Upon their arrival, you
open one of the 10 boxes at random, pull out five of the 100
chips it contains, and examine each one carefully to ensure
that it meets your requirements. You find that all five do. At
random to open another box from the 10 and test five more
chips, finding once again that they have been properly
manufactured. You do the same with a third and a fourth
box, with the same results. By this time you have carefully
examined 20 of the 1,000 chips and are fully satisfied.
Twenty out of 1,000 is a small ratio, but you conclude that
“The computer chips meet our specifications”.
This is a good inference, even though the
premises, consisting of limited observation, do
not guarantee the truth of the conclusion if you
examined all 1,000 of the chips sent and found
each and every one to meet your specification.
You could guarantee the truth of the
conclusion if you examined all 1,000 of the
chips sent and found each and every one meet
your specifications.
For practical reasons, we are rarely able to
undertake such a complete review.
Sometimes the end result of such generalization
is a universal claim.
Universal claim has the form “All Xs are Y.
For the present example, the universal
conclusion would read, “All the microchips are
good.”
Generalizations are also used to support general
claims.
A general claim has the form Xs are , in general,
Y, or Xs are Y, or Each X is probably Y.
In our case the conclusion would be; “The
microchips meet our specification”.
General claims are not as strong as their
universal counterparts.
The statement “The microchips meet our
specification” is not as strong claim as “All the
microchips meet our specifications”.
The general claim implies that that the
microchips are, on the whole satisfactory. It
leaves open the possibility that some chips may
be defective.
In contrast, the universal claim allows no
exceptions. It is proved mistaken if we find one
microchip that is defective.
In some cases , generalizations lead to neither
universal nor general claims but to proportional
claims.
Suppose you open 10 boxes and at random select a
dozen chips from each. You examine them all and
conclude that the proportion of defective chips is
probably 3 out of every 120, or that 2.5% of the
chips fail to meet your specification.
More generally, you conclude that the vast majority
of the chips meet your specifications but that some
proportion of them is defective.
In both case, you are making a ‘proportional’ claim.
Representative Samples
We have seen that generalization can lead to
universal, general or proportional
conclusions.
In all three cases, the key to a good
generalization is a ‘representative’ sampling
of the members of the group in question.
The sample that is examined in the course of
a generalization is called a representative
sample if it accurately represents the group
(population) as whole.
In everyday life, we are inclined to make
generalizations without a representation sample.
Often this is because our generalization rely on
‘anecdotal evidence’, which consists of informal
reports on incidents that have not been subjected
to careful scrutiny.
You should be cautious of such generalization
which are often based on a few instances that
may have been embellished and slanted
according to the prejudices of those who utter
them.
The ‘hasty generalizations' that frequently
characterize ordinary reasoning have convinced
some people that it is wrong to generalize.
But bad generalization do not rule out the
possibility of good generalization and we can
use our critical faculties and common sense to
decide whether a generalization is based on a
representative sample.
Two kinds of considerations must play a key
role in this assessment: Sample Size and
Sample Bias.
Sample Size:
The first thing you must consider in
determining the suitability of a sample is its
size.
Samples that are too small are unreliable and
more likely to be affected by pure chance.
E.g. I’ve a couple of Chinese students in my
classes. They are both hardworking and get
good grades. I suppose that all Chinese are
like that.
E.g. I’ve a couple of Chinese students in my
classes. They are both hardworking and get good
grades. I suppose that all Chinese are like that.
That’s generalizing from too small a sample. It’s a
‘hasty generalization’ using ‘anecdotal evidence’.
In the cell phone example, a sample size of one or
two or three chips chosen from one box is too
vulnerable to the luck of the draw. As more and
more chips are examined, the chances that your
results are mere coincidence diminish.
Sample Bias:
A representative sample must also avoid bias.
A sample is biased if it is not representative
of the population.
Individuals tend to accept and repeat
anecdotes that conform to their own
perspective in the process of eliminating
counter cases.
A common source of bias is a natural tendency to
generalize from situations with which we are familiar
without asking whether these situations are
representative .
e.g. when social workers generalize on the basis of
their experience with single-parent families, they
must keep in mind that they are working in specific
geographic are with particular social, ethnic,
economic and political characteristics. They must
therefore ask themselves whether single mothers and
fathers elsewhere share similar situation. Otherwise,
their generalization cannot be extended beyond their
sphere of experience.
Analogies and Generalizations
Analogies are not generalization, but they
require a generalization as a premise.
The analysis of analogies usually ends in
our trying to come up with a general
claim that will make strong argument.
Analogies lead to generalizations.
e.g. this car is like that one. They both had bad
suspension. And here’s another one from the
same manufacturer, which the owner says has
bad suspension too. So if you buy one of these
cars, it will have bad suspension, too.
From two or three or seven examples, you
figure that the next one will be same. That’s an
analogy all right but the process is more one of
generalization, for it is the unspoken general
claim that needs to be proved: (Almost) all cars
from this manufacturer have bad suspension.
Summary:
We generalize all the time ; from a few
instances (the sample) we conclude something
about a bigger group (the population).
