Hawassa University

College Law And

Governance
LOGIC AND CRITICAL
THINKING
PHIL101
3crh
 Course Description
• This course aims
– To cultivate a critical attitude, both personally
and professionally
– Introduce the nature and concepts of
philosophy in general and logic in particular.
– Nurturing the skills required to construct good
arguments and ability to critically evaluate the
arguments of others
– Cultivate the habits of critical thinking and
develop sensitivity to the clear and accurate use
of language.
 Learning Objectives
• On successful completion of this course, the
students will be able to:
– Understand the main concern of philosophy and the
necessity of learning it;
– Recognize the components and types of arguments;
– Develop the skill to construct and evaluate arguments;
– Understand the relationship between logic and
language;
– Recognize the forms of meanings of words and terms;
– Comprehend the types, purposes and techniques of
definitions;
– Understand the concept, principles, and criteria of
critical thinking
 Contents
CHAPTER ONE
• Meaning and Nature of Philosophy
– Basic Features of Philosophy
– Core Fields of Philosophy
– Metaphysics and Epistemology
– Axiology and Logic
– Importance of Learning Philosophy
CHAPTER TWO
• Basic Concepts of Logic: Arguments,
Premises and Conclusions
– Techniques of Recognizing Arguments.
– Recognizing Argumentative Passages
– Recognizing Non-argumentative Passages
– Types of Arguments: Deduction and Induction.
– Differentiating Deductive and Inductive Arguments..
– Evaluating Arguments
– Evaluating Deductive Arguments: Validity, Truth,
and Soundness
– Evaluating Inductive Arguments: Strength, Truth,
and Cogency
CHAPTER THREE
• LOGIC AND LANGUAGE
– Philosophy of Language
– Debates and History of Philosophy of Language
– Logic and Meaning
– The Functions of Language: Cognitive and Emotive
Meanings
– The Intension and Extension of Terms
– Logic and Definition
– Meaning, Types, and Purposes of Definitions
– Techniques of Definition
– The Extensional (Denotative) Definitional Techniques
– The Intentional (Connotative) Definitional Techniques
– Criteria for Lexical Definitions
• CHAPTER FOUR
• BASIC CONCEPTS OF CRITICAL
THINKING
– Meaning of Critical Thinking
– Standards of Critical Thinking
– Codes of Intellectual Conduct for Effective Discussion
– Principles of Good Argument
– Principles of Critical Thinking
– Characteristics of Critical Thinking
– Basic Traits of Critical Thinkers
– Basic Traits of Uncritical Thinkers
– Barriers to Critical Thinking
– Benefits of Critical Thinking
CHAPTER FIVE
• INFORMAL FALLACIES
– Fallacy in General
– The Meaning of Fallacy
– Types of Fallacies
– Informal fallacies
– Fallacies of Relevance
– Fallacies of Weak Induction
– Fallacies of Presumption
– Fallacies of Ambiguity and Grammatical Analogy
– Fallacies of Ambiguity
– Fallacies of Grammatical Analogy .
CHAPTER SIX
• CATEGORICAL PROPOSITIONS
– Standard-Forms of Categorical Proposition
– The Components of Categorical Propositions
– Attributes of Categorical Propositions: Quality, Quantity,
and Distribution
– Venn Diagrams and the Modern Square of Opposition
– Representing Categorical Propositions in Diagrams
– Squares of Opposition: Traditional and Modern Squares
of Opposition
– The Traditional Square of Opposition
– Evaluating Immediate Inferences: Using Venn Diagrams
and Square of Oppositions
– Logical Operations: Conversion, Obversion, and
Contraposition
 Teaching and Learning Methods
• Presentation
– lecture,
– question and answer,
– group discussion
• Independent learning (Reading assignment)
• Collaborative learning (group discussion, and debates)
Methods of Assessment
• Mid-term Examination: 40% (it will cover chapter one
and two at the end of week five)
• Final-term Examination: 60% (it will cover from chapter
three to chapter six) Total: 100%
 COURSE INTRODUCTION
• This course 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
critical thinking is the reasonable, reflective,
responsible, and skillful thinking that focuses
on deciding what to believe or do.
• Critical thinking helps to
– Ask appropriate questions,
– Gather relevant information,
– Efficiently and creatively sort through this
information,
– Reason logically from this information, and
– Come to reliable and trustworthy conclusions
• Generally, this course is designed to help you
develop
– The ability to construct reliable and logically
defendable arguments and
– Rationally evaluate the arguments of others
 CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCING PHILOSOPHY
• Philosophy is the study of general and
fundamental problems
– concerning matters such as existence, knowledge, truth,
beauty, law, justice, validity, mind, and language.
• Logic is a branch of philosophy which treated
simultaneously as a field of study and as an
instrument.
