Critical Thinking Module

ETHIO-LENS COLLEGE
Course Name : Logic and Critical Thinking
Teaching Material
Introduction to Logic 1
About the course
1. About Logic and Critical Thinking
The course, Logic and Critical Thinking, isa degree level thought course in the discipline of
philosophy. It is a philosophical inquiry that takes argumentation and reasoning as its basic objects of
investigation and attempts to introduce the fundamental concepts of logic and methods of logical
argumentation and reasoning and critical thinking.It includes evaluation of the methods by which we
form beliefs, weigh evidence, assess hypotheses and arguments, and analyze reasoning. Logic is
concerned with the study of arguments, and it seeks to establish the conditions under which an
argument may be considered as acceptable or good. It includes the development of standard methods
and principles of arguments.
Critical thinking is an exercise, a habit, a manner of perception and reasoning that has principles of
logic as its fulcrum, and dynamically involves various reasoning skills that ought to be human approach
to issues and events of life. Critical thinking means correct thinking in the pursuit of relevant and
reliable knowledge about the world. In another way, critical thinking is the reasonable, reflective,
responsible, and skillful thinking that focuses on deciding what to believe or do. To think critically is to
examine ideas, evaluate them against what you already know and make decisions about their merit. A
person who thinks critically can ask appropriate questions, gather relevant information, efficiently and
creatively sort out information, reasoning logically, and come to reliable and trustworthy conclusions
about the world that enable one to live and act. When you think critically, you weigh up all sides of an
argument and evaluate its validity, strengths and weaknesses. Thus, critical thinking skills entail
actively seeking all sides of an argument: evaluating the soundness of the claims asserted and the
evidence used to support the claims.
Therefore, this course is designed to help students to develop not only the ability to construct reliable
and logically defendable arguments of their own and rationally evaluate the arguments of others, but
also the abilities and skills of critical thinking. All education consists of transmitting two different
things to students: (1) The subject matter or discipline content of the course ("what to think"), and (2)
the correct way to understand and evaluate this subject matter ("how to think"). We may do an
excellent job of transmitting the content of our respective academic disciplines, but we often fail to
teach students how to think effectively about this subject matter, that is, how to properly understand
and evaluate it. That means, we often fail to teach how to think critically. Hence, the primary aim of
this course is to teach students the essential skills of analyzing, evaluating, and constructing arguments,
and to sharpen their ability to execute the skills in thinking and writing, and thus better prepare them to
succeed in the world. The understanding of the methods by which we develop our own arguments, form
beliefs, weigh evidence, assess hypotheses and arguments, and analyze reasoning will help you
rationally evaluate the credibility of claims and arguments you encounter in media, in everyday
conversation, and in the classroom. You will also learn to become aware of errors in reasoning and
judgment, which we all occasionally commit. Finally, you will learn to develop your own arguments
with clarity and precision.
This course consists of six important chapters or modules. The first chapter deals with the basic
concepts of philosophy, the meaning and definition of philosophy, the core branches of philosophy, and
the importance of learning philosophy. The second chapter of this module is devoted to the basic
concepts of logic: the definition and components of arguments, the techniques of recognizing
arguments, types of arguments, and evaluation of arguments. The third chapter deals with the
relationship between logic and language. It discusses the cognitive and emotive meaning of words, the
intensional and extensional meaning of terms, the types and purposes of definitions, and the intensional
and extensional definitional techniques, from a philosophical point of view. The basic concepts of
critical thinking, (i.e., the meaning and definition of critical thinking, the principles of critical thinking,
the factors that affect critical thinking, and the standards of good arguments), is addressed in the fourth
chapter. The fifth chapter discusses the various forms of logical errors in arguments, which are
commonly known as ‘fallacies’, with a special emphasis on the categories of informal fallacies. The
components, attributes and representations of categorical propositions are discussed in the last chapter
of the course.
Course Objectives
After the successful accomplishment of the course, students will able to:
 Understand the basic essence and areas of philosophy, and the necessity of learning it;
 Recognize the components and types of arguments;
 Develop the skill to construct and evaluate arguments;
 Understand the relationship between logic and language;
 Recognize the forms of meanings of words and terms;
 Comprehend the types, purposes and techniques of definitions;
 Understand the concept, principles, and criteria of critical thinking;
 Cultivate the habits of critical thinking and develop sensitivity to clear and accurate usage of
language;
 Recognize the various forms of formal and informal fallacies; and
 Understand the components, attributes and representations of categorical propositions.
Chapter one
Introducing philosophy
1.1 Chapter Overview
Logicis often treated simultaneously both as a field of study and as an instrument. As a field of study, it
is a branch of philosophy that deals with the study of arguments and the principles and methods of right
reasoning. As an instrument, it is something, which we can use to formulate our own rational
arguments and critically evaluate the soundness of others’ arguments. Before logic itself has become a
field of study, philosophers have been using it as a basic tool to investigate issues that won their
philosophical attention, such as, reality, knowledge, value, etc. Philosophy is the study of general and
fundamental problems concerning matters such as existence, knowledge, truth, beauty, law, justice,
validity, mind, and language. It is a rational and critical enterprise that tries to answer fundamental
questions through an intensive application of reason- an application that draws on analysis, comparison,
and evaluation. It involves reason, rational criticism, examination, and analysis. In this chapter, we will
learn the fundamental nature, concepts, features and areas of philosophy. Furthermore, we will discuss
why it is so important to learn philosophy.
1.2 Chapter Objectives:
Dear learners, after the successful completion of this chapter, you will be able to:
 Understand the meaning, nature and features of philosophy;

 Recognize the major fields of philosophy; and
 Understand why it is so important to learn logic and philosophy.
1.3 Lesson 1: Meaning and Nature of Philosophy
Lesson Overview
Because of its universal nature, it is difficult to define philosophy in terms of a specific subject matter.
However, we can define it etymologically as ‘love of wisdom’. Thus, as a pursuit ofwisdom,
philosophy refers to the development of critical habits, the continuous search for truth, and the
questioning of the apparent. In this lesson, students will be introduced with the fundamental meaning,
nature, and concepts of philosophy.Philosophy is not as elusive as it is often thought to be. Nor is it
remote from our various problems. It is unanimously agreed that the best way to learn and understand
philosophy is to philosophize; i.e., to be confronted with philosophical questions, to use philosophical
language, to become acquainted with differing philosophical positions and maneuvers, to read the
philosophers themselves, and to grapple with the issues for oneself. Socrates once stated that “Wonder
is the feeling of a philosopher, and philosophy begins in wonder”. It is true that most of us may not
have a clear knowledge about the history, nature, language, and issues of philosophy. But, we all think
and reflect in our own way about issues that matter us most. We all have touched and moved by the
feelings of wonder from which all philosophy derives.
The wisdom that philosophers seek is not the wisdom of the expertise or technical skills of
professionals. Someone may be encyclopedic, and thus seemingly intelligent, but he may actually be
foolish when it comes to understanding the meaning and significance of what he knows. According to
Socrates, wisdom consists of a critical habit and eternal vigilance about all things and a reverence for
truth, whatever its form, and wherever its place. Based on the Socratic understanding of wisdom,
philosophy, as a pursuit of wisdom, is, thus, the development of critical habits, the continuous search
for truth, and the questioning of the apparent.
To interrogate the obvious means to deal creatively with the phenomenal world, to go beyond the
common understanding, and to speculate about things that other people accept with no doubt.
1.4 Basic Features of Philosophy
The general features of philosophy can be summarized as follows:
a) Philosophy is a set of views or beliefs about life and the universe, which are often held uncritically.
We refer to this meaning as the informal sense of philosophy or “having” a philosophy. Usually
when a person says “my philosophy is,” he or she is referring to an informal personal attitude to
whatever topic is being discussed.
This is the formal sense of “doing”philosophy. These two senses of philosophy-”having” and “doing”-
cannot be treated entirely independent of each other, if we did not have a philosophy in the formal,
personal sense, then we could not do a philosophy in the critical, reflective sense. However, having a
philosophy is not sufficient for doing philosophy. A genuine philosophical attitude is searching and
critical; it is open-minded and tolerant- willing to look at all sides of an issue without prejudice. To
philosophize is not merely to read and know philosophy; there are skills of argumentation to be
mastered, techniques of analysis to be employed, and a body of material to be appropriated such that we
become able to think philosophically.
b) To philosophize also means to generalize. Philosophers are reflective and critical. They take a
second look at the material presented by common sense. They attempt to think through a variety of
life’s problems and to face all the facts involved impartially. The accumulation of knowledge does
not by itself lead to understanding, because it does not necessarily teach the mind to make a critical
evaluation of facts that entail consistent and coherent judgment. Critical evaluations often differ.
Philosophers, theologians, scientists, and others disagree, first because they view things from
different points of view and with different assumptions. Their personal experiences, cultural
backgrounds, and training may vary widely. This is especially true of people living at different
times and in different places. A second reason philosophers disagree is that they live in a changing
universe. People change, society changes, and nature changes. Some people are responsive and
sensitive to change; others cling to tradition and the status quo, to systems that were formulated
some time ago and that were declared to be authoritative and final. A third reason philosophers
disagree is that they deal with an area of human experience in which the evidence is not complete.
Different people may interpret the evidence we do have in various ways. Despite these
disagreements, however, philosophers continue to probe, examine, and evaluate the material with
the hope of presenting consistent principles by which we can live.
c) Philosophy is a rational attempt to look at the world as a whole.
Philosophy seeks to combine the conclusions of the various sciences and human experience into some
kind of consistent worldview. Philosophers wish to see life, not with the specialized slant of the
scientist or the businessperson or the artist, but with the overall view of someone cognizant of life as a
totality. Although there are difficulties and dangers in setting forth any worldview, there also are
dangers in confining attention to fragments of human experience. Philosophy’s task is to give a view of
the whole, a life and a worldview, and to integrate the knowledge of the sciences with that of other
disciplines to achieve a consistent whole. Philosophy, according to this view, attempts to bring the
results of human inquiry- religious, historical, and scientific into some meaningful interpretation that
provides knowledge and insight for our lives.
d) Philosophy is the logical analysis of language and the clarification of the meaning of words and
concepts.
Certainly, this is one function of philosophy. In fact, nearly all philosophers have used methods of
analysis and have sought to clarify the meaning of terms and the use of language. Some philosophers
see this as the main task of philosophy, and a few claim this is the only legitimate function of
philosophy. Such persons consider philosophy a specialized field serving the sciences and aiding in the
clarification of language rather than a broad field reflecting on all of life’s experiences. This outlook
has gained considerable support during the twentieth century. It would limit what we call knowledge to
statements about observable facts and their interrelations i.e., to the business of the various sciences.
e) Philosophy is a group of perennial problems that interest people and for which philosophers
always have sought answers.
Philosophypresses its inquiry into the deepest problems of human existence. Some of the philosophical
questions raised in the past have been answered in a manner satisfactory to the majority of
philosophers. Many questions, however, have been answered only tentatively, and many problems
remain unsolved. What are philosophical questions? The question “Did Ram make a false statement on
his income tax return?” is merely a question of fact. However, the questions “What is truth?” and
“What is the distinction between right and wrong?” have philosophical importance. Sometimes we
think seriously about fundamental life issues: What is life and why am I here? Why is there anything at
all? What is the place of life in this great universe? Is the universe friendly or unfriendly? Do things
operate by chance or through sheer mechanism, or is there some plan, purpose, or intelligence at the
heart of things? Is my life controlled by outside forces, or do I have a determining or even a partial
degree of control? Why do people struggle and strive for their rights, for justice, for better things in the
future? What do concepts like “right” and “justice” means, and what are the marks of a good society?
Often men and women have been asked to sacrifice their lives, if need be, for certain values and ideals.
What are the genuine values of life and how can it be attained? Is there really a fundamental distinction
between right and wrong, or is it just a matter of one’s own opinions? What is beauty? Should religion
count in a person’s life? Is it intellectually valid to believe in God? Is there a possibility of a “life after
death?” Is there any way we can get an answer to these and many related questions? Where does
knowledge come from, and can we have any assurances that anything is true?
The above questions are all philosophical. The attempt to seek answers or solutions to them has given
rise to theories and systems of thought, such as idealism, realism, pragmatism, analytic philosophy,
existentialism, phenomenology, and process philosophy.Philosophy also means the various theories or
systems of thought developed by the great philosophers, such as Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Augustine,
Aquinas, Descartes, Spinoza, Locke, Berkeley, Kant, Hegel, Nietzsche, Royce, James, Dewey,
Whitehead, and others. Without these people and their thoughts, philosophy would not have the rich
content it has today. Even though we may be unconscious of the fact, we are constantly influenced by
ideas that have come down to us in the traditions of society.
1.5 Core Fields of Philosophy
1.5.1 Metaphysics
Dear learners, we have said earlier that philosophy is a rational and critical enterprise that tries to
formulate and answer fundamental questions through an intensive application of reason- an application
that draws on analysis, comparison, and evaluation. It deals with the most basic issues faced by human
beings. The content of philosophy is better seen as asking the right questions rather than providing the
correct answers.It even can be said that philosophy is the study of questions. Van Cleve Morris has
noted that the crux of the matter is asking the “right” questions. By “right” he meant questions that are
meaningful and relevant- the kind of questions people really want answered and that will make a
difference in how they live and work. Philosophy has different primary and secondary branches.
Metaphysicsis the branch of philosophy that studies the ultimate nature of reality or existence. It deal
with issues of reality, God, freedom, soul/immortality, the mind-body problem, form and substance
relationship, cause and effect relationship, and other related issues. Metaphysicians seek an irreducible
foundation of reality or ‘first principles’ from which absolute knowledge or truth can be induced and
deduced. The term metaphysics is derived from the Greek words “meta” means (“beyond”, “upon” or
“after”) and physika, means (“physics”). Literally, it refers ‘those things after the physics.’ Aristotle’s
writings on ‘first philosophy’ came after his treatise on physics, therefore, Aristotle’s editor,
Andronicus of Rhodes, named them metaphysics. Some of the questions metaphysicians have been
rising;
 What is reality?
 What is the ultimately real?
 What is the nature of the ultimate reality?
 Is it one thing or is it many different things?
 What is time?
 What is the meaning of life?
What is more, one of the fundamental aspects of this field is Ontology:Ontology is the study of
the nature of existence, or what it means for anything to exist. Several questions are central to
ontology: “Is basic reality found in matter or physical energy (the world we can sense), or is it
found in spirit or spiritual energy? Is it composed of one element (e.g., matter or spirit), or two
(e.g., matter and spirit), or many?” “Is reality orderly and lawful in itself, or is it merely orderable
by the human mind? Is it fixed and stable, or is change its central feature? Is this reality friendly,
unfriendly, or neutral toward humanity?”
1.5.2 Epistemology
Epistemology is the other field of philosophy that studies about the nature, scope, meaning, and
possibility of knowledge. It deals with issues of knowledge, opinion, truth, falsity, reason, experience,
and faith. Epistemology is also referred to as “theory of knowledge”.Etymologically, the word
epistemology has been derived from the Greek words episteme, meaning “knowledge, understanding”,
and logos, meaning “study of”.It seeks to answer of the basic questions as “What is true?” and “How do
we know?” Thus, epistemology covers two areas: the content of thought and thought itself. The study
of epistemology deals with issues related to the dependability of knowledge and the validity of the
sources through which we gain information in order to form knowledge.
The following are among the questions/issues with which Epistemology deals:
 What is knowledge?
 What does it mean to know?
 What is the source of knowledge? Experience? Reason? Or both?
 How can we be sure that what we perceive through our senses is correct?
 What makes knowledge different from belief or opinion?
 What is truth, and how can we know a statement is true?
 Can reason really help us to know phenomenal things without being informed by sense
experiences?
 Can our sense experience really help us to know things beyond our perception without the
assistance of our reasoning ability?
 What is the relationship and difference between faith and reason?
1.5.3 Axiology and Logic

