CHAPTER ONE

LOGIC AND PHILOSOPHY

Chapter Overview

Logic is often treated simultaneously as a field of study and as an instrument. As a field of

study, it is a branch of philosophy that deals with the study of arguments and the principles and
methods of right reasoning. As an instrument, it is something, which we can use to formulate
our own rational arguments and critically evaluate the soundness of others’ arguments. Before
logic itself has become a field of study, philosophers have been using it as a basic tool to
investigate issues that won their philosophical attention, such as, reality, knowledge, value, etc.
Philosophy is the study of general and fundamental problems concerning matters such as
existence, knowledge, truth, beauty, law, justice, validity, mind, and language. It is a rational
and critical enterprise that tries to answer fundamental questions through an intensive application
of reason- an application that draws on analysis, comparison, and evaluation. It involves reason,
rational criticism, examination, and analysis. In this chapter, we will learn the fundamental
nature, concepts, features and areas of philosophy. Furthermore, we will discuss why it is so
important to learn philosophy.

Lesson 1: Meaning and Nature of Philosophy

Lesson Overview
Because of its universal nature, it is difficult to define philosophy in terms of a specific subject
matter. However, we can define it etymologically as ‘love of wisdom’. Thus, as a pursuit of
wisdom, philosophy refers to the development of critical habits, the continuous search for
truth, and the questioning of the apparent. In this lesson, students will be introduced with the
fundamental meaning, nature, and concepts of philosophy.
Activity # 1: - Dear learners, do you have a prior awareness of philosophy? If so, how do
you understand philosophy?
Philosophy is not as elusive as it is often thought to be. Nor is it remote from our various
problems. It is unanimously agreed that the best way to learn and understand philosophy is to
philosophize; i.e., to be confronted with philosophical questions, to use philosophical language,
to become acquainted with differing philosophical positions and maneuvers, to read the
philosophers themselves, and to grapple with the issues for oneself. Socrates once stated that
“Wonder is the feeling of a philosopher, and philosophy begins in wonder”. It is true that most
of us may not have a clear knowledge about the history, nature, language, and issues of
philosophy. But, we all think and reflect in our own way about issues that matter us most. We all
have touched and moved by the feelings of wonder from which all philosophy derives. Thus, we
all participate, more or less, in philosophical issues, even though thinking alone cannot make us
philosophers.

If, however, you still want to find its clear-cut definition, it is better to refer to the etymology of
the word itself, instead of trying to associate it with a certain specific subject matter.
1
Etymologically, the word “philosophy” comes from two Greek words: “philo” and “sophia”,
which mean “love” and “wisdom”, respectively. Thus, the literal definition of philosophy is “love
of wisdom”. The ancient Greek thinker Pythagoras was the first to use the word “philosopher” to
call a person who clearly shows a marked curiosity in the things he experiences. Anyone who
raises questions, such as Does God exists? What is reality? What is the ultimate source of Being?
What is knowledge? What does it mean to know? How do we come to know? What is value?,
and the like, is really showing a curiosity that can be described as a vital concern for becoming
wise about the phenomena of the world and the human experiences. Therefore, seeking wisdom
is among the various essences of philosophy that it has got from its etymological definition.
Nevertheless, this is not sufficient by itself to understand philosophy, for not all wisdoms are
philosophy.

Activity # 2: - Dear learners, what do you think is the wisdom that philosophers seek?

The wisdom that philosophers seek is not the wisdom of the expertise or technical skills of
professionals. Someone may be encyclopedic, and thus seemingly intelligent, but he may
actually be foolish when it comes to understanding the meaning and significance of what he
knows. According to Socrates, wisdom consists of a critical habit and eternal vigilance about all
things and a reverence for truth, whatever its form, and wherever its place. Based on the Socratic
understanding of wisdom, philosophy, as a pursuit of wisdom, is, thus, the development of
critical habits, the continuous search for truth, and the questioning of the apparent.

Activity # 3: - Dear learners, what do you think does it mean to question the apparent?
Does it mean to deny the fact or the practical reality?

To interrogate the obvious means to deal creatively with the phenomenal world, to go beyond the
common understanding, and to speculate about things that other people accept with no doubt.
But, questioning/criticism is not the final end of philosophy, though raising the right question is
often taken not only as the beginning and direction of philosophy but also as its essence. Raising
the right question is an art that includes the ability to foresee what is not readily obvious and to
imagine different possibilities and alternatives of approaching the apparent. When we ultimately
wonder about the existing world, and thus raise different questions about its order, each question
moves us from the phenomenal facts to a profound speculation. The philosophical enterprise, as
Vincent Barry stated, is “an active imaginative process of formulating proper questions and
resolving them by rigorous, persistent analysis”.

Therefore, philosophy is a rational and critical enterprise that tries to formulate and answer
fundamental questions through an intensive application of reason- an application that draws on
analysis, comparison, and evaluation. It involves reason, rational criticism, examination, and
analysis. Accordingly, we can say that Philosophy has a constructive side, for it attempts to
formulate rationally defensible answers to certain fundamental questions concerning the nature
of reality, the nature of value, and the nature of knowledge and truth. At the same time, its
critical side is manifested when it deals with giving a rational critic, analysis, clarification, and
evaluation of answers given to basic metaphysical, epistemological, and axiological questions.

2
 The other thing, which is worthy of noting, is that philosophy is an activity. It is not something
that can be easily mastered or learned in schools. A philosopher is a great philosopher, not
because he mastered philosophy, but because he did it. It is not his theory, but his extraordinary
ability to critically think, to conceptualize, to analyze, to compare, to evaluate, and to
understand- i.e., to philosophize- that makes him so. Of course, the product of philosophizing is
philosophy as a product. However, what makes someone a great philosopher is not the produced
philosophy, but his/her outstanding ability to philosophize.

Lesson 2: Basic Features of Philosophy

Activity # 1: - Dear learners, list the possible features of philosophy you could think of based on
our previous lesson (Lesson 1) and discuss about them with the student(s) beside you.
Dear learners, the general features of philosophy can be summarized as follows:
1) Philosophy is a set of views or beliefs about life and the universe, which are often held
uncritically.
We refer to this meaning as the informal sense of philosophy or “having” a philosophy. Usually
when a person says “my philosophy is,” he or she is referring to an informal personal attitude to
whatever topic is being discussed.
2) Philosophy is a process of reflecting on and criticizing our most deeply held conceptions
and beliefs.

This is the formal sense of “doing” philosophy. These two senses of philosophy-”having” and
“doing”- cannot be treated entirely independent of each other, if we did not have a philosophy in
the formal, personal sense, then we could not do a philosophy in the critical, reflective sense.
However, having a philosophy is not sufficient for doing philosophy. A genuine philosophical
attitude is searching and critical; it is open-minded and tolerant- willing to look at all sides of an
issue without prejudice. To philosophize is not merely to read and know philosophy; there are
skills of argumentation to be mastered, techniques of analysis to be employed, and a body of
material to be appropriated such that we become able to think philosophically.

To philosophize also means to generalize. Philosophers are reflective and critical. They take a
second look at the material presented by common sense. They attempt to think through a variety
of life’s problems and to face all the facts involved impartially. The accumulation of knowledge
does not by itself lead to understanding, because it does not necessarily teach the mind to make a
critical evaluation of facts that entail consistent and coherent judgment. Critical evaluations
often differ. Philosophers, theologians, scientists, and others disagree, first because they view
things from different points of view and with different assumptions. Their personal experiences,
cultural backgrounds, and training may vary widely. This is especially true of people living at
different times and in different places. A second reason philosophers disagree is that they live in
a changing universe. People change, society changes, and nature changes. Some people are
responsive and sensitive to change; others cling to tradition and the status quo, to systems that
were formulated some time ago and that were declared to be authoritative and final. A third
reason philosophers disagree is that they deal with an area of human experience in which the
evidence is not complete. Different people may interpret the evidence we do have in various

3
ways. Despite these disagreements, however, philosophers continue to probe, examine, and
evaluate the material with the hope of presenting consistent principles by which we can live.

3) Philosophy is a rational attempt to look at the world as a whole.

Philosophy seeks to combine the conclusions of the various sciences and human experience into
some kind of consistent worldview. Philosophers wish to see life, not with the specialized slant
of the scientist or the businessperson or the artist, but with the overall view of someone
cognizant of life as a totality. Although there are difficulties and dangers in setting forth any
worldview, there also are dangers in confining attention to fragments of human experience.
Philosophy’s task is to give a view of the whole, a life and a worldview, and to integrate the
knowledge of the sciences with that of other disciplines to achieve a consistent whole.
Philosophy, according to this view, attempts to bring the results of human inquiry- religious,
historical, and scientific into some meaningful interpretation that provides knowledge and insight
for our lives.

4) Philosophy is the logical analysis of language and the clarification of the meaning of
words and concepts.

Certainly, this is one function of philosophy. In fact, nearly all philosophers have used methods
of analysis and have sought to clarify the meaning of terms and the use of language. Some
philosophers see this as the main task of philosophy, and a few claim this is the only legitimate
function of philosophy. Such persons consider philosophy a specialized field serving the sciences
and aiding in the clarification of language rather than a broad field reflecting on all of life’s
experiences. This outlook has gained considerable support during the twentieth century. It would
limit what we call knowledge to statements about observable facts and their interrelations i.e., to
the business of the various sciences. Not all linguistic analysts, however, define knowledge so
narrowly. Although they do reject and try to “clean up” many non-scientific assertions, many of
them think that we can have knowledge of ethical principles and the like, although this
knowledge is also experientially derived. Those who take the narrower view neglect, when they
do not deny, all generalized worldviews and life views, as well as traditional moral philosophy
and theology. From this narrower point of view, the aim of philosophy is to expose confusion
and nonsense and to clarify the meaning and use of terms in science and everyday affairs.

5) Philosophy is a group of perennial problems that interest people and for which
philosophers always have sought answers.

Philosophy presses its inquiry into the deepest problems of human existence. Some of the
philosophical questions raised in the past have been answered in a manner satisfactory to the
majority of philosophers. Many questions, however, have been answered only tentatively, and
many problems remain unsolved. What are philosophical questions? The question “Did Ram
make a false statement on his income tax return?” is merely a question of fact. However, the
questions “What is truth?” and “What is the distinction between right and wrong?” have
philosophical importance. Sometimes we think seriously about fundamental life issues: What is
life and why am I here? Why is there anything at all? What is the place of life in this great
4
universe? Is the universe friendly or unfriendly? Do things operate by chance or through sheer
mechanism, or is there some plan, purpose, or intelligence at the heart of things? Is my life
controlled by outside forces, or do I have a determining or even a partial degree of control? Why
do people struggle and strive for their rights, for justice, for better things in the future? What do
concepts like “right” and “justice” means, and what are the marks of a good society? Often men
and women have been asked to sacrifice their lives, if need be, for certain values and ideals.
What are the genuine values of life and how can it attained? Is there really a fundamental
distinction between right and wrong, or is it just a matter of one’s own opinions? What is beauty?
Should religion count in a person’s life? Is it intellectually valid to believe in God? Is there a
possibility of a “life after death?” Is there any way we can get an answer to these and many
related questions? Where does knowledge come from, and can we have any assurances that
anything is true?

The above questions are all philosophical. The attempt to seek answers or solutions to them has
given rise to theories and systems of thought, such as idealism, realism, pragmatism, analytic
philosophy, existentialism, phenomenology, and process philosophy. Philosophy also means the
various theories or systems of thought developed by the great philosophers, such as Socrates,
Plato, Aristotle, Augustine, Aquinas, Descartes, Spinoza, Locke, Berkeley, Kant, Hegel,
Nietzsche, Royce, James, Dewey, Whitehead, and others. Without these people and their
thoughts, philosophy would not have the rich content it has today. Even though we may be
unconscious of the fact, we are constantly influenced by ideas that have come down to us in the
traditions of society.

Core Fields of Philosophy

Lesson 3: Metaphysics and Epistemology

Metaphysics, Epistemology, Axiology, and Logic included in core fields of philosophy.

Metaphysics is the most important fields of philosophy that deal with the studies of ultimate
reality and human knowledge, respectively. In this lesson, we will discuss the first two major
fields, Metaphysics and Epistemology, and we will deal with the remaining two fields, Axiology
and Logic, in the next lesson (Lesson 4).

3.1 Metaphysics

Activity # 1: - Dear learners, what do you think is metaphysics? List any question that
you might think is a metaphysical question. Show your question to
student(s) beside you, and discuss about your questions together.

Metaphysics is the branch of philosophy that studies the ultimate nature of reality or existence.
It deal with issues of reality, God, freedom, soul/immortality, the mind-body problem, form and
substance relationship, cause and effect relationship, and other related issues. Metaphysicians
seek an irreducible foundation of reality or ‘first principles’ from which absolute knowledge or
truth can be induced and deduced. The term metaphysics is derived from the Greek words
“meta” means (“beyond”, “upon” or “after”) and physika, means (“physics”). Literally, it refers
5
‘those things after the physics.’ Aristotle’s writings on ‘first philosophy’ came after his treatise
on physics, therefore, Aristotle’s editor, Andronicus of Rhodes, named them metaphysics. Here
are some of the questions that Metaphysics primarily deals with:
 What is reality?
 What is the ultimately real?
 What is the nature of the ultimate reality?
 Is it one thing or is it many different things?
 Can reality be grasped by the senses, or it is transcendent?
 What makes reality different from a mere appearance?
 What is mind, and what is its relation to the body?
 Is there a cause and effect relationship between reality and appearance?
 Does God exist, and if so, can we prove it?
 Are human actions free, or predetermined by a supernatural force?
 What is human being? A thinking mind? A perishable body? Or a combination of both?
 What is time?
 What is the meaning of life?

