Logic and Reasoning skill

Introduction
In order to have a clear conception and understanding about the meaning and purposes of logic, we think
it is proper to commence our discussion with the meaning and nature of philosophy of which logic is its
sub-part. Indeed, it is very difficult to define philosophy in a succinct and precise manner due to the
diverse questions it seeks to answer and the way the questions have been addressed in different ways by
different philosophers. However, one might simply define it as a critical enterprise which seeks to
response the most fundamental questions in human life in the eyes of reason and rationality.
Meaning and Principal Branches of Philosophy
A) Meaning of philosophy
Philosophy: The word philosophy is derived from the Greek words philo (love) and sophia
(wisdom) and means “the love of wisdom.” A definition of philosophy can be offered from a
number of perspectives. Accordingly, there are several conceptual definitions of philosophy as
follows:

 Philosophy is a set of views or beliefs about life and the universe, which are often held
uncritically,
 Philosophy is a process of reflecting on and criticizing our most deeply held conceptions and
beliefs,
 Philosophy is a rational attempt to look at the world as a whole,
 Philosophy is the logical analysis of language and the clarification of the meaning of words and
concepts and
 Philosophy is a group of perennial problems that interest people and for which philosophers
always have sought answers.

B) Branches of Philosophy
Basically, philosophical concerns have been treated under these broad categories: metaphysics,
epistemology, Axiology and logic.
 Metaphysics: Studies what “really” reality is or “comprehensive thinking about the nature of
things.” Thus, metaphysics, as a distinct sub- branch of philosophy [Link] the study of the most
general or ultimate characteristics of reality or existence. For instance, the issue it inquires
incorporate: the relation of mind to matter, the nature of change, the meaning of “freedom,” the
existence of God, the structure and development of the universe, the immortality of soul etc
 Epistemology: In general, epistemology is the branch of philosophy that studies the sources,
nature, and validity of knowledge. Is how we come to know .What is the human mind capable of
knowing? From what sources do we gain our knowledge? Do we have any genuine knowledge on
which we can depend, or must we be satisfied with opinions and guesses? Are we limited to
knowing the bare facts of sense experience, or are we able to go beyond what the senses reveal?
The technical term for the theory of knowledge is epistemology, which comes from the Greek
word episteme, meaning “knowledge.”
There are three central questions in this field:
(1) What are the sources of knowledge? Where does genuine knowledge come from or how do we know?
This is the question of origins.

1|Page
(2) What is the nature of knowledge? Is there a real world outside the mind, and if so can we know it?
This is the question of appearance versus reality.
(3) Is our knowledge valid? How do we distinguish truth from error? This is the question of the tests of
truth, or verification.
 Axiology (value theory): is the branch of philosophy that studies values. It can be subdivided
into ethics, aesthetics, and social and political philosophy.
In broad terms, ethics concerns itself with the question of morality. What is right and what is
wrong in human relations?
 Logic: Philosophy endeavors to understand the nature of correct thinking and to discover what
valid reasoning is. Thus, logic can best be defined as a science that evaluate, analyze and criticize
arguments.
Is the study of methods and principles used to distinguish correct from incorrect and rational from
irrational reasoning. Hence, logic has been defined as the study of rules of correct thinking.
The primarily aims of logic is to develop a system of methods and principles that we may use
as criteria for evaluating the arguments of others and as guides in constructing arguments of
our own views .

Chapter One
Introduction

1.1 What is Logic?

Logic is the study of reasoning. In other words, it is thinking about thinking. Logic is both a science and
an art. As a science, logic investigates, develops and systematizes principles and methods that can be used
to distinguish between correct and incorrect reasoning. As an art, it has many areas of applications.
Among others things, it is used for problem solving, weighing evidence and constructing arguments. It is
also used for detecting and exposing mistakes in reasoning of other’s and one’s own.
We should believe only on the basis of evidence and act in ways for which we have good grounds for
acting. In short, our authority is reason and evidence. Reason is the instrument in which we depend for
making a reliable judgment. It enables us to decide what we ought to do in some complicated
circumstances or to know what is true where the truth has been in doubt. There are well tested methods or
rational methods if one wants to determine what really is the case, what really is true, and to guide us in
drawing inferences from what we know.
Logic is relevant for the affairs of everyday life. The success of democracy depends upon the reliability of
the judgments we citizens make, and hence upon our capacity to weigh evidence and argument rationally.
By providing the principles of accurate thinking, logic gives us ways of acquiring new information and
the ability to evaluate competing claims. Whether in science, or in politics, or in the conduct of personal
life, we use logic in reaching defensible conclusions.
Logic may also be defined as a science that evaluates arguments. The aim of logic is to develop a system
of methods and principles that we may use as criteria for evaluating the arguments of others and as guides
in constructing arguments of our own.
The benefits that we get from the study of logic are many. Among other things, it is used to:
- improve the quality of one’s reasoning
- give opportunity to practice the analysis of arguments and the construction of arguments of one’s own.
- Increases ability to criticize the argument of other people and to construct arguments of our own.

2|Page
- Increase in confidence that we are making sense when we criticize the arguments of others and when we
advance arguments of our own.
- enables to present arguments in a clear, well conceived and rational manner and
- avert common logical errors that might usually be committed in our day to day life.

