1

Course Code: PHL 102

Course Title: Arguments and Critical Thinking
Credit Unit: 2
Course Status: Compulsory
Semester: Rain
Required Study Hours: 2 hours per week
Year of Course: 2023/2024

1
 2

Introduction
Welcome to PHL 102: The course is a two -credit unit course that has minimum duration of one
semester. It is a required course for undergraduate students in Philosophy and Law Programmes
in the University.
Course Objectives
By the end of the course, you will be able to:
1. Improve the quality of critical thinking
2. Initiate the preparedness of Legal mindsets on the courtroom trial and advocacy
Working through this Course
This course is specially designed to cater for the needs of Philosophy and law students, though it
is open to all first year toward improving their art of critical thinking method. It treats topics such
as sophistical refutations and defenses, analogy, presentations, analysis and creation of genuine
philosophical argumentation; testimony, statistics and probability, evidence and proof, legal
arguments, etc.

Each study has introduction, the main content and practice questions. The introduction will
enlighten you on what to expect in the study. The main content provokes thoughts in relation to
the subject discuss with a view to bringing home the point relevant to the study. Finally, you are
expected to assess your level of understanding with the questions at the end of study.

Recommended texts

Achilike, Jossy. Ed. 1999. Fundamentals of Logic. Ibadan: Ben-El books.

Ali, Samuel, A. 2003. Logic Made Easy (Questions and Answers). Ijebu-Ode: Vicoo Inter. Press.

Evans, C. (2010) Criminal Justice: Evidence. New York: Chelsea House

Head, M and Mann, Scott (2005) Law in Perspective: Ethics, Society and Critical Thinking.
Sydney: University of South Wales Press

Irving, Copi, M and Cohen, Carl.2000. Introduction to Logic.9th ed. New Delhi: Prentice-Hall.

Juthe, A (2005) ‘Argument by Analogy’ in Argumentation, 19, Spring: 1-27

2
 3

Kemmerling, Garth (2002) ‘Analogy’ in Britannica: Internet Guide Selection, retrieved 26th
August, 2008.

Study units

There are 21 units with practice questions for self-assessment in the course

3
 4

Module 1: What is Argument? Types of Argument: Deductive and Inductive

Unit 1 Argument
Unit 2 Identification of Argument
Unit 3 Types of Argument
3.2 Inductive Argument
3.2.1 Types of Inductive Argument
3.3 Deductive Argument
3.3.1 General to Particular
3.3.2 General to General
3.3.3 Rules of inference
Unit 4. Evaluation of Arguments [Validity, Invalidity, Sound and Unsound]
4.1.1 Validity
4.1.2 Invalidity
4.2 Relationship between Sound and Unsound Arguments
Unit 5 Practice Exercises
Module 2: Disagreement, Types of Disagreement: Factual, Verbal, Evaluative and
Interpretative

Unit 1 Disagreement
Unit 2 Types of Disagreement
Unit 3 Practice Exercises
Module 3: Argument by Analogy: Meaning, Evaluation and Relevance

Unit 1 Meaning and Nature of Argument by Analogy

Unit 2 Evaluation of Analogical Arguments
Unit 3 The relevance of Analogical Argument
Unit 4 Practice Exercises

4
 5

Modules 4: Syllogism: Types of Syllogism, Enthymemes.

Unit 1 Syllogism and types of Syllogism

4.1.1 Categorical Syllogism
4.1.2 Hypothetical Syllogism
Unit 2 Enthymemes
4.2.1 First Order Enthymeme
4.2.2 Second Order Enthymeme
4.2.3Third Order Enthymeme
Unit 3 Practice Exercises
Module 5: Meaning and nature of Sophistical Refutation.

Unit 1 Meaning of Sophistical Refutation

Unit 2 Practice Exercise
Module 6: Evidence: Meaning of evidence, basis of evidence, cross-examination, and Logic
and the law

Unit 1 Meaning of Evidence

Unit 2 Basis of evidence
Unit 3 Logic and the law
Unit 4 Practice Questions

5
 6

Module 1: What is Argument? Types of Argument: Deductive and Inductive

Introduction

Our aim here is to introduce you to argument and its types.