• It study arguments and the principles and
methods of right reasoning
• As an instrument, it help us to formulate our own
rational arguments and critically evaluate the
soundness of others‘ arguments.
Meaning and Nature of Philosophy
• It is difficult to define philosophy because
philosophy has no a specific subject but it
primarily deals with issues
• Etymologically, the word philosophy comes
from two Greek words: philo and sophia, which
mean love and wisdom, respectively.
• Thus, the literal definition of philosophy is “love
of wisdom”. But this is not sufficient to
understand philosophy
• Pythagoras was the first to use the word
philosopher to call a person who clearly shows
a marked curiosity in the things he experiences
and analysis.
• Philosophy refers to the development of
critical habits, the continuous search for
truth, and the questioning of the apparent.
• The best way to learn and understand
philosophy is to philosophize; i.e.
– To be confronted with philosophical questions, to
use philosophical language,
– To become acquainted with differing philosophical
positions and maneuvers,
– To read the philosophers themselves, and
– To grapple with the issues for oneself.
• The wisdom that philosophers seek is not the wisdom
of the expertise or technical skills of professionals
• Philosophy involves reason, rational criticism,
examination,
• For Socrates philosophy is a pursuit of wisdom, i.e.
– The development of critical habits,
– The continuous search for truth, and
– The questioning of the apparent
• 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.
 Philosophy has a constructive and critical side,
 constructive side:- it attempts to formulate
rational answers to certain fundamental questions
concerning
 the nature of reality,
 the nature of value, and
 the nature of knowledge and truth.
 critical side-it deals with giving a rational critic,
analysis, clarification, and evaluation of answers given to
basic metaphysical, epistemological, and axiological
questions.
• Philosophy is an activity. It is not something
that can be easily mastered or learned in
schools
 Basic Features of Philosophy
1) Philosophy is a set of views or beliefs about life
and the universe, (informal sense of philosophy or
―having a philosophy)
2) Philosophy is a process of reflecting on and
criticizing our most deeply held conceptions and
belief(the formal sense of – doing philosophy)
 These two senses of philosophy-having and doing
cannot be treated entirely independent of each
other
3) Philosophy is a rational attempt to look at the
world as a whole.
Philosophy seeks to combine the conclusions of the
various sciences and human experience into some kind of
consistent worldview
4) Philosophy is the logical analysis of language and the
clarification of the meaning of words and concepts.
5) Philosophy is a group of perennial/constant problems
that interest people and for which philosophers always
have sought answers.
 Philosophy presses its inquiry into the deepest
problems of human existence.
e.g. -What is life and why am I here?
-Where does knowledge come from, and can we have
any assurances that anything is true?
• Philosophy is better seen as asking the right questions
rather than providing the correct answers.
 Generally, Philosophy is the various theories or
systems of thought developed by the great philosophers,
such as Socrates, Plato and Aristotle,
 Core Fields of Philosophy
• Philosophy has different primary and
secondary branches.
• This course deals only with the primary ones,
namely
– Metaphysics,
– Epistemology,
– Axiology, and
– Logic.
 Metaphysics
• Metaphysics is derived from the Greek words “meta” means
beyond, upon or after and physika, means physics.
• Metaphysics studies the ultimate nature of reality or existence.
• It deal with issues of reality, cause and effect relationship, and
other related issues.
• Some of the questions that Metaphysics primarily deals with
includes:
– What is reality? life? Time?
– What is mind, and what is its relation to the body?
– Is there a cause and effect relationship between
reality and appearance?
– Are human actions free, or predetermined by a
supernatural force?
• Metaphysical questions may be divided into
four subsets or aspects.
i) Cosmological Aspect:
 It deals about the origin, nature, and
development of the universe as an orderly
system.
 E.g. How did the universe originate and
develop? Does its existence have any purpose?
ii) Theological Aspect:
Theology is that part of religious theory that
deals with conceptions of and about God.
what is God’s relationship to human?‖
iii) Anthropological Aspect:
• Anthropology deals with the study of human
beings and asks questions like:-
– What is the relation between mind and body?
– Is mind more fundamental than body, with body
depending on mind, or vice versa?
– Are people born good, evil, or morally neutral?
– Do they have free will, or are their thoughts and
actions determined by their environment,
inheritance, or a divine being?
iv) Ontological Aspect:
• Ontology is the study of the nature of
existence, or what it means for anything to
exist.
– Is reality orderly and lawful in itself, or is it
merely orderable by the human mind?
– Is it fixed and stable, or is change its central
feature?
– Is this reality friendly, unfriendly, or neutral
toward humanity?‖
 Epistemology
• Etymologically, epistemology ― Greek words episteme,
meaning ―knowledge, understanding, and logos, meaning
―study of.
