LOGIC AND CRITICAL THINKING

by
Moti Dinku
 Chapter One
Introducing Philosophy
Basic Features of Philosophy
Philosophy is:
set of views or beliefs about life and
the universe
process of reflecting and criticizing
most deeply
held conceptions and beliefs
rational attempt to look at the world
as a whole
logical analysis of language and clari-
fication of
the meaning of words and con-
cepts
group of perennial problems where
philosophers
always have sought to answers.
 Core branches of Philosophy
Philosophy has different primary and secondary
branches
Metaphysics- philosophical study of reality/ex-
istence
Epistemology - philosophical study of knowl-
edge/truth
Axiology- philosophical study of value/worth
of sth.
Logic- study of argument/ reason
1. Metaphysics
 Etymologically: derived from the Greek
words “meta” means (―beyond, ―upon or
―after) and physika, means (―physics)---Lit-
erally to mean ‘things after the physics’

 studies the ultimate nature of reality

 seek an irreducible foundation of reality

where knowledge can induced/deduced
 Deals with issues of
 Reality God, freedom, soul/immortality
 the mind-body problem, form and sub-
stance
 relationship, cause and effect relation-
ship
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
 Metaphysical questions may be divided into
four subsets or aspects:
I. Cosmological Aspect:
 study of theories about the origin, nature,
and development of the universe as an or-
derly system
 Cosmological questions
• How did the universe originate and develop?
• Did it come about by accident or design?
• Does its existence have any purpose
II. Theological Aspect
 part of religious theory that deals about God
 Theological question
• Is there a God?
• If so, is there one or more than one?
• What are the attributes of God?
• If God is both all good and all powerful, why
does evil exist?
• If God exists, what is His relationship to human
III: Anthropological Aspect
• deals with the study of human beings
• Anthropological questions
 What is the relation between mind
and body?
 Is mind more fundamental than body,
with body depending on mind, or vice
versa?
 What is humanity‘s moral status?
 Are people born good, evil, or morally
neutral?
IV: Ontology
 Study the ultimate nature of reality/ex-
istence
 Ontological questions
• Is basic reality found in matter or
physical energy
•
2. Epistemology
 Derived from Greek words --episteme, meaning ―
knowledge, understanding, and logos, meaning ―study of -
literary to mean the study of truth/knowl-
edge
 Deals with nature, scope, meaning, and pos-
sibility of knowledge
 deals with issues of knowledge, opinion,
truth, falsity, reason, experience, and faith
 Deals with the dependability of knowledge
and the validity of sources
 Hence, the study of knowledge Involves
three main areas
 The source of knowledge –ways to
knowledge
 Nature of the knowledge-
 The validity of the knowledge
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?
How can we be sure that what we
perceive through our
senses is correct?
What makes knowledge different from
belief or
opinion?
What is truth, and how can we know a
statement is
true?
Can reason really help us to know
 Epistemology seeks answers to a number of
fundamental issues
 whether reality can even be known
 whether truth is relative or absolute
 Whether truth is subjected to change or
not
 The other major aspect of Epistemology is
about the sources of human knowledge
 Empiricism----------Sense Experience
 Rationalism- -------Reason /Thought
 Intuition- -----------Direct apprehension
 Revelation- ---------Supernatural
being(from God)
 Authority- ----------Expertise/profession-
als
1. Empiricism
 knowledge appears to be built into the very
nature of human experience
 Sensory knowing is immediate and universal
 Weakness
 data obtained from human senses is in-
complete and undependable.
i.e. Fatigue, frustration, and illness
may distort and
limit sensory perception
 there are inaudible and invisible things
that can not be identified by sense
 Advantage of empirical knowledge
 many sensory experiences and experi-
ments are open to both replication and
public examination
2. Rationalism
 Reason is source of knowledge
 emphasis on capability of humanity‘s
power of thought and the mind
 humans are capable of arriving at ir-
refutable knowledge independently of sen-
sory experience
 Senses alone cannot provide consistent
universal, valid judgments
 Data obtain through senses are raw mate-
rial-k/dge
 people have the power to know with cer-
tainty various truths about the universe
that the senses alone cannot give
Intuition
direct apprehension(grasping) of knowledge
Not derived from reasoning or sense
perception
immediate feeling of certainty OR sudden
flash of Insight
source of both religious and secular
knowledge
Source for many scientific advancements -
confirmed by
experimentation
The weakness or danger of intuition
When it used alone it may
•goes astray very easily
•lead to absurd claims
4. Revelation
Primary source of knowledge in religion
presupposes a transcendent supernatural
reality
Used as omniscient source of information
The truth revealed is absolute and
uncontaminated information
Limitation
Knowledge can be distorted through
time
Accepted by faith and cannot be proved
or disproved empirically
5. Authority :accepted as true because it comes
from experts

N.B: one source of information alone might not

be capable of supplying people with all
3. Axiology
 Derived from Greek words - Axios, meaning
―value, worth, and ―logos, meaning ―s-
tudy to mean the study of value/worth of
something
 Axiology asks the philosophical questions of
values that deal with notions of what a per-
son or a society regards as good or prefer-
able such as:
What is a value?
Where do values come from?
How do we justify our values?
How do we know what is valuable?
What is the relationship between values and
knowledge?
What kinds of values exist?
Can it be demonstrated that one value is better
than another?
3. There are Three different area of axi-
ology
I. Ethics
II. Aesthetics
III. Social/political philosophy-
I. Ethics : philosophical study of principles
used to judge human actions as good/
bad/right/wrong
•Normative ethics:
Teleological Ethics
Deontological Ethics
Virtue Ethics
•Meta- ethics:
•Applied Ethics:
II. Aesthetics
 Aesthetics is the theory of beauty
 studies particular value of our artistic and
aesthetic experiences.
 deals with beauty, art, enjoyment, sensory/
emotional values, perception, and matters of
taste and sentiment
 The following are typical Aesthetic ques-
tions:
•What is art?
•What is beauty?
•What is the relation between art and
beauty?
•What is the connection between art,
beauty, and truth?
III. Social/Political Philosophy
studies about of the value judgments operating
in a civil society
The following questions are some of the major
Social/Political Philosophy primarily deals with:
What economic system is best?
What form of government is best?
What is justice/injustice?
What makes an action/judgment just/unjust?
What is society?
Does society exist? If it does, how does it
come to existence?
How are civil society and government come
to exist?
Are we obligated to obey all laws of the
State?
What is the purpose of government?
 Importance of learning philosophy
Intellectual and behavioral indepen-
dence
Reflective Self-Awareness
Flexibility
Tolerance
Open-Mindedness
Creative and Critical Thinking
Conceptualized and well-thought-out
value systems
helps us to deal with the uncertainty of
living
 Chapter 2
Basic Concepts of Logic
Brainstorming question
[Link] is logic?
[Link] is the significance of learning
logic for you?
Logic:
 Comes from Greek word ’logos’ to mean dis-
course", "reason", "rule
 a science that evaluates arguments
 study of methods and principles of correct
reasoning
 develop the method and principles for
evaluating arguments
 primary tool philosophers use in their in-
quiries
 attempt to codify the rules of rational
thought
 in logic we study reasoning itself:
 forms of argument
 general principles and
 particular errors