1.2 Basic concepts

A. Argument: - An argument has a special sense in logic. An argument may be defined as any group of
propositions of which one is claimed to follow from the others and the other as a set of propositions
which are regarded as providing support for the claim. The conclusion of an argument refers to a
proposition that is claimed to follow from others. In other words, it is a proposition affirmed on the basis
of the other propositions. The premises of an argument refers to a proposition or a group of propositions
that are regarded as providing support or ground for accepting the truth of a conclusion. In other words, it
refers to propositions which are affirmed (or assumed) as providing support or reasons for accepting the
conclusion. In short, premises give reasons to believe the conclusion.
B. Inference: - Inference is commonly defined as a process in which one proposition is derived from a
proposition accepted as a starting point of the process.
C. Proposition: - Propositions are sentences that can be taken as true or false. Only propositions can
either be asserted or denied. Questions, commands, exclamations cannot be affirmed or denied. So, they
cannot be judged as either true or false. Propositions are not exactly synonymous with statements. But
they are more or less similar.
Statements are also defined as sentence that can be said true or false. Only statements can be asserted or
denied. Consider the following statements.
E.g.1 “Ethiopia got the upper hand at the battle of Adowa.
E.g.2 “Sodium and Chloride are the two atomic elements of salt.”
E.g.3 “Salt is a poisonous compound.”
The first two statements are true and the last one is false. Truth and falsity are the two possible truth
values of statements. The term proposition and statement are usually used synonymously. Technically
however there is a slight difference between the two. The term proposition refers to the meaning or the
information content of sentences.
D. Sentences: - As discussed above, unlike propositions (statements-for now let us ignore the distinction
between the two), many sentences may not be evaluated as either true or false. Questions, proposals,
suggestions, commands, and exclamations cannot be taken as true or false. So, usually they are not
classified as statements. Examples:
What is your name? (Question)
Let’s go to a movie tonight. (Proposal)
I suggest you get contact lenses. (Suggestion)
Turn off the TV right now. (Command)
Fantastic! (Exclamation)
F. Components of Arguments
Generally, arguments are composed of two parts. These are premise and conclusion.
1) Premises: Is statements which provide reasons /evidence for believing the truth of the
conclusion.
2) Conclusion: Is also statement which follows from the others (premises) that is, a
statement that is to be shown.
Ex-1. The investigation of supernatural phenomena lies outside the realm of science.

3|Page
 Therefore, science can neither prove nor disprove the existence of God.
The first statement in the example above is the premise because it is assumed to support the second
statement which is claimed to follow from the first. The second statement is the conclusion of the
argument.
Ex-2. No one was present when life first appeared on earth.
Thus, any statement about life’s origin should be considered as theory, not fact.
The first statements claims to support the second; hence, the first is the premise and the second is the
conclusion.
NB .The premise/s of an argument is/are offered as support or evidence for the conclusion, but that
support may be adequate or inadequate. In a well-constructed argument, the premises give good support
for believing that the conclusion is true. Consider these examples:
Ex-1. All physicians have gone to medical school.
Bontu is a physician.
So, Bontu went to medical school.
Ex-2. All crimes are violations of the law.
Theft is a crime.
Therefore, theft is a violation of the law.
[Link] Mettu University 1st year chemical engineering students are cleaver.
Tola is MeU 1st year chemical engineering student.
Therefore, Tola is a cleaver student.
In these examples, the premises really support the conclusion with good reasons. And the arguments are
good ones.
But consider these examples:
Ex-1. Some crimes are misdemeanors.
Murder is a crime.
Therefore, murder is a misdemeanor.
Ex-2. Some MeU 1st year chemical engineering students are cleaver.
Tola is MeU 1st year chemical engineering student.
Therefore, Tola is a cleaver student.
In this argument, the premises do not support the conclusion, even though they are claimed to, and then
the argument is bad.
Generally, any argument can be used:
1- To discover truth or
2- To persuade our readers/listeners.
Persuasion and truth seeking are often compatible goals. But one of these goals can interfere with the
other.

1.3. How to differentiate a conclusion from its premise/s?

4|Page
Arguments usually contain indicator words that provide clues in identifying the premise/s and the
conclusion.
1.3.1. Premise Indicators
Words like Since, because, as indicated by, for instance, otherwise, as well as, in view of the fact that,
may be inferred from, owing to, in as much as, in that, for the reason that, Given that, seeing that, such
as, for,…etc.
1.3.2. Conclusion Indicators
Words like Therefore, Hence, So, Wherefore, Accordingly, Whence, It follows that, It must be that, Thus,
As a result, We may infer, Consequently, points to conclusion that, Implies that …etc. The position of the
premise/s or the conclusion may change. Consider these:

Ex-1- Since the use of recreational drugs can jeopardize the development of the fetus;
expectant mothers should never use these drugs.
Ex-2- The prevention of polio deserves increased expenditure in the years ahead.
Not only polio affects unborn babies, but the virus still impinges up on the health status of
already born babies.
In Ex-1, the premise comes first followed by the conclusion.

1.4. Recognizing Arguments

Some passages do not contain arguments. As mentioned earlier, since logic is concerned with arguments,
it is important to distinguish between passages that contain arguments from those that do not. In general, a
passage contains an argument if it tries to prove something. If it does not do so, it does not contain an
argument. Two conditions are required to the passage to try to prove something.
*At least one of the statements must claim to present evidence or reasons.
*There must be a claim that the alleged evidence or reasons support or imply something-that
is, a claim that something follows from the alleged evidence.
As mentioned earlier, premises are statements that claim to present evidence or reasons whereas a
conclusion refers to the statement that contains the evidence that supports the conclusion. Now the
question is: Is it necessary for the premises to be true? No! It is not necessary that the premises present
actual or genuine support or true reasons. It is not also necessary that the premises actually support the
conclusion. But the premises must claim to present evidence or reasons, and there must be a claim that the
evidence or reasons supports or implies something. ‘Claim’ means to say that something is true although
it has not been proved and may not convince a reasonable person. So, when we say, ‘the premises must
claim to present evidence’, that suggests that the reasons or evidence presented have not been proved to
be true, but the assertion that it is true is there. As a result, the premises may be either true or false.
The first condition that says ‘at least one of the statements must claim to present evidence or reasons’
expresses what is called a factual claim. It is difficult to decide whether this claim is fulfilled or not. So,
we will pay our attention to the second condition that says ‘there must be claim that something follows
from the alleged (unproved statement) evidence’. This second condition expresses what is called an
inferential claim. An inferential claim is simply the claim that the passage expresses a reasoning process
that something supports or implies something. Such a claim (i.e. ‘that something follows from
something’) can be either explicit (clear and easy) or implicit (indirectly expressed).
An explicit inferential claim is easy and clear to recognize, and is usually asserted by premise and
conclusion indicator words such as ‘thus’ ‘since’, etc. Example:

