CHAPTER TWO

Basic Concepts of Logic

Introduction
Logic is the study of the methods and principles that are used to distinguish good (correct) from
bad (incorrect) arguments. This chapter provides students some preliminary notions and
guidelines about logic as a subject matter. Moreover, the chapter deals with the nature of
arguments and their components (premises and conclusion), deductive and inductive arguments,
validity, truth, soundness, strength, cogency, argument forms and proving validity.
1.1 What is Logic?
 Definition and Purpose
Everyone thinks, every one reasons, every one argues, and everyone is subjected to the reasoning
and arguments of others. We are daily bombarded with reasoning from many sources: books,
speeches, radio, TV, newspapers, employers, friends and family…. Some people think and argue
well some do not. The ability to think, reason and argue well is partly a matter of natural gifts.
But, whatever natural gifts we may have, they can be refined and sharpened. And, the study of
logic is one of the best ways to refine one’s natural ability to reason and argue. Through the
study of logic, one learns strategies for thinking well identify and avoid common errors in
reasoning, and effective techniques for evaluating arguments… (Layman, 2000:1).
As it has been underlined in the above passage, logic is a philosophical discipline which is
basically concerned with the formulation of principles which correct our reasoning processes.
The principles formulated in logic are guiding procedures so as to evaluate argument forms,
which are the fundamentals of the subject matter.
An argument, which is the primary focus of logic in the coming sections, is a group of statements
containing a conclusion that is affirmed on the bases of what are called premises.
As it has been stated before, arguments are familiar in our day-to-day communications and
experiences, with different parties in the sense that they are available in text books, newspapers,
debates and in different modes of communication among individuals or groups. Thus, logic is
aimed at designing methods and principles in order to evaluate arguments which can be
conducted by different parts of a given society.
Finally, the principles of logic enable us to develop our confidence in critically and rationally
evaluating others’ arguments and to construct our own persuasive and logical forms of speech.

Solomon B. Page 1
1.5 The Nature of Arguments

1.5.1 Argument, Premises and conclusion

An argument, which is the primary focus of logic, is a group of statements, which composes
premise(s) and a conclusion. A premise (which can be one or more than one) is a statement,
which provides reason or support for the conclusion. And, a conclusion (which is always one) of
an argument is a statement, which is claimed to be supported or implied. And, arguments where
the premise really supports the conclusion are good arguments and those which are on the
contrary are bad arguments. Here, logic sets methods, principles and techniques, which enable us
to differentiate good arguments from bad ones.
As it has been stated before, the term ‘argument’, unlike its ordinary meaning as a mere verbal
fight between or among different individuals, has a completely different meaning. An argument
is composed of statements, which have truth-values and logically interconnected ideas as
premises and conclusion. In other words, an argument is composed of statements as premises
and conclusion to which they are evaluated either true or false as they are declarative sentences.
Here, sentences which contain questions, proposals, suggestions, commands, exclamations and
the like cannot be considered as statements as they cannot have truth values.
In some cases, however, a statement can also be expressed in a form of rhetorical questions. For
instance, the premise of the following legal argument is expressed in interrogative form.
If the criminal law forbids suicide, that is not an argument which is valid in the church; and
besides, the prohibition is ridiculous; for what penalty can frighten a person who is not afraid of
death itself?
It is now clear that an argument is composed of premises and a conclusion that the latter is the
statement that is claimed to follow from the former. Here our central task is to distinguish
premise(s) from the conclusion within an argument. The first strategy to accomplish this task is
by using indicator words. This is to say that there are some typical premise indicator words
and some other conclusion indicator words. Thus, based on those premise and conclusion
indicator words, one can easily distinguish premises form the conclusion.
Some of the typical premise indicator words are the followings:
- Since - as indicated by -As
- Because - in that -given that
- For - may be inferred from ……….

Solomon B. Page 2
Example
The constitution of a state does not narrate details of laws as it simply gives general guidelines
which all other laws are in accordance with.
The statement before the word ‘as’ is the conclusion whereas the statement after ‘as’ is the
premise of the above argument.

And some of the typical conclusion indicators are the followings:

- Thus - so - For this reason
- Hence - it follows that
- Therefore - accordingly - as a result
- Consequently - it must be that - implies that…
Example: A Federal government usually possesses a constitution, which guarantees power
sharing between the federal/central government and those regional/ local
governments. This implies that distribution of power is the salient feature of any
federal government.
The statement that precedes the words ‘implies that’ is the premise and the statement that
follows/contains ‘implies that’ is the conclusion of the argument given above.

The other important point that should be underlined is that indicator words (premise as well as
conclusion indicators) are not always guarantees to distinguish or show premise (s) from
conclusion of a given argument because of two important reasons:
a) There might be cases where there are no indicator words in passages which
contain argument.
b) Though they exist, they might have some other purposes (explanation,
illustration…) other than showing argument accompanied by premises and
conclusion.
As to the problem stated in (a), one can end up with successful solution by responding to one of
the following questions:
 Which statement is claimed to follow from others?
 What is the arguer trying to arrive at /prove? Or
 What is the main point of the passage?