At first, questions like, ‘What is real?’ seem too simple to bother asking. But consider George
Knight’s example about the existence of a floor and one will see that the question has far
reaching implications: What is exactly the nature of the floor upon which you stand? It may seem
to have a rather straightforward existence. It is obviously flat, solid, and smooth; it has a
particular color; it is composed of an identifiable material, such as wood or concrete; and it
supports your weight. Suppose, however, that a physicist enters the room and questioned about
the reality of the floor. She will reply that the floor is made of molecules; that molecules consist
of atoms, electrons, protons, and neutrons; and these, finally, of electric energy alone. A third
position is offered by a passing chemist. To him the floor is a hotbed of hydrocarbons associated
in a particular way and subject to certain kinds of environmental influences, such as heat, cold,
wetness, dryness, and oxidation.

It is evident that the question of reality is not as simplistic as it appears. If the reality of a
common floor is confusing, what about the larger problems that presents themselves as
humankind searches for the ultimate reality of the universe? Metaphysical questions are the most
basic to ask because they provide the foundation upon which all subsequent inquiry is based.
Metaphysical questions may be divided into four subsets or aspects.

I. Cosmological Aspect: Cosmology consists in the study of theories about the origin,
nature, and development of the universe as an orderly system. Questions such as these
populate the realm of cosmology: “How did the universe originate and develop? Did it
come about by accident or design? Does its existence have any purpose?”
II. Theological Aspect: Theology is that part of religious theory that deals with conceptions
of and about God. “Is there a God? If so, is there one or more than one? What are the
attributes of God? If God is both all good and all powerful, why does evil exist? If God
exists, what is His relationship to human beings and the ‘real’ world of everyday life?”
III. Anthropological Aspect: Anthropology deals with the study of human beings and asks
questions like the following: What is the relation between mind and body? Is mind more
fundamental than body, with body depending on mind, or vice versa? What is humanity’s
moral status? Are people born good, evil, or morally neutral? To what extent are
individuals free? Do they have free will, or are their thoughts and actions determined by
their environment, inheritance, or a divine being? Does each person have a soul? If so,
what is it? People have obviously adopted different positions on these questions, and
6
 those positions influence their political, social, religious, and educational ideals and
practices.
IV. Ontological Aspect: Ontology is the study of the nature of existence, or what it means for
anything to exist. Several questions are central to ontology: “Is basic reality found in
matter or physical energy (the world we can sense), or is it found in spirit or spiritual
energy? Is it composed of one element (e.g., matter or spirit), or two (e.g., matter and
spirit), or many?” “Is reality orderly and lawful in itself, or is it merely orderable by the
human mind? Is it fixed and stable, or is change its central feature? Is this reality friendly,
unfriendly, or neutral toward humanity?”

3.2 Epistemology

Activity # 2: - Dear learners, what do you think is epistemology? List any question
that you might think is an epistemological question. Show your question
to student(s) beside you, and discuss about your questions together.
Epistemology is the other field of philosophy that studies about the nature, scope, meaning, and
possibility of knowledge. It deals with issues of knowledge, opinion, truth, falsity, reason,
experience, and faith. Epistemology is also referred to as “theory of knowledge”.
Etymologically, the word epistemology has been derived from the Greek words episteme,
meaning “knowledge, understanding”, and logos, meaning “study of”. In other words, we can
say that Epistemology is the study of the nature, source, and validity of knowledge. It seeks to
answer of the basic questions as “What is true?” and “How do we know?” Thus, epistemology
covers two areas: the content of thought and thought itself. The study of epistemology deals with
issues related to the dependability of knowledge and the validity of the sources through which
we gain information.

The following are among the questions/issues with which Epistemology deals:
 What is knowledge?
 What does it mean to know?
 What is the source of knowledge? Experience? Reason? Or both?
 How can we be sure that what we perceive through our senses is correct?
 What makes knowledge different from belief or opinion?
 What is truth, and how can we know a statement is true?
 Can reason really help us to know phenomenal things without being informed by sense experiences?
 Can our sense experience really help us to know things beyond our perception without the assistance of
our reasoning ability?
 What is the relationship and difference between faith and reason?

Epistemology seeks answers to a number of fundamental issues. One is whether reality can even
be known. Skepticism in its narrow sense is the position claiming that people cannot acquire
reliable knowledge and that any search for truth is in vain/hopeless. That thought was well
expressed by Gorgias, the Greek Sophist who asserted that nothing exists, and that if it did, we
could not know it. A full-blown skepticism would make intelligent action impossible. A term
closely related to skepticism is agnosticism. Agnosticism is a profession of ignorance in
reference to the existence or nonexistence of God.
Most people claim that reality can be known. However, once they have taken that position, they
must decide through what sources reality may be known, and must have some concept of how to
judge the validity of their knowledge. A second issue foundational to epistemology is whether all
truth is relative, or whether some truths are absolute. Is all truth subject to change? Is it possible
that what is true today may be false tomorrow? If the answer is “Yes” to the previous questions,
such truths are relative. If, however, there is Absolute Truth, such Truth is eternally and
universally true irrespective of time or place. Closely related to the issue of the relativity and
absoluteness of truth are the questions of whether knowledge is subjective or objective, and
whether there is truth that is independent of human experience.

A major aspect of epistemology relates to the sources of human knowledge. If one accepts the
fact that there is truth and even Truth in the universe, how can human beings comprehend such
truths? How do they become human knowledge? Central to most people’s answer to that
question is empiricism (knowledge obtained through the senses). Empirical knowledge appears
to be built into the very nature of human experience. Thus, when individuals walk out of doors
on a spring day and see the beauty of the landscape, hear the song of a bird, feel the warm rays of
the sun, and smell the fragrance of the blossoms, they “know” that it is spring. Sensory knowing
for humans is immediate and universal, and in many ways forms the basis of much of human
knowledge.

The existence of sensory data cannot be denied. Most people accept it uncritically as
representing “reality.” The danger of naively embracing this approach is that data obtained from
the human senses have been demonstrated to be both incomplete and undependable. (For
example, most people have been confronted with the contradiction of seeing a stick that looks
bent when partially submerged in water but appears to be straight when examined in the air.)
Fatigue, frustration, and illness also distort and limit sensory perception. In addition, there are
sound and light waves that are inaudible and invisible to unaided human perception.

Humans have invented scientific instruments to extend the range of their senses, but it is
impossible to ascertain the exact dependability of these instruments since no one knows the total
effect of the human mind in recording, interpreting, and distorting sensual perception.
Confidence in these instruments is built upon speculative metaphysical theories whose validity
has been reinforced by experimentation in which predictions have been verified through the use
of a theoretical construct or hypothesis. In general, sensory knowledge is built upon assumptions
that must be accepted by faith in the dependability of human sensory mechanisms. The
advantage of empirical knowledge is that many sensory experiences and experiments are open to
both replication and public examination.

A second important source of human knowledge is reason. The view that reasoning, thought, or
logic is the central factor in knowledge is known as rationalism. The rationalist, in emphasizing
humanity’s power of thought and the mind’s contributions to knowledge, is likely to claim that
the senses alone cannot provide universal, valid judgments that are consistent with one another.
From this perspective, the sensations and experiences humans obtain through their senses are the
raw material of knowledge. These sensations must be organized by the mind into a meaningful
system before they become knowledge. Rationalism in a less extreme form claims that people
have the power to know with certainty various truths about the universe that the senses alone
cannot give. In its extreme form, rationalism claims that humans are capable of arriving at
irrefutable knowledge independently of sensory experience. Formal logic is a tool used by
rationalists. Systems of logic have the advantage of possessing internal consistency, but they risk
being disconnected from the external world. Systems of thought based upon logic are only as
valid as the premises upon which they are built.

A third source of human knowledge is intuition- the direct apprehension of knowledge that is not
derived from conscious reasoning or immediate sense perception. In the literature dealing with
intuition, one often finds such expressions as “immediate feeling of certainty.” Intuition occurs
beneath the threshold of consciousness and is often experienced as a sudden flash of insight.
Intuition has been claimed under varying circumstances as a source of both religious and secular
knowledge. Certainly many scientific breakthroughs have been initiated by intuitive hunches that
were confirmed by experimentation. The weakness or danger of intuition is that it does not
appear to be a safe method of obtaining knowledge when used alone. It goes astray very easily
and may lead to absurd claims unless it is controlled by or checked against other methods of
knowing. Intuitive knowledge, however, has the distinct advantage of being able to bypass the
limitations of human experience.

A fourth influential source of knowledge throughout the span of human history has been
revelation. Revealed knowledge has been of prime importance in the field of religion. It differs
from all other sources of knowledge because it presupposes a transcendent supernatural reality
that breaks into the natural order. Christians believe that such revelation is God’s communication
concerning the divine will. Believers in supernatural revelation hold that this form of knowledge
has the distinct advantage of being an omniscient source of information that is not available
through other epistemological methods. The truth revealed through this source is believed by
Christians to be absolute and uncontaminated. On the other hand, it is generally realized that
distortion of revealed truth can occur in the process of human interpretation. Some people assert
that a major disadvantage of revealed knowledge is that it must be accepted by faith and cannot
be proved or disproved empirically.

A fifth source of human knowledge, though not a philosophical position, is authority.

Authoritative knowledge is accepted as true because it comes from experts or has been sanctified
over time as tradition. In the classroom, the most common source of information is some
authority, such as a textbook, teacher, or reference work. Accepting authority as a source of
knowledge has its advantages as well as its dangers. Civilization would certainly stagnate if
people refused to accept any statement unless they personally verified it through direct, firsthand
experience. On the other hand, if authoritative knowledge is built upon a foundation of incorrect
assumptions, then such knowledge will surely be distorted.
Dear learners, it is important to note that one source of information alone might not be capable
of supplying people with all knowledge. It might be important to see the various sources as
complementary rather than antagonistic. However, it is true that most people choose one source
as being more basic than, or preferable to, the others, and then use it as a benchmark for testing
other sources of knowledge. For example, in the contemporary world, knowledge obtained
empirically is generally seen as the most basic and reliable type.

Lesson 4: Axiology and Logic

4.1 Axiology

Activity # 1: - Dear learners, what do you think is Axiology? List any question that
you might think is an axiological question. Show your question to
student(s) beside you, and discuss about your questions together.

Axiology is the study or theory of value. The term Axiology stems from two Greek words-
“Axios”, meaning “value, worth”, and “logos”, meaning “reason/ theory/ symbol / science/study
of”. Hence, Axiology is the philosophical study of value, which originally meant the worth of
something. Axiology asks the philosophical questions of values that deal with notions of what a
person or a society regards as good or preferable, such as:
 What is a value?
 Where do values come from?
 How do we justify our values?
 How do we know what is valuable?
 What is the relationship between values and knowledge?
 What kinds of values exist?
 Can it be demonstrated that one value is better than another?
 Who benefits from values?
 Etc.
Axiology deals with the above and related issues of value in three areas, namely Ethics,
Aesthetics, and Social/Political Philosophy.

I. Ethics

Activity # 2: - Dear learners, how do you define ethics? What ethical rules,
principles, and standards do you know and follow, and why? Discuss
about it with the student(s) beside you.
Ethics, which is also known as Moral Philosophy, is a science that deals with the philosophical
study of moral principles, values, codes, and rules, which may be used as standards for
determining what kind of human conduct/action is said to be good or bad, right or wrong. Ethics
has three main branches: meta-ethics, normative ethics, and applied ethics. Ethics raises various
questions including:
 What is good/bad?
 What is right/wrong?
 Is it the Right Principle or the Good End that makes human action/conduct moral?
 Is an action right because of its good end, or it is good because of its right principle?
  Are moral principles universal, objective, and unconditional, or relative, subjective and conditional?
 What is the ultimate foundation of moral principles? The supernatural God? Human reason? Mutual
social contract? Social custom?
 Does God exist? If so, is He Benevolent and Omnipotent?
 If God is Benevolent, why He creates evil things? If God does not create evil things, then, there must
be another creator who is responsible to creation of the evil things? But, if it is so, how can God be an
Omnipotent creator?
 Why we honor and obey moral rules? For the sake of our own individual benefits?, or for the sake of
others?, or just for the sake of fulfilling our infallible duty?

Ethics, or ethical studies, can be grouped into three broad categories: Normative ethics, Meta-
ethics, and Applied Ethics.

a. Normative Ethics refers to the ethical studies that attempt to study and determine precisely
the moral rules, principles, standards and goals by which human beings might evaluate and
judge the moral values of their conducts, actions and decisions. It is the reasoned search for
principles of human conduct, including a critical study of the major theories about which
things are good, which acts are right, and which acts are blameworthy. Consequentialism or
Teleological Ethics, Deontological Ethics, and Virtue Ethics are the major examples of
normative ethical studies.
b. Meta-ethics is the highly technical philosophical discipline that deals with investigation of
the meaning of ethical terms, including a critical study of how ethical statements can be
verified. It is more concerned with the meanings of such ethical terms as good or bad and
right or wrong than with what we think is good or bad and right or wrong. Moral
Intuitionism, Moral Emotivism, Moral Prescriptivism, Moral Nihilism, and Ethical
Relativism are the main examples of meta-ethical studies
c. Applied Ethics is a normative ethics that attempts to explain, justify, apply moral rules,
principles, standards, and positions to specific moral problems, such as capital punishment,
euthanasia, abortion, adultery, animal right, and so on. This area of normative ethics is
termed applied because the ethicist applies or uses general ethical princes in an attempt to
resolve specific moral problems.

II. Aesthetics

Activity # 3: - Dear learners, how do you define and understand aesthetics? What
Discuss about it with the student(s) beside you.