Question 2
1. What is argument, statement ,premise
and conclusion ?
Argument ,premise and conclusion
 Argument is the primary focus of logic
 Argument is group of statements
 One/more of which claimed to provide ev-
idence
 one of the other follows the evidence
 From The definition
 An argument is a group of statements
 The statement/s divided into premise(s)
and conclusion
 Statement :declarative sentence with truth-
value
 Argument always attempts to justify a claim
i.e.
• claim that the statement attempts to jus-
tify -C
• statements that supposedly justify the
 Sentences: group of words or phrases that
enables us to express ideas meaningfully
 sentence: may or may not have truth value
 Sentences of the following type are not
statements
• Would you close the window? (Question)
• Let us study together. (Proposal)
• Right on! (Exclamation)
• I suggest that you to read philosophy
texts. (Suggestion)
• Give me your ID Card, Now! (Command)
Examples
o All Ethiopians are Africans.

Tsionawit is an Ethiopian
Therefore, Tsionawit is an African
o Some Africans are black
Zelalem is african
Therefore, Zelalem is black
o All crimes are violation of law
Theft is a crime
Therefore ,theft is a violation of
law
o Some crimes are misdemeanor
Murder is a crime
Therefore ,murder is misdemeanor
 Identifying conclusion and premise
 Logic: evaluates and analyses arguments
 important tasks in the analysis of arguments
is to distinguishing premises &conclusion
 two criteria are applied to identify C&P
1. looking at an indicator word
 Premise indicators words :
o Since, Because, As indicated by, May be in-
ferred from
o Owing to, in as much as, in that, for the
reason that
o given that, seeing that, as, for…etc.
 Conclusion indicators words :
o Therefore, Hence, So, Wherefore, Accord-
ingly
o Whence, It follows that, It must be that,
Thus
Examples
o Women are mammals. Zenebech is a woman.
Therefore, Zenebech is a mammal.
o You should avoid any form of cheating on ex-
ams because cheating on exams is punishable
by the Senate Legislation of the University.
o The development of high temperature super
conducting materials is technologically justi-
fiable, for such materials will allow electricity
to be transmitted without loss over great dis-
tances, and they will pave the way for trains
that levitate magnetically.
o A Federal government usually possesses a
constitution, which guarantees power sharing
between the federal and regional govern-
ments. This implies that distribution of power
is the salient feature of any federal govern-
2. Inferential claims
 It refers to the reasoning process expressed
by the argument which exist between the
premises and the conclusion of arguments.
 Use this If an argument contains no indicator
words at all
 To identify P& C responding to either of the
following questions.
Which statement is claimed to follow from
others?
 What is the arguer trying to arrive at /
prove?
What is the main point of the passage?
 The answers to these questions should point
to the conclusion.
Example:
o Our country should increase the quality and
quantity of its military. Ethnic conflicts are re-
cently intensified; boarder conflicts are esca-
lating; international terrorist activities are in-
creasing.

o Socialized medicine is not recommended be-

cause it would result in a reduction in the
overall quality of medical care available to the
average citizen. In addition, it might very well
bankrupt the federal treasury. This is the
whole case against socialized medicine in a
nutshell.

o The space program deserves increased expen-

ditures in the years ahead. Not only does the
national defense depend up on it, but the pro-
 Answer:
o P1=Ethnic conflicts are recently intensified.
P2=Boarder conflicts are escalating.
P3=International terrorist activities are in-
creasing.
C= Thus, the country should increase the
quality and
quantity of its military.

o P1=Socialized medicine result in a reduction

in the overall
quality of medical care available to the av-
erage citizen.
P2=Socialized medicine might very well
bankrupt the
federal treasury.
 Answer:
o P1=The national defense is dependent up on the space
program.
P2=The space program will more than pay for itself in terms of

