Chapter one

Introducing philosophy

Philosophy is the study of general and fundamental problems concerning matters such as existence,
knowledge, truth, beauty, human nature, etc. It is a rational and critical enterprise that tries to answer
fundamental questions through an intensive application reason-an application that draws on analysis,
comparison and evaluation.

Meaning and nature of philosophy

Etymologically defined logic means a Love of wisdom. Logic can also be defined as an active
imaginative process of formulating proper questions and resolving them by rigorous and persistent
analysis.

Basic features of philosophy:

 Philosophy is a set of views or beliefs about life and the universe, which are often held
uncritically.
 Philosophy is a process of reflecting and criticizing our most deeply held conceptions and beliefs.
 Philosophy is a rational attempt to look at the world as a whole.
 Philosophy is the logical analysis and the clarification of the meaning of words and concepts.

Core fields of philosophy:

1. Metaphysics-it studies about the nature of reality. It deals with questions like what is reality, is
reality one or many, can reality be grasped by the senses or is it transcendental.

Metaphysical questions are the most basic to ask because they provide the foundation up on which all
subsequent inquiry is based.

Aspects of metaphysics:

 Cosmological-study of theories about the origin, natureand development of the universe

 Theological-deals with issues of existence of god, religuion,, scriptures
 Anthropological-deals with the nature fof human beings
 Ontological-study of the nature of existence
2. Epistemology-study about the nature,scope, meaning and possibility of knowledge
3. axiology-study about value
 Ethics-the philosophy of moral principles, values, codes and rules which may be used as
standards for determining what kind of human conduct is said to be good or bad, right or wrong.
I. Normative-ethical study that attempt to study and determine the moral rules, principles, standards
by which human beings might evaluate and judge the values of their conducts.
II. Applied-tries to explain, justify, apply moral rules, principles, standards and positions to specific
moral problems.
III. Meta ethics-deals with the investigation of the meaning of ethical terms including a critical study
of how ethical statements can be verified.
  Aesthetics - theory of beauty. Studies about the particular value of our artistic and aesthetics
experiences.
 Political philosophy-studies about the value judgments operating in a civil society, be it social or
political.
4. logic-study of principle of right reasoning

Importance of studying philosophy:

 intellectual and behavioral independence

 Self awareness
 flexibility, tolerance and open-mindedness
 creative and critical thinking

CHAPTER TWO
INTRODUCTION TO BASIC CONCEPTS OF LOGIC

Basic Concepts of Logic: Arguments, Premises and Conclusions

Definition of logic

 Logic is a science that studies about the method and principles of evaluating the arguments of
others and to construct good arguments of our own.

Benefits of Logic:

 It helps us to develop the skill needed to construct sound (good) and fallacy-free
arguments of one‘s own and to evaluate the arguments of others;
 It provides a fundamental defense against the prejudiced and uncivilized attitudes that
threaten the foundation of a civilized and democratic society;
 It helps us to distinguish good arguments from bad arguments;
 It helps us to understand and identify the common logical errors in reasoning;
 It helps us to understand and identify the common confusions that often happen due to misuse of
language;
 It enables us to disclose ill-conceived policies in the political sphere, to be careful of
disguises, and to distinguish the rational from irrational and the sane from the insane.

What is Argument?

Argument is defined as “a group of statements, one or more of which (the premise) are claimed to provide
support for, or reason to believe, one of the other, the (conclusion).”

Example: It is morally wrong to kill an innocent human being. Abortion is killing an innocent human
being. Therefore, abortion is morally wrong.

Components of an argument:

a) Premise(s) is/are the statement or statements that supposedly justify the claim.
b) Conclusion is the claim that the statement attempts to justify an argument (a claim to be justified).
Example: All philosophers are rational (P 1). Socrates is a philosopher. (P 2)

Therefore, Socrates is rational. (Conclusion)

What is statement?

A statement is a declarative sentence that has a truth-value of either true or false.

Examples 1: The Nile is the longest river in Africa. (True)

Remember: Some sentences are not statements. The following examples are sentences but they are not
statements.

1. I advise you to study hard? (Advise)

2. Don’t tell your mother about the surprise?( Request/ Command)
3. Do you like Logic and Critical thinking course? (Question)
4. Fantastic! (exclamation)

Activity 1: Which of the following sentences are statements and which are not?; for sentences which
are not statements, identify the type of the sentence.

a. Alligators are on average larger than crocodiles.

b. Is an alligator a reptile or a mammal?
c. An alligator is either a reptile or a mammal.
d. Don’t let any reptiles into the house.
e. East Africans are not the best distance runners.
f. Some things with wings cannot fly.
g. Oh no! A grizzly bear!

Techniques of Recognizing Premise(s) and Conclusion of Arguments

Two techniques or methods can be used to identify the premise(s) and conclusion of an argument.

1) Looking for an indicator word

The first technique that can be used to identify premises from a conclusion and vice versa is
looking at an indicator word. Frequently, arguments contain certain indicator words that provide clues
in identifying premises and conclusion. Here below are some of premise and conclusion indicators.

a) Some typical conclusion indicators

b) Some typical premise indicators

2) Looking for what the arguer is claiming to prove

The second method is when no indicator is used in argument. Sometimes an argument contains no
indicators. When this occurs, the reader/listener must ask himself or herself such questions as: what
single statement is claimed (implicitly) to follow from the others? What is the arguer trying to prove?
What is the main point in the passage?

 The answers to these questions point us to know the conclusion of an argument.

Remember: some passages that contain arguments sometimes contain statements that are neither
premises nor conclusions. Only statements that are actually intended to support the conclusion should be
included in the list of premises.

Example: The claim is often made that malpractice lawsuits drive up the cost of healthcare. But if such
suits were outlawed or severely restricted, then patients would have no means of recovery for injuries
caused by negligent doctors. Hence the availability of malpractice litigation should be maintained intact.

Activity 2: Identify the premises and conclusion of the following arguments.

a. I know that the student plagiarized, since I found the exact same sentences on a website and
the website was published more than a year before the student wrote the paper.
b. It is vitally important that wilderness areas be preserved, for wilderness provides essential habitat
for wildlife, including endangered species, and it is a natural retreat from the stress of daily life.
c. Tortured prisoners will say anything just to relieve the pain. Consequently, torture is not a reliable
method of interrogation.

Good and Bad Arguments

All arguments may be placed in one of two basic groups: those in which the premises really do support
the conclusion or the conclusion really follows the premises and those in which they do not, even
though they are claimed to. The former are said to be good arguments, and the latter are bad
arguments.

Example 1(Good): Every mammal is animal. Cows are mammals. Therefore, cows are animals.

Example 2 (Bad): Everyone born in France can speak French. Emanuel Macron was born in France.
Therefore, Emanuel Macron can speak French.

Lesson 2: Techniques of Recognizing Arguments

A passage contains an argument if it purports to prove something; if it does not do so, it does not
contain an argument. Two conditions must be fulfilled for a passage to purport to prove something or to
be an argument:

1) At least one of the statements must claim to present evidence or reasons (Premise(s)
2) There must be a claim that the alleged evidence or reasons supports or implies something- that
is, a claim that something follows from the alleged evidence (Conclusion).

The first condition expresses a factual claim, and deciding whether it is fulfilled often falls outside the
domain of logic. Thus, most of our attention will be concentrated on whether the second condition is
fulfilled. The second condition expresses what is called an inferential claim.

The inferential claim is simply the claim that the passage expresses a certain kind of reasoning process—
that something supports or implies something or that something follows from something. The inferential
claim can be either explicit or implicit.

Note: In deciding whether there is a claim that evidence supports or implies something, keep an eye out
for (1) indicator words and (2) the presence of an inferential relationship between the statements. In
connection with these points, we should understand that the mere occurrence of an indicator word by no
means guarantees the presence of an argument. For instance, consider the following examples. The other
cautionary point is that it is not always easy to detect the occurrence of an inferential relationship between
the statements in a passage, and the reader may have to review a passage several times before making a
decision. In reaching such a decision, it sometimes helps to mentally insert the word “therefore” before
the various statements to see whether it makes sense to interpret one of them as following from the
others.

1. Since Edison invented the phonograph, there have been many technological developments. (Not
Argument)
2. Since Edison invented the phonograph, he deserves credit for a major technological development.
(Argument)

In the first passage the word “since” is used in a temporal sense. It means “from the time that.” Thus, the
first passage is not an argument. In the second passage “since” is used in a logical sense, and so the
passage is an argument.

Some Non-inferential (Non-argument) passages/expressions

i) Warning- is a form of expression that is intended to put someone to guard against a dangerous or
detrimental situation. Please have a look at the following examples.

Example : Watch out that you don’t slip on the ice.

ii) Advice- piece of advice is a form of expression that makes a recommendation about some future
decision or course of conduct.
iii) Beliefs/opinions- A statement of belief or opinion is an expression about what someone believes
or thinks about something.
iv) Loosely associated statements- these may talk about the general subject, but they lack a claim
that one of them is proved by the others.
v) Report- A report consists of a group of statements that convey information about some topic or
event.
vi) Expository Passages- it is a passage that begins with a topic sentence followed by one or more
sentences that develop the topic sentence. If the objective is not to prove the topic sentence but
only to expand it or elaborate it, then there is no argument.

Remember: Expository passages differ from simple non-inferential passages (such as warnings and
pieces of advice) in that many of them can also be taken as arguments. If the purpose of the subsequent
sentences in the passage is not only to flesh out the topic sentence but also to prove it, then the
passage is an argument.
Example: Skin and the mucous membrane lining the respiratory and digestive tracts serve as mechanical
barriers to entry by microbes. Oil gland secretions contain chemicals that weaken or kill bacteria on skin.
The respiratory tract is lined by cells that sweep mucus and trapped particles up into the throat, where
they can be swallowed. The stomach has an acidic pH, which inhibits the growth of many types of
bacteria.

This example is both an argument and expository passage.

i) Illustrations- consist of a statement about a certain subject combined with a reference to one or
more specific instances intended to exemplify that statement. An illustration intends to show how
something is done or what something means. Please consider the following examples.

Example 1: Chemical elements, as well as compounds, can be represented by molecular formulas. Thus,
oxygen is represented by “O2,” water by “H2O,” and sodium chloride by “NaCl.”

Example 2: A deciduous tree is any tree that loses its leaves during the winter. For example, maples are
deciduous. And so are elms, poplars, hawthorns, and alders.

These selections are not arguments because they make no claim that anything is being proved. In the first
selection, the word “thus” indicates how something is done—how chemical elements and compounds
can be represented by formulas. In the second selection, the examples cited are intended to illustrate the
meaning of the word “deciduous.” It pins down the meaning by providing concrete instances.

Remember: illustrations can be taken as arguments. Such arguments are often called arguments from
example. In deciding whether an illustration should be interpreted as an argument, one must determine
whether the passage merely shows how something is done or what something means, or whether it also
purports to prove something.

Example 1: Although most forms of cancer, if untreated, can cause death, not all cancers are life
threatening. For example, basal cell carcinoma, the most common of all skin cancers, can produce
disfigurement, but it almost never results in death.

In this example the statements are intended to prove the truth of “Not all cancers are life-threatening.”
Thus, the passage can be interpreted as an argument and illustration.

Example 2: Water is an excellent solvent. It can dissolve a wide range of materials that will not dissolve
in other liquids. For example, salts do not dissolve in most common solvents, such as gasoline, kerosene,
turpentine and cleaning fluids. But man salts dissolve readily in water. So do a variety of nonionic organic
substances, such as sugars and alcohols of low molecular weight.

ii) Explanation-is a group of statements that purports to shed light on some event or phenomenon.
The event or phenomenon in question is usually accepted as a matter of fact. The purpose of an
explanation is to explain why the explanandum is true.

Every explanation is composed of two distinct components: the “explanandum” and “explanans”. The
explanandum is the statement that describes the event or phenomenon to be explained, and the explanans
is the statement or group of statements that purports to do the explaining.
 Examples 1: The Columbia spacecraft disintegrated on reentry because its wing was damaged by
flying foam debris during liftoff.

Examples 2: The Challenger spacecraft exploded after liftoff because an O-ring failed in one of the
booster rockets.

Examples 3: The sky appears blue from the earth’s surface because light rays from the sun are
scattered by particles in the atmosphere.