5|Page
Expectant mother should never use recreational drugs, since the use of these drugs can
jeopardize the development of the fetus.
The word “since” shows, in this particular case, that there is some reasoning or thought process being
expressed in the passage.
An implicit inferential claim exists if there is an inferential relationship between the statements in a
passage. In other words, such claim exists if there is a reasoning process, even though this is not made
clear by indicator words as in the case of explicit inferential claim. Example:
Freedom of press is the most important of our constitutionally guaranteed
freedoms. Without it, our other freedom would be immediately
threatened. Furthermore, it provides the fulcrum for the advancement of
new freedoms.
There is an inferential relationship between the first and the other two sentences. Of course, this
relationship constitutes an implicit claim that evidence supports something. So, we are justified in calling
this passage ‘argument’. In the example above, the first statement is the conclusion and the other two are
the premises. This and the example given above for explicit inferential claim points to the conclusion that
there are two factors bearing on our decision that whether there is a claim that the evidence supports or
implies something. One is the presence of indicator words, and the other is the presence of an
inferential relationship between statements. But one cautionary remark is important at this point. The
mere existence of indicator words is not a guarantee for the occurrence of an argument. This is precisely
because an argument may exist even without the occurrence of an indicator words. Furthermore, indicator
words may sometimes be used for purposes other than to indicate either premise or conclusion. Thus,
before deciding a passage contains an argument, we need to make sure that the indicators used, if there
are any, are used to indicate either premise or conclusion.
Some non-argumentative uses of statements are confused with arguments, this suggests to develop a
technique for separating between the two.
To be able to distinguish between passages that contain arguments from passages that do not, let us see
some typical kinds of non-arguments. These include several forms of expressions that lack an inferential
claim, conditional statements, and explanations.
1.5. Passages 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 the potential conclusion does not follow
from the premises. Otherwise, such passages may contain statements that could potentially be premises
and conclusion. Warning, Statement of belief or opinion, loosely associated statements, a report, an
expository passage, an illustration, etc., are some of them.
Warning is typically non-argument. Sentences such as ‘Be careful of the stairs-they are steep.’, ‘Watch
out that you do not slip on the Ice.’, etc., are warnings. As is clear from their content, they lack an
inferential claim – the claim that the premises support the conclusion or the potential conclusion follows
from the premises. Thus, we are justified in calling them non-argument. But they can be the conclusion of
an argument.
Piece of advice is a passage that is characterized as non-argument. An advice such as ‘I suggest that we
should reinstate death penalty in the country such as ours.’ lacks a reasoning process. But it can serve as a
conclusion of an argument. Here is an example:
The crimes of murder and rape are increasing at an alarming rate in Ethiopia. Therefore, I suggest
that we should reinstate death penalty.

6|Page
 Statement of belief or opinion These are simply personal opinion or what somebody’s believes at a
certain time. Example:
I think the leaders of poor countries such as Ethiopia should develop the habit of accountability
and responsibility, to do away with problems of mismanagement.
In the example above, because there is no claim that this belief is supported by evidence, there is no
argument.
Loosely associated statements may be about the same general subject, but they lack a claim that one of
them is proved by the other. Example:
Anything that a doctor does that requires cutting or injecting is a ‘procedure.’ Anything that a
doctor does that requires thinking or counseling is a “cognitive Services.” Procedures pay much
better than cognitive services.
Because there is no claim that any of these statements provide evidence or reasons for believing another,
there is no argument.
A Report consists of a group of statements that convey information about some situation or event. A
report may contain many informational statements without containing an argument.
Example: Mexican workers at a recently opened Ford Motor Co. assembly plant in Hermosillo went on
strike, demanding a 70 percent pay rise.
This is a typical kind of passage that lacks an inferential claim; hence, it is non-argument. The passage
merely contains a series of informational statements that could serve as a premise (s) of an argument. But
as they stand alone, they are not arguments. Another example:
U.S. food producers feed livestock 20 million tons of plant protein per year that could be
consumed by humans and the livestock only yields 2 million tons of protein.
It is important to mention that reports about arguments are also non-arguments. A reporter may report
someone’s argument on any issue. This is simply a report, not argument, because the reporter is not
claiming to present evidence or is not presenting his own arguments. If this is taken as an argument at all,
it should be taken as the argument of the person who made the speech, not that of the reporter.
An Expository Passage is a kind of discourse that begins with the topic sentence followed by one or
more sentences that develop the topic sentences. If the objective of the discussion is not to prove the topic
sentence, but to expand it or elaborate it, then there is no argument. If there is good reason to think that
the first statement is proved by the others, some passages can be interpreted both as expository passages
and as arguments. As an examples of passages that could be interpreted both as expository passage and
argument, consider the example below.
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.
In the above example, the other statements are not only developing the topic sentence but also are
providing support for that statement. So, we are justified in interpreting the above expository passage as
an argument.
An Illustration is a statement together with an explanatory or clarifying example. In illustration, a
statement has a reference to one or more specific instances intended to exemplify that statement.
Illustrations may be confused with argument because many of them contain indicator words, such as
“thus”. Example: Water is good solvent for many different substances. Thus, rain water flowing over and
under the ground dissolves minerals such as limestone.