• Epistemology is referred to as ―theory of knowledge
• Epistemology studies about the nature, scope, meaning, source,
and validity and possibility of knowledge. It deals with issues
of knowledge, opinion, truth, falsity, reason, experience, and
faith.
• Thus, epistemology covers two areas: the content of thought
and thought itself.
– 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?
• The first issue in epistemology is asking whether
reality can even be known.
• In this regard, Skepticism(agnosticism) claiming
that people cannot acquire reliable knowledge
and that any search for truth is in vain.
• A second issue foundational to epistemology is
whether all truth is relative, or whether some truths
are absolute.
– Is all truth subject to change?
– Is it possible that what is true today may be false
tomorrow?
• If the answer is “Yes” to the above questions, such
truths are relative
• A major aspect of epistemology relates to the sources of
human knowledge.
• Central to most people‘s answer to that question is
empiricism (Empirical knowledge i.e. knowledge
obtained through the senses).
• However, data obtained from the human senses could be
both incomplete and undependable.
• Fatigue, frustration, and illness could distort and limit
sensory perception. In addition, there are sound and light
waves that are inaudible and invisible to unaided human
perception.
• In general, sensory knowledge is built upon
assumptions that must be accepted by faith in the
dependability of human sensory mechanisms.
• The advantage of empirical knowledge is that many
sensory experiences and experiments are open to
both replication and public examination.
• A second important source of human knowledge is
Reason(rationalism).it claim that the senses alone
cannot provide universal, valid judgments that
are consistent with one another
• Also rationalism claims that humans are capable of
arriving at certain knowledge independently of
sensory experience
• A third source of human knowledge is Intuition-
i.e. the direct apprehension of knowledge that is
not derived from conscious reasoning or
immediate sense perception
• The weakness of intuition is that it is not a safe
method when used alone. But it’s distinct
advantage is helps to bypass the limitations of
human experience.
• A fourth influential source of knowledge is Revelation.
It is the prime importance in the field of religion.
• It differs from all other sources of knowledge because it
presupposes a transcendent supernatural reality that
breaks into the natural order.
• Some people assert that a 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. It comes from
experts or has been sanctified over time as tradition.
E.g. textbook, teacher, or reference work.
• If authoritative knowledge is built upon a foundation of
incorrect assumptions, then such knowledge will surely
be distorted(one sided).
 Axiology
• The term Axiology stems from two Greek words-
Axios, meaning ―value, worth,
Logos, meaning ―reason/ theory/ symbol / science
/study of.
• Axiology is the philosophical study of value(the
worth of something).
 What is a value?
 Where do values come from?
 How do we justify our values?
 What is the relationship between values and
knowledge?
Axiology deals three areas, namely Ethics,
Aesthetics, and Social/Political Philosophy.
 1.Ethics
• It is also known as Moral Philosophy, and it deals with
the philosophical study of moral principles, values, codes,
and rules,
• It used as standards for determining what kind of human
conduct/action is said to be good or bad, right or
wrong.
• Ethics raises various questions including:
 What is good/bad? right/wrong?
 Is an action right because of its good end, or its right
principle?
 Are moral principles universal, conditional or
unconditional?
 What is the ultimate foundation of moral principles? The
supernatural God? Human reason? Mutual social
contract?
 Why we honor and obey moral rules? For the sake of our
own individual benefits?, or for the sake of others?
• Ethics can be grouped into three broad categories:
Normative ethics, Meta-ethics, and Applied Ethics.
Normative Ethics
• It deals with moral rules, principles, standards and
goals to evaluate conducts, actions and decisions.
• Consequentialism or Teleological Ethics,
Deontological Ethics, and Virtue Ethics are the
major examples of normative ethical studies.
Meta-ethics
• It deals with investigation of the meaning of ethical
terms, as good or bad and right or wrong than with
what we think is good or bad and right or wrong.
• Moral Intuitionism/awareness, Moral Emotive, Moral
Prescriptivism, Moral Nihilism, and Ethical
Relativism are the main examples of meta-ethical
studies
 Applied Ethics
• It attempts to explain, justify, apply moral
rules, principles, standards, and positions to
specific moral problems, such as capital
punishment, euthanasia, abortion, adultery,
animal right, and so on.
 Aesthetics
• Aesthetics is the theory of beauty. It studies
about the particular value of our artistic and
aesthetic experiences. 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? beauty? the relation between art and
beauty and truth?
– What is artistic creativity and how does it differ from
scientific creativity?
– Does art have any moral value, and obligations or
constraints?
 Social/Political Philosophy
• It studies about the value judgments operating
in a civil society, be it social or political.
• It primarily deal with:
– What form of government is best?