technological spinoffs.
P3=At current funding levels the space program cannot fullfill
its anticipated potential.
C=The space program deserves increased expenditures in the
years ahead.
3. Non-argumentative passages
 Warning: contains cautionary advices
 Piece of advice : contain counseling or guide-
lines
 belief/ opinion: belief of someone on different
events
 Report: convey information about events
 Expository passage: topic and sub topic sen-
tences
 Illustration: clarifying instances of different
matters
 Explanation: shed light on certain phenome-
non
 Conditional Statements: express cause and ef-
fect of events
TYPES OF ARGUMENTS
 Every argument involves an inferential
claim
 Depending on the inferential relation be-
tween p & c
1. deductive argument
2. Inductive argument
1. Deductive Arguments
 Its impossible for the conclusion to be
false given that the premises are true
 conclusion follows the premise with ne-
cessity
 involve necessary reasoning.
 Example 1: All philosophers are critical
thinkers.
Socrates is a philosopher
Therefore, Socrates is a crit-
ical thinker
 Example2: All African footballers are
blacks
Messi is an African foot-
baller
2. Inductive Arguments
 it is improbable for the conclusion to be
false given that the premises are true.
 the conclusion follow the premise only
with probability
 It involves probabilistic reasoning.
• Example1: Most African leaders are
blacks.
Mandela was an African leader
Therefore, probably Mandela
was black.
• Example2: Almost all women are mam-
mals.
Hanan is a woman.
Hence, Hanan is a mammal.
 Differentiating Deductive and Inductive Ar-
guments
 criteria to differentiate DA & IA
1. The occurrence of special indicator words
• Certainly, Necessarily, Absolutely,
Definitely=deductive
• Probable‖ , Improbable, Plausible,‘ Implausi-
ble,‘‘ likely, unlikely===Inductive argument
2. The actual strength of the inferential link be-
tween premises and conclusion
• All Ethiopian love their country.
Debebe is an Ethiopian.
Therefore, Debebe loves his country.
• majority of Ethiopian are poor.
Alamudin is an Ethiopian.
3. The character or form of argumentation
the arguers use
 Some typical deductive arguments
arguments based on Mathematics
argument based on definition
categorical syllogism
Hypothetical syllogism
Disjunctive Syllogism
 Some typical Inductive Arguments
Arguments of Prediction
argument from analogy
argument from authority
inductive generalization
argument based on signs
argument based on causation
 Instances of deductive argument
1. arguments based on Mathematics
 C depends on arithmetic/ geometric com-
putation
 Exception: arguments of statistics =induc-
tive argument
Example:
 you can measure a square pieces of land
and after determining it is ten meter on
each side conclude that its area is a hun-
dred square meter.
 The sum of two odd numbers is always
even. Thus, the sum of 3 and 9 is an even
number.
 Since triangle A is congruent with triangle
B, and triangle A is isosceles, it follows
2. Arguments based on definition:
 conclusion depend on the definition of
some words or phrase used in the premise
Example:
• Angel is honest; it is follows that Angel
tells the truth.
• Kebede is a physician; therefore, he is a
doctor
• God is omniscient, it follows that He knows
everything
3. Categorical syllogism:
 statement begins with one of the words all,
no and some
Example:
• All Egyptians are Muslims. No Muslim is a
Christian. Hence, no Egyptian is a Christian.
4. Hypothetical Syllogism
 have conditional statement for one or both
of its premises
 “If…then statement.
IF A then B.
If B then C.
Therefore , If A then C.
Example:
P1=If you study hard, then you will graduate
with Distinction.
P2=If you graduate with Distinction, then you
will get a rewarding job.
C=Therefore, if you study hard, then you will
get a rewarding job.
5. Disjunctive Syllogism :
 begin with an “Either…or …” phrase
 Either A or B. not A .Therefore B
Example
Rewina is either Ethiopian or Eritrean.
Rewina is not Eritrean.
Therefore, Rewina is Ethiopian

Either Italy or Ethiopia won the military in-

cident of Adwa.
Italy did not win the military incident of
Adwa.
Therefore, Ethiopia won the military inci-
dent of Adwa
 Instances of Inductive Argumentative Forms
Arguments of Prediction
Inductive generalization
Argument from authority
Argument based on certain signs
Argument from analogy
 Argument based on causation
1. Prediction
• premises deals with some known event in
the present or the past and the conclusions
moves beyond this event to some event to
relative future
Example
• one may argue that because certain clouds
develop in the center of the highland, a rain
will fall within twenty-four hours.
• It has been raining for the whole day of this
week. This shows that it will rain for the
coming week.
2. An argument from analogy:
 depends on the existence of similarity be-
tween two things or state of affairs
 certain conditions that affects the better-
known situation is concluded to affect the
lesser known situation
For instance
• Computer A is manufactured in 2012; easy
to access and fast in processing; Computer B
is also manufactured in 2012; easy to ac-
cess. It follows that, Computer B is also fast
in processing.
3. An inductive generalization:
 proceeds from the knowledge of a selected
sample to claim about the whole group
 Claim: Since the sample have a certain (X)
characteristics, all members of the group
have the same (X) characteristics.
For example
• one may argue that because three out of
four people in a single prison are black, one
may conclude that three-fourth of prison
populations are blacks.
4. An argument from authority:
• conclusions rest upon a statement made by
some presumed authority or witness
for instance:
• A lawyer may argue that the person is guilty
because an eye witness testifies to that ef-
fect under oath
• all matters are made up of a small particles
called ―quarks because the University Pro-
fessor said so.
5. Arguments based on sign:
• Proceeds from the knowledge of a certain
sign to the knowledge the sign symbol-
izes.
For instance
• after observing ‗No Parking‘ sign posted
on the side of a road, one may infer that
the area is not allowed for parking.
6. An argument based on causation:
 Depends on instances of cause and effect
which can never be known with absolute
certainty
Example
• from the knowledge that a bottle of wa-
ter had been accidentally left in the
freezer overnight, someone might con-
clude that it had frozen (cause to effect ).
• after tasting a piece of chicken and find-
ing it dry and tough, one might conclude
that it had been overcooked ( effect to
cause).
• The meat is dry so that it had been over
cooked  effect to cause
Evaluating Arguments: deductive and
inductive
 Deductive argument
Valid and invalid
sound and unsound
 Inductive argument
Strong and weak
Cogent and un-cogent
 Deductive Argument :Validity and sound-
ness
 Valid deductive argument
 if the premises are assumed true, it is
impossible for the conclusion to be
false
 conclusion follows the premises with
strict necessity
 connection b/n P&C is a matter of cer-
tainty
 Invalid deductive argument:
 if the premises are assumed true, it is
possible for the conclusion to be false.
Examples
• All men are mammals. All bulls are men.
Therefore, all bulls are mammals.
 validity and Truth value
 No direct relationship b/n validity and truth value of
statements
 Exception: an argument T=P & F=C is always invalid
 Therefore , An argument has the following four possibilities
Of Truth vale combinations
Premise Conclusion Valid Invalid
True True  
False False  
True False X invalid
False True  
 Validity is not determined by actual truth value of premise/
conclusion rather by FORM
 Possibility # 1: :A combination of True premises and
True conclusion allows for both invalid arguments
A. Invalid B. Invalid
All women are mammals. All philosophers
are critical thinkers.
My mother is a mammal. Plato was a criti-
cal thinker.
Therefore, my mother is a woman. Therefore, Plato
was a philosopher.

 Possibility # 2: A combination of True premises and false

conclusion allows only for invalid arguments.
Invalid
All biologists are scientists.
John Nash was a scientist.
Therefore, John Nash was a biologist.
 Possibility # 3: A combination of False premises and
True conclusion allows for both valid and invalid ar-
guments.
valid Invalid
• All birds are mammals. All birds are
mammals.
• All women are birds. All ostriches
are mammals
• Therefore, all women are mammals. Therefore, all
ostriches are birds.
 Possibility # 4: A combination of False premises and
False conclusion allows for both valid and invalid ar-
guments.
 valid Invalid
All Americans are Ethiopians. All
birds are mammals
All Egyptians are Americans. All
ants are mammals
 Soundness of deductive argument
 A sound argument is a deductive argument that is valid
and has all true premises.
 Argument is sound if
The argument is valid
It has all actually true P
 if either of these is missed the argument is un-
sound
 Evaluating Inductive Arguments:
Strength, Truth
• strong inductive argument
 f they are assumed true, it is improbable
for the conclusions to be false.
 conclusion follows probably from the
premises
• weak inductive argument
 if the premises are assumed true, it is
probable for the conclusions to be false.
Example
• This barrel contains one hundred apples.
Eighty apples selected at random were found
tasty. Therefore, probably all one hundred
apples are tasty
• This barrel contains one hundred apples.
Three apples selected at random were found
 Strength and Truth Value
 No direct relationship b/n S/W and truth value of state-
ments
 Exception: an argument T=P & probably F=C is always
Weak
 Therefore , An argument with :

Premise Conclusion Strong Weak

True Pro. True  

False Pro. False  
True Pro. False X Weak
False Pro. True  
 Strength and weakness is not a matter of actual truth
value rather DEGEREE
 Cogency of inductive argument
 Cogent argument is strong and has all true premises.
 cogent argument has two essential features:
 Should be strong and
 all its premises should be true
 If one of these two conditions is missed, the argument
would be un-cogent.
Example:
Nearly all lemons that have been tasted were sour. Therefore,
nearly all lemons are sour.
 Benefits of learning logic
 Refine and sharpen one’s natural ability to reason and ar-
gue
 develop skill needed to evaluate & construct good argu-
ments
 develop skill needed to construct fallacy-free arguments
 provides fundamental defense against the prejudiced and
uncivilized attitudes
 helps to distinguish good arguments from bad argument
 helps to identify confusions common logical errors
 enables us to disclose ill-conceived policies in the political
sphere
 identify and avoid common errors in reasoning
 Increase in confidence in our views in writing, speech etc.
 Helps us to become reasonable
 Improve the quality of argument we use
 Helps us to be critical thinker
 Enables us to think clearly and accurately
 Secures us from manipulations
 Helps us to make better personal decision
 Help to learn strategies for thinking and reasoning well
 Summary of chapter- one
 Logic- evaluates an argument /philosophical sdudy of
principles
 Argument –group of statements composed of P&C
 Statement – declarative sentence having a truth
value
 Non-statement – sentences which doesn’t have T.-
Value
 Criteria To identify P&C: Indicator words & IN. Claim
 Criteria To distinguish argument from non- argument
 Indicator words , Inferential claim , Non-inferential
passages
 To identify deductive & inductive argument focus on:
 Special
Typical deductive argu- words,
indicator Typical inductive argument
ment
 Actual strength of IL b/n P&C ,
[Link] of mathemat- [Link] of prediction
ics Nature/form/of the argument
[Link] of generalization
[Link] of definition [Link] of authority
[Link] syllogism [Link] of sign
[Link] syllogism [Link] of analogy
[Link] syllogism [Link] of causation
 Deductive Argument Inductive argument
________________________________________
If we assume the P=T , If we assume the P=T ,
______________________________________
IMPOSSIBLE for C=F or IMPROBABLE for C=F
______________________________________
The relationship b/n P&C The relationship b/n
is a matter of necessity P&C is a matter of proba-
______________________________________
bility
______________________________________
The C follow the premise The C follow the premise
with certainty with likelihood
______________________________________
Valid : if we assume Strong: If we assume the
______________________________________
P=T ,its IMPOSSIBLE for P=T , IMPROBABLE for
the C=F C=F
______________________________________
Invalid :Valid : if we as- Weak :If we assume the
______________________________________
sume P=T ,its POSSIBLE P=T , probable for C=F
for the C=F
______________________________________
 validity is not a matter Strength/weakness is not
of______________________________________
actual truth value of a matter of actual truth
statements rather a mater value of statements rather
of______________________________________
FORM a mater of degree
Hence no direct relation- Hence no direct relation-
ship b/n truth value and ship b/n truth value and
Deductive Argument INDUCTIVE ARGUMENT
SOUND : Must fulfill two cri- COGENT : Must fulfill two cri-
teria teria
[Link] [Link]
[Link] actually true premises [Link] actually true premises
IF fail to fulfill the above cri- IF fail to fulfill the above cri-
teria=UNSOUND teria=UNCOGENT
All SOUND arguments are All COGENT arguments are
VALID STRONG arguments
arguments
All INVALID arguments are All WEAK arguments are
UNCOGENT arguments
UNSOUND arguments
VALID argument can be STRONG argument can be
UN/SOUND depending on UN/COGENT depending on
the the
actual truth value of its actual truth value of its
statements statements
Chapter Three

Logic and Language

 Chapter three
Logic and Language
Function of Language
Cognitive meaning/function
Emotive meaning/function

Examples:
The first written constitution of Ethiopia was
formulated in 1931.
However the first federal constitution is
effected since 1995.
Death Penalty is the final, cruel and inhuman
form of all punishments where hapless
prisoners are taken from their cells and terribly
slaughtered
Intentional and extensional meaning of terms
Terms made up of words - serve as a
subject of a statement
Terms includes:
proper names,
common names
 descriptive phrases
Words - symbols and the entity they
symbolize- meaning.
terms have two kind of meaning :
 Intensional meaning
Extensional meanings
  Intentional meaning of terms
 Attribute of the term being connoted
 subjective : vary from person to person.
 To avoid subjective meaning - conventional
connotation
 can be expressed in terms of increasing and
decreasing intentions
 Increasing intention:
 each term in the series connotes
more attribute than the one preced-
ing it.
Decreasing intention:
each term in the series connotes less
attribute than the one preceding it.
Asella, Eth, oromia, Africa
  Extensional [denotative] meaning of terms
 Refers to the members that the term denotes
 remains the same to all but
 may be changed with the passage of time –
Empty extension.
 can be expressed in terms of increasing /de-
creasing extension.
 Increasing extension: each term in the se-
ries denotes more members than the one
preceding it
 Decreasing extension: each term in the se-
ries denotes less members than the one
preceding it
 Intentional meaning determines extensional
meaning of terms
  Types of definition and their purpose
1. Stipulative definitions
 Assign meaning for the first time
 Names are assigned arbitrarily &
 caused by new phenomena and develop-
ments
 Definition/statements doesn’t have truth
value
 Purpose : simplifying complex expressions
 used to set up new secret codes
Examples:
- Logphobia” means fear of taking logic
course.
- A male tiger + female lion =tigon
- Operation Barbarossa – Nazi invasion of
USSR
- Operation sunset – Ethio-Eritrea war(1998)
2. Lexical definitions:
 It reports the meaning of the word actually
exist in dictionary
 Provides Dictionary meaning of terms
 Purpose: to avoid ambiguity
Examples:
3. Precise definition:
 Intended to reduce vagueness
 Definition should be appropriate and legiti-
mate to the context in which the term is em-
ployed
Examples
- High” means, in regard to the interest rates,
at least two points
above the prime rate
- “Antique” means, at least 100 years old
4. Theoretical definition :
 Assign meaning to a word by suggesting
theories
 theoretical definitions provide a way for fur-
ther experimental investigations
Example : ‘’Heat” means the energy associ-
ated with the random motion of molecules
5. Persuasive definition
 Purpose: to engender a Un/favorable atti-
tudes
 To influence attitude of reader/ listeners
 Use value laden[emotively charged] words
  Extensional definition techniques
1. Ostensive[demonstrative] technique
 Is the traditional way of defining terms
 Use pointing as a technique to define
terms
 Is limited by time and space
2. Enumerative technique
 Assign meaning by naming members indi-
vidually
 It can be partial or complete
3. Definition by subclass
 Assign meaning by naming the subclass of
the class.
 it can be partial or complete
Example :Tree” means an Oak, Eucalyptus,
olive, juniper
  Intentional definitional techniques
1. Synonyms definition
 The definiens is a synonym of the word be-
ing defined
 Single word is highly appropriate
Example :“Obese” Means fat
2. An etymological definition
 Assign meanings to a word by disclosing its
ancestry
 enables us to get the historical details of
the word
Example: “Virtue” is derived from Latin virtues-
means strength.
3. Operational definition
 gives meaning by setting experimental
procedures
 It prescribes the operation to be performed
 bring abstract Concepts to the empirical re-
4. Definition by genus and difference
 To construct this definition
 identify the genus & specific difference
 Most effective of all intentional definitions
Examples:
Species Difference
Genus
- “Ice” means frozen
water.
- “Father” means a male head
of the family
 Chapter 4
Critical thinking
Meaning of Critical Thinking
Critical thinking can be defined
as (refers to) :
 Involving or Exercising skilled judgment
 thinking clearly and intelligently
 Wide range of cognitive skills and intellectual disposi-
tions
o Identify /classify
o Evaluate:
o Analyze:
o Understand:
o Synthesize:
o Criticize
 Critical thinking is to think
o Clearly:
o Actively:
o Persistent fairly:
o rationally:
john Dewey:
o Critical thinking is active, persistent, careful considera-
tion of issues/belief in different grounds
For Robert Ennis:
o Critical thinking is reasonable, and
reflective thinking focusing on de-
cide what you believe or to do (deci-
sion making)
For Richard Paul:
o critical thinking is model of think-
ing which focus in reflecting on
thoughts
- having ability of thinking
Critical thinking helps us to:
 discovers & overcomes personal preconceptions or
prejudice
 formulate & provide convincing reason and justifica-
tions to
 make reasonable/rational decision about what we be-
lieve /d
 impartially investigate data and facts not swayed by
emotion
 arrive at well-reasoned, sound and justifiable conclu-
sion
 Standards of CT
CT is normal and acceptable if it
fulfills the following standards
1. Clarity
2. Precision
3. Accuracy
4. Relevance
5. Consistency
6. Logical Correctness
7. Completeness
8. Fairness
1. Clarity
o Clear understanding of concepts
o Expression should free of vagueness and ambiguity
o CT strive both for clarity of language & thought

2. Precision
o being exact, accurate and careful
o reducing vague and obscures thoughts
o Provide precise answer to precise questions of life

3. Accuracy
o Having correct and genuine information
o CT value truth, accurate and timely information
o Every decision should be made based on true infor-
mation
o If the input is false information, decision will not be
sound
4. Relevance
o It’s an issue of connection
o focus on Significant ideas logical to the issue at
hand
o focus should be given to the issue at hand

5. Consistency
o Quality of always behaving in the same way
o following same standards in decisions making
o There are two kinds of inconsistency that we
should avoid
- Logical inconsistency
- Practical inconsistency:

6. Logical Correctness
o To think logically it reason correctly
o To draw well-founded conclusions from belief/in-
formation
o Conclusions should logically follow believes/ideas
or evidence
7. Completeness
o deep and complete thinking to shallow and superfi-
cial thinking
8. Fairness
o Treat all relevant views alike
o thinking should be based on
 fair
 open mindedness,
 Impartiality and
o thinking should be free
 distortion,
 Biasedness
 Preconceptions,
 Inclinations,
 Personal interests
Principles of Good Argument
[Link] Structural Principle
Use arguments that meet funda-
mental structural requirement
valid form is the First require-
ment for argument to be good
(deductive)
• don’t use reason that contradict to each other (avoid in-
valid inference)
• conclusion should follow the premise with strict necessity

good argument:
o structurally good form(valid)-
2. The Relevance Principle
One who argues in favor or
against a position……?
o Set forth premise whose Truth provides evidence for
the truth of the conclusion
o Premise is relevant if its provides logical reason to the
conclusion
o basic question
- Does the truth of the premise support the truth of
the conclusion?
3. The Acceptability Principle
 Premise must provide evidence that can be accepted
by a mature, rational person
 If the reason has the capability to convince a rational
person to accept conclusion

4. The Sufficiency Principle

 Premise provides sufficient reason that outweigh the ac-
ceptance of the conclusion.
 Questions to test sufficiency of evidence
o Are the available reasons enough to drive someone
to conclusion?
o are key or crucial evidence missing from the argu-
ment ?
5. the Rebuttal Principle
Person should provide effective
rebuttal (refutation) to all antici-
pated serious criticisms of an ar-
gument raised against it.
good argument effectively refute
criticisms raised against it
Ask and answer following ques-
tions in applying the rebuttal prin-
ciple to an argument.
o What is the strongest side of arguments against the
position being defended?
Principles of Critical Thinking
1. The Fallibility Principle
Willingness of participants in an
argument to acknowledge his/her
fallibility
Accept one ‘s own initial view
thay may not be the most defen-
sible position on the issue
Consciously accept that your
view may wrong - willing to
change your mind
2. The Truth-Seeking Principle
participant should be committed to search
truth
one should be willing to
o Examine alternative positions seriously
o look for insights and positions of others
o Allow others to present arguments for or
against issue
The search for truth is lifelong endeavor and
can be attained if:
o We discuss and entertain the ideas and
arguments of fellow
o We listen arguments for positions and
o Have Willingness to look at all available
options
o
3. The Clarity Principle
Formulations of all positions, defenses, and
attacks should be free of any kind of linguistic
confusion
discussion is successful if it carried on in
language that all the parties involved can un-
derstand
expressing in confusing, vague, ambiguous,
or contradictory language will not help reach
the desired goal
4. The Burden of Proof Principle
Burden of proof rests on the participant who
sets forth the position or argument
Participant is logically obligated to produce
reasons in favor of his claim

5. The Principle of Charity
If the participant ‘s argument is
reformulated by an opponent, it
should be carefully expressed in
its strongest possible version (in-
tension of the original argument)
Opponent has an obligation of in-
terpreting a speaker's statements
in the most rational way, consider-
ing its best strongest possible in-
terpretation of original argument
6. The Suspension of Judgment
Principle
suspend judgment about the is-
sue if
o no position is defended by good argument, or
o two or more positions seem to be defended with
equal strength
o one has no good basis (evidence) for making a de-
cision

To make decision: relative bene-

fits or harm of (consequence)
should also take in to considera-
tion
Why are issues not resolved?
When
o When One or more of the parties to the dispute:
 has a blind spot: not objective about the issue at hand
and rational but not psychologically convinced by the
discussion
 have been rationally careless
 has a hidden agenda
 not being honest with themselves
o are in deep disagreement of underlying assumptions
 CHAPTER FIVE
INFORMAL FALLACY
 Argument:
 argument can be good/bad, depending on the r/p b/
n the P&C
 Good argument meets all the required criteria
 A good argument:
• Structurally good form
• Has relevant , acceptable & sufficient premise
• provide an effective rebuttal to all reasonable
 An argument violates the above it becomes falla-
cious
 fallacy
 logical defect or flaw in reasoning process in ana ar-
gument
o (bad) form of the argument
o (bad) defects in the contents of the statements
 violation of standard argumentative rules or criteria.
 Both deductive and inductive arguments may con-
tain fallacies
 People may commit fallacy intentionally or uninten-
tionally
 Depending on the kind of the defects they contain:
1. Formal fallacy:
 due to structural defect
 found only in deductive argument with identifiable
form
 Easily identifiable by their form
 Hence, deductive arguments with invalid form
Example:
– All tigers are animals. All mammals are animals.
Therefore, all tigers are mammals.
2. Informal fallacy :
 due to bad content
 found in both deductive and inductive arguments
 Cannot be identified through inspection of the form
 Identifiable through detail analysis of content
Example:
• All factories are plants. All plants are things that con-
tain chlorophyll. Therefore, all factories are things that
 Informal fallacies are Classified in to:
[Link] of relevance
 have logically irrelevant but psychologically rele-
vant premise to conclusion
[Link] of weak induction
 have logically relevant premise but with no suffi-
cient evidence
[Link] of presumption
 Premise contains an assumptions which isn't
supported by evidence
[Link] of ambiguity
 Conclusion drawn from ambiguous used words
and phrases
[Link] of grammatical analogy
 Structurally, looks good argument but has bad
content
 Fallacy of relevance
 Premise is logically irrelevant to the conclu-
sion
 but psychologically premise is relevant to the
conclusion
 conclusion does not follow the premise logi-
cally
 Unlike in good argument(genuine evidence) in
fallacy of relevance- emotional appeal
 Hence, connection between P&C is emotional
 It includes fallacies of :
1. Appeal to force- employ threat

2. Appeal to pity- evoke pity

3. Appeal to the people – manipulate desire
of people
• bandwagon –-----majority’s choice
4. Against the person
• Ad hominem abusive
• Ad hominem circumstantial
• Ad hominem tu qoque
5. Accident – misapplication of G.R to spe-
cific case
6. Straw man –distortion of original argu-
ment
7. Missing the point- C misses logical evi-
dence of P
8. Red herring – diverting attention of L/R to
ward new
issue
[Link] to force or stick fallacy
 arguer poses C by employing threats on L/R
 Always involves using threat
• physical (explicit force/threat)
• psychological (implicit force/threat)
 threat is logically irrelevant to conclusion

Examples :
[Link]. Kebde you have accused me of fraud and
embezzlements. You have to drop the charge
you filed against me. You have to remember
that I am your ex-boss; I will torture both
you and your family members if you do not
drop your case. Got it?

2. Child to playmate: ‘‘Josy in the house’’ is

the best show on TV; and if you don’t believe
3. Lately there has been a lot of negative crit-
icism of our policy on dental benefits. Let
me tell you something, people. If you want
to keep working here, you need to know
that our policy is fair and reasonable. I
won't has anybody working here who
doesn't know this

4. 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 has been going on between you and
that sexpot client of yours. (Psychological
threat)
2. Appeal to Pity
 support a conclusion merely by evoking pity
in one ‘s audience
 if the arguer succeeds in evoking strong
feelings of pity, the listeners may deceived
to accept the conclusion with out logical ev-
idence

Example:
o The Headship position in the department of account-
ing should be given to Mr. Oumer Abdulla. Oumer has
six hungry children to feed and his wife desperately
needs an operation to save her eyesight.

o 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 prob-
ably lose my job, my poor wife will not be able to
 There are arguments from pity, which are
reasonable and plausible which is called ar-
gument compassion
 Most society values helping people in time
of danger and
 showing compassion and sympathy is a nat-
ural response in some situation.
 If some group of people are in danger, help-
ing out may require appeal to the compas-
sion

Consider the following argument.