Solomon B. Page 3
And, the answer to these questions points out to the conclusion of an argument so that the rest
will be its premise(s). This is to say that in the absence of those indicator words, one should
carefully appeal to the inferential claim (reasoning process) that the claim (s) /evidence(s) which
the statement (s) hold (s) is/are considered to be premise(s) and the other statement that is to be
followed is the conclusion of a given argument. For example: the following passage, which
contains an argument, does not have any indicator word:
Example: A politician who does not have the courage to political life is not destined to the
discipline. Mohammed does not have any courage to it. Mohammed is not destined to political
life.
And, when we look at the inferential relationships among the above three statements of the
passage, the statement “Mohammed is not destined to political life” is the statement which is
intended to be proved so that it is the conclusion and the remaining two statements are premises
of the above argument.
In relation to the concept of argument, inference and proposition are the two common notions.
Inference is nothing but the reasoning process expressed by an argument and a proposition
means the information content or meaning of statements, which compose an argument.
As to the problem stated under (b) the existence of indicator words by themselves cannot always
guarantee the existence of premise(s) and conclusion or an argument in a passage. One can look
the following two examples which both contain the indicator word “since” that it serves as time
indicator in the first passage whereas premise indicator in the next passage (argument):-
 Ethiopia has a long history in constitutional traditions. And, since 1995 the country has
been guided by a federal constitution. (Here since is used as time indicator and the
passage in fact doesn’t contain an argument as there is not any inferential claim in it).
 Since the 1995 constitution of Ethiopia includes fundamental human and democratic
rights of the people, it is relatively better than all constitutions which had been
formulated before. (Here since is used as a premise indicator as the passage contains
inferential claim, which in turn proves that it is an argument.)
1.5.2 Distinguishing Arguments from non-arguments
It has been partially clear that an argument is the primary focus of logic. But it should also be
underlined that all forms of speeches as well as passages do not contain arguments. In short, any
form of speech or passage is labeled as an argument if and only if it fulfills the following two
conditions:

Solomon B. Page 4
 a. A minimum of one statement must claim to provide reason or evidence,
b. There must be a claim that something is followed from the evidence.
As it has been stated before, premises refer to the statements claiming to provide evidence, and
conclusion refers to the statement that the evidence is claimed to imply or support. Here, the
question is: Is it necessary for the premises to be true? No, it is not mandatory that the premises
provide actual or genuine support to the conclusion or it is not necessary for the premises to
actually support the conclusion. But, the premises must claim to provide evidences or reasons;
and there must be a claim that the evidences or reasons support or imply something. When we
say the premises must claim to provide evidence, it suggests that the reasons or evidence
presented have not proved to be true, but the assertion that it is true is there. As a result, the
premises may be either true or false. It may, therefore, be either factual evidence or not.
In any case, the first condition stated in (a) expresses what is called factual claim which is not
mandatory for a passage that contains an argument unlike the second condition stated in (b),
which is commonly called inferential Claim. Inferential claim is the claim that the passage
expresses a reasoning process; that something supports or implies something.
Thus, the second precondition implies that the existence of an inferential claim (the claim that a
passage/speech contains or expresses reasoning process) is mandatory to consider a given
passage or speech as an argument- i.e. something should be implied or followed from others in
any argument. And, such an inferential relationship of an argument can be expressed:-
a. Either explicitly through indicator (premise as well as conclusion indicator) words as
it has been witnessed above.
Example
Expectant Mothers should never use excessive alcoholic drinks and drugs as these
substances can endanger the development of the fetus.
Here the word “as” shows that there is a reasoning process being expressed in the passage. Thus,
what follows “as” is the premise while what precedes it is the conclusion of the argument.
b. Implicitly through understanding the inferential relationship between premises and
the conclusion.
Example:
Freedom of press is one of the most important constitutionally guaranteed freedoms. Without
it, other freedoms would be immediately threatened. Furthermore, it provides the fulcrum for
the development of new freedoms.

Solomon B. Page 5
 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 an argument. And, the first statement is the conclusion and the other two
are premises.
Moreover, the other alternative that enables us to differentiate passages, which contain
arguments from those which do not have, is through distinguishing non-inferential passages/non
argument forms with that of inferential passages/ argument forms. Based on this guideline,
passages which contain warnings, advices, a statement of belief, reports and the like lack
inferential claim that they are non-inferential passages. Thus, they are non-argument forms as
some of their details is to be disclosed in the following section.
A. Warnings: - are cautionary advices, which save someone from any bad or dangerous incident
or situation. And, such forms of speech are non-arguments as they clearly lack inferential claim.
Example: Shut your mouth!
B. Pieces of advice are forms of expression, which contain counseling or guidelines to someone
to follow appropriate procedures, actions, and choices.
Example
I advise you to improve your behavior before you graduate.
C. Statements of Belief and Opinion are forms of expression, which are basically accompanied
by somebody’s beliefs, thinking, opinions as well as judgments on different events, or courses of
action. But, these opinions or judgments might not be supported through proofs or evidences
rather than showing individual’s perceptions on those events or courses of action.
Example
In my opinion, abortion is a crime against humanity.
D. Loosely associated statements are forms of expression accompanied by various statements
which are mainly concerned with the same and general theme. However, they are not logically
connected or they lack inferential claim so that they cannot be considered as arguments.
Example
Anything that a doctor does, which requires cutting or injecting is a ‘Procedure.’
Anything that a doctor does, which requires thinking or counseling is a “cognitive
service”. Procedures pay much better than cognitive services.