– What economic system is best?
– What makes an action/judgment just/unjust?
– 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?
 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.
The following are among the various questions
raised by Logic:
What is an argument; What does it mean to argue?
What makes an argument valid or invalid
What is a sound argument?
What relation do premise and conclusion have in
argument?
How can we formulate and evaluate an argument?
What is a fallacy?; What makes an argument fallacious?
 Importance of Learning Philosophy
“The unexamined life is not worth living”.
philosophy provides us with the tools we need
to critically examine our own lives as well as
the world in which we live.
philosophy can assist us to actualize ourselves
by promoting the ideal of self-actualization.
self-actualization is associated with self-
fulfillment, creativity, self-expression, realization
of one‘s potential, and being everything one can be.
Although philosophy may not necessarily lead to
this
• There are many characteristics of self-
actualization to whose achievement studying
philosophy has a primordial contribution.
1) Intellectual and Behavioral Independence
– we can learn how to develop and integrate our
experiences, thoughts, feelings, and actions for
ourselves, and thus how to be intellectually and
behaviorally independent.
2) Reflective Self-Awareness
– Philosophy helps critically examine the essential
intellectual grounds of our lives
3) Flexibility, Tolerance, and Open-Mindedness:
– we become more tolerant, open-minded, more
receptive, and more sympathetic to views that
contend or clash with ours.
4) Creative and Critical Thinking
– we can learn how to refine our powers of analysis,
our abilities to think critically, to reason, to evaluate,
to theorize, and to justify.
5) Conceptualized and well-thought-out value
systems in morality, art, politics, and the like:
– studying philosophy provides us with an opportunity
to formulate feasible evaluations of value; and
thereby to find meaning in our lives.
 CHAPTER TWO
BASIC CONCEPTS OF LOGIC
• The word 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.
– It is a science that evaluates arguments.
– It is the study of methods for evaluating whether the premises
adequately support or provide a good evidence for the conclusions.
– It is a science that helps to develop the method and principles to
evaluate the arguments of others and construct arguments of own.
 Logic is the attempt to codify/organize the rules of
rational thought.
• Logicians explore the structure of arguments that preserve
truth or allow the optimal extraction of knowledge from
evidence.
• In logic, as an academic discipline, we study
– Reasoning itself:
– Forms of argument,
– General principles and
– Particular errors,
– Methods of arguing.
• Logic can help us understand what is wrong or why
someone is arguing in a particular way. Logic is the organized
body of knowledge, or science that evaluates arguments.
 The aim of logic is to develop a system of methods and
principles that we may use as
criteria for evaluating the arguments of others and
guides in constructing arguments of our own.
 Benefit of Studying Logic
“Logic sharpens and refines our natural gifts to think,
reason and argue” (C. S. Layman)
• 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;
It helps us to understand and identify the common
confusions that often happen due to misuse of
language
It enables us to disclose ill-conceived policies in the
political sphere, to be careful of disguises, and to
distinguish the rational from irrational
• Thus, by studying logic, we able to increase our
confidence when we criticize the arguments of others and
when we advance arguments of our own.
• Generally, the goal of logic is to produce individuals
who are critical, rational and reasonable both in the
sphere of public and private life.
 What is an Argument?
• Argument is a systematic combination of two or more
statements, which are classified as a premise/premises
and conclusion.
• From logical point of view, arguments is a group of
statements(premise), which are claimed to provide
support for, one of the other, the (conclusion).
• But an argument has a very specific meaning in logic. It
does not mean, a mere verbal fight, as one might have with
one‘s parent. Because :-
• First, an argument is a group of statements. That is, the first
requirement for a passage to be qualified as an argument is to
combine two or more statements.
• A statement is a declarative sentence that has a truth-value of either
true or false
Example:-
a. Haile G/Selase is an Ethiopian athlete.
b. Ethiopia was colonized by Germany.
c. Ethiopia is a landlocked country
• Statement (a) and (c) are true, because they describe things as they
are and “Truth” is their truth-value. Whereas statement (b) is false
because it asserts what is not, and “Falsity” its truth-value.
• However, there are sentences that are not statements, and hence
should be used to construct an argument. E.g.
A. Would you close the window? (Question)
B. Right on! (Exclamation)
C. Give me your ID Card, Now! (Command)
D. I suggest that you read philosophy texts. (Suggestion)
E. Let us study together. (Proposal)
• Unlike statements, none of the above sentences can be
either true or false. Hence, none of them can be classified
as statement. As a result, none of them can make up an
argument.
• Second, the statements that make up an argument are
divided into premise(s) and conclusion. That means, the
mere fact that a passage contains two or more
statements cannot guarantee the existence of an
argument.
• Hence, an argument is a group statement, which contains
at least one premise and one and only one conclusion.