• Twenty children survive earthquakes that
kill most people in the village. These chil-
dren lost their parents. They are out of
school, and home in the street. Unless we
each of us contribute money, their life will
3. Appeal to the People
 Naturally, everyone wants to be accepted, loved,
and esteemed by others.
 However, the problem lies on how to secure this
desire.
 Committed when an arguer draw a conclusion by
manipulating the desire of the people using differ-
ent techniques
 Arguers illogically attempt to exploit the desire/
emotion of the people for some private motives
 claim : if you want to be member of the group , ac-
cept xyz as true
 Two approaches
o Direct approach
• Arguer address a large group of people, ex-
cites the emotions and enthusiasm of the
crowd to win acceptance for his or her conclu-
sion.
• Objective-----arouse mob mentality
• individuals in the audience want to share the
 Indirect approach :
 arguer appeal not at the crowd as a whole
but at individuals separately who have re-
lationship to the crowd
 Used by industries to advertise their prod-
uct
• Using emotively charged terminologies
• Capability to attract people towards the
product or issue
 Three varieties
i. appeal to bandwagon
[Link] to vanity
[Link] to snobbery
i. Appeal to Bandwagon
 commonly appeals to the desire of individuals to
be considered as part of the group or community
in which they are living
 community or group shares some common values
and norms
 Hence, every individual is expected to manifest
group conformity to these shared values
 Bandwagon uses these emotions and feelings to
get acceptance for a certain conclusion
Example: The majority of people in Ethiopia accept the
opinion that child
circumcision is the right thing to do.
Thus, you also should accept
that child circumcision is the right
thing to do.
 In advertising ,the issue is intentionally Attached
with majority section of society– and others are
urged to follow the decision of majority
 Appeal to Vanity
 Arguer associates the product with someone
who is admired, pursued and people
 Claim: if you use the product which is used by
some one respected by the people ,you will be
respected too.
Example: BBC may show the famous footballer, Frank
Lampard, wearing
Adidas shoe, and says: Wear this new
fashion shoe! A shoe, which is
worn only by few respected celebrities!
ADIDDAS SHOE!!!
 Appeal to snobbery
 arguer associates the issue with persons who
have high social status(higher class)
 Claim: ‘if you want to be a member of the se-
lected few, you should accept XYZ.’
Example: A Rolls Royce is not for everyone. If you
qualify as one of the select few, this (distin-
4. Argument against the person
 Normally in a good argument, to achieve collaborative
goals arguers are expected to:
o observe rules of polite conversation
o to trust each other and express their
arguments/position clearly and honestly
o focus on attacking the content of the argument
than personality of opponents
 But arguers focus on attacking personality of oppo-
nents than the content of the argument---against the
person fallacy
 Occurred when an arguer discredits an argument by
attacking the personality of his opponent
 always two arguers
 three forms of against the person:
i. Ad hominem abusive
[Link] hominem circumstantial
[Link] quoque (you too)
i. Fallacy of ad hominem abusive
 Committed when an arguer rejects an argument by
verbally abusing the personality of his opponent
rather than the contents of his opponent’s argument
 second person rejects the first person ‘s argument by
verbally abusing the first person
 Premise: A is a person of bad character
 Conclusion: A‟s argument should not be ac-
cepted.
Examples:
• In defending animal rights, Mr. Abebe argues that the
government should legislate a minimum legal re-
quirement to any individuals or groups who want to
farm animals. He argues that this is the first step in
avoiding unnecessary pain on animals and protecting
them from abuse. But we should not accept his argu-
ment because he is a divorced drunk person who is
unable to protect even his own family.

• Mr. Abebe has argued for increased funding for the

ii. Fallacy of ad hominem Circumstantial
committed when an arguer discredits the argument of
his opponent by alluding the argument with certain cir-
cumstances that affect his opponents
easy to recognize because it always take this form: ‘Of
course, Mr. X argues this way; just look at the circum-
stances that affect him.’

Example:
•Haileselassie I of Ethiopia argued in the League of Na-
tions that member states should give hand to Ethiopia to
expel the fascist Italy from the country. But the member
states should not listen to the king. Haileselassie I argue
in this way because he wants to resume his power once
the Italian are expelled from Ethiopia

•Ato Mohammed has just argued to replace the public

school system with private school system. But, of course,
he argues that way. He has no kids, and he does not want
to pay any more taxes for public education.
iii. tu quoque (you too) fallacy
 second arguer attempts to make the first appear to be
hypocritical or arguing in bad fait
 This fallacy has the following form: ‘How dare you ar-
gue that I should stop doing X; why you do (have done)
X yourself?’
 So, arguer(2nd ) discredits the argument of an opponent
by claiming that the idea he advance as false and con-
trary with what he has said or done before
Example:
• Patient to a Doctor: Look Doctor, you cannot advise me
to quit smoking cigarette because you yourself is a
smoker.
• How do you advise me to quit smoking while you your-
self are smoking?
• Child to parent: Your argument that I should stop steal-
ing candy from the corner store is no good. just a week
ago You told me you, too, stole candy when you were a
kid.
5. Accident
 committed when a general rule is applied to a spe-
cific case it was not intended to cover

Example:
o Freedom of speech is a constitutionally guaranteed
right. Therefore, John Q. Radical should not be arrested
for his speech that incited riot last week.

o Property should be returned to its rightful owner.

That drunken sailor who is starting a fight with his
opponents at the pool table lent you his 45-caliber
pistol, and now he wants it back. Therefore, you
should return it to him now.
6. Straw Man
 committed when an arguer distorts an opponent‘s ar-
gument for the purpose of more easily attacking it.
 main features of straw man fallacy
 First, there are always two individuals discussing
about controversial issues: One(1st arguer) of the
arguers presents his views about the issues and the
other(2nd arguer) is a critic
 Second, the 2nd arguer does not rationally criticize
the main argument of the opponent Rather misrep-
resented ideas of original argument.
 Third the 2nd person concludes by criticizing the
misrepresented idea
 When the fallacy of straw man occurs readers should
keep in mind two things.
– First, they have to try to identify the original argu-
ment, which is misrepresented by the critic.
– Second, they should look for what gone wrong in
the misrepresentation of the argument.
Example:
•Mr. Belay believes that ethnic federalism has just de-
stroyed the country and thus it should be replaced by
geographical federalism. But we should not accept his
proposal. Geographical federalism was the kind of state
structure during Derg and monarchical regime which
suppress right of national nationalities and peoples of
Ethiopia.

