LOGIC AND CRITICAL THINKING

Tutorial class Notes (ppt) for Chapter 4,5 &6

Chapter Four
Basic Concepts of Critical Thinking
Slide 1: Introduction to critical thinking and its importance.

 Shift from lower-order to higher-order thinking.

 Focus on active, intelligent evaluation of ideas.

Slide 2:
 Lesson 1: Meaning of Critical Thinking
 Definition: Critical thinking is a wide range of cognitive skills and intellectual dispositions needed to
effectively identify, analyze, and evaluate arguments and truth claims.
 Key Aspects:

 Thinking clearly, fairly, rationally, objectively, and independently.

 Impartial investigation of facts, unsawed by emotions.

 Arriving at well-reasoned, considered, and justifiable conclusions.

Slide 3: Defining Critical Thinking (Multiple Perspectives)

 John Dewey: Active, persistent, and careful consideration of a belief in light of the grounds that support it and
further conclusions to which it tends.
 Edward Glaser: (1) Attitude of thoughtful consideration; (2) Knowledge of logical inquiry and reasoning; (3)
Skill in applying those methods.
 Robert Ennis: Reasonable, reflective thinking focused on deciding what to believe or do.
 Richard Paul: Thinking that improves quality by skillfully taking charge of inherent structures and imposing
intellectual standards.
 Michael Scriven: Skilled and active interpretation and evaluation of observations, communications, information,
and argumentation.

Slide 4: Critical Thinking as Critico-Creative Thinking

 Title: Critico-Creative Thinking
 Explanation: Critical thinking involves both criticism and creative thinking.

1
A Précised notes (ppts) on Critical Thinking, Fallacies and Categorical Proposition by Getachew Mijana, 2/13/2025 @HU
 Why "Critico-Creative"?

 Avoids the negative connotation of just "criticizing."

 Emphasizes the importance of imagination and creativity in evaluating arguments.

 Key Idea: Developing the best arguments often requires thinking of alternative considerations, different
viewpoints, and exploring other possibilities.

Slide 5: Lesson 2: Standards of Critical Thinking

 Introduction: Critical thinking is disciplined thinking governed by clear intellectual standards.
o Key Standards: Clarity, Precision, Accuracy, Relevance, Consistency, Logical Correctness,
Completeness, Fairness.
 Clarity: Clear understanding of concepts and expressing them in a language free of obscurity and vagueness.
Gateway standard.
Example: Unclear question vs. Clearer question about education.
 Precision: Being exact, accurate, and careful. Paying close attention to details.
Example: Importance of precision in specialized fields.
 Accuracy: Getting and having true information. "Garbage in, garbage out."
 Relevance: Connecting to the issue at hand. Focusing on relevant information. Avoiding distractions. Key
Question: Does the information have a logical connection to the ideas at hand?
 Consistency: Always behaving in the same way or having the same opinions/standards.
o Types of Inconsistency:

 Logical: Saying or believing inconsistent things.

 Practical: Saying one thing and doing another (Hypocrisy).

Importance: Critical thinking helps us recognize and avoid inconsistencies.

Slide 6:
 Logical Correctness: Reasoning correctly; drawing well-founded conclusions.
 Completeness: Deep and thorough thinking, rather than shallow or superficial.
 Fairness: Open-minded, impartial, and free of biases and preconceptions. Recognizing our own biases.

Slide 7:
Lesson 3: Codes of Intellectual Conduct
Introduction: Principles of good arguments and critical thinking.
2
A Précised notes (ppts) on Critical Thinking, Fallacies and Categorical Proposition by Getachew Mijana, 2/13/2025 @HU
 o Key Principles: Structural, Relevance, Acceptability, Sufficiency and Rebuttal
 Structural Principle: Arguments should meet the fundamental structural requirements of a well-formed
argument. Avoid: Contradictory reasons, conclusions that contradict premises, arguments that assume the
conclusion. Emphasize: Sound deductive or inductive structure.
 Relevance Principle: Use only reasons whose truth provides evidence for the truth of the conclusion. Key
Question: Does the premise's truth make the conclusion more likely?
 Acceptability Principle: Provide reasons likely to be accepted by a mature, rational person.
 Sufficiency: Reasons must be relevant, acceptable, AND enough to support the conclusion. Weighting evidence
is crucial and often contentious.
 Rebuttal: A good argument anticipates and addresses counterarguments and criticisms effectively. Avoids
diversionary tactics.

Slide 8: Principles of Critical Thinking (Critical Thinking - Guiding Principles)

 Fallibility: Acknowledge your own potential to be wrong. Be open to changing your mind.
 Truth-Seeking: Commit to honestly searching for the most defensible position. Examine alternatives.
 Clarity: Use clear, unambiguous language. Ensure everyone understands.
 Burden of Proof: The person making a claim has the responsibility to provide evidence.
 Charity: Represent opposing arguments in their strongest, most charitable form.
 Suspension of Judgment: If no position is well-supported, suspend judgment.
 Resolution: A well-supported argument can resolve an issue (unless new evidence arises).

Slide 9: Characteristics of Critical Thinkers (Critical Thinkers – Traits)

 Honest with themselves: Acknowledge limitations and errors.

 Curious and open-minded: Value understanding and explore different perspectives.
 Evidence-based: Base judgments on evidence, revise with new information.
 Fair-minded: Avoid extreme views, seek balance.
 Controlled: Manage emotions and think before acting.

Slide 10: Characteristics of Uncritical Thinkers

 Overconfident: Pretend to know more than they do, ignore limitations.

 Resistant to challenges: See problems as threats.
 Impatient: Avoid complexity, jump to conclusions.
 Opinion-driven: Base judgments on gut feelings, resist evidence.
 Self-centered: Preoccupied with their own views, dismiss others.
 Impulsive: Follow feelings and act without thinking.

Slide 11: Barriers to Critical Thinking: Egocentrism

1. Egocentrism: Seeing reality as centered on oneself.

Manifestations:
o Self-interested thinking: "This benefits me, therefore it must be good."

3
A Précised notes (ppts) on Critical Thinking, Fallacies and Categorical Proposition by Getachew Mijana, 2/13/2025 @HU
 oSuperiority bias: Overrating oneself, the "better-than-average" effect.
2. Sociocentrism: Group-centered thinking, excessive focus on the group.
Manifestations:
o Group bias: Seeing one's own group as inherently better.
o Conformism: Following the crowd, unthinking adherence to group norms.
3. Unwarranted Assumptions & Stereotypes
 Unwarranted Assumptions: Believing something without good reason.
 Stereotypes: Assuming all members of a group are alike. Often based on hasty generalizations.
4. Relativistic Thinking: The view that truth is a matter of opinion.
Forms:
o Subjectivism: Truth is individual opinion.
o Cultural relativism: Truth is social/cultural opinion.
o Moral Relativism: Views on morality are relative to individual or cultural beliefs.
o Moral Subjectivism: What's morally right for A is what A believes is right.
o Cultural Moral Relativism: What's morally right for A is what A's culture believes is right.


Problems with Cultural Moral Relativism:
o Disagreement doesn't equal lack of objective truth (e.g., religion).
o Doesn't necessarily support tolerance; can justify intolerance within a culture.
o Can lead to intellectual humility, but relativism isn't required for that.
5. Wishful Thinking: Believing something because you want it to be true, not because of evidence.
Examples: Myths, quack cures, paranormal beliefs.

Slide 12: Benefits of Critical Thinking

 Key Idea: Critical thinking empowers independent, self-directed learning.

 Classroom Benefits:
o Improved understanding of complex material.
o Enhanced ability to evaluate arguments and beliefs.
o Stronger skills in developing and defending one's own arguments.
o Transferable skills applicable across subjects.

 Life Benefits:
o Better personal decisions: Avoid foolish choices in career, relationships, etc.
o Stronger democratic participation: Informed and rational citizens are essential for democracy.
o Personal enrichment: Enables self-directed, "examined" lives, free from unexamined
assumptions.

Chapter Five: Logical Reasoning and Fallacies

Slide 1: Title Slide

 Subtitle: Identifying Errors in Reasoning

Slide 2: What is a Fallacy?

 Definition: A defect or flaw in an argument that makes it unsound or uncogent. Not simply having false premises.
 Key Idea: A violation of the criteria for a good argument (relevance, acceptability, sufficiency, rebuttability)

4
A Précised notes (ppts) on Critical Thinking, Fallacies and Categorical Proposition by Getachew Mijana, 2/13/2025 @HU
Slide 3: Types of Fallacies

 Title: Types of Fallacies

 Formal Fallacies: Defect in the structure or form of the argument. Identifiable through inspecting the form.
Occur only in deductive arguments.
 Informal Fallacies: Defect in the content of the argument, beyond structure. Requires analysis of the meaning of
words and how inferences are made.

Slide 4: Formal Fallacy Example

 Title: Formal Fallacy Example

 Argument:
o All tigers are animals.
o All mammals are animals.
o Therefore, all tigers are mammals.
 Form:
o All A are B.
o All C are B.
o Therefore, all A are C.
 Explanation: Invalid form. Changing the terms doesn't fix the structural problem.

Slide 5: Informal Fallacy Example

 Title: Informal Fallacy Example

 Argument:
o All factories are plants.
o All plants are things that contain chlorophyll.
o Therefore, all factories are things that contain chlorophyll.
 Explanation: "Plant" has two meanings. The argument is invalid due to ambiguity, not structure.

Slide 6: Classifying Informal Fallacies

 Title: Classifying Informal Fallacies

 Key Idea: Many different types of informal fallacies exist.
 Five Groups;
o Fallacies of Relevance
o Fallacies of Weak Induction
o Fallacies of Presumption
o Fallacies of Ambiguity
o Fallacies of Grammatical Analogy

Slide 7: Fallacies of Relevance

 Definition: Premises are psychologically relevant but logically irrelevant to the conclusion. Often called
"non sequiturs" or "argumentative leaps."
 Key Idea: Emotional appeals are substituted for genuine evidence.

1: Appeal to Force (Ad Baculum)

 Definition: Threat of harm (physical or psychological) used to compel acceptance of a conclusion.

 Example: "Agree with me, or you'll regret it."
5
A Précised notes (ppts) on Critical Thinking, Fallacies and Categorical Proposition by Getachew Mijana, 2/13/2025 @HU
  Form: "Accept this or face negative consequences."

2: Appeal to Pity (Ad Misericordiam)

 Definition: Evoking pity to support a conclusion when pity is logically irrelevant.

 Example: "Give me the job; I have a family to feed."
 Form: "You should do X because this person/situation is pitiable."
 Important Note: Appeals to pity are not always fallacious. Compassion can be a legitimate response in
some situations.

Slide 8:

3: Appeal to the People (Ad Populum)

 Definition: Persuading by appealing to the desire for acceptance or belonging.

 Direct Approach: Arousing mob mentality, using emotional appeals to a large group.
 Indirect Approach: Appealing to individuals' desire to fit in or stand out.
o Bandwagon: "Everyone's doing it."
o Vanity: Associating a product with admired figures.
o Snobbery: Appealing to the desire to be exclusive.
 Important Note: Appeals to popular opinion are not always fallacious. Sometimes, popular acceptance
can be relevant (e.g., established experts, widely tested policies).

4: Argument Against the Person (Ad Hominem)

 Definition: Attacking the person making the argument instead of the argument itself.
 Forms:
o Ad Hominem Abusive: Verbal abuse, attacking character.
o Ad Hominem Circumstantial: Discrediting due to circumstances.
o Tu Quoque ("You too"): Pointing out hypocrisy.
 Important Note: Attacking credibility can be relevant in certain situations (e.g., testimony in court).

Slide 9:

5: Accident

 Definition: Applying a general rule to a specific case where accidental features make the rule
inapplicable.
 Example: "Freedom of speech is guaranteed; therefore, inciting a riot is protected speech."

6: Straw Man

 Definition: Distorting an opponent's argument to make it easier to attack, then claiming the real
argument has been defeated.
 Key Idea: Misrepresentation is crucial. The arguer attacks a "straw man" version of the argument, not
the real one.

7: Missing the Point (Ignoratio Elenchi)

6
A Précised notes (ppts) on Critical Thinking, Fallacies and Categorical Proposition by Getachew Mijana, 2/13/2025 @HU
  Definition: Premises support one conclusion, but a different, often vaguely related, conclusion is drawn.
"Ignorance of the proof."
 Example: Global warming is happening, multinational corporations are powerful, therefore, poor
nations should detach from globalization. (The logical conclusion would be to address global warming
and regulate corporations).
 Key Idea: Identify the correct conclusion the premises imply.

Slide 10:

8: Red Herring
 Definition: Introducing an irrelevant topic to divert attention from the main issue.
Diverting attention by changing the subject to a different, sometimes subtly related, issue.
 Example: Accused of pollution, the company responds by accusing the accuser of greater pollution.
 Key Idea: The red herring is a distraction, designed to lead the discussion astray.
 Subtly Related Topic: Accused of bad practices, a politician talks about the opponent's past mistakes.

** Red Herring vs. Straw Man

 Red Herring: Changes the subject entirely (or to a related topic).

 Straw Man: Distorts the original argument before attacking it.
 Key Question: Did the arguer distort an argument, or simply change the subject?

**Red Herring vs. Missing the Point

 Red Herring: New premises are introduced, and a (related) conclusion is drawn from those.
 Missing the Point: Conclusion is irrelevant to the original premises.
 Key Question: Are new premises introduced, or is the conclusion simply unrelated to the original
premises?

Slide 11: Fallacies of Weak Induction

 Definition: Premises provide some support, but not enough to justify the conclusion. Violates the
principle of sufficiency.
 Key Idea: The connection between premises and conclusion is weak.

9: Appeal to Unqualified Authority (Ad Verecundiam)

 Definition: Citing an authority who lacks expertise, is biased, or otherwise unreliable.

 Example: A celebrity endorsing a medical product.
 Key Question: Is the cited authority truly an expert on this topic?

10: Appeal to Ignorance (Ad Ignorantiam)

 Definition: Claiming something is true because it hasn't been proven false (or vice versa).
 Example: "No one has proven ghosts exist, therefore, they don't."
 Exceptions:
o Scientific research: Failure to find evidence can be evidence (when research is thorough).

7
A Précised notes (ppts) on Critical Thinking, Fallacies and Categorical Proposition by Getachew Mijana, 2/13/2025 @HU
 o Legal proceedings: "Not guilty" means guilt wasn't proven, not necessarily innocence.

11: Hasty Generalization (Converse Accident)

 Definition: Drawing a broad conclusion from a small or unrepresentative sample.

 Example: "I met three rude people from that town; everyone there must be rude."
 Key Question: Is the sample large enough and representative of the whole?

Slide 12:

12: False Cause

 Definition: Assuming a causal connection where one probably doesn't exist.

 Types:
o Post Hoc: "After this, therefore because of this." (Correlation does not equal causation.)
o Non Causa Pro Causa: Mistaking the effect for the cause.
o Oversimplified Cause: Ignoring multiple causes and focusing on one.

13: Slippery Slope

 Definition: Claiming that one action will inevitably lead to a chain of negative consequences, with
insufficient evidence.
 Example: "If we allow this, then that will happen, and then that, and eventually, disaster!"
 Key Question: Is the chain of events likely, or is it based on speculation?

14: Weak Analogy

 Definition: Drawing a conclusion based on a weak or irrelevant analogy between two things.
 Example: "Since X is similar to Y in some ways, and X has property Z, then Y must also have property
Z." (But the similarities may be irrelevant to property Z.)
 Key Question: Are the similarities relevant to the characteristic being inferred?

Slide 13: Fallacies of Presumption

 Definition: Premises presume what they are trying to prove.
 Key Idea: The argument "jumps the gun" by making unwarranted assumptions.

15: Begging the Question (Petitio Principii)

 Definition: Creating the illusion of support by:

o Leaving out a crucial (and possibly false) premise.
o Restating a premise as the conclusion (circular reasoning).
o Circular reasoning through a chain of inferences.
 Example: "Murder is wrong, therefore abortion is wrong." (Missing premise: Abortion is murder.)

8
A Précised notes (ppts) on Critical Thinking, Fallacies and Categorical Proposition by Getachew Mijana, 2/13/2025 @HU
16: Complex Question

 Definition: Asking a question that presupposes something controversial, trapping the respondent.
 Example: "Have you stopped cheating on exams?" (Presumes the person cheated in the past.)
 Key Idea: Break down the complex question into its components.

17: False Dichotomy

 Definition: Presenting only two options when more exist. "Either...or" premise is false or incomplete.
 Example: "Either you're with us, or you're against us."
 Key Idea: Identify the overlooked alternatives.

Slide 14:

18: Suppressed Evidence

 Definition: Ignoring important evidence that would lead to a different conclusion.

 Example: "This product is great! (Ignores negative reviews or side effects.)"
 Key Idea: Look for what's been left out of the argument.
 Examples; Advertising: "Buy this car! (Ignores poor gas mileage or safety concerns.)"
 Out of Context Quotes: Using a quote to support a view it wasn't intended to support.

** Suppressed Evidence vs. Begging the Question

 Suppressed Evidence: Leaves out a premise that points to a different conclusion.

 Begging the Question: Leaves out a premise needed to support the stated conclusion.
 Key Idea: Sometimes these overlap.

Slide 15: Fallacies of Ambiguity and Grammatical Analogy

 Image: A blurry image or a group of objects that look similar but are different.

Fallacies of Ambiguity

 Definition: Arise from ambiguity in the premises or conclusion. An expression is ambiguous if it has
multiple interpretations in a given context.
 Key Idea: The conclusion depends on a shift in meaning or a misinterpretation.

19: Equivocation

 Definition: Using a word or phrase in two different senses within the same argument.
 Example: "Some triangles are obtuse. Whatever is obtuse is ignorant. Therefore, some triangles are
ignorant." (Obtuse angle vs. obtuse person.)
 Key Idea: Identify the word or phrase with multiple meanings and how the meaning shifts.

Slide 16:

9
A Précised notes (ppts) on Critical Thinking, Fallacies and Categorical Proposition by Getachew Mijana, 2/13/2025 @HU
20: Amphiboly

 Definition: Misinterpreting an ambiguous statement (often due to grammar or punctuation) and drawing
a faulty conclusion.
 Example: "The tour guide said that standing in Mesqel Square, the new federal police building could
easily be seen." (Who is standing in the square?)
 Key Idea: Identify the syntactical ambiguity and the misinterpretation.

Fallacies of Grammatical Analogy

 Definition: Arguments that appear good due to their grammatical similarity to sound arguments, but are
actually fallacious.
 Key Idea: The structure seems correct, but the logic is flawed.

Slide 17:

21: Composition

 Definition: Erroneously transferring an attribute from the parts of something to the whole.
 Example: "Each player on this team is excellent. Therefore, the team is excellent." (Individual skill
doesn't guarantee team success.)
 Key Idea: Just because the parts have a characteristic, it doesn't mean the whole does.

** Composition vs. Hasty Generalization

 Composition: Conclusion is about a class as a whole (collective predication).

 Hasty Generalization: Conclusion is a general statement about all members of a class (distributive
predication).
 Key Idea: Carefully examine the conclusion to see if it's about the whole class or individual members.

Slide 18:

22: Division

 Definition: The opposite of composition. Erroneously transferring an attribute from the whole to the
parts.
 Example: "Salt is non-poisonous. Therefore, sodium and chlorine (its components) are non-poisonous."
 Key Idea: Just because the whole has a characteristic, it doesn't mean the parts do.

**Division vs. Accident

 Division: Premise is about a class as a whole.

 Accident: Premise is a general statement about individuals.
 Key Idea: Similar to the composition/hasty generalization distinction, focus on the premise.

10
A Précised notes (ppts) on Critical Thinking, Fallacies and Categorical Proposition by Getachew Mijana, 2/13/2025 @HU
Slide 19:
Chapter Six: Categorical Propositions
1. What are Categorical Propositions?

 Definition: A statement that relates two classes (categories) – Subject (S) and Predicate (P) – through inclusion or
exclusion.
 Examples:
o All humans are mortal. (Inclusion)
o No humans are eternal. (Exclusion)
o Some fish are sharks. (Partial Inclusion)
o Some plants are not edible. (Partial Exclusion)

Slide 20:

2. Standard Forms of Categorical Propositions

 Purpose: To express relationships with clarity for logical operations.

 Four Standard Forms:
o All S are P (Total Inclusion)
o No S are P (Total Exclusion)
o Some S are P (Partial Inclusion)
o Some S are not P (Partial Exclusion)

3. Components of Categorical Propositions

 Four Components:
o Quantifier: (All, No, Some) – Indicates quantity.
o Subject Term (S): The class being discussed.
o Copula: (are, are not) – Connects S and P.
o Predicate Term (P): The class S is related to.
 Standard Form Order: Quantifier + Subject Term + Copula + Predicate Term

Slide 21:

Letter Names for Standard Forms

 Mnemonic: A, E, I, O (Think: A-ll, E-mpty, I-nclude, O-ut)

o A: All S are P
o E: No S are P
o I: Some S are P
o O: Some S are not P
 Purpose: Shorthand for easier manipulation and reference.

4. Attributes: Quality and Quantity

 Quality:
o Affirmative: S is included in P (All S are P, Some S are P)

11
A Précised notes (ppts) on Critical Thinking, Fallacies and Categorical Proposition by Getachew Mijana, 2/13/2025 @HU
 o Negative: S is excluded from P (No S are P, Some S are not P)
 Quantity:
o Universal: All or No (All S are P, No S are P)
o Particular: Some (Some S are P, Some S are not P)
 Distribution

 Definition: A term is distributed if it refers to all members of the class.

 Distribution Table:
o A: S distributed, P undistributed
o E: S distributed, P distributed
o I: S undistributed, P undistributed
o O: S undistributed, P distributed

Slide 22: Summary Table

 Table: (Combines all attributes)

o Letter Name | Standard Form | Quality | Quantity | S Distribution | P Distribution
o A | All S are P | Affirmative | Universal | Distributed | Undistributed
o E | No S are P | Negative | Universal | Distributed | Distributed
o I | Some S are P | Affirmative | Particular | Undistributed | Undistributed
o O | Some S are not P | Negative | Particular | Undistributed | Distributed

How to Determine Attributes

 Example: "Some birds are mammals."

o Letter Name: I
o Standard Form: Some S are P
o Quality: Affirmative
o Quantity: Particular
o S Distribution: Undistributed
o P Distribution: Undistributed

Slide 23:

5. Representing Categorical Propositions with Venn Diagrams

 Title: Venn Diagrams

 Purpose: Visual representation of categorical propositions.
 Two Overlapping Circles: One for Subject (S), one for Predicate (P).
 Diagram Conventions:
o Shading: Class is empty (no members).
o "X": At least one member exists in that area.

Venn Diagram Examples

 A: All S are P: Shade the part of S that doesn't overlap with P.

 E: No S are P: Shade the overlapping area of S and P.
 I: Some S are P: Place an "X" in the overlapping area of S and P.
 O: Some S are not P: Place an "X" in the part of S that doesn't overlap with P.

12
A Précised notes (ppts) on Critical Thinking, Fallacies and Categorical Proposition by Getachew Mijana, 2/13/2025 @HU
Slide 24:

6. Modern Square of Opposition

 Based on: Boolean interpretation (no existential import).

 Key Relation: Contradictory – A and O, E and I. (Opposite truth values.)
 Other Relations: Logically undetermined.

Modern Square Diagram

 Diagram with A, E, I, O at the corners.

 Lines connecting A to O and E to I (Contradictory).
 No other direct relationships.

Slide 25

7. Traditional Square of Opposition

 Based on: Aristotelian interpretation (existential import for universals).

 Relations:
o Contradictory: A and O, E and I (Opposite truth values).
o Contrary: A and E (At least one false).
o Subcontrary: I and O (At least one true).
o Subalternation: A to I, E to O (Truth flows down, falsity flows up).

Traditional Square Diagram

 Title: Traditional Square Diagram

 Diagram with A, E, I, O at the corners.
 Lines showing all the relationships (Contradictory, Contrary, Subcontrary, Subalternation).

13
A Précised notes (ppts) on Critical Thinking, Fallacies and Categorical Proposition by Getachew Mijana, 2/13/2025 @HU
 14
A Précised notes (ppts) on Critical Thinking, Fallacies and Categorical Proposition by Getachew Mijana, 2/13/2025 @HU
Slide 26:

8. Evaluating Immediate Inferences

 Immediate Inference: Argument with one premise and one conclusion.

 Methods:
o Square of Opposition: Use truth values and relationships to determine validity.
o Venn Diagrams: Diagram premise and conclusion; check if the conclusion diagram is contained
in the premise diagram.

"It is false that..." Statements

 Diagramming: Do the opposite of what you would do for the positive statement.
o "It is false that all A are B": Place an X in the part of A that doesn't overlap with B.
o "It is false that some A are B": Shade the overlapping area of A and B.

Existential Fallacy

 Definition: Drawing a particular conclusion from a universal premise when the premise lacks existential
import.
 Detection: Look for a universal premise (shading) and a particular conclusion (X) where the X is in an
area that was unshaded in the premise diagram.
 Key Idea: Only applies when the invalidity is solely due to the lack of existential import.