Solomon B. Page 6
E. Reports are sets of statements, which are basically there to convey or deliver information
about different events or incidents. Reporters or journalists are basically destined to deliver
information about different incidents rather than arguing on them.
Example
“The Islamic forces in Somalia led by ‘Alshebab’ groups declared war to liberate Somalia from
Ethiopian forces” Aljazeera, 2008.
 But, there is the case when reports about arguments are delivered. In such case, though
the report itself is not an argument, the reported passage can be interpreted as an
argument since it is accompanied by position, which is supported by evidences. However,
the passage/argument in the report is not performed by the author of the report, but by
those to whom the author of the report is reporting.
F. Expository Passages (Elaborations):- are passages, which begin with topic sentences or
fundamental points. And, there are additional sentences, which are primarily there to develop or
elaborate those topic sentences rather than to prove them.
Example
The speed of reading 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 read it, or go in
search of elucidation before continuing.
But there are cases where expository passages can be counted as arguments when those
elaborating sentences, other than the topic sentence, are there not only to develop topic sentence
but also to prove it.

G. Illustrations: - are forms of exemplifying or clarifying instances on concepts, issues or

different subject matters. This is to say that when a statement about a certain issue is
accompanied by different instances to exemplify it, it is considered as an illustration.
Example
Mammals are vertebrate animals that nourish their young with milk. For example, cats, horses,
goats, monkeys, and humans are mammals.
However, there are passages, which give examples that can be interpreted as arguments.

Solomon B. Page 7
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, this example is intended to prove that water is an excellent solvent so that it can be
considered as an argument.
Thus, like expository passages, some illustrations are considered as arguments if there is an
inferential relationship or reasoning process among their statements.
H. Conditional Statements
A sentence constructed through an ‘if … then…” statement is a conditional statement. And, a
statement that is following ‘then’ is called consequent and a statement following ‘if’ is called an
antecedent.
Conditional statements do not usually contain argument; rather they signify the causal
connection between the antecedent and the consequent as:
 If antecedent, then consequent.
 Consequent if antecedent.
Example
If you study hard, you will score a good grade, or
You will score a good grade if you study hard.

However, it is not always the case that all conditional statements express only causal connections
in the sense that there are cases where conditional statements are interpreted as arguments if the
connection between the two is as follows:
 a single conditional statement is not an argument.
 a conditional statement may serve as either the premise or the conclusion or both of an
argument.
 the inferential content of a conditional statement may 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’s magnetic field is disappeared. Therefore, the Van Allen radiation
belt will be dissolved.

Solomon B. Page 8
In this example, the conditional sentence served as the premise of an argument. Thus, if the
passage consists of conditional statements together with some other statement (like the above
example), then it may be an argument depending on the presence of indicator words and an
inferential relationship between the premises and the conclusion.
Another important point is that conditional statements are useful in logic since they express the
relationship between sufficient and necessary conditions. ‘X’ is said to be a sufficient condition
for ‘Y’ whenever the occurrence of ‘X’ is all that is needed for the occurrence of ‘Y’. For
example, it is clear that a knife could cause a scare to appear. When we put this in a conditional
statement, it is as “If you are stabbed by knife, a scare will appear on your body”. Or to put this
in terms of sufficient and necessary condition it can be presented as “being stabbed by a knife is
a sufficient condition for the occurrence of scare.” However, being stabbed by a knife is not a
necessary condition for the occurrence of scare because many other things may cause scare.
‘X’ is said to be the necessary condition for ‘Y’ whenever ‘Y’ cannot occur without the
occurrence of ‘X’. For example, air is a necessary condition for life. It is a necessary condition
because one cannot think of life without air. But it is not a sufficient condition since there are
other necessary conditions.
I. An Explanation- Consists of statements or group of statements intended to shed light on some
phenomenon that is usually accepted as a matter of fact.
Examples:
1. Azeb is sick because she ate too much.
2. The price of oil declined because of the international financial crisis.

In an explanation, there are two distinct components: the explanandum and the explanans. The
explanandum is the statement that describes the event or phenomenon to be explained, and the
explanan is a statement that does the explaining. In the first example, the explanandum is the
statement “Azeb is sick” and the explanan is “She ate too much”.
Explanations usually contain indicator words such as “because” and others as a result of which
they may be confused with arguments. This is precisely because in the explanation, the
explanans are intended to show why something is the case, where as in an argument the premises
are intended to prove that something is the case. In the above two examples, the writers/speakers
are intended to explain the situations rather than proving them.

Solomon B. Page 9
 Exercise1.1
I. Define the Following terms:
-Logic -Conclusion - Explanandum - Conditional statement
- Argument - Proposition - Premise indicator - Consequent
- Premise -truth value - Conclusion indicator - Sufficient condition
indicator - Inference - Fundamental laws of - Necessary condition
-Antecedent -Explanans logic
-Explanation

II. Answer by writing “true” or “false” to the following statements:

1. An argument can have more than one conclusion.
2. All arguments must have more than one premise.
3. The words “therefore”, “So”, “since”, “thus”, “hence” are all conclusion indicators.
4. Every statement has a truth value.
5. Some arguments are false.
6. Logic is the study of methods for evaluating whether the premise(s)
of an argument adequately support its conclusion.
7. An argument is a set of statements, one of which called the conclusion, is affirmed on the
bases of others, which are called the premises.
8. usually credited as the father of logic.
9. Some passages can be correctly interpreted as both illustrations and as arguments.
10. Some conditional statements can be expressed to form arguments.
11. Being an animal is a sufficient condition for being a tiger.
12. The presence of water is a necessary condition for plant life.
13. Any passage that contains an argument must contain a claim that something is supported
by evidences or reasons.
14. Passages, which contain premise or conclusion indicator words, are always arguments.
1.5.3. Deductive and Inductive Arguments
Based on the kind of connection that exists between the premises and the conclusion, arguments
can broadly be classified in to two deductive and inductive. And, the difference in the strength
of the inferential claim or the degree of strength of the reasoning process that existing between