• In other word an argument may contain more than one
premise but only one conclusion.
• Argument always attempts to justify a claim. Therefore:-
The claim that the statement attempts to justify is
known as a conclusion of an argument; and
 the statement or statements that supposedly justify
the claim is/are known as the premises of the
argument.
• An argument can be good or bad depending on the
logical and real ability of the premise(s) to support the
conclusion.
• Arguments can be divided into deductive and inductive
arguments.
• A deductive argument is thought that the premises
provide a guarantee of the truth of the conclusion.
• In a deductive argument, the premises are intended to
provide support for the conclusion that is so strong that, if
the premises are true, it would be impossible for the
conclusion to be false.
• A deductive argument 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.
• An inductive argument is a thought that the premises
provide reasons supporting the probable truth of the
conclusion.
• In an inductive argument, the premises are intended only
to be so strong that, if they are true, then it is unlikely that
the conclusion is false.
• An inductive argument is an argument in which the
premises are claimed to support the conclusion in such a way
that it is improbable that the premises be true and the
conclusion false.
• The difference between the two comes from the sort of
relation the author or expositor of the argument takes there
to be between the premises and the conclusion.
• If the author of the argument believes that the truth of the
premises definitely establishes the truth of the
conclusion due to definition, logical entailment or
mathematical necessity, then the argument is deductive.
• If the author of the argument does not think that the truth of
the premises definitely establishes the truth of the conclusion,
but nonetheless believes that their truth provides good reason
to believe the conclusion true, then the argument is
inductive.
• The deductiveness or inductiveness of an argument can
be determined by
– The particular indicator word it might use,
– The actual strength of the inferential relationship
between its component statements
– Its argumentative form or structure.
• A deductive argument can be evaluated by its validity
and soundness.
• An inductive argument can be evaluated by its strength
and cogency
• Deductive argument can be valid if it is impossible for
the premises to be true and the conclusion false.
• Deductive argument can be invalid if it is possible for
the premises to be true and the conclusion false
• Inductive argument can be strong , if it is improbable for
the premises to be true and the conclusion false.
• Inductive argument can be weak, if it is probable for the
premises to be true and the conclusion false.
• A deductive argument can be sound if it is valid and
true.
• A deductive argument can be unsound if it fails to be
valid and true.
• An inductive argument can be cogent/convincing if it is
strong and probably true,
• An inductive argument can be uncogent if it fails to be
strong and probably true.
 What is premise
• Premise refers to the statement, which is claimed to provide a
logical support or evidence to the main point of the
argument, which is known as conclusion.
• It is a statement that set forth the reason or evidence, which is
given for accepting the conclusion of an argument.
• Generally premise is claimed evidence.
What is conclusion
• It is a statement, which is claimed to follow from the given
evidence (premise). In other words, the conclusion is the
claim that an argument is trying to establish.
• Example-1:
All Ethiopians are Africans. (Premise 1)
Tsionawit is Ethiopian. (Premise2)
Therefore, Tsionawit is African. (Conclusion)
Example-2:
Some Africans are black.(Premise1)
 Zelalem is an African. (Premise-2)
Therefore, Zelalem is black. (Conclusion)
• In the above arguments, the first two statements are
premises, because they are claimed to provide evidence
for the third statement, whereas the third statement is a
conclusion because it is claimed to follow from the
given evidences.
• The claim that the premises support the conclusion,
(and/or that the conclusion follow from the premises),
is indicated by the word “therefore”
• All arguments may be placed in one of two basic groups:
– those in which the premises really do support the
conclusion (good or well-supported arguments)
– those in which they do not, even though they are
claimed to. (bad or poorly-supported arguments)
• For example, in 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. Therefore, it is bad argument, but it is still an
argument.
 How Can We Distinguish Premises From
Conclusion And Vice Versa?
• Sometimes identifying a conclusion from premises is very
difficult
• The first technique that can be used to identify premises
from a conclusion and vice versa is looking at an
indicator word.
• Arguments contain certain indicator words that provide
clues in identifying premises and conclusion.
• Some of conclusion indicators includes:
– Therefore ,Wherefore, Accordingly, Provided that, It must be
that, We may conclude, Entails that, Hence, It shows that,
Thus , Consequently ,We may infer ,It implies that ,As a result
,So ,It follows that
• In an argument, the statement that follows the
indicator word can usually be identified as the
conclusion. Example:
– Women are mammals.
– Zenebech is a woman.
– Therefore, Zenebech is a mammal.
• Based on the above rule, the conclusion of
this argument is “Zenebech is a mammal”.
Because it follows the conclusion indicator
word i.e. “therefore” and the other two
statements are premises.