7|Page
This passage is not an argument, because there is no claim that anything is supported by evidence. The
purpose of “thus “is not to indicate that something is being proved, but to exemplify it. Consider another
example:
Chemical elements are represented by molecular formulas.
Thus, oxygen is represented by O2.
But sometimes the examples or the instances cited can correctly be interpreted as proving something. If
they do so, the passage is an argument. As with expository passages, many passage that give examples
can be interpreted as argument. Example:
Water is an excellent solvent. It dissolves many minerals that do not readily dissolve in other
liquids. For example, salts do not dissolve in most common solvent such as gasoline, kerosene,
etc. But many salts dissolve readily in water.
Here the examples are intended to prove that water is an excellent solvent.
A Conditional Statement is an “if . . . then. . .” statement; for example:
If the earth’s magnetic field disappears, then the Vann Allen radiation belt will be
dissolved.
In a conditional statement the component immediately following the “if” is called the antecedent, and the
one following the “then” is the consequent. In the above example the antecedent is “the earth’s magnetic
field disappears,” and the consequent is “the Vann Allen radiation belt will be dissolved.” This example
suggests a causal connection between ‘the earth’s magnetic field disappearing’ and ‘the Vann Allen
radiation belt dissolving’. But not all conditional statements suggest a causal connection.
Conditional statements are not arguments because they do not try to prove anything. In conditional
statements, there is no claim that either the antecedent or the consequent presents evidence. The premises
of an argument are claimed to be true. But there is no such claim in the antecedent of conditional
statements.
But the inferential content of conditional statements can be re-expressed to form an argument. Example:
If the earth’s magnetic field disappears, then the Vann Allen radiation belt will be dissolved. The earth
magnetic field is disappeared. Therefore, the Vann Allen radiation belt will be dissolved.
A cautionary remark is important at this point. While a single conditional sentence cannot be an
argument, it can be either the premise or the conclusion of an argument. In the above example, a
conditional sentence serves as a premise of an argument. In short, a single conditional sentence is not an
argument. It may serve as either a premise or a conclusion of an argument. In other words, if the passage
consists of conditional statements together with some other statement, then it may be an argument
depending on the presence of an indicator words and an inferential relationship between the statements.
Conditional statements are useful in logic because they express the relationship between sufficient and
necessary conditions. A is said to be a sufficient condition for B whenever the occurrence of A is all that
is needed for the occurrence of B. In other words, A guarantees B. For example, we know that a knife
could cause a scar to appear. We can put this in conditional statement as “if you are stabbed by knife, a
scar will appear in your body. In terms of necessary and sufficient condition, we can put the same
statement as “being stabbed by a knife is a sufficient condition for the occurrence of scar.” But it is not a
necessary condition. Why? Being stabbed by a knife is not a necessary condition for the occurrence of
scar because scar may be caused by many things. So, we may define necessary condition as: A is said to
be the necessary condition for B whenever B cannot occur without the occurrence of A. Example:
Air is a necessary condition for life.

8|Page
It is necessary because you cannot think of life without air. But it is not a sufficient condition because
there are other necessary conditions.
An Explanation consists of a statement or a group of statements intended to shed light on some
phenomenon that is usually accepted as a matter of fact. Example:
*The price of gold increased yesterday because of increased tension in
Middle East.
*A spacecraft exploded after liftoff because an O-ring failed in one of
booster.
*The sky appears blue because light rays are scattered by particles on the
atmosphere.
In explanation, there are two distinct components: the explanandum and the explanans. The
explanandum is the statement that describes the event or the phenomenon to be explained, and the
explanans is a statement that does the explaining. In the first example, the explanandum is the statement
“The price of gold increased yesterday,” and the explanans is “increased tension in the middle east.”
Explanations often contain indicator words such as ‘because’. As a result, they may be confused with
arguments. Yet explanations are not arguments. This is precisely because whereas in explanation the
explanans are intended to show why something is the case, in an argument the premises are intended to
prove that something is the case. In the first example, the writer is not proving the fact that the price of
gold increased yesterday. The intention is to explain the reason why it increased.
1.6. Types of Arguments
In recognizing whether a passage contains argument or not one of the factors that we should look for is
the presence of inferential relationship between the statements involved in the passage, that is, between
the premise and the conclusion. In some arguments the inferential relationship is so strong that if we
assume the premises as true, it is impossible for the conclusion to be false. So, arguments like this have
premises that provide sufficient reason to believe the truth of the conclusion, hence the conclusion
follows the premises conclusively. In some arguments, however, the inferential relationship between the
statements is so weak that even if we assume the premises as true, possibly the conclusion can be found
false. An argument like this has a conclusion that is true only probably and it does not follow the premises
with the force of necessity.
So, based on the consideration whether the inferential relationship between the premises and the
conclusion is strong or weak (whether the conclusion follows the premises necessarily or only probably),
we roughly categorize arguments into good and bad. This, however, is not an absolute categorization.
Absolutely categorizing arguments, we have these two types of arguments:
A) Deductive Arguments: A correctly formed deductive argument is one whose forms is
such that the conclusion follows with logical necessity or certainty from the premises. In
another words, if the premises are true, the conclusion must be true. Therefore, in a deductive
argument, it is impossible to have true premises and a false conclusion.
Ex-1. All human beings are [Link]
Adugna is a human [Link]
Therefore, Adugna is [Link]
Ex-2. Either Bruk or Abebe shot Kebede.
Bruk did not shot kebede.
So,Abebe shot Kebede.
Ex.3 All fruits are beverages. TP

9|Page
 Oranges are [Link]
So, oranges are [Link]
B) Inductive Arguments: An inductive argument is one in which the premises provide some
evidence for the truth of a conclusion. However, the conclusion of an inductive argument does
not follow with the logical necessity or certainty from the premises, even if all the premises are
true. Because the conclusion is not already contained in any of its premises. Therefore, in
contrast to a deductive argument, the truth or acceptance of relevant in an inductive argument
does not force or guarantee the truth of its conclusion.
Ex-1. Aristotle is mortal
Socrates is mortal
Plato is mortal
Hence, all human beings are mortal.
[Link] sun has been rising for the last million years.
So, the sun will definitely rise tomorrow.
NB: If the premises provide a conclusive support to the conclusion, then the argument is
deductive while on the other hand, if the premises provide a particular support to the
conclusion, then the argument is best regarded as inductive.
Distinguishing Deductive from Inductive Arguments
In addition to the strength of the inferential relationship between the premises and the conclusion, this
categorization of arguments into Deductive and Inductive considers other points such as, the special
indicator words, the character or form of the argumentation used by the arguer, or even the trend of the
argument (the way how the argument proceeds). All these will be considered in greater detail. Now let us
look into some of the major distinguishing features of the two argument kinds.
We already have learned to distinguish passages containing arguments from those that do not. We know
that arguments always involve statements (premises) that attempt to give a set of reasons in support of a
conclusion, whereas passages that do not contain arguments (which include narratives, descriptions,
reports, explanations, illustrations, and so forth) do not involve statements that make attempt to give any
sort of reason in support of a conclusion. We may now distinguish between the two different kinds of
arguments: deductive and inductive.
As has already been pointed out, the two arguments are substantially different in terms of the claim they
make. A deductive argument makes the very claim that if all the premises are true (or assumed true), it is
impossible for the conclusion to be false-that the truth of the conclusion is not something probable, but
absolute. Or, in other words, deductive arguments make a claim that the conclusion would be necessarily
true assuming that all the premises are true.
Here, we have to be careful that we only said deductive arguments make the above claim. They do claim
this way, however, does not mean that a deductive argument can never have a false conclusion, because it
is possible that we can have a deductive argument with a plainly false conclusion if the argument is
deductively invalid (this will be discussed).
Example:*The rainfall in Addis Ababa has been more than 30 inches every year for the past
twenty years. Therefore, the rainfall next year will probably be more than 30 inches.
*Abebe is a member of the Christian Society. All members of the Christian Society
are conservatives. Therefore, it necessarily follows that Abebe is a conservative.
The first argument is inductive, and the second deductive. We already said that the distinction between
inductive and deductive arguments lies in how strongly the conclusion is claimed to follow from the