Remember: to distinguish explanations from arguments, identify the statement that is either the
explanandum or the conclusion (usually this is the statement that precedes the word “because”). If this
statement describes an accepted matter of fact, and if the remaining statements purport to shed light on
this statement, then the passage is an explanation. In some cases, some passages can be interpreted as
both explanations and arguments.

Example: Women become intoxicated by drinking a smaller amount of alcohol than men because men
metabolize part of the alcohol before it reaches the bloodstream, whereas women do not.

The purpose of this passage could be to prove the first statement to those people who do not accept it as
fact, and to shed light on that fact to those people who do accept it. Alternately, the passage could be
intended to prove the first statement to a single person who accepts its truth on blind faith or incomplete
experience, and simultaneously to shed light on this truth. Thus, the passage can be correctly interpreted
as both an explanation and an argument.

iii) Conditional Statements- A conditional statement is an “if . . .then . .” statement.

Every conditional statement is made up of two component statements. The component statement
immediately following the “if” is called the “antecedent”, and the one following the “then” is called
the “consequent”.

Examples 1: If professional football games incite violence in the home, then the widespread approval
given to this sport should be reconsidered.

Examples 2: If Lance Armstrong has won the Tour de France six consecutive times, then he ranks as
king of the hill in the world’s most famous bicycle race.
Remember: Some conditional statements are similar to arguments, however, in that they express the
outcome of a reasoning process. As such, they may be said to have a certain inferential content.

 A single conditional statement is not an argument. Consider the following example.

Example: If X is a dog, then X is an animal.

 A conditional statement may serve as either the premise or the conclusion (or both) of an
argument. Consider the following example.

Example: If Iran is developing nuclear weapons, then Iran is a threat to world peace.Iran is developing
nuclear weapons.Therefore, Iran is a threat to world peace.

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

Consider the following example.

Example: If Arnold Schwarzenegger was born a citizen of Austria, then he cannot be elected president of
the United States.

This conditional statement is not an argument. But it can be re-expressed to form an argument. Consider
the following example.

Example: Arnold Schwarzenegger was born a citizen of Austria. Therefore, he cannot be elected
president of the United States.

Necessary and Sufficient Conditions

a. Necessary condition- One condition, X, is necessary for another condition, Y, if and only if
everything which is Y is also X. That is, X is necessary for Y if and only if there’s no way to be
Y without being X.

Example: Being an animal is a necessary condition to be a dog.

b. Sufficient condition- One condition, X, is sufficient for another condition, Y, if and only if
everything which is X is also Y. That is, X is sufficient for Y if and only if there’s no way to be X
without also being Y.

Example: Being a dog is a sufficient condition to be an animal.

Activity 3:Determine whether the following expressions are arguments or not. For those expressions
which are not argument, indicate the form of expression.

1. The turkey vulture is called by that name because its red featherless head resembles the head of a wild
turkey.
2. All police chiefs are honest. John is a police chief. Therefore, John is honest.
3. Tony Blair became unpopular because of his role involving Great Britain in the war in Iraq.
4. If Washington DC is in America, then it is the capital city of America.

Lesson 3: Types of Arguments: Deductive and Inductive

 1. Deductive argument: A deductive argument is an argument in which the arguer claims that it is
impossible for the conclusion to be false given that the premises are true. This guarantee-that
true premises will yield true conclusions. The conclusion of a deductive argument puts together
or restates information that is contained in the premises without adding new information. In such
arguments the conclusion is claimed to follow necessarily from the premises.
 Deductive arguments are those that involve necessary reasoning.
 Deductive arguments preserve truth because they recombine and restate information that is
contained at least implicitly in the premises.
 The conclusion of a deductive argument can restate or recombine information, put it
together in novel ways.

Example : All deliberate killing of helpless persons is wrong. Euthanasia (mercy killing) is a
deliberate killing of a helpless person. Hence, Euthanasia is wrong.

2. Inductive argument: An inductive argument is an argument in which the arguer claims that it is
improbable that the conclusion be false given that the premises are true. In these arguments the
conclusion is claimed to follow only probably from the premises.
 Inductive arguments are those that involve probabilistic reasoning.
 Inductive arguments can extend or amplify our factual knowledge. For this reason, we call
inductive arguments “ampliative.”
 Conclusions of inductive arguments amplify or go beyond the information found in their
premises.
 It means conclusions of ampliative arguments contain new information that is not present,
even implicitly, in their premises.

Example : Almost all politicians are communists. B. Obama is a politician. Probably B. Obama is a
communist.

Differentiating Deductive and Inductive Arguments

Three criteria are important to recognize deductive and inductive arguments. These are;

(1) Looking for special indicator words

(2) The actual strength of the inferential link between premises and conclusion- how strongly
the conclusion is claimed to follow from the premises, or how strongly the premises are claimed
to support the conclusion
(3) The character or form of argumentation the arguers use

1) Looking for special indicator words

Some Deductive argument indicators includes; “certainly,” “absolutely,” necessarily, and “definitely.”

Example : All politicians are lairs. D. J. Trump is a politician. Hence, it certainly follows that D. J.
Trump is a lair.

Some Inductive indicator words include; “improbable,” “plausible,” “implausible,” “likely,”

“unlikely,” and reasonable to conclude.”

Example : Most African leaders are dictators. Mr. Y is an African leader. Therefore, probably Mr. Y is a
dictator.
 2) The actual strength of the inferential link between premises and conclusion

If the conclusion actually does follow with strict necessity from the premises, the argument is clearly
deductive. In such argument, it is impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion false. If the
conclusion does not follow with strict necessity but does follow probably, it is often best to consider the
argument inductive.

Example 1 (Deductive): All entertainers are extroverts. David Letterman is an entertainer. Therefore,
David Letterman is an extrovert.

Example 2(Inductive): The vast majority of entertainers are extroverts. David Letterman is an
entertainer. Therefore, David Letterman is an extrovert.

3) using the character or form of argumentation the arguers uses

The following are some common forms of deductive and inductive arguments.

i) Some Deductive Argument Forms

a) Argument based on definition

An argument from definition is an argument in which the conclusion is claimed to depend merely upon
the definition of some word or phrase used in the premise or conclusion.

Example : Jack is a bachelor. Therefore, he has no wife.

b) Argument based on Mathematics

It is an argument in which the conclusion depends on some purely arithmetic or geometric computation or
measurement.

Example : Since 3+X=7. Therefore, the value of X must be 4.

c) Syllogistic Argument

It is an argument consisting of exactly two premises and one conclusion. Syllogistic arguments can be;
categorical, hypothetical and disjunctive arguments.

Categorical Syllogism: a syllogism in which each statement begins with one of the words “all,”
“no,” or “some.”

Example: All whales are mammals. All mammals are warm-blooded. Therefore, all whales are warm-
blooded.

Hypothetical syllogism: is a syllogism having a conditional statement for one or both of its premises.

Example : If Fox News is a propaganda machine, then it misleads its viewers. Fox news is a propaganda
machine. Therefore, Fox news misleads its viewers.

Disjunctive syllogism: is a syllogism having a disjunctive statement (i.e., an “either...or ...”

statement) for one of its premises.

Example : Either the prime minster or the president is the head of the government in Ethiopia. The
president is not the head of the government. Therefore, the prime minster is the head of the government in
Ethiopia.
 ii) Some Inductive Argument forms
1) Argument based on prediction

It is an argument that proceeds from our knowledge of the past to a claim about the future.

Example : The rainfall in Addis Ababa has been more than 15 inches every year for the past thirty years.
Therefore, the rainfall next year will probably be more than 15 inches.

2) Argument based on analogy

It is an argument that depends on the existence of an analogy, or similarity, between two things or states
of affairs. Because of the existence of this analogy, a certain condition that affects the better-known thing
or situation is concluded to affect the similar, lesser-known thing or situation.

Example : The Encylopaedia Britannica has an article on symbiosis. The Encyclopedia Americana, like
the Britannica, is an excellent reference work. Therefore, the Americana probably also has an article on
symbiosis.

3) Inductive generalization

An inductive generalization is an argument that proceeds from the knowledge of a selected sample to
some claim about the whole group. Because the members of the sample have a certain characteristic, it is
argued that all the members of the group have that same characteristic.

Example: When asked how to address the militaristic ambitions of Syria, two Republican senators said
we should drop bombs on Damascus, and a third said we should invade. The obvious conclusion is that
Republicans are all a bunch of war mongers.

4) Argument based on statistics

A statistical argument rests on statistical evidence—that is, evidence that some percentage of some group
or class has some particular characteristic.

Example: Various researchers have studied the different effect of divorce on men and women. One study
of 3,000 divorces, based on Los Angeles county records from 1977–78, showed that when marital
property was divided equally in a divorce, men’s standard of living improved by 42% on average during
the first year following the divorce, while women’s dropped by 73%. Later analysis of the same data by
Richard Peterson showed that because of mistakes in recording information, the true figure was closer to
a 10% increase for men and a 27% decline for women.

In this example, the statistical information shows that a policy designed to be fair (50–50 division of
property in divorce settlements) has unexpected implications.

5) Argument based on authority

It is an argument that concludes something is true because a presumed expert or witness has said that it is.

Example : A poll administered by Gallup (a respected polling company) showed candidate x to be

substantially behind candidate y with only a week left before the vote, therefore candidate y will probably
not win the election.
 6) Argument based on signs

It is an argument that proceeds from the knowledge of a sign to a claim about the thing or situation that
the sign symbolizes. Here, the word “sign,” as it is used here, means any kind of message (usually visual)
produced by an intelligent being.

Example : Although both front and rear doors were found open after the burglary, there were pry marks
around the lock on the rear door and deposits of mud near the threshold. It must be the case that the thief
entered through the rear door and left through the front.

7) Causal Inference

It is an argument which proceed from the knowledge of a cause to the knowledge of an effect, or
conversely, from the knowledge of an effect to knowledge of a cause.

Example : A bottle of water had been accidentally left in the freezer overnight. Therefore, the water
had frozen.

Activity 4: Categorize the following arguments as deductive or inductive; and indicate the specific
character or form of argumentation used.

1. The sign says it is seven miles to Lake Tana. Therefore, we are approximately seven miles to Lake
Tana.
2. Melat is an extrovert. It follows that she is an outgoing.
3. All inductive generalizations are inductive. Some inductive generalizations are unreliable.
Therefore, some inductive arguments are unreliable.
4. If my car is out of gas, it won’t start. My car won’t start. Therefore, it is out of gas.

Lesson 4: Evaluating Deductive and Inductive Arguments

Every argument makes two basic claims: a claim that evidence or reasons exist and a claim that the
alleged evidence or reasons support something (or that something follows from the alleged evidence or
reasons). The first claim is a factual claim, and the second is an inferential claim. Therefore, the
evaluation of every argument centers on the evaluation of these two claims. However, the most important
of the two is the inferential claim- does the premise(s) adequately support or fail to support the
conclusion (that is, if the reasoning is bad), an argument is worthless. But if the premises do support the
conclusion, then we should test the factual claim (that is, the claim that the premises present
genuine evidence, or are true).

4.1. Deductive Arguments: Validity and soundness

Valid argument: an argument is deductively valid if and only if the truth of its premises is sufficient for
the truth of its conclusion. Equivalently, an argument is deductively valid if and only if there is no way
for all premises to be true while its conclusion is simultaneously false. In deductive valid arguments the
conclusion follows with strict necessity from the premises.

Invalid argument: it is a deductive argument in which it is possible for the conclusion to be false given
that the premises are true. In these arguments the conclusion does not follow with strict necessity from the
premises, even though it is claimed to.

Sound argument: an argument is deductively sound if and only if it is deductively valid and all of its
premises are true.
Unsound argument: it is a deductive argument that is either valid with one or more false premises, or
invalid, or both.

Example1 (valid): All philosophers are critical thinkers. Plato was a philosopher. Therefore, Plato was a
critical thinker.

Example 2 (Invalid): All philosophers are critical thinkers (Tp). Plato was a critical thinker (Tp).
Therefore, Plato was a philosopher (Tc).