Axiology is the study or theory of value. The term Axiology stems from two Greek words- “Axios”,
meaning “value, worth”, and “logos”, meaning “reason/ theory/ symbol / science/study of”. Hence,
Axiology is the philosophical study of value, which originally meant the worth of something. Axiology
asks the philosophical questions of values that deal with notions of what a person or a society regards
as good or preferable, such as:
 What is a value?
 Where do values come from?
 How do we justify our values?
 How do we know what is valuable?
 What is the relationship between values and knowledge?
 What kinds of values exist?
 Can it be demonstrated that one value is better than another?
 Who benefits from values?
 Etc…
I. Ethics
Ethics, which is also known as Moral Philosophy, is a science that deals with the philosophical
study of moral principles, values, codes, and rules, which may be used as standards for determining
what kind of human conduct/action is said to be good or bad, right or wrong.What is good/bad?
 What is right/wrong?
 Is it the Right Principle or the Good End that makes human action/conduct moral?
 Is an action right because of its good end, or it is good because of its right principle?
 Are moral principles universal, objective, and unconditional, or relative, subjective and
conditional?
 What is the ultimate foundation of moral principles? The supernatural God? Human
reason? Mutual social contract? Social custom?
 Does God exist? If so, is He Benevolent and Omnipotent?
 If God is Benevolent, why He creates evil things? If God does not create evil things, then,
there must be another creator who is responsible to creation of the evil things? But, if it is so,
how can God be an Omnipotent creator?
Ethics, or ethical studies, can be grouped into three broad categories: Normative ethics, Meta-
ethics, and Applied Ethics.Normative Ethics refers to the ethical studies that attempt to study and
determine precisely the moral rules, principles, standards and goals by which human beings might
evaluate and judge the moral values of their conducts, actions and decisionsIt is the reasoned search
for principles of human conduct, including a critical study of the major theories about which things
are good, which acts are right, and which acts are blameworthy. Consequentialism or Teleological
Ethics, Deontological Ethics, and Virtue Ethics are the major examples of normative ethical studies.
Applied Ethics is a normative ethics that attempts to explain, justify, apply moral rules, principles,
standards, and positions to specific moral problems, such as capital punishment, euthanasia, abortion,
adultery, animal right, and so on. This area of normative ethics is termed applied because the ethicist
applies or uses general ethical princes in an attempt to resolve specific moral problems.
II. Aesthetics
Activity # 3: - Dear learners, how do you define and understand aesthetics? What
Discuss about it with the student(s) beside you.
Aesthetics is the theory of beauty. It studies about the particular value of our artistic and aesthetic
experiences. It deals with beauty, art, enjoyment, sensory/emotional values, perception, and matters of
taste and sentiment.
The following are typical Aesthetic questions:

 What is art?
 What is beauty?
 What is the relation between art and beauty?
 What is the connection between art, beauty, and truth?
 Can there be any objective standard by which we may judge the beauty of artistic works, or
beauty is subjective?
 What is artistic creativity and how does it differ from scientific creativity?
 Why works of art are valuable?
 Can artistic works communicate? If so, what do they communicate?
 Does art have any moral value, and obligations or constraints?
 Are there standards of quality in Art?
III. Social/Political Philosophy
Activity # 4: - Dear learners, how do you define politics and society? What political
and social rules, principles, and standards do you know and follow,
and why? Discuss about it with the student(s) beside you.
Social/Political Philosophy studies about of the value judgments operating in a civil society, be it social
or political. The following questions are some of the major Social/Political Philosophy primarily deal
with:
 What form of government is best?
 What economic system is best?
 What is justice/injustice?
 What makes an action/judgment just/unjust?
 What is society?
 Does society exist? If it does, how does it come to existence?
 How are civil society and government come to exist?
 Are we obligated to obey all laws of the State?
 What is the purpose of government?
1.6 Logic
Activity # 5: - Dear learners, how do you define and understand logic? Discuss
about it with student(s) beside you.
Logic is the study or theory of principles of right reasoning. It deals with formulating the right
principles of reasoning; and developing scientific methods of evaluating the validity and soundness of
arguments. The following are among the various questions raised by Logic:
 What is an argument; What does it mean to argue?
 What makes an argument valid or invalid
 What is a sound argument?
 What relation do premise and conclusion have in argument?
 How can we formulate and evaluate an argument?
 What is a fallacy?; What makes an argument fallacious?
CHAPTER TWO: BASIC CONCEPTS IN LOGIC
Introduction
The term "logic" came from the Greek word “logos”, which is sometimes translated as "sentence",
"discourse", "reason", "rule", or "ratio". Of course, these translations are not enough to help us
understand the more specialized meaning of "logic" as it is used today.
So what is logic?
Logic may be defined as the science that evaluates arguments. It can also be defined as “the study
and formulation of the principles of right reasoning”. The most immediate benefit derived from the
study of logic is the skill needed to construct sound arguments of one’s own and to evaluate the
arguments of others. In accomplishing this goal, logic instills a sensitivity for the formal component in
language, a thorough command of which is indispensible to clear, effective and meaningful
communication. Among the benefits expected from the study of logic is an increase in self confidence
that we are making sense when we criticize the arguments of others and when we advance arguments of
our own.
On a broader scale, by focusing attention on the requirement for reasons or evidence to support our
views, logic provides a fundamental defense against the prejudiced and uncivilized attitudes that
threaten the foundations of democratic society. Finally, through its analysis of inconsistency as a fatal
flaw in any theory or point of view, logic proves a useful device in disclosing ill-conceived policies in
various spheres and, ultimately, in distinguishing the rational from the irrational, the sane from the
insane.
1.1 Arguments, Premises and Conclusions
All of us encounter arguments in our day-to-day life experience. We read them in books and news
papers, hear them on television, and formulate them when communicating with friends and associates.
The aim of logic is to develop the system of methods and principles that may use as criteria for
evaluating the arguments of others and as a guide to construct arguments of our own.
An argument, as it occurs in logic, is 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 (the conclusion). Or; an
argument is a connected series of statements or propositions, some of which are intended to provide
support, justification or evidence for the truth of another statement or proposition. Arguments consist of
one or more premises and a conclusion. The premises are those statements that are taken to provide the
support or evidence; the conclusion is that which the premises allegedly support.
All arguments may be placed in one of two basic groups: those in which the premises really support the
conclusion and those in which they do not even though they claimed to. The former are said to be good
arguments, the latter bad arguments. The purpose of logic, as a science that evaluates arguments, is
thus to develop methods and techniques that allow us to distinguish good arguments from bad.
As is apparent in the above definition, the term “argument” has a very specific meaning in logic. It does
not mean for example, a mere verbal fight, as one might have with one’s parent, spouse or friend. Let
us examine the features of this definition in greater detail. First of all, an argument is a group of
statements. In English language there are four types of sentences. These are;
 Declarative sentences are used for assertions, e.g. "He is a clever student."
 Interrogative sentences are used to ask questions, e.g. "Is he here?"
 Imperative sentences are used for making requests or issuing commands, e.g. "Come here!"
 Exclamatory sentences are used for the expression of emotional feelings. e.g. “Oh My God!”
For present purposes, we shall take a statement to be any declarative sentence, which makes a claim.
Or we can define a statement as a sentence which is either true or false. Truth and falsity are called
the two truth values of a statement. So here are some examples of statements in logic:
 Snow is white.
 The moon is made of green cheese.
 France is found in Latin America.
 Barack Obama is the President of the United States of America.
As you can see, statements can be either true or false, and they can be simple or complex. But they
must be grammatical and complete sentences.
Unlike statements, many sentences cannot be said to be either true or false. Questions, proposals,
suggestions, commands and exclamations usually cannot and so are not usually classified as statements.
The following sentences are not statements:
 Can you come to the party please? (Question)
 Come here! (Command)
 Next week, I will go to Gonder to visit the castle of Fassil. (Proposal)
 Excellent!! (Exclamation)
 It would be better for you to study hard to score best grades. (Suggestion)
The statements that make up an argument are divided into one or more premises and one and only one
conclusion. The premises are statements that set forth the reasons or evidence, and the conclusion is the
statement that the evidence is claimed to support or imply. In other words, the conclusion is the
statement that is claimed to follow from the premises. Here is an example of an argument:
All crimes are violations of the law.
Theft is a crime.
Therefore, theft is a violation of the law.
The first two statements are the premises; the third is the conclusion. (The claim that the premises
support or imply the conclusion is indicated by the word “therefore.”) In this argument the premises
really do support the conclusion, and so the argument is a good one. But consider this one;
Some Americans are black.
John is an American.
Therefore, John is black.
In this argument the premises do not strictly support the conclusion, even though they are claimed to
do, and the argument is not a good one.
One of the most important tasks in the analysis of arguments is being able to distinguish premises from
the conclusion. If what is thought to be a conclusion is really a premise, and vice versa, the subsequent
analysis cannot possibly be correct. Frequently arguments contain certain indicator words that provide
clues in identifying premises and conclusion. Some typical conclusion indicators are;
Accordingly Consequently It follows that
Entails that It must be As a result
Therefore Hence Whence
We may conclude We may infer Implies that
Wherefore Thus So
Whenever a statement follows one of these indicators, it can usually be identified as a conclusion. By
the process of elimination the other statements are the premises. For example;
Artists and poets look at the world and seek relationships and order. But they translate their
ideas to canvas, or to marble, or to poetic images. Scientists try to find relationships between
different objects and events. To express the order they find, they create the hypotheses and
theories. Thus, the great scientific theories are easily compared to great art and great literature.
The conclusion of this argument is, “the great scientific theories are easily compared to great art and
great literature.” By the process of elimination the rest of the statements in this argument become the
premises of the argument.
If an argument does not contain a conclusion indicator, it may contain a premise indicator. Some typical
premise indicators are
Since May be inferred from
As indicated by Given that
Because Seeing that
For For the reason that
In that In as much as
As Owing to
For example;
Expectant mothers should never use recreational drugs, since the use of these
drugs can jeopardize the development of the fetus.
The premise of this argument is the statement, “the use of these drugs can jeopardize the development of
the fetus.” The other statement is the conclusion of the argument.
One premise indicator which is not included in the above list is “for this reason.” This indicator is
special in that it comes immediately after the premise that it indicates. “For this reason” (except when
followed by a colon) means for the reason (premise) that was just given. In other words, the premise is
the statement that occurs immediately before “for this reason.” One should be careful not to confuse “for
this reason” with “for the reason that.”
Sometimes a single indicator can be used to identify more than one premise. Consider the following
argument;
The development of high temperature superconducting materials is technologically

justified, for such materials will allow electricity to be transmitted without loss over
great distance, and they will pave the way for trains that levitate magnetically.
The premise indicator “for” goes with both “such materials will allow electricity to be transmitted
without loss over great distances” and “they will pave the way for trains that levitate magnetically.”
These are the premises. By the process of elimination, “the development of high temperature
superconducting materials is technologically justified” is the conclusion.
Sometimes an argument contains no indicators. When this occurs, the reader/listener must ask such
questions as: (1) what single statement is claimed (implicitly) to follow from the others? (2) What is the
arguer trying to prove? (3) What is the main point in the passage? The answers to these questions point
to the conclusion. In the other way, if an argument has no indicator words at all, then good English
style suggests that the topic sentence of the paragraph is the conclusion of the argument.
For example, let us consider the following argument;
The United States of America stands alone among the Western nations in its continued
use of capital punishment. Israel has executed no one since Adolf Eichmann, the Nazi
war criminal. Britain, France and Germany do not resort to capital punishment. Britain’s
parliament overwhelmingly rejected a proposal to reinstate the death penalty in 1981.
West Germany’s constitution forbids capital punishment. Sweden abolished the death
penalty as far back as 1920. The United States of America is out of step with the very
countries whose basic values are most similar to ours.
In the above argument, the conclusion is “The United States of America stands alone among the
Western nations in its continued use of capital punishment.” The other statements in the argument are
the premises. Because their main task in this argument is to provide reasons or support to justify the
claim of the conclusion, i.e to justify the fact that, the United States of America stands alone among the
Western nations in its continued use of capital punishment.
Passages that contain arguments sometimes contain statements that are neither premises nor conclusion.
If a statement has nothing to do with the conclusion or, for example, simply makes a passing comment,
it should not be included within the context of the argument. Example:
Socialized medicine is not recommended because it would result in a reduction in the

overall quality of medical care available to the average citizen. In addition, it might very
well bankrupt the federal treasury. This is the whole case against socialized medicine in a
nutshell.
The last statement in the above argument makes only a passing comment about the argument
itself and is therefore neither a premise nor a conclusion.
Closely related to the concepts of argument and statement are those of inference and proposition. An
inference, in the technical sense of the term, is the reasoning process expressed by an argument.
Inferences may be expressed not only through arguments but through conditional statements as well. In
the loose sense of the term, “inference” is used interchangeably with “argument”.
Analogously, a proposition, in the technical sense of the term, is the meaning or information content of
a statement. For the purpose of this course, “proposition” and “statement” are used interchangeably.
1.2 Recognizing Arguments
Not all passages contain arguments. Because logic deals with arguments, it is important to be able to
distinguish passages that contain arguments from those that do not. In general, a passage contains an
argument if it purports to prove something; if it does not do so, it doesn’t contain an argument.
Two conditions must be fulfilled for a passage to purport to prove something:
1) At least one of the statements must claim to present evidence or reasons.
2) There must be a claim that the alleged evidence or reasons supports or implies something- that
is, a claim that something follows from the alleged evidence.
 The statements that claim to present the evidence or reasons are premises.
 The statement that the evidence is claimed to support or imply is the conclusion.
It is not necessary that the premises present actual evidence or true reasons nor that the premises
actually support the conclusion. But at least the premises must claim to present evidence or reason, and
there must be a claim that the evidence or reasons supports or implies something.
In the above case, the first condition expresses the factual claim, and deciding whether it is fulfilled
usually presents few problems. Thus most of our attention will be concentrated on whether the second
condition is fulfilled. This second condition expresses what is called an inferential claim. The
inferential claim is simply the claim that the passage expresses a reasoning process-that something
supports or implies something or that something follows from something. Such a claim can be either
explicit or implicit.
An explicit inferential claim is usually asserted by premise or conclusion indicator words such as,
“thus,” “since,” “because,” “hence,” “therefore,” and so on). Example:
The human eye can see a source of light that is as faint as an ordinary candle from a distance
of 27 kilometers, through a nonabsorbing atmosphere. Thus, a powerful searchlight directed
from a new moon should be visible on earth with naked eye.
The word “thus” expresses the claim that something is being inferred, so the passage is an
argument.
An implicit inferential claim exists when there is an inferential relationship between the statements in
the passage. Example;
The price reduction [seen with an electronic calculator] is the result of technological
revolution. The calculator of the 1960s used integrated electronic circuits that contained
about a dozen of transistors or similar components on a single chip. Today, mass produced
chips, only a few square, contain several thousand such components.
The inferential relationship between the first statement and the other two constitutes an implicit claim
that evidence supports something, so we are justified in calling the passage an argument. The first
statement is the conclusion, and the other two are premises.
In deciding whether there is a claim that evidence supports or implies something, keep an eye out for
(1) indicator words and (2) the presence of inferential relationship between the statements. In
connection with these points, however, a word of caution is in order. First, the occurrence of an
indicator word by no means guarantees the presence of an argument. This is because; these words are
often used for purposes other than to indicate the occurrence of a premise or conclusion. The most
important way to know whether a given passage contains an argument or not is to focus whether there
is an inferential claim between the statements that construct the passage or not. This is because; there
are cases in which passages contain indicator words, but lack inferential claim between the statements.
Passages Lacking an Inferential Claim
Passages lacking an inferential claim contain statements that could be premises or conclusion or both,
but what is missing is a claim that a reasoning process is being expressed-that potential premises
support a conclusion or that a potential conclusion follows from premises. Passages lacking an
inferential claim are;
 Passages in which there is no claim that something is being proved.
 They contain statements that could pass for premises or conclusions, or even both, but they are
not.
 They are passages in which there is no claim that a premise might support a conclusion, or that
a conclusion is supported by a premise.
Some of the examples of passages lacking an inferential claim are:
Warnings, (such as “watch out that you shouldn’t sleep on the ice”) and Pieces of advice, (such as I
suggest you take accounting during your first semester”) are kinds of discourse aimed at modifying
someone’s behavior. Each of these could serve as the conclusion of an argument; but in their present
context, there is no claim that they are supported or implied by reasons or evidence. Thus, there is no
argument.
For example
When you go to a job interview, be sure to dress neatly and be on time. Be sure to shake
your employer’s hand and look him square in the eye. Try to show him you are interested in
and really want the job.
Statements of belief or opinions: they are expressions about what someone believes or thinks about
something. For example let’s see the following passage;
I think that going through life with a negative attitude is waste of time. I would prefer to
talk at things with a fresher perspective.
In the above passage, the author is making claims but he/she offers no evidence to support his personal
outlook.
Loosely Associated Statements: are passages that contain statements that may be about a similar
subject but, they lack a claim that one is proved by the other. Example:
Not to honor men of worth will keep the people from contention; not to value goods that
are hard to come by will keep them from theft; not to display what is desirable will keep
them from being unsettled of mind.
In the above passage, all the statements don’t offer any support for one another. Therefore, it is not an
argument.
Reports; consist of a group of statements that convey information about some situation or event. Let us
see the following report;
A powerful car bomb blew up outside the regional telephone company headquarters in
Melbourne, injuring 25 people and causing millions of dollars of damage to nearby
buildings, police said. A police statement said that 198-pound bomb was packed into a milk
churn hidden in the back of a stolen car.
The statements in the above report could serve as the premises of an argument; but because there is no
inferential claim that the statements support or imply any thing, it is not an argument. One must be
careful, though, with reports about arguments. Example:
500 prisoners were released from the Federal Corrective Center. A spokesman for the
Center said that the prisoners pose “no threat to the community” since they have showed
behavioral change and become persons of civic and moral virtues.
Properly speaking, this passage is not an argument, because the author of the passage does not
claim that anything is supported by evidence.
An Expository Passage; is a kind of discourse that begins with a topic sentence followed by one or
more sentences that develop the topic sentence. If the objective is not to prove the topic sentence but
only to expand or elaborate it, then there is no argument. For example;
There are three familiar states of matter; solid, liquid and gas. Solid objects ordinarily
maintain their shape and volume regardless of their location. A liquid occupies a definite
volume, but assumes the shape of the occupied portion of its container. A gas contains
neither shape nor volume. It expands to fill completely whatever container it is in.
The aim of this passage is not to prove that the first statement is true. It simply further expands the idea
of the first statement. Because of this passage cannot be considered to be an argument. Yet expository
passages can also be interpreted as arguments if there is good reason that a statement is being proved by
others. This is not to say that some expository are arguments but only that some passages can be
interpreted both as expository passages and as arguments.
An Illustration; consists of statements about a certain subject combined with a reference to one or
more specific instances intended to exemplify that statement. Illustrations are often confused with
arguments because many of them contain indicator words such as “thus.” For example
Chemical elements, as well as, compounds can be represented by molecular formulas.

Thus, oxygen is represented by “O2” Sodium Chloride by “NaCl” and Sulfuric Acid by
“H2So4.”
This passage is not an argument, because there is no claim that anything supported by evidence. The
purpose of the word “thus” is not to indicate that something is being proved but merely to show how
something is done (how chemical elements and compounds can represented by formulas).
Nevertheless, as with expository passage, many passages that give examples can be interpreted as
argument. There are arguments which illustrate a process but they do it to prove a point. Such
arguments are called arguments from example. Example:
Although most forms of cancer, if untreated can cause death, not all cancers is life
threatening. For example, basal cell carcinoma, the most common of all skin cancers, can
produce disfigurement, but it almost never result in death.
This passage illustrates the effects of skin cancer, but the point of the explanation is to show that not
all cancers are life threatening. So it can be taken as an argument. Let us also see another example.
Water is an excellent solvent. It can dissolve a wide range of materials that will not
dissolve in other liquids. For example, salts do not dissolve in most common solvents,
such as gasoline, kerosene, turpentine and cleaning fluids. But many salts dissolve
readily in water. So do a variety of nonionic organic substances, such as sugars and
alcohols of low molecular weight.
In this passage the examples that are cited can correctly be interpreted as proving the water is an
excellent solvent. Thus, the passage may be considered as an argument.
The types of non arguments described here are not mutually exclusive. One passage can often be
interpreted as an illustration, as an expository passage, a statement of opinion, or a set of loosely
associated statements. The main issue here is not what kind of non arguments a certain passage
might be, but whether that passage is best interpreted as an argument or non argument.
Conditional Statements; a conditional statement is an “if …then…” statement. For example;
If air is removed from a solid closed container, then the container will weigh less than it did.
Every conditional statement is made up of two components. The component statement immediately
following the “if” is called antecedent, and the one following the “then” is called the consequent.
Occasionally, if the word “then” is left out then the order of antecedent and consequent is reversed.
In the above example, the antecedent is “air is removed from a solid closed container,” and the
consequent is “the container will weigh less than it did.”
Conditional statements are not arguments, because they fail to meet the criteria given earlier. In an
argument, at least one statement must claim to provide the evidence or reasons, and there must be a
claim that this evidence implies something. In conditional statement, there is no claim that either the
antecedent or the consequent present evidence. In other words, there is no assertion that either the
antecedent or the consequent is true. Rather there is only the assertion that if the antecedent is true,
then so is the consequent. Of course, a conditional statement as a whole may present evidence,
because it asserts a relationship between statements. Yet when conditional statements are taken in
this sense, there is still no argument, because there is then no separate claim that this evidence
implies anything.
Some conditional arguments are similar to arguments, however, in that they express the outcome of
a reasoning process. As such, they may be said to have a certain inferential content. Consider the
following:
1. If both Saturn and Uranus have rings, then Saturn has rings. 2. If iron is less dense than
mercury, then it will float in mercury.
The link between the antecedent and consequent of these conditional statements resembles the
inferential link between the premises and conclusion of an argument. Yet there is a difference
because the premises of an argument are claimed to be true, whereas no such claim is made for the
antecedent of a conditional statement. Accordingly, these conditional statements are not arguments.
The relation between conditional statements and arguments may be summarized as the following
manner
1. A single conditional statement is not an argument.
2. A conditional statement may serve as either the premise or the conclusion or both of an
argument.
3. The inferential content of a conditional statement may be re-expressed to form an argument.

For example, let us the following conditional statement and it can be re-expressed to form an
argument;
Conditional statement; If cigarette companies publish warning labels, then smokers assume the risk
of smoking.
Argument form; If cigarette companies publish warning labels, then smokers assume the risk of
smoking. Cigarette companies do publish warning labels. Therefore, smokers assume the risk of
reasoning.
Conditional statements are especially important in logic because they express the relationship
between the necessary and sufficient conditions.
 A is sufficient condition for B whenever the occurrence of A is all that is needed for the
occurrence of B.
 B is said to be a necessary condition for A, whenever A cannot occur without the occurrence
of B.
For example; 1. Being a human is sufficient for being a mammal. But being a mammal is necessary
before you can be a human.
2. Having gas in your car is necessary to driving, but it is not enough to actually
get you on the road. A sufficient condition for deriving would be to put the key
into the ignition, but without gas then driving won’t happen.
Explanations; an explanation consists of a statement or group of statements intended to shed light on
some phenomenon that is usually accepted as a matter of fact. For example;
The sky appears blue from the earth’s surface because light rays from the sun are scattered
by particles in the atmosphere.
Cows can digest grass, while humans cannot, because their digestive systems contain
enzymes not found in humans.
Every explanation is composed of two distinct components: the explanandum and explanans. The
explanadum is a statement that describes the event or phenomenon to be explained, and the explanans is
the statement or group of statements that purports to do the explaining.
Explanations are sometimes mistaken for arguments because they often contain the indicator word
“because.” Yet explanations are not arguments for the following reason:
 In an explanation, the explanans is intended to show why something is the case, whereas in an
argument the premises are intended to prove that something is the case. In the first example
given above, the fact that the sky is blue is readily apparent. The intention of the passage is to
explain why it appears blue – not to prove that it appears blue. Similarly, in the second example,
virtually everyone knows that people cannot digest grass. The intention of the passage is to
explain why this is true.
Explanations bear a certain similarity to arguments. Like certain conditional statements, explanations
express the outcome of a reasoning process. The rational link between the explanandum and the
explanans may at times resemble the inferential link between the premises and conclusion of an
argument. Yet explanations are not arguments, because they do not purport to prove anything. If
explanations are said to have a certain inferential content, that content is not used for the same purpose
as the inferential content expressed in arguments.
In summary, in deciding whether a passage contains an argument, one should look for three
things:
1. Indicator words.
2. The presence of an inferential relationship between statements, and
3. Typical kinds of non arguments.
Also, in the absence of indicator words, remember that it is often helps to mentally insert the word
“therefore” before the various statements to decide whether it makes sense to interpret one of them as
following from the others.
1.3 Deduction and Induction
→So far we have seen the meaning and structures of an argument. Now the discussion more continues
on types of arguments. Generally speaking arguments can be classified into two folds: deductive and
inductive.
 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 conclusion to be
false. The word “impossible” in strict sense implies that the conclusion is claimed to follow
necessarily from the premises. Let’s see following two examples of a deductive argument;
1. There is no Ethiopian leader who is beheaded by foreigners. Emperor Yohannes IV is
among leaders of Ethiopia. Thus, he is not beheaded by foreign forces.
2. All Latin American nations are colonized by either the Spaniards or Portuguese. Brazil
is not colonized by Portuguese. Accordingly, Spain is the colonizer of Brazil.
 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, then based on that assumption it is
improbable that the conclusion is false( that is, it is probable that the conclusion is true). These
are examples of an inductive argument;
1. Most famous philosophers of the world are theists. Fredric Nietzsche was one of the
well-known philosophers of the world. So, he was a religious man.
2. From our past experience we realized that the sun rises in the east and sets in the west.
Hence, tomorrow the sun will rise in the east and set in the west.
→NB. The distinction between inductive and deductive arguments appears in the strength of an
argument’s inferential claim. This is to mean that the difference between deductive and inductive
arguments lies in how strongly the conclusion is claimed to follow from the premises. Although it may
be sometimes difficult to know explicitly the strength of the claims in a given argument, it is advisable
to use one’s interpretive skill to evaluate it. There are three (3) factors that influence our decisions
about this claim:
1) The occurrence of special indictor words

→Some of the indictor terms of a deductive argument are “definitely,” “certainly,” and “absolutely”-
these all show that an absolute (strong) connection between the premise(s) and a conclusion.
▪ E.g. Anyone who is trained in computer engineering must have an ample knowledge
about software programming and maintenance. Kiros is the newly employed computer
engineer in our organization. Thus, [it absolutely follows that] he knows about software
programming and maintenance.
→These are some of special indictor words of an inductive argument; “Probable/Improbable,”

“Plausible/Implausible,” “Likely/Unlikely” and “Reasonable to conclude”.
▪ E.g. Many pregnant women in Ethiopia lost their life because of malnutrition. Three
pregnant women recently died at Mekelle hospital. [We may conclude that,] they died
due to malnutrition.
→ NB: the indictor word “must” can imply either necessity or probability, so that it belongs to both
categories.
2) The actual strength of the Inferential Link

→ Here it is quite important the reader or listener to use the interpretive skill of her own by pondering the
strength of the inferential link between premise(s) and conclusion. You can use the above examples just by
excluding parts which are bracketed.
3) The Forms of Arguments

This is the third factor which can be used when an argument contains no indictor words, and the
conclusion does not follow either strictly or probably from the premises. There are five (5) deductive
and six (6) inductive widely recognized forms of arguments. Let us discuss them one by one.
A. Forms of a Deductive Argument

1. Argument based on mathematics: This includes argument based on some purely arithmetic or
geometric computation or measurement.
▪ E.g. The total number of fresh students that are joined at Mekelle University in 2011/2012 is
12,000.For each of the three campuses of the University 4000 new students are assigned to train
in different fields of study. Therefore, Adi Haki campus of Mekelle University will receive about
4,000, fresh students.
2. Argument from Definitions: This is an argument in which the conclusion is claimed to depend merely
upon the definition of some word or phrase used in the premise or conclusion
▪ E.g. God is omnipotent, it follows that he is all-knowing.
3. Syllogistic Arguments: Syllogism is an argument consisting of exactly two premises

and a conclusion.
There are three types of a syllogistic argument. These are;
1. Categorical Syllogism; it is a syllogism in which each statement starts with one of words “all,” “no,”
or “some.”
▪ E.g. All lawyers are politicians. Some lawyers are economists. Therefore, some politicians are
economists.
2. Hypothetical Syllogism; is a syllogism having a conditional statement for one or both of its premises.
▪ E.g. If water boils 100 degree salacious, and then it evaporates. If water evaporates, then it
simply changes its chemical character into gas. Thus, if water boils 100 degree salacious, then it
simply changes its chemical character into gas.
3. Disjunctive Syllogism; is a syllogism having a disjunctive statement (i.e., an “either…or…”
statement) for one of its premises.
▪ E.g. Either colonel Muammar Gaddafi is killed by NATO’s military force or by Libyan rebel
groups. Gaddafi is not killed by NATO’s military power. Thus, he was killed by rebel
groups.
B. Forms of an Inductive Argument

1. An argument based on prediction; in this type argument the premises deal with some known event in
the present or past, and the conclusion moves beyond this event to some event in the relative future.
 E.g. For the last consecutive three years Manchester United has won the European
Champions League. From this it is reasonable to argue that the champion of this year
Champions League will be Manchester United.
2. An argument from analogy; this argument occurs when there is an analogy or similarity between
two things or states of affairs.
 E.g. Both Plato and Aristotle are classical Greece philosophers. Plato
accuses poets for their imitative character. Analogously, Aristotle blames poets for their
imitative disposition.
3. An Inductive Generalization; this is an argument that proceeds from the knowledge of a selected
sample to some claim about the whole group. Since the members of the sample have a certain attributes
or characteristic(s), it is argued that all the members of the group have that same characteristic(s).
 E.g. Your sample shows that more than 60% of the class are highly interested in learning
Ethiopian traditional painting. Therefore, we may conclude that all students of the class are
very much interested in learning Ethiopian traditional painting.
4. An argument from Authority; this is an argument in which the conclusion rests upon a statement
made by some presumed authority or witness.
 E.g. Mr. Thomas Michael, the director of World Food Program in Ethiopia mentioned that
almost three million people of the country are suffering because of food scarcity. On the basis
of Mr. Thomas Michael’s authority, it is reasonable to conclude that millions of Ethiopians
are starved.
5. An argument based on Signs; this is an argument that proceeds from the knowledge of a certain sign
(symbol, symptom) to knowledge of the thing or situation that the sign stands for.
 E.g. Look her shoulders, there is a tattoo of Emperor H/Sellase. Therefore,

she is probably a Rastafarian.
6. A Causal Inference; this is an argument that proceeds from knowledge of a cause to knowledge of
the effect, or, conversely, from knowledge of an effect to knowledge of a cause.
 E.g. Ato Wondemu was an alcoholic person throughout his life. The medical
test shows that he is infected with a liver cancer. Thus, he is infected by a liver cancer
because he drunk for a number of years.
1.4 Validity, Truth, Soundness, Strength, Cogency
We have seen that every argument make two basic claims: a claim that evidence exists and a claim that
the alleged evidence supports something (or that something follows from the alleged evidence). The
first is a factual claim; the second is an inferential claim. The evaluation of every argument centers on
the evaluation of these two claims. The most important of the two is the inferential claim, because if the
premises fail to support the conclusion (that is, if the reasoning is bad), an argument is worthless. Thus
we will always test the inferential claim first, and only if the premises do support the conclusion will
we test the factual claim (that is, the claim that the premises present genuine evidence, or are true).
A Valid Argument is a deductive argument in which, if the premises are assumed true, it is impossible
for the conclusion to be false. In such arguments, the conclusion follows with strict necessity from the
premises. For example;
All birds are mammals.

A crocodile is a bird.
Therefore, the crocodile is a mammal.
An Invalid Argument is a deductive argument such that if the premises are assumed true, it is possible
for the conclusion to be false. In these arguments the conclusion does not follow with strict necessity
from the premises, even though it claimed to.
Two immediate consequences follow from these two definitions. The first is that, there is no middle
ground between valid and invalid argument. That means there are no arguments that are “almost” valid
and “almost” invalid. If the conclusion follows with strict necessity from the premises, the argument is
valid, if not, it is invalid.
The second consequence is that there is only an indirect relation between validity and truth. For an
argument to be valid, it is not necessary that either the premises or the conclusion be true, but merely
that if the premises are assumed true, it is impossible that the conclusion be false. Here is an example of
valid argument having a false premise and false conclusion:
All auto makers are computer manufacturers;
NOKIA is an auto maker.
Therefore, NOKIA is a computer manufacturer.
To see this argument is valid one must ignore the fact that the premises are false and attempt to
determine that would be true, if the premises were true. Clearly, if the premises were true, it would
follow necessarily that NOKIA is a computer manufacturer. Thus, the argument is valid.
Just the occurrence of false premises and a false conclusion does not prevent an argument from being
valid, so the occurrence of true premises and a true conclusion does not guarantee validity. Here is an
example of an invalid argument having true premises and a false conclusion:
All banks are financial organizations.
Nyala Insurance Company is a financial organization.
Therefore, Nyala Insurance Company is a bank.
Note that the truth and falsity of premises and conclusion is irrelevant to the question of validity except
in the case of true premises and a false conclusion. Any deductive argument having true premises and
a false conclusion is necessarily invalid. This is perhaps the most important fact in all of deductive
logic. The entire system of deductive logic would be quite useless if it accepted as valid any inferential
process by which a person could start with truth in the premises and arrive at falsity in the conclusion.
A Sound Argument is a deductive argument that is valid and has all true premises. Both conditions
must be met for an argument to be sound, and if either is missing the argument is unsound. For example
All trees are plants.

Acacia is a tree.
Therefore, acacia is a plant.
Unsound Argument is a deductive argument that is invalid, has one or more false premises, or both.
Because a valid argument is one such that, if the premises are true, it is impossible for the conclusion to
be false and because a sound argument does in fact have true premises, it follows that every sound
argument, by definition, will have true conclusion as well. A sound argument therefore, is what is
meant by a “good” deductive argument in the fullest sense of the term.
In connection with definition of soundness, a single provision is required: for an argument to be

unsound, the false premise or premises must actually be needed to support the conclusion.
 All invalid deductive arguments are unsound.
A Strong Argument is an inductive argument such that if the premises are assumed true, then based on
the assumption it is probable that the conclusion is true.
A weak Argument is an inductive argument such that if the premises are assumed true, then based on
that assumption it is not probable that the conclusion is true.
→ Unlike validity and invalidity, strength and weakness generally admit of degrees. The central
question in determining strength or weakness is whether the conclusion would probably be true if the
premises are assumed true. The following examples demonstrate that the first argument is not
absolutely weak nor the second absolutely strong. Both arguments would be strengthened or weakened
by the random selection of a larger or smaller sample. The incorporation of additional premises into an
inductive argument will also generally tend to strengthen or weaken it.
E.g. 1) This mini-library contains over 10,000 books. 50 books selected at random were
found to be written on philosophy. Thus, it is likely that all of the books in the mini-
library are books written on philosophy. (Weak Inductive Argument)
2) This mini-library contains over 10,000 books. 1000 books selected at random were
found to be written on philosophy. Thus, it is likely that all of the books in the mini-
library are books written on philosophy. (Strong Inductive Argument)
→ As with validity and invalidity, strength and weakness are only indirectly related to truth and falsity
except in the case of true premises and a probably false conclusion. Any inductive argument
having true premises and a probable false conclusion is always weak. Inductive logic would be
useless if it accepted as strong any inductive argument having true premises and a probably false
conclusion.
→ A cogent Argument is an inductive argument that is strong and has all true premises; if either
condition is missing the argument is “uncogent”. Thus, an uncogent argument is an inductive
argument that is weak, has one or more false premises, or both. A cogent argument is the
inductive analogue of a sound deductive argument and is what is meant by a “good’ inductive
argument without qualification. Because the conclusion of a cogent argument is genuinely
supported by true premises, it follows that the conclusion of every cogent argument is probably
true.
 There is a difference between sound and cogent arguments in regard to the true-premises
requirement. In a sound argument it is only necessary that the premises be true and nothing more.
Given such premises and a good reasoning, a true conclusion is guaranteed. In a cogent argument, on
the other hand, the premises must not only be true, they must also not ignore some important piece
of evidence that outweighs the given evidence and entails a quite different conclusion.
E.g. 1) The famous economist Sir Isaac Newton stated that World Bank’s structural adjustment
program cannot be effectively implemented in the Third-World nations due to governmental
mismanagement. In views of Newton, we may conclude that World Banks structural adjustment
program is ineffective. (Uncogent)
2) Some South African leaders were imprisoned before they become president. Nelson
Mandela was a South African leader. Thus, before his leadership carrier of South Africa Mandela
was imprisoned. (Cogent)
→ All weak inductive arguments are uncogent.
CHAPTER THREE
LOGIC AND LANGUAGE: MEANING AND DEFINITION
2.1 Cognitive Meaning and Emotive Meaning

Ordinary language serves various functions in our day-to-day lives. Among other things, language is
used to
ask questions tell jokes
tell stories flirt with someone
tell lies give directions
guess at answers sing songs
form hypothesis issue commands
launch verbal assault greet someone
and so on.
However, two linguistic functions are particularly important:
1) to convey information
2) express or evoke feelings
For example, consider the following statements:
The death penalty, which is legal in thirty-six states, has been carried out most often in
Georgia; however, since 1977 Texas holds the record for the greatest number of
executions.
The death penalty is cruel and inhuman form of punishment in which hapless prisoners are
dragged from their cells and summarily slaughtered only to satiate of a vengeful public.
The first statement is intended primarily to convey information; the second is intended, at least in part,
to express or evoke feelings.
Terminology that conveys information is said to have Cognitive Meaning, and terminology that
expresses or evokes feelings is said to have Emotive Meaning.
Note: a) Emotively charged statements usually have both cognitive and emotive meaning. But since
logic is concerned chiefly with cognitive meaning, it is important that we be able to distinguish and
disengage the cognitive meaning of such statements from the emotive meaning.
b) Part of the cognitive meaning of emotively charged statements is a value claim. Such value
claims are often the most important part of the cognitive meaning of emotive statements.
Value claims as such, however, require evidence to support them. But when value claims are couched
in emotive terminology, the emotive “clothing” tends to obscure the fact that a value claim is being
made, and it simultaneously gives psychological momentum to that claim. Indeed, this technique of
couching value claims in emotive terminology is so effective that in some circles it has reached the
level of a a science. The world of advertising and the military are the prime examples.
In arguments, emotive terminology accomplishes the same function as in statements. That means, it
allows the arguer to make value claims about the subject matter without providing evidence, and it
gives the argument a kind of steamroller quality by which it tends to crush potential counterarguments
before the reader or listener has a chance to think them. These effects of emotive terminology can be
avoided if the reader or listener will disengage the value claims and other cognitive meanings from the
emotive meaning of the language and re-express them as distinct premises.
Disputes can center on a confusion of cognitive meanings between the disputants. Disputes that center
on the meaning of a word are called verbal disputes. And disputes that center on a matter of fact are
called factual disputes.
Consider the following examples;
BRENDA: I'm afraid that Smiley is guilty of arson. Last night he confided to me that he was one who
set fire on the old schoolhouse.
WARREN: No, you couldn't be more mistaken. In this country no one is guilty until proven so in a
court of law, and Smiley has not yet even been accused of anything.
(This dispute center on the meaning of the word “guilty”. Therefore, it is a verbal dispute)
KEITH: I know that Freddie stole a computer from the old schoolhouse. Barbara told me that she saw
Freddie do it.
PYLLIS: That's ridiculous! Freddie has never stolen anything in his life. Barbara hate Freddie, and she
is trying to pin the theft on him only to shield her criminal boyfriend.
(This dispute centers not the meaning of words, but on a matter of fact; whether or not Freddie stole the
computer. Therefore, it is a factual dispute)
2.2 The Intension and Extension of Terms
Although the primary aim of logic is the analysis and evaluation of arguments, the interrelated topics of
meaning and definition have long occupied a prominent position within the discipline, for a number
of reasons. Among them, arguments are composed of statements, statements are made up of words,
words have meanings, and meanings are conveyed through definitions. In addition, logic, especially
formal logic, is heavily dependent on definitions to attribute highly specific meanings to its technical
terminology.
The basic units of any ordinary language are words. But our concern in this chapter is on terms. A term
is any word or arrangement of words that may serve as the subject of a statement. Terms consist of
proper names, common names, and descriptive phrases. Examples: Napoleon (Proper name), school
(common name), first president of the United States (Descriptive phrase)
Words that are not terms include verbs, nonsubstantive adjectives, adjectives, adverbs, prepositions,
conjunctions, and all nonsyntactic arrangements of words. Example: dictatorial, runs quickly,
moreover, above and beyond, cabbages into again the forests
Intensional meaning consists of the qualities or attributes that the term connotes. The intensional
meaning is known as the intension or connotation. Extensional meaning consists of the members of
the class that the term denotes. Extensional meaning is known as extension or denotation. For example,
the intension (or connotation) of the term “cat” consists of the attributes of being furry, of having four
legs, of moving in a certain way, of emitting certain sounds, and so on, and the extension (or
denotation) consists of all the cats in the universe.
“Intension” and “extension” are roughly equivalent to the more modern terms “sense” and “reference,”
respectively. These two kinds of meaning will provide the basis for the definitional techniques.
Because terms symbolize meanings to individual persons, it is inevitable for subjective elements to
invade the notion of connotation. Because these subjective elements inevitably lead to confusion when
it it comes to identifying the connotation of specific terms, logicians typically restrict the meaning of
“connotation” to what may be called conventional connotation.
Conventional Connotation of a term consists of the properties or attributes that the term commonly
connotes to the members of the community who speak the language in question.
Under this interpretation;
1. The connotation of a term remains more or less the same from person to person and time to
time.
2. The denotation of a term also typically remains the same person to person but may change from
time to time.
3. Sometimes the denotation of a term can change radically with the passage of time.
Sometimes, terms may have Empty Extension. Such terms are said to denote empty (“null”) class, the
class that has no members. The fact that some terms have empty extension leads us to an important
connection between extension and intension, namely, that intension determines extension; which
implies that the intensional meaning of a term serves as the criterion for deciding what extension
consists of.
The distinction between intension and extension may be further illustrated by comparing the way in
which these concepts can be used to give order to random sequences of terms. Terms may be put in the
order of increasing intension, increasing extension, decreasing intension, and decreasing extension.
 A series of terms is in the order of increasing intension when each term in the series (except the
first) connotes more attributes than the one preceding it. In other words, each term in the series
(except the first) is more specific than the one preceding it. A term is specific to the degree that
it connotes more attributes.
The order of decreasing intension is the reverse.
 A series of terms is in the order of increasing extension when each term in the series (except the
first) denotes a class having more members than the class denoted by the term preceding it. In
other words, the class size gets larger with each successive term. The order of decreasing
extension is the reverse.
Example: Increasing intension: Animal. Mammal, Feline, Tiger
Decreasing intension: Tiger, Feline, Mammal, Animal
Increasing extension: Tiger, Feline, Mammal, Animal
Decreasing extension: Animal. Mammal, Feline, Tiger
Note that;
I. The order of increasing intension is usually the same as that of decreasing extension.
II. The order of decreasing intension is usually the same as that of increasing extension.
However, there are some exceptions. Note the following examples.
E.g. 1. Unicorn; unicorn with blue eyes; unicorn with blue eyes and green horn; unicorn with blue eyes,
green horn, and a weight of over 400 pounds... (Each term in this series has empty extension; so, while
the series exhibits the order of increasing intension, it does not exhibit the order of decreasing
extension).
2. Living human being; living human being with genetic code; living human being with genetic
code and a brain; living human being with a genetic code, a brain, and a height of less than 100 feet...
(In this series none of the terms has empty extension, but each term has exactly the same extension as
the others. Thus, while the intension increases with each successive term, the extension does not
decrease).
2.3 Definitions and Their Purposes
for most logicians today, definitions are intended exclusively to explicate the meaning of words. We
may define definition as a group of words that assigns a meaning to some word or group of words.
Accordingly, every definition consists of two parts; the definiendum and the definiens.
Definiendum:- is the the word or group of words that is supposed to be defined.
Definiens:- is the word or group of words that does the defining.
E.g. “Tiger” means a large, stripped, ferocious feline indigenous to the jungles of India and Asia. Here,
the word “tiger” is the definiendum, and everything after the word “means” is the definiens.
Types of Definitions
1) Stipulative Definition: assigns a meaning to a word for the first time. This may involve either
coining a new word or giving a new meaning for an old word.
The Purpose of a stipulative definition is usually to replace a more complex expression with a simpler
one. The need for this type of definition is often occasioned by some new phenomenon.
E.g. tigon (to designate offspring of male tiger and female lion), liger (to designate male lion and
female tiger)
Another use of this type of definition is to set up secrete codes. For example, “Operation Barbarosa”
was the name the Germans gave to the invasion of Russia, and, “Operation Desert Storm” was the code
name given to the military invasion of Iraq.
Since a stipulative definition is completely arbitrary assignment of a meaning to a word for the first
time, there can be no such a thing as true or false stipulative definition. For the same reason, a
stipulative definition cannot provide any new information about the subject matter of the definiendum.
One stipulative definition, however, be more or less convenient or more or less appropriate than
another.
2) Lexical Definition: is used to report the meaning that a word already has in a language.
Dictionary definitions are all instances of lexical definitions.
In contrast with a stipulative definition, a lexical definition may be true or false depending on whether
it does or does not report the way a word is actually used. Because words are frequently used in more
than one way, lexical definitions have further purpose of eliminating the ambiguity that would
otherwise arise if one of these meanings were to be confused with another. A word is ambiguous when
it can be interpreted as having two or more clearly distinct meanings in a given context. Some words
that are subject to ambiguous usage are “light”, “bank”, “right”, “race”. Because a lexical definition
lists the various meanings that a word can have, a person who consults such a definition is better
prepared to avoid ambiguous constructions of his or her own and to detect those of others. A good
lexical definition will distinguish various shadings and thereby guard against the possibility that two
meanings will be unconsciously jumbled together into one.
3) Precising Definitions: the purpose of a precising definition is to reduce the vagueness of a

word (as to the applicability of the word to a specific situation).
A word is vague if there are borderline cases such that it is impossible to tell whether the word applies
to them or not. For example, words like “conservative”, “peace”, “excess”, “poor”, “love” are vague.
Once the vagueness has been reduced, one can reach a decision as to the applicability of the word to a
specific situation.
Whenever words are employed in a highly systematic context, such as science, mathematics, medicine,
or law, they must always be clarified by means of a precising definition. Sometimes the substance of a
court trial may revolve around the precise usage of a term.
A precising definition differs from a stipulative definition in that the assignment of meaning in a
precising definition is not at all arbitrary. A great deal of care must be taken to ensure that the
assignment of meaning in a précising definition is appropriate and legitimate for the context within
which the term is to be employed.
4) Theoretical Definition: provides a theoretical picture or characterization of the entity or entities

denoted by the definiendum. In other words, it provides a way of viewing or conceiving these
entities that suggests deductive consequences, further investigation and whatever else would be
entailed by the acceptance of a theory governing these entities (more than merely assigning a
meaning to a word). Not all theoretical definitions are associated with science. Many terms in
philosophy, such as “substance,” ‘form,” ‘cause,” “God,” have been given theoretical
definitions.
e.g. “heat” means the energy associated with the random motion of the molecules of a substance.
Like stipulative definitions, theoretical definitions are neither true nor false, strictly speaking. They
may, however, be more or less interesting or more or less fruitful, depending on the deductive
consequences they entail and on the outcome of the experiments they suggest.
5) Persuasive Definition: the purpose of persuasive definition is to engender a favorable or

unfavorable attitude toward what is denoted by the definiendum. This is accomplished by
assigning an emotively charged or value-laden meaning to a word while making it appear that
the word really has (ought to have) that meaning in the language in which it is used.
Persuasive definition amounts to a certain synthesis of stipulative, lexical, and theoretical definitions
backed by the rhetorical motive to engender a certain attitude.
The objective of a persuasive definition is to influence the attitudes of the reader/listener. While
persuasive definitions may, like lexical definitions, be evaluated as either true or false, the primary
issue is neither truth nor falsity but the effectiveness of such definitions as instruments of persuassion.
e.g. 1. “Abortion” means the ruthless murdering of innocent human being.
2. “Abortion” means a safe and established surgical procedure whereby a woman is relieved of an
unwanted burden.
2.4 Definitional Techniques
Some of the techniques used to produce the different kinds of definitions in terms of intensional and
extensional meanings are discussed below.
Extensional (Denotative) Definitions
An extensional definition is one that assigns a meaning to a certain term by indicating members of the
class that the definiendum denotes. There are at least three ways of indicating the members of a class:
pointing to them, naming them individually, and naming them in groups.
A) Demonstrative (Ostensive) Definitions are probably the most primitive form of definition.
Demonstrative definition can be either partial or complete. Such definition is good to teach
one's language for foreigner.
Demonstrative definitions are also the most limited (limitation that the required objects be available for
being pointed at). Demonstrative definition differs from the other types of extensional definition in that
the definiens is constituted at least in part by a gesture- the gesture of pointing.
B) Enumerative Definition: assigns a meaning to a term by naming the members of the class the
term denotes. And this may be either partial or complete; but it is difficult to enumerate all and
which have no names.
e.g. “Planet” means one of the following: Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Saturn, Jupiter, Neptune,
Uranus, or Pluto.
C) Definition by subclass: assigns a meaning to a term by naming subclasses of the class denoted
by the term. May also be either partial or complete; but complete definitions by subclass are
often difficult.
e.g. “Flower” means a rose, lily, daisy, geranium, zinnia, and the like.
“Tree” means an oak, pine, elm spruce, eucalyptus, maple, and the like.
“Fictional work” means either a poem, a play, a novel, or a short story.
 Extensional definitions are chiefly used as techniques for producing lexical and stipulative
definitions. Although it is inconceivable that extensional definitions could also serve as
techniques for theoretical and persuasive definitions (though this would be highly unusual),
extensional definitions by themselves cannot properly serve as précising definitions for the
following reason. The function of a précising definition is to clarify a vague word, and
vagueness is a problem affecting intensional meaning. Because the intension is imprecise, the
extension is indefinite. To attempt to render the intension precise by exactly specifying the
extension (as with an extensional definition) would be tantamount to having extension
determine intension-which cannot be done.
 The principle intension determines extension, whereas the reverse is not true, underlies the fact
that all extensional definitions suffer serious deficiencies. Sometimes, it makes no difference
how many individuals or subclasses are named in an extensional definition, there is no
assurance that listeners or readers will get the intensional meaning. Note that extensions can
suggest intensions, but they cannot determine them.
Intensional (Connotative) Definitions
An intensional definition is one that assigns a meaning to a word by indicating the qualities or attributes
that the word connotes. Four strategies may be used to indicate the attributes a word connotes.
A) A synonymous Definition is one in which the definiens is a single word that connotes the same
attributes as the definiendum; the definiens is the synonym of the word being defined.
Examples: “Physician” means doctor.
“Observe” means see
“Intentional’ means willful.
A synonymous definition is a highly concise way of assigning a meaning. However, many words have
subtle shades of meaning that are not connoted by any other single word. For example, “wisdom” is not
exactly synonymous with either “knowledge,” “understanding.”
B) Etymological Definition assigns a meaning to a word by indicating the word's ancestry in both
its own language and other languages. It has special importance for:
i. The etymological definition of a word often conveys the word's root/seminal meaning from
which all other associated meanings are derived.
ii. If one is familiar with the etymology of one English word, one often has access to the meaning
of an entire constellation of related words.
Examples: 1. The word “orthodox” derives from the two Greek words ortho, meaning right or straight,
and doxa, meaning belief or opinion.
2. The word “principle” derives from the Latin word principium, which means beginning or
source.
3. The word “captain” derives from the Latin noun caput which means head.
C) Operational Definition: assigns a meaning to a word by specifying certain experimental

procedures that determines whether or not the word applies to a certain thing. But they involve
certain deficiencies. Among them, operational definitions usually convey only part of the
intensional meaning of a term. This deficiency becomes more acute when one attempts to apply
operational definitions to terms outside the framework of science.
Examples: 1. A solution is an “acid” if and only if litmus paper turns red when dipped into it.
2. A subject has ‘brain activity” if and only if an electroencephalograph shows oscillations

when attached to the subject’s head.
3. One substance is “harder than” another if and only if one scratches the other when the
two are rubbed together.
 Each of these definitions prescribes an operation to be performed. Unless it specifies such an

operation, a definition can’t be an operational definition. For example, “A solution is an “acid”
if and only if it has a pH of less than 7,” while good in other respects, is not an operational
definition because it prescribes no operation.
 Operational definitions were invented for the purpose of tying down relatively abstract concepts
to the solid ground of empirical reality. But they involve certain deficiencies. One of these
deficiencies concerns the fact that operational definitions usually convey only part of the
intensional meaning of a term. This deficiency becomes more acute when one attempts to apply
operational definitions to terms outside the framework of science.
D) A Definition by Genus and Difference: assigns a meaning to a term by identifying a genus
term and one or more difference words that, when combined, convey the meaning of the term
being defined. It is more generally applicable and achieves more adequate results than any of
the other kinds of intensional definitions.
 In logic, genus simply means a relatively larger class and species means a relatively smaller
subclass of the genus. In other words, genus and species are merely relative classifications.
 The “specific difference” or “difference” is the attribute(s) that distinguish the various species
within the genus.
 Because the specific difference what distinguishes the species, when a genus is qualified by a
specific difference, a species is identified. Definition by genus and difference consists of
combining a term denoting a genus with a word or group of words connoting a specific
difference so that the combination identifies the meaning of the term denoting the species.
Examples: Species Difference Genus
Daughter means female offspring.
Husband means married man.
Ice means frozen water.
 Other examples are more sophisticated. Look at the following.

“Tent” means a collapsible shelter made of canvas or other material that is stretched and
sustained by poles.
 A definition by genus and difference is easy to construct; and it is the most effective of the
intensional definitions for producing the five kinds of definitions.
 Definition by genus and difference is the most effective of the intensional definitions for
producing the five kinds of definitions (stipulative, lexical, précising, theoretical, and
persuasive).
 Lexical definitions are typically definitions by genus and difference, but they also often include
etymological definitions. Operational definition can serve as the method for constructing
stipulative, lexical, précising, and persuasive definitions, but it typically couldn’t be used to
produce a complete lexical definition. Synonymous definition may be used to produce only
lexical definitions; but it can’t be used to produce stipulative definitions, and the fact that the
definiens of such a definition contain no more information than the definiendum prohibits its
use in constructing précising, theoretical, and persuasive definitions.
CHAPTER FOUR
BASIC CONCEPTS OF CRITICAL THINKING
Chapter Overview
This chapter is about the power of disciplined thinking. It is about learning to think for yourself and
being your own person. In many high schools, the emphasis of education tends to be on “lower-order
thinking.” Students are simply expected to passively absorb information and then repeat it back on
tests. In college and universities, by contrast, the emphasis is on fostering “higher-order thinking”: the
active, intelligent evaluation of ideas and information. As Martin Luther King Jr rightly puts it as “The
function of education is to teach one to think intensively and to think critically”. The main goal of
teaching Critical Thinking is therefore, to teach students how to think; that is, how to become
independent, self-directed thinkers and learners. It is about the personal empowerment and enrichment
that result from learning to use your mind to its fullest potential. In short, it is about critical thinking. In
this chapter, we deal with the Meaning, Standards, Principles, Characteristics, Barriers, and Benefits of
critical thinking,
Chapter Objectives:
At the end of this chapter, students will be able to:
 Define critical thinking.

 Understand the standards of critical thinking.
 Appreciate the principles of good argument and critical thinking.
 Understand the characteristics of critical thinking.
 Identify the barriers of critical thinking.
 Recognize the benefits of critical thinking.
Lesson 1: Meaning of Critical Thinking
Lesson Overview
Critical thinking can be defined as a wide range of cognitive skills and intellectual dispositions needed
to effectively identify, analyze, and evaluate arguments and truth claims. In this lesson, we will learn
the meaning and general picture of critical thinking.
Lesson Objectives:
After the accomplishment of this lesson, you will be able to:
 Understand the meaning and general picture of critical thinking.
Activity # 1: Dear learners, what do you think is critical thinking?
Critical means involving or exercising skilled judgment or observation. In this sense, critical thinking
means thinking clearly and intelligently. Moreover, it helps to discover and overcome personal
preconceptions and biases; to formulate and present convincing reasons in support of conclusions; and
to make reasonable, intelligent decisions about what to believe and what to do.
However, it does not automatically follow that being intelligent means being able think critically or
reason about information in a useful, effective and efficient manner. Being smart and intelligent is not
sufficient. Critical thinking is a process or journey that helps us to arrive at the most useful, helpful, and
most likely destinations when evaluating claims for scientific truth. Critical thinking, thus, is thinking
clearly, thinking fairly, thinking rationally, thinking objectively, and thinking independently. It is a
process that hopefully leads to an impartial investigation of the data and facts that remains not swayed
by irrelevant emotions. Therefore, the aim of critical thinking is to arrive at well-reasoned, considered,
and justifiable conclusions.
The American philosopher, John Dewey, has defined critical thinking as an active, persistent, and
careful consideration of a belief or supposed form of knowledge in the light of the grounds, which
support it and the further conclusions to which it tends. In this definition, there are three main points
that we should focus on: active, persistent and grounds.
While Edward Glaser defined critical thinking as: (1) an attitude of being disposed to consider in a
thoughtful way the problems and subjects that come within the range of one’s experience; (2)
knowledge of the methods of logical enquiry and reasoning; and (3) some skill in applying those
methods.
The other most famous contributors to the development of the critical thinking tradition is Robert
Ennis. He defined critical thinking as reasonable, reflective thinking that is focused on deciding what to
believe or do.
Richard Paul also defines as: Critical thinking is that mode of thinking – about any subject, content or
problem – in which the thinker improves the quality of his or her thinking by skillfully taking charge of
the structures inherent in thinking and imposing intellectual standards upon them.
Michael Scriven has defined critical thinking as skilled and active interpretation and evaluation of
observations and communications, information and argumentation. He argued that critical thinking is
an academic competency akin to reading and writing and is of similarly fundamental importance.
It is worth unpacking Scriven’s definition a little. He defines critical thinking as a ‘skilled’ activity for
reasons similar to those mentioned above. He points out that thinking does not count as critical merely
because it is intended to be, any more than thinking counts as scientific simply because it aims to be. To
be critical, thinking has to meet certain standards, (clarity, relevance, reasonableness and so on), and
one may be more or less skilled at this. He defined critical thinking as an ‘active’ process, partly
because it involves questioning and partly because of the role played by meta-cognition.
Critical thinking is sometimes referred to as ‘critic creative’ thinking. This word is the combination of
two words: critical and creative. There are two related reasons for this. The first is that the term
‘critical thinking’ is sometimes thought to sound rather negative, as though one’s only interest is in
adversely criticizing other people’s arguments and ideas. This would be a serious mistake since (and
this is the second reason) to be good at evaluating arguments and ideas, one often has to be very
imaginative and creative about other possibilities, alternative considerations, different options and so
on. To be a good judge of issues, it is not enough to see faults in what other people say. You need to
base your judgment on the best arguments you can devise in the time available; and this often requires
you to think of relevant considerations other than those presented, look at issues from different points
of view, imagine alternative scenarios and perhaps find other relevant information – in short, you will
need to be quite creative.
Lesson 2: Standards of Critical Thinking
Lesson Overview
Critical thinking is a disciplined thinking governed by clear intellectual standards. But, not every
thinking is critical. To identify a critical thinking from the uncritical, we refer to some standards. There
is a consensus among philosophers that for thinking to be critical, it has to meet certain standards.
Standard of critical thinking refers a conditions or a level that critical thinking should meet to be
considered as normal and acceptable. Among the most important of these intellectual standards are
clarity, precision, accuracy, relevance, consistency, logical correctness, completeness, and fairness. In
this lesson, we will discuss these standards.
1) Clarity
Clarity refers to clear understanding of concepts and clearly expressing them in a language that is free
of obscurity and vagueness. When we construct argument, we should take into consideration or pay
close attention to clarity. Before we can effectively evaluate a person’s argument or claim, we need to
understand clearly what the person is saying. Unfortunately, that can be difficult because people often
fail to express themselves clearly. Sometimes lack of clarity is due to laziness, carelessness, or a lack of
skill. At other times, it results from a misguided effort to appear clever, learned, or profound.Critical
thinkers, however, not only strive for clarity of language but also seek maximum clarity of thought.
2) Precision
Precision is a matter of being exact, accurate and careful. Most ideas are vague and obscures though we
think we have precise understanding of them. When we try to meticulous these ideas, we will find that
they are imprecise. To get precise understanding, we should pay close attention to details. Everyone
recognizes the importance of precision in specialized fields such as medicine, mathematics,
architecture, and engineering. Critical thinkers also understand the importance of precise thinking in
different contexts. They understand that to cut through the confusions and uncertainties that surround
many everyday problems and issues.
3) Accuracy
Accuracy is about correct information. Critical thinking should care a lot about genuine information. If
the ideas and thoughts one processes are not real, then once decision based on wrong and false
information will likely to result in distorting realities. John Rawls, in his book entitled as ‘A Theory of
Justice’ argued that truth is the first virtue of systems of thought. A theory however elegant and
economical must be rejected or revised if it is untrue.Whether an idea is attractive or sophisticated
should be abandoned if it is based on false information.
4) Relevance
The question of relevance is a question of connections. When there is a discussion or debate, it should
focus on relevant ideas and information. That is, only those points that bear on the issue should be
raised. A favorite debaters’ trick is to try to distract an audience’s attention by raising an irrelevant
issue. Critical thinkers do not collect any information; they focus and carefully choose only the
information that has logical relation with the ideas at hands. Issues raised should have logical
connection with the question at hand. Two ideas are relevant when they have logical connection. A
critical thinker should be relevant in his ideas and thoughts.
5) Consistency
Consistency is about the quality of always behaving in the same way or of having the same opinions or
standards. It is easy to see why consistency is essential to critical thinking. Logic tells us that if a person
holds inconsistent beliefs, at least one of those beliefs must be false. Critical thinkers prize truth and so
are constantly on the lookout for inconsistencies, both in their own thinking and in the arguments and
assertions of others.
There are two kinds of inconsistency that should be avoided. One is logical inconsistency, which
involves saying or believing inconsistent things (i.e., things that cannot both or all be true) about a
particular matter. The other is practical inconsistency, which involves saying one thing and doing
another. Sometimes people are fully aware that their words conflict with their deeds; in short people
sometime are hypocrites. From a critical thinking point of view, such personality is not especially
interesting. As a rule, they involve failures of character to a greater degree than they do failures of
critical reasoning.
6) Logical Correctness
To think logically is to reason correctly; that is, to draw well-founded conclusions from the beliefs held.
To think critically, we need accurate and well supported beliefs. But, just as important, we need to be
able to reason from those beliefs to conclusions that logically follow from them. Unfortunately,
illogical thinking is all too common in human affairs. When we think, we bring a variety of thoughts
together into some order. When the combinations of thoughts are mutually supporting and make sense
in combination, the thinking is logical. When the combination is not mutually supporting, is
contradictory in some sense, or does not make sense the combination, is not logical.
7) Completeness
In most contexts, we rightly prefer deep and complete thinking to shallow and superficial thinking. Of
course, there are times when it is impossible or inappropriate to discuss an issue in depth; no one would
expect, for example, a thorough and wide-ranging discussion of the ethics of the right to self-
determination in a short newspaper editorial. However, thinking is better when it is deep rather than
shallow, thorough rather than superficial.
8) Fairness
Critical thinking demands that our thinking be fair - that is, open minded, impartial, and free of
distorting biases and preconceptions. That can be very difficult to achieve. Even the most superficial
acquaintance with history and the social sciences tells us that people are often strongly disposed to
resist unfamiliar ideas, to prejudge issues, to stereotype outsiders, and to identify truth with their own
self-interest or the interests of their nation or group.
It is probably unrealistic to suppose that our thinking could ever be completely free of biases and
preconceptions; to some extent, we all perceive reality in ways that are powerfully shaped by our
individual life experiences and cultural backgrounds. But as difficult as it may be to achieve, basic fair-
mindedness is clearly an essential attribute of a critical thinker.
Lesson 3: Codes of Intellectual Conduct for Effective Discussion
Lesson Overview
We have learned in chapter two that a good argument is constituted by two or more explicit and/or
implicit claims, one or more of which supports or provides evidence for the truth or merit of another
claim, the conclusion. We have also seen in the previous lesson that critical thinking’ is a disciplined
thinking that provide a wide range of cognitive skills and intellectual dispositions needed to effectively
identify, analyze, and evaluate arguments and truth claims; and governed by clear intellectual standards
that can be used to identify a critical thinking from the uncritical. But the question is that how can we
measure the goodness or badness of an argument?, and how is that some thinking are critical, and some
are not. In this lesson, we will discuss the basic codesof intellectual conduct, especially the common
principles of a good argument as well as that of a critical thinking.
3.1 Principles of Good Argument
A discussion may involve two or more participants or it may simply be an internal discussion with
oneself. In either case, one who wishes to construct the strongest possible arguments for his or her
views, and to do one’s part in resolving conflicts concerning issues that matter, should make each of the
following principles a part of his or her intellectual style:
1) The Structural Principle
The structural principle of a good argument requires that one who argues for or against a position
should use an argument that meets the fundamental structural requirements of a well-formed argument.
Such an argument does not use reasons that contradict each other, that contradict the conclusion, or that
explicitly or implicitly assume the truth of the conclusion. Neither does it draw any invalid deductive
inferences.
The first criterion used in determining whether an argument is a good one is the requirement that it be
structurally sound. An argument must look and works like an argument. In other words, it should be
formed in such a way that the conclusion either follows necessarily from its premises, in the case of
deductive arguments, or follows probably from its premises, in the case of inductive arguments.
A good argument should also provide us with reasons to believe that the conclusion deserves our
acceptance. Since most discussions about controversial issues are initiated because the argument’s
conclusion has not yet been accepted by all participants, the arguer will use premises that are more
likely to be accepted than the conclusion. If those premises are accepted and they lead to the
conclusion, it is more likely that the conclusion will also be accepted. Another structural feature of an
argument that could render it fatally flawed would be one whose premises are incompatible with one
another.
2) The Relevance Principle
This is the second principle of a good argument that requires that one who presents an argument for or
against a position should set forth only reasons whose truth provides some evidence for the truth of the
conclusion.
The premises of a good argument must be relevant to the truth or merit of the conclusion. There is no
reason to waste time assessing the truth or acceptability of a premise if it is not even relevant to the
truth of the conclusion. A premise is relevant if its acceptance provides some reason to believe, counts
in favor of, or has some bearing on the truth or merit of the conclusion. A premise is irrelevant if its
acceptance has no bearing on, provides no evidence for, or has no connection to the truth or merit of the
conclusion.
3) The Acceptability Principle
The third principle of a good argument is the acceptability principle. This principle requires that one
who presents an argument for or against a position should provide reasons that are likely to be accepted
by a mature, rational person and that meet standard criteria of acceptability. The reasons set forth in
support of a conclusion must be acceptable. A reason is acceptable if it is the kind of claim that a
rational person would accept in the face of all the relevant evidence available. Some people believe that
the acceptability principle should be replaced by the truth principle to connote the idea that premises
should be true to be acceptable. However, the term “acceptable” is preferable to the more traditional
term “true” for several reasons.
First, the notion of acceptability stems from the very nature of argumentative interchange. In most
argumentative situations, the key to achieving agreement on the conclusion is achieving acceptance of
the premises.Second, since it is notoriously difficult to establish the absolute truth of any statement, it
would be an impractical requirement of a good argument that its premises must be true in any absolute
sense.Third, an analysis of our language suggests that in many ordinary contexts, what we typically
mean by the word “true” would be more appropriately expressed by the phrase “accepted as
true.”Fourth, even if a premise were true in the absolute sense, it may be unacceptable to a particular
audience because that audience may not be in a position to determine its truth.
4) The Sufficiency Principle
The four principle of a good argument is the sufficiency principle, which requires that one who presents
an argument for or against a position should attempt to provide relevant and acceptable reasons of the
right kind, that together are sufficient in number and weight to justify the acceptance of the conclusion.
The feature of the sufficiency principle that is most difficult to apply is the assignment of weight to
each piece of supporting evidence. Indeed, disagreement over this issue probably causes most of the
problems in informal discussions. What one participant regards as the most important piece of
evidence, another may regard as trivial by comparison with other possible evidence. It is not likely that
we will come to closure in a dispute until we come to some kind of agreement about the relative weight
to give to the kinds of relevant and acceptable evidence used in support of a conclusion.
5) The Rebuttal Principle
The last principle of a good argument is the rebuttal principle. This principle requires that one who
presents an argument for or against a position should include in the argument an effective rebuttal to all
anticipated serious criticisms of the argument that may be brought against it or against the position it
supports. Since an argument is usually presented against the background that there is another side to the
issue, a good argument must meet that other side directly. An argument cannot be a good one if it does
not anticipate and effectively refute or blunt the force of the most serious criticisms against it and the
position that it supports.
Arguments can fail to meet the rebuttal principle in several ways and those wishing to avoid the
responsibility of rebuttal commonly use several diversionary tactics. For example, arguments that
misrepresent the criticism bring up trivial objections or a side issue, or resort to humor or ridicule are
using devices that clearly fail to make effective responses.
3.2 Principles of Critical Thinking
Having discussed the major principles of a good argument, let us now see the principles of a critical
thinking as parts of the codes of intellectual conduct.
1) The Fallibility Principle
The first principle of a critical thinking is the fallibility principle. This principle requires that each
participant in a discussion of a disputed issue should be willing to accept the fact that he or she is
fallible, which means that one must acknowledge that one’s own initial view may not be the most
defensible position on the question.
To employ the fallibility principle in a discussion is consciously to accept the fact that you are fallible,
that is, that your present view may be wrong or not the most defensible view on the matter in dispute. If
you refuse to accept your own fallibility, you are, in effect, saying that you are not willing to change
your mind, even if you hear a better argument.
2) The Truth Seeking Principle
The second principle of a critical thinking is the truth seeking principle. This principle requires that
each participant should be committed to the task of earnestly searching for the truth or at least the most
defensible position on the issue at stake. Therefore, one should be willing to examine alternative
positions seriously, look for insights in the positions of others, and allow other participants to present
arguments for or raise objections to any position held on an issue. The search for truth is lifelong
endeavor, which principally takes the form of discussion, wherein we systematically entertain the ideas
and arguments of fellow seekers after truth, while at the same time thoughtfully considering criticisms
of our own views.
3) The Clarity Principle
The clarity principle is the third principle of a critical thinking. It requires that the formulations of all
positions, defences, and attacks should be free of any kind of linguistic confusion and clearly separated
from other positions and issues. Any successful discussion of an issue must be carried on in language
that all the parties involved can understand. Even if what we have to say is perfectly clear to ourselves,
others may not be able to understand us. A position or a criticism of it that is expressed in confusing,
vague, ambiguous, or contradictory language will not reach those toward whom it is directed, and it
will contribute little to resolving the issue at hand.
4) The Burden of Proof Principle
The fourth principle of a critical thinking is the burden of proof principle. This principle requires that
the burden of proof for any position usually rests on the participant who sets forth the position. If, and
when, an opponent asks, the proponent should provide an argument for that position.To ask others to
accept your claim without any support, or to shift the burden of proof to them by suggesting that your
position is true unless they can prove otherwise, is to commit the fallacy of “arguing from ignorance,”
for you are, in this way, making a claim based on no evidence at all.
5) The Principle of Charity
This is the fifth principle of a critical thinking that requires that if a participant’s argument is
reformulated by an opponent, it should be carefully expressed in its strongest possible version that is
consistent with what is believed to be the original intention of the arguer. If there is any question about
that intention or about any implicit part of the argument, the arguer should be given the benefit of any
doubt in the reformulation and/or, when possible, given the opportunity to amend it.
Good discussion in general and argumentation in particular impose an ethical requirement on their
participants. But there is also a practical reason for being fair with one another’s arguments. If we
deliberately create and then attack a weak version of the original argument, we will probably fail to
achieve the very goals that discussion is designed to serve.
6) The Suspension of Judgment Principle
The sixth principle of a critical thinking is the suspension of judgment principle. This principle requires
that if no position is defended by a good argument, or if two or more positions seem to be defended
with equal strength, one should, in most cases, suspend judgment about the issue. If practical
considerations seem to require a more immediate decision, one should weigh the relative benefits or
harm connected with the consequences of suspending judgment and decides the issue on those grounds.
7) The Resolution Principle
The last principle of a critical thinking is the resolution principle. This principle requires that an issue
should be considered resolved if the argument for one of the alternative positions is a structurally
sound, one that uses relevant and acceptable reasons that together provide sufficient grounds to justify
the conclusion and that also include an effective rebuttal to all serious criticisms of the argument and/or
the position it supports. Unless one can demonstrate that the argument has not met these conditions
more successfully than any argument presented for alternative positions, one is obligated to accept its
conclusion and consider the issue to be settled. If the argument is subsequently found by any participant
to be flawed in a way that raises new doubts about the merit of the position it supports, one is obligated
to reopen the issue for further consideration and resolution.
Lesson 4: Characteristics of Critical Thinking
Lesson Overview
So far, in this chapter, we have discussed the meaning and nature of critical thinking; standards of
critical thinking, codes of intellectual conduct: the principles of good arguments and critical thinking.
With this as background, we are now in a position to offer general characteristics of critical thinking.
4.1 Basic Traits of Critical Thinkers
A critical thinker simply is a person who exhibit some feature of critical thinking. There are some
dispositions and attitudes, skills and abilities, habits and values that every critical person should
manifest. In this section, we will see some of the key intellectual traits of critical thinkers.
Critical thinkers:
 Are honest with themselves, acknowledging what they don't know, recognizing their
limitations, and being watchful of their own errors.
 Regard problems and controversial issues as exciting challenges.
 Strive for understanding, keep curiosity alive, remain patient with complexity, and are ready
to invest time to overcome confusion.
 Base judgments on evidence rather than personal preferences, deferring judgment whenever
evidence is insufficient. They revise judgments when new evidence reveals error.
 Are interested in other people's ideas and so are willing to read and listen attentively, even
when they tend to disagree with the other person.
 Recognize that extreme views (whether conservative or liberal) are seldom correct, so they
avoid them, practice fair-mindedness, and seek a balance view.
 Practice restraint, controlling their feelings rather than being controlled by them, and thinking
before acting.
4.2 Basic Traits of Uncritical Thinkers
We have in the previous section that every critical person manifests some dispositions and attitudes,
skills and abilities, habits and values. What about the uncritical thinker? In this section, we will see
some traits of uncritical thinkers.
Uncritical thinkers:
 Pretend they know more than they do, ignore their limitations, and assume their views are
error-free.
 Regard problems and controversial issues as nuisances or threats to their ego.
 Are inpatient with complexity and thus would rather remain confused than make the effort to
understand.
 Base judgments on first impressions and gut reactions. They are unconcerned about the
amount or quality of evidence and cling to their views steadfastly.
 Are preoccupied with themselves and their own opinions, and so are unwilling to pay
attention to others' views. At the first sign of disagreement, they tend to think, "How can I
refute this?"
 Ignore the need for balance and give preference to views that support their established views.
 Tend to follow their feelings and act impulsively.
Let us now compare and contrasts the key intellectual traits of critical thinkers with the relevant traits of
uncritical thinkers:
First, critical thinkers have a passionate drive for clarity, precision, accuracy, and other critical thinking
standards while uncritical thinkers often think in ways that are unclear, imprecise, and inaccurate. In
addition to this, critical thinkers are sensitive to ways in which critical thinking can be skewed by
egocentrism, sociocentrism, wishful thinking, and other impediments, while uncritical thinkers often
fall prey to egocentrism, sociocentrism, relativistic thinking, unwarranted assumptions, and wishful
thinking.
Second, critical thinkers are skilled at understanding, analyzing, and evaluating arguments and
viewpoints whereas uncritical thinkers often misunderstand or evaluate unfairly arguments and
viewpoints. Moreover, critical thinkers reason logically, draw appropriate conclusions from evidence
and data, while uncritical thinkers are illogical, and draw unsupported conclusions from these sources.
Third, critical thinkers are intellectually honest with themselves, acknowledging what they do not
know and recognizing their limitations while uncritical thinkers pretend they know more than they do
and ignore their limitations. Furthermore, critical thinkers listen open-mindedly to opposing points of
view, welcome criticisms of beliefs and assumptions, whereas uncritical thinkers are closed-minded,
and resist criticisms of beliefs and assumptions.
Fourth, critical thinkers base their beliefs on facts and evidence rather than on personal preferences or
self-interests, while uncritical thinkers often base beliefs on mere personal preferences or self-interests.
Again, critical thinkers are aware of the biases and preconceptions that shape the way they perceive the
world, whereas uncritical thinkers lack awareness of their own biases and preconceptions.
Fifth, critical thinkers think independently and are not afraid to disagree with group opinion whereas
uncritical thinkers tend to engage in “groupthink” uncritically following the beliefs and values of the
crowd. Moreover, critical thinkers have the intellectual courage to face and assess fairly ideas that
challenge even their most basic beliefs whereas uncritical thinkers fear and resist ideas that challenge
their basic beliefs.
Finally yet importantly, critical thinkers pursue truth, are curious about a wide range of issues and have
the intellectual perseverance to pursue insights or truths despite obstacles or difficulties whereas
uncritical thinkers are often relatively indifferent to truth and lack curiosity, tend not to persevere when
they encounter intellectual obstacles or difficulties.
Lesson 5: Barriers to Critical Thinking
There are many factors that impede critical thinking. Let us examine in detail five of these impediments
that play an especially powerful role in hindering critical thinking: egocentrism, sociocentrism,
unwarranted assumptions, relativistic thinking, and wishful thinking.
1) Egocentrism
One of the most powerful barriers to critical thinking is egocentrism. Even highly educated and
intelligent people are prey to egocentrism. Egocentrism is the tendency to see reality as centered on
oneself. Egocentrics are selfish, self-absorbed people who view their interests, ideas, and values as
superior to everyone else’s. All of us are affected to some degree by egocentric biases. Egocentrism can
manifest itself in a variety of ways. Two common forms this are self-interested thinking and the
superiority bias.
2) Sociocentrism
The second powerful barrier that paralyze the critical thinking ability of most people including
intellectuals is sociocentrism. It is group-centered thinking. Just as egocentrism can hinder rational
thinking by focusing excessively on the self, so sociocentrism can hinder rational thinking by focusing
excessively on the group. Sociocentrism can distort critical thinking in many ways. Two of the most
important are group bias and conformism.
Group bias is the tendency to see one’s own group (nation, tribe, sect, peer group, and the like) as being
inherently better than others. Social scientists tell us that such thinking is extremely common
throughout human history and across cultures.
Conformism refers to our tendency to follow the crowd - that is, to conform (often unthinkingly) to
authority or to group standards of conduct and belief. The desire to belong, to be part of the in-group,
can be among the most powerful of human motivations. This desire can seriously cripple our powers of
critical reasoning and decision-making.
Authority moves us. We are impressed, influenced, and intimidated by authority, so much so that,
under the right conditions, we abandon our own values, beliefs, and judgments, even doubt our own
immediate experience. As critical thinkers, we need to be aware of the seductive power of peer pressure
and reliance on authority and develop habits of independent thinking to combat them.
3) Unwarranted Assumptions and Stereotypes
The third factor that impedes critical thinking is unwarranted assumptions and stereotype. An
assumption is something we take for granted - something we believe to be true without any proof or
conclusive evidence. Almost everything we think and do is based on assumptions. If the weather report
calls for rain, we take an umbrella because we assume that the meteorologist is not lying, that the report
is based on a scientific analysis of weather patterns, that the instruments are accurate, and so forth.
There may be no proof that any of this is true, but we realize that it is wiser to take the umbrella than to
insist that the weather bureau provide exhaustive evidence to justify its prediction.
4) Relativistic Thinking
One of the strongest challenges to critical thinking is relativistic thinking. Relativism is the view that
truth is a matter of opinion. There are two popular forms of relativism: subjectivism and cultural
relativism. Subjectivism is the view that truth is a matter of individual opinion. According to
subjectivism, whatever an individual believes is true, is true for that person, and there is no such thing
as “objective” or “absolute” truth, i.e., truth that exists independent of what anyone believes.
5) Wishful Thinking
Wishful thinking refers to a state of believing something not because you had good evidence for it but
simply because you wished it were true. Have you ever been guilty of wishful thinking? If so, you are
not alone. Throughout human history, reason has done battle with wishful thinking and has usually
come out the loser. People fear the unknown and invent comforting myths to render the universe less
hostile and more predictable. They fear death and listen credulously to stories of healing crystals, quack
cures, and communication with the dead. They fantasize about possessing extraordinary personal
powers and accept uncritically accounts of psychic prediction and levitation,
Lesson 6: Benefits of Critical Thinking
Lesson Overview
Being a critical person in general and critical thinking in particular has many benefits. In this lesson, we
will discuss some benefits of critical thinking.
Critical Thinking: Skills and Dispositions
Critical thinking teaches you how to raise and identify fundamental questions and problems in the
community. It will teach you to reformulate these problems clearly and precisely. It will teach you how
to gather and assess relevant information, develop reasoned conclusions and solutions, testing them
against relevant criterion and standards. It teaches you how to be open minded to alternative system of
thought, recognize and assess your own assumptions, implications and practical consequences, how to
communicate effectively with others in figuring out solutions to complex problems.
Critical thinking is what university is all about. University is not only about teaching students with
facts. It’s about teaching students to think- think critically.
Let us consider, more specifically, what you can expect to gain from a course in critical thinking.
Critical Thinking in the Classroom
When they first enter university, students are sometimes surprised to discover that university education
seem less interested in how beliefs are acquired than they are in whether those beliefs can withstand
critical scrutiny. The question is not much about what you know, but how you acquire what you know
and whether your ideas stands critical examination.
In university, the focus is on higher-order thinking: the active, intelligent evaluation of ideas and
information. For this reason critical thinking plays a vital role in universities. In a critical thinking
chapter, students learn a variety of skills that can greatly improve their classroom performance. These
skills include:
 Understanding the arguments and beliefs of others

 Critically evaluating those arguments and beliefs
 Developing and defending one’s own well-supported arguments and beliefs
Critical Thinking in Life
Critical thinking is valuable in many contexts outside the classroom. Let us look briefly at three ways
in which this is the case. First, critical thinking can help us avoid making foolish personal decisions. All
of us have at one time or another made decisions about what profession to choose, what relationships to
enter into, what personal behavior to develop, and the like that we later realized were seriously
misguided or irrational. Critical thinking can help us avoid such mistakes by teaching us to think about
important life decisions more carefully, clearly, and logically.
Second, critical thinking plays a vital role in promoting democratic processes. In democracy, it is the
people who have the ultimate say over who governs and for what purposes. Citizens should vote,
should evaluate different public policies, and collectively determine their fate and et cetera. It is vital,
therefore, that citizens’ decisions be as informed and as rational as possible. Many of today’s most
serious societal problems - environmental destruction, poverty, ethnic conflicts, decaying the morality
of societies, high level of corruption, violating basic human rights, displacement, to mention just a few
- have largely been caused by poor critical thinking.
Third, critical thinking is worth studying for its own sake, simply for the personal enrichment it can
bring to our lives. One of the most basic truths of the human condition is that most people, most of the
time, believe what they are told. Throughout most of recorded history, people accepted without
question that the earth was the centre of the universe, that demons cause disease that slavery was just,
and that women are inferior to men. Critical thinking,
honestly and courageously pursued can help free us from the unexamined assumptions and biases of
our upbringing and our society.
Chapter Summary
Critical also means, “involving or exercising skilled judgment or observation.” In this sense, critical
thinking means thinking clearly and intelligently.More precisely, critical thinking is the general term
given to a wide range of cognitive skills and intellectual dispositions needed to effectively identify,
analyze, and evaluate arguments and truth claims; to discover and overcome personal preconceptions
and biases; to formulate and present convincing reasons in support of conclusions; and to make
reasonable, intelligent decisions about what to believe and what to do.
It does not automatically follow that being intelligent means the student can think critically or reason
about information in a useful, effective and efficient manner. Critical thinking is a process. It is, also, a
journey that helps us to arrive at the most useful, helpful, and most likely destinations when evaluating
claims for scientific truth. Critical thinking, thus, is thinking clearly, thinking fairly, thinking rationally,
thinking objectively, and thinking independently. It is a process that hopefully leads to an impartial
investigation of the data and facts that remains not swayed by irrelevant emotions. As part and parcel
of logic, critical thinking ,also, teaches us what logical principles we, as rational beings, should
following in right reasoning.
Chapter FIVE: Informal Fallacies
A fallacy is a defect in an argument that consists in something other than merely false premises.
Fallacies can be committed in many ways. But they usually involve either a mistake in reasoning or the
creation of some illusion that makes a bad argument appear good (or both). If both deductive and
inductive arguments contain fallacies, they are either unsound or uncogent. If an argument is unsound
or uncogent, it has one or more false premises or it contains a fallacy (or both).
Fallacies are usually of two types: formal and informal. A formal fallacy is one that may be identified
through mere inspection of the form or structure of an argument. It is a mistake with respect to the
form; or which is resulted from breaking some rule of validity. Fallacies of this kind are usually found
only in deductive arguments that have clearly recognized form: categorical, disjunctive and
hypothetical syllogisms.
Examples of formal fallacy,

1) All tigers are animals. All mammals are animals. Therefore, all tigers are mammals.
This argument has the following form which is incorrect;
In Incorrect The correct form is this
All A are B All A are B

All C are B All B are C
All A are C All A are C
2) If nepotism is wrong, then it is destructive. And it is destructive. Hence, nepotism is wrong.

The form of this argument is: If A, then B
B
Therefore, A (Fallacy of affirming the consequent)
3) If it is raining, then the ground is wet. It is not raining. So, the ground is not wet.
The argument has this form: If A, then B
Not A
So, not B (Fallacy of denying the antecedent)
Informal fallacies are those that can be detected only through the analysis of the content of the
argument. They are errors which arise from carelessness with respect to the relevance of ideas or with
respect to the clarity and consistency of language.
Examples: 1) All factories are plants. All plants are things that contain chlorophyll. Therefore, all
factories are things that contain chlorophyll.
When we analyze the content of this argument it will have the following form;
All A are B
All C are D
All A are D
In this argument we represent the same word, i.e., plants by two different letters. This is because the
contextual meaning of the word “plants” in the first premise is quite different from the contextual
meaning it has in the second premise. In the first premise it represents a building where something is
manufactured; whereas in the second premise it represents a life form/living thing.
2) My wife's brother is a real pig; you should see him eating! And if he is pig, then he is not a
human. So, he is not human.
Here, the arguer uses the word “pig” in two contexts; a person who habitually over eats and a kind of
animal.
The informal fallacies accomplish their purposes in varies ways:
a) They obscure the form of the argument so that the reader or listener is deluded into thinking that
the argument is valid when in fact it is not.
b) They tend to prevent the reader or listener from acknowledging a missing premise that, if
acknowledged, would be clearly seen to be false (or at least questionable).
c) They delude the reader or listener into thinking that an acknowledged premise is true when it is
either false or questionable.
Informal fallacies are frequently backed by some motive on the part of the arguer to deceive the reader
or listener. The arguer may also delude himself into thinking that he or she is presenting genuine
evidence. In any event, the effect of informal fallacy is to make bad argument appear good.
Fallacies of Relevance
Arguments in which the fallacies of relevance occur have premises that are logically irrelevant to the
conclusion. Yet the premises are relevant psychologically, so the conclusion may seem to follow from
the premises, even though it does not follow logically. In such arguments the connection between the
premise and conclusion is emotional. The following are some examples of fallacies of relevance.
1) Appeal to Force (Argumentum ad Baculum: Appeal to “Stick”)
This fallacy occurs whenever an arguer poses a conclusion to another person and tells either implicitly
or explicitly some harm will come to him or her if he does not accept the conclusion. It always involves
a threat by the arguer on the physical or psychological wellbeing of the reader or listener. Obviously
such a threat is logically irrelevant to the subject matter of the conclusion.
1. Addis Ababa is the most attractive city in the world. If you don't agree, I am going to tell the police
and you will be arrested and detained.
2. Secretary to boss: I deserve a raise in salary for the coming year. After all, you know how friendly
with your wife, and I'm sure you wouldn't want her to find out what's been going on between you and
that sexpot client of yours.
2) Appeal to Pity (Argumentum ad Misericordiam)
This fallacy occurs whenever an arguer poses a conclusion and then attempts to evoke pity from the
reader or listener in an effort to get him or her accept the conclusion. Example:
1. Sir! At the end of the semester, you must give me a grade of “A”. If you don't do this, my girl
friend will hate me and the respect that I have from my friends will be ruined.
2. The position open in the accounting department should be given to Frank Thomson. Frank has
six hungry children to feed, and his wife desperately needs an operation to save her eyesight.
3) Appeal to People (Argumentum ad Populum)
It occurs when an arguer attempts to persuade a person or group of persons by appealing to the desire to
be accepted or valued by others. Two approaches are involved here: direct and indirect.
 The direct approach occurs when an arguer, addressing a large group of people, elicits the
emotions and enthusiasm of the crowd to win acceptance for his conclusion. The objective is to
arouse mob mentality. The direct approach is not limited to oral argumentation but also similar
effect can be accomplished in writing.
Example: Ladies and gentlemen, the Republican Party will emerge victorious! We are the true party of
the American people! We embody the values that all real Americans hold sacred! We cherish and
protect our founding fathers' vision that gave birth to the Constitution!
 In the indirect approach the arguer directs his/her appeal not to the crowd as a whole but to one
or more individuals separately, focusing upon some aspects of their relationship to the crowd.
The indirect approach has three forms. These are the bandwagon argument, the appeal to vanity,
and appeal to snobbery. All are standard techniques of the advertising industry.
 The following is an example of the bandwagon argument;
Of course you want to buy Zest toothpaste. Why, 90 percent of America brushes with Zest.
(The idea here is you will be left behind or left out of the group if you don't use the product).
 The appeal to vanity often associates the product with a certain celebrity who is admired and
pursued, the idea being that you, too, will be admired and pursued if you use it. Example;
Do you want to have modern shoes? Then, you should choose Ambessa Shoe
Factory. This is because our products are the first choice of the famous athlete Haile
G/Selassie.
 The following is an example of appeal to snobbery
Coca cola is not for everyone. It is consumed only by those who have the ability to
distinguish high quality soft drink from others.
(Here the point is if you qualify as one of the selected few, you should prefer the product.)
 Both the direct and indirect approaches of the appeal to people fallacy have the following
structure:
You want to be accepted/included/loved/esteemed....Therefore, you should accept “xyz” as true.
4) Argument against the Person (Argudmentum ad Hominiem)
This fallacy always involves two arguers. One of them advances either directly or indirectly a certain
argument, the other then responds by directing his or her attention not on the first person's argument,
but to the first person himself. When this occurs the second person is said to commit an argument
against the person. It has three forms: ad hominiem abusive, ad hominiem circumstantial and tu quoque
(“you too” fallacy).
 In ad hominiem abusive, the second person responds to the first person's argument by verbally
abusing the first person. Look at the following example;
Sigmund Freud's psychoanalysis theory is nonsensical and unacceptable. Freud, you know, is
a stupid sexist Jewish.
 Unlike to ad hominiem abusive, ad hominiem circumstantial rather than verbally abusing the
opponent, the arguer tries to find certain circumstances that affect his/her opponent. Example;
George Bush argued against the inhuman attack of Israel on the innocent Palestinians. He
said, “the Israelites are defending themselves.” He is saying this because he is the president
of America who is the close friend of Israel. Therefore, his argument lacks trustworthiness.
 In the tu quoque (you too) fallacy the arguer usually cite features in the life or behavior of the
first arguer that conflicts with the latter's conclusion. The nature of this fallacy looks like this;
“How do you argue that I should stop doing “X”; why you do or have done X yourself”
Example: My teacher told me that cheating on exam is a bad habit. But he himself told me that
he used to cheat on exam when he was in university. Therefore, his argument is foolish.
5) Accident
The fallacy of accident is committed when a general rule is applied to specific case was not intended to
cover. The general rule is cited in the premise and wrongly applied to the specific case mentioned in the
conclusion. The following is a good example;
1. Whoever pierces a person's body with a knife should be brought to court. But surgeons often do this
when operating. Therefore, surgeons should be brought to court.
2. Freedom of speech is constitutionally guaranteed right. Therefore, Mr. Raul should not be
arrested for his speech that incited the riot last week.
6) Straw man Fallacy
Like the argument against the person, the straw man fallacy always involves two arguers. It is
committed when an arguer distorts an opponent's argument for the purpose of more easily attacking it,
demolishes the distorted argument, and then concludes that the opponent's real argument has been
demolished. Exaggeration of the first person's argument by the second arguer is common. Example;
1. So many people these days are against prayer in public schools. Of course, the assumption
underlying this view includes, there is no God only matter exists and life is essentially meaningless.
That is why we must fight against these who seek to remove prayer from our public school.
2. The student status committee has presented us with an argument favoring alcohol privileges on
campus. What do the students want? Is it their intention to stay boozed up from the day they enter
as freshmen till the day they graduate? Or maybe a chain of bars all over the campus? Such a
proposal is ridiculous!
7) Missing the point (Ignoratio Elenchi)
It occurs when the premises of an argument support one particular conclusion, but then a different
conclusion, often vaguely related to the correct conclusion is drawn. Ignoratio Elenchi means
“ignorance of the proof”. The arguer is ignorant of the logical implication of his/her premises, and
draws a conclusion that misses the point. See the following examples;
1. Crimes of theft and robbery have been increasing at alarming rate lately. Therefore, we must
restate the death penalty immediately.
2. Abuse of the welfare system is rampant today. Our only alternative is to abolish the system.
8) The Red Herring Fallacy
It is committed when an arguer diverts the attention of the reader/listener by changing the subject to
some totally different issue. He/she often finishes by either drawing a conclusion about this different
issue or by merely presuming that some conclusion has been established.
 To commit red herring fallacy effectively, the arguer must change the original subject of the
argument without the reader/listener noticing it. One way of doing so is to change it to some
flashy, eye-catching topic that is virtually guaranteed to distract one's attention: sex, crime,
death, immorality, and so on.
 Another way of committing red herring fallacy is by changing the subject to one subtly related
to the original subject.
Example: The Consumers Digest reports that Sylvania light bulbs last longer than GE bulbs. But do
you realize that GE is this country's major manufacturer of nuclear weapons? The social cost of GE's
irresponsible behavior has been tremendous. Among other things, we are left with thousands of tons of
nuclear waste with nowhere to put it. Obviously, the Consumers Digest is wrong.
 Note that this fallacy can be confused with straw man fallacy because both have the effect of
drawing the reader/listener off the track. But in the straw man the arguer begins by distorting an
opponent's argument and concludes by knocking down the distorted argument whereas in the
red herring, the arguer ignores the opponent's argument and subtly changes the subject.
 Both straw man and red herring fallacies are susceptible of being confused with missing the
point because all three involve a similar kind of irrelevance. However, both red herring and
straw man proceed by generating a new set of premises whereas missing the point does not.
Missing the point draws the conclusion from the original premises. In the red herring and straw
man, the conclusion is relevant to the premises from which it is drawn. In missing the point, the
conclusion is irrelevant to the premises from which it is drawn.
Fallacies of Weak Induction

The fallacies of weak induction occur not because the premises are logically irrelevant to the
conclusion, as in the case with fallacies of relevance, but because the connection between premises and
conclusion is not strong enough to support the conclusion. The premises provide at least a shred of
evidence in support of the conclusion, but the evidence is not nearly good enough to cause a reasonable
person to believe in the conclusion. Like the fallacies of relevance, however, the fallacies of weak
induction often involve emotional grounds for believing the conclusion.
1) Appeal to Unqualified Authority (Argumentum ad Verecundiam)
An argument from authority is an inductive argument in which the arguer cites the testimony of another
person in support of some conclusion. The appeal to unqualified authority fallacy occurs when the cited
authority or witness is not trustworthy. There are several reasons why the authority or witness might
not be trustworthy: the person might lack the requisite expertise, might be biased or prejudiced, might
have a motive to lie or disseminate “misinformation,” or might lack the requisite ability to perceive or
recall. Consider the following examples;
1. President Clinton stated that while he was a student at Oxford University he smoked marijuana
but he never inhaled. Therefore, we can only conclude that President Clinton never got high
from smoking marijuana during those years. (the President may lie because that time he was on
election campaign)
2. Ato Tekle, the deaf person who lives in Mekelle, stated that hearing the voice of birds at the
early morning gives delightful pleasure. From this we can conclude that it is pleasurable to
hear the voice of birds in every morning.
-In deciding whether someone is a qualified authority, there are two important points to keep in mind.
First, someone might be an authority in more than one field. The second point is that there are some
areas of argumentation where practically no one can be considered an authority: politics, morals, and
religion. Many questions in these areas are so hotly contested that there is no conventional wisdom an
authority can depend on.
2) Appeal to Ignorance (Argumentum ad Ignorantiam)

When the premises of an argument state that nothing has been proved one way or the other about
something, and the conclusion then makes a definite assertion about that thing, the argument commits
an appeal to ignorance. The issue usually involves something that has not yet been proved. Examples;
1) People have been trying for centuries to provide conclusive evidence for the claims of
astrology, and no one has succeeded. Therefore, we must conclude that astrology is a lot of
nonsense.
2) Many scientists have tried for decades to get cure for HIV/AIDS, but could not succeed. From
this, we can conclude that no one will succeed in getting cure for HIV/AIDS.
Two important exceptions to the appeal to ignorance; the first stems from the fact that if qualified
researchers investigate a certain phenomenon within their range of expertise and fail to turn up any
evidence that the phenomenon exists, this fruitless search by itself constitutes positive evidence about
the question. It is not always necessary, however, that the investigators have special qualifications. The
kinds of qualifications needed depend on the situation. Sometimes the mere ability to see and report
what one sees is sufficient. The second exception relates to courtroom procedure. If the prosecutor in a
criminal trial fails to prove the guilt of the defendant beyond reasonable doubt, counsel for the defense
may justifiably argue that his or her client is not guilty.
3) Hasty Generalization (Converse Accident)
Hasty generalization is a fallacy that affects inductive generalizations. An inductive generalization is an
argument that draws a conclusion about all members of a group from evidence that pertains to a
selected sample. The fallacy occurs when there is a reasonable likelihood that the sample is not
representative of the group. Such likelihood may arise if the sample is either too small or not randomly
selected. Example;
1) Two weeks ago the Ajax Pharmacy was robbed and the suspect was a black man. Yesterday a
black teenager snatched an old lady's purse while she was waiting at the corner bus stop.
Clearly, blacks are nothing but a pack of criminals.
2) Both Haile G/Selassie and Kennenisa Bekele are world athletics record holders. From this, we
can conclude that all Ethiopian athletes are world athletics record holders.
The mere fact that a sample may be small, however, does not necessarily entail that it is atypical.
Sometimes other factors intervene that cause the argument to be strong in spite of the fact that the
sample may be small.
Hasty generalization is otherwise called “converse accident” because it proceeds in a direction opposite
to that of accident (it goes from the specific to the general).
4) False Cause
The fallacy of false cause occurs whenever the link between premises and conclusion depends on some
imagined causal connection that probably does not exist. Whenever an argument is suspected of
committing the false cause fallacy, the reader or listener should be able to say that the conclusion
depend on the supposition that X causes Y, whereas X probably does not cause Y at all.
There are three varieties of false cause fallacy. The First variety is called post hoc ergo propter hoc
(“after this, therefore on account of this”). This fallacy presupposes that just because one event
precedes another event the first event causes the second. Obviously, mere temporal succession is not
sufficient to establish a causal connection. Look at the following examples;
1) During the past two months, every time that the cheerleaders have worn blue ribbon in their
hair, the basketball team has been defeated. Therefore, to prevent defeats in the future, the
cheerleaders should get rid of those blue ribbons.
2) A black cat crossed my path and later I tripped and sprained my ankle. It must be that black
cats really are bad luck.
The second variety is known as non causa pro causa (“not the cause for the cause”). This variety is
committed when what is taken to be the cause of something is not really the cause at all and the mistake
is based on something other than mere temporal succession. Obviously, the mere fact that one event is
coincidental with another is not sufficient reason to think that one caused the other. For example;
1) Successful business executives are paid salaries in excess of $50, 000. Therefore, the best way
to ensure someone will become a successful executive is to raise his salary to at least $50, 000.
2) There are more laws on the book than ever before and more crimes are being committed than
before. Therefore, to reduce crimes we must eliminate the laws.
The third variety is called oversimplified cause. This fallacy occurs when a multitude of causes are
responsible for a certain effect but the arguer selects just one of these causes and represents it as if it
were the sole cause. See the next example;
The quality of education in our grade schools and high schools has been declining for years.
Clearly, our teachers just aren't doing their job these days.
The oversimplified cause fallacy is usually motivated by self-serving interests (or may be due to some
kind of affiliation). It can resemble the other varieties in that the alleged cause can occur either prior to
or concurrently with the effect. It differs from the others in that the single factor selected for credit or
blame is often partly responsible for the effect, but responsible to only a minor degree.
5) Slippery Slope
The fallacy of slippery slope is a variety of the false cause fallacy. It occurs when the conclusion of an
argument rests upon an alleged chain of reaction and there is no sufficient reason to think that the chain
of reaction will actually take place. It has a notion that states a single step in the wrong direction will
result in an inevitable slide all the way to the bottom. Many slippery slopes rest on a mere emotional
conviction on the part of the arguer that a certain action or policy is bad, and the arguer attempts to
trump up support for his/her position by citing all sorts of dire consequences that will result if the action
is taken or the policy is followed. For example
Immediate actions must be taken against the mass production of weapons. If not, every
individual will harm a weapon and rise against each other. This will lead to a frequent action of
killing each other in the society. This in turn will result in the execution of human race from the
universe.
6) Weak Analogy
This fallacy affects inductive arguments from analogy. An argument from analogy is an inductive
argument in which the conclusion depends on the existence of an analogy, or similarity, between two
things or situations. The fallacy of weak analogy is committed when the analogy is not strong enough
to support the conclusion that is drawn.
1) If a car breaks down on the freeway, a passing mechanic is not obliged to render emergency
road service. For similar reason if a person suffers a heart attack on the street, a passing
physician is not obligated to render emergency medical asssistance.
2) No one would buy a pair of shoes without trying them on. Why should anyone be expected to get
married without premarital sex?
Fallacies of Presumption, Ambiguity, and Grammatical Analogy

Fallacies of presumption arise not because the premises are irrelevant to the conclusion or provide
insufficient reason for believing the conclusion but because the premises presume what they purport to
prove. The fallacies of presumption include begging the question, complex question, false dichotomy,
and suppressed evidence.
1) Begging the Question (Petitio Principii)
Begging the question occurs when an arguer uses some form of phraseology that tends to conceal the
questionably true character of a key premise. If the reader or listener is deceived into thinking that the
key premise is true, he or she will accept the argument as sound, when in fact it may not be.
Two requirements must be met for this fallacy to occur:
I. the argument must be valid
II. Some form of phraseology must be used to conceal the questionably true character of a key
premise.
The kind of phraseology used varies from argument to argument, but it often involves using the
conclusion to support the premises. One way of accomplishing this is to phrase the argument so that the
premise and conclusion say the same thing in two slightly different ways. Example:
Capital punishment is justified for the crimes of murdering and kidnapping because it is quite
legitimate and appropriate that someone be put to death for having committed such hateful and
inhuman acts.
Since the premise and the conclusion mean the same thing, if the premise is true, then the conclusion is
true; hence the argument valid.
Another form of begging the question affects chains of arguments. Look at the following example;
Ford motor company clearly produces the finest cars in the United States. We know they produce
the finest cars because they have the best design engineers. The reason why they have the best
design engineers is because they can afford to pay them more than other manufacturers. Obviously,
they can afford to pay them more because they make the finest cars in the United States.
In this chain of arguments the final conclusion is stated first. The truth of this conclusion depends on
each link in the chain, and ultimately on the first premise which asserts the same thing as the final
conclusion. This example illustrates why begging the question is frequently called circular reasoning.
A third form of begging the question occurs when a questionably true premise, which is needed to
make the argument valid, is completely ignored. For example;
Murder is morally wrong. This being the case, it follows that abortion is morally wrong.
The questionable premise that is ignored is, “Abortion is a form of murder.” If the reader or listener
concentrates on the truth of the stated premise and overlooks the fact that a highly questionable premise
is needed to complete the argument, he or she is liable to accept the argument as immediately sound.
2) Complex Question
The fallacy of complex question is committed when a single question that is really two (or more)
questions is asked and a single answer is then applied to both questions. Every complex question
presumes the existence of a certain condition. When the respondent's answer is added to the complex
question, an argument emerges that establishes the presumed condition. Thus, although not an
argument as such, a complex question involves an implicit argument. This argument is usually intended
to trap the respondent into acknowledging something that he or she might otherwise not want to
acknowledge. Examples:
1. Have you stopped cheating on exams?
2. Where did you hide the book you stole?
The following argument emerges if the respondent answers “yes” to the first question.
You were asked whether you have stopped cheating on exams. You answered “yes.”
Therefore, it follows that you have cheated in the past.
3) False Dichotomy
The fallacy of false dichotomy (otherwise called “false bifurcation” and the “either-or fallacy”) is
committed when one premise of an argument is an “either...or...” (disjunctive) statement that presents
two alternatives as if they were jointly exhaustive (as if no third alternative were possible). One of these
alternatives is usually preferred by the arguer. The fallacious nature of false dichotomy lies in the
attempt by the arguer to delude the reader or listener into thinking that the disjunctive premise presents
jointly exhaustive alternatives and is therefore true by necessity. Examples:
1. Either you buy only American-made products or you don't deserve to be called a loyal American.
Yesterday you bought a new Toyota. It's therefore clear that you don't deserve to be called a loyal
American.
2. Either you let me attend the concert or I'll be miserable for the rest of my life. I know you don't want
me to be miserable for the rest of my life, so it follows that you'll let me attend the concert.
False dichotomy is classified as a fallacy of presumption because the soundness of the argument
depends on the presumption that the two alternatives presented are the only ones that exist. If they are
not the only ones, the “either...or...” statement is false, and the argument is unsound.
4) Suppressed Evidence
The fallacy of suppressed evidence is committed when an arguer ignores some important piece of
evidence that outweighs the presented evidence which might entail a very different conclusion. This
fallacy is classified as a fallacy of presumption because it works by creating the presumption that the
premises are both true and complete when in fact they are not. Consider the following arguments:
1. Most dogs are friendly and pose no threat to people who pet them. Therefore, it would be safe to pet
the little dog that is approaching us now. (the person ignores the fact that the dog can cause rabies)
2. Smoking cigarette excites. So, if you always want to be excited, you should smoke cigarette. (the
arguer ignores the fact that smoking will be a cause for a lung cancer)
Another form of suppressed evidence is committed by arguers who quote passages out of context from
sources such as religious books, constitution, and others to support a conclusion that the passage was
not intended to cover.
Fallacies of Ambiguity include equivocation and amphiboly. These fallacies arise from the occurrence
of some form of ambiguity in either the premise or the conclusion (or both). Ambiguity can affect not
only terms but whole statements. When the conclusion of an argument depends on a certain
interpretation being given to an ambiguous term or statement, the argument commits a fallacy of
ambiguity.
1) Equivocation
The fallacy of equivocation occurs when the conclusion of an argument depends on the fact that one or
more words are used, either explicitly or implicitly, in two different senses in the argument. Such
arguments are either invalid or have a false premise, and in either case they are unsound. Examples:
1. Some triangles are obtuse. Whatever is obtuse is ignorant. Therefore, some triangles are ignorant.
2. Any law can be repealed by the legislative authority. But the law of gravity is a law.
Therefore, the law of gravity can be repealed by the legislative authority.
The fallacy of equivocation often occurs in protracted, drawn out arguments of the sort found in
political speeches. Another strategy used by speech makers is to use a certain word in one sense when
addressing one group of people and in quite another sense when addressing an opposing group.
2) Amphiboly
The fallacy of amphiboly occurs when the arguer misinterprets a statement that is ambiguous owing to
some structural defect and proceed to draw a conclusion based on this faulty interpretation. The original
statement is usually asserted by someone else other than the arguer, and structural defect is usually a
mistake in grammar or punctuation-a missing comma, a dangling modifier, an ambiguous antecedent of
a pronoun, or some other careless arrangement of words. Here are some examples:
1. John told Henry that he had made a mistake. It follows that John has at least the courage to admit
his own mistakes. (the pronoun “he” has an ambiguous antecedent; it can refer either to John or Henry)
2. Professor Johnson said that he will give a lecture about heart failure in the biology lecture hall. It
must be the case that a number of heart failures have occurred there recently. (What takes place in the
biology lecture hall; is it the lecture or the heart failure?)
Amphiboly differs from equivocation in two important ways. First, equivocation is always traced to an
ambiguity in the meaning of one or more words, whereas amphiboly involves a structural defect in a
statement. The second difference is that amphiboly usually involves a mistake made by the arguer in
interpreting an ambiguous statement made by someone else, whereas the ambiguity in equivocation is
typically the arguer's own creation.
Fallacies of Grammatical Analogy include composition and division. Arguments that commit these
fallacies are grammatically analogous to other arguments that are good in every respect. Because of this
similarity in linguistic structure, such fallacious arguments may appear good yet be bad.
1) Composition
The fallacy of composition is committed when the conclusion of an argument depends on the erroneous
transference of an attribute from the parts of something onto the whole. In other words, the fallacy
occurs when it is argued that because the parts have a certain attribute, it follows that the whole has that
attribute too and the situation is such that the attribute in question cannot be legitimately transferred
from parts to whole. Examples:
1. Each atom in this piece of chalk is invisible. Therefore, the chalk is invisible.
2. Sodium and chlorine, the atomic components of salt, are both deadly poisons. Therefore, salt is a
deadly poison.
Not every such transference is illegitimate, however. Consider the following argument:
Every atom in this piece of chalk has mass. Therefore, the piece of chalk has mass.
Further caution is required by the fact that composition is sometimes confused with hasty
generalization. Composition proceeds from members of a class to the class itself. Hasty generalization,
on the other hand, proceeds from the specific to the general. Because it is sometimes easy to mistake a
statement about a class for a general statement, composition can be mistaken for hasty generalization.
Such a mistake can be avoided if one is careful to keep mind the distinction between a general statement
and a class statement. Examine the conclusion of the argument. If the conclusion is a general
statement, a statement in which an attribute is predicated distributively to each and every member of a
class, the fallacy committed is hasty generalization. But if the conclusion is a class statement, a
statement in which an attribute is predicated collectively to a class as a whole, the fallacy is
composition. Consider the following statements:
1. Fleas are small. (a general statement; the attribute of being small is predicated distributively)
2. Fleas are numerous. (a class statement; the attribute of being numerous is predicated collectively)
2) Division
The fallacy of division is the exact reverse of composition. As composition goes from parts to whole,
division goes from whole to parts. The fallacy is committed when the conclusion of an argument
depends on the erroneous transference of an attribute from a whole (or a class) onto its parts (or
members). Examples:
1. Salt is a nonpoisonous compound. Therefore, its component elements, sodium and chlorine, are
nonpoisonous.
2. The Royal Society is over 300 years old. Elisabet is a member of the Royal Society. Therefore,
Elisabet is over 300 years old.
As with the fallacy of composition, however, this kind of transference is not always illegitimate. The
following argument contains no fallacy:
This piece of chalk has mass. Therefore, the atoms that compose this piece of chalk have mass.
Division is sometimes prone to being confused with accident. If a class statement is mistaken for a
general statement, division may be mistaken for accident. To avoid such a mistake, one should analyze
the premises of the argument. If the premises contain a general statement, the fallacy committed is
accident; but if they contain a class statement, the fallacy is division. Example;
Stanely Steamers have almost disappeared. This car is Stanely Steamer. Therefore, this car has
almost disappeared.

Critical Thinking Module

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Critical Thinking Module

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Critical Thinking Module

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ETHIO-LENS COLLEGE

Course Name : Logic and Critical Thinking

1. About Logic and Critical Thinking

1.1 Chapter Overview

1.2 Chapter Objectives:

 Understand the meaning, nature and features of philosophy;

1.3 Lesson 1: Meaning and Nature of Philosophy

1.4 Basic Features of Philosophy

The general features of philosophy can be summarized as follows:

c) Philosophy is a rational attempt to look at the world as a whole.

1.5 Core Fields of Philosophy

1.5.3 Axiology and Logic

The following are typical Aesthetic questions:

III. Social/Political Philosophy

1.1 Arguments, Premises and Conclusions

 The moon is made of green cheese.

 France is found in Latin America.

 Barack Obama is the President of the United States of America.

 Can you come to the party please? (Question)

 Come here! (Command)

 Next week, I will go to Gonder to visit the castle of Fassil. (Proposal)

All crimes are violations of the law.

Therefore, theft is a violation of the law.

Some Americans are black.

Therefore, John is black.

Accordingly Consequently It follows that

Entails that It must be As a result

Therefore Hence Whence

We may conclude We may infer Implies that

The development of high temperature superconducting materials is technologically

Socialized medicine is not recommended because it would result in a reduction in the

1.2 Recognizing Arguments

Two conditions must be fulfilled for a passage to purport to prove something:

1) At least one of the statements must claim to present evidence or reasons.

Passages Lacking an Inferential Claim

 Passages in which there is no claim that something is being proved.

Some of the examples of passages lacking an inferential claim are:

Chemical elements, as well as, compounds can be represented by molecular formulas.

Conditional Statements; a conditional statement is an “if …then…” statement. For example;

1. A single conditional statement is not an argument.

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

2. The presence of an inferential relationship between statements, and

3. Typical kinds of non arguments.

1.3 Deduction and Induction

1) The occurrence of special indictor words

→These are some of special indictor words of an inductive argument; “Probable/Improbable,”

2) The actual strength of the Inferential Link

3) The Forms of Arguments

A. Forms of a Deductive Argument

▪ E.g. God is omnipotent, it follows that he is all-knowing.

3. Syllogistic Arguments: Syllogism is an argument consisting of exactly two premises

There are three types of a syllogistic argument. These are;

B. Forms of an Inductive Argument

 E.g. Look her shoulders, there is a tattoo of Emperor H/Sellase. Therefore,

1.4 Validity, Truth, Soundness, Strength, Cogency

All birds are mammals.

All auto makers are computer manufacturers;

NOKIA is an auto maker.