10 | P a g e
premises. So, in the first argument, assuming that the premises are true, the conclusion does follow from
the premises only with the force of probability as the rainfall in Addis Ababa next year may exceed 30
inches or it may be less than 30 inches. But in the second argument, if we think that Abebe is indeed a
member of the Christian Society, then he will necessarily be conservative because all members of the
society are conservatives. Thus, the second argument is deductive for its conclusion follows the premises
with the force of necessity.
In most arguments, however, the strength of the inferential claim is not clearly stated, so we must look for
some factors that help us to distinguish between deductive and inductive arguments. These factors are:
- The occurrence of special indicator words
- The force with which the conclusion is asserted
- Character of argumentation
a) The Occurrence of Special indicator words
The typically deductive indicator words are words such as necessarily, absolutely, definitely, and so
forth. Thus, a deductive argument can be identified by the frequency of these words. Deductive premises
on the other hand, may often be recognized by the frequency of logical connectives in the course of an
argument. The basic logical connectives that indicate deductive premises are:
‘Both …and…’
‘Either…or…’
‘If … then…’
‘If and only if,’ and so on.
An argument that uses logical connectives in this way might be the following (the logical connectives are
boldfaced).
“If temperature and light remain constant, then existing weather conditions can be reliably
predicted to continue. Either the cold front is moving in or prevailing winds might cause the
front to shift to the north. In fact, both the cold front is expected to be diverted to the north and,
temperature and light will remain constant. Therefore, it must be the case that existing weather
conditions will continue to prevail.”
Notice that this argument relies on the inter working of the logical connectives and (given the accuracy of
the data) the conclusion must certainly follow. This is a deductive argument. The premises confer
certainty on the conclusion. Given the truth of the premises, there is no other possibility for the
conclusion, but to strictly follow the premises.
Deductive arguments attempt to make the claim that the conclusion necessarily, absolutely or definitely
follows from the premises. The reason that they can make this claim is that they rely on certain reasons or
association of ideas which bind the conclusion to its premises. Some of the typical inductive indicator
words are: ‘improbable,’ ‘probable,’ ‘likely,’ ‘unlikely,’ ‘plausible,’ ‘implausible’, and so on. All these
indicate inductivity (probability), or that the conclusion follows the premises only with the force of
likelihood. So, one clearest way of distinguishing inductive and deductive arguments is may be through
considering the occurrence of these special indicator words as they give us a clue as to whether the
argument underway is deductive or inductive. But we have to be careful that this is not a sure thing
because sometimes the mere occurrence of the indicator words is not so decisive. The best way to tell
whether an argument is deductive or inductive, however, is by assessing the force with which the
conclusion is asserted.
a) The Force with which the conclusion is asserted

11 | P a g e
Here, whether a special indicator word occurs or not is not a factor to be considered, but the strength of
the inferential claim. If the conclusion follows the premises absolutely that it cannot be false given the
premises are true, then the inferential claim is strong and the argument is deductive. But if the conclusion
is to be true only probably given the premises are true, then the inferential claim is weak, and the
argument is indicative. Look into the following examples:
Examples: All my friends are students.
Ermias is my friend.
Therefore, Ermias is a student
Most of my friends are students.
Ermias is my friend.
Therefore, Ermias is a student
As we can see, no any indicator word (indicator whether the arguments are deductive) clearly occurs in
both arguments, but by assessing the force with which the conclusions are asserted, we can decide as to
whether each one of the arguments is deductive or inductive. Thus, given that the premises of both
arguments are true, the conclusion of the first argument is impossible to be false. But even if the premises
are assumed true, the conclusion of the second argument is true only probably, as it can be false.
Therefore, we might say that the inferential claim in the first argument is so strong that the premises can
prove the truth of the conclusion with the force of necessity, and hence the argument is deductive.
But the inferential claim in the second argument is not so strong that the premises do not confer certainty
on the conclusion because there is a possibility that Ermias may not be a student. Therefore, the second
factor that bears upon our interpretation of an argument as inductive or deductive is the actual strength
of the inferential link between premises and conclusion.
Occasionally an argument may not contain an indicator word, and the conclusion does not follow either
necessarily or probably from the premises; in other words, it does not follow at all. This situation points
up the need for the third factor to be taken into account which is the character or form of the
argumentation used by the arguer.
c) The Character or Form of Argumentation the Arguer uses.
Some standard deductive forms of argumentation are the following:
- argument based on mathematics
- argument from definition, and
- syllogistic argument – categorical syllogism
- hypothetical syllogism
- disjunctive syllogism
1. Argument based on Mathematics: is an argument in which the conclusion depends on some
purely mathematical computation or measurement. There is accuracy in numerical or geometrical
expressions and they provide guarantee to reach a certain conclusion.
For example a shopper might place two apples and three organs into a paper bag and then conclude that
the bag contains five pieces of fruit. Or a surveyor might measure a square piece of land and after
determining that it is 100 feet on each side; conclude that it contains 10,000 square feet. In both
arguments the conclusion follow the premises necessarily that if the premises are true, then the
conclusions will necessarily be true. We can usually consider arguments that depend on mathematics to
be deductive. But we have to note also that arguments based on statistics are usually interpreted as
inductive arguments.