Example 3 (Invalid): All biologists are scientists. (Tp) John Nash was a scientist (Tp).Therefore, John
Nash was a biologist. (Fc)

Example 4 (Valid): All wines are soft drinks (Fc). Coca cola is a wine (Fc). Therefore, Coca cola is a
soft drink. (Tc)

Example 5 (Invalid): All wines are soft drinks (Fc). Axumite is a soft drink (Fc). Therefore, Axumite is
a wine. (Tc)

Example 6 (Valid): All squares are circles (Fp). All circles are triangles (Fp). Therefore, all squares are
triangles. (Fc)

Example 7 (Invalid): All wines are whiskeys (Fp). Coca cola is a whiskey (Fp). Therefore, Coca cola is a
wine. (Fc)

Remember: There is no a valid argument with true premises and false conclusion. All invalid
arguments are unsound, but it does not mean that a valid deductive argument is necessarily sound. A
sound argument is an argument which is valid and has all true premises.

Activity 5: Evaluate the following deductive arguments as valid, invalid, sound and unsound.

1. Given that figure A is an equilateral triangle, and one of its sides has a length of 1 foot. It follows
that its area is less than 1 square foot.
2. All birds are animals. Crows are birds. Therefore, Crows are animals.
3. If Dinkenesh/Lucy is found in Ethiopia, then Ethiopia is the origin of mankind. Dinkenesh/Lucy is
found in Ethiopia. Hence, Ethiopia is the origin of mankind.
4. Either Kenya or Ethiopia was a colony of Britain. Ethiopia is not colonized by Britain. Therefore,
Kenya is colonized by Britain.
5. Either Bill Clinton or George W. Bush was president when the World Trade Center towers were
destroyed. But Bush was not president at that time. Therefore, Bill Clinton was president when
those buildings were destroyed.
6. No drug cartels are legal operations, so no legal operations are enterprises that engage in
smuggling, because all drug cartels are enterprises that engage in smuggling.
7. If interest rates rise, then home sales will decline. Thus, if interest rates rise, then real estate prices
will drop, because if home sales decline, then real estate prices will drop.
8. No taggers are publicly spirited citizens, because all taggers are criminals, and no criminals are
publicly spirited citizens.
 4.2. Inductive Arguments: Strength, Weakness and Cogency

Strong argument: it is an argument such that if the premises are assumed true, it is improbable for the
conclusion to be false. An argument is inductively strong to the extent that its conclusion is probable,
given the truth of its premises.

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

Cogent argument: is an inductive argument that is strong and has all true premises. Both conditions
must be met for an argument to be cogent, and if either is missing the argument is uncogent.

Uncogent argument: is an inductive argument that is either strong with one or more false premises, or
weak, or both.

Example 1 (Strong): All previous U.S. presidents were older than 40 (Tp). Therefore, probably the next
U.S. president will be older than 40 (probably Tc).

Example 2 (Weak): A few U.S. presidents were lawyers (Tp). Therefore, probably the next U.S.
president will be older than 40 (probably Tc).

Example 3 (Strong): A barrel contains one hundred apples. Eighty apples selected at random were found
tasty. Therefore, probably all one hundred apples in the barrel are tasty.

Example 4 (Weak): A barrel contains one hundred apples. Three apples selected at random were found
tasty. Therefore, probably all one hundred apples in the barrel are tasty.

Example 5 (Strong): After hearing President's speech in the student council, Dawit rolled his eyes and
shook his head. Apparently Dawit didn't agree with what the President said.

Remember: In a cogent argument, the premises must not only be true, they must also not ignore
some important piece of evidence that outweighs the given evidence and entails a quite different
conclusion. That is, if the premises reflect all the important factors, then the argument is cogent; if not,
then obviously the argument is not cogent. Thus, for cogency, the premises must not only be true but also
not overlook some important factor that outweighs the given evidence and requires a different conclusion.
There is no strong argument with true premise(s) and false conclusion.All weak arguments are uncogent,
but it does not mean that any strong argument is necessarily cogent. A cogent argument is an inductive
argument which strong and has all true premises.

Activity 6: Evaluate the following inductive arguments as strong, weak, cogent and uncogent.

1. After examining DNA evidence found at the crime scene, Dr. Jacobs (who is a highly qualified
forensic biologist), says that Alex Foster could not have committed the crime. Therefore, we
conclude that Foster is innocent.
2. The arctic ice cap has been shrinking for several years as a result of global warming, and that trend
is expected to continue. Therefore, since arctic polar bears depend on that ice for survival, the arctic
polar bear population will shrink in the years ahead.
3. Beneath the image of Thomas Jefferson on U.S. five-cent coin we see "1975." It must be the case
that the coin was minted in 1975.
 4. When asked how to address the militaristic ambitions of Syria, two Republican senators said we
should drop bombs on Damascus, and a third said we should invade. The obvious conclusion is that
Republicans are all a bunch of war mongers.

CHAPTER THREE

LOGIC AND LANGUAGE

2.1. Functions of language

Ordinary language serves various functions in our day-to-day lives. According to Ludwig Wittgenstein
language has various functions. According to him, language is used to:

 ask questions
 tell jokes and stories
 give directions
 guess at answers
 sing songs
 form hypotheses
 give commands
 launch verbal assaults
 greet someone
Grammarians also distinguish four sentence types, which reflect the uses of language. Accordingly,
sentences can be used to;

 Make assertions- the Waliya national football team win the Lesotho’s team.
 Ask questions- did the Waliya national football team win the Lesotho’s team?
 Tell what to do- you should study with your friends.
 Express feelings- I wish a good luck for our national football team.

2.2. Language in Logic

2.3. Purposes of Language in Logic

Although various functions of language are stated in the above, for the purpose of our discussion, two
linguistic functions are particularly important. These are cognitive and emotive functions. The cognitive
function of language is to convey information (Cognitive meaning). Whereas, the emotive function isto
express or evoke feelings (Emotive/Affective meaning). For instance, the following examples illustrate
the two functions of language.

Example 1:“Death penalty, which is legal in thirty-six states, has been carried out most often in
Georgia; however, since 1977 Texas holds the record for the greatest number of executions.”

Example 2: “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.”

The first statement is intended primarily to convey information about the death penalty, while the second
is intended to persuade us that the death penalty is bad. The second example accomplishes this function
by engaging our feelings and not, as in an argument, by establishing the truth of a claim. These statements
accomplish their respective functions through the distinct kinds of terminology in which they are phrased.
Terminology that conveys information is said to havecognitive meaning, and terminology that expresses
or evokes feelings is said to haveemotive meaning.

The emotively charged statement about the death penalty illustrates two important points. The first is that
statements of this sort usually have both cognitive meaning and emotive meaning. Therefore, since logic
is concerned chiefly with cognitive meaning, we must be able to distinguish and disengage the cognitive
meaning of such statements from the emotive meaning. The second point is that part of the emotive
meaning of such statements is a value claim. A value claim is a claim that something is good, bad, right,
wrong, or better or worse, more important or less important than some other thing. For example, the
statement about the death penalty asserts the value claim that the death penalty is wrong or immoral. Such
value claims are oft en the most important part of the cognitive meaning of emotive statements. Thus, for
the purposes of logic, we must be able to disengage the value claims of emotively charged statements
from the emotive meaning and treat these claims as separate statements.

2.4. Emotive Terminologies in Arguments

In arguments, emotive terminology accomplishes basically the same function 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 counter arguments before the reader or listener has a chance to think of them.

This steamroller quality also tends to paralyze the logical thought processes of readers or 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 re-express them as distinct premises. Consider, for
example, the following emotively charged argument taken from the letters to the editor section of a
newspaper:

Example: Now that we know that the rocks on the moon are similar to those in our backyard and that
tadpoles can exist in a weightless environment, and now that we have put the rest of the world in order,
can we concentrate on the problems here at home? Like what makes people hungry and why is
unemployment so elusive?

The conclusion of this argument is that our government should take money that has been spent on the
space program and on international police actions and redirect it to solving domestic problems.
The author minimizes the importance of the space program by covertly suggesting that it amounts to
nothing more than work on ordinary rocks and tadpoles (which, by themselves are relatively
insignificant), and he exaggerates the scope of the international effort by covertly suggesting that it
has solved every problem on earth but our own. Also, the phrase ‘‘put . . . in order’’ suggests that the
international effort has been no more important than restoring order to a room in one’s house. But we can
rephrase the argument in emotively neutral language, making the implicit suggestions and value claims
explicit, as follows:

P-1: The space program has been confined to work on ordinary rocks and tadpoles.

P-2: Ordinary rocks and tadpoles are less important than domestic hunger and unemployment.

P-3: Our international efforts have restored order to every nation on earth but our own.

P-4: These efforts have been directed to problems that are less important than our own domestic
problems.

C: Therefore, our government should redirect funds that have been spent on these projects to solving our
own domestic problems.

By restructuring the argument in this way, we can more easily evaluate the degree to which the premises
support the conclusion. Inspection of the premises reveals that the first, third, and possibly fourth
premises are false. Thus, the actual support provided by the premises is less than what we might have first
expected. If the argument were to be rephrased a second time so that the premises turned out true (for
example, the first premise might read ‘‘Part of the space program has been devoted to research on
ordinary rocks and tadpoles’’), the support given to the conclusion would still be weaker than the author
intended.

2.5. Deficiency of Cognitive Meanings: Vagueness and Ambiguity

There are two major problems that affect our cognitive use of language. These are vagueness and
ambiguity.

Vagueness: an expression is said to be vague if there are no borderline cases in which it is impossible
to tell for what purpose an expression applies or does not apply. Vague expressions often allow for a
continuous range of interpretations. The meaning is hazy, obscure, and imprecise. For instance, if we
consider the word “rich”, it is vague, because different people may understand it from different reference
points. Similarly words such as ‘‘love,’’ ‘‘happiness”, “peace,’’ ‘‘excessive,’’ ‘‘fresh,’’ ‘‘rich,’’ ‘‘poor,’’
‘‘normal,’’ ‘‘conservative,’’ and ‘‘polluted’’ are vague. We can rarely tell with any precision whether
they apply to a given situation or not.
Vagueness arises when several criteria exist for application of a term, with no specification of how many
criteria have to be fulfilled or to what degree. For example, let’s consider the expression, where no
specification or criteria is given.

Example 1: “Hana is a good friend.”

In this example, no specification or criteria is given for being a good friend.

Example 2: Any student wearing inappropriate clothing will receive detention.

In this example, the word “inappropriate” is vague, since no appropriate context for the application of the
word is given. In addition the word is imprecise or no criterion is given to say certain clothing is
inappropriate or not.

Ambiguity: refers to a doubtful sense of a word or phrase. Many words have more than one meaning. A
word or expression is ambiguous if it has two or more distinct meanings and the context does not make
clear which meaning is intended. Ambiguity is what makes puns and many jokes funny, but used
unintentionally it can destroy the effectiveness of an argument. For example, words such as “star”,
‘‘light,’’ ‘‘proper,’’ ‘‘critical,’’ ‘‘stress,’’ ‘‘mad,’’ ‘‘inflate,’’ ‘‘chest,’’ ‘‘bank,’’ ‘‘sound,’’ and ‘‘race’’
can be used ambiguously. For instance, the word “star”, can mean, among other things, a Hollywood
celebrity or a twinkling celestial object.

Example 1: Semahegn went to the bank. (Here the word “Bank” is ambiguous since the word may be
understood in the sense of a financial institution or “bank” in the sense of a slope bordering on a
river? Or could it be a blood bank?)

Example 2: Mad men should not be permitted to make important decisions concerning the lives of others.
My father is mad.Therefore, my father should not be permitted to make important decisions concerning
the lives of others.

In this argument, the word “mad” may have two distinct meanings. For instance, in the first premise mad
means “not mentally competent”. Whereas, in the second premise mad means “angry”.

Generally, in a vague expression there is a blur of meaning, whereas in an ambiguous expression a

term has two distinct/non-overlapping meanings. Therefore, there will be miscommunication that can
result when a word has more than one meaning and the intended meaning is not clarified by definition or
by context.

In some cases, this failure results in what is known as a verbal dispute, which occurs when people appear
to disagree on an issue but in actuality have simply not resolved the ambiguity of a key term. For
Example, suppose that Kidus and Genet are asked the question; “Is the suspect arrested last night guilty
of the crime?”Kidus answers as “No, a person is innocent until proven guilty.” Genet disagrees and
gives her answer as “I say he is guilty; he confessed when he was picked up.” There is really no
disagreement here on whether the suspect committed the crime or not; but the difference is that Kidus is
defining guilty in a legal sense (the suspect hasn’t been convicted yet); whereas Genet is defining it to
mean that the suspect did the crime of which he or she is accused.