Solomon B. Page 10
the premises and the conclusion matters most to arrive at such dichotomy between the above two
categories of arguments.
Deductive arguments are arguments, premises of which guarantee the conclusion such that if we
assume that the premises are true, the conclusion must be true. In other words, the connection
between the premises and the conclusion in any deductive argument is a matter of necessity or
certainty that the conclusion in a deductive argument cannot be otherwise (false) if its premises
are true.
Example – All human beings are mortal.
Kebede is a human being.
Therefore, Kebede is Mortal.
In this example, the premises support the conclusion with certainty so that the conclusion is
inferred with logical necessity from the evidences or premises.
On the other hand, inductive arguments are those arguments whose premises simply suggest the
conclusion such that if we assume that the premises are true, the conclusion will probably be
true. This implies that there is a probable connection between the premises and the conclusion of
an inductive argument. Thus, the inferential link between the premises and the conclusion of any
inductive argument is a matter of likelihood/probability unlike that of any deductive argument.
Example
The majority of Ethiopian University students are seriously concerned about employment
opportunity. Rahma is a University Student. Therefore, Rahma is seriously concerned about
employment opportunity.
The premise of the above argument is supporting the conclusion with the degree of likelihood or
probability that there is no relationship of logical necessity between the premise and the
conclusion.
There are cases where inductive arguments are understood, as arguments, which reason from
part to whole and deductive argument, are those, which reason from whole to part. However,
this kind of approach does not always work. And, the following two examples show that the
above definitions do not always work.
Example 1
Three is a prime number.
Five is a prime number.
Seven is a prime number.

Solomon B. Page 11
Therefore, all odd numbers between two and eight are prime numbers.
 This is reasoning from particular to general, however, the argument is deductive.
Example 2
All the last experiences in Ethiopian politics have shown that political power is not
secured through unconstitutional means. Therefore, Political power in Ethiopia will be
secured through similar strategy in the coming years.
 This is an inductive argument since it seems that it argues to forecast the future based on
past experiences.
In any case, the strength of the inferential connection between the premises and the conclusion
should be taken as an indispensable criterion to differentiate or show the distinction between
inductive and deductive arguments.
To sum up, there are three criteria, which are important to distinguish inductive arguments from
deductive arguments. These are:
A. The existence of indicator words such as necessarily, certainly, absolutely, and
definitely in arguments show that such arguments are deductive. And, the existence of
words such as likely, probably, unlikely, plausibly in arguments shows that such
arguments are inductive. But, these deductive and inductive indicator words cannot
always show the distinction between the two argument forms so that it is necessary to
appeal to other criteria.
B. The actual strength of the inferential link between the premises and the conclusion of
a given argument is another criterion to distinguish deductive from an inductive
argument. If the conclusion is strictly or logically followed form the premises, the
argument will be deductive, but if the conclusion is only probably followed from the
premises, the argument is inductive.
C. Typical deductive and inductive argument forms
Deductive Argument Forms
 Mathematical arguments are deductive argument forms since they are accompanied by
some arithmetic and geometric backgrounds. But, this does not mean that statistical
argument forms are deductive since they are characterized by probabilistic or sampling
procedures to arrive at a conclusion.
Example
The sum of two odd numbers is always even. Thus, the result of 3 and 9 is an even number.

Solomon B. Page 12
  An argument from definition is a deductive argument form since the premises already
define the truth of the conclusion.
Example: God is omniscient, it follows that He knows everything.
 A categorical syllogism is a deductive argument form. It is a syllogism (an argument form
having exactly two premises) in which each of its statements usually begins with words:
‘All’, ‘No’ and ‘some.’
Example
All A are B.
All A are C.  This is a deductive argument form.
Therefore, all A are Z.
All animals are mammals.
All mammals are Living things.  This is the substitution instance of the above deductive
Therefore, all animals are living things. argument form.
 A Hypothetical syllogism is a deductive argument, which is basically accompanied by an
“If…then…” or conditional statement.
Example: If A, then B.
If B, then C.  This is a deductive argument form
Therefore if A, then C.
The substitution instance of the above argument form is as follows:
If our body temperature is beyond the normal condition (37 OC), then we are not in a normal
state of mind. If we are not in normal state of mind, then we would not cope up with any physical
as well as mental challenges. Therefore, if our body temperature is beyond the normal condition
(37OC), then we would not cope up with any physical as well as mental challenges.
 A Disjunctive Syllogism is a syllogism which is accompanied by statements beginning
with an “Either…or …” phrase and it is a deductive argument form.
Example
Either x or y.
Not x.  This is a deductive argument form.
Therefore, y.
Its substitution instance is as follows:
Either Italy or Ethiopia won the military incident of Adwa. Italy did not win the military
incident of Adwa. Therefore, Ethiopia won the military incident of Adwa.

Solomon B. Page 13
Some Inductive Argument Forms
 A Prediction is an argument when somebody concludes about the future based on what
was or is happening before as well as now. This is an inductive argument in the sense that
it cannot show the future with certainty.
Example
It has been raining for the whole day of this week This shows that it will rain for the
coming weak.
 An inductive generalization is an argument where someone bases his/her conclusion on
some particular instances, cases or samples.
Example:
There are 100 students who are taking the course introduction to logic. Among
these students 10 of them were selected at random and found to be intelligent.
Therefore, this shows that all of these students are intelligent.
 An argument from authority is an argument in which someone argues based on the
witness of another person who could be mistaken or lying and it is an inductive argument.

Example
According to Ato Kebede, who is a chief economic planner at the Ministry of
Economic Planning and Development, Ethiopian economy is growing rapidly
regardless of the global crises of 2008/9. Therefore, Ethiopian economy is
growing fast as per the account of Ato Kebede.
 An argument based on certain signs is attributed to certain situations to which these
signs symbolize; it will be an inductive argument. And, arguments based on traffic signs;
cautions of any marks and symbols usually contain inductive argumentations.
 An argument from analogy depends on the existence of analogy or similarity between
two things or states of affairs. However, the certitude attending analogical reasoning is
obviously probabilistic.

Example

Solomon B. Page 14
The Encyclopedia Britannica has an article on symbiosis. The Encyclopedia America, like the
Britannica, is an excellent reference work. Therefore, the Americana probably also has an
article on symbiosis.
 An argument based on causation:- instances of cause and effect (cause to effect or
effect to cause) which can never be known with absolute certainty is an inductive
argumentation.
Example
Kebede is upset so that he is silent  cause to effect
The meat is dry so that it had been over cooked  effect to cause
Exercise 1.2
I. Define the Following terms:
- Deductive argument – Argument from analogy
- Inductive argument – Inductive generalization
- Argument based on Mathematics – Prediction
- Argument from definition - Causal inference
- Categorical syllogism - Disjunctive syllogism
- Hypothetical syllogism
II. Answer by writing “true “or “False” to the following statements.
1. Deductive argument always proceeds from the general to the particular.
2. Most arguments based on statistical reasoning are deductive.
3. The nature of the link between premises and conclusion may allow one to determine
whether an argument is inductive or deductive.
4. An argument that proceeds from the knowledge of the cause to the knowledge of an
effect is an inductive argument.
5. A geometrical proof is an example of an inductive argument.
6. Indicator words can be taken as one of those requirements used to distinguish inductive
from deductive arguments.
III. Which of the following arguments are deductive? And, which are inductive?
1. All Collies are dogs. Some animals are not dogs. So, some animals are not collies.
2. Because triangle A is congruent with triangle B, and triangle A is isosceles, it follows that
triangle B is isosceles.

Solomon B. Page 15
 3. Cholesterol is indigenous with humans. Therefore, it is manufactured inside the human
body.
4. The interpretation of the law is the proper mandate of the court. Constitution is, in fact, and
must be regarded by the judges as the fundamental law. It, therefore, belongs to them to
ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the
legislative body.
5. All planets are round. The earth is round. So, the earth is a planet.
1.5.4. Validity, Truth, Soundness, Strength and Cogency:
Evaluating Arguments
As it has been underlined before, evaluating arguments based on fundamental principles and
guidelines is among the central tasks of critical and rational scrutiny.
When we expose arguments to critical and rational scrutiny, we may witness that the premises,
which are claimed to support the conclusion, fail to support the conclusion so that the
information of premises becomes irrelevant or inconsistent with the conclusion. Thus, arguments
having this nature can be evaluated as bad or illogical. On the contrary, if we witness an
argument having sufficient, genuine and precise evidences or premises to the conclusion, then
we can judge that the information of the premises are relevant, consistent and conducive to the
conclusion. And, an argument that satisfies this requirement can be evaluated as good or logical.
To this end, as it has been underlined before, inferential claim is an indispensable criteria to
evaluate arguments in such a way that if the premises of a given argument fail to logically
support or imply the conclusion, the argument is bad and if the case is to the contrary it will
result in good argument. And the primary task of this section is to evaluate arguments,
particularly deductive and inductive arguments. And, as it has been explained before, the
relationship between the premises and the conclusion of a deductive argument is a matter of
necessity where as that of an inductive argument is a matter of probability. Accordingly,
logicians employ different terminologies so as to evaluate deductive and inductive arguments
separately. And, this section gives us some detailed analysis and classifications of deductive and
inductive arguments using those technical terms employed by logicians, which in fact can never
violate the fundamental natures or characteristics of these two arguments.

Solomon B. Page 16
Evaluating Deductive Arguments
Validity and Invalidity
As an introductory insight, there are four technical terms employed to evaluate deductive
arguments; valid, invalid, sound and unsound. Initially, a deductive argument can be divided
into two forms: Valid and invalid. And, a valid deductive argument is an argument such that if
the premises are assumed to be true, the conclusion must be true (it is impossible for the
conclusion to be false). In other words, the logical connection between the premises and the
conclusion of a valid deductive argument is a matter of strict necessity. If, on the other
hand, the connection between the premises and the conclusion of an argument is not a matter of
strict necessity in the sense that if the premises are assumed to be true, then there is a possibility
for the conclusion to be false, and such a deductive argument is invalid.
Moreover, there is no argument, which is partially or almost valid (there is not any third
alternative other than valid and invalid arguments) that if the conclusion is followed with strict
necessity from premises, the argument is valid; and if the case is to the opposite, the argument is
invalid.

Validity and Truth

Another important point is that there is no any direct connection between validity and truth, in
the sense that, it is not mandatory to have either true or false premises as well as conclusion so as
to get a valid argument except an argument with true premises and false conclusion, which is
always invalid.
Truth and falsity are attributes of individual propositions or statements, which assert what really
are the cases. When somebody asserts that Abay is the largest river in Ethiopia, he/she asserts
what really is the case, which means what is true. But if he/she asserts that the largest river in
Ethiopia is Wabishebele, his/her assertion would not be in accord with the actual world,
therefore, it would be false. Thus, truth is the attribute of a proposition that asserts what really is
the case, what is true; however, 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.
In other words, the fact that statements of an argument are all true may not prove validity and the
fact that all the statements of an argument are false do not prevent the argument from being
valid.

