CHAPTER TWO: BASIC CONCEPTS OF LOGIC

CHAPTER TWO

BASIC CONCEPTS OF LOGIC

INTRODUCTION

Logic is traditionally classified as a branch of philosophy. Philosophy is fundamental to all

spheres of human enquiry, and logic is the basis that strengthens philosophical thinking. In
philosophy one needs to think clearly to deal with the most fundamental questions related to our
life and this universe. Use of principles of logic in thinking, reasoning and arguments is central
to the practice of philosophy.

In ancient times Logic originated and developed in India, Greece and China. The beginning of
modern logic as a systematic study can be traced back to the Greek philosopher Aristotle (384-
322 B.C.). Aristotle is regarded as the father of logic. The development of logic throughout the
world is mainly influenced by the Aristotelian logic, except in India and China where it
developed independently. Aristotelian logic is also known as traditional logic. Aristotle’s logic
reached its peak point in the mid-fourteenth century. The period between the fourteenth century
and the beginning of the nineteenth century was largely one of decline and neglect. Logic was
revived in the mid-nineteenth century. At the beginning of a revolutionary period logic
developed into a formal discipline.

The word logic is derived from the Greek word ‘Logos’ which means ‘thought’. So
etymologically logic is often defined as, ‘The science of the laws of thought.’ It is the science
of reasoning. It is simply the study of the methods and principles used to distinguish good
(correct) from bad (incorrect) reasoning. Reasoning is a kind of thinking in which inference
takes place i.e. a thinker passes from the evidence to the conclusion. The term ‘inference’ refers
to the mental process by which one proposition is established on the basis of one or more
propositions accepted as the starting point of the process. An argument is a verbal
representation of this process of inference and logic is mainly concerned with arguments.

Logic, as field of study, may be defined as the organized body of knowledge, or science that
evaluates arguments. The aim of logic is to develop a system of methods and principles that we
may use as criteria for evaluating the arguments of others and as guides in constructing

By: SHIMELS A. TIRUNEH (MA, CIVIC AND ETHICAL STUDIES) Page 1

CHAPTER TWO: BASIC CONCEPTS OF LOGIC

arguments of our own. Argument is a systematic combination of two or more statements, which
are classified as a premise or premises and conclusion.

Arguments are familiar in our day to day communications and experiences with different parties
in the sense that they are available in text books, newspapers, debates and in different modes of
communication among individuals or groups. Thus, logic is aimed at designing methods and
principles in order to evaluate arguments which can be conducted by different parts of a given
society.

The aim of logic is to train people to reason correctly and therefore the main task of logic is to
distinguish between good reasoning and bad reasoning.

Finally, the principles of logic enable us to develop our confidence in critically and rationally
evaluating others’ arguments and to construct our own persuasive and logical forms of speech.
The word logic comes from Greek word logos, which means sentence, discourse, reason, truth
and rule. Logic in its broader meaning is the science, which evaluates arguments and the study
of correct reasoning, the study of methods and principles of correct reasoning or the art of
correct reasoning.
2.1. Fundamental Concepts of Logic
Argument; Premises and Conclusion

Reasoning is a kind of thinking in which inference takes place i.e. a thinker passes from the
evidence to the conclusion. The term ‘inference’ refers to the mental process by which one
proposition is established on the basis of one or more propositions accepted as the starting point
of the process. An argument is a verbal representation of this process of inference and logic is
mainly concerned with arguments.

An argument, which is the primary focus of logic, is a group of statements, which composes
premise(s) and a conclusion. A premise (which can be one or more than one) is a statement,
which provides reason or support for the conclusion. And, A conclusion (which is always one) of
an argument is a statement, which is claimed to be supported or implied. And, arguments which
the premises really supports the conclusion are good arguments and those which are on the
contrary are bad arguments. Here, logic sets methods, principles and techniques, which enable us
to differentiate good arguments from bad ones.

By: SHIMELS A. TIRUNEH (MA, CIVIC AND ETHICAL STUDIES) Page 2

CHAPTER TWO: BASIC CONCEPTS OF LOGIC

Argument/Inference consists of proposition/statements. Every argument attempts to establish a

proposition by giving other proposition/propositions in its support. An argument may be defined
as, “A group of propositions in which one proposition is established on the evidence of
remaining propositions.” The proposition which is established is called the conclusion and the
propositions which are stated in support of the conclusion are called premises.

For instance in the given argument –

Ex 1: All artists are creative. Ex 2: All freshman courses are simple.

Teddy Afro is an artist. Logic is a freshman course.
Therefore, Teddy Afro is creative. As a result, Logic is simple.

The propositions, ‘All artists are creative’ and ‘Teddy Afro is an artist’ are premises and the
proposition ‘Therefore, Teddy Afro is creative’ is the conclusion which is established on the
basis of evidence in the premises. Thus premise (premises) and conclusion are the two basic
constituent elements of an argument. In every argument the conclusion is derived from the
premises and an attempt is made to show that the conclusion is a logical consequence of the
premises.

An argument is composed of statements, which have truth values and logically interconnected
ideas as premises and conclusion. In other words, an argument is composed of statements as
premises and conclusion to which they are evaluated either true or false as they are declarative
sentences. Here, sentences which contain questions, proposals, suggestions, commands,
exclamations and the like cannot be considered as statements as they cannot have truth values.

In some cases, however, a statement can also be expressed in a form of rhetorical questions. For
instance, the premise of the following legal argument is expressed in interrogative form.