•Mr. Goldberg has argued against prayer in the public

schools. Obviously, Mr. Gold-berg advocates atheism. But
atheism is what they used to have in Russia. Atheism
leads to the suppression of all religions and the re-
placement of God by an omnipotent state. Is that what
we want for this country? I hardly think so. Clearly Mr.
Goldberg’s argument is nonsense.
7. Missing the point
premise of an argument supports a conclusion which is
different but vaguely related to the correct one (cocnclu-
sion)
If one suspects that such fallacy is committed, he or
she should identify the correct conclusion, the conclu-
sion that the premises logically imply

arguer is ignorant of the logical implications of his or

her own premises and draws a conclusion that misses
the point entirely

Examples
•The world is in the process of globalizing more than ever. The
world economy is becoming more and more interconnected.
Multinational companies and supra national institutions are
taking power from local companies and national governments.
The livelihood of people is randomly affected by action and de-
cision made on the other side of the planet and this process
benefits only the rich nations at the expense of the poor. What
should be done? The answer is obvious: poor nations should
8. Red Herring
arguer diverts the attention of the L/R by
changing the original subject in to totally dif-
ferent issue
arguer ignores the main topic and shifts the
attention of his audiences to another totally dif-
ferent issue
Draws conclusion from the changed issue
arguer mislead L/R using two different
techniques
 change the subject to one that is subtly
related to the original subject
 change the subject to some flashy, eye-
catching topic that distract the attention
of the L/R
Example:
Environmentalists are continually harping about the dan-
gers of nuclear power. Unfortunately, electricity is dangerous
no matter where it comes from. Every year hundreds of people
are electrocuted by accident. Since most of these accidents are
caused by carelessness, they could be avoided if people would
just exercise greater caution.

There is a good deal of talk these days about the need to

eliminate pesticides from our fruits and vegetables. But many
of these foods are essential to our health. Carrots are an excel-
lent source of vitamin A, broccoli is rich in iron, and oranges
and grapefruits have lots of vitamin C.
 To differentiate SM,RH & MP fallacies ……..
1. both red herring and straw man proceed by
generating a new set of premises
- but Missing the point draws a conclusion
from the original premises
2. In both red herring and straw man, the
conclusion is relevant to the premises from
which it’s drawn
- But in missing the point, the conclusion is
irrelevant to the premises from which it’s
drawn
2. Fallacies of Weak Induction
occurred due to weak connection between
the P&C
Premises is relevant to the C but doesn’t
contains sufficient evidence
Includes six fallacies :
 Appeal to unqualified authority
C cites statement of others
 Appeal to ignorance
lack of proof definitely supports a con-
clusion
 Hasty generalization
 C depends on insufficient info. and un-
representative sample
 Fallacy of weak Analogy
 C depends on insignificant similarity
two events
 Slippery slope fallacy
C depends on alleged chain reaction
with less probability to happen in real-
ity
 False cause fallacy
C depends on imagined causal connec-
tion which may not happen in reality
9. Appeal to unqualified authority
 Arguer draws conclusion by citing the idea
of unqualified authority whose idea is un-
trustworthy .
 A person is unqualified authority when he/
she:
 lacks the expertise/Profession
 make biased or prejudiced judgment
 Has the motive to lie or
 Has the motive to disseminate “misin-
formation”
 lacks the ability to perceive or recall
things
Example:
A. Dr. Bradshaw, our family physician, has
stated that the creation of muonic atoms of
deuterium and tritium hold the key to produc-
ing a sustained nuclear fusion reaction at
room temperature. In view of Dr. Bradshaw’s
expertise as a physician, we must conclude
that this is indeed true.

B. David Duke, former Grand Wizard of the Ku

Klux Klan, has stated, ‘‘Jews are not good
Americans. They have no understanding of
what America is.’’ On the basis of Duke’s au-
thority, we must therefore conclude that the
Jews in this country are un-American
C. Old Mrs. Ferguson (who is practically blind)
has testified that she saw the defendant
stab the victim with a bayonet while she was
standing in the twilight shadows 100 yards
from the incident. Therefore, members of the
jury, you must find the defendant guilty

D. James W. Johnston, Chairman of R. J.

Reynolds Tobacco Company, testified before
Congress that tobacco is not an addictive
substance and that smoking cigarettes does
not produce any addiction. Therefore, we
should believe him and conclude that smok-
ing does not in fact lead to any addiction.
10. Appeal to Ignorance
committed when one’s ignorance, lack of evidence and
Lack of knowledge definitely supports the conclusion
premises state that nothing has been proved
about something but the conclusion makes a
definite assertion about that thing.
committed when Someone argues that:
 Something(X) is true because no one has
proved it to be false or
 Something(X) is false because no one has
proved it to be true
 Group of people have been conducted re-
search for decades to check the existence
of ‘X’ but all failed to do so. Therefore ‘X’
doesn’t exist.
Examples:
[Link] has ever proved the existence of
UFO. Therefore, UFO doesn’t exist.
[Link] have been trying for centuries to dis-
prove the claims of astrology, and no one has
ever succeeded. Therefore, we must conclude
that the claim of astrology is true.
Exceptions
1. If group of experts/scientist investigate
something in their own area of expertise and
found nothing
example :
Teams of scientists attempted over a number
of decades to detect the existence of the UFO
and all failed to do so. Therefore, UFO does not
exist.
2. Legal [court room] procedure
example :
 Members of the jury, you have heard the
prosecution present its case against the de-
fendant. Nothing, however, has been proved
beyond a reasonable doubt. Therefore, un-
der the law, the defendant is not guilty.
3. There are also cases where mere see and
reporting are enough or sufficient to prove
something which needs no expertise
example :
 No one has ever seen Mr. Andrews drink a
glass of wine, beer, or any other alcoholic
beverage. Probably Mr. Andrews is a non-
drinker.
11. Hasty Generalization
arguer draws conclusion based on insufficient
information and unrepresentative sample or
occurs when there is a reasonable likelihood
that the sample is not representative of the
group
Sample non representative when
 sample is too small or
 sample [large but] not selected randomly
Committed by individuals who develop a neg-
ative attitude or prejudice towards others
Example:
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 vio-
lence.
12. False Cause fallacy
conclusion depends on some imagined
causal connection of events which may not
exist in reality
Depends on ‘X’ causes ‘Y’ while ‘X’ may
not probably cause ‘Y’ to happen at all
three varieties of false cause fallacy
 Post hoc ergo propter hoc
 Non Causa pro Causa
 Oversimplified Cause