Solomon B. Page 17
In any case, the following are possible combinations of true and false premises in both valid and
invalid arguments:
I. Some Valid Arguments contain all true Propositions-true premises and true conclusion
Example: - All Mammals are animals.
- All cows are Mammals.
- Therefore, all cows are animals.
II. Some Valid arguments have all false propositions-false premises and false conclusion
Example: All Sharks are birds.
All birds are politicians.
Therefore, all Sharks are Politicians.
Although the premises of the above argument are in fact false, the argument is valid. If they were
true, the conclusion would have to be true as well. It is impossible for the conclusion to be false
assuming that the premises are true. Thus, the above argument is valid.
III. Some invalid arguments have true premises and true Conclusion
Example
All birds are animals.
All grizzly bears are animals.
Therefore, all grizzly bears are birds.
The above argument is invalid because the truth of the conclusion does not follow the premises
with strict necessity.
IV. Some invalid arguments which contain all true premises have false conclusion
Example
All banks are financial institutions.
Ethiopian Insurance Corporation is a financial institution.
Therefore, Ethiopian Insurance corporation is a bank.
The premises of the above argument are true; however, the conclusion is false. 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.

Solomon B. Page 18
V. Some Valid arguments have false premises and true conclusion.
Example
All Asians are Africans.
All Ethiopians are Asians.
Therefore, all Ethiopians are Africans.
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 true Conclusion:-
Example
All Mammals have wings.
All Whales have wings.
Therefore, all whales are mammals.
VII. Some invalid arguments contain all false propositions-false premises and false
conclusion
Example
All Americans are Europeans.
All Ethiopians are Europeans.
Therefore, all Ethiopians are Americans.

In any case, as it has been underlined before, the above examples clearly witness that there is no
direct link between validity and truth in the sense that the truth or falsity of the proposition or
statement of an argument can never by itself guarantee the validity or invalidity of that argument.
In short the following table (summary) will make the variety of possible combinations of validity
and truth clear:
Premise Conclusion Validity
T- - - - - - - - T- - - - - - - -- valid/invalid
T- - - - - - - - F- - - - - - - - Invalid
F- - - - - - - - T- - - - - - - - valid/invalid
F- - - - - - - - F- - - - - - - - valid/invalid
Table 1.1

Solomon B. Page 19
One can understand from the above table that the first, third, and fourth combinations show that
the argument can be either valid or invalid depending primarily on whether the conclusion
follows the premises with strict necessity or not (regardless of the truth and falsity of the
premises and conclusion).
Another important exception in any deductive logic is indicated in the above table (in the second
combination) which contains an argument of true premises and false conclusion. And, any
argument with such a combination is always invalid.
Validity and Soundness
A deductive argument can be considered as sound if and only if it is valid and having all true
premises. If one of these two conditions is violated, the argument would rather be unsound.
Example
All Mammals are animals.
All humans are mammals.
Therefore, all humans are animals.

The Conclusion of the above argument follows the premises with strict necessity so that the
argument is valid. In addition to this, its premises are all true. Therefore, the above deductively
valid argument is sound.
 Sound argument = a valid argument + all true premises
On the other hand, a deductively unsound argument falls into one of the following three
categories:
 Valid but at least one false premise.
 Invalid but all its premises are true.
 Invalid and at least one false premise.
Example
All Animals are mammals.
All birds are animals.
Therefore, all birds are mammals.
Though the above argument is valid (because if we assume that the premises are true, the
conclusion would be necessarily true), it is unsound because the argument plainly involves false
premises.
Evaluating Inductive Arguments

Solomon B. Page 20
Strength and Weakness
As it has been underlined before, an inductive argument is the one in which its premises are
claimed to support the conclusion in such a way that if they are assumed to be true, then based on
this assumption it is only probable that the conclusion is true. If the premises do in fact support
the conclusion in this way, such an inductive argument can be considered as strong. Therefore, a
strong argument is one such that it is unlikely, though possible, that its conclusion is false while
its premises are true. Or, it is highly probable that if its premises are true, then its conclusion is
true in any inductively strong argument. If the premises are true, its conclusion has a higher
probability of being true in any strong argument.
Example
This barrel contains one hundred apples.
Eighty apples selected at random were found to be ripe.
Therefore, probably all one hundred apples are ripe.
On the other hand, a weak inductive argument is one such that if the premises are assumed true,
then based on this 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.
Example
This barrel contains one hundred apples.
Three apples selected at random were found to be ripe.
Therefore, probably all one hundred apples are ripe.
As it has been underlined before, validity does not admit of any degree so that there is no any
such argument to be said more valid/ less valid, or less invalid or more invalid. However,
strength and weakness unlike validity and invalidity admit of varying degree so that we can have
either stronger or weaker argument when we compare to other arguments. Moreover, like
validity and invalidity, strength and weakness are only indirectly related to truth and falsity. The
central question in determining strength and weakness of argument is not the truth and falsity of
premises and conclusion but whether the conclusion would probably be true if the premises are
assumed true. And, we can have the following combinations so as to reveal the indirect
relationship between strength or weakness and truth or falsity:

Solomon B. Page 21
I. A strong argument with true premises and a probably true conclusion
Example: All previous American presidents were men. Therefore, probably the next
American president will be man.
II. A weak inductive argument with true premises and a probably true conclusion.
Example: A Few American presidents were federalists. Therefore, probably the next
American president will be a man.
III. A weak indicative argument with true premise and a probably false conclusion.
Example
A Few American presidents were federalists. Therefore, probably the next
American president will be federalist.
IV. A strong inductive argument with false premises and a probably true conclusion.
Example
All Previous American presidents were television debators. Therefore, probably the next
American president will be a television debater.
V. A weak inductive argument with false premise and probably true conclusion.
Example
A Few American presidents were libertarians. 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.
Example
All previous American presidents were women. Therefore, probably the next
American president will be a woman.
VII. A weak inductive argument with false promise and probably false conclusion.
Example
A Few American presidents were Libertarians. Therefore, probably the next American
president will be a Libertarian.
And, the following table will make the Variety of Possible combination of strength and truth clear

Solomon B. Page 22
 Premises Conclusion Strength
T. . . . . . . Prob. T. . . . . . . . strong or weak
T. . . . . . . Prob. F. . . .. . . . . . . . . . . Weak
F. . . . . . . Prob. T. . . .. . . . . . strong or weak
F. . . . . . . Prob. F. . . . . . . . . . strong or weak

Table 1.2
Depending on whether the conclusion has a higher probability of following the premises
(regardless of the truth and falsity of premises and the conclusion), the first, third and fourth
combinations show that the argument can be either strong or weak. This shows that strength, like
validity, is only indirectly related to truth and falsity.
However, any inductive argument with true premises and probably false conclusion is
always weak, which is an exception of any inductive logic.

Strength and Cogency

An inductively cogent argument has two essential features: (a) it is strong and (b) all its
premises are true. If one of these two conditions is missed, the argument would rather be
uncogent.
Thus, an inductively cogent argument = a strong argument + all true premises.
Example Nearly all lemons that have been tasted were sour. Therefore, nearly all lemons are
sour.
This argument is not valid because the conclusion’s concerns are not merely the lemons that
have been tasted but lemons in general, including those that have not been tasted. And, the
premise does not rule out the possibility that a large percentage of untested lemons are not sour.
Nevertheless, it is unlikely that the conclusion is false given that the promise is true. And, the
premise is true so that the argument is inductively cogent.
Exercises 1.3
I. Define the following terms:
- Valid argument - Strong argument
- Invalid argument - Weak argument
- Sound argument - Cogent argument
- Unsound argument - Uncogent argument

Solomon B. Page 23
II. Answer by writing “true” or “false” to the following statements:
1. All valid arguments have at least one false premise.
2. A deductively sound argument can have a false conclusion.
3. Every deductively sound argument is valid.
4. If an argument has all true premises and a false conclusion, then it is invalid.
5. Every valid argument has a true conclusion.
6. A cogent argument must be inductively strong.
7. Inductive arguments admit of varying degrees of strength and weakness.
8. If a deductive argument has true premises and a false conclusion, it is necessarily invalid.
III. The following arguments are deductive. Distinguish those which are valid, invalid,
sound and unsound. And, explain why.
1. All mammals are animals. No reptiles are mammals. So, no reptiles are animals.
2. All women are married. Some executives are not married So, some executives are not
women.
3. If Kebede was killed in an automobile accident, then Kebede is dead. Hence, Kebede was
not killed in automobile accident.
4. Either 2 plus 2 equal to 22 or Santa Claus is real. But 2 plus 2 does not equal to 22.
Therefore, Santa Claus is real.
5. All birds are animals. No tree is a bird. Therefore, No tree is an animal.
IV. The following arguments are inductive. Distinguish those which are strong, weak, and
cogent. And, explain why?
1. One hundred percent of the frogs that have been dissected had hearts. Therefore, 100
percent of the entire frog population has hearts.
2. Computers are similar to humans in that both are capable of solving complex calculations.
Humans generally feel ashamed if they make a mistake. Hence, computers generally feel
ashamed if they make a mistake.
3. Ninety percent of the cars in the parking were vandalized and your car was in the parking.
Therefore, your car was vandalized.
4. Fifteen percent of the students at California State University are Republicans. Michael is a
student at California State University. Therefore, Michael is a Republican.
5. 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, one should not attack one’s opponent with lethal

Solomon B. Page 24
 weapons. So, when a nation is losing a war, it should not attack its opponent with lethal
weapons.

1.6 Argument Forms: Proving Invalidity

So far, we have seen that the truth of a deductive argument’s inferential claim can determine
validity in the sense that if the inferential claim is true, and then the conclusion follows with
strict necessity from the premises so that the argument is valid.
This section, however, introduces alternative approach so as to prove validity. In other words,
this section discloses how argument forms determine validity (the correctness of the argument’s
reasoning or the truth of a deductive argument’s inferential claim). For this purpose, we will
consider the following series of examples as follows:
Argument 1 Argument 2
All oaks are trees. All adlers are bobkins.
All trees are plants. All bobkins are crockers.
Therefore, all oaks are plants. Therefore, all adlers are crockers.
 We can represent the above two different arguments in terms of content by the following
similar form. And, we should be consistent in substituting terms with letters.

Form1.
All A are B.
All B are C.
Therefore, all A are C.
 A stands for Oaks in argument 1 and it represents Adlers in arguments 2.
 B stands for trees in argument 1 and it represents bobkins in argument 2.
 C stands for plants in argument 1 and it represents crockers in argument 2.