12 | P a g e
 2. Argument from Definition: is an argument in which the conclusion is claimed to depend
merely on the definition of some word or phrase contained in the premise. Or, this is an argument whose
conclusion is reached by defining a fundamental word contained in the premise.
Examples: *Abebe married a prostitute. Therefore, Abebe’s wife was engaged in fornication
for payment
*Almaz was talking gibberish in her sleep. So, what Almaz was talking is something unclear.
* God is omniscient. Hence He knows everything.
These arguments are deductive because their conclusions follow with necessity from the definitions of
“prostitute,” “gibberish,” and “omniscient,” respectively.
3. Syllogism: Naturally, there may be one, two, ten or one hundred statements (premises) offering
evidence in support of the conclusion of an argument. Thus, whereas there may be as many as ten,
twenty, or one hundred reasons (premises) or as few as one, there can be no more than one main
statement serving as the conclusion of an argument. If one or more reasons or premises point to two or
more conclusions, we will say that two or more arguments are underway with the same premises. So,
syllogistic arguments are those consisting of exactly two premises and one conclusion. Therefore, in a
syllogistic argument we have exactly two premises and one conclusion.
3.2. Categorical Syllogism is a syllogistic argument formed by categorical statements, that each of
the statements begins with one of the words “all,” “no” or “some.”
Examples: *All Addis Ababa University students are between 18 and 30 years of age. Some of my
friends are students at Addis Ababa University. Therefore, some of may friends are
between 18 and 30 years of age.
*All medical doctors are graduates of medical schools. No medical doctors are
lawyers.
Therefore, no graduates of medical schools are lawyers
Arguments such as these are nearly always best treated as deductive because the conclusions follow the
premises with necessity given that the premises are true.
3.2. Hypothetical Syllogism: is a syllogistic argument having a conditional statement for one or
both of its premises.
Example: *If cigarette companies publish warning labels, then smokers would assume the
risk of smoking. Cigarette companies do publish warning labels. Therefore,
smokers would assume the risk of smoking.
If we eat variety food items, then we would be healthy. If we are healthy, then we
would be productive. Therefore, if we eat variety food items, then we would be
productive
Although certain forms of such arguments can sometimes be interpreted inductively, the deductive
interpretation is usually the most appropriate.
3.3 Disjunctive Syllogism: is a syllogistic argument having a disjunctive statement (i.e., an
“Either --- or ---“statement) for one of its premises.
Examples: *Either Bahir Dar is in Gojam or it is in Gondar.
Bahir Dar is not in Gondar. Therefore, it is in Gojam.
*Either I will visit the islands of Lake Tana or the Castles of Gondar in the coming
year. I abandon visiting the Castles of Gondar. Therefore, I will visit the islands of
Lake Tana.
As with hypothetical syllogism, such arguments are usually best taken as deductive.

13 | P a g e
Some standard inductive forms of argumentations are the following:-
- Prediction about the future
- Argument from analogy
- Inductive generalization
- Argument from authority
- Argument based on signs; and
- Causal inference.
A. Prediction: In a prediction about the future, the premises deal with some event that is known to
us—an event to which we are familiar both in the past and in the present; and the conclusion moves
beyond this event and deals with an event that is to happen in the relative future. Look at the examples
below.
Examples: For a billion years and so the sun has been rising in the east and setting in the west. It
follows that in any possible future time the sun will does the same as it has been doing in
the past.
*Because certain metrological phenomena have been observed to develop over the eastern part of
Ethiopia, a storm will occur in that region.
Every one of us realizes that the future cannot be known with certainty; thus, whenever an argument
makes a prediction about the future, we are justified in considering the argument as inductive. Because,
our knowledge about an event that is to occur in the future time usually falls short of certainty, and our
prediction may turn out to be false. For example in the above arguments, the two events (the "movement"
of the sun and the metrological phenomena) are governed by the Law of Nature, as far as scientific
knowledge is concerned. And the Law of Nature may act otherwise than it has been acting. So, we can
predict about an event which is going to happen in the future time, but we cannot be certain about it.
B. 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 belongs to
the better known thing is concluded to also belong to the similar, lesser known thing.
Examples: *War is similar to playing a game of chess. For instance, in both war and chess, strategy is
important. And in both war and chess, there is a struggle for victory. Now when one is losing a game of
chess, one should not attack one's opponent with lethal weapons. so, when a nation is losing a war, it
should not attack its opponent with lethal weapons.
*The Encyclopedia Britannica has an article on Symbiosis.
The Encyclopedia Americana, like the Britannica, is an excellent work.
Therefore, the Americana probably also has an article on Symbiosis.
The first argument depends on the existence of certain similarities between war and the game of chess—
the similarities that strategy is important and there is a struggle for victory in both war and a game of
chess. But the fact that one should not attack one's opponent with lethal weapon upon losing a game of
chess does not necessarily mean a nation should not also attack its opponent with lethal weapon upon
losing a war. In the second argument, the mere fact that both are encyclopedia and excellent reference
works does not necessarily mean that what is contained in one will also be contained in the other, because
it may not be contained. In both arguments the conclusions do not follow the premises with the force of
necessity, but only with likelihood. So, both arguments are best described as inductive.
C. 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

