Logic Note-1-1 PDF

Introduction to Logic
INTRODUCTION TO LOGIC
PHIL 2011
TEACHING MATERIAL
HAWASSA UNIVERSITY
HAWASSA
1 Hawassa University
CHAPTER ONE
Basic Concepts and Historical Development of Logic
1.1. The Meaning, Purposes and Historical Development of Logic
i. The Meaning of Logic
Logic initially emerged and developed within the heart of philosophy. Etymologically,
the term” logic” is derived from the Greek word “Logos” which means reason, thought,
principle, law, etc. Thereby, based on its ancestor word “logos”, the definition of the
science of logic can be stated as follows: logic is the science of those principles, laws,
rules and methods which the mind of man in its thinking must follow for accurate and
secure treatment of truth.
From the above definition, you can understand that logic is a tool that one can rely for
evaluating, analyzing and criticizing arguments. Accordingly, logic concentrates on the
principles that guide rational thought and discussion. In other words, logic is the study of
methods for evaluating arguments.
The fundamental concepts in logic is that of argument and I hope you might have
encountered arguments of various sorts from different sources when you watch TV, read
newspapers and magazines, listening radio and even communicate with your family,
peers, and the like.
ii. The Purpose and Importance of Logic

The primary task of logic is to setup criteria for distinguishing good arguments from bad
ones. The purpose or objective of logic is to test, evaluate and analyze arguments of one’s
own and the arguments of others.
Learning the science of logic would give us several benefits or importance in our
personal and social lives. The following listed points are some of the importance that one
would acquire by learning logic. Logic contributes to the development of our
reasonableness, carefulness, confidence and level of thinking in all aspects of our lives.
Moreover, it provides methodological assistances in examining our reasoning, to make

better personal decisions and it teaches people to think clearly, concisely, correctly and
helps to prove truthful judgments as well as to disprove false ones.
iii. The Origin and Historical Development of Logic

The development of the discipline of logic has witnessed various ups and downs at
different historical periods. One can say, therefore, there were historical periods marked
by extensive creative works followed by times in which little creative work was done.
In the strict sense logic, as a science, emerged in Greek in the middle of 4th C. before birth
of Christ (B.C) and its founder is the famous Greek philosopher Aristotle (384-322B.C.).
Aristotle is considered as the father of logic. Aristotle’s logic is called syllogistic Logic.
The fundamental elements in this logic are terms, and arguments are evaluated as good or
bad depending on how the terms are arranged in the argument. He had also classified a
number of fallacies with the desire to teach society how defects in arguments could be
identified. Thus, Aristotle is the first in dealing with systematic, comprehensive and
disciplinary approach to the study of the science of logic.
Another important Greek philosopher that contributed for the development of logic was
Chrysippus (279-206 B.C.), who succeeded Aristotle and developed rules for
determining the truth or falsity of compound propositions from truth or falsity of their
components.
However, after the death of Chysippus most of the philosophers limited themselves to
writing commentaries on the works of Aristotle and Chrysippus. Boethius (480-524 B.C.)
is an example.
In the Medieval age, Peter Abelard (1079-1142 A.D), reconstructed and refined the
works of Aristotle and Chrysippus. He focused on the universal character of general
terms and to this effect developed what is termed as a Theory of Universal.
After Abelard, the study of logic had expanded a great deal and got its articulation in the
writings of the Oxford philosopher William of Ockham (1285-1349 A.D).This
philosopher spent most of his time working on Model Logic. Model logic notions like
possibility, necessity, belief, and doubt.
Modern Logic laid its foundation upon the works of the German philosopher G.W.
Leibniz (1646-1716). He introduced symbolic language (calculus) with the great interest
he had to settle all forms of disputes that men face in their professional as well as daily
lives. Leibnz believed that his “Calculus” could help to settle disputes in general which
often occur in theology, politics, and internal relations. He is considered as the father of
Symbolic Logic. Leibnize’s idea was further magnified through the works of Bernard
Bolzano (1781-1848).
Ever since the middle of the nineteenth century logic rapid development and continues to
this date. Symbolic logic developed very fast in the hands of Augustus De Morgan
(1835-1882), George Boole (1815-1864), William Stanley Jevons (1835-1882), and
John Venn (1834-1923). Some of these names will be revisited along with their ideas as
you precede learning logic. John Stuart Mill (1806-1873), notable British philosopher
initiated interest in Inductive Logic.
Toward the end of the nineteenth century, the foundations of modern mathematical logic
were laid by Gottlob Frege (1848- 1925) and Betrand Russel (1872-1970). Particularly,
Bertrand Russel attempted to reduce the whole of pure mathematics to logic. He set
forth the theory of quantification. During the twentieth century, much of the work in logic
Most recently, the development of logic has made a major contribution to the
advancement of technology it has provided conceptual foundation to the electronic
circuitry of digitalized computers.
Activity 1.1
Do the following activities.
1. When your friend says to you, Dr. Chala is logical, what does he mean?
2. When your friend says to you, Mr. Ambassador is illogical, what does he mean?
3. Who is the father of symbolic logic?
Write two philosophers who contributed for the development of logic before the birth
of Christ.
1.2Arguments, Premises and Conclusion

iv. The Meaning of Argument
In logic, argument means arriving at a definite claim of conclusion over an issue or a
subject based on acceptable evidences, information or chain of reasons available at
hand. An argument occurs in logic, is a set or group of statements. The statements that
make up an argument are divided into two parts: premises and conclusion.
Premise is the statement which provides reason (evidence) for believing the truth of the
conclusion or it is the statement on the basis of which the conclusion is affirmed.
Conclusion is the statement that is claimed to follow from the premise or it is the
statement that is affirmed on the basis of the premise. We raise the term statement .So,
you need to get a better grasp of what statement means.
Statement is a sentence that is either true or false but not both. In other words, statement
is a sentence used to assert or deny something and evaluated as true or false. This type of
sentence is called declarative sentence. In a declarative sentence there are only two
possible truth values. Truth and falsity are called the two possible truth values of
statements. The following are an example of statements:
a. No city in Ethiopia is called Hawassa.

b. The sun rises in the East and sets in the West.
c. Water is composed of hydrogen and oxygen.
The first statement is false and the last two statements are true. Thus, the truth value of
the first statement is false and the truth value of the last two statements is true. Therefore,
the above three sentences are statements.
However, all sentences are not statements. Many sentences cannot be said either true or
false or we may not evaluate them as either true or false. Questions, proposals,
suggestions, hopes, wishes, commands, attitudes, exclamations, usually cannot be
considered as true or false. The following sentences are not statements.
1. I hope Ethiopia will be 100% literate within the next two years (hope)
2. Who is the first King of Ethiopia? (Question)
3. Let us go to the Omo National Park today.(Proposal)
4. Wow, what a save! (Exclamation)
5. Leave the classroom now! (Command)
6. I wish I had studied Anthropology. (Wish)
7. I suggest that you go on foot. (Suggestion)
You know that arguments contain two components, namely the premise and the
conclusion. However, you have to bear in mind that premise of an argument can be stated
with one or more statements in a given argument and the conclusion of an argument must
be stated by single (one) statement.
Example: All human beings are social animals. Ayele is a human being. Therefore,
Ayele is a social animal.
The argument has two premises:

P1= All human beings are social animals.
P2= Ayele is a human being.
The argument has one conclusion:

C= Ayele is a social animal.
You should remember that in an argument the conclusion can be stated at the beginning,
at the middle or at the end. This is also true for premise.
Example 2 Since Dawit studied hard, He passed the exam. In this example, there is one
premise and one conclusion.
1.2.2 Recognizing Premise and Conclusion

In fact, there are two possibilities to identify premises and conclusion. The first rule is
identifying logical indicator words from the given statements of the argument. An
argument contains certain indictor words that provide clues in identifying premises and
conclusion. Some typical conclusion and premises indicators are presented in as follows:
Conclusion indictors Premises Inductors
Therefore, wherefore, accordingly, Since, as indicated by, because, for,

hence, thus, we may conclude, in that, may be inferred from, as,
entail that, consequently, we may given that, seeing, for the reason
infer, it follows that, whence, so, that, in as much as, owing to,
implies that, as a result, for this indicated by, follows from, as shown
reason, proves that, I conclude from, may be deduced from, in view
that, in consequence, of the fact that,
Example1: All Peace lovers are pacifists. Mamo is a Peace lover. Therefore, Mamo is a
Pacifist.
Example 2: Expectant mothers should never use recreational drugs, since the use of
these drugs can jeopardize the development of the fetus.
In the above example1, an indicator word therefore shows conclusion while in the
second example, an indicator word since shows premise.
Nonetheless, sometimes, the mere presences of indicator word doesnot give guarantee for
the occurrence of premise or conclusion. Look at the following example:
Example 3: Since the election of president Obama, the economic crisis of the world has
shown improvement.
Here, the word ‘since’ is not used as a premise indicator rather it is a time indicator, to
mean ‘starting from’. Dear learner, in section two, you will learn more on this issue
The second rule to identify premises and conclusion is using the inferential claims. It
implies by studying the nature of statements (statements that serve as evidence or a
statement stated as the final assertion). If a sentence is given as the main point of the
argument or as a closing statement, it is a conclusion. On the other hand, if the sentence is
taken as information, reason or evidence, it is premise.
While you are using this rule, it is advisable to raise the following questions. 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. Consider the following examples:
1. Women of the working class, especially wage workers, should not have more than
two children at most. The average working man can support no more and the
average working woman can take care of no more in decent fashion.
In the above example, though there is no indictor word, we can identify the premises and
the conclusion by looking at the inferential claim. Hence, in the argument, the main point
(conclusion) or the closing statement is ‘women of the working class should not have
more than two children at most’. The remaining statement is used as an evidence or
supporting idea (premise).
2. The space program deserves increased expenditures in the years ahead. Not only
does the national defense depend upon it, but the program will more than pay for
itself in terms of technological development. Furthermore, at current funding
levels the program cannot fulfill its anticipated potential.
The conclusion of this argument is the first statement i.e. ‘the space program deserves
increased expenditures in the years ahead’ and all of the other statements are premises.
? Activity 1.2
A. Determine whether the following sentences are statements or not. If it

is not a statement, determine what kind of sentences it is?
1. I hope Ethiopia will be one of the Medium income countries within the next two
decades.
2. Logic is the study of methods for evaluating arguments
3. How is life in Hawassa?
4. One plus one is equal to three.
5. Shut the door!
II. Determine the following words whether as premise or conclusion

indictors or neither of the two.
Premise Conclusion Neither

1. Therefore __________ __________ __________
2. For the reason that __________ __________ __________
3. As __________ __________ __________
4. Accordingly __________ __________ __________
5. However __________ __________ __________
1.3 Recognizing Arguments

Not all passages contain arguments. A passage contains an argument if it purports to
prove something, otherwise, it does not. 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

(Premises).
2. There must be a claim that the alleged evidence or reasons supports or implies
something, that is, a claim that something follows from the alleged evidence
(Conclusion).
The first condition expresses a factual claim, and deciding whether it is fulfilled usually
presents few problems. Thus, most of our attention will concentrate on whether the
second condition is fulfilled.
The second condition expresses what is called an inferential claim. In this condition the
claim that the passage expresses a reasoning process, that is, something supports or
implies something or that something follows from something. Such a claim can be either
explicit or implicit. An explicit inferential claim is usually asserted by premises or
conclusion indicator words (Thus, Since, Because, Hence, Therefore, so on). An implicit
inferential claim exists if there is an inferential relationship between the statements in a
passage.
There are several forms of non arguments. They are passages lacking an inferential claim,
conditional statements and explanation.
1. Passage lacking an inferential claim

Passages lacking an inferential claim are passages that lack reasoning process, and they
are passages in which the potential premises do not support the conclusion or that a
potential conclusion does not follow from premises. Otherwise, such Passages may
contain statements that could potentially be premises and conclusion.
Passages lacking an inferential claim contain several forms of non –argument expressions
such as warning, piece of advice, statement of belief or opinion, loosely associated
statements, a report, an expository passage, an illustration are some of them.
Warning is typically non- argument. Sentences such as: ‘follow that route only. If not,
you will fall under enemy’s target.’; ‘Watch out that you do not slip on the ice.’, etc., are
warnings. As it is clear from their content, they lack an inferential claim.
Piece of advice is a passage that is characterized as non- argument. Sentences such as ‘I

advice you to stop chewing chat.’; ‘I suggest you take Logic course during your first
semester.’ lack a reasoning process. But they can serve as a conclusion of argument but
there is no claim that they are supported or implied by reasons or evidence. Thus there is
no argument.
Statement of belief or opinion these are simply personal opinion or what somebody’s
believes at a certain time. Because there is no claim that this belief is supported by
evidence, or in turn, that it supports some further conclusion, there is no argument. See
the examples below:
A. In my opinion, leadership in Africa nowadays changed from bad to worse.
(Expression of opinion)
B. I believe that, in the near future, Ethiopian professional associations will get
leaders of their own choice. (Expression of belief)
Loosely associated statements may be about the same general subject, but they lack a
claim that one of them is proved by the others. See the example below:
Not to honor men of worth will keep the people from contention; not to value
goods that are hard to come by will keep them from theft; not to display what is
desirable will keep them from being unsettled of mind.
A report consists of a group of statements that convey information about some situation
or event. Journalist and other forms of reports or inform something about an event but
claims no conclusion. The following passage is an example of report:
Even though more of the world is immunized than ever before, many old
diseases have proven quite resilient in the face of changing population and
environmental conditions, especially in the developing world. New diseases,
such as AIDS, have taken their toll in both the North and the South.
An expository passage is a kind of discourse that begins with a topic sentence followed
by one or more sentences that elaborate the topic sentence. If the objective is not to prove
the topic sentence but only to expand it, then there is no argument. See in the following
example:
There are three familiar states of matter: solid, liquid, and gas. Solid objects
ordinarily maintain their shape and volume regardless of their location. A liquid
occupies a definite volume, but assumes the shape of the occupied portion of its
container. A gas maintains neither shape nor volume. It expands to fill
completely whatever container it is in.
An illustration consists of a statement about a certain subject combined with a reference

to one or more specific instance that intended to exemplify that statement. Illustration is
often confused with arguments because many of them contain indictor words such as
"thus”. For example:
Chemical elements, as well as compounds, can be represented by molecular

formulas. Thus; Oxygen is represented by "o2", Sodium Chloride by "NaC1", and
Sulfuric acid by "H2SO2".
This passage is not an argument; because there is no claim that anything is supported by
evidence. The purpose of the word "thus" is not to indicate that something is being
proved but only to show how something is done (how chemical elements and compounds
can be represented by formulas).
2. Conditional Sentences
Conditional sentences are compound sentences of the form "if…then …” or “… if…"
Every conditional sentence is made up of two component clauses. The component
statement that immediately following the "if" is called the antecedent and the one
following the "then" is called the "consequent.
Examples:
I. If air is removed from a solid closed container, then the container will weigh less
than it did.
J. Do not expect “A” from this course, if you do not study hard.
a. In the above example ‘a’, the antecedent is "air is removed from a solid
closed container", and the consequent is "the container will weigh less
than it did."
b. This example asserts a causal connection between the air being removed
and the container weighing less.
The reader of this learning material recalls that all conditional statements are not
arguments, because they fail to meet the criteria given earlier. In an argument, at least one
statement must claim to present evidence, and there must be a claim that this evidence
implies something. However, in a conditional statement, there is no claim that either the
antecedent or the consequent presents evidence.
The study of conditional sentences is also important in logic to express the necessary and
sufficient conditions between the antecedent and consequent. Distance learner, what are
necessary and sufficient conditions.
Sufficient condition is the condition in the presence of which an event occurrence or

exist. It means that a sufficient condition for “Y” whenever the occurrence of “X” is all
that is needed for the occurrence of “Y”. For example, being a dog is a sufficient
condition for being an animal. On the other hand, “Y” is said to be a necessary condition
for “X” whenever “X” cannot occur without the occurrence of “Y”. Thus, being an
animal is a necessary condition for being a dog. These relationships are expressed in the
following conditional sentences:
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.
Here is another example:
If oxygen is not present, then there can be no fire.

It means that oxygen is a necessary condition for the occurrence of fire; that is, in the
absence of oxygen, fire cannot exist.
If there is rain, then streets are wet.
Rain makes streets wet, but it is not the only one. Streets can be wet even without the
presence of rain, like for example by leakage of pipe water.
Dear learner now let us sees the relationship between conditional statements and
arguments.
1. A single conditional statement is not an argument.
Example: If iron is dense than mercury, then it will float in mercury.

2. A conditional statement may serve as either the premises or conclusion (or both)
of an argument. This condition is only true if it consists of a conditional statement
together with some other statement it may be an argument, depending on the
occurrence of indicator words and an inferential relationship between the
statements, as the following example illustrates.
If EPRDF does not change its platform, it will not attract new supporters.
If EPRDF doe not attract new supporters, it will lose the next election.
Therefore, if EPRDF does not change its platform; it will lose the next election
3. The inferential content of a conditional statement may be re -expressed to form an

argument.
Example:
If both Saturn and Uranus have rings, then the Saturn has rings. The inferential
content of this statement may be re-expressed to form argument:
Both Saturn and Uranus have rings.

Therefore, Saturn has rings.
C. Explanations
An explanation consists of a sentence or a group of sentences intended to shed light on
some phenomenon that is usually accepted as a matter of fact. Every explanation contains
two distinct components: explanandum and explanans. The explanandum is the sentence
that describes the event or phenomena to be explained. The explanans is the sentence or
group of sentences that purports to do the explaining. In the example below the
explanandum is ‘The sky appears blue from the earth’s surface’ whereas the explanans is
represented by ‘light rays from the sun are scattered by particles in the atmosphere.’
Example: The sky appears blue from the earth’s surface because light rays from
the sun are scattered by particles in the atmosphere.
The basic difference between argument and explanations is that: In an explanation, the
explanans is intended to show why something is the case. In the above example, the fact
that the sky is blue is readily apparent. The intention of the passage is to explain why it
appears blue—not to prove that it appears blue. The intention of the passage is to explain
why this is true. Whereas in an argument the premises are intended to prove something is
the case.
Many explanations can be re-expressed to form arguments. This is particularly true of the
explanation found in science. For example:
The sky appears blue from the earth's surface because light rays from the sun are
scattered by particles in the atmosphere. For this example, the inference expressed in the
blue sky of this example may be re-expressed in the following argument:
Light rays from the sun are scattered by particles in the atmosphere. Therefore,
the sky appears blue from the earth's surface.
In summary, in deciding whether a passage contains an argument, one should look for
three things: indicator words; the presence of an inferential relationship between the
statements; and typical kinds of non argument expressions.
? Activity 1.3
Do the following activities
1. List down the criteria that help us to decide the give passage whether
contain argument or non argument expressions?
2. What is the difference between explanation and argument?
3. Write down the components of conditional statements?
1.4 Types of Arguments
Arguments can broadly be classified as deductive and inductive. As you have learnt in
the previous lessons, an argument is the process of reasoning or inference that proceeds
from certain evidence to a certain conclusion. However, the process of reasoning to arrive
at a certain conclusion is not uniform. Absence of uniformity in arguments is basically
caused by the nature of the connection between the premise and conclusion.
The basic difference between deductive and inductive arguments is their difference in the
strength of the inferential claim of the argument. The point here is that, how strongly the
premise claim to support the conclusion or how strongly the conclusion is claimed to
follow from the premise.
There are three criteria that are used to differentiate deductive arguments from inductive
arguments. These criteria 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 arguer uses. Thus, in the upcoming discussion, I will explain
the difference between the types of arguments and how these criteria are applied for the
identification.
1.4.1 Deductive Arguments

A deductive argument is defined as the one whose conclusion is claimed to follow from
its premises with absolute necessity. That is, a deductive argument is an argument, which
makes a claim that the conclusion follows from the reason, evidences, or premises with
the force of necessity.
Examples:
a. All human beings are mortal. Aster is a human being. Therefore, Aster is mortal.
b. All sub- Saharan countries are least developed countries. Ethiopia is found in sub-
Saharan region. It follows that Ethiopia is a least developed country.
In all above deductive arguments, the idea stated in the conclusion is already informed in
the premises; hence the premises provide evidences for supporting for the conclusion
with absolute necessity. Consequently, if premises of the above arguments are true, then
it is impossible for conclusion to be false. There are three methods used to identify
deductive arguments.
1. Using Indictor Words
The following words signal deductive arguments: necessarily, certainly, absolutely,
definitely, etc.
Example: Charles is a member of the Republican Party. All members of the Republican
Party are conservatives. Therefore, it necessarily follows that Charles is a conservative.
In the above argument an indictor word “necessarily” reveals a deductive argument.
2. Studying the Actual Strength of the Premise and the Conclusion

If the conclusion actual does follow with strict necessity from the premises, then the
argument is clearly deductive.
Example:
All saleswomen are extroverts.
Elizabeth Taylor is a saleswoman.

Therefore, Elizabeth Taylor is an extrovert.
In this example, the conclusion follows with strict necessity from the premises. If we
assume that all saleswomen are extrovert and that Elizabeth Taylor is a saleswoman, then
it is impossible that Elizabeth Taylor not be an extrovert. Thus, the argument interpreted
as deductive.
3. The Character or Form of Argumentation the Arguer Uses

When an argument contains no indicator words and the conclusion does not follow
necessarily from the premises, we use the following typically deductive forms of
argumentation. The deductive argumentation forms that the arguer uses include:
argument based on mathematics, an argument from definition, a categorical syllogism, a
hypothetical syllogism, and a disjunctive syllogism. Now let us see the character of each
one by one.
An argument based on mathematics is an argument in which the conclusion depends

on some purely arithmetic or geometric computation or measurement. Numbers show the
reality and essence of things. Therefore, there is accuracy in numerical expressions.
Example:
a. The length of a square is 2cm and its width is also 2 cm. Therefore, this square has
the area of 4 cm2.
b. Asfaw has 3 apples in his left pocket and 4 oranges in his right pocket. Therefore,
Asfaw’s pockets contain 7 pieces of fruits.
Note: All arguments in pure mathematics are deductive while 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.
An argument from definition is an argument in which the conclusion is claimed to

develop merely on the definition of some word or phrase contained in the premises or this
is an argument whose conclusion is reached by defining a fundamental word in the

premise.
Example:
Some one might argue that because Ayele is mendacious, it follows that he tells
lies. This argument is deductive because its conclusion follows with necessity from
the definition of “mendacious.”
A categorical syllogism is a syllogism that consists of exactly two premises and one
conclusion on which each statement begins with one of the quantifiers ‘all”, ”no”, or
“some.”
Example: Some merchants are pirates.

All merchants are stingy.
Therefore, some stingy are pirates.
An argument such as this is always best treated as deductive because the conclusion
follows the premises with necessity given that the premises are true.
A Hypothetical syllogism is also a syllogism having a conditional statement for one or

both of its premises.
Example:
If we eat variety of food items, then we would be healthy. If we are healthy, then
we would be productive. Therefore, if we eat variety of food items, then we
would be productive.
A disjunctive syllogism is a syllogism having a disjunctive statement, that is, an

“either…… or …… statement”, for one of its premises.
Example:
a. People are either good or evil. John is not good. Therefore, he is evil.
b. Either breach of contract is a crime or it is not punishable by the state. Breach of

contract is not crime. Therefore, it is not punishable by the state.
1.4.2 Inductive Arguments

An inductive argument is an argument, which makes the claim that the reasoning,
evidences or premises offered in support of the conclusion with the force of probability.
That is, an inductive argument is one whose conclusion is claimed to follow from its
premises only with probability.
Example:
In the past five years, practice of good governance in Ethiopia is appreciative.
This year too, there is a practice of good governance in Ethiopia. Therefore,
probably next year there will be practice of good governance in Ethiopia.
In this argument, the conclusion is claimed to follow only probably from the premises.
the following three factors or criteria.
1. Using Indicator words

The following words signal inductive arguments: probably, improbably, plausible,
implausible, likely, unlikely, reasonable to conclude, etc.
Example:
The rainfall in Hawassa has been more than 20 inches every year for the past ten
years. Therefore, the rainfall next year will probably be more than 20 inches.
In this argument an indictor word “probably” shows the argument is inductive argument.
2. Studying the Actual Strength of the Premise and the Conclusion

If the conclusion actual does not follow with strict necessity from the premises but does
follow probably, then it is usually best to consider the argument inductive.
Example:
The vast majority of saleswomen are extroverts.
Elizabeth Taylor is a saleswoman.
Therefore, Elizabeth Taylor is an extrovert.
In this example, the conclusion does not follow with strict necessity, but it does follow
with some degree of probability. If we assume that the premises are true, then based on
that assumption it is improbable that the conclusion is false. Thus, it is interpreted as
inductive argument.
3. The Character or Form of Argumentation the Arguer Uses

When an argument contains no indicator words and the conclusion does not follow
probably from the premises, in this case we use the following typically inductive forms of
argumentation. The inductive argumentation forms that the arguer uses include: an
argument based on prediction, an argument from analogy, an inductive generalization, an
argument from authority, an argument based on signs and argument based on casual
inference. Now, I elaborate the character of each one by one.
In an argument based on prediction, the premises deal with some known event in the
past or present, and the conclusion moves beyond this event to some event in the future.
Therefore, arriving at conclusion about the future condition based on the past and present
condition will not be certain rather it is probable or likely to happen.
Example:
Yesterday, there was rainfall in our city. Today also there is rainfall. Therefore,
there will be rainfall tomorrow.
An argument from analogy is an argument that depends on the existence of an analogy

or similarity, between two things. Because of the existence of this analogy, a certain
condition that affects the better-known thing or situation is concluded to affect the
similar, lesser-known thing or situation.
Example:
The Encyclopedia Britannica has an article on Symbiosis. The Encyclopedia
Americana, like Britannica, is an excellent work. Therefore, the Americana
probably also has an article on Symbiosis.
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. In
other words, a reasoning process that proceeds from particular facts to general truths is
called inductive generalization.
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. Or, this is an
argument whose conclusion depends upon a statement made by some presumed authority
or witness.
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.
You 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 arguments that proceed from the
general to the general or from the particular to the particular or even from the particular
to the general. The same is also true of some inductive arguments.
For example, the following argument proceeds from the particular to the general but it is
a deductive argument because the conclusion follows the premises with the force of
necessity.
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.
Here is an inductive argument that proceeds from the general to the particular:
All automobile cars imported into Ethiopia have been white in color.
Therefore, the automobile car that Kebede is intending to import will also be
white in color.
It is worth noting, therefore, that the criteria for distinguishing inductive from deductive
arguments arises, in general, not from the kinds of statements in the argument but from
such factors as the actual strength of the link between premises and conclusion, the
occurrence of special indicator words, and the form or the character of the argumentation
the arguer uses.
? Activity 1.4: Do the following activities
1 Write at least three forms of argumentation for each deductive and inductive
argument.
2 What is syllogism?
3 “Argument based on statistics are best expressed as inductive argument” explain.
1.5 Validity, Truth, Soundness, Strength, Cogency
These terminologies are required to evaluate deductive and inductive arguments.
i. Evaluating Deductive Arguments
A deductive argument can be classified into valid and invalid arguments; and a deductive
valid argument can be further classified into valid-sound and valid-unsound. Similarly,
all invalid arguments are unsound arguments. Therefore, valid, invalid, sound, and
unsound are the central concepts for evaluating deductive arguments.
The previous section defined a deductive argument as one 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 to be false. But we have to note that a deductive argument
makes this claim does not mean that a deductive argument cannot have a false
conclusion.
In a deductive argument, a valid deductive argument is an argument such that if the

premises are true, it is impossible for the conclusion to be false. In such arguments the
conclusion follows with strict necessity from the premises. On the other hand, an invalid
deductive argument is a deductive argument such that if the premises are assumed true,
it is possible for the conclusion to be false. In these arguments the conclusion does not
follow with strict necessity from the premises, even though it is claimed to.
While evaluating deductive arguments, there is no middle ground between valid and
invalid. There are no arguments that are ‘‘almost’’ valid and ‘‘almost” invalid. If the
conclusion follows with strict necessity from the premises, the argument is valid; if not, it
is invalid
The following table demonstrates all possibilities of the validity and invalidity of
deductive arguments.
Deductive argument
Argument Evaluation
Case Premises Conclusion Valid Invalid
1 T(True) T  
2 T F (False) None exist 
3 F T  
4 F F  
The above table shows that, a deductive argument can be valid or invalid irrespective of
the truth or falsity of the premise and the conclusion except the second case. Let us begin
from valid and invalid deductive arguments case one (True premises and True
conclusion). Case one shows that if the premise is true and the conclusion is also true,
then the argument can be either valid or invalid.
If the truth of the premise supports or become relevant to the truth of conclusion, then the
argument is valid. Here is an example:
All television networks are media companies. NBC is a television network.

