TABLE OF CONTENTS

TITLE PAGE
Lesson 1.1. What is Logic?.............................................................................................1
1.1.1 The subject Matter of Logic..................................................................................4
1.1.2. The purposes of Logic...........................................................................................6
Lesson 1.2. A Brief History of the Development of Logic............................................7
Lesson 1.3. The Laws of Thought..................................................................................8
UNIT -2.............................................................................11
THE NATURE OF ARGUMENT..................................11
Lesson 2.1. Argument, Premise and Conclusion...........................................................11
2.1.1 Recognizing Argument.........................................................................................15
2.1.2 Non-Argument Forms of Expression....................................................................16
Lesson 2.2. Explanation, Illustration and Expository Passage......................................17
Lesson 2.3. Deductive and Inductive Arguments..........................................................18
Lesson 2.4. Identifying Deductive and Inductive Argument.........................................19
Lesson 2.5. Validity, Truth, Soundness, Strength and Cogency...................................22
UNIT -3.............................................................................27
LANGUAGE: MEANING AND DEFINITION...........27
Lesson 3.1 Functions of Language.............................................................................28
Lesson 3.2. Cognitive Meaning and Emotive Meaning................................................28
Lesson 3.3. The Intension and Extension of Terms.......................................................31
Lesson 3.4. Definitions and Their Purpose....................................................................34
Lesson 3.5. Definitional Techniques.............................................................................38
Lesson 3.6. Rules (Criteria) for Definition....................................................................41
UNIT -4.............................................................................46
INFORMAL FALLACIES.............................................46
Fallacies in general........................................................................................................47
Lesson 4.1. Fallacy of Relevance.................................................................................47
Lesson 4.2 Fallacies of Weak Induction........................................................................52
Lesson 4.3. Fallacy of Presumption...............................................................................54
Lesson 4. 4. Fallacies of Ambiguity..............................................................................58
Lesson 4.5. Fallacy of Grammatical Analogy...............................................................58
UNIT -5.............................................................................60
CATEGORICAL PROPOSITIONS..............................60
Lesson 5.1. The Components of Categorical Proposition.............................................60
Lesson 5.2 Quality, Quantity, and Distribution.............................................................63
Lesson 5.3 Venn Diagrams and the Modern Square Of Opposition......................66
Lesson 5.4. Categorical Operations: Conversion, Obversion, and Contrapostion........74
Lesson 5.5. Translating Ordinary Language statements Into Categorical Form...........81
Lesson 5.6. Adverbs and Pronouns................................................................................83

BDU-DEPARTMENT OF CIVICS AND ETHICAL EDUCATION i

UNIT -6.............................................................................90
CATEGORICAL SYLLOGISM....................................90
Lesson 6.1. Standard Form............................................................................................90
Lesson 6.2 Venn Diagrams............................................................................................91
Lesson 6.3. Rules and Fallacies.....................................................................................96
Lesson 6. 4. Ordinary Language Arguments.................................................................98
Lesson 6.5. Sorties.......................................................................................................100
References....................................................................................................................104

BDU-DEPARTMENT OF CIVICS AND ETHICAL EDUCATION ii

 UNIT-1 INTRODUCTION

UNIT-1

INTRODUCTION

Lesson 1.1. What is Logic?.............................................................................................1

1.1.1 The subject Matter of Logic.................................................................................. 4
1.1.2. The purposes of Logic........................................................................................... 5
Lesson 1.2. A Brief History of the Development of Logic............................................ 7
Lesson 1.3. The Laws of Thought.................................................................................. 8

This unit is divided in to three main sections. These are definition of logic, history of
logic and the fundamental lows of logic.

The first lesson focuses on the definition of logic its subject matter and significance of
logic. It tries to explain etymological definition of logic along with different branches of
philosophy for logic is one of the branches of philosophy. Moreover, this section clarifies
that the concern of logic is all about and indicates its importance in both personal and
social lives.

The second lesson tries to present a short history of the development of logic and the
third lesson discusses the three laws of thought- the law of non-contradiction, excluded
middle, and identity- which are perceived as the fundamental rules of right thinking.

Objectives
After reading unit 1, you will be able to:
 Know what logic is
 know what the subject matter of logic is
 recognize the role of logic in scientific investigations
 discuss the significance of logic in day-to-day social life.
 distinguish good argument from bad ones
 construct good arguments
 recognize the importance of good argument
 recognize the laws of thought.

It is customary to begin introducing any subject with the discussion of its subject matter
and the object of its study. Accordingly, this module begins by introducing the
definition of the science of logic.

Lesson 1.1. What is Logic?

Objectives: After reading this lesson, you will be able to:

 define what logic is
 familiarized with branches of philosophy
 discuss the role of logic as science & art

A. Etymological Definition

BDU-DEPARTMENT OF CIVICS AND ETHICAL EDUCATION 1

 UNIT-1 INTRODUCTION

Dear Learners -Etymological definition is a definition that provides a meaning to a given

term based on the word's ancestor, root or original word in both its own language and
other languages.

The term "Logic" is derived from the Greek work "logos" which means reason, word (life
giving word), thought, principle, law, etc. Thereby, logic is the science of the rules of
reasoning and the forms in which it occurs.
Reasoning implies the process of passing from something given to something unknown.
The given aspect of reasoning is known as the 'premise' or 'premises', and the unknown
which is ultimately discovered, is known as conclusion. Knowing the laws of correct
reasoning will be a great help in avoiding errors and in the search for truth. Hence, logic
can be defined as the science of those principles, laws and methods which the mind of
man in its thinking must follow for the accurate and secure treatment of truth.

B. Logic as Branch of Philosophy

Philosophy may be considered as the parent science, in that it has given birth to other
natural, physical and social sciences. It was an integral science uniting all basic
specialized natural and social sciences that we know today.
These disciplines continue to provide philosophy with a rich abundance of
contemporary issues, questions that they themselves are unable to answer. It is both
independent of other disciplines and embedded in their foundations and ongoing
activities.

What, then, is philosophy? It is difficult to define philosophy. One thing that makes
defining philosophy tough is that it lacks distinct subject matter. Biology, botany,
physics, economics, political science- all deal with a specific body of subjects. If you
asked botanists, physicists, psychology, or economists what their studies dealt with,
they probably could answer without too much disagreement. Not so with philosophy.
Philosophers often disagree on their subject matter. One reason is that philosophy deals
more with issues than with specific subjects. Issues make up the content of philosophy.
While some issues have remained throughout the development of philosophical
thought, many have not. Some have faded with the passage of time or have become part
of the subject matter of other disciplines, such as physics or psychology. What's more,
even those issues that have remained in the province of philosophy have changed as
various thinkers and ages have considered them.

Nevertheless, philosophy can be defined based on its original word. The word
philosophy is derived from the two Greek words philo, which means love, and sophia,
which means wisdom. Thereby, philosophy literally means " love of wisdom."

Working definition: Philosophy is the attempt to think relationally and critically about
the most important questions. It is the study of the most fundamental and general
concepts and principles involved in thought, action and reality.

There are five major branches or fields of philosophy. They are: Metaphysics,
Epistemology, Aesthetics, Ethics and Logic.

BDU-DEPARTMENT OF CIVICS AND ETHICAL EDUCATION 2

 UNIT-1 INTRODUCTION

1. Metaphysics: deals with reality in general. Some of the questions of metaphysics

are: What is reality? Is reality some kind of "thing"? Is it one or is it many? Can
ultimate reality be grasped by the five senses, or is it supernatural or
transcendent? And soon.
2. Epistemology: is the study of knowledge. Questions of epistemology are: What
is knowledge? What does it mean, "to know"? How is knowledge acquired?
What, if any thing, do the senses contribute to knowledge? What does reason
contribute? And so on.
3. Aesthetics: deals with art and beauty. It raises the questions: What is art? It
addressees such issues as the relation of beauty to art, whether there can be any
objective standards by which artistic works may be judged (or is beauty in the
eye of the beholder?), and the connection between art, reality and truth.
4. Ethics: is concerned with a particular sort of value, namely, value as it applies
to personal actions, decisions and relations, It is concerned with moral values, It
raises questions such as what is morally good? What is right? Are there absolute
or universal moral principles?
5. Logic: deals with the formulation of the principle of right reasoning.
Traditionally logic stands in a somewhat different relation to the philosophy than
the other fields do. The other fields suggest something that is studied by the
philosopher such a reality, knowledge, value, etc, Logic is a tool which
philosophers employ as they set about to investigate these issues.

 Logic is both a science and an art. As a science logic investigates, develops and
systematizes principles and methods that can be used to distinguish between
correct and incorrect reasoning. It formulates laws and principles to which
thoughts must conform in order to be valid. Logic is a normative science. It
deals not with thoughts as they are, but as they should be. It is the science of
understanding in the pursuit of truth.

 Logic is also defined as the science of formal laws of thought. It has been called
as the science of sciences. The subject-matter of every science is different, but all
the sciences are based on the general laws of valid thought or principles of
correct reasoning or argument. Every science must be logical in its approach.
Thus, logic provides the common basis of all sciences.

 Logic is also an art. An art deals with the applied aspect of knowledge. Art
teaches to do and science teaches to know systematically. As an art logic can be
equated with "logical ability" and includes a whole family of related skills that
have many applications. Among those applications are problem solving,
weighing evidence, marshaling evidence and constructing arguments for or
against a disputed proposition, analyzing a problem into components that may
usefully be dealt with separately, detecting and exposing mistakes in reasoning
(including one's own), and clarifying issues, often through defining or
redefining the key terms on which disputes frequently turn.

 Logic is an art because it lies down certain rules for the attainment of truth and
elimination of errors. In fact, logic is the art of all arts. All arts follow the rules

BDU-DEPARTMENT OF CIVICS AND ETHICAL EDUCATION 3

 UNIT-1 INTRODUCTION

for the attainment of truth in general. As the art of correct reasoning, logic
becomes the common basis, and directs all other arts.
In summary, logic as a science and as a branch of philosophy can be defined as follows:

Logic, as a science, is the study of rules, which pertains to certain important kind of
inferences (process of reasoning) and deals with those methods and principles used to
distinguish correct reasoning from incorrect reasoning. Therefore, as a branch of
philosophy, logic is a discipline that deals with the principles that govern correct
reasoning and the thought process that moves from given evidence to a certain
conclusion.

Activity 1.1.1. What does it mean when you say logic is a normative science. Can you
explain the difference between normative and descriptive science?

1.1.1 The subject Matter of Logic

Objectives
After reading this section, you will be able to:
 define what the concern of logic is
 know how to formulate qualified arguments
 discuss importance of good arguments
 recognize criteria of good argument

What is the subject Matter of Logic?

The subject matter of logic is reasoning. Its concern is to distinguish good reasoning
from bad, or better from worse. Logic lays down certain principles by which one can
judge the validity of an argument or reasoning. It tries to investigate systematically the
conditions of valid thoughts. The aim of logic thus is to develop a system of methods
and principles that we may use as criteria for evaluating the argument of others and as
guides in constructing arguments of our own. Validity implies self -consistency, i.e.
absence of self contradiction. A valid reasoning conforms to the rules of correct
reasoning.

Note that the definition of argument (premise & conclusion), and the validity of
arguments will be discussed in the next lesson.

We need to learn not only the techniques of distinguishing bad arguments from good
ones but also how to construct good arguments. There are a number of practical reasons
why it is important to formulate quality arguments and to expect others to do the same.
Some of them are:

(a) Good arguments help us to make better personal decisions. Indeed, there is reason to
believe that those who use reasonable methods in all aspects of their lives have a better
chance of success in achieving their goals or completing their projects.
(b) Good arguments promote our general interests in holding only those views that we
have reason to believe are true or defensive ones. If we demand good arguments of

BDU-DEPARTMENT OF CIVICS AND ETHICAL EDUCATION 4

 UNIT-1 INTRODUCTION

ourselves, that demand will lead us to new and better ideas, reinforce the strength of our
present beliefs, and expose weaknesses that might lead to qualification or abandonment
of those beliefs.
(c) The use of arguments raises the level of thinking and discussion in social, business,
and personal contexts. Good arguments are usually more effective in trying to convince
others point of view than methods such as fear, intimidation, social pressure, or
emotional bribery.
(d) The method of argument is a nonviolent way to resolve personal disputes or to settle
conflicts.
(e) By examining opponent's arguments, one is better able to understand his or her ideas
and thinking processes and to discover weaknesses that make that arguer's position
more vulnerable to be attacked
(f) Good arguments play an important role in helping us to make moral decisions. Note
only do they help us to decide what positive action to take but also to avoid actions with
harmful results. False beliefs, to which fallacious arguments sometimes lead, blur our
moral vision and often issues actions that cause considerable harm to others. Since each
of us is responsible for the consequences of our actions, it is important that we base our
beliefs and decisions on the conclusions of good arguments.

There are four general criteria of a good argument. A good argument must have
premises that are relevant to the truth of the conclusion, premises that are acceptable,
premises that together constitute sufficient grounds for the truth of conclusion, and
premises that anticipate and provide an effective rebuttal to all reasonable challenges to
the argument or to the position supported by it. An argument that meets all of these
conditions is a good one, and its conclusion should be accepted. If an argument fails to
satisfy these conditions, it is probably a flawed one. In other words, fallacy is committed
when these criteria are violated. Note that chapter 4 focuses on different kinds of
fallacies in detail.

We, human beings, are rational animals. This is one of the qualities which distinguish
human beings from other animals. This implies that every body thinks and thinking is
natural. Moreover, people started to implement logical thinking even before logic was
invented as a discipline. So, what is new about logic? What is the benefit of studying
logic?

It is clear that since thinking or reasoning is natural, logic could not teach us how to
think or how to reason. But logic can teach us only how to reason correctly by providing
those methods and laws that would help us to develop correct reasoning. Although
reasoning is natural, correct reasoning and the techniques, methods, principles and laws
used to develop correct reasoning can be acquired through learning. In the next section
the significance of logic will be dealt.

Activity 1.1.1. Explain the benefits of good arguments?

1.1.2. The purposes of Logic

Objective

BDU-DEPARTMENT OF CIVICS AND ETHICAL EDUCATION 5

 UNIT-1 INTRODUCTION

After reading this lesson, you will be able to:

 define what the benefits of logic are
 discuss how much logical skills are important in social life
 discuss to what extent logic is significant in you thinking, speaking and
writing.

What is the Purpose of Logic?

Dear learners, what benefits may be expected from the study of logic? As students of
law, in order to make your argument, positions, and pronouncements rational, that is
well-conceived, well-evidenced, well-stated and persuasive, it is important to study the
philosophical discipline. Logic, and pay attention to its rules of inference. Wherever
people debate, discuss and argue logic is a court of appeal in the background; whenever
a people debates a matter in their own mind, a silent logic arbitrates. No body in his/her
senses will willingly and persistently defy a clear verdict by logic. Whoever sets out to
break logic, as has been said, logic will break him/her. So it is important to develop
logical skills to achieve its goal. And that is why for many centuries the study of logic
was an essential preliminary of higher education and it has left a deep and lasting mark
on the language and outlook of cultured men. Above all thinking critically is not easy
work and it does not always come naturally. So, learning the science of logic would
create this opportunity and it would give us several benefits in both personal and social
lives.

Some of the benefits that one can get from the study of logic are
 The skill need to construct sound arguments of one's own and to evaluate the
arguments of others. This skill is the most immediate benefit derived from
the study of logic.
 Logic contributes to the development of our reasonableness, that is, it helps us to
rid ourselves from being passionate for good reasoning are usually more
effective in trying to convince others reasonably than are methods such as
intimidation, fear or emotional bribery.
 Logic trains the mind to draw the right conclusion and to avoid the wrong to
make the true inference and not the false
 By focusing attention on the requirement for reasons or evidence to support our
views, logic provides a fundamental defense against the prejudice and
uncivilized attitudes that threaten the foundation of our society.
 Through its analysis of inconsistency as a fatal flaw in any theory or point of
view, logic proves a useful device in disclosing ill-conceived policies, in the
political sphere and, ultimately, in distinguishing the rational from irrational,
the sane from the insane.
 Logical skills can protect us from being unduly influenced by media
commercials, slanted "news" stories and politicians' promises.
 Logic helps us in weighing pros and cons, and in sifting evidence. It help us
develop some of the skills required to from intelligent opinions, make good
decisions, and determine the best courses of action as well as recognize when
some one else's reasoning is faulty or manipulative.

BDU-DEPARTMENT OF CIVICS AND ETHICAL EDUCATION 6

 UNIT-1 INTRODUCTION

 Not only our thinking, but our speaking and writing should benefit; they should
gain in clarity, precision and firmness; the lack of logic shows itself in the
'deficiency diseases' of the mind such as vagueness, woolliness of expression,
and feeble grip of the matter in hand.
 College and University students should learn logic. Because, students could get
assistance from the course to assimilate the diversity of information with
which they are confronted in the study of various disciplines. It helps them to
distinguish the important from the trivial, and to take critical view of the
definitions given in several books.
 Logic helps us to improve the quality of our reasoning and above all it provides
confidence in constructing blameless arguments of our own and in raising
good judgments and evaluation of the of the arguments of others.

Activity 1.1.2.1
 Discuss the assertion "Whoever sets out the break logic, logic will break
him/her."
 Argue for or against the following assertion "Reason is for Europeans,
emotion is for Africans." - Senghor

Lesson 1.2. A Brief History of the Development of Logic

Objective
After reading this section, you will able to:
 know the historical development of logic

When did the science of logic begin?

The study of logic began in ancient Greece when the set to work to master the building
principles of discourse. Its demand arose in ancient Greece from the sophistic movement
in the middle of 5th century B.C. The sophists ( Protagoras, Gorgias and Thrasymachus )
were the pioneers of higher education. Such as grammar and rhetoric, i.e. the art of
persuasive speech, and they taught required rules for regulating discussion and
formulating agreed conclusions. Thus, logic supplied the rules taking up where
grammar left off.

A glimmer of logic is found in Plato's work (Ca. 428-Ca. 348 B.C.); but, by and large, the
science of logic was founded by the ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle (384-322 B.C) in
the middle of 4th century B.C. He is considered as the father of logic. Aristotle was one
of the greatest thinkers of all time, and he wrote on most of the sciences, known in his
days. His writings on logic include, (1) the Prior Analytics, which deals mainly with the
formal aspect of syllogistic reasoning ( which will be discussed in sections 5) , (2) the
Posterior Analytics, which treats of deeper problems of inference, and (3) the Topics,
which deals with the technique of establishing and refuting arguments. These works
received the title of 'Aristotle's Organon' Which means instrument; for logic is not an
end in itself, but is a means or instrument for fitting the mind to acquire knowledge in
any branch of science.

BDU-DEPARTMENT OF CIVICS AND ETHICAL EDUCATION 7

 UNIT-1 INTRODUCTION

After Aristotle's death, another Greek philosopher, Chrysippus ( 279-206 B.C.)

developed rules for determining the truth or falsity of compound propositions from the
truth or falsity of their components ( discussed in section 6)

Until middle Ages philosophers confined themselves to writing commentaries on the

works of Aristotle and Chrysippus. The first major logician of middle Ages was Peter
Abelard ( 1079-1142). He originated a theory of universals and distinguished arguments
that are valid because of their forms from those that are valid because of their content.
After Abelard, significant works on logic were made by the oxford philosopher William
of Occam (C 1285-1349) who devoted on modern logic that involves notions such as
possibility, necessity, belief and doubt.

Modern Logic laid its foundation upon the works of the German philosopher G.W.
Leibiniz (1646-1716), He introduced symbolic language or "Calculus", and as a result of
this work, Leibniz is sometimes credited with being the father of symbolic logic. Work in
symbolic logic was done by a number of philosophers and mathematicians, including
Augustus De Morgan (1806-1871), George Boole (1815/1864), and John Venn (1834-
1923), who contributed abundant, works on symbolic logic. Most recently, logic is
symbolic analysis of terms, has made a major contribution to computer technology.

Activity 1.2.1. Discuss whether logic is meant for philosophers, only or human beings in
general (educated or uneducated)

Lesson 1.3. The Laws of Thought

Objectives
After reading this selection, you will be able to:
 recognize principles of right thinking
 distinguish the difference between these laws
 discuss how the laws of thought different from other laws.
 discuss what the importance of these laws are

What are the Fundamental Laws of Thought?

The phrase the 'Laws of thought' refers traditionally to there rules of right thinking
which from Aristotle's day have been recognized as occupying a position of
fundamental importance. They are the beginning of all thinking. Traditionally, these
principles have been perceived as the rock-bottom principles of all thought and
discourse, the principles that make thought and discourse even possible. It is true that if
these principles are not accepted as true, then nothing we think or say makes any sense,
not even this very sentence. In other words, We cannot make any claim about any thing
if any one of these principles did not hold. Therefore, it is important to give attention to
these laws.
They are:
1. The law of Non-contradiction,
2. The law of the excluded middle, and
3. The law of identity.

BDU-DEPARTMENT OF CIVICS AND ETHICAL EDUCATION 8

 UNIT-1 INTRODUCTION

The term law is metaphorical, as in the phrase 'Laws of Nature'; but the laws of thought
and the laws of Nature are laws in rather different senses. The laws of thought are
mainly normative, while the laws of nature are mainly descriptive. The laws of nature
describe the ways in which nature behaves; they may regulate our behavior towards
nature but they do not regulate the behavior of nature. On the other hand, the laws of
thought to some extent describe the ways in which we think but their main purpose is to
regulate and control our thinking by setting up a norm of right thinking.