If the criminal law forbids suicide, that is not argument valid in the church; and besides,
the prohibition is ridiculous; for what penalty can frighten a person who is not afraid of
death itself.

It is now clear that an argument is composed of premises and a conclusion that the latter is the
statement that is claimed to follow from the former. Here our central task is to distinguish
premise(s) from the conclusion with in an argument. The first strategy to distinguish premise(s)
from the conclusion is by using indicator words. This is to say that there are some typical
conclusion indicator words and some other premise indicator words. Thus, based on those

By: SHIMELS A. TIRUNEH (MA, CIVIC AND ETHICAL STUDIES) Page 3

CHAPTER TWO: BASIC CONCEPTS OF LOGIC

premises and conclusion indicator words, one can easily distinguish premises from the
conclusion. For that matter, some of the typical conclusion indicators are the following:-
- Thus - So - For this reason
- Wherefore - Hence - It follows that
- Therefore - Accordingly - As a result
- Consequently - It must be that - Implies that
Example:
A Federal government usually possesses a constitution, which guarantees power sharing
between the federal/central government and those regional/local governments. This
implies that distribution of power is the silent features of any federal government.

The statement before the words ‘implies that’ is the premise and the statement that
follows/contains ‘implies that’ is the conclusion of the argument given above.

And, some of the typical premises indicator words are the following:

- Since - As indicated by
- Because - In that
- For - May be inferred from
- As - Given that…….

Example

The constitution of the state does not narrate details of laws as it simply gives general
guidelines which all other laws are in accordance with.

The statement before the word ‘as’ is the conclusion where as that of after ‘as’ is the premise of
the above argument. The other important point that should be underlined is that indicator words
(premises as well as conclusion indicators) are not always guarantees to distinguish or show
premise (s) from conclusion of a given argument because of two important reasons:

A. There might be cases where there are not indicator words in passages which contain
argument.
B. Though they exit, they might have some other purposes (explanation, Illustration….)
other than showing argumentation accomplished by premises and conclusion.

By: SHIMELS A. TIRUNEH (MA, CIVIC AND ETHICAL STUDIES) Page 4

CHAPTER TWO: BASIC CONCEPTS OF LOGIC

As to the problem stated in (A) one can end up with successful solution by responding to ant of
the following conditions:

 Which statement is claimed to follow from others?

 What is the arguer trying to arrive at/prove? Or
 What is the main point of the passage?

And, the answer to these questions points out to the conclusion of an argument so that the rest
will be its premises(s). This is to say that in the absence of those indicator words, one should
carefully appeal to the inferential claim (reasoning process) that the claim(s) /evidence(s) which
the statement(s) hold(s) is/are considered to be premise(s) and the other statement that is to be
followed is the conclusion of a given argument. For example: the following passage, which
contains an argument, does not have any indicator words.
Example:
A politician who does not have the courage to political life is not destined to the
discipline. Mohammed does not have any courage to it. Mohammed is not destined to
political life.

And, When we look at the inferential relationships among the above three statements of the
passage, the statement “Mohammed is not destined to political life” is the statement which is
intended to be proved so that it is the conclusion and the remaining two statements are premises
of the above argument.

In relation to the concept of argument, inference and proposition are the two common nations.
Inference is nothing but the reasoning process expressed by an argument and that of a
proposition means the information content or meaning of statements, which compose an
argument.

As to the problem stated in (B) that the existence of indicator words by themselves cannot
always guarantee the existence of premise(s) and conclusion or an argument in the passage.

One can look the following two examples which both contain the indicator word “since” that
serves as time indicator in the first passage whereas premise indicator in the next passage
(argument)

By: SHIMELS A. TIRUNEH (MA, CIVIC AND ETHICAL STUDIES) Page 5

CHAPTER TWO: BASIC CONCEPTS OF LOGIC

 Ethiopia has a long history in constitutional traditions. And, since 1995 the country has
guided by the federal constitution. (Here Since is used as time indicator and the passage
in fact doesn’t contain an argument as there is not any inferential claim in it).
 Since the 1995 constitution of Ethiopia includes fundamental human and democratic
rights of the people, it is relatively better than all constitutions which had been
formulated before. (Here since is used as a premise indicator so that the passage
contains inferential claim, which in turn proves that it is an argument.
2.2. Recognizing Arguments

It has been partially clear that an argument is the primary focus of logic. But it should also be
underlined that all forms of speeches as well as passages do not contain arguments. In short, any
form of speech or passage is labeled as an argument if and only if it fulfills the following two
conditions:
A. A minimum of one statement must claim to provide reason or evidence.
B. There must be a claim that something is followed from the evidence.

As it has been stated before, premises refer to the statements claiming to provide evidence, and
conclusion refers to the statement that the evidence is claimed to imply or support. Here the
question is: Is it necessary for the premises to be true? No, it is not mandatory that the premises
provide actual or genuine support to the conclusion or it is not necessary for the premises
actually support the conclusion. But the premises must claim to provide evidence or reasons; and
there must be a claim that the evidences or reasons support or imply something. When we say the
premises must claim to provide evidences, it suggests that the reasons or evidences presented
have not proved to be true, but the assertion that it is true is there. As a result, the premises may
be either true or false. It may, therefore, be either factual evidence or not.

In any case the first condition stated in (A) expresses what is called factual claim which is not
mandatory for a passage that contains an argument unlike the second condition stated in (B),
which is commonly called inferential claim. The inferential claim is to mean the claim that the
passage expresses a reasoning process that the passage expresses a reasoning process that
something supports or implies something.