Therefore, NBC is a media company.
In this argument both premises are actually true, so it is easy to assume that they are true.
Next we determine, in light of this assumption, if it is possible for the conclusion to be
false. Clearly this is not possible. If NBC is included in the group of television networks
(second premise) and if the group of television networks is included in the group of
media companies (first premise), it necessarily follows that NBC is included in the group
of media companies (conclusion). In other words, assuming the premises true and the
conclusion false entails a strict contradiction. Thus the argument is valid.
If the truth of the premise does not support or become irrelevant to the truth of the
conclusion, the argument is invalid. The following argument has true premises and true
conclusion, but the reasoning is invalid.
All cows are animals. All mammals are animals. Therefore, all cows are
mammals.
This argument is invalid since the two statements given in the premises do not support
the idea that “all cows are mammals.” It means that, the information contained in the
premises could not support and become relevant to the information stated in the
conclusion. Hence the reasoning in this argument is illogical.
Let us take valid and invalid deductive argument case four (false premises and false
conclusion). If the argument has false premises and false conclusion, it can be either
valid or invalid. Example of valid argument case (False premise and false conclusion)
All four legged creatures have wings. All spiders have four legs. Therefore, all
spiders have wings.
This argument has false premises and false conclusion, but the idea given in the
conclusion is supported by the false (wrong) information given in the premises .Although
the two statements are false, the reasoning process that proceeds from the premises to the
conclusion is logical, thus the argument is valid. Here is an example of an invalid
argument case four (False premises and false conclusion)
All Ethiopians are Europeans. All Europeans are Greeks. Therefore, all
Ethiopians are Greeks.
In this argument case, both the premises and conclusion are false, and the idea provided
as evidence for the conclusion is not supportive, therefore, the reasoning is illogical and
makes the argument invalid.
Now let us see case three (False premises and True conclusion)
An argument having false premise and true conclusion can be valid or invalid. The
following example shows a valid argument case three having false premises and true
conclusion.
All mammals have wings. All whales have wings. Therefore, all whales are
mammals.
In this argument case, although the premises are false, the reasoning process that
proceeds from the premises to the conclusion is logical and makes the argument valid.
Here is an example of invalid argument case three having false premise and true
premise.
All trees are animals. All animals are plants. Therefore, all trees are plants.
In this argument case, the premises are false, the idea in the premises is irrelevant to the
conclusion, and therefore, the reasoning is illogical or invalid.
In the above table, case two is a special case that which is not excused from criticism. If a
person forms an argument having true premises and false conclusion, the argument
becomes immediately invalid. The reason behind this fact is fairly obvious. If the
premises are actually true and the conclusion is actually false, then it certainly is possible
for the premises to be true and the conclusion to be false. Thus, by the definition of
invalidity, the argument is invalid. In short, case two is always invalid, implies that the
conclusion is not always supported by the premise or premises. Here is an example of
case two having true premises and false conclusion.
All Greeks are Mortal. All US Senators are mortal. Therefore all Greeks are US
senators.
The premises of this argument are true, but the conclusion is false (for all Greeks are not
US senators). Such an argument cannot be valid because it is impossible for the premises
of a valid argument to be true and its conclusion to be false. Therefore, we can conclude
that a deductive argument is always invalid, whenever the conclusion is false and its
premises are true.
Dear learner, have you understood the difference between valid an invalid arguments?
Very good! Let us proceed into other important logical concepts that are also used to
evaluate deductive arguments such as sound and unsound arguments.
A sound argument is a valid argument which contains two essential features: it is valid
and its premises are all true with true conclusion.
Sound Argument = Valid Argument + All Premises True
Thus, sound argument is a “good” or the most “perfect” deductive argument.
Example1: All human beings are mortal. All Ethiopians are human beings. Therefore, all
Ethiopians are mortal.
Example2: Since Haile G/ Silassie is an Ethiopian, and Haile is a famous athlete, we

may conclude that at least one Ethiopian is a famous athlete.
The conclusions of both arguments follows the premises with necessity, hence the
arguments are both valid. Moreover, the premises of both arguments are true, and they
are deductively- sound arguments.
If a deductive argument fails to meet these two requirements, it is said to be unsound.

Accordingly, an unsound deductive argument falls into one of the following three
categories: 1, it is invalid but all its premises are true .2, it is valid but has at least one
false premise. 3, it is invalid and has at least one false premise. Here is an example.
All Ethiopians are Europeans. Derartu Tulu is an Ethiopian. Therefore, Derartu

Tulu is a European.
This argument is valid because if we assume that the premises are true, the conclusion
would be necessarily true. But as the argument involves plainly false premise, then it is
unsound.
ii. Evaluating Inductive Arguments

Inductive arguments are evaluated using the following technical terms: strong, weak,
cogent and uncogent. We are using these terms in accordance with degree of the
probability of evidence provided in support of the conclusion. In section 1.4., we defined
an inductive argument as one 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 to be
false. If the premises do in fact support the conclusion in this way, then the argument is
said to be strong.
A strong inductive argument is an inductive argument such that it is improbable that the
premises to be true and the conclusion to be false. In such arguments, the conclusion
follows probably from the premises. A strong inductive argument has this essential
feature: it is highly probably that if its premises are true, then its conclusion is probable
true.
Conversely, a weak inductive argument is an inductive argument such that the

conclusion does not follow probably from the premises, even though it is claimed to. In
other words, a weak inductive argument has this essential feature: it is not likely that if its
premises are true, the conclusion is true.
Here are two examples of inductive arguments. The first is weak and the second is strong:
Example 1: This basket contains one hundred oranges. Three oranges selected at random
were found to be ripe. Therefore, probably all one hundred oranges are ripe.
Example 2: This basket contains one hundred oranges. Eighty oranges selected at
random were found to be ripe. Therefore, probably all one hundred oranges are ripe.
Unlike the validity and invalidity of deductive arguments, the strength and weakness of
inductive arguments admit of degrees. To be considered strong, an inductive argument
must have a conclusion that is more probable than improbable. In other words, the
likelihood that the conclusion is true must be more than 50 percent, and as the probability
increases, the argument becomes stronger. In the above examples, the first argument is
not absolutely weak nor is the second absolutely strong. Both arguments would be
strengthened or weakened by the random selection of a larger or smaller sample.
As with validity and invalidity, strength and weakness are only indirectly related to truth
and falsity. The central question in determining strength or weakness of arguments is not
the truth or falsity of the statements (premises and conclusion) but whether the
conclusion would probably be true if the premises are assumed true. We have the
following combination revealing the indirect relationship between strength or weakness,
truth and falsity.
The following table demonstrates strength and weakness as well as all possible
combinations of the truth and falsity.
Inductive Argument
Argument Evaluation
Case Premise Conclusion Strong Weak
1 T Probable T  
2 T Probable F None exist 

3 F Probable T  
4 F Probable F  
In the above table, the first, third and fourth combinations show that the argument can be
either strong or weak depending on whether the conclusion has a higher probability of
following the premises or not (regardless of the truth and falsity of premises and the
conclusion). And this reveals that strength, like validity, is only indirectly related to the
truth and falsity. But an inductive argument with true premises and a false conclusion
cannot be strong. Let us proceed to other important logical concepts that are also used to
evaluate inductive arguments such as cogent and uncogent.
A cogent argument is an inductive argument that is strong and has all true premises
which contains the following two features: that is, it is strong and it has all true premises
with probably true conclusion. A cogent argument, therefore, is a ‘‘good’’ or the most
“prefect” inductive argument. Because the conclusion of a cogent argument is genuinely
supported by true premises, it follows that the conclusion of every cogent argument is
probably true.
Cogent Argument = Strong Argument + All True Premises
An argument is uncogent if it does not satisfy these two conditions. Thus, an uncogent
argument is an inductive argument that is weak, has one or more false premises, or both.
In other words, an argument is uncogent if it involves one of the following

characteristics. First, all weak inductive arguments are uncogent. Second, it is strong but
has at least one false premise. Third, it is weak and has at least one false premise.
In summary, dear learner, in logic one never speaks of an argument as being “true” or
“false”, and one never speaks of a statement as being “valid”, “invalid”, “strong”, or
“weak.” Therefore, you should understand all those important terms of evaluating
statements and arguments that we have been discussing so far.
? Activity 1.5
2 What are the terms used two evaluate inductive arguments?
3 _____________ and ______________ arguments are considered as good deductive
and good inductive arguments respectively.
4 When do you consider an argument as a sound deductive argument?
5 What are the characteristics of uncogent arguments?
Summary
The basic aim of this chapter was introducing you the basic concepts of the science logic.
Logic, as a science, is the study of methods and principles for evaluating as well as
analyzing arguments. In logic, argument means arriving at a definite claim of conclusion
over an issue or a subject based on acceptable evidences, information or chain of reasons
available at hand. In an argument, there are two claims: Premise and conclusion. A
premise is a claim that is provided by the arguer as evidence or reason to support
conclusion. A conclusion is a claim that is claimed by the arguer as the statement to
follow from the premise. A statement is a sentence that can be either true or false.
In this chapter you have learned the most immediate benefit derived from the study of
logic. The benefit that one gets from learning logic is the skill needed to construct sound
arguments of one’s own and to evaluate the arguments of others. Actually, arguments are
developed mainly to accomplish two basic objectives: for discovering truth and to
convince others.
In this chapter you have also learned the classification of Arguments. Arguments are
broadly classified as inductive and deductive. Deductive arguments assert that the truth of
the conclusion follow from the premises, while inductive arguments assert that the truth
of the conclusion follows probably from the premises The criteria for distinguishing
inductive from deductive arises from such factors as the actual strength of the link
between premises and conclusion, the occurrence of special indictor words, and the form
of argumentation the arguer uses.
The other lesson you have got from this chapter was about the terms that are used to
evaluate arguments. Inductive arguments are evaluated as strong or weak and cogent or
uncogent, whereas deductive arguments are evaluated as valid or invalid and sound or
unsound based on their inferential claim and factual claim, respectively
In this chapter you have come across the basic attribute of deductive arguments. A
deductive valid argument is an argument which has this essential feature: it is impossible
for its conclusion to be false while its premises are true. A deductive invalid argument is
an argument which has this essential feature: it is possible for its conclusion to be false
while its premises are true. A deductive sound argument is an argument which has two
essential features: it is valid, and all its premises are true. A deductive unsound argument
is one that is either invalid or has at least one false premise.
You have also drawn a lesson about the features of inductive arguments. This argument
has this essential attribute: it is unlikely (though possible) that its conclusion is false
while its premises are true. An inductive weak argument has this essential feature: it is
likely that if its premises are true, then its conclusion is true. An inductive cogent
argument is one that is either weak, or strong with all true premises. An inductive
uncogent has the following features: it is all weak inductive arguments; it is strong but
has at least one false premise, and it is weak and has at least one false premise.
 Self- Assessment Questions-1

Part I. Multiple Choices
Choose the correct answer from the given alternatives.
1. Which of the following is a statement?
A. The sky is blue. C. Let us go to Addis Ababa today.
B. How old are you? D. Get your dog off my lawn!
2. Of the following statements one is correct.

A. Premise means the claimed evidence given in support of the conclusion.
B. Conclusion is what claimed to follow from the premises.
C. All arguments have exactly single conclusion.
D. In an argument there can be as many premises as possible.
E. All the above.
3. All physicians are medical doctors. Helen is a physician. So, Helen is a medical
doctor. Based on this argument, which one is correct.
A. It has three premises.
C. It has two conclusions.
D. In the argument, the indictor word “so” reveals premise.
E. It has two premises and one conclusion.
4. For the first time the scientific study of logic appeared in:
1. Greek B. India C. London D. Rome
5. The founder of the science of logic and the one who is considered as the father of
logic is :
A. George Boole B. Aristotle C. Bernard Bolzno D. Kurt Goedel
6. Which one of the following is an argument?
A. If public education does not improve the quality of education, then it will lose
additional students to the private sector in the year ahead.
B. In my opinion, we should stand together.
C. If iron is less dense than mercury then iron will float in mercury.
D. Light rays from the sun are scattered by particles in the atmosphere.
Therefore, the sky appears blue from the earth’s surfaces.
7. The speed of reading clearly, depends entirely upon the reader. He may read as
slowly or as rapidly as he can or wishes to read. If he does not understand
something, he may stop and reread it, or go in search of elucidation before
continuing. The above expression is :
A. Expository passage C. Loosely associated statements
B. A piece of advice and warning D. Statement of belief and opinion
8. Which one of the following is correct?
A. A passage contains an argument if it does not contain the claim that something
is supported by evidence of reason.
B. In an argument, an explicit inferential claim exists if there is an inferential
relational between the statements in a passage.
C. Not all passages contain arguments.
D. Always a single conditional sentence is an argument.
9. A statement intended to shed light on some matter of fact is called:
A. Illustration B. Explanation C. Expository passage D. Report
10. A statement together with one or more instances intended to exemplify that
statement is known as :
a. Illustration B. Explanation C. Report. D. Piece of advice
11. This classroom has a length of 6m, its width is 4m and its height is 7m. Therefore,
the area of the class is 24m2. This argument is:
A. Inductive argument based on generalization.
B. Deductive argument based on mathematics.
C. Inductive argument based on mathematics.
D. Deductive argument based on generalization
12. The sign on the high way leading to Debrezeit says that the town’s elevation is
5280 feet. It must be that Debrezeit is 1 mile high. This type of argument is :
A. Inductive based on causation C. Inductive based on analogy.
B. Inductive generalization. D. Induction based on sign.
13. Either I will visit the Lake Hawassa or Lake Chamo in the coming week. I
abandon visiting Lake Chamo. Therefore, I will visit the Lake Hawassa. The
nature of this argument is:
A. Categorical syllogistic argument C. Argument based on prediction
B. Disjunctive syllogism D. Inductive argument based on analogy
14. One of the following forms of argumentation does not belong to deductive
argument.
A. Argument base on mathematics C. Argument based on analogy
B. Argument based on definition D. Hypothetical syllogism.
15. Which one of the following criteria is not used to distinguish deductive arguments
from inductive one?
A. The occurrence of special indicator words.
B. The kinds of the statement in the argument.
C. The actual strength of the link between premises and conclusion.
D. The form of argumentation the arguer uses.
16. All of the following sentences are correct usage of terms in evaluating argument,
except:
A. Saying true or false C. Using valid or invalid.
B. Applying the word strong or weak D. Saying sound or unsound
17. Cogent arguments are _______arguments whose premises are all________.
a. Strong inductive ,true C. Strong inductive, false
b. Invalid deductive, false D. Valid deductive, true
18. All men are omnivores. Fekadu is a man. Therefore, Fekadu is an omnivore. This
argument is:
A. Invalid B. Weak C. Valid D. Strong
19. Of the following statements one is wrong?

A. An argument is valid, if the premises are true, then conclusion cannot
possibly be false.
B. A valid argument can have false premise and false conclusion.
C. An invalid argument cannot have a true conclusion.
D. If a valid argument has a false conclusion, then at least one of its premises is
false.
20. Of the following technical terms, which one is not used to evaluate deductive
arguments?
A. Valid B. Invalid C. Unsound D. Cogent
Part II. “True” or “False” Item
1. Some conditional statements can be re-expressed to form arguments.

2. Any passage that contains an argument must contain a claim that something is
supported by evidence or reasons.
3. In an explanation, the explanans is the statement or group of statements that
does the explaining.
4. Being a tiger is a necessary condition for being an animal.
5. Air is a sufficient condition for life.
6. A valid argument may have a false premises and a false conclusion.
7. Strong argument may have true premises and a probably false conclusion.
8. A sound argument is a deductive argument which is valid and has true premise.
9. If an argument has true premises and a true conclusion, we know that it is
necessarily good argument.
10. Technical concepts such as Sound, unsound, valid and invalid are used to
evaluate inductive arguments.
Part III. Determine the following arguments as valid, invalid, strong or weak .
1. All dogs are animals. All cats are animals. Therefore, all dogs are cats.
2. Ninety percent of the cars in the parking lot were vandalized, and your care was in
the parking lot. Therefore, your car was vandalized.
3. All animals are mortal. Hyena is an animal. Therefore, Hyena is a mortal.
4. For several days it has been raining in Hawassa since the fifteenth of June (June-
15). Therefore, probably there will be rainfall in a few days to come.
5. Circle A has exactly twice the diameter of circle B. From this we may conclude
that circle A has exactly twice the area of circle B.
CHAPTER TWO
LANGUAGE: MEANING AND DEFINITION
 INTRODUCTION
This chapter, by and large, talks about the relation between logic and language. You,
recall that in the previous chapter you learned about that the science of logic is concerned
with the study of correct reasoning in arguments and its purpose is to establish principles
for distinguishing good arguments from bad arguments. Since the formal pattern of
correct reasoning can only be conveyed through language, it requires proper use of words
and sentences. Therefore, in order to know how arguments work, it is essential to aware
of how language works.
This chapter has been structured into five sections. The first section deals with function
of language. The second section discusses the meanings of terms. The third section is all
about definitions and their purposes. In section four you will learn about definitional
techniques. The last section is devoted to criteria for lexical definitions.
The Meaning and Function of Language

i. Functions of Language
Ordinary language serves various functions in our day-to-day life. The twentieth-century
philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein thought that the number of these functions to be almost
unlimited. Thus, among other things, individuals use language to ask questions, to tell
stories, to tell lies, to guess at answers, to form hypotheses, to launch verbal assaults, to
tell jokes, to give directions, to sing songs, to issue commands, to greet someone and so
on. However, we use language in these many different ways, some of these ways are
unrelated to any attempt to outline or provide arguments.
In general, language has three linguistic functions namely, expressive (emotive), directive
and cognitive (informative) function. Of these functions of language, the cognitive
function of language is a relevant and an important for logic.
A. Expressive (Emotive) Function
Emotive or expressive function of language is a function of language which is important

for individuals to express their feelings or emotions. This function of language helps us to
express our negative or positive feelings in hopes of evoking a particular emotional
response.
Examples:
a. She is smart.  I like my logic teacher
b. I hate him.  I dislike Abebe.
In these examples, the speakers are attempting to express their positive or negative
emotional feelings. In the examples above, all sentences do not convey information that
could be evaluated as true or false. Since emotive functions of language obliges us to
develop subjectivity, partial, irrational and unfair judgment based on our emotions or
feelings about something. Thus, this function of language is not relevant for the science
of logic to evaluate arguments. A terminology, in the above examples such as “smart”,
“hate” and “like”, that expresses or evokes feelings is said to have emotive meaning.
B. Directive Function
Directive function of language gives direction to the speaker or writer in order to pass
orders, commands or instructions to others.
Examples:
A. What is your name?  Leave me alone!
 Do not close that door!  Give me your pen!
All the above sentences are instances of directive function of language. The point in each
of these cases is to make someone to do or not to do something. A directive function of
language has significant linguistic function, but it does not convey information that could
be evaluated as true or false. Therefore, directive use of language is not significant to
logic. A terminology that expresses direction is said to have directive meaning.
C. Cognitive (Informative) Function
Cognitive or informative function of language is used to convey information about the

world’s objective realities. The cognitive aspect of language includes such functions as
conveying information and communicating meanings. Moreover, it is used to describe
and to reason about the world and to deny or affirm truth propositions. For Example:
 Ethiopia has its own prestigious airlines of its own. (True)

 The capital city of the regional state of Tigray is Hawassa. (False
 Lake Tana is found in Amhara region. (True)
The above statements deny or affirm the truth of these things and convey information
about them. Therefore, a cognitive or informative function of language can be used to
evaluate an argument as true or false. Hence, the sentences of cognitive function can
serve as premise or conclusion of an argument. As a result, it is only this function of
language which is relevant for science of arguments. A terminology that conveys
information or communicating meaning is said to have cognitive meaning.
? Activity 2.1
Part I. Answer the following questions

1. What is language?
2. Sort out the three fundamental functions of language?
3. Which function of language is the most important for logic?
4. Define the following concepts or phrases: Cognitive, emotive and directive
function of language.
Part II. Identify whether the following sentences are expressed through cognitive,
directive and emotive functions of language?
1. I love Fikerete. _______________________
2. I like the music and culture of the Southern Nation, Nationalities and Peoples’
Region State.__________________
3. Give me that logic book!__________________________
4. Addis Ababa is a capital city of Ethiopia.___________________________

5. 2 + 2 = 4__________________________
2. The Intension and Extension of Terms.

Remember that the main task of logic is the evaluation of arguments. However, there are
numerous arguments in which this task leads to the observation. Such an observation
usually indicates that the meaning of certain words in the argument is vague or
ambiguous. Clearing up the problem often involves supplying a definition. Thus, the
study of meaning and definition is closely related to the main task of logic.
Logic in one way or another is concerned with definition. This is precisely because logic
is the science that evaluates arguments, and an argument consists of a group of
statements, and statements are made up of words. And words have meanings. Meanings
are conveyed through definitions. This is the reason why we study about definitions.
The basic units of any ordinary language are words. Our main concern in this chapter,
however, is not with words in general but with terms. A term is any word or arrangement
of words that may serve as the subject of a statement. Terms consist of proper names,
common names, and descriptive phrases. Here are some examples:
Proper Names Common Names Descriptive Phrases
Ayele House The first president of Ethiopia
John Person The king of England
South Ethiopia Animal Those who study hard
All the above mentioned words or group of words are terms because they can serve as a
subject of a statement as shown in the following example.
Ayele eats banana. The word ‘Ayele’ is a subject; hence, can be called a term.
Words that are not terms include verbs, non substantive adjectives, adverbs, prepositions,
conjunctions, and all non-syntactic arrangements of words. The following words or
phrases are not terms; none can serve as the subject of statement: dictatorial, run quickly,
above and beyond, moreover, craves, cabbages into again the forest.
Terms have two meanings: Intensional and extensional meanings. The intensional
meaning, is also known as connotation, refers to the qualities or attributes that the term
connotes. The extensional meaning, is also called denotation, consists of the members
of the class that the term denotes.
Examples:
1. “Inventor” means a person who is, clever, intuitive, creative and imaginative.
2. “Inventor” means such as Thomas Edison, Alexander Graham Bell, and Samuel
F.B. Morse.
The first example is the meaning of the term inventor based on its attributes, qualities or
essential characteristics. This is owing to the fact that concepts like “clever” “intuitive”,
and “imaginative” implies the attributes or essential features of the term being defined-
inventor. Therefore, this term has an intensional meaning .On the other hand, the second
example is the meaning of the term inventor based on its class members. This is because
this sentence provides lists of individuals who are the member of the class of the term
being defined - inventor.
Let me ask you, does denotation of a term remains the same from person to person? The
answer is yes. The denotation of a term remains the same from person to person. For
example, the denotation (extensional meaning) of human being refers to all human being
in the universe, on which everybody agrees. This term either constantly fluctuating as
some human beings die and others are born or it is presumably constant because it
denotes all human beings, past, present, or future.
On this similar issue let me ask you again, does denotation of a term remain the same
from time to time? Without any hesitation, the answer for this question is no. For
example, think of the term, ‘the current king of Ethiopia. Is there any king in Ethiopia
now? No. Therefore, this term denotes an empty extension. An empty extension is said
to denote: the empty or “null” class - the class that has no members or do not have empty
intension.
You may recognize from the above example that emperor Haile Sillasie was the king of
Ethiopia in the past. Hence, it denoted an actually existing entity in the past, that is, it had
an extensional meaning in the past. Therefore, ‘the current king of Ethiopia’, changed
over the passage of time.
Thereby, things that do not have current objective reference include myth, spiritual
realities, extinct (died out) creatures, historical events, and so on do not have extension.
For instance, Dinosaur, Dragon, Satan, fictional and mythical stories, blue horse, unicorn,
elf, Dodo bird etc.
Thus, all the above mentioned things do not have objective references that could serve as
a living testimony for their existence. Our knowledge of these things is based on their
properties and do not based on their living class members’ characteristics. Hence, they
have empty extension. But these things do have intentional meaning.
However, the fact that some terms have empty extension leads us to an important
connection between extension and intension, namely, that intension determines
extension. Therefore, the intentional meaning of a term serves as the criteria for deciding
what the extension consists of. That is why intentional meaning determines extensional
meaning.
Example:
1. Satan is an evil sprit that causes people to suffer.
2. Dinosaur is an extinct reptile of the Mesozoic era.
Terms may be put in the order of increasing intension, increasing extension,

decreasing intension, and decreasing extension depending on the increase or decrease
of attributes and sets of things added to the term being defined. Thus, the concepts of
intension and extension can be used to give order to random sequences of terms.
A series of terms is in the order of increasing intension when each term in the series has
more attributes than the one which comes before it. In other words, if the member of a
class of things decrease, then the attribute of particular objects increase. The order of
decreasing intension is the reverse of that of increasing intension but not always.
On the other hand, a series of terms is in the order of increasing extension when each
term in the series indicates a class having more members than the class denoted by the
term before it. In other words, if the member of a class size gets larger with each
consecutive term, then the attribute of the particular object decreases. Decreasing
extension is the reverse of this order.
Example:
1. Increasing Intension: Africa, East Africa, Ethiopia, Addis Ababa.
2. Increasing Extension: Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, East Africa, Africa.
3. Decreasing Intension: Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, East Africa, Africa.
4. Decreasing Extension: Africa, East Africa, Ethiopia, Addis Ababa.
What do you understand from the above example? From the above example, one, the
order of increasing intension is usually the same as the decreasing extension. Two, the
order of decreasing intension is usually the same as that of increasing extension. There
are some exceptions, however. Consider the following series:
Unicorn; unicorn with blue eyes; unicorn with blue eyes and green horn; unicorn
with blue eyes, green horn, and a weight of over 400 pounds
Each term in this series has empty extension; so, while the series exhibits the order of
increasing intension, it does not exhibit the order of decreasing extension. Here is
another, slightly different, example:
Living human being; living human being with a genetic code; living human being
with a genetic code and a brain; living human being with a genetic code, a brain,
and a height of less than 100 feets.
In this series none of the terms has empty extension, but each term has exactly the same
extension as the others. Thus, while the intension increases with each successive term,
once again the extension does not decrease.
? Activity 2.2
Discuss the following questions.
o What is a term?
o What are the two meanings of terms
o What do we mean by an intensional meaning of terms?

o What we mean by an extensional meaning of terms?
o How do you understand the term empty extension?
3. Definitions and Their Purposes
Many logicians define the term ‘definition’ as a group of words that assigns a meaning to
some words or group of words. Accordingly, every definition consists of two parts: the
definiendum and the definiens. The Latin term definiendum is the word or group of
words that is supposed to be defined, and the Latin term definiens is the word or group of
words that does the defining or gives a meaning to the definiendum.
Example:
The definition ‘‘diffident’’ means lacking confidence in oneself; characterized by
modest reserve. In this definition, the term ‘‘diffident’’ is the definiendum, and
everything that comes the word “means” (lacking confidence in oneself;
characterized by modest reserve) is the definiens.
The most important objective of definition is to provide meaning for the terms that are
not clearly understood in the context of other terms. Definitions have many important
purposes in logic. To mention among others, definition helps us to avoid confusion or
misleading use of words and phrases; to avoid obscurity, unintelligibility, subjectivity,
and complexity of words; to introduce new words and to persuade others; to avoid useless
controversies, disputes, disagreements and conflicts over the meaning of terms or
interpretations of words, phrases and passages which considered as an argument; to
prevent incorrect reasoning; and to develop the ability to reason logically.
There are five different types of definitions, namely, stpulative, lexical, précising,
theoretical, and persuasive definitions. Following this let us see their purpose one by
one.
1.1.1 Stipulative Definition

A stipulative definition assigns a meaning to a word for the first time. This may involve
either creating a new word or giving a new meaning to an old word. The purpose of a
stipulative definition is to introduce unusual or unfamiliar words, which have no pervious
meaning in the language.
Stipulative definition is used to introduce new meanings to some new discovered

phenomenon or things in the area of archeologist findings, scientific invitations, and new
creations such as new modes of behaviors, new kinds of fashion clothes, new dances,
new food inventions, etc are being used to introduce names for these things.
Example:
A few years ago the attempt was made at a certain zoo to crossbreed male tiger
and female lion by biologists. As a result of this, the offspring was born from
male tiger and female lion. Thus, this suggests a need for assigning a new name.
So, they may call the new offspring ‘‘Tigon’’ taking the first three letters from
tiger (tig) and the last two letters from lion (on). Dear learner, why do we assign a
name ‘Tgion’ for the new species? Why not “Geron”? Do have a reason for that?
No. We have no reason. It is a purely arbitrary (without reason or conventional)
assignment of meaning.
Another use of stipulative definitions is to set up secret codes. It was (and still is)
common to give a secret code for the military invasion.
Examples:
A. ‘‘Operation Barbarosa’’ was the name the code Germans gave to the invasion of
Russia;
B. ‘‘Operation Desert Storm’’ was the code name given to the military invasion of
Iraq.
C. “Operation Sun Set” was the code name given to the military victory of Ethiopia
armed force against Eritrea, which is the most recently.
It is factual that a stipulative definition can not be evaluated (judged) as true or false.
Because the term is new and there is no already established synonym or antonym words
for it. Let us use the term “Hokey” for the species of ‘horse’ and ‘donkey’. Can this be
said true or false? The answer is no because it is a completely arbitrary assignment of
meaning to a word for the first time. There can be no such thing as a “true” or “false”
stipulative definition.
1.1.2 Lexical Definition

A lexical definition is used to report the meaning that a word already has in a language.
Dictionary definitions are all the best examples of lexical definitions. For instance, the
Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary defines “imminent” means ‘about to occur’.
Accordingly, this is the meaning of ‘imminent’, as it is actually used by people who
speak English. In contrast to a stipulative definition, which assigns a meaning to a word
for the first time, a lexical definition may be true or false depending on whether it reports
the meaning of the word contained in language. If a certain person, for example defines
“imminent’ as has already been defined it is true; otherwise, it is false.
The purpose of a lexical definition is to eliminate ambiguity that would arise over the
improper use of word to its context. A word is ambiguous if it has more than one
meaning. This is when it can be interpreted as having two or more clearly distinct
meanings in a given context. Some words that are subjected to ambiguous usage are:
“light”, “bank”, “sound”, “right” , “race”, ‘‘mad’’, “defuse” , “humanity” ,etc.
Examples:
‘‘Light,’’ can mean light in weight or radiant energy.
‘‘Bank’’ can mean a finical institution or the edge of river.
At this point, it is useful to distinguish ambiguity from vagueness. A word is vague if it is

so imprecise and unclear, that is, it is impossible to tell about the applicability of the
word. In other words, a word is vague if there is a borderline case such that it is
impossible to tell whether the word applies to them or not. Words such as “love”,
”happiness”, “peace”, “fresh”, “normal”, “rich”, ”poor”, “polluted” ,etc are vague words.
It is difficult to draw a line or a boundary between the things to which those words apply
or do not apply.Let me ask you can you draw a borderline case between rich/non-rich? It
is impossible to do this. We can not tell with any degree of precision who rich is or how
we counted as rich.
1.1.3 Précising Definition

A précising definition is a definition which provides a more precise, specific, exact and
restricting meaning to a term. The purpose of a précising definition is to reduce
vagueness of the term. By doing so, they enable one to apply the word in a given context.
Once the vagueness of such words is reduced by a précising definition, one can reach a
decision as to the applicability of the word to a specific situation. For example, the word
‘poor’ is a vague word. Suppose you are an administrator of one humanitarian
organization and want to give a direct financial assistance to the poor. Who is considered
as poor and who is not? How much a person should need to have in terms of material
possession in order to be counted as poor? Therefore, for your practical purpose you may
define Poor as: “Poor” means a person having a monthly income of less than Birr 150 is
an example of a précising definition.
Whenever words are taken from ordinary usage and used in a highly systematic context
such as science, mathematics, medicine, or law, they must always be clarified by means
of a précising definition. The terms ‘‘force’’, ‘‘energy’’, ‘‘acid’’, ‘‘element’’, ‘‘number’’,
‘‘equality’’, ‘‘contract’’, and ‘‘agent’’ have all been given précising definitions by
specific disciplines.
A précising definition differs from a stipulative definition in that the latter involves a
purely arbitrary assignment of meaning, whereas the assignment of meaning in a
précising definition is not at all arbitrary. A great deal of care must be taken to ensure that
the assignment of meaning in a précising definition is appropriate and legitimate for the
context within which the term is to be employed.
1.1.4 Theoretical Definition

A theoretical definition assigns a meaning to a word by suggesting a theory that gives a
certain characterization to the entities that the term denotes. In other words, it gives us
the way of seeing or conceiving (imagining) theoretical (that is, non-experimental or non-
practical) entity. Take the term ‘‘heat’’ can you conceive it? No! There is no any way to
see or view “heat” except in theoretical way. The kinetic theory of ‘‘heat” means the
energy associated with the random motion of the molecules of a substance.’’ This
definition does more than merely assign a meaning to a word; it provides a way of
conceiving the physical phenomenon that is heat.
Not all theoretical definitions are associated with science. Many terms in philosophy,
such as ‘‘substance’’, ‘‘form’’, ‘‘cause’’, ‘‘change’’, ‘‘idea’’, ‘‘good’’, ‘‘mind’’, and
‘‘God’’ have been given theoretical definitions. In fact, most of the major philosophers in
history have given these terms their own peculiar theoretical definitions, and this fact
accounts in part for the unique character of their respective philosophies. Consider the
following examples:
a. ‘‘Good’’ means the greatest happiness of the greatest number provided the
underpinnings for his utilitarian theory of ethics.
b. “Substance” means something that up supports different qualities.
c. “Justice” means to give each individual what he or she deserves his or her due.
Like stipulative definitions, theoretical definitions are neither true nor false the purpose
of a theoretical definition is to avoid disagreement over the use of different terms by
providing theoretically adequate and reliable description of the entities which are
designated by different terms or words.
1.1.5 Persuasive Definition
A Persuasive definition assigns to different terms using emotively charged words or

phrases to create a favorable or unfavorable attitude towards what is designated by the
definiendum. Persuasive definition has the following purposes: persuading or convincing
listeners or readers over a certain issue; changing or influencing the attitude of others
towards one’s own point of view and to win the acceptance of audience.
The method employed to develop persuasive definition is to use emotionally charged or

value laden words and phrases for the purpose of inciting, striving or arousing the
emotion of audiences to make them to accept the definition. This definition may
exaggerate or diminish the definiendum. Here are some examples of opposing pairs of
persuasive definitions:
‘‘Abortion’’ means the ruthless murdering of innocent human beings.