Note that all three laws are closely related. Contradiction is the negative side of Identity,
and finds its complement and completion in the exclusion of the middle.

1. The Law of Non-Contradiction

This principle is expressed in the formula, A is not not-A, or A is not both B and not-B.
What the law of non contradiction states is that nothing can both be and not be at the
same time and in the same respect. For instance, the same rose can not be both red and
not-red. If some one urges that one part of the same rose might be red, and another part
not-red, or that the rose which is red today may be faded and grey tomorrow, we have
only to make the law more explicit by adding 'in respect of the same part', or ' at the
same time'. In the law of non contradiction the qualifying phrase "at the same time and
in the same respect" must be emphasized. For example, a table may indeed be red and
not red at different times; or it may be rectangular and not be four legged at the same
time in these different respects; but it cannot both be and not be (anything) at the same
time and in the same respect.

There is an objection raised against the law of noncontradiction but it involves

misunderstanding. The objection goes- Aren't there situations which involve inherently
self-contradictory factors? The answer is no. Factors in a situation may stand in tension
with one another or in opposition with one another, but such conflict do not constitute
self-contradictory situations in which one and the same thing both is and is-not at the
same time and in the same respect. Thus, a statement, for example, can not be both true
and false at the same time and in the same respect. But two contradictory propositions
cannot both be true.

What we have to note here is also the difference between contradictory propositions and
contrary propos ions. Failure to differentiate properly between them leads to a common
mistake in our thinking. Contradictories (negatives) exclude any gradations between
their extremes; there is no middle ground between a term and its negative, for example,
between hot an not hot. Contraries (opposites), on the other hand, allow a number of
gradations between their extremes; there is plenty of middle ground between a term and
its opposite, for example, between hot and cold.

2. The Law of the Excluded Middle

The Law of the Excluded Middle is expressed in the formula, A is either B or not-B. To
put differently, what the law of the Excluded Middle states is that -Something either is
or it is not. The term 'Middle' has nothing to do with the middle term of syllogism which
will be discussed in unit five; it is just a convenient name for a supposed midway

BDU-DEPARTMENT OF CIVICS AND ETHICAL EDUCATION 9

 UNIT-1 INTRODUCTION

position. There is no 'half-way house', as we say, between B and not-B, and therefore ' A
is B' and 'A is not-B' cannot both be false.

There is middle between wise and foolish, e.g. imprudent; and so ' Jones is wise' and '
Jones is foolish' could both be false. Jones might be neither wise nor foolish, but
imprudent. That middle is not excluded. On the other hand, there is no middle between
wise and not wise. 'Smith is wise' and 'smith is not-wise ' cannot both be false. If he is
not one, he is the other By and large, what the principle states is that either something is
X or it is not-x, white or not-white, gray or not-gray, etc.

3. The Law of Identity

The law of identity is expressed in the formula, A is A. In the other words, the principle
states something is what it is. For example, eggs are eggs, and must be called so. Things
are what they are, and so far as in us lies, the terms in which we speak of them must be
used with a clear, defined and fixed meaning. We experience that things do change in
this world. But does it mean that this principle does not work? The principle has
reference to the whole ideas, including any change they might involve. Thus the fact that
tables are always changing does not detract a bit from the truth that a table is a table.

Summing up, though contemporary logicians sometimes question the exalted position
that in the past has been bestowed on the Three Laws of Thought, they may be accepted
as basic to the world of everyday discourse that most of us live in. They still stand as
important anchors of thought and discourse.

Activity 1.3.1. Explain what would the possible consequences of the breach be of
the laws of thought.

Self-test Exercises
Part -I
1. What does logic study?
2. What are the practical aim of the discipline?
3. What benefits may be expected from a course of logic?
4. What does it mean when you assert logic is both a science and an art. Discuss it.

BDU-DEPARTMENT OF CIVICS AND ETHICAL EDUCATION 10

 UNIT-2 THE NATURE OF ARGUMENT

UNIT -2

THE NATURE OF ARGUMENT

Lesson 2.1. Argument, Premise and Conclusion...........................................................11

2.1.1 Recognizing Argument.........................................................................................15
2.1.2 Non-Argument Forms of Expression....................................................................16
Lesson 2.2. Explanation, Illustration and Expository Passage...................................... 17
Lesson 2.3. Deductive and Inductive Arguments..........................................................18
Lesson 2.4. Identifying Deductive and Inductive Argument.........................................19
Lesson 2.5. Validity, Truth, Soundness, Strength and Cogency................................... 23

Objective
At the end of this unit, the learners able to:-
 Discuss what is the nature of argument is
 Distinguish what are the basic characters of argument are
 Identify the essential elements of argument
 Explain what the standard and criteria to identify arguments as a good
and bad are
 Construct good arguments of their own

Lesson 2.1. Argument, Premise and Conclusion

Objective of the lesson

After completing this lesson learners are expected to:
 define what an argument is
 identify the basic elements of argument
 define what premises and conclusion are
 describe the difference between premise and conclusion.

Introduction - Dear learners in this lesson we are going to define what an argument is,
what are the essential elements of argument, how can we construct a good argument
and define what premise and conclusion is.

As it is indicated in the unit one, the basic objective of logic is evaluating arguments.
Evaluation of arguments require the knowledge and understanding of the nature and
characters of arguments.

In logic the term argument refers to a broader meaning than in English language.
Quarrels, bitter controversy, a mere verbal fight between or among individuals ; But all
of the above don't refer to its correct usage in logic. In logic, an argument is defined as
follows:
- A group or collection of statements, in which one or more of that claim to
provide support for one of the other statement.
-Etymologically, the term argument derives from the Latin word "arguo" that means "to
make clear" and it indicates arriving at certain point based on the given evidences.

BDU-DEPARTMENT OF CIVICS AND ETHICAL EDUCATION 11

 UNIT-2 THE NATURE OF ARGUMENT

Hence, one can also understand an argument, in logic, as arriving at a certain claim over
an issue based on the provided evidences. Therefore arguments can be viewed as a chain
of reasoning for a certain point or conclusion, reasoning is , so, found in arguments,
However they are expressed through statements. So, the next is to task understands the
nature and characters of statements.

A statement is a sentence used to assert or deny something and evaluated as true of

false.
-Although a statement is a sentence, not all sentences are statements. In order to be a
statement, an expression, has to be a declarative sentence. The basic difference between
statements and sentences lies on the existence of truth value. A statement is a sentence
that has truth value i.e. it can be evaluated as true or false. While sentences don't have
truth value, i.e. it is impossible to evaluate sentences as true or false. Hence , a sentence
is a group of words and phrases expressing on an idea or thought. Questions, proposals,
suggestions, command and exclamations are some of the typical forms of sentences.

Example:- -Enjoy the Ethiopian millennium!

- What a beautiful girl she is!
-Ethiopia is a mountains country.
-Logic is not a branch of philosophy.

Dear learners in the given Example, the first two expression would not be evaluate in
terms of truth value, as either true or false, hence they are included in the category of
sentence. While, for the last two sentences, it is possible. To evaluate with truth value,
therefore the last two sentences are statements.

Premises and Conclusion

Statements that construct an argument, are not a mere collection. There have to be a sort
of logical or reasonable link among each other. Some of the statements claim to provide
evidence and information for other statement. The other statement is also claims to
follow from the provided evidences. It is so inevitable. that, statements that appear in an
argument has two different characters, namely
-Providing evidences and facts for other statement
-Claiming to follow from the given evidences.
Logicians called the first type of statements a premise and the second type as conclusion.
Therefore a premises are statements that set forth the evidences and facts.

B. Conclusion - is a statement that fallows from the provided evidence (premises)

Examples- Most students of law are progressive
Eden is a student of law
Therefore Eden is progressive.
Feminism is a philosophical view that believes in the equality of
men and women.
Merry is a feminist.

BDU-DEPARTMENT OF CIVICS AND ETHICAL EDUCATION 12

 UNIT-2 THE NATURE OF ARGUMENT

Hence she believes in the equality of men and women.

In both examples the first two statements aim at providing evidences, thus the first two
statements are premises.

Identifying Premises and Conclusion

-In unit one it is indicated that the main objective of logic is evaluating arguments. In
order to do so, the first task is identifying weather the statement is premises or
conclusion. Failure to identify the premises from the conclusion and vice-versa ends up
with incorrect analysis of arguments.

The following are the major problems associated with identifying premises from
conclusion and vice-versa.
 The position of the premises and conclusion very from one argument to
another.
 Either the premises or the conclusion is often unstated explicitly but
understand from the context.
 The number of premises may very from one to as many as is thought to be
necessary to establish the conclusion.

-Owing to these problems, one would have a difficulty to distinguish the premises from
the conclusion and the vice-versa. However logic develops its own mechanism that
contribute to identify whether the statement is premise or conclusion.
The following are the mechanism that used to identify the premises from the conclusion
and vice-versa.

A) Using Indicator Words

Some arguments contain indicator words. By looking at the indicator words, one can
identify the premises and conclusion. Indicator words are special words that serve to
indicate whether the statement is premise or conclusion. Indicator words are of two
types.
 Premise indicator words- these are words that indicates whenever a statement
follows them as premises. The followings are some of typical premise indicator
words.
In that because owing to
as for
since Given that seeing that

 Conclusion indicator words- are a word which serves as a sign for a

statement follows them as a conclusion. The followings are a conclusion
indicator words.
Therefore so which implies that
Hence accordingly
thus it follows as I conclude that
Examples - Power is not equally distributed in the market place, nor are
information and knowledge. Hence we need ethical rules and
principles.

BDU-DEPARTMENT OF CIVICS AND ETHICAL EDUCATION 13

 UNIT-2 THE NATURE OF ARGUMENT

- Since the elderly have always had a higher cancer rate and we now
have older citizens, the increase in the number of cancer deaths is
not an indication of any kind of environmental breakdown.

In both examples, there are indicator word. In the first example we have a conclusion
indicator namely "Hence", therefore the statement follows "Hence" is considered as
conclusion. Likewise, in the second example we have a premise indicator word namely
"Since" so the statement follows "Since" is a premise of an argument.

B) Using Nature or Character of Statements.

As it is indicated, some arguments may lack indicator words. In this case, one has to
critically evaluate the character of the statements that construct the argument. Usually
the premises of an argument provides evidences and reasons, while the conclusion
serves as a main point of the argument, claims to assert or deny about something based
on the given evidences.

Example- The pastoral letter fully deserves the wide audience it seeks. It is a thoughtful
and comprehensive effort to bring religious and moral principles to bear on nuclear
weapons.

In the above example, the argument does not contain indicator words, however, with
the nature of the statements, one can identify the premises form the conclusion. In the
first statement, the argument, aims at offering about something based on the provided
information while the second statement aims at providing evidences and information.
So the second statement is the premise of the argument.
Exercise - 1
1.1. Answer "true" or "false" to the following statements
1. All arguments must have more than one premise
2. The main objective of logic is to raise ability to think
3. Arguments can be constructed with both sentence and statements.
4. Conclusion, is a statement that aims to provide evidence
5. A mere collection of statements is not an argument
6. All sentences have a truth value
7. An argument can be constructed without indicator words.
8. The words "therefore," 'hence,' So', 'since' and 'thus' are all conclusion
indicators.

1.2. Of the following arguments, identify the premises and the conclusion.
1. I believed that the great flood described in the Bible really happened. The reason
is simple. Noah would not have built ark otherwise.
2. Drug abuse among university students is a serious and wide spread
problem. Three students from a single department, last week admitted that
they had used cocaine.
3. Religion is the operate of the people. Therefore, it is like a drug that can be
used to make people forget and ignore the miserable condition they live in.

BDU-DEPARTMENT OF CIVICS AND ETHICAL EDUCATION 14

 UNIT-2 THE NATURE OF ARGUMENT

4. Since, the good, according to Plato is that which furthers a person's real
interest, it follows that in any given case when the good is known, men will
seek it.
5. To every existing thing God wills some good. Hence, since to love any thing
is nothing else than to will good to that thing, it is manifest that God loves everything
that exists.

III. Define the following terms.

Logic truth value

argument premise indicator
premise conclusion indicator
conclusion statement

Argument Forms and Non--Argument Forms of Expression

Objective
At the end of this lesson, you will be able to:
 Identify argument forms from other forms of expression
 Understand the relation ship between argument and other forms of
expression
 Identify the criteria that qualify an expression to the form of arguments.

Introduction
In this lesson you will learn about argumentative forms of expression and other forms of
expression.

2.1.1 Recognizing Argument

An argument is a heart of logic, and the concern of logic is, so, evaluating argument.
Before proceeding to the evaluation of argument, one has to understand and identify it
from other forms of expression. The followings are some of the difficulties to identify
arguments from other forms of expression.
 Many forms of expression are spoken and thus go by so quickly that one
can not be sure of the conclusion an premises
 The form of the expression may have a complicated structure
 Some arguments are difficult to understand because the reasons they
contain are so poor that one can not be sure whether to regard them as
reason.
 An argument might be embedded in nonargumative material consisting
of background information.

However, logic develops its own criteria to identify argument forms from other forms of
expression. The following two conditions must be fulfilled for an expression to be
qualified in the category of argument.

BDU-DEPARTMENT OF CIVICS AND ETHICAL EDUCATION 15

 UNIT-2 THE NATURE OF ARGUMENT

1) Factual Claim- is a claim that evidences or reason is being presented. It is a claim that
is either true or false which there is excellent evidence or justification. As it is indicated,
it is premises that aimed to present evidences, Hence, in an argument forms of
expression, at least one of the premises must claim to provide a reason or evidence.
2) Inferential Claim- represents the reasoning process. In an argument forms of
expression, there must be a claim that follows from the alleged evidence. The key here is
determining whether the speaker or writer is offering reasons intended to commence
you of one or more of the claims made in the passage.

Of the above two conditions, the presence of inferential claim is most important in logic.
If the claim presented in the reasoning process is absent in any written or oral expression
that expression is not an argument. Thereby, non-argument expressions lack inferential
claim presented by the arguer as premise or conclusion.

In deciding whether there is a claim that evidence supports or implies, one should look
for the presence of indicator words and an inferential relation ship between statements.

N.B. The mere occurrence of an indicator word would not be a guarantee to qualify an
expression in the form of argument. Indicator words often used for purposes other than
to indicate the occurrence of premises and conclusion.

E.g. A person never becomes truly self--reliant. Even though he deals effectively with
things, he is necessary dependent upon those who have taught him to do so. They have
selected the things he is dependent upon and determined the kinds and degrees of
dependencies.

In the above example, the statement "A person never becomes truly self-reline" serves as
a conclusion of an argument because it claims to follow from the provided evidences.
The remaining statement, also, serve as premises of an argument because they claim to
provide evidences and reasons. Hence the above expression is included in the form of
argument.

2.1.2 Non-Argument Forms of Expression

There are several forms of passages and expressions that lack inferential or logical
claims. These forms of passages or expression may serve as a premise or conclusion (or
both) for an argument. But not an argument by themselves, due to missing of a claim
that expressed a reasoning process.
The followings are some forms of non-argument forms of expression.
I. Statement of belief, opinion, warring and advice these are expression of what some
one happens to believe or thinks at a certain time. I also includes a kind of discussion
aimed at modifying someone behavior. Since there is no claim that these expressions are
supported by evidences, there is no argumentative forms of expression.
 Do not smoke cigarette, it seriously damages your health (warring)
 It is better to be a dissatisfied human being than a satisfied pig (statement of
belief)

BDU-DEPARTMENT OF CIVICS AND ETHICAL EDUCATION 16

 UNIT-2 THE NATURE OF ARGUMENT

II) A report - Consists of a group of statements, that convey information about some
situation or event since a report does not has any claim that imply or support about
something, it is not included in the category of argument.
Example- According to the advertising all computers are not only fast and powerful but
also easy.

Lesson 2.2. Explanation, Illustration and Expository Passage

An expository passage is a kind of discourse that begins with a topic sentences followed
by one or more sentences that develop a topic sentence. Since expository passage is
engaged in a mere elaboration, not to prove, it does not has argumentative form.
 An illustration consist of a statement about a certain subject combined with a
reference to one or more specific instance aimed to exemplify the statement.
 Explanation- consists of a statement or group of statements intended to shed
light on same phenomena that is usually accepted as a matter of fact. Every
explanations have two parts; explanan and explandum.

In an explanation the thing or condition to be explained is called explandum. While

the statement which used to explain is called explanan. Since explanations do not
purport to prove anything, they would not consider as arguments. However many
explanations can be expressed to the form of arguments.
Examples - The price of 'teff' increased in the last two months because
of inadequate rainfall in the northern part (explanation)
-Water is a good solvent for many different substances, and
it picks them up as it moves through the environment.
Thus, rain water flowing over and under the ground dissolves
minerals such as limestone (illustration)

IV) Conditional Statements

A conditional statement is an "if....then..., or ...if ....statement." Conditional statement is
composed of two statements; antecedent and consequent.
Antecedent - is the statement that follows from the word "if"
Consequent - is the statement that follows from the word "then"

In a conditional statement, if there is no claim that either the antecedent or consequent

presents evidence hence conditional statement is not an argument, However; If
conditional statements express the outcome of a reasoning process (having a certain
inferential content) they would have argument forms. The following three point clearly
show the relation ship between argument and conditional statement.

 A single conditional statement is not an argument

 Conditional statement may serve as either premises or conclusion (or
both) of an argument.
 The inferential content of conditional statements may be repressed to
form of an argument.
Examples- If one knows the plant life of an area, certain assumption can be
made about the climate and the animals that will be found there. For example

BDU-DEPARTMENT OF CIVICS AND ETHICAL EDUCATION 17

 UNIT-2 THE NATURE OF ARGUMENT

in grass land the animal life typically includes large mammalian, herbivores,
insects and birds.

Exercise-2
I. Determine which of the following passages are argument. For those that are
arguments, identify the conclusion. For those that are not, attempt to determine whether
they are conditional statement, explanation, report, illustration or passage that lack on
inferential claim.
1) It is strongly recommended that you have your house inspected for termite damage at
the earliest possible opportunity.
2) If you attend classes and maintain at least a 2.0 GPA you will be graduate, Hanna,
however, didn't graduate.
This means either she din not attend classes or she did not maintain at lese a 2.0 GPA.
3) Thanks to the favorable condition that the government created for export economy in
2003. Ethiopian economy increased by 10 percent.
4) Let me explain to you why that was a great movie. The acting was good, the story was
interesting, the photography was a knockout, and the ending was a killer.
5) A line is composed of points. Points have no length. Therefore, a line has no length.

II) Define the following terms

Factual claim Explanation antecedent
Inferential claim Explandum consequent
Conditional Statement Explanans

Lesson 2.3. Deductive and Inductive Arguments

Objective of lesson
 Identify the type of arguments
 Understand the method of classifying arguments
 Describe the basic difference on the type of arguments
 Describe the method of identifying one type of argument from other
type.

Introduction
Dear learner in this lesson you will know about the classification and type of argument
namely deductive and inductive type of arguments.

Arguments are broadly divided in to two deductive an inductive argument. The

classification of arguments contribute a lot in evaluating arguments in their own type
and in their terms. As it is indicated in the previous lesson, an argument must have a
factual and inferential claims of these two an inferential forms of expression lack
inferential claim. However the nature of inferential claim is not similar from one
argument to another. In some argument the inferential content is very strong i.e. the

BDU-DEPARTMENT OF CIVICS AND ETHICAL EDUCATION 18

 UNIT-2 THE NATURE OF ARGUMENT

occlusion claims to follow from the provided evidences with certainly. While in other
argument, there is an inferential claim, but it is not as such certain to produce the given
conclusion. The basic distinction of arguments is, so, lies on the nature or strength of an
inferential claim.

Lesson 2.4. Identifying Deductive and Inductive Argument

As it is indicated, the basic distinction between deductive an inductive argument lies on

the strength of inferential claim. However, in most arguments the strength of inferential
claim doesn't explicitly stated.
Fortunately logic develops its own mechanism to understand how it is strong the
inferential claim is an argument. The followings are the factors that influence our
decision about the strength of the inferential claim in arguments.
1) The occurrence of special indicator words
2) The actual strength of the reasoning process between premises and
conclusion
3) The characters or forms of argumentation the arguer uses.

1) The Occurrence of Special Indicator Words

Some arguments have indicator words in their conclusion. The occurrence of these
indicator words would serve as a means to suggest whether the argument is deductive
or inductive. Words that show probably serve as a sign for an inductive type of
argument; probably, possibly, likely, unlikely etc are some of indicator words.
Example- last year we had a serious inflation due to lack of sufficient rain. This
year also, we have insufficient amount of rain. Hence, probably we would have a
serious inflation.

Words that show certainty serve as a sign for a deductive type of argument; certainly,
necessarily, absolutely and the like are atypical deductive indicator words.
Example - Thinking is a function of man's immortal soul. God has given an immortal
soul to every man and woman. Therefore, certainly no animal or machine can think.

2) The actual Strength of a reasoning Process between premises and Conclusion.