Inferential claim is the claim that the passage expresses a certain kind of reasoning process- that
something supports or implies something or that something follows from something.

By: SHIMELS
Factual A.the
claim is TIRUNEH
claim that(MA, CIVIC AND
the premises ETHICAL
present genuine STUDIES)
evidence, or are true. Page 6
CHAPTER TWO: BASIC CONCEPTS OF LOGIC

Thus, the second precondition implies that the existence of an inferential claim (the claim that a
passage/speech contains or expresses reasoning process) is mandatory to consider a given
passage or speech as an argument- i.e. something should be implied or followed from others in
any argument can be expressed:-

A. Either explicitly through indicator (premise as well as conclusion indicators) words as it

has been witnessed before.
Example:
Expectant mother should never use excessive alcoholic drinks and drugs as these substances
can endanger the development of the fetus.
Here the word “as” shows that there is a reasoning process being expressed in the passage.
B. Implicitly through understanding the inferential relationship between premises and the
conclusion.
Example:
Freedom of press is one of the most important of our constitutionally guaranteed freedoms.
Without it, other freedoms would be immediately threatened. Furthermore, it provides the
fulcrum for the development of new freedoms.

There is an inferential relationship between the first and the other two sentences. Of course, this
relationship constitutes an implicit claim that evidence supports something. So we are justified in
calling this passage argument. And, the first statement is the conclusion and the other two are
premises.

Moreover, the other alternative that enables us to differentiate passages, which contain
arguments from those which do not have, is through distinguishing non-inferential passages/non
argument forms with that of inferential passage/argument forms. Based on this guideline
passages which contain warning, advice, a statement of belief, reports and the like lack
inferential claim that they are non-inferential passage. Thus, they are non-argument forms as
some of their details are to be disclosed in the following section.

Warning:- are cautionary advices, which save someone form any bad or dangerous incident or
situation. And, such forms of speech are non-arguments as they clearly lack inferential claim.

By: SHIMELS A. TIRUNEH (MA, CIVIC AND ETHICAL STUDIES) Page 7

CHAPTER TWO: BASIC CONCEPTS OF LOGIC

Example: Shut your mouth!

Pieces of advice:- are forms of expression, which contain counseling or guidelines to someone
to follow appropriate procedures, actions, and choices.

Example: I advise you to improve your behavior before you graduate.

Statement of belief and opinion are: is forms of expression, which are basically accompanied
by somebody’s beliefs, thinking, opinions as well as judgments on different events,
or courses of action.
Example: In my opinion, abortion is a crime against humanity.
Loosely associated statements: are forms of expression accompanied by various statements
which are mainly concerned with the same general theme, however, they are not
logically connected or they lack inferential claim so that they can not be considered
as arguments.
Example:
Anything that a doctor does which requires cutting or injecting is a ‘procedure’. Anything
that a doctor does which requires thinking or counseling is a “cognitive services”.
Procedures pay much better than cognitive services.
Reports: are sets of statements, which are basically there to convey or deliver information about
different events or incidents. Reporters or journalists are basically destined to deliver
information about different incidents rather than arguing on them.
Example:
“The Islamic forces in Somalia led by ‘Alshebab’ groups declared war to liberate
Somalia from Ethiopia forces” Aljezira, 2008.
 But there is the case when reports about arguments are delivered. In such case though the
report itself is not an argument, the reported passage can be interpreted as an argument
since it is accompanied by position, which is supported by evidences. However, the
passage/argument in the report is not performed by the author of the report, but by those
whom the author of the report is reporting.
Expository passages (Elaborations):- are passages, which begin with topic sentences or
fundamental points. And, there are additional sentences, which are primarily there
to develop or elaborate those topic sentences rather than to prove them.

Example:-
By: SHIMELS A. TIRUNEH (MA, CIVIC AND ETHICAL STUDIES) Page 8
CHAPTER TWO: BASIC CONCEPTS OF LOGIC

The speed of reading depends entirely upon the reader. He may read as slowly or as rapidly as
he can or wishes to read. If he does not understand something, he may stop and read it, or go in
search of elucidation before continuing.

But there are cases where expository passages can be counted as arguments when those
elaborating sentences, other than the topic sentence, but also to prove it.

Illustrations: Are forms of exemplifying or clarifying instances on concepts, issues or different

subject matters. This is to say that when a statement about a certain issue in
accompanied in different instances to exemplify it, it is considered as an illustration.
Example:
Mammals are vertebrate animals that nourish their young with milk. For example, cats,
horses, goats, monkeys, and humans are mammals.
However, there are passages, which give examples, can be interpreted as arguments.
Example:
Water is an excellent solvent. It dissolves many minerals that do not readily dissolve in
other liquids. For example, salt do not dissolve in most common solvent such as
gasoline, kerosene, etc. But many salt dissolves readily in water.
Here this example is intended to prove that water is an excellent solvent so that it can be
considered as an argument.

Thus, like expository passage, some illustrations are considered as arguments if there is an
inferential relationship or reasoning process among their statements.

Conditional Statements:- A sentence constructed through an “if…then…” statement is a

conditional statement. And, a statement that is following “than” is called consequent and a
statement following “if” is called an antecedent.

Conditional statements do not usually contain argument; rather they signify the causal
connection between the antecedent and the consequent as:

 If antecedent, then consequent.

 Consequent if antecedent.
Example:
If destroying a political competitor gives you joy, then you have a low sense of morality.
If you study hard, then you will score a good grade, or

By: SHIMELS A. TIRUNEH (MA, CIVIC AND ETHICAL STUDIES) Page 9

CHAPTER TWO: BASIC CONCEPTS OF LOGIC

You will score a good grade if you study hard.

However, it is not always the case that all conditional statements express only causal connections
in the sense that there are cases where conditional statements are interpreted as arguments if the
connection between two is as follows.
 A single conditional statement is not an argument.
 A conditional statement may serve as either the premise or the conclusion or both of an
argument.
 The inferential content of a conditional statement may be re-expressed to form an
argument.
Example:
If the earth’s magnetic field disappears, then the Vann Allen radiation belt will be dissolved. The
earth’s magnetic field is disappeared. Therefore, the Van Allen radiation belt will be dissolved.
In this example, the conditional sentence served as the premise of an argument. Thus, if the
passage consists of unconditional statements together with some other statement (like the above
example), then it may be an argument depending on the presence of indicator words and an
inferential relationship between the premise and the conclusion.
Another important point is that conditional statements are useful in logic since they express the
relationship between sufficient and necessary conditions. ‘X’ is said to be a sufficient condition
for “Y”. For example, it is clear that a Knife could cause a scare to appear. When we put this in a
conditional statement, it is as “if you are stabbed by Knife, a scare will appear in one’s body”. Or
to put this in terms of sufficient and necessary conditions it can be presented as “being stabbed
by a Knife is a sufficient condition for the occurrence of scare.” However being stabbed by a
knife is not a necessary condition for the occurrence of scare because many other things may
cause scare.
‘X’ is said to be the necessary condition for ‘Y’ whenever ‘Y’ cannot occur without the
occurrence of ‘X’.
Example:
Air is necessary condition for life.
It is a necessary condition because one cannot think of life without air. But it is not sufficient
since there are other necessary conditions.
An Explanation: Consists of statements or a group of statements intended to shed light on some
phenomenon that is usually accepted as a matter of fact.

By: SHIMELS A. TIRUNEH (MA, CIVIC AND ETHICAL STUDIES) Page 10

CHAPTER TWO: BASIC CONCEPTS OF LOGIC

Example:
1. Azeb is sick because she ate too much::
2. Cows digest grass while humans cannot, because their digestive systems contain enzyme
not found in humans.
In an explanation, there are two distinct components: The explanadum and the explanans. The
explanadum is the statement that describes the event or phenomenon to be explained, and the
explanans is a statement that does the explaining.

In the first example the explanadum is the statement “Azeb is sick” and the explanans is “she ate
too much”.

And in the second example, the explanandum is the statement “Cows digest grass while
humans cannot” and the explanans is “their [cows] digestive systems contain enzyme not
found in humans.”

Explanations usually contain indicator words such as “because” and others so that they may be
confused with arguments. This is precisely because while in the explanation, the explanans are
intended to show why something is the case, where as in an argument the premises are intended
to prove that something is the case. In the above two examples, the arguers are intended to
explain the situations rather than proving them.

2.3. Types of argument:

Deductive and Inductive Argument

Based on the kind of connection existed between the premises and the conclusion, arguments can
broadly be classified in to two; Deductive and inductive. And, the difference in the strength of
the inferential claim or the degree of strength of the reasoning process existed between the
premises and the conclusion matters most to arrive at such dichotomy between the above two
categories of arguments.

The classification of arguments into deductive and inductive is based on the nature of
relationship between premises and conclusion. Premises of deductive arguments claim to provide
sufficient evidence for the conclusion, whereas premises of inductive arguments provide some
evidence for the conclusion. Deductive and inductive arguments differ in the strength of the

By: SHIMELS A. TIRUNEH (MA, CIVIC AND ETHICAL STUDIES) Page 11

CHAPTER TWO: BASIC CONCEPTS OF LOGIC

inferential claim of the argument. They differ with respect to the ways in which the premise
supports the conclusion.

Deductive arguments are arguments, which their premises guarantee the conclusion in the sense
that if we assume that the premises are true, the conclusion must be true. In other word, the
connection between the premises and the conclusion in any deductive argument is a matter of
necessity or certainty that the conclusion in a deductive argument cannot be otherwise (false) if
its premises are true.

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
A deductive argument is an argument in which the premises are claimed to support the conclusion
in such a way that if they are assumed true, it is impossible for the conclusions to be false.

The form of deductive arguments is as follows:

All X is Y.
All Y is Z.
Therefore, All X is Z.
Example 1: All members of the Republican Party are conservatives.
Charles is a member of the Republican Party.
Therefore, it necessarily follows that Charles is a conservative.
Example 2: All sub-Saharan countries are least developed countries.
Ethiopia is found in sub- Saharan region.
It follows that Ethiopia is a least developed country.

In this example, the premises support the conclusion with certainty so that the conclusion is
inferred with logical necessity from the evidences or premises.

Two important features of deductive arguments

A. If the premises assumed true, it is impossible for the conclusion to be false.

B. The conclusion claimed to follow necessarily from the premises.

By: SHIMELS A. TIRUNEH (MA, CIVIC AND ETHICAL STUDIES) Page 12

CHAPTER TWO: BASIC CONCEPTS OF LOGIC

On the other hand, inductive arguments are those, which their premises simply suggest the
conclusion that if we assume that the premises are true, the conclusion will probably be true.
This implies that there is a probable connection between the premises and the conclusion of an
inductive argument. Thus, the inferential link between the premises and the conclusion of any
inductive argument is a matter of likelihood or probability unlike that of any deductive
argument.

An inductive argument is an argument in which the premises are claimed to support the conclusion
in such a way that if they are assumed true, it is improbable for the conclusions to be false.

Example:
The majority of Collage students are seriously concerned about employment opportunity.
Rohama is a college student.
Therefore, Ruhama is seriously concerned about employment opportunity.
The premise of the above argument is supporting the conclusion with the degree of likelihood or
probability that there is no relationship of logical necessity between the premises and the
conclusion.

There are cases where inductive arguments are understood as arguments, which reason from part
to whole and deductive argument, are those, which reason from whole to part. However, this
kind of approach does not always work. And, the following two examples show that the above
definitions do not always work.

Example 1:
Three is a prime number.
Five is a prime number.
Seven is a prime number.
Therefore, all odd numbers between two and eight are a prime number.
 This is reasoning from particular to general, however the argument is deductive.
Example 2:
All the last experiences in Ethiopian politics have shown that political power is not
secured through constitutional means. Therefore, political power in Ethiopia will not
secured through similar strategy in the coming years.
 This is an inductive argument since it seems to argue to forecast the future based on past
experience.

By: SHIMELS A. TIRUNEH (MA, CIVIC AND ETHICAL STUDIES) Page 13

CHAPTER TWO: BASIC CONCEPTS OF LOGIC

In any case, the strength of the inferential connection between the premises and the conclusion
should be taken as an indispensable criterion to differentiate or show the distinction between
deductive and inductive arguments.

To sum up, there are three criteria which are important to distinguish inductive argument from
deductive arguments. These are:
A. The existence of indicator words such as necessarily, certainly, absolutely, definitely,
and definitely in arguments shown that such arguments are deductive. And the existence
of words such as likely, probably, unlikely, plausibly in arguments shows that such
arguments are inductive.
Example 1: Deductive argument
All members of the Republican Party are conservatives.
Charles is a member of the Republican Party.
Therefore, it necessarily follows that Charles is a conservative.
Example 2: Inductive argument
Some sub-Saharan countries are least developed countries.
Ethiopia is found in sub- Saharan region.
It probably follows that Ethiopia is a least developed country.
But, these deductive and inductive indicator words cannot always show the distinction between
the two argument forms so that it is mandatory to appeal to other criteria.
But remember that the mere occurrence of an indicator word does not guarantee the
presence of an argument.

B. The actual strength of the inferential link between the premises and the conclusion
of a given argument is another criterion to distinguish deductive from an inductive
argument. If the conclusion is strictly or logically followed from the premises, the
argument will be deductive but if the conclusion is probably followed from the premises,
the argument is inductive.
C. Typical deductive and inductive argument forms/styles.
Pure/typical deductive argument forms/styles.
 Mathematical argumentations: are deductive argument forms since they are accompanied
by some arithmetic and geometric measurement. But this does not mean that statistical

By: SHIMELS A. TIRUNEH (MA, CIVIC AND ETHICAL STUDIES) Page 14

CHAPTER TWO: BASIC CONCEPTS OF LOGIC

argument forms are always deductive since they are characterized by probabilistic or
sampling procedures to arrive at a conclusion.
Example:
 The sum of two numbers is always even. Thus, the result of 3 and 9 is an even number.
 A is an element of B. B is an element of C. Therefore, A is an element of C.
 An argument from definition is a deductive argument form since the premises already
define the truth of the conclusion.
Example:
God is omniscient, it follows that He knows everything.
 Syllogism is a form of argument having exactly two premises and a conclusion. It can be
categorical, hypothetical and disjunctive syllogism.
 A categorical syllogism is a deductive argument form.
A categorical syllogism an argument forms having exactly two premises and a conclusion
in which each of its statements usually begin with words: ‘all’, ‘no’ and ‘some’.

Example:
All X are Y.
All Y are Z. This is a deductive argument form
Therefore, all X are Z.
All animals are mammals. This is the substitution
All mammals are living things. instance of the above
deductive argument form.
Therefore, all animals are living things.
 A hypothetical syllogism is a deductive argument, which is basically accompanied by
an “if…..then…..” or conditional statements.
Example:
If X, then Y.
If Y, then Z. This is a deductive argument form
Therefore, if X, then Z.
The substitution instance of the above argument form is as follows:
If we eat a variety of food items, then we would be healthy.
If we are healthy, then we would be productive.
Therefore, if we eat variety of food items, we would be productive.

By: SHIMELS A. TIRUNEH (MA, CIVIC AND ETHICAL STUDIES) Page 15

CHAPTER TWO: BASIC CONCEPTS OF LOGIC

 A disjunctive syllogism is a syllogism which is accompanied by statements beginning

through an “either……or…..” phrase and it is a deductive argument form.
Example:
Either X or Y.
Not X. This is a deductive argument form
Therefore, Y
Its substitution instance is as follows:
Either Italy or Ethiopia won the military incident of Adwa.
Italy did not win the military incident of Adwa.
Therefore, Ethiopia won the military incident of Adwa.
Pure/typical inductive argument forms/styles.
 A prediction is when somebody concludes about the future based on what was or is
happening before as well as now. This is as inductive argument in the sense that it cannot
show the future with certainty.
Example:
It has been raining for the whole day of this week, this shows that it will rain for the
coming week.
 An inductive generalization is when someone bases his/her conclusion on some
particular instance, cases or samples.
Example:
There are 100 students who are taking the course; introduction to logic. Among these
students 10 of them were selected at random and found to be intelligent. Therefore, this
shows that all of these students are intelligent.
 An argument from authority, which someone argue based on the witness of another
person who lacks the experience, knowledge as well as ability, is an inductive argument.

Example:

According to Dr. Kebede, who is a medical doctor at black lion hospital, Ethiopian
economy is growing rapidly regardless of the global crises of 2008/2009. Therefore,
Ethiopian economy is growing fast as per the account of Dr. Kebede.

By: SHIMELS A. TIRUNEH (MA, CIVIC AND ETHICAL STUDIES) Page 16

CHAPTER TWO: BASIC CONCEPTS OF LOGIC

 When Knowledge about certain signs is attributed to certain situations to which these
signs symbolize, it will be an inductive argument. And, arguments based on traffic signs;
cautions of any marks and symbols usually contain inductive argumentations.
 An argument based on causation, instances of cause and effect (cause to effect or effect
to cause) which can never be known with absolute certainty, is an inductive
argumentation.

Example:
 Kebede is upset so that he is silent. Cause to effect
 The meat is dry so that it had over cooked. Effect to cause

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 between premises and conclusion, and
3. The typical form of argumentation.

Generally:
Deductive Argument Inductive Argument
1. Premises claim to provide sufficient 1. Premises provide some evidence for the
evidence for the conclusion. conclusion.
2. In valid deductive argument premises 2. Premises do not strictly imply the
imply the conclusion. conclusion.
3. In valid deductive argument if premises 3. Even when premises are true conclusion
are true, conclusion must be true. may be false.
4. Conclusion of valid deductive argument is 4. Conclusion is always probable.
always certain.
5. Conclusion does not go beyond the 5. Conclusion goes beyond the evidence in
evidence in the premises. the premises.
6. Arguments are formally valid. 6. Arguments are materially valid.
7. Validity can be determined by rules and 7. Correctness of arguments can be decided
methods of logic. by an appeal to experience and not by
rules and methods of logic.
8. Deductive arguments cannot expand our 8. With inductive arguments we can discover
knowledge of the world, by deduction we something new and expand our knowledge
can only know what is implied by the of the world.
premises.

By: SHIMELS A. TIRUNEH (MA, CIVIC AND ETHICAL STUDIES) Page 17

CHAPTER TWO: BASIC CONCEPTS OF LOGIC

2.4. Evaluation of argument

As it has been underlined before, evaluating arguments based on fundamental principles and
guidelines is among the central tasks of critical and rational scrutiny.

When we expose arguments to critical and rational scrutiny, we may witness that the premises,
which are claimed to support the conclusion, fail to support the conclusion so that the
information of premises becomes irrelevant or inconsistent to the conclusion. Thus, arguments
having this nature can be evaluated as bad or illogical. On the contrary, if we witness an
argument having sufficient, genuine and precise evidences or premises to the conclusion, then
we can judge that the information of the premises are relevant, consistent and conducive to the
conclusion. And an argument that satisfies this requirement can be evaluated as good or logical.

Therefore, as it has been underlined before, inferential claim is an indispensable criteria to

evaluate arguments that if the premises of a given argument fail to logically support or imply the
conclusion, the argument is bad and if the case is not the contrary it will result in good argument.
And the primary task of this section is to evaluate arguments, particularly deductive and
inductive arguments. And, as it has been explained before, the relationship between the premises
and the conclusion of a deductive argument is a matter of necessity where as that of an inductive
argument is a matter of probability. In any case, logicians employ different terminologies
applicable so as to evaluate deductive and inductive arguments separately. And, this section
gives us some detailed analysis and classification of deductive and inductive arguments using
those technical terms employed by logicians, which in fact can never violate the fundamental
natures or characteristics of these two arguments.

2.4.1. Evaluating deductive argument

Validity and invalidity

As an introductory insight, there are four technical terms employed so as to evaluate deductive
arguments; valid, invalid, sound and unsound. Initially a deductive argument can be divided
into two forms; valid and invalid. And, a valid deductive argument is an argument such that if
the premises are assumed to be true, the conclusion must be true (it is impossible for the
conclusion to be false). In other words, the logical connection between the premise and the

By: SHIMELS A. TIRUNEH (MA, CIVIC AND ETHICAL STUDIES) Page 18

CHAPTER TWO: BASIC CONCEPTS OF LOGIC

conclusion of a valid deductive argument is a matter of strict necessity. If, on the other hand,
the connection between the premises and the conclusion of an argument is not a matter of strict
necessity in the sense that if the premises are assumed to be true, then there is a possibility for
the conclusion to be false such a deductive argument is invalid.
Validity of an argument depends upon the evidence in the premises for the conclusion. If the
conclusion of an argument necessarily follows from the evidence in the premises then the
argument is valid otherwise it is invalid.
In other word the validity of an argument depends on the nature of relationship between its
premises and conclusion. If the premises provide ‘good’ evidence for the conclusion, the
argument is valid otherwise it is invalid.
Moreover, there is no argument, which is partially or almost valid (there is not any third
alternative other than valid and invalid arguments) that if the conclusion is followed with strict
necessity from premises, the argument is valid; and if the case is on the opposite, the argument is
invalid.
Validity and Truth
Another important point is that there is no any direct connection between validity and truth, in
the sense that, it is not mandatory to have either true or false premises as well as conclusion so as
to get a valid argument except an argument with true premises and false conclusion which is
always invalid.
Truth and falsity are attributes of individual propositions or statements, which assert what really
are the cases. When somebody asserts that Abay is the largest river in Ethiopia, he/she asserts
what really is the case, means what is true. But if he/she asserts that the largest river in Ethiopia
is Wabishable, his/her assertion would not be in accord with the actual world, therefore it would
be false. Thus, truth is the attribute of a proposition that asserts what really is the case, what is
true; however validity and invalidity are attributes of arguments. Just as the concept of validity
does not apply to single propositions, the concept of truth does not apply to arguments.