‘‘Abortion’’ means a safe and established surgical procedure whereby a woman is
relieved of an unwanted burden.
‘‘Taxation’’ means the procedure by means of which our commonwealth is preserved

and sustained.
‘‘Taxation’’ means the procedure used by bureaucrats to rip off the people who elected
them.
All the above persuasive definitions given above influence the attitudes of the reader or
listener since the writers or speakers of these definitions use different emotively charged
words or phrases. The first example about “Abortion” makes the feeling of bad opinion
about abortion. In the example, the phrase “ruthless murdering” signifies the effects of an
emotionally charged words or value laden words. The third example aims at making
favorable attitude (a feeling of good opinion) towards “Taxation”. In the example, the
phrase “common wealth” illustrates value laden words. It makes the value claim that
taxation is good.
While persuasive definitions may, like lexical definitions, be evaluated as either true or
false, the primary issue is neither truth nor falsity but the effectiveness of such definitions
as instruments of persuasion.
? Activity 2.3
Discuss the following questions.
1. Define the concept of definition.
2. List down purposes of definitions.
3. Write five different types of definitions.
1.2 Techniques of Definition and Their Relation with Kinds of
Definitions
1.2.1 Techniques of Extension (Denotative) Definitions
An extensional definition is one that assigns a meaning to a term by indicating the

members of the class that the definiendum denotes. In other words, extensional
definitions provide meaning to a term by listing examples to the term which is being
defined - definiendum. There are at least three ways of indicating the members of a class:
first, we can point the members of the class by pointing physically to them, second by
naming them individually, and third, by naming them in groups. Thus, based on these
ways of indicating members of the class we identify three different kinds of definitions,
namely, demonstrative or ostensive definitions, enumerative definitions, and definition by
subclass respectively.
1.2.1.1 Demonstrative (Ostensive) Definition

Demonstrative (Ostensive) definition assigns a meaning to a term by pointing
physically to the thing or object to be defined. Demonstrative definition is probably the
most primitive form of definition. All one needs to know to understand such a definition
is the meaning of pointing. This definition might be either partial in a sense that when we
point to only some part of things or complete if all the members of the class denoted by
the defienindum are given. Therefore, ostensive definition attempts to define a term
showing the object, which is designated by a certain term or word, physically. This way
of providing meaning to a term is called demonstration.
Examples:
‘‘Chair’’ means this and this and this—as you point to a number of chairs, one after the
other.
‘‘House’’ means this one — using a picture demonstrating a house.
Ostensive definition is important to teach a foreigner your own native language assuming
that neither of you understood a word of each other’s language. One of the limitations of
ostensive definition is that when the required objects do not be available for being
pointed at, the demonstrative definition cannot be used. For example, if one wishes to
define the word ‘‘sun’ and it happens to be night time, or the word ‘‘dog’’ and none
happens to be in the vicinity, a demonstrative definition cannot be used.
Demonstrative definitions differ from the other kinds of definitions in that the definiens is
constituted at least in part by a gesture—the gesture of pointing. Since the definiens in
any definition is a group of words, however, a gesture, such as pointing, must count as a
word. While this conclusion may appear strange at first, it is supported by the fact that the
‘‘words’’ in many sign languages consist exclusively of gestures.
1.2.1.2 Enumerative Definition

Enumerative definition assigns a meaning to a term by naming individually the
members of the class the term denotes. Like demonstrative definitions, they may also be
either partial or complete. Enumerative definition is, therefore, carried out through
listing some or all of the objects or entities symbolized by the definiendum. If an
extensional definition names the members of the class that the definiendum denotes
individually, it is enumerative definition.
Examples:
‘‘Actor’’ means a person such as Nick Nolte, Al Pacino, or Richard Gere.
“Atlete” means a person such as Hail G/sillassie, Kenensia Bekele, Derartu Tulu, etc.
A complete enumerative definition is usually more satisfying than partial ones because
they identify the definiendum with greater assurance. However, a class having too many
classes, such as the class of real numbers greater than 1 but less than 2, have an infinite
number of members. Others, such as the class of stars and the class of persons, while not
infinite, have still too many members to enumerate. Therefore, anything approximating a
complete enumerative definition of terms denoting these classes is clearly impossible.
1.2.1.3 Definition by Subclass

A definition by subclass assigns a meaning to a term by naming subclasses of the class
denoted by the term. In other words, definition by subclass assigns a meaning to a term
by naming either the subclass (a smaller part of something) or the subset of the class
denoted by the term. Such a definition, too, may be either partial or complete, depending
on whether the subclasses named, when taken together, include all the members of the
class or only some of them.
Examples:
‘‘Tree’’ means an oak, pine, elm, spruce, maple, and the like.
‘‘Flower’’ means a rose, lily, daisy, geranium, zinnia, and the like.
“Professional person” means a person such as a doctor, or an architect.
Extensional definitions are used for producing lexical, stipulative, theoretical, and
persuasive definitions. However, extensional definitions by themselves can not properly
serve as précising definitions for the following reason. The function of a précising
definition is to clarify a vague word, and vagueness is a problem affecting intentional
meaning.
1.2.2 Techniques of Intensional (Connotative) Definitions

An intensional definition is one that assigns a meaning to a word by indicating the
qualities or attributes that the word connotes. In other words, an intensional or
connotative definition provides a meaning to a term by describing the essential
characteristics or features possessed by the term being defined. At least four strategies
may be used to indicate the attributes a word connotes. These four ways of indicating the
essential feature that the word connotes in turn provide us the four kinds of intensional
definitions: synonymous definition, etymological definition, operational definition, and

definition by genus and difference.
1.2.2.1 Synonymous Definition
A synonymous definition is one in which the definiens is a single word that connotes the
same attributes as the definiendum. In other words, it is the one in which the definiens
connotes exactly the same attributes as the definiendum.
Examples:
‘‘Physician’’ means doctor.
‘‘Intentional” means willful.
‘‘Observe’’ means see.
The above definitions are examples of synonymous definitions since the definiens of
these definitions is exactly the same in connotation with their definiendum. Therefore, we
can interchangeably use the definiens and the definiendum of synonymous definitions.
If you are able to find a single word that connotes the same attributes as the word being
defined, it is appropriate to use a synonymous definition. However, it is difficult to find a
single word for many English words that has the same quality as the word being defined.
For example, the word ‘‘wisdom’’ is not exactly synonymous with either ‘‘knowledge,’’
‘‘understanding,’’ or ‘‘sense’’; and is not exactly synonymous with either ‘‘jealous’’ or
‘‘covetous.” This is the same for many English words.
1.2.2.2 Etymological Definition
An etymological definition assigns a meaning to a word by revealing the word’s root or

ancestry in both its own language and other languages. That is why most ordinary
English words have ancestors either in Old or Middle English as well as are derived or
come from some other language such as Greek, Latin, or French, etc.
Examples:
The word “Democracy” is derived from the two Greek words, ’demos’ and ‘crates’,
which means people and power respectively.
The English word ‘‘License’’ is derived from the Latin verb licere, which means to be
permitted, and
The English word ‘‘Captain’’ derives from the Latin noun caput which means head.
Dear learner, if you know the etymological meanings of one word, this paves the way for
you to know (as at least guess) the meaning of many related words. For example, if one is
familiar with the etymological definition of ‘‘Polygon’’ (from the Greek words poly,
meaning many, and ganos meaning angle); one might grasp the meanings of
‘‘Polygamy’’ (from gamos, meaning marriage) and ‘‘polygraph’’ (from graphein,
meaning to write).
1.2.2.3 Operational Definition
An operational definition assigns a meaning to a word by specifying certain

experimental procedures that determine whether or not the word applies to a certain
thing. Operational definition, thus, carried out by performing the actions, operations,
activities and procedures that the word implies and when these actions, operations, and
activities performed use as its meaning.
Dear learner, an operational definition can be identified by words “if and only if” which
is equivalent to ‘necessary and sufficient condition.’
Examples:
 One substance is ‘‘Harder than’’ another if and only if one scratches the other
when the two are rubbed together.
 A solution is an ‘‘Acid’’ if and only if litmus paper turns red when dipped into it.
The above definitions are examples of operational definitions because each of these
definitions prescribes or instructs an operation to be performed. The first prescribes that
the two substances in question be rubbed together and the second instructs that the litmus
paper be placed in the solution and observed for color change.
1.2.2.4 Definition by Genus and Difference
A definition by genus and difference assigns a meaning to a term by identifying two

things: one ‘genus’ term and one or more ‘difference’ words. When these terms are
combined, they convey the meaning of the term being defined.
In logic, ‘‘genus’’ means a relatively larger class, and ‘‘species’’ means a relatively
smaller subclass or smaller of the genus. For instance, if you may speak ‘animal’ as a
genus, and ‘mammal’ as species or if you take ‘mammal’ as genus and ‘feline’ can be
species. Again, if you take ‘feline’ as genus, ‘tiger’ (which is the subclass of the class of
cat family), can be the species.
Where as the ‘‘specific difference,’’ or ‘‘difference” is the attribute or attributes that

distinguish the various species within a genus. For example, the specific difference that
distinguishes tigers from other species in the genus feline (a cat family) would include the
attributes of being large, striped, ferocious (aggressive), and so on. Therefore, these
aforementioned qualities of tiger are called the ‘specific difference’ or simply
‘difference’ of tiger. When the genus is qualified, we get the ‘species’ (that is, the word
to be defined).
Now let us construct a definition by genus and difference for the word ‘‘Tiger.’’ The first
step is to identify a genus of which tiger is the species. The required genus is feline. Next
we must identify a specific difference (attribute) that makes tiger a special form of feline.
The required difference is a large, striped ferocious. The completed definition may now
be written out: ‘‘Tiger’’ means a large, stripped and ferocious feline.
A definition by genus and difference is easy to construct. Simply select a term that is
more general than the term to be defined, and then narrow it down so that it means the
same thing as the term being defined.
Examples:
Construct a definition by ‘ genus’ and ‘difference’ for the word “ice”, “husband”,
“mother”.
Species Difference Genus

“Ice” means frozen water.
“Husband” means married man.
“Mother” means female parent.
In the following presentation I will explain about which technical definitions produce
what type of definitions. Definition by genus and difference is the most effective of the
intensional definitions for producing the five kinds of definition, namely, stipulative,
lexical, précising, theoretical, and persuasive definitions can all be constructed according
to the method of genus and difference.
Lexical definitions are typically definitions by genus and difference, but they also often
include etymological definitions. Like definitions by genus and difference, operational
definition can serve as the method for constructing stipulative, lexical, précising, and
persuasive definitions, but because of the limitations we have noted, it typically could not
be used to produce a complete lexical definition.
Synonymous definition may be used to produce only lexical definitions. It cannot be used
to produce stipulative definitions because the definiendum must have a meaning before a
synonymous definition. Synonymous definition can not also be used to construct
précising, theoretical, and persuasive definitions because the definiens of synonymous
definitions contains no more information than the definiendum. In other words, the
definiens of a synonymous definition adds nothing new to the definiendum.
? Activity 2.4
Determine whether the following definitions are demonstrative, enumerative,

definition by subclass, synonymous, etymological, operation, definitions by genus
and difference.
1. ”Sure” means certain._________________________
2. “Planet” means such as Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Saturn, Jupiter, Neptune,
Uranus, or Pluto._____________________________
3. “Star” means this  ____________________

4. “Reptile” means such as snake, crocodile, and tortoise.___________________
5. “Water vapor” is when water boils at 100oc and changes into gaseous
state._______________________________________
6. “Son” means male offspring.__________________________________
7. The word “Orthodox” is derived from the two Greek words Ortho, meaning right or
straight, and doxa, meaning belief or opinion._____________________________
1.3 Criteria for Lexical Definitions
Rule 1: A Lexical definition should match to the standards of proper grammar.

A definition should be grammatically correct. Definitions that are grammatically
incorrect create disagreements and disputes among individuals over the meaning of
terms.
Examples:
Consider the following definitions that are grammatically incorrect are as follows:
Vacation is when you don’t have to go to work or school.
Furious means if you’re angry at someone.
The corrected versions are:

‘‘Vacation’’ means a period during which activity is suspended from work or school.
‘‘Furious’’ means a condition of being angry.
You observe that technically the definiendum should be put in quotation marks or italics,
but this convention is not always followed.
Rule 2: A lexical definition should convey or communicate the essential meaning or
characteristics of the word being defined.
Although the things to which a term applied may share many distinctive qualities, not all
of them equally point its true nature.
Example:
‘‘Human being’’ means a featherless biped.
This definition fails to convey the essential meaning of ‘‘human’’ as the word is used in
ordinary English. It says nothing about the important attributes that distinguish human
beings from the other. A correct and adequate definition would be “Human being” means
“the rational animal that has the capacity to reason and to speak” and not as a featherless
biped.
Thus, a correct definition attempts to point out the attributes that are essential to the
designation of things as the members of the relevant group.
Rule 3: A lexical definition should be neither too broad nor narrow.

If a definition is too broad, the definiens includes too much; if it is too narrow, the
definiens includes too little. In other words, a good or correct definition should be
proportionate, that is, the extent of the defining word (definiens) should be equal to the
extent of word to be defined (definiendum),
A definition is too broad if the definiens applies to things to which the definiendum does
not. In a too broad definition, the definiedum is less than the definiens.
Examples:
‘‘Birds’’ means any warm-blooded animals having wings.
“Pen” means an instrument used for writing.
These two definitions are broad. In the first example, the phrase “any warm-blooded
animal having wings” would include bats, and bats are not birds. In the second example,
the phrase “an instrument used for writing “ includes things like chalk, pencil, marker,
pen, etc.
A definition is too narrow if the definiendum applies to things to which the definiens
does not. In a too narrow definition case the definiedum is greater than the definiens.
Examples:
‘‘Bird’’ means warm-blooded, feathered animal that can fly.
“Gun” means a tool used in the battle for defending the enemy.
These two definitions would be too narrow. The first definition would exclude ostriches,
which cannot fly. In the second definition the term gun is defined using a few attributes,
that is, the definiens fails it include different attribute of gun.
Rule 4: A lexical definition should avoid circularity

A circular definition presents the meaning of a word: either by using the same word with
the same meaning in the definiens,or by using grammatical variation of the same word
(the definiendum) in the definiens.
Examples:
‘‘Religious ’’ means any one engaged in religious activity.
‘‘Scientist’’ means anyone who engages in science.
These definitions are circular. They are incorrect definitions, since they cannot provide
any useful additional information to the word being defined or their definiendum
becomes visible in the definiens. In other words, their definiendums are repeated in the
other way.
A definition may be intrinsically or essentially circular. If a definition is intrinsically

circular, it is legitimate or acceptable to define it in circular way .Of the following two
examples the first is a synonymous definition, the second is a definition by genus and
difference:
Examples:
‘‘Quiet’’ means quietude.
‘‘Silence’’ means the state of being silent.
A circular definition is not a synonymous definition. Synonymous definition is a correct

definition of terms by providing a single word, which has similar meaning with the word
being defined.
Rule 5: A lexical definition should not be negative when it can be affirmative.

Of the following two definitions, the first one negative, and the second affirmative:
‘‘Concord’’ means the absence of discord.
“Concord’’ means harmony.
The first definition is one of the possibilities of defining the term concord, but the
problem is that a definition should not be negative when it can be affirmative, as in the
second case. Thus, definition should explain what a term does mean rather than what it
does not mean.
Some words, however, are intrinsically negative. For them, a negative definition is quite
appropriate. This kind of definition occurs when there is no basis for choosing between
affirmative and negative definition, but when a term can be defined positively it should
not be defined negatively.
Examples:
‘‘Bald’’ means lacking hair.
‘‘Darkness’’ means the absence of light.
“Death” means the end of life.
Rule 6: A lexical definition should not be expressed in figurative, obscure, vague, or

ambiguous language.
A definition is figurative when it involves and based on metaphors. A metaphor is a word
or a phrase used in the imaginative way. A definition is figurative when it also tends to
paint a picture (describes the thing in a particular way) instead of exposing the essential
meaning of a term. Dear learner, can you describe ‘‘architecture’’ in metaphorical way?
Can you do the same for “camel”?
Example1: If you define ‘architecture’ as frozen music, you are expressing it in

figurative language.
Example 2: If you define ‘camel’ as ship of the desert you are also expressing it in
figurative language.
A definition is obscure if its meaning is hidden as a result of defective or inappropriate

language or expression. One source of obscurity is excessively technical language.
Compare these two definitions:
‘‘Bunny’’ means a mammalian of the family Leporidae of the order Lagomorpha

whose young are born furless and blind.
‘‘Bunny’’ means a rabbit. The problem lies not with technical language as such
but with needlessly technical language. Because ‘‘bunny’’ is very much a no
technical term, no technical definition is needed.
A definition is vague if it lacks precision or if its meaning is unclear—that is, if there is
no way of telling exactly what class of things the definiens refers to.
Example:
‘‘Democracy’’ means a kind of government where the people are in control. This
definition fails to identify the people who are in control, how they exercise their
control, and what they are in control of.
A definition is ambiguous if it lends itself to more than one different interpretation.
Example:
‘‘Triangle’’ means a figure composed of three straight lines in which all the
angles are equal to 1800. Does this mean that each angle separately is equal to
1800 or that the angles taken together are equal to 1800? Either interpretation is
possible given the ambiguous meaning of ‘‘all the angles are equal to 1800.’’
Rule 7: A lexical definition should avoid affective terminology.

Affective terminology is any kind of word usage that plays upon the emotions of the
reader or listener. It includes sarcastic (language that mean the opposite meaning) and
facetious (inappropriate) language and any other kind of language that is liable to
influence attitudes. In short, affective terminology is an expression that influences others
positively or negatively.
Examples:
‘‘Communism’’ means that ‘‘brilliant’’ invention of Karl Marx and other foolish
political visionaries.
The intended meaning is the opposite of what is meant by brilliant. The objective in this
particular case is to be unpleasant to Marxist ideas and to make fun of them. In other
words, it is asserting that it is not brilliant. This is what we call a sarcastic use of
language. Dear learner, again look at the following examples:
“Ethiopia” is a country of illiterate and hungry people.

“Africans” are uncivilized and have no history.
These definitions are incorrect definitions since they influence Ethiopians and Africans
negatively. For instance, terminologies such as “illiterate, hungry” in the first definition
and “uncivilized”, have no history” in the second definition are affective expressions that
negatively influence individuals’ emotion who are in question.
Rule 8: A lexical definition should indicate the context to which the definiens
pertains.
A reference to the context is important definiendum means different meanings in the
different context.
Examples:
‘‘Strike’’ means (in baseball) a pitch at which a batter swings and misses.
‘‘Strike’’ means (in fishing) a pull and a line made by a fish in taking the bait.
In the above definitions at term “strike” has two different meanings in the different
contexts given above (baseball and fishing).
? Activity 2.5
Discuss the following activities

1. What are the reasons to establish rules for a definition?
2. List down the eight rules of lexical definition.
Summary
Terminology that conveys information is said to have cognitive meaning, and

terminology that expresses or evokes feelings is said to have emotive meaning, as well as
terminology that evokes command or direction is said to have directive meaning. Two
ways in which cognitive meanings can be defective are vagueness and ambiguity.
Vagueness involves an unclear impression of meaning, whereas ambiguity involves a
mix-up of otherwise clear meanings.
A term is a word or group of words that can serve as the subject of a statement. All terms
have intensional meaning (intension or connotation), and those terms that refer to actually
existing things also have extensional meaning (extension or denotation). The intensional
meaning of a term consists of the attributes that the term connotes, and the extensional
meaning consists of the members of the class that the term denotes. Terms that refer to
nonexistent things are said to have empty extension.
A definition is a group of words that assigns a meaning to a word or group of words. The
definiendum is the word or group of words being defined, and the definiens is the word
or group of words that does the defining.
Definitions can serve different purposes. There are different kinds of definitions.
Stipulative definitions assign a meaning to a word when it first comes into use, lexical
definitions report the meaning that a word already has within a given linguistic
community, précising definitions reduce the vagueness of a word, theoretical definitions
suggest a theory that gives a certain characterization to the entities that the term denotes,
and persuasive definitions are used to influence the attitude of people in the community
toward the things the word denotes.
The two kinds of meaning that words have, intensional and extensional, can be used as
the basis for producing definitions. Extensional definitions assign a meaning to a word by
identifying the things that the word denotes, and intensional definitions accomplish the
same purpose by identifying the attributes that the word connotes.
Among the extensional definitions, demonstrative definitions ‘‘point’’ to the things in

question, enumerative definitions name various individuals in the class, and definitions
by subclass identify subclasses of those things. Among the intensional definitions,
synonymous definitions connect the word being defined with another word that connotes
the same attributes, etymological definitions disclose the word’s ancestry, operational
definitions specify experimental procedures for determining whether the word applies to
a certain thing, and definitions by genus and difference identify a larger class of things
and then narrow it down so that it matches the class that the word refers to.
There are rules that govern the construction of lexical definitions. Such definitions should
conform to grammatical standards, convey the essential meaning of the word being
defined, be neither too broad nor too narrow, avoid circularity, avoid negative, figurative,
obscure, vague, ambiguous, and affective language, and indicate the context to which the
defininiens pertains.
 Self –Assessment Questions -2

Part I. ‘‘True’’ or ‘‘False’’ items.
.
1. The intensional meaning of a term consists of the attributes connoted by
the term.
2. The extension of a term always remains the same with the passage of time.
3. The order of increasing intension is always the same as that of decreasing
extension.
4. The definiendum is the word or term that is supposed to be defined.
5. A lexical definition reports the way a word is actually used in a language.
6. An extensional definition is a definition that assigns meaning to a term by
indicating or listing the members of the class that the definiendum
denotes.
7. Ostensive definitional technique assigns a meaning to a term being defined
verbally.
8. Cognitive function of language is a function of language which is
important for individuals to express their feelings.
9. In a synonymous definition the definiens is usually a single word.