If the conclusion actually does follow with strict necessity from the premises, the
arguments clearly become a deductive type. In a such type of argument the conclusion
does not has a chance to be false since premises are assumed true.

Example- The investigation of supernatural phenomena lies outside the realm of science.
Therefore science can neither prove nor disprove the existence of God.

On the other hand, if the conclusion does not follow with strict necessity, but follow
probably, it is better considered as inductive type of argument. In such type of
argumentation the conclusion has a probability to be false with true premises.

BDU-DEPARTMENT OF CIVICS AND ETHICAL EDUCATION 19

 UNIT-2 THE NATURE OF ARGUMENT

Example- Most countries in East Africa are not landlocked. Ethiopia founds in eastern
part of Africa. Therefore Ethiopia is not a landlocked country.

3. The Character of Form of Argumentation the Arguer Uses.

An argument may lack indicator words, as well as, the conclusion does not explicitly
follow either necessarily or probably from the provided evidences. In such situation the
characters or forms of argumentation that the arguer uses become a factor to determine
whether the argument is deductive or inductive.

The following are typical deductive types of argumentation

a) Argument based on mathematics.

With an exception of statistics, any argument in which its conclusion depends on some
purely arithmetic or geometric computation is a deductive type of sampling of data
gathering and hence it is impossible to arrive at a certain conclusion. Therefore statistical
recording is best included in an inductive type of argumentation.
Example- Only those who scored above 50% pass the exam. Tom scored only 40 point.
There fore Tom has failed the exam.

B. Argument from Definition

In the premise of an argument has a fundamental word or phrase that needs a

definition and the conclusion of the argument is reached by defining the fundamental
word, appear in the premise, then the argument clearly become a deductive argument.
Example- -Merry is a widow. She has no husband
- Nega is a bachelor. Therefore Nega has not a wife or he is
single.

In both examples the conclusion totally depends on a general or cured word that
appears in the premise part of the argument.

C. Syllogistic Argument

Syllogistic argument is an argument consisting of exactly two premises and a single

conclusion. There are three forms of syllogistic arguments.
 Categorical Syllogism- it is a type of syllogistic argument formed by categorical
propositions, having quantifiers of "all," "no," "some"
Example-
 Hypothetical Syllogism- a syllogistic type of argument formed by conditional
statements ( If ......then )
Example- If Solomon is guilty of the crime, and then Mr Kebede must have left the back
door unlocked. However, Mr Kebede did not leave the back door unlocked. Therefore
Solomon is not guilty of crime.

BDU-DEPARTMENT OF CIVICS AND ETHICAL EDUCATION 20

 UNIT-2 THE NATURE OF ARGUMENT

 Disjunctive Syllogism- a syllogistic argument formed by a disjunctive statement (an

either---- or statement)
Example -Either the OPEC countries increase their production or oil price will not drop.
The OPEC countries do not increase their production therefore, oil price will not drop.

Dear learners the above three types of argumentation are typical deductive argument.
Likewise Inductive argument has it sown typical forms of argumentation. In general in a
inductive argument, the content of the conclusion is an inductive argument, the content
of the conclusion is in some way intended to go beyond from the content of the
provided premises. The following type of argumentations are a typical inductive type of
argumentation.

A. Argument based on prediction- When the arguer arrives at a certain conclusion

based on past or present condition, the argument becomes inductive type of argument.
In a such type of argument, the premises deal with some known event in the past or
present situation but the conclusion goes beyond this event or situation to some extent
in the relative future.
Example- The annual rainfall in East Africa rift valley is above average.
So the rainfall in next year will be above average.

B. Inductive Generation - it is an inductive type of argumentation that proceeds from

some particular facts to a general truth. In such arguments the selected sample has a
certain characteristics and it is assumed that all members of the group have that certain
characteristics.
Example- Amocon , exxon and Texaco are all listed on the New York stock
exchange. It must be the case that all major American oil companies are listed on the
New York stock exchange.

C. Argument from authority - it is an inductive type of argument, in that a conclusion is

arrived based upon a statement that made by some presumed authority or witness.
Example- as Adam Smith long ago noted, monopoly is the enemy of good management,
since it destroys incentives. Hence, monopoly is the enemy of good management.

D. Argument based on sign- a type of inductive argument that proceeds from the
knowledge of a certain sign and symbol to knowledge of the thing or situation that the
sign symbolizes.
Example - when driving on an unfamiliar high way one might see a sign indicating that
the road makes several sharp turns one mile ahead. Therefore the road does indeed
make several sharp turns one mile a head.

E. Argument from Analogy- an inductive type of argumentation in which a conclusion

is made due to the existence of some similarity or analogy between two things or state of
affairs.
Example- No one would buy a pair of shoes without trying them on. Why should
anyone be expected to get married with out premarital sex?

Exercise- 3

BDU-DEPARTMENT OF CIVICS AND ETHICAL EDUCATION 21

 UNIT-2 THE NATURE OF ARGUMENT

I. Determine whether the following arguments are best interpreted as being

inductive or deductive.
1) All previous African unity chair person are men
Probably the next African unity chair person is men.
2) Some students are not radicals, it follows, therefore that there are some
radicals who are not students.
3) The Ethiopian government has been adopting secularism. It implies that in
Ethiopia state is separated in the administration of church.
4) My economics professor says that monogamy is an unjust form of social
organization. Therefore it is true that monogamy is a unjust form of social
organization.
5) Eternity is simultaneously whole. But time has a before and after. Therefore time
and eternity are no the something.

II. Answer "true" or "false" to the following statements

1) Most arguments that based on statistical reasoning are deductive.
2) An argument that draws a conclusion that something is true because
someone has said that it is, best considered as inductive type of argument.
3) A deductive argument usually proceeds from particular to a general claim.
4) The classification of arguments as deductive and inductive basically lies on the
existence of inferential claim.
5) In an inductive type of argument, the conclusion is not supposed to contain
information that does not contained in the premises.

III. Define the following terms.

Deductive argument Inductive indicator words
Inductive argument Particular statement
Deductive indicator words General statement

BDU-DEPARTMENT OF CIVICS AND ETHICAL EDUCATION 22

Lesson 2.5. Validity, Truth, Soundness, Strength and Cogency

Objective of the lesson- at the end of this lesson you are expected to:
 identify terms that evaluate arguments
 identify good arguments from bad arguments
 discuss the difference between good and bad arguments
 justifying why an argument is good or bad

Introduction- Dear learners in this section we are going to understand the central ideas and
terminologies require evaluating arguments.

Evaluation of arguments and providing justification is the basic task of logic. As it is

indicated in the previous sections a passage or an expression must have two basic claims in
order to qualify as an argument. The two basic claims are factual claim and inferential claim
of these two inferential claims is the most important. Because it represents the reasoning
process between premise and conclusion. If the premises fail to support the conclusion, then
the argument lost its value and become worthless. While truth and falsity is the nature of
statements, not nature of arguments. Hence the truth or falsity of the premises or the
conclusion do not affect our evaluation and judgment of arguments, expect in some special
cases. Arguments are concerned with reasoning process i.e. the relation ship between
premises and conclusion.

N.B. one would always begin the evaluation of argument with inferential claim. And only if
the premises do support the conclusion, one would evaluate the factual claim (the truth and
falsity of the premises and conclusion)

In logic an argument would not evaluates as good or bad. There are technical terms that
evaluate arguments in their own type. Terms that evaluate deductive argument are not
appropriate to evaluate inductive type of argument and the vice-versa. Hence one is
expected to evaluate deductive and inductive type of arguments in their own respective
terms.

A. Evaluation of Deductive Argument

Validity and soundness are the terminologies that evaluate deductive type of argument.
Validity evaluates the inferential claim of deductive argument. While soundness tests the
factual claim. As it is noted earlier, we have to begin with the evaluation of inferential claim.
Through validity, the inferential claim of deductive argument evaluates as valid and
invalid.

A valid argument is a deductive argument in that the conclusion follows with strict
necessity from the given evidences. In a such argument, if the premises are assumed true,
the conclusion is impossible to be false.
Example- Debrezeit is a city in Oromia and Oromia is part of Ethiopia. Therefore , Debrezeit
is as city in Ethiopia.
An invalid argument is a deductive argument in which the conclusion does not follow with
strict necessity from the premises, even though it is claimed to. In a such argument, it is
possible for the conclusion to be false with truth premises.
Example- All lovers are happy people.
Some happy people are illiterate.
Therefore some lovers are illiterate.

N.B. The truth an falsity of premises and conclusion would not determine the validity of a
deductive argument, with an exception of a true premise with false conclusion which is
always invalid. Hence there is only an indirect relation between validity and truth. Rather it
is the strength of the inferential claim that determines whether a deductive argument is
valid or invalid.
The following table demonstrates the possibilities of the validity and invalidity of deductive
arguments.

Argument Type Premise Conclusion Evaluation

Deductive T T Valid/invalid
Deductive T F Always invalid
Deductive F T Valid / invalid
Deductive F F Valid / invalid

As it is illustrated in the table, the truth value of premise and conclusion would only
determine the validity of deductive argument in one exceptional cases, true premise with
false conclusion, which is always invalid. But in all the remaining cases, only the strength of
the inferential claim determines the validity of deductive arguments.
Soundness evaluates the factual claim of a deductive argument as sound and unsound.

A sound argument is a deductive argument which is valid and has all true premises. At it is
noted, in the beginning of this lesson, the evaluation of arguments must begin with the
inferential claim and only if it is good one would test the factual claim. Hence a sound
argument must be avoid argument (has good relation ship between premises and
conclusion) and all its premises must be true. But if either of the two cases is missing the
argument becomes unsound. Thus unsound argument is a deductive argument which is
invalid or a valid argument with a false premises.
N.B. A sound arguments is a "good" deductive argument in the fullest sense of the term.

B. Evaluation of Inductive Argument

- Strength and cogency are the terms that evaluate inductive type of argument.
- Strength evaluates the inferential claim of inductive arguments. While cogency
evaluates the factual claim of inductive argument.
- Strength evaluates the inferential claim of inductive arguments as strong and weak
inductive argument.
 Strong inductive argument is an inductive argument such that if the premises
are assumed true, then based on that assumption it is probable that the
conclusion is true.
  Weak inductive argument is an inductive argument such that if the premises
are assumed true, then base on that assumption it is not probable that the
conclusion is true.

As that of validity, the strength of an inductive argument would not be determines by the
truth value of the premises and conclusion, rather it is on the relationship that appear
between the premises and the conclusion. However there is one exceptional case, in that the
truth value of the premises and conclusion determine the strength of inductive argument i.e.
a true premise with false conclusion which is always weak.

The relationship between the strength of inductive argument and the truth or falsity of
premises and conclusion can be illustrated in the following table.

Inductive type of Argument

Premise Conclusion Evaluation
True True Strong/ Weak
True False Always weak
False True Strong/ weak
False False Strong/weak

 Cogency evaluates the factual claim of inductive argument as congent and uncogent.
A congent argument is an inductive argument which is strong and has all true premises. A
congent argument is analogue of sound deductive argument. Hence it is a "good inductive
argument"
 Uncongent argument is an inductive argument which is weak or a strong inductive with
false premises.

Exercise-4
I. Determine whether the following arguments are valid, invalid, strong or weak
1) Since some fruits are green and some fruits are apples, it follows that some
fruits are green appeals.
2) A house held that does not balance is budget is just asking for trouble. It is the
same, therefore, with federal government. Balance the federal budget or watch out.
3) The big business deal was signed right then while they were drinking all that
alcohol. Looks like that it is a pretty good way to get a deal to close
successfully.
4) The United States congress has more members that there are days in the year.
Therefore, at least two members of the congress have the some birthday.
5) Drug abuse among university students is a serous and widespread problem.
Three students from a single department admitted last week that they had
used cocaine.
6) When it comes to issue of race relation, either you are part of the solution or
you are part of the problem.
7. All Catholics are christens. No atheists are Christians. Therefore no atheists
are Catholics.
8) Since John loves Nancy and Nancy love peter, it necessarily follows that John loves
peter.
II. Answer "true" or "false" to the following statements.
1) The term 'Validity' in logic evaluates the truth value of a statement.
2) A sound argument may be invalid
3) A strong argument may have a false premises and probably false conclusion.
4) An argument may legitimately be spoken of "true" or false.
5) The term "strength" can evaluates all types of argument.

III) Define the following terms

Valid argument Validity
Sound argument Cogency
Invalid argument Strength
Strong argument Soundness
 UNIT-3 LANGUAGE: MEANING AND DEFINITION

UNIT -3

LANGUAGE: MEANING AND DEFINITION

Lesson 3.1 Functions of Language.............................................................................28

Lesson 3.2. Cognitive Meaning and Emotive Meaning................................................ 28
Lesson 3.3. The Intension and Extension of Terms.......................................................31
Lesson 3.4. Definitions and Their Purpose....................................................................34
Lesson 3.5. Definitional Techniques............................................................................. 38
Lesson 3.6. Rules (Criteria) for Definition....................................................................40

Dear learners, this unit is divided into Six lessons. These are functions of language,
Cognitive and emotive meaning, the intension and extension of terms. Definition and their
purposes, Definitional techniques for definition.

The first lesson deals with various functions of language mainly emotive, directive and
cognitive functions. The second lesson explains what cognitive and emotive meaning is.
Furthermore, it clarifies the difference between verbal and factual disputes. The third lesson
focuses on the connotative and denotative meaning of terms. The fourth lesson discusses
various types of definitions and their purposes. The fifth lesson deals about different
methods of definitions. It tries to focus on denotative and connotative ways of definitions.
The sixth lesson discusses rules of definition which are important to distinguish good
definitions from faulty and weak definitions.

Objectives

After reading chapter, you will be able to:

 recognize various functions of language
 discuss the place of cognitive and emotive meaning in argument
 identify and avoid emotive expressions in speech and writings.
 differentiate verbal disputes from factual ones
 distinguish intensional meanings of terms from the extensional ones
 identify various forms definitions and definitional techniques.
 recognize various rules of definitions and apply them in writing and speech.

In the preceding lessons we discussed that logic is concerned with the study of correct
reasoning in arguments and its goal is to set up criteria for distinguishing good arguments
from bad ones.

Nevertheless, forming arguments is basically a linguistic activity. Since formal pattern of

correct reasoning can only be conveyed through language and it requires proper use of
words and sentences. Therefore, we will focus how language works in order to understand
how arguments work.
 UNIT-3 LANGUAGE: MEANING AND DEFINITION

What is Language? Language is a body of standardized Meanings of words and form of

speech used as a means of expressing the feeling, emotion, desire, thoughts, etc. in a
consistent pattern of meaning. Language requires symbols (such as words, sounds, gestures,
signs) that are patterned and related in certain way for the purpose of communicating
meanings.

Lesson 3.1 Functions of Language

Objective
After reading this lesson, you willable to:
 identify various function of language.
We use language in many different ways, for may distinct purposes and for
fulfilling our various needs. In his Philosophical Investigations Ludwig
Wittgenstein insisted.

Rightly that there are " Countless different kinds of use of what we call 'Symbols,'. 'Words,'
'Sentences.'" Among the examples suggested by Wittgenstein in giving orders, describing
the appearance of an object, reporting an event, speculating about an event, forming and
testing a hypothesis, presenting the results of an experiment in tables and diagrams,
making up a story, making a joke and telling it, singing songs, asking, cursing, greeting,
praying, and so on.

Although, all the above function of language are very important to carryout our every day
life activities, however, they are less significant for logic. Generally, the multiple functions
of language is divided into three. They are emotive- to express feelings, directive- for the
purpose of causing (or preventing) overt action, and cognitive-to convey information.
For our purpose, we focus on two functions of language, i.e. cognitive and emotive function.

Lesson 3.2. Cognitive Meaning and Emotive Meaning

Objectives:
After reading this section, you will be able to:
 define cognitive and emotion meaning of language
 distinguish cognitive meaning from emotive one

A. Cognitive Meaning

There is one function of language which is relevant for logic; that is, the cognitive or
informative use of language. The cognitive aspect of language includes such functions as
conveying information and communicating meanings. Ordinarily these is accomplished by
formulating and affirming (or denying) propositions. Language used to affirm or deny
propositions, or to present arguments, is said to serve the cognitive or informative function.
And terminology that conveys informative discourse is used to describe and to reason about
the world and to deny or affirm the truth of propositions.
 UNIT-3 LANGUAGE: MEANING AND DEFINITION

Cognitive or informative propositions can be evaluated as true or false; therefore, they can
serve as premise or conclusion of an argument. This point indicates that cognitive function
of language is the only function of language, which is relevant and important for the science
of logic. Consider the following statements:
 Lake Tana is the largest Rift Valley Lake. (False)
 All female mosquitoes are vectors of malaria. (True)

The above propositions deny or affirm the truth of these things and covey information
about them. These and other similar propositions are, therefore, stated cognitional and can
be a component of an argument as premise or conclusion.

It is impossible to form arguments and logical reasoning using sentences such as questions,
commands, suggestions, etc. Arguments are formed by statements that can be judged either
as true of false. Hence, statements are forms of expression the cognitive or informative
function of language which are the foundation of arguments.

B. Emotive Meaning
Consider the following statement:
The death penalty is a cruel and inhuman form of punishment in which hapless
prisoners are dragged from their cells and summarily slaughtered only to satiate the
bloodlust of a vengeful public.
This statement is intended, at least in part, to express or evoke feelings.

This statement accomplishes its function through the distinct kinds of terminology in which
it is phrased. Terminology that expresses or evokes feelings is said to have emotive
meaning. Thus, in the above statement the words. "cruel," "inhuman," "hapless," " dragged,"
"slaughtered," " bloodlust," and "vengeful" have a strong emotive meaning. Of course, these
words have cognitive meaning as well. "Cruel" means tending to hurt others, "in human"
means inappropriate for humans, and so on.

Emotive words and sentences help us to express our negative and positive feelings in hopes
of evoking a particular emotional response. Since emotive or expressive functions of
language oblige us to develop subjective, partial, irrational and unfair judgments. They are
unnecessary for logical discourses. Moreover, two points are significant concerning the
emotively charged statements. The first is that it is important that we be able to distinguish
and disengage the cognitive meaning from the emotive meaning in emotively charged
statements because logic is concerned chiefly with cognitive meaning. For example, the
terms "bureaucrat," "government official," and "public servant" have almost similar
cognitive or literal meanings. But their emotive meanings are quite different. The term
"bureaucrat" definitely tends to express resentment and disapproval, while the term "public
servant" is an honorific one, which tends to express favor and approval. The phrase
"government official" more nearly neutral than either of the others.

The second point is that part of the cognitive meaning of such statements is a value claim.
For example, the statement about the death penalty asserts the value claim. For example, the
statement about the death penalty asserts the value claim that the death penalty is wrong or
immoral. Indeed, such value claims are often the most important part of the cognitive
meaning of emotive statements. Thus, for the purpose of logic, it is important that we be
 UNIT-3 LANGUAGE: MEANING AND DEFINITION

able to differentiate the meaning and treat these claims are expressed in emotive
terminology, the emotive" clothing" tends to obscure the fact that a value claim is being
made, and it simultaneously gives psychological momentum to that claim. As a result,
readers and listeners are inclined to swallow the value claim whole without any evidence.

For example, we often hear some people refer to some one as "Crazy," or "stupid" when they
want to express the claim that what that persons is doing is bad or wrong and when they are
unable or unwilling to give reasons for this claim. Those who happen to be listening,
especially if they are friendly with the speaker, will often accept this claim without
hesitation.

Emotive language is not bad it self, but when it is information we are father, we shall do
well to choose words whose emotive meanings do not distract and hinder us from dealing
effectively with what they describe. The careless use of language in argument often results
in fallacies, which will be discussed in the following lesson.

In political campaigns today almost every rhetorical trick is played to make the worse seem
the better cause. And this playing on emotion, rather than appealing to reason, is even more
obvious in commercial advertising, where the aim is to persuade rather than to convince or
to inform.

When people want to manipulate the emotive force of their message, they frequently
substitute euphemisms for more pointed terms. In other words, emotive terminologies are
described in terms that evoke a neutral response. This is the origin of such substitution as
"Urban Camping" for "homelessness" and "food-insecure" or "Starving".
Language associated with military ventures, often calls forth negative emotions, are
substituted with terms that evoke a neutral response. For example, human targets are
referred to as "soft targets," dropping bomb is called "servicing a site," a concentration camp
is a "pacification center," and a war is sometimes called " a police action."

Dear learners let us know consider emotive terminology as it occurs in arguments. In

arguments emotive terminology accomplish basically the same functions as emotive
terminology in statements. It allows the arguer to make value claims about the subject
matter of the argument without providing evidence, and it gives the argument a kind of
steamroller quality by which it tends to crush potential counterarguments before the reader
of listener has a chance to think of them. This steamroller quality also tends to paralyze the
logical thought processes of readers of listeners so that they are not able to see illogical
arguments in their true light. These effects of emotive terminology can be avoided if the
reader or listener will disengage the value claims and other cognitive meanings from the
emotive meaning of the language and express theme distinct premises.