Aesthetics is the theory of beauty. It studies about the particular value of our artistic and aesthetic
experiences. It deals with beauty, art, enjoyment, sensory/emotional values, perception, and
matters of taste and sentiment.
The following are typical Aesthetic questions:
 What is art?
 What is beauty?
 What is the relation between art and beauty?
 What is the connection between art, beauty, and truth?
 Can there be any objective standard by which we may judge the beauty of artistic works, or
beauty is subjective?
  What is artistic creativity and how does it differ from scientific creativity?
 Why works of art are valuable?
 Can artistic works communicate? If so, what do they communicate?
 Does art have any moral value, and obligations or constraints?
 Are there standards of quality in Art?

III. Social/Political Philosophy

Activity # 4: - Dear learners, how do you define politics and society? What political
and social rules, principles, and standards do you know and follow,
and why? Discuss about it with the student(s) beside you.

Social/Political Philosophy studies about of the value judgments operating in a civil society, be it
social or political.
The following questions are some of the major Social/Political Philosophy primarily deal with:
 What form of government is best?
 What economic system is best?
 What is justice/injustice?
 What makes an action/judgment just/unjust?
 What is society?
 Does society exist? If it does, how does it come to existence?
 How are civil society and government come to exist?
 Are we obligated to obey all laws of the State?
 What is the purpose of government?

4.2 Logic

Activity # 5: - Dear learners, how do you define and understand logic? Discuss
about it with student(s) beside you.

Logic is the study or theory of principles of right reasoning. It deals with formulating the right
principles of reasoning; and developing scientific methods of evaluating the validity and
soundness of arguments. The following are among the various questions raised by Logic:
 What is an argument; What does it mean to argue?
 What makes an argument valid or invalid
 What is a sound argument?
 What relation do premise and conclusion have in argument?
 How can we formulate and evaluate an argument?
What is a fallacy?; What makes an argument fallacious?

Lesson 5: Importance of Learning Philosophy

Activity # 1: - Dear learners, can you list, based on our previous lessons, the
possible benefits of studying philosophy? Who do you think needs
philosophy? Why? Discuss with the student(s) beside you.
Dear learners, if you ask any philosophy student ‘what is the necessity of studying philosophy’,
he/she may give you the following famous philosophical statement: “The unexamined life is not
worth living”. The ancient Greek philosopher, Socrates, once said that “I tell you that to let no
day pass without discussing goodness and all the other subjects about which you hear me talking
and examining both myself and others is really the best thing that a man can do, and that life
without this sort of examination is not worth living.…” Thus, among the various benefits of
learning philosophy is that philosophy provides students with the tools they need to critically
examine their own lives as well as the world in which they live. Let us clarify it more. Some
modern psychologists point out that human beings have both maintenance and actualizing needs.
The former refer to the physical and psychological needs that we must satisfy in order to
maintain ourselves as human beings: food, shelter, security, social interaction, and the like. The
later appear to be associated with self-fulfillment, creativity, self-expression, realization of one’s
potential, and being everything one can be. Although philosophy may not necessarily lead to this
sort of self-actualization, it can assist us to actualize ourselves by promoting the ideal of self-
actualization. There are many characteristics of self-actualization to whose achievement studying
philosophy has a primordial contribution. Here below are some of them.

1) Intellectual and Behavioral Independence:- This is the ability to develop one’s own
opinion and beliefs. Among the primary goals of philosophy, one is the integration of
experiences into a unified, coherent, and systematic world views. Studying philosophy
helps us not only to know the alternative world views but also to know how philosophers
have ordered the universe for themselves. As a result, we can learn how to develop and
integrate our experiences, thoughts, feelings, and actions for ourselves, and thus how to be
intellectually and behaviorally independent.
2) Reflective Self-Awareness:- self-actualization cannot be realized without a clear knowledge
of oneself and the world in which one lives. Philosophy helps us to intensify our self-
awareness by inviting us to critically examine the essential intellectual grounds of our lives.
3) Flexibility, Tolerance, and Open-Mindedness:- by studying different philosophical
perspectives we can understand the evolutionary nature of intellectual achievement and the
ongoing development of human thought. As we confront with the thoughts of various
philosophers we can easily realize that no viewpoint is necessarily true or false- that the
value of any attitude is contextual. Finally, we become more tolerant, open-minded, more
receptive, and more sympathetic to views that contend or clash with ours.
4) Creative and Critical Thinking: - this is the ability to develop original philosophical
perspective on issues, problems, and events; and to engage them on a deeper level. From
the study of philosophy, we can learn how to refine our powers of analysis, our abilities to
think critically, to reason, to evaluate, to theorize, and to justify.
5) Conceptualized and well-thought-out value systems in morality, art, politics, and the like: -
since philosophy directly deals with morality, art, politics, and other related value theories,
studying philosophy provides us with an opportunity to formulate feasible evaluations of
value; and thereby to find meaning in our lives.

The other benefit of studying philosophy that should not be missed is that it helps us to deal with
the uncertainty of living. Philosophy helps us to realize the absence of an absolutely ascertained
knowledge. But, what is the advantage of uncertainty? What Bertrand Russell stated in his book,
The Problem of Philosophy, can be a sufficient answer for this question.
The value of philosophy is, in part, to be sought largely in its very uncertainty. The man who
has no tincture of philosophy goes through life imprisoned in the prejudices derived from common
sense, from the habitual benefits of his age or his nation, and from convictions which have grown
up in his mind without the cooperation or consent of his deliberate reason. To such a man the
 world tends to become definite, finite, obvious; common objects rouse no questions, and
unfamiliar possibilities are contemptuously rejected. As soon as we begin to philosophize, on the
contrary, we find… that even the most everyday things lead to problems to which only very
incomplete answers can be given. Philosophy, though unable to tell us with certainty what is the
true answer to the doubts which it raises, is able to suggest many possibilities which enlarge our
thoughts and free them from the tyranny of custom. Thus, while diminishing our feeling of
certainty as to what things are, it greatly increases our knowledge as to what they may be; it
removes the somewhat arrogant dogmatism of those who have never traveled into the region of
liberating doubt, and it keeps alive our sense of wonder by showing familiar things in an
unfamiliar aspect (Bertrand, 1912, P; 158).

Chapter Summary

Logic, as a field of study, is a branch of philosophy that deals with the study of arguments and
the principles and methods of right reasoning. Etymologically, the term ‘philosophy’ can be
defined as “love of wisdom”, being wisdom a critical habit and eternal vigilance about all things
and a reverence for truth, whatever its form, and wherever its place. Therefore, philosophy, as a
pursuit of wisdom, is the development of critical habits, the continuous search for truth, and the
questioning of the apparent. It is, however, important to note that ‘questioning the apparent’ does
not mean denying the obviously real. It simply refers to the extraordinary ability and curiosity to
deal creatively with the phenomenal world, to go beyond the common understanding, and to
speculate about things that other people accept with no doubt. Philosophy, as a rational and
critical enterprise that tries to formulate and answer fundamental questions through an intensive
application of reason, is a dual-sided universal discipline: critical and constructive sides. While,
as a critical discipline, it deals with giving a rational critic, analysis, clarification, and evaluation
of answers given to basic metaphysical, epistemological, and axiological questions, it attempts,
as a constructive discipline, to formulate rationally defensible answers to certain fundamental
questions concerning the nature of reality, the nature of value, and the nature of knowledge and
truth.
Philosophy, as an academic discipline, has its own salient features that distinguish it from other
academic disciplines. Its systematic, logical and flexible approach to the ultimate reality of the
universe, human life, knowledge experience, truth and values and its holistic and evolutionary
nature are some the fundamental features of philosophy. Philosophy uses its major branches to
deal with the most important issues human beings face, namely Metaphysics, Epistemology,
Axiology, and Logic. Metaphysics deals with the studies of ultimate reality and existence.
Epistemology deals with the study of the meaning, nature, source, scope and possibility of
human knowledge. Axiology deals with the philosophical studies of human values, such as moral
values, aesthetic values, as well as political and social values. Logic, on the other hand, is a
philosophical study of arguments and the methods and principles of right reasoning.

Philosophy provides various fundamental benefits to learners. It provides students with the tools they
need to critically examine their own lives as well as the world in which they live, it assist them to
actualize themselves by promoting the ideals of self-actualization. That is, studying philosophy helps to
achieve the most important characteristic of self-actualization: Intellectual and Behavioral Independence,
Reflective Self-Awareness, Flexibility, Tolerance, and Open-Mindedness, Creative and Critical Thinking,
and Conceptualized and well-thought-out value systems in morality, art, politics, and the like. Moreover,
studying philosophy helps us to deal with the uncertainty of living, meaning it helps us to realize the
absence of an absolutely ascertained knowledge, and hence prepare ourselves to the ever growing human
knowledge.
Self Check Exercise
1. Define philosophy as a pursuit of wisdom.
______________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
2. It is said that ‘seeking wisdom’ is one of the various essences of philosophy. Explain the
wisdom that philosophers seek.
_________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
3. List and discuss the major features of philosophy.
______________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
4. Discuss briefly the core branches of philosophy.
______________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________

5. Explain the major aspects of metaphysical study.

_________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
6. Discuss the fundamental epistemological debates concerning the source of human
knowledge.
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
7. Discuss briefly the major branches Ethics or Moral Philosophy.

8. Discuss the importance of studying philosophy.

______________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________

References

Emmet, E.R. Learning to Philosophize, London, Penguin Books, 1964.

Hurley, Patrick J. (2014) A Concise Introduction to Logic, 12th Edition, Wadsworth, Cengage
Learning.
Jones Gerald, Cardinal Daniel, et al (2006) Moral Philosophy: a guide to ethical theory,
London, Hodder Murray: A Member of the Hodder Headline Group.
Mabott, J. D. (1966) An Introduction to Ethics, London, Hutchinson University Library,
Hutchinson & Co Publisher.
Mautner, Thomas (2000) The Penguin Dictionary of Philosophy, London, Penguin Books.
Plato ‘Republic: Book I’, in Cahn, M. Steven (1999) Classics of Western Philosophy, 5th ed.
United States of America, Indianapolis/Cambridge, Hackett Publishing Company, Inc.
Pojman, P. Louis (1998) Philosophical Traditions: A Text with Readings, United States of
America. Wadsworth Publishing Company: A Division of International Thomson
Publishing, Inc.
Ratner, Joseph, ed. Intelligence in the Modern World: John Dewey’s Philosophy, New York,
The Modern Library, 1939.
Woodhouse, Mark B. A Preface to Philosophy, (6 th Edition) Belmont Wordsworth, 2000.
 CHAPTER TWO

BASIC CONCEPTS OF LOGIC

Chapter Overview

Logic, as field of study, may be defined as the organized body of knowledge, or science that
evaluates arguments. The aim of logic is to develop a system of methods and principles that we
may use as criteria for evaluating the arguments of others and as guides in constructing
arguments of our own. Argument is a systematic combination of two or more statements, which
are classified as a premise or premises and conclusion. A premise refers to the statement,
which is claimed to provide a logical support or evidence to the main point of the argument,
which h known as conclusion. A conclusion is a statement, which is claimed to follow from the
alleged evidence. Depending on the logical and real ability of the premise(s) to support the
conclusion, an argument can be either a good argument or a bad argument. However, unlike all
kinds of passages, including those that resemble arguments, all arguments purport to prove
something.

Arguments can generally be divided into deductive and inductive arguments. A deductive
argument is an argument in which the premises are claimed to support the conclusion in such a
way that it is impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion false. On the other hand,
an inductive argument is an argument in which the premises are claimed to support the
conclusion in such a way that it is improbable that the premises be true and the conclusion false.
The deductiveness or inductiveness of an argument can be determined by the particular indicator
word it might use, the actual strength of the inferential relationship between its component
statements, and its argumentative form or structure.

A deductive argument can be evaluated by its validity and soundness. Likewise, an inductive
argument can be evaluated by its strength and cogency. Depending on its actually ability to
successfully maintain its inferential claim, a deductive argument can be either valid or invalid.
That is, if the premise(s) of a certain deductive argument actually support its conclusion in such a
way that it is impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion false, then that particular
deductive argument is valid. If, however, its premise(s) actually support its conclusion in such a
way that it is possible for the premises to be true and the conclusion false, then that particular
deductive argument is invalid. Similarly, an inductive argument can be either strong or weak,
depending on its actually ability to successfully maintain its inferential claim. That is, if the
premise(s) of a certain inductive argument actually support its conclusion in such a way that it is
improbable for the premises to be true and the conclusion false, then that particular inductive
argument is strong. If, however, its premise(s) actually support its conclusion in such a way that
it is probable for the premises to be true and the conclusion false, then that particular inductive
argument is weak.
Furthermore, depending on its actually ability to successfully maintain its inferential claim as
well as its factual claim, a deductive argument can be either sound or unsound. That is, if a
deductive argument actually maintained its inferential claim, (i.e., if it is valid), and its factual
claim, (i.e., if all of its premises are true), then that particular deductive argument will be a sound
argument. However, if it fails to maintain either of its claims, it will be an unsound argument.
Likewise, depending on its actually ability to successfully maintain its inferential claim as well
as its factual claim, an inductive argument can be either cogent or uncogent. That is, if an
inductive argument actually maintained its inferential claim, (i.e., if it is strong), and its factual
claim, (i.e., if all of its premises are probably true), then that particular inductive argument will
be a cogent argument. However, if it fails to maintain either of its claims, it will be an uncogent
argument. In this chapter, we will discuss logic and its basic concepts, the techniques of
distinguishing arguments from non-argumentative passages, and the types of arguments.