10. Definition by genus and difference may be used to produce stipulative,
lexical, précising, theoretical, and persuasive definitions.
Part II. Matching Items

Match items of column “B” with items in column “A”
Column A Column B
1. Connotation 1. Denotation
2. Précising Definition 2. Lexical Definition
3. Dictionary definition 3. Theoretical definition
4. Stipulative definition 4. Are given for the first time
5. Theoretical picture 5. Helps to avoid vagueness of words
6. Intensional meaning
7. Definiens
Part III. Do the following questions according to the given instructions

1. Give an intensional meaning to the following terms: a. Philosopher, b. Water, c. Cat
2. Put the following term in the order of increase extension: Animal, Rational Animal,
Female, Hiwot.
3. Put the following terms in the order of decreasing intension : Mammal, Animal
Carnivore, Bobi, Dog
Part IV. Determine whether the following definitions are stipulative, lexical,
précising, theoretical, or persuasive.
1. ‘‘Blind’’ means for federal income tax purposes, either the inability to see better than
20/ 200 in the better eye with glasses or having a field of vision of 20 degrees or less.
2. “Hokey” was taken to mean the offspring of a male horse and female donkey.
3. “Justice “is a virtue in which part of the society exercises well its peculiar function.
4. “Immanent’ means existing or remaining within, that is, inherent.
5. “Tall man” means male human over 6 feet height.
CHAPTER THREE
INFORMAL FALLACIES
INTRODUCTION
This chapter focuses on the issues of informal fallacies. In fact we encounter fallacious
arguments in our day to day practices. We have read them from different written
materials and heard from speeches of different individuals. Even in our writings, our
speeches and discussions with others intentionally or unintentionally we use fallacies
arguments.
Under this chapter, five different sections are provided. The first section deals with the
meaning and the types of fallacy. The second section attempts to present about the
fallacies of relevance, and it deals with eight different types of fallacies. The third section
provides fallacies of weak induction, which contains six different fallacies. Moreover, the
fourth section is intended to present the fallacies of presumption, which holds four
different types of fallacies. The fifth section of the chapter discusses about linguistic
fallacies which contain two sub-sections, that is, fallacies of ambiguity (contain two
fallacies), and fallacies of grammatical analogy (contain two fallacies
3.1 The Concept and Classifications of Fallacies

3.1.1 The Meaning of ‘Fallacy’
In ordinary language usage, the term ‘fallacy’ refers to a mistaken or false belief.
However, from the logician point of view, the term fallacy refers to a defect in an
argument. Generally, fallacies can be committed in many ways, but usually they involve
either logical error (error in reasoning) or the creation of some illusion that makes a bad
argument appear good.
We can found fallacies in both deductive and inductive arguments. If deductive

arguments are unsound or if inductive arguments are uncogent, then they will contain
fallacies. This is because such kinds of arguments have one or more false premises or
they contain a fallacy (or both).
The causes of fallacies, among others, include: the failure to provide genuine evidences
or premises for the conclusion; the failure to provide premises that provide good support
of the premises and conclusion; the failure to address the most important or relevant
aspects of the issue the arguer arguing for and so forth.
3.1.2 The Classifications of Fallacies

Fallacies are usually divided into two groups: formal and informal. Formal fallacies are
those fallacies that arise from an error or mistake in the form or structure of an argument.
Fallacies of this kind are found only in deductive arguments that have identifiable forms
such as in categorical syllogisms, disjunctive syllogisms, and hypothetical syllogisms.
The following categorical syllogism contains a formal fallacy:
All tigers are animals. All mammals are animals. Therefore, all tigers are mammals
The above argument has the following form: Letter A, B, and C represents “tigers”,
“animals”, and “birds” ,respectively.
All A are B.
All C are B.
Therefore, all A are C.
Through mere inspection of this form, one can see that the argument is invalid. This is
because of the fact that the validity or invalidity of an argument depends upon its form.
The inspection of the form of the above argument shows that the conclusion does not
follow from the premises. As we can see from the form of the argument, the conclusion
proves false for there is no any A which is also found in C.
Informal fallacies are fallacies that can be detected only through analysis of content of
the argument. Informal fallacies are logical errors in the content of the argument but not
in the structure or form of the argument.
Example:
All factories are plants.
All plants are things that contain chlorophyll.
Therefore, all factories are things that contain chlorophyll.
This argument has the following form: Letter A, B, and C represents “factories”, “plants”
and “chlorophyll”, respectively.
All A are B.
All B are C.
Therefore, All A are C.
Since this form is valid, one might conclude that the argument itself is valid. Yet the
argument is invalid since it has true premises and false conclusion. The word “plant” is
used in two different senses. In the first premise it means a building wher something is
manufactured, and in the second it means a life form. Hence, the argument has the
following invalid form: (Remember that, two letters are used to indicate the different
meaning of the word ‘plant’).
All A are B.
All C are D.
Therefore, All A are D.
Formal fallacies are always invalid; however informal fallacies can be valid. Their
validity is not genuine and logical. Their validity stems from the psychological and
rhetoric aspect of the argument. Hence, the correctness of reasoning in informal fallacies
is only from psychological and rhetoric sense of the argument. Therefore, the effect of an
informal fallacy is to make a bad argument appear good.
The following factors are major causes of informal fallacies when the premise:
 becomes irrelevant to the conclusion(but the arguer presents it as if the premise is
relevant to the conclusion) see fallacies of relevance;
 becomes unacceptable to the claims of the conclusion (the arguer however states
the premise as if it is correct) see fallacies presumption;
 becomes insufficient to provide evidences to the conclusion(instead the arguer
states the premise having adequate evidence to the conclusion) see fallacies of
weak induction; and,
 is expressed by unclear language (the arguer state the idea with the assumption
that there is no problem of linguistic confusion) see fallacies of ambiguity and
grammatical analogy.
Informal fallacies have the following characteristics. They are frequently backed by some
motive on the part of the arguer to deceive the reader or listener; the arguer may not have
sufficient evidence to support a certain conclusion and as a result may attempt to win its
acceptance by restoring to a trick; and sometimes the trick fools even the arguer and may
mislead him or herself into thinking that he or she is presenting genuine evidence when in
fact he or she is not.
It was known that naming fallacies began in classical Greek philosophy; however,
appropriate names with Latin version began in medieval period. In this chapter, we shall
consider just twenty- two different types of informal fallacies that are classified under
five major classifications of informal fallacies. This includes: fallacies of relevance,
fallacies of weak induction, fallacies of presumption, fallacies of ambiguity, and fallacies
of grammatical analogy. Therefore, our entire discussion in this chapter would be about
these informal fallacies.
? Activity 1.1
1. Informal fallacies are more dangerous than formal fallacies. Explain why?
2. Write down five major classifications of informal fallacies?
3.2 Definition and Types of Fallacies of Relevance
Fallacies of relevance are fallacies that fail to provide relevant and acceptable premises
to their conclusion. In other words, they are arguments that provide irrelevant premises to
the conclsion. Yet the premises are relevant psychologically, so the conclusion may seem
to follow from the premises, even though it does not follow logically. In an argument that
commits a fallacy of relevance the connection between premises and conclusion is
emotional or not logical.
This section contains eight different types of informal fallacies. Namely, appeal to force,
appeal to pity, appeal to people, argument against the person, straw man, red- herring,
accident, and missing the point. Read carefully the difference among these fallacies.
1. Appeal to Force (Argumentum ad Baculum: Appeal to

the Stick)
The fallacy of appeal to force occurs whenever an arguer creates a conclusion to another
person and tells the person either implicitly or explicitly that some harm will come to him
or her if he or she does not accept the conclusion. In other words, an appeal to force
fallacy occurs whenever one irrelevantly appeals to force or threat of force to win an
argument.
This fallacy always involves a threat by the arguer to the physical or psychological well-
being of the listener or reader, who may be either a single person or a group of persons.
Obviously, such a threat is logically irrelevant to the subject matter of the conclusion, so
any argument based on such a procedure is fallacious.
In appeal to force fallacy, premises of an argument are full of threat, intimidation, scary
words, etc. while you should accept or believe conclusion as correct without providing
evidences that are logically reliable.
Thus, in this fallacy attempt is made to persuade others of one’s point of view by using
threat of force, or psychological intimidation in any form, indicating that some kind of
unfortunate consequence will occur upon those who challenge to disagree with the idea
presented in the argument.
Examples:
1. Child to playmate: ‘‘Meet ETV’’ is the best show on ETV; and if you do not believe
it, I am going to call my big brother over here and he is going to beat you up.
2. Anyone who believes the government has exceeded its proper authority under the
constitution will be subjected to severe harassment by the provincial police. Therefore,
the government has not exceeded its authority.
3. A teacher to his student: Aristotle has the only correct philosophical view on this
matter. If you do not think so, wait to see what mark I give you on the final exam.
These three arguments fail to provide logical evidence to the truth of their conclusion.
Instead they provide a kind of harm or threat as a reason to accept their conclusion. Thus,
the first two examples involve a physical threat whereas the last example a psychological
threat.
2. Appeal to Pity (Argumentum ad Misericordium)
The appeal to pity fallacy occurs when an arguer attempts to support a conclusion by
simply evoking pity from the reader or listener in an effort to get him or her to accept the
conclusion. Here, the pity does not have any logical connection or relevance to the
conclusion. But it is psychologically relevant for the conclusion as the arguer can usually
succeed in getting a pitting heart from his audience.
The appeal to pity is quite common and frequently appears in schools between instructors
and students; court rooms between judges and defendants and their attorneys; streets
between traffic Police and illegal driver; offices between employer and vacancy
candidates; and the likes.
Examples:
1. A student to his instructor: Professor, this paper deserves at least a ‘B’ grade. I
stayed up all the night working on it. And if I do not get a ‘B’, I will be on academic
probation.
The conclusion of this argument is “this paper deserves at least a ‘B’ grade.” And the
student tries to support his conclusion using pitiable ideas such as ‘I stayed up all the
night ‘and ‘I will be in academic probation’. These evidences are not logically relevant to
the conclusion but it is psychologically relevant. In other words, the information the
arguer has given might seem relevant and might even get the audience to consider the
conclusion, but the information is not logically relevant, and so the argument is
fallacious.
2. Your honor, it is true that I killed my parents. I fully admit that I murdered them in
cold blood. But I should get a light sentence. After all, I am an orphan.
3. Appeal to People (Argumentum ad Populum )
The appeal to the people uses these desires to get the reader or listener to accept a
conclusion. In other words, the appeal to people occurs when the arguer attempts to
persuade the reader or listener about a certain issue on the ground that most people
approve it or disapprove the issue being in question. In short, the appeal to people fallacy
consist arguments with language that is calculated to excite enthusiasm, excitement,
anger, or hate.
Two approaches are involved in appeal to people fallacy, namely, the direct approach and
the other is the indirect approach to ad populum fallacy
The direct approach occurs when an arguer, addressing a large group of people, excites
the emotions and enthusiasm of the crowd to win the acceptance for his/her conclusion.
The objective is to arouse a kind of mob mentality. This strategy is usually used by
propagandists, demagogues, preachers, advertisement workers and so forth. As we all
know, love of country is an admirable emotion, and this approach of the appeal to people
consist in the handling of one’s audience by appealing inappropriately to that love.
In the indirect approach the arguer directs his or her appeal not to the crowd as a whole
but, to some or more individuals separately, focusing up on some aspect of their
relationship to the crowd. The heaviest reliance on this approach in particular is to be
found in advertising industry where the products advertised are often associated with
things that we like: luxury, success, riches, sex and so on. The men associated with the
advertisement are also usually beautiful or handsome, famous, clever, etc. There are three
varieties of the indirect approach. These are appeal to bandwagon, appeal to vanity, and
appeal to snobbery.
A. Appeal to Bandwagon
The bandwagon argument emphasizes that the majority choice is a correct one and
advises or informs audiences to join it. In addition, it is a fallacy in which a threat of
rejection by one’s peer pressure is substituted for evidence in an argument. This kind of
reasoning is fallacious because peer pressure urges the acceptance of a claim on the
ground of the approval of friends or associates.
Examples:
1. Chewing chat can not be all wrong because 70% of Hawassa university students
see nothing wrong with it.
2. A film is good because there are long lines of people waiting to see it.
All these arguments suggest that the majority of people believe or do the products that are
indicated in two instances above. However, they tell us nothing more than what large
number of people does or believes. It tells us nothing about the quality of a thing or the
truth of the idea. The idea can be believed by everyone and yet not be true. So, it is
fallacious. Consider again the following example.
3. Fiseha: “Taye, I know you think that 2 + 2 =4 but we do not accept that sort of
thing in our group.
Taye: “I was just joking; of course I do not believe that.”
It is clear that the pressure from Taye’s group has no bearing on the truth of the claim that
2 +2 = 4. The notion is that you will be excluded or left out of the group if you do not
accept the views of the group or peers. It should be noted that loyalty to a group and the
need to belong can give people very strong reasons to agree to the views and positions of
those groups. However, this feeling of loyalty or the need to belong simply does not
constitute evidence for a claim.
B. Appeal to Vanity
Appeal to vanity associates the product with certain celebrities such as artists, athletes,
footballers, respected leaders, etc. and informs the audiences that if you buy and use the
item you also will be admired.
Examples:
1. “Who is going to wear this new fashion T-shirt worn by the famous artist
Gosaye for the new Ethiopian Millennium?”
2. “Who is going to buy this new fashion Shoes, a shoe used by the famous
Haile G/ Sellassie in the London Marathon.”
All the above arguments have said that if others use the product, they will be admired and
pursued because they bought a product which is used by celebrities. In the above
examples T- shirt and shoe are associated with the famous persons Gosaye and Haile and
if others managed to buy these products they will be admired like these two artists.
C. Appeal to Snobbery
The appeal to snobbery is an appeal to the desire to be regarded as superior to others.
The fallacy of appeal to snobbery is occurred when an arguer associates a product with a
selected few persons (distinguished person) that have an exaggerated social position,
health and some other qualities.
Examples:
1. This is not for ordinary people. If you want to be from among the selected
few dignitaries buy the shoe.
2. Look at the mark of this cell phone-it is Nokia and Nokia is not for
everyone. Buy Nokia and join the selected few.
3. First of all, did you see the mark of the shoe-its Clark? You should know
that Clark is not for the ordinary citizens buy Clark and join with the
dignitaries.
4. Argument Against the Person (Argumentum ad Hominem)
This fallacy always involves two arguers. One of them advances a certain argument, and
the other then responds by directing his or her attention not to the first person’s argument
but to the first person himself or herself. Or, one can commit this fallacy if someone
refuses to consider his or her opponent’s argument on its merit alone, and instead attacks
his or her opponent on the ground of his or her belief, motive, religion, character,
practice, and soon. When this occurs, the second person is said to commit an argument
against the person. The argument against the person occurs in three forms: the ad
hominem abusive, the ad hominem circumstantial, and the tu quoque.
A. Ad hominem abusive
In the ad hominem abusive, the second person responds to the first person’s argument by
verbally abusing the first person. The second person discredits the character of the
opponent; deny his or her intelligence or reasonableness, and so on. The person can be
abused for being untidy, ugly, smoker, gambler, conservative, sick, member of this or
that political party, and etc. But the character of the individual is logically irrelevant to
the truth or falsehood of what that person says, or to the correctness or incorrectness of
that person’s reasoning.
Examples:
1. How a stingy person can tell us about charity. Hence, let us stop
discussing about these issue raised by Tamirat.
2. Her foreign policy plans are idiotic. Don not you know that she got bad
grades in history when she was at university?
These arguments commit the fallacy ad hominem abusive because they are directed to
attack or abuse the person who made the claim instead of attacking the claim or argument
itself. Take the second example; even if it is the case that this particular woman did
poorly in history class while she was studying at university, her foreign policy plans may
be fine. At any rate, the plans should be considered on their own merits. Therefore, it
commits fallacy.
B. Ad hominem circumstantial
The ad hominem circumstantial begins the same way as the ad hominem abusive, but
instead of focusing on verbal abuse on his or her opponent, the respondent attempts to
discredit the opponent’s argument by mentioning to certain circumstances that affect the
opponent. This fallacy, in some case, involves substituting an attack on person’s
circumstances such as the person’s religion, political affiliation, ethnic background,
position, etc for evidences in an argument.
This fallacy since it has the form “of course Mr. X argues this way; just look at the
circumstance that affects him.” it is done by not attacking the person, but the person’s
circumstance.
Examples:
1. Dr. Tewodros advocates a policy of increasing financial spending for
higher education. But that is not innocent advocacy, for the reason
that he is a college professor and would benefit financially from such a
policy.
2. I think that we should reject what Father Mathewos has to say about
those ethnical issues of abortion because he is a catholic priest. After
all, Father Mathewos is required to hold such view.
C. Tu quoque (‘‘you too’’): it is pronounced as “too kwo_kway”
The tu quoque (you too) fallacy begins the same way as the other two varieties of the ad
hominem argument, except that the second arguer attempts to make the first appear to be
hypocritical or arguing in bad faith. “You also or you do it, too” implies that person’s
action are not consistent (contradicts) with that for which he or she is arguing.
In this you too fallacy, the second arguer usually accomplishes this by citing features in
the life or behavior of the first arguer that conflict with the latter’s conclusion. In effect,
the second arguer says, ‘‘How dare you argue that I should stop doing X; why, you do (or
have done) X yourself.’’
Examples:
1. Child to parent: Your argument that I should stop stealing candy from the
corner store is no good. You told me yourself just a week ago that you, too,
stole candy when you were a kid.
Obviously, whether the parent stole candy is irrelevant to whether the parent’s premises
support the conclusion that the child should not steal candy. This is committed when one
of the arguers (the second arguer) rejects the other arguer (the first arguer) opinion by
attacking or abusing him or herself (their personality, character, motives, and
qualification) other than their argument.
2. My doctor told me to lose some weight. Why should I listen to a doctor who is
himself overweight?
Determining what kind of person someone is includes determining whether that person is
trustworthy. Thus personal comments are often relevant in evaluating whether a person’s
proclamations or statements, unsupported by evidence, warrant our belief. Examples of
such statements include promises to do something, testimony given by a witness, and
testimonials in support of a product or service. Here is an example of an argument that
discredits a witness:
Geremew has testified that he saw Belay set fir to the building. But Geremew was
recently convicted on ten counts of perjury, and he hates Belay with a passion and
would love to see him sent to jail. Therefore, you should not believe Geremew’s
testimony.
This argument commits no fallacy. The conclusion is not that you should reject
Geremew’s’ argument but rather that you should reject his testimony. Testimony is not
argument, and the fact that the witness is a known liar and has a motive to lie now is
relevant to whether we should believe him. Furthermore, note that the conclusion is not
that Geremew’s statement is literally false but rather that we should not believe the
statement.
It is quite possible that Geremew really did see Belay set fire to the building and that
Geremew’s statement to that effect is true. But if our only reason for believing this
statement is the mere fact that Mickey has made it, then given the circumstances, we are
not justified in that belief. Personal factors are never relevant to truth and false.
In general, ad hominum arguments are effective due to the following reasons:
 Close connection between truth and believability.
 They engaged the emotion of readers and listeners and their by motive them to
transfer their negative feelings about the arguer on the argument.
5. Fallacy of Accident
It is committed when a general rule is applied to a specific case that was not intended to
cover. In this fallacy, the general truth, law or principle is either applied to particular
instance whose circumstance by accident or to a situation to which it cannot be applied.
The general rule is cited in the premises and then wrongly applied to the specific case
mentioned in the conclusion. Because of the “accidental’ features of the specific case, the
general rule does not fit or is misplaced.
Examples:
1. Freedom of speech is a constitutionally guaranteed right. Therefore, Abebe
should not be arrested for his speech that inspired the riot last week.
2. Kidist! All good students obey the order of their teachers. Hence, you should
not refuse when your teacher invites you for bed.
6. Straw Man Fallacy
The straw man fallacy is committed when an arguer distorts an opponent’s argument for
the purpose of more easily attacking it, demolishes the distorted argument, and then
concludes that the opponent’s real argument has been demolished. By so doing, the
arguer is said to have set up a straw man and knocked it down, only to conclude that the
real man (opposing argument) has been knocked down as well. In short, this fallacy
occurs when the arguer attack misrepresentation of the opponent’s view.
Example:
1. Mengesha: It would be a good idea to ban advertising beer and wine on
radio and television. These advertisements encourage teenagers to drink,
often with disastrous consequences.
Tsegaye: You cannot get people to give up drinking; they have been doing
it for thousands of years.
The straw man fallacy has three essential components. The first is that there is a pair of
arguers taking part in a dialogue. The second component is that each is arguing with the
other. The third is that each is advocating a position opposed to that of the other party. In
the above example, you can observe that Tsegaye attempts to oppose Mengasha’s idea
but with a distorted form.
2. Mary: We must not betray the principles of justice and democracy.

Suspected terrorists must be granted basic rights as well as legal
representation and access to a fair court.
Tom: Mary is advocating the release of known terrorists. We cannot afford

to allow our enemies to move freely in our society.
7. The Fallacy of Missing the Point (Ignoratio Elenchii)

This fallacy occurs when the premise of an argument support one particular conclusion.
In other words, it occurs when the premise of an argument support one particular
conclusion, but then a different conclusion, often vaguely related to the correct
conclusion is drawn.
Examples:
1. Crimes of theft and robbery have been increasing at an alarming rate lately.
The conclusion is obvious: We must reinstate death penalty immediately.
The premise of this argument supports several conclusions. At least two correct
conclusions are implied by the premises of the argument .Either “we should provide
increased police protection in the invulnerable neighborhoods” or “we should initiate
programs to eliminate the cause of the crimes.” The punishment for theft and robbery
should be very serious. But it does not support the claim that the death penalty, therefore,
reinstating the death penalty is not a logical conclusion at all.
2. Hawassa University has a lot of problems. Students’ services and facilities are
inadequate. Many of the instructors are inexperienced. It follows that, the
university should be entirely closed.
The conclusion of the example misses logical implication from the premise. The logical
conclusion for the premise is not closing the university but it could have been stated in
other ways like: providing additional facilities for students, getting experienced
instructors from other countries, developing the capacity of the administration of the
university, and the like.
In general, the fallacy of missing the point is called ignoratio elenchi which means
‘‘ignorance of the proof.’’ This means the arguer is ignorant of the logical implications
of his or her own premises and, as a result, draws a conclusion that misses the point
entirely
8. Red-Herring (Off the Truck Fallacy)
The red herring fallacy is committed when the arguer diverts the attention of the reader
or listener by changing the subject to a different but sometimes subtly related one. It
usually appears in the form of appeal to humor, ridicule or appeal to thought provoking
questions for the purpose of diverting the attention of the audiences, which is logically
irrelevant to the subject, issue or topic of the debate raised first.
Examples:
1. The minister’s new education policy appreciative. Bezawit: Did you hear
about his first son? He is going to marry an orphanage girl. Before the
minister is talking about in practical education policy; he should give a lesson
for his son to get a good wife. So, his new education policy is not
appreciative.
This argument commits the fallacy of red-herring because the arguer diverts the subject
or topic of the argument for “new education policy appreciative” to marry an orphanage
girl and get a good wife_ a topic which is irrelevance to the topic or the subject under
discussion.
2. Interviewer: Your opponent has argued for immigration reform. Do you

agree with her position?
Candidate: I think the more important question confronting this great nation
is the question of terrorism. Let me tell you how I plan to defeat it.
?. Activity 3.2
1. Describe objective of appeal to people.
2. List forms of argument against the person.
3. Mention threats that involve in appeal to force.
4. Write various types of fallacies of relevance.
3.3 Fallacies of Weak Induction Definition and Types
Usually fallacies of weak induction appear in inductive arguments and contain appeal to
authority, argument based on prediction, sign, analogy, inductive generalization, and
causal inference. If the arguer made a kind of mistakes or errors in these forms of
argumentation, the fallacies of weak induction are committed.
In pervious section, we have said that fallacies of relevance involve premises that are
irrelevant to their conclusion but fallacies of weak induction involve that are in some
degree relevant to their conclusion but do not provide sufficient support for them. Hence,
fallacies of weak induction involve insufficient evidence because their premises provide
shred or little evidence to the conclusion. They are evaluated with respect to the degree of
probability that they offer for their conclusion. However, like fallacies of relevance, the
fallacies of weak induction involve emotional grounds for believing the conclusion
1. Appeal to Unqualified Authority (Argumentum ad Verecundiam)

The appeal to unqualified authority is also called argumentum ad verecundiam in Latin.
This fallacy commits because of the person who presents argument which has not a
legitimate authority on the subject or the issue which he or she is arguing about. More
specifically, when an individual we relied on to provide the information that we seek
might be unreliable due to the problems of lack of expertise in a certain profession, bias
or prejudice, a motive to lie, lack of the requisite ability to perceive or recall, and
personality problem to disseminate wrong information.
Examples:
1. It is always better to drink white wine with fish. Tony Blair says so, he must
know what he is talking about, and he is the prime minister.
In this example, you can see the following structure in the argument:
Tony Blair says that it is always better to drink white wine with fish.
Tony Blair is Prime Minister.
If some one is prime minister, then they must always be knowledge about all the
Subjects they talk about.
Therefore, it is always better to drink white wine with fish.
2. Tom Jones, a respected actor who plays the brilliant cardiologist Dr. John
Smith in the film Emergency, recommends Drug X for improving the overall
health of the heart.
Therefore, it would be wise to take Drug X.
2. Appeal to Ignorance (Argumentum ad Ignoratio)
The fallacy of appeal to ignorance, also called argumentum ad ignoratio in Latin, and it
implies that lack of evidence or proof for something is used to support the truth of the
conclusion. This fallacy is committed when the premises of an argument state that
nothing has been proved one way or the other about some thing due to lack of evidence
rather than by knowledge or tangible information.
There are two ways for appeal to ignorance fallacy to be committed: arguing that some
thing is true because no one has proved to be false, and arguing that some thing is false
because no one has proved to be true.
Examples:
1. Nobody has ever proved to me there’s a God, so I know there is no God.

2. After centuries of trying no one has been able to prove that God does not exist.
Therefore, God exists.
The premises of the above arguments tell us nothing about the existence of God.
Therefore, rather concluding that God exists or does not exist based on the mere ground
that no one has proved or disproved it, the best way we have to do is simply to suspend
our judgment about things which are incapable of being proved. If we judge either way,
our judgment would be fallacies.
Appeal to ignorance has two exceptions:

1. The first stems from the fact that if qualified researchers investigate a certain
phenomenon within their range of expertise and fail to turn up any evidence
that the phenomenon exists, this fruitless search by itself constitutes positive
evidence about the question. Consider, for example, the following argument:
Teams of scientists attempted over a number of decades to detect the existence of

the luminiferous aether, and all failed to do so. Therefore, the luminiferous aether
does not exist.
The premises of this argument are true. Given the circumstances, it is likely that the
scientists in question would have detected the aether if in fact it did exist. Since they did
not detect it, it probably does not exist. Thus, we can say that the above argument is
inductively strong (but not deductively valid).
It is not always necessary, however, that the investigators have special qualifications. The
kinds of qualifications needed depend on the situation. Sometimes the mere ability to see
and report what one sees is sufficient.
Example: No one has ever seen Mr. Samuel drink a glass of wine, beer, or any other
alcoholic beverage. Probably Mr. Samuel is a nondrinker.
Because it is highly probable that if Mr.Samuel was a drinker, somebody would have
seen him drinking, this argument is inductively strong. No special qualifications are
needed to be able to see someone take a drink.
2. The second exception to the appeal to ignorance relates to courtroom

procedure. In the United States and Canada, among other countries, a person
is presumed innocent until proven guilty. If the prosecutor in a criminal trial
fails to prove the guilt of the defendant beyond reasonable doubt, counsel for
the defense may justifiably argue that his or her client is not guilty.
Example: Members of the jury, you have heard the prosecution present its case against
the defendant. Nothing, however, has been proved beyond a reasonable doubt.
Therefore, under the law, the defendant is not guilty. This argument commits no fallacy
because ‘‘not guilty’’ means, in the legal sense, that guilt beyond a reasonable doubt has
not been proved. The defendant may indeed have committed the crime of which he or she
is accused, but if the prosecutor fails to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, the
defendant is considered ‘‘not guilty.’’
3. Hasty Generalization (Converse Accident)
The fallacy of hasty generalization is just the opposite of accident. This fallacy is
committed whenever one arrives to a conclusion, on the basis of very little evidence or
whereby generalization is asserted or concluded based on: very limited information,
inadequate information, and unrepresentative sample.
Examples:
1. I have met two persons in Hawassa town so far, and they were both nice to
me. So, all people I will meet in Hawassa will be nice to me.
2. Freshman Governance and Development Studies students of 2009 are one –

hundred sixty in number. Blood is taken out of three students and upon
examination of all, three students are found to have their blood type “B”.
Therefore, on the basis of this, I conclude that the rest of the students will also
have the same blood type, which is “B”.
In the first example, the conclusion of the argument about a whole people is drawn from
the premise that mentions only two instances, but these small typical samples are not
sufficient to make a general conclusion. In example two, three students are too small to
represent all one –hundred sixty students at large to justify the conclusion. So, both
arguments commit hasty generalization.
The mere fact that a sample may be small, however, does not necessarily mean that it is
atypical. On the other hand, the mere fact that a sample may be large does not guarantee
that it is typical. In the case of small samples, various factors may intervene that render
such a sample typical of the larger group.
Examples:
1. Ten milligrams of substance Z was fed to four mice and within two minutes all
four went into shock and died. Probably substance Z, in this amount, is fatal to the
average mouse.
2. On three separate occasions I drank a bottle of Meta beer and found it flat and
bitter. Probably I would find every bottle of Meta beer flat and bitter.
Neither of these arguments commits the fallacy of hasty generalization because in neither
case is there any likelihood that the sample is atypical of the group. In the first argument
the fact that the mice died in only two minutes suggests the existence of a causal
connection between eating substance Z and death. If there is such a connection, it would
hold for other mice as well. In the second example the fact that the taste of beer typically
remains constant from bottle to bottle causes the argument to be strong, even though only
three bottles were sampled.
Hasty generalization is also called converse accident, because it proceeds from particular
to general (the premises deal with a particular issue, but the conclusion generalizes that
something is true or false merely based on the knowledge of the particular issue-the
sample) while accident proceeds from the general to the particular (the premises deal
with a general issues, but the conclusion deals with something particular),
4. The Fallacy of False Cause
The fallacy of false cause commits when the link between premises and conclusion
depends on some imagined causal connection that probably does not exist. In this fallacy,
when the arguer in his or her argument oversimplified the cause of a certain event, makes
a kind of confusion between the cause and effect, or identifies a certain event as the cause
of another event merely on the ground that the first event, which the arguer identifies as a
cause, occurs before the new action.
There are three varieties of false cause fallacy, namely, Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc
Fallacy, Non Causa pro Causa Fallacy, and Oversimplified cause.
A. Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc Fallacy (Post Hoc Fallacy)
The Latin expression Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc Fallacy traditionally refers to “after
this, therefore because of this, or after this, therefore the consequence of this”. Sometimes
this fallacy is called Post Hoc Fallacy. The post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy occurs
when it is concluded that one event causes another simply because the proposed cause
occurred before the proposed effect.
Post hoc fallacy presupposes just because one event precedes another event. The first
event causes the second. That is event Y is caused by event X because event “Y” follows
event “X”, or X precedes Y in time. This is way of reasoning has the following form:
event “X” occurs before event “Y”; therefore, event “X” is the cause for event “Y”.
Examples:
1. During the last two months, the football team has worn red ribbons in their
hairs, and the team was defeated. Therefore, to prevent defeats in the
future, the team should get rid of those red ribbons.
2. Every time I wash the car, it starts to rain shortly afterwards. Therefore,
my car-washing activities are causing outbursts of precipitation in the
clouds.
The above two arguments commit the post hoc fallacy. This is because of the fact that the
arguer wrongly thinks those actions which come before another action in time as a cause
for the next event. The first argument, for instance, considers the wearing of red ribbons
in their hairs as a cause for the defeating of the football team. The second argument also
considers the car-washing activity as the cause for outburst of precipitation in the clouds.
B. Non Causa Pro Causa Fallacy

The Latin phrase Non causa pro causa fallacy has been traditionally interpreted as “not
the cause for the cause”. This variety is committed when what is taken to be the cause of
something is not really the cause at all and the mistake is based on something other than
mere temporal succession.
In general, this fallacy considers something as the cause of an effect when in reality it is
not; and on the other hand when a kind of confusion occurs between the causes and effect
of a certain event.
Examples:
1. There are more churches in Ethiopia today than ever before, and more HIV
victims than ever before, so, to eliminate the pandemic we must abolish the
churches.
2. Successful business executives are paid salaries in excess of $5,000.