1.1 Argument

An argument, as a term in logic, refers to a set of statements, in which one or more statement –
the premises- provide reason or justification for the truth, reasons to believe, of another
proposition- the conclusion. A statement is a representation that is either true or false. Typically,
this may be referred to as a declarative sentence, but statements can be made in many different
ways, including the use of pictures and gestures. The premises represent the statement put up for
the reasons or justification, while the conclusion is the statement that the evidence is claimed to
support or imply in the argument. For example:

P1 If you break the law, you will be sanctioned

P2 You break the law

C Therefore you will be punished

Above represents the standard format in an argument. Closely related to the concepts of
argument and statement are those of inference and proposition. An inference in the technical
sense of the term connotes the reasoning process expressed by an argument- From P1 through P2
to the Conclusion. It revolves around the movement from one or more pieces of information –A,
B, C- to another piece of information –D. Hence LOGICAL IMPLICATION is a relation
between statements or ideas. A implies B where it really is the case that B follows from A. Also,
a proposition is the meaning or ‘information content’ of a statement. It implies the validity,
invalidity, sound or unsound, high and low probability in an argument (This will be discussed
later in the course). However, it should be noted that an entire argument can be stated in a single
sentence, but often several sentences are employed in its formation. In the presentation of an
argument, its conclusion may either PRECEDE or FOLLOW all the premises. It may come in-
between two of them. In addition, the conclusion may not be stated explicitly or implied by the
very statement of the premises. The premises of special terms functioning as PREMISES

6
 7

INDICATORS or CONCLUSION INDICATORS often help us to identify and distinguish the

premises and conclusion of an argument. A passage containing an argument may also involve
propositions that are neither premises nor conclusion of that argument, but are information that
help the reader or hearer to understand what the premises and conclusion are about.

2.1 Identification of Argument

As exemplified by our illustration on argument above, there are some indicators responsible to
distinguish the premises from conclusion as well as premises from premises with a view to
making argument clear most importantly in a complex argument. However in understanding an
argument it is important to:

● To recognize the conclusion

● To recognize the reasons or evidence put forward for the conclusion

There are two types of indicator- Premise Indicator and Conclusion Indicator

A. There are certain words used to indicate premises in an argument- PREMISE INDICATOR.
There are two types of this indicator- GENERAL PREMISE INDICATOR AND SPECIFIC
PREMISE INDICATOR

-General Premise Indicator is responsible to separate premises from conclusion- For, Because,
Since, This is so, For the following reasons, After all, This follows from, etc.

- Specific Premise Indicator assist in separating premise from premise in an argument- Firstly,
Secondly, Thirdly, In the first place, In the second place, In addition, Moreover, However, Also
consider this, On the one hand, on the other hand, Nevertheless, And, But, etc.

B. Conclusion Indicator. It aids the separation and identification of Conclusion in an argument-

Therefore, So, Consequently, I maintain that, Thus, We can conclude that, Hence, As a result,
We can then say that, etc.

3.1 Types of Argument

Arguments can be categorized as Inductive and Deductive arguments.

7
 8

3.1.1 Inductive Argument

An argument is inductive if its premise(s) only support but do (es) not guarantee its conclusion.
On the other hand, it is an argument in which the premises are claimed to support the conclusion
in such a way that if they are assumed true, then based on that assumption it is improbable that
the conclusion is false (that is, it is probable that the conclusion is true). In these arguments, the
conclusion is claimed to follow only probably from the premises. Likewise, it is a statement in
such a way that from one set of factual proposition (premises), it moves to another (conclusion).
Such as:

i. P1 This riped tomato is red-coloured

P2 That riped tomato is red-coloured

C All riped tomatoes are red-coloured

ii. P1 Copper a metal conducts electricity

P2 Bronze a metal conducts electricity

C All metals conduct electricity

iii P1 Jingo a Yoruba man with tribal mark

P2 Bongo a Yoruba man with tribal mark

P3 Jack a Yoruba man with tribal mark

P4 John a Yoruba man with tribal mark

C All Yoruba men have tribal marks

iv. In the first throw of the coin, the coin turned tail

In the second throw of the coin, the coin turned tail

So it is in the 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th and 8th throw of the coin