Generalizations are arguments. They need
two elements to be good: (a) the sample is
representative and (b) the sample is big
enough and unbiased.
Cause and Effect
Maria caused the accident
Smoking causes cancer
Gravity causes the moon to stay in orbit.
These are causal claims. We make lots of them,
though they may not always contain the word
“cause” or “caused.” for example;
Jogging keeps you healthy
Taking an aspirin every other day cuts the risk
of having a heart attack.
Causes and effects
1. What exactly is a cause?
Consider what Dick said last night.
‘Spot caused me to wake up’
Spot is the thing that somehow caused Dick to
wake up. But it’s not just that Spot existed. It’s
what he was doing that caused Dick to wake up.
‘Spot’s barking caused Dick to wake up’.
Spot barked (cause) Dick woke
caused
up(effect)
What is this relationship of being caused?
 it has to be a very strong relationship. Once
Spot barked, it had to be true that Dick woke
up. i.e. there is no way for “Spot barked” to
have been true and “Dick woke up” to be
false.
 It’s a relationship between the premises and
the conclusion of a valid or strong argument.
2. The normal conditions;
 A lot has to be true for it to be (nearly)
impossible for “Spot barked” to be true and
“Dick woke up” to be false:
 Dick was sleeping soundly up to the time
that Spot barked.
 Spot barked at 3 a.m.
 Dick doesn’t normally wake up at 3 a.m.
 Spot was close to where Dick was sleeping
 There was no other loud noise at the time….
 we could go on forever. But as with arguments,
we state what we think is important and leave
out the obvious. If someone challenged us, we
could ask “There was no earthquake at the
time” – but we just assume things are the way
they “normally” are.
 Normal Conditions: For a causal claim, the
normal conditions are the obvious and plausible
unstated claims that are needed to establish that
the relationship between purported cause and
purported effect is valid or strong.
3. The cause precedes the effect
 We wouldn’t accept that Spot’s barking
caused Dick to wake up if Spot began barking
only after Dick woke up.
 The cause has to precede the effect. That is,
“Spot barked” became true before “Dick
woke up” became true.
 For there to be cause and effect, the claim
describing the cause has to become true
before the claim describing the effect
becomes true.
Gentlemen, that’s the end,
alleluia
LOGIC
TESTING FOR VALIDITY
Rules of Validity
The syllogism will be valid if and only
if it satisfies all of the following rules:
RULE 1
A valid CS must have exactly three, and only
three unequivocal terms.
Each of the three terms of CS must be used in
the same sense throughout in the argument.
Fallacy committed: fallacy of four terms or
fallacy of ambiguous middle.
E.g. All plants are living things, all factories are
plants. Therefore, all factories are living things.
Rule 2
A valid CS must have its middle term
distributed in at least one of the premises.
Fallacy committed: fallacy of
undistributed middle.
E.g. all Africans are human beings
all Kenyans are human beings
Therefore, all Kenyans are Africans.
Rule 3
In a valid CS no term should be
distributed in the conclusion if it is not
distributed in any of the premises.
Fallacy committed: fallacy of illicit
process.
This fallacy can be either illicit process of
the minor term or illicit process of the
major term.
Example:
 Fallacy of illicit process of the minor term:
No dogs are cats
Some animals are cats
Therefore, no animals are dogs.
 Fallacy of illicit process of the major term:
All human beings are primates
No monkeys are human beings
Therefore, no monkeys are primates
Rule 4
 A valid CS cannot have two negative
premises.
Fallacy: fallacy of exclusive premises
It implies that there is no necessary
relationship between the minor and the
major terms.
E.g: No cats are dogs
No cows are dogs
Therefore, some cows are cats.
Rule 5
A valid CS with a negative premise must have
a negative conclusion.
Any CS with at least one negative premise but
does not have a negative conclusion is invalid
and commits the fallacy of inferring an
affirmative conclusion from negative
premise.
E.g: All crows are birds
Some animals are not crows
Therefore, some animals are birds.
Rule 6
A valid CS with a negative conclusion must have a
negative premise.
Fallacy: inferring a negative conclusion from
affirmative premises.
The conclusion of a valid CS with affirmative
premises must also be affirmative. It cannot be
negative.
E.g.: All triangles are three-angled polygons
All three-angled polygons are three-sided polygons.
Therefore, some three-sided polygons are not
triangles.
Rule 7
A valid CS cannot have two particular
premises.
If the two premises then the syllogism
commits the fallacy of undistributed
middle
If both the premises are negative then it
commits the fallacy of exclusive
premises
Rule 8
A valid categorical syllogism with a particular
premise must also have a particular
conclusion.
If it has to have a particular premise then it
must be one.
Fallacy of inferring a universal conclusion
from a particular premise, e.g.
All human beings are rational beings
Some rational beings are spiritual beings
Therefore, all spiritual are human beings.
The fallacies prohibited by these rules
constitute a complete list of the formal
fallacies that may invalidate categorical
syllogism.
 a formal fallacy, as distinguished from an
informal fallacy is a flaw in the form of a
deductive argument such that the conclusion
does not follow from the premises.