Therefore, the best way to ensure that Ferguson will become a successful
executive is to raise his salary to at least $5,000.
These two arguments commit non causa pro causa fallacy. In the first argument, the
increase in churches is only correlated with the increase in the HIV pandemic. And
obviously, the simple fact that one event is correlated with another is not sufficient reason
to consider that one caused the other. In the second argument, increases in salary causes
success as an executive- the arguer fails to leave room for other possible causes, so, the
arguer mistakes the cause for the effect.
C. Over Simplified Cause Fallacy
This variety of false cause fallacy is more probably committed than the other two
varieties. The Over simplified cause fallacy occurs when a large number of causes are
responsible for an effect, but the arguer selects just one of these causes and represents it
as if it is the sole cause of the event.
Example:
1. The quality of education in our grade schools and high schools has been
declining for years. Clearly our teachers just are not doing their jobs these
days.
The argument of the above example commits over simplified cause fallacy. For the
reason that in this argument the cause for the declining of the quality of education is not
limited to one single cause though there are many factors that can be considered as the
cause for this effect. For instance, to mention some of factors that are responsible for the
decline quality of education are: lack of discipline in the home; parental un-involvement;
and, drug use by students, and etc
5. The Fallacy of Slippery Slope
The fallacy of slippery slope occurs when we assume that series of events happen, after
one other event as a result of the first cause. This fallacy is occurred when a certain
argument rests on chains of events and the arguer fails to provide sufficient reasons why
this chain of events committed. In other words, it is committed when one affirms an
unjustifiable “chain reaction” of causes which, if it is allowed to continue leads inevitably
to disaster.
Example:
I know the impetus for the whole tragedy in her life. She was jobless and has no other
choice but to join bar ladies. While she was working in bars, she becomes infected
with HIV/AIDS. Then, she becomes bedridden patient and in the lost her life. All
these misfortune fall up on her due to her dismissal from the university in the first
semesters of the first year.
The arguer, in the example, associated the death of a girl with her failure in the
national examination, without considering other factors that lead her to join bar
ladies, such as poverty, the problem of parents that could advice her to head a good
life even after she failed to pass national examination, and so on.
6. The Fallacy of Weak Analogy
The fallacy of weak analogy is an inductive argument in which the conclusion depends
on the existence of analogy, or similarities between two things. Argument based on
analogy would be strong when either property cited, as relevant between two or more
things, or when relevant differences between the objects are taken into consideration.
When these requirements are failed, the inductive argument becomes weak.
The fallacy of weak analogy is committed when important differences between two
things or more things compared are not real similar in the relevant respects or when the
analogy is not strong enough to support the conclusion. This fallacy has the following
form:
Object “A” has attributes a, b, c, and z.
Object “B” has attributes a, b, c.
Therefore, object B probably has attributes z also.
Examples:
1. Kebede’s new car is bright blue in color and has leather upholstery and
gets excellent gas mileage. Taye’s new car is also bright blue in color
and has leather upholstery. Therefore, it probably gets excellent gas
mileage, too.
2. I do not see what all the argument is about guns. Of course gun
ownership should not be prohibited. You can kill someone with a cricket
bat, but no one proposes to ban ownership of cricket bats.
These arguments commit the fallacy of weak analogy. In the first argument, the color of a
car and the choice of upholstery have nothing to do with gasoline consumption. In the
second example whereas you can see the following structure:
 Guns are like cricket bats in that both can be used to kill people.
 Whenever an object “X” is similar to an object “y” in one respect, it is similar in
all -respects
 Objects that are similar to each other in all respects should be treated identically
 We would not ban ownership of cricket bats
 Therefore, we should not ban ownership of guns.
Dear learner, look at also the following examples which elaborate exceptional cases.
The flow of electricity through a wire is similar to the flow of water through a
pipe. Obviously a large-diameter pipe will carry a greater flow of water than a
pipe of small diameter. Therefore, a large-diameter wire should carry a greater
flow of electricity than a small-diameter wire.
The flow of electricity through a wire is similar to the flow of water through a
pipe. When water runs downhill through a pipe, the pressure at the bottom of the
hill is greater than it is at the top. Thus, when electricity flows downhill through a
wire, the voltage should be greater at the bottom of the hill than at the top.
The first argument is good and the second is fallacious. Both arguments depend on the
similarity between water molecules flowing through a pipe and electrons flowing through
a wire. In both cases there is a systematic relation between the diameter of the pipe/wire
and the amount of flow. In the first argument this systematic relation provides a strong
link between premises and conclusion, and so the argument is a good one. But in the
second argument a causal connection exists between difference in elevation and increase
in pressure that holds for water but not for electricity. Water molecules flowing through a
pipe are affected by gravity, but electrons flowing through a wire are not. Thus, the
second argument is fallacious.
? Activity 3.3

1. What is the basic cause for the fallacy of weak induction?
2. Write at least six informal fallacies that are considered as fallacies of weak induction?
3.4 Fallacies of Presumption: Definition and Types
The fallacies of presumption include four different types of fallacies, namely: begging the
question, complex question, false dichotomy, and suppressed evidence. The fallacies of
presumption arise not because the premises are not irrelevant to the conclusion or
provided insufficient reason for believing the conclusion. These fallacies committed
when the arguer provides an argument that has premises which try to presume what they
purport to prove.
The fallacies of presumption frequently have tricky and confusing phraseologies for the
purpose of concealing or hiding the wrong ideas stated in the premise, even though the
ideas stated in the premises are not supported by logical evidence or proof, the arguer
invites readers or listeners to accept his or her argument as if it does not need proof or
evidence. Therefore, when the fallacy contains tricky and confusing expressions for the
purpose of concealing the wrong assumption stated in the premise is called presumption
fallacy.
1. Begging the Question Fallacy (Petito Principii)
The fallacy of begging the question occurs when an arguer uses some form of
phraseology that tends to conceal the questionably true character of a key premise. To
make it clear, this fallacy is committed when the arguer, without providing real evidence,
asks the readers or listeners to simply accept the conclusion of his or her argument. Some
times this argument is known as circular reasoning since the argument depends upon
premises that states the same thing as the conclusion.
Consequently, the arguments into have premises claiming to prove the truth of the
conclusion. In an argument that commits the fallacy of begging the question, it is the
conclusion (with the other premises) that claims to prove the questionable character of
key premises that is why the fallacy is otherwise called as the circular reasoning.
Examples:
1. I believe the prime minister is telling the truth since he says he is telling the truth.
2. Capital punishment is justified for crimes of murder and kidnapping because it is

quite legitimate and appropriate that some one be put to death for having
committed such hateful and inhuman acts.
These examples commit the fallacy of begging the question. In each example, the
premise and the conclusion are worded differently but say the same thing. The premise in
each case is relevant to the conclusion, but the ideas stated in the premise (which are
repeated in the conclusion) are questionable. In each of the examples, proof is not given
but the arguer begs the listener or reader to accept it as it is by stating the conclusion
differently (using synonym words).
When we look at the first argument, it ignores an important premise which is needed to
make the argument acceptable. In the argument, proof is not given on the truth of the
prime minister’s speech. Even though the arguer does not give proof, he or she begs us to
accept it as true as if it does not need proof.
On the other hand, in the second argument, the arguer has really said the same thing twice
to say that capital punishment is “justified” means the same thing as to say that it is
“legitimate” and “appropriate” because premise and conclusion means the same thing.
But the arguer fails to give as real reasons why capital punishment is justified for the
indicated crimes.
2. The fallacy of Complex or Loaded Question
Dear distance leaner, recall that in chapter one of the first module you have learned that
questions are not either statements or arguments. Questions become fallacies when only
they are dealt with their answers. The question is used as a premise and the response to it
as a conclusion. This happens when the conclusion (that is, answer) is supported by
confusing and tricky questions (that is, premises). This fallacy is committed when a
single question that is really two or more questions is asked and a single answer is then
applied to both questions.
Examples:
1. Have you stopped cheating on exams?
Let us suppose the respondent answers ‘‘Yes’’ to the question. The following
argument comes out:
You were asked whether you have stopped cheating on exams. You answered ‘‘Yes’’ to
the question. Therefore, it follows that you have cheated in the past. On the other hand,
let us suppose that the respondent answers ‘‘No’’ to the question. And we then have the
following arguments: You were asked whether you have stopped cheating on exams. You
answered ‘‘No.’’ Therefore, you continue to cheat.
Obviously, the above question is really two questions: Did you cheat on exams in the
past? If you did cheat in the past, have you stopped now?
Therefore, this argument commits the fallacy of complex question. Because the arguer in
his argument gives two different questions as if they are one. You can also look the same
error in the following argument.
2. [Reporter's question] Mr. President: Are you going to continue your policy
of wasting taxpayer’s money on missile defense?
The fallacy of complex question should be distinguished from another kind of question
known in law as a leading question. A leading question is one in which the answer is in
some way suggested in the question. Whether or not a question is a leading one is
important in the direct examination of a witness by counsel.
Examples:
Tell us, on April 9, did you see the defendant shoot the deceased? (leading question)
Tell us, what did you see on April 9? (straight question)
Leading questions differ from complex questions in that they involve no logical fallacies;
that is, they do not attempt to trick the respondent into admitting something he or she
does not want to admit. To distinguish the two, however, it is sometimes necessary to
know whether prior questions have been asked.
Here are some more additional examples of complex questions:
1. Are you going to be a good little boy and eat your hamburger?
2. Is George Hendrix still smoking marijuana?
3. How long must I put up with your snotty behavior?
4. When are you going to stop talking nonsense?
3. The Fallacy of False Dichotomy
The fallacy of false dichotomy can be also known as “false bifurcation”, false dilemma,
black and white thinking, and “either…or…fallacy”. This fallacy is committed when the
premise of an argument is an either… or… statement or a disjunctive statement that
presents two alternatives as if they were jointly exhaustive (as if no third alternative was
possible).
To make more precise, the fallacy of false dichotomy is occurred when a person provides
two alternatives, which are false, as the only option in the argument and then eliminates
one alternative and it seems that we are left with only one option. The one the arguer
wanted to choose. But, there are many different alternatives that the arguer fails to
provide.
Example:
Well, it is time for a decision. Will you contribute $10 to our environmental fund,
or are you on the side of environmental destruction?
The argument allows us only two options. You should contribute $10 to the fund or you
are in favor of environmental destruction. Therefore, this argument commits the fallacy
of dichotomy. Because, on the one hand, the two options are not exhaustive, there are
many alternatives that the arguer fails to provide. For instance, there seems to other
possibilities such as contributing less than $10 or contributing nothing but supporting the
environmental protection by other means.
The fallacious nature of false dilemma lies in the attempt by the arguer to mislead the
reader or listener into thinking that the disjunctive premise jointly exhaustive alternatives,
and is therefore true by necessity.
4. The Fallacy of Suppressed Evidence
The fallacy of suppressed evidence is committed when the inductive argument ignores
some important piece of evidences and entails an extremely different conclusion. In such
argument, the arguer intentionally or unintentionally suppresses or omits important

evidence that fails to support his or her position and emphasizes on some other reasons
that are not such important to the conclusion of the argument.
Example:
Hawassa University is the best university in Ethiopia; because it has very fat and tall
teachers, finest buildings and a number of students.
The key evidences omitted in the example such as the organization of the university, the
qualification and experience of instructors, equipment available for instruction, student
services, and the likes. The argument of the above example de-emphasizing these
important cases but the argument consists of insignificant evidences for determining the
standard of a good university. Thus, this argument commits the fallacy of suppressed
evidence.
? Activity 3.4
Do the following activity

1. Name the for types fallacies of presumption?
Linguistic Fallacies
Linguistic fallacies are the result of a misuse of language, such as incorrect use of
words, grammatical lack of clarity, vagueness and other linguistic impressions. There are
two types of linguistic fallacies, namely; fallacies of ambiguity and fallacies of
3.5.1 Fallacies of Ambiguity
Fallacies of ambiguity arise from the occurrence of some form of ambiguity in either the
premises or the conclusion (or both). They are committed when misleading or wrong
conclusion of an argument is drawn from ambiguous words or sentences. The fallacies of

ambiguity include two types of fallacies: equivocation and amphiboly.
A. Equivocation Fallacy
The fallacy of equivocation occurs when the conclusion of an argument depends on the
fact that one or more words are used in two different senses in the argument.
Examples:
1. Odd things arouse human suspicion. But seventeen is an odd number.
Therefore, seventeen arouses human suspicion.
2. Any law can be repealed by the legislative authority. But the law of gravity is
a law.
Therefore, the law of gravity can be repealed by the legislative authority.
These two arguments commit the fallacy of equivocation. In both examples, the same
words (‘odd’ and ‘law’ in the first and in the second argument, respectively) are used in
two different senses. In example one, in the first premise the word “odd” means ‘strange’,
while in the second premise it implies a “number that is not divisible by two”. Likewise,
the second argument equivocates on the word ‘‘law.’’ In the first premise it means
“statutory law”, and in the second premise it means “law of nature”.
3. All stars are in orbit in outer space.

Sarah Flamingo is a star.
Therefore, Sarah Flamingo is in orbit in outer space.
This argument would be said to be an equivocation because the term ‘star’ is used
ambiguously. In the first premise, ‘star’ is most plausibly taken to mean ‘distant,
luminous celestial body.’ Then there is a shift of meaning. In the second premise, ‘star’
would most plausibly be taken to mean ‘entertainment celebrity.’ Because of this
meaning shift, the argument could be taken to be valid when in fact it may not be valid.
In some cases equivocation can be associated with the shift of meaning of a relative term
as it occurs in different contexts. For example, “small’’, ‘‘good’’, ‘‘bad’’, ‘‘light’’,
‘‘heavy’’, ‘‘difficult’’, ‘‘easy’’, ‘‘tall’’, ‘‘short’’, and so on are relative terms that shift
their meanings in different contexts. A short basketball player may not be a short man.
Look at the following example:
4. A mouse is an animal. Therefore, a large mouse is a large animal.
This argument illustrates the ambiguous use of a relative term. The word ‘‘large’’ means
different things depending on the context.
B. Amphiboly Fallacy
The fallacy of amphiboly is caused by the error in grammatical construction of
statements that can be interpreted in two more distinctly different ways without making
clear which meaning is intended. In other words, it is a structural defect in a statement
due to mistake in grammar or punctuation—a missing comma, a dangling modifier, an
ambiguous antecedent of a pronoun, or some other careless arrangement of words.
Because of this ambiguity, the statement may be understood in two clearly
distinguishable ways. The arguer typically selects the unintended interpretation and
proceeds to draw a conclusion based upon it.
Examples:
1. Solomon told Dawit that he had made a mistake. It follows that Solomon has at
least the courage to admit his own mistakes.
2. Our engineering school teaches told us how to build a house in three years.
Both of the arguments commit fallacy of amphiboly. In the first argument the pronoun
‘‘he’’ has an ambiguous antecedent; it can refer either to Solomon or Dawit. Perhaps
Solomon told Dawit that Dawit had made a mistake.
In the second argument, because of the very that the arguer made a kind of a mistakes or
errors in constructing this argument; he or she commits the fallacy of amphiboly. We can
interpret this argument in two ways. On the one hand, it has a meaning that says “our
school teaches us how to build a house in three years teaching period” or on other hand, it
has a meaning that says “our school teaches us how to build a house with in three years
construction period”.
Let us summarize the difference between equivocation and amphiboly. Equivocation is

committed due to ambiguity in the meaning of one or more words. So, it is semantical
ambiguity. Amphiboly, on the other hand, involves a structural defect in a statement
which is known as syntactical ambiguity. Amphiboly usually involves a mistake made by
the arguer in interpreting an ambiguous statement made by some one else, where as in
equivocation it is typically the arguer’s own creation.
Two areas where cases of amphiboly cause serious problems involve contracts and wills.
The drafters of these documents often express their intentions in terms of ambiguous
statements, and alternate interpretations of these statements then lead to different
conclusions.
Examples:
1. Mrs. Sosna stated in her will, ‘‘I leave my 500-carat diamond necklace and my
pet car to Hana and Bethlehem.’’ Therefore, we conclude that Hana gets the
necklace and Bethlehem gets the car.
2. Mr. Markos signed a contract that reads, ‘‘In exchange for painting my house, I
promise to pay Asenafi $5000 and give him my new Cadillac only if he finishes
the job by May 1.’’ Therefore, since Asenafi did not finish until May 10, it
follows that he gets neither the $5000 nor the Cadillac.
In the first example, the conclusion obviously favors Hana. Bethlehem is almost certain
to argue that the gift of the necklace and Bethlehem should be shared equally by her and
Hana. Mrs. Hana could have avoided the dispute by adding either ‘‘respectively’’ or
‘‘collectively’’ to the end of the sentence.
In the second example, the conclusion favors Mr. Markos. Asenafi will argue that the
condition that he finishes by May 1 affected only the Cadillac and that he therefore is
entitled to the $5000. The dispute could have been avoided by properly inserting a
comma in the language of the promise.
3.5.2 Fallacy of Grammatical Analogy
Fallacies of grammatical analogy are those fallacies that are caused by the wrong
association of the attributes of the parts of some thing onto the whole entity; or
conversely, the fallacies of grammatically analogy are caused by the erroneous
association of the attributes of the whole entity of something onto its parts.
Moreover, arguments that commit these fallacies are grammatically analogous to other
arguments that are good in every respect. Because of this similarity in linguistic structure,
such fallacious arguments may appear good yet be bad. The fallacies of grammatical
analogy are divided into two types; namely, composition and division.
A. Fallacy of Composition
The fallacy of composition is committed when the arguer wrongly transfers the attributes
of the parts of something onto the whole. In other words, it is committed when some one
argues that what is true of each part of a whole is also (necessarily) true of the whole
itself, or what is true of some parts of a whole is also (necessarily) true of the whole
itself.
Examples:
1. Every sentence in this paragraph is well written. Therefore, the paragraph is
well written.
2. Each atom in a piece of chalk is invisible. Therefore, the chalk is invisible.

In these arguments the attributes that are transferred from the parts onto the whole are
designated by the words ‘‘well written,’’ and ‘‘invisible,’’ respectively. In each case the
transference is illegitimate, and so the argument is fallacious.
You have to take into account that not every such transference is illegitimate, however.
Consider the following arguments:
Examples:
1. Every atom in this piece of chalk has mass. Therefore, the piece of chalk has
mass.
2. Every component in this picket fence is white. Therefore, the whole fence is
white.
In each case an attribute (having mass, being white) is transferred from the parts onto the
whole, but these transferences are quite legitimate. Indeed, the fact that the atoms have
mass is the very reason why the chalk has mass. The same reasoning extends to the fence.
Thus, the acceptability of these arguments is attributable, at least in part, to the legitimate
transference of an attribute from parts onto the whole.
B. Fallacy of Division
The fallacy of division is the direct opposite or converse of composition. The fallacy of
division is committed when attributes are wrongly transferred from whole to parts. In
other words, it is committed when some one argues that what is true of a whole is also
(necessarily) true of its parts, or what is true of a whole is also (necessarily) true of some
of its part.
Examples:
1. This chalk is visible. Therefore, each atom in a piece of chalk is visible.
2. The USA is the wealthiest country in the world. Hence, my uncle who live there
must be wealthy.
These examples show that; the attributes of the collective of the parts is considered as the
distributive property of the parts. The arguer fails to understand that a whole often
represents something different from its parts. In each case the attribute, designated

respectively by the terms ‘‘visible,’’ and ‘‘wealthiest’’ is illegitimately transferred from

the whole or class onto the parts or members.
As with the fallacy of composition, however, this kind of transference is not always
illegitimate. The following arguments contain no fallacy:
1. This piece of chalk has mass. Therefore, the atoms that compose this piece of
chalk have mass.
2. This field of poppies is uniformly orange in color. Therefore, the individual
poppies are orange in color.
? Activity 3.5

1. What is the cause for linguistic fallacy?
2. Discuss the cause for fallacies of ambiguity.
3. Discuss the causes for fallacies of grammatical analogy.
4. List and discuss the informal fallacies that are found in fallacies of ambiguity and
Summary
The term “fallacy” refers to logical error (error in reasoning), or to the defect or mistaken
in arguments. Accordingly, when the arguer, intentionally or unintentionally, commits a
mistake in his or her reasoning, and as a result, when arguments become defective,
erroneous or incorrect it becomes a fallacy.
There are two types of fallacies. These are formal and informal fallacy. Formal fallacies
are those fallacies that can be identified based on their form or structure. Where as
informal fallacies are those fallacies that can be identified through the analysis of the
content of the arguments.

Informal fallacies classified into five major classifications. These are: fallacies of
relevance, fallacies of weak induction, fallacies of presumption, fallacies of ambiguity
and fallacies of grammatical analogy.
The fallacies of relevance are those fallacies that provide illogical or irrelevant reasons
or evidences in support of their conclusion. This category of informal fallacy includes:
 Appeal to force: is said to be committed by an appeal to force or the threat of

force (intimidation) to gain acceptance of a conclusion without giving proper or
adequate argument for it.
 Appeal to pity: Arguer elicits pity from reader/listener.
 Appeal to the people: is said to be committed by an appeal to force or the threat
of force (intimidation) to gain acceptance of a conclusion without giving proper or
adequate argument for it. It has two approaches: direct approach in which the
arguer arouses mob mentality and indirect in which the arguer appeals to
reader/listener’s desire for security, love, respect, etc.
 Argument against the person: is said to be committed when one person
criticizes an argument by attacking the arguer personally instead of considering
his argument on its real merits. It has three forms: 1.abusive ad hominem in which
the arguer verbally abuses other arguer. 2. Circumstantial ad hominem in which
the arguer presents other arguer as predisposed to argue this way and 3. tu quoque
in which arguer presents other arguer as hypocrite. Accident: General rule is
applied to a specific case it was not intended to cover.
 Straw man: Arguer distorts opponent’s argument and then attacks the distorted
argument.
 Missing the point: Arguer draws conclusion different from that supported by
premises.
 Red- herring: Arguer leads reader/listener off track.
The fallacy of weak induction is usually occurred in typical inductive form of

argumentation. When the arguer in different inductive form of argumentation makes a

kind of mistake error the fallacy of weak induction is committed. This category of
informal fallacy includes:
 Appeal to unqualified authority: Arguer cites untrustworthy authority.
 Appeal to ignorance: Premises report that nothing is known or proved, and then
a conclusion is drawn.
 Hasty generalization: Conclusion is drawn from atypical sample.
 False cause: Conclusion depends on nonexistent or minor causal connection it
includes: post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy, non causa pro causa fallacy, and
oversimplified cause fallacy.
 Slippery slope: Conclusion depends on unlikely chain reaction.
 Weak analogy: Conclusion depends on defective analogy.
Fallacies of presumption are informal fallacies that contain confusing expressions with
the intention to conceal or hid the mistaken or erroneous idea stated in the premise. This
classification of fallacy includes:
 Begging the question: Arguer creates the illusion that inadequate premise are
adequate by leaving out a key premise, by restating the conclusion as a premise,
or by reasoning in a circle or it commits when the conclusion to be proved by an
arguer is already presupposed by his premises.
 Complex question: Multiple questions are concealed in a single question.
 False dichotomy: ‘‘Either . . . or . . .’’ statement hides additional alternatives.
 Suppressed evidence: Arguer ignores important evidence that requires a different
conclusion or it occurs where a proposal is criticized, without sufficient evidence,
on the grounds that it will lead, by an inevitable sequence of closely linked
consequences, to an end result that is disastrous.
Fallacies of Ambiguity of are those fallacies that occurred when the arguer draws a
wrong conclusion because of the ambiguous usage of words or statements in the
argument. These fallacies can be classified in two:

 Equivocation: turns on the confusion between two different meanings of a term

in the same argument, where there is a contextual shift. In which conclusion
depends on a shift in meaning of a word or phrase.
 Amphiboly: in which conclusion depends on the wrong interpretation of a
syntactically ambiguous statement.
Lastly, fallacies of grammatical analogy are those fallacies that occurred because of the
wrong association or transference of the attributes of the whole entity of a thing onto its
parts or conversely it is committed because of the wrong association of the attributes of
the parts of something onto its whole. There are two varieties of the fallacies of
grammatical analogy:
 Composition: Attribute is wrongly transferred from parts to whole.

 Division: Attribute is wrongly transferred from whole to part.
Self_ Assessment Questions (SAQs)
Part I. Multiple Choice Items.

Choose the correct answer from the given alternatives under each question
1. Which on of the following is correct about formal fallacies?

A. Formal fallacy can be found in inductive arguments.
B. Formal fallacy can be found only in deductive arguments.
C. Formal fallacies can be found through analysis of the content of the argument.
D. All of the above.
2. In which of the following forms of argumentation, we can not find formal fallacies.
A. Categorical syllogism C. Hypothetical syllogism
B. Disjunctive syllogism D. None of the above
3. Which one the following is wrong about the characteristics of informal fallacies?
A. Informal fallacies are supported by some motive on the part of the arguer to
deceive the reader or listener.

B. In informal fallacies, the arguer may not have sufficient evidence to support a
certain conclusion.
C. Sometimes the trick, in informal fallacies, fools even the arguer and may
delude him or herself into thinking that he or she is presenting genuine
evidence when in fact he or she is not.
D. Informal fallacies contain logical premise to support their conclusion.
4. Which one of the following alternatives is wrong idea?

A. The effect of an informal fallacy is to make a bad argument appear good.
B. Informal fallacies are classified into three major classifications.
C. Both formal and informal can be detected only through analysis of the content
of the argument.
D. B and C
E. A and C
5. What is the main reason for the fallacies committed in both uncogent and unsound
arguments?
A. Because their arguments has one or more true premises.
B. Because their arguments has one or more false premises.
C. Because their arguments are undetermined.
D. All the above.
6. Identify the wrong statement about fallacy in general.

A. A defect in the content of argument results in informal fallacy.
B. Formal fallacies are usually found only in deductive arguments that have
clearly recognizable forms.
C. Informal fallacy can be detected through inspection of the forms or structure
of an argument.
D. Both deductive and inductive arguments may contain fallacies.

7. “Sure, this is a very fantastic gum with lovely favor. That is why more people in
Hawassa University chew it than any other gums.” The particular fallacy committed
is that of:-
A. Appeal to snobbery C. Bandwagon argument
B. Appeal to stick D. Appeal to vanity
8. Identify the wrong combination.

A. Fallacy of presumption – slippery slope
B. Fallacy of weak induction – appeal to ignorance
C. Fallacy of ambiguity – equivocation
D. Fallacy of relevance – missing the point
9. When one takes the mere existence of temporal succession between two things as
causal connection, he or she commits a fallacy called:-
A. Non causa pro causa C. False dichotomy
B. Post hoc ergo propter hoc D. Oversimplified cause
10. “My dear sir, I assure you that this stereo system is not beyond your means. Each
individual component, you will admit, is inexpensive. Consequently, the complete
set must be inexpensive too.” This argument commits the fallacy of:-
A. Composition C. Tu qouque
B. Hasty generalization D. Division
11. Of the following alternatives which one is correct?

A. In accident, specific case is wrongly applied to general rule.
B. In appeal to pity, the humanity and mercy of the audience are the special
emotions appealed to.
C. In division, an attribute is wrongly transferred from parts to whole.
D. In ad hominem circumstantial, the arguer presents other arguer as hypocrite.
12. One of the fallowing fallacies is committed because it unjustifiably reduces the
number of alternatives to be considered.

A. False dichotomy C. Suppressed evidence

B. Missing the point D. Weak induction
13. Which one of the following is wrong?

A. In hasty generalization fallacy the premises deal with a general issue, but the
conclusion deals with something particular.
B. Fallacies of relevance involve premises which are psychologically relevant to
the conclusion.
C. Fallacies of weak induction occur not because the premises are logically
irrelevant to the conclusion but because the premises do not strongly support
the conclusion.
D. Fallacy of accident proceeds in a direction opposite from that of converse
accident.
14. “Tamrat told me that he always quarrels with his father when he is drunk.
Therefore, Tamrat’s father is quarrelsome whenever he drinks.” This argument:-
A. Commits no fallacy
B. Commits a fallacy begging the question.
C. Commits equivocation fallacy
D. Commits fallacy of amphiboly
15. The fallacies which are usually committed in inductive arguments are generally
called:
A. Fallacies of weak induction

B. Fallacies of ambiguity
C. Fallacies of grammatical analogy
D. All fallacies of relevance

16. “I have freedom of constitutionally guaranteed. Therefore, I can perform any

activities within my class in front of students.” This is argument commits a fallacy
of:-
A. Slippery slope C. Accident
B. Missing the point D. False cause
17. “Entity Y has attributes a, b, c and d. Entity Z has attributes a, b, c. Therefore, entity
Z has attribute d also.” This argument commits a fallacy of:-
A. Slippery slope C. Weak Analogy
B. Hasty generalization D. Division
18. My dear Fikerit, I love you with all my heart and I want to marry you. Without you
I cannot live. Therefore, let us join our hearts or I am going to die. The fallacy by
the lover is:-
A. Complex question C. Begging the question
B. False dichotomy D. Appeal to pity
19. In spite of the best efforts the scientific establishment, no cure for cancer has been
forthcoming. Therefore, I conclude that it is pointless to continue spending large
sums of money looking for a cure. This argument is the fallacy of :-
A. Ad ignorantiam C. Ad misericordiam
B. Ad hominem D. Ad populum
20. Each member of a team is married; therefore the team must have a wife. This
argument is the fallacy of:-
A. Composition C. Amphiboly
B. Division D. Accident
21. Which of the following is correct about appeal to force?
A. In the appeal to force, the arguer physically attacks the listener.
B. In the appeal to force, the arguer attempts to create a kind of mob mentality.
C. In the fallacy appeal to force, a general rule is applied to a specific case where
it does not fit.
D. In the appeal to force, the arguer attempts to lead the reader or listener off the
track.