Finally we consider how disputes can center on a confusion of cognitive meanings between
the disputants. Consider the following dispute between two persons:
Mr. X: I 'm afraid that " Z" is guilty of arson. Last night he confided to me that he was
the one who set fire to the old school house.
Mr. Y: No, you couldn't be more mistaken. In this country no one is guilty until proven
so in a court of law, and "Z" has not yet been accused of anything
 UNIT-3 LANGUAGE: MEANING AND DEFINITION

Most words have two or more distinct meanings or senses, and usually no trouble arises
from this fact in some contexts, however, it may not be clear which sense of a given word is
intended, and here its occurrence is said to be ambiguous. Fallacious arguments can result
from the unwitting use of ambiguous terms. Thus, ambiguous language can lead not only to
fallacious argumentation but also to disputes that are mealy verbal. Disputes that center on
the meaning of a word are called verbal disputes.

In the above example dispute resulted due to the ambiguous meaning of the word "guilty."
Mr. "X" is using the word in the moral sense. Given that "Z" has admitted to setting fire to
the old school house, it is very likely that he did indeed set fire to it and therefore is guilty of
arson in the moral sense of term. Mr. "Y", on the other hand , is using the word in the logical
sense. Because "Z" has not been convicted in a court of law, he is not legally guilty of
anything.

Where the ambiguity of a key term has led to a merely verbal dispute, we can often resolve
the dispute by pointing out the ambiguity. That is done by giving the two different
definitions of the term so the different meanings can be clearly distinguished and the
confusion dispelled.
On the other hand, consider this dispute:
A: I know that "X" stole a computer from the old school house. "Y" told me that
she saw "X" do it.
B: That is ridiculous! "X" has never stolen anything in his life. "Y" hates", and she is
trying to pin the theft on him only to shield her criminal boyfriend.

Here the dispute centers not on the meaning of words, but on a matter of fact: Whether or
not "X" stole the computer. Disputes of this sort are called factual disputes. In resolving
disputes it is of course essential to determine from the start whether thy are verbal or factual
(or perhaps some combination of the two)

Activity 3.2.1. Why do you think that emotive function of language is insignificant
in logical discourses ? Discuss it.

Lesson 3.3. The Intension and Extension of Terms

Objectives:
After reading this section, you will be able to:
 know what a term is
 define intentional and extensional meaning of a term and distinguish their
difference.
 express their idea using intentional and extensional meaning of a term.
In the preceding lesson we have discussed that the primary aim of logic is the analysis and
evaluation of arguments. The components of arguments are statements. Statements are
made up of words, words have meanings and meanings are conveyed through definitions.

Before discussing the intension and extension of terms, let us define a term. A term is any
word or arrangement of words that may serve as the subject of a statement. Terms consists
of proper names, common names, and descriptive phrases. Words that are not terms include
 UNIT-3 LANGUAGE: MEANING AND DEFINITION

verbs, non substantive adjectives, adverbs propositions, conjunctions and all non syntactic
arrangements of words.

Words are considered to be symbols, and the entities they symbolize are usually called
meanings. Terms, being made up of words, are also symbols.
Meaning symbolized by terms are of two types: intentional and extensional. These are the
two ways that our mind conceive the word and develop meaning about it. Every word,
especially terms or nouns, have intentional and extensional meanings.

Intensional meaning, sometimes called connotative meaning, is the sum of the essential
feature of an object or class of homogeneous objects reflected in the term. It is the collection
of properties or attributes either peculiar to an object or common to things by which class of
things are designated.

In short, the intensional meaning consists of the qualities or attributes that the term
connotes. Thus, for example, the intension (or connotation) of the term "inventor" consists of
the attributes of being clever, intuitive, creative imaginative and so on.

Extensional meaning sometimes called denotative meaning is the meaning of the sum total
things. Extension refers the class or set of things made up of individual objects (elements)
that could be finite or infinite. Extensional meaning, therefore, refers to several objects
symbolized by extensional word or term, which is applicable to these objects. In short, the
extensional meaning consists of example, the extension (or denotation) of the term
"inventor" consists of the inventors themselves, i.e. all the inventors in the word such as
Thomas, Edison, Alexander Graham Bell, Wright brothers, and so on.

There are three different senses of the term "connotation", They are the subjective, the
conventional and the objective. The subjective connotation of a word for a speaker is the set
of all the attributes that particular speaker behaves to be possessed by the objects
comprising that word's extension. It is clear that the subjective connotation of a term may
very from one individual to another. For example, to a cat lover, the connotation of the word
"cat" might include the attributes of being cuddly and adorable, while to one who hates cats
it might include those of being unpleasant and disgusting. The motion of subjective
connotation is inconvenient for purposes of definition because it varies not merely from
individual to individual but even from time to time for the same individual, as new beliefs
are acquired or old ones abandoned by that individual. Consequently, we are more
interested in the public meaning of word than in their private interpretation.

The conventional connotation of a term consists of the properties or attributes that the term
commonly connotes to the members of the community who speak the language in question.
Under this interpretation, the connotation of a term remains more or less the same from
person to person and from time to time.

The objective connotation or objective intension of a term is the total set of characteristics
common to all the objects that make up that term's extension. It does not very at all from
interpreter to interpreter. For example, if all planets do have the attribute of moving in
elliptical orbits, this will be parts of the objective connotation of the word "planet" whether
any user of the term knows it or not.
 UNIT-3 LANGUAGE: MEANING AND DEFINITION

The denotation of a term also typically remains the same from persons to person, but it may
change with the passage of time. For example, the denotation of "currently living cat" is
constantly fluctuating as some cats die and others are born. The denotation of the term "cat,"
on the other hand, is presumably constant because it denotes all cats, past, present and
future.

Sometimes the denotation of a term can change radically with the passage of time. For
example, the term" Current King of Ethiopia" at one time denoted actually existing entity
but today such entity has perished. Accordingly, this term now has what s called empty
extension. It is said to denote the empty (or "null") class, the class that has no number.
Things that do not have current objective reference include myths, spiritual realities,
extincted creatures, historical events, and so on. To mention some of these things Santa
Claus, dinosaur, dragon, fictitious and mythical stories, current Apartheid rule in south
Africa, Satan, God, Unicorn, blue horse angel, and so on.

These things do not have objective references that could serve as a living testimony for their
existence. Our knowledge of these things is based on their properties and not based on their
living class members' characteristics. Their living class members are absent.

This point indicates that intentional meaning remain the same through time, while
extensional meaning change through time and thereby, we can assert that the intentional
meaning determine extensional meaning.
Example:- Intensional meaning
- Dinosaur is an extincted , often enormous reptile of the Mesozoic era.
- Satan means an evil spirit that causes people to suffer.
Can we develop extensional meaning of dinosaur and Satan?

Example:-
- Dinosaur means an extincted creature such as Dinosaur of South Africa,
Alaska and Siberia.
- Satan means either a devil, Lucifer or Qorite.

All these set of things, however, do not have living testimony that could be real
representative of the class of dinosaur and the class of Satan because their class members
are either extincted or are more imagination of our thoughts. Thus, these terms have
empty extension but they do not have empty intension.

Terms may be put in the order of increasing intension, increasing extension, decreasing
intension, and decreasing extension. A series of terms is in the order of increasing
intension when each term in the series (except the first) connotes more attributes than
the one preceding it. The order of decreasing intension is the reverse of that of increasing
intension

Example: increasing intension: animal, mammal, feline, domestic, cant

decreasing intension: cat, domestic feline, mammal, animal
 UNIT-3 LANGUAGE: MEANING AND DEFINITION

A serious of term is in the order of increasing extension when each term in the series
(except the first) denotes a class having more members than the class denoted by the
term preceding it. In order words, the class size gets larger with each successive term.
The order of decreasing extension is the reverse of that of increasing extension.

Example: increasing intension: cant, domestic, feline, mammal,

animal
Decreasing Extension: animal, mammal, feline, domestic, cat,

Note that the order of increasing intension is usually the same as that of decreasing
extension. On the other hand, the order of decreasing intension is usually the same as
that of increasing extension. However, there are some exceptions.
Consider the following series:
Dragon; dragon with red eyes; dragon with red eyes and long claws;
dragon with red eyes, long claws, and two wings.

Each term in this series has empty extension; So, while the series exhibits the order of
increasing intension, it does not exhibits the order of decreasing extension. Here is
another, slightly different, example:
living human being; living human being with a genetic code; living
human being with a genetic code and a brain; living human being with a
genetic code, a grain, and a height of less than 100 feet.

In this series none of the terms has empty extension but each term has exactly the same
extension as the others. Thus, while the intension increases with each successive term, once
again the extension does not decrease.

Lesson 3.4. Definitions and Their Purpose

Objectives
After reading this section, you will be able to:
 recognize the importance and value of defining a term accurately.
 explain various functions of definitions
 identify different kinds of definitions in writing and discourses

3.4.1. What is Definition?

Unless we define our terms with such degree of accuracy as the subject-matter and our
knowledge permit, clear thought and convincing statement are impossible.
The term definition is derived from the Latin definire, which means to limit or be concerned
with boundaries. Thus, definitions is providing meaning to a term or to a phrase concerned
 UNIT-3 LANGUAGE: MEANING AND DEFINITION

with or limited to the essential characteristics of the term or phrase; that is, what makes the
term or phrase different from other terms or phrases. Hence, when we define a term.
 We are creating boundaries of the use of that term,
 We are distinguishing that term from other terms, and
 We are focusing on what makes that term what it is.

Every definition consists of two parts: the definiendum and the definiens. The deniendum is
the word or group of words that is supposed to defined, and the definiens is the word or
group of words that does the defining. For example, in the definition" Lawyer" means a
person trained and qualified in the law who does legal work for other people," the word
"lawyer" is the definiendum, and every thing after the word "means" is the definiens. The
definiens is not the meaning of the definiendum, but another symbol or group of symbols
that, according to the definition, has the same meaning as the definiendum.

The Objective and purpose of Definition

The principal objective of definition is to present meaning for terms that are not clearly
understood in the context of other terms.
Definitions can serve different purposes:
 To avoid confusing, or misleading use of words and phrases, such as vague or
ambiguous expressions.
 To prevent needless controversies, disputes, disagreements and conflicts over the
meaning of terms and to avoid differences over the use of linguistic interpretation.
 To introduce unusual or unfamiliar words, to coin new words, or to introduce a new
meaning to a familiar word.
 To explain, illustrate, or disclose important aspects of difficult concepts.
 To prevent incorrect reasoning, helps to correct mistakes in reasoning , to sharpen
reasoning ability and there by assists to be logical in every aspects of our lives.
 To influence the attitudes of others.

Kinds of Definitions Classified According to Their Functions

The following are types of definitions which serve different purposes that we have
mentioned in the preceding lesson.

1. Stipulative Definitions

A stipulative definition assigns a meaning to a word for the first time. This may involve
either coining a new word or giving a new meaning to an old word. The purpose of
stipulative definition is usually to replace a more complex expression with a simpler one.
Moreover, it introduces unusual or unfamiliar words, which have no previous meaning in
the language, and serves to set up secret codes.

Individuals or group of individuals choose or invent new words and define either
intensional or extensional methods for the sake of such things as scientific inventions,
military secrete codes and operations, new social and natural phenomena, etc.
 UNIT-3 LANGUAGE: MEANING AND DEFINITION

Example:
- "Operation Desert Storm" was the code name given to the military invasion of
Iraq.
- "Operation Sunset" is the name of the operation of the Ethiopian defense force
against the Eritrean invading forces.

Because a stipulative definition is a completely arbitrary assignment of a meaning to a word

for the first time there can be no such things as a "true" or "false" stipulative definition.
Furthermore, for the same reason, a stipulative definition cannot provide any new
information about the subject matter of the definiendum.

Stipulative definitions are misused in verbal disputes when one person covertly uses a word
in a peculiar way and then proceeds to assume that everyone else use that word in the same
way. Under this circumstance that person is said to be using the word "Stipulatively." In
such cases the assumption that other persons use the word in the same way is rarely
justified.

2. Lexical Definitions

A lexical definition is used to report the meaning that a word already has in a language. A
lexical definition does not propose for its definiednum a meaning that it previously lacked,
but reports a meaning it already has. Dictionary definitions are all instances of lexical
definitions. It is clear that a lexical definition may be either true or false depending on
whether it does or does not report the way a word is actually used.
A lexical definition is useful to avoid ambiguity of a term being defined when its meaning
confused with another term.

A term is ambiguous when it has two or more meanings in given context. The statement, for
example, "My brother does not use glasses" contains an ambiguous word. When ambiguity
of meaning of terms occurs in our argument, the next lesson. Some words that are subject to
ambiguous usage are "light, "bank," "right," "race," etc.

3. Précising Definitions

Neither stipulative nor lexical definitions can serve to reduce the vagueness of a term. This
is resolved by précising definition. Precising definitions are definitions which are providing
a more precise, specific and restricting meaning to a conventional term for the purpose of
eliminating its vagueness. A word is to tell whether the word applies to them or not. For
example, Bill Gates clearly is rich. But is a person who is worth a half million dollars rich?
one worth a quarter million? Where does "rich" end and "well-off" begin? Words such as "
love," "poor," "happiness," "peace," "excessive," "fresh," etc, are vague. We can rarely tell
with any degree of precision whether they apply to a given situation.

Whenever words are taken from ordinary usage and employed in a highly systematic
context such as science, medicine, mathematics, or law, they must always be clarified by
means of a precising definition. The terms "force," "energy," " acid," "element," "number,"
"equality," "contract," and "agent," have all been given precising definitions by specific
disciplines.
 UNIT-3 LANGUAGE: MEANING AND DEFINITION

A precising definition is different from a stipulative one because its definiedum is not a new
term but one with an established, although vague, usage. Consequently, the maker of a
precising definition are not free to assign any meaning they choose to the definiendum. In
other words, stipulative definitions is arbitrary as true or false.

4. Theoretical Definitions

A theoretical definition provides a theoretical picture or characterization of the entity or

entities denoted by the definiendum. A theoretical definition of a term embodies an effort
to explain the nature of the things to which the definiendum normally applies. Its purpose is
to formulate a theoretically adequate or scientifically useful account of the objects to which
the term applies. To propose a theoretical definition is equal to proposing the acceptance of
a theory, and theories are highly debatable. Here one definition is replaced by another as
our knowledge and theoretical understanding increase. For example, at one time physicists
defined " heat" to mean a subtle imponderable fluid: now they define it as a form of energy
possessed by a body by virtue of the irregular motion of its molecules. Not only scientists
but also philosophers are most interested in the construction of theoretical definitions. For
example John Stuart Mill defines " good" as the greatest happiness of the greatest number,
which provided the foundation for his utilitarian theory of ethics.

Like stipulative definitions, theoretical definitions are neither true nor false, strictly
speaking. However, they may be more or less interesting or more or less fruitful, depending
on the deductive consequences they entail and on the outcome of the experiments they
suggest.

5. Persuasive Definitions

The purposes of persuasive definitions are:

 To persuade or convince listeners or readers over a certain issue,
 To change or influence the attitude of others towards one's own point of view,
 To win the acceptance of audiences, and
 To make audiences to develop favorable or unfavorable attitude towards the term
being defined.

The method employed to develop persuasive definition is to use emotively charged or value
laden words and phrases for the purpose of inciting, stirring or arousing the emotion of
audiences to make them to accept the definition. This point implies that persuasive
definition provides expressive (emotive) function of language rather than cognitive
(informative) function. Thus, persuasive definition can not be evaluated as true or false.
Since the purpose of this definition is to convince others, it has to be evaluated in terms of its
success in persuasion.
Here are some examples of opposing pairs of persuasive definitions:
 "Abortion" means the ruthless murdering of innocent human beings.
 "Abortion" means a safe and established surgical procedure where by a woman is
relieved of an unwanted burden.
 UNIT-3 LANGUAGE: MEANING AND DEFINITION

 "Taxation" means the procedure by means of which our commonwealth is preserved

and sustained.
 "Taxation" means the procedure used by bureaucrats to rip off the people who
elected them.

Lesson 3.5. Definitional Techniques

Objectives
After reading this section, you will be able to:
 define different ways of definitional techniques/methods.
 distinguish why a kind of definition different from others.

In the preceding lesson we have discussed various kind of definitions along with their
functions. In this section we will discuss some of the techniques (methods) used to produce
these definitions. We may classify techniques for defining into two groups. They are
Extensional (denotative) and Intensional (connotative) definitions.

A. Extensional (Denotative) Definitions

An extensional definition is one that assigns a meaning to a term by indicating the members
of class that the definiendum denotes. Note the we have investigated the meaning of
extension of terms in lesson 3.2. Extensional (denotative) definition gives meaning to a term
by indicating lists of examples to which the term can be correctly applied.
There are at least there ways of developing denotative definition. They are: demonstrative
(ostensive) definition, enumerative definition and definition by subclass.

i) Ostensive (demonstrative) Definitions

The term ostensive is derived from Latin word ostendere, which means to show, and there
by ostensive definition attempts to define a term by pointing to the object physically. It is a
special kind of definition by example and the most primitive one.

An ostensive definition refers to the examples by means of pointing or some other gesture
instead of naming or describing the objects denoted by the term being defined. An example
of an ostensive definition would be "The word 'book' means this," accompanied by a gesture
such as pointing a figure or nodding ones head in the direction a book. Ostensive definition
has its own limitation. For example, we cannot ostensively define the word "Skyscraper" in a
village or the word "Sun" at night time.

ii) Enumerative Definitions

Enumerative definition is a method of developing denotative definition in which a term is

defined by giving complete or partial list of objects symbolized by words. In other words, It
assigns a meaning to a term by naming the members of the class the term denotes.
Examples:
"Musical instrument" means 'Kirar,' Begena,' 'Masenko,' or Gitar,
"Lake" means either Tana, Ziway, Awassa, Abaya or Langano.
 UNIT-3 LANGUAGE: MEANING AND DEFINITION

Complete enumerative definitions are usually more satisfying than partial ones because
they identify the definiendum with grater assurance. However, relatively few classes can be
completely enumerated.

iii) Definition by Subclass

It assigns a meaning to a term by naming subclasses of the class denoted by the term, such
a definition too, may be either practical or complete
Example: "Vertebrate" means amphibians, fishes, birds mammals and reptiles.
"Flower" means a rose, lily, daisy, and the like

B. Intensional (Connotative) Definitions

An intensional (Connotative) definition is one that assigns a meaning to a word by

indicating the qualities or attributes that the word connotes. Note that the discussion on
section 3.2. There are at least four methods of developing connotative definition. They are
synonymous definition, etymological definition, operational definition, and definition by
genus and defferentia.

i) Synonymous Definition

A synonymous definition is a technique of defining a single word by giving another single

word that has the same meaning. It is a definition in which the definiendum and the defines
are equivalent in connotation and denotation; and there by, they are interchangeably used.
Many dictionaries, especially smaller ones, use this method extensively.

Example: "physician" means doctor

" shut" means close

ii) Etymological Definition

It is a definition which is based on the term's root or ancestor word in one's language or
other languages.
Example: The word "Orthodox" is derived from the two Greek word ortho,
meaning right or straight, and doxa, meaning belief or opinion. Hence,
orthodox means right belief.

iii) Operational Definition

A definition that specifies a set of procedures or operations for determining whether a term
can be correctly applied is called operational definition. It equates the meaning of a term
with the description of the tests that must be performed before the term can be correctly
applied. There by, operational definition is carried out by indicating the actions (operations,
activities, procedures) that the word implies and which when performed serve as its
meaning.
 UNIT-3 LANGUAGE: MEANING AND DEFINITION

Example:-
 A solution is an "acid" if and only if litmus paper turns red when dipped in
to it.
 A substance is translucent if and only if when held up to a strong light some of
the light comes through.

iv) Definition by Genus and Differentia

This type of definition assigns a meaning to a term by identifying a genus term and one or
more difference words that, when combined, covey the meaning of the term being defined.
To explain how it works, let as define the terms "genus," "species," and "Specific difference"
or "differentia."

In logic, "genus" and "species" have a some what different meaning than they have in
biology. In logic, "genus" simply means a relatively larger class, and "species" means a
relatively smaller subclass of the genus. For example, we may speak of the genus animal
and the species mammal, or the genus mammal and the species feline, or of the genus feline
and the species tiger. In other words genus and species are merely relative classifications.
The "specific Difference" or "differentia" is the attribute or attributes that distinguishes the
various species within a genus. For example, the definition 'Man is a rational animal' states
the genus animal that man shares with horses and cattle, etc. at the same time specifying the
differentia rational that marks him off from other species of animal. To make clear, genus is
the essence of a thing, namely that part which can be predicated also of other things,
differing from it in king. Differentia, too, is part of the essence of a thing, but is that part
which distinguishes it from other species of its genus.

Examples:
Species Difference Genus
"Daughter" means female offspring
"Spinster" means unmarried woman
"Ewe" means female sheep
"Father" means male parent

Lesson 3.6. Rules (Criteria) for Definition

Objective
After reading this section, you will be able to:
 define rules of a good definition
 apply these rules in writings and speech.

Faulty and weak definitions, and even more descriptions, can be better than nothing. To
make weak definitions stronger, and bad ones better, and to set a high standard for all who
 UNIT-3 LANGUAGE: MEANING AND DEFINITION

define, establishing rules of definition is indispensable for correct understanding of terms.

The following are rules for a good definition.