C the 9th throw of the coin will turn tail

8
 9

3.2.1 Types of Inductive Argument

There are two types of Inductive argument. The first involves those that move from Particular to
General. The premises are Particular instances, while the conclusion is General instance
(Beginning with All in most cases). Examples i, ii and iii suffices. The second type is those that
go from Particular instance to Particular instance. This implies that both premises and conclusion
instances are Particular in nature- Example iv above suffice. By and large, if the premises do in
fact provide such strong support for the conclusion, the argument is said to be (inductively)
strong. A strong inductive argument is such that if the premises were true then based on that
assumption it is probable that the conclusion is true. Conversely, a weak inductive argument is
such that if the premises are assumed true, then based on that assumption it is not probable that
the conclusion is true.

3.3 Deductive Argument

It is one whose premises not only support but also guarantee its conclusion. It claimed that it is
impossible for the conclusion to be false if the premises are true. Likewise, if the premises are
true, it is unlikely for the conclusion to be untrue. If the premises do in fact support the
conclusion in this way the argument is said to be valid. While an invalid argument is such that if
the premises are assumed true it is possible for the conclusion to be false. There are three types
of Deductive argument

3.3.1 First, those that moves from General to Particular :

i. P1 All oouites are registered students

P2 Jingo is an Oouite

C Jingo is a registered student

ii P1 All metals expand when heated

P2 Copper is a metal

C Copper expands when heated

iii P1 All metals conduct electricity

9
 10

P2 Iroko tree is a metal

C Iroko tree conducts electricity

iv. P1 All human Beings are mortal

P2 Jingo is a human being

C Jingo is Mortal

3.3.2 Those that proceed from General to General

i. P1 All women are human beings

P2 All mothers are human beings

C All mothers are women

ii P1 All human Beings are mortal

P2 All Nigerians are human beings

C All Nigerians are mortal

iii P1 All Mangoes are pineapples

P2 All Pineapples are stones

C All mangoes are stones

3.3.3 Those Deductive arguments formulated in tandem with some rules of inference

i. Modus ponens

P1 If p, then q {If Jingo is a Nigerian, then OOU is in Ago-Iwoye}

P2 P {Jingo is a Nigerian}

C q {OOU is in Ago-Iwoye}

ii. Modus tollens

10
 11

P1 If p, then q { If Covid-19 persists, then the world are doomed}

P2 Not q {The world is not doomed}

C Not p {Covid-19 not persists}

iii Hypothetical syllogism

P1 If P, then q {If Jingo is a Nigerian, then PMB is the President}

P2 If q, then r {If PMB is the President, then OOU is in Ago-Iwoye}

C If P, then r { If Jingo is a Nigerian, then OOU is in Ago-Iwoye}

3.4 Evaluation of Arguments[ Validity, Invalidity, Sound and Unsound]

3.4.1 Validity

An argument is said to be valid if it has a valid logical form, and a logical form is valid if there is
no argument of that form which has true premises and a false conclusion. That is, the conclusion
follows from the given premise(s). Some basic valid forms of argument are those illustrated in
the three types of Deductive argument above (A-C). Nevertheless, the conditionality for a valid
argument is:

● The conclusion must be inferred from the premises

● The supportive power of the premise(s) must guarantee the conclusion

3.4.2 Invalidity

An argument is invalid when the premise(s) do (es) not support the conclusion. The condition
under which this is observed represents the obverse of validity above. In another words, it is such
that if the premises are assumed true it is possible for the conclusion to be false. For example

P1 All Nigerians are die-hard

P2 Jingo is a Nigerian

11
 12

C Jingo is an OOUite

3.4 Relationship between Sound and Unsound Arguments

A sound argument is of deductive class with the following features:

● The argument must be valid

● Its premises are true

● Its conclusion is true

Let us look into the following examples:

i P1 Prof. Olatunji is the Vice-chancellor of Olabisi Onabanjo University

P2 Olabisi Onabanjo University operates multi-campus system

C Prof. Olatunji is the Vice-chancellor of a multi-campus university

ii P1 All species of fish live in water

P2 Tilapia is fish

C Tilapia lives in water

iii P1 All men are human beings

P2 All fathers are men

C All fathers are human beings

From above illustrations, an argument is sound when the premises and conclusion are not only
true but also the structure transmits validity. However, an argument is unsound when it does not
possess any of the following: Validity, true premises and true conclusion. In this wise, the falsity
of the premises means that the conclusion is unsupported. Examples will suffice.