22. A Straw man fallacy occurs when:

A. The arguer attacks a misrepresentation of the opponent’s view.
B. The arguer is made attempt to defend a conclusion by threatening the well-
being of those who do not accept it.
C. The arguer elicits pity from reader or listener.
D. The attempt to persuade a person or group by appealing to the desire to be
accepted or valued by others.
23. Among the following one which is correctly combined is:
A. Accident_ appeal to vanity
B. Appeal to pity_ Bandwagon
C. Appeal to force_ ad hominem abusive
D. Argument against person_ Tu quoque
24. Which of the following fallacies may be regarded as the fallacy of diversion:
A. Fallacy of straw man C. Fallacy of missing the point
B. Fallacy of slippery slope D. Fallacy of red herring
25. Which one of the following statements is correct about the characteristics of
fallacies of relevance?
A. The premises of all fallacies of relevance are logically relevant to their
conclusion.
B. The premises of all fallacies of relevance are psychologically irrelevant to
their conclusion.
C. The premises of all fallacies of relevance provide some evidences for
believing the truth of conclusion.
D. The premises of all fallacies of relevance are logically irrelevant to their
conclusion.
Part II. Write “True” or” False”

1. The term fallacies refer to logical error in reasoning or the defect in arguments.
2. In the appeal to force, the arguer only physically attacks the well being of listener.
3. In the direct variety of the appeal to the people, the arguer attempts to create a
kind of mob mentality.

4. The argumentum ad hominem always involves two arguers.

5. In the straw man fallacy, an arguer often distorts another person’s argument by
making it look more extreme than it really is.
6. In the red herring fallacy, the arguer attempts to lead the reader or listener off the
track.
7. The effect of begging the question is to hide the fact that a premise may not be
true.
8. The correct way of responding to a complex question is to divide the question
into its component questions and answer each separately.
9. False dichotomy always involves an ‘‘either . . . or . . .’’ statement, at least
implicitly.
10. The fallacy of suppressed evidence overlooks an important piece of evidences or
premises that outweigh the presented evidence and entails a different conclusion.
11. The fallacy of amphiboly usually involves the ambiguous use of a single word.
12. Arguments from composition are always fallacious.
13. The fallacy of division always proceeds from parts to whole.
14. Equivocation and amphiboly are classified as fallacies of ambiguity.
15. “Either men are superior to women or women are superior to men. Men are not
superior to women. Hence, women are superior to men.” This argument commits
a fallacy of false cause.
16. Fallacies of weak induction occurred in typical inductive form of argumentation.
17. Whenever I wear green socks my logic grade goes up. That is way I save my
green socks to wear only on the days of the test. This argument commits the
fallacy of false cause.
18. Murder is morally wrong. So, active euthanasia is morally wrong. This argument
commits the fallacy of begging the question.
19. When the fallacy contains tricky and confusing expressions for the purpose of
concealing the wrong assumption stated in the premises is called fallacies of
relevance.
20. Complex questions are not fallacious because they did not attempt to tricky or
confusing the respondent into admitting she or he does not want to admit.

Part III. Matching Items

Match items in column “B” with items in column “A”
Column “A” Column “B”
1. Appeal to force A. Leads audience off track

2. Begging the question B. Argumentum ad baculum
3. Red herring C. Multiple questions are concealed in a single
4. Appeal to pity question
5. Unqualified authority D. Argumentum ad misericordiam
6. Appeal to the people E. Argumentum ad hominem
7. Post hoc fallacy F. Circular reason
8. Suppressed evidence G. Conclusion depends on unlikely chain
9. Hasty generalization reaction
10. Appeal to ignorance H. Event X precedes event Y. Therefore, event
11. Weak analogy Y is the result of event X.
12. Slippery slope I. Conclusion depends on defective analogy
13. False Dichotomy J. If event X precedes Y, then X does not cause
14. Non causa pro Causa fallacy event Y.
15. Complex question K. Conclusion is drawn from a too small sample
L. Arguer arouses mob mentality
M. Omits important evidence
N. Witness not trustworthy
O. Argumentum ad ignoratiam
P. Either … or …fallacy
Part IV: Determine the nature of informal fallacies based on the given questions
A. Identify the fallacy of relevance committed by the following arguments. If no

fallacy is committed, write “no fallacy”
1. All men have the right to preach their religious view. Therefore, a logic instructor
is justified in using the lecture room to evoke his own religious view.

2. “Abebe has argued in favor of legalizing drugs such as heroin and cocaine. But
Abebe is just another one of those upper_ crust intellectuals who do not have any
care about Ethiopia. No sensible person should listen to his nonsensical idea.”
3. For the last five consecutive year students who took the course “Introduction to
Logic” have performed very poorly as the vast majority of them scored poor
grades. Therefore, the department of philosophy must be entirely closed as soon
as possible.
4. General Manager, you know that all individuals are equal before law and even
before God. So, your monthly income and mine should be equal.
5. Your friends Birhanu said that Netsanet’s choice Mirinda tests better than
CocaCola. Indeed, he is ignoring the fact that Netsanet’s choice is made by Moha
Company which is owned by a person who uses above 60% of Ethiopian
resources. Clearly your friend is mistaken.
6. I admit that my son kebede can not read and write properly, but he deserves to
join college. If he does not join college, he is going to be emotionally ill and he
may even commit suicide.
7. Your honor, my client does not deserve a year in prison. He has small children
that need a father, and a wife that needs a husband.
8. Taye tells me I should not lie. He says lying is wrong because it makes people
stop trusting one another. But I have heard my Taye lie. Sometimes he calls in
“sick” to work when he is not really sick. So, lying is not actually wrong_ Taye
just dies not like it when I lie.
9. Crimes of theft and robbery have been increasing at an alarming rate lately. The
conclusion is obvious; we must reinstate the death penalty immediately.
10. You must believe that God exists. After all, if you do not accept the existence of
God, then you will face the horrors of hell.
B. Identify the fallacy of weak induction committed by the following arguments.

If no fallacy is committed, write “no fallacy”.

1. My psychology professor says that religious experience is generated out of the deep
human need for a father-figure, not by an encounter with an actual deity. So,
religious experience is not really an experience of God.
2. I know two members of the Ethiopian National Football Team are drunkards, this
implies that all the members of the team are also drunkards.
3. After centuries of trying, no one has been able to prove that God exists. The attempt
seems to be useless. So, at this point, I think we can safely conclude that there is no
God.
4. Ethiopia could not come out of the vicious circle problem. Absence of good
governance is responsible for this endless crisis.
5. Your leather coat and mine are the same in color and in size. It implies that they are
made in the same factory.
6. Immediate steps should be taken to outflow pornography once and for all. The
continued manufacture and sale of pornographic materials will almost certainly lead
to an increase in sex- related crimes such as rape and incest. This in turn will
gradually erode the moral fabric of society and result in an increase in crimes of all
sorts. Eventually a complete disintegration of law and order will occur, leading in
the end to the total collapse of civilization.
7. Participant: “I do have a question, chairperson.”
Chairperson: “I will not allow you to ask me because; if I allow you to ask me,
others will start rising question and as the result I will not have enough time for my
presentation.
8. There are 65 students in this section. Five students selected at random were found
out be brilliant. Therefore, all 65 students in this section are brilliant.
9. Shemsu is a clever student of Hawassa University. Daniel is a student of Hawassa
University. Therefore, Daneil too is a clever student of Hawassa University.
C. Identify the fallacy of presumptions that are committed by the following

arguments. If no fallacy is committed, write “no fallacy”.

1. .ArbaMinch University deserves to be accepted as one of the best university in

Ethiopia. Because it has got impressive buildings, a classically beautiful gate, and
an especially attractive fountain.
2. Child to father: either you buy me a new coat, or I will freeze to death when
winter comes.
3. Clearly, humans have free will, since they have the power to make choices.
4. You were asked whether you have stopped receiving bribes from clients. You
answered “No”. Therefore, you continue to receive bribes.
5. The defendant is guilty of the crime, for she is innocent of having committed it.
6. Are you still living with a lady that you marry her at her early age?
7. Either you must be a member of FDRE or you do not be called loyal citizens for
Ethiopia.
8. Active euthanasia is morally acceptable. It is a decent, ethical thing to help other
human being escape suffering through death.
9. Have you continued drinking in pubs all night?
D. Identify the fallacies of linguistic that are committed by the following

arguments. If no fallacy is committed, write “no fallacy”.
1. An instructor is a human being. Therefore, a good instructor is a good human being.
2. Every part of this car is light in weight, so the car as a whole is light in weight.
3. The ball is blue; therefore, the atoms that make it up are also true.
4. Giving money to charity is the thing to do. So charities have a right to our money.
5. Mebratu told me that he always quarrels with his father when he is drunk.
6. We have a duty to do what is right. We have a right to speak out in defense of the
innocent. Therefore, we have a duty to speak out in defense of the innocent..
7. Each part of the show, from the special effects to the acting is a master piece. So,
the whole show is a masterpiece.
8. The royal society is over 300 years old. Dr.Gemechu Adugna is over 300 years old.
9. Ayele told Solomon that he had made a mistake. It follows that, Ayele has at least
the courage to admit his own mistakes.
10. The airplane is heavy. So, each of its parts is heavy.

CHAPTER FOUR
CATEGORICAL PROPOSITION
INTRODUCTION
This chapter acquaints you with the nature of categorical proposition. In this chapter, you
will learn about four sections which deal with component, standard form, quality,
quantity, distribution, and operations of categorical proposition. In addition, in this
chapter, you will be well-informed about the characteristic and difference between the
modern and the traditional squares of opposition as well as rules for immediate inference.
4.1 Proposition
4.1.1 The Meaning of Categorical Proposition
The term ‘category’ or ‘categorical’ refers to set of things, such as, human beings,
animals, plants, workers, ladies, and so on. Proposition implies a statement. Hence, a
statement (proposition) that relates two sets, classes, groups or categories is called a
categorical proposition. In other words, categorical propositions express the relation of
two classes, asserting that one class is either totally or partially included or excluded from
another class.
Any categorical proposition has two terms. They are subject term and predicate term. The
class in question are denoted respectively by the subject term and predicate term, and the
proposition asserts that either all or part of the class denoted by the subject term is
included in (inclusion) or excluded from (exclusion) the class denoted by the predicate
term.
4.1.2 The Components and Standard Forms of Categorical

Propositions
Categorical propositions can be stated either informally-without standard form, that is, as
we use them in our every day conversations, or they can be stated in logical standard

forms. Those categorical propositions which are not in standard form have multiple
variants.
Examples:
1. Every human being is mortal.
2. There exist a fish that is a shark.
3. Nothing that is a human which is eternal.
4. There are plants which are not edible.
All of the above statements are categorical propositions. This is due to the fact that in
each statement two sets of things are related either in the form of inclusion or exclusion.
In the first example, two sets of things are given: human being (which is the subject of
the statement) and mortal (the predicate of the statement). And we see that these two
classes (human beings and mortal beings) are related based on inclusion relation, that is,
without exception all human beings are included in the class of mortal beings.
This proposition is contrary to the third proposition, because it says that human beings
are not belong (not include) in to the class of eternal beings. This is to say that human
beings are entirely excluded from the class of eternal beings. In all the above cases, there
are certain difficulties. These are: some of them, the amount of the set of things is not
clearly states based on fixed quantifiers. It is very difficult to determine the type of
relation of the two classes in the form of inclusion or exclusion.
It is ambiguous to decide the attribute (nature) of statements either negatively or

positively and to determine their logical relation with other statements. These and other
related problems urge us to study categorical proposition based on fixed logical standard-
forms. The study of categorical propositions in standard forms would help us:
 To know the quality and quantity of the proposition.

 To study their immediate inferences with other proposition.
Since any categorical proposition asserts that either all or part of the class denoted by the
subject term is included in or excluded from the class denoted by predicate term, it
follows that there are exactly four types of categorical proposition.

1. Those that assert that whole (all or every) subject class is inclusion in the
predicate class.
Example: All men are mortal.
2. Those that assert that whole subject class is exclusion from the predicate class.
Example: No men are eternal.
3. Those that assert that part (some) of the subject class is inclusion in the
predicate class.
Example: Some birds are mammals.
4. Those that assert that part of the subject class is exclusion form the predicate
class.
Example: Some snakes are not poisonous.
Therefore, a categorical proposition that expresses these relations with complete clarity is
one that is in standard form.
To determine the validity and invalidity of the immediate inference of categorical

statements and to identify the formal fallacies committed in invalid argument based on
the critical of logical rules, categorical propositions should be states in standard form.
The standard form of categorical proposition is designed in accordance with the rules of
the partial or whole inclusion and exclusion of the two classes states in the subject and
predicate of the proposition.
Accordingly, we have four propositions and each of these propositions has quantifier,
subject term, copula and predicate term. These are, in general known as the standard
forms of a categorical proposition. Study the following points.
 Quantifier: “All”, “No”, “Some” indicate the quantity or amount of subject
class. The use of those quantifiers are to specify how much of the subject class is
included in or excluded from the predicate class.
 Subject term: any term (word) or phrase that consists of set of things.
 Copula: “Are” and “Are not”. The Latin word “copula” is used to link or copula
the subject term with predicate term.

 Predicate term: A term consisting set of things, which has some kind of relation
with the subject term.
The following is the correct order of the standard form of a categorical proposition.
Quantifier + Subject term + Copula + Predicate term
According to the four types of the relation of the subject and predicate terms and its four
components, categorical proposition could be stated in standard form symbolically as the
follows.
All S are P: All members of S are in P class.
No S are P: No members of S are in P class.
Some S are P: At least one member of S is in P class.
Some S are not P: At least one member of S is not in P class.
The first form above asserts that the whole subject class is included in the predicate class,
the second that the whole subject class is excluded from the predicate class, and soon.
When a categorical proposition in a standard form, the subject term appears first and
followed by the predicate term. The letters “S” and “P” stand respectively for the subject
and predicate terms.
Example:
1. Some businesses are not profitable.
Identify:
a. Quantifier b. Subject term c. Copula d. Predicted term e. Standard form
The resulting answer for the above example is as follows:
a. Quantifier: some b. Subject term: businesses
c. Copula: are not d. Predicate term: profitable
e. Standard form: Some S are not P.
It is important to you keep the following points in mind about standard form of
categorical propositions:

 Standard forms of categorical propositions do not overlap each other. The subject
term does not include quantifier and the predicate term does not include copula.
 The form “All S are not P” is not standard form of categorical proposition. This
standard form is ambiguous and it can be written as either “No S are P” or “Some
S are not P”, depending on the content.
 There are exactly 3 forms of quantifiers and 2 forms of copulas. “All”, “Some”
and “No” are forms of quantifiers and, “Are” and “Are not” are forms of copulas.
Categorical propositions exactly contain two terms.
 In logic the quantifier “Some” always mean “At least one.”
 Note that many categorical propositions, of course, are not in standard forms
because among other things, they do not begin with the words “All”, “No”,
“Some.”
? Activity 4-1

1. Write any two examples of categorical propositions in which its quantifier is
“No?” Write a categorical proposition in which its subject class is entirely
included in the predicate class? ___________________________________
2. Write a categorical proposition in which its quantifier is “some”, its subject
term “good-looking people” and predicate term “snobs” and its copula “are
not”._________________________________________________________
3. What is the standard form for the categorical proposition of “All students
are athletes?”__________________________________________________
4. Is “All S are not P” a standard form? Yes or No. If “No.” Why?
________________________________________________________
4.2 Quality, Quantity and Distribution of Categorical Propositions

4.2.1 The Quality of Categorical Propositions
It refers to those set of things stated in the subject term that are included or excluded from
those set of things stated in the predicate term. If the subject term refers to those class of

things which are included either partially or entirely in the predicate term the proposition
is said to be affirmative, while if the subject term refers to those class of things that are
excluded either partially or entirely from the predicate term the proposition is said to be
negative. Therefore, the quality of categorical proposition is either affirmative or negative
depending on whether it affirms or denies class membership.
4.2.2 The Quantity of Categorical Propositions
The quantity of a categorical proposition is determined by the amount or quantity of those

set things stated in the subjected term. It is either universal or particular depending on
whether the statement makes a claim about every member or just some member of the
class denoted by the subject term.
Accordingly, the propositions that states full or complete inclusion and exclusion of the
subject class are universal proposition in quantity, while the proposition that states partial
inclusion or exclusion of the subject class are particular in quantity.
According to the quality and quantity of categorical proposition, logicians devised letter
name of the four propositions. Letter name of the standard forms of categorical
propositions would help us to:
 save time and space;
 recapitulate the standard forms easily; and
 apply various logical rules and study immediate inferences easily.
Thereby, the four letter names designate the four categorical propositions are the first
four vowels of the Roman alphabet: A, E, I, and O. Those letter names are devised by
early Middle Age logicians to represent the four standard forms of categorical
propositions and The letters were derived from the first two vowels in the Latin words
affirmo (‘‘I affirm’’) and nego (‘‘I deny’’), thus

n
Universal A E
f
f g
Particular I O
r
m
o
The following table summarizes the quality and quantity of standard categorical
propositions with their respective letter name:
Letter
Standard Form Name Quantity Quality
All S are P. A Universal Affirmative
No S are P. E Universal Negative
Some S are P. I Particular Affirmative
Some S arenot P. O Particular Negative
From the above presentation, you can observe the following important points about the
relationships between the components of categorical propositions in respect to the
similarity and difference in quality and quantity.
 Proposition A and I are the same in quality and different in quantity.
 Proposition E and O are the same in quality and different in quantity.
 Proposition A and E are the same in quantity and different in quality.
 Proposition I and O are the same in quantity and different in quality.
4.2.3 Distribution of Terms of Categorical Propositions
Unlike quality and quantity, which are attributes of propositions, distribution is an

attribute of the terms of propositions. In other words, the concept of distribution focuses
on the terms (the subject and predicate terms) and not the proposition as such.

The two terms of categorical propositions (subject and predicate term) have the property
of being distributed or undistributed. When a term makes an assertion about every
member of its class the term is said to be distributed. It implies that attribute of the class
is distributed to each and every member of the class and we know clearly that the
attribute is shared similarly by every member of the class. If a term does not make a
claim about each and every member of its class the term is said to be undistributed.
In the following presentation you will learn how to use a diagram or a circle mark to
represent the meaning of four categorical propositions and to identify the terms being
distributed in the four types of categorical propositions.
1. The meaning of A: All S are P.
SS
S
P
The S circle is contained in the P circle, which represents the fact that every member of
S is a member of P. But the statement does not make a claim about every member of the
P class, since there may be members of P that are out side of S.
Thus, by definition of “distribution term” S is distributed and P is undistributed. In other

words, for any universal affirmative (A) proposition, the subject term(S), whatever, it
may be, is distributed, and the predicate term (P) is undistributed.
2. The meaning of E: No S are P.
S P
This statement makes a claim about every member of S and every member of P. It asserts
that every members of S is separate from every member of P and also that member of P is
separated from every members of S. Accordingly, by the definition of “ distribution
term” both the subject and predicate terms of universal negative (E) propositions are
distributed.

3. The meaning of I: Some S are P.

The particular affirmative (I) proposition states that at least one member of S is included
in P and this one of S is represented by asterisk, the resulting diagram looks like this:
*S
P
Since the asterisk is inside the P class, it represents something that is simultaneously an S
and a P. In other words, it represents a member of the S class that is also a member of the
P class. Thus, the statement “Some S are P” makes a claim about one member (at least)
of S and also one members (at least) of P, but not about all member of either class.
Hence, by definition of “distribution term”, neither S nor P in a particular affirmative (I)
proposition is distributed.
4. The meaning of Some S are not P.

The particular negative (O) proposition asserts that at least one member of S is excluded
from P, and this one member of S is represented by an asterisk, the resulting diagram is
as follows:
*S
P
Since the other members of S may or may not be outside of P. It is clear that the
statement “Some S are not P” does not make a claim about every members of S. Hence,
S is not distributed. In the diagram, the statement does assert that entire P class is
separated from this one member of S that is outside, that is, it does make a claim about
every member of P, so P is distributed. Thus, in the particular (O) proposition, P is
distributed and S is undistributed by the definition of “distributed term.” The points of
this section may be summarized as follows:

Standard Form Letter Quantity Quality Distributed Undistributed

Name Term Term
All S are P. A Universal Affirmative S P
No S are P. E Universal Negative Both S and P Neither S nor P
Some S are P. I Particular Affirmative Neither S nor P Both S and P
Some S are not P. O Particular Negative P S
From the above table, you always consider the following important points about the
distribution of categorical propositions:
 If the proposition in question is an A- type proposition, then the subject term (S)
is distributed.
 If it is an E- type proposition, then both terms (S and P) are distributed.
 If it is an I- type proposition, then neither terms are distributed or both terms are
undistributed.
 If it is an O- type proposition, then the predicate term (P) is distributed.
 If a certain term is distributed in a proposition, this simple means that the
proposition says something about every member of the class that the term
denotes.
 If a term is undistributed, the proposition does not say something about every
member of the class.
? Activity 4-2
1. What is the need for representing categorical propositions by letter name? _______.
2. Write a proposition in which its letter name is “O”_________________________.
3. Fill the blank space by writing “same” or “different”
a. Proposition A and I are the ___________ in quality and __________in quantity.
b. Proposition E and O are the ___________ in quality and __________in quantity.
c. Proposition A and E are the ___________in quality and __________in quantity.
4. Write the correct letter name and standard form on the given empty space.

Standard Form Letter Name

No S are P. a._________
b.______________ I: c._______
Some S are not P. d._________
e._____________ A: f ______.
4.3 The Interpretations of Categorical Proposition
There are different interpretations of categorical propositions among logicians. Logicians,

however, have developed two interpretations of categorical propositions: The Aristotelian
interpretation (traditional) and Boolean (modern) interpretation. Aristotelian and Boolean
interpretations of categorical propositions vary only in connection with universal
propositions (A and E propositions).
Thus, according to the Aristotelian interpretation, the statement form ‘‘A: All S are P’’
asserts that all members of the S class are included in the P class, and it is assumed that
members of S actually exist. The other interpretation of categorical propositions, which is
neutral about existence, arose in the nineteenth century from the work of the logician
George Boole.
According to the Boolean interpretation, the statement form ‘‘All S are P’’ asserts that all
members of the S class are included in the P class, and it is not assumed that members of
S actually exist. Another way of expressing this concept is by saying that no members of
the S class are excluded from the P class.
The difference between the Aristotelian and the Boolean interpretations also extends to
E-type propositions. Thus, under the Aristotelian interpretation, ‘‘No S are P’’ asserts
that no members of the S class are included in the P class, and it is assumed that members
of S actually exist. Under the Boolean interpretation, however, it asserts that no members

of the S class are included in the P class, and it is not assumed that members of S actually
exist.
The two interpretations are compatible with regard to particular (I and O) propositions.
Thus, for both interpretations, ‘‘Some S are P’’ asserts that at least one member of the S
class exists, and it is also a member of the P class. And ‘‘Some S are not P’’ asserts that
at least one member of the S class exists, and it is not a member of the P class. Thus,
under both the Aristotelian and the Boolean interpretations, I and O statements make
positive claims about existence.
Because the Boolean interpretation of universal propositions is neutral about existence, it

is simpler than the Aristotelian, which involves an assumption about existence. For this
reason, we will direct our attention first to the Boolean interpretation, and later we will
see the Aristotelian as an extension of the Boolean.
The Boolean interpretation of the four kinds of categorical propositions as follows:

All S are P. = No members of S are outside P.
No S are P. = No members of S are inside P.
Some S are P. = At least one S exists, and that S is a P.
Some S are not P. = At least one S exists, and that S is not a P.
4.3.1 Venn Diagrams and Square of Opposition

Adopting the interpretation of categorical propositions, the nineteenth-century logician
John Venn developed a system of diagrams to represent the information they express.
These diagrams have come to be known as Venn diagrams.
A Venn diagram is an arrangement of overlapping circles in which each circle represents

the class denoted by a term in a categorical proposition. Because every categorical
proposition has exactly two terms, the Venn diagram for a single categorical proposition
consists of two overlapping circles. Each circle is labeled so that it represents one of the
terms in the proposition. Conventionally, the left-hand circle represents the subject term,
and the right-hand circle represents the predicate term.

S P
In the diagram, the members of the class denoted by each term should be thought of as
located inside the corresponding circle. Thus, the members of the S class (if any such
members exist) are situated inside the S circle, and the members of the P class (if any
such members exist) are located inside the P circle. If any members are located inside the
area where the two circles overlap, then such members belong to both the S class and the
P class. Finally, if any members are located outside both circles, they are members of
neither S nor P.
Suppose, for example, that the S class is the class of Ethiopians and the P class is the
class of farmers. Then, if we select E and F to label the two circles, and if we use
numerals to identify the four possible areas, the diagram looks like the following.
2
4
1
3
E F
Anything in the area marked ‘‘1’’ is an Ethiopian but not a farmer, anything in the area
marked ‘‘2’’ is both an Ethiopian and a farmer, and anything in the area marked ‘‘3’’ is a
farmer but not an Ethiopian. The area marked ‘‘4’’ is the area outside both circles; thus,
anything in this area is neither a farmer nor an Ethiopian.
You can now use Venn diagrams to represent the information expressed by the four
kinds of categorical proposition. To do this, you need to keep in mind two kinds of
marks: shading an area and placing an ‘‘X’’ in an area. Shading an area means that the
shaded area is empty, and placing an ‘‘X’’ in an area means that at least one thing exists
in that area. The ‘‘X’’ may be thought of as representing that one thing.

If no mark appears in an area, this means that nothing is known about that area; it may
contain members or it may be empty. Shading is always used to represent the content of
universal (A and E) propositions, and placing an ‘‘X’’ in an area is always used to
represent the content of particular (I and O) propositions. The content of the four kinds of
categorical propositions is represented as follows:
A: All S are P.
S P
This diagram tells you that the A proposition asserts that no members of S are outside P.
This is represented by shading the part of the S circle that lies outside the P class.
E: No S are P.
S P
The E proposition asserts that no members of S are inside P. This is represented by

shading the part of the S circle that lies inside the P circle.
I: Some S are P.
S P
The I proposition asserts that at least one S exists and that S is also a P. This is
represented by placing an ‘‘X’’ in the area where the S and P circles overlap. This ‘‘X’’
represents an existing thing that is both an S and a P.

O: Some S are not P.
S P
Finally, the O proposition asserts that at least one S exists, and that S is not a P. This is
represented by placing an ‘‘X’’ in the part of the S circle that lies outside the P circle.
This ‘‘X’’ represents an existing thing that is an S but not a P. Because there is no ‘‘X’’
in the diagrams that represent the universal propositions, these diagrams say nothing
about existence.
4.3.1.1 Modern Square of opposition and Immediate Inference
The square of opposition is a device of dealing with various forms of relation of the four
categorical propositions. There are two types of Square of Opposition namely Modern
Square of opposition and Traditional Square of opposition. When the four categorical
propositions are graphically represented in the square of relation, some of the
propositions are logically “opposed”, while others are not.
To study the relation of categorical propositions using square of opposition in both

traditional and modern logician two requirements should be fulfilled:
 There should be a square diagram in which the four types of categorical

propositions (A, E, I, O) are placed at the corners exhibiting the logical relation
called opposition.
 The categorical propositions that are related in square of opposition should have
the same subject and predicate terms taking into account differences in quality
and quantity.

Having the discussion that we made in the previous section about the interpretations of
categorical proposition in mind, now let us apply Modern Square of opposition to see the
interpretation. The diagram for the A proposition merely asserts that nothing exists in the
part of the S circle that lies outside the P circle. The area where the two circles overlap
and the part of the P circle that lies outside the S circle contains no marks at all. This
means that something might exist in these areas, or they might be completely empty.
Similarly, in the diagram for the E proposition, no marks appear in the left-hand part of
the S circle and the right-hand part of the P circle. This means that these two areas might
contain something or, on the other hand, they might not.
Now compare the diagram for the A proposition with the diagram for the O proposition.
The diagram for the A proposition asserts that the left-hand part of the S circle is empty,
whereas the diagram for the O proposition asserts that this same area is not empty. These
two diagrams make assertions that are the exact opposite of each other. As a result, their
corresponding statements are said to contradict each other.
Similarly, compare the diagram for the E proposition with the diagram for the I
proposition. The diagram for the E proposition asserts that the area where the two circles
overlap is empty, whereas the diagram for the I proposition asserts that the area where the
two circles overlap is not empty. Accordingly, their corresponding propositions are also
said to contradict each other.
This relationship of mutually contradictory pairs of propositions is represented in a

diagram called the modern square of opposition. This diagram, which arises from the
modern (or Boolean) interpretation of categorical propositions, is represented as follows:

Thus, if two propositions are related by the contradictory relation, they necessarily have
opposite truth value. Thus, if certain A proposition is given as true, the corresponding O
proposition must be false. Similarly, if certain I proposition is given as false, the
corresponding E proposition must be true.
Thus, the contradictory relationship (the modern square of opposition) provides the basis
for evaluating certain arguments as valid or invalid. We begin by assuming the premise
as true, and we insert the important truth value in the square. We then use the square to
compute the truth value of the conclusion. If the square indicates that the conclusion is
true, the argument is valid; if not, the argument is invalid.
Examples:
1. Some animals are not mammals.
Therefore, it is false that all animals are mammals.
Arguments of this sort are called immediate inferences because they have only one
premise and the conclusion of the argument is drawn from this single premise. To
evaluate or to test the argument given in the above example by using the modern square
of opposition, follow the following procedures:

 You begin by assuming that the premise, which is an O proposition, is true, and
you insert this truth value in the square of opposition. You then use the square to
compute the truth value of the corresponding A proposition. By the contradictory
relation, the A proposition is false. Since the conclusion claims that the A
proposition is false, the conclusion is true, and therefore the argument is valid.
You can also use Venn diagrams to test an immediate inference as valid or invalid. To do
so:
 Begin by symbolizing the argument, representing the terms by letters,
 Second, you draw a Venn diagram for the premise and a Venn diagram for the
conclusion and then,
 If the information expressed by the conclusion diagram is the same or contained
in the premise diagram, the argument is valid; if not, it is invalid.
Here is the symbolized form of the above given argument that you tested earlier.
Some A are not M.
Therefore, it is false that all A are M.
The next step is to draw two Venn diagrams, one for the premise and the other for the
conclusion. The premise diagram is easy; all you need do is place an ‘‘X’’ in the left-
hand part of the A circle. But drawing the conclusion is a bit more complicated. First you
consider how you would diagram ‘‘All A are M.’’ We would shade the left-hand part of
the A circle. But since the conclusion asserts that ‘‘All A are M’’ is false, we do just the
opposite: we place an ‘‘X’’ in the left-hand part of the A circle. Here are the completed
diagrams:
Premise: Some A are not M.
A M

Conclusion: It is false that all A are M.
A M
Now, to evaluate the argument, we will notice whether the information expressed by the
conclusion diagram is also expressed by the premise diagram. The conclusion diagram
asserts that something exists in the left-hand part of the A circle. Since this information is
also expressed by the premise diagram, the argument is valid.
2. It is false that all meteor showers are common spectacles.

Therefore, no meteor showers are common spectacles.
Here is the symbolized version of the second argument and then let us apply the venn
diagram:
It is false that all M are C.

Therefore, no M are C.
In diagramming the premise, we do just the opposite of what we would do to diagram
‘‘All M are C.’’ Instead of shading the left-hand part of the M circle, we place an ‘‘X’’ in
that area. For the conclusion we shade the area where the two circles overlap:
Premise: It is false that all M are C.

Conclusion: Therefore, no M are C.
M C
Here, the conclusion diagram asserts that the overlapping area is empty. Since this
information is not contained in the premise diagram, the argument is invalid.
4.3.1.2 The Traditional Square of Opposition and Immediate Inference

Like the modern square, the traditional square of opposition is an arrangement of lines
that illustrates logically necessary relations among the four kinds of categorical
propositions. The traditional square depends on the Aristotelian interpretation. The
traditional square of opposition has four different oppositions: contradictory, contrary,
sub- contrary and sub- alternation. The traditional square is represented as follows:
The four relations in the traditional square of opposition are presented one by one as
follows:
A. Contradictory Relation
The contradictory relation is the same as that is found in the modern square. The
contradictory opposition is a diagonal square of relation between proposition A and O,
and E and I. These propositions are different in quantity and quality. Contradictory

propositions cannot both be true and cannot both be false at the same time. Thus, if a
certain A proposition is given as true, the corresponding O proposition is false, and vice
versa, and if a certain A proposition is given as false, the corresponding O proposition is
true, and vice versa. The same relation holds between the E and I propositions. The
contradictory relation thus expresses complete opposition between propositions.
The following propositions have a contradictory relation according to Aristotelian

logicians.
Examples:
1. All lovers are happy people. /Some lovers are not happy people.
2. No scholars are rock stars. / Some scholars are rock stars.
B. Contrary Relation
The contrary relation is a top linear square of opposition between proposition A and E.
The two propositions have the same quantity but vary in quality. Hence, contrary
relations show partial opposition. Two propositions are contrary:
i. When either of the two always becomes false or if the first proposition is true, the
corresponding proposition necessarily becomes false. In other words, the two
propositions would not be simultaneously true.
ii. Both can be false, but not always.
Examples:
1. When we are given the actually true A proposition “All cats are animals”, the
corresponding E proposition ‘‘No cats are animals’’ is false, and when we are
given the actually true E proposition ‘‘No cats are dogs,’’ the corresponding A
proposition ‘‘All cats are dogs’’ is false. Thus, the A and E propositions cannot
both be true. However, they can both be false. For instance, the proposition ‘‘All
animals are cats’’ and ‘‘No animals are cats’’ are both false.
2. However, when the first proposition is false the truth value of the corresponding
proposition would be either true or false.
E: No drinking water are chlorinate. (False)
A: All drinking water are chlorinate (False)

E: No cats are dogs. (True)

A: All cats are dogs. (False)
Note that, the A and E propositions cannot both be true. However, they can be both false,
but not always.
The rule of Contrary Square of opposition claims that either of propositions A or E is

always false. If the rule is violated, the truth value of the two propositions would have
undetermined truth value since it can be either true or false. Hence, their immediate
inference becomes invalid and commits the formal fallacy known as illicit contrary. In
short:
If A is true_ E is false Valid contrary No formal fallacy is

If E is true_ A is false opposition committed.
If A is false _ E is undetermined Invalid contrary Commits a formal fallacy

If E isC. Sub-contrary
false Relation
_ A is undetermined opposition of illicit contrary
The sub-contrary relation also expresses a kind of partial opposition. The sub- contrary
opposition is a bottom linear squares of relation between propositions I and O. These
propositions are different in quality but the same in quantity. Hence, the oppositions
between the two propositions are partial.
The two propositions are sub-contrary:

 When at least one of the two always becomes true or if the first proposition is
false, the corresponding proposition is necessarily true or the two propositions can
not be simultaneously false.
 Both can be true, but not always.
If a certain I proposition is given as false, the corresponding O proposition is true

(because at least one must be true), and if an O proposition is given as false, the
corresponding I proposition is true. But if either an I or an O proposition is given as true,
then the corresponding proposition could be either true or false without violating the ‘‘at
least one is true’’ rule. Thus, in this case the corresponding proposition would have
logically undetermined truth value.

Examples:
1. If we are given the actually false I proposition ‘‘some cats are dogs,’ then the
corresponding O proposition ‘‘some cats are not dogs’’ is true, and if we are
given the actually false O proposition ‘‘some cats are not animals,’ then the
corresponding I proposition ‘‘some cats are animals’’ is true. Thus, the I and O
propositions cannot both be false, but they can both be true. ‘‘Some animals are
cats’’ and ‘‘some animals are not cats’’ are both true.
The rule of sub-contrary claims that proposition I and O are always either of the two true.
If this rule is violated, then the truth of the two propositions would have undetermined
truth value. In other words, if the first proposition is true, then the truth value of the
corresponding proposition is undetermined - it can be either true or false. The
undetermined logical relation of the two propositions results the formal fallacy called
illicit sub-contrary.
If I is false_ O is true Valid Sub_ contrary No fallacy is

If O is false_ I is true opposition committed
If I is true _O is undetermined Invalid sub-contrary Illicit sub contrary

If O is true _ I is undetermined opposition fallacy
D. Sub-alternation relation
The Sub-alternation relation is a vertical square of opposition between proposition A
and I, and E and O. these propositions are the same in quality but different in quantity.
Hence, the opposition between them is partial.
The sub-alternation relation is represented by two arrows: a downward arrow marked

with the letter ‘‘T’’ (true), and an upward arrow marked with an ‘‘F’’ (false). These
arrows can be thought of as pipelines through which truth values ‘‘flow.’’ The downward
arrow ‘‘transmits’’ only truth, and the upward arrow only falsity. Propositions are sub-
alternate:
 When “True” truth value flows downward from universals to particulars, the
corresponding particular propositions become true. Hence, when A is true I will
be true and when E is true O will be true.

 When “False” truth value flows upward from particulars to universals the
corresponding propositions become false. Hence, when I is false A will be false
and when O is false proposition E will be false.
Examples:
1. A: All students are learners.(True)
I: Some students are learners. (True)
I: Some Christians are Muslims. (False)
A: All Christians are Muslims. (False)
2. E: No human beings are journeys.(True)

O: Some human beings are not journeys. (True)
O: Some plants are not destroyed. (False)
E: No plants are destroyed. (False)
The rule of sub-alternation claims that true flows downward and false flows upward.
Sub-alternates would have undetermined true value when the above rules are violated.
That is, when A is false I proposition will be undetermined, and when I is true the truth
value of A will be undetermined. The same is true for proposition E and O. In general,
any claim that violates this rule would result the formal fallacy of sub-alternation which
is called illicit sub-alternation. That is,
If A is true _I is true Valid sub-alternation No fallacy is

If E is true_ O is true Opposition committed
If I is false _ A is false Valid sub-alternation No fallacy is

If O is false _ E is false Opposition committed
If A is false _ I is undetermined Invalid Sub-alternation Illicit sub-alternation

If E is false _O is undetermined Opposition Fallacy is committed
If I is true _ A is undetermined Invalid Sub-alternation Illicit sub-alternation

If O is true _E is undetermined Opposition Fallacy is committed
In general, arguments based on an incorrect application of sub-contrary commit the

formal fallacy of illicit sub-contrary. Arguments that depend on an incorrect application

of the contrary relation commit the formal fallacy of illicit contrary, and arguments that
depend on an illicit application of sub-alternation commit the formal fallacy of illicit
sub-alternation.
Moreover, cases of the incorrect application of the contradictory relation are so

infrequent that an ‘‘illicit contradictory’’ fallacy is not usually recognized. The
existential formal fallacy is committed whenever contrary, sub-contrary, and sub-
alternation are used (in an otherwise correct way) on propositions about things that do not
exist. The following arguments commit the existential fallacy.
Examples:
1. All witches who fly on broomsticks are fearless women.
Therefore, some witches who fly on broomsticks are fearless women.
2. No wizards with magical powers are malevolent beings.
Therefore, it is false that all wizards with magical powers are malevolent beings.
The first example depends on an otherwise correct use of the sub-alternation relation, and
the second on an otherwise correct use of the contrary relation. If flying witches and
magical wizards actually existed, both arguments would be valid. But since they do not
exist, both arguments are invalid and commit the existential fallacy.
According to the Aristotelian interpretation, “X” with a circle around it will indicate that
something exists in that area in which it is placed and in this regard, it represents the
same thing as an uncircled “X.” The difference of the two symbols is:
 The uncircled “X”: express the positive claim of existence made by particular
propositions (I and O).
 The circled “X” represents the universal propositions (A and E).

The Aristotelian interpretation of categorical propositions may be represented as follows:

A: All S are p.
E: No S are P.
X
X
S P
I: Some S are p.
X
S
P
The circles “Xs” in the diagrams for A and E statement represents the Aristotelian
assumption that the subject terms of these statements denote actually existing things. In
the diagram for the A statement, the left- hand part of the S circle is shaded, so if there
are any members of S, they must be in the area where the two circles overlap. Hence, the
circled “X” is placed there.
In the diagram for the E statement, circled “X” is placed in the unshaded part of the S
circle. However, since “No S are P” is logically equivalent to “No P are S”, both terms

count as the “subject”. for this purpose, thus, a circled “X” is also placed in the unshaded
part of the P circle.
The Aristotelian interpretation of I and O proposition is these same as that found in the
modern square (or Boolean) interpretation of categorical proposition.
? Activity 4-3
Part I. Attempt to represent the following questions content using Venn diagrams of
categorical propositions.
1. Draw two Venn diagrams for the two categorical propositions which are both
affirmative in quality.
a. Draw two Venn diagrams for the propositions which are both negative in quality.
b. Draw two Venn diagrams one is universal in quality and negative in quantity and
the other is particular in quantity and affirmative in quality.
2. Determine whether the following immediate inference is valid or invalid by using
Venn diagram.
a. All birds are winged creatures.
Therefore, it is false that some birds are winged creatures.
b. Some animals are striped.
Therefore, it is false that no animals are striped.
Part II. Identify the square of relationship between the following pairs of immediate
inferences.
1. All A are B/ no A are B.______________________________________________.
2. No A are B/all A are B._______________________________________________.
3. Some A are B/ some A are not B._______________________________________.
4. Some A are not B/ all A are B._________________________________________.
5. Some A are not B/ no A are B._________________________________________.

4.4 Conversion, Obversion and Contraposition
These three concepts would help us to create new propositions based on the give
proposition and to decide which propositions would result the same truth-value or
undetermined (inconsistent) truth value. These three methods of changing or creating new
categorical propositions would help us:
 To interpret and analyze propositions, and

 To develop logically equivalent or different meanings about them.
The logical rules of conversion, obversion and contraposition are applicable based on the
components of categorical statements; and quality and quantity of propositions.
4.4.1 Conversion
The simplest of the three operations is conversion, and it consists in interchanging or
switching of the position of the subject to the predicate and vice versa. In other way, the
converse of a categorical proposition is obtained by:
a. replacing the subject term with the predicate term and,
b. replacing the predicate term with the subject term.
Consider the following example:

If the given statement “No S are P.” is converted as “No P are S.” This new statement is
called the converse of the given statement.
Accordingly, by conversion the four propositions look like the following. Study the
following table.
Letter Name Given Proposition New Statement by Conversion

A All S are P. All P are S.
E No S are P. No P are S.
I Some S are P. Some P are S.
O Some S are not P. Some P are not S.

It is important to you to see how the four types of categorical propositions related to their
converse, compare the following sets of Venn diagrams using the above examples:
Given Statement Form Conversion
A: All dogs are animals. All animals are dogs.
Some pets are cats.
D A
D A
E: No plants are animals. o
E: No plants are animals. g animals are plants.
No
Some
s men are not people.
P A
P A
I: Some cats are pets.
I: Some cats are pets. Some pets are cats.
O: Some people are not men. P

C C
P
O: Some people are not men. Some men are not people.
P M
P M
From the above diagrams, the diagram for E and I statement is identical or similar to that
of its converse. This means that the E and I statements and their converse are logically
equivalent. Two statements are said to be logically equivalent when they necessarily have
the same truth value (the same meaning).

The diagram for A and O statements is not identical to the diagram for its converse so
that they are logically unrelated. In other words, converting an A or O statements give a
new statement whose truth value is logically undetermined in relation to the given
statement.
Thus, conversion is valid only for E propositions and I propositions since both conclusion
and premise have the same truth value.
Examples:
1. No birds are featherless creatures. Therefore, no featherless creatures are birds.
2. Some men are people. Therefore, some people are men.
In the above immediate inference, both arguments move from a true premise to a true
conclusion, and hence the argument is valid.
However, proposition A and O would not give us the same true-value always as in the
case of proposition E and I. Since proposition A and O have undetermined truth value it
is impossible to form valid argument making the given statement as premise and the
converted statement as a conclusion.Therefore, conversion is not valid in general with
regard to A and O propositions. If you form the argument it would be a fallacy. The
fallacy committed in this immediate inference becomes a formal fallacy of illicit
conversion. Consider the following invalid conversions.
Examples:
1. All cats are mammals. So, all mammals are cats.
2. Some Ethiopians are not Africans. So, some Africans are not Ethiopians.
Both arguments move from a true premise to a false conclusion. And hence the
arguments are invalid and commit a fallacy of illicit conversion.
To sum up, the immediate inferences of proposition A and O in the cases of conversion
are invalid and the formal fallacy committed in the invalid argument of these propositions
is called illicit conversion.

4.4.2 Obversion
The obverse of a categorical proposition is obtained using the next two steps:
1. changing the quality (from affirmative to negative or vice versa) without
changing the quantity; and ,
2. replacing the predicate term with the complement of the predicate term.
The complement of a class is the group consisting of everything outside the class. For
terms consisting of a single word, the term complement is usually formed by simply
attaching the prefix “non” to the term. Thus, the term complement of the term
“Ethiopian” is “non- Ethiopian” or those that are not Ethiopian. The term complement of
the term “dog” is “non- dog”. Here non- dog is a group including that is not dog, for
instance, cats, fish, trees, horses, and soon. The complement of the term “non-plants” is
“plants”.
Accordingly, when we apply obversion the four propositions look like the following.
Study the following tabular demonstration:
Letter Name Given Proposition New Statement

by Obversion
A All S are P. No S are non-P.
E No S are P. All S are non –P.
I Some S are P. Some S are not non-P.
O Some S are not P. Some S are non-P.
To make the first rule or step of obversion, that is, change the quality without changing
its quantity.
1. The affirmative quantifier “all” has to be replaced by the negative quantifier “no”.
This is to change the affirmative quality “all” of the proposition into negative
quality “no” and the negative quantifier “no” has to be replaced by the affirmative

quantifier “all”. And again the quantities of these propositions are universal, that
is the propositions that begin by “All S are P” as well as “No S are P” are both
universal in quantity.
Examples:
Given Statement New Statement by Obversion
A: All trees are plants. No trees are non-plants.

E: No cats are trees. All cats are non- trees.
2. The affirmative proposition “Some S are P” should be replaced as “Some S are

not P” and Some S are not P should be replaced as “Some S are P” for the purpose
of changing their quality. Besides, the predicate should be replaced by its
complement term, which has difference meaning than a given term, symbolically
represented as “non-P”.
3.
Given Statement New Statement by Obversion
I: Some trees are oaks. Some trees are not non-oaks.

O: Some lions are not mammals. Some lions are non-mammals.
It is important to you to see how the four types of categorical propositions related to their
obversion, compare the following sets of Venn diagrams using the above examples.

Given Statement Form Obverse
A: All trees are plants. No trees are non-plants.
T P
T P
E: No cats are trees.
All cats are non- trees.
C T
C T
I: Some trees are oaks. Some trees are not non-oaks.
O
T O T
O: Some lions are not mammals. Some lions are non-mammals.
L M
L M
According to the rule of obversion, all of the four propositions would give us the same
truth-value as it is in the given proposition. From the above diagrams, one can see that
each categorical proposition is logically equivalent to and the same meaning as its
obverse. This means that if the given proposition is true, like for example, All S are P is
true, and then the new obverted statement, No S are non-P, is also be true. If the given

proposition is false, the new obverted statement will be false too. It is the same for all
propositions.
Examples:
1. Some students are clever (True).Therefore some students are not lazy (True)
by obversion.
2. No leaders are liars (False). Therefore, all leaders are honest (False) by
obvesion.
Since the truth value of the given and obverted statement have the same truth-value and
the information content of the two propositions are the same, if we consider the given
proposition as premise and the obverted statement as conclusion the immediate inference
is always valid, hence commits no formal fallacy.
4.4.3 Contraposition
The contra positive of a categorical proposition is obtained by two steps:

1. replacing the subject term with the complement of the predicate term and,
2. replacing the predicate term with the complement of the subject term.
Consider the following valid contrapositives.
3. Study the following table.
Letter Name Give Proposition New Statement by

Contraposition
A All S are P. All non-P are non-S.
E No S are P. No non-P are non-S.
I Some S are P. Some non-P are non-S.
O Some S are not P. Some non-P are not non-S.
You can here then apply the rules or steps of contraposition and form the conrapositive
form for statements given below.

New Statement by Contraposition

Given Statement
All non-mammals are non-cats.
A:
DearAlllearner,
cats areitmammals.
is important to No non-elephants are non-bats.
E: No bats are elephants.
Some non-weeds are non-plants.
I: Some plants are weeds.
Some non-weeds are not non-plants.
O: Some plants are not weeds.
In order to see how the four types of categorical propositions are related to their
contraposition, compares the following sets of Venn diagrams using the above examples.
Given Statement
Contrapostive
A: All cats are mammals.
All non-mammals are non-cats.
C M
C M
E: No bats are elephants.

No non-elephants are non-bats.
E E
B
B
I: Some plants are weeds.

Some non-weeds are non-plants.
W
P
P
O: Some plants are not weeds. W
Some non-weeds are not non-plants.
P W W
P

The above diagram for A and O statements reveals that they are identical to the diagram
of their contrapostive while the diagrams of E and I statements are neither identical to nor
the exact opposite of the diagrams of their contrapostives and hence their truth values are
logically undetermined relation to their given statements.
According to the rule of contraposition, proposition A and O would give us the same
truth value. Contrapositions may provide the link between the premise and the conclusion
of an argument contraposition is valid for A and O statements. Thus the following
arguments are valid.
1. All cats are mammals. Therefore, all non-mammals are non-cats.
2. Some people are not men. Therefore, some non-men are not non-people.
Contraposition is not valid (invalid) in general for E and I statements. Consider the
following invalid contrapositions.
1. No dogs are cats. Therefore, no non-cats are non-dogs.

2. Some non-dogs are non-cats. Therefore, some cats are dogs.
The immediate inferences of proposition E and I in the cases of contraposition are invalid
and the formal fallacy committed in the invalid argument of these propositions is called
illicit contraposition.
? Activity 4.4
Part I. Fill the following blank space.
Given Statement New Statement by Conversion
1. ___________________. All animals are dogs.

E: No plants are animals. 2. _________________.
3. ___________________. Some pets are cats.
O: Some people are not men. 4. _________________.

Part II. Convert the following given statement to its contrapostive form.
1. All S are P.________________________________.
2. Some logicians are philosophers._________________________________.
3. Some non cats are not non animals._______________________________.
4. All human beings are non mortal.________________________________.
5. All unicorns are extinct._______________________________________.
Part III. Determine the following arguments whether they are valid or invalid based on
the rule of contraposition.
1. All lions are carnivores. Therefore, all non- carnivores are non-lions.__________.
2. Some politicians are polite people. Therefore, some non-polite people are non-
politicians._____________.
3. No defectors are good citizens. Therefore, no non-good citizens are non-
defectors.________________.
4. Some insects are not aggressive. Therefore, some non- aggressive are not non-
insects.________________.
5. All students are lovers of logic. Therefore, all non -lovers of logic are non-
students.________________
Summary
The whole lessons that, you have learnt in this chapter revolves around categorical
propositions. They are propositions that relate two classes (or categories). Standard-form
categorical propositions occur in four forms and are composed of a quantifier
(‘‘all,’’‘‘no,’’ ‘‘some’’), a subject term, a copula (‘‘are,’’ ‘‘are not’’) and a predicate
term. A standard-form categorical proposition has either affirmative or negative quality,
depending on whether it joins or separates the subject and predicate classes, or universal
or particular quantity, depending on whether it relates all or only a part of the subject
class to the predicate class.

Moreover, you have explored when the subject and predicate terms are said to be
distributed or undistributed. This is mainly dependent on whether the proposition makes
an assertion about all or only a part of the class denoted by the term in question. Each
standard-form proposition is given a letter name (A, E, I, O) that reflects its quantity and
quality.
Furthermore, this chapter included about Categorical propositions’ interpretation.

Categorical propositions having universal quantity admit of two different interpretations.
The Aristotelian interpretation assumes that the subject term denotes actually existing
things, while the Boolean interpretation makes no such assumption. The content of a
standard-form proposition may be represented in a Venn diagram, which consists of two
overlapping circles. Placing an X in an area indicates that the area is not empty, and
shading an area indicates that the area is empty.
The modern square of opposition is a diagram that applies to the Boolean interpretation;
it indicates that the A and O propositions contradict each other and that the E and I
propositions contradict each other.The other part of this chapter was about Conversion,
obversion, and contraposition. These are operations that can be performed on standard-
form propositions; they result in a new proposition that is either logically equivalent or
not logically equivalent to the original proposition. Two propositions that are logically
equivalent necessarily have the same truth value. Conversion gives logically equivalent
results for E and I propositions, obversion does so for all four, and contraposition, for A
and O. The formal fallacies of illicit conversion and illicit contraposition result from the
application of conversion and contraposition to propositions that do not yield logically
equivalent results.
You have also identified the traditional square of opposition’s application in the
Aristotelian interpretation of categorical propositions. It shows how each kind of
proposition relates to the other three. The contrary relation, holding between the A and E
propositions, asserts that at least one is false. Sub-contrary, holding between I and O,
asserts that at least one is true. Sub-alternation, holding between A and I and between E
and O, indicates that truth ‘‘flows’’ downward and falsity upward. Contradiction holds as

in the modern square. The formal fallacies of illicit contrary, illicit sub-contrary and illicit
sub-alternation result from incorrect applications of these relations. The existential
fallacy results from applying the traditional square to propositions whose subject terms
denote nonexistent things.
Finally, you also discovered how Venn diagrams are applied for Aristotelian and Boolean
interpretations. The Venn diagram technique, which typically applies to the Boolean
interpretation of categorical propositions, can be modified to apply to the Aristotelian
interpretation. The modification consists in introducing a circled ‘‘X,’’ which represents
the assumption of existence, into the unshaded part of the subject circle for A and E
propositions. Once modified, the Venn diagram technique can be used to prove the
relationships of the traditional square of opposition and to test immediate inferences from
the Aristotelian standpoint.
 Self_ Assessment Questions (SAQs)-4

Part I. Multiple Choices Items
Choose the correct answer from the given alternatives under each item
1. A term that refers about class of things is called:

A. Proposition C. Category
B. Copula D. Quantifier
2. One of the following is a feature of categorical propositions:
A. Express the relation of two classes.
B. Contain quantifiers and copulas
C. Contain exactly two terms.
D. All the above
3. The correct arrangement of the mood of the standard of categorical proposition is
A. Quantifier, subject term, copula, predicate term
B. Subject term, quantifier, copula, predicate term
C. Copula, subject term, quantifier, predicate term
D. Predicate term, copula, quantifier, subject term

4. In the proposition “All Hawassa University student are clever”, the quantifier is:
A. Hawassa C. Are
B. All D. Students
5. From the Boolean standpoint, which one is a valid argument?
A. Some S are P. Therefore, it is true that some S are not P.
B. No S are P. Therefore, it is true that some S are P.
C. All S are P. Therefore, it is false that some S are not P.
D. Some S are P. Therefore, it is false that all S are P.
6. From Aristotelian square of opposition stand points:
A. The proposition “All S are P” has sub-contrary relations.
B. The proposition “No S are P” has no subaltern relations.
C. The proposition “Some S are P” has sub-contrary relations.
D. The proposition “Some S are not P” has no subaltern relations
7. The obverse for the proposition” No A are B” is:-
A. No A are non-B C. All A are non-B
B. No B are non-A D. No B are A
8. In the proposition “Some children are not innocent.” The distributed term is :
A. Innocent C. Children
B. Some D. Both children and innocent
9. The quality and quantity of the above proposition in question 10 respectively is :
A. Particular, negative C. Universal, negative
B. Positive, particular D. Negative, particular
10. The sub-alternation of the proposition “All scientists are mathematicians is:
A. Some scientists are mathematicians.
B. No scientists are mathematicians.
C. All scientists are not mathematicians
D. Some scientists are not mathematicians.
I. ‘‘True’’ or ‘‘False’’ item
If the statement is correct, say true, if not, say false

1. The proposition “All S are not P” is not a standard form of categorical proposition.

2.Proposition A and I are the same in quantity.

3.According to the rule of sub alternation opposition, the truth value of proposition A has
the same truth value with the proposition O.
4.The proposition “Some A are B”, its sub-contrary is “Some A are not B.”
5.Illicit contradictory relation is not committed usually in categorical syllogism
CHAPTER FIVE
CATEGORICAL SYLLOGISMS
 INTRODUCTION
This chapter deals with categorical syllogism. It emphasizes on the study of syllogistic
arguments formed from the standard form of categorical propositions. In this chapter,
three sections are presented. The meaning of categorical syllogism, mood and figure of
the categorical syllogisms and finally rules for categorical syllogisms are provided.
Accordingly, the lessons of this section are entirely based on our discussion of categorical
propositions that we made in the previous section.
5.1The Concept, Standard Form, Mood, and Figure of

Categorical Syllogisms
5.1.1 The Concept and Components of categorical syllogism
A Categorical syllogism is a deductive argument consisting of exactly three categorical

propositions (two premises and one conclusion). A categorical syllogism consists of the
following components.
 Two premises and one conclusion.
 Each proposition consists only two terms (subject and predicate term).
 The argument consists of three terms that appears two times in different
propositions.
 Each term and premise has their own name and position in the argument.

 The major term of a categorical syllogism is the predicate of the

conclusion of the syllogism, and the major premise is the premise that
contains the major term.
 The minor term of a categorical syllogism is the subject term of the
conclusion of the syllogism, and the minor premise is the premise that
contains the minor term.
 The middle term of a categorical syllogism is the term that occurs
exactly once in each of the two premises and not in the conclusion.
Note that the major and minor terms appear both in the premises and in the conclusion,
while the middle term never appears in the conclusion. Consider the following examples:
Example 1: Identify from the given argument the major, minor and middle terms, and
major and minor premises.
All soldiers are patriots.
No traitors are patriots.
Therefore, no traitors are soldiers.
In this example the:

Major term: Soldiers Minor term: Traitors
Middle term: Patriots Major premise: All soldiers are patriots.
Minor premise: No traitors are patriots
5.1.2 Standard Forms of Categorical Syllogism
A categorical syllogism is in standard form when the following conditions are met:
 All three statements have quantifier, subject term, copula, and predicate term.
 The major term appears in the first premise, which is known as the major premise,
 The minor term appears in the second premise, and
 The conclusion is listed last.
Standard form arguments can be either valid or invalid. Consider the following
syllogisms.

1. All cats are mammals.

Some cats are pets.
Therefore, some pets are mammals.
2. Some cats are pets.