Rule-1 Definition should be stated with proper grammar. A definition, like any form of
expression, should be grammatically correct.
Example: Vacation is when you don't have to go to work or school.
This definition does conform to the standards of proper
grammar and the definiendum should be put under
quotation. The correct one is mark or it should be italicized.
"Vacation" means a period during which activity is
suspended from work or school

Rule-2 Definition must indicate the essential characteristics of the word being defined.
Example: "Human being" is an animal that can laugh
"Soldier" is a person engaged in killing or to be killed by the
enemy

Both the above definitions are incorrect, because the defines do not refer the essential
characteristics of the definiendum. The term "Soldier" should be defined as "a person who is
a member of an army" and not as a killer. The term "human being" should be defined as "a
rational animal" not as a laughing animal.

A good definition tries to point out the attributes that are essential to the designation of
things as the member of the relevant group. A good definition is not concerned with
accidental characteristic, that is, those which merely indicates unimportant attributes to the
word being defined, such as killing for soldier and laughing for human.

Rule-3 Definition should be precise and not too broad and not too narrow.
If a definition is too broad, the definiens includes too much; if it is too narrow, the
definiens includes too little. A good definition captures the correct extension. That is, a good
definition will apply exactly the same thing as the term being defined, no more, no less.
Example 1: "A horse is a mammal. This definition is broad, because the
term" mammal" includes cow, goat, sheep, etc.
Example 1: "A horse is adult male mammal used mostly by cavalry
forces.

This definition is narrow. The term "horse" is defined by a few characteristics that do not
include all horses; In this definition "horse" is taken as adult male animal ( ignoring female
animals) employed by cavalry forces ( ignoring other uses of horse like transportations.)

Rule-4 A definition should not be circular

The definition must not contain a term equivalent to the term to be defined. A
breach of this rule is called circular definition. The following are circular definition:
Example- -"science" means the activity engaged in by scientists.

-"An archdeacon" is a man who performs archidiaconal

function.
 UNIT-3 LANGUAGE: MEANING AND DEFINITION

Rule-5 A definition should not be negative when it can be affirmative

A definition is supposed to explain what a term means rather than what it does not mean.
For example, when we define the word "couch" as meaning not a bed and not a chair, we
failed to explain the meaning of the word for there are infinitely many other things that are
not meant by the word "couch." On the other hand, there are terms that require negative
definition. For example, the word "orphan" means a child who does not have parents living;
the word "bald" means the state of not having hair on one's hand.

Rule- 6 A definitions should not be expressed in figurative, obscure, vague or ambiguous

language

A definition is figurative if it involves metaphors or tend s to paint a picture instead of

expressing the essential meaning of a term.
Example:
 Ethiopia is the breadbasket of East Africa.
 "Bread" is the staff of live

A definition is vague if, in a given context it leaves open too wide a range of borderline
cased for the successful use of that concept (definition ) in that context.
Example: There is not enough money to go around. The word
"enough" is vague.

A definition is ambiguous if it lends itself to more than one distinct interpretation. Example:
I don't know what state my uncle is.
A definition is obscure if its meaning hidden as a result of inappropriate language and
technical terms. Example fetlock is aback of horse's leg above the hoof with a tuff of hair.
(technical term which means foot)
Rule-7: A definition should avoid affective terminology
Affective terminology is any kind of word usage that plays upon the emotion of the
reader or listener that includes sarcastic language
Example: Reason is for Europeans but emotion is for Africans.
Rule-8: A definition should indicate the context to which the defines pertains.

Whether the definiendum is a word that means different things in different context,
a reference to the context is important.

Exercises 3.1.
1. Determine which of the following words or groups of words are terms and which are
non terms
a. Lawyer
b. Plaintiff g. Eloquent speaker
c. Sue h. Aristotle
d. Whoever writes i. Jot down
e. Attractive j. Deliberately
f. Therefore
2. Give the connotation and denotation of the terms: motor car, bird, mammal,
domestic animal, lake
3. Name four items denoted by the following terms
a. musical instrument
b. newspaper
c. mountain
d. language of Ethiopia
e. even number less than 10
4. Arrange each of the following groups of terms in order of increasing
intension
a. Animal, feline, lynx, mammal, vertebrate, wildcat.
b. Integer, number, positive integer, prime, rational number, real
number.
c. Doctor of medicine, person, brain surgeon, professional person,
surgeon.
d. Bahir Dar University, Africa, Ethiopia, Amhara Region, East Africa,
Bahir Dar.
e. Alcoholic beverage, beverage, champagne, fine white wine, white wine,
wine.
5. Construct a Series of four terms that exhibits increasing intension but non
decreasing extension.

Exercise 3.2.
I. Determine whether the following definitions are stipulative, lexical,
précising, theoretical, or persuasive
1. “Football” means a sport in which modern day gladiators brutalize
one another while trying to move a ridiculously shaped “ball” from
one end of the playing field to the other.
2. “Wristovision” means a miniature television set that can be worn on the
wrist.
3. “Blind” means for federal income tax purpose, either the inability to see
better than 20/200 in the better eye with glasses or having a field of vision
of 20 degrees or less.
4. “Diffident” means lacking confidence in oneself; characterized by modest
reserve.
5. “Intoxicated”, for purpose of driving a car in many states, means having
a blood-alcohol ratio of 1 to .001 or greater.
6. “Sound” means a compression wave in air or some other elastic
medium having a frequency ranging (for humans) from 20 to 20,000
vibrations per second.
7. “Smoker” means a rude and disgusting individual who callously emits
noxious to bacco fumes in to the air, threatening the health and comfort of
every one in the vicinity.
8. “Gravity” means a force that results from the universal attraction that
every particle of matter has for every other particle, and which varies
directly with the mass of the particles and inversely with the square of the
distance between them.
 9. “Aereomobile” means a vehicle that is normally driven on the
ground but that has the capability of flying through the air to avoid
traffic congestion.
10. “Obelisk” means an upright, four-sided pillar that terminates in a
pyramid; a dagger.

Exercise 3.3.
I. Determine whether the following are demonstrative definitions, enumerative
definitions, definitions, operational definitions, or definitions by genus and
difference.
1. An "electric current" flows in a circuit if and only if an ammeter connected
in series with the circuit shows a reading.
2. "Philosopher" means someone such as Plato, Aristotle. Descartes , or Kant.
3 "Tree" means this, and this, and this (as you point to a number of trees)
4. "Angel" is a word that originates from the Greek word angels, which means
massager.
5. "Oak" means a tree that bears acorns.
6. "Hammer" means a tool used for pounding.
7. "Flower" means this:

8. "Neophyte" means beginner.

9. "Language" means something such as Geez, Amharic, English, French, and so
on
10. A substance is "translucent" if and only if when held up to a strong height
some of the light comes through.
11. " insect " means something such as a fly, and ant ,a wasp, or a caterpillar.
12. "Truck" means a vehicle used for hulling.
13. "Error" means mistake
14. "Professional person" means a person such as a doctor, a lawyer, a
professor, or an architect.
15. "Tale" is a word that derives from the old English word tall, which means talk.

II. The following exercises involve constructing definitions:

1. Construct complete enumerative definitions for the following terms:

a. Ocean
b. Continent
2. Construct a definition by subclass for the following terms by naming three
subclasses of the class the term denotes.
a. Animal
b. Vehicle
3. Consult a dictionary to find the etymological roots of the following words.
a. Isomorphic
b. Isotropic
c. Biology
d. Theology
 UNIT-4 INFORMAL FALLACIES

UNIT -4

INFORMAL FALLACIES

Fallacies in general........................................................................................................ 47
Lesson 4.1. Fallacy of Relevance................................................................................. 47
Lesson 4.2 Fallacies of Weak Induction........................................................................52
Lesson 4.3. Fallacy of Presumption...............................................................................54
Lesson 4. 4. Fallacies of Ambiguity..............................................................................57
Lesson 4.5. Fallacy of Grammatical Analogy..............................................................57

Objective – at the end of this chapter the students are expected to

 address the meaning and nature of fallacies
 Describe the difference between a fallacious argument and a well-constructed
argument
 Identify the basic causes of different type of fallacies
 Familiarized with the mechanism that classifies informal fallacies
 Identify the specific following in informal fallacy.

Introduction – Dear learners, in this chapter we are going to see at what an informal
fallacy is, including the basic causes and goals of informal fallacy, what are the major
group of informal fallacies and also what are the basic character of each fallacies of
informal fallacy.
 UNIT-4 INFORMAL FALLACIES

Fallacies in general

- In ordinary language usage the term “fallacy” is used to designate any mistaken idea
or false belief. But logicians use the term in the narrower sense of an error in reasoning
or in argument. Therefore in logic a fallacy is defined as a defect in an argument that
consists in something other than mere false premises.

 An argument become fallacious when the premises of an argument fail to

establish the truth of its conclusion. The premises of an argument fails to
establish the truth of the conclusion two cases
 The first way is assuming a false proposition as one of its premise that is if its
premises are false, then it fails to establish the truth of the conclusion.
 The second way is, when the premises of argument do not imply its conclusion-
that means when there is a problem or defect in the logical relationship between
premises and conclusion.
- Logicians, however, do not much interested in the truth or falsehood of
propositions as in the logical relation between premises and conclusion. Hence
arguments that fails in the second way is said to be fallacious argument.

Dear learners ,the basic objective of fallacy is deception; deceiving the listener or reader
to accept the conclusion. There are different reasons why an arguer deceives the
evidence; lack of reasons or audiences, eager to get acceptable and so on. The causes of
fallacies are not similar from one argument to another argument. In some argument the
premises might be irrelevant to the conclusion, in other argument the relation ship
between premises and conclusion is not strong enough and also there are other causes.
Based on their cause, informal fallacy can be broadly classified in to five groups. These
are fallacy of relevance, Fallacy of weak induction, Fallacy of presumption, Fallacy of
ambiguity and Fallacy of grammatical analogy.

Lesson 4.1. Fallacy of Relevance

Objective:- of the lesson at the end of this lesson learners are required to;
 Understand the nature of fallacy of relevance
 Identify fallacy of relevance from other type of fallacies
 Recognize the causes of fallacy of relevance

Introduction: Dear learners in this lesson we are going to discuss fallacy of relevance,
the cause and specific elements of fallacy of relevance.
Fallacy of Relevance is a group of informal fallacies that occur because premises of an
argument are irrelevant to the conclusion: Fallacies of relevance share the common
characteristics in that the premises are logical irrelevant to the conclusion, but
psychologically the premises are relevant. Thus in the Fallacies of irrelevance the
relation between premises and conclusion is based on emotion, not on a genuine
evidence. Among the emotion often appealed to are hostility, Fear, and pity. As it is
indicating in the preceding chapter informal language may have the unfortunate effect
of hindering us from dealing effectively with any information that may be present. Thus
 UNIT-4 INFORMAL FALLACIES

to identify fallacy of irrelevance one must be able to distinguish genuine evidence from
various forms of emotional appeal.

The following are different types of fallacies relevance that shown the emotional
attachment between premises and conclusion disregarding presenting logical evidence
for the truth of the conclusion.

1. Appeal to Force (Argumentum ad Baculum)

- An informal fallacy that occurs when on arguer threatens a reader or listener for the
purpose of getting him or her to accept a conclusion. The fallacy always involves by the
arguer to the physical or psychological well-being of the listener or reader. Hence it can
of ten get acceptance owing to its psychological pressure. But it is obvious that such
threat is logically irrelevant to the subject matter of the conclusion.

E.g. 1. I would like to make an appointment to see you tomorrow about my final
grade. I think it was unfair and I should have gotten a better one. By the way, I
believe that you know my aunt. She is your dean.

2. I will be happy to tell you why the report needs to be finished by Friday. If it is
not ready by then, you will be looking for another Job.

2. Appeal to pity (Argumentum ad Misericordiam)

The Latin term, Misericordiam, literally means pitying heart which represent mercy,
sympathy, special favor or altruism in the fallacy of appeal to pity the arguer poses a
conclusion and then attempts to involve a feeling of pity from the reader or listener.

Eg. Mr. Chairman, I certainly deserve arose in pay. I can hardly manage to feed my
children on what you have been paying me. And my youngest Child, Tom, needs an
operation if he is ever to walk without wheel chair.

3. Appeal to People (Argumentum ad Populum)

The fallacy of emotional appeal (to entausiasm) is a favorite device of propagandists and
adventures. Forced with the task of mobilizing public sentiment for or against a
particular measure or product, they will avoid the labourens process of collection and
presenting evidence and rational argument by using short cut methods of the emotional
appeal. Hence in an appeal to people fallacy an arguer plays or contain psychological
needs for the purpose of getting the reader or listener to accept the conclusion. There are
two basic approaches of fallacy of appeal to people.

3A. Direct approach of appeal to people.

 UNIT-4 INFORMAL FALLACIES

- occurs when a fallacious argument is forwarded directly to the mass of people,

either in speech or writing, for the purpose of mass mentality. It is a good
strategy used by nearly every propagandists Historically Adolf Hitler was a
master of this technique on his ideology of the master race of Aryans, the reason
given for the genocide of jewes.

3B. Indirect approach:-

- It is a type of an appeal to people Fallacy, Focusing on, not to the Crowd, but on the
individual or more individual separately. For one’s own advantage. The indirect
approach is a standard technique of the advertising industry. The following are a
specific forms of indirect approach to people fallacy.

Bandwagon Argument : A form of indirect approaches in which the arguer plays on the
reader's or listener's need to part of a group. Bandwagon; literally means joining a
group in beneficial. Hence the arguer emphasize on the idea that you will be left behind
if you don't use the product.
Eg. Of course you should buy Teddy Afro's new album. It has been sold over a
million copy and people in Addis enjoy with it.

 Appeal to Vanity :- Occurs when an arguer play on the vanity of the reader or
listener. In such form, the arguer often associates to product with a certain
celebrity who is admired and pursued. The rational behind such association
that you , too, will be admired and pursued of you use it.
Eg. Only the globally accepted beautiful leady could level up Ethiopia to the
world-wide beauty competition. Miss millennium is for the Ethiopian
millennium campaigners.

 Appeal to snobbery: occur when the arguer plays on the reader's or listener's
need to feel superior. The term snobbery also refers persons with an
exaggerated respect for social position and who despises for him or her are
inferior.
Eg. Petroleum in the Ogaden region is not of every one. If we notice as one of the
recognized few, this identified gifts can be considered and sage-guarded at the
national code of future scenario.

4. Argument against the Person (Argumentum and homien):-

This fallacy always involves two arguers. The first arguer advances a certain argument.
The second arguer attempts to refuse the first person's idea without providing logical
evidences. Usually the second person responds by directing his/her attention, not to the
argument, but to the first person himself or herself. In fallacy of against the person, the
respondent fail to provide an effective criticism, opposition and refutation on the view
point or position of others; that is why some logicians called it pseudo refutation.
The following are typical forms of fallacy of against the person.
 UNIT-4 INFORMAL FALLACIES

4 a. A dominium abusive - a verity of the argument against-the -person fallacy that

occurs when an arguer verbally abuses a second arguer for the purpose of discrediting
that person's argument.

Example- President Abdella Yusuf has argued in favor of imposing arm-embargo on

Eritria. But Yusuf's arguments are meaningless. Yusuf, you know, is an American
framed president under the shadow of Ethiopian government.

4b. Adhminum Circumstantial - a verity of the argument against the person fallacy that
occurs when the arguer cities circumstance that affect a second arguer for the purpose of
discrediting that persons argument

Example - Hermela's argument is favour of the new family law of Amhara region is
totally unacceptable. First of all she is a female and widow. She divorced three times and
her favour of the law is because she wonted a mass lots of money from her former
husbands.

4c. Tu quoque (you too) - A verity of the argument-against the person fallacy that occurs
when an arguer shifts the burden of guilt onto a second arguer for the purpose of
discrediting his or her argument.

Example- you have argued that it is wrong for me to hunt mild animals. Well, you eat
hamburger, and that involves the killing of animals.

5. Straw man Fallacy

Dear learners this is a fallacy that occurs when the arguer misinterprets an opponent's
position for the purpose of more easily attacking it and then proceeds to conclude that
the original argument has been demolished.

In the fallacy of straw man, the respondent has to goes with two steps. Initially, the
respondent demolish or distorts the original argument (either by over simplifying,
demolishing, exaggerating or distorting) and then presents a valid conclusion from the
distorted premises, by ignoring the original argument.

Example- Some people these days are against prayer in the public school. But I can not
agree with any position based on the assumption that there is no God, and that is
against the norm of our society. So, I disagree with these people.

6. Red Herring

A king of fallacy of relevance that occurs when the arguer diverts the attention of the
reader or listener by addressing a number of extraneous issues and ends by presuming
that some conclusion has been established. Usually, the respondent raises a hot and
controversial issue to divert the attention of the audience. The basic difference between
fallacy of straw man and red herring is that in the fallacy of straw man the respondents
distorts and demolish the original argument. While in red herring, the respondent
 UNIT-4 INFORMAL FALLACIES

totally ignores the original argument and raise another issues that attracts the attention
of the people, that is why, logician, called red herring an off truck fallacy.

Example- we have all heard the argument that two much television is the reason our
students can not read and write. Yet many of today's TV shows are excellent:
'Killilochachin' explores the diversified culture of our society; 'metrology' informs about
daily weather 'Zink' gives a lot of fun. Today's TV is just great.

7. Missing the Point

An informal fallacy that occurs when the premises of an argument entails one particular
conclusion, but a completely different conclusion is actually drawn. Fallacy of missing
the point is a special form of fallacy of relevance because the premises of the argument
support one particular conclusion which is vaguely related to the correct conclusion. In
this fallacy, the arguer is ignorant of the logical implications of his or her own premises
and as a result, draws a conclusion that misses the point entirely.

Example- The Ethiopian football federation could not contribute for the betterment of
football in this country. Both the former and new members of the federation have no
vision at all. All of them were striving to get a position in the federation. The only
solution for this problem is to eradicate the federation and hurry the soccer itself.
8. Accident

An informal fallacy that occurs when a general rule is wrongly applied to a typical
specific cases. In the fallacy of accident of accident a general rule is applied to a specific
case that is not intended to cover.

Example- Freedom of speech is a constitutionally guaranteed right. Therefore, John &

Radical should not be arrested for his speech that incited the riot last week.

Exercise-1
I. Identify the fallacies of relevance by the following arguments. If no fallacy
is committed 'No' fallacy.
1. Ethnic conflict is one of the problems of Africa. Hence, to create peace and
stability in Africa, ethnic diversity should be replaced by ethnic homogeneity.
2. It is ridiculous to hear that men from Ethiopia complaining about America's
poverty. Ethiopia has twice as much poverty as American ever has.
3. Given that woman a 'Birr,' I see her on this corner every day crying and she
seems to be ill.
4. You should buy Tedy Afro's new album. It is sold over a thousand copies and
practically, every one in Addis is talking about it.
5. What goes up must come down. The price of "Berberre" has been going up for
moths. Thus, it will surely come down.
6. Mr. Prime Minster, Iam certain you want to release the members of our
national liberation group whom you currently hold in prison. After all I am
sure you will not to have car bombs go off in the centers of your most heavily
populated cites.
 UNIT-4 INFORMAL FALLACIES

7. I find it mildly that Mr. and Mrs. Kebede are advocating school reforms. But I
certainly do not any reason to take their proposal seriously. Both of them were
poor students in higher school.
8. So what if the senator accepted a little kick back money most political are
corrupt, after all.
9. The first amendment to the constitution prevents the government from
interfering with the free exercise of religion. The liturgical practices of the
religion of international enlightenment involve human sacrifice. Therefore, it
would be wrong for the government to interfere with this religious practice.

Lesson 4.2 Fallacies of Weak Induction

Objective of the lesson - at he end of this lesson learners will able to:
 Define what fallacy of weak induction
 Mention to the specific fallacies of fallacy of weak induction
 Understand the basic character of the specific fallacy in fallacy of weak
indicator.

Introduction- Dear learners in this lesson you will know about fallacy of weak
induction, meaning, course and specific elements in the fallacy of weak induction.

Fallacy of weak induction is a group of informal fallacies that occur because the
connection between the premises and conclusion is not strong enough to support the
conclusion. Using fallacies of weak induction appear in inductive type of
argumentation. As it is indicated in chapter two, an inductive argument is an argument
that is the truth of conclusion is probably based on the provide evidence. However, in
the fallacy of week induction, the premises are not strong enough to establish the truth
of their conclusion. Like fallacies of relevance fallacies of week induction often involve
emotional ground for believing the conclusion. However, unlike fallacies of relevance,
the premises may have some sort of irrelevance to the conclusion. But the evidences are
not nearly good enough to produce the truth of the conclusion.

1. Appeal to Unqualified Authority

It is an informal fallacy that occurs when an arguer cites the testimony of an unqualified
authority in support of a conclusion. But this doesn't mean that all argument that
constitutes their conclusion from witness or authorities are a fallacies argument. Only
when the witness and authority is not trust worthily the argument become fallacies
argument. There are second reasons that make the authority and witness untrustworthy.
The author or witness might lack the faulty might be based or prejudiced and so on.

