CHAPTER Two

Basic Concepts of Logic

Introduction
Logic is the study of the methods and principles used to distinguish good (correct) from bad (incorrect)
arguments. This chapter provides students with some preliminary notions and guidelines about logic as a
subject matter. Moreover, the chapter deals with; the nature of arguments and their components (premises
and conclusion), deductive and inductive arguments, validity, truth, soundness, strength, cogency,
argument forms and proving validity.

1.1 What is Logic?

 Definition and Purpose
Every one thinks, every one reasons, every one argues, and every one is subjected to the reasoning and
arguments of others. We are daily bombarded with reasoning from many sources: books, speeches, radio,
TV, newspapers, employers, friends and family…. Some people think well, and argue well. Some do not.
The ability to think, reason and argue well is partly a matter of natural gifts. But whatever our natural
gifts, they can be refined and sharpened. And, the study of logic is one of the best ways to refine one’s
natural ability to reason and argue. Through the study of logic, one learns strategies for thinking well,
common errors in reasoning to avoid, and effective techniques for evaluating arguments… (Layman,
2000:1).
As it has been underlined in the above passage, logic is a discipline of philosophy which is basically
concerned with the formulation of principles which correct our reasoning processes. The principles
formulated in logic are guiding procedures so as to evaluate argument forms, which are the fundamentals
of the subject matter.
An argument, which is primary focus of logic in coming sections, is a group of statements containing a
conclusion that is affirmed on the bases of what are called premises.
As it has been stated before, arguments are familiar in our day-to-day communications and experiences
with different parties in the sense that they are available in text books, news papers, debates and in
different modes of communication among individuals or groups. Thus, logic is aimed at designing
methods and principles in order to evaluate arguments which can be conducted by different parts of a
given society.
Finally, the principles of logic enable us to develop our confidence in critically and rationally evaluating
others’ arguments and to construct our own persuasive and logical forms of speech.

1.5 The Nature of Arguments

1.5.1 Argument; Premises and conclusion
An argument, which is the primary focus of logic, is a group of statements, which composes premise(s)
and a conclusion. A premise (which can be one or more than one) is a statement, which provides reason
or support for the conclusion. And, a conclusion (which is always one) of an argument is a statement,
which is claimed to be supported or implied. And, arguments which the premises really supports the
conclusion are good arguments and those which are on the contrary are bad arguments. Here, logic sets
methods, principles and techniques, which enable us to differentiate good arguments from bad ones.
As it has been stated before, the term ‘argument’, unlike its ordinary meaning as a mere verbal fight
between or among different individuals, has a completely different meaning. An argument is composed of
statements, which have truth-values and logically interconnected ideas as premises and conclusion. In
other words, an argument is composed of statements as premises and conclusion to which they are
evaluated either true or false as they are declarative sentences. Here, sentences which contain questions,
proposals, suggestions, commands, exclamations and the like can not be considered as statements as they
can not have truth values.
In some cases, however, a statement can also be expressed in a form of rhetorical questions. For instance,
the premise of the following legal argument is expressed in interrogative form.

1
If the criminal law forbids suicide, that is not an argument valid in the church; and besides, the
prohibition is ridiculous; for what penalty can frighten a person who is not afraid of death itself?
It is now clear that an argument is composed of premises and a conclusion that the latter is the statement
that is claimed to follow from the former. Here our central task is to distinguish premise(s) from the
conclusion within an argument. The first strategy to accomplish this task is by using indicator words.
This is to say that there are some typical conclusion indicator words and some other premise indicator
words. Thus, based on those premise and conclusion indicator words, one can easily distinguish premises
form the conclusion. For that matter, some of the typical conclusion indicators are the followings:-
- Thus - so - For this reason
- Wherefore - hence - it follows that
- Therefore - accordingly - as a result
- Consequently - it must be that - implies that…
Example: A Federal government usually possesses a constitution, which guarantees power sharing
between the federal/central government and those regional/ local governments. This
implies that distribution of power is the silent feature of any federal government.
The statement before the words ‘implies that’ is the premise and the statement that follows/contains
‘implies that’ is the conclusion of the argument given above.
And, some of the typical premise indicator words are the followings:
- Since - as indicated by
- Because - in that
- For - may be inferred from
- As - given that….
Example:-
The constitution of a state does not narrate details of laws as it simply gives general guidelines which all
other laws are in accordance with.
The statement before the word ‘as’ is the conclusion where as that of after ‘as’ is the premise of the above
argument. The other important point that should be underlined is that indicator words (Premise as well as
conclusion indicators) are not always guarantees to distinguish or show premise (s) from conclusion of a
given argument because of two important reasons:
a. There might be cases where there are not indicator words in passages which contain
argument.
b. Though they exist, they might have some other purposes (explanation, illustration…)
other than showing argumentation accompanied by premises and conclusion.
As to the problem stated in (a) One can end up with successful solution by responding to ant of the
following questions:
 Which statement is claimed to follow from others?
 What is the arguer trying to arrive at /prove? Or
 What is the main point of the passage?
And, the answer to these questions points out to the conclusion of an argument so that the rest will be its
premise(s). This is to say that in the absence of those indicator words, one should carefully appeal to the
inferential claim (reasoning process) that the claim (s) /evidence(s) which the statement (s) hold (s) is/are
considered to be premise(s) and the other statement that is to be followed is the conclusion of a given
argument. For example: the following passage, which contains an argument, does not have any indicator
word:
Example: A politician who does not
have the courage to political life is not destined to the discipline. Mohammed does not have any courage
to it. Mohammed is not destined to political life.
And, when we look at the inferential relationships among the above three statements of the passage, the
statement “Mohammed is not destined to political life” is the statement which is intended to be proved so
that it is the conclusion and the remaining two statements are premises of the above argument.