• If an argument does not contain a conclusion
indicator, it may contain a premise indicator.
• Here are some typical Premise Indicators: Since ,As
indicated by, Because , wing to, Seeing that, Given
that , As , For , In that ,May be inferred from , In,
as much as , For the reason that
• In argument that contains any of the premise indicator
words, a statement that follows the indicator word can
usually be identified as a premise. Example:
– You should avoid any form of cheating on exams
because cheating on exams is punishable by the
Senate Legislation of the University.
• Based on the above rule, the premise of this argument
is “cheating on exams is punishable by the Senate
Legislation of the University” because it follows the
premise indicator word “because”,
• One premise indicator not included in the above list is “for
this reason”. This indicator is special in that it comes
immediately after the premise it indicates and before the
conclusion.
• In the middle place between the premise and the conclusion,
“for this reason” can be both premise and conclusion
indicator.
• The statement that comes before “for this reason” is the
premise of an argument and the statement that comes after
“for this reason” is the conclusion.
• Sometimes a single indicator can be used to identify more
than one premise. Consider the following argument:
– Tsionawit is a faithful wife, for Ethiopian women are
faithful wives and Tsionawit an Ethiopian.
• The premise indicator “for” goes with both premises
“Ethiopian women are faithful wives‘‘ and “Tsionawit is an
Ethiopian”. By process of elimination, “Tsionawit is a faithful
wife” is the conclusion.
• Sometimes you may have an argument without
conclusion and premise indicator word. When this
occurs, the reader/ listener must ask himself or herself
such questions as:
– What single statement is claimed (implicitly) to follow from the
others?
– What is the arguer trying to prove?
– What is the main point in the passage?
• The answers to these questions should point to the
conclusion.
• Example:
– Our country should increase the quality and quantity
of its military. Ethnic conflicts are recently
intensified; boarder conflicts are escalating;
international terrorist activities are increasing.
• The main point of this argument is to show that the
country should increase the size and quality of its
military. The following is the standard form of this
argument:
– Ethnic conflicts are recently intensified. (P-1)
– Boarder conflicts are escalating. (P-2)
– International terrorist activities are increasing.
(P-3)
– Thus, the country should increase the quality and
quantity of its military. (C)
• If a statement has nothing to do with the conclusion
or, for example, simply makes a passing comment, it
should not be included within the context of the
argument. Example:
– Socialized medicine is not recommended because 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.
• The conclusion of this argument is “Socialized medicine
is not recommended” and the two statements following
the word, “because‘” are the premises
• The last statement makes only a passing comment about
the argument itself and is therefore neither a premise nor
a conclusion.
 Techniques of Recognizing Arguments
 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 passages are distinguished from such
kind of passages by their primary goal: proving
something.
Recognizing Argumentative Passages
 In order to evaluate arguments we need to
– understand the nature of arguments
– understand what argument is not, because not
all passages contain 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.
 The first condition refers to premises as it tries
to provide or claim to provide reasons or
evidences for the conclusion; and the second
condition refers to a conclusion
The first condition expresses a factual claim, and
deciding whether it is fulfilled often falls outside
the domain of logic.
Thus, most of our attention will be
concentrated on whether the second condition
is fulfilled. The second condition expresses what
is called an inferential claim The Inferential
Claim is a passage that expresses a certain kind
of reasoning process- that something supports
or implies something or that something follows
from something.
It is an objective feature of an argument
grounded in its language or structure.
An inferential claim can be either explicit or
implicit.
An explicit inferential claim
– It exists if there is an indicator word that
asserts an explicit relationship between the
premises and the conclusions. e.g.
• Gemechu is my biological father, because
my mother told so.
the word “because” expresses the claim that
evidence supports something.
An implicit inferential claim
 It exists if there is an inferential relationship between
the statements in a passage, but the passage contains no
indicator words. e.g.
The genetic modification of food is risky business.
Genetic engineering can introduce unintended
changes into the DNA of the food-producing
organism, and these changes can be toxic to the
consumer.
 The mere occurrence of an indicator word is by no
means a guarantee for the presence of an argument.
 Thus, we need to make sure that the existing indicator
word is used to indicate a premise or a conclusion
 . Example:
– Since Edison invented the phonograph, there have been many
technological developments.
– Since Edison invented the phonograph, he deserves credit for a
major technological development.
• In the first passage the word “since” is used in a
temporal sense. It means “from the time that.” Thus,
the 1st passage is not an argument. In the second passage
“since” is used in a logical sense, and so the passage is an
argument.
• Therefore, in deciding whether a passage contains an
argument one should try to insert mentally some
indicators words among the statements to see whether
there is a flow of ideas among the statements.
Recognizing Non-argumentative Passages
• Non-argumentative passages are passages, which lack
an inferential claim.