Eg. Major General Abadula, the general of Ethiopian troops in Somalia, has stated that
he invention of new-microscope along with many professionals from Debrezait
veterinary school hold the key to eradicate Shasshemane's cattle disease. In view of
major general Abadula's expertise, As a military general, we must conclude that this is
indeed true.
 UNIT-4 INFORMAL FALLACIES

2. Appeal to Ignorance (ad egnorateum)

An informal fallacy that occur when an arguer use the fact that nothing has been proved
about something as evidence in support of some conclusion about that thing. In this
argument, the arguers arrive at definite conclusion, based on his/her own ignorance.
Usually an appeal to ignorance fallacy occurs on issues which involve something that is
incapable of being proved.

Eg. Many organizations have been trying to reduce social crimes like genocide for along
period of time, and none of them has ever succeeded. Therefore, we must conclude that
social crimes are irreducible.

3. Hasty Generalization (Converse Accident)

An informal fallacy that occurs when a general conclusion is drawn from atypically
specific cases. The basis problem of hasty generalization argument is the evidence of the
data is in adequate and unrepresentative to draw a general conclusion.
Eg. Almaz taught herself how to read and write when she was only four. Tesfaye and
Galma did the same. This implies that first grade level education is unnecessary.

4. Weak Analogy

An informal fallacy that occurs when the conclusion of an argument depends on

analogy or similarity that is not strong enough to support the conclusion. In this
argument the conclusion is depend on the existence of similarity and analogy is not
strong enough to support the conclusion.

Eg. Lake Tana is very wide, has so many creatures, and attracts large number of tourists.
Lake Abe is also very large, has so many creatures. Therefore, it probable attracts large
number of tourists.

5. False Cause

An informal fallacy that occurs when the conclusion of an argument depends on some
imagined causal connection that probably does not exist. The imagined causal
connection might not be well explained by the relationship for the following reasons.
The cause is over simplified to produce the effect, the cause taken as effect or vice versa.
The causal relation depends on some imagined connection which actually doesn't exist.
The followings are verities of a false cause fallacy.

A. Post hoc-ergo proptom hoc fallacy

It is a Latin word, translates as often this, The variety of fallacy presuppose that first one
event precedes another vent. The first one event precedes another event. The first event
causes the second. In a such argument, amore temporal selection establish the
connection of the two.
 UNIT-4 INFORMAL FALLACIES

B. None-cause Procause Fallacy

The Latin word none casa pro-causa may be translated as not the cause for the cause.
Hence, in this argument what is taken to be the cause of something is not really the
cause at all such as a mistake is not due to a more temporal succession.

C. Over simplified causes

Occurs when a multitude of causes is responsible for a certain effect but the arguer
selects just one of these causes and represents it as if it was the sole cause.

Exercise -2

I. Identify the fallacies of weak induction committed by the following

arguments. If no fallacy is committed, write "No fallacy"
1. Probably no life exists on venues. Teams of scientists have conducted
exhaustive studies on the plant's surface and atmosphere, and no living
organisms have been found.
2. Ronald Ragon maintained a hard line against the soviet block countries
through his eight years of president. Then, shortly after he left office,
communism began to disappear from Eastern Europe. Obviously Regan's policy
was effective.
3. Dr. Seid, a physician at 'Flege Hiowot' Hospital has stated that proper use
of condom reduced the susceptibility to HIV/AIDS, so you, BDU students have
to use condom during sexual intercourse.
4. Some Woyala in early line bears the same manner. They do not have the least
respect for people, rather they are known with their bad words and tried to drag
people in to their taxi. Thus, they all are rude.
5. Animals and humans are similar in many ways. Experience sensation, desire,
fear and pains. Humans have rights not to be subjected to needless pain. Does it
not follow that animals have a right not to be subject to needless pain?

Lesson 4.3. Fallacy of Presumption

Objective of the lesson- after completing this lesson the students are able to:
 define what a fallacy of presumption is
 Identity the basic characters of fallacy of presumption
 Describe the difference between fallacy of presumption and other types of
fallacies.

Introduction- In this lesson you are going to look another type of fallacy, fallacy of
presumption, including the basic feature and character of fallacy of presumption, the
specific fallacies under fallacy of presumption.

Fallacy of presumption is a group of informal fallacies that occurs because the premises
of an argument presumes what they purport to prove. To presume, literally means, to
 UNIT-4 INFORMAL FALLACIES

take for granted, to assume the given idea is true and correct; but, in fact, it needs further
proof, explanation and evidences. Hence in the fallacy of presumption, the premises
contain tricky and confusing expression for the purpose of concealing the wrong
assumption. The assumption given in the premise. Is not supported by proof or
evidence, but the arguer maintains that it does not need proof. There are different ways
of presuming the audience. The followings are a variety of forms of fallacy of
presumption.

1) Begging the Question

It is an informal fallacy that occurs when the arguer uses some forms of phraseology that
tends to conceal the questionably true character of a key premise. In this type of
argument, the arguer tries to hide the fact that a certain premise may not be true. And it
the audience is deceived into thinking that they key premise is true, then she/he accept
he argument as sound, when infant it may not be. Two requirements must be met for the
occurrence of begging question fallacy.
 The argument must be valid
 Some form of phraseology must be used to conceal the questionable character
of a key premise.

There are different kinds of phraseology, but usually involves, using the conclusion to
support the questionable premise.
Example- 1) All of as can not be famous, because, all of us can not be
well-known
2) She says she loves me and she must be telling the truth,
because she certainly would not lie to some one she loves.

2. Complex Question

An informal fallacy that occurs when a single question that is really two or more
question is asked, and a single answer is applied to both questions. In the earlier
chapter, it is stated that arguments are constructed with statements, not with
sentences. So it is natural to raise the question of how can construct an argument
with question (which is not a statement)

The solution is, questions become an argument only when they are dealt with
their answers. Hence in a fallacy of complex, the question serves as a premise
while the answer is considered as conclusion. In the fallacy of complex question
the arguer forwards a confusing and tricking question to mislead the respondent.
Usually the conclusion of a complex question is a "Yes" or "No" answers.

Example- Are you still drinking excessively?

Have you stopped cheating on exam?

3. False Dichotomy

Dear learners an informal fallacy, committed when an arguer present two none
jointly exhaustive alternative as if they were jointly exhaustive and then
 UNIT-4 INFORMAL FALLACIES

eliminates one, leaving the other as the conclusion. In a false dichotomy fallacy
an arguer must pass two steps to commit it. The first one is it assumes only two
alternative is available for the given situation, but infant there are more than two
possibilities. The second step is the two alternatives are mutually exclusive, that
means if one alternative is two the other alternative must be false.

A false dichotomy fallacy is clearly valid. Since it is constructed with disjunctive

statements. However the premises are false and it becomes a sound argument. A
false dichotomy fallacy commonly occurred in arguments held by children and
adolescent with their parents.

Example- Either we dismantle the pentagon entirely or we will continue to waste

trillion of dollars on useless military machine. We certainly can not afford to
waste the money, so we should dismantle the pentagon entirely.

4). Suppressed Evidence

An informal fallacy that occurs when the arguer ignores the relevant evidences
that out weights the presented evidence and entails a very different, conclusion.
In a suppressed evidence fallacy, the arguer deliberately suppressed, de-
emphasize or over-emphasize the key evidence that make a conclusion different.
In a suppressed evidence fallacy the premises seem true and complete but in fact
they are not.

Example- certainly miss Bahir Dar University is an efficient and a good manager.
She has a great figure, an attractive face and tremendous poise and she dressed
very fashionably.

Exercise
I. Identify the fallacies of presumption committed by the following
argument, if no fallacy, write " no fallacy"
1. Thus Committee for nuclear says that nuclear power is safe and that it
holds the answer for America's energy needs in the year a head. We can only
conclude that the best policy if to push forward with nuclear power.
2. Tilahun Gessese is the greatest artist of the millennium. We know that
this is so because art critics have described him in these terms. These art
critics are correct in their assessment because they have a more keenly
developed sense of appreciation.
3. A question forwarded by a traffic police to a driver "When did you
see the red light before or after you run it"
4. Either men are superior to women or women are superior to men. Men
are not superior to women. Hence, women are superior to men.
5. Merry is the beautiful girl in BDU because her eyes are blue, she always
wears neat dress, and She is the tallest girl in the campus.
6. Have you stopped smoking Nyala? '
 UNIT-4 INFORMAL FALLACIES

Lesson 4. 4. Fallacies of Ambiguity

Objective - at the end of this lesson, learners will able to:

 Define fallacy of ambiguity
 Identify the basic causes of fallacy of ambiguity
 Describe the difference between fallacy of ambiguity and often type of
informal fallacy.

Introduction- Dear learners in this lesson you will lower about fallacy of
ambiguity, the causes and base character of fallacy of ambiguity and specific
fallacies under fallacy of ambiguity.

Fallacies of ambiguity are a group of informal fallacies that occur because of an

ambiguity in the premises or conclusion of the arguments. Arguments whose
formulation contain ambiguous word or phrases whose meanings shift and
change more or less subtly with the course of the argument become fallacies of
argument. Ambiguity in an argument can be occurred with the presence of either
an ambiguous term or when a general " Preposition" fail to make clear just how
general it is that is in what sense its subject term is being used. The followings
are the two permanent fallacies of ambiguity.

1) Fallacy of Equivocation

An informal fallacy that occurs because some words or group of words are used
either implicitly or explicitly in two different senses. In equivocation fallacy, a
word is used with one meaning or sense in the premise and with another
meaning in the conclusion.

2) Amphiboly Fallacy

An informal fallacy that occurs when the conclusion of an argument depends on

the misinterpretation of a statement that is ambiguous owing to some structural
defect. Fallacy of ambiguity known as syntactical ambiguity because it is the
error in reasoning used by misuse of sentences.
Example- 1. Power tends to corrupt, knowledge is power.
Therefore knowledge tends to corrupt.
2. No man will take counsel, but every man will take
money. Therefore money is better than counsel.

Lesson 4.5. Fallacy of Grammatical Analogy

Objective- at the end of the lesson, learners are required to:

 Identify what fallacy of grammatical analogy is.
 Describe the basic character of fallacy of grammatical analogy
 Understand the difference between fallacy of grammatical
analogy and other type of informal fallacies.
 UNIT-4 INFORMAL FALLACIES

Introduction - Dear learners in this lesson you are going to see at fallacy of
grammatical analogy, the cause, character and the specific fallacies under fallacy
of grammatical analogy.

Fallacy of grammatical analogy is a group of informal fallacy that occurs because

of a grammatical similarity to other arguments that are non fallacious. The
followings are the two major fallacies under fallacy of grammatical analogy.

Fallacy of Composition

An informal fallacy that occurs when the conclusion of an argument depends on

the erroneous transference of an attribute from parts of something in to the
whole. In the fallacy of composition, it is argued that, because the parts have a
certain attribute, it follows that the whole has that attribute too.

2. Fallacy of Division

An informal fallacy that occurs when the conclusion of an argument depends on

the erroneous transference of an attribute from a whole (or class) on to its parts
(or members). In fallacy of division it is argued that the whole has some attribute
and as if the parts have that attribute.
Example- -the Royal Society is over 300 years old. Professor
Thomson is a member of the Royal society. Therefore
Professor Thomson is over 300 year old (Division)
-Each and every cell in this carrot is 90 percent water.
Therefore, the entire carrot is 90 percent water.
(Composition)
Exercise

I. Identify the fallacies of ambiguity and grammatical analogy

committed by the following arguments. If no fallacy is committed,
write "no fallacy".
1. A salesman is a human being. Therefore a good salesman is a good
human being
2. I agree with Christians in their claim that God is love, But unlike
Christians, I am not afraid to draw the obvious consequence. Love
is God.
3. A Line is composed of points. Points have no length. Therefore, a line
has no length.
4. George said that he was interviewing for a job drilling oil wells in the
supervisor's office. We can only conclude that the supervisors must have an
awfully dirty official
5. Switzerland is 48 percent protestant. Heidi Gilsing is a Swiss.
Therefore Hdidi Gilsing is 40 percent protestant.
 UNIT-5 CATEGORICAL PROPOSITIONS

UNIT -5

CATEGORICAL PROPOSITIONS

Lesson 5.1. The Components of Categorical Proposition............................................. 59

Lesson 5.2 Quality, Quantity, and Distribution.............................................................62
Lesson 5.3 Venn Diagrams and the Modern Square Of Opposition......................65
Lesson 5.4. Categorical Operations: Conversion, Obversion, and Contrapostion........73
Lesson 5.5. Translating Ordinary Language statements Into Categorical Form...........80
Lesson 5.6. Adverbs and Pronouns................................................................................82

Introduction - Dear learners, this unit is divided in to four parts. These are: Components
of categorical proposition; quality, quantity, and distribution; Venn diagrams and the
modern square of opposition; and translating ordinary language into categorical form.

The first part deals about how a proposition relates two classes, sets, or categories, and
how a standard form categorical proposition is established. The second part analyzes
and interprets standard form categorical propositions. The third part tries to explain the
methods of representing propositions by diagrams and square of appositions so as to
check the validity of inferences. It also introduces systems of how to developed logically
equivalent meaning and/or different meaning of a proposition by changing some of its
components and attributes. The last part explains the best ways of translating and
evaluating ordinary language arguments.

Objectives
Up on the completion of this unit, you will be able to:
 Identify essential elements, the quality and quality of categorical
proposition.
 Know whether a given term in categorical preposition is distributed or
not.
 Appreciate the very essence and effect of distribution or otherwise of
terms.
 Use the Venn diagram and the modern sure of opposition to determine
the validity or invalidity of deductive argument by restoring to the
technique of immediate inference.
 Convert ordinary statement in to standard form.

Lesson 5.1. The Components of Categorical Proposition

Objectives
Up on the completion of this unit, you will be able to:
 Define categorical proposition
 Explain the relations between categories.
 Identify standard form categorical proposition and its components

What is Categorical Proposition?

 UNIT-5 CATEGORICAL PROPOSITIONS

In the second unit we saw that proposition is a statement that is either true or false
category is a set collection or class of similar things. Having these definitions in mind, a
proposition that relates two classes, sets, or categories, is called categorical proposition.
The classes in question are denoted respectively by the subject term and the predicate
term. Accordingly, categorical proposition asserts that either all or part of the class
denoted by the subject term is included in or excluded from the class denoted by the
predicate term. Here are some examples of categorical propositions:

1. Children are human beings

2. Roofers are not millionaires
3. Sea lions inhabit the coast of California
4. Not all lords are kings.

Statement(1) says that’s every member of the class of children is member of class of
human beings. Statement(2) asserts that the entire class of roofers is excluded from the
class of millionaires. Statement(3) says that part of the class of sea lions is included in the
class of things that inhabit the coast of California. And statement(4) asserts that part of
the class of lords is excluded from the class of kings.

As we have seen in the above section, categorical proposition asserts that either all or
part of the class denoted by the subject term is included in or excluded from the class
denoted by the predicate term. It follows that there are exactly four types of categorical
propositions.

These are:
1. Those that assert that the whole subject class is include in the predicate class.
2. Those that assert that the whole subject class is excluded from the predicate class.
3. Those that assert that part of the subject class is included in the predicate class.
4. Those that asset that part of the subject class is excluded from the predicate class.
A categorical proposition that expresses these relations with complete clarity is one that
is in standard from. A standard form categorical proposition is a statement that results
from putting respectively the subject and predicate terms in the blanks of the following
form or structure.
All S are P
No S are P
Some S are P
Some S are not P

The words “all”, “no”, and “some” are called quantifiers because they specify how much
of the subject class is included in or excluded from the predicate class. In the above
examples the first form asserts that the whole subject class in included in the predicate
class, the second that the whole subject class is excluded from the predicate class, the
third that part of the subject class is included in the predicate class, the last that part of
the subject class is excluded from the predicate class. (Incidentally, in formal deductive
logic the word “some” always means at least one.) The letters “S” and “P” stand
respectively for subject and predicate terms, and the words “are” and “are not” are
 UNIT-5 CATEGORICAL PROPOSITIONS

called the copula because they link (or “couple”) the subject term with the predicate
term.

Any standard form categorical proposition has the following four components:
Quantifier + Subject term + Copula + predicate term

Consider the following example:

All drunk drivers are threats to others on the highway. This standard form categorical
proposition is analyzed as follows:
Quantifier: all
Subject term: drunk drivers
Copula: are
Predicate term: threats to other on the highway
In resolving standard form categorical propositions into their four components, one
must keep these components separate. They do not overlap each other. In this regard it
should be noted that “subject term” and predicate term” do not mean the same thing in
logic that “subject” and “predicate” mean in grammar. The subject of the above
statement includes the quantifier “all”, but the subject term does not. Similarly, the
predicate include the copula “are”, but the predicate term does not.

However, in ordinary language propositions are not always stated in standard form. The
quantifier, copula, and the two terms can be stated in various forms and in some classes
one or two of these components may be missing altogether. In the final section of this
chapter we will develop techniques for translating categorical propositions in to
standard form, but for now we may restrict our attention to those that are already in
standard form.

Lastly, there are some additional points that should be noted about standard form
categorical propositions. The first is that the form “All S are not P” is not a standard
form. This form is ambiguous and can be rendered as either “No S are P” or “Some S are
not P”, depending on the content.

The second point is that the term of a categories proposition must include a noun or
pronoun that denoted a class. But sometimes and adjective appears without a noun or
pronoun, in which case the term is incompletely expressed. In such a case, a noun or
pronoun must be added. Example: All humans are rational. When noun is added to the
example it becomes “All humans are rational animals or All humans are rational beings.
The last point is that there are exactly three forms of quantifiers and two forms of
copulas. Other text allows the various forms of the verb “to be” (such as “is”, “is not”,
“will”, and “will not”) to serve as the copula. For the sake of uniformity, this text
restricts the copula to “are” and “are not”. The last section of this chapter describes
techniques for translating these alternate forms in to the two accepted ones.
 UNIT-5 CATEGORICAL PROPOSITIONS

Activity 5.1.1
Identify the quantifier, subject term, copula, and predicate term of the proposition: “No
sex education courses that are taught competently are programs that are currently
eroding public morals.”

Lesson 5.2 Quality, Quantity, and Distribution

Objectives
Up on the completion of this unit, you will be able to:
 Explain whether a given term in proposition is making an assertion about
all or part of the class under consideration.
 Understand whether or not the relation between two terms is about
inclusion or exclusion of classes.
 Identify which term is distributed in the four types of categorical
propositions.

Quality and quantity are attributes of categorical propositions. In order to see how these
attributes pertain, consider the following interpretation

Proposition Meaning in class notation

All S are P Every member of the S class is a member of P class,
that is, the S class in included in P class.
No S are P No member of the S class is a member of P class,
that is, the S class is excluded from P class.
Some S are P At least one member of the S class is a member of
the P class
Some S are not P At least one member of the S class is not a member
of P class.

The quality of categorical proposition is determined by whether the asserted class

relation is one of exclusion or inclusion. In other words, every categorical proposition
has either affirmative or negative quality. If a proposition affirms that one class is wholly
or partly included in another class, then the proposition’s quality is affirmative. It a
statement denies that one class is wholly or party included in another, its quality is
negative.
Thus, propositions having the form “All S are P” and “Some S are P” are affirmative,
while propositions having the form “No S are P” And “Some S are not P” are negative
proposition.

The quantity of categorical proposition is determined by whether the statement makes a

claim about every member or just some member of the class denoted by the subject term.
To put it in other way, the quantity of every categorical proposition is either universal or
particular. If a proposition asserts something about every member of the class denoted
by the subject term it is universal. But if it asserts something about one or more member
of the class denoted by the subject term it is particular.
 UNIT-5 CATEGORICAL PROPOSITIONS

Accordingly, propositions having the form “All S are P” and “No S are P” are universal,
while proposition having the form “Some S are P” and “Some S are not P” are particular.

Note that the quantity of categorical proposition may be determined through mere
inspection of the quantifier. “All” and “no” immediately imply universal quantity, while
“Some” implies particular. But categorical propositions have no “qualifier”. In universal
propositions the quality is determined by quantifier, and in particular propositions it is
determined by the copula.

Since the early middle ages the four kinds of categorical propositions have commonly
been designated by letter names corresponding to the first four vowels of the Roman
alphabet: A,E,I,O. The universal affirmative is called an A propositions, the Universal
negative an E proposition, the particular affirmative an I proposition, and the particular
negative an O proposition. These letters were derived from the first two vowels in the
Latin words affirmo (“I affirm”) and nego (“I deny”).

These are summarized as follows:

Letter name Proposition Example Quantity
Quality
A All S are P All trees are plants Universal
Affirmative
E No S are P No Plants are animals Universal
Negative
I Some S are P Some trees are oaks Particular
Affirmative
O Some S are not P Some trees are not oaks Particular
Negative

It is important to note that for present purposes, the word “some” means “at least one”.
In ordinary English, “some” occasionally has the force of “Some but not all”. But this is
not the meaning assigned to “some” in logic. It is specially important to bear in mind
that “some S are P” does not imply that “some S are not P”. It often happens, of course,
that substitution instance of these statement forms are both true. For example, “some
trees are oaks” is true, as is “some trees are not oaks.” But the fact that one is true does
not necessitate that the other be true. “Some dogs are mammals” is true (because at least
one dog is an animal), but “some dogs are not mammals” is false.
Thus, the fact that one of these statement forms is true does not logically imply that the
other is true, as the last substitution instance clearly shows.