Lesson 1: Basic Concepts of Logic: Arguments, Premises and Conclusions

Lesson Overview

Logic is generally be defined as a philosophical science that evaluates arguments. An argument

is a systematic combination of one or more than one statements, which are claimed to provide a
logical support or evidence (i.e., premise(s) to another single statement which is claimed to
follow logically from the alleged evidence (i.e., conclusion). An argument can be either good or
bad argument, depending on the logical ability of its premise(s) to support its conclusion. The
primary 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
study of logic increases students’ confidence to criticize the arguments of others and advance
arguments of their own. In this lesson, we will discuss the meaning and basic concepts of logic:
arguments, premises, and conclusions.

What is the Meaning of Logic?

Activity # 1: - Dear learners, how do you define Logic?

Dear learners, the word logic comes from Greek word logos, which means sentence, discourse,
reason, truth and rule. Logic in its broader meaning is the science, which evaluates arguments
and the study of correct reasoning. It could be also defined as the study of methods and
principles of correct reasoning or the art of correct reasoning.

Logic can be defined in different ways. Here below are some definitions of logic:

 Logic is a science that evaluates arguments.

 Logic is the study of methods for evaluating arguments. More precisely, logic is the
study of methods for evaluating whether the premises of arguments adequately
support or provide a good evidence for the conclusions.
  Logic is a science that helps to develop the method and principles that we may use as
a criterion for evaluating the arguments of others and as a guide to construct good
arguments of our own.
 LOGIC is the attempt to codify the rules of rational thought. Logicians explore the structure
of arguments that preserve truth or allow the optimal extraction of knowledge from evidence.

Logic is one of the primary tools philosophers use in their inquiries. The precision of logic
helps them to cope with the subtlety of philosophical problems and the often misleading
nature of conversational language.

In logic, as an academic discipline, we study reasoning itself: forms of argument, general

principles and particular errors, along with methods of arguing. We see lots of mistakes in
reasoning in daily life and logic can help us understand what is wrong or why someone is
arguing in a particular way.

What is the Benefit of Studying Logic?

“Logic sharpens and refines our natural gifts to think, reason and argue.” (C. S. Layman)

Activity # 2: - Dear learners, what do you think is the benefit of studying logic?
Discuss with the student(s) beside you.

We use logic in our day-to-day communications. As human beings, we all think, reason and
argue; and we all are subject to the reasoning of other people. Some of us may think well, reason
well and argue well, but some of us may not. The ability to think, reason and argue well might
partially be a matter of natural gift. However, whatever our natural gifts, they can be refined,
improved and sharpened; and the study of logic is one of the best ways to refine one’s natural
ability to think, reason and argue. Likewise, as academicians, our arguments must be logical and
acceptable; and the tool to do so is provided by logic. In general, the following are some of the
major benefits that we can gain from the study of logic:
 It helps us to develop the skill needed to construct sound (good) and fallacy-free
arguments of one’s own and to evaluate the arguments of others;
 It provides a fundamental defense against the prejudiced and uncivilized attitudes that
threaten the foundation of a civilized and democratic society;
 It helps us to distinguish good arguments from bad arguments;
 It helps us to understand and identify the common logical errors in reasoning;
 It helps us to understand and identify the common confusions that often happen due to
misuse of language;
 It enables us to disclose ill-conceived policies in the political sphere, to be careful of
disguises, and to distinguish the rational from irrational and the sane from the insane and
so on.

The aim of logic, hence, is to develop the system of methods and principles that we may use as
criteria for evaluating the arguments of others and as guides in constructing the arguments of our
own in our day-to-day lives. Thus, by studying logic, we are able to increase our confidence
when we criticize the arguments of others and when we advance arguments of our own. In fact,
one of the goals of logic is to produce individuals who are critical, rational and reasonable both
in the sphere of public and private life. However, to be full beneficial of the worth which logic
provides, one must thoroughly and carefully understand the basic concepts of the subject and be
able to apply them in the actual situations.

What is an Argument?

Activity # 3: - Dear learners, what do you think is an argument? What comes to

your mind when you think of an argument? Discuss with the
student(s) beside you.
Argument is a technical term and the chief concern of logic. Argument might have defined and
described in different ways. When we define an arguments from logical point of view, it is a
group of statements, one or more of which (the premise) are claimed to provide support for, or
reason to believe, one of the other, the (conclusion). As is apparent from the above definition, the
term ‘‘argument’’ has a very specific meaning in logic. It does not mean, for example, a mere
verbal fight, as one might have with one’s parent, spouse, or friend. Let us examine the features
of this definition in detail.

First, an argument is a group of statements. That is, the first requirement for a passage to be
qualified as an argument is to combine two or more statements. But, what is a statement?

A statement is a declarative sentence that has a truth-value of either true or false. That is,
statement is a sentence that has truth-value. Hence, truth and falsity are the two possible truth-
values of a statement. A statement is typically a declarative sentence. In other words, statement is
a type of sentence that could stand as a declarative sentence. Look the following examples:

a) Dr. Abiy Ahmed the current Prime Minister of Ethiopia.

b) Mekelle is the capital city of Tigray Region.
c) Ethiopia was colonized by Germany.

Statement (a) and (b) are true, because they describe things as they are, or assert what really is
the case. Hence, ‘Truth’ is their truth-value. Whereas statement (c) is false because it asserts
what is not, and ‘Falsity’ its truth-value.

N.B: Logicians used proposition and statement interchangeably. However, in strict (technical)
sense, proposition is the meaning or information content of a statement. In this chapter, the term
statement is used to refer premises and a conclusion. However, there are sentences that are not
statements, and hence should be used to construct an argument. Examples:
a) Would you close the window? (Question)
b) Let us study together. (Proposal)
c) Right on! (Exclamation)
d) I suggest that you read philosophy texts. (Suggestion)
e) Give me your ID Card, Now! (Command)
In fact, sentence is a group of words or phrases that enables us to express ideas or thought
meaningfully. However, unlike statements, none of the above sentences can be either true or
false. Hence, none of them can be classified as statement. As a result, none of them can make up
an argument.

Second, the statements that make up an argument are divided into premise(s) and conclusion.
That means, the mere fact that a passage contains two or more statements cannot guarantee the
existence of an argument. Hence, an argument is a group statement, which contains at least one
premise and one and only one conclusion. This definition makes it clear that an argument may
contain more than one premise but only one conclusion.

Activity # 4: - Dear learners, if argument is a combination of premise(s) and

conclusion, what do you think are premise and conclusion?
Argument always attempts to justify a claim. The claim that the statement attempts to justify is
known as a conclusion of an argument; and the statement or statements that supposedly justify
the claim is/are known as the premises of the argument. Therefore, a premise is a statement that
set forth the reason or evidence, which is given for accepting the conclusion of an argument. It is
claimed evidence; and a conclusion is a statement, which is claimed to follow from the given
evidence (premise). In other words, the conclusion is the claim that an argument is trying to
establish. Let us now construct arguments together.

Example-1: Example-2:

1) All Ethiopians are Africans. (Premise 1) 2) Some Africans are black. (Premise-1)
Tsionawit is Ethiopian. (Premise2) Zelalem is an African. (Premise-2)
Therefore, Tsionawit is African. (Conclusion) Therefore, Zelalem is black. (Conclusion)

In both arguments, the first two statements are premises, because they are claimed to provide
evidence for the third statement, whereas the third statement is a conclusion because it is claimed
to follow from the given evidences. The claim that the premises support the conclusion, (and/or
that the conclusion follow from the premises), is indicated by the word ‘‘therefore.’’ All
arguments may be placed in one of two basic groups: those in which the premises really do
support the conclusion and those in which they do not, even though they are claimed to. The
former are said to be good (well-supported) arguments, the latter bad (poorly-supported)
arguments. For example, compare the above two examples. In the first argument, the premises
really do support the conclusion, they give good reason for believing that the conclusion is true,
and therefore, the argument is a good one. But the premises of the second argument fail to
support the conclusion adequately. Even if they may be true, they do not provide good reason to
believe that the conclusion is true. Therefore, it is bad argument, but it is still an argument.

But how can we distinguish premises from conclusion and vice versa?

Despite the purpose of logic, as the science that evaluates and analyses arguments, is to develop
methods and techniques that allow us to distinguish good arguments from bad, one of the most
important tasks in the analysis of arguments is to distinguish premises from conclusion and vice
versa. Sometimes identifying a conclusion from premises is very tough. Premises and
conclusions are difficult to identify for a number of reasons. Even though all arguments are
ideally presumed to be composed of premises and a conclusion, in reality, sometimes arguments
may contain other sentences as elements. Moreover, even though it is assumed, for the sake of
argument, that all arguments are composed of premises and conclusion, identifying conclusion
from argument is very difficult. Since it is impossible to analyze arguments without identifying a
conclusion from premises, we need techniques that can help us to identify premises from a
conclusion and vice versa.

The first technique that can be used to identify premises from a conclusion and vice versa is
looking at an indicator word. Frequently, arguments contain certain indicator words that provide
clues in identifying premises and conclusion.
Here below are some Conclusion Indicators:
Therefore We may conclude Thus So
Wherefore Entails that Consequently It follows that
Accordingly Hence We may infer
Provided that It shows that It implies that
It must be that Whence As a result
In argument that contains any of the conclusion indicator words, the statement that follows the
indicator word can usually be identified as the conclusion. By the process of elimination, the
other statements in the argument can be identified as premises, but only based on their logical
importance to the identified conclusion.
Example:
Women are mammals.
Zenebech is a woman.
Therefore, Zenebech is a mammal.
Based on the above rule, the conclusion of this argument is “Zenebech is a mammal” because it
follows the conclusion indicator word “therefore”, and the other two statements are premises. If
an argument does not contain a conclusion indicator, it may contain a premise indicator.
Here below are some typical Premise Indicators:
Since Seeing that In that
As indicated by Given that May be inferred from
Because As Inasmuch as
Owing to For For the reason that
In argument that contains any of the premise indicator words, a statement that follows the
indicator word can usually be identified as a premise. By same the process of elimination, the
other remaining single statement will be a conclusion.
Example:

You should avoid any form of cheating on exams because cheating on exams is punishable by the
Senate Legislation of the University.

Based on the above rule, the premise of this argument is “cheating on exams is punishable by the
Senate Legislation of the University” because it follows the premise indicator word “because”,
and the other statement is a premise. One premise indicator not included in the above list is ‘‘for
this reason.’’ This indicator is special in that it comes immediately after the premise it indicates
and before the conclusion. We can say that in the middle place between the premise and the
conclusion, this indicator can be both premise and conclusion indicator. The statement that
comes before ‘‘for this reason’’ is the premise of an argument and the statement that comes after
“for this reason” is the conclusion. One should be careful not to confuse ‘‘for this reason’’ with
‘‘for the reason that.’’ Sometimes a single indicator can be used to identify more than one
premise. Consider the following argument:

Tsionawit is a faithful wife, for Ethiopian women are faithful wives and Tsionawit an Ethiopian.

The premise indicator ‘‘for’’ goes with both ‘‘Ethiopian women are faithful wives’’ and
‘‘Tsionawit is an Ethiopian”. These are the premises. By process of elimination, ‘‘Tsionawit is a
faithful wife” is the conclusion.

Sometimes you may an argument that contains no indicator all: neither a conclusion indicator
word nor a premise indicator word. When this occurs, the reader/ listener must ask himself or
herself such questions as:
 What single statement is claimed (implicitly) to follow from the others?
 What is the arguer trying to prove?
 What is the main point in the passage?
The answers to these questions should point to the conclusion.
Example:
Our country should increase the quality and quantity of its military. Ethnic conflicts are recently
intensified; boarder conflicts are escalating; international terrorist activities are increasing.
The main point of this argument is to show that the country should increase the size and quality
of its military. All the rest are given in support of the conclusion. As you can see there are no
indicator words. The following is the standard form of this argument:
Ethnic conflicts are recently intensified. (P-1)
Boarder conflicts are escalating. (P-2)
International terrorist activities are increasing. (P-3)
Thus, the country should increase the quality and quantity of its military. (C)

Passages that contain arguments sometimes contain statements that are neither premises nor
conclusion. Only statements that are actually intended to support the conclusion should be
included in the list of premises. If a statement has nothing to do with the conclusion or, for
example, simply makes a passing comment, it should not be included within the context of the
argument.

Example:

Socialized medicine is not recommended because it would result in a reduction in the overall
quality of medical care available to the average citizen. In addition, it might very well bankrupt
the federal treasury. This is the whole case against socialized medicine in a nutshell.

The conclusion of this argument is ‘‘Socialized medicine is not recommended,’’ and the two
statements following the word ‘‘because’’ are the premises. The last statement makes only a
passing comment about the argument itself and is therefore neither a premise nor a conclusion.
Inference is another concept. In the narrower sense it means the reasoning process expressed by
the argument. And broadly it refers the argument itself. For the purpose of this course, we use the
narrower sense of the term inference or inferential link between the premises and the conclusion
of arguments.

Lesson 2: Techniques of Recognizing Arguments

Lesson Overview

An argument is a systematic combination of one or more than one statements, which are claimed
to provide a logical support or evidence (i.e., premise(s) to another single statement which is
claimed to follow logically from the alleged evidence (i.e., conclusion). However, not all
passages that contain two or more statements are argumentative. There are various passages that
contain two or more statements but are not argumentative. Argumentative arguments are
distinguished from such kind of passages by their primary goal: proving something. In this
lesson, we will see the techniques of distinguishing argumentative passages from non-
argumentative passages.

2.1 Recognizing Argumentative Passages

Activity # 1: - Dear learners, what do you think are argumentative passages?

What qualifies a passage to be an argument?

Evaluating arguments about different issues in human life like those that address, religion,
politics, ethics, sport, science, love, culture, environment, society, culture etc. is the central
concern of logic. Therefore, as logicians, in order to evaluate arguments easily, we need to
understand the nature of arguments and further we need to understand what argument is not,
because not all passages contain argument. Since logic deals with arguments, it is important for
students to develop the ability to identify whether passages contain an argument. In a general
way, a passage contains an argument if it purports to prove something; if it does not do so, it
does not contain an argument.