• for a passage to be an argument, it should contain not
only premises and a conclusion but also an inferential
claim or a reasoning process.
• Some of the most important forms of non-argumentative
passages includes the following.
1. Simple Non-inferential Passages
• It contain statements that could be premises or
conclusions (or both), but what is missing is a claim that
any potential premise supports a conclusion or that any
potential conclusion is supported by premises.
• It include statements of warnings, advice, belief or
opinion, loosely associated statements, and reports.
2. Expository Passages
• It 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.
• 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.
• If the topic sentence makes a claim that many people do not
accept or have never thought about, then the purpose of the
remaining sentences may be both to prove the topic
sentence is true as well as to develop it, then the passage is
an argument.
3. Illustrations
• It 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 “O ”, water by “H O”, and sodium chloride
2 2

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.
• Illustrations can be taken as arguments. Such arguments are
often called arguments from example. Here is an instance of
one:
– Although most forms of cancer, if untreated, can cause
death, not all cancers are life-threatening. For example,
basal cell carcinoma, the most common of all skin
cancers, can produce disfigurement, but it almost never
results in death.
4. Explanations
• It is an expression that attempts to clarify, or
describe such alike why something is happen that
way or why something is what it is.
• 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:
– Explanandum:- it 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 above 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.”
• The purpose of explanans is to show why something is
the case, whereas in an argument, the purpose of the
premises is to prove that something is the case.
• Moreover, in explanation, we precede backward from fact
to the cause whereas in argument we move from premise
to the conclusion.
• Thus, to distinguish explanations from arguments, first
identify the statement that is either the explanandum or the
conclusion
• However, some passages can be interpreted as both
explanations and arguments.
• Example:
– Women become intoxicated by drinking a smaller
amount of alcohol than men because men metabolize
part of the alcohol before it reaches the bloodstream,
whereas women do not.
Conditional Statements
 They are an “if . . . then . . .” statements.
 Every conditional statement is made up of two component
statements.
 antecedent (if-clause), The component statement immediately
following the “if”
 consequent (then-clause) the one following the “then”
 However, there is an occasion that the order of antecedent
and consequent is reversed.
 Conditional statements are not arguments, because in a
conditional statement there is no claim that either the
antecedent or the consequent presents evidence
 Also conditional statements are not evaluated as true or
false without separately evaluating the antecedent and the
consequent.
 A conditional statement may serve as either the premise
or the conclusion (or both) of an argument. examples:
– If he is selling our national secretes to enemies, then
he is a traitor.
– He is selling our national secretes to enemies.
– Therefore, he is a traitor.
 The relation between conditional statements and
arguments may now be summarized as follows:
I. A single conditional statement is not an argument.
II. A conditional statement may serve as either the
premise or the conclusion (or both) of an argument.
III. The inferential content of a conditional statement
may be re-expressed to form an argument.
 Conditional statements are especially important in logic
(and many other fields) because they express the
relationship between necessary and sufficient
conditions. example
– If X is a dog, then X is an animal.
– If X is not an animal, then X is not a dog.
 The first statement says that being a dog is a sufficient
condition for being an animal, and the second that being
an animal is a necessary condition for being a dog.
 However, a little reflection reveals that these two
statements say exactly the same thing.
 Generally, non-argumentative passages may contain
components that resemble the premises and conclusions of
arguments, but they do not have an inferential claim.
 However, some passages like expository passages,
illustrations, and explanations can be interpreted as
arguments; and the inferential contents of conditional
statements may be re-expressed to form arguments.
 Therefore, in deciding whether a passage contains an
argument, you should look for three things:
a) Indicator words such as “therefore,” “since,” “because,”
and so on;
b) An inferential relationship between the statements; and
c) Typical kinds of non-arguments.
 But the mere occurrence of an indicator word does
not guarantee the presence of an argument. You must
check that the conclusion is supported by one or
more of the premises.
 Also keep in mind that in many arguments that lack
indicator words, the conclusion is the first statement.
Differentiating Deductive and Inductive Arguments
• 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, and
3) The character or form of argumentation the arguers use.
• 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 occurrence of an indicator word is not a certain
guarantee for the deductiveness or inductiveness of an
argument unless it is supported by the other features
 If the conclusion actually does follow with strict necessity
from the premises, the argument is clearly deductive
 If 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.
 The character or form of argumentation the arguers use
refers looking at some deductive or inductive
argumentative forms.
Instances of Deductive Argumentative
Forms
 Five examples of such forms or kinds of argumentation
are arguments based on mathematics, arguments from
definition, and syllogisms.
Argument based on mathematics
 Arguments in pure mathematics are deductive and
arguments that depend on statistics are usually best
interpreted as inductive.