On the other hand, disputes may arise because of some facts, which is called factual dispute.A factual
dispute, on the other hand, occurs when opponents disagree not over the meanings of words but over the
relevant facts. For example, person A might say, “That man did not commit the crime; he has an
alibi.” Person B might respond, “He did commit the crime; I saw him do it.”

2.6. The Intension and Extension of Terms

The basic units of any ordinary language are words. Our main concern in this section, however, is not
with words in general but with terms.

Term: a term is any word or arrangement of words that may serve as the subject ofa statement. Terms
consist of proper names, common names, and descriptive phrases. Here are some examples of terms.

Words that are not terms include verbs, non-substantive adjectives, adverbs, prepositions, conjunctions,
and all non-syntactic arrangements of words. The following words or phrases are not terms; none can
serve as the subject of a statement:

Words are usually considered to be symbols, and the entities they symbolize are usually called meanings.
Terms, being made up of words, are also symbols, but the meanings they symbolize are of two kinds:
intensional and extensional.

Intensional meaning (Connotation): consists of the qualities or attributes that the term connotes.

Extensional meaning (Extension or Denotation): consists of the members of the class that the term
denotes.

Example 1:the ‘intensional meaning of the term ‘cat’’ consists of the attributes of being furry, of having
four legs, of moving in a certain way, of emitting certain sounds.
Example 2:the extensional meaning consists of cats themselves—all the cats in the universe.

Exactly how a term connotes a set of attributes allows for at least two different interpretations. Some
philosophers take an objective approach and hold that a term connotes whatever attributes something
must have in order to be denoted by the term. Others take what might be called a subjective approach and
hold that a term connotes the attributes that occur in the minds of the people who use that term.In
connection with this approach, however, we encounter the problem of terms connoting different things to
different people. For instance, to a cat lover the term “cat” might connote the attributes of being cuddly
and adorable, while to someone who hates cats it might connote the attributes of being obnoxious and
disgusting. To avoid this problem, we should restrict the meaning of connotation to what is usually called
the conventional connotation. The conventional connotation of a term includes the attributes that the
term commonly calls forth in the minds of competent speakers of the language. Under this interpretation,
the connotation of a term remains more or less the same from person to person and from time to time.

The denotation of a term also typically remains the same from person to person, but it may change over
time. The denotation of “currently living cat,” for example, 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. The terms “currently living dodo bird” and “current king of France,” for example, at
one time denoted actually existing entities, but today all such entities have perished. Accordingly, these
terms now have what is called empty extension. They denote the empty (or “null”) class, the class that
has no members. For instance, terms with empty extension include “unicorn,” “leprechaun,” “gnome,”
“elf,” and “griffin.” While these terms have empty extension, however, they do not have empty
intension.

The fact that some terms have empty extension leads us to an important connection between extension
and intension—namely, that intension determines extension. The intensional meaning of a term serves as
the criterion for deciding what the extension consists of. Because we know the attributes connoted by the
term “unicorn,” for example, we know that the term has empty extension. That is, we know that there are
no four-legged mammals having a single straight horn projecting from their forehead. Similarly, the
intension of the word “cat” serves as the criterion for determining what is or what not a member of cats.

2.6.1. Orders of Intensional and Extensional Meaning of Terms

The distinction between intension and extension may be further illustrated by comparing the way in
which these concepts can be used to give order to random sequences of terms. Terms may be put in the
order of increasing intension, increasing extension, decreasing intension, and decreasing extension.

Increasing Intension: a series of terms is in the order of increasing intension when each term in the
series (except the first) connotes more attributes than the one preceding it. In other words, each term in
the series (except the first) is more specific than the one preceding it. (A term is specific to the degree that
it connotes more attributes.)

Increasing Extension: a series of terms is in the order of increasing extension when each term in the
series (except the first) denotes a class has more members than the class denoted by the term preceding it.
In other words, the class size gets larger with each successive term.

Decreasing Intension: its order is the reverse of increasing intension. It is usually the same with the
order of increasing extension.

Decreasing Extension: it follows the order of the reverse of that of increasing extension. It is usually the
same with the order of increasing intension.

Examples:
Remember: although the orders of words given in the above usually works, there are some exceptions.
For instance, in some cases while the series exhibits the order of increasing intension, it may not exhibit
the order of decreasing extension. Please consider the following examples.

Example 1: Unicorn; unicorn with blue eyes; unicorn with blue eyes and green horn; unicorn with blue
eyes, green horn, and a weight of over 400 pounds.

Example 2: 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 brain, and a height of less than 100
feet.

In the first example, each term in this series has empty extension; so, while the series exhibits the order of
increasing intension, it does not exhibit the order of decreasing extension. In the second example none of
the terms in the series 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.

2.7. Types and Purposes of Definitions

Meaning of Definition

Over the years philosophers have held various conflicting views about the purpose of definitions. For
example, Plato claimed that definitions were intended to explicate the meaning of certain eternal essences
or forms, such as justice, piety, and virtue. For most logicians today, however, definitions are intended
exclusively to explicate the meaning of words. In conformity with this latter position, we may define
definition as a group of words that assigns a meaning to some word or group of words.

Accordingly, every definition consists of two parts: the definiendum and definiens. The definiendumis
the word or group of words that is supposed to be defined, and the definiens is the word or group of
words that does the defining.

Example: “Tiger”means a large, striped, ferocious feline indigenous to the jungles of India and Asia.

Here, the word “tiger” is the definiendum, and everything after the word “means” is the definiens.

The definiens is not itself the meaning of the definiendum; rather, it is the group of words that symbolizes
(or that is supposed to symbolize) the same meaning as the definiendum. Because we presumably know in
advance what the definiens symbolizes, we are led, via the definition, to understand what the definiendum
symbolizes. It is in this way that the definition “assigns” a meaning to its definiendum.
Once it has been decided that definitions explicate the meaning of words, other disagreements emerge
among the philosophers. Some argue that since a definition is merely a rule that allows one set of words
(the definiens) to be used in place of another set (the definiendum), definitions communicate no
information at all about the subject matter of the definiendum. Others take the opposite tack and argue
that since definitions result in a clarification of language, they provide a means for the discovery of
deeper philosophical truths. It seems, however, that neither of these approaches is able to make good
sense of all the various kinds of definitions that are actually employed in ordinary usage. As a result,
instead of beginning their analysis of definitions with a set of a priori criteria, many logicians take a
pragmatic approach and begin with a survey of the various kinds of definitions that are actually used and
of the functions that they actually serve.

Types and purposes of Definition

There are various kinds of definitions that are actually used in our practical life. Based on the functions
that they actually serve, definitions can be classified into five: stipulative, lexical, précising,
theoretical, and persuasive definitions.

1. Stipulative Definition

It is a definition that a writer or speaker has assigns a meaning to a term for the first time. This may
involve either coining a new word or giving a new meaning to an old word. The need for a stipulative
definition is often occasioned by some new phenomenon or development.

Purposes: usually to replace a more complex expression with a simpler one and to set up secret codes.

Example 1:‘‘Tigon’’ mean the offspring of a male tiger and a female lion.

Example 2: “Wotan” was the German code name for a radar system; “Golfplatz” signified Great Britain;
and “Operation Sealion” was the plan to invade Great Britain. “Operation Crossbow” was the British
code name for countermeasures against the V-2 rocket

2. Lexical Definition

This is a definition used to report the meaning that a word already has in a language. Dictionary
definitions are all instances of lexical definitions.

Purposes: to report the meaning that a word already has in a language and eliminating the ambiguity that
would otherwise arise if one of these meanings were to be confused with another.

Example: “Pastel” means a color having a soft, subdued shade.

Example: “Rug” means a heavy fabric used to cover a floor.
3. Précising Definitions

These are definitions that intend to make a borderline in which it is possible or impossible that words can
be applicable or not applicable.

Purpose: to reduce the vagueness of a word or showing the precise usage of a term.

Example 1: “‘Poor’ means having an annual income of less than $4,000 and a net worth of less than
$20,000”
Example 2: The newly elected governor wants to raise taxes on the rich, which he defines as anyone
making more than $100,000 a year in take-home pay.

4. Theoretical Definitions

A theoretical definition assigns a meaning to a word by suggesting a theory that gives a certain
characterization to the entities that the term denotes.

Purpose: giving theoretical characterization to entities. It alsoprovides a way of viewing or conceiving

these entities that suggests deductive consequences, further investigation (experimental or otherwise), and
whatever else would be entailed by the acceptance of a theory governing these entities.

Example: “Heat” means the energy associated with the random motion of the molecules of a substance.

5. Persuasive Definition

The purpose of a persuasive definition is to engender a favorable or unfavorable attitude toward what is
denoted by the definiendum. It is a definition given to a term in an effort to persuade the reader or listener
to agree with the writer’s or speaker’s point of view. This purpose is accomplished by assigning an
emotionally charged or value-laden meaning to a word while making it appear that the word really has (or
ought to have) that meaning in the language in which it is used.

Example 1: “Taxation” means the procedure used by bureaucrats to rip off the people who elected them.

Example 2:“Democracy” means the acceptance and practice of the principle of equality of rights,
opportunities, and treatment; lack of snobbery.

Example 3: “Capital punishment” means the state-sanctioned, vengeful murder of helpless prisoners.

Activity 1: categorize the following types of definitions as stipulative, précising, persuasive and
lexical.

1. A “heavy smoker,” for purposes of this clinical trial, is anyone who smokes more than twenty-
four cigarettes per day.
2. “Capital punishment” means the infliction of appropriate punishment on vicious cowards who
have no regard for life.
3. “Lottoholic” means someone who is obsessed with playing the lottery.
4. “Suicide” means the act of deliberately killing oneself.
5. Advertising is the means by which companies convince unsuspecting consumers to buy defective
or unnecessary products.

2.8. Definitional Techniques

Extensional techniques

a) Ostensive Definition: Provide a concrete example of the term.

Example: The capital letter a looks like this: A.

b) Enumerative Definition: List members of the class to which the term refers. Example: The term
country refers to France, England, Iraq, Mexico, and so on.
c) Definition by Sub-class: Indicate what subclasses the word contains.
Example: Fiction includes short stories, novellas, and novels.

Intensional techniques

a) Etymological Definition: Show the history of the term.

Example: A playwright is not one who writes plays, but one who makes a play the way a wheelwright
makes a wheel. The term wright comes from an Old English word, wrytha, meaning “work.”

b) Synonymous Definition: Use a word that has the same meaning or nearly the same meaning as
the term being defined.

Example: A playwright is a dramatist.

c) Definition by Genus and Difference: Place the term in a class that helps narrow its meaning and
then provide characteristics that distinguish the term from other terms in the same class.

Example: A fawn is a young deer.

d) Operational definition

2.9. Rules for Constructing Good Lexical Definitions

Some readers may have noticed how difficult it is come up with good, accurate definitions. Every method
has its pitfalls. While you may have occasion to stipulate a definition or to indicate precisely what is
meant by a vague term such as participation or heavy smoker, most critical thinking contexts call for
lexical definitions. Here are a few simple rules that will help you to construct sound definitions and
evaluate those of others.

Rule 1: Don’t make the definition too broad or too narrow.

A definition is too broad if it includes too much and is too narrow if it includes too little. A good
definition applies to all and only the things being defined.

A definition of automobile as “a vehicle with four wheels” would be too broad because it would include
golf carts and lawn mowers.

A definition of sibling as “brother” would be too narrow because it fails to include sisters.

Too broad definition

Example: “Knife” means “an instrument for cutting”

Too narrow definition

Example: “Table” means “a piece of furniture consisting of a flat top set horizontally on four legs”

Too broad and narrow definition

Example: “Cat” means “domestic animal”

Rule 2:Convey the essential meaning of the word being defined.

A good definition should do more than just pick out some uniquely identifying properties of the thing
being defined.
Example: Horse means “the animal ridden by Napoleon during the battle of Waterloo” is clearly a poor
definition, even though the defining expression does apply uniquely to horses. The problem with the
definition is that it fails to capture the really important and necessary properties that make horses, rather
than, say, cows or sheep.

Expressing the essential meaning of a word can be very difficult and often requires specialized
knowledge.

Rule 3:Provide a context for ambiguous words.

Many words are ambiguous; that is, they have two or more distinct meanings. For example, a “walk” in
baseball is different from a “walk” in the park.

To prevent confusion, therefore, a good definition should indicate the context in which an ambiguous
word is being used. Thus, we might say, “‘Walk’ means (in baseball) an award of first base to a batter
who receives four pitched balls that are outside the strike zone and are not swung at by the batter.”

Rule 4:Avoid slanted definitions.

Don’t let personal preferences or attitudes interfere with your definition. Avoid slanted definitions—that
is, biased or emotionally charged definitions that improperly play on the emotions or attitudes of an
audience. Slanted definitions may be OK for a laugh, as in Woodrow Wilson’s famous definition of a
conservative as “a man who sits and thinks, mostly sits.” But don’t try to win a debate by a definition that
can rightly be won only by an argument.

Rule 5:Avoid figurative definitions.

A good definition should express clearly the conventional meaning of a word, not be couched in
figurative or metaphorical language. Consider these examples:

Example:Slot machine means one-armed bandit.

Example:Advertising means legalized lying.

Example:Religion means the flight of the alone to the Alone.

“Definitions” such as these may have their place (they may be humorous or clever, for example); but if a
straightforward definition is in order, such figurative language should be avoided.

Rule 6:Avoid needlessly obscure definitions.

A good definition should clarify the meaning of a word for someone who may be unfamiliar with the
term. Thus, a definition should not include a lot of big words or technical jargon that readers aren’t likely
to understand.

Example:Mouse means a quadrupedal mammalian of any of the more diminutive species of the genus
Mus of the order Rodentia.

For people not trained in biology, this definition is likely to be more confusing than helpful.

Rule 7:Avoid circular definitions.

A definition is circular if a person would need to know what the defined word means in order to
understand the word or words used to define it.
Example: Entomologist means someone who engages in the science of entomology.

Example: Gambler means someone who gambles.

Example:“Full-time student” means “a person who is enrolled full time in school”

Such definitions are likely to be unhelpful because the defining phrases are just slight variants of the
words being defined.

CHAPTER FOUR

BASIC CONCEPTS OF CRITICAL THINKING

1. Meaning of Critical Thinking

There are two levels of thinking: low order thinking and high order thinking

Low order thinking is about passively absorbing information and then repeats it back. It is parroting what
someone else has said. To accept anything without questioning is to be somebody else’s puppet, a second-
hand person. Lower order thinking is just blindly acting or reacting.
Higher-order thinking refers to the active, intelligent evaluation of ideas and information.
Critical thinking is the higher order thinking. It is defined as reasonable, reflective thinking that is focused
on deciding what to believe or do. Critical thinking is that mode of thinking – about any subject, content
or problem – in which the thinker improves the quality of his or her thinking by skillfully taking charge of
the structures inherent in thinking and imposing intellectual standards upon them. It involves thinking
about thinking; we engage in it when we consider whether our thinking (or someone else’s) abides by the
criteria of good sense and logic. Critical thinking is disciplined thinking governed by clear intellectual
standards.
Standards of Critical Thinking
 precision

Clarity relevance

fairness
Crtical consistency
Thinking

Logical
accuracy
Correctness

completeness

Clarity:

defining terms in understandable way certainty of what to say or write

everything that can be said can be said shun ambiguity
clearly

Precision:

Defining terms succinctly

Setting borderlines for terms which we use
Avoid vagueness

Relevance:

It counts in favor of something

It constitutes evidence or reason for it
It make something more likely to be true
 Eradicate irrelevancy

Consistency

Refers to a proposition or belief is true when it coheres e with a system of other proposition
Things or state of affairs that can be both or all true
Eliminate logical inconsistency, which involves saying or believing inconsistent things (i.e.,
things that cannot both or all be true) about a particular matter.

Accuracy

 Genuine or correct information

 True or trusted information
 Refuse to accept false information
 Decipher disinformation- false information produced and distributed with malign intent

Completeness

▪ Exhaustive information or reasons

▪ Get ride off shallow or superficial thinking

Fairness

 To be open-minded, impartial, and free of distorting biases and preconceptions

 To be completely free of biases and preconceptions
 To avoid prejudice on unfamiliar ideas, to prejudge issues, to stereotype outsiders, and to identify
truth with one’s own self-interest or the interests of his or her nation or group
Logical correctness

 Intelligence means the ability to see correct implications and arrive at conclusions
 Correct reasoning from premises to conclusion
 The correct connection between premises and conclusion

Principles of Good Argument

Good argument is basically an argument in which two conditions are met: All the premises are true, and
the premises provide good reasons to accept the conclusion
 1) The Structural Principle: premises are properly connected to its conclusion

2) The Relevance Principle:Premises are genuinely relevant (logically supportive) to the

conclusion

3) The Relevance Principle: premises are reasonable for those whom the argument is addressed to
believe these premises

4) The Sufficiency Principle: premises provide sufficient or good grounds to the conclusion.

5) The Rebuttal Principle: an argument has to be defensive and address counterarguments

Principles of Critical Thinking

fallibility-accpting the error or weakness

critical thiinking principles

Truth seeking- searching for truth (true or false) information

burden of proof - logical obligation to produce reasons
on be half of one.s own argument

charity- giving the benefit of the doubt to the person making the
argument, assuming that they have good intentions and are
presenting their argument in a reasonable and rational manner

The resolution principle- refers to the idea that when faced with conflicting or
contradictory information, one should seek to resolve the discrepancy by critically
evaluating the evidence and reasoning behind each perspective

The Suspension of Judgment Principle- practice of temporarily

withholding judgment or forming a conclusion until all relevant
information and evidence has been thoroughly considered

Characteristics of Critical Thinkers

Critical Thinkers

Have a passionate drive for clarity precision, accuracy, and other critical thinking standards
Are sensitive to ways in which critical thinking can be skewed by egocentrism, sociocentrism,
wishful thinking, and other impediments
Are skilled at understanding, analyzing, and evaluating arguments and viewpoints
Reason logically and draw appropriate conclusions from evidence and data.
Are intellectually honest with themselves, acknowledging what they don’t know and recognizing
their limitations
Listen open-mindedly to opposing points of view and welcome criticisms of beliefs and
assumptions.
Have the intellectual courage to face and assess fairly ideas that challenge even their most basic
beliefs
Have the intellectual perseverance to pursue insights or truths despite obstacles or difficulties

Uncritical thinkers

▪ Often think in ways that are un clear, imprecise, and inaccurate.

▪ Often fall prey to egocentrism, sociocentrism, relativistic thinking, unwarranted assumptions,
and wishful thinking
▪ Think illogically and draw unsupported conclusions from evidence and data
▪ Are closed-minded and resist criticisms of beliefs and assumptions.
▪ Lack awareness of their own biases and preconceptions
▪ Fear and resist ideas that challenge their basic beliefs
▪ Are easily distracted and lack the ability to zero in on the essence of an issue or a problem

Barriers to Critical Thinking

Here is a list of some of the most common barriers to critical thinking:

Lack of relevant background information
• Poor reading skills
• Bias
• Prejudice
• Superstition
• Egocentrism (self-centered thinking)
• sociocentrism (group-centered thinking)
• peer pressure
• Conformism
• Provincialism
Fear of change
• Narrow-mindedness
• Closed-mindedness
• Distrust in reason
• Relativistic thinking
• stereotyping
• Unwarranted assumptions
• scapegoating
Let’s examine in detail five of these impediments—egocentrism, sociocentrism, unwarranted
assumptions, relativistic thinking, and wishful thinking—that play an especially powerful role in
hindering critical thinking.

Egocentrism
 Egocentrics are selfish, self-absorbed people who view their interests, ideas, and values as
superior to everyone else’s.
 the tendency to accept and defend beliefs that harmonize with one’s self-interest
Sociocentrism
 Group-centered thinking. Just as egocentrism can hinder rational
 thinking by focusing excessively on the self, so sociocentrism can hinderrational thinking by
focusing excessively on the group
 the tendency to see one’s own group (nation, tribe, sect, peer group, and the like) as being
inherently better than others
Conformism
 Refers to our tendency to follow the crowd—that is, to conform (often unthinkingly) to authority
or to group standards of conduct and belief
Unwarranted Assumptions and Stereotypes
 An assumption is something we take for granted
 something taken for granted without good reason
 Hasty generalization, in which one draws a conclusion about a large class of things (in this case,
people) from a small sample.

Relativistic Thinking

 The view that truth is a matter of opinion. There are two popular forms of relativism:
subjectivism and cultural relativism
 Subjectivism is the view that truth is a matter of individual opinion.
 cultural relativism is the view that truth is a matter of social or cultural opinion
Wishful Thinking --- believing something not because you had good evidence for it but simply because
you wished it were true

Benefits of Critical Thinking

Critical thinking is beneficial for many reasons. It can help students do better in school by improving their
ability to understand, construct, and criticize arguments. It can help people succeed in their careers by
improving their ability to solve problems, think creatively, and communicate their ideas clearly and
effectively. It can also reduce the likelihood of making serious mistakes in important personal decisions,
promote democratic processes by improving the quality of public decision making, and liberate and
empower individuals by freeing them from the unexamined assumptions, dogmas, and prejudices of their
upbringing, their society, and their age.

The hardest task in the world is to think. —Ralph Waldo Emerson

CHAPTER FIVE

LOGICAL REASONING AND FALLACIES

What is Fallacy?

An argument is fallacious when it contains one or more logical fallacies. A fallacy is an argument that
contains a mistake in reasoning. According to P.J. Hurley (2012), a fallacy is a defect in an argument that
consists in something other than false premises alone. Such defects comprise either mistakes in reasoning
or the creation of an illusion that makes a bad argument appear good. Both deductive and inductive
arguments may contain fallacies; if they do, they are either unsound or uncogent, depending on the kind
of argument. Conversely, if an argument is unsound or uncogent, it has one or more false premises or it
contains a fallacy (or both).

Criteria for a good argument

There are four general criteria’s for a good argument, which specifically evaluate the relevance,
acceptability, sufficiency, and refutability of the premises. A good argument must have premises that: are
relevant to the truth of the conclusion, are acceptable to a logical person, together constitute
sufficient grounds for the truth of the conclusion, and anticipate and provide an effective
rebuttal to all reasonable challenges to the argument or to the position supported by it.

A good argument, to be logically correct and to fulfill the purposes for which we use arguments, should
fulfill the following criteria.

1. It should be deductively valid (or inductively strong) and have all true premises;
2. It should have its validity and truth-of-premises be as evident as possible to the parties involved;
3. It should be clearly stated (using understandable language and making clear what the premises
and conclusion are);
4. It should avoid circularity, ambiguity, and emotional language; and
5. It should be relevant to the issue at hand.

Types of Fallacy
Fallacies are usually divided into two broad categories. These are formal and informal fallacy.
i) Formal fallacy: is a fallacy committed due to a structural defect of argument. Fallacies of this
kind are found only in deductive arguments that have identifiable forms, such as categorical
syllogisms, disjunctive syllogisms, and hypothetical syllogisms. Please consider the following
examples.
Example 1: All tigers are animals.

All mammals are animals.

Therefore, all tigers are mammals.

The structure of this argument is; All A are B. All C are B. Therefore, all A are C.

Example 2: If apes are intelligent, then apes can solve puzzles. Apes can solve puzzles. Therefore, apes
are intelligent.

The structure of this argument is; If A, then B.

B.

Therefore, A.

ii) Informal fallacy: is a fallacy which is committed due to a defect in the very content of an
argument. Only a detail analysis on the content of an argument can reveal the source of the
trouble.

Example 1: Love is an emotion. God is love. Therefore, God is an emotion.

Here, in premise 1 we take “love” to mean “the feeling of love” – which makes premise 2 false or
doubtful. In premise 2 we take “love” to mean “a supremely loving person” or “the source of love” –
which makes premise 1 false or doubtful.

 Informal fallacies are broadly categorized under five categories.

1. Fallacies of relevance
2. Fallacies of weak induction
3. Fallacies of presumption
4. Fallacies of ambiguity
5. Fallacies of grammatical analogy
a) Fallacies of Relevance
 A fallacy of relevance occurs when an arguer offers reasons that are logically irrelevant to his or
her conclusion.

The following arguments are some of the typical forms of fallacy of relevance.
1) Appeal to Force (Argumentum ad Baculum: Appeal to the “Stick”)
 It occurs when an arguer poses a conclusion to another person by telling for the person either
implicitly or explicitly that some harm will-come to him or her if he or she does not accept the
conclusion.

Example 1:Secretary to boss: I deserve a raise in salary for the coming year. After all, you know how
friendly I am with your wife, and I’m sure you wouldn’t want her to find out what’s been going on
between you and that sexpot client of yours.

2) Appeal to Pity (Argumentum ad Misericordiam)

 This occurs when an arguer inappropriately attempts to evoke feelings of pity or compassion
from his listeners or readers.

Example 1: Taxpayer to judge: Your Honor, I admit that I declared thirteen children as dependents on
my tax return, even though I have only two. But if you find me guilty of tax evasion, my reputation will
be ruined. I’ll probably lose my job, my poor wife will not be able to have the operation that she
desperately needs, and my kids will starve. Surely I am not guilty.
3) Appeal to the People (Argumentum ad Populum)
 Nearly everyone wants to be loved, esteemed, admired, valued, recognized, and accepted
by others. Feeling of being part of community and belongingness are some of the most important
humans needs. The appeal to the people strikes these desires and needs to get acceptance
for conclusion. Or the appeal to the people (or ad populum fallacy) is an attempt to
persuade a person (or group) by appealing to these desires and needs.
 This fallacy has two approaches.

 Direct approach: occurs when an arguer, addressing a large group of people, excites the emotions
and enthusiasm of the crowd to win acceptance for his or her conclusion. The objective is to
arouse a kind of mob mentality. This is the strategy used by nearly every propagandist and
demagogue.

35
  Indirect approach: the arguer aims his or her appeal not at the crowd `as a whole but at one or
more individuals separately. This approach includes the forms of bandwagon, the appeal to
vanity, and the appeal to snobbery. All are standard techniques of the advertising industry.
 The two approaches of the ad populum fallacy have the same basic structure: You want to be
accepted/included in the group/loved/esteemed….. Therefore, you should accept XYZ as
true.
 There are three variants of this form of fallacy.

3.1) Bandwagon fallacy

 It is based on the assumption that the mass or majority are accepting it, therefore, you should
accept it in order to join the mass/majority. It is usually committed during advertisements.


Example:Most people think Wheaties is very nutritious. Therefore, the Wheaties is very nutritious.
3.2) Appeal to Vanity
 The appeal to vanity often associates the product with someone who is admired, pursued, or
imitated.
 The idea is that you, too, will be admired and pursued if you use or accept it.
Example: Wear this new Adidas fashion shoe! A shoe, which is worn only by few respected celebrities!
3.3)Appeal to snobbery
 Depends on a similar kind of association but it associates with people usually members of royal
families.
 Appeal to snobbery fallacy is based on this desire to be regarded as superior to others.
Example: A Rolls-Royce is not for everyone. If you qualify as one of the select few, this distinguished
classic may be seen and driven at British Motor Cars, Ltd. (By appointment only, please.)
4) Argument against the Person (Argumentum ad Hominem)
 This fallacy always involves two arguers. One of them advances (either directly or implicitly) a
certain argument and the other then responds by directing his or her attention not to the first
person’s argument but to the first person himself.
 It occurs in three variants.
a) ad hominem abusive,
b) ad hominem circumstantial and
c) You too (tuquoque).

36
 a) Ad HominemAbusive
 As its name suggests, the abusive ad hominem involves a direct attack on an individual’s
character rather than some circumstance related to him.
Example: Professor Snodblatt has argued against the theory of evolution. But Snodblatt is a pompous,
egotistical windbag and a card-carrying member of the Nazi Bikers Association. I absolutely refuse to
listen to him.
b) Ad Hominem Circumstantial
 This begins the same way as the ad hominem abusive, but instead of heaping verbal abuse on his
or her opponent, the respondent attempts to discredit the opponent’s argument by alluding to
certain circumstances that affect the opponent.
Example: “Well, you can forget about what Father Benedict says about the dangers of abortion, because
Father Benedict’s a priest, and priests are required to hold such views.” The speaker in this example is
citing Father Benedict’s circumstances (being a priest) to “refute” Father Benedict’s opinion.

c) You too (tuquoque) fallacy

 In this fallacy the second arguer cites some features in the life or behaviour of the first arguer
that conflict with the latter’s conclusion.
Example 1: Child to parent: “Your argument that I should stop stealing candy from the corner store is no
good. You told me yourself just a week ago that you, too, stole candy when you were a kid”
5) Accident fallacy
 This fallacy is committed when a general rule is applied to a specific case it was not intended to
cover.

Example 1: Freedom of speech is a constitutionally guaranteed right. Therefore, Mr. Kindu should not be
arrested for his speech that incited the riot last week in the class.
6) Straw man Fallacy

37
  This fallacy is committed when an arguer distorts an opponent’s argument or claims for the
purpose of more easily attacking it, demolishes the distorted argument, and then concludes that
the opponent’s real argument has been demolished.

Example 1: Senator Biddle has argued that we should outlaw violent pornography. Obviously, the
senator favors complete governmental censorship of books, magazines, and films. Frankly, I’m shocked
that such a view should be expressed on the floor of the U.S. Senate. It runs counter to everything this
great nation stands for. No senator should listen seriously to such a proposal.

7) Missing the Point (IgnoratioElenchi)

 This fallacy occurs when the premises of an argument support one particular conclusion, but then
a different conclusion, often vaguely related to the correct conclusion, is drawn.

Example 1: Crimes of theft and robbery have been increasing at an alarming rate lately. The conclusion
is obvious: we must reinstate the death penalty immediately.
8) Red Herring Fallacy
 This fallacy is committed when an arguer tries to sidetrack/off-tracking his/her audience by
raising a new issue and then claims that the original issue has effectively been settled by the
irrelevant diversion.

Example 1: Many people criticize Thomas Jefferson for being an owner of slaves. But Jefferson was one
of our greatest presidents, and his Declaration of Independence is one of the most eloquent pleas for
freedom and democracy ever written. Clearly, these criticisms are unwarranted.
b) Fallacies of Weak Induction

38
  These fallacies occur not because the premises are logically irrelevant to the conclusion, but
because the connection between premises and conclusion is not strong enough to support the
conclusion.
9) Appeal to Unqualified Authority (Argumentum ad Verecundiam)
 It occurs when the cited authority or witness is not trustworthy.

Example 1: My barber told me that Einstein’s general theory of relativity is a lot of nonsense. I guess
Einstein wasn’t as smart as everybody thinks he was.

10) Appeal to Ignorance (Argumentum ad Ignorantiam)

 When we lack evidence for or against a claim, it is usually best to suspend judgment—to admit
that we just don’t know. But an arguer treats a lack of evidence as reason to think that a claim is
true or false.

Example 1:No one has proved that humans are responsible for global warming. So, we must conclude
that humans are not responsible for global warming.

11) Hasty Generalization (Converse Accident)

 This is a fallacy that affects inductive generalizations.
 The fallacy occurs when there is a reasonable likelihood that the sample is not representative of the
group.
 Such likelihood may arise if the sample is either too small or not randomly selected.

Example 1: Six Arab fundamentalists were convicted of bombing the World Trade Center in New York
City. The message is clear: Arabs are nothing but a pack of religious fanatics prone to violence.
12) False Cause Fallacy

39
  It occurs whenever the link between premises and conclusion depends on some imagined causal
connection that probably does not exist.
 This fallacy has three variants. These are; coincidence, correlational, and oversimplified cause.

a) Post hoc ergo propter hoc- “after this, therefore on account of this’’
 This occurs whenever someone observes one event followed by another, and then concludes that
the first event caused the second.
 This fallacy is committed when an arguer assumes, without adequate evidence, that because one
event, A, occurred before another event, B, A is the cause of B.
Example 1: A black cat crossed my path and later I tripped and sprained my ankle. It must be that black
cats really are bad luck.
b) Co relational (non causa pro causa- “not the cause for the cause’’)
 This occurs whenever someone mistakes correlation for causation. It is committed when an
arguer assumes, without sufficient evidence, that because A and B regularly occur together, A
must be the cause of B or vice versa.

Example 1: Almost all of the fast runners wear Nike shoes. So, if I get some Nike shoes, I will be a really
fast runner too!

c) Oversimplified Cause Fallacy

 This occurs whenever some effect is actually the result of a fairly complicated system or chain of
causes, but the arguer selects only a small part of that causal system and mistakes it for the entire
cause.
Example 1:The quality of at universities has been declining for years. Clearly, university instructors
aren’t doing their job these days.

13) Slippery Slope Fallacy

 It occurs when the conclusion of an argument rests upon an alleged chain reaction and there is not
sufficient reason to think that the chain reaction will actually take place
 The fallacy involves a variety of the false cause fallacies.

40
 Example 1: Senator Walker has argued that we should outlaw terrorist threats on the Internet. This
proposal is dangerous and must be strongly resisted. If we allow the government to outlaw terrorist
threats on the Internet, next it will want to ban “hate speech” and other allegedly “harmful” speech on
the Internet. Next the government will want to censor “harmful” ideas on television, radio, and in
newspapers. Eventually, everything you see, hear, or read will be totally controlled by the
government.
14) Fallacy of Weak Analogy
 The fallacy of weak analogy is committed when the analogy is not strong enough to support the
conclusion that is drawn.

Example 1: Critical thinking tests are like mathematics tests insofar as they are both written on paper.
Calculators are helpful when taking mathematics tests. So calculators are helpful when taking critical
thinking tests.
c) Fallacies of Presumption
 These fallacies has premises that presume what they purport to prove.

15) Begging the Question

 It is committed when an arguer states or assumes as a premise the very thing he or she is trying to
prove as a conclusion.
 It appears whenever the arguer creates the illusion that inadequate premises provide adequate
support for the conclusion by leaving out a possibly false (shaky) key premise, by restating a
possibly false/shaky premise as the conclusion, or by reasoning in a circle.

E.g1. Murder is morally wrong. This being the case, it follows that abortion is morally wrong.
16) Complex Question Fallacy
 It is a fallacy that contains loaded questions.

41
Example 1: Have you stopped cheating on exams?
Obviously, this question is really two questions: Did you cheat on exams in the past? If you did cheat in
the past, have you stopped now?
Let us suppose the respondent answers “yes” to this question. The following arguments emerge:
You were asked whether you have stopped cheating on exams. You answered, “Yes.”
Therefore, it follows that you have cheated in the past.
On the other hand, let us suppose that the respondent answers “no” to this question. Then we will have the
following argument.
You were asked whether you have stopped cheating on exams. You answered, “No.”
Therefore, you continue to cheat.

17) False Dichotomy (‘‘false bifurcation’’ /‘‘either----or----- fallacy’’)

 It is committed when a disjunctive (“either . . . or . . .”) premise presents two unlikely alternatives
as if they were the only ones available, and the arguer then eliminates the undesirable alternative,
leaving the desirable one as the conclusion.
Example 1: Look, the choice is simple. Either you support a pure free-market economy or you support a
communist police state. Surely you don’t support a communist police state. Therefore, you should support
a pure free-market economy.
18) Suppressed Evidence Fallacy
 It is committed if thepremises ignore some important piece of evidence that outweighs the
presented evidence and entails a very different conclusion.

E.g1. Most dogs are friendly and pose no threat to people who pet them. Therefore, it would be safe to pet
the little dog that is approaching us now.

d) Fallacies of Ambiguity
 This group include equivocation and amphiboly.
 These fallacies arise from the occurrence of some form of ambiguity in either the premises or the
conclusion (or both).
19) Fallacy of Equivocation

42
  It is committed when a key word is used in two or more senses in the same argument and the
apparent success of the argument depends on the shift in meaning.
 Such arguments are either invalid or have a false premise, and in either case they are unsound.

Example 1:Some triangles are obtuse. Whatever is obtuse is ignorant. Therefore, some triangles are
ignorant.

20) Fallacy of Amphiboly

 It occurs when the arguer misinterprets an ambiguous statement and then draws a conclusion
based on this faulty interpretation.
 The ambiguity usually arises from a mistake in grammar or punctuation—a missing comma, a
dangling modifier, or an ambiguous antecedent of a pronoun.

Example 1:Habtom told Megeressa that he had made a mistake. It follows that Habtom has at least the
courage to admit his own mistakes.

e) Fallacies of Grammatical Analogy

 It includes composition and division.
 Arguments that commit these fallacies are grammatically analogous to other arguments that are
good in every respect. Because of this similarity in linguistic structure, such fallacious arguments
may appear good yet be bad.
21) Fallacy of Composition
 It is committed when the conclusion of an argument depends on the erroneous transference of an
attribute from the parts of something into the whole.

Example 1: Each atom in this piece of chalk is invisible. Therefore, the chalk is invisible.

43
22) Fallacy of Division
 It is the exact reverse of composition. As composition goes from parts to whole, division goes
from whole to parts.
 It is committed when the conclusion of an argument depends on the erroneous transference of an
attribute from a whole (or a class) onto its parts (or members).

Example: Salt is a non-poisonous compound. Therefore, its component elements, sodium and chlorine
are non-poisonous.

44
Chapter Six: Categorical Propositions

Categorical Propositions

The term category or categorical refers to set of things, such as, human beings, animals, plants, workers,
ladies, and so on that appears in the predicate and subject terms.The term proposition refers to the
information content or meaning of a statement. However, to avoid inconvenience we can use the terms
statement and proposition interchangeably. Thus proposition is a sentence that can be either true or
false.A categorical proposition is a statement that relates two sets, classes, groups or categories which are
presented in their subject or predicate positions that could be connected based on inclusion (partial/whole)
or exclusion (partial/whole) relations. A categorical proposition states part of the subject term which are
included or excluded in/from the predicate term.

Formal and Informal Categorical Propositions

Categorical propositions can be stated either informally-without standard form, that is, as we use them in
our everyday conversations, or they can be stated in logical standard forms. Those categorical
propositions which are not in standard form have multiple variants.

Example:

Every human being is mortal.

There exists a fish that is a shark.

All the above statements are categorical proposition but informal. This is due to the fact that in each
statement two sets of things are related either in the form of inclusion or exclusion. In the first example,
two set of things are given: human being (which is the subject of the statement) and mortal (the predicate
of the statement). And we see that these two classes (human beings and mortal beings) are related based
on inclusion relation, that is, without exception all human beings are included in the class of mortal
beings. An informal categorical proposition is one that can do not indicate the amount of set of things
with fixed quantifiers. In informal categorical propositions, it is very difficult to determine the type of
relation existed between two classes in the form of inclusion or exclusion and it is ambiguous to decide
the attribute (nature) of statements either negatively or positively and to determine their logical relation
with other statements.

These and other related problems urge us to study categorical propositions based on fixed logical
standard-forms.

The Standard Forms of Categorical Proposition and Its Components

To determine the validity and invalidity of the immediate inferences of categorical statements and to
identify the formal fallacies committed in invalid arguments based on the criteria of logical rules,
categorical propositions should be stated in standard form.

45
By considering the amount of parts in the subject term which are included or excluded in the predicate
term categorical propositions are divided in to four as: (1) those that assert that the whole subject class is
included in the predicate class, for example: All mammals are animals.(2) those that assert that part of
the subject class is included in the predicate class ,for example: Some mammals are animals, (3) those
that assert that the whole subject class is excluded from the predicate class, for example: No mammals
are animals and (4) those that assert that part of the subject class is excluded from the predicate class, for
example: Some mammals are not animals.

A categorical proposition that expresses these relations with complete clarity is called a standard-form
categorical proposition. The standard form of categorical propositions is one having four main
components: formal quantifiers (some, all and no), copulas (are and are not) predicate and subject terms.
For example, in the categorical proposition “some mammals are not animals”; some is quantifier,
mammals are subject term, are not is copula and animals is the predicate term. In relation to standard
form categorical propositions, one should have note to the following three points.

1. In resolving a standard form categorical proposition to its four components one must keep these
components separate without overlapping.

2. A Categorical proposition“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.

3. The third point is that there are exactly three forms of quantifiers and two forms of copulas.

6.1.3. Quality, Quantity, and Distribution

A. Quality: It refers to the assertion or denial of sets in the subject term by the predicate term. The
qualityof a categorical proposition is either affirmative or negative depending on whether it affirms or
denies class membership. If the subject term refers to those classes of things that are included
(partially/entirely) in the predicate term then the proposition said to be affirmative, while if the subject
term refers to those classes of things that are excluded (partially/entirely) from the predicate term, the
proposition is said to have negative quality. Accordingly, “All S are P” and “Some S are P” have
affirmative quality, and “No S are P” and “Some S are not P” have negative quality.

B. Quantity: The quantity of a categorical proposition is determined by the amount or quantity of those
set of things stated in the subject term. Accordingly, if the subject term refers the inclusion or exclusion
of the entire set of things, the quantity of the proposition is said to be universal, whereas, if the amount of
the subject class is stated partially, the quantity of the proposition is said to be particular. Accordingly,
“All S are P” and “No S are P” each assert something about every member of the S class and thus are
universal statements. “Some S are P” and “Some S are not P” assert something about one or more
members of the S class and hence are particular statements.The quantity of categorical propositions is
determined through mere inspection of the quantifier while quality is determined by quantifiers in
universal propositions and by copulas in the particular propositions respectively.Particular propositions
mean no more and no less than the meaning assigned to them in class notation The statement “Some S are
P” does not imply that some S are not P, and the statement “Some S are not P” does not imply that some
S are P. A quantifier ‘some’ is referring at least one in logic.

46
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
proposition, the universal negative an E proposition, the particular affirmative an I proposition, and the
particular negative an O proposition.

C. Distribution: Unlike quality and quantity, which are attributes of propositions, distribution is an
attribute of the terms (subject and predicate) of propositions. 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 (distributes) an
attribute to every member of the class denoted by the term. Thus, if a statement asserts something about
every member of the S class, then S is distributed; if it asserts something about every member of the P
class, then P is distributed; otherwise S and P are undistributed. Now let us consider the four categorical
propositions and determine which term is distributed in each case.

1. A categorical proposition “All S are P” asserts that the whole parts of S is included in the class of P,
but we did not know about the whole members of P. Thus in this type of categorical proposition S is
distributed while P is undistributed.

2. In the categorical proposition “No S are P”, an assertion is made about every member of the S and the
P classes’ .We know that the whole members of P and S are distinct; hence both S and P are distributed.

3. In the categorical proposition “Some S are P”, an assertion is made about at least member of the S and
the P classes .We don’t know about the remaining members of both S and P, thus both S and P are
undistributed.

4. In the categorical proposition “Some S are not P, we know that the expressed member of S is not
identical to whole members of the P. But we don’t know about the remaining part of S while we clearly
know that the whole members of the P are not identical to the indicated S. Thus, P is distributed while S is
not. To summarize let us consider the following table:

Proposition Letter name 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

Venn Diagrams and the Square of Oppositions

Existential import

Before we are going to discuss about this concept, let us see how we should interpret universal
propositions. According to logicians, universal propositions could have two possible interpretations.

1. They should be interpret as by implying things talked about are actually existed &

47
2. By implying that nothings talked about are existed.

By considering these two possible interpretations, logicians have taken two approaches: Aristotelian
standpoint & Boolean standpoint.

A. Aristotelian standpoint: Traditional Square of opposition

The Aristotelian standpoint is “open to existence: that is if the categorical propositions is talking about
existing thing, the Aristotelian standpoint recognizes its existence and categorical proposition of such
type said to have existential import. A universal proposition is said to have an existential import when, it
talks about an existing thing and interpreted as implying an existing thing. Thus universal proposition
talks about existing thing in the subject term said to have an existential import from Aristotelian
standpoint.

For example: All mammals are animals.

No dinosaurs are reptiles.

The first example is said to have an existential import from Aristotelian standpoint since the term denoted
by the subject term is actually exist. However, the second example does not have existential import, since
the term denoted by the subject term is not actually existed. Taking the Aristotelian standpoint amounts
to recognizing that universal statements about existing things convey evidence about existence.

B. Boolean standpoint: MSO. The Boolean standpoint is “closed” to existence. When things exist, the
Boolean standpoint does not recognize their existence, and universal statements about those things have
no existential import. Thus, for this approach the above two examples do not have an existential import
despite the first is talking about existing thing. Boolean standpoint amounts to ignore any evidence about
existence that universal statements might convey and is neutral to existence. The Aristotelian standpoint
differs from the Boolean standpoint only with regard to universal (A and E) propositions. The two
standpoints are identical with regard to particular (I and O) propositions. Both the Aristotelian and the
Boolean standpoints recognize that particular propositions make a positive assertion about existence. For
example, from both standpoints, the statement “Some cats are animals” asserts that at least one cat exists,
and that cat is an animal. Also, from both standpoints, “Some fish are not mammals” asserts that at least
one fish exists, and that fish is not a mammal. Thus, from both standpoints, the word “some” implies
existence.

Venn Diagrams

A Venn diagram is an arrangement of overlapping circles in which each circle represents the class
denoted by a term in a categorical proposition. Because every categorical proposition has exactly two
terms, the Venn diagram for a single categorical proposition consists of two overlapping circles at which
the subject the predicate terms labeled in the circles.

48
 S P

Anything in the area marked “1” is S but not P, anything in the area marked “2” is both S and P, and
anything in the area marked “3” is P but not S. The area marked “4” is the area outside both circles; thus,
anything in this area is neither S nor P.

We can now use Venn diagrams to represent the information expressed by the four kinds of categorical
proposition by using a certain kind of mark in a diagram.

We use two kinds of marks: shading an area and placing an “X” in an area. Shading an area means that
the shaded area is empty, and placing an “X” in an area means that at least one thing exists in that area.
The “X” may be thought of as representing that one thing. If no mark appears in an area, this means that
nothing is known about that area; it may contain members or it may be empty. Shading is always used to
represent the content of universal (A and E) propositions, and placing an X in an area is always used to
represent the content of particular (I and O) propositions. The content of the four kinds of categorical
propositions is represented as follows:

Proposition A Proposition E

S P S P

S P S P
proposition I proposition O

Proposition A asserts that no members of S are outside P. This is represented by shading the part of the S
circle that lies outside the P circle. The E proposition asserts that no members of S are inside P. This is
represented by shading the part of the S circle that lies inside the P circle. The Iproposition asserts that at
least one S exists and that S is also a P. This is represented by placing an X in the area where the S and P
circles overlap. This X represents an existing thing that is both an S and a P. Finally, the O proposition
asserts that at least one S exists, and that S is not a P. This is represented by placing an X in the part of the
S circle that lies outside the P circle. This X represents an existing thing that is an S but not a P.

49
Because there is no X in the diagrams that represent the universal propositions, these diagrams say
nothing about existence. For example, the diagram for the A proposition merely asserts that nothing exists
in the part of the S circle that lies outside the P circle. The area where the two circles overlap and the part
of the P circle that lies outside the S circle contain no marks at all. This means that something might exist
in these areas, or they might be completely empty. However, it is not known.

The Modern Square of Opposition

As we can see from the above diagram, proposition A is contradictory with proposition O and proposition
E is contradictory with proposition I. These contradictory relationship of categorical proposition
represented by modern (Boole) square of opposition as follow.

A Logically undetermined E

Logically undetermined

Contradictory

Logically undetermined

I logically undetermined O

If the contradictory relation relates two propositions, they necessarily have opposite truth-value. 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. However, no other
inferences are possible. In particular, given the truth-value of an A or O proposition, nothing can be
determined about the truth-value of the corresponding E or I propositions. These propositions are said to
have logically undetermined truth-value for logic alone.

For example if we assume the categorical proposition, “All cats are mammals” is TRUE: a categorical
proposition “some cats are not animals” will be FALSE but it is impossible to determine the truth-value
of I& E.

Traditional Square of opposition

Like the modern square, the traditional square of opposition is an arrangement of lines that illustrates
logically necessary relations among the four kinds of categorical propositions.

50
However, because the Aristotelian standpoint recognizes the additional factor of existential import, the
traditional square supports more inferences than does the modern square of opposition.

Contradictory = opposite truth value- shows complete opposition. Contradictory relation is the same as
that found in the modern square. Thus, if Aproposition is given as true, the corresponding Oproposition is
false, and vice versa.The same relation holds between the E and I propositions.

Contrary = at least one is false (not both true)- shows partial opposition. ifA is given as true, then E is
false, and if an E proposition is given as true, then A is false.But if an A is given as false, the
corresponding E has logically undetermined truth value.Similarly, if an E proposition is given as false, the
corresponding A proposition has logically undetermined truth value.

Sub-contrary = at least one is true (not both false)- shows partial opposition. If proposition I is given as
false, the corresponding O proposition is true (because at least one must be true), and if an O proposition
is given as false, the corresponding I proposition is true. But if either an Ior an O proposition is given as
true, then the corresponding proposition could be either true or false without violating the “at least one is
true” rule. Thus, in this case the corresponding proposition would have logically undetermined truth
value.

Sub-alternation =true truth value flows downward, falsity flows upward. itis represented by two arrows: a
downward arrow marked with the letter “T” (true), and an upward arrow marked with an “F” (false). If an
A proposition is given as true, the corresponding I proposition is true, and if I proposition is given as
false, the corresponding A proposition is false. But if an A proposition is given as false, this truth value
cannot be transmitted downward, so the corresponding proposition I will have logically undetermined
truth value. Conversely, if I proposition is given as true, this truth value cannot be transmitted upward, so
the corresponding A proposition will have logically undetermined truth value. Analogous reasoning
prevails for the sub alternation relation between the E and O propositions.

Testing validity of Immediate Inferences:

51
Immediate inferences are arguments that have only one premises and a conclusion. We can test their
validity by different techniques including Square of oppositions (TSO &MSO), Venn diagrams and other
rules of valid arguments. Look following Examples:

No mammals are animals. Thus, it is false that some mammals are animals.

All presidents of America are peoples below the age of 40. Thus, it is false that no presidents of America
are below the age of 40.

To test validity of inferences, we should begin by assuming the premise as true, and we enter the pertinent
truth value in the square. We then use the square to compute the truth value of the conclusion. Thus, in
the first example the premises which is an E proposition is true and when we enter this truth value in the
square of opposition and compute the truth value of the corresponding, I proposition. By the contradictory
relation, the I proposition is false. Since the conclusion claims that the I proposition is false, the
conclusion is true, and therefore the argument is valid. Arguments that are valid from the Boolean
standpoint are said to be unconditionally valid because they are valid regardless existence.

In the second example the premises is an A proposition while the conclusion is an E proposition. As usual
the premise is true, and when we enter it to the square, it shows that there is no relation that links the A
and E propositions, and the E proposition has logically undetermined truth value. Thus, the conclusion of
the argument has undetermined truth value, and the argument is invalid.

We can also use Venn diagrams to test immediate inferences for validity. To do so, we begin by using
letters to represent the terms, and we then draw Venn diagrams for the premise and conclusion. If the
information expressed by the conclusion diagram is contained in the premise diagram, the argument is
valid; if not, it is invalid .let us consider the above examples.

No mammals are animals. Thus, it is false that some mammals are animals. The first step is representing
the terms by their first letters as;No M are A. Thus, it is false that some M are A. The next step is to draw
two Venn diagrams, one for the premise and the other for the conclusion.

No M are A

M A

To draw “it is false that some mammals are animals”, first we should draw the diagram of “some
mammals are animals”. But since the conclusion asserts that “some M are A” is false, we do just the
opposite which is done by shading the part of the diagram at which the two terms are overlapped. In
diagramming it is false that all S are P and No S are P, we use the sign of X, since they are particular
propositions. On the other hand “it is false that some S are P” and “it is false that some S are not P” are
universal propositions, and thus we should use shading to expresses the information through Venn
diagram.

52
Some M are A It is false that some M are A

M A M A

Since the conclusion diagram asserts that the overlapping area is empty, and the premise diagram
indicates this information, the inference is said to be valid.

Categorical Syllogisms

Standard Form, Mood, and Figure

Categorical syllogism is a syllogism consisting of three categorical propositions (two as a premises and
one as a conclusion) which are or capable of being transferable to standard form categorical propositions.
A certain standard form categorical syllogism contains a total of three terms each of which appears twice
in two distinct propositions. The three terms are:

Major term: It is the predicate term of the conclusion in the argument and appears once in the premise.

Minor term: is the subject of the conclusion in a syllogism appears once in the premise.

Middle term: is a term that provides middle ground between the two premises by appearing once in the
premises but it cannot in the conclusion.

The premises of a categorical syllogism also have their own names. The major Premise, by definition, is
the one that contains the major term, and the minor premise is the one that contains the minor term. Now
let you consider the following example to illustrate that above explanations.

All philosophers of modern era are peoples who advocate for life of indifference. (P 1)

Some peoples who advocate for life of indifference are unmarried individuals. (P2)

Therefore, some unmarried individuals are philosophers of modern era(Conclusion).

From this example, “unmarried individuals” is the minor term; ‘philosophers of modern era” is major
term and “peoples who advocate for life of indifference” is the middle term. In the above example,
premise 1 is the major premise while premise 2 is the minor premise.Categorical syllogism might be
standard form or not. A standard form categorical syllogism is the one that meets the following four
conditions.

53
1. All three statements are standard-form categorical propositions.

2. The two occurrences of each term are identical.

3. Each term is used in the same sense throughout the argument.

4. The major premise is listed first, the minor premise second, and the conclusion last. For example the
above syllogistic argument is standard form since it fulfills all the above necessary conditions. But
consider the following categorical syllogism:

All African peoples are black peoples.

Some black peoples are Diasporas. Thus, some African peoples are Diasporas. This categorical syllogism
is not in standard form: so identify the condition that it lacks and re-write it in standard form. After a
categorical syllogism has been put into standard form, its validity or invalidity may be determined
through mere inspection of the form. The individual form of a syllogism is determined by two factors:
mood and figure.

The mood of a categorical syllogism consists of the letter names of the propositions that make it up or it is
obtained by taking the letters of the categorical propositions that constitute the argument in the right
order. Thus, if we look the first example, the mood is AII. To determine the mood of a categorical
syllogism, one must first put the syllogism into standard form; the letter name of the statements may then
be noted to the side of each. The mood of the syllogism is then designated by the order of these letters,
reading the letter for the major premise first, the letter for the minor premise second, and the letter for the
conclusion last.

The figure of a categorical syllogism is determined by the location of the two occurrences of the middle
term in the premises. Four different arrangements are possible. If we let S represent the subject of the
conclusion (minor term), P the predicate of the conclusion (major term), and M the middle term, and
leave out the quantifiers and copulas, the four possible arrangements may be illustrated as follows:

Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Figure 4

MP P MMP P M

S M S MM SM S

S P S P S P S P

54
In the above example the figure is _4.The form of the above syllogism is therefore AII-4. Since there are
four kinds of categorical propositions and there are three categorical propositions in a categorical
syllogism, there are 64 possible moods (4 x 4 x4 = 64). And since there are four different figures, there
are 256 different forms of categorical syllogisms (4 x64 = 256). Once the mood and figure of a syllogism
is known, the validity of the syllogism can be determined by checking the mood and figure against a list
of valid syllogistic forms. To do this, first adopt the Boolean standpoint and see if the syllogism’s form
appears in the following table of unconditionally valid forms. If it does, the syllogism is valid from the
Boolean standpoint. In other words, it is valid regardless of whether its terms denote actually existing
things.

List of Unconditionally valid forms (valid from Boole and Aristotle)

Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Figure 4

AAA EAE IAI AEE

EAE AEE AII IAI

AII EIO OAO EIO

EIO AOO EIO

If the syllogism does not appear on the list of unconditionally valid forms, then adopt the Aristotelian
standpoint and see if the syllogism’s form appears in the following table of conditionally valid forms. If it
does, the syllogism is valid from the Aristotelian standpoint on condition that a certain term (the “critical”
term) denotes actually existing things. The required condition is stated in the last column.

List of conditionally valid forms (valid from Aristotelian stand point alone).

Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Figure 4 Required condition.

AAI AEO AEO S must exists

EAO
EAO

AAI EAO M must exists

EAO

AAI P must exists

55
For example, the AAI-1 is valid from the Aristotelian standpoint if the subject of the Conclusion (the
minor term in the premise) denotes actually existing things. Thus, if the critical term is “dog” for
example, the form AAI-1 will be valid from the Aristotelian stand point and invalid from Boole. If the
critical term is “unicorn” for example, the argument will be invalid from both stand points; and if the
critical term is unknown whether it denotes an actually existing thing or not the argument is conditionally
valid from Aristotelian sand point but invalid from Boolean stand point. From the 256 categorical
syllogisms, only 24 are valid (15 from Boole and Aristotle; and additional 9 from Aristotle alone).

Rules and formal Fallacies

There are five major rules by which we can test the validity of syllogism. If an argument violates one of
these rules, it is invalid and commits one of the formal fallacies. If not it is valid.

Boolean standpoints

Of the five rules presented, the first two depend on the concept of distribution, the second two on the
concept of quality, and the last on the concept of quantity.

Rule 1: The middle term must be distributed at least once.

Since the middle term is one that provide common ground between the subject and predicate terms it must
distributed at least once and we should know about the whole members denoted by the middle term at
least once to consider the inference as valid. If the middle term is not distributed at least once, the
syllogism is invalid and commits a fallacy known as undistributed middle fallacy.

Example: All mammals are animals.

All cats are animals.

Thus, all cats are mammals. This syllogism commits formal fallacy called undistributed middle.

Rule 2: If a term is distributed in the conclusion, then it must be distributed in the premise

The term that is distributed in the conclusion must be distributed in the appropriate principle at which that
term is situated. If not a fallacy called illicit major illicit and minor fallacy. Illicit major fallacy is a fallacy
which is committed when the predicate term of the conclusion is distributed and the major term is
undistributed in the major premise.

Example1: All horses are animals.

Some dogs are not horses.

Some dogs are not animals.

Example 2: All tigers are mammals.

All mammals are animals.

All animals are tigers.

56
In the first example, the major term, “animals,” is distributed in the conclusion but not in the major
premise, so the syllogism commits the fallacy of illicit major, or, more precisely, “illicit process of the
major term.” In the second example, the minor term, “animals,” is distributed in the conclusion but not in
the minor premise. The second example therefore commits the fallacy of illicit minor, or “illicit process
of the minor term.”

Rule 3: Two negative premises are not allowed

Two negative premises are not allowed in a single syllogistic argument. If there are, the argument is
invalid and commits a fallacy called exclusive premises.

Example: No fish are mammals.

Some dogs are not fish.

Some dogs are not mammals.

This syllogism may be seen as invalid because it has true premises and a false conclusion. The defect
stems from the fact that it has two negative premises.

Rule 4: A negative premise requires a negative conclusion, and a negative Conclusion requires a negative
premise.

If the conclusion is to be affirmative then the two premises should be affirmative. However, if the
conclusion is affirmative and if one of its premises is negative the argument commits a fallacy called
drawing an affirmative conclusion from a negative premise.If the conclusion is to be negative then one of
the two premises should be negative. However, if the conclusion ifs negative and if one of its premises is
affirmative, the argument commits a fallacy called drawing a negative conclusion from affirmative
premise.

Example1: All crows are birds.

Some wolves are not crows.

Some wolves are birds.

Example 2: All triangles are three-angled polygons.

All three-angled polygons are three-sided polygons.

Some three-sided polygons are not triangles.

These arguments may be seen as invalid because each has true premises and a false conclusion. The first
draws an affirmative conclusion from a negative premise, and the second draws a negative conclusion
from affirmative premises.

Rule 5: If both premises are universal, the conclusion cannot be particular.

Example: All mammals are animals.

57
 All tigers are mammals.

Some tigers are animals.

The example has two universal premises and a particular conclusion, so it violates Rule 5. It commits the
existential fallacy from the Boolean standpoint. The reason that the syllogism is invalid from the Boolean
standpoint is that the conclusion asserts that tigers exist, whereas the premises are interpreted as making
no such assertion. From the Boolean standpoint, universal premises are not recognized as having
existential import.

Aristotelian Standpoint

Any categorical syllogism that breaks one of the first four rules is invalid from the Aristotelian
standpoint. However, if a syllogism breaks only Rule 5, it is valid from the Aristotelian standpoint on
condition that the critical term denotes at least one existing thing.

Example: All mammals are animals.

All unicorns are mammals.

Therefore, some unicorns are animals.

In this example, the critical term is “unicorns.” Since unicorns do not exist, the Aristotelian standpoint
does not recognize that the premises convey evidence of their existence. Thus, the syllogism is invalid
from the Aristotelian standpoint, and it commits the existential fallacy from that standpoint. Of course, it
also commits the existential fallacy from the Boolean standpoint.

No political leaders are advocators of socialism.

All advocators of socialism are current kings of Ethiopia.

Thus, some current kings of Ethiopia are not political leaders.

The above argument is invalid from Boolean standpoint but valid from Aristotelian standpoint.

58