But what does it mean to purport to prove something?

Two conditions must be fulfilled for a passage to purport to prove something:

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

2) There must be a claim that the alleged evidence or reasons supports or implies
something- that is, a claim that something follows from the alleged evidence.

As we have seen earlier, the statements that claim to present the evidence or reasons are the
premises and the statement that the evidence is claimed to support or imply is the conclusion.
Hence, the first condition refers to premises as it tries to provide or claim to provide reasons or
evidences for the conclusion; and the second condition refers to a conclusion. It is not necessary
that the premises present actual evidence or true reasons nor that the premises actually do
support the conclusion. But at least the premises must claim to present evidence or reasons, and
there must be a claim that the evidence or reasons support or imply something.

The first condition expresses a factual claim, and deciding whether it is fulfilled often falls
outside the domain of logic. Thus, most of our attention will be concentrated on whether the
second condition is fulfilled. The second condition expresses what is called an inferential claim.
The inferential claim is simply the claim that the passage expresses a certain kind of reasoning
process- that something supports or implies something or that something follows from
something. Also, you should recognize that this claim is not equitable with the intentions of the
arguer. Intentions are subjective and, as such, are usually not accessible to the evaluator. Rather,
the inferential claim is an objective feature of an argument grounded in its language or structure.
In evaluating arguments, therefore, most of our attention will be concentrated on whether the
second condition is fulfilled because it is not necessary, at least at this level, that the premises
present actual evidence or true reasons nor that do the premises actually support the conclusion.

An inferential claim can be either explicit or implicit. An explicit inferential claim is usually
asserted by premise or conclusion indicator words (‘‘thus,’’ ‘‘since,’’ ‘‘because,’’ ‘‘hence,’’
‘‘therefore,’’ and so on). It exists if there is an indicator word that asserts an explicit relationship
between the premises and the conclusions.

Example: Gamachuu is my biological father, because my mother told so.

In this example, the premise indicator word “because” expresses the claim that evidence supports
something, or that evidence is provided to prove something. Hence, the passage is an argument.

An implicit inferential claim exists if there is an inferential relationship between the statements
in a passage, but the passage contains no indicator words.

Example:

The genetic modification of food is risky business. Genetic engineering can introduce unintended
changes into the DNA of the food-producing organism, and these changes can be toxic to the
consumer.

The inferential relationship between the first statement and the other two constitutes an implicit
claim that evidence supports something, so we are justified in calling the passage an argument
though it does not contain indicator word. The first statement is the conclusion, and the other two
are the premises.

Sometimes it is difficult to identify whether a passage contain an argument. In deciding whether

there is a claim that evidence supports or implies something keep an eye out for (1) indicator
words, and (2) the presence of an inferential claim between the statements. In connection with
these points, however, a word of caution is in order.
First, the mere occurrence of an indicator word by no means guarantees the presence of an
argument. The presence of an indicator word does not mean that the existing indicator word
actually and always indicate a premises or a conclusions. Thus, before deciding that an indicator
word indicates a premises or a conclusion, make sure that the existing indicator word is used to
indicate a premise or a conclusion.

Example:

Since Edison invented the phonograph, there have been many technological developments.

Since Edison invented the phonograph, he deserves credit for a major technological development.

In the first passage the word ‘‘since’’ is used in a temporal sense. It means ‘‘from the time that.’’
Thus, the first passage is not an argument. In the second passage ‘‘since’’ is used in a logical
sense, and so the passage is an argument.

Second, it is not always easy to detect the occurrences of an inferential relationship between
statements in a passage, and the reader may have to review a passage several times before
making a decision. Therefore, in deciding whether a passage contains an argument one should try
to insert mentally some indicators words among the statements to see whether there is a flow of
ideas among the statements. Even with this mental experiment, however, deciding whether a
passage contains an argument is very difficult. As a result, not everyone will agree about every
passage. Sometimes the only answer possible is a conditional one: “If this passage contains an
argument, then these are the premises and that is the conclusion.”

To assists in distinguishing passages that contain arguments from those that do not, it is
important to identify passages, which do not contain arguments: Non-argumentative passages.

2.2 Recognizing Non-argumentative Passages

Activity # 2: - Dear learners, what do you think are non-argumentative

passages? What do they lack to be arguments?

Having seen what arguments are and how we recognize them, we will now focus on what
arguments are not and how we recognize them. Non-argumentative passages are passages, which
lack an inferential claim. These include simple non-inferential passages, expository passages,
illustrations, explanations, and conditional statements. Passages that lack an inferential claim
may be statements, which could be premises, conclusion, or both. What is missed is a claim that
a reasoning process is being made. As was discussed previously, for a passage to be an
argument, it not only should contain premises and a conclusion but also an inferential claim or a
reasoning process. In this portion of our lesson, we will discuss some of the most important
forms of non-argumentative passage.

Simple Non-inferential Passages

Simple non-inferential passages are unproblematic passages that lack a claim that anything is
being proved. Such passages contain statements that could be premises or conclusions (or both),
but what is missing is a claim that any potential premise supports a conclusion or that any
potential conclusion is supported by premises. Passages of this sort include warnings, pieces of
advice, statements of belief or opinion, loosely associated statements, and reports.

A warning is a form of expression that is intended to put someone on guard against a dangerous
or detrimental situation.
Example:
Whatever you promise to tell, never confide political secrets to your wife.
In this passage, no evidence is given to prove that the statement is true; and if no evidence is
given to prove that the statement is true, then there is no argument.
A piece of advice is a form of expression that makes a recommendation about some future
decision or course of conduct.
Example:
After class hours, I would suggest that you give careful consideration to the subject matter you
have discussed.
As with warnings, there is no evidence that is intended to prove anything in piece of advices, and
hence there is no argument in the above passage.
A statement of belief or opinion is an expression about what someone happens to believe or
think about something.
Example:
We believe that our university must develop and produce outstanding students who will perform
with great skill and fulfill the demands of our nation.
This passage does not make any claim that the belief or opinion is supported by evidence, or that
it supports some conclusion, and hence does not contain an argument.
Loosely associated statements may be about the same general subject, but they lack a claim that
one of them is proved by the others.
Example:
Not to honor men of worth will keep the people from contention; not to value goods that are hard
to come by will keep them from theft; not to display what is desirable will keep them from being
unsettled of mind.
(Lao-Tzu, Thoughts from the Tao Te Ching)
Because there is no claim that any of these statements provides evidence or reasons for believing
another, there is no argument.
A report consists of a group of statements that convey information about some topic or event.
Example:
The great renaissance dam of Ethiopia has opened an employment opportunity for thousands of
Ethiopians. In its completion, thirteen thousand Ethiopians are expected to be hired.
These statements could serve as the premises of an argument, but because the author makes no
claim that they support or imply anything, there is no argument.
One must be careful, though, with reports about arguments.
Example:
“The Air Force faces a serious shortage of experienced pilots in the years ahead, because
repeated overseas tours and the allure of high paying jobs with commercial airlines are winning
out over lucrative bonuses to stay in the service,” says a prominent Air Force official.
(Newspaper clipping)
Properly speaking, this passage is not an argument, because the author of the passage does not
claim that anything is supported by evidence. Rather, the author reports the claim by the Air
Force official that something is supported by evidence. If such passages are interpreted as
“containing” arguments, it must be made clear that the argument is not the author’s but one made
by someone about whom the author is reporting.
Expository Passages
An expository passage is a kind of discourse that begins with a topic sentence followed by one
or more sentences that develop the topic sentence. If the objective is not to prove the topic
sentence but only to expand it or elaborate it, then there is no argument.
Example:
There is a stylized relation of artist to mass audience in the sports, especially in baseball. Each
player develops a style of his own-the swagger as he steps to the plate, the unique windup a
pitcher has, the clean-swinging and hard-driving hits, the precision quickness and grace of
infield and outfield, the sense of surplus power behind whatever is done.
(Max Lerner, America as a Civilization)
In this passage the topic sentence is stated first, and the remaining sentences merely develop and
flesh out this topic sentence. This passage is not argument, because it lacks an inferential claim.
However, expository passages differ from simple non-inferential passages (such as warnings and
pieces of advice) in that many of them can also be taken as arguments. If the purpose of the
subsequent sentences in the passage is not only to flesh out the topic sentence but also to prove it,
then the passage is an argument.
Example:
Skin and the mucous membrane lining the respiratory and digestive tracts serve as mechanical
barriers to entry by microbes. Oil gland secretions contain chemicals that weaken or kill
bacteria on skin. The respiratory tract is lined by cells that sweep mucus and trapped particles
up into the throat, where they can be swallowed. The stomach has an acidic pH, which inhibits
the growth of many types of bacteria.
(Sylvia S. Mader, Human Biology, 4th ed.)
In this passage, the topic sentence is stated first, and the purpose of the remaining sentences is
not only to show how the skin and mucous membranes serve as barriers to microbes but also to
prove that they do this. Thus, the passage can be taken as both an expository passage and an
argument.
In deciding whether an expository passage should be interpreted as an argument, try to determine
whether the purpose of the subsequent sentences in the passage is merely to develop the topic
sentence or also to prove that it is true. In borderline cases, ask yourself whether the topic
sentence makes a claim that everyone accepts or agrees with. If it does, the passage is probably
not an argument. In real-life situations, authors rarely try to prove something is true when
everyone already accepts it. However, if the topic sentence makes a claim that many people do
not accept or have never thought about, then the purpose of the remaining sentences may be both
to prove the topic sentence is true as well as to develop it. If this be so, the passage is an
argument. Finally, if even this procedure yields no definite answer, the only alternative is may be
to say that if the passage is taken as an argument, then the fi rst statement is the conclusion and
the others are the premises.

Illustrations
An illustration is an expression involving one or more examples that is intended to show what
something means or how it is done. Illustrations are often confused with arguments because
many illustrations contain indicator words such as “thus.”
Example:
Chemical elements, as well as compounds, can be represented by molecular formulas. Thus,
oxygen is represented by “O2”, water by “H2O”, and sodium chloride by “NaCl”.
This passage is not an argument, because it makes no claim that anything is being proved. The
word “thus” indicates how something is done - namely, how chemical elements and compounds
can be represented by formulas.
However, as with expository passages, many illustrations can be taken as arguments. Such
arguments are often called arguments from example. Here is an instance of one:
Although most forms of cancer, if untreated, can cause death, not all cancers are life-
threatening. For example, basal cell carcinoma, the most common of all skin cancers, can
produce disfigurement, but it almost never results in death.
In this passage, the example given is intended to prove the truth of “Not all cancers are life-
threatening.” Thus, the passage is best interpreted as an argument.
In deciding whether an illustration should be interpreted as an argument, determine whether the
passage merely shows how something is done or what something means, or whether it also
purports to prove something. In borderline cases, it helps to note whether the claim being
illustrated is one that practically everyone accepts or agrees with. If it is, the passage is probably
not an argument. As already noted, in real-life situations, authors rarely attempt to prove what
everyone already accepts. But if the claim being illustrated is one that many people do not accept
or have never thought about, then the passage may be interpreted as an argument.
Thus, in reference to the first example we considered, most people are aware that elements and
compounds can be expressed by formulas. For example, practically everyone knows that water is
H2O. But they may not have ever considered whether some forms of cancer are not life-
threatening. This is one of the reasons for evaluating the first example as mere illustration and
the last one as an argument.
Explanations
One of the most important kinds of non-argument is the explanation. An explanation is an
expression that purports to shed light on some event or phenomenon, which is usually accepted
as a matter of fact. It attempts to clarify, or describe such alike why something is happen that
way or why something is what it is.

Example:
Cows digest grass while humans cannot, because their digestive systems contain enzyme not
found in humans.
Every explanation is composed of two distinct components: the explanandum and explanans.
The explanandum is the statement that describes the event or phenomenon to be explained, and
the explanans is the statement or group of statements that purports to do the explaining. In the
first example, the explanandum is the statement “Cows digest grass while humans cannot” and
the explanans is “their [cows’] digestive systems contain enzyme not found in humans.”

Argument Explanation

Premise Accepted fact Explanans

Claimed to prove Claimed to shed light on

Conclusion
Explanations Accepted fact
Explanations are sometimes mistaken for arguments because they
often contain the indicator word “because.” Yet explanations are not arguments, because in an
explanation the purpose of the explanans is to shed light on, or to make sense of, the
explanandum event, not to prove that it occurred. In other words, the purpose of the explanans is
to show why something is the case, whereas in an argument, the purpose of the premises is to
prove that something is the case. That is, the premise refer to an accepted fact, and intended to
prove that something is the case, while the conclusion is a new assertion followed from the
already known fact. Moreover, in explanation, we precede backward from fact to the cause
whereas in argument we move from premise to the conclusion.

In the above example given, the fact that cows digest grass but humans cannot is readily apparent
to everyone. The statement that cows’ digestive systems contain enzyme not found in humans is
not intended to prove that cows digest grass but humans cannot, but rather to show why it is so.

Explanations bear a certain similarities to an argument. The rational link between the
explanandum and explanans may at times resemble the inferential link between the premise and
the conclusion of an argument. Thus, to distinguish explanations from arguments, first identify
the statement that is either the explanandum or the conclusion (usually this is the statement that
precedes the word “because”). If this statement describes an accepted matter of fact, and if the
remaining statements purport to shed light on this statement, then the passage is an explanation.

This method usually works to distinguish arguments from explanations. However, some passages
can be interpreted as both explanations and arguments.

Example:

Women become intoxicated by drinking a smaller amount of alcohol than men because men
metabolize part of the alcohol before it reaches the bloodstream, whereas women do not.

The purpose of this passage could be to prove the first statement to those who do not accept it as
fact, and to shed light on that fact to those who do accept it. Alternately, the passage could be
intended to prove the first statement to a person who accepts its truth on blind faith or incomplete
experience, and simultaneously to shed light on this truth. Thus, this passage can be correctly
interpreted as both an explanation and an argument.

Perhaps the greatest problem confronting the effort to distinguish explanations from arguments
lies in determining whether something is an accepted matter of fact. Obviously, what is accepted
by one person may not be accepted by another. Thus, the effort often involves determining which
person or group of people the passage is directed to- the intended audience. Sometimes the
source of the passage (textbook, newspaper, technical journal, etc.) will decide the issue. But
when the passage is taken totally out of context, ascertaining the source may prove impossible.
In those circumstances the only possible answer may be to say that if the passage is an argument,
then such-and-such is the conclusion and such-and-such are the premises.

Conditional Statements

A conditional statement is an “if . . . then . . .” statement.

Example: If you study hard, then you will score ‘A’ grade.

Every conditional statement is made up of two component statements. The component statement
immediately following the “if” is called the antecedent (if-clause), and the one following the
“then” is called the consequent (then-clause). However, there is an occasion that the order of
antecedent and consequent is reversed. That is, when occasionally the word ‘‘then’’ is left out,
the order of antecedent and consequent is reversed. For example if we left out “then” from the
above example the antecedent and consequent is reversed: You will score ‘A’ grade if you study
hard. In the above example, the antecedent is “You study hard,” and the consequent is “You will
score ‘A’ grade.” In this example, there is a meaningful relationship between antecedent and
consequent. However, such a relationship need not exist for a statement to count as conditional.
The statement “If Getaneh Kebede is a singer, then Hawassa is in Mekelle” is just as much a
conditional statement as that in the above example.

Conditional Statements:
Antecedent Consequent

If ---------------------------- then ---------------------------------.

Consequent Antecedent

---------------------------- if ---------------------------------.

Conditional statements are not arguments, because they fail to meet the criteria given earlier. In
an argument, at least one statement must claim to present evidence, and there must be a claim
that this evidence implies something. In a conditional statement, there is no claim that either the
antecedent or the consequent presents evidence. In other words, there is no assertion that either
the antecedent or the consequent is true. Rather, there is only the assertion that if the antecedent
is true, then so is the consequent. For example, the above example merely asserts that if you
study hard, then you will score ‘A’. It does not assert that you study hard. Nor does it assert you
scored ‘A’.

Of course, a conditional statement as a whole may present evidence because it asserts a

relationship between statements. Yet when conditional statements are taken in this sense, there is
still no argument, because there is then no separate claim that this evidence implies anything.
Therefore, a single conditional statement is not an argument. The fact that a statement begin with
“if” makes it the idea conditional and not a final reasonable assertion. That is why also
conditional statements are not evaluated as true or false without separately evaluating the
antecedent and the consequent. They only claim that if the antecedent is true then so is the
consequent.

However, some conditional statements are similar to arguments in that they express the outcome
of a reasoning process. As such, they may be said to have a certain inferential content. Consider
the following example:
If destroying a political competitor gives you joy, then you have a low sense of morality.
The link between the antecedent and consequent resembles the inferential link between the
premises and conclusion of an argument. Yet there is a difference because the premises of an
argument are claimed to be true, whereas no such claim is made for the antecedent of a
conditional statement. Accordingly, conditional statements are not arguments. Yet, although
taken by themselves are not arguments, their inferential content, (the inferential content between
the antecedent and the consequent), may be re-expressed to form arguments. For example, the
conditional statement can be re-expressed to form an argument as follows:
Destroying a political competitor gives you joy. Therefore, you have a low sense of morality.
Here, we clearly have a premise and conclusion structure, and the conclusion is asserted on the
basis of the premise. Therefore, it is argument.
Finally, while no single conditional statement is an argument, a conditional statement may serve
as either the premise or the conclusion (or both) of an argument. Observe the following
examples:
If he is selling our national secretes to enemies, then he is a traitor.
He is selling our national secretes to enemies.
Therefore, he is a traitor.
If he is selling our national secretes to enemies, then he is a traitor.
If he is a traitor, then he must be punished by death.
Therefore, If he is selling our national secretes to enemies, then he must be punished by death.
The relation between conditional statements and arguments may now be summarized as follows:
1) A single conditional statement is not an argument.
2) A conditional statement may serve as either the premise or the conclusion (or both) of an
argument.
3) The inferential content of a conditional statement may be re-expressed to form an
argument.
The first two rules are especially pertinent to the recognition of arguments. According to the first
rule, if a passage consists of a single conditional statement, it is not an argument. But if it
consists of a conditional statement together with some other statement, then, by the second rule,
it may be an argument, depending on such factors as the presence of indicator words and an
inferential relationship between the statements.
Conditional statements are especially important in logic (and many other fields) because they
express the relationship between necessary and sufficient 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. For
example, being a dog is a sufficient condition for being an animal. On the other hand, B is said to
be a necessary condition for A whenever A cannot occur without the occurrence of B. Thus,
being an animal is a necessary condition for being a dog.

The difference between sufficient and necessary conditions is a bit tricky. So, to clarify the idea
further, suppose you are given a large, closed cardboard box. Also, suppose you are told that
there is a dog in the box. Then you know for sure, there is an animal in the box. No additional
information is needed to draw this conclusion. This means that being a dog is sufficient for being
an animal. However, being a dog is not necessary for being an animal, because if you are told
that the box contains a cat, you can conclude with equal certainty that it contains an animal. In
other words, it is not necessary for the box to contain a dog for it to contain an animal. It might
equally well contain a cat, a mouse, a squirrel, or any other animal.

On the other hand, suppose you are told that whatever might be in the box, it is not an animal.
Then you know for certain there is no dog in the box. The reason you can draw this conclusion is
that being an animal is necessary for being a dog. If there is no animal, there is no dog. However,
being an animal is not sufficient for being a dog, because if you are told that the box contains an
animal, you cannot, from this information alone, conclude that it contains a dog. It might contain
a cat, a mouse, a squirrel, and so on. These ideas are expressed in the following conditional
statements:
If X is a dog, then X is an animal.
If X is not an animal, then X is not a dog.
The first statement says that being a dog is a sufficient condition for being an animal, and the
second that being an animal is a necessary condition for being a dog. However, a little reflection
reveals that these two statements say exactly the same thing. Thus, each expresses in one way a
necessary condition and in another way a sufficient condition.

Note: A is a sufficient condition for B; if A occurs, then B must occur.

A is a necessary condition for B; if B occur, then A must occur.

In general, non-argumentative passages may contain components that resemble the premises and
conclusions of arguments, but they do not have an inferential claim. However, some passages
like expository passages, illustrations, and explanations can be interpreted as arguments; and the
inferential contents of conditional statements may be re-expressed to form arguments. Therefore,
in deciding whether a passage contains an argument, you should look for three things:
1) indicator words such as “therefore,” “since,” “because,” and so on;
2) an inferential relationship between the statements; and
3) typical kinds of non-arguments.

But remember that the mere occurrence of an indicator word does not guarantee the presence of
an argument. You must check to see that the statement identified as the conclusion is claimed to
be supported by one or more of the other statements. Also keep in mind that in many arguments
that lack indicator words, the conclusion is the first statement. Furthermore, it helps to mentally
insert the word “therefore” before the various statements before deciding that a statement should
be interpreted as a conclusion.

Lesson 3: Types of Arguments: Deduction and Induction

Lesson Overview

In our previous lesson, we saw that every argument involves an inferential claim- the claim that
the conclusion is supposed to follow from the premises. Every argument makes a claim that its
premises provide grounds for the truth of its conclusion. The question we now address has to do
with the strength of this claim. Just how strongly is the conclusion claimed to follow from the
premises. The reasoning process (inference) that an argument involves is expressed either with
certainty or with probability. That is what the logician introduced the name deduction and
induction for, respectively. If the conclusion is claimed to follow with strict certainty or
necessity, the argument is said to be deductive; but if it is claimed to follow only probably, the
argument is said to be inductive. Therefore, a conclusion may be supported by its premise in two
very different ways. These two different ways are the two great classes of arguments: Deductive
arguments and Inductive arguments. And the distinction between these two classes of arguments,
because every argument involves an inferential claim, lies in the strength of their inferential
claim. Understanding the distinction of these classes is essential in the study of logic.
In this lesson, we will learn the broad groups of arguments, Deductive arguments and Inductive
arguments, and the techniques of distinguishing one from the other.

3.1 Deductive Arguments

Activity # 1: - Dear learners, how do you define a deductive argument?

A deductive argument is an argument incorporating the claim that it is impossible for the
conclusion to be false given that the premises are true. It is an argument in which the premises
are claimed to support the conclusion in such a way that it is impossible for the premises to be
true and the conclusion false. In such arguments, the conclusion is claimed to follow necessarily
(conclusively) from the premises. Thus, deductive arguments are those that involve necessary
reasoning.
Example-1: Example-2:
All philosophers are critical thinkers. All African footballers are blacks.
Socrates is a philosopher. Messi is an African footballer.
Therefore, Socrates is a critical thinker. It follows that, Messi is black.
The above two examples are examples of a deductive argument. In both of them, the conclusion
is claimed to follow from the premises with certainty; or the premises are claimed to support
their corresponding conclusion with a strict necessity. If we, for example, assume that all
philosophers are critical thinkers and that Socrates is a philosopher, then it is impossible that
Socrates not be a critical thinker. Similarly, if we assume that all African footballers are blacks
and that Messi is an African footballer, then it is impossible that Messi not be a black. Thus, we
should interpret these arguments as deductive.

3.2 Inductive Arguments

Activity # 2: - Dear learners, how do you define an inductive argument?
An inductive argument is an argument incorporating the claim that it is improbable for the
conclusion to be false given that the premises are true. . It is an argument in which the premises
are claimed to support the conclusion in such a way that it is improbable for the premises to be
true and the conclusion false. In such arguments, the conclusion is claimed to follow only
probably from the premises. The premises may provide some considerable evidence for the
conclusion but they do not imply (necessarily support) the conclusion. In this case, we might
have sufficient condition (evidence) but we cannot be certain about the truth of the conclusion.
However, this does not mean that the conclusion is wrong or unacceptable, where as it could be
correct or acceptable but only based on probability. Thus, inductive arguments are those that
involve probabilistic reasoning.

Example-1: Example-2:

Most African leaders are blacks. Almost all women are mammals.
Mandela was an African leader. Hanan is a woman.
Therefore, probably Mandela was black. Hence, Hanan is a mammal.
Both of the above arguments are inductive. In both of them, the conclusion does not follow from
the premises with strict necessity, but it does follow with some degree of probability. That is, the
conclusion is claimed to follow from the premises only probably; or the premises are claimed to
support their corresponding conclusion with a probability. In other words, if we assume that the
premises are true, then based on that assumption it is probable that the conclusion is true. If we,
for example, assume that most African leaders were blacks and that Mandela was an African
leader, then it is improbable that Mandela not been a black, or it is probable that Mandela was
black. But it is not impossible that Mandela not been a black. Similarly, if we assume that almost
all women are mammals and that Hanan is a woman, then it is improbable that Hanan not be a
mammal, or it is probable that Hanan is a mammal. But it is not impossible that Hanan not be a
mammal. Thus, the above arguments are best interpreted as inductive.

3.3 Differentiating Deductive and Inductive Arguments

Activity # 3: - Dear learners, how do you distinguish a deductive argument from

an inductive argument, and vice versa?

Dear learners, we have said earlier that the distinction between inductive and deductive
arguments lies in the strength of an argument’s inferential claim. In other words, the distinction
lies on how strongly the conclusion is claimed to follow from the premises, or how strongly the
premises are claimed to support the conclusion. However, in most arguments, the strength of this
claim is not explicitly stated, so we must use our interpretative abilities to evaluate it. In the
deciding whether an argument is deductive or inductive, we must look at certain objective
features of the argument.

There are three factors that influence the decision about the deductiveness or inductiveness of an
argument’s inferential claim. These are:

1) The occurrence of special indicator words,

2) The actual strength of the inferential link between premises and conclusion, and
3) The character or form of argumentation the arguers use.

However, we must acknowledge at the outset that many arguments in ordinary language are
incomplete, and because of this, deciding whether the argument should best be interpreted as
deductive or inductive may be impossible. Let us see the above factors in detail in order to
understand and identify the different styles of argumentation.

The first factor that influences our decision about a certain inferential claim is the occurrence of
special indicator words. There are different sort of indicator words that indicate or mark the type
of a certain argument. Arguments may contain some words that indicate the arguer’s certainty
and confidence, or the arguer’s uncertainty or doubt, about the truth of his/her conclusion. Words
like “certainly,’’ “necessarily,” ‘‘absolutely,’’ and ‘‘definitely’’ indicate that the argument
should be taken as deductive, whereas words like, “probable” ‘‘improbable,’’ ‘‘plausible,’’

34
‘‘implausible,’’ ‘‘likely,’’ ‘‘unlikely,’’ and ‘‘reasonable to conclude” suggest that an argument is
inductive. The point is that if an argument draws its conclusion, using either of the deductive
indicator words, it is usually best to interpret it as deductive, but if it draws its conclusion, using
either of the inductive indicator words, it is usually best to interpret it as inductive. (Note that the
phrase ‘‘it must be the case that’’ is ambiguous; ‘‘must’’ can indicate either probability or
necessity).