Slide 27:

9. Logical Operations: Conversion

-Conversion
Definition: Switch the subject and predicate terms.
Valid for: E and I propositions.
Invalid for: A and O propositions (Illicit Conversion).

-Obversion
 Two Steps:
1. Change the quality (affirmative to negative, or vice versa).
2. Replace the predicate term with its complement (non-P).
 Valid for: All propositions (A, E, I, O).

15
A Précised notes (ppts) on Critical Thinking, Fallacies and Categorical Proposition by Getachew Mijana, 2/13/2025 @HU
-Contraposition
 Two Steps:
1. Switch the subject and predicate terms.
2. Replace both terms with their complements (non-S, non-P).
 Valid for: A and O propositions.
 Invalid for: E and I propositions (Illicit Contraposition).

Slide 28:

10. Fallacies Related to Conversion

 Illicit Conversion: This occurs when you incorrectly convert an A or O proposition. Conversion is only
valid for E and I propositions.
o Example:
 Premise: All cats are mammals (A).
 Fallacious Conclusion: All mammals are cats.
 Premise: Some animals are not dogs (O).
 Fallacious Conclusion: Some dogs are not animals.

[Link] Related to Contraposition

 Illicit Contraposition: This fallacy happens when you incorrectly contrapose an E or I proposition.
Contraposition is only valid for A and O propositions.
o Example:
 Premise: No dogs are cats (E).
 Fallacious Conclusion: No non-cats are non-dogs.
 Premise: Some animals are cats (I).
 Fallacious Conclusion: Some non-cats are non-animals.

Slide 29:

[Link] Related to the Square of Opposition

 Affirming the Contrary: This fallacy arises when, given that an A proposition is true, one concludes
that the corresponding E proposition is also true. A and E are contraries (at least one must be false), they
cannot both be true.
o Example:
 Premise: All dogs are mammals.
 Fallacious Conclusion: No dogs are mammals.
 Denying the Subcontrary: This occurs when, given that an I proposition is false, one concludes that the
corresponding O proposition is also false. I and O are subcontraries (at least one must be true); they
cannot both be false.
o Example:
 Premise: Some cats are black.
 Fallacious Conclusion: Some cats are not black. (If "some cats are black" is false, then
"no cats are black" is true, which forces "some cats are not black" to also be true. You
can't deny a subcontrary when its opposite is false.)

16
A Précised notes (ppts) on Critical Thinking, Fallacies and Categorical Proposition by Getachew Mijana, 2/13/2025 @HU
Slide 30:

13. Fallacies Related to Existential Import (Traditional Square of Opposition)

 Existential Fallacy: This fallacy occurs when an argument moves from a universal premise (A or E) to
a particular conclusion (I or O) and the argument's validity depends on the existence of members in the
classes involved.
 The traditional square of opposition assumes existential import for universal statements, while the
modern square does not. If the classes could be empty, the argument is invalid from a modern
perspective.
o Example:
 Premise: All unicorns are mammals.
 Fallacious Conclusion: Some unicorns are mammals. (This is valid in the traditional
square but invalid in the modern square because unicorns don't exist.)


 General Fallacies to Watch Out For

 Equivocation: While not strictly limited to categorical propositions, it's easy to commit this fallacy
when dealing with classes and categories if a term has multiple meanings. Be sure the meaning of your
terms stays consistent throughout the argument.
 Ambiguity: Similar to equivocation, make sure there is no ambiguity in how the categories or classes
are defined. Vagueness can lead to fallacious reasoning.

Key Points to Remember:

 Validity vs. Soundness: A valid argument can have false premises. A sound argument is both valid and
has true premises. These fallacies deal with validity (the form of the argument), not necessarily
soundness.
 Diagrams are Key: Venn diagrams are incredibly helpful for visualizing categorical propositions and
spotting many of these fallacies, especially those related to conversion, contraposition, and existential
import.
 Context Matters: The traditional square of opposition is only applicable when there's an assumption of
existential import. Be mindful of the context and whether this assumption is warranted.

WISH YOU ALL THE BEST!

17
A Précised notes (ppts) on Critical Thinking, Fallacies and Categorical Proposition by Getachew Mijana, 2/13/2025 @HU