Argument (1) and its form are clearly valid. This is because of the fact that if all members of A
(oaks) are members of class B (trees), and all members of class B (trees) are members of class C
(plants), then all members of A (oaks) are members of C (plants).
And, as regards argument (2) though we cannot have any idea about Adlers and Bobkins or
Crockers, we might not have any idea whether the premises are true, the argument is valid since
it has the same form as argument (1). And, any argument having form (1) has the following

Solomon B. Page 25
feature: its Conclusion cannot be false while its premises are true. From this, one can understand
the nature of validity in the sense that the validity of an argument is guaranteed by its form and
does not depend on its content (i.e., its specific subject matter).
On the Other hand, the followings are invalid arguments:
Argument 3 Argument 4
All adlers are bobkins. All Birds are animals.
All crockers are bobkins. All dogs are animals.
Therefore, all adlers are Crockers. Therefore, all birds are dogs.

And, the above two arguments can have the following similar argument form which is invalid.
Form 2
All A are B.
All C are B.
Therefore, All A are C.

Argument 3 Argument 4
A= Adlers A = birds
C = Crockers C = dogs
B= Bobkins B = animals

And, any argument that has the above argument form is always invalid. An argument form is a
pattern or structure of reasoning that substitutes terms. And, an argument that results from
uniformly replacing letters in an argument form with terms (or statement) is called a substitution
instance of that form. For example, we can consider the following argument form and produce
its substitution instance;
Some A are not B. A = Animals
All C are A. B = Mammals
Therefore, some C are not B. C = Dogs
We can prove that this form is invalid by producing a substitution instance that has premises
known to be true and a conclusion known to be false as follows:
Some animals are not mammals. (True)
All dogs are animals. (True)

Solomon B. Page 26
 Therefore, some dogs are not mammals. (False)

 Counterexample Method of Proving Invalidity

A counterexample method is method which is employed only to prove the invalidity of invalid

arguments. In other words, Substitution instance with premises known to be true and a

conclusion to be false is called a Counterexample. Thus a counterexample to an argument form

is a substitution instance whose premises are well-known truths and whose conclusion is a well-

known falsehood. And, a good counter example must have the following features

 It must have the correct form.

 Its premises must be true.
 Its conclusion must be false.
As it has been underlined before, the counterexample method can only used to demonstrate the
invalidity of any invalid argument however; it cannot demonstrate the validity of any valid
argument. Thus, the argument must be known to be invalid first before this method is applied.
And, there are steps to be followed to apply counterexample method to prove invalidity of an
invalid argument:
Step 1. Beginning with an argument which is invalid,
Step 2. Representing this argument with forms, and
Step [Link] a substitution instance with true promises and false conclusion.
Example Some employers are not social climbers. All presidents are employees. Therefore,
some Vice-Presidents are not social climbers.
This argument is invalid because the employees who are not social climbers might not be vice-
presidents. Thus, we can prove the invalidity of this argument by constructing a substitution
instance with all true premises and a false conclusion. So, we begon by isolating the form of the
argument as follows
Some A are not B.
All C are A.
Therefore, some C are not B.

Solomon B. Page 27
Next to this, we select three terms to be substitute in place of the letters that will make the
premises true and the conclusion false. And, the following selection will work:

A = Animals
B = Mammals
C = Dogs
Finally, the substitution instance is:
Some animals are not mammals. (True)
All dogs are animals. (True)
Therefore, some dogs are not mammals. (False)
This substitution instance has true premises and false conclusion is therefore invalid. And, since
it has the same form with the original argument, it constitutes a proof that the original argument
is invalid.
Exercise 1.4
Use the Counterexample method to prove the invalidity of the following arguments
1. All galaxies are structures that contain black holes in the center. So all galaxies are
quasars since all quasars are structures that contain black holes in the center.
2. No member of the African National Congress is a supporter of apartheid. Consequently,
no members of the African National Congress are members of the labor party since no
members of the labor party are supporters of apartheid.
3. If animal species are fixed and immutable, then evolution is a myth. Therefore, evolution
is not a myth since animal species are not fixed and immutable.
Chapter Summary
Logic is the study of the principles of correct reasoning so as to evaluate arguments. Arguments
are groups of statements consisting of one or more premises and only one conclusion. Premises
can be distinguished from conclusion either through the presence of indicator words (“thus”,
“Since”, “therefore” etc.) or an inferential relation among statements. Moreover, it is mandatory
to distinguish arguments from non-arguments since all forms of passages are not arguments. This
can be accomplished by looking at indicator words, the presence of an inferential relation among
statements, and typical kinds of non-arguments.

Solomon B. Page 28
Arguments can broadly be divided into two: inductive and deductive. Deductive arguments are
those in which the conclusion is claimed to follow necessarily from the premises. On the other
hand, inductive arguments are those in which the conclusion is claimed to follow only probably
from the premises. Methods of distinguishing deductive arguments from inductive ones include:
using indicator words, using the actual strength of the inferential relation among statements, and
typical deductive and inductive forms of argumentation.
As to the evaluation of deductive and inductive arguments, evaluating the link between the
premises and conclusion is a mandatory logical procedure. Thus, deductive arguments,
conclusion of which strictly follows from the premises, are called valid and their contraries are
invalid. And, a deductive argument, which is valid and has all true premises, is called sound. A
deductive argument having all true premises and a false conclusion is always invalid, which is
the main exception in any deductive logic. An inductive argument, conclusion of which actually
follows from the premises, are called strong, and those that also have all true premises are
considered as cogent argument.
The form of the argument the arguer uses can determine the validity of a deductive argument.
Any argument forms having a substitution instance with true premises and a false conclusion is
an invalid form. And, Counterexample method is an important method so as to prove the
invalidity of a given invalid argument.

Solomon B. Page 29
Solomon B. Page 30