Deductive and Inductive indicator words often suggest the correct interpretation. However, one
should be cautious about these special indicator words, because if they conflict with one of the
other criteria, we should probably ignore them. For arguers often use phrases such as ‘‘it
certainly follows that’’ for rhetorical purposes to add impact to their conclusion and not to
suggest that the argument be taken as deductive. Similarly, some arguers, not knowing the
distinction between inductive and deductive, will claim to ‘‘deduce’’ a conclusion when their
argument is more correctly interpreted as inductive. If one takes these words at face value, then
one might wrongly leads into wrong conclusions. Therefore, the occurrence of an indicator word
is not a certain guarantee for the deductiveness or inductiveness of an argument unless it is
supported by the other features. This leads us to consider the second factor.

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. If the conclusion
actually does follow with strict necessity from the premises, the argument is clearly deductive. In
such an argument, it is impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion false. If, on the
other hand, the conclusion of an argument does not follow with strict necessity but does follow
probably, it is usually best to interpret it as inductive argument. Consider the following
examples.

Example-1: Example-2:

All Ethiopian people love their country. The majority of Ethiopian people are poor.
Debebe is an Ethiopian. Alamudin is an Ethiopian.
Therefore, Debebe loves his country. Therefore, Alamudin is poor.

In the first example, the conclusion follows with strict necessity from the premises. If we assume
that all Ethiopian people love their country and that Debebe is an Ethiopian, then it is impossible
that Debebe not love his country. Thus, we should interpret this argument as deductive. In the
second example, the conclusion does not follow from the premises with strict necessity, but it
does follow with some degree of probability. If we assume that the premises are true, then based
on that assumption it is probable that the conclusion is true. Thus, it is best to interpret the
second argument as inductive.

Occasionally, an argument contains no special indicator words, and the conclusion does not
follow either necessarily or probably from the premises; in other words, it does not follow at all.

35
This situation points up the need for the third factor to be taken into account, which is the
character or form of argumentation the arguer uses. Let us see some examples of deductive
argumentative forms and inductive argumentative forms.

Instances of Deductive Argumentative Forms

Many arguments have a distinctive character or form that indicates that the premises are
supposed to provide absolute support for the conclusion. Five examples of such forms or kinds of
argumentation are arguments based on mathematics, arguments from definition, and syllogisms:
categorical, hypothetical, and disjunctive syllogisms.

Argument based on mathematics: it is an argument in which the conclusions depend on some

purely arithmetic or geometric computation or measurement. For example, you can put two
orange and three bananas in a bag and conclude that the bag contains five fruits. Or again you
can measure a square pieces of land and after determining it is ten meter on each side conclude
that its area is a hundred square meter. Since all arguments in pure mathematics are deductive,
we can usually consider arguments that depend on mathematics to be deductive as well. A
noteworthy exception, however, is arguments that depend on statistics are usually best
interpreted as inductive.

Arguments based on definition: it is an argument in which the conclusion is claimed to depend

merely up on the definition of some words or phrase used in the premise or conclusion. For
example, one may argue that Angel is honest; it is follows that Angel tells the truth. Or again,
Kebede is a physician; therefore, he is a doctor. These arguments are deductive because their
conclusions follow with necessity from the definitions “honest” and “physician”.

Syllogisms are arguments consisting of exactly two premises and one conclusion. Syllogisms can
be categorized into three groups; categorical, hypothetical, and disjunctive syllogism.
Categorical syllogism: a syllogism is an argument consisting of exactly two premises and one
conclusion. Categorical syllogism is a syllogism in which the statement begins with one of the
words “all”, “no” and “some”.
Example:
All Egyptians are Muslims.
No Muslim is a Christian.
Hence, no Egyptian is a Christian.
Arguments such as these are nearly interpreted as deductive.
Hypothetical syllogism: It is a syllogism having a conditional statement for one or both of its
premises.
Example:
If you study hard, then you will graduate with Distinction.
If you graduate with Distinction, then you will get a rewarding job.
Therefore, if you study hard, then you will get a rewarding job.
Such arguments are best interpreted as deductive.
Disjunctive syllogism: it is a syllogism having a disjunctive statement. (I.e. an “either … or”
statement.)
Example:
Rewina is either Ethiopian or Eritrean.
36
Rewina is not Eritrean.
Therefore, Rewina is Ethiopian.
As with hypothetical syllogism, such arguments are usually best taken as deductive.

Instances of Inductive Argumentative Forms

In general, inductive arguments are such that the content of the conclusion is in some way
intended to “go beyond” the content of the premises. The premises of such an argument typically
deal with some subject that is relatively familiar, and the conclusion then moves beyond this to a
subject that is less familiar or that little is known about. Such an argument may take any of
several forms: predictions about the future, arguments from analogy, inductive generalizations,
arguments from authority, arguments based on signs, and causal inferences, to name just a few.

Prediction: in a prediction the premises deals with some known event in the present or the past
and the conclusions moves beyond this event to some event to relative future. For example, one
may argue that because certain clouds develop in the center of the highland, a rain will fall
within twenty-four hours. Nearly everyone realizes that the future cannot be known with
certainty. Thus, whenever an argument makes a prediction about the future one is usually
justified considering the argument inductive.

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

similarity between two things or state of affairs. Because of the existence of this analogy a
certain conditions that affects the better- known thing or situations is concluded to affect the less
familiar , lesser known-thing or situation. For instance, one may conclude, after observing the
similarity of some features of Computer A and car B: that both are manufactured in 2012; that
both are easy to access; that Computer A is fast in processing; it follows that Computer B is also
fast in processing. This argument depends on the existence of a similarity or analogy between the
two cars. The certitude attending such an inference is obviously probabilistic at best.

An inductive generalization: it is an argument 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
characteristics, it is argued that all members of the group have the same characteristics. For
example, one may argue that because three out of four people in a single prison are black, one
may conclude that three-fourth of prison populations are blacks. This example illustrate the use
of statistics in inductive argumentation.

An argument from authority: it is an argument in which the conclusions rest upon a statement
made by some presumed authority or witness. A lawyer, for instance, may argue that the person
is guilty because an eyewitness testifies to that effect under oath. Or again one may argue that all
matters are made up of a small particles called “quarks” because the University Professor said so.
Because the professor and the eyewitness could be either mistaken or lying, such arguments are
essentially probabilistic.

Arguments based on sign: it is an argument that proceeds from the knowledge of a certain sign
to the knowledge of a thing or situation that the sign symbolizes. For instance, one may infer that
after observing ‘No Parking’ sign posted on the side of a road, the area is not allowed for

37
parking. But because the sign might be displaced or in error about the area or forgotten,
conclusion follows only probably.

A causal inference: it is an argument which proceed from the knowledge of a cause to the
knowledge of an effect, or conversely, from the knowledge of an effect to knowledge of a cause.
For example, from the knowledge that a bottle of water had been accidentally left in the freezer
overnight, someone might conclude that it had frozen (cause to effect). Conversely, after tasting
a piece of chicken and finding it dry and tough, one might conclude that it had been overcooked
(effect to cause). Because specific instances of cause and effect can never be known with
absolute certainty, one may usually interpret such an argument as inductive.

Furthermore Considerations

It should be noted that the various subspecies of inductive arguments listed here are not intended
to be mutually exclusive. Overlaps can and do occur. For example, many causal inferences that
proceed from cause to effect also qualify as predictions. We should take care not to confuse
arguments in geometry, which are always deductive, with arguments from analogy or inductive
generalizations. For example, an argument concluding that a triangle has a certain attribute (such
as a right angle) because another triangle, with which it is congruent, also has that attribute might
be mistaken for an argument from analogy.

One broad classification of arguments not listed in this survey is scientific arguments. Arguments
that occur in science can be either inductive or deductive, depending on the circumstances. In
general, arguments aimed at the discovery of a law of nature are usually considered inductive.

Another type of argument that occurs in science has to do with the application of known laws to
specific circumstances. Arguments of this sort are often considered to be deductive, but only
with certain reservations.

A final point needs to be made about the distinction between inductive and deductive arguments.
There is a tradition extending back to the time of Aristotle that holds that inductive arguments
are those that proceed from the particular to the general, while deductive arguments are those
that proceed from the general to the particular. (A particular statement is one that makes a claim
about one or more particular members of a class, while a general statement makes a claim about
all the members of a class.) In fact, there are deductive arguments that proceed from the general
to the general, from the particular to the particular, and from the particular to the general, as well
as from the general to the particular; and there are inductive arguments that do the same. For
example, here is a deductive argument that proceeds from the particular to the general:
Three is a prime number.
Five is a prime number.
Seven is a prime number.
Therefore, all odd numbers between two and eight are prime numbers.
Here is an inductive argument that proceeds from the general to the particular:
All emeralds previously found have been green.
Therefore, the next emerald to be found will be green.

38
In sum up, to distinguish deductive arguments from inductive, we look for special indicator
words, the actual strength of the inferential link between premises and conclusion, and the
character or form of argumentation.

Lesson 4: Evaluating Arguments

Lesson Overview

In our previous lesson, we have seen that every argument makes two basic claims: a claim that
evidence or reasons exist and a claim that the alleged evidence or reasons support something (or
that something follows from the alleged evidence or reasons). The first is a factual claim, and the
second is an inferential claim. The evaluation of every argument centers on the evaluation of
these two claims. The most important of the two is the inferential claim, because if the premises
fail to support the conclusion (that is, if the reasoning is bad), an argument is worthless. Thus, we
will always test the inferential claim first, and only if the premises do support the conclusion will we test
the factual claim (that is, the claim that the premises present genuine evidence, or are true). In this
lesson, we will be introduced with the central ideas and terminologies required to evaluate
arguments. And the primary purpose of this lesson is to introduce you with the natures of good
arguments both in deductive and inductive arguments. Hence, you will learn effective techniques
and strategies for evaluating arguments.

4.1 Evaluating Deductive Arguments: Validity, Truth, and Soundness

Activity # 1: - Dear learners, how do you think are validity and soundness? How
do you think are the validity and soundness of a deductive
argument evaluated?

Deduction and Validity

The previous section defined a deductive argument as one in which the premises are claimed to
support the conclusion in such a way that if they are assumed true, it is impossible for the
conclusions to be false. If the premises do in fact support the conclusions in this way the
arguments is said to be valid; if not, it is invalid. Thus, a valid deductive argument is an
argument such that if the premises are assumed true, it is impossible for the conclusion to be
false. In such arguments, the conclusion follows with strict necessity from the premises.
Conversely, an invalid deductive argument is an argument such that if the premises are assumed
true, it is possible for the conclusion to be false. In these arguments, the conclusion does not
follow with strict necessity from the premises, even though it is claimed to. Consider the
following examples:

Example-1: Example-2:

All men are mammals. All philosophers are rational.

All bulls are men. Socrates was rational.
Therefore, all bulls are mammals. Therefore, Socrates was a philosopher.

39
The first example is valid argument, because the conclusion actually followed from the premises
with a strict necessity. If all men are assumed as mammals and bulls as men, then it is impossible
for bulls not be mammals. Hence, the argument is valid. The second example is invalid
argument, because the conclusion did not actually follow from the premises with a strict
necessity, even though it is claimed to. That is, even if we assume that all philosophers rational
and Socrates is rational, it is not actually impossible for Socrates not be a philosopher.

The above definitions of valid and invalid arguments, along with their corresponding examples,
lead us into two immediate conclusions. The first is that there is no middle ground between valid
and invalid. An argument is either valid or invalid. The second consequence is that there is only
an indirect relation between validity and truth. For an argument to be valid it is not necessary that
either the premises or the conclusions be true, but merely that if the premises assumed true, it is
impossible for the conclusion be false. That is, we do not have to know whether the premise of an
argument is actually true in order to determine its validity (valid or invalid). To test an argument
for validity, we begin by assuming that all premises are true, and then we determine if it is
possible, in light of that assumption, for the conclusion to be false. Thus, the validity of argument
is the connection between premise and conclusion rather than on the actual truth or falsity of the
statement formed the argument.
There are four possibilities with respect to the truth or falsity of the premises and conclusion of a
given argument:
1) True premises and True conclusion,
2) True premises and False conclusion,
3) False premises and True conclusion, and
4) False premises and False conclusion.
Note that all of the above possibilities, except the second case (true premises and false
conclusion), allow for both valid and invalid arguments. That is, the second case does not allow
for valid arguments. As we have just seen, any argument having this combination is necessarily
invalid. Let us discuss these possibilities in detail with examples.

Validity and Truth Value

Possibility # 1: A combination of True premises and True conclusion (the first case) allows for
both valid and invalid arguments. Consider the following examples:
Example-1 (Valid): Example-2 (Invalid):
All women are mammals. (Tp) All philosophers are critical thinkers. (Tp)
My mother is a mammal. (Tp) Plato was a critical thinker. (Tp)
Therefore, my mother is a woman. (Tc) Therefore, Plato was a philosopher. (Tc)
Based on the features of valid and invalid arguments, the above two examples, each of which
combine True premises and True conclusion, are valid argument and invalid argument,
respectively. Therefore, the first combination allows for both valid and invalid arguments.
Possibility # 2: A combination of True premises and false conclusion (the second case) allows
only for invalid arguments. Consider the following example:
Example-1 (Invalid):
All biologists are scientists. (Tp)
John Nash was a scientist. (Tp)
Therefore, John Nash was a biologist. (Fc)
Based on the features of validity, the above example, which combines True premises and False
conclusion, is an invalid argument. A valid argument with such combination does not exist. Any

40
deductive argument having actually true premises and an actually false conclusion is invalid,
because if the premises are actually true and the conclusion is actually false, then it certainly is
possible for the premises to be true and the conclusion false. Thus, by definition, the argument is
invalid. After all such combinations are contrary to the inferential claim of a deductive argument:
if the premises are assumed to be true, then it is impossible for the conclusion to be false.
Therefore, the second combination allows only for invalid arguments.