14 | P a g e
depends upon a statement made by some presumed authority or witness. For example a lawyer might
argue:
"Ato Kebede committed the murder because an eyewitness testified to
that effect upon oath."
or
A person might argue that the quality of traditional music has been declining in Ethiopia because of a
statement to that effect by a person who is an instructor in Yared Music School. But, because the
eyewitness and the instructor could be either mistaken, biased, or lying, such arguments are essentially
probabilistic.
D. Inductive Generalization (argument based on statistics): is a reasoning process that proceeds
from the knowledge of a selected sample to some claim about the whole group. Because the members of
the sample have a certain characteristic, it is argued that all the members of the group have that same
characteristic. In this argument the premises deal with some very particular samples and the conclusion
makes the assertion that what holds true of the samples also holds true of the whole to which the sample
belongs.
Examples: *There are sixty students in this class. I have evaluated the answer sheet of five students and
all the five students scored above ninety percent (90%). It implies that all students of this
class are smart.
* Three oranges selected from a certain container were especially
tasty and juicy, it follows that all the oranges from that container
are especially tasty and juicy.
Both the above examples illustrate the use of statistics in inductive argumentation, and they are
essentially probabilistic.
E. 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.
Examples:
*A Red Cross flag is flowing over the top of that building.
It suggests that there is a Red Cross medical center in that building.
*The package material is labeled " Keep it far from the reach of children."
Therefore, this package must contain some sort of medicine.
Both are inductive arguments and their conclusions follow the premises only with the force of likelihood
because in both cases the signs (the flag flowing over the top of the building, and the cautionary mark)
might be misplaced, so that the conclusions may not necessarily be true.
F. Argument Based on Causal Inference: is argument that proceeds from the knowledge of a
cause to knowledge of the effect, or, conversely, from knowledge of an effect to knowledge of a cause.
Examples:
*The cloud is becoming darker and the thunder is roaming.
So, let us go home quickly, the rainfall is inevitable.
* While crossing the road I see blood that the ground is shaded with blood. Therefore it must be
that a man was run over by a car.
The first argument proceeds from the knowledge of a cause to the effect, and the second proceeds from
the knowledge of the effect to the cause. But because specific instances of cause and effect cannot be
known with certainty, we may usually interpret such arguments as inductive. In the first argument, for

15 | P a g e
example, the fact that the cloud gets darker does not necessarily mean the rain is inevitably to come.
Because it is still possible that it may not rain despite the dark cloud and the roaming thunder. In the
second argument the fact that blood has shaded the road may not necessarily imply a car accident as it can
be caused by other possible causes.
A final point that needs to be made about the distinction between deductive and inductive arguments is to
look into the trend of the argument. Generally speaking, a deductive argument proceeds from the general
to the particular. Or, in other words, the premises of a deductive argument usually deal with all members
of a class, and the conclusion makes an assertion about one or more members of the class. Inductive
arguments generally proceed from the particular to the general; that the premises make a claim about
one or more members of a class and the conclusion asserts about all the members of the class.
But this fact should not be used as criteria for distinguishing induction from deduction. Because as a
matter of fact there are 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 arguments the conclusion follows the premises with the force of necessity.
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 Getachew is intending to import will also be white in color.
In summary, the point we need to emphasize is 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 character of the argumentation the arguer uses.

1.6. Validity, Truth, Soundness, Strength, and Cogency

1.6.1. Validity and Invalidity

Deductive: *Valid (Sound or Unsound)
*Invalid (all unsound)
As we can see from the chart above, 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.
As we already noted, a deductive argument is one whose premises claim to provide actual support for the
truth of the conclusion. Therefore the conclusion is claimed to follow from its premises with absolute
necessity. But we also have to note that a deductive argument makes this claim does not mean that a
deductive argument cannot have a false conclusion.
As part of a deductive argument, both valid and invalid arguments make similar claim—the claim that if
the premises are true, or assumed true, it is impossible for the conclusion to be false. If a deductive
argument has premises that in fact do support the conclusion in this way, it would be called a Deductively
Valid argument. Thus, a valid argument is a deductive argument that succeeds this very claim in such a
way that if the premises are assumed true (even when they are plainly false), then it is impossible for the
conclusion to be false. In such arguments the conclusion always follows with strict necessity from the
premises.
On the other hand, what makes a deductive argument Invalid is when the argument fails to succeed the
very claim it makes. So, a Deductively Invalid argument is one that has premises which are short of
successfully proving the truth of the conclusion. Or, invalid deductive argument is an argument such that

16 | P a g e
if the premises are assumed true, it is possible for the conclusion to be false. In these an argument the
conclusion does not follow with strict necessity from the premises, even though it is claimed to.

1.6.2. Validity and Truth

Truth and falsity are attributes of individual propositions. A single statement that serves as a premise in
an argument may be true; the statement that serves as its conclusion may be false.
That conclusion may have been inferred, but it makes no sense to say that any conclusion, or any premise,
is itself valid or invalid. Truth is the attribute of a proposition that asserts what really is the case. When I
assert that Lake Tana is the largest lake in Ethiopia, I assert what really is the case, what is true. But if I
assert that the largest lake in Ethiopia is Lake Chamo, my assertion would not be in accord with the real
world. Therefore, it would be false. In this regard, truth and falsity are attributes of individual
propositions or statements; validity and invalidity are attributes of arguments. Just as the concept of
validity does not apply to single propositions, the concept of truth does not apply to arguments.
Here it is important to emphasize that validity is only indirectly related to truth and falsity. The fact that
the statements of an argument are all true may not prove validity (or may not guarantee validity) and the
fact that all the statements of an argument are false does not prevent the argument from being valid. Every
argument makes a claim about the relation between the premises and the conclusion inferred from them;
that relation may hold even if the premises turn out to be false
There are many possible combinations of true and false premises in both valid and invalid arguments:
I. Some valid arguments contain all true propositions—true premises and a true conclusion:
Example: All mammals have lungs.
All whales are mammals.
Therefore, all whales have lungs.
II. Some valid arguments have all false propositions—false premises and a false conclusion:
Example: All four legged creatures have wings.
All spiders have legs. Therefore, all spiders have wings.
This argument is valid because, if its premises were true ( or assumed true), its conclusion would have to
be true also—even though we know that in fact both the premises and the conclusion are plainly false.
III. Some invalid arguments contain true propositions—all true premises and a true conclusion:
Example: If I owned Sheraton Addis, I would be wealthy.
I do not own Sheraton Addis.
Therefore, I am not wealthy.
This argument is invalid because the truth of the conclusion does not follow the premises with strict
necessity as I can be wealthy even when I do not own Sheraton Addis.
IV. Some invalid arguments contain all true premises and have a false conclusion:
Example: All banks are financial organizations.
IMF (The International Monetary Fund) is a financial organization.
Therefore, IMF is a bank.
The premises of this argument are true, but the conclusion is false (for IMF is not a bank). 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.
V. Some valid arguments have false premises and a true conclusion:
Example: All Africans are Europeans.
All Italians are Africans
Therefore, all Italians are Europeans