Distribution is an attribute of terms (subject and predicate) of proposition. A term is said

to be distributed if the proposition makes an assertion about every member of the class
denoted by the term; otherwise it is undistributed. Stated another way, a term is
distributed if and only if the statement assigns (or distributes) an attribute to every
member of the class denoted by the term. Accordingly, the subject term is distributed if
the statement asserts something about every member of the class of the subject term; the
predicate term is distributed if the statement asserts something about every member of
the class of the predicate term; otherwise the subject and predicate term; otherwise the
subject and predicate terms are undistributed.
 UNIT-5 CATEGORICAL PROPOSITIONS

Let us now consider the four categorical proposition having “Cowards” and “heroes” as
subject and predicate terms, respectively.
1. Universal affirmative (A). “All cowards are heroes.”

This statement represents the fact that every member of the class of cowards is a
member of the class of heroes, which is to say that all members of the class of cowards
are contained in the class of heroes. In other words, the statement makes a claim about
every member of the class of cowards. But it does not make a claim about every member
of the class if cowards, since there may be some member of heroes out side cowards.
Thus, by definition cowards is distributed and heroes is not. For any universal
affirmative (A) proposition, the subject term is distributed, and the predicate term is
undistributed.

2. Universal negative (E) – “No cowards are heroes”

This asserts that the class of cowards and heroes are separated. It states that each and
every member of cowards is entirely excluded from each and every member of heroes,
and vise versa. Accordingly, since the statement makes a claim about every member of
both terms, the subject and predicate terms of universal negative (E) proposition are
distributed.

3. Particular affirmative (I)- “Some cowards are heroes”. It states that at least one
member of predicate class, i.e., at least there is one thing that is simultaneously in the
subject and predicate classes. Thus the statement makes a claim about one member (at
least) of the subject and one member (at least) of the predicate classes, but not about all
members of either class. Hence, by the definition of distribution, neither subject nor
predicate term is distributed in particular affirmative.

4. Particular negative (O) - “Some cowards are not heroes.”

It asserts that at least one member of cowards is not a member of heroes. What is known
here is that there exists at least one member of cowards which is out side the entire class
of heroes. Since the other member of cowards may or may not be outside of the class of
heroes, it is clear that the statement does not make a claim about every member of the
class of cowards. But, the statement does assert that the entire class of heroes is
separated from one member of the class of cowards that is outside; that is, it does make a
claim about every member of heroes. Thus, in particular negative (0) proposition, the
predicate term is distributed and the subject term is not.

As an aid in remembering this rule for distribution, it may be convenient to keep in

mind the following mnemonic. Any student Earning Bs is not on probation. Attending
to the first letter in each word should help us remember that A statements distribute the
subject, E statements distribute both terms, I statement distribute neither terms, and O
statement distribute the predicate.
 UNIT-5 CATEGORICAL PROPOSITIONS

Finally, we note that the attribute O distribution, while not particularly important to
subsequent development in this unit, is essential to the evaluation of syllogisms in the
next unit.

The materials of this section may now be summarized as follows:

Proposition Letter Quantity Quality Terms
distributed
All S are P A Universal Affirmative S
No S are P E Universal Negative S and P
Some S are P I Particular Affirmative none
Some S are not P O Particular Negative P

Activity 5.2.2
State whether the subject and predicate terms of the following propositions are distributed or
undistributed.
1. All things that ate beautiful are pleasant to behold.
2. Some prime numbers are not divisible by two.

Lesson 5.3 Venn Diagrams and the Modern Square Of

Opposition

Objectives
Up on the completion of this unit, you will be able to:
 Explain the meaning, form and implication of Venn diagrams.
 Show how the four types of categorical propositions are translated and
interpreted by Venn diagrams and square of oppositions respectively.
 Evaluate the validity of arguments using Venn diagrams, modern and
tradition squares and immediate inference.
 Discuss the different appearances (forms) of a categorical proposition
using categorical operations.
 Explain the similarity and difference between modern and traditional
square of oppositions.

Back Ground
Consider the following two examples
(1) All students who studied are persons who got good grade.
(2) All unicorns are one horned animals
The above two examples, like all universal affirmative statements, assert that the while
class it the subject terms are contained in the class of the predicate terms. But does each
statement also imply that the subject term exist? Of course for (1) you probably would
think that there actually were some students who studied. You probably would consider
statement(2) true, because “Unicorn”, by definition, means having one horn actually
exist. Example(2) illustrates that an ambiguity exists in the meaning of A type (and also
E type) categorical propositions. In such categorical propositions do we assume the
 UNIT-5 CATEGORICAL PROPOSITIONS

subject term denotes something that actually exists or we make no such assumption? In
response to this question, logicians have developed two different interpretations of
categorical propositions. Aristotle, the philosopher who created the theory of categorical
propositions over two thousand years ago, restricted his theory to things that actually
exists. Thus, according to this interpretation, the statement form “All S are P” asserts
that all members of the S class is included in the P class, and it is assumed that members
of S actually exist.
This interpretation prevailed more or loss until the nineteenth century, when it became
necessary to make statements about things that do not exist. In response to this, the
nineteenth century logician George Boole developed an interpretation that was neutral
about existence.

Thus, according to Boolean interpretation, the statements form “All S are P” asserts that
all members of the S class are included in the P class, and it is not assumed that members
of S actually exist.

The difference between the Aristotelian and the Boolean interpretations also extends to
E-type propositions. Thus, under the Aristotelian interpretation, “No S are P” asserts
that no members of the S class are included in the P class, and it is assumed that
members of S actually exist. Under Boolean interpretation, however, it asserts that no
members of the S class are included in the P class, and it is not assumed that members of
S actually exist.

On the other hand, both interpretations are in agreement with regard to particular (I and
O) propositions. Thus, for both interpretations, “some S are P” asserts that at least one
member of the S class exists, and it is also a member of the P class. And “some S are not
P” asserts that at least one member of the S class exists, and it is also a member of the P
class. And “some S are not P” asserts that at least one member of the S class exists, and it
is not a member of P class. Hence, under Aristotelian and Boolean interpretations, I and
O statements make positive claims about existence.

Because the Boolean interpretation of Universal propositions is neutral about existence,

it is simpler than the Aristotelian, which involves an assumption about existence. For
this reason, we will direct our attention first Boolean interpretation, and latter introduce
Aristotelians as an extension of the Boolean.

Let us begin by reiterating the Boolean interpretation of the four kinds of categorical
propositions.
All S are P = No members of S are outside P
No S are P = No members of S are inside P
Some S are P = At least one S exists, and that S is a P
Some S are not P = At least one S exists, and that S is not a P
Adopting this interpretation of categorical propositions, the nineteenth century English
Logician John Venn developed a system of diagrams to represent the information they
express. Those diagrams have come to be known as Venn diagrams.

Venn Diagrams
 UNIT-5 CATEGORICAL PROPOSITIONS

A Venn diagram is an arrangement of overlapping circles in which each circle represents

the class named by a term in a categorical proposition. Each of the standard forms of
categorical propositions has its own graphic illustration in a Venn diagram: that is, since
every categorical proposition has exactly two terms, it is represented by two
overlapping (intersecting) circles. Each circle is labeled so that it represents one of the
terms in the proposition. Unless otherwise required, we adopt the convention that the
left –hand circle represents the subject term, and the right-hand circle the predicate term.
The diagram looks is:

S P
The members of the class denoted by each term should be thought of as situated in side
the corresponding circle. Accordingly, the members of S class (if any such class exists)
are situated inside the S circle, and the members of P class (if any such class exists) are
situated inside the P circle. If any members are situated inside the area where the two
circles overlap, then such members belong to both the S class and the P class.

For instance, if we assume that the S class is the class of Ethiopians and the P class is the
class of professors. Then, if we select E and P to label the two circles, and if we use
numerals to identify the four possible areas, the diagram looks like this:

E P
The area marked “1” stands for an Ethiopians but not a professors, anything in the area
marked “2” is both an Ethiopian and a professors, and anything in the area marked “3”
stands for a professors not an Ethiopian. The area marked “4” is the area outside both
circles; thus, any thing in this area is neither an Ethiopian nor professor. Here is the final
description of the diagram.

Ethiopians E P Professors
Ethiopians that are professors

Note that the area that is outside both circles represent classes that ate neither Ethiopian nor
professor.

Now we can use Venn diagrams to indicate the information expressed by the four kinds
of categorical proposition. To show that an area contains at least one object, we use an
“x” placing an “x” means that at least one thing exists in that area. To show that an area
is empty, we shade it in. if an area does not contain an “x” and is not shaded in, we
simply have no information about it or nothing is known about that area. Thus, to
diagram a universal affirmative statement having the form “All S are P”, we indicate
 UNIT-5 CATEGORICAL PROPOSITIONS

that the left hand side of the subject term is empty by shading it in, as follows: (Assume
that the proposition is “All dogs are animals”)

Dogs Animals

This is the sort of diagram you always use for a universal affirmative proposition. The
diagram says that the class of dogs has no members that are outside (not members) of
animals. Notice that this diagram does not say that there are any dogs, not does it say
that there are animals. It simply says, “ If there are any dogs, then they are animals”.
Universal negatives have the form “No S are P”. The diagram for “No dogs are cats,”
looks like this

Dogs Cats
This is a sort of diagram you always use for a universal negative proposition. The
diagram represents that the area where dogs and cats overlap is empty; there is no
member which is a dog as well as a cats.

Notice that the above diagram does not say that there are any dogs, nor does it say that
there are any dogs, not does it say that there are any cats. It simply says that nothing
belongs to the class (or set) of things that are both dogs and cats.

Particular affirmatives have the form “some S are P”, and assert that sets of S and P have
at least one member is common. This is represented by placing an “x” in the area where
S and P overlap. The diagram for “some dogs are collies” looks like this:

Doges Collies

The diagram asserts that there exists at least one dog that is a collies. This is the diagram
you always use for particular affirmative propositions.
Particular negatives have the form “ some S are not P”, and assert that set S has at least
one member that does not belong to set P. It is represented by placing an “x” in the part
of the S circle that lies outside the P circle. The diagram for “ some dogs are not collies”
looks like this”:

Doges Collies
 UNIT-5 CATEGORICAL PROPOSITIONS

The diagram asserts that there exist at least one dog that is not a collies. This is the
diagram you always use for particular negative proposition.
Note that shading is always used to represent the content of universal (A and E)
propositions, and placing an “x” in the areas is always used to represent the content of
particular (I and O) propositions.

Modern square of opposition

The square of opposition is devices of dealing with various forms of relations of the four
categorical propositions are geographically represented in the square of relation some of
the propositions are logically “opposed”, while others are not.
The method of dealing with categorical propositions using square of relation was
introduced by classical philosophers. Different from classical tradition, modern logicians
introduced different types of square of relations of categorical propositions. Hence, we
have two different approaches to study the square of relation of categorical propositions:
the traditional and modern.

To study the logical relation of categorical proposition in the square of relation in both
traditional and modern logic two requirements should be met:
1. There should be a square diagram in which the four types of categorical
propositions are placed at the corners exhibiting the logical relation called
opposition.
2. The categorical propositions that are related in square of opposition should have
the same subject and predicate terms taking in to account the differences in
quantity and quality.

For the purpose of this course we shall give more emphasis to the Boolean interpretation
of categorical propositions which is explained by modern square of opposition.
To start with, let us compare the diagram for the A proposition with the diagram for the
O proposition. The diagram for A proposition asserts that the left-hand part of the S
circle is empty, where as the diagram for O proposition asserts that this same area is not
empty. These two diagrams make assertions that are the exact opposite of each other. As
a result, their corresponding statements are said to contradict each other. Analogously,
the diagram for E proposition asserts that where the two circles overlap is empty, where
as the diagram for the I proposition asserts that the area where the two circles overlap is
not empty. Accordingly, their corresponding propositions are also said to contradict is
presented in a diagram called the Modern Square of opposition.

This diagram, which arises from the modern (or Boolean) interpretation of categorical
proposition, is presented as follows:
A E
 UNIT-5 CATEGORICAL PROPOSITIONS

Contradictories
I O

The square shows that the A and O-propositions and the E and I propositions, which are
at opposite diagonal corners from each other, respectively, are contradictory
propositions, they never have the same truth values. Two statements are contradictories
if they can not both be true and they can not both be false. In other words, if one is true,
the other must be false; if one is false the other must be true. Thus, if certain A
proposition is given as true, the corresponding O proposition must be false. Similarly, if
certain I proposition is given as false, the corresponding E proposition must be true.
(This relation between each pair of proposition is true provided that they have the same
subject and predicate terms.) However, given the truth value of an A or O proposition,
nothing can be determined about the truth value of the corresponding E and I
proposition and vice versa. Thus, from the Boolean stand point, which is neutral about
existence, they are said to have logically undetermined truth value. Like all propositions,
they do have a truth value, but logic alone con not determine what it is.

Immediate inferences

The relation of categorical proposition in the square of opposition leads us to the study
of the validity of immediate inference. An immediate inference is a logical process of
arriving at a conclusion from the given one premise. In such inference there is not
transition in thought from one premise to another and then to the conclusion.

Using immediate inference, we can evaluate an argument as valid or invalid. When the
relation between two categorical proposition undetermined truth value the immediate
inference of the two propositions becomes invalid. But contradictory square of
oppositions has no undetermined truth – value.
Hence, its immediate inference between propositions A and O, E and I results in valid
contradictory relation. Consider the following argument:
1. All flowers are plants.
Therefore, it is false that some flowers are not plants.

To evaluate this argument using modern square of opposition, we begin by assuming

that the premise, which is an A proposition, is true. By modern square, if an A
proposition is true, then it follows necessarily that its corresponding O proposition is
false. This is what the conclusion of example (1) asserts. There fore the argument is
valid.

Here is another example.

2. It is false that some Walyas are Nyalas.
 UNIT-5 CATEGORICAL PROPOSITIONS

Therefore, some Walyas are not Nyalas.

Again, we begin by assuming that the premise is true. The premise states that certain I
proposition is false, that is what we assume. By the modern square, if an I proposition is
false, then it necessary follows that the corresponding E proposition is true; but nothing
more can be determine. Since the conclusion is not the corresponding E proposition, but
rather the corresponding O proposition, the argument is invalid.
We can use Venn diagram to determine whether immediate inferences are valid or
invalid. Consider the first of the two examples. We just evaluated using modern square.

We began by using letters to represent its terms (example 1).

All F are P
Therefore, it is false that some F are not P.
Next, we draw a Venn diagram for the premise and a Venn diagram for the conclusion.
The premise is easy: all we do is shading the left-hand part of F circle. But the conclusion
asserts that something is false. To draw a Venn diagram for this, we first consider what
would do if the conclusion said it is true that some F are not P. We would then place an
"X" in the left-hand side of F circle. But since the conclusion says that this statement is
false, we do just the opposite: we shade the left hand part of F circle. Here are the
diagrams for the valid argument.
Premise: All F are P

F P
Conclusion: it is false that some F are P. First.

F P This is false (that

something exists in the left hand of F circle)

Final

F P Nothing exists in the left hand of F-circle.

To evaluate the argument, we have to see whether the information expressed by the
conclusion diagram is also expressed by the premise diagram. The conclusion diagram
asserts that nothing exists in the left-hand part of the F circle. Since this information is
 UNIT-5 CATEGORICAL PROPOSITIONS

also expressed in the premises diagram, the argument is valid. In this case, the diagram
for the conclusion is identical to the diagram for the premise, so it is clear that the
premise and the conclusion assert exactly the same thing. However, for an argument be
valid, it is not necessary that premise and conclusion assert exactly the same thing. It is
only necessary that the information expressed by the conclusion diagram is contained in
the premise diagram.

Here is the symbolize version of the second argument (example 2) evaluated earlier.
It is false that some W are N
Therefore, some W are not N
In diagramming the premise, we do just the opposite of what we should do to diagram "
some W are N." Instead of placing an "x" in the area where the two circles overlap, we
shad e that area for the conclusion we place an "X" in the left hand part of W.
It is false that some W are N

W N

Some W are N

W N
Here, the conclusion diagram asserts that some thing exists in the left-hard part of W
circle. Since this information is not contained in the premise diagram, the argument is
invalid.
Here are two more examples
(3) No A are B
Therefore, it is false that all A are B

Premise A B Conclusion A B
The argument is invalid
(4) It is false that some A are B
Therefore, no A are B.

Premise A B Conclusion A B
The argument is valid

Activity 5.3.1.
 UNIT-5 CATEGORICAL PROPOSITIONS

Construct two arguments (immediate inference) of your own and test their validity
using modern square and Venn diagrams.

Lesson 5.4. Categorical Operations: Conversion, Obversion, and Contrapostion.

Categorical propositions would change their attribute with the change of some of its
components. The three ways of doing this is using conversion, obversion, and
contrapostion. These three operations would help us to interpret and analyze
arguments, to make valid arguments, and develop logically equivalent or different
meanings of Categorical propositions.

A) Conversion

The converse of a standard form categorical proposition is formed simply by

interchanging its subject and predicate terms. Here are four examples of statements
together with their converse as well as its diagrams.

Statement Converse

A: all S are P S P All P are S S P

E: No S are P S P No P are S S P

I: Some S are P S P Some P are S S P

O: Some S are not P S P Some P are not S P

Conversion is the inference form of categorical proposition to its converse. Conversion is

valid for E and I propositions. If we examine the diagram for the E preposition, we see
that it is identical to that of its converse. Also, the diagram for the I statement is identical
to that of its converse. This means that the E statement and its converse are logical
equivalent, and the I statement and its converse are logically equivalent. Two statement
s are logically equivalent when they necessarily have the same truth value. Thus,
converting an E and I statement gives a new statement that always has the same truth
value (and the same meaning) as the given statement. For example, the following two
examples are valid (immediate inferences).
 UNIT-5 CATEGORICAL PROPOSITIONS

1) No plants are animals. So, no animals are plants.

2) Some plants are trees. So , some trees are plants..
you can construct Venn diagram to confirm this result.

But conversion is not valid in general with regard to A and O propositions. The
diagram for the A statement is clearly not identical to the diagram for its converse, and
the diagram for the O statement is not identical to the diagram of its converse. Also,
these pairs of diagrams are not the exact opposite of each other, as in the case with
contradictory statements. This means that an A statement and its converse are logically
unrelated as to truth value. In other words, obverting an A or O statements gives a new
statement whose truth value is logically undetermined in relation to the given statement
and the argument will be invalid. The converse of an A or O statement does have a
truth value. of course, logic alone cannot tell us what it is I addition conversion for A or
O statements resulted in the fallacy of illicit conversion:
The following examples are invalid and commit fallacy of illicit conversion.
1) All husbands are married men. So all married men are husbands.
2) Some wife are not black women. So some black women are not wife.

B) Obversion

The concept of obverse requires a bit of explanation, and two steps are required: (a)
changing its quality is form affirmative to negative or vice versa (with out changing its
quantity), and (2) replacing the predicate term with its term complement. The first step
consists of changing" No s are P to "all S are P" and vice versa, and changing "some S are
P" to" some S are not P" and vice versa.

The second step requires understanding the concept of class complement. The
complement of a class is the group consisting of every thing out side the class. For
example, the complement of the class of dogs is the group that includes every thing that
is not a dog (cats, trees, fish, and soon). The Term complement is the word or phrase that
denotes the class complement. For the term consisting of a single word,

The term complement is usually formed by simply attaching the prefix " non" to the
term. Thus, the complement for the term " dog" is " non-dog," the complement for the
term " book" is "non-book," and so on.

The relation ship between term and its complement can be illustrated by a Venn
diagram. For example, if a single circle is allowed to represent the class of does, then
everything out side the circle represent the class of non-doges:

non-dogs Dogs

Now if we are given the statement "All Zebras are mammals," then the obverse using the
two steps is
a) No Zebras are mammals.
 UNIT-5 CATEGORICAL PROPOSITIONS

b) No Zebras are non-mammals.

Thus, the converse of the above example is "No zebras are non-mammals."

To see how the four Categorical propositions relate to their obverse, compare the
following Venn diagrams:
Given Statement for m Obverse

A: all A are B A B No A are B non A B

E: No A are B A B All A are non B A B

I: Some A are B A B Some A are not non B A B

O: Some A are not B A B Some A are not non B A B

While drawing obverse diagram, keep in mind that "non-B" designates the area out side
the circle. Thus, each obverse is explained as follows:

"Non A are non-B" asserts that the area where A overlap non-B is empty.
It is represented by shading the empty area.
"All A are non-B" asserts that non members of A are outside non-B or no
members of A are inside B. The area where A overlap B is
empty.

"Some A are not non-B" means that at least one member of A is not outside B.
In other wards, at least one member of A is inside B
and "x" is place in the area where the two overlap.
"Some A are non-B" means at least one member of A is outside B.

In the above pairs of diagrams, we see that the diagram for each given statement form is
identical to the diagram for its obverse. this means each of the four types of Categorical
propositions is logically equivalent to (and has the same meaning as ) its obverse. Thus,
if we obvert and A statement that happens to be true, the resulting statement will be
true; if we obvert an E statement that happens to the false,, the resulting statements will
be false, and so on.
 UNIT-5 CATEGORICAL PROPOSITIONS

As is the case with conversion, obversion can be used to supply the link between the
premise and the conclusion of immediate inferences. The following argument forms are
valid:

All A are B. Therefore, no A are non-B

No A are B. Therefore, all A are non-B
Some A are B. Therefore, some A are not non-B
Some A are not B Therefore, some A are non-B
If the premise of each premise is true, the conclusion will necessarily be true.