Possibility # 3: A combination of False premises and True conclusion (the third case) allows for
both valid and invalid arguments. Consider the following examples:

Example-1 (Valid): Example-2 (Invalid):

All birds are mammals. (Fp) All birds are mammals. (Fp)
All women are birds. (Fp) All ostriches are mammals. (Fp)
Therefore, all women are mammals. (Tc) Therefore, all ostriches are birds. (Tc)

Based on the features of valid and invalid arguments, the above two examples, each of which
combine False premises and True conclusion, are valid argument and invalid argument,
respectively. Therefore, the third combination, as the first one, allows for both valid and invalid
arguments.

Possibility # 4: A combination of False premises and False conclusion (the fourth case) allows
for both valid and invalid arguments. Consider the following examples:

Example-1 (Valid): Example-2 (Invalid):

All Americans are Ethiopians. (Fp) All birds are mammals. (Fp)
All Egyptians are Americans. (Fp) All ants are mammals. (Fp)
Thus, all Egyptians are Ethiopians. (Fc) Therefore, all ants are birds. (Fc)

Based on the features of valid and invalid arguments, the above two examples, each of which
combine False premises and False conclusion, are valid argument and invalid argument,
respectively. Therefore, the fourth combination also allows for both valid and invalid arguments.

In general, the basic idea of evaluating deductive argument, validity (valid and invalid) is not
something that is determined by the actual truth or falsity of the premises and conclusion. Rather,
validity is something that is determined by the relationship between premises and conclusion.
The question is not whether premises and conclusion are true or false, but whether the premises
support the conclusion. Nevertheless, there is one arrangement of truth and falsity in the
premises and conclusion that does determine the issue of validity. Any deductive argument
having actually true premises and an actually false conclusion is invalid for the reason given
above. The idea that any deductive argument having actually true premises and a false
conclusion is invalid may be the most important point in the entire system of deductive logic.

41
The entire system of deductive logic would be quite useless if it accepted as valid any inferential
process by which a person could start with truth in the premises and arrive at falsity in the
conclusion.

The relationship between the validity of a deductive argument and the truth and falsity of its
premises and conclusions summarized as follows.
Table 1.1
Premises Conclusion Validity
True True Valid/invalid
True False Invalid
False True Valid/invalid
False False Valid/invalid

Deduction and Soundness

We said earlier that the evaluation of every argument centers on the evaluation of two claims: the
inferential claim and factual claim of the argument. We have also said that we will always test the
inferential claim first, and only if the premises do support the conclusion will we test the factual claim
(that is, the claim that the premises present genuine evidence, or are true). Now that we have tested the
inferential claims of deductive arguments, it is time to proceed to the next step: evaluating the
factual claims of deductive arguments.

Depending on their actual ability, (assuming that they already have actually accomplished their
inferential claims by being valid), to accomplish their factual claims, deductive arguments can be
either sound or unsound. A sound argument is a deductive argument that is valid and has all true
premises. Both conditions must be met for an argument to be sound, and if either is missing the
argument is unsound. A deductive argument that does not actually accomplish its inferential
claim, (that is not valid), cannot be sound, regardless of the truth values of its premises. Such a
deductive argument is unsound, by definition. Thus, an unsound argument is a deductive
argument that is either valid with one or more false premises, or invalid, or both. Because a valid
argument is one such that it is impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion false,
and because a sound argument does in fact have true premises, it follows that every sound
argument, by definition, will have a true conclusion as well. A sound argument, therefore, is
what is meant by a ‘‘good’’ deductive argument in the fullest sense of the term.
Sound Argument = A valid argument + All true premises

Sound Argument = A valid argument + All true premises

4.2. Evaluating Inductive Arguments: Strength, Truth, and Cogency

Activity # 2: - Dear learners, how do you think are strength and cogency? How
do you think are the strength and cogency of an inductive argument evaluated?

42
Induction and Strength
The previous section defined an inductive argument as one in which the premises are claimed to
support the conclusions in such a way that if they are assumed true, it is improbable for the
conclusions to be false. If the premises do in fact support the conclusions in this way the
arguments is said to be strong; if not, it is weak. Thus, a strong inductive argument is an
argument such that if the premises are assumed true, it is improbable for the conclusion to be
false. In such arguments, the conclusion follows probably from the premises. Conversely, a weak
inductive argument is an argument such that if the premises are assumed true, it is probable for
the conclusions to be false. In these arguments, the conclusion does not follow probably from the
premises, even though it is claimed to. Consider the following examples:
Example-1: Example-2:
This barrel contains one hundred apples. This barrel contains one hundred apples.
Eighty apples selected at random were Three apples selected at random were found
found tasty. tasty.
Therefore, probably all one hundred apples Therefore, probably all one hundred apples
are tasty. are tasty.

The first example is strong argument, because the conclusion actually follows probably from the
premises. The second example is weak argument, because the conclusion does not actually
follow probably from the premises, even though it is claimed to. The procedure for testing the
strength of inductive arguments runs parallel to the procedure for deduction.

Strength and Truth Value

Just as what happened from definitions and examples of valid and invalid arguments earlier, two
immediate conclusions follow from the above definitions and examples of strong and weak
arguments. The first is that, unlike the validity and invalidity of deductive arguments, the
strength and weakness of inductive arguments admit certain form of degrees. To be considered
strong, an inductive argument must have a conclusion that is more probable than improbable. In
inductive arguments, there is no absolutely strong nor absolutely weak argument. For instance,
the first is not absolutely weak nor the second absolutely strong. Both arguments would be
strengthened or weakened by the random selection of a larger or smaller sample. The
incorporation of additional premises into inductive arguments will also generally tend to strength
or weaken it. For example, if the premise “one un-tasty apple that had been found earlier was
removed” were added to the second argument, the argument would presumably be weakened.

The second consequence is that, as validity and invalidity, strength and weakness are only
indirectly related to the truth values of their premises. The central question in determining
strength or weakness is whether the conclusion would probably true if the premises are assumed
true. For an argument to be strong it is not necessary that either the premises or the conclusions
be true, but merely that if the premises assumed true, it is improbable for the conclusion be false.
That is, we do not have to know whether the premise of an argument is actually true in order to
determine its strength (strong or weak). To test an argument for strength, what we need to do is
to assume the premise true and then to see whether the conclusion follows more/less probably

43
from the premise. Thus, the strength or weakness of an inductive argument results not from the
actual truth or falsity of the premises and conclusion, but from the probabilistic support the
premises give to the conclusion. We have said earlier that there are four possibilities with respect
to the truth or falsity of the premises and conclusion of a given argument: True premises and
True conclusion, True premises and False conclusion, False premises and True conclusion, and
False premises and False conclusion. These possibilities work in inductive arguments as well.

Note that all of the above possibilities, except the second case (true premises and false
conclusion), allow for both strong and weak arguments. That is, the second case does not allow
for strong arguments. As we have just seen, any argument having this combination is necessarily
weak.

In general, the basic idea of evaluating inductive argument, strength is not something that is
determined by the actual truth or falsity of the premises and conclusion, but by the relationship
between premises and conclusion. Nevertheless, there is one arrangement of truth and falsity in
the premises and conclusion that does determine the issue of strength. Thus, any inductive
argument having actually true premises and an actually false conclusion is weak. The
relationship between the strength of an inductive argument and the truth and falsity of its
premises and conclusions summarized as follows.

Table 1.2:
Premises Conclusion Strength
True True Strong/Weak
True False Weak
False True Strong/Weak
False False Strong/Weak

Induction and Cogency

We said earlier that the evaluation of every argument centers on the evaluation of two claims: the
inferential claim and factual claim of the argument. We have also said that we will always test the
inferential claim first, and only if the premises do support the conclusion will we test the factual claim
(that is, the claim that the premises present genuine evidence, or are true). Now that we have tested the
inferential claims of inductive arguments, it is time to proceed to the next step: evaluating the
factual claims of inductive arguments.
Depending on their actual ability, (assuming that they already have actually accomplished their
inferential claims by being strong), to accomplish their factual claims, inductive arguments can
be either cogent or uncogent. A cogent argument is an inductive argument that is strong and has
all true premises. Both conditions must be met for an argument to be cogent, and if either is
missing the argument is uncogent. An inductive argument that does not actually accomplish its
inferential claim, (that is not strong), cannot be cogent, regardless of the truth values of its
premises. Such an inductive argument is uncogent, by definition. Thus, an uncogent argument is
an inductive argument that is either strong with one or more false premises, or weak, or both.
Because the conclusion of a cogent argument is genuinely supported by true premises, it follows
that the conclusion of every cogent argument is probably true. A cogent argument is the
inductive analogue of a sound deductive argument and is what is meant by a ‘‘good’’ inductive
argument without qualification.

Cogent Argument = A strong argument + All true premises

44
There is a difference, however, between sound and cogent arguments in regard to the true-premise
requirement. In a sound argument, it is only necessary that the premises be true and nothing more. Given
such premises and good reasoning, a true conclusion is guaranteed. In a cogent argument, on the other
hand, the premises must not only be true, they must also not ignore some important piece of evidence that
outweighs the given evidence and entails a quite different conclusion. That is, if the premises reflect all
the important factors, then the argument is cogent; if not, then obviously the argument is not cogent.
Thus, for cogency, the premises must not only be true but also not overlook some important factor that
outweighs the given evidence and requires a different conclusion.

Chapter Summary

Logic is a science that evaluates arguments; and takes argumentation and reasoning as its
primary subject of study. The primary 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 study of logic increases students’ confidence to criticize
the arguments of others and advance arguments of their own. An argument is a systematic
combination of one or more than one premises and one and only conclusion. A premise is a
statement, which is claimed to provide a logical support or evidence to a single another
statement, called conclusion. Conclusion is a statement, which is claimed to logically drawn
from the alleged evidence. An argument can be either good or bad argument, depending on the
logical ability of its premise(s) to support its conclusion.

Not all passages, however, contain an argument. In deciding whether a passage contains an
argument, you should look for three things: (1) indicator words: premise or conclusion indicator
words; (2) an inferential relationship between the premises and conclusion; and (3) typical kinds
of non-arguments. But remember that the mere occurrence of an indicator word does not
guarantee the presence of an argument. You must check whether the statement identified as the
conclusion is claimed to be supported by one or more of the other statements. It is also important
to keep in mind that in many arguments that lack indicator words, the conclusion is the first
statement. Furthermore, it helps to mentally insert the word “therefore” before the various
statements before deciding that a statement should be interpreted as a conclusion.

Arguments are generally divided into two: deductive arguments and inductive arguments. A deductive
argument is an argument in which the premises are claimed to support the conclusion in such a way that if
they are assumed true, it is impossible for the conclusions to be false. An inductive argument is an
argument in which the premises are claimed to support the conclusion in such a way that if they are
assumed true, it is improbable for the conclusions to be false. To distinguish deductive arguments from
inductive arguments, or vice versa, we look for: (1) special indicator words, (2) the actual strength of the
inferential link between premises and conclusion, and (3) the character or form of argumentation. If the
conclusion follows with strict necessity from the premises, the argument is always deductive; if not, it
could be either deductive or inductive depending on the other factors.

To evaluate an argument’s actual accomplishment of its inferential and factual claims, two separate
questions need to be answered: first, do the premises support the conclusion? Second, are all the premises
true? To answer the first question, we begin by assuming the premises true. Then, for deductive
arguments, we determine whether, in light of this assumption, it necessarily follows that the conclusion is
true. If it does, the argument is valid; if not, it is invalid. For inductive arguments, we determine whether
it probably follows that the conclusion is true. If it does, the argument is strong; if not, it is weak. Finally,
if the argument is either valid or strong, we turn to the second question and determine whether the
premises are actually true. If all the premises are true, the argument is sound (in the case of deduction) or
cogent (in the case of induction). All invalid deductive arguments are unsound, and all weak inductive
arguments are uncogent.

45
Self Check Exercise
1. Define the following terms: Logic, Argument, Premise, Conclusion.
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
2. Explain how we can distinguish argumentative passages from no-argumentative passages.
_________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
3. Explain the meaning and functions of inferential and factual claims.
______________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
4. Discuss briefly the similarities and differences between deductive and inductive
arguments. Support your discussion with your own examples.
______________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________

5. Explain how we can distinguish deductive arguments from inductive arguments, and vice
versa.
_________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
6. Discuss briefly the similarities and differences between valid and invalid arguments, and
sound and unsound arguments. Support your discussion with your own examples.
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
7. Discuss briefly the similarities and differences between strong and weak arguments, and
cogent and uncogent arguments. Support your discussion with your own examples.
______________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
8. Discuss briefly the similarities and differences between sound and cogent arguments.
Support your discussion with your own examples.
______________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
References
Textbooks
Hurley, Patrick J. (2014) A Concise Introduction to Logic, 12th Edition, Wadsworth, Cengage
Learning.
Hurley, Patrick J. (2012) A Concise Introduction to Logic, 11th Edition, Wadsworth, Cengage
Learning.
Reference Books
Copi, Irving M.and Carl Cohen, (1990) Introduction to Logic, New York: Macmillan Publishing
Company.
Damer, Edward. (2005). Attacking faulty reasoning. A practical guide to fallacy free argument.
Wadsworth Cengage learning, USA.
Fogelin, Robert, J, (1987) Understanding Arguments: An Introduction to Informal Logic, New York:
Harcourt Brace Jvanovich Publisher.
Guttenplan, Samuel: (1991) The Language of Logic. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers
Simico, N.D and G.G James. (1983) Elementary Logic, Belmont, Ca: Wadsworth Publishing Company.
Stephen, C. (200) The Power of Logic. London and Toronto: Mayfield Publishing Company.
Walelign, Emuru, (2009) Freshman Logic, Addis Ababa.

46