In other words, the fact that statements of an argument are all true may not prove validity and the
fact that all the statements of an argument are false do not prevent the argument from being
valid.

By: SHIMELS A. TIRUNEH (MA, CIVIC AND ETHICAL STUDIES) Page 19

CHAPTER TWO: BASIC CONCEPTS OF LOGIC

In any case, the following possible combinations of true and false premises in both valid and
invalid arguments:
I. Some valid arguments contain all true propositions-true premises and true conclusion.
Example: All mammals are animals.
All cows are mammals.
Therefore, all cows are animals.
II. Some valid arguments have all false propositions-false premises and false conclusion.
Example 1: All sharks are birds. Example 2: All Americans are Ethiopians.
All birds are politicians. All Egyptians are Americans.
Therefore, all sharks are politicians. Thus, all Egyptians are Ethiopians.
Although the premises of the above argument are in fact false, the argument is valid. If they
were true, the conclusion would have to be true as well. It is impossible for the conclusion to
be false assuming that the premises are true. Thus, the above argument is valid.
III. Some invalid arguments have true premises and true conclusion.
Example 1:- All philosophers are critical thinker.
Socrates was critical thinker.
Therefore, Socrates was a philosopher.
Example 2: All mammals are animals.
All cows are animals.
Therefore, all cows are mammals.

The above argument is invalid because the truthiness of the conclusion does not follow the
premises with strict necessity.
IV. Some invalid arguments contain all true premises have false conclusion.
Example:
All banks are financial institutions.
Ethiopian Insurance is a financial institution.
Therefore, Ethiopian Insurance is a bank.

The premises of the above argument are true; however the conclusion is false. Such an
argument cannot be valid because it is impossible for the premises of a valid argument to be
true and its conclusion to be false.
V. Some valid arguments have false premises and true conclusions.

By: SHIMELS A. TIRUNEH (MA, CIVIC AND ETHICAL STUDIES) Page 20

CHAPTER TWO: BASIC CONCEPTS OF LOGIC

Example 1: Example 2:
All Asians are Africans. All birds are mammals.
All Ethiopians are Asians. All women are birds.
Therefore, all Ethiopians are Africans. Therefore, all women are mammals.
The conclusions of those arguments are true; moreover, it may be validity inferred from the
two premises, both of which are plainly false.
VI. Some invalid arguments also have false premises and true conclusions.
Example 1: Example 2:
All mammals have wings. All birds are mammals.
All whales have wings. All ostriches are mammals.
Therefore, all whales are mammals. Therefore, all ostriches are birds.
VII. Some invalid arguments contain all false propositions-false premises and false
conclusion.
Example:
All Americans are Europeans.
All Ethiopians are Europeans.
Therefore, all Ethiopians are Americans.

In any case, as it has been underlined before, the above examples clearly witness that there is no
direct link between validity and truth in the sense that the truth or falsity of the proposition or
statement of an argument can never by itself guarantee the validity and invalidity of that
argument. In short the following table will make the variety of possible combinations of validity
and truth clear.
Premise Conclusion Validity
True True Valid/Invalid
True False Invalid
False True Valid/Invalid
False False Valid/invalid

One can understand from the above table that the first, third, and fourth combinations shows that
the argument can be either valid or invalid depending primarily on whether the conclusion
follows the premises with strict necessity or not (regardless of the truth and falsity of the
premises and conclusion).

By: SHIMELS A. TIRUNEH (MA, CIVIC AND ETHICAL STUDIES) Page 21

CHAPTER TWO: BASIC CONCEPTS OF LOGIC

Another important exception in any deductive logic is indicated in the above table (in the second
combination) which contains an argument of true premises and false conclusion. And any
argument with such an argument is always invalid.

Validity and Soundness

A deductive argument can be considered as sound if and only if it is valid and heaving all true
premises. If one of these two conditions is violated, the argument would rather be unsound.

Example:
All cows are mammals.
All mammals are animals.
Therefore, all cows are animals.

The conclusion of the above argument follows the premises with strict necessity so that the
argument is valid. In addition to this, its premises are all true. Therefore, the above deductively
valid argument is sound.
 Sound argument = a valid argument + all true premises

On the other hand, a deductively unsound argument falls into one of the following three
categories:
 Valid but at least one false premise.
 Invalid but all its premises are true
 Invalid and at least one false premises.

Example:
All animals are mammals.
All birds are animals.
Therefore, all birds are mammals.

Though the above argument is valid (because if we assume that the premises are true, the
conclusion would be necessarily true), it is unsound because the argument involves plainly false
premises.

