ADDIS ABABA BUSINESS

AND MEDICAL COLLEGE

COURSE: LOGIC AND CRITICAL

THINKING
 INTRODUCTION
 Logic and Critical Thinking, is a high-level thought course in
the discipline of philosophy.
 It is a philosophical inquiry that takes argumentation and
reasoning as its basic objects of investigation and attempts to
introduce the fundamental concepts of logic and methods of
logical argumentation and reasoning and critical thinking.
 Logic is concerned with the study of arguments, and it seeks
to establish the conditions under which an argument may be
considered as acceptable .
 Critical thinking means correct thinking in the pursuit of
relevant and reliable knowledge about the world.
 In another way, critical thinking is the reasonable, reflective,
responsible, and skillful thinking that focuses on deciding
what to believe or do.
 To think critically is to examine ideas, evaluate them against
what you already know and make decisions about their merit.
 A person who thinks critically can ask appropriate questions,
gather relevant information, efficiently and creatively…
 Etc……
CHAPTER ONE : INTRODUCING PHILOSOPHY
1: Meaning and Nature of Philosophy
 Because of its universal nature, it is difficult to
define philosophy in terms of a specific subject
matter.

 it is difficult to define philosophy like other

diciplines, because philosophy has no a specific
subject matter to primarily deal with.

 Philosophy deals primarily with issues.

 What contents philosophy has are not the specific subject
matters, but issues, which are universal in nature.
 However, this should not lead us into thinking that philosophy
is incomprehensible(ለመረዳት የማይቻል).
 whenever you want to understand philosophy, it is better to
read different thoughts of philosophers, consciously see its
salient features by yourself, participate in it, and do it.
 Philosophy is not as elusive(አስቸጋሪ) as it is often thought to
be.
 Socrates once stated that “Wonder is the feeling of a philosopher,
and philosophy begins in wonder”. ፍልስፍናም በድንቅ ይጀምራል
 If, however, you still want to find its clear-cut definition, it is
better to refer to the etymology of the word itself, instead of trying
to associate it with a certain specific subject matter.
 Etymologically, the word philosophy comes from two Greek
words: ‘philo’ and ‘sophia’, which mean ―love and ―wisdom,
respectively. …..love of wisdom.
 The ancient Greek thinker Pythagoras was the first to use the
word ―philosopher‖
 the development of critical habits, the continuous search for
truth, and the questioning of the apparent.
 questioning/criticism is not the final end of philosophy.
 Therefore, philosophy is a rational and critical enterprise that
tries to formulate and answer fundamental questions through
an intensive application of reason- an application that draws
on analysis, comparison, and evaluation.
 It involves reason, rational criticism, examination, and
analysis.
 Philosophy has a constructive side.
 At the same time, its critical side is manifested when it deals
with giving a rational critic,
 philosophy is also an activity: It is not something that can be
easily mastered or learned in schools.
 A philosopher is a great philosopher, not because he mastered
philosophy, but because he did it.
 2: Basic Features of Philosophy
philosophy has its own salient features that distinguishes it from
other academic disciplines,
General features of philosophy can be summarized as follows:
 Philosophy is a set of views or beliefs about life and the
universe, which are often held uncritically. this is having a
philosophy
 Philosophy is a process of reflecting on and criticizing our
most deeply held conceptions and beliefs. This is the formal
sense of doing philosophy.
Philosophers, theologians, scientists, and others disagree,
 First because they view things from different points of view
and with different assumptions. This is especially true of
people living at different times and in different places.
 A second reason philosophers disagree is that they live in a
changing universe.
 A third reason philosophers disagree is that they deal with an
area of human experience in which the evidence is not
complete.
 Philosophy is a rational attempt to look at the world as a whole.
(ፍልስፍና ዓለምን በአጠቃላይ ለማየት የሚደረግ ምክንያታዊ ሙከራ ነው)
 Philosophy is the logical analysis of language and the clarification
of the meaning of words and concepts.
 Philosophy is a group of perennial problems that interest people
and for which philosophers always have sought answers. (ፍልስፍና
ሰዎችን የሚስብ እና ፈላስፋዎች ሁል ጊዜ መልስ የሚሹበት ዘላቂ ችግሮች
ስብስብ ነው)
Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Augustine, Aquinas, Descartes, Spinoza,
Locke, Berkeley, Kant, Hegel, Nietzsche, Royce, James, Dewey,
Whitehead, are some of among known philosophers.
 3. Core Fields of Philosophy
• This course deals only with the primary ones, namely Metaphysics,
Epistemology, Axiology, and Logic.
3.1 Metaphysics:
• Metaphysics is the branch of philosophy that studies the ultimate nature
of reality or existence.
• It deal with issues of reality, God, freedom, soul/immortality, the mind-
body problem, form and substance relationship, cause and effect
relationship, and other related issues.
• This includes the first principles of: being or existence, identity, change,
space and time, cause and effect, necessity, actuality, and possibility
Here are some of the questions that Metaphysics primarily deals with:
 What is reality?
 What is the ultimately real?
 What is the nature of the ultimate reality?
 Is it one thing or is it many different things?
 Can reality be grasped by the senses, or it is transcendent?
 What makes reality different from a mere appearance?
 What is mind, and what is its relation to the body?
 Is there a cause and effect relationship between reality and
appearance?
 Does God exist, and if so, can we prove it?
 Are human actions free, or predetermined by a supernatural force?
 What is human being? A thinking mind? A perishable body? Or a
combination of both?
 What is time?
Metaphysical questions may be divided into four
subsets or aspects.
• Cosmological Aspect: Cosmology consists in the
study of theories about the origin, nature, and
development of the universe as an orderly system.
• Theological Aspect: Theology is that part of
religious theory that deals with conceptions of and
about God.
• Anthropological Aspect: Anthropology deals with
the study of human beings.
• Ontological Aspect: Ontology is the study of the
nature of existence, or what it means for anything to
exist.
 3.2 Epistemology
• Epistemology is the other field of philosophy that
studies about the nature, scope, meaning, and
possibility of knowledge.
• Epistemology is also referred to as ―theory of
knowledge.
• Etymologically, the word epistemology has been
derived from the Greek words episteme, meaning
knowledge, understanding, and logos, meaning
study of.
• Epistemology is the study of the nature, source, and
validity of knowledge.
• The study of epistemology deals with issues related to
the dependability of knowledge and the validity of the
sources through which we gain information.
• The following are among the questions/issues with
which Epistemology deals:
 What is knowledge?
 What does it mean to know?
 What is the source of knowledge? Experience?
Reason? Or both?
 What makes knowledge different from belief or opinion?
 What is truth, and how can we know a statement is true?
A major aspect of epistemology relates to the sources of human
knowledge.
Sources of knowledge are:
 Empiricism (knowledge obtained through the senses)
 A second important source of human knowledge is reason.
 A third source of human knowledge is intuition(ግንዛቤ): The
weakness or danger of intuition is that it does not appear to be a
safe method of obtaining knowledge when used alone. It should
be checked against other methods of knowing
 A fourth influential source of knowledge throughout the span
of human history has been revelation(መገለጥ). Revealed
knowledge has been of prime importance in the field of religion.
Christians believe that such revelation is God‘s communication
concerning the divine will.
Distortion of revealed truth can occur in the process of human
interpretation.
The major disadvantage of revealed knowledge is that it must be
accepted by faith and cannot be proved or disproved empirically.
 A fifth source of human knowledge, though not a philosophical
position, is authority(ስልጣን).
 3.3 Axiology
• Axiology is the study or theory of value.
• Axiology is the philosophical study of value,
which originally meant the worth of
something(የአንድ ነገር ዋጋ ማለት ነው).
• Axiology asks the philosophical questions like:
 What is a value?
 Where do values come from?
 How do we justify our values?
 How do we know what is valuable?
 Who benefits from values?......etc
Axiology deals with:
1) Ethics: Ethics, which is also known as Moral
Philosophy, is a science that deals with the
philosophical study of moral principles, values, codes,
and rules, which may be used as standards for
determining what kind of human conduct/action is
said to be good or bad, right or wrong.
Ethics has three main branches or catagories: meta-ethics,
normative ethics, and applied ethics.
2) Aesthetics: Aesthetics is the theory of beauty.

It deals with beauty, art, enjoyment, sensory/emotional

values, perception, and matters of taste and sentiment.
• The following are typical Aesthetic questions:
 What is art?
 What is beauty?
 What is the relation between art and beauty?
 What is the connection between art, beauty, and
truth?
 Why works of art are valuable?....etc
3) Social/Political Philosophy: Social/Political Philosophy
studies about of the value judgments operating in a civil
society, be it social or political.
 3.4 Logic
• Logic is the study or theory of principles of
right reasoning.
• It deals with formulating the right principles
of reasoning; and developing scientific
methods of evaluating the validity and
soundness of arguments.
• Read page 30 on the module.
 4. Importance of Learning Philosophy
1. Intellectual and Behavioral Independence:- This is the
ability to develop one‘s own opinion and beliefs.
2. Reflective Self-Awareness:-self-actualization cannot be
realized without a clear knowledge of oneself and the world
in which one lives.

3. Flexibility, Tolerance, and Open-Mindedness:-

4. Creative and Critical Thinking:

5. Conceptualized and well-thought-out value systems in

morality, art, politics, and the like
 CHAPTER TWO:BASIC CONCEPTS OF LOGIC

• Logic, as field of study, may be defined as the organized body of

knowledge, or science that evaluates arguments.
• Argument is a systematic combination of two or more statements, which
are classified as a premise or premises and conclusion.
• An argument is group of statements which has at least one premises and
one conclusion.
• A premise refers to the statement, which is claimed to provide a logical
support or evidence to the main point of the argument, which h known as
conclusion.
• A conclusion is a statement, which is claimed to follow from the alleged
evidence.
 1: Basic Concepts of Logic: Arguments, Premises and
Conclusions
What is the Meaning of Logic? :
• logic comes from Greek word logos, which means sentence,
discourse, reason, truth and rule.
• Logic in its broader meaning is the science, which evaluates
arguments and the study of correct reasoning.
• It could be also defined as the study of methods and principles
of correct reasoning or the art of correct reasoning.
• Logic can be defined in different ways. Here
below are some definitions of logic:
Logic is a science that evaluates arguments.
Logic is the study of methods for evaluating
arguments.
 Logic is a science that helps to develop the
method and principles that we may use as a
criterion for evaluating the arguments .
Logic is one of the primary tools philosophers use
in their inquiries/investigation.
 Benefit of Studying Logic?
• Logic sharpens and refines our natural gifts to think, reason and
argue. (C. S. Layman).
• We use logic in our day-to-day communications. As human beings,
we all think, reason and argue; and we all are subject to the
reasoning of other people.
• The ability to think, reason and argue well might partially be a
matter of natural gift.
• However, whatever our natural gifts, they can be refined, improved
and sharpened; and the study of logic is one of the best ways to
refine one‘s natural ability to think, reason and argue.
 the following are some of the major benefits that we can gain
from the study 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
• It helps us to distinguish good arguments from bad arguments;
• It helps us to understand and identify the common logical
errors in reasoning;
The aim of logic, hence, is to develop the system of methods and
principles that we may use as criteria for evaluating the
arguments of others and as guides in constructing the
arguments of our own in our day-to-day lives.
 What is an Argument?
• Argument is a technical term and the chief concern of logic.
• it is a group of statements, which have at least one premise or
more and one conclusion. which (the premise) are claimed to
provide support for, the conclusion.
• First, an argument is a group of statements.
• A statement is a declarative sentence that has a truth-value of
either true or false but not both.
Example : Dr. Abiy Ahmed the current Prime Minister of Ethiopia(T).
Hawasa is the capital city of Adama(F).
• a premise is a statement that set forth the reason or evidence,
which is given for accepting the conclusion of an argument.
• a conclusion is a statement, which is claimed to follow from
the given evidence (premise).
BELOW LETS SEE HOW TO CONSTRUCT ARGUMENTS:
1. All Ethiopians are Africans. (Premise 1)
Bonsa is Ethiopian. (Premise2)
Therefore, Bonsa is African. (Conclusion)
2. Some Africans are black. (Premise-1)
Zelalem is an African. (Premise-2)

Therefore, Zelalem is black. (Conclusion)

• Argument can be good(well supported) or bad(poorly supported)
based on those in which the premises really do support the conclusion.
• For example, compare the above two examples. In the first argument,
the premises really do support the conclusion, they give good reason
for believing that the conclusion is true, and therefore, the argument is
a good one. But the premises of the second argument fail to support
the conclusion adequately. Even if they may be true, they do not
provide good reason to believe that the conclusion is true.
 How can we distinguish premises from conclusion and vice
versa?
• The first technique that can be used to identify premises from
a conclusion and vice versa is looking at an indicator word.
• Therefore, Accordingly, Provided, We may conclude, Hence
It shows that, It implies that, As a result, So, It follows that.
Example: Women are mammals.
Zenebech is a woman.
Therefore, Zenebech is a mammal.
 2. Techniques of Recognizing Arguments
• An argument is a systematic combination of one or more than one
statements, which are claimed to provide a logical support or
evidence (i.e., premise(s) to another single statement which is claimed
to follow logically from the alleged evidence (i.e., conclusion).
• However, not all passages that contain two or more statements are
argumentative.
• There are various passages that contain two or more statements but
are not argumentative.
• Argumentative arguments are distinguished from such kind of
passages by their primary goal: proving something.
 Techniques of distinguishing argumentative passages from non
argumentative passages
2.1 Recognizing Argumentative Passages
• Since logic deals with arguments, it is important for students
to develop the ability to identify whether passages contain an
argument.
• In a general way, a passage contains an argument if it
purports(ማረጋገጥ ) 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:
1. At least one of the statements must claim to
present evidence or reasons
2. There must be a claim that the alleged
evidence or reasons supports or implies
something- that is, a claim that something
follows from the alleged evidence
…..conclusion
• The first condition refers to premises as it tries to provide or claim
to provide reasons or evidences for the conclusion;
• The second condition refers to a conclusion.
• It is not necessary that the premises present actual evidence or
true reasons nor that the premises actually do support the
conclusion. But at least the premises must claim to present
evidence or reasons, and there must be a claim that the evidence or
reasons support or imply something.
• The first condition expresses a factual claim,
• The second condition expresses what is called an inferential claim.
• To be an argument, then, a passage must contain both a factual
claim and an inferential claim.
• The factual claim is expressed in the premises,

• The inferential claim is the claim that these sentences support

or imply something further. The implication may be implicit or
explicit.

• The difference: The first is the factual claim, which states that
the premises provided are true, while the second is the claim of
inference, which states that the premises are linked to the
conclusion in a way that proves or supports it.
• An inferential claim can be either explicit or implicit. An
explicit inferential claim is usually asserted by premise or
conclusion indicator words (thus, since, because, hence,
therefore, and so on).

Example: Gamachuu is my biological father, because my mother

told so.

• In this example, the premise indicator word ―because‖

expresses the claim that evidence supports something, or that
evidence is provided to prove something. Hence, the passage is
an argument.
• An implicit inferential claim exists if there is an inferential
relationship between the statements in a passage, but the
passage contains no indicator words.
For example, Global warming is leading to the meltdown of ice
at the poles.
2.2 Recognizing Non-argumentative Passages
• we will now focus on what arguments are not and how we
recognize them.
• Non-argumentative passages are passages, which lack an
inferential claim.
• These include simple non-inferential passages, expository
passages, illustrations, explanations, and conditional statements.
• As was discussed previously, for a passage to be an argument, it
not only should contain premises and a conclusion but also an
inferential claim or a reasoning process.
 Simple Non-inferential Passages
• Simple non-inferential passages are unproblematic passages
that lack a claim that anything is being proved.
• what is missing is a claim that any potential premise supports
a conclusion or that any potential conclusion is supported by
premises.
• Passages of this sort include warnings, pieces of advice,
statements of belief or opinion, loosely associated statements,
and reports.
• A warning is a form of expression that is intended to put someone on
guard against a dangerous or detrimental situation.

Example: Whatever you promise to tell, never confide political

secrets to your wife.

• In this passage, no evidence is given to prove that the statement is true;

and if no evidence is given to prove that the statement is true, then there
is no argument.
• A piece of advice is a form of expression that makes a recommendation
about some future decision or course of conduct. Example: After class
hours, I would suggest that you give careful consideration to the
subject matter you have discussed.
• A statement of belief or opinion is an expression about what
someone happens to believe or think about something.
Example: We believe that our university must develop and
produce outstanding students who will perform with great
skill and ful fill the demands of our nation.
• This passage does not make any claim that the belief or
opinion is supported by evidence, or that it supports some
conclusion, and hence does not contain an argument.
• A report consists of a group of statements that convey
information about some topic or event.
Example: The great renaissance dam of Ethiopia has opened an
employment opportunity for thousands of Ethiopians. In
its completion, thirteen thousand Ethiopians are expected
to be hired. ….how we prove this? No evidence
These statements could serve as the premises of an argument, but
because the author makes no claim that they support or imply
anything, there is no argument.
 Expository Passages
• An expository passage is a kind of discourse that begins with a topic
sentence followed by one or more sentences that develop the topic
sentence.
• If the objective is not to prove the topic sentence but only to expand it or
elaborate it, then there is no argument.
• Example: There is a stylized relation of artist to mass audience in the
sports, especially in baseball. Each player develops a style of his own-the
swagger as he steps to the plate, the unique windup a pitcher has, the
clean-swinging and hard-driving hits, the precision quickness and grace of
infield and outfield, the sense of surplus power behind whatever is done.
• In this passage the topic sentence is stated first, and the remaining
sentences merely develop and flesh out this topic sentence.
• This passage is not argument, because it lacks an inferential claim.

• 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.
 Illustrations
• An illustration is an expression involving one or more examples that is
intended to show what something means or how it is done.
• Illustrations are often confused with arguments because many
illustrations contain indicator words such as ‘’thus’’.
Example: 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”.
• This passage is not an argument, because it makes no claim that anything
is being proved. The word ―thus‖ indicates how something is done -
namely, how chemical elements and compounds can be represented by
formulas.
 Explanations
• An explanation is an expression that purports to shed light on
some event or phenomenon, which is usually accepted as a
matter of fact.
• It attempts to clarify, or describe such alike why something is
happen
Example: Cows digest grass while humans cannot, because their
digestive systems contain enzyme not found in humans.
• Every explanation is composed of two distinct components: the
explanandum and explanans.
• Explanandum: is the statement that describes the event or
phenomenon to be explained.
• Explanans: is the statement or group of statements that purports to
do the explaining.
• In the first example, the explanandum is the statement Cows digest
grass while humans cannot and the explanans is their [cows‟]
digestive systems contain enzyme not found in humans.
• Explanations are sometimes mistaken for arguments because they
often contain the indicator word ―because.
 Conditional Statements
• A conditional statement is an ‘’if . . . Then’’ . . statement.

Example: If you study hard, then you will score ‘A’ grade.
• Every conditional statement is made up of two component
statements.
• The component statement immediately following the ‘if’ is called
the antecedent (if-clause), and the one following the ‘then’ is called
the consequent (then-clause).
• However, there is an occasion that the order of antecedent and
consequent is reversed.
• Example: You will score „A‟ grade if you study hard.
• Conditional statements are not arguments, because they fail to
meet the criteria given earlier.
• In an argument, at least one statement must claim to present
evidence, and there must be a claim that this evidence implies
something.
• there is no assertion that either the antecedent or the
consequent is true.
• Rather, there is only the assertion that if the antecedent is true,
then so is the consequent.
• a single conditional statement is not an argument.
3: Types of Arguments: Deduction and Induction
3.1 Deductive Arguments
• A deductive argument is an argument incorporating the claim
that it is impossible for the conclusion to be false given that
the premises are true.
• It is an argument in which the premises are claimed to support
the conclusion in such a way that it is impossible for the
premises to be true and the conclusion false.
Example-1: All philosophers are critical thinkers.

Socrates is a philosopher.

Therefore, Socrates is a critical thinker. …general to specific

Example-2: All African footballers are blacks.

Messi is an African footballer.

It follows that, Messi is black.

• The above two examples are examples of a deductive argument.
• If we, for example, assume that all philosophers are critical thinkers and that
Socrates is a philosopher, then it is impossible that Socrates not be a critical
thinker.
• Similarly, if we assume that all African footballers are blacks and that Messi is
an African footballer, then it is impossible that Messi not be a black.
3.2 Inductive Arguments
• An inductive argument is an argument incorporating the claim that it
is improbable for the conclusion to be false given that the premises
are true.
• It is an argument in which the premises are claimed to support the
conclusion in such a way that it is improbable for the premises to be
true and the conclusion false.
• In such arguments, the conclusion is claimed to follow only probably
from the premises.
• The premises may provide some considerable evidence for the
conclusion but they do not imply (necessarily support) the conclusion.
• In this case, we might have sufficient condition (evidence) but
we cannot be certain about the truth of the conclusion.
• However, this does not mean that the conclusion is wrong or
unacceptable, where as it could be correct or acceptable but
only based on probability.
• Thus, inductive arguments are those that involve probabilistic
reasoning.
Example-1: Most African leaders are blacks.
Mandela was an African leader.
Therefore, probably Mandela was black.
Example-2: Almost all women are mammals.
Hanan is a woman.
Hence, Hanan is a mammal.
• Both of the above arguments are inductive.
• In both of them, the conclusion does not follow from the
premises with strict necessity
• That is, the conclusion is claimed to follow from the premises
only probably; or the premises are claimed to support their
corresponding conclusion with a probability.
• In other words, if we assume that the premises are true, then
based on that assumption it is probable that the conclusion is
true.
• for example, assume that most African leaders were blacks and
that Mandela was an African leader, then it is improbable that
Mandela not been a black, or it is probable that Mandela was
black. But it is not impossible that Mandela not been a black.
 3.3 Differentiating Deductive and Inductive Arguments
• The distinction between inductive and deductive arguments lies in
the strength of an argument‘s inferential claim.
• In other words, the distinction lies on how strongly the conclusion
is claimed to follow from the premises, or how strongly the
premises are claimed to support the conclusion.
• In the deciding whether an argument is deductive or inductive, we
must look at certain objective features of the argument.
• There are three factors that influence the decision about the
deductiveness or inductiveness of an argument‘s inferential claim.
These are:
1. The occurrence of special indicator words,
2. The actual strength of the inferential link between premises and
conclusion,
3. The character or form of argumentation the arguers use.
the occurrence of special indicator words:
• Words like, certainly, necessarily, absolutely, and definitely indicate
that the argument should be taken as deductive.
• words like, probable, improbable, plausible, implausible, likely,
unlikely, and reasonable to conclude suggest that an argument is
inductive.
• The point is that if an argument draws its conclusion, using
either of the deductive indicator words, it is usually best to
interpret it as deductive. But if it draws its conclusion, using
either of the inductive indicator words, it is usually best to
interpret it as inductive.
• The second factor that bears upon our interpretation of an
argument as inductive or deductive is 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.
• If, on the other hand, the conclusion of an argument does not
follow with strict necessity but does follow probably, it is
usually best to interpret it as inductive argument.
• Example-1: All Ethiopian people love their country.

Debebe is an Ethiopian. Therefore,

Debebe loves his country.
• Example-2: The majority of Ethiopian people are poor.
Alamudin is an Ethiopian.
Therefore, Alamudin is poor.
• In the first example, the conclusion follows with strict necessity
from the premises. If we assume that all Ethiopian people love
their country and that Debebe is an Ethiopian, then it is
impossible that Debebe not love his country.
 Thus, we should interpret this argument as deductive.

• In the second example, the conclusion does not follow from the
premises with strict necessity, but it does follow with some degree
of probability. If we assume that the premises are true, then based
on that assumption it is probable that the conclusion is true.
 Thus, it is best to interpret the second argument as inductive.
• The third factor to be taken into account, which is the
character or form of argumentation the arguer uses.
…………….READING ASSIGNMENT.
 4: Evaluating Arguments
• The evaluation of every argument centers on the evaluation of
factual claim and inferential claims.
• The most important of the two is the inferential claim, because if
the premises fail to support the conclusion (that is, if the reasoning
is bad)
• Thus, we will always test the inferential claim first, and only if the
premises do support the conclusion will we test the factual claim
• techniques and strategies for evaluating arguments will be
discussed here….
 4.1 Evaluating Deductive Arguments: Validity, Truth, and
Soundness
Deduction and Validity
• If the premises do in fact support the conclusions the arguments is
said to be valid; if not, it is invalid.
• valid deductive argument is an argument such that if the
premises are assumed true, it is impossible for the conclusion to be
false.
• Invalid deductive argument is an argument such that if the
premises are assumed true, it is possible for the conclusion to be
false.
• Read the possibilities of arguments on page 75 of the module.
• In general, the basic idea of evaluating deductive argument,
validity (valid and invalid) is not something that is determined
by the actual truth or falsity of the premises and conclusion.
Rather, validity is something that is determined by the
relationship between premises and conclusion.
• Rather, validity is something that is determined by the
relationship between premises and conclusion.
• THE target of evaluating deductive argument is to check
whether the premise supports the conclusion.
 Deduction and Soundness
• deductive arguments can be either sound or unsound.
• A sound argument is a deductive argument that is valid and
has all true premises.
• unsound argument is a deductive argument that is either valid
with one or more false premises, or invalid, or both.
• every sound argument, by definition, will have a true conclusion

• A sound argument, is what is meant by a ‘good‘ deductive

argument.
• Sound Argument = A valid argument + All true premises
 4.2 Evaluating Inductive Arguments: Strength, Truth,
and Cogency
• The previous section defined an inductive argument as one in which
the premises are claimed to support the conclusions in such a way that
if they are assumed true, it is improbable for the conclusions to be
false.
• If the premises do in fact support the conclusions in this way the
arguments is said to be strong; if not, it is weak.
• a strong inductive argument is an argument such that if the premises
are assumed true, it is improbable for the conclusion to be false.
• In such arguments, the conclusion follows probably from the
premises.
• Conversely, a weak inductive argument is an argument such
that if the premises are assumed true, it is probable for the
conclusions to be false.
Example-1: This barrel contains one hundred apples.
Eighty apples selected at random were found tasty.
Therefore, probably all one hundred apples are tasty.
Example-2: This barrel contains one hundred apples.
Three apples selected at random were found tasty.
Therefore, probably all one hundred apples are tasty.
• The first example is strong argument, because the conclusion
actually follows probably from the premises. The second
example is weak argument, because the conclusion does not
actually follow probably from the premises, even though it is
claimed to.

• The procedure for testing the strength of inductive arguments

runs parallel to the procedure for deduction.

• Strength and Truth Value

• Induction and Cogency

A 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.

An uncogent argument is an inductive argument that is either strong with one or

more false premises, or weak, or both.

Because the conclusion of a cogent argument is genuinely supported by true

premises, it follows that the conclusion of every cogent argument is probably
true.

Cogent Argument = A strong argument + All true premises