i. P1 All bipeds are mammal

12
 13

P2 All fishes are mammal

C All bipeds are fishes

ii. P1 All human beings are rational

P2 All dogs are human beings

C All dogs are rational

iii. P1 All women are mothers

P2 All mothers are kind

C All women are kind

A cursory look at above examples shows that the arguments are valid but unsound because not
all propositions are true in all possible worlds. Thus, on the relationship between valid and sound
argument, it is true that all sound argument are valid but not all valid argument are sound
(examples i-iii above). More so, all invalid arguments are unsound but not all unsound arguments
are invalid.

3.5 Practice Exercises

1. What is argument? Explain these concepts: premises, conclusion, inference and proposition.

2. What is the role of indicators in recognizing arguments? Distinguish the types of indicators
known to you

3. Distinguish between inductive and deductive arguments

4. Identify the premises and conclusions in the following passages. Carefully arrange in standard
format.

a. I maintain that company property ought to be taxed heavily. Afterall for the most part,
companies make a lot of profit. Moreover, companies do not contribute enough to social
services. Furthermore, payment of taxes will demonstrate commitments to the country.

13
 14

b. On the one hand, if you study Philosophy, the chances are that you will not make millions. On
the other hand, if you major in Economics, you may get a lucrative job but economists do not do
well as business men and women. It follows from all these that you should major in business to
be successful.

c. Breast feeding is better for infant nutrition in the first few months of life, it contains factors
that are protective during infanthood. A breast fed baby is less likely than a formular fed baby to
suffer allergy. Breast feeding is mandatory where hygienic and sanitary conditions are
inadequate.

d. People who smoke cigarettes should be forced to pay their own hospital and medical care
because they know smoking is harmful and because they have no right to expect society to pay
for the consequences of their frivolity.

14
 15

Module 2: Disagreement, Types of Disagreement: Factual, Verbal, Evaluative and

Interpretative

Introduction

The section aims to revitalize the essence of disagreement in philosophical discourse. You will at
the end of study realize that most disagreement sometimes are mere evolvement of different
usage of words, semantics, etc.

2.1 Disagreement

For there to be disagreement, two persons must have engaged each other where one deny the
statement affirmed by the other. But where two people are saying different things on the same or
different issues which could both be true, then there is no disagreement. For example, if I say I
am a Nigerian and a friend says no, you are a university teacher, there is no disagreement. There
could only be disagreement if my friend said that I am not a Nigerian. However, when two
people disagree, they could both be right, they can both be wrong. We shall next consider four
types of disagreement: Factual, Verbal, Evaluative and Interpretative

2.2: Types of Disagreement

2.2.1. Factual Disagreement

A factual disagreement is one which can be resolved if it is resolvable through empirical means
by counting, measuring, reading, talking, smelling, tasting, looking, etc. Examples will suffice:

i. Jingo: Isama wrote “Because I was involved”

15
 16

Manga: No, he wrote “Why we struck”

Bongo: I am sure that the author of “Because I was involved” is Odumegu Ojukwu

Generally, disagreement occurs where two or more parties are involved in an issue. From above
dialogue, there is no factual disagreement between Jingo and Manga because their sources of
difference are parallel in nature. Whereas there is disagreement between Jingo and Bongo in the
sense that both referred to the same issue (Because I was Involved) but different authors. Hence,
the factual means of resolving above disagreement is to consult the appropriate Book.

ii. Jingo: The Earth is round

Bongo: Stupid. You know little Geography, the Earth is square

Manga: Well the Earth is red

There is disagreement between Jingo and Bongo. No disagreement between Bongo and Manga.
Finally, there is no disagreement between Jingo and Manga.

2.2.2Verbal Disagreement

This is a disagreement initiated through different usage of words. It may as well be referred to as
apparent disagreement. In this case, the people involved would seem to disagree but a closer look
at their views or arguments would reveal that they mean different things by the same word or
words. However they could both be right. So, there is no real disagreement between them but the
problem is with the word they interpreted differently.

i. Jingo: “Stone-walls do not make a prison” is a stupid saying as the man in prison is not free.