2
In relation to the concept of argument, inference and proposition are the two common notions. Inference
is nothing but the reasoning process expressed by an argument and that of a proposition means the
information content or meaning of statements, which compose an argument.
As to the problem stated in (b) that the existence of indicator words by themselves cannot always
guarantee the existence of premise(s) and conclusion or an argument in a passage.
One can look the following two examples which both contain the indicator word “since” that it serves as
time indicator in the first passage where as premise indicator in the next passage (argument):-
 Ethiopia has a long history in constitutional traditions. And, since 1995 the country has guided
by a federal constitution. (Here since is used as time indicator and the passage in fact doesn’t
contain an argument as there is not any inferential claim in it).
 Since the 1995 constitution of Ethiopia includes fundamental human and democratic rights of the
people, it is relatively better than all constitutions which had been formulated before. (Here since
is used as a premise indicator so that the passage contains inferential claim, which in turn proves
that it is an argument.
1.5.2 Recognizing Arguments
It has been partially clear that an argument is the primary focus of logic. But it should also be underlined
that all forms of speeches as well as passages do not contain arguments. In short, any form of speech or
passage is labeled as an argument if and only if it fulfills the following two conditions:
a. A minimum of one statement must claim to provide reason or evidence,
b. There must be a claim that something is followed from the evidence.
As it has been stated before, premises refer to the statements claiming to provide evidence, and
conclusion refers to the statement that the evidence is claimed to imply or support. Here the question is:
Is it necessary for the premises to be true? No, it is not mandatory that the premises provide actual or
genuine support to the conclusion or it is not necessary for the premises actually support the conclusion.
But the premises must claim to provide evidences or reasons; and there must be a claim that the evidences
or reasons support or imply something. When we say the premises must claim to provide evidence, it
suggests that the reasons or evidence presented have not proved to be true, but the assertion that it is true
is there. As a result, the premises may be either true or false. It may, therefore, be either factual evidence
or not.
In any case the first condition stated in (a) expresses what is called factual Claim which is not mandatory
for a passage that contains an argument unlike the second condition stated in (b), which is commonly
called inferential Claim. The inferential claim is to mean the claim that the passage expresses a
reasoning process that the passage expresses a reasoning process that something supports or implies
something.
Thus, the second precondition implies that the existence of an inferential claim (the claim that a
passage/speech contains or expresses reasoning process) is mandatory to consider a given passage or
speech as an argument- i.e. something should be implied or followed from others in any argument. And,
such an inferential relationship of an argument can be expressed:-
a. Either explicitly through indicator (premise as well as conclusion indicators) words as it has
been witnessed before.
Example:
Expectant Mother should never use excessive alcoholic drinks and drugs as these substances can
endanger the development of the fetus.
Here the word “as” shows that there is a reasoning process being expressed in the passage.
b. Implicitly through understanding the inferential relationship between premises and the
conclusion.

Example:
Freedom of press is one of the most important of our constitutionally guaranteed freedoms. Without
it, other freedoms would be immediately threatened. Furthermore, it provides the fulcrum for the
development of new freedoms.