By: SHIMELS A. TIRUNEH (MA, CIVIC AND ETHICAL STUDIES) Page 22

CHAPTER TWO: BASIC CONCEPTS OF LOGIC

2.4.2. Evaluating Inductive Arguments

Strength and Weakness

As it has been underlined before, an inductive argument is the one in which its premises are
claimed to support the conclusion in such a way that if they are assumed to be true, then based on
this assumption it is only probable that the conclusion is true. If the premises do in fact support
the conclusion in this way, such inductive argument can be considered as strong. Therefore, a
strong inductive argument is one such that it is unlikely, though possible, that its conclusion is
false while its premises are true. Or it is highly probable that if its premises are true, then its
conclusion is true in any inductively strong argument. If the premises are true, its conclusion
has a higher probability of being true in any strong argument.
Example:
This basket contains one hundred apples.
Eighty apples selected at random were found tasty.
Therefore, probably all one hundred apples are tasty.

On the other hand, a weak inductive argument is one such that if the premises are assumed to be
true, then based on this assumption, it is not probable that the conclusion is true. In other words,
a weak inductive argument has this essential feature: It is not likely that if its premises are true,
then its conclusion is true.
Example 1:
This basket contains one hundred apples.
Three apples selected at random were found tasty.
Therefore, probably all one hundred apples are tasty.

Example 2:
There has been rainfall throughout Ethiopia for the last few days.
Therefore, probably it will be raining for the coming week.
In general, in inductive arguments if the premises do in fact support the conclusions in this way
the arguments is said to be strong; if not, it is weak. Thus, a strong inductive argument is an
argument such that if the premises are assumed true, it is improbable for the conclusion to be
false. In such arguments, the conclusion follows probably from the premises. Conversely, a weak

By: SHIMELS A. TIRUNEH (MA, CIVIC AND ETHICAL STUDIES) Page 23

CHAPTER TWO: BASIC CONCEPTS OF LOGIC

inductive argument is an argument such that if the premises are assumed true, it is probable for
the conclusions to be false.

As it has been underlined before, validity does not admit of degree so that there is no any such
argument to be said more valid/less valid, or less invalid/more invalid. However, strength and
weakness, unlike validity and invalidity, admit of degree so that we can have either stronger or
weaker when we compare to other arguments. Moreover, like validity and invalidity, strength
and weakness are only indirectly related to truth and falsity. The central question in determining
strength and weakness of argument is not the truth and falsity of premises and conclusion but
whether the conclusion would probably be true if the premises are assumed to be true. And, we
can have the following combinations so as to reveal the indirect relationship between strength or
weakness and truth and falsity:
I. A strong argument with true premises and a probably true conclusion.
Example:
All previous American presidents were men. Therefore; probably the next American
President will be man.
II. A weak inductive argument with true premises and a probably true conclusion.
Example:
A few American presidents were Democratic. Therefore, probably the next American
President will be democrat.
III. A weak inductive argument with true premise and a probably false conclusion.
Example:
A few Ethiopians use Injera for feeding. Therefore, probably the remain world use Injera
for feeding.
IV. A strong inductive argument with false premises and a probably true conclusion.
Example:
Most previous American presidents were female. Therefore, probably the next American
president will be a female.
V. A weak inductive argument with false premises and probably true conclusion.
Example:
A few American presidents were female. Therefore, probably the next American
presidents will be female.

By: SHIMELS A. TIRUNEH (MA, CIVIC AND ETHICAL STUDIES) Page 24

CHAPTER TWO: BASIC CONCEPTS OF LOGIC

VI. A strong inductive argument with false premise and a probably false conclusion.
Example:
All previous American presidents were women. Therefore, probably the current
American presidents would be women.
VII. A weak inductive argument with false premise and probably false conclusion.
Example:
A few American presidents were Women. Therefore, probably the current
American presidents would be omen.

And the following table will make the Varity of possible combination of strength and truth clear:
Premises Conclusion Strength
True Prob. True Weak/strong
True Prob. False Weak
False Prob. True Weak/strong
False Prob. False Weak/strong

Depending on whether the conclusion has a higher probability of following the premises
(regardless of the truth and falsity of premises and the conclusion), the first, third and fourth
combinations show that the argument can be either strong or weak. This shows that strength, like
validity, is only indirectly related to truth and falsity.

However, any inductive argument with true premises and probably false conclusion is
always weak, which is an exception of any inductive logic.

Strength and Cogency

Depending on its actual ability to successfully maintain its inferential claim as well as its factual
claim, an inductive argument can be either cogent or un-cogent. That is, if an inductive argument
actually maintained its inferential claim, (i.e., if it is strong), and its factual claim, (i.e., if all of
its premises are probably true), then that particular inductive argument will be a cogent
argument. However, if it fails to maintain either of its claims, it will be an un-cogent argument.

An inductively cogent argument has two essential features:

A. It is strong and
B. All its premises are true.

If one of these two conditions is missed, the argument would rather be un-cogent.

By: SHIMELS A. TIRUNEH (MA, CIVIC AND ETHICAL STUDIES) Page 25

CHAPTER TWO: BASIC CONCEPTS OF LOGIC

 Thus, an inductively cogent argument = a strong argument + all true premises

Example:

Nearly all lemons that have been tasted were sour. Therefore, nearly all lemons are sour.

This argument is not valid because the conclusion concerns are not merely the lemons that have
been tasted but lemons in general, including those that have not been tested. And, the premise
does not rule out the possibility that a large percentage of untested lemons are not sour.
Nevertheless, it is unlikely that the conclusion is false while the premise is true, then the
argument is inductively cogent.

By: SHIMELS A. TIRUNEH (MA, CIVIC AND ETHICAL STUDIES) Page 26