 Statistical arguments are based on random sampling of
data gathering, it is impossible to arrive at absolutely
certain conclusion.
 Arguments based on definition
It is an argument in which the conclusion is
claimed to depend merely up on the definition of
some words or phrase used in the premise or
conclusion. example,
Angel is honest; therefore, Angel tells the truth.
Kebede is a physician; therefore, he is a doctor.
Arguments based on Syllogisms
Syllogisms are arguments consisting of exactly
two premises and one conclusion.
Syllogisms can be categorized into three groups;
categorical, hypothetical, and disjunctive
syllogism.
• Categorical syllogism: It is consisting of exactly two
premises and one conclusion and the statement begins with
words like “all”,” “no” and “some”. Example:
• All Egyptians are Muslims.
• No Muslim is a Christian.
• Hence, no Egyptian is a Christian
• Hypothetical syllogism: It has a conditional statement for
one or both of its premises. Example:
– If you study hard, then you will graduate with Distinction .
• Disjunctive syllogism: it is a syllogism having a
disjunctive statement. (i.e. an “either … or” statement.)
• e.g. Rewina is either Ethiopian or Eritrean.
Rewina is not Eritrean.
Therefore, Rewina is Ethiopian.
Instances of Inductive Argumentative Forms
 Some examples of such forms or kinds of argumentation are
arguments based on predictions, analogy generalizations ,
authority, signs, and causal inferences
 In Prediction the 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. For example,
Certain clouds develop in the center of the highland,
therefore, rain will fall within twenty-four hours.
 An argument from analogy is an argument that depends on
the existence of an analogy or similarity between two
things or state of affairs. Example:
The Encyclopedia Britannica has an article on culture.
The Encyclopedia Americana, like Britannica, is an
excellent work. Therefore, the Americana probably also
has an article on culture.
 An inductive generalization (An argument based on
statistics) is an argument that proceeds from the
knowledge of selected sample to some claim about the
whole group. Example:
There are 45 students in this class. I have evaluated
the answer sheets of 20 students and all of them
scored above 85%. It implies that all students of this
class are smart.
 An argument from authority is argument based on
citation, interview, or witness of a person who has a
better position or access to the required qualification.
Example:
According to Ato Tewodros who is a lawyer in
Hawassa city, Kebede committed murder because an
eye witness testified to that effect under oath.
 An argument based on signs is an argument that proceeds
from the knowledge of a certain sign (may be it is a traffic
sign, a trademark, a cautionary mark, a symbol,) to a
knowledge of the thing or situation symbolized by the
sign. Example:
The package material says that “keep it out of the
reach of children.” Therefore, this package must
consist of some sort of medicine
An argument based on causation is an argument
that proceeds from the knowledge of a cause to
knowledge of the effect, or conversely, from the
knowledge of an effect to the knowledge of a
cause. Example:
The cloud is becoming dark and the thunder is
roaming. So, let us go home quickly, the rain is
inevitable.
 From the knowledge that a bottle of water had
been accidentally left in the freezer overnight,
someone might conclude that it had frozen
(cause to effect).
Conversely, after tasting a piece of chicken and
finding it dry and tough, one might conclude
that it had been overcooked (effect to cause).
Because specific instances of cause and effect
can never be known with absolute certainty, one
may usually interpret such an argument as
inductive.
 We have to take into consideration that deductive
argument not always proceeds from the general to the
particular and inductive arguments proceed from the
particular to the general.
 This is because there are some deductive or inductive
arguments that proceed from the general to the general or
from the particular to the particular or even from the
particular to the general.
 For example, here is a deductive argument that proceeds
from the particular to the general:
– Three is a prime number. Five is a prime number.
Seven is a prime number. Therefore, all odd numbers
between two and eight are prime numbers.
Here is an inductive argument that proceeds from
the general to the particular:
All emeralds previously found have been green.
Therefore, the next emerald to be found will be
green.
Here is an deductive argument that proceeds
from particular to general
The members of Mohammed’s family are
Kedija, Kemal and Leyla. Kedija wears glasses.
Kemal wears glasses. Leyla wears glasses.
Therefore, all members of Mohammed’s family
wear glasses.
 CHAPTER THREE
LOGIC AND LANGUAGE
Philosophy of Language
• According to Semiotics(the study of sign processes in
communication), language is the manipulation and use
of symbols in order to draw attention to signified content.
• Philosophy of language is the reasoned inquiry into the
nature, origins, and usage of language.
• Philosophy of language has been concerned with four
central problems: the nature of meaning, language use,
language cognition, and the relationship between
language, logic and reality.
• It poses questions like
– What is meaning? How does language refer to the real
world?
– Is language learned or is it innate?
– How does the meaning of a sentence emerge out of its parts?