17 | P a g e
The conclusion of this argument is true; moreover it may be validly inferred from the two premises, both
of which are plainly false.
VI. Some invalid arguments also have false premises and a true conclusion:
Example: All mammals have wings.
All whales have wings.
Therefore, all whales are mammals.
VII. Some invalid arguments, of course, contain all false propositions—false premises and a false
conclusion:
Example: All Ethiopians are Europeans.
All Europeans are Greek.
Therefore, all Ethiopians are Greek.
All the above examples make it clear that there are valid arguments with false conclusion (example II), as
well as invalid arguments with true conclusions (example III and VI).Hence it is clear that the truth or
falsity of an argument's conclusion does not by itself determine the validity or invalidity of that argument.
Moreover, the fact that an argument is valid does not guarantee the truth of the its conclusion.
The following table will make clear the variety of possible combinations of validity and truth:
Premises Conclusion Validity
T T ?
T F Invalid
F T ?
F F ?
The first, third, and fourth combinations show that the argument can be either valid or invalid depending
on whether the conclusion follows the premises with strict necessity or only with probability ( regardless
of the truth and falsity of the premises and the conclusion). This is the very reason why we said validity,
truth and falsity are only indirectly related. But an argument with true premises and a false conclusion
cannot be valid.

1.6.3. Validity and Soundness

Soundness is a logical concept which takes into account both factors-factual and inferential claim for
evaluating arguments. Therefore, these two conditions must be satisfied to be an argument sound i.e. it is
a kind of argument having good logical reasoning process and all the premises are factually true.
A deductive argument is called Sound if it successfully meets the following two conditions:
i) if it is valid, and at the same time
ii) if all the premises are true.
Hence, by definition of a valid argument, all sound arguments have true conclusion as well.
Ex: All men are mortal.
All Ethiopian are men.
Therefore, all Ethiopians are mortal.
Thus, Deductively Sound = Valid + All Premises True.
If an argument fails to satisfy the two conditions of sound argument, it is unsound. Accordingly, unsound
arguments are the following characteristics.
 All invalid arguments are unsound.
 Valid but at least one false premises
 Valid but all the premises are false.
Example: All Ethiopians are Europeans.

18 | P a g e
 Tilahun Gessesse is an Ethiopian.
Therefore, Tilahun Gessesse 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 premises, then it is unsound.

1.6.4. Strength and Truth

Inductive: a) Strong (Cogent or uncogent)
b) Weak (all uncogent)
The previous section defined inductive argument as one in which the premises are claimed to support the
conclusion in such a way that if they are assumed true, then based on that assumption it is only probable
that the conclusion is true. If the premises do in fact support the conclusion in this way, the argument is
said to be Strong. Thus, a strong argument is one such that it is unlikely (though possible) that its
conclusion is false while its premises are true. In other words, a strong argument has this essential feature:
It is highly probable that if its premises are true, then its conclusion is true. So, an argument is to be said
strong if its conclusion has a higher likelihood of being true while its premises are true.
A weak inductive argument is one such that if the premises are assumed true, then based on that
assumption it is not probable that the conclusion is true. In other words, a weak inductive argument has
this essential feature: It is not likely that if its premises are true, then its conclusion is true. The following
are examples of inductive arguments. The first is strong, and the second weak:
* Since the first of June, almost every day, there has been rainfall in Addis Ababa.
Therefore, probably it will be raining in Addis Ababa throughout next week.
* For a few days there has been rainfall in Addis Ababa.
Therefore, probably it will be raining throughout next week.
There is no any such argument to be said more valid or less valid, more invalid or less invalid because
validity does not admit of degree. But we can have an argument which may be said either stronger or
weaker when compared to other arguments because strength and weakness, unlike validity and invalidity,
generally admit of degree. The first of the above arguments is strong and the second is weak when the
two are compared to each other.
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/weakness, and
truth/falsity.
I. A strong argument with true premises and a probably true conclusion:
All previous American presidents were men.
Therefore, the next American president will be a man (a male)
II. A weak inductive argument with true premises and a probably true conclusion:
A few American presidents were Federalists. Therefore, probably the next American president will be
a man.
III. A weak inductive argument with true premises and a probably false conclusion:
A few American presidents were Federalists.
Therefore, probably the next American president will be a Federalist.
IV. A strong inductive argument with false premise and a probably true conclusion:
All previous American presidents were television debaters.

19 | P a g e
 Therefore, probably the next American president will be a television debater.
V. A weak inductive argument with false premise and a probably true conclusion:
A few American presidents were Libertarians.
Therefore, probably the next American president will be a television debater.
VI. A strong inductive argument with false premise and a probably false conclusion:
All previous American presidents were women.
Therefore, probably the next American president will be a woman.
VII. A weak inductive argument with false premise and a probably false conclusion:
A few American presidents were Libertarians.
Therefore, probably the next American president will be a Libertarian.
The following table will make clear the variety of possible combinations of strength and truth
Premise – Conclusion – Strength
T T ?
T F weak
F T ?
F F ?
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 truth and falsity. But an inductive argument with true premises and a false conclusion
cannot be strong.

1.6.5. Strength and Cogency

An Inductively Cogent argument has two essential features:
i) it is strong, and
ii) all its premises are true.
If either condition is missing, the argument would rather uncogent.
*All the previous Ethiopian leaders were men.
Therefore, probably the next Ethiopian leader will be a man.
*A few previous Ethiopian leaders were women.
Therefore, probably the next Ethiopian leader will be a woman.
Both the above arguments are uncogent; the first because it involves a false premise (though the argument
is strong), and the second because it is weak (though the premise is true). Thus, an inductively cogent
argument is one that is either: i) weak, or ii) strong with at least one false premise. Thus, Inductively
Cogent = Strong + All Premises True

20 | P a g e