Manga: It is quite possible to be in prison and be free. You can decide either to eat or not
while in prison

In above example, Jingo conception of being imprisoned is the constraint to move about and go
anywhere on wishes. Manga, on the other hand, means lack of constraint in choosing either to eat
or not as being free.

16
 17

ii. Jingo: Mr. Johnson is a progressive. He is a member of one of the progressive party in his
town

Bongo: You can be fool easily. Mr Johnson did not condemn corrupt practices as a Students’
Union president and so, he is not a progressive.

From above disagreement, it is apparent that Jingo only meant by progressive a member of a
progressive party, whereas Bongo regards a progressive person as anyone interested in attacking
corruption.

2.2.3Evaluative Disagreement

As the name connotes, the disagreement revolves around whether something or person is good or
bad, beautiful or ugly; whether something ought to be done or not, desirable or not, etc. let us
look into the following examples below:

i. Jingo: Apostle James John is a fake; see how he extorts money from his followers.

Bongo: I certainly disagree. In my view, he is one of the best Apostles encountered by me

recently

Jingo: I see, but he is not a good messenger of God.

We are here to resolve whether Apostle James John is truly God sent which is more of an
assessment of his deeds amongst the congregation. Hence this could only be known by putting
him to test in order to determine his character to underscore his genuineness as a man of God.

ii. Jingo: Aropin is a ggod film. It portrays African culture.

Bongo: Aropini is a very bad film. It portrays African culture but in its superstitious aspects.
Moreso, it does not show people how to make social and cultural advancement.

Jingo: I agree it does not do that, I still think it is a good film.

In this dialogue , Jingo and Bongo agree on what film they are talking about. They agree that it
portrays African culture and that it does not teach people how to make social and cultural
advancement. Hence they do not disagree on factual basis. Their point of disagreement is

17
 18

evaluative, whether the film aesthetically is good or bad. Though may be subjective, but further
subjection to opinion poll could clarify the disagreement. Nevertheless, another related to this is
the next illustration which may generate more than one type of disagreement.

iii. Jingo: Cigarette smoking ought to be banned by law. Cigarettes are harmful and anything
harmful to the health should be banned.

Bongo: I agree that harmful drugs should be banned. Cigarettes are not harmful, they should
not be banned.

These are forms of disagreement within the confine of Factual and Evaluative. Jingo and Bongo
agreed that anything harmful ought to be banned. But their disagreements are both evaluative
{that cigarette should be banned or should not be banned} and factual {cigarette are harmful and
cigarette are not harmful}. Now, we need first to consider the harmfulness or otherwise of
cigarette through empirical means (Factual Disagreement). This is because the disagreement can
be verified by experiment. Afterword, the results would determine the evaluative position as
commonly agreed that anything harmful ought to be banned which alluded to Cigarette should or
should not be banned.

2.2.4Interpretative Disagreement

It is disagreement on the interpretation of facts such as films, a play, poem, novel, fiction,
artwork, action or gesture of a person, real or fictional, physical appearance of a person, failure
of someone to do something, significance of events- political, religion, economic, etc. For
example,

i. Jingo: Dehinde is a very gentle man, he is always quiet in the class and will never argue with
anyone whether inside or outside the class.

Bongo: You can be fooled easily. It means you cannot recognize someone who carefully hides
his deficiency. The fact is that he cannot express himself fluently.

The above interpretative disagreement is engendered by the quietness of Dehinde whom Jingo
summed up to be out gentility while Bongo took to be deficiency in speaking (stammering).

18
 19

However, this interpretative disagreement could only be resolved by calling the attention of
Dehinde to speak out in order to clear the air.

3 Practice Exercises

1. What is Disagreement? At what level do you think that disagreement occurs?

2. Carefully identify and explain the following disagreement:
i. Jingo: Marijuana smoking ought to be banned by law. It is harmful and anything harmful to the
health should be banned
Manga: I agree that harmful drugs should be banned, but marijuana smoking is not harmful.
Therefore, it should not be banned.
3. Carefully outline an imaginary dialogue to emphasize the importance of Evaluative
disagreement

19