Activity 5.3.2.
Find the obverse of the converse "No sharks are fresh water fish."

C) Contraposition

It requires two steps: (1) interchanging its subject and predicate terms and (2) replacing
the subject and predicate terms with their term complements.
For example, if we are given statement " All cats are mammals." the resulting statement
is " All non-mammal are not cats." This new statement is called the contra positive of the
given statement. To see how all four types of Categorical propositions relate to their
contra positive, compare the following sets of diagrams:

Given Statement form Contra positive

A: all A are B A B All non B are non A A B

E: No A are B A B No non-B are non A A B

I: Some A are B B Some non B are non-A A B

O: Some A are not B A B Some non-B are not non-A A B

The diagrams for the contra positives are interpreted as follows:

All non-B are non-A asserts that no members of non-B are outside non-A It
means no members non-B are inside A or all class
members that are not in B are not in A
 UNIT-5 CATEGORICAL PROPOSITIONS

No non-B are non-A asserts that the area where non-B overlap non-A is
empty
Some non-B are non-A asserts that something exists in the area where non-B
overlap non-A.
Some non-B are not non-A asserts that at least one member of non-B is outside
non-A. This means
at least one member of non-B is inside
A.

The diagrams for A and O statements reveals that they are identical to the diagrams of
their contra positive. As with conversion and obversion, contra position may provide the
link between the premise and the conclusion of an argument. The following arguments
are valid:

A: All citizens are residents. C R

There fore , all non -residents are non citizens. C R

O: Some plants are not-trees. P T

There fore, some non-trees are not non-plants. P T

On the other hand, the diagrams of the E and I statements are neither identical to nor the
exact opposite of the diagrams of their contra positive. This mean that contraposition an
E and I statements gives a new statement whose truth value is logically undetermined in
relation it the given statement. Hence, the contra position of an E and O statements
resulted in the fallacy of illicit contra position and the argument is in valid.

Example:

No soldiers are saints There, no non saints are non Soldiers.

S S S S

Some plants are weeds. Therefore, some non-weeds are non-plants

 UNIT-5 CATEGORICAL PROPOSITIONS

P W P W

As we see from the diagrams, both arguments are invalid and commit the fallacy of
illicit contraposition.

The Traditional Square of Opposition

In the first section of this chapter we have seen that modern square depends on the
Boolean interpretation of Categorical propositions. However, the traditional square
depends on the Aristotelian interpretation of Categorical propositions. Their difference
is this: the Boolean interpretation is neutral about where universal (A and E) proposition
make claims about actually existing things, where as the Aristotelian interpretation
assumes that the subject terms of these propositional denote things that actually exist.
Because of this existential assumption, the traditional square contains more relations
than Modern Square.

There is the traditional square:

A Contrary E

T T Contradictories

F F
I Subcontrary O

Fig. The square of opposition

First the contradictory relation here is the same as that found in the modern square.
Accordingly, the corresponding A and O statements are contradictories, that is, if one is
true the other must be false; if one is false the other must be true. The same relation
holds between the E and I propositions.

Second, according to Aristotelians, corresponding A and E statements are contraries.

Two statements are contraries if they can not both be ( at least one must be false). If an A
proposition is given true, the corresponding E proposition is false and if E proposition is
given true, the corresponding E proposition if false. But if A proposition given false, the
corresponding E proposition could be either true of false. In this case, the E proposition
has undermined truth value similarly, if an E propositions is given false, the
corresponding A proposition has logically undermined truth value.

Third, according to Aristotelians, corresponding I and O statements are contraries. Two

statements are sub contraries if they can not both be false but they can both be false. (At
 UNIT-5 CATEGORICAL PROPOSITIONS

least one must be true) thus, if a certain I proposition is given false, the corresponding O
proposition will be true and if an O proposition is given false, the corresponding I
proposition will be true. But if either an I or an O proposition is given true, the
corresponding proposition could either be true or false without violating the " at least
one is true" rule. Thus, in this case the corresponding proposition would have logically
undermined truth value.

Lastly, the sub alternation is represented by two arrows: a downward arrow marked
with the letter "T" (true), and an upward arrow marked with an "F" (false). These arrows
can be thought of as pipelines through which truth values "flow" . The downward arrow
"transmits" only truth, and the upward arrows only falsity. Thus, if an A proposition is
given as true, the corresponding I proposition is true also, and if I proposition is given
false, the corresponding A proposition is false. But if an A proposition is given as false,
this truth value can not transmitted down ward , so the corresponding I proposition will
have logically undermined truth value. Conversely, if an I proposition is given as true, A
proposition will have undermined truth value. Analogous reasoning prevails for the sub
alternation relations between the E and O proposition.

Used together, the four categories propos ions have the possibilities to determine the
truth values of corresponding propositions. The first rule of thumb that we should keep
in mind when using the esquire to compute more than one truth value is always to use
contradiction first. For example, assume that we are given "all trees are plants" is true.
(trees exist). By the contradictory relation, "Some trees are not plants" is false. Finally,
either by contrary or sub alternation relation, "Some trees are plants" is true. On the
other hand, if we assume "All trees are plants" is false, then "some trees are not plants" is
true by contradictory relation. But the truth values of both E and I propositions are
undetermined.

Traditional Square of opposition can also be used to test immediate inferences for
validity to gather with Venn diagram.

Here are some examples:

(1) All Americans are consumer. Therefore, it if false that some Americans are
consumers.
To evaluate this argument assume the premise as true. Since the premise which is an A
proposition is true, the corresponding O proposition (conclusion) is false by
contradiction. Hence, the argument is valid.

2) It is false that no voters are residents.

Therefore, some voters are residents.
Here the premise and conclusion are linked by sub alternation. Accordingly if the
premise is false, the conclusion has logically undetermined truth value, and so the
argument is invalid.

3) It is false that some Greeks are non-Europeans

Therefore, it is false that some Greeks are Europeans.
 UNIT-5 CATEGORICAL PROPOSITIONS

The link between the premise and conclusion is by sub contrary. Accordingly if the
premise is false, the conclusion must be true, an hence the argument is invalid.

Activity 5.3.3
The square of opposition can be interpreted din two ways: Aristotelian and Boolean
standpoints. Which one do you think is more plausible? Why?

Lesson 5.5. Translating Ordinary Language statements Into Categorical Form

Objectives

Up on the completion of this part, you will be able to:

 Explain the various methods of interpreting ordinary language statements so
as to prevent misunderstanding and confusion.
 Apply operations and inferences pertinent to standard form of categorical
propositions in ordinary language statements.
 Show the clear and unambiguous meaning of ordinary language statements.

So far we have been discussing stamens that are already in standard form. But many
statements in ordinary written and oral expression are not in standard form, and many
of these can be translated into standard term. Two benefits are secured by such
translation. The first is that the operations and inferences pertinent to standard form of
categorical propositions (contrary, sub contrary, etc) become applicable to these
statements. The second is that such statements, once translated are completely clear and
unambiguous as to their meaning. Many statements in ordinary language are
susceptible to multiple interpretations, and each interpretation represents one possible
mode of translation. The effort to translate such statement discloses the various
interpretations and thus helps to prevent misunderstanding and confusion.

Activity 5.4.1
Translate the statement "Only mammals are human beings" in to standard form.

Translating statements into categorical form is like any other king of translation in that
no set of specific rules can be given that will cover every possible form of phraseology;
yet one general rule always applies: understand the meaning of the given statement, and
then express it in a new statement that has a quantifier, subject term, copula, and
predicate term. Some of the forms of phraseology that are typically encountered are as
follows:

1) Terms without Nouns

The term of categorical proposition must include a noun or pronoun that denotes a class.
But sometimes an adjective appears without a noun or pronoun, in which case the term
is incompletely expressed. In such a case, a noun or pronoun must be added.
 UNIT-5 CATEGORICAL PROPOSITIONS

Examples:
Some flowers are green Some flowers are green plants
All tigers are carnivorous All tigers are carnivorous animals.

2) Nonstandard Verbs

At the beginning of this unit, we have adapted that the only copulas that are allowed in
standard form categorical propositions are "are" and "are not". Statements in ordinary
usage often incorporate other forms of the verb "to be". Such statements may be
translated as the following example illustrate.

Some persons who go to college will become educate.

Some persons who go to college are persons will become educate.

Some dogs would rather bark than bite.

Some dogs are animals that would rather bark than bite.
In other statements no form of the verb "to be" occurs at all. These may be translated as
the following examples indicate:

Some birds fly to south during the winter.

Some birds are animals that fly to south during the winter.

All fishes swim

All fishes are swimmers. or All fishes are animals that swim.

3. Singular Propositions

A singular proposition is a proposition that makes an asserting about a specific person,

place, thing or time. Singular propositions are typically translate in to universal by
means of a parameter. A parameter is a phrase that, when introduced into a statement,
affects the form but not the meaning. Seem parameters that may be used to translate
singular propositions are:
Person identical to
Place identical to
Things identical to
Cases identical to
Time identical to

For example, the statement "Socrates is mortal" may be translated as "All persons
identical to Socrates are persons who are mortal." Because only one person is identical to
Socrates, namely Socrates himself, the term "person identical to Socrates" denotes the
class that has Socrates as its only member. In other words it simply denotes Socrates.
Not that the parameter "persons identical to" is not the same as "persons similar to" or
"persons like." There may be many persons like Socrates, but there is only one person
identical to him. The same goes for the other parameters involving the word "identical."
Here are some examples:
 UNIT-5 CATEGORICAL PROPOSITIONS

J.J. Thomoson discovered the electron All persons identical to J. J. Thomson are
persons who discovered the electron.

Dessie did not go home No persons identical to Dessie are

persons who went home
There is a radio in the back bedroom All places identical to back bedroom are
places where there is a radio.
or Some radios are things in the back
bedroom.
The moon is full tonight All things identical to the moon are
things that are full tonight. or All times
identical to tonight are times the
moon is full.

I like chocolate All persons identical to me are persons

who like chocolate.
or All things identical to chocolate are
things that I like.
Note that these parameters should not be use when the term in question already has
plural noun (or pronouns) that denote the intended call.

Lesson 5.6. Adverbs and Pronouns

When a statement contains a special adverbs such as "were", " Wherever", "anywhere,"
or "no were" , or temporal adverbs such as "when", whenever", "anytime", "always", or
"never", it may be translated in terms of "Races" or 'times", respectively statements
containing pronouns such as "who", "whenever" , "anyone", and "what" , Whatever", or
"anything" may be translated in terms of "persons" or " thing" respectively.

Examples:
He always ears a suit to work All times he goes to work are times he
wear suit.

Alamz never speaks Awi in Ethiopia No times she lives in Ethiopia are times
she speak Awi.

Were there's smoke there's fire All places there is smoke are places
there is fire.

Whoever works hard will succeed All persons who work hard are
persons who will succeed

She does what she wants All things she wants to do are things she
does.

5. Unexpressed Quantifiers
 UNIT-5 CATEGORICAL PROPOSITIONS

Many statements in ordinary usage have quantifier that implied but not expressed. In
introducing the quantifiers one must be guide by the most probable meaning of the
statement.

Examples:
Monkeys are mammals. All monkeys are mammals

There are students in the class room. Some students are persons in the class
room

A dog is not a cat . No dogs are cats

A dog barked. Some dogs are animal that barked

Children live next door. Some children are persons who live next
door.

6. Non Standard Quantifiers

Sometimes the quantity of a statement is indicated by a word or words other than the
three quantifiers that are allowed. Furthermore, statements having the form "All S are
not P" are not in standard categorical form. Depending on the meaning, statements
having this form must be rendered as either "No S are P" or "some S are P".
Examples:
A few Norwegians are Muslims. Some Norwegians are Muslims.
Anyone who votes is a citizen. All voters are citizen.
Not every one who philosophize is a European. Some philosophers are not
European
No single man is a woman. No men are women.
All athletes can't be winners. Some athletes are not winners.
All goats are not sheep. No goats are sheep.
Few football players won the world cup Some foot ball players are
persons who won the world
finials and some football
players are persons who won
the world world cup finals.

Notice that statements beginning with "few" (and some statements) beginning with "a
few") cannot be translated as single CPs. They must be translated as a compound
arrangement of an I proposition and an O proposition. Statements beginning with
"almost all" and "not quite all" must be handled in the same way. When these statements
occur in arguments, the arguments must be treated in the same way as those containing
exceptive propositions, which will be discussed shortly.

7. Conditional Statements
 UNIT-5 CATEGORICAL PROPOSITIONS

When the antecedent and consequent of a conditional statement talk about the same
thing, the statement can usually be translated into categorical form. The Boolean
interpretation of Categorical propositions provides the key: such statements are always
rendered as universal.
Examples:
If anything is a cat, hen it is a mammal. All cats are mammals.
If somebody is a liar, then he is not honest. All liars are honest persons.
If Los Angles is in California, then Los Angles is a large city.
All California cites identical to Los Angles are big cites

In addition, when the word "if" occurs in the middle of a conditional statement, the
statement must be restructured so that it occurs at the beginning. For example, "An
animal is a fish if it has gills" means "If an animal has gills, and then it is fish". This is
then translate," All animals having gills are fish."

More over, if both antecedent and consequent of a conditional statement are negated,
you may switch place to ignore the negatives. (Using rule of trasnpostion) . For example,
the statement "if something is not valuable, then it is not scarce" is logically equivalent to
"If something is scarce, then it is valuable" This is then translated as "All scarce things
are valuable things."
Example:
If a company is not well managed, then it is not a good investment.
is equivalent to
If a company is a good investment, then it is well managed
All companies that are good investments are well managed.

Furthermore, the word " "unless." which is familiar in conditional statements, means "if
not" for example, the statements "A car will not run unless there is a gas in the tank"
means " A car will not run if there is not gas in the tank," Which means, " If there is not
gas in the tank, then the car will not run." By transposition, this means, "If a car runs,
then there is gas in the tank," which is translated as "all cars that run are cars with gas in
the tank". Although "Unless" sometimes has the stronger be depended on.
Here is additional Example:
Tomatoes are edible unless they are spoiled
means
Tomatoes are edible if they are not spoiled
which means
If tomatoes are unspoiled, then they are edible.
or
If tomatoes are inedible, then they are spoiled
translated as
All inedible tomatoes are spoiled tomatoes.
or
All unspoiled tomatoes are edible tomatoes.

8. Exclusive Propositions
 UNIT-5 CATEGORICAL PROPOSITIONS

It includes "only," "none but", "non except," and "no.... except." Efforts to translate them
in to categorical proposition frequently lead to confusion of the subject term with the
predicate term. Such confusion can be avoided if the statement is phrased as a
conditional statement first, then as a categorical statement. For example the statement
"only executives can use the silver elevator" is equivalent to" I f a person can use the
sliver elevator, he is an executive". The correct categorical proposition is "All persons
who can use the silver elevator are executives". If the statement were translated "All
executive are persons who can use the silver elevator," it would clearly be wrong.
Here are more examples:
a) None but elected candidates can sit in the parliament.
means
I f a person can sit in the parliament, then he is elected candidate.
translated as
All persons who can sit in the parliament are elected candidates.
b) No one except confident persons are proud of their identity.
means
If a person is proud of his identity, then is a confident person
translated as
All person proud of their identity are confident person.

For a statement involving one of the above exclusive propositions to be a genuinely

exclusive proposition, the word that follows these propositions must be a plural noun or
pronoun. If the word that follows "only," "non but". or the like designates an individual,
the statement really asserts two things.
For example, the statement "only" margie painted a picture" assorts that margie painted
a picture and that no other person painted a picture. Thus, it would be translated as two
statements: "All persons identical to margie are persons who painted a picture, and all
persons who painted a picture are identical to margie"

When "only" and "one but" occurs in the middle of a statement, the statement must first
be restructured so that the term proceeded by "only" or "one but" occurs first. Then the
statement can be translated as those above for Example -the statement "she invited only
wealthy socialites" is equivalent to "only wealthy socialites are inviting by her". This,
intern, is equivalent to "If a person is invited by her then he is a wealthy society" which
is translate: "All persons invited by her are wealthy socialites."

Note that many English statements containing "only" are ambiguous owing to the fact
that "only" can be interpreted as modifying alternate words in the statement. Consider,
for example, the statement He only jogs after sunset. Does this mean "he is the only
person who jogs after sunset" or "he jogs and does not walk after sunset " or " The only
time he jogs is after sunset"? If the statements context does not provide an answer, the
translator is free to pick any of these senses for translation.

9. "The Only"

Statements beginning with the words " the only" are translated differently from those
beginning with " only" for example, the statement " The only cars that are available are
Chevrolets " means " If a car is available, then it is a Chevrolets. In other words, " The
 UNIT-5 CATEGORICAL PROPOSITIONS

only," When it occurs at the beginning of a statement, can simply be replace with "all",
and the order of the terms is not reversed in the translation.

When " the only' occurs in the middle of a statement, the statement must be
restructured so that it occurs at the beginning. For example, "Romances are the only
books he sells" is equivalent to "The only books he sells are romances". This is then
translated as "All books that he sells are romances."

Other Examples:
The only animals that live in this canyon are lions.
All animals that live in this canyon are lions.

Philosophers are the only one who will become kings.

All persons who will become kings are philosophers.

Statements involving "the only" are similar to those involving "only" in this one respect:
When the statement is about an individual, two statements are needed to translate it. For
Example, "The only person who painted a picture is Margie" means that Margie painted
a picture and no other person painted a picture. The statement is equivalent in meaning
to "only Margie painted a picture." Thus it is translated "All persons identical to Margie
are persons who painted a picture and, all persons who painted a picture are persons
identical to Margie"

10. Exceptive Propositions

Propositions of the form "All except S are P" and " All but S are P" are exceptive
propositions. They must be translated not as single categorical propositions but as pairs
of conjoined categorical propositions. Statements that include the phrase "None except"
on the other hand, are exclusive ( not exceptive) propositions. "Non except" is
synonymous with "none but" Some examples of exceptive propositions are:

All except students are invited. No students are invite persons, and all
non students are invited persons.
All but the rats left the sinking ship. No rats are animals that left the sinking
ship, and all non rats are animals that
left the sinking ship.

Because exceptive propositions can not be translated into single categorical propositions,
many of the single inferences and operations pertinent to categorical proposition cannot
be applied to then. Arguments that contains exceptive oppositions are premises or
conclusion can be evaluated only thorough the application of extended techniques.

Self test Exercise

Part - I Use both traditional and Modern Square of oppositions and Venn
diagrams to determine whether the following arguments are valid
or invalid.
1. No mosquitoes are poisonous creatures.
Therefore, it is false that some mosquitoes are poisonous creatures.
 UNIT-5 CATEGORICAL PROPOSITIONS

2. Some Afars are not-Ethiopians.

Therefore, no Afars are Ethiopians.
3. All Ethiopians are Africans.
Therefore, Some Ethiopians are Africans.
4. It is false that some athletes are not women.
Therefore, it is false that no athletes are women.
5. No pet hamsters are animals that need much attention.
Therefore, all pet hamsters are animals that need little attention

Part -IIExercises 1 through 3 provide a statement, its truth value in parentheses, and an
operation to be performed on that statement. supply the new statement and the truth
value of the new statement. Exercise 4 though 6 provide a statement, its truth value in
parentheses, and a new statement. Determine how the new statement was derived from
the given statement and supply the truly value of the new statement. Take either
Boolean or Aristotelian stands point in working this exercise.

Here is an example.
Given statement Operation/R New statement Truth value
elation
No A are non-B (True) Obverse All A are B True
1. All A are non-B(F) Conv. ----------------- ------------------
2. Some non-A are not B(T) Subcon. ------------------ ------------------
3. No A are B (T) Contrap. ------------------ ------------------
4. Some A are non-B(T) ---------------- Some non-B are A ------------------
5. No non-A are B (T) ---------------- Some non-A are not B -----------------
6. All A are non-B (F) ---------------- All non-B are A -----------------

Part -III Use all plausible operations and/or relations to translate the following
arguments in to standard form and then determine whether each is valid or invalid. For
those that are invalid, name the fallacy committed.

1. Some states having limited powers are not slave states.

Therefore, some free states are not states having unlimited power.
2. None of the people who gave blood are people who were tested, so
everybody who gave blood must have been untested.
3. It is false that no accurate predictions are useless pieces of information.
4. It is false that some people are entrepreneurs. So, some people are not
entrepreneurs.
5. Not everybody in uniform was allowed to play, so some people who were
not allowed to play must not have been people in uniform.
 UNIT-6 CATEGORICAL SYLLOGISM

UNIT -6

CATEGORICAL SYLLOGISM

Lesson 6.1. Standard Form............................................................................................88

Lesson 6.2 Venn Diagrams............................................................................................89
Lesson 6.3. Rules and Fallacies.....................................................................................94
Lesson 6. 4. Ordinary Language Arguments.................................................................96
Lesson 6.5. Sorties.........................................................................................................98
References....................................................................................................................102

Introduction
Dear learners this unit has five parts. These are: Standard form, Venn diagrams, Rules
and Fallacies, Ordinary Arguments, Sorites-Soