Body of Logic Module

TABLE OF CONTENTS
TITLE PAGE
Lesson 1.1. What is Logic?.............................................................................................2
1.1.1 The subject Matter of Logic..................................................................................6
1.1.2. The purposes of Logic...........................................................................................9
Lesson 1.2. A Brief History of the Development of Logic..........................................12
Lesson 1.3. The Laws of Thought................................................................................14
UNIT -2.............................................................................18
THE NATURE OF ARGUMENT..................................18
Lesson 2.1. Argument, Premise and Conclusion...........................................................18
2.1.1 Recognizing Argument.........................................................................................26
2.1.2 Non-Argument Forms of Expression....................................................................27
Lesson 2.2. Explanation, Illustration and Expository Passage..................................28
Lesson 2.3. Deductive and Inductive Arguments..........................................................31
Lesson 2.4. Identifying Deductive and Inductive Argument.........................................32
Lesson 2.5. Validity, Truth, Soundness, Strength and Cogency...................................38
UNIT -3.............................................................................44
LANGUAGE: MEANING AND DEFINITION...........44
Lesson 3.1 Functions of Language.............................................................................45
Lesson 3.2. Cognitive Meaning and Emotive Meaning................................................46
Lesson 3.3. The Intension and Extension of Terms.......................................................52
Lesson 3.4. Definitions and Their Purpose....................................................................57
Lesson 3.5. Definitional Techniques.............................................................................63
Lesson 3.6. Rules (Criteria) for Definition....................................................................68
UNIT -4.............................................................................76
INFORMAL FALLACIES.............................................76
Fallacies in general........................................................................................................77
Lesson 4.1. Fallacy of Relevance.................................................................................78
Lesson 4.2 Fallacies of Weak Induction........................................................................86
Lesson 4.3. Fallacy of Presumption...............................................................................90
Lesson 4. 4. Fallacies of Ambiguity..............................................................................95
Lesson 4.5. Fallacy of Grammatical Analogy...............................................................96
UNIT -5.............................................................................99
CATEGORICAL PROPOSITIONS..............................99
Lesson 5.1. The Components of Categorical Proposition...........................................100
Lesson 5.2 Quality, Quantity, and Distribution...........................................................104
Lesson 5.3 Venn Diagrams and the Modern Square Of Opposition....................110
Lesson 5.4. Categorical Operations: Conversion, Obversion, and Contrapostion......123
Lesson 5.5. Translating Ordinary Language statements Into Categorical Form.........134
Lesson 5.6. Adverbs and Pronouns..............................................................................138
BDU-DEPARTMENT OF CIVICS AND ETHICAL EDUCATION i

UNIT -6...........................................................................148
CATEGORICAL SYLLOGISM..................................148
Lesson 6.1. Standard Form..........................................................................................149
Lesson 6.2 Venn Diagrams..........................................................................................151
6.3. Rules and Fallacies...............................................................................................157
Lesson 6. 4. Ordinary Language Arguments...............................................................161
Lesson 6.5. Sorties.......................................................................................................165
References....................................................................................................................171
BDU-DEPARTMENT OF CIVICS AND ETHICAL EDUCATION ii

UNIT-2 THE NATURE OF ARGUMENT
UNIT-1
INTRODUCTION
Lesson 1.1. What is Logic?.............................................................................................2

1.1.1 The subject Matter of Logic.................................................................................. 6
1.1.2. The purposes of Logic........................................................................................... 9
Lesson 1.2. A Brief History of the Development of Logic.......................................... 11
Lesson 1.3. The Laws of Thought................................................................................ 13
This unit is divided in to three main sections. These are definition of logic,
history of logic and the fundamental lows of logic.
The first lesson focuses on the definition of logic its subject matter and
significance of logic. It tries to explain etymological definition of logic along with
different branches of philosophy for logic is one of the branches of philosophy.
Moreover, this section clarifies that the concern of logic is all about and indicates
its importance in both personal and social lives.
The second lesson tries to present a short history of the development of logic
and the third lesson discusses the three laws of thought- the law of non-
contradiction, excluded middle, and identity- which are perceived as the
fundamental rules of right thinking.
Objectives
After reading unit 1, you will be able to:
 Know what logic is
 know what the subject matter of logic is
 recognize the role of logic in scientific investigations
BDU-DEPARTMENT OF CIVICS AND ETHICAL EDUCATION 1

 discuss the significance of logic in day-to-day social life.

 distinguish good argument from bad ones
 construct good arguments
 recognize the importance of good argument
 recognize the laws of thought.
It is customary to begin introducing any subject with the discussion of its subject
matter and the object of its study. Accordingly, this module begins by
introducing the definition of the science of logic.
Lesson 1.1. What is Logic?
Objectives: After reading this lesson, you will be able to:

 define what logic is
 familiarized with branches of philosophy
 discuss the role of logic as science & art
A. Etymological Definition
Dear Learners -Etymological definition is a definition that provides a meaning to

a given term based on the word's ancestor, root or original word in both its own
language and other languages.
The term "Logic" is derived from the Greek work "logos" which means reason,
word (life giving word), thought, principle, law, etc. Thereby, logic is the science
of the rules of reasoning and the forms in which it occurs.
Reasoning implies the process of passing from something given to something
unknown. The given aspect of reasoning is known as the 'premise' or 'premises',
and the unknown which is ultimately discovered, is known as conclusion.

Knowing the laws of correct reasoning will be a great help in avoiding errors and
in the search for truth. Hence, logic can be defined as the science of those
principles, laws and methods which the mind of man in its thinking must follow
for the accurate and secure treatment of truth.
B. Logic as Branch of Philosophy
Philosophy may be considered as the parent science, in that it has given birth to
other natural, physical and social sciences. It was an integral science uniting all
basic specialized natural and social sciences that we know today.
These disciplines continue to provide philosophy with a rich abundance of
contemporary issues, questions that they themselves are unable to answer. It is
both independent of other disciplines and embedded in their foundations and
ongoing activities.
What, then, is philosophy? It is difficult to define philosophy. One thing that

makes defining philosophy tough is that it lacks distinct subject matter. Biology,
botany, physics, economics, political science- all deal with a specific body of
subjects. If you asked botanists, physicists, psychology, or economists what their
studies dealt with, they probably could answer without too much disagreement.
Not so with philosophy. Philosophers often disagree on their subject matter. One
reason is that philosophy deals more with issues than with specific subjects.
Issues make up the content of philosophy. While some issues have remained
throughout the development of philosophical thought, many have not. Some
have faded with the passage of time or have become part of the subject matter of
other disciplines, such as physics or psychology. What's more, even those issues
that have remained in the province of philosophy have changed as various
thinkers and ages have considered them.

Nevertheless, philosophy can be defined based on its original word. The word
philosophy is derived from the two Greek words philo, which means love, and
sophia, which means wisdom. Thereby, philosophy literally means " love of
wisdom."
Working definition: Philosophy is the attempt to think relationally and critically

about the most important questions. It is the study of the most fundamental and
general concepts and principles involved in thought, action and reality.
There are five major branches or fields of philosophy. They are: Metaphysics,
Epistemology, Aesthetics, Ethics and Logic.
1. Metaphysics: deals with reality in general. Some of the questions of
metaphysics are: What is reality? Is reality some kind of "thing"? Is it one
or is it many? Can ultimate reality be grasped by the five senses, or is it
supernatural or transcendent? And soon.
2. Epistemology: is the study of knowledge. Questions of epistemology are:
What is knowledge? What does it mean, "to know"? How is knowledge
acquired? What, if any thing, do the senses contribute to knowledge?
What does reason contribute? And so on.
3. Aesthetics: deals with art and beauty. It raises the questions: What is art?
It addressees such issues as the relation of beauty to art, whether there can
be any objective standards by which artistic works may be judged (or is
beauty in the eye of the beholder?), and the connection between art, reality
and truth.
4. Ethics: is concerned with a particular sort of value, namely, value as it
applies to personal actions, decisions and relations, It is concerned with
moral values, It raises questions such as what is morally good? What is
right? Are there absolute or universal moral principles?
5. Logic: deals with the formulation of the principle of right reasoning.
Traditionally logic stands in a somewhat different relation to the

philosophy than the other fields do. The other fields suggest something
that is studied by the philosopher such a reality, knowledge, value, etc,
Logic is a tool which philosophers employ as they set about to investigate
these issues.
 Logic is both a science and an art. As a science logic investigates,

develops and systematizes principles and methods that can be used to
distinguish between correct and incorrect reasoning. It formulates laws
and principles to which thoughts must conform in order to be valid.
Logic is a normative science. It deals not with thoughts as they are, but as
they should be. It is the science of understanding in the pursuit of truth.
 Logic is also defined as the science of formal laws of thought. It has been
called as the science of sciences. The subject-matter of every science is
different, but all the sciences are based on the general laws of valid
thought or principles of correct reasoning or argument. Every science
must be logical in its approach. Thus, logic provides the common basis of
all sciences.
 Logic is also an art. An art deals with the applied aspect of knowledge.
Art teaches to do and science teaches to know systematically. As an art
logic can be equated with "logical ability" and includes a whole family of
related skills that have many applications. Among those applications are
problem solving, weighing evidence, marshaling evidence and
constructing arguments for or against a disputed proposition, analyzing
a problem into components that may usefully be dealt with separately,
detecting and exposing mistakes in reasoning (including one's own), and
clarifying issues, often through defining or redefining the key terms on
which disputes frequently turn.

 Logic is an art because it lies down certain rules for the attainment of
truth and elimination of errors. In fact, logic is the art of all arts. All arts
follow the rules for the attainment of truth in general. As the art of
correct reasoning, logic becomes the common basis, and directs all other
arts.
In summary, logic as a science and as a branch of philosophy can be defined as
follows:
Logic, as a science, is the study of rules, which pertains to certain important kind
of inferences (process of reasoning) and deals with those methods and principles
used to distinguish correct reasoning from incorrect reasoning. Therefore, as a
branch of philosophy, logic is a discipline that deals with the principles that
govern correct reasoning and the thought process that moves from given
evidence to a certain conclusion.
Activity 1.1.1. What does it mean when you say logic is a normative science. Can
you explain the difference between normative and descriptive science?
1.1.1 The subject Matter of Logic

Objectives
After reading this section, you will be able to:
 define what the concern of logic is
 know how to formulate qualified arguments
 discuss importance of good arguments
 recognize criteria of good argument
What is the subject Matter of Logic?

The subject matter of logic is reasoning. Its concern is to distinguish good

reasoning from bad, or better from worse. Logic lays down certain principles by
which one can judge the validity of an argument or reasoning. It tries to
investigate systematically the conditions of valid thoughts. The aim of logic thus
is to develop a system of methods and principles that we may use as criteria for
evaluating the argument of others and as guides in constructing arguments of
our own. Validity implies self -consistency, i.e. absence of self contradiction. A
valid reasoning conforms to the rules of correct reasoning.
Note that the definition of argument (premise & conclusion), and the validity of
arguments will be discussed in the next lesson.
We need to learn not only the techniques of distinguishing bad arguments from
good ones but also how to construct good arguments. There are a number of
practical reasons why it is important to formulate quality arguments and to
expect others to do the same. Some of them are:
(a) Good arguments help us to make better personal decisions. Indeed, there is
reason to believe that those who use reasonable methods in all aspects of their
lives have a better chance of success in achieving their goals or completing their
projects.
(b) Good arguments promote our general interests in holding only those views
that we have reason to believe are true or defensive ones. If we demand good
arguments of ourselves, that demand will lead us to new and better ideas,
reinforce the strength of our present beliefs, and expose weaknesses that might
lead to qualification or abandonment of those beliefs.
(c) The use of arguments raises the level of thinking and discussion in social,
business, and personal contexts. Good arguments are usually more effective in
trying to convince others point of view than methods such as fear, intimidation,
social pressure, or emotional bribery.

(d) The method of argument is a nonviolent way to resolve personal disputes or

to settle conflicts.
(e) By examining opponent's arguments, one is better able to understand his or
her ideas and thinking processes and to discover weaknesses that make that
arguer's position more vulnerable to be attacked
(f) Good arguments play an important role in helping us to make moral
decisions. Note only do they help us to decide what positive action to take but
also to avoid actions with harmful results. False beliefs, to which fallacious
arguments sometimes lead, blur our moral vision and often issues actions that
cause considerable harm to others. Since each of us is responsible for the
consequences of our actions, it is important that we base our beliefs and
decisions on the conclusions of good arguments.
There are four general criteria of a good argument. A good argument must have
premises that are relevant to the truth of the conclusion, premises that are
acceptable, premises that together constitute sufficient grounds for the truth of
conclusion, and premises that anticipate and provide an effective rebuttal to all
reasonable challenges to the argument or to the position supported by it. An
argument that meets all of these conditions is a good one, and its conclusion
should be accepted. If an argument fails to satisfy these conditions, it is probably
a flawed one. In other words, fallacy is committed when these criteria are
violated. Note that chapter 4 focuses on different kinds of fallacies in detail.
We, human beings, are rational animals. This is one of the qualities which
distinguish human beings from other animals. This implies that every body
thinks and thinking is natural. Moreover, people started to implement logical
thinking even before logic was invented as a discipline. So, what is new about
logic? What is the benefit of studying logic?

It is clear that since thinking or reasoning is natural, logic could not teach us how
to think or how to reason. But logic can teach us only how to reason correctly by
providing those methods and laws that would help us to develop correct
reasoning. Although reasoning is natural, correct reasoning and the techniques,
methods, principles and laws used to develop correct reasoning can be acquired
through learning. In the next section the significance of logic will be dealt.
Activity 1.1.1. Explain the benefits of good arguments?
1.1.2. The purposes of Logic
Objective
After reading this lesson, you will be able to:
 define what the benefits of logic are
 discuss how much logical skills are important in social life
 discuss to what extent logic is significant in you thinking, speaking
and writing.
What is the Purpose of Logic?
Dear learners, what benefits may be expected from the study of logic? As
students of law, in order to make your argument, positions, and pronouncements
rational, that is well-conceived, well-evidenced, well-stated and persuasive, it is
important to study the philosophical discipline. Logic, and pay attention to its
rules of inference. Wherever people debate, discuss and argue logic is a court of
appeal in the background; whenever a people debates a matter in their own
mind, a silent logic arbitrates. No body in his/her senses will willingly and
persistently defy a clear verdict by logic. Whoever sets out to break logic, as has
been said, logic will break him/her. So it is important to develop logical skills to

achieve its goal. And that is why for many centuries the study of logic was an
essential preliminary of higher education and it has left a deep and lasting mark
on the language and outlook of cultured men. Above all thinking critically is not
easy work and it does not always come naturally. So, learning the science of logic
would create this opportunity and it would give us several benefits in both
personal and social lives.
Some of the benefits that one can get from the study of logic are
 The skill need to construct sound arguments of one's own and to evaluate
the arguments of others. This skill is the most immediate benefit
derived from the study of logic.
 Logic contributes to the development of our reasonableness, that is, it
helps us to rid ourselves from being passionate for good reasoning are
usually more effective in trying to convince others reasonably than are
methods such as intimidation, fear or emotional bribery.
 Logic trains the mind to draw the right conclusion and to avoid the
wrong to make the true inference and not the false
 By focusing attention on the requirement for reasons or evidence to
support our views, logic provides a fundamental defense against the
prejudice and uncivilized attitudes that threaten the foundation of our
society.
 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 the political sphere and, ultimately, in distinguishing the
rational from irrational, the sane from the insane.
 Logical skills can protect us from being unduly influenced by media
commercials, slanted "news" stories and politicians' promises.

 Logic helps us in weighing pros and cons, and in sifting evidence. It help
us develop some of the skills required to from intelligent opinions,
make good decisions, and determine the best courses of action as well
as recognize when some one else's reasoning is faulty or manipulative.
 Not only our thinking, but our speaking and writing should benefit; they
should gain in clarity, precision and firmness; the lack of logic shows
itself in the 'deficiency diseases' of the mind such as vagueness,
woolliness of expression, and feeble grip of the matter in hand.
 College and University students should learn logic. Because, students
could get assistance from the course to assimilate the diversity of
information with which they are confronted in the study of various
disciplines. It helps them to distinguish the important from the trivial,
and to take critical view of the definitions given in several books.
 Logic helps us to improve the quality of our reasoning and above all it
provides confidence in constructing blameless arguments of our own
and in raising good judgments and evaluation of the of the arguments
of others.
Activity 1.1.2.1
 Discuss the assertion "Whoever sets out the break logic, logic will
break him/her."
 Argue for or against the following assertion "Reason is for
Europeans, emotion is for Africans." - Senghor
Lesson 1.2. A Brief History of the Development of Logic
Objective
After reading this section, you will able to:
 know the historical development of logic

When did the science of logic begin?
The study of logic began in ancient Greece when the set to work to master the
building principles of discourse. Its demand arose in ancient Greece from the
sophistic movement in the middle of 5 th century B.C. The sophists ( Protagoras,
Gorgias and Thrasymachus ) were the pioneers of higher education. Such as
grammar and rhetoric, i.e. the art of persuasive speech, and they taught required
rules for regulating discussion and formulating agreed conclusions. Thus, logic
supplied the rules taking up where grammar left off.
A glimmer of logic is found in Plato's work (Ca. 428-Ca. 348 B.C.); but, by and
large, the science of logic was founded by the ancient Greek philosopher
Aristotle (384-322 B.C) in the middle of 4th century B.C. He is considered as the
father of logic. Aristotle was one of the greatest thinkers of all time, and he wrote
on most of the sciences, known in his days. His writings on logic include, (1) the
Prior Analytics, which deals mainly with the formal aspect of syllogistic
reasoning ( which will be discussed in sections 5) , (2) the Posterior Analytics,
which treats of deeper problems of inference, and (3) the Topics, which deals
with the technique of establishing and refuting arguments. These works received
the title of 'Aristotle's Organon' Which means instrument; for logic is not an end
in itself, but is a means or instrument for fitting the mind to acquire knowledge
in any branch of science.
After Aristotle's death, another Greek philosopher, Chrysippus ( 279-206 B.C.)
developed rules for determining the truth or falsity of compound propositions
from the truth or falsity of their components ( discussed in section 6)
Until middle Ages philosophers confined themselves to writing commentaries on

the works of Aristotle and Chrysippus. The first major logician of middle Ages
was Peter Abelard ( 1079-1142). He originated a theory of universals and

distinguished arguments that are valid because of their forms from those that are
valid because of their content. After Abelard, significant works on logic were
made by the oxford philosopher William of Occam (C 1285-1349) who devoted
on modern logic that involves notions such as possibility, necessity, belief and
doubt.
Modern Logic laid its foundation upon the works of the German philosopher
G.W. Leibiniz (1646-1716), He introduced symbolic language or "Calculus", and
as a result of this work, Leibniz is sometimes credited with being the father of
symbolic logic. Work in symbolic logic was done by a number of philosophers
and mathematicians, including Augustus De Morgan (1806-1871), George Boole
(1815/1864), and John Venn (1834-1923), who contributed abundant, works on
symbolic logic. Most recently, logic is symbolic analysis of terms, has made a
major contribution to computer technology.
Activity 1.2.1. Discuss whether logic is meant for philosophers, only or human
beings in general (educated or uneducated)
Lesson 1.3. The Laws of Thought

Objectives
After reading this selection, you will be able to:
 recognize principles of right thinking
 distinguish the difference between these laws
 discuss how the laws of thought different from other laws.
 discuss what the importance of these laws are
What are the Fundamental Laws of Thought?

The phrase the 'Laws of thought' refers traditionally to there rules of right
thinking which from Aristotle's day have been recognized as occupying a
position of fundamental importance. They are the beginning of all thinking.
Traditionally, these principles have been perceived as the rock-bottom principles
of all thought and discourse, the principles that make thought and discourse
even possible. It is true that if these principles are not accepted as true, then
nothing we think or say makes any sense, not even this very sentence. In other
words, We cannot make any claim about any thing if any one of these principles
did not hold. Therefore, it is important to give attention to these laws.
They are:
1. The law of Non-contradiction,
2. The law of the excluded middle, and
3. The law of identity.
The term law is metaphorical, as in the phrase 'Laws of Nature'; but the laws of
thought and the laws of Nature are laws in rather different senses. The laws of
thought are mainly normative, while the laws of nature are mainly descriptive.
The laws of nature describe the ways in which nature behaves; they may regulate
our behavior towards nature but they do not regulate the behavior of nature. On
the other hand, the laws of thought to some extent describe the ways in which
we think but their main purpose is to regulate and control our thinking by
setting up a norm of right thinking.
Note that all three laws are closely related. Contradiction is the negative side of
Identity, and finds its complement and completion in the exclusion of the
middle.
1. The Law of Non-Contradiction

This principle is expressed in the formula, A is not not-A, or A is not both B and
not-B. What the law of non contradiction states is that nothing can both be and
not be at the same time and in the same respect. For instance, the same rose can
not be both red and not-red. If some one urges that one part of the same rose
might be red, and another part not-red, or that the rose which is red today may
be faded and grey tomorrow, we have only to make the law more explicit by
adding 'in respect of the same part', or ' at the same time'. In the law of non
contradiction the qualifying phrase "at the same time and in the same respect"
must be emphasized. For example, a table may indeed be red and not red at
different times; or it may be rectangular and not be four legged at the same time
in these different respects; but it cannot both be and not be (anything) at the
same time and in the same respect.
There is an objection raised against the law of noncontradiction but it involves

misunderstanding. The objection goes- Aren't there situations which involve
inherently self-contradictory factors? The answer is no. Factors in a situation may
stand in tension with one another or in opposition with one another, but such
conflict do not constitute self-contradictory situations in which one and the same
thing both is and is-not at the same time and in the same respect. Thus, a
statement, for example, can not be both true and false at the same time and in
the same respect. But two contradictory propositions cannot both be true.
What we have to note here is also the difference between contradictory

propositions and contrary propos ions. Failure to differentiate properly between
them leads to a common mistake in our thinking. Contradictories (negatives)
exclude any gradations between their extremes; there is no middle ground
between a term and its negative, for example, between hot an not hot. Contraries
(opposites), on the other hand, allow a number of gradations between their
extremes; there is plenty of middle ground between a term and its opposite, for
example, between hot and cold.

2. The Law of the Excluded Middle
The Law of the Excluded Middle is expressed in the formula, A is either B or not-
B. To put differently, what the law of the Excluded Middle states is that
-Something either is or it is not. The term 'Middle' has nothing to do with the
middle term of syllogism which will be discussed in unit five; it is just a
convenient name for a supposed midway position. There is no 'half-way house',
as we say, between B and not-B, and therefore ' A is B' and 'A is not-B' cannot
both be false.
There is middle between wise and foolish, e.g. imprudent; and so ' Jones is wise'
and ' Jones is foolish' could both be false. Jones might be neither wise nor foolish,
but imprudent. That middle is not excluded. On the other hand, there is no
middle between wise and not wise. 'Smith is wise' and 'smith is not-wise ' cannot
both be false. If he is not one, he is the other By and large, what the principle
states is that either something is X or it is not-x, white or not-white, gray or not-
gray, etc.
3. The Law of Identity
The law of identity is expressed in the formula, A is A. In the other words, the
principle states something is what it is. For example, eggs are eggs, and must be
called so. Things are what they are, and so far as in us lies, the terms in which we
speak of them must be used with a clear, defined and fixed meaning. We
experience that things do change in this world. But does it mean that this
principle does not work? The principle has reference to the whole ideas,
including any change they might involve. Thus the fact that tables are always
changing does not detract a bit from the truth that a table is a table.

Summing up, though contemporary logicians sometimes question the exalted

position that in the past has been bestowed on the Three Laws of Thought, they
may be accepted as basic to the world of everyday discourse that most of us live
in. They still stand as important anchors of thought and discourse.
Activity 1.3.1. Explain what would the possible consequences of the breach be of
the laws of thought.
Self-test Exercises
Part -I
1. What does logic study?
2. What are the practical aim of the discipline?
3. What benefits may be expected from a course of logic?
4. What does it mean when you assert logic is both a science and an art.
Discuss it.
UNIT -2
THE NATURE OF ARGUMENT
Lesson 2.1. Argument, Premise and Conclusion...........................................................18

2.1.1 Recognizing Argument.........................................................................................25
2.1.2 Non-Argument Forms of Expression....................................................................27
Lesson 2.2. Explanation, Illustration and Expository Passage..................................28
Lesson 2.3. Deductive and Inductive Arguments..........................................................30
Lesson 2.4. Identifying Deductive and Inductive Argument.........................................32
Lesson 2.5. Validity, Truth, Soundness, Strength and Cogency................................... 38
Objective

At the end of this unit, the learners able to:-

 Discuss what is the nature of argument is
 Distinguish what are the basic characters of argument are
 Identify the essential elements of argument
 Explain what the standard and criteria to identify arguments as a
good and bad are
 Construct good arguments of their own
Lesson 2.1. Argument, Premise and Conclusion
Objective of the lesson

After completing this lesson learners are expected to:
 define what an argument is
 identify the basic elements of argument
 define what premises and conclusion are
 describe the difference between premise and conclusion.
Introduction - Dear learners in this lesson we are going to define what an

argument is, what are the essential elements of argument, how can we construct
a good argument and define what premise and conclusion is.
As it is indicated in the unit one, the basic objective of logic is evaluating

arguments. Evaluation of arguments require the knowledge and understanding
of the nature and characters of arguments.
In logic the term argument refers to a broader meaning than in English language.
Quarrels, bitter controversy, a mere verbal fight between or among individuals ;
But all of the above don't refer to its correct usage in logic. In logic, an argument
is defined as follows:

- A group or collection of statements, in which one or more of that claim to

provide support for one of the other statement.
-Etymologically, the term argument derives from the Latin word "arguo" that
means "to make clear" and it indicates arriving at certain point based on the
given evidences.
Hence, one can also understand an argument, in logic, as arriving at a certain

claim over an issue based on the provided evidences. Therefore arguments can
be viewed as a chain of reasoning for a certain point or conclusion, reasoning is ,
so, found in arguments, However they are expressed through statements. So, the
next is to task understands the nature and characters of statements.
A statement is a sentence used to assert or deny something and evaluated as true

of false.
-Although a statement is a sentence, not all sentences are statements. In order to
be a statement, an expression, has to be a declarative sentence. The basic
difference between statements and sentences lies on the existence of truth value.
A statement is a sentence that has truth value i.e. it can be evaluated as true or
false. While sentences don't have truth value, i.e. it is impossible to evaluate
sentences as true or false. Hence , a sentence is a group of words and phrases
expressing on an idea or thought. Questions, proposals, suggestions, command
and exclamations are some of the typical forms of sentences.
Example:- -Enjoy the Ethiopian millennium!

- What a beautiful girl she is!
-Ethiopia is a mountains country.
-Logic is not a branch of philosophy.

Dear learners in the given Example, the first two expression would not be
evaluate in terms of truth value, as either true or false, hence they are included in
the category of sentence. While, for the last two sentences, it is possible. To
evaluate with truth value, therefore the last two sentences are statements.
Premises and Conclusion
Statements that construct an argument, are not a mere collection. There have to
be a sort of logical or reasonable link among each other. Some of the statements
claim to provide evidence and information for other statement. The other
statement is also claims to follow from the provided evidences. It is so inevitable.
that, statements that appear in an argument has two different characters, namely
-Providing evidences and facts for other statement
-Claiming to follow from the given evidences.
Logicians called the first type of statements a premise and the second type as
conclusion. Therefore a premises are statements that set forth the evidences and
facts.
B. Conclusion - is a statement that fallows from the provided evidence

(premises)
Examples- Most students of law are progressive
Eden is a student of law
Therefore Eden is progressive.
Feminism is a philosophical view that believes in the equality of
men and women.
Merry is a feminist.
Hence she believes in the equality of men and women.
In both examples the first two statements aim at providing evidences, thus the
first two statements are premises.

Identifying Premises and Conclusion
-In unit one it is indicated that the main objective of logic is evaluating
arguments. In order to do so, the first task is identifying weather the statement is
premises or conclusion. Failure to identify the premises from the conclusion and
vice-versa ends up with incorrect analysis of arguments.
The following are the major problems associated with identifying

premises from conclusion and vice-versa.
 The position of the premises and conclusion very from one argument
to another.
 Either the premises or the conclusion is often unstated explicitly but
understand from the context.
 The number of premises may very from one to as many as is thought
to be necessary to establish the conclusion.
-Owing to these problems, one would have a difficulty to distinguish the

premises from the conclusion and the vice-versa. However logic develops its
own mechanism that contribute to identify whether the statement is premise or
conclusion.
The following are the mechanism that used to identify the premises from the
conclusion and vice-versa.
A) Using Indicator Words
Some arguments contain indicator words. By looking at the indicator words, one
can identify the premises and conclusion. Indicator words are special words that
serve to indicate whether the statement is premise or conclusion. Indicator words
are of two types.

 Premise indicator words- these are words that indicates whenever a

statement follows them as premises. The followings are some of typical
premise indicator words.
In that because owing to
as for
since Given that seeing that
 Conclusion indicator words- are a word which serves as a sign for a

statement follows them as a conclusion. The followings are a
conclusion indicator words.
Therefore so which implies that
Hence accordingly
thus it follows as I conclude that
Examples - Power is not equally distributed in the market place, nor are
information and knowledge. Hence we need ethical rules
and principles.
- Since the elderly have always had a higher cancer rate and we now
have older citizens, the increase in the number of cancer
deaths is not an indication of any kind of environmental
breakdown.
In both examples, there are indicator word. In the first example we have a
conclusion indicator namely "Hence", therefore the statement follows "Hence"
is considered as conclusion. Likewise, in the second example we have a premise
indicator word namely "Since" so the statement follows "Since" is a premise of an
argument.
B) Using Nature or Character of Statements.

As it is indicated, some arguments may lack indicator words. In this case, one
has to critically evaluate the character of the statements that construct the
argument. Usually the premises of an argument provides evidences and reasons,
while the conclusion serves as a main point of the argument, claims to assert or
deny about something based on the given evidences.
Example- The pastoral letter fully deserves the wide audience it seeks. It is a
thoughtful and comprehensive effort to bring religious and moral principles to
bear on nuclear weapons.
In the above example, the argument does not contain indicator words, however,
with the nature of the statements, one can identify the premises form the
conclusion. In the first statement, the argument, aims at offering about
something based on the provided information while the second statement aims
at providing evidences and information. So the second statement is the premise
of the argument.
Exercise - 1
1.1. Answer "true" or "false" to the following statements
1. All arguments must have more than one premise
2. The main objective of logic is to raise ability to think
3. Arguments can be constructed with both sentence and statements.
4. Conclusion, is a statement that aims to provide evidence
5. A mere collection of statements is not an argument
6. All sentences have a truth value
7. An argument can be constructed without indicator words.
8. The words "therefore," 'hence,' So', 'since' and 'thus' are all conclusion
indicators.
1.2. Of the following arguments, identify the premises and the conclusion.

1. I believed that the great flood described in the Bible really happened. The
reason is simple. Noah would not have built ark otherwise.
2. Drug abuse among university students is a serious and wide spread
problem. Three students from a single department, last week admitted
that they had used cocaine.
3. Religion is the operate of the people. Therefore, it is like a drug that can be
used to make people forget and ignore the miserable condition they live
in.
4. Since, the good, according to Plato is that which furthers a person's real
interest, it follows that in any given case when the good is known, men
will seek it.
5. To every existing thing God wills some good. Hence, since to love any
thing is nothing else than to will good to that thing, it is manifest that
God loves everything that exists.
III. Define the following terms.
Logic truth value

argument premise indicator
premise conclusion indicator
conclusion statement
Argument Forms and Non--Argument Forms of Expression
Objective
At the end of this lesson, you will be able to:
 Identify argument forms from other forms of expression

 Understand the relation ship between argument and other forms of

expression
 Identify the criteria that qualify an expression to the form of
arguments.
Introduction
In this lesson you will learn about argumentative forms of expression and other
forms of expression.
2.1.1 Recognizing Argument
An argument is a heart of logic, and the concern of logic is, so, evaluating
argument. Before proceeding to the evaluation of argument, one has to
understand and identify it from other forms of expression. The followings are
some of the difficulties to identify arguments from other forms of expression.
 Many forms of expression are spoken and thus go by so quickly
that one can not be sure of the conclusion an premises
 The form of the expression may have a complicated structure
 Some arguments are difficult to understand because the reasons
they contain are so poor that one can not be sure whether to regard
them as reason.
 An argument might be embedded in nonargumative material
consisting of background information.
However, logic develops its own criteria to identify argument forms from other
forms of expression. The following two conditions must be fulfilled for an
expression to be qualified in the category of argument.

1) Factual Claim- is a claim that evidences or reason is being presented. It is a

claim that is either true or false which there is excellent evidence or justification.
As it is indicated, it is premises that aimed to present evidences, Hence, in an
argument forms of expression, at least one of the premises must claim to provide
a reason or evidence.
2) Inferential Claim- represents the reasoning process. In an argument forms of
expression, there must be a claim that follows from the alleged evidence. The key
here is determining whether the speaker or writer is offering reasons intended to
commence you of one or more of the claims made in the passage.
Of the above two conditions, the presence of inferential claim is most important
in logic. If the claim presented in the reasoning process is absent in any written
or oral expression that expression is not an argument. Thereby, non-argument
expressions lack inferential claim presented by the arguer as premise or
conclusion.
In deciding whether there is a claim that evidence supports or implies, one

should look for the presence of indicator words and an inferential relation ship
between statements.
N.B. The mere occurrence of an indicator word would not be a guarantee to

qualify an expression in the form of argument. Indicator words often used for
purposes other than to indicate the occurrence of premises and conclusion.
E.g. A person never becomes truly self--reliant. Even though he deals effectively
with things, he is necessary dependent upon those who have taught him to do
so. They have selected the things he is dependent upon and determined the
kinds and degrees of dependencies.

In the above example, the statement "A person never becomes truly self-reline"
serves as a conclusion of an argument because it claims to follow from the
provided evidences. The remaining statement, also, serve as premises of an
argument because they claim to provide evidences and reasons. Hence the above
expression is included in the form of argument.
2.1.2 Non-Argument Forms of Expression
There are several forms of passages and expressions that lack inferential or
logical claims. These forms of passages or expression may serve as a premise or
conclusion (or both) for an argument. But not an argument by themselves, due to
missing of a claim that expressed a reasoning process.
The followings are some forms of non-argument forms of expression.
I. Statement of belief, opinion, warring and advice these are expression of what
some one happens to believe or thinks at a certain time. I also includes a kind of
discussion aimed at modifying someone behavior. Since there is no claim that
these expressions are supported by evidences, there is no argumentative forms of
expression.
 Do not smoke cigarette, it seriously damages your health (warring)
 It is better to be a dissatisfied human being than a satisfied pig (statement
of belief)
II) A report - Consists of a group of statements, that convey information about

some situation or event since a report does not has any claim that imply or
support about something, it is not included in the category of argument.
Example- According to the advertising all computers are not only fast and
powerful but also easy.

Lesson 2.2. Explanation, Illustration and Expository

Passage
An expository passage is a kind of discourse that begins with a topic sentences

followed by one or more sentences that develop a topic sentence. Since
expository passage is engaged in a mere elaboration, not to prove, it does not has
argumentative form.
 An illustration consist of a statement about a certain subject combined
with a reference to one or more specific instance aimed to exemplify the
statement.
 Explanation- consists of a statement or group of statements intended to
shed light on same phenomena that is usually accepted as a matter of fact.
Every explanations have two parts; explanan and explandum.
In an explanation the thing or condition to be explained is called explandum.

While the statement which used to explain is called explanan. Since
explanations do not purport to prove anything, they would not consider as
arguments. However many explanations can be expressed to the form of
arguments.
Examples - The price of 'teff' increased in the last two months because
of inadequate rainfall in the northern part
(explanation)
-Water is a good solvent for many different substances, and

it picks them up as it moves through the
environment. Thus, rain water flowing over and under the
ground dissolves minerals such as limestone
(illustration)
IV) Conditional Statements

A conditional statement is an "if....then..., or ...if ....statement." Conditional

statement is composed of two statements; antecedent and consequent.
Antecedent - is the statement that follows from the word "if"
Consequent - is the statement that follows from the word "then"
In a conditional statement, if there is no claim that either the antecedent or

consequent presents evidence hence conditional statement is not an argument,
However; If conditional statements express the outcome of a reasoning process
(having a certain inferential content) they would have argument forms. The
following three point clearly show the relation ship between argument and
conditional statement.
 A single conditional statement is not an argument

 Conditional statement may serve as either premises or conclusion
(or both) of an argument.
 The inferential content of conditional statements may be repressed
to form of an argument.
Examples- If one knows the plant life of an area, certain assumption
can be made about the climate and the animals that will be found
there. For example in grass land the animal life typically includes large
mammalian, herbivores, insects and birds.
Exercise-2
I. Determine which of the following passages are argument. For those that are
arguments, identify the conclusion. For those that are not, attempt to determine
whether they are conditional statement, explanation, report, illustration or
passage that lack on inferential claim.
1) It is strongly recommended that you have your house inspected for termite
damage at the earliest possible opportunity.

2) If you attend classes and maintain at least a 2.0 GPA you will be graduate,
Hanna, however, didn't graduate.
This means either she din not attend classes or she did not maintain at lese a 2.0
GPA.
3) Thanks to the favorable condition that the government created for export
economy in 2003. Ethiopian economy increased by 10 percent.
4) Let me explain to you why that was a great movie. The acting was good, the
story was interesting, the photography was a knockout, and the ending was a
killer.
5) A line is composed of points. Points have no length. Therefore, a line has no
length.
II) Define the following terms

Factual claim Explanation antecedent
Inferential claim Explandum consequent
Conditional Statement Explanans
Lesson 2.3. Deductive and Inductive Arguments
Objective of lesson
 Identify the type of arguments
 Understand the method of classifying arguments
 Describe the basic difference on the type of arguments
 Describe the method of identifying one type of argument from
other type.
Introduction

Dear learner in this lesson you will know about the classification and type of
argument namely deductive and inductive type of arguments.
Arguments are broadly divided in to two deductive an inductive argument. The

classification of arguments contribute a lot in evaluating arguments in their own
type and in their terms. As it is indicated in the previous lesson, an argument
must have a factual and inferential claims of these two an inferential forms of
expression lack inferential claim. However the nature of inferential claim is not
similar from one argument to another. In some argument the inferential content
is very strong i.e. the occlusion claims to follow from the provided evidences
with certainly. While in other argument, there is an inferential claim, but it is not
as such certain to produce the given conclusion. The basic distinction of
arguments is, so, lies on the nature or strength of an inferential claim.

Lesson 2.4. Identifying Deductive and Inductive Argument
As it is indicated, the basic distinction between deductive an inductive argument

lies on the strength of inferential claim. However, in most arguments the
strength of inferential claim doesn't explicitly stated.
Fortunately logic develops its own mechanism to understand how it is strong the
inferential claim is an argument. The followings are the factors that influence our
decision about the strength of the inferential claim in arguments.
1) The occurrence of special indicator words
2) The actual strength of the reasoning process between premises and
conclusion
3) The characters or forms of argumentation the arguer uses.
1) The Occurrence of Special Indicator Words
Some arguments have indicator words in their conclusion. The occurrence of

these indicator words would serve as a means to suggest whether the argument
is deductive or inductive. Words that show probably serve as a sign for an
inductive type of argument; probably, possibly, likely, unlikely etc are some of
indicator words.
Example- last year we had a serious inflation due to lack of sufficient rain.
This year also, we have insufficient amount of rain. Hence, probably we
would have a serious inflation.
Words that show certainty serve as a sign for a deductive type of argument;
certainly, necessarily, absolutely and the like are atypical deductive indicator
words.
Example - Thinking is a function of man's immortal soul. God has given an
immortal soul to every man and woman. Therefore, certainly no animal or
machine can think.

2) The actual Strength of a reasoning Process between premises and

Conclusion.
If the conclusion actually does follow with strict necessity from the premises, the
arguments clearly become a deductive type. In a such type of argument the
conclusion does not has a chance to be false since premises are assumed true.
Example- The investigation of supernatural phenomena lies outside the realm of

science. Therefore science can neither prove nor disprove the existence of God.
On the other hand, if the conclusion does not follow with strict necessity, but
follow probably, it is better considered as inductive type of argument. In such
type of argumentation the conclusion has a probability to be false with true
premises.
Example- Most countries in East Africa are not landlocked. Ethiopia founds in
eastern part of Africa. Therefore Ethiopia is not a landlocked country.
3. The Character of Form of Argumentation the Arguer Uses.
An argument may lack indicator words, as well as, the conclusion does not
explicitly follow either necessarily or probably from the provided evidences. In
such situation the characters or forms of argumentation that the arguer uses
become a factor to determine whether the argument is deductive or inductive.
The following are typical deductive types of argumentation
a) Argument based on mathematics.

With an exception of statistics, any argument in which its conclusion depends on

some purely arithmetic or geometric computation is a deductive type of
sampling of data gathering and hence it is impossible to arrive at a certain
conclusion. Therefore statistical recording is best included in an inductive type of
argumentation.
Example- Only those who scored above 50% pass the exam. Tom scored only 40
point. There fore Tom has failed the exam.
B. Argument from Definition
In the premise of an argument has a fundamental word or phrase that needs a

definition and the conclusion of the argument is reached by defining the
fundamental word, appear in the premise, then the argument clearly become a
deductive argument.
Example- -Merry is a widow. She has no husband
- Nega is a bachelor. Therefore Nega has not a wife or he is
single.
In both examples the conclusion totally depends on a general or cured word that
appears in the premise part of the argument.
C. Syllogistic Argument
Syllogistic argument is an argument consisting of exactly two premises and a

single conclusion. There are three forms of syllogistic arguments.
 Categorical Syllogism- it is a type of syllogistic argument formed by
categorical propositions, having quantifiers of "all," "no," "some"
Example-

 Hypothetical Syllogism- a syllogistic type of argument formed by

conditional statements ( If ......then )
Example- If Solomon is guilty of the crime, and then Mr Kebede must have left
the back door unlocked. However, Mr Kebede did not leave the back door
unlocked. Therefore Solomon is not guilty of crime.
 Disjunctive Syllogism- a syllogistic argument formed by a disjunctive

statement (an either---- or statement)
Example -Either the OPEC countries increase their production or oil price will
not drop. The OPEC countries do not increase their production therefore, oil
price will not drop.
Dear learners the above three types of argumentation are typical deductive
argument. Likewise Inductive argument has it sown typical forms of
argumentation. In general in a inductive argument, the content of the conclusion
is an inductive argument, the content of the conclusion is in some way intended
to go beyond from the content of the provided premises. The following type of
argumentations are a typical inductive type of argumentation.
A. Argument based on prediction- When the arguer arrives at a certain

conclusion based on past or present condition, the argument becomes inductive
type of argument. In a such type of argument, the premises deal with some
known event in the past or present situation but the conclusion goes beyond this
event or situation to some extent in the relative future.
Example- The annual rainfall in East Africa rift valley is above
average. So the rainfall in next year will be above
average.
B. Inductive Generation - it is an inductive type of argumentation that

proceeds from some particular facts to a general truth. In such arguments the

selected sample has a certain characteristics and it is assumed that all members of
the group have that certain characteristics.
Example- Amocon , exxon and Texaco are all listed on the New York stock
exchange. It must be the case that all major American oil companies are listed on
the New York stock exchange.
C. Argument from authority - it is an inductive type of argument, in that a

conclusion is arrived based upon a statement that made by some presumed
authority or witness.
Example- as Adam Smith long ago noted, monopoly is the enemy of good
management, since it destroys incentives. Hence, monopoly is the enemy of good
management.
D. Argument based on sign- a type of inductive argument that proceeds from

the knowledge of a certain sign and symbol to knowledge of the thing or
situation that the sign symbolizes.
Example - when driving on an unfamiliar high way one might see a sign
indicating that the road makes several sharp turns one mile ahead. Therefore the
road does indeed make several sharp turns one mile a head.
E. Argument from Analogy- an inductive type of argumentation in which a

conclusion is made due to the existence of some similarity or analogy between
two things or state of affairs.
Example- No one would buy a pair of shoes without trying them on. Why
should anyone be expected to get married with out premarital sex?
Exercise- 3
I. Determine whether the following arguments are best interpreted as being
inductive or deductive.
1) All previous African unity chair person are men

Probably the next African unity chair person is men.

2) Some students are not radicals, it follows, therefore that there are some
radicals who are not students.
3) The Ethiopian government has been adopting secularism. It implies that
in Ethiopia state is separated in the administration of church.
4) My economics professor says that monogamy is an unjust form of social
organization. Therefore it is true that monogamy is a unjust form of social
organization.
5) Eternity is simultaneously whole. But time has a before and after.
Therefore time and eternity are no the something.
II. Answer "true" or "false" to the following statements

1) Most arguments that based on statistical reasoning are deductive.
2) An argument that draws a conclusion that something is true because
someone has said that it is, best considered as inductive type of argument.
3) A deductive argument usually proceeds from particular to a general
claim.
4) The classification of arguments as deductive and inductive basically lies
on the existence of inferential claim.
5) In an inductive type of argument, the conclusion is not supposed to
contain information that does not contained in the premises.
III. Define the following terms.

Deductive argument Inductive indicator words
Inductive argument Particular statement
Deductive indicator words General statement

Lesson 2.5. Validity, Truth, Soundness, Strength and Cogency
Objective of the lesson- at the end of this lesson you are expected to:
 identify terms that evaluate arguments
 identify good arguments from bad arguments
 discuss the difference between good and bad arguments
 justifying why an argument is good or bad
Introduction- Dear learners in this section we are going to understand the central
ideas and terminologies require evaluating arguments.
Evaluation of arguments and providing justification is the basic task of logic. As it is

indicated in the previous sections a passage or an expression must have two basic
claims in order to qualify as an argument. The two basic claims are factual claim and
inferential claim of these two inferential claims is the most important. Because it
represents the reasoning process between premise and conclusion. If the premises
fail to support the conclusion, then the argument lost its value and become
worthless. While truth and falsity is the nature of statements, not nature of
arguments. Hence the truth or falsity of the premises or the conclusion do not affect
our evaluation and judgment of arguments, expect in some special cases. Arguments
are concerned with reasoning process i.e. the relation ship between premises and
conclusion.
N.B. one would always begin the evaluation of argument with inferential claim. And
only if the premises do support the conclusion, one would evaluate the factual claim
(the truth and falsity of the premises and conclusion)
In logic an argument would not evaluates as good or bad. There are technical terms
that evaluate arguments in their own type. Terms that evaluate deductive argument
are not appropriate to evaluate inductive type of argument and the vice-versa.
Hence one is expected to evaluate deductive and inductive type of arguments in
their own respective terms.
A. Evaluation of Deductive Argument
Validity and soundness are the terminologies that evaluate deductive type of
argument.
Validity evaluates the inferential claim of deductive argument. While soundness
tests the factual claim. As it is noted earlier, we have to begin with the evaluation of
inferential claim. Through validity, the inferential claim of deductive argument
evaluates as valid and invalid.
A valid argument is a deductive argument in that the conclusion follows with strict
necessity from the given evidences. In a such argument, if the premises are assumed
true, the conclusion is impossible to be false.
Example- Debrezeit is a city in Oromia and Oromia is part of Ethiopia. Therefore ,
Debrezeit is as city in Ethiopia.
An invalid argument is a deductive argument in which the conclusion does not

follow with strict necessity from the premises, even though it is claimed to. In a such
argument, it is possible for the conclusion to be false with truth premises.
Example- All lovers are happy people.
Some happy people are illiterate.
Therefore some lovers are illiterate.
N.B. The truth an falsity of premises and conclusion would not determine the
validity of a deductive argument, with an exception of a true premise with false
conclusion which is always invalid. Hence there is only an indirect relation between
validity and truth. Rather it is the strength of the inferential claim that determines
whether a deductive argument is valid or invalid.
The following table demonstrates the possibilities of the validity and invalidity of
deductive arguments.
Argument Type Premise Conclusion Evaluation

Deductive T T Valid/invalid
Deductive T F Always invalid
Deductive F T Valid / invalid
Deductive F F Valid / invalid
As it is illustrated in the table, the truth value of premise and conclusion would only
determine the validity of deductive argument in one exceptional cases, true premise
with false conclusion, which is always invalid. But in all the remaining cases, only
the strength of the inferential claim determines the validity of deductive arguments.
Soundness evaluates the factual claim of a deductive argument as sound and
unsound.
A sound argument is a deductive argument which is valid and has all true premises.
At it is noted, in the beginning of this lesson, the evaluation of arguments must
begin with the inferential claim and only if it is good one would test the factual
claim. Hence a sound argument must be avoid argument (has good relation ship
between premises and conclusion) and all its premises must be true. But if either of
the two cases is missing the argument becomes unsound. Thus unsound argument is
a deductive argument which is invalid or a valid argument with a false premises.
N.B. A sound arguments is a "good" deductive argument in the fullest sense of the
term.
B. Evaluation of Inductive Argument
- Strength and cogency are the terms that evaluate inductive type of
argument.
- Strength evaluates the inferential claim of inductive arguments. While
cogency evaluates the factual claim of inductive argument.
- Strength evaluates the inferential claim of inductive arguments as strong
and weak inductive argument.
 Strong inductive argument is an inductive argument such that if the
premises are assumed true, then based on that assumption it is probable
that the conclusion is true.
 Weak inductive argument is an inductive argument such that if the premises
are assumed true, then base on that assumption it is not probable that the
conclusion is true.
As that of validity, the strength of an inductive argument would not be determines

by the truth value of the premises and conclusion, rather it is on the relationship that
appear between the premises and the conclusion. However there is one exceptional
case, in that the truth value of the premises and conclusion determine the strength of
inductive argument i.e. a true premise with false conclusion which is always weak.
The relationship between the strength of inductive argument and the truth or falsity
of premises and conclusion can be illustrated in the following table.
Inductive type of Argument

Conclusion Evaluation
Premise
True True Strong/ Weak
True False Always weak
False True Strong/ weak
False False Strong/weak
 Cogency evaluates the factual claim of inductive argument as congent and
uncogent.
A congent argument is an inductive argument which is strong and has all true
premises. A congent argument is analogue of sound deductive argument. Hence it is
a "good inductive argument"
 Uncongent argument is an inductive argument which is weak or a strong inductive
with false premises.
Exercise-4
I. Determine whether the following arguments are valid, invalid, strong or
weak
1) Since some fruits are green and some fruits are apples, it follows that
some fruits are green appeals.
2) A house held that does not balance is budget is just asking for trouble. It is
the same, therefore, with federal government. Balance the federal budget or
watch out.
3) The big business deal was signed right then while they were drinking all that
alcohol. Looks like that it is a pretty good way to get a deal to close
successfully.
4) The United States congress has more members that there are days in the
year. Therefore, at least two members of the congress have the some
birthday.
5) Drug abuse among university students is a serous and widespread problem.
Three students from a single department admitted last week that they had
used cocaine.
6) When it comes to issue of race relation, either you are part of the solution or
you are part of the problem.
7. All Catholics are christens. No atheists are Christians. Therefore no atheists
are Catholics.
8) Since John loves Nancy and Nancy love peter, it necessarily follows that
John loves peter.
II. Answer "true" or "false" to the following statements.

1) The term 'Validity' in logic evaluates the truth value of a statement.
2) A sound argument may be invalid
3) A strong argument may have a false premises and probably false
conclusion.
4) An argument may legitimately be spoken of "true" or false.
5) The term "strength" can evaluates all types of argument.
III) Define the following terms

Valid argument Validity
Sound argument Cogency
Invalid argument Strength
Strong argument Soundness
UNIT-3 LANGUAGE: MEANING AND DEFINITION
UNIT -3
LANGUAGE: MEANING AND DEFINITION
Lesson 3.1 Functions of Language.............................................................................45

Lesson 3.2. Cognitive Meaning and Emotive Meaning................................................ 46
Lesson 3.3. The Intension and Extension of Terms.......................................................52
Lesson 3.4. Definitions and Their Purpose....................................................................56
Lesson 3.5. Definitional Techniques............................................................................. 62
Lesson 3.6. Rules (Criteria) for Definition....................................................................67
Dear learners, this unit is divided into Six lessons. These are functions of language,
Cognitive and emotive meaning, the intension and extension of terms. Definition
and their purposes, Definitional techniques for definition.
The first lesson deals with various functions of language mainly emotive, directive
and cognitive functions. The second lesson explains what cognitive and emotive
meaning is. Furthermore, it clarifies the difference between verbal and factual
disputes. The third lesson focuses on the connotative and denotative meaning of
terms. The fourth lesson discusses various types of definitions and their purposes.
The fifth lesson deals about different methods of definitions. It tries to focus on
denotative and connotative ways of definitions. The sixth lesson discusses rules of
definition which are important to distinguish good definitions from faulty and weak
definitions.
Objectives
After reading chapter, you will be able to:

 recognize various functions of language

 discuss the place of cognitive and emotive meaning in argument
 identify and avoid emotive expressions in speech and writings.
 differentiate verbal disputes from factual ones
 distinguish intensional meanings of terms from the extensional ones
 identify various forms definitions and definitional techniques.
 recognize various rules of definitions and apply them in writing and speech.
In the preceding lessons we discussed that logic is concerned with the study of
correct reasoning in arguments and its goal is to set up criteria for distinguishing
good arguments from bad ones.
Nevertheless, forming arguments is basically a linguistic activity. Since formal

pattern of correct reasoning can only be conveyed through language and it requires
proper use of words and sentences. Therefore, we will focus how language works in
order to understand how arguments work.
What is Language? Language is a body of standardized Meanings of words and

form of speech used as a means of expressing the feeling, emotion, desire, thoughts,
etc. in a consistent pattern of meaning. Language requires symbols (such as words,
sounds, gestures, signs) that are patterned and related in certain way for the
purpose of communicating meanings.
Lesson 3.1 Functions of Language
Objective
After reading this lesson, you willable to:
 identify various function of language.

We use language in many different ways, for may distinct purposes and for
fulfilling our various needs. In his Philosophical Investigations Ludwig
Wittgenstein insisted.
Rightly that there are " Countless different kinds of use of what we call 'Symbols,'.
'Words,' 'Sentences.'" Among the examples suggested by Wittgenstein in giving
orders, describing the appearance of an object, reporting an event, speculating
about an event, forming and testing a hypothesis, presenting the results of an
experiment in tables and diagrams, making up a story, making a joke and telling it,
singing songs, asking, cursing, greeting, praying, and so on.
Although, all the above function of language are very important to carryout our
every day life activities, however, they are less significant for logic. Generally, the
multiple functions of language is divided into three. They are emotive- to express
feelings, directive- for the purpose of causing (or preventing) overt action, and
cognitive-to convey information.
For our purpose, we focus on two functions of language, i.e. cognitive and emotive
function.
Lesson 3.2. Cognitive Meaning and Emotive Meaning
Objectives:
 define cognitive and emotion meaning of language

 distinguish cognitive meaning from emotive one
A. Cognitive Meaning
There is one function of language which is relevant for logic; that is, the cognitive or
informative use of language. The cognitive aspect of language includes such
functions as conveying information and communicating meanings. Ordinarily these
is accomplished by formulating and affirming (or denying) propositions. Language
used to affirm or deny propositions, or to present arguments, is said to serve the
cognitive or informative function. And terminology that conveys informative
discourse is used to describe and to reason about the world and to deny or affirm
the truth of propositions.
Cognitive or informative propositions can be evaluated as true or false; therefore,

they can serve as premise or conclusion of an argument. This point indicates that
cognitive function of language is the only function of language, which is relevant
and important for the science of logic. Consider the following statements:
 Lake Tana is the largest Rift Valley Lake. (False)
 All female mosquitoes are vectors of malaria. (True)
The above propositions deny or affirm the truth of these things and covey
information about them. These and other similar propositions are, therefore, stated
cognitional and can be a component of an argument as premise or conclusion.
It is impossible to form arguments and logical reasoning using sentences such as

questions, commands, suggestions, etc. Arguments are formed by statements that
can be judged either as true of false. Hence, statements are forms of expression the
cognitive or informative function of language which are the foundation of
arguments.
B. Emotive Meaning
Consider the following statement:
The death penalty is a cruel and inhuman form of punishment in which hapless
prisoners are dragged from their cells and summarily slaughtered only to satiate
the bloodlust of a vengeful public.
This statement is intended, at least in part, to express or evoke feelings.
This statement accomplishes its function through the distinct kinds of terminology
in which it is phrased. Terminology that expresses or evokes feelings is said to have
emotive meaning. Thus, in the above statement the words. "cruel," "inhuman,"
"hapless," " dragged," "slaughtered," " bloodlust," and "vengeful" have a strong
emotive meaning. Of course, these words have cognitive meaning as well. "Cruel"
means tending to hurt others, "in human" means inappropriate for humans, and so
on.
Emotive words and sentences help us to express our negative and positive feelings
in hopes of evoking a particular emotional response. Since emotive or expressive
functions of language oblige us to develop subjective, partial, irrational and unfair
judgments. They are unnecessary for logical discourses. Moreover, two points are
significant concerning the emotively charged statements. The first is that it is
important that we be able to distinguish and disengage the cognitive meaning from
the emotive meaning in emotively charged statements because logic is concerned
chiefly with cognitive meaning. For example, the terms "bureaucrat," "government
official," and "public servant" have almost similar cognitive or literal meanings. But
their emotive meanings are quite different. The term "bureaucrat" definitely tends to
express resentment and disapproval, while the term "public servant" is an honorific
one, which tends to express favor and approval. The phrase "government official"
more nearly neutral than either of the others.
The second point is that part of the cognitive meaning of such statements is a value
claim. For example, the statement about the death penalty asserts the value claim.
For example, the statement about the death penalty asserts the value claim that the
death penalty is wrong or immoral. Indeed, such value claims are often the most
important part of the cognitive meaning of emotive statements. Thus, for the
purpose of logic, it is important that we be able to differentiate the meaning and
treat these claims are expressed 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. As a result, readers and listeners are
inclined to swallow the value claim whole without any evidence.
For example, we often hear some people refer to some one as "Crazy," or "stupid"
when they want to express the claim that what that persons is doing is bad or wrong
and when they are unable or unwilling to give reasons for this claim. Those who
happen to be listening, especially if they are friendly with the speaker, will often
accept this claim without hesitation.
Emotive language is not bad it self, but when it is information we are father, we
shall do well to choose words whose emotive meanings do not distract and hinder
us from dealing effectively with what they describe. The careless use of language in
argument often results in fallacies, which will be discussed in the following lesson.
In political campaigns today almost every rhetorical trick is played to make the
worse seem the better cause. And this playing on emotion, rather than appealing to
reason, is even more obvious in commercial advertising, where the aim is to
persuade rather than to convince or to inform.
When people want to manipulate the emotive force of their message, they frequently
substitute euphemisms for more pointed terms. In other words, emotive
terminologies are described in terms that evoke a neutral response. This is the origin
of such substitution as "Urban Camping" for "homelessness" and "food-insecure" or
"Starving".
Language associated with military ventures, often calls forth negative emotions, are
substituted with terms that evoke a neutral response. For example, human targets
are referred to as "soft targets," dropping bomb is called "servicing a site," a
concentration camp is a "pacification center," and a war is sometimes called " a
police action."
Dear learners let us know consider emotive terminology as it occurs in arguments.

In arguments emotive terminology accomplish basically the same functions as
emotive terminology in statements. It allows the arguer to make value claims about
the subject matter of the argument without providing evidence, and it gives the
argument a kind of steamroller quality by which it tends to crush potential
counterarguments before the reader of listener has a chance to think of them. This
steamroller quality also tends to paralyze the logical thought processes of readers of
listeners so that they are not able to see illogical arguments in their true light. 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 express theme distinct premises.
Finally we consider how disputes can center on a confusion of cognitive meanings

between the disputants. Consider the following dispute between two persons:
Mr. X: I 'm afraid that " Z" is guilty of arson. Last night he confided to me that he
was the one who set fire to the old school house.
Mr. Y: No, you couldn't be more mistaken. In this country no one is guilty until
proven so in a court of law, and "Z" has not yet been accused of anything
Most words have two or more distinct meanings or senses, and usually no trouble
arises from this fact in some contexts, however, it may not be clear which sense of a
given word is intended, and here its occurrence is said to be ambiguous. Fallacious
arguments can result from the unwitting use of ambiguous terms. Thus, ambiguous
language can lead not only to fallacious argumentation but also to disputes that are
mealy verbal. Disputes that center on the meaning of a word are called verbal
disputes.
In the above example dispute resulted due to the ambiguous meaning of the word
"guilty." Mr. "X" is using the word in the moral sense. Given that "Z" has admitted
to setting fire to the old school house, it is very likely that he did indeed set fire to it
and therefore is guilty of arson in the moral sense of term. Mr. "Y", on the other hand
, is using the word in the logical sense. Because "Z" has not been convicted in a court
of law, he is not legally guilty of anything.
Where the ambiguity of a key term has led to a merely verbal dispute, we can often
resolve the dispute by pointing out the ambiguity. That is done by giving the two
different definitions of the term so the different meanings can be clearly
distinguished and the confusion dispelled.
On the other hand, consider this dispute:
A: I know that "X" stole a computer from the old school house. "Y" told me
that she saw "X" do it.
B: That is ridiculous! "X" has never stolen anything in his life. "Y" hates",
and she is trying to pin the theft on him only to shield her criminal
boyfriend.
Here the dispute centers not on the meaning of words, but on a matter of fact:
Whether or not "X" stole the computer. Disputes of this sort are called factual
disputes. In resolving disputes it is of course essential to determine from the start
whether thy are verbal or factual (or perhaps some combination of the two)
Activity 3.2.1. Why do you think that emotive function of language is insignificant
in logical discourses ? Discuss it.
Lesson 3.3. The Intension and Extension of Terms
Objectives:
 know what a term is
 define intentional and extensional meaning of a term and distinguish
their difference.
 express their idea using intentional and extensional meaning of a term.
In the preceding lesson we have discussed that the primary aim of logic is the
analysis and evaluation of arguments. The components of arguments are statements.
Statements are made up of words, words have meanings and meanings are
conveyed through definitions.
Before discussing the intension and extension of terms, let us define a term. A term
is any word or arrangement of words that may serve as the subject of a statement.
Terms consists of proper names, common names, and descriptive phrases. Words
that are not terms include verbs, non substantive adjectives, adverbs propositions,
conjunctions and all non syntactic arrangements of words.
Words are considered to be symbols, and the entities they symbolize are usually
called meanings. Terms, being made up of words, are also symbols.
Meaning symbolized by terms are of two types: intentional and extensional. These
are the two ways that our mind conceive the word and develop meaning about it.
Every word, especially terms or nouns, have intentional and extensional meanings.
Intensional meaning, sometimes called connotative meaning, is the sum of the

essential feature of an object or class of homogeneous objects reflected in the term. It
is the collection of properties or attributes either peculiar to an object or common to
things by which class of things are designated.
In short, the intensional meaning consists of the qualities or attributes that the term
connotes. Thus, for example, the intension (or connotation) of the term "inventor"
consists of the attributes of being clever, intuitive, creative imaginative and so on.
Extensional meaning sometimes called denotative meaning is the meaning of the

sum total things. Extension refers the class or set of things made up of individual
objects (elements) that could be finite or infinite. Extensional meaning, therefore,
refers to several objects symbolized by extensional word or term, which is applicable
to these objects. In short, the extensional meaning consists of example, the extension
(or denotation) of the term "inventor" consists of the inventors themselves, i.e. all the
inventors in the word such as Thomas, Edison, Alexander Graham Bell, Wright
brothers, and so on.
There are three different senses of the term "connotation", They are the subjective,
the conventional and the objective. The subjective connotation of a word for a
speaker is the set of all the attributes that particular speaker behaves to be possessed
by the objects comprising that word's extension. It is clear that the subjective
connotation of a term may very from one individual to another. For example, to a cat
lover, the connotation of the word "cat" might include the attributes of being cuddly
and adorable, while to one who hates cats it might include those of being unpleasant
and disgusting. The motion of subjective connotation is inconvenient for purposes of
definition because it varies not merely from individual to individual but even from
time to time for the same individual, as new beliefs are acquired or old ones
abandoned by that individual. Consequently, we are more interested in the public
meaning of word than in their private interpretation.
The 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, the connotation of a term remains
more or less the same from person to person and from time to time.
The objective connotation or objective intension of a term is the total set of

characteristics common to all the objects that make up that term's extension. It does
not very at all from interpreter to interpreter. For example, if all planets do have the
attribute of moving in elliptical orbits, this will be parts of the objective connotation
of the word "planet" whether any user of the term knows it or not.
The denotation of a term also typically remains the same from persons to person,
but it may change with the passage of time. For example, the denotation of
"currently living cat" is constantly fluctuating as some cats die and others are born.
The denotation of the term "cat," on the other hand, is presumably constant because
it denotes all cats, past, present and future.
Sometimes the denotation of a term can change radically with the passage of time.
For example, the term" Current King of Ethiopia" at one time denoted actually
existing entity but today such entity has perished. Accordingly, this term now has
what s called empty extension. It is said to denote the empty (or "null") class, the
class that has no number. Things that do not have current objective reference include
myths, spiritual realities, extincted creatures, historical events, and so on. To
mention some of these things Santa Claus, dinosaur, dragon, fictitious and mythical
stories, current Apartheid rule in south Africa, Satan, God, Unicorn, blue horse
angel, and so on.
These things do not have objective references that could serve as a living testimony
for their existence. Our knowledge of these things is based on their properties and
not based on their living class members' characteristics. Their living class members
are absent.
This point indicates that intentional meaning remain the same through time, while
extensional meaning change through time and thereby, we can assert that the
intentional meaning determine extensional meaning.
Example:- Intensional meaning
- Dinosaur is an extincted , often enormous reptile of the Mesozoic era.
- Satan means an evil spirit that causes people to suffer.
Can we develop extensional meaning of dinosaur and Satan?
Example:-
- Dinosaur means an extincted creature such as Dinosaur of South Africa,
Alaska and Siberia.
- Satan means either a devil, Lucifer or Qorite.
All these set of things, however, do not have living testimony that could be real
representative of the class of dinosaur and the class of Satan because their class
members are either extincted or are more imagination of our thoughts. Thus,
these terms have empty extension but they do not have empty intension.
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. The order of decreasing intension is
the reverse of that of increasing intension
Example: increasing intension: animal, mammal, feline, domestic, cant

decreasing intension: cat, domestic feline, mammal, animal
A serious of term 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 order words, the class size gets larger with
each successive term. The order of decreasing extension is the reverse of that of
increasing extension.
Example: increasing intension: cant, domestic, feline, mammal,

animal
Decreasing Extension: animal, mammal, feline, domestic, cat,
Note that the order of increasing intension is usually the same as that of
decreasing extension. On the other hand, the order of decreasing intension is
usually the same as that of increasing extension. However, there are some
exceptions.
Consider the following series:
Dragon; dragon with red eyes; dragon with red eyes and long
claws; dragon with red eyes, long claws, and two wings.
Each term in this series has empty extension; So, while the series exhibits the
order of increasing intension, it does not exhibits the order of decreasing
extension. Here is another, slightly different, example:
living human being; living human being with a genetic code; living
human being with a genetic code and a brain; living human being
with a genetic code, a grain, 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, once again the extension does not decrease.
Lesson 3.4. Definitions and Their Purpose
Objectives

 recognize the importance and value of defining a term accurately.
 explain various functions of definitions
 identify different kinds of definitions in writing and discourses
3.4.1. What is Definition?
Unless we define our terms with such degree of accuracy as the subject-matter and
our knowledge permit, clear thought and convincing statement are impossible.
The term definition is derived from the Latin definire, which means to limit or be
concerned with boundaries. Thus, definitions is providing meaning to a term or to a
phrase concerned with or limited to the essential characteristics of the term or
phrase; that is, what makes the term or phrase different from other terms or phrases.
Hence, when we define a term.
 We are creating boundaries of the use of that term,
 We are distinguishing that term from other terms, and
 We are focusing on what makes that term what it is.
Every definition consists of two parts: the definiendum and the definiens. The
deniendum is the word or group of words that is supposed to defined, and the
definiens is the word or group of words that does the defining. For example, in the
definition" Lawyer" means a person trained and qualified in the law who does legal
work for other people," the word "lawyer" is the definiendum, and every thing
after the word "means" is the definiens. The definiens is not the meaning of the
definiendum, but another symbol or group of symbols that, according to the
definition, has the same meaning as the definiendum.
The Objective and purpose of Definition

The principal objective of definition is to present meaning for terms that are not
clearly understood in the context of other terms.
Definitions can serve different purposes:
 To avoid confusing, or misleading use of words and phrases, such as vague
or ambiguous expressions.
 To prevent needless controversies, disputes, disagreements and conflicts over
the meaning of terms and to avoid differences over the use of linguistic
interpretation.
 To introduce unusual or unfamiliar words, to coin new words, or to introduce
a new meaning to a familiar word.
 To explain, illustrate, or disclose important aspects of difficult concepts.
 To prevent incorrect reasoning, helps to correct mistakes in reasoning , to
sharpen reasoning ability and there by assists to be logical in every aspects of
our lives.
 To influence the attitudes of others.
Kinds of Definitions Classified According to Their Functions
The following are types of definitions which serve different purposes that we have
mentioned in the preceding lesson.
1. Stipulative Definitions
A 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 to an old word. The
purpose of stipulative definition is usually to replace a more complex expression
with a simpler one. Moreover, it introduces unusual or unfamiliar words, which
have no previous meaning in the language, and serves to set up secret codes.
Individuals or group of individuals choose or invent new words and define either
intensional or extensional methods for the sake of such things as scientific
inventions, military secrete codes and operations, new social and natural
phenomena, etc.
Example:
- "Operation Desert Storm" was the code name given to the military invasion of
Iraq.
- "Operation Sunset" is the name of the operation of the Ethiopian defense force
against the Eritrean invading forces.
Because a stipulative definition is a completely arbitrary assignment of a meaning

to a word for the first time there can be no such things as a "true" or "false"
stipulative definition. Furthermore, for the same reason, a stipulative definition
cannot provide any new information about the subject matter of the definiendum.
Stipulative definitions are misused in verbal disputes when one person covertly uses
a word in a peculiar way and then proceeds to assume that everyone else use that
word in the same way. Under this circumstance that person is said to be using the
word "Stipulatively." In such cases the assumption that other persons use the word
in the same way is rarely justified.
2. Lexical Definitions
A lexical definition is used to report the meaning that a word already has in a
language. A lexical definition does not propose for its definiednum a meaning that it
previously lacked, but reports a meaning it already has. Dictionary definitions are
all instances of lexical definitions. It is clear that a lexical definition may be either
true or false depending on whether it does or does not report the way a word is
actually used.
A lexical definition is useful to avoid ambiguity of a term being defined when its
meaning confused with another term.
A term is ambiguous when it has two or more meanings in given context. The
statement, for example, "My brother does not use glasses" contains an ambiguous
word. When ambiguity of meaning of terms occurs in our argument, the next lesson.
Some words that are subject to ambiguous usage are "light, "bank," "right," "race,"
etc.
3. Précising Definitions
Neither stipulative nor lexical definitions can serve to reduce the vagueness of a
term. This is resolved by précising definition. Precising definitions are definitions
which are providing a more precise, specific and restricting meaning to a
conventional term for the purpose of eliminating its vagueness. A word is to tell
whether the word applies to them or not. For example, Bill Gates clearly is rich. But
is a person who is worth a half million dollars rich? one worth a quarter million?
Where does "rich" end and "well-off" begin? Words such as " love," "poor,"
"happiness," "peace," "excessive," "fresh," etc, are vague. We can rarely tell with any
degree of precision whether they apply to a given situation.
Whenever words are taken from ordinary usage and employed in a highly
systematic context such as science, medicine, mathematics, or law, they must always
be clarified by means of a precising definition. The terms "force," "energy," " acid,"
"element," "number," "equality," "contract," and "agent," have all been given
precising definitions by specific disciplines.
A precising definition is different from a stipulative one because its definiedum is

not a new term but one with an established, although vague, usage. Consequently,
the maker of a precising definition are not free to assign any meaning they choose to
the definiendum. In other words, stipulative definitions is arbitrary as true or false.
4. Theoretical Definitions
A theoretical definition provides a theoretical picture or characterization of the

entity or entities denoted by the definiendum. A theoretical definition of a term
embodies an effort to explain the nature of the things to which the definiendum
normally applies. Its purpose is to formulate a theoretically adequate or scientifically
useful account of the objects to which the term applies. To propose a theoretical
definition is equal to proposing the acceptance of a theory, and theories are highly
debatable. Here one definition is replaced by another as our knowledge and
theoretical understanding increase. For example, at one time physicists defined "
heat" to mean a subtle imponderable fluid: now they define it as a form of energy
possessed by a body by virtue of the irregular motion of its molecules. Not only
scientists but also philosophers are most interested in the construction of theoretical
definitions. For example John Stuart Mill defines " good" as the greatest happiness
of the greatest number, which provided the foundation for his utilitarian theory of
ethics.
Like stipulative definitions, theoretical definitions are neither true nor false, strictly
speaking. However, they may 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 Definitions
The purposes of persuasive definitions are:

 To persuade or convince listeners or readers over a certain issue,
 To change or influence the attitude of others towards one's own point of
view,
 To win the acceptance of audiences, and
 To make audiences to develop favorable or unfavorable attitude towards the
term being defined.
The method employed to develop persuasive definition is to use emotively charged

or value laden words and phrases for the purpose of inciting, stirring or arousing
the emotion of audiences to make them to accept the definition. This point implies
that persuasive definition provides expressive (emotive) function of language rather
than cognitive (informative) function. Thus, persuasive definition can not be
evaluated as true or false. Since the purpose of this definition is to convince others, it
has to be evaluated in terms of its success in persuasion.
Here are some examples of opposing pairs of persuasive definitions:
 "Abortion" means the ruthless murdering of innocent human beings.
 "Abortion" means a safe and established surgical procedure where by a
woman is relieved of an unwanted burden.
 "Taxation" means the procedure by means of which our commonwealth is
preserved and sustained.
 "Taxation" means the procedure used by bureaucrats to rip off the people
who elected them.
Lesson 3.5. Definitional Techniques
Objectives
 define different ways of definitional techniques/methods.

 distinguish why a kind of definition different from others.
In the preceding lesson we have discussed various kind of definitions along with
their functions. In this section we will discuss some of the techniques (methods)
used to produce these definitions. We may classify techniques for defining into two
groups. They are Extensional (denotative) and Intensional (connotative) definitions.
A. Extensional (Denotative) Definitions
An extensional definition is one that assigns a meaning to a term by indicating the

members of class that the definiendum denotes. Note the we have investigated the
meaning of extension of terms in lesson 3.2. Extensional (denotative) definition gives
meaning to a term by indicating lists of examples to which the term can be correctly
applied.
There are at least there ways of developing denotative definition. They are:
demonstrative (ostensive) definition, enumerative definition and definition by
subclass.
i) Ostensive (demonstrative) Definitions
The term ostensive is derived from Latin word ostendere, which means to show, and
there by ostensive definition attempts to define a term by pointing to the object
physically. It is a special kind of definition by example and the most primitive one.
An ostensive definition refers to the examples by means of pointing or some other

gesture instead of naming or describing the objects denoted by the term being
defined. An example of an ostensive definition would be "The word 'book' means
this," accompanied by a gesture such as pointing a figure or nodding ones head in
the direction a book. Ostensive definition has its own limitation. For example, we
cannot ostensively define the word "Skyscraper" in a village or the word "Sun" at
night time.
ii) Enumerative Definitions
Enumerative definition is a method of developing denotative definition in which a

term is defined by giving complete or partial list of objects symbolized by words. In
other words, It assigns a meaning to a term by naming the members of the class the
term denotes.
Examples:
"Musical instrument" means 'Kirar,' Begena,' 'Masenko,' or Gitar,
"Lake" means either Tana, Ziway, Awassa, Abaya or Langano.
Complete enumerative definitions are usually more satisfying than partial ones
because they identify the definiendum with grater assurance. However, relatively
few classes can be completely enumerated.
iii) Definition by Subclass
It assigns a meaning to a term by naming subclasses of the class denoted by the

term, such a definition too, may be either practical or complete
Example: "Vertebrate" means amphibians, fishes, birds mammals and reptiles.
"Flower" means a rose, lily, daisy, and the like
B. Intensional (Connotative) Definitions
An intensional (Connotative) definition is one that assigns a meaning to a word by

indicating the qualities or attributes that the word connotes. Note that the discussion
on section 3.2. There are at least four methods of developing connotative definition.
They are synonymous definition, etymological definition, operational definition,
and definition by genus and defferentia.
i) Synonymous Definition
A synonymous definition is a technique of defining a single word by giving another

single word that has the same meaning. It is a definition in which the definiendum
and the defines are equivalent in connotation and denotation; and there by, they are
interchangeably used. Many dictionaries, especially smaller ones, use this method
extensively.
Example: "physician" means doctor

" shut" means close
ii) Etymological Definition
It is a definition which is based on the term's root or ancestor word in one's language
or other languages.
Example: The word "Orthodox" is derived from the two Greek word ortho,
meaning right or straight, and doxa, meaning belief or opinion. Hence,
orthodox means right belief.
iii) Operational Definition
A definition that specifies a set of procedures or operations for determining whether

a term can be correctly applied is called operational definition. It equates the
meaning of a term with the description of the tests that must be performed before
the term can be correctly applied. There by, operational definition is carried out by
indicating the actions (operations, activities, procedures) that the word implies and
which when performed serve as its meaning.
Example:-
 A solution is an "acid" if and only if litmus paper turns red when dipped
in to it.
 A substance is translucent if and only if when held up to a strong light
some of the light comes through.
iv) Definition by Genus and Differentia
This type of definition assigns a meaning to a term by identifying a genus term and
one or more difference words that, when combined, covey the meaning of the term
being defined.
To explain how it works, let as define the terms "genus," "species," and "Specific
difference" or "differentia."
In logic, "genus" and "species" have a some what different meaning than they have
in biology. In logic, "genus" simply means a relatively larger class, and "species"
means a relatively smaller subclass of the genus. For example, we may speak of the
genus animal and the species mammal, or the genus mammal and the species feline,
or of the genus feline and the species tiger. In other words genus and species are
merely relative classifications. The "specific Difference" or "differentia" is the
attribute or attributes that distinguishes the various species within a genus. For
example, the definition 'Man is a rational animal' states the genus animal that man
shares with horses and cattle, etc. at the same time specifying the differentia rational
that marks him off from other species of animal. To make clear, genus is the essence
of a thing, namely that part which can be predicated also of other things, differing
from it in king. Differentia, too, is part of the essence of a thing, but is that part
which distinguishes it from other species of its genus.
Examples:
Species Difference Genus
"Daughter" means female offspring
"Spinster" means unmarried woman
"Ewe" means female sheep
"Father" means male parent
Lesson 3.6. Rules (Criteria) for Definition
Objective
 define rules of a good definition
 apply these rules in writings and speech.
Faulty and weak definitions, and even more descriptions, can be better than nothing.
To make weak definitions stronger, and bad ones better, and to set a high standard
for all who define, establishing rules of definition is indispensable for correct
understanding of terms. The following are rules for a good definition.
Rule-1 Definition should be stated with proper grammar. A definition, like any
form of expression, should be grammatically correct.
Example: Vacation is when you don't have to go to work or school.
This definition does conform to the standards of proper
grammar and the definiendum should be put under
quotation. The correct one is mark or it should be italicized.
"Vacation" means a period during which activity is

suspended from work or school
Rule-2 Definition must indicate the essential characteristics of the word being
defined.
Example: "Human being" is an animal that can laugh
"Soldier" is a person engaged in killing or to be killed by the
enemy
Both the above definitions are incorrect, because the defines do not refer the
essential characteristics of the definiendum. The term "Soldier" should be defined as
"a person who is a member of an army" and not as a killer. The term "human being"
should be defined as "a rational animal" not as a laughing animal.
A good definition tries to point out the attributes that are essential to the designation
of things as the member of the relevant group. A good definition is not concerned
with accidental characteristic, that is, those which merely indicates unimportant
attributes to the word being defined, such as killing for soldier and laughing for
human.
Rule-3 Definition should be precise and not too broad and not too narrow.
If a definition is too broad, the definiens includes too much; if it is too narrow,
the definiens includes too little. A good definition captures the correct extension.
That is, a good definition will apply exactly the same thing as the term being
defined, no more, no less.
Example 1: "A horse is a mammal. This definition is broad, because the
term" mammal" includes cow, goat, sheep, etc.
Example 1: "A horse is adult male mammal used mostly by cavalry
forces.
This definition is narrow. The term "horse" is defined by a few characteristics that do
not include all horses; In this definition "horse" is taken as adult male animal
( ignoring female animals) employed by cavalry forces ( ignoring other uses of
horse like transportations.)
Rule-4 A definition should not be circular

The definition must not contain a term equivalent to the term to be defined.
A breach of this rule is called circular definition. The following are circular
definition:
Example- -"science" means the activity engaged in by scientists.
-"An archdeacon" is a man who performs archidiaconal

function.
Rule-5 A definition should not be negative when it can be affirmative
A definition is supposed to explain what a term means rather than what it does not
mean. For example, when we define the word "couch" as meaning not a bed and not
a chair, we failed to explain the meaning of the word for there are infinitely many
other things that are not meant by the word "couch." On the other hand, there are
terms that require negative definition. For example, the word "orphan" means a
child who does not have parents living; the word "bald" means the state of not
having hair on one's hand.
Rule- 6 A definitions should not be expressed in figurative, obscure, vague or

ambiguous language
A definition is figurative if it involves metaphors or tend s to paint a picture instead

of expressing the essential meaning of a term.
Example:
 Ethiopia is the breadbasket of East Africa.
 "Bread" is the staff of live
A definition is vague if, in a given context it leaves open too wide a range of
borderline cased for the successful use of that concept (definition ) in that context.
Example: There is not enough money to go around. The word
"enough" is vague.
A definition is ambiguous if it lends itself to more than one distinct interpretation.

Example:
I don't know what state my uncle is.
A definition is obscure if its meaning hidden as a result of inappropriate language
and technical terms. Example fetlock is aback of horse's leg above the hoof with a
tuff of hair. (technical term which means foot)
Rule-7: A definition should avoid affective terminology
Affective terminology is any kind of word usage that plays upon the emotion
of the reader or listener that includes sarcastic language
Example: Reason is for Europeans but emotion is for Africans.
Rule-8: A definition should indicate the context to which the defines pertains.
Whether the definiendum is a word that means different things in different

context, a reference to the context is important.
Exercises 3.1.
1. Determine which of the following words or groups of words are terms and
which are non terms
a. Lawyer b. Plaintiff
c. Sue g. Eloquent speaker

d. Whoever writes h. Aristotle
e. Attractive i. Jot down
f. Therefore j. Deliberately
2. Give the connotation and denotation of the terms: motor car, bird,
mammal, domestic animal, lake
3. Name four items denoted by the following terms
a. musical instrument
b. newspaper
c. mountain
d. language of Ethiopia
e. even number less than 10
4. Arrange each of the following groups of terms in order of increasing
intension
a. Animal, feline, lynx, mammal, vertebrate, wildcat.
b. Integer, number, positive integer, prime, rational number, real
number.
c. Doctor of medicine, person, brain surgeon, professional person,
surgeon.
d. Bahir Dar University, Africa, Ethiopia, Amhara Region, East Africa,
Bahir Dar.
e. Alcoholic beverage, beverage, champagne, fine white wine, white
wine, wine.
5. Construct a Series of four terms that exhibits increasing intension but non
decreasing extension.
Exercise 3.2.
I. Determine whether the following definitions are stipulative, lexical,
précising, theoretical, or persuasive
1. “Football” means a sport in which modern day gladiators brutalize
one another while trying to move a ridiculously shaped “ball” from
one end of the playing field to the other.
2. “Wristovision” means a miniature television set that can be worn
on the wrist.
3. “Blind” means for federal income tax purpose, either the inability
to see better than 20/200 in the better eye with glasses or having a
field of vision of 20 degrees or less.
4. “Diffident” means lacking confidence in oneself; characterized by
modest reserve.
5. “Intoxicated”, for purpose of driving a car in many states, means
having a blood-alcohol ratio of 1 to .001 or greater.
6. “Sound” means a compression wave in air or some other elastic
medium having a frequency ranging (for humans) from 20 to
20,000 vibrations per second.
7. “Smoker” means a rude and disgusting individual who callously
emits noxious to bacco fumes in to the air, threatening the health
and comfort of every one in the vicinity.
8. “Gravity” means a force that results from the universal attraction
that every particle of matter has for every other particle, and which
varies directly with the mass of the particles and inversely with the
square of the distance between them.
9. “Aereomobile” means a vehicle that is normally driven on the
ground but that has the capability of flying through the air to
avoid traffic congestion.
10. “Obelisk” means an upright, four-sided pillar that terminates in a
pyramid; a dagger.
Exercise 3.3.
I. Determine whether the following are demonstrative definitions,
enumerative definitions, definitions, operational definitions, or definitions
by genus and difference.
1. An "electric current" flows in a circuit if and only if an ammeter connected
in series with the circuit shows a reading.
2. "Philosopher" means someone such as Plato, Aristotle. Descartes , or
Kant.
3 "Tree" means this, and this, and this (as you point to a number of trees)
4. "Angel" is a word that originates from the Greek word angels, which
means massager.
5. "Oak" means a tree that bears acorns.
6. "Hammer" means a tool used for pounding.
7. "Flower" means this:
8. "Neophyte" means beginner.

9. "Language" means something such as Geez, Amharic, English,
French, and so on
10. A substance is "translucent" if and only if when held up to a strong height
some of the light comes through.
11. " insect " means something such as a fly, and ant ,a wasp, or a caterpillar.
12. "Truck" means a vehicle used for hulling.
13. "Error" means mistake
14. "Professional person" means a person such as a doctor, a lawyer, a
professor, or an architect.
15. "Tale" is a word that derives from the old English word tall, which means
talk.
II. The following exercises involve constructing definitions:

1. Construct complete enumerative definitions for the following terms:
a. Ocean
b. Continent
2. Construct a definition by subclass for the following terms by naming three
subclasses of the class the term denotes.
a. Animal
b. Vehicle
3. Consult a dictionary to find the etymological roots of the following words.
a. Isomorphic
b. Isotropic
c. Biology
d. Theology
UNIT-4 INFORMAL FALLACIES
UNIT -4
INFORMAL FALLACIES
Fallacies in general........................................................................................................ 77
Lesson 4.1. Fallacy of Relevance................................................................................. 78
Lesson 4.2 Fallacies of Weak Induction........................................................................85
Lesson 4.3. Fallacy of Presumption...............................................................................90
Lesson 4. 4. Fallacies of Ambiguity..............................................................................95
Lesson 4.5. Fallacy of Grammatical Analogy............................................................... 96
Objective – at the end of this chapter the students are expected to

 address the meaning and nature of fallacies
 Describe the difference between a fallacious argument and a well-
constructed argument
 Identify the basic causes of different type of fallacies
 Familiarized with the mechanism that classifies informal fallacies
 Identify the specific following in informal fallacy.
Introduction – Dear learners, in this chapter we are going to see at what an

informal fallacy is, including the basic causes and goals of informal fallacy, what
are the major group of informal fallacies and also what are the basic character of
each fallacies of informal fallacy.
Fallacies in general
- In ordinary language usage the term “fallacy” is used to designate any

mistaken idea or false belief. But logicians use the term in the narrower sense of
an error in reasoning or in argument. Therefore in logic a fallacy is defined as a
defect in an argument that consists in something other than mere false premises.
 An argument become fallacious when the premises of an argument fail to

establish the truth of its conclusion. The premises of an argument fails to
establish the truth of the conclusion two cases
 The first way is assuming a false proposition as one of its premise that is if
its premises are false, then it fails to establish the truth of the conclusion.
 The second way is, when the premises of argument do not imply its
conclusion-that means when there is a problem or defect in the logical
relationship between premises and conclusion.
- Logicians, however, do not much interested in the truth or falsehood of
propositions as in the logical relation between premises and conclusion.
Hence arguments that fails in the second way is said to be fallacious
argument.
Dear learners ,the basic objective of fallacy is deception; deceiving the listener or
reader to accept the conclusion. There are different reasons why an arguer
deceives the evidence; lack of reasons or audiences, eager to get acceptable and
so on. The causes of fallacies are not similar from one argument to another
argument. In some argument the premises might be irrelevant to the conclusion,
in other argument the relation ship between premises and conclusion is not
strong enough and also there are other causes. Based on their cause, informal
fallacy can be broadly classified in to five groups. These are fallacy of relevance,
Fallacy of weak induction, Fallacy of presumption, Fallacy of ambiguity and

Fallacy of grammatical analogy.
Lesson 4.1. Fallacy of Relevance
Objective:- of the lesson at the end of this lesson learners are

required to;
 Understand the nature of fallacy of relevance
 Identify fallacy of relevance from other type of fallacies
 Recognize the causes of fallacy of relevance
Introduction: Dear learners in this lesson we are going to discuss fallacy of

relevance, the cause and specific elements of fallacy of relevance.
Fallacy of Relevance is a group of informal fallacies that occur because premises
of an argument are irrelevant to the conclusion: Fallacies of relevance share the
common characteristics in that the premises are logical irrelevant to the
conclusion, but psychologically the premises are relevant. Thus in the Fallacies of
irrelevance the relation between premises and conclusion is based on emotion,
not on a genuine evidence. Among the emotion often appealed to are hostility,
Fear, and pity. As it is indicating in the preceding chapter informal language
may have the unfortunate effect of hindering us from dealing effectively with
any information that may be present. Thus to identify fallacy of irrelevance one
must be able to distinguish genuine evidence from various forms of emotional
appeal.
The following are different types of fallacies relevance that shown the emotional
attachment between premises and conclusion disregarding presenting logical
evidence for the truth of the conclusion.
1. Appeal to Force (Argumentum ad Baculum)
- An informal fallacy that occurs when on arguer threatens a reader or listener for
the purpose of getting him or her to accept a conclusion. The fallacy always
involves by the arguer to the physical or psychological well-being of the listener
or reader. Hence it can of ten get acceptance owing to its psychological pressure.
But it is obvious that such threat is logically irrelevant to the subject matter of the
conclusion.
E.g. 1. I would like to make an appointment to see you tomorrow about

my final grade. I think it was unfair and I should have gotten a better one.
By the way, I believe that you know my aunt. She is your dean.
2. I will be happy to tell you why the report needs to be finished by

Friday. If it is not ready by then, you will be looking for another Job.
2. Appeal to pity (Argumentum ad Misericordiam)
The Latin term, Misericordiam, literally means pitying heart which represent
mercy, sympathy, special favor or altruism in the fallacy of appeal to pity the
arguer poses a conclusion and then attempts to involve a feeling of pity from the
reader or listener.
Eg. Mr. Chairman, I certainly deserve arose in pay. I can hardly manage to feed
my children on what you have been paying me. And my youngest Child, Tom,
needs an operation if he is ever to walk without wheel chair.
3. Appeal to People (Argumentum ad Populum)

The fallacy of emotional appeal (to entausiasm) is a favorite device of

propagandists and adventures. Forced with the task of mobilizing public
sentiment for or against a particular measure or product, they will avoid the
labourens process of collection and presenting evidence and rational argument
by using short cut methods of the emotional appeal. Hence in an appeal to
people fallacy an arguer plays or contain psychological needs for the purpose of
getting the reader or listener to accept the conclusion. There are two basic
approaches of fallacy of appeal to people.
3A. Direct approach of appeal to people.
- occurs when a fallacious argument is forwarded directly to the mass of

people, either in speech or writing, for the purpose of mass mentality. It is
a good strategy used by nearly every propagandists Historically Adolf
Hitler was a master of this technique on his ideology of the master race of
Aryans, the reason given for the genocide of jewes.
3B. Indirect approach:-
- It is a type of an appeal to people Fallacy, Focusing on, not to the Crowd, but
on the individual or more individual separately. For one’s own advantage. The
indirect approach is a standard technique of the advertising industry. The
following are a specific forms of indirect approach to people fallacy.
Bandwagon Argument : A form of indirect approaches in which the arguer plays

on the reader's or listener's need to part of a group. Bandwagon; literally means
joining a group in beneficial. Hence the arguer emphasize on the idea that you
will be left behind if you don't use the product.
Eg. Of course you should buy Teddy Afro's new album. It has been sold
over a million copy and people in Addis enjoy with it.
 Appeal to Vanity :- Occurs when an arguer play on the vanity of the

reader or listener. In such form, the arguer often associates to product
with a certain celebrity who is admired and pursued. The rational
behind such association that you , too, will be admired and pursued of
you use it.
Eg. Only the globally accepted beautiful leady could level up Ethiopia to
the world-wide beauty competition. Miss millennium is for the Ethiopian
millennium campaigners.
 Appeal to snobbery: occur when the arguer plays on the reader's or

listener's need to feel superior. The term snobbery also refers persons
with an exaggerated respect for social position and who despises for
him or her are inferior.
Eg. Petroleum in the Ogaden region is not of every one. If we notice as
one of the recognized few, this identified gifts can be considered and sage-
guarded at the national code of future scenario.
4. Argument against the Person (Argumentum and homien):-
This fallacy always involves two arguers. The first arguer advances a certain
argument. The second arguer attempts to refuse the first person's idea without
providing logical evidences. Usually the second person responds by directing
his/her attention, not to the argument, but to the first person himself or herself.
In fallacy of against the person, the respondent fail to provide an effective
criticism, opposition and refutation on the view point or position of others; that
is why some logicians called it pseudo refutation.
The following are typical forms of fallacy of against the person.
4 a. A dominium abusive - a verity of the argument against-the -person fallacy

that occurs when an arguer verbally abuses a second arguer for the purpose of
discrediting that person's argument.
Example- President Abdella Yusuf has argued in favor of imposing arm-embargo

on Eritria. But Yusuf's arguments are meaningless. Yusuf, you know, is an
American framed president under the shadow of Ethiopian government.
4b. Adhminum Circumstantial - a verity of the argument against the person

fallacy that occurs when the arguer cities circumstance that affect a second
arguer for the purpose of discrediting that persons argument
Example - Hermela's argument is favour of the new family law of Amhara

region is totally unacceptable. First of all she is a female and widow. She
divorced three times and her favour of the law is because she wonted a mass lots
of money from her former husbands.
4c. Tu quoque (you too) - A verity of the argument-against the person fallacy that
occurs when an arguer shifts the burden of guilt onto a second arguer for the
purpose of discrediting his or her argument.
Example- you have argued that it is wrong for me to hunt mild animals. Well,
you eat hamburger, and that involves the killing of animals.
5. Straw man Fallacy
Dear learners this is a fallacy that occurs when the arguer misinterprets an
opponent's position for the purpose of more easily attacking it and then proceeds
to conclude that the original argument has been demolished.
In the fallacy of straw man, the respondent has to goes with two steps. Initially,
the respondent demolish or distorts the original argument (either by over
simplifying, demolishing, exaggerating or distorting) and then presents a valid
conclusion from the distorted premises, by ignoring the original argument.
Example- Some people these days are against prayer in the public school. But I
can not agree with any position based on the assumption that there is no God,
and that is against the norm of our society. So, I disagree with these people.
6. Red Herring
A king of fallacy of relevance that occurs when the arguer diverts the attention
of the reader or listener by addressing a number of extraneous issues and ends
by presuming that some conclusion has been established. Usually, the
respondent raises a hot and controversial issue to divert the attention of the
audience. The basic difference between fallacy of straw man and red herring is
that in the fallacy of straw man the respondents distorts and demolish the
original argument. While in red herring, the respondent totally ignores the
original argument and raise another issues that attracts the attention of the
people, that is why, logician, called red herring an off truck fallacy.
Example- we have all heard the argument that two much television is the reason
our students can not read and write. Yet many of today's TV shows are
excellent: 'Killilochachin' explores the diversified culture of our society;
'metrology' informs about daily weather 'Zink' gives a lot of fun. Today's TV is
just great.
7. Missing the Point

An informal fallacy that occurs when the premises of an argument entails one
particular conclusion, but a completely different conclusion is actually drawn.
Fallacy of missing the point is a special form of fallacy of relevance because the
premises of the argument support one particular conclusion which is vaguely
related to the correct conclusion. In this fallacy, the arguer is ignorant of the
logical implications of his or her own premises and as a result, draws a
conclusion that misses the point entirely.
Example- The Ethiopian football federation could not contribute for the
betterment of football in this country. Both the former and new members of the
federation have no vision at all. All of them were striving to get a position in the
federation. The only solution for this problem is to eradicate the federation and
hurry the soccer itself.
8. Accident
An informal fallacy that occurs when a general rule is wrongly applied to a

typical specific cases. In the fallacy of accident of accident a general rule is
applied to a specific case that is not intended to cover.
Example- Freedom of speech is a constitutionally guaranteed right. Therefore,

John & Radical should not be arrested for his speech that incited the riot last
week.
Exercise-1
I. Identify the fallacies of relevance by the following arguments. If no fallacy
is committed 'No' fallacy.
1. Ethnic conflict is one of the problems of Africa. Hence, to create peace and
stability in Africa, ethnic diversity should be replaced by ethnic
homogeneity.
2. It is ridiculous to hear that men from Ethiopia complaining about

America's poverty. Ethiopia has twice as much poverty as American ever
has.
3. Given that woman a 'Birr,' I see her on this corner every day crying and
she seems to be ill.
4. You should buy Tedy Afro's new album. It is sold over a thousand copies
and practically, every one in Addis is talking about it.
5. What goes up must come down. The price of "Berberre" has been going
up for moths. Thus, it will surely come down.
6. Mr. Prime Minster, Iam certain you want to release the members of our
national liberation group whom you currently hold in prison. After all I
am sure you will not to have car bombs go off in the centers of your most
heavily populated cites.
7. I find it mildly that Mr. and Mrs. Kebede are advocating school reforms.
But I certainly do not any reason to take their proposal seriously. Both of
them were poor students in higher school.
8. So what if the senator accepted a little kick back money most political
are corrupt, after all.
9. The first amendment to the constitution prevents the government from
interfering with the free exercise of religion. The liturgical practices of the
religion of international enlightenment involve human sacrifice.
Therefore, it would be wrong for the government to interfere with this
religious practice.
Lesson 4.2 Fallacies of Weak Induction
Objective of the lesson - at he end of this lesson learners will able to:
 Define what fallacy of weak induction
 Mention to the specific fallacies of fallacy of weak induction
 Understand the basic character of the specific fallacy in fallacy of weak

indicator.
Introduction- Dear learners in this lesson you will know about fallacy of weak
induction, meaning, course and specific elements in the fallacy of weak
induction.
Fallacy of weak induction is a group of informal fallacies that occur because the
connection between the premises and conclusion is not strong enough to support
the conclusion. Using fallacies of weak induction appear in inductive type of
argumentation. As it is indicated in chapter two, an inductive argument is an
argument that is the truth of conclusion is probably based on the provide
evidence. However, in the fallacy of week induction, the premises are not strong
enough to establish the truth of their conclusion. Like fallacies of relevance
fallacies of week induction often involve emotional ground for believing the
conclusion. However, unlike fallacies of relevance, the premises may have some
sort of irrelevance to the conclusion. But the evidences are not nearly good
enough to produce the truth of the conclusion.
1. Appeal to Unqualified Authority
It is an informal fallacy that occurs when an arguer cites the testimony of an

unqualified authority in support of a conclusion. But this doesn't mean that all
argument that constitutes their conclusion from witness or authorities are a
fallacies argument. Only when the witness and authority is not trust worthily the
argument become fallacies argument. There are second reasons that make the
authority and witness untrustworthy. The author or witness might lack the
faulty might be based or prejudiced and so on.
Eg. Major General Abadula, the general of Ethiopian troops in Somalia, has
stated that he invention of new-microscope along with many professionals from
Debrezait veterinary school hold the key to eradicate Shasshemane's cattle
disease. In view of major general Abadula's expertise, As a military general, we
must conclude that this is indeed true.
2. Appeal to Ignorance (ad egnorateum)
An informal fallacy that occur when an arguer use the fact that nothing has been
proved about something as evidence in support of some conclusion about that
thing. In this argument, the arguers arrive at definite conclusion, based on
his/her own ignorance. Usually an appeal to ignorance fallacy occurs on issues
which involve something that is incapable of being proved.
Eg. Many organizations have been trying to reduce social crimes like genocide
for along period of time, and none of them has ever succeeded. Therefore, we
must conclude that social crimes are irreducible.
3. Hasty Generalization (Converse Accident)
An informal fallacy that occurs when a general conclusion is drawn from

atypically specific cases. The basis problem of hasty generalization argument is
the evidence of the data is in adequate and unrepresentative to draw a general
conclusion.
Eg. Almaz taught herself how to read and write when she was only four. Tesfaye
and Galma did the same. This implies that first grade level education is
unnecessary.
4. Weak Analogy
An informal fallacy that occurs when the conclusion of an argument depends on

analogy or similarity that is not strong enough to support the conclusion. In this
argument the conclusion is depend on the existence of similarity and analogy is
not strong enough to support the conclusion.
Eg. Lake Tana is very wide, has so many creatures, and attracts large number of
tourists. Lake Abe is also very large, has so many creatures. Therefore, it
probable attracts large number of tourists.
5. False Cause
An informal fallacy that occurs when the conclusion of an argument depends on

some imagined causal connection that probably does not exist. The imagined
causal connection might not be well explained by the relationship for the
following reasons. The cause is over simplified to produce the effect, the cause
taken as effect or vice versa. The causal relation depends on some imagined
connection which actually doesn't exist. The followings are verities of a false
cause fallacy.
A. Post hoc-ergo proptom hoc fallacy
It is a Latin word, translates as often this, The variety of fallacy presuppose that
first one event precedes another vent. The first one event precedes another event.
The first event causes the second. In a such argument, amore temporal selection
establish the connection of the two.
B. None-cause Procause Fallacy

The Latin word none casa pro-causa may be translated as not the cause for the
cause. Hence, in this argument what is taken to be the cause of something is not
really the cause at all such as a mistake is not due to a more temporal succession.
C. Over simplified causes
Occurs when a multitude of causes is responsible for a certain effect but the
arguer selects just one of these causes and represents it as if it was the sole cause.
Exercise -2
I. Identify the fallacies of weak induction committed by the following

arguments. If no fallacy is committed, write "No fallacy"
1. Probably no life exists on venues. Teams of scientists have conducted
exhaustive studies on the plant's surface and atmosphere, and no living
organisms have been found.
2. Ronald Ragon maintained a hard line against the soviet block countries
through his eight years of president. Then, shortly after he left office,
communism began to disappear from Eastern Europe. Obviously Regan's
policy was effective.
3. Dr. Seid, a physician at 'Flege Hiowot' Hospital has stated that proper use
of condom reduced the susceptibility to HIV/AIDS, so you, BDU
students have to use condom during sexual intercourse.
4. Some Woyala in early line bears the same manner. They do not have the
least respect for people, rather they are known with their bad words and
tried to drag people in to their taxi. Thus, they all are rude.
5. Animals and humans are similar in many ways. Experience sensation,

desire, fear and pains. Humans have rights not to be subjected to needless
pain. Does it not follow that animals have a right not to be subject to
needless pain?
Lesson 4.3. Fallacy of Presumption
Objective of the lesson- after completing this lesson the students are able to:
 define what a fallacy of presumption is
 Identity the basic characters of fallacy of presumption
 Describe the difference between fallacy of presumption and other
types of fallacies.
Introduction- In this lesson you are going to look another type of fallacy, fallacy
of presumption, including the basic feature and character of fallacy of
presumption, the specific fallacies under fallacy of presumption.
Fallacy of presumption is a group of informal fallacies that occurs because the

premises of an argument presumes what they purport to prove. To presume,
literally means, to take for granted, to assume the given idea is true and correct;
but, in fact, it needs further proof, explanation and evidences. Hence in the
fallacy of presumption, the premises contain tricky and confusing expression for
the purpose of concealing the wrong assumption. The assumption given in the
premise. Is not supported by proof or evidence, but the arguer maintains that it
does not need proof. There are different ways of presuming the audience. The
followings are a variety of forms of fallacy of presumption.
1) Begging the Question

It is an informal fallacy that occurs when the arguer uses some forms of
phraseology that tends to conceal the questionably true character of a key
premise. In this type of argument, the arguer tries to hide the fact that a certain
premise may not be true. And it the audience is deceived into thinking that they
key premise is true, then she/he accept he argument as sound, when infant it
may not be. Two requirements must be met for the occurrence of begging
question fallacy.
 The argument must be valid
 Some form of phraseology must be used to conceal the questionable
character of a key premise.
There are different kinds of phraseology, but usually involves, using the
conclusion to support the questionable premise.
Example- 1) All of as can not be famous, because, all of us can not be
well-known
2) She says she loves me and she must be telling the truth,
because she certainly would not lie to some one she
loves.
2. Complex Question
An informal fallacy that occurs when a single question that is really two or
more question is asked, and a single answer is applied to both questions.
In the earlier chapter, it is stated that arguments are constructed with
statements, not with sentences. So it is natural to raise the question of how
can construct an argument with question (which is not a statement)
The solution is, questions become an argument only when they are dealt
with their answers. Hence in a fallacy of complex, the question serves as a
premise while the answer is considered as conclusion. In the fallacy of
complex question the arguer forwards a confusing and tricking question

to mislead the respondent. Usually the conclusion of a complex question
is a "Yes" or "No" answers.
Example- Are you still drinking excessively?

Have you stopped cheating on exam?
3. False Dichotomy
Dear learners an informal fallacy, committed when an arguer present two

none jointly exhaustive alternative as if they were jointly exhaustive and
then eliminates one, leaving the other as the conclusion. In a false
dichotomy fallacy an arguer must pass two steps to commit it. The first
one is it assumes only two alternative is available for the given situation,
but infant there are more than two possibilities. The second step is the two
alternatives are mutually exclusive, that means if one alternative is two
the other alternative must be false.
A false dichotomy fallacy is clearly valid. Since it is constructed with

disjunctive statements. However the premises are false and it becomes a
sound argument. A false dichotomy fallacy commonly occurred in
arguments held by children and adolescent with their parents.
Example- Either we dismantle the pentagon entirely or we will continue to

waste trillion of dollars on useless military machine. We certainly can not
afford to waste the money, so we should dismantle the pentagon entirely.
4). Suppressed Evidence

An informal fallacy that occurs when the arguer ignores the relevant
evidences that out weights the presented evidence and entails a very
different, conclusion. In a suppressed evidence fallacy, the arguer
deliberately suppressed, de-emphasize or over-emphasize the key
evidence that make a conclusion different. In a suppressed evidence
fallacy the premises seem true and complete but in fact they are not.
Example- certainly miss Bahir Dar University is an efficient and a good

manager. She has a great figure, an attractive face and tremendous poise
and she dressed very fashionably.
Exercise
I. Identify the fallacies of presumption committed by the following
argument, if no fallacy, write " no fallacy"
1. Thus Committee for nuclear says that nuclear power is safe and
that it holds the answer for America's energy needs in the year a
head. We can only conclude that the best policy if to push forward
with nuclear power.
2. Tilahun Gessese is the greatest artist of the millennium. We know
that this is so because art critics have described him in these terms.
These art critics are correct in their assessment because they have a
more keenly developed sense of appreciation.
3. A question forwarded by a traffic police to a driver "When did you
see the red light before or after you run it"
4. Either men are superior to women or women are superior to men.
Men are not superior to women. Hence, women are superior to
men.
5. Merry is the beautiful girl in BDU because her eyes are blue, she
always wears neat dress, and She is the tallest girl in the campus.
6. Have you stopped smoking Nyala? '
Lesson 4. 4. Fallacies of Ambiguity
Objective - at the end of this lesson, learners will able to:

 Define fallacy of ambiguity
 Identify the basic causes of fallacy of ambiguity
 Describe the difference between fallacy of ambiguity and often type
of informal fallacy.
Introduction- Dear learners in this lesson you will lower about fallacy of
ambiguity, the causes and base character of fallacy of ambiguity and
specific fallacies under fallacy of ambiguity.
Fallacies of ambiguity are a group of informal fallacies that occur because

of an ambiguity in the premises or conclusion of the arguments.
Arguments whose formulation contain ambiguous word or phrases
whose meanings shift and change more or less subtly with the course of
the argument become fallacies of argument. Ambiguity in an argument
can be occurred with the presence of either an ambiguous term or when a
general " Preposition" fail to make clear just how general it is that is in
what sense its subject term is being used. The followings are the two
permanent fallacies of ambiguity.
1) Fallacy of Equivocation
An informal fallacy that occurs because some words or group of words

are used either implicitly or explicitly in two different senses. In
equivocation fallacy, a word is used with one meaning or sense in the
premise and with another meaning in the conclusion.
2) Amphiboly Fallacy
An informal fallacy that occurs when the conclusion of an argument

depends on the misinterpretation of a statement that is ambiguous owing
to some structural defect. Fallacy of ambiguity known as syntactical
ambiguity because it is the error in reasoning used by misuse of sentences.
Example- 1. Power tends to corrupt, knowledge is power.
Therefore knowledge tends to corrupt.
2. No man will take counsel, but every man will take
money. Therefore money is better than
counsel.
Lesson 4.5. Fallacy of Grammatical Analogy
Objective- at the end of the lesson, learners are required to:

 Identify what fallacy of grammatical analogy is.
 Describe the basic character of fallacy of grammatical
analogy
 Understand the difference between fallacy of grammatical
analogy and other type of informal fallacies.
Introduction - Dear learners in this lesson you are going to see at fallacy
of grammatical analogy, the cause, character and the specific fallacies
under fallacy of grammatical analogy.
Fallacy of grammatical analogy is a group of informal fallacy that occurs

because of a grammatical similarity to other arguments that are non
fallacious. The followings are the two major fallacies under fallacy of
grammatical analogy.
Fallacy of Composition

depends on the erroneous transference of an attribute from parts of
something in to the whole. In the fallacy of composition, it is argued that,
because the parts have a certain attribute, it follows that the whole has
that attribute too.
2. Fallacy of Division

depends on the erroneous transference of an attribute from a whole (or
class) on to its parts (or members). In fallacy of division it is argued that
the whole has some attribute and as if the parts have that attribute.
Example- -the Royal Society is over 300 years old. Professor
Thomson is a member of the Royal society.
Therefore Professor Thomson is over 300 year old
(Division)
-Each and every cell in this carrot is 90 percent water.
Therefore, the entire carrot is 90 percent water.
(Composition)
Exercise
I. Identify the fallacies of ambiguity and grammatical analogy

committed by the following arguments. If no fallacy is committed,
write "no fallacy".
1. A salesman is a human being. Therefore a good salesman is a
good human being
2. I agree with Christians in their claim that God is love, But unlike
Christians, I am not afraid to draw the obvious consequence. Love
is God.
3. A Line is composed of points. Points have no length. Therefore, a
line has no length.
4. George said that he was interviewing for a job drilling oil wells in
the supervisor's office. We can only conclude that the supervisors
must have an awfully dirty official
5. Switzerland is 48 percent protestant. Heidi Gilsing is a Swiss.
Therefore Hdidi Gilsing is 40 percent protestant.
UNIT-5 CATEGORICAL PROPOSITIONS
UNIT -5
CATEGORICAL PROPOSITIONS
Lesson 5.1. The Components of Categorical Proposition........................................... 100

Lesson 5.2 Quality, Quantity, and Distribution...........................................................104
Lesson 5.3 Venn Diagrams and the Modern Square Of Opposition....................110
Lesson 5.4. Categorical Operations: Conversion, Obversion, and Contrapostion......122
Lesson 5.5. Translating Ordinary Language statements Into Categorical Form.........133
Lesson 5.6. Adverbs and Pronouns..............................................................................137
Introduction - Dear learners, this unit is divided in to four parts. These are:
Components of categorical proposition; quality, quantity, and distribution; Venn
diagrams and the modern square of opposition; and translating ordinary
language into categorical form.
The first part deals about how a proposition relates two classes, sets, or
categories, and how a standard form categorical proposition is established. The
second part analyzes and interprets standard form categorical propositions. The
third part tries to explain the methods of representing propositions by diagrams
and square of appositions so as to check the validity of inferences. It also
introduces systems of how to developed logically equivalent meaning and/or
different meaning of a proposition by changing some of its components and
attributes. The last part explains the best ways of translating and evaluating
ordinary language arguments.
Objectives
Up on the completion of this unit, you will be able to:
 Identify essential elements, the quality and quality of categorical
proposition.
 Know whether a given term in categorical preposition is

distributed or not.
 Appreciate the very essence and effect of distribution or otherwise
of terms.
 Use the Venn diagram and the modern sure of opposition to
determine the validity or invalidity of deductive argument by
restoring to the technique of immediate inference.
 Convert ordinary statement in to standard form.
Lesson 5.1. The Components of Categorical Proposition
Objectives
 Define categorical proposition
 Explain the relations between categories.
 Identify standard form categorical proposition and its components
What is Categorical Proposition?
In the second unit we saw that proposition is a statement that is either true or
false category is a set collection or class of similar things. Having these
definitions in mind, a proposition that relates two classes, sets, or categories, is
called categorical proposition. The classes in question are denoted respectively
by the subject term and the predicate term. Accordingly, categorical proposition
asserts that either all or part of the class denoted by the subject term is included
in or excluded from the class denoted by the predicate term. Here are some
examples of categorical propositions:
1. Children are human beings

2. Roofers are not millionaires

3. Sea lions inhabit the coast of California
4. Not all lords are kings.
Statement(1) says that’s every member of the class of children is member of class
of human beings. Statement(2) asserts that the entire class of roofers is excluded
from the class of millionaires. Statement(3) says that part of the class of sea lions
is included in the class of things that inhabit the coast of California. And
statement(4) asserts that part of the class of lords is excluded from the class of
kings.
As we have seen in the above section, categorical proposition asserts that either
all or part of the class denoted by the subject term is included in or excluded
from the class denoted by the predicate term. It follows that there are exactly
four types of categorical propositions.
These are:
1. Those that assert that the whole subject class is include in the predicate
class.
2. Those that assert that the whole subject class is excluded from the
predicate class.
3. Those that assert that part of the subject class is included in the predicate
class.
4. Those that asset that part of the subject class is excluded from the
predicate class.
A categorical proposition that expresses these relations with complete clarity is
one that is in standard from. A standard form categorical proposition is a
statement that results from putting respectively the subject and predicate terms
in the blanks of the following form or structure.
All S are P
No S are P
Some S are P
Some S are not P
The words “all”, “no”, and “some” are called quantifiers because they specify
how much of the subject class is included in or excluded from the predicate class.
In the above examples the first form asserts that the whole subject class in
included in the predicate class, the second that the whole subject class is
excluded from the predicate class, the third that part of the subject class is
included in the predicate class, the last that part of the subject class is excluded
from the predicate class. (Incidentally, in formal deductive logic the word
“some” always means at least one.) The letters “S” and “P” stand respectively for
subject and predicate terms, and the words “are” and “are not” are called the
copula because they link (or “couple”) the subject term with the predicate term.
Any standard form categorical proposition has the following four components:
Quantifier + Subject term + Copula + predicate term
Consider the following example:

All drunk drivers are threats to others on the highway. This standard form
categorical proposition is analyzed as follows:
Quantifier: all
Subject term: drunk drivers
Copula: are
Predicate term: threats to other on the highway
In resolving standard form categorical propositions into their four components,
one must keep these components separate. They do not overlap each other. In
this regard it should be noted that “subject term” and predicate term” do not
mean the same thing in logic that “subject” and “predicate” mean in grammar.
The subject of the above statement includes the quantifier “all”, but the subject
term does not. Similarly, the predicate include the copula “are”, but the predicate
term does not.
However, in ordinary language propositions are not always stated in standard

form. The quantifier, copula, and the two terms can be stated in various forms
and in some classes one or two of these components may be missing altogether.
In the final section of this chapter we will develop techniques for translating
categorical propositions in to standard form, but for now we may restrict our
attention to those that are already in standard form.
Lastly, there are some additional points that should be noted about standard
form categorical propositions. The first is that the form “All S are not P” is not a
standard form. This form is ambiguous and can be rendered as either “No S are
P” or “Some S are not P”, depending on the content.
The second point is that the term of a categories proposition must include a noun
or pronoun that denoted a class. But sometimes and adjective appears without a
noun or pronoun, in which case the term is incompletely expressed. In such a
case, a noun or pronoun must be added. Example: All humans are rational.
When noun is added to the example it becomes “All humans are rational animals
or All humans are rational beings. The last point is that there are exactly three
forms of quantifiers and two forms of copulas. Other text allows the various
forms of the verb “to be” (such as “is”, “is not”, “will”, and “will not”) to serve as
the copula. For the sake of uniformity, this text restricts the copula to “are” and
“are not”. The last section of this chapter describes techniques for translating
these alternate forms in to the two accepted ones.
Activity 5.1.1
Identify the quantifier, subject term, copula, and predicate term of the
proposition: “No sex education courses that are taught competently are
programs that are currently eroding public morals.”
Lesson 5.2 Quality, Quantity, and Distribution
Objectives
 Explain whether a given term in proposition is making an assertion
about all or part of the class under consideration.
 Understand whether or not the relation between two terms is
about inclusion or exclusion of classes.
 Identify which term is distributed in the four types of categorical
propositions.
Quality and quantity are attributes of categorical propositions. In order to see

how these attributes pertain, consider the following interpretation
Proposition Meaning in class notation

All S are P Every member of the S class is a member of P
class,
that is, the S class in included in P class.
No S are P No member of the S class is a member of P
class,
that is, the S class is excluded from P class.
Some S are P At least one member of the S class is a member
of
the P class
Some S are not P At least one member of the S class is not a

member
of P class.
The quality of categorical proposition is determined by whether the asserted

class relation is one of exclusion or inclusion. In other words, every categorical
proposition has either affirmative or negative quality. If a proposition affirms
that one class is wholly or partly included in another class, then the proposition’s
quality is affirmative. It a statement denies that one class is wholly or party
included in another, its quality is negative.
Thus, propositions having the form “All S are P” and “Some S are P” are
affirmative, while propositions having the form “No S are P” And “Some S are
not P” are negative proposition.
The quantity of categorical proposition is determined by whether the statement

makes a claim about every member or just some member of the class denoted by
the subject term. To put it in other way, the quantity of every categorical
proposition is either universal or particular. If a proposition asserts something
about every member of the class denoted by the subject term it is universal. But if
it asserts something about one or more member of the class denoted by the
subject term it is particular.
Accordingly, propositions having the form “All S are P” and “No S are P” are
universal, while proposition having the form “Some S are P” and “Some S are
not P” are particular.
Note that the quantity of categorical proposition may be determined through

mere inspection of the quantifier. “All” and “no” immediately imply universal
quantity, while “Some” implies particular. But categorical propositions have no
“qualifier”. In universal propositions the quality is determined by quantifier, and
in particular propositions it is determined by the copula.
Since the early middle ages the four kinds of categorical propositions have
commonly been designated by letter names corresponding to the first four
vowels of the Roman alphabet: A,E,I,O. The universal affirmative is called an A
propositions, the Universal negative an E proposition, the particular affirmative
an I proposition, and the particular negative an O proposition. These letters were
derived from the first two vowels in the Latin words affirmo (“I affirm”) and
nego (“I deny”).
These are summarized as follows:

Letter name Proposition Example Quantity
Quality
A All S are P All trees are plants Universal
Affirmative
E No S are P No Plants are animals Universal
Negative
I Some S are P Some trees are oaks Particular
Affirmative
O Some S are not P Some trees are not oaks Particular
Negative
It is important to note that for present purposes, the word “some” means “at
least one”. In ordinary English, “some” occasionally has the force of “Some but
not all”. But this is not the meaning assigned to “some” in logic. It is specially
important to bear in mind that “some S are P” does not imply that “some S are
not P”. It often happens, of course, that substitution instance of these statement
forms are both true. For example, “some trees are oaks” is true, as is “some trees
are not oaks.” But the fact that one is true does not necessitate that the other be
true. “Some dogs are mammals” is true (because at least one dog is an animal),
but “some dogs are not mammals” is false.
Thus, the fact that one of these statement forms is true does not logically imply
that the other is true, as the last substitution instance clearly shows.
Distribution is an attribute of terms (subject and predicate) of proposition. A

term is said to be distributed if the proposition makes an assertion about every
member of the class denoted by the term; otherwise it is undistributed. Stated
another way, a term is distributed if and only if the statement assigns (or
distributes) an attribute to every member of the class denoted by the term.
Accordingly, the subject term is distributed if the statement asserts something
about every member of the class of the subject term; the predicate term is
distributed if the statement asserts something about every member of the class of
the predicate term; otherwise the subject and predicate term; otherwise the
subject and predicate terms are undistributed.
Let us now consider the four categorical proposition having “Cowards” and
“heroes” as subject and predicate terms, respectively.
1. Universal affirmative (A). “All cowards are heroes.”
This statement represents the fact that every member of the class of cowards is a
member of the class of heroes, which is to say that all members of the class of
cowards are contained in the class of heroes. In other words, the statement makes
a claim about every member of the class of cowards. But it does not make a claim
about every member of the class if cowards, since there may be some member of
heroes out side cowards. Thus, by definition cowards is distributed and heroes is
not. For any universal affirmative (A) proposition, the subject term is distributed,
and the predicate term is undistributed.
2. Universal negative (E) – “No cowards are heroes”
This asserts that the class of cowards and heroes are separated. It states that each
and every member of cowards is entirely excluded from each and every member
of heroes, and vise versa. Accordingly, since the statement makes a claim about
every member of both terms, the subject and predicate terms of universal
negative (E) proposition are distributed.
3. Particular affirmative (I)- “Some cowards are heroes”. It states that at least one
member of predicate class, i.e., at least there is one thing that is simultaneously in
the subject and predicate classes. Thus the statement makes a claim about one
member (at least) of the subject and one member (at least) of the predicate
classes, but not about all members of either class. Hence, by the definition of
distribution, neither subject nor predicate term is distributed in particular
affirmative.
4. Particular negative (O) - “Some cowards are not heroes.”
It asserts that at least one member of cowards is not a member of heroes. What is
known here is that there exists at least one member of cowards which is out side
the entire class of heroes. Since the other member of cowards may or may not be
outside of the class of heroes, it is clear that the statement does not make a claim
about every member of the class of cowards. But, the statement does assert that
the entire class of heroes is separated from one member of the class of cowards
that is outside; that is, it does make a claim about every member of heroes. Thus,
in particular negative (0) proposition, the predicate term is distributed and the
subject term is not.
As an aid in remembering this rule for distribution, it may be convenient to keep

in mind the following mnemonic. Any student Earning Bs is not on probation.
Attending to the first letter in each word should help us remember that A
statements distribute the subject, E statements distribute both terms, I statement
distribute neither terms, and O statement distribute the predicate.
Finally, we note that the attribute O distribution, while not particularly

important to subsequent development in this unit, is essential to the evaluation
of syllogisms in the next unit.
The materials of this section may now be summarized as follows:

Proposition Letter Quantity Quality Terms
distributed
All S are P A Universal Affirmative S
No S are P E Universal Negative S and P
Some S are P I Particular Affirmative none
Some S are not P O Particular Negative P
Activity 5.2.2
State whether the subject and predicate terms of the following propositions are distributed
or undistributed.
1. All things that ate beautiful are pleasant to behold.
2. Some prime numbers are not divisible by two.
Lesson 5.3 Venn Diagrams and the Modern Square Of

Opposition
Objectives
 Explain the meaning, form and implication of Venn diagrams.
 Show how the four types of categorical propositions are translated
and interpreted by Venn diagrams and square of oppositions
respectively.
 Evaluate the validity of arguments using Venn diagrams, modern
and tradition squares and immediate inference.
 Discuss the different appearances (forms) of a categorical
proposition using categorical operations.
 Explain the similarity and difference between modern and
traditional square of oppositions.
Back Ground
Consider the following two examples
(1) All students who studied are persons who got good grade.
(2) All unicorns are one horned animals
The above two examples, like all universal affirmative statements, assert that the
while class it the subject terms are contained in the class of the predicate terms.
But does each statement also imply that the subject term exist? Of course for (1)
you probably would think that there actually were some students who studied.
You probably would consider statement(2) true, because “Unicorn”, by
definition, means having one horn actually exist. Example(2) illustrates that an
ambiguity exists in the meaning of A type (and also E type) categorical
propositions. In such categorical propositions do we assume the subject term
denotes something that actually exists or we make no such assumption? In

response to this question, logicians have developed two different interpretations
of categorical propositions. Aristotle, the philosopher who created the theory of
categorical propositions over two thousand years ago, restricted his theory to
things that actually exists. Thus, according to this interpretation, the statement
form “All S are P” asserts that all members of the S class is included in the P
class, and it is assumed that members of S actually exist.
This interpretation prevailed more or loss until the nineteenth century, when it
became necessary to make statements about things that do not exist. In response
to this, the nineteenth century logician George Boole developed an interpretation
that was neutral about existence.
Thus, according to Boolean interpretation, the statements form “All S are P”

asserts that all members of the S class are included in the P class, and it is not
assumed that members of S actually exist.
The difference between the Aristotelian and the Boolean interpretations also
extends to E-type propositions. Thus, under the Aristotelian interpretation, “No
S are P” asserts that no members of the S class are included in the P class, and it
is assumed that members of S actually exist. Under Boolean interpretation,
however, it asserts that no members of the S class are included in the P class, and
it is not assumed that members of S actually exist.
On the other hand, both interpretations are in agreement with regard to

particular (I and O) propositions. Thus, for both interpretations, “some S are P”
asserts that at least one member of the S class exists, and it is also a member of
the P class. And “some S are not P” asserts that at least one member of the S class
exists, and it is also a member of the P class. And “some S are not P” asserts that
at least one member of the S class exists, and it is not a member of P class. Hence,
under Aristotelian and Boolean interpretations, I and O statements make positive

claims about existence.
Because the Boolean interpretation of Universal propositions is neutral about

existence, it is simpler than the Aristotelian, which involves an assumption about
existence. For this reason, we will direct our attention first Boolean
interpretation, and latter introduce Aristotelians as an extension of the Boolean.
Let us begin by reiterating the Boolean interpretation of the four kinds of

categorical propositions.
All S are P = No members of S are outside P
No S are P = No members of S are inside P
Some S are P = At least one S exists, and that S is a P
Some S are not P = At least one S exists, and that S is not a P
Adopting this interpretation of categorical propositions, the nineteenth century
English Logician John Venn developed a system of diagrams to represent the
information they express. Those diagrams have come to be known as Venn
diagrams.
Venn Diagrams
A Venn diagram is an arrangement of overlapping circles in which each circle

represents the class named by a term in a categorical proposition. Each of the
standard forms of categorical propositions has its own graphic illustration in a
Venn diagram: that is, since every categorical proposition has exactly two terms,
it is represented by two overlapping (intersecting) circles. Each circle is labeled
so that it represents one of the terms in the proposition. Unless otherwise
required, we adopt the convention that the left –hand circle represents the subject
term, and the right-hand circle the predicate term. The diagram looks is:
S P
The members of the class denoted by each term should be thought of as situated
in side the corresponding circle. Accordingly, the members of S class (if any such
class exists) are situated inside the S circle, and the members of P class (if any
such class exists) are situated inside the P circle. If any members are situated
inside the area where the two circles overlap, then such members belong to both
the S class and the P class.
For instance, if we assume that the S class is the class of Ethiopians and the P
class is the class of professors. Then, if we select E and P to label the two circles,
and if we use numerals to identify the four possible areas, the diagram looks like
this:
E P
The area marked “1” stands for an Ethiopians but not a professors, anything in
the area marked “2” is both an Ethiopian and a professors, and anything in the
area marked “3” stands for a professors not an Ethiopian. The area marked “4” is
the area outside both circles; thus, any thing in this area is neither an Ethiopian
nor professor. Here is the final description of the diagram.
Ethiopians E P Professors
Ethiopians that are professors
Note that the area that is outside both circles represent classes that ate neither Ethiopian
nor professor.
Now we can use Venn diagrams to indicate the information expressed by the
four kinds of categorical proposition. To show that an area contains at least one
object, we use an “x” placing an “x” means that at least one thing exists in that
area. To show that an area is empty, we shade it in. if an area does not contain an
“x” and is not shaded in, we simply have no information about it or nothing is
known about that area. Thus, to diagram a universal affirmative statement
having the form “All S are P”, we indicate that the left hand side of the subject
term is empty by shading it in, as follows: (Assume that the proposition is “All
dogs are animals”)
Dogs Animals
This is the sort of diagram you always use for a universal affirmative
proposition. The diagram says that the class of dogs has no members that are
outside (not members) of animals. Notice that this diagram does not say that
there are any dogs, not does it say that there are animals. It simply says, “ If there
are any dogs, then they are animals”.
Universal negatives have the form “No S are P”. The diagram for “No dogs are
cats,” looks like this
Dogs Cats
This is a sort of diagram you always use for a universal negative proposition.
The diagram represents that the area where dogs and cats overlap is empty; there
is no member which is a dog as well as a cats.
Notice that the above diagram does not say that there are any dogs, nor does it
say that there are any dogs, not does it say that there are any cats. It simply says
that nothing belongs to the class (or set) of things that are both dogs and cats.
Particular affirmatives have the form “some S are P”, and assert that sets of S and
P have at least one member is common. This is represented by placing an “x” in
the area where S and P overlap. The diagram for “some dogs are collies” looks
like this:
Doges Collies
The diagram asserts that there exists at least one dog that is a collies. This is the
diagram you always use for particular affirmative propositions.
Particular negatives have the form “ some S are not P”, and assert that set S has
at least one member that does not belong to set P. It is represented by placing an
“x” in the part of the S circle that lies outside the P circle. The diagram for “ some
dogs are not collies” looks like this”:
Doges Collies
The diagram asserts that there exist at least one dog that is not a collies. This is
the diagram you always use for particular negative proposition.
Note that shading is always used to represent the content of universal (A and E)
propositions, and placing an “x” in the areas is always used to represent the
content of particular (I and O) propositions.
Modern square of opposition
The square of opposition is devices of dealing with various forms of relations of

the four categorical propositions are geographically represented in the square of
relation some of the propositions are logically “opposed”, while others are not.
The method of dealing with categorical propositions using square of relation was
introduced by classical philosophers. Different from classical tradition, modern
logicians introduced different types of square of relations of categorical
propositions. Hence, we have two different approaches to study the square of
relation of categorical propositions: the traditional and modern.
To study the logical relation of categorical proposition in the square of relation in

both traditional and modern logic two requirements should be met:
1. There should be a square diagram in which the four types of categorical
propositions are placed at the corners exhibiting the logical relation called
opposition.
2. The categorical propositions that are related in square of opposition
should have the same subject and predicate terms taking in to account the
differences in quantity and quality.
For the purpose of this course we shall give more emphasis to the Boolean
interpretation of categorical propositions which is explained by modern square
of opposition.
To start with, let us compare the diagram for the A proposition with the diagram
for the O proposition. The diagram for A proposition asserts that the left-hand
part of the S circle is empty, where as the diagram for O proposition asserts that
this same area is not empty. These two diagrams make assertions that are the
exact opposite of each other. As a result, their corresponding statements are said
to contradict each other. Analogously, the diagram for E proposition asserts that
where the two circles overlap is empty, where as the diagram for the I
proposition asserts that the area where the two circles overlap is not empty.
Accordingly, their corresponding propositions are also said to contradict is
presented in a diagram called the Modern Square of opposition.
This diagram, which arises from the modern (or Boolean) interpretation of
categorical proposition, is presented as follows:
A E
Contradictories
I O
The square shows that the A and O-propositions and the E and I propositions,
which are at opposite diagonal corners from each other, respectively, are
contradictory propositions, they never have the same truth values. Two
statements are contradictories if they can not both be true and they can not both
be false. In other words, if one is true, the other must be false; if one is false the
other must be true. Thus, if certain A proposition is given as true, the
corresponding O proposition must be false. Similarly, if certain I proposition is

given as false, the corresponding E proposition must be true. (This relation
between each pair of proposition is true provided that they have the same subject
and predicate terms.) However, given the truth value of an A or O proposition,
nothing can be determined about the truth value of the corresponding E and I
proposition and vice versa. Thus, from the Boolean stand point, which is neutral
about existence, they are said to have logically undetermined truth value. Like all
propositions, they do have a truth value, but logic alone con not determine what
it is.
Immediate inferences
The relation of categorical proposition in the square of opposition leads us to the

study of the validity of immediate inference. An immediate inference is a logical
process of arriving at a conclusion from the given one premise. In such inference
there is not transition in thought from one premise to another and then to the
conclusion.
Using immediate inference, we can evaluate an argument as valid or invalid.

When the relation between two categorical proposition undetermined truth
value the immediate inference of the two propositions becomes invalid. But
contradictory square of oppositions has no undetermined truth – value.
Hence, its immediate inference between propositions A and O, E and I results in
valid contradictory relation. Consider the following argument:
1. All flowers are plants.
Therefore, it is false that some flowers are not plants.
To evaluate this argument using modern square of opposition, we begin by

assuming that the premise, which is an A proposition, is true. By modern square,
if an A proposition is true, then it follows necessarily that its corresponding O
proposition is false. This is what the conclusion of example (1) asserts. There fore
the argument is valid.
Here is another example.

2. It is false that some Walyas are Nyalas.
Therefore, some Walyas are not Nyalas.
Again, we begin by assuming that the premise is true. The premise states that
certain I proposition is false, that is what we assume. By the modern square, if an
I proposition is false, then it necessary follows that the corresponding E
proposition is true; but nothing more can be determine. Since the conclusion is
not the corresponding E proposition, but rather the corresponding O proposition,
the argument is invalid.
We can use Venn diagram to determine whether immediate inferences are valid
or invalid. Consider the first of the two examples. We just evaluated using
modern square.
We began by using letters to represent its terms (example 1).

All F are P
Therefore, it is false that some F are not P.
Next, we draw a Venn diagram for the premise and a Venn diagram for the
conclusion. The premise is easy: all we do is shading the left-hand part of F circle.
But the conclusion asserts that something is false. To draw a Venn diagram for
this, we first consider what would do if the conclusion said it is true that some F
are not P. We would then place an "X" in the left-hand side of F circle. But since
the conclusion says that this statement is false, we do just the opposite: we shade
the left hand part of F circle. Here are the diagrams for the valid argument.
Premise: All F are P
F P
Conclusion: it is false that some F are P. First.
F P This is false (that

something exists in the left hand of F circle)
Final
F P Nothing exists in the left hand of F-circle.
To evaluate the argument, we have to see whether the information expressed by

the conclusion diagram is also expressed by the premise diagram. The conclusion
diagram asserts that nothing exists in the left-hand part of the F circle. Since this
information is also expressed in the premises diagram, the argument is valid. In
this case, the diagram for the conclusion is identical to the diagram for the
premise, so it is clear that the premise and the conclusion assert exactly the same
thing. However, for an argument be valid, it is not necessary that premise and
conclusion assert exactly the same thing. It is only necessary that the information
expressed by the conclusion diagram is contained in the premise diagram.
Here is the symbolize version of the second argument (example 2) evaluated

earlier.
It is false that some W are N
Therefore, some W are not N
In diagramming the premise, we do just the opposite of what we should do to
diagram " some W are N." Instead of placing an "x" in the area where the two
circles overlap, we shad e that area for the conclusion we place an "X" in the left
hand part of W.
It is false that some W are N
W N
Some W are N
W N
Here, the conclusion diagram asserts that some thing exists in the left-hard part
of W circle. Since this information is not contained in the premise diagram, the
argument is invalid.
Here are two more examples
(3) No A are B
Therefore, it is false that all A are B
Premise A B Conclusion A B
The argument is invalid
(4) It is false that some A are B
Therefore, no A are B.
Premise A B Conclusion A B
The argument is valid
Activity 5.3.1.
Construct two arguments (immediate inference) of your own and test their
validity using modern square and Venn diagrams.
Lesson 5.4. Categorical Operations: Conversion, Obversion, and

Contrapostion.
Categorical propositions would change their attribute with the change of some of
its components. The three ways of doing this is using conversion, obversion, and
contrapostion. These three operations would help us to interpret and analyze
arguments, to make valid arguments, and develop logically equivalent or
different meanings of Categorical propositions.
A) Conversion
The converse of a standard form categorical proposition is formed simply by

interchanging its subject and predicate terms. Here are four examples of
statements together with their converse as well as its diagrams.
Statement Converse
A: all S are P S P All P are S S P
E: No S are P S P No P are S S P
I: Some S are P S P Some P are S S P
O: Some S are not P S P Some P are not S P
Conversion is the inference form of categorical proposition to its converse.

Conversion is valid for E and I propositions. If we examine the diagram for the E
preposition, we see that it is identical to that of its converse. Also, the diagram
for the I statement is identical to that of its converse. This means that the E
statement and its converse are logical equivalent, and the I statement and its
converse are logically equivalent. Two statement s are logically equivalent when
they necessarily have the same truth value. Thus, converting an E and I
statement gives a new statement that always has the same truth value (and the
same meaning) as the given statement. For example, the following two examples
are valid (immediate inferences).
1) No plants are animals. So, no animals are plants.
2) Some plants are trees. So , some trees are plants..
you can construct Venn diagram to confirm this result.
But conversion is not valid in general with regard to A and O propositions. The
diagram for the A statement is clearly not identical to the diagram for its
converse, and the diagram for the O statement is not identical to the diagram of
its converse. Also, these pairs of diagrams are not the exact opposite of each
other, as in the case with contradictory statements. This means that an A
statement and its converse are logically unrelated as to truth value. In other
words, obverting an A or O statements gives a new statement whose truth value
is logically undetermined in relation to the given statement and the argument
will be invalid. The converse of an A or O statement does have a truth value. of
course, logic alone cannot tell us what it is I addition conversion for A or O
statements resulted in the fallacy of illicit conversion:
The following examples are invalid and commit fallacy of illicit conversion.
1) All husbands are married men. So all married men are husbands.
2) Some wife are not black women. So some black women are not wife.
B) Obversion
The concept of obverse requires a bit of explanation, and two steps are required:
(a) changing its quality is form affirmative to negative or vice versa (with out
changing its quantity), and (2) replacing the predicate term with its term
complement. The first step consists of changing" No s are P to "all S are P" and
vice versa, and changing "some S are P" to" some S are not P" and vice versa.
The second step requires understanding the concept of class complement. The
complement of a class is the group consisting of every thing out side the class.
For example, the complement of the class of dogs is the group that includes every
thing that is not a dog (cats, trees, fish, and soon). The Term complement is the
word or phrase that denotes the class complement. For the term consisting of a
single word,
The term complement is usually formed by simply attaching the prefix " non" to
the term. Thus, the complement for the term " dog" is " non-dog," the
complement for the term " book" is "non-book," and so on.
The relation ship between term and its complement can be illustrated by a Venn
diagram. For example, if a single circle is allowed to represent the class of does,
then everything out side the circle represent the class of non-doges:
non-dogs Dogs
Now if we are given the statement "All Zebras are mammals," then the obverse
using the two steps is
a) No Zebras are mammals.
b) No Zebras are non-mammals.
Thus, the converse of the above example is "No zebras are non-mammals."
To see how the four Categorical propositions relate to their obverse, compare the
following Venn diagrams:
Given Statement for m Obverse
A: all A are B A B No A are B non A B
E: No A are B A B All A are non B A B

I: Some A are B A B Some A are not non B A B
O: Some A are not B A B Some A are not non B A B
While drawing obverse diagram, keep in mind that "non-B" designates the area
out side the circle. Thus, each obverse is explained as follows:
"Non A are non-B" asserts that the area where A overlap non-B is empty.
It is represented by shading the empty area.
"All A are non-B" asserts that non members of A are outside non-B or no
members of A are inside B. The area where A overlap
B is empty.
"Some A are not non-B" means that at least one member of A is not outside B.
In other wards, at least one member of A is
inside B and "x" is place in the area where the two
overlap.
"Some A are non-B" means at least one member of A is outside B.
In the above pairs of diagrams, we see that the diagram for each given statement
form is identical to the diagram for its obverse. this means each of the four types
of Categorical propositions is logically equivalent to (and has the same meaning
as ) its obverse. Thus, if we obvert and A statement that happens to be true, the
resulting statement will be true; if we obvert an E statement that happens to the
false,, the resulting statements will be false, and so on.
As is the case with conversion, obversion can be used to supply the link between
the premise and the conclusion of immediate inferences. The following argument
forms are valid:
All A are B. Therefore, no A are non-B

No A are B. Therefore, all A are non-B
Some A are B. Therefore, some A are not non-B
Some A are not B Therefore, some A are non-B
If the premise of each premise is true, the conclusion will necessarily be true.
Activity 5.3.2.
Find the obverse of the converse "No sharks are fresh water fish."
C) Contraposition
It requires two steps: (1) interchanging its subject and predicate terms and (2)
replacing the subject and predicate terms with their term complements.
For example, if we are given statement " All cats are mammals." the resulting
statement is " All non-mammal are not cats." This new statement is called the
contra positive of the given statement. To see how all four types of Categorical
propositions relate to their contra positive, compare the following sets of
diagrams:
Given Statement form Contra positive
A: all A are B A B All non B are non A A B

E: No A are B A B No non-B are non A A B
I: Some A are B B Some non B are non-A A B
O: Some A are not B A B Some non-B are not non-A A B
The diagrams for the contra positives are interpreted as follows:

All non-B are non-A asserts that no members of non-B are outside non-A It
means no members non-B are inside A or all class
members that
are not in B are not in A
No non-B are non-A asserts that the area where non-B overlap non-A is
empty
Some non-B are non-A asserts that something exists in the area where non-B
overlap non-A.
Some non-B are not non-A asserts that at least one member of non-B is outside
non-A. This
means at least one member of non-B is inside
A.
The diagrams for A and O statements reveals that they are identical to the
diagrams of their contra positive. As with conversion and obversion, contra
position may provide the link between the premise and the conclusion of an
argument. The following arguments are valid:
A: All citizens are residents. C R
There fore , all non -residents are non citizens. C R
O: Some plants are not-trees. P T
There fore, some non-trees are not non-plants. P T
On the other hand, the diagrams of the E and I statements are neither identical to
nor the exact opposite of the diagrams of their contra positive. This mean that
contraposition an E and I statements gives a new statement whose truth value is
logically undetermined in relation it the given statement. Hence, the contra
position of an E and O statements resulted in the fallacy of illicit contra position
and the argument is in valid.
Example:
No soldiers are saints There, no non saints are non Soldiers.
S S S S
Some plants are weeds. Therefore, some non-weeds are non-plants
P W P W
As we see from the diagrams, both arguments are invalid and commit the fallacy
of illicit contraposition.
The Traditional Square of Opposition
In the first section of this chapter we have seen that modern square depends on
the Boolean interpretation of Categorical propositions. However, the traditional
square depends on the Aristotelian interpretation of Categorical propositions.
Their difference is this: the Boolean interpretation is neutral about where
universal (A and E) proposition make claims about actually existing things,
where as the Aristotelian interpretation assumes that the subject terms of these
propositional denote things that actually exist. Because of this existential
assumption, the traditional square contains more relations than Modern Square.
There is the traditional square:

A Contrary E
T T Contradictories
F F
I Subcontrary O
Fig. The square of opposition
First the contradictory relation here is the same as that found in the modern
square. Accordingly, the corresponding A and O statements are contradictories,
that is, if one is true the other must be false; if one is false the other must be true.
The same relation holds between the E and I propositions.
Second, according to Aristotelians, corresponding A and E statements are

contraries. Two statements are contraries if they can not both be ( at least one
must be false). If an A proposition is given true, the corresponding E proposition
is false and if E proposition is given true, the corresponding E proposition if
false. But if A proposition given false, the corresponding E proposition could be
either true of false. In this case, the E proposition has undermined truth value
similarly, if an E propositions is given false, the corresponding A proposition has
logically undermined truth value.
Third, according to Aristotelians, corresponding I and O statements are

contraries. Two statements are sub contraries if they can not both be false but
they can both be false. (At least one must be true) thus, if a certain I proposition
is given false, the corresponding O proposition will be true and if an O
proposition is given false, the corresponding I proposition will be true. But if
either an I or an O proposition is given true, the corresponding proposition could
either be true or false without violating the " at least one is true" rule. Thus, in
this case the corresponding proposition would have logically undermined truth
value.
Lastly, the sub alternation is represented by two arrows: a downward arrow

marked with the letter "T" (true), and an upward arrow marked with an "F"
(false). These arrows can be thought of as pipelines through which truth values
"flow" . The downward arrow "transmits" only truth, and the upward arrows
only falsity. Thus, if an A proposition is given as true, the corresponding I
proposition is true also, and if I proposition is given false, the corresponding A
proposition is false. But if an A proposition is given as false, this truth value can
not transmitted down ward , so the corresponding I proposition will have
logically undermined truth value. Conversely, if an I proposition is given as true,

A proposition will have undermined truth value. Analogous reasoning prevails
for the sub alternation relations between the E and O proposition.
Used together, the four categories propos ions have the possibilities to determine
the truth values of corresponding propositions. The first rule of thumb that we
should keep in mind when using the esquire to compute more than one truth
value is always to use contradiction first. For example, assume that we are given
"all trees are plants" is true. (trees exist). By the contradictory relation, "Some
trees are not plants" is false. Finally, either by contrary or sub alternation relation,
"Some trees are plants" is true. On the other hand, if we assume "All trees are
plants" is false, then "some trees are not plants" is true by contradictory relation.
But the truth values of both E and I propositions are undetermined.
Traditional Square of opposition can also be used to test immediate inferences

for validity to gather with Venn diagram.
Here are some examples:

(1) All Americans are consumer. Therefore, it if false that some Americans are
consumers.
To evaluate this argument assume the premise as true. Since the premise which
is an A proposition is true, the corresponding O proposition (conclusion) is false
by contradiction. Hence, the argument is valid.
2) It is false that no voters are residents.

Therefore, some voters are residents.
Here the premise and conclusion are linked by sub alternation. Accordingly if
the premise is false, the conclusion has logically undetermined truth value, and
so the argument is invalid.
3) It is false that some Greeks are non-Europeans

Therefore, it is false that some Greeks are Europeans.
The link between the premise and conclusion is by sub contrary. Accordingly if
the premise is false, the conclusion must be true, an hence the argument is
invalid.
Activity 5.3.3
The square of opposition can be interpreted din two ways: Aristotelian and
Boolean standpoints. Which one do you think is more plausible? Why?
Lesson 5.5. Translating Ordinary Language statements Into

Categorical Form
Objectives
Up on the completion of this part, you will be able to:

 Explain the various methods of interpreting ordinary language
statements so as to prevent misunderstanding and confusion.
 Apply operations and inferences pertinent to standard form of
categorical propositions in ordinary language statements.
 Show the clear and unambiguous meaning of ordinary language
statements.
So far we have been discussing stamens that are already in standard form. But
many statements in ordinary written and oral expression are not in standard
form, and many of these can be translated into standard term. Two benefits are
secured by such translation. The first is that the operations and inferences
pertinent to standard form of categorical propositions (contrary, sub contrary,

etc) become applicable to these statements. The second is that such statements,
once translated are completely clear and unambiguous as to their meaning.
Many statements in ordinary language are susceptible to multiple
interpretations, and each interpretation represents one possible mode of
translation. The effort to translate such statement discloses the various
interpretations and thus helps to prevent misunderstanding and confusion.
Activity 5.4.1
Translate the statement "Only mammals are human beings" in to standard form.
Translating statements into categorical form is like any other king of translation
in that no set of specific rules can be given that will cover every possible form of
phraseology; yet one general rule always applies: understand the meaning of the
given statement, and then express it in a new statement that has a quantifier,
subject term, copula, and predicate term. Some of the forms of phraseology that
are typically encountered are as follows:
1) Terms without Nouns
The term of categorical proposition must include a noun or pronoun that denotes
a class. But sometimes an adjective appears without a noun or pronoun, in which
case the term is incompletely expressed. In such a case, a noun or pronoun must
be added.
Examples:
Some flowers are green Some flowers are green plants
All tigers are carnivorous All tigers are carnivorous animals.
2) Nonstandard Verbs
At the beginning of this unit, we have adapted that the only copulas that are
allowed in standard form categorical propositions are "are" and "are not".
Statements in ordinary usage often incorporate other forms of the verb "to be".
Such statements may be translated as the following example illustrate.
Some persons who go to college will become educate.

Some persons who go to college are persons will become educate.
Some dogs would rather bark than bite.

Some dogs are animals that would rather bark than bite.
In other statements no form of the verb "to be" occurs at all. These may be
translated as the following examples indicate:
Some birds fly to south during the winter.

Some birds are animals that fly to south during the winter.
All fishes swim

All fishes are swimmers. or All fishes are animals that swim.
3. Singular Propositions
A singular proposition is a proposition that makes an asserting about a specific

person, place, thing or time. Singular propositions are typically translate in to
universal by means of a parameter. A parameter is a phrase that, when
introduced into a statement, affects the form but not the meaning. Seem
parameters that may be used to translate singular propositions are:
Person identical to
Place identical to
Things identical to
Cases identical to
Time identical to
For example, the statement "Socrates is mortal" may be translated as "All persons
identical to Socrates are persons who are mortal." Because only one person is
identical to Socrates, namely Socrates himself, the term "person identical to
Socrates" denotes the class that has Socrates as its only member. In other words it
simply denotes Socrates. Not that the parameter "persons identical to" is not the
same as "persons similar to" or "persons like." There may be many persons like
Socrates, but there is only one person identical to him. The same goes for the
other parameters involving the word "identical."
Here are some examples:
J.J. Thomoson discovered the electron All persons identical to J. J. Thomson are
persons who discovered the electron.
Dessie did not go home No persons identical to Dessie are

persons who went home
There is a radio in the back bedroom All places identical to back bedroom are
places where there is a radio.
or Some radios are things in the back
bedroom.
The moon is full tonight All things identical to the moon are
things that are full tonight. or All
times identical to tonight are times the
moon is full.
I like chocolate All persons identical to me are persons

who like chocolate.
or All things identical to chocolate are

things that I like.
Note that these parameters should not be use when the term in question already
has plural noun (or pronouns) that denote the intended call.
Lesson 5.6. Adverbs and Pronouns
When a statement contains a special adverbs such as "were", " Wherever",

"anywhere," or "no were" , or temporal adverbs such as "when", whenever",
"anytime", "always", or "never", it may be translated in terms of "Races" or
'times", respectively statements containing pronouns such as "who",
"whenever" , "anyone", and "what" , Whatever", or "anything" may be translated
in terms of "persons" or " thing" respectively.
Examples:
He always ears a suit to work All times he goes to work are times he
wear suit.
Alamz never speaks Awi in Ethiopia No times she lives in Ethiopia are times
she speak Awi.
Were there's smoke there's fire All places there is smoke are places
there is fire.
Whoever works hard will succeed All persons who work hard are
persons who will succeed
She does what she wants All things she wants to do are things she
does.
5. Unexpressed Quantifiers
Many statements in ordinary usage have quantifier that implied but not
expressed. In introducing the quantifiers one must be guide by the most probable
meaning of the statement.
Examples:
Monkeys are mammals. All monkeys are mammals
There are students in the class room. Some students are persons in the class
room
A dog is not a cat . No dogs are cats
A dog barked. Some dogs are animal that barked
Children live next door. Some children are persons who live next
door.
6. Non Standard Quantifiers
Sometimes the quantity of a statement is indicated by a word or words other

than the three quantifiers that are allowed. Furthermore, statements having the
form "All S are not P" are not in standard categorical form. Depending on the
meaning, statements having this form must be rendered as either "No S are P" or
"some S are P".
Examples:
A few Norwegians are Muslims. Some Norwegians are Muslims.
Anyone who votes is a citizen. All voters are citizen.

Not every one who philosophize is a European. Some philosophers are not
European
No single man is a woman. No men are women.
All athletes can't be winners. Some athletes are not winners.
All goats are not sheep. No goats are sheep.
Few football players won the world cup Some foot ball players are
persons who won the
world finials and some football
players are persons who
won the world world cup
finals.
Notice that statements beginning with "few" (and some statements) beginning
with "a few") cannot be translated as single CPs. They must be translated as a
compound arrangement of an I proposition and an O proposition. Statements
beginning with "almost all" and "not quite all" must be handled in the same way.
When these statements occur in arguments, the arguments must be treated in the
same way as those containing exceptive propositions, which will be discussed
shortly.
7. Conditional Statements
When the antecedent and consequent of a conditional statement talk about the
same thing, the statement can usually be translated into categorical form. The
Boolean interpretation of Categorical propositions provides the key: such
statements are always rendered as universal.
Examples:
If anything is a cat, hen it is a mammal. All cats are mammals.
If somebody is a liar, then he is not honest. All liars are honest persons.
If Los Angles is in California, then Los Angles is a large city.
All California cites identical to Los Angles are big cites
In addition, when the word "if" occurs in the middle of a conditional statement,
the statement must be restructured so that it occurs at the beginning. For
example, "An animal is a fish if it has gills" means "If an animal has gills, and
then it is fish". This is then translate," All animals having gills are fish."
More over, if both antecedent and consequent of a conditional statement are

negated, you may switch place to ignore the negatives. (Using rule of
trasnpostion) . For example, the statement "if something is not valuable, then it is
not scarce" is logically equivalent to "If something is scarce, then it is valuable"
This is then translated as "All scarce things are valuable things."
Example:
If a company is not well managed, then it is not a good investment.
is equivalent to
If a company is a good investment, then it is well managed
All companies that are good investments are well managed.
Furthermore, the word " "unless." which is familiar in conditional statements,

means "if not" for example, the statements "A car will not run unless there is a
gas in the tank" means " A car will not run if there is not gas in the tank," Which
means, " If there is not gas in the tank, then the car will not run." By
transposition, this means, "If a car runs, then there is gas in the tank," which is
translated as "all cars that run are cars with gas in the tank". Although "Unless"
sometimes has the stronger be depended on.
Here is additional Example:
Tomatoes are edible unless they are spoiled
means
Tomatoes are edible if they are not spoiled

which means
If tomatoes are unspoiled, then they are edible.
or
If tomatoes are inedible, then they are spoiled
translated as
All inedible tomatoes are spoiled tomatoes.
or
All unspoiled tomatoes are edible tomatoes.
8. Exclusive Propositions
It includes "only," "none but", "non except," and "no.... except." Efforts to
translate them in to categorical proposition frequently lead to confusion of the
subject term with the predicate term. Such confusion can be avoided if the
statement is phrased as a conditional statement first, then as a categorical
statement. For example the statement "only executives can use the silver
elevator" is equivalent to" I f a person can use the sliver elevator, he is an
executive". The correct categorical proposition is "All persons who can use the
silver elevator are executives". If the statement were translated "All executive are
persons who can use the silver elevator," it would clearly be wrong.
Here are more examples:
a) None but elected candidates can sit in the parliament.
means
I f a person can sit in the parliament, then he is elected candidate.
translated as
All persons who can sit in the parliament are elected candidates.
b) No one except confident persons are proud of their identity.
means
If a person is proud of his identity, then is a confident person
translated as
All person proud of their identity are confident person.
For a statement involving one of the above exclusive propositions to be a

genuinely exclusive proposition, the word that follows these propositions must
be a plural noun or pronoun. If the word that follows "only," "non but". or the
like designates an individual, the statement really asserts two things.
For example, the statement "only" margie painted a picture" assorts that margie
painted a picture and that no other person painted a picture. Thus, it would be
translated as two statements: "All persons identical to margie are persons who
painted a picture, and all persons who painted a picture are identical to margie"
When "only" and "one but" occurs in the middle of a statement, the statement
must first be restructured so that the term proceeded by "only" or "one but"
occurs first. Then the statement can be translated as those above for Example -the
statement "she invited only wealthy socialites" is equivalent to "only wealthy
socialites are inviting by her". This, intern, is equivalent to "If a person is invited
by her then he is a wealthy society" which is translate: "All persons invited by her
are wealthy socialites."
Note that many English statements containing "only" are ambiguous owing to
the fact that "only" can be interpreted as modifying alternate words in the
statement. Consider, for example, the statement He only jogs after sunset. Does
this mean "he is the only person who jogs after sunset" or "he jogs and does not
walk after sunset " or " The only time he jogs is after sunset"? If the statements
context does not provide an answer, the translator is free to pick any of these
senses for translation.
9. "The Only"
Statements beginning with the words " the only" are translated differently from
those beginning with " only" for example, the statement " The only cars that are
available are Chevrolets " means " If a car is available, then it is a Chevrolets. In
other words, " The only," When it occurs at the beginning of a statement, can
simply be replace with "all", and the order of the terms is not reversed in the
translation.
When " the only' occurs in the middle of a statement, the statement must be
restructured so that it occurs at the beginning. For example, "Romances are the
only books he sells" is equivalent to "The only books he sells are romances". This
is then translated as "All books that he sells are romances."
Other Examples:
The only animals that live in this canyon are lions.
All animals that live in this canyon are lions.
Philosophers are the only one who will become kings.

All persons who will become kings are philosophers.
Statements involving "the only" are similar to those involving "only" in this one
respect: When the statement is about an individual, two statements are needed to
translate it. For Example, "The only person who painted a picture is Margie"
means that Margie painted a picture and no other person painted a picture. The
statement is equivalent in meaning to "only Margie painted a picture." Thus it is
translated "All persons identical to Margie are persons who painted a picture
and, all persons who painted a picture are persons identical to Margie"
10. Exceptive Propositions
Propositions of the form "All except S are P" and " All but S are P" are exceptive
propositions. They must be translated not as single categorical propositions but
as pairs of conjoined categorical propositions. Statements that include the phrase
"None except" on the other hand, are exclusive ( not exceptive) propositions.
"Non except" is synonymous with "none but" Some examples of exceptive
propositions are:
All except students are invited. No students are invite persons, and all
non students are invited persons.
All but the rats left the sinking ship. No rats are animals that left the sinking
ship, and all non rats are animals
that left the sinking ship.
Because exceptive propositions can not be translated into single categorical

propositions, many of the single inferences and operations pertinent to
categorical proposition cannot be applied to then. Arguments that contains
exceptive oppositions are premises or conclusion can be evaluated only thorough
the application of extended techniques.
Self test Exercise

Part - I Use both traditional and Modern Square of oppositions and Venn
diagrams to determine whether the following arguments are
valid or invalid.
1. No mosquitoes are poisonous creatures.
Therefore, it is false that some mosquitoes are poisonous creatures.
2. Some Afars are not-Ethiopians.
Therefore, no Afars are Ethiopians.
3. All Ethiopians are Africans.

Therefore, Some Ethiopians are Africans.
4. It is false that some athletes are not women.
Therefore, it is false that no athletes are women.
5. No pet hamsters are animals that need much attention.
Therefore, all pet hamsters are animals that need little attention
Part -II Exercises 1 through 3 provide a statement, its truth value in

parentheses, and an operation to be performed on that statement. supply the
new statement and the truth value of the new statement. Exercise 4 though 6
provide a statement, its truth value in parentheses, and a new statement.
Determine how the new statement was derived from the given statement and
supply the truly value of the new statement. Take either Boolean or Aristotelian
stands point in working this exercise.
Here is an example.
Given statement Operation/ New statement Truth value
Relation
No A are non-B (True) Obverse All A are B True
1. All A are non-B(F) Conv. ----------------- ------------------
2. Some non-A are not B(T) Subcon. ------------------ ------------------
3. No A are B (T) Contrap. ------------------ ------------------
4. Some A are non-B(T) ---------------- Some non-B are A ------------------
5. No non-A are B (T) ---------------- Some non-A are not B -----------------
6. All A are non-B (F) ---------------- All non-B are A -----------------
Part -III Use all plausible operations and/or relations to translate the
following arguments in to standard form and then determine whether each is
valid or invalid. For those that are invalid, name the fallacy committed.
1. Some states having limited powers are not slave states.

Therefore, some free states are not states having unlimited power.
2. None of the people who gave blood are people who were tested, so
everybody who gave blood must have been untested.
3. It is false that no accurate predictions are useless pieces of information.
4. It is false that some people are entrepreneurs. So, some people are not
entrepreneurs.
5. Not everybody in uniform was allowed to play, so some people who
were not allowed to play must not have been people in uniform.
UNIT-6 CATEGORICAL SYLLOGISM
UNIT -6
CATEGORICAL SYLLOGISM
Lesson 6.1. Standard Form..........................................................................................148
Lesson 6.2 Venn Diagrams..........................................................................................150
6.3. Rules and Fallacies............................................................................................... 156
Lesson 6. 4. Ordinary Language Arguments...............................................................160
Lesson 6.5. Sorties.......................................................................................................163
References....................................................................................................................170
Introduction
Dear learners this unit has five parts. These are: Standard form, Venn diagrams,
Rules and Fallacies, Ordinary Arguments, Sorites-Soyllogistic rules, Testing
Validity.
The first part is concerned with the meaning and analysis of standard form of
categorical proposition. The second part exhibits how validity of a syllogism is
tested by Venn diagram. In additions, the third part precisely puts forward
certain rules that all valid syllogisms should fulfill. If also introduces the fallacies
committed if at least one of these rules is violated. On the other hand, the forth
part deals about how the validity of syllogisms which are not in standard form is
valuated. The last part tries to discuss rules and methods of evaluating
syllogisms having more than two premises.
Objectives
 Determine the validity and invalidity of deductive arguments
based on the mere inspection of the arrangement of their terms of
the syllogism by consulting the varies rule (Standards).
 Identify the various formal fallacies-violations of the rules of

syllogism and to guard against such fallacious reasoning's
Lesson 6.1. Standard Form
Objectives:
 Define syllogism and construct syllogism of your own.
 Identify standard form categorical syllogism from those that are not in
standard form.
 Explain the role and place of terms in as well as the arrangement of
both premises and conclusion of a syllogism.
What is a Syllogism?
A syllogism is a two-premises deductive argument. Provisionally we shall

defines a categorical syllogism as a syllogism consisting of there categorical
propositions ( two premises and one conclusion) and containing a total of three
different terms, each of which appears twice in distinct prepositions. Study the
following example:
1) All Somalias are Muslims
Some Ethiopians are not Muslims
Therefore, some Ethiopians are not Somalias.
Notice how each of the three terms "Somalias" " Muslims," an
"Ethiopians" occurs exact twice exactly two different propositions.
The terms of a syllogism are given names depending on their position in the
argument. The major term is the predicate term of the conclusion, and the minor
term is the subject term of the conclusion. The middle term is the term that
occurs in both of the premises but not at all in the conclusion. Thus, for the above
argument, the major terms "Somalians", the minor term is "Ethiopians" , and the
middle term is "Muslims".
Similarly, the premises of Categorical syllogism are given names. The major
premise, by definitions, is the one that contains the major term, and the minor
premise is the one that contains the minor term. Accordingly, the statements "All
somalians are Muslims" and "Some Ethiopians are not Muslims" are the major
and minor premises respectively. Moreover, a Categorical syllogism is said to be
in standard form when the following four conditions are met:
1. All three statements are standard form categorical propositions (A,
E, I or O)
2. The two occurrences of each term are identical.
3. Each term is used in the same sense throughout the argument
(having the same meaning)
4. The major premise is listed first, the minor premise second, and the
conclusion last.
Example (1) fulfilled all the above conditions, so it is in standard form but
consider the next example:
2) All people on the committee are local people
Some people on the committee are not students
Therefore, Some local people are not students.
Example (2) violate rules 1 and 4 for the conclusion is not standard form as well
as the order of the two premises is not proper. To put the syllogism into
standard form obvert the conclusion (to "some local people are not students")
and reverse the order of the premises.
Lesson 6.2 Venn Diagrams
Objectives
 Identify what separate area of the diagram represents.
 Techniques of diagramming syllogisms
 Explain how validity of a syllogism is tested using Venn diagram.
Now that we know how to diagram the four relevant types of categorical
proposition, we can use Venn diagrams to evaluate validity of categorical
syllogisms. Since there are three terms in very syllogism, we need three
overlapping circles for our diagram.
The circles should be drawn so that seven areas are clearly distinguishable with
the diagram. The second step is to label the circles, one for each term. Here to
ensure uniformity in our diagram, assign the lower left circle to the minor term,
the lower right circle to the major term, and the top circle to the middle term. The
diagram of Categorical syllogism , thus, has the following form:
M ( middle term)
S ( minor term) P ( major term)
The numerals (1 though 8 ) are not normally part of a Venn diagram, but they are
added here temporarily to enable us to refer to the separate areas of the diagram.
Notice that there are eight areas (counting the region outside the circles) . Each
area represents a possible relation ship we would be saying that at least one
thing belongs to all three of the sets or classes. If we shade an area , we would be
saying that no object belong to all three sets. If we place an "X" in area 8 , we
would be
Saying that at least one thing is not a member of any of the three classes in
question. If we shade in a areas 2 and 3, we would be saying that nothing that
belongs to the set denoted by the middle term also belongs to the set denoted by
the minor term , and soon.
To determine whether a syllogism is valid, we proceed as follows. First, we

diagram the premises. Second, we look to see whether our diagram of the
premises tells us that the conclusion is true. If the content of the conclusion is
contained, at lest implicitly, in the premises, the argument is valid; otherwise it is
invalid.
The use of Venn diagrams to evaluate syllogisms usually requires a little practice
before it can be done with facility. Perhaps the best way of presenting the
technique is through illustrative examples, but a few preliminary pointers are
needed:
1. Marks (Shading or placing an "X") are entered only for the premises.
No marks are made for the conclusion.
2. I f the argument contains one universal premise, this premise must be
entered first in the diagram. If there are two universal premises, either one
can be done first.
3. When entering the information contained in a premise, one should
concentrate on the circles corresponding to the two terms in the statement.
While the third circle can not ignore altogether, it should be given only
minimal attention.
4. When inspecting a completed diagram to see where it supports a

particular conclusion, one should remember that particular statements
assert two things.
5. When shading an area, one must be careful to shad all of the area in
question.
6. The area where an "X" goes is always initially divided in to parts.'
If one of these parts has already been shaded, the "X" goes in the
unshaped part Examples"
If one of the two parts is not shaded, then "X" goes on the line separating the two
parts. Examples:
Right
This means that "X" may be either (or both) of the two areas-but it is not
known which one.
7. An "X" should never be placed in such a way that it dangles outside of
the diagram and it should never be placed on the intersection of two lines.
wrong wrong
Let us now consider some examples:

1) No rocks are sentient things. Major term: rocks(R)

All animals are sentient things. Minor term: animals (A)
Therefore, no animals are rocks. Middle term: sentient things(S)
Let us diagram the first premise:
S
A R
In diagramming the first premise we focus on the two circles representing rocks
and sentient things. We now diagram the second premise to complete by
concentrating only to circles representing animals and sentient things.
S
A R
The conclusion states that are the area where animals and rocks overlaps is
empty. Inspection of the diagram reveals that this area is indeed shaded, so the
argument is valid.
To enter the particular premise we concentrate our attention on the M and P

circles. The premise tells us to place an "X" in the area where the M and P circles
overlap. Because art of this area is shaded, we place the "X" in the remaining
area.
M
S P
(2) Some P are M

All M are S
Some S are P
The conclusion states that there is an "X" in the area where the S and P circles
overlap. Inspection the diagram revels that there is indeed an "X" in this area, so
the argument is valid.
Activity 6.2.1.
Construct a valid syllogism having "tights", "mammals", and "animals" as major,
middle and minor terms respectively.
3) Some M are P
All S are M
Some S are P
M
S P
We diagram the universal statement first. To diagram the particular premise, we

see that "X" could go in either 1 or area 2 . The premise do not contain more
specific information than that .We indicate this by putting an "X" on the line
separating the two areas.
Now, for arguments to be valid, the premise must tell us that either area 3 or 1
contains an object. But our diagram for the second premise declares that are 3 is
empty. And our diagram for the first premise does not assume us that area 1
contains an object it may or it may not. The "X" straddles areas 1 and 2 , so the
premise do not definitely say that the "X" belongs in area "1" , nor do they say
that the "X" belongs in area 2. Hence, the argument is invalid.
4) Some P are not M

Some M are S
Some S are not P
M
S P
In this diagram no area have been shaded, so there are two possible areas for
each of the two "X" s. The "X" from the first premise goes on the line (arc of the S
circle ) separating areas 1 and 2, and the "X" from the second premise goes on the
line (arc of the P circle) separating areas a and b.
The conclusion states that there in an "X" in the S circle that is outside the P circle.
We have no certainty that the "X" from the first premise is inside the S circle, and
while the "X" from the second premise is inside the S circle, we have no certainty
that it is outside the P circle .Hence, the argument is invalid.
Note that when there is a doubt about where to put an "X" (when there are two
possible areas to put an "X") , here is the rule to follow: an "X" that can go in
either of two areas goes on the line separating the areas. In essence, an "X" on a
line indicates that the "X" belongs in one or the other of the two areas, may be
both, but we don't know which. When the time comes to see whether the
diagram yields the conclusion, we look to see whether there is an "X" entirely
within the appropriate area. An "X" partly within the appropriate area fails to
establish the conclusion, and such argument is invalid.
Lesson 6.3. Rules and Fallacies
Objectives
 Explain the rules of valid syllogisms with their justification
 Identify valid syllogism from the invalid one through the mere
inspection of the form of the argument.
 Identify the fallacy committed , if any, categorical syllogism
The diagram method of testing syllogisms for validity is intuitive, but there is a
faster method that makes use of there simple rules. These rules are based on two
ideas, the first of which has been mentioned already: affirmative and negative
categorical propositions. The other idea is that of distribution.
We can now state the rules of the syllogism. Syllogism is valid if and only if all of
these conditions are met:
Rule-1 A number of negative statements in the premises must be the same as

the number of negative statements in the conclusion.
Because the conclusion is one statement, this implies that no valid syllogism has
two negative, it commits the fallacy of exclusive premise.
In addition, this rule suggests that one negative statement is not allowed in
Categorical syllogism. A syllogism having exactly one negative statement is
invalid. Thus, if the premise alone is negative, it commits the fallacy of drawing
an affirmative conclusion form a negative premise; but if the only negative

statement is the conclusion, the fallacy committed will be drawing a negative
conclusion from affirmative premises. All of the following arguments are invalid
and fallacies.
1) No birds are mammals
Some carts are not birds
Some cats are not mammals.
2) Some democrats are not Americans.
All democrats are persons that advocate popular sovereignty.
Some Americans are persons that advocate popular sovereignty.
3) All triangles are there-angled polygons.
All three-angled polygons are three-sided polygons.
Some three-sided polygons are not triangles.
The logic behind this rule is as follows. If "S" , "P", and "M" designate the minor
major and middle terms respectively, an affirmative conclusion always state
that the S classes is contained either wholly or partially in the P class. The only
way that such a conclusion can follow is when both premises are affirmative, But
if, for example, the S class is contained either wholly or partially in the M class,
and the M class is separate either wholly or partially from the P class, such a
conclusion will never follow. Thus, the affirmative conclusion can not be burden
from negative premises.
Conversely, a negative conclusion asserts that the S class is separate either

wholly or partly from the P class. But if both premises are affirmative, they assert
class inclusion rather than separation. Thus, a negative conclusion cannot be
drawn from affirmative premises.
Rule-2 The middle term must be distributed at least once.

In the previous unit we have seen that the subject term is distributed in an A
proposition, both terms in E-proposition, neither terms in I proposition, and the
predicate term in O proposition. Having this in mind, if the middle term of a
syllogism is not distributed in either of the premises, the argument is in valid
and commits the fallacy of undistributed middle.
Here is an Example:
All birds are animals.
All ostriches are animals
All ostriches are birds.
In this example the middle term is "animals" in both premises "animals" occurs as
the predicate term of A proposition and there fore it is undistributed. Thus, this
syllogism contains the fallacy undistributed middle and is invalid.
The logic behind this rule may be explained by recounting how the middle term
accomplishes its intended purpose, which is to provide a common ground
between the subjects and predicate terms of the conclusion. Let un designate the
minor, major, and middle terms by letters "S" "P" and "M", respectively, and let
us suppose that M is distribute in the major premise. Then, when the M class is
related either in whole or in part to S, S and P necessarily become related.
Analogous reasoning prevails if we suppose that M is distributed in the major
premise. Then, when the M class related either in whole or in part to S, Sand P
necessarily become related. Analogous reasoning prevails if we suppose that M
is distributed in the minor premise. But if M is undistributed in both premises, S
and P may be related to different parts of the M class, in which case there is no
common ground for relating S and P.
Rule -3 any term that is distributed in the conclusion of the syllogism must be
distributed in its premises.
In applying this rule, note that if no terms are distributed in the conclusion, this
rule cannot be violated. If the term distributed in the conclusion (either major, or
minor, or both) is also distributed in the premise, then the rule is not violated
.But if the term distributed in the conclusion is not distributed in the premise, the
rule is violated and the syllogism is invalid. In other words, if the predicate term
of the conclusion is distributed but not in the major premise, the result is the
fallacy of illicit major; and if the subject term of the conclusion is distributed but
not in the minor premise, the result is the fallacy of illicit minor.
Here are examples:

(1) Some christens are Catholics
No Muslims are Catholics illicit major
Some Muslims are not christens.
(2) No mercantilists are large landowners

All mercantilist are creditors. illicit minor
No creditors are large landowners.
To see the logic behind this rule let us once again designate the minor, major, and
middle terms by letters "S", "P" and "M," respectively, and let us suppose that a
certain syllogism commits the fallacy of illicit major. The conclusion of syllogism
then makes an assertion about every member of the p class, but the major
premise makes an assertion about some members of the P class. Because the
minor premise, by itself, say nothing at all about the P class, the conclusion
clearly contains information not contained in the premises, and the syllogism is
therefore invalid. Analogously, reasoning applies to the fallacy of illicit minor.
As a result of the interaction of these three rules, it turns out that no valid
syllogism can have two particular premises. This result is convenient to keep in
mind, because it allows us to indemnify as invalid any standard form syllogism
in which both premises start with "some".
Note that, from Boolean standpoints when both premises of a syllogism are
universal statements and the conclusion is a particular statement, diagramming
the premises cannot possibly yield a diagram of the conclusion (because
universal statements produce only shading, and particular statements require an
X to be read form the diagram), thus such a syllogism is in valid.
Finally, the above discussion has shown that if a syllogism breaks any of the
above rules, then it cannot be valid. Thus, each of the rules is a necessary
condition for validity.
Activity 6.3.1
Construct your own syllogism which is valid form Aristotelian standpoint but
invalid form Boolean standpoint.
Lesson 6. 4. Ordinary Language Arguments
Objectives
 Translate ordinary language argument using techniques developed
in the previous unit, in to standard form argument.
 Test the validity of the translated arguments.
Many arguments that are not standard form categorical syllogisms as written can
be translated into standard form syllogism. Such translation often utilized
techniques developed in the last lesson of unit-4. The goal , of course, is to
produced and argument consisting of three standard-form categorical
propositions that contain a total of three different terms, each of which occurs
twice in distinct propositions. Once translated, the argument can be tested by

means of a Venn diagram rule of syllogisms.
Since the task of translating arguments into standard form syllogisms involves
not only conversing the component statements in to standard form but adjusting
these statements one the another so that their terms occur in matched pairs, a
certain amount of proactive may be required before it can be done with facility.
In reducing the terms to three matched pairs it is often helpful to identify some
factor through the strategic use of parameters. For example, if all three
statements are about people, the term "people" or "people identical to" might be
used; or if they are about times or places, the term "time" or "times identical to"
or the term "places" or "places identical to" might be used.
Here is an example:
Whenever people put off marriage until they are older, the divorce
rate decrease. Today, people are putting of marriage until they are
older. Therefore, the divorce rate is decreasing today.
The temporal adverbs "whenever" and "today" suggest that "times" should be
used as the common factor. Following this suggestion, we have:
All times people put off marriage until they are older are times the
divorce rate decreases. All present times are times people put off
marriage until they are older. Therefore, all present times are times
the divorce rate decreases.
This is a standard form categorical syllogism. Notice that each of the three terms
is matched with an exact duplicate in a different propositions.
To obtain such a match up, it is sometimes necessary to alter the meaning of the
original statement just slightly. Now if we adopt the convention
M= times people put off marriage until they are older
D= times the divorce rate decreases
P= present times.
The syllogism may be symbolized as follows:
All M are D
All P are M
All P are D
This is a valid syllogism. Here is another example:

McDonnel Douglas must be a manufacturer because it hires riveters, and
any one who hires riveters is a manufacturer.
For this argument the parameter “companies” suggest itself:
All companies identical to McDonnell Douglas are manufactures, because
all companies identical to McDonnell Douglas are companies that hire
riveters, and all companies that hire riveters are manufactures.
The first statement, of course, is the conclusion. When the syllogism is written in
standard form, it has, the same form with the previous syllogisms and is valid.
Another example:
If a piece of evidence is trustworthy, then it should be admissible in court.
Polygraph tests are not trustworthy. Therefore, they should not be
admissible in court.
To translate this argument it is not necessary to use a single common factor:
All trustworthy pieces of evidence (T) are pieces of evidence that should
be admissible in court (A). No polygraph tests (P) are trustworthy pieces
of evidence. Therefore, no polygraph tests are pieces of evidence that
should be admissible in court.
It may be symbolized as follows.

All T are A
All P are T
All P are A
The syllogism commits the fallacy of illicit major and is therefore invalid.
Activity 6.4.1
Supply the unstated premise, translate all the statements in to standard form and evaluate
the validity of the syllogism.
“Poultry business is not profitable in this country, because there are inadequate health
services.”
Note that in ordinary spoken or written English there are arguments missing
either a premise or a conclusion, but can be expressible as a categorical syllogism.
In such occasions reader or listener is required to supply a missing statement and
then to translate the syllogism in to standard form so as to evaluate its validity.
Here is an example:
Venus completes its orbit in less time than the earth, because Venus is
closer to the sun.
Missing Premise: Any planet closer to the sun completes its orbit in less time
than the earth.
Translating this argument into categorical form, we have

All planets closer to the sun are planets that complete their orbit in less
time than the earth
All planets identical to Venus are planets closer to the sun.
All planets identical to Venus are planets that complete their orbit in less
time than the earth.
Thus, the syllogism is valid (and sound)
Lesson 6.5. Sorties
Objectives
 Describe standard form sorties and procedures of evaluating
sorties.
 Discuss how to introduce intermediate conclusion of chains of

arguments (syllogism)
 Identify and prove valid sorites.
Sorties is derived form the Greek Word Soros, meaning, “ heap”. It is a chain of
categorical syllogisms in which the intermediate conclusion have been left out. In
other words, it is a chain of arguments in which the final conclusion is inferred
form three or more premises. Here is an example:
All A are B.
All B are C.
All C are D.
Therefore, all A are D.
The first two premises validly imply the intermediate conclusion “All A are C”.
If this intermediate conclusion is then treated as a premise and put together with
the third premise, the final conclusion follows validly. The sorites is thus
composed of two valid categorical syllogisms and is therefore valid. The rule in
evaluating a sorites is based on the idea that the chain only as strong as its
weakest link. If any of the component syllogisms in a sorites is invalid, the entire
sorites is invalid.
A sorites is in standard form when each of the component propositions is in

standard form, when each term occurs twice, when the predicate of the
conclusion is in the first premise, and when each successive premise has a term
in common with the preceding one. The sorites presented above, for example is
in standard form.
The procedures to be followed in evaluating a sorites is:

1. Put the sorites into standard form
2. Introduce the intermediate conclusion, and

3. Test each component syllogism for validity.
If each component of syllogism is valid, the sorites is valid. But, if, at any
designated step in the procedure, no conclusion is validly drawn as, for example,
if the first two premises are negative or contain undistributed middle terms, then
the sorites is invalid. In addition, sometimes the operations of conversion,
obversion, and contraposition must be used to reduce then number of terms in a
sorites.
Examples
1. No brittle things are ductile things ………………………………. No B are D
All superconductors are ceramics ………………………………… All S are C
All things that can be pulled into wires are ductile things………. All P are D
All ceramics are brittle things ……………………………………….. All C are B
No Superconductors are things that can be pulled into wires. No S are P
To put the sorites in to standard form, the premises must be arranged as:
All P are D
No B are D
All C are B
All S are C
No S are P
Then, introduce the intermediate premises, and use Venn diagrams to check the
validity of each intermediate conclusion.
All P are D No B are P No C are P
No B are D
All C are B
All S are C
No S are P
D B C
B P C P S P
The first intermediate conclusion “ No B are P,” is drawn from the first two
premises. The second, “No C are P,” is drawn from the first intermediate
conclusion and third premise. And the third, which is identical to the last
conclusion, is drawn from the second intermediate conclusion and the fourth
premise. Since all conclusions are drawn validly (see the diagram), the sorites is
valid.
2. All C are non D
All A are B
Some C are not B
Some D are not A
First translate the first premise in to standard form using obversion and then
arrange the premises in standard form sorites. The obverse of “ All C are non D”
is “No C are D”. It becomes
All A are B
Some C are not B
No C are D
Some D are not A
Here since there are two negative premises in the sorites, it is invalid.
Self-Test Exercise
Part -I : Use the diagram method to determine which of the following
syllogisms are valid and which are invalid.
1. All sound arguments are valid arguments.

Some valid arguments are not interesting arguments .
Some sound arguments are not interesting arguments.
2. All citizens are residents. So, since all voters are citizens, all voter must be
residents.
3. No AIDS victims are persons who pose and immediate threat to the lives
of others.
Some kindergarten children are AIDS victims.
Some kindergarten children are not persons who pose an immediate
threat to the lives of others.
4. Some dinosaurs are carnivores.
Some carnivores are meat eaters.
Some dinosaurs are meat eaters.
5. All kangaroos are marsupials
All marsupials are mammals.
All marsupials are mammals.
Part-II Use: The rules of syllogisms to determine where whether the following
syllogisms are valid or invalid. For those that are invalid, name the fallacy
fallacies committed.
1. All A are B
All A are C
Therefore , all C are B
2. Some A are not B
Some B are c.
Therefore, some C are not A
3. Some cases of affirmative action are not measures justified by fast
discrimination.
No cases of affirmative action are illegal practices.
Some illegal practices are not measures justified by past discrimination.
4. All members of the class are registered students.

Some registered students are not people taking logic.
Some members of the class are not people taking logic.
5. All inside traders are persons subject to prosecution.
Some executives with privileged information are not persons subject to
prosecution.
Some executive with privilege information are inside traders.
Part -III Put the following arguments in standard form (you may use the
obversion, conversion, or contraposition or other operations to
accomplish this); then determine whether the arguments are valid or in
valid.
1. No argument with false premises is sound, but some of then are valid. So
some unsound arguments must be valid
2. Only people who hold stock in the company may vote , so Mr, Thomas
must not hold any stock in the company, because I know he was not
allowed to vote.
3. Every animal is sentient. And each sentient thing is a right-holder.
Hence, if any thing is an animal, then it is a right holder.
4. Not every act is free, since every cat foreknown by God is no free and
some acts are fore known by God.
5. Some college students purchase their term papers.
Any cheat is expelled from college.
No one will achieve his career goals who is expelled.
No one who purchases term papers is other that a cheat.
Some college students will not achieve their career goals.
References
Copi, Irving M. and Carl, Cohen. I1991) Introduction to Logic. New York:
Macmillan Publishing Company.
Copi, Irving M. (1986) Informal Logic, New York: Macmillan Publishing
Company.
________________________________ (2004) Introduction to Logic 11th ed. New
Delhi: Prentice Hall of India Prv. Ltd.
Damer, T.Edward (1995) Attacking faulty reasoning: a practical guide to fallacy-
free arguments. 3rd ed. Bermont: Wassworth publishing company.
Hurly, Patrick J. (1994). A Concise Introduction to Logic. 5th ed.
Balamarnt : Wadsworth Publishing Company.
Moore, Broke N. and Parker, Richard. (2001) Critical Thinking 6th Ed. London
and Toronto: Mayfield Publishing Company.
Miller, Ed.L. (1984) Questions that Matter: An Initiation to Philosophy. New
York : Mc Grew -Hill
Moore, Brooke N. and Parker, Richard. (1998) Critical Thinking. 5th ed. London
and Toronto : Mayfield Publishing company.
Stephen, C (2000) The Power of Logic. London and Toronto: Mayfield
Publishing Company.
Walelign Emiru. (2005) Freshman Logic. Addis Ababa: Commercial Printing
Enterprise.

Body of Logic Module

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Body of Logic Module

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

Body of Logic Module

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

TABLE OF CONTENTS

BDU-DEPARTMENT OF CIVICS AND ETHICAL EDUCATION i

BDU-DEPARTMENT OF CIVICS AND ETHICAL EDUCATION ii

Lesson 1.1. What is Logic?.............................................................................................2

BDU-DEPARTMENT OF CIVICS AND ETHICAL EDUCATION 1

 discuss the significance of logic in day-to-day social life.

Lesson 1.1. What is Logic?

Objectives: After reading this lesson, you will be able to:

Dear Learners -Etymological definition is a definition that provides a meaning to

BDU-DEPARTMENT OF CIVICS AND ETHICAL EDUCATION 2

B. Logic as Branch of Philosophy

What, then, is philosophy? It is difficult to define philosophy. One thing that

BDU-DEPARTMENT OF CIVICS AND ETHICAL EDUCATION 3

Working definition: Philosophy is the attempt to think relationally and critically

BDU-DEPARTMENT OF CIVICS AND ETHICAL EDUCATION 4

 Logic is both a science and an art. As a science logic investigates,

BDU-DEPARTMENT OF CIVICS AND ETHICAL EDUCATION 5

1.1.1 The subject Matter of Logic

What is the subject Matter of Logic?

BDU-DEPARTMENT OF CIVICS AND ETHICAL EDUCATION 6

The subject matter of logic is reasoning. Its concern is to distinguish good

BDU-DEPARTMENT OF CIVICS AND ETHICAL EDUCATION 7

(d) The method of argument is a nonviolent way to resolve personal disputes or

BDU-DEPARTMENT OF CIVICS AND ETHICAL EDUCATION 8

Activity 1.1.1. Explain the benefits of good arguments?

1.1.2. The purposes of Logic

What is the Purpose of Logic?

BDU-DEPARTMENT OF CIVICS AND ETHICAL EDUCATION 9

BDU-DEPARTMENT OF CIVICS AND ETHICAL EDUCATION 10

Lesson 1.2. A Brief History of the Development of Logic

BDU-DEPARTMENT OF CIVICS AND ETHICAL EDUCATION 11

When did the science of logic begin?

Until middle Ages philosophers confined themselves to writing commentaries on

BDU-DEPARTMENT OF CIVICS AND ETHICAL EDUCATION 12

Lesson 1.3. The Laws of Thought

What are the Fundamental Laws of Thought?

BDU-DEPARTMENT OF CIVICS AND ETHICAL EDUCATION 13

1. The Law of Non-Contradiction

BDU-DEPARTMENT OF CIVICS AND ETHICAL EDUCATION 14

There is an objection raised against the law of noncontradiction but it involves

What we have to note here is also the difference between contradictory

BDU-DEPARTMENT OF CIVICS AND ETHICAL EDUCATION 15

2. The Law of the Excluded Middle

3. The Law of Identity

BDU-DEPARTMENT OF CIVICS AND ETHICAL EDUCATION 16

Summing up, though contemporary logicians sometimes question the exalted

Lesson 2.1. Argument, Premise and Conclusion...........................................................18

BDU-DEPARTMENT OF CIVICS AND ETHICAL EDUCATION 17

At the end of this unit, the learners able to:-

Lesson 2.1. Argument, Premise and Conclusion

Objective of the lesson

Introduction - Dear learners in this lesson we are going to define what an

As it is indicated in the unit one, the basic objective of logic is evaluating

BDU-DEPARTMENT OF CIVICS AND ETHICAL EDUCATION 18

- A group or collection of statements, in which one or more of that claim to

Hence, one can also understand an argument, in logic, as arriving at a certain

A statement is a sentence used to assert or deny something and evaluated as true

Example:- -Enjoy the Ethiopian millennium!

BDU-DEPARTMENT OF CIVICS AND ETHICAL EDUCATION 19

Premises and Conclusion