All cats are mammals.
Therefore, some pets are mammals.
The first syllogism is in standard form because the major premise is stated in the first
premise and the minor term is stated in the second premise. The second syllogism is not
in standard form because the major premise is not stated in the first premise and the
minor term is also not stated in the second premise.
5.1.3 The Mood of Categorical Syllogism
According to traditional logic, every syllogism is supposed to have a mood. The mood of
a categorical syllogism is determined by the types of proposition (A, E, I, O) that an
argument is composed of. Hence, the mood of categorical syllogism is the ordering or
arranging of three propositions, which make up the syllogism.
The mood of the syllogism is then designated by the letters,

 Reading the letter name of the major premise first.
 Reading the letter name of the minor premise second, and
 Reading the letter name of the conclusion last.
Consider the following categorical syllogism and identify the mood of the syllogism.
No philosophers are mathematicians. (E proposition)

All scientists are mathematicians. (A proposition)
Therefore, no scientists are philosophers. (E proposition)
The mood of this syllogistic argument is EAE. The first letter “E” represents the major
premise: ‘No philosophers are mathematicians.’ The second letter “A” represents the

minor premise: ‘All scientists are mathematicians.’ the last letter “E” represents the
conclusion: ‘No scientists are philosophers.’ One thing you should keep in your mind is
that the mood of a categorical syllogism is determined after the argument has been stated
in a standard form.
5.1.4 The Figure of Categorical Syllogism

Every syllogism is also supposed to have a figure. The figure of categorical syllogism is
determined by the placement or position of the middle term. Hence, the validity of a
categorical syllogism is also affected by the position of the middle term.
Since the middle term can not occur in the conclusion, there are only four possible
arrangements of the middle term. That is, the middle term can be either in the subject or
the predicate of the major premise and the subject or the predicate of the minor premise.
Thus, there are four possible figures, which can be diagrammed as follows:
Figure_1 Figure_2 Figure_3 Figure_4
-M-P -P-M -M-P -P-M

-S-M -S-M -M-S -M-S
Dear learner,
- S you
- P should recall
-Sthat
- P “S” stands for
- Sthe
- Pminor term, “P”-for
S -the
P major term
and “M” for the middle term in the above diagram of figure. The blanks indicate the
places for quantifiers and copulas, respectively.
In the first figure, the middle term is the subject term of the major premise and the
predicate term of the minor premise. In the second figure, the middle term is used as the
predicate term of both premises. In the third figure, the position of the middle term is the
subject term of both the major and minor premises. In the fourth figure, the position of
the middle term is the predicate term of the major premise and the subject term of the
minor premise.
In light of this, identifies the figure for the following syllogistic argument.
1. All humans are mortal. (A proposition)
All Ethiopians are humans. (A proposition)
Therefore, all Ethiopians are mortal. (A proposition)

The figure of the argument is 1 since the middle term (humans) is used as the subject of
the major premise and the predicate of the minor premise. Combining the mood and
figure the argument has the following syllogistic form AAA-1.
2. Some merchants are pirates. (I proposition)

All merchants are stingy. (A proposition)
Therefore, some stingy are pirates. (I proposition)
The figure of the argument is 3 because the middle term (merchants) appears as the
subject term of both premises. When you combine the mood and figure, the standard
form will be represented as IAI-3.
Bear in your mind that there are four kinds of categorical propositions, and three
categorical statements per categorical syllogism. Thus, there are 43 =4 x 4x 4 = 64
possible moods (AAA, AAE, AAI, AAO, AEA, etc.) There are also four different
figures. Therefore, the number of standard form categorical syllogism will be 256.That is,
64x 4= 256.
Given the mood and figure of a categorical syllogism how can you form a categorical
syllogism?
Let us suppose you are given the form AIO-2. To construct the syllogistic form follow
the following steps. Remember that the middle term is represented by M, the major term
by P and the minor term by S.
A. Use the mood to determine the skeleton of the form:

A: All ______ are _______.
I: Some ____are ________.
O: Some ____ are not ____.
B. Use the figure to determine the arrangement of the middle terms.

A: All ______ are M.
I: Some ___ are M.
O: Some ___are not __.

C. Finally, supply the major and minor terms, using the letters “S” and “P” to
designate the subject and predicate of the conclusion.
The resulting syllogistic form is:
A: All P are M.
I: Some S are M.
Taking the above way of re-construction of categorical syllogism into onsideration, let us
construct argument from the given information.
Example:
An argument AIA-4 and its: a, the major term is “Professors”, b, the minor tem is
“Logicians”, and c, the middle term is “Philosophers”. Re-write the argument in
proposition.
A: All ______ are M.
I: Some M are ____.
A: All ____ are ___.
The resulting syllogistic form is:

All professors are philosophers.
Some philosophers are logicians.
Therefore, all Logicians are professors.
? Activity 5.1

1. Given the argument
Some figures are circles.
Some figures are squares.
Therefore, all squares are circles.
a. The major premise is ____________ d. The minor term is ____________
b. The minor premise is ___________ e. The middle term is ___________
c. The major term is ____________ f. The mood and figure is _________

2. An argument AIA-3 and its

 The major term is “snows”
 The miner term is “black”, and
 The middle term is “white.” The question is re-writing the argument in
propositional forms.
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
3. Identify the argument which is in standard form. If it is in its standard form why? If
not why?
a. All cattle are herbivores. All oxes are herbivores. Therefore, all oxes are
herbivores._______________________________________________________.
b. No singers are youngsters. Some singers are insane. Therefore, some youngsters
are insane._______________________________________________________.
c. No boxers are weak. All weak are sick. Therefore, some boxers are
sick.____________________________________________________________.
5.2 Testing the Validity of Categorical Syllogisms Using Venn

Diagram
The basic methods which will be used under this section to plot the information of a
categorical syllogism are the same as we have learned in chapter four. You learned that
every categorical syllogism contain three terms, so we require three overlapping circles.
The Venn diagram of categorical syllogism contains eight areas- seven areas within the
diagram and one area outside of the diagram. The labeling of the circles is as follows:
 The lower left circle to the subject of the conclusion (minor tem).
 The lower right circle to the predicate of the conclusion (major term) and
 The top circle or the circle in the middle to the middle term.

The Venn diagram for categorical Syllogism looks like this:
As you can see from the diagram, the three overlapping circles are represented by the
terms of categorical proposition. Accordingly, eight possible areas are vivid in the above
syllogism; seven areas within the diagram and one area outside the circles. Each number
in the diagram shows a particular relationship among the three terms of a categorical
syllogism. For instance, Anything in the area marked “1” is An M but neither an S nor a
P. Anything in the area marked “2” is both an S and M but not a P, and anything in area
marked “3” is a member of all three classes and soon.
Having this understanding of the areas within the Venn diagram for categorical
syllogism, let us now discuss how to present the given categorical syllogism using Venn
diagram. Our task is to find out if a given syllogism is valid or invalid by the Venn
diagram method. Therefore, to put information on a Venn diagram you have to follow
the following steps:
 First draw a Venn diagram of three overlapping circles as shown above, and label
each circle with the three terms in a categorical syllogism.
 Marks (shading or placing an “X”) are entered only for the premises. No marks
are made for conclusion.
 An ‘‘X’’ should never be placed in such a way that it dangles outside of the
diagram, and it should never be placed on the intersection of two lines.
 If the syllogism is a combination of universal and particular proposition, draw
first the Venn diagram of the universal proposition. This is a safety rule so that the
“X” plotting the particular statement does not land in a shaded area. If you enter

to plot the particular proposition first, you may place the “X” in an area which
may become shaded after plotting the universal proposition. If there are two
universal premises, either one can be done first.
 After you transmit the information content of the premises to the diagram, you
will inspect the diagram to see whether the diagram necessarily implies the truth
of the conclusion or does the diagram of the premise tell you that the conclusion
is true or false.
 Finally, you should determine the validity of the given syllogistic argument. If the
information in the Venn diagram is contained the content of the conclusion, it is
valid, otherwise the argument is invalid.
Based on the above preliminary points, test the following syllogistic arguments and
determine whether they are valid or invalid using a Venn diagram technique.
Example 1:
All legislators are dignitaries.
All dignitaries are educated.
Therefore, all educated are legislators.
Given “M”, “S”, and “P” to assign the middle, minor, and major terms, respectively, the
logical structure of the syllogism seems as follows.
All P are M.
All M are S.
All S are P.
We start testing the validity of the syllogism by drawing three overlapped circles and
label the circles with the three terms in the syllogism. We test its validity first by plotting
the major premise first and then the minor premise. To understand the process better,
each step will be shown separately. But later on, we plot the content of information of the
two premises in the Venn diagram.

M
M
P
S S P
a. All P are M. b. All P are M. and All M are S.
In the above diagram, diagram “a” shows the situation after plotting the major premise,
“All P are M”. Then, in diagram “b” we add the information given in the minor premise
that is “All M are S”. Then after, we will observe the conclusion to prove the validity of
the argument. The conclusion states that the part of the S circle that is outside the P circle
is empty. Inspection of the diagram, however, reveals that nothing is known about that
area. The areas shown by the arrows must be shaded to make the argument valid. Thus,
the syllogism is invalid.
Example 2:
No rocks are sentient things.
All animals are sentient things.
Therefore, no animals are rocks.
No P are M.
All S are M.
No S are P.
In order to determine validity, we draw three overlapping Venn diagram. Both premises
are universals enter information of them in the diagram. Let us start by the first premise,
but this time we combine the steps and produce only one Venn diagram.

Having diagrammed the premise, you must now check whether the content of the
conclusion has also been diagrammed in the process. The conclusion states that the area
where the S and P circle overlap is shaded. Examination of the diagram reveals that this
area is indeed shaded, so the argument is valid.
Example 3:
All metals are conductors.
No copper alloys are metals.
Therefore, no copper alloys are conductors.
All M are P.
No S are M.
No S are P.
Both premises are universal. So, enter one of them information in the diagram. Let us
first enter the major premise- All M are P., then we concentrate our attention on the M
and P circle. Secondly, we enter the minor premise-No S are M., and we concentrate our
attention on the M and S circles.
The conclusion states that the area where S and P circles overlap is shaded. Inspection of
the diagram, nonetheless, reveals that only part of this area is shaded, but the part of
conclusion that an arrow indicates is unshaded, so the syllogism is invalid.

Example 4:
Some logicians are Mathematicians.
All Mathematicians are Philosophers.
Therefore, some Philosophers are logicians.
The given syllogistic argument is the combination of universal and particular premises;
we should first enter the information of universal proposition then particular proposition.
So, let us concentrate our attention on the P and M circles of the major premise terms.
Next, we focus on the minor premise terms (on the M and S circles).
Some P are M.
All M are S.
Some S are P.
The conclusion states that there is an “X” in the area where the S and P circle overlap.
Examination of the diagram reveals that there is indeed an “X” in this area, so the
argument is valid.
Example 5:
Some dogs are not Cats.
Some Animals are dogs.
Therefore, Some Animals are not cats.
In this Syllogism all of the propositions have particular quality. In order to draw the Venn
diagram, we can start from either of the premise that major or minor premise. However,
while drawing the Venn diagram, you have to be careful of the type of mark that is used.
Since the premises are both particulars, the X mark is used. Moreover, the place of the X
mark is over the arcs.

Therefore, the Venn diagram looks like as follow:

Some M are not P.
Some S are M.
Therefore, Some S are not P.
In this diagram no areas have been shaded, so there are two possible areas for each of the
two ‘‘X’’s. The ‘‘X’’ from the first premise goes on the line (arc of the S circle)
separating areas 1 and 2, and the ‘‘X’’ from the second premise goes on the line (arc of
the P circle) separating areas a and b. The conclusion states that there is an ‘‘X’’ in the S
circle that is outside the P circle. We have no certainty that the ‘‘X’’ from the first
premise is inside the S circle, and while the ‘‘X’’ from the second premise is inside the S
circle, we have no certainty that it is outside the P circle. Hence, the argument is invalid.
All the examples of syllogisms considered thus far are valid or invalid regardless of
whether the Boolean or the Aristotelian standpoint is taken. In other words, it makes no
difference to their validity whether their terms denote actually existing things. Let us now
consider an example where the standpoint does make a difference. To test such an
argument from the Aristotelian standpoint, we follow basically the same procedure that
we used in Section 4.5 to test immediate inferences:
1. Symbolize the argument and test it from the Boolean standpoint. If the argument
is valid, proceed no further; the argument is unconditionally valid.
2. If the argument is invalid from the Boolean standpoint, examine the diagram
and see if there is a Venn circle that is completely shaded except for one area. If
there is such a circle, place a circled ‘‘X’’ in the unshaded part of that Venn
circle. Retest the argument for validity.

3. If the diagram indicates that the argument is valid, determine if the circled ‘‘X’’
represents something that actually exists. If it does, the argument is valid from
the Aristotelian standpoint.
Concerning step 2, if the diagram contains no Venn circle completely shaded except for
one area, then the syllogism is invalid from the Aristotelian standpoint. However, if it
does contain such a Venn circle, then we place a circled ‘‘X’’ in the one unshaded area.
This circled ‘‘X’’ represents the assumption that the Venn circle in question is not empty.
Step 3 determines whether this assumption is justified. In other words, it determines if we
are justified in taking the Aristotelian standpoint for that argument. If we are justified, the
argument is valid; if not, it is invalid.
Example 6:
No fighter pilots are tank commanders.
All fighter pilots are courageous individuals.
Therefore, some courageous individuals are not tank commanders.
Let us see this argument from Aristotelian and Boolean Stand point. I begin with the
Boolean Stand point.
No F are T.
All F are C.
Some C are not T.
The conclusion asserts that there is an ‘‘X’’ that is inside the C circle and outside the T
circle. Inspection of the diagram reveals no ‘‘X’’s at all, so the syllogism is invalid from
the Boolean standpoint. However, proceeding to step 2, we notice that the F circle is all
shaded except for one area. Thus, we place a circled ‘‘X’’ in the one remaining area of
the F circle:

Now the diagram indicates that the argument is valid, so we proceed to step 3 and
determine whether the circled ‘‘X’’ represents something that actually exists. This is
equivalent to determining whether F denotes something that exists. Since F stands for
fighter pilots, which do exist, the circled ‘‘X’’ does represent something that exists. Thus,
the syllogism is valid from the Aristotelian standpoint.
? Activity 5.2
Do the following activities based on the following Venn diagram
a. Locate an area which covers “All S are P.”____________________________.

b. Indicate an area which covers “Some S are not M.”_____________________.
c. Indicate an area which shows “No M are P.”________________________.
d. Identify an area which shows “Some S are P.”
e. The area marked “3” and “6” tell us a standard categorical proposition of
____________________.
f. Anything in area marked “5” tells us __________________________________.

5.3 Rules for Testing the Validity of Categorical Syllogisms

Valid and invalid categorical syllogistic arguments can be identified with their form or
structure. We have in general five rules to determine the validity of a categorical
syllogism. Of the five rules two rules depend on the concept of distribution of terms and
three rules depend on the concept of quality and quantity.
Rules of Distribution of Terms
The following two rules of distribution adequate for testing the validity of categorical
syllogism:
Rule 1: The middle term must be distributed at least once with respect to one of the
premise.
Fallacy: The fallacy, which violates this rule, is called undistributed middle fallacy.
Example 1:
All sharks are fish.
All salmon are fish.
Therefore, all salmon are sharks.
In this standard form of categorical syllogism the middle term is “fish”. In both premises
“fish” occurs as the predicate of an A-proposition and therefore, it is not distributed in
either premise. Thus, the syllogism commits the fallacy of undistributed middle.
Example 2:
All men are people.
All rational beings are people.
Therefore, all rational beings are men.
In this example, the middle term is “people,” which is the predicate term of both
premises. Since an A proposition does not distribute its predicate term, the middle term is
not distributed at all in the premises of this syllogism. It is thus invalid. Thus, the
syllogism commits the fallacy of undistributed middle.
Rule 2: If a term is distributed in the conclusion, then it must be distributed in

Premise (either in the major premise or in the minor premise)

Fallacy: The fallacies that violate this rule two:
 Illicit major
 Illicit minor
Dear learner now let me explain to you how illicit minor and illicit major fallacies are
committed.
A. Illicit Major
Example:
All carbons are light.
Some carbons are not conductors.
Therefore, some conductors are not light.
The major term “light” is distributed in the conclusion but, not in the major premise, so
the syllogism commits the fallacy of illicit major.
B. Illicit Minor
Example:
All lions are mammals.
All mammals are animals.
Therefore all animals are lions.
Here, the minor term, “animals” is distributed in the conclusion but not in the minor
premise, so the syllogism commits the fallacy of illicit minor.
5.3.2 Rules of Quality of Premises

The following two rules of quality of premises adequate for testing the validity of
categorical syllogism:
Rule 3: Two negative premises are not allowed.

Fallacy: The fallacy that violates this rule is called exclusive premise.
Example:
No cats are dogs.
Some dogs are not fish.
Therefore, some cats are fish.

This syllogism may be seen to be invalid because it has true premises and a false
conclusion. The problem of this syllogism is that it has two negative premises, so the
syllogism commits the fallacy of exclusive premises.
Rule 4: If one of the premises is negative, then the conclusion must be negative as
well.
Fallacy: The fallacies that violate this rule are two:
 Drawing an affirmative conclusion from a negative premise.
 Drawing a negative conclusion from an affirmative premises.
A. Drawing an affirmative conclusion from a negative premise.

Example:
All crows are birds.
Some wolves are not crows.
Therefore, some wolves are birds.
Here the argument may be seen to be invalid because it has true premise and a false
conclusion. The problem in this syllogistic argument draws an affirmative conclusion
from a negative premise; hence it commits a fallacy of drawing an affirmative
conclusion from a negative premise.
B. Drawing a negative conclusion from affirmative premises.

Example:
All cowards are heroes.
Some cowards are soldiers.
Therefore, some soldiers are not heroes.
This syllogistic argument draws a negative conclusion from affirmative premise, so it is
invalid and commits a fallacy of drawing a negative conclusion from affirmative
premises.
5.3.3 Rule of Quantity of Premises

This rule is applicable only in modern logicians interpretation from the Boolean stand
points) of categorical syllogism.

Rule 5: A particular conclusion cannot be derived from two universal premises.

Fallacy: The fallacy committed violating this rule is called as existential fallacy.
Example:
All mammals are animals.
All mules are mammals.
Therefore, some mules are animals.
The rationale behind rule 5 is as follows. From the Boolean standpoint, universal
statements make no assertions about existence, while particular statements do.
Thus, if a syllogism is made up of universal premises and a particular conclusion, the
conclusion asserts that something exists, while the premises do not. Thereby, the
conclusion contains more information than the premises, and the syllogism is invalid.
On the other hand, from the Aristotelian standpoint the assumption is made that the
subject term of a universal statement denotes at least one existing thing. Thus, under this
assumption the mere fact that a syllogism has universal premises and a particular
conclusion is not sufficient grounds for claiming that the conclusion contains more
information than the premises. Provided that such a syllogism breaks no other rules,
therefore, it is valid.
In section two and section three of this chapter, you have learned about how Venn
diagrams and rules can be applied in order to test the Validity of Categorical syllogisms.
Furthermore, you have studied the fallacies that occur due to the violation of rules. Now
let us summarize the categorical syllogisms that are valid from the Aristotelian and
Boolean stand points.
The syllogistic forms presented in the list that follows are called unconditionally valid,
because they are valid from both the Boolean and the Aristotelian standpoints. In other
words, they are valid regardless of whether their terms denote actually existing things.
Totally, we have 15 unconditionally valid categorical syllogisms.

Unconditionally Valid
First Figure Second Figure Third Figure Fourth Figure
AAA EAE IAI AEE
EAE AEE AII IAI
AII EIO OAO EIO
EIO AOO EIO
The next list, on the other hand, includes an additional nine syllogistic forms that become
valid if the Aristotelian standpoint can be taken. This, in turn, depends on whether a
certain term in the syllogism denotes actually existing things. The term in question is
stated in the right-hand column under ‘‘required condition.’’ Thus, if the required
condition is fulfilled, the forms on this list become valid; if not, they are invalid:
Conditionally valid
Figure 1 Figure-2 Figure-3 Figure-4 Required condition
AAI AEO S-exists
EAO EAO
AAI EAO M-exists
EAO
AAI P-exists
The reason why these additional forms become valid is that the Aristotelian standpoint
(when properly adopted) recognizes that the premises of a syllogism convey information
about existence, whereas the Boolean standpoint does not. This additional information
allows for additional inferences.
To see how the two lists are applied, suppose we are given an AAI-1 syllogism. Because
this form is missing from the first list, we know that the syllogism is invalid from the
Boolean standpoint. However, the form is included in the second list. This means that if
we are justified in taking the Aristotelian standpoint (that is, if S, the subject of the
conclusion, denotes at least one existing thing), the syllogism is valid. Analogously,
AAI-4 is invalid from the Boolean standpoint, but if M (the middle term) denotes at least
one existing thing, the syllogism is valid.

? Activity 5.3

1. Give short answer for each of the following questions.
a. If a syllogism has an E statement as its conclusion, then its premise cannot be
A and I statement. Why?
b. Why rule 5 is not the concern for Aristotelian or traditional logic?
2. Write down
a. Rules of distribution?
b. Rules of quality?
c. Rules of quantity?
Summary
A categorical syllogism is a deductive argument consisting of three categorical
propositions and containing a total of three different terms, each of which appears twice
in distinct propositions. In a standard-form categorical syllogism, the propositions are all
in standard form, the two occurrences of each term are identical, each term is used in the
same sense throughout the argument, and the major premise is listed first, the minor
premise second, and the conclusion last.
In addition to this, you have assessed the name of the premises and the three types of
terms found in a standard categorical syllogism. The major premise is the one that
contains the major term (which by definition is the predicate of the conclusion), and the
minor premise is the one that contains the minor term (which by definition is the subject
of the conclusion). The middle term is the one that appears twice in the premises.
You have also learned how the standard-form syllogism is identified. The name of a
standard form syllogism is determined in terms of mood and figure. The mood consists of
the letter names of the propositions that compose the syllogism, and the figure is
determined by the location of the two occurrences of the middle term in the premises.

The other discussion that we made in this chapter was about Venn diagrams. The Venn
diagrams for syllogisms consist of three overlapping circles, with each circle representing
a term. To test a syllogism for validity, the content of the premises is represented in the
diagram, and the diagram is then inspected to see if it supports the conclusion. In
representing the content of the premises, ‘‘X’’s and shading are entered into the diagram
in basically the same way as they are for two-circle diagrams. The Venn diagram
technique applies immediately to syllogisms interpreted from the Boolean standpoint, but
it can be modified to test syllogisms from the Aristotelian standpoint.
Last but not least, you have examined the application of rules to prove the validity of
categorical syllogisms. A syllogism is valid if and only if (1) its middle term is
distributed in at least one premise, (2) a term distributed in the conclusion is also
distributed in the premise, (3) at least one premise is affirmative, (4) a negative
conclusion occurs with a negative premise and vice versa, and (5) a particular conclusion
occurs with one particular premise. If only the last rule is violated, the syllogism can be
valid from the Aristotelian standpoint but not from the Boolean.
 Self_ Assessment Questions (SAQs)-5

Part I. Multiple Choices Items
Choose the correct answer
1. Which one of the following is not true about terms of standard form of categorical
syllogism?
A.The middle term appears two times in the premises.
B. The major term can be the subject and predicate of the conclusion.
C. It consists of three terms that appear two times without changing its meaning.
D. The minor term appears both in conclusion and in minor premise.
2. One of the following is not true about the rule of categorical syllogism?
A. The middle term should be distributed at least once
B. A term that is distributed in the conclusion must be distributed either in the
major or minor premise.

C. The rule of quantity of modern logic asserts that particular conclusion can not
be derived from the universal premises.
D. One can construct a valid categorical syllogism that has exactly a single
negative statement.
3. Given an argument, “All P are M. No M are S. So, no S are P.” Which one of the
following is true?
A. Its mood is EAE. C. Its figure is two.
B. It commits no fallacy. D. The middle term in both premises is
undistributed.
4. The figure of a categorical syllogism is determined by:
A. middle term B. major term
C. minor term D. mood
5. No stars are planets. No asteroids are stars. Therefore, no asteroids are planets.
This syllogism committed a formal fallacy of :
A. Existential fallacy C. Exclusive premise
B. Illicit major D. Undistrbuted middle
Part II. ‘‘True’’ or ‘‘False’’ Items
1. Some syllogisms that are valid from the Aristotelian standpoint are not valid from
modern stand point.
2. If a syllogism has an E and an O statement as premises, then no conclusion follows
validly.
3. If a syllogism has an I statement as its conclusion, then Rule 2 cannot be violated.
4. If a valid syllogism has an O statement as its conclusion, then its premises can be an
A and an I statement.
5. If a valid syllogism has an E statement as a premise, then its conclusion can be an A
statement.

Part III. Work Out

Do the following work out.
1. Reconstruct the following syllogistic forms and use the five rules for syllogisms to
evaluate their validity. For those that are invalid, name the fallacy or fallacies
committed.
a. .AAA-3 b. IOI-2 c. EIO-1 d. AAI-2 e. IEO-1
2. Given: - i. Major term: “persons interested in foreign affairs”
ii. Minor term: “voters”
iii. Middle term: “good citizens”, and
iv. Mood and figure: EIO-2
a. Construct a standard categorical syllogism.
b. Draw a Venn diagram
c. Determine whether the argument is valid or not, if the argument is invalid name
the fallacy.
3. Use Venn diagrams to determine whether the following standard-form categorical
syllogisms are valid or invalid. For those invalid syllogistic arguments name the
fallacy that committed them.
a. All human beings are capable of emitting language. No dogs are capable of
emitting language. Therefore, all dogs are human beings.
b. All mammals are warm blooded animals. All lizards are warm blooded animals.
Therefore, all lizards are mammals.
c. No boxers are weeks. All weeks are sick. Therefore, some boxers are sick.
d. All M are P. All M are S. therefore, all S are

Selected Reference Materials

1. Christopher W. Tindale (2007) Fallacies and Argument Appraisal.3rd Edition,
Cambridge University, USA
2. Hurley, Patrick J. (1994) A Concise Introduction to Logic 5th Edition. Belmarnt:
Wadsworth Publishing Company.
3. Hurley, Patrick J. (1997) A Concise Introduction to Logic 6th Edition . Belmarnt:
Wadsworth Publishing Company.
4. K. Gary and B. Tracy(2002) Critical Thinking : A Concise Guide . Published by
Routledge ( Taylor and Fracis Group) ;Landon and New York.
5. Stephen , C.(2000) The Power of Logic. London and Toronto: Mayfield
Publishing Company.
6. Timothy A. Crews-Anderson (2007) .Critical Thinking. Published by Humanities-
Ebooks Co. UK.
7. Walelign Emiru (2005) Freshman Logic , 1st Edition Addis Ababa Commercial
P.E.
8. W. Douglas (2008) .Informal Logic. 2nd Edition. Cambridge University, USA


182

Logic Note-1-1 PDF

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Logic Note-1-1 PDF

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Introduction to Logic

ii. The Purpose and Importance of Logic

Moreover, it provides methodological assistances in examining our reasoning, to make

iii. The Origin and Historical Development of Logic

1.2Arguments, Premises and Conclusion

a. No city in Ethiopia is called Hawassa.

The argument has two premises:

The argument has one conclusion:

1.2.2 Recognizing Premise and Conclusion

Conclusion indictors Premises Inductors

Therefore, wherefore, accordingly, Since, as indicated by, because, for,

A. Determine whether the following sentences are statements or not. If it

II. Determine the following words whether as premise or conclusion

Premise Conclusion Neither

1.3 Recognizing Arguments

1. At least one of the statements must claim to present evidence or reasons

1. Passage lacking an inferential claim

Piece of advice is a passage that is characterized as non- argument. Sentences such as ‘I

An illustration consists of a statement about a certain subject combined with a reference

Chemical elements, as well as compounds, can be represented by molecular

Sufficient condition is the condition in the presence of which an event occurrence or

Here is another example:

If oxygen is not present, then there can be no fire.

If there is rain, then streets are wet.

1. A single conditional statement is not an argument.

Example: If iron is dense than mercury, then it will float in mercury.

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

Both Saturn and Uranus have rings.

1.4.1 Deductive Arguments

2. Studying the Actual Strength of the Premise and the Conclusion

Elizabeth Taylor is a saleswoman.

3. The Character or Form of Argumentation the Arguer Uses

An argument based on mathematics is an argument in which the conclusion depends

An argument from definition is an argument in which the conclusion is claimed to

is an argument whose conclusion is reached by defining a fundamental word in the

Example: Some merchants are pirates.

A Hypothetical syllogism is also a syllogism having a conditional statement for one or

A disjunctive syllogism is a syllogism having a disjunctive statement, that is, an

b. Either breach of contract is a crime or it is not punishable by the state. Breach of

1.4.2 Inductive Arguments

1. Using Indicator words

2. Studying the Actual Strength of the Premise and the Conclusion

3. The Character or Form of Argumentation the Arguer Uses

An argument from analogy is an argument that depends on the existence of an analogy

An inductive generalization (An argument based on statistics) is an argument that

An argument based on signs is an argument that proceeds from the knowledge of a

An argument based on causation is an argument that proceeds from the knowledge of a

? Activity 1.4: Do the following activities

i. Evaluating Deductive Arguments

In a deductive argument, a valid deductive argument is an argument such that if the

All television networks are media companies. NBC is a television network.

Sound Argument = Valid Argument + All Premises True

Thus, sound argument is a “good” or the most “perfect” deductive argument.

Example2: Since Haile G/ Silassie is an Ethiopian, and Haile is a famous athlete, we

If a deductive argument fails to meet these two requirements, it is said to be unsound.

All Ethiopians are Europeans. Derartu Tulu is an Ethiopian. Therefore, Derartu

ii. Evaluating Inductive Arguments

Conversely, a weak inductive argument is an inductive argument such that the

2 T Probable F None exist 

Cogent Argument = Strong Argument + All True Premises

In other words, an argument is uncogent if it involves one of the following

 Self- Assessment Questions-1

2. Of the following statements one is correct.