3
There is an inferential relationship between the first and the other two sentences. Of course, this
relationship constitutes an implicit claim that evidence supports something. So we are justified in calling
this passage argument. And, the first statement is the conclusion and the other two are premises.
Moreover, the other alternative that enables us to differentiate passages, which contain arguments from
those which do not have, is through distinguishing non-inferential passages/non argument forms with that
of inferential passages/ argument forms. Based on this guideline passages which contain warnings,
advices, a statement of belief, reports and the like lack inferential claim that they are non-inferential
passages. Thus, they are non-argument forms as some of their details is to be disclosed in the following
section.
Warnings: - are cautionary advices, which save someone from any bad or dangerous incident or
situation. And, such forms of speech are non-arguments as they clearly lack inferential
claim.
Example: Shut your mouth!
Pieces of advice are forms of expression, which contain counseling or guidelines to someone to follow
appropriate procedures, actions, and choices.
Example:
I advice you to improve your behavior before you graduate.
Statements of Belief and Opinion are:- is forms of expression, which are basically accompanied by
somebody’s beliefs, thinking, opinions as well as judgments on different events, or
courses of action. But these opinions or judgments might not be supported through
proofs or evidences rather than showing individual’s perceptions on those events or
courses of action.
Example:
In my opinion, abortion is a crime against humanity.
Loosely associated statements are: forms of expression accompanied by various statements which are
mainly concerned with the same general theme, however, they are not logically
connected or they lack inferential claim so that they cannot be considered as
arguments.
Example:
Anything that a doctor does which requires cutting or injecting is a ‘Procedure’. Anything that a
doctor does which requires thinking or counseling is a “cognitive services”. Procedures pay
much better than cognitive services.
Reports are sets of statements, which are basically there to convey or deliver information about different
events or incidents. Reporters or journalists are basically destined to deliver
information about different incidents rather than arguing on them.
Example:
“The Islamic forces in Somalia led by ‘Alshebab’ groups declared war to liberate Somalia from
Ethiopian forces” Aljezira, 2008.
 But there is the case when reports about arguments are delivered. In such case though the report
itself is not an argument, the reported passage can be interpreted as an argument since it is
accompanied by position, which is supported by evidences. However, the passage/argument in
the report is not performed by the author of the report, but by those whom the author of the report
is reporting.
Expository Passages (Elaborations):- are passages, which begin with topic sentences or fundamental
points. And, there are additional sentences, which are primarily there to develop or
elaborate those topic sentences rather than to prove them.
Example:-
The speed of reading depends entirely upon the reader. He may read as slowly or as rapidly as he can or
wishes to read. If he does not understand something, he may stop and read it, or go in search of
elucidation before continuing.

4
But there are cases where expository passages can be counted as arguments when those elaborating
sentences, other than the topic sentence, are there not only to develop topic sentence, but also to prove it.
Illustrations: - are forms of exemplifying or clarifying instances on concepts, issues or different subject
matters. This is to say that when a statement about a certain issue is accompanied
by different instances to exemplify it, it is considered as an illustration.
Example:
Mammals are vertebrate animals that nourish their young with milk. For example, cats, horses, goats,
monkeys, and humans are mammals.
However, there are passages, which give examples, can be interpreted as arguments.
Example:
Water is an excellent solvent. It dissolves many minerals that do not readily dissolve in other liquids. For
example, salts do not dissolve in most common solvent such as gasoline, kerosene, etc. But many salts
dissolve readily in water.
Here this example is intended to prove that water is an excellent solvent so that it can be considered as an
argument.
Thus, like expository passages, some illustrations are considered as arguments if there is an inferential
relationship or reasoning process among their statements.
Conditional Statements:-
A sentence constructed through an ‘if … then…” statement is a conditional statement. And, a statement
that is following ‘then’ is called consequent and a statement following ‘if’ is called an antecedent.
Conditional statements do not usually contain argument; rather they signify the causal connection
between the antecedent and the consequent as:
 If antecedent, then consequent.
 Consequent if antecedent.
Example:
If you study hard, you will score a good grade, or
You will score a good grade if you study hard.

However, it is not always the case that all conditional statements express only causal connections in the
sense that there are cases where conditional statements are interpreted as arguments if the connection
between the two is as follows:
 A single conditional statement is not an argument.
 A conditional statement may serve as either the premise or the conclusion or both of an argument.
 The inferential content of a conditional statement may be re-expressed to form an argument.
Example:
If the earth’s magnetic field disappears, then the Vann Allen radiation belt will be dissolved. The
earth’s magnetic field is disappeared. Therefore, the Van Allen radiation belt will be dissolved.
In this example, the conditional sentence served as the premise of an argument. Thus, if the passage
consists of conditional statements together with some other statement (like the above example), then it
may be an argument depending on the presence of indicator words and an inferential relationship between
the premises and the conclusion.
Another important point is that conditional statements are useful in logic since they express the
relationship between sufficient and necessary conditions. ‘X’ is said to be a sufficient condition for ‘Y’
whenever the occurrence of ‘X’ is all that is needed for the occurrence of ‘Y’. For example, it is clear that
a knife could cause a scare to appear. When we put this in a conditional statement, it is as “If you are
stabbed by Knife, a scare will appear in your body”. Or to put this in terms of sufficient and necessary
condition it can be presented as “being stabbed by a knife is a sufficient condition for the occurrence of
scare.” However, being stabbed by a knife is not a necessary condition for the occurrence of scare
because many other things may cause scare.

5
‘X’ is said to be the necessary condition for ‘Y’ whenever ‘Y’ cannot occur without the occurrence of
‘X’. For example, air is a necessary condition for life. It is a necessary condition because one cannot think
of life without air. But it is not a sufficient condition since there are other necessary conditions.
An Explanation- Consists of statements or group of statements intended to shed light on some
phenomenon that is usually accepted as a matter of fact.
Examples:
1. Azeb is sick because she ate too much.
2. The price of oil declined because of the international financial crisis.

In an explanation, there are two distinct components: The explanandum and the explanans. The
explanandum is the statement that describes the event or phenomenon to be explained, and the explanans
is a statement that does the explaining. In the first example the explanandum is the statement “Azeb is
sick” and the explanans is “She ate too much”.
Explanations usually contain indicator words such as “because” and others so that they may be confused
with arguments. This is precisely because while in the explanation, the explanans are intended to show
why something is the case, where as in an argument the premises are intended to prove that something is
the case. In the above two examples, the arguers are intended to explain the situations rather than proving
them.
1.
1.5.3. Deductive and Inductive Arguments
Based on the kind of connection existed between the premises and the conclusion, arguments can broadly
be classified in to two; deductive and inductive. And, the difference in the strength of the inferential
claim or the degree of strength of the reasoning process existed between the premises and the conclusion
matters most to arrive at such dichotomy between the above two categories of arguments.
Deductive arguments are arguments, which their premises guarantee the conclusion in the sense that if
we assume that the premises are true, the conclusion must be true. In other words, the connection between
the premises and the conclusion in any deductive argument is a matter of necessity or certainty that the
conclusion in a deductive argument cannot be otherwise (false) if its premises are true.
Example – All human beings are mortal.
Kebede is a human being.
Therefore, Kebede is Mortal.
In this example, the premises support the conclusion with certainty so that the conclusion is inferred with
logical necessity from the evidences or premises.
On the other hand, inductive arguments are those, which their premises simply suggest the conclusion
that if we assume that the premises are true, the conclusion will probably be true. This implies that there
is a probable connection between the premises and the conclusion of an inductive argument. Thus, the
inferential link between the premises and the conclusion of any inductive argument is matter of likelihood
or probability unlike that of any deductive argument.
Example:-
The majority of Ethiopian University students are seriously concerned about employment opportunity.
Rahma is a University Student. Therefore, Rahma is seriously concerned about employment opportunity.
The premise of the above argument is supporting the conclusion with the degree of likelihood or
probability that there is no relationship of logical necessity between the premise and the conclusion.
There are cases where inductive arguments are understood, as arguments, which reason from part to
whole and deductive argument, are those, which reason from whole to part. However, this kind of
approach does not always work. And, the following two examples show that the above definitions do not
always work.
Example 1:
Three is a prime number.
Five is a prime number.
Seven is a prime number.

6
Therefore, all odd numbers between two and eight are prime numbers.
 This is reasoning from particular to general, however the argument is deductive.
Example 2:
All the last experiences in Ethiopian politics have shown that political power is not secured
through unconstitutional means. Therefore, Political power in Ethiopia will be secured through
similar strategy in the coming years.
 This is an inductive argument since it seems to argue to forecast the future based on past
experiences.
In any case, the strength of the inferential connection between the premises and the conclusion should
be taken as an indispensable criterion to differentiate or show the distinction between inductive and
deductive arguments.
To sum up there are three criteria, which are important to distinguish inductive arguments from
deductive arguments. These are:
A. The existence of indicator words such as necessarily, certainly, absolutely, and definitely in
arguments show that such arguments are deductive. And the existence words such as likely,
probably, unlikely, plausibly in arguments shows that such arguments are inductive. But, these
deductive and inductive indicator words cannot always show the distinction between the two
argument forms so that it is mandatory to appeal to other criteria.
B. The actual strength of the inferential link between the premises and the conclusion of a
given argument is another criterion to distinguish deductive from an inductive argument. If the
conclusion is strictly or logically followed form the premises, the argument will be deductive
but if the conclusion is probably followed from the premises, the argument is inductive.
C. Typical deductive and inductive argument forms
Deductive argument forms
 Mathematical argumentations are deductive argument forms since they are accompanied by some
arithmetic and geometric backgrounds. But this does not mean that statistical argument forms are
deductive since they are characterized by probabilistic or sampling procedures to arrive at a
conclusion.

Example:
The sum of two odd numbers is always even. Thus, the result of 3 and 9 is an even number.
 An argument from definition is a deductive argument form since the premises already define the
truth of the conclusion.
Example: God is omniscient, it follows that He knows everything.
 A categorical syllogism is a deductive argument form. It is a syllogism (an argument form having
exactly two premises) in which each of its statements usually begin with words: ‘all’, ‘no’ and
‘some.’
Example:
All X are Y.
All Y are Z .  This is a deductive argument form.
Therefore, all X are Z.

All animals are mammals.

All mammals are Living things.  This is the substitution instance
Therefore, all animals are of the above deductive living
things. argument form.

 A Hypothetical syllogism is a deductive argument, which is basically accompanied by an “If…

then…” or conditional statement.
Example: If X, then y.
If y, then Z.  This is a deductive argument form

7
 Therefore if X, then Z

The substitution instance of the above argument form is as follows:

If our body temperature is beyond the normal condition (37 OC), then we are not in a normal state of
mind. If we are not in normal state of mind, then we would not cope up with any physical as well as
mental challenges. Therefore, if our body temperature is beyond the normal condition (37 OC), then we
would not cope up with any physical as well as mental challenges.
A Disjunctive Syllogism is a syllogism which is accompanied by statements beginning through an
“Either…or …” phrase and it is a deductive argument form.
Example
Either x or y.
Not x .  This is a deductive argument form.
Therefore, y.
Its substitution instance is as follows:
Either Italy or Ethiopia won the military incident of Adwa. Italy did not win the military
incident of Adwa. Therefore, Ethiopia won the military incident of Adwa.
Some Inductive argument forms
A Prediction is when somebody concludes about the future based on what was or is happening before as
well as now. This is an inductive argument in the sense that it cannot show the future with certainty.
Example:
It has been raining for the whole day of this week, this shows that it will rain for the coming
weak.
An inductive generalization is when some one bases his/her conclusion on some particular instances,
cases or samples.
Example:
There are 100 students who are taking the course; introduction to logic. Among these
students 10 of them were selected at random and found to be intelligent. Therefore, this
shows that all of these students are intelligent.
An argument from authority, which some one argues based on the witness of another person who lacks
the experience, knowledge as well as ability, is an inductive argument.
Example:-
According to Dr. Kebede, who is a medical doctor at Black Lion hospital, Ethiopian
economy is growing rapidly regardless of the global crises of 2008/9. Therefore,
Ethiopian economy is growing fast as per the account of Dr. Kebede.
When knowledge about certain signs is attributed to certain situations to which these signs symbolize, it
will be an inductive argument. And, arguments based on traffic signs; cautions of any marks and symbols
usually contain inductive argumentations.
An argument based on causation, instances of cause and effect (cause to effect or effect to cause) which
can never be known with absolute certainty, is an inductive argumentation.
Example –
 Kebede is upset so that he is silent  cause to effect
 The meet is dry so that it had over cooked  effect to cause

1.5.4. Validity, Truth, Soundness, Strength and Cogency

Evaluating Arguments
As it has been underlined before, evaluating arguments based on fundamental principles and guidelines is
among the central tasks of critical and rational scrutiny.
When we expose arguments to critical and rational scrutiny, we may witness that the premises, which are
claimed to support the conclusion, fail to support the conclusion so that the information of premises
becomes irrelevant or inconsistent to the conclusion. Thus, arguments having this nature can be evaluated

8
as bad or illogical. On the contrary, if we witness an argument having sufficient, genuine and precise
evidences or premises to the conclusion, then we can judge that the information of the premises are
relevant, consistent and conducive to the conclusion. And an argument that satisfies this requirement can
be evaluated as good or logical.
Therefore, as it has been underlined before, inferential claim is an indispensable criteria to evaluate
arguments that if the premises of a given argument fail to logically support or imply the conclusion, the
argument is bad and if the case is on the contrary it will result in good argument. And the primary task of
this section is to evaluate arguments, particularly deductive and inductive arguments. And, as it has been
explained before, the relationship between the premises and the conclusion of a deductive argument is a
matter of necessity where as that of an inductive argument is a matter of probability. In any case,
logicians employ different terminologies applicable so as to evaluate deductive and inductive arguments
separately. And, this section gives us some detailed analysis and classifications of deductive and
inductive arguments using those technical terms employed by logicians, which in fact can never violate
the fundamental natures or characteristics of these two arguments.
Evaluating Deductive Arguments
Validity and Invalidity
As an introductory insight, there are four technical terms employed so as to evaluate deductive
arguments; valid, invalid, sound and unsound. Initially a deductive argument can be divided into two
forms: Valid and invalid. And, a valid deductive argument is an argument such that if the premises are
assumed to be true, the conclusion must be true (it is impossible for the conclusion to be false). In other
words, the logical connection between the premises and the conclusion of a valid deductive argument is a
matter of strict necessity. If, on the other hand, the connection between the premises and the
conclusion of an argument is not a matter of strict necessity in the sense that if the premises are assumed
to be true, then there is a possibility for the conclusion to be false, such a deductive argument is invalid.
Moreover, there is no argument, which is partially or almost valid (there is not any third alternative other
than valid and invalid arguments) that if the conclusion is followed with strict necessity from premises,
the argument is valid; and if the case is on the opposite, the argument is invalid.

Validity and Truth

Another important point is that there is not any direct connection between validity and truth, in the sense
that, it is not mandatory to have either true or false premises as well as conclusion so as to get a valid
argument except an argument with true premises and false conclusion which is always invalid.
Truth and falsity are attributes of individual propositions or statements, which assert what really are the
cases. When somebody asserts that Abay is the largest river in Ethiopia, he/she asserts what really is the
case, means what is true. But if he/she asserts that the largest river in Ethiopia is Wabishable, his/her
assertion would not be in accord with the actual world, therefore, it would be false. Thus, truth is the
attribute of a proposition that asserts what really is the case, what is true; however, validity and invalidity
are attributes of arguments. Just as the concept of validity does not apply to single propositions, the
concept of truth does not apply to arguments.
In other words, the fact that statements of an argument are all true may not prove validity and the fact that
all the statements of an argument are false do not prevent the argument from being valid.
In any case, the following possible combinations of true and false premises in both valid and invalid
arguments:
I. Some Valid Arguments Contain all true Propositions-true premises and true conclusion:-
Example: - All Mammals are animals.
- All cows are Mammals.
- Therefore, all cows are animals.
II. Some Valid arguments have all false propositions-false premises and false conclusion:-
Example : All Sharks are birds.
All birds are politicians.
Therefore, all Sharks are Politicians.

9
Although the premises of the above argument are in fact false, the argument is valid. If they were true, the
conclusion would have to be true as well. It is impossible for the conclusion to be false assuming that the
premises are true. Thus, the above argument is valid.
III. Some invalid arguments have true premises and true Conclusion:-
Example:-
All birds are animals.
All grizzly bears are animals.
Therefore, all grizzly bears are birds.
The above argument is invalid because the truth of the conclusion does not follow the premises with strict
necessity.
IV. Some invalid arguments contain all true premises have false conclusion:-
Example:
All banks are financial institutions.
Ethiopian Insurance is a financial institution.
Therefore, Ethiopian Insurance is a bank.
The premises of the above argument are true; however, the conclusion is false. Such an argument cannot
be valid because it is impossible for the premises of a valid argument to be true and its conclusion to be
false.
V. Some Valid arguments have false premises and true conclusion.
Example
All Asians are Africans.
All Ethiopians are Asians.
Therefore, all Ethiopians are Africans.
The conclusion of this argument is true; moreover, it may be validly inferred form the two premises, both
of which are plainly false.
VI. Some invalid arguments also have false premises and true Conclusion:-
Example:
All Mammals have wings.
All Whales have wings.
Therefore, all whales are mammals.
VII. Some invalid arguments contain all false propositions-false premises and false conclusion:-
Example:
All Americans are Europeans.
All Ethiopians are Europeans.
Therefore, all Ethiopians are Americans.

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

Table 1.1
One can understand from the above table that the first, third, and fourth combinations show that the
argument can be either valid or invalid depending primarily on whether the conclusion follows the
premises with strict necessity or not (regardless of the truth and falsity of the premises and conclusion).

10
Another important exception in any deductive logic is indicated in the above table (in the second
combination) which contains an argument of true premises and false conclusion. And any argument
with such an arrangement is always invalid.
Validity and Soundness
A deductive argument can be considered as sound if and only if it is valid and heaving all true premises.
If one of these two conditions is violated, the argument would rather be unsound.
Example:
All Mammals are animals.
All humans are mammals.
Therefore, all humans are animals.

The Conclusion of the above argument follows the premises with strict necessity so that the argument is
valid. In addition to this, its premises are all true. Therefore, the above deductively valid argument is
sound.
 Sound argument = a valid argument + all true premises
On the other hand, a deductively unsound argument falls into one of the following three categories:
 Valid but at least one false premise.
 Invalid but all its premises are true.
 Invalid and at least one false premise.
Example:
All Animals are mammals.
All birds are animals.
Therefore, all birds are mammals.
Though the above argument is valid (because if we assume that the premises are true, the conclusion
would be necessary true), it is unsound because the argument involves plainly false premises.
Evaluating Inductive Arguments
Strength and Weakness
As it has been underlined before, an inductive argument is the one in which its premises are claimed to
support the conclusion in such a way that if they are assumed to be true, then based on this assumption it
is only probable that the conclusion is true. If the premises do in fact support the conclusion in this way,
such an inductive argument can be considered as strong. Therefore, a strong argument is one such that it
is unlikely, though possible, that its conclusion is false while its premises are true. Or it is highly probable
that if its promises are true, then its conclusion is true in any inductively strong argument. If the premises
are true, its conclusion has a higher probability of being true in any strong argument.
On the other hand, a weak inductive argument is one such that if the premises are assumed true, then
based on this assumption, it is not probable that the conclusion is true. In other words, a weak inductive
argument has this essential feature: It is not likely that if its premises are true, then its conclusion is true.
Example:
There has been rainfall throughout Ethiopia for the last few days. Therefore, probably it will be
raining for the coming weak.
As it has been underlined before, validity does not admit of degree so that there is no any such argument
to be said more valid/ less valid, or less invalid or more invalid. However, strength and weakness, unlike
validity and invalidity, admit of degree so that we can have either stronger or weaker when we compare to
other arguments. Moreover, like validity and invalidity, strength and weakness are only indirectly related
to truth and falsity. The central question in determining strength and weakness of argument is not the
truth and falsity of premises and conclusion but whether the conclusion would probably be true if the
premises are assumed true. And, we can have the following combinations so as to reveal the indirect
relationship between strength or weakness and truth or falsity:
I. A strong argument with true premises and a probably true conclusion
Example:

11
 All previous American presidents were men. Therefore; probably the next American
president will be man.
II. A weak inductive argument with true premises and a probably true conclusion.
Example:
A few American presidents were federalists. Therefore, probably the next American
president will be a man.
III. A weak indicative argument with true premise and a probably false conclusion.
Example:
A few American presidents were federalists. Therefore, probably the next American
president will be a federalist.
IV. A strong inductive argument with false premises and a probably true conclusion.
Example:
All Previous American presidents were television debates. Therefore, probably the next American
president will be a television debater.
V. A weak inductive argument with false premise and probably true conclusion.
Example:
A few American presidents were libertarians. A few American presidents were libertarians. Therefore,
probably the next American president will be a television debater.
VI. A strong inductive argument with false premise and a probably false conclusion.
Example:-
All previous American presidents were women. Therefore, probably the next American
president will be a woman.
VII. A weak inductive argument with false promise and probably false conclusion.
Example:-
A few American presidents were Libertarians. Therefore, probably the next American president
will be a Libertarian.

And the following table will make the Varity of Possible combination of strength and truth clear:
Premises Conclusion Strength
T. . . . . . . Prob. T. . . . . . . . . . . . .. . .?
T. . . . . . . Prob. F. . . .. . . . . . . . . . . Weak
F. . . . . . . Prob. T. . . .. . . . . . . . . . . ?
F. . . . . . . Prob. F. . . . . . . . . . . .. . ?

Table 1.2
Depending on whether the conclusion has a higher probability of following the premises (regardless of
the truth and falsity of premises and the conclusion), the first, third and fourth combinations show that the
argument can be either strong or weak. This shows that strength, like validity, is only indirectly related to
truth and falsity.
However any inductive argument with true premises and probably false conclusion is always weak,
which is an exception of any inductive logic.
Strength and Cogency
An inductively cogent argument has two essential features: (a) it is strong and (b) All its premises are
true. If one of these two conditions is missed, the argument would rather be un-cogent.
Thus, an inductively cogent argument = a strong argument + all true premises.
Example: - Nearly all lemons that have been tasted were sour. Therefore, nearly all lemons are sour.
This argument is not valid because the conclusion concerns are not merely the lemons that have been
tasted but lemons in general, including those that have not been tasted. And, the premise does not rule out
the possibility that a large percentage of untested lemons are not sour. Nevertheless, it is unlikely that the

12
conclusion is false given that the promise is true. And, the premise is true so that the argument is
inductively cogent.

1.6 Counter Example Method of Proving Invalidity

So far, we have seen that the truth of a deductive argument’s inferential claim can determine validity in
the sense that if the inferential claim is true, and then the conclusion follows with strict necessity from the
premises so that the argument is valid.
This section, however, introduces alternative approach so as to prove validity-the concept of argument
forms and how these arguments forms can be used to establish that an argument is valid or invalid. In
other words, this section discloses on how its forms determine validity of an argument. For this purpose
we will consider the following series of examples as follows:
Argument 1 Argument 2
All oaks are trees. All adlers are bobkins.
All trees are plants. All bobkins are crockers.
Therefore, all oaks are plants. Therefore, all adlers are crockers.
 We can represent the above two different arguments in terms of content by the following similar
form. And, we should be consistent in substituting terms with letters.

Form1.
All A are B.
All B are C.
Therefore, all A are C.
 A stands for Oaks in argument 1 and it represents Adlers in arguments 2.
 B stands for trees in argument 1 and it represents bobkins in argument 2.
 C stands for plants in argument 1 and it represents crockers in argument 2.
Argument (1) and its form are clearly valid. This is because of the fact that if all members of A (Oaks) are
members of class B (trees), and all members of class B (trees) are members of class C (Plants) then all
members of A (Oaks) are members of C (plants).
And, as regards argument (2) though we cannot have any idea bout Adlers and Bobkins or we might not
have any idea whether the premises are true, the argument is valid since it has the same form as argument
(1). And, any argument having form (1) has the following feature: its Conclusion cannot be false while
its premises are true. From this one can understand the nature of validity in the sense that the validity of
an argument is guaranteed by its form and does not depend on its content (i.e., its specific subject matter).
On the Other hand, the followings are in valid arguments with their form:
Arguments 3 Arguments 4
All adlers are bobkins. - All Birds are animals.
All crockers are bobkins. - All dogs are animals.
Therefore, all adlers are Crockers. Therefore, all birds are dogs.

And, the above two arguments can have the following similar argument form which is invalid:
Form 2.
All A are B.
All C are B.
Therefore, All A are C.

Arguments 3 Argument 4
A= Adlers A = birds
C = Crockers C = dogs
B= Bobkins B = animals

13
And, any argument that has the above argument form is always invalid. An argument form is a pattern or
structure of reasoning that substitutes terms. And an argument that results from uniformly replacing
letters in an argument form with terms (or statement) is called a substitution instance of that form. For
example, we can consider the following argument form and produce its substitution instance:
Some A are not B. A = Animals
All C are A. B = Mammals
Therefore, some C are not B. C = Dogs
We can prove that this form is invalid by producing a substitution instance that has premises known to be
true and a conclusion known to be false. For that matter:
Some animals are not mammals. (True)
All dogs are animals. (True)
Therefore, some dogs are not mammals. (False)

A substitution instance with premises known to be true and a conclusion to be false is called a
Counterexample. A counterexample to an argument form is a substitution instance whose premises are
well-known truths and whose conclusion is a well-known falsehood. And, a good counter example must
have the following features:
 It must have the correct form.
 Its premises must be true.
 Its conclusion must be false.
The counterexample method can only used to demonstrate the invalidity of any invalid argument;
however it cannot demonstrate the validity of any valid argument. Thus, the argument must be known to
be invalid first before this method is applied. In any case, there are steps to be followed to apply
counterexample method:
Step 1. Beginning with an argument which is invalid,
Step 2. Representing this argument with forms,
Step 3.Constructing a substitution instance with true promises and false conclusion.
Example:- Some employers are not social climbers. All presidents are employees. Therefore, some Vice-
Presidents are not social climbers.
This argument is invalid because the employees who are not social climbers might not be vice-presidents.
Thus, we can prove the invalidity of this argument by constructing a substitution instance with all true
premises and a false conclusion. So we began by isolating the form of the argument:
Some A are not B.
All C are A.
Therefore, some C are not B.
Next to this, we select three terms to substitute in place of the letters that will make the premises true and
the conclusion false. And the following selection will work:
A = Animals
B = Mammals
C = Dogs
Finally the substitution instance is:
Some animals are not mammals. (true)
All dogs are animals. (True)
Therefore, some dogs are not mammals. (false)
This substitution instance has true premises and false conclusion is therefore invalid. And, since it has the
same form with the original argument, it constitutes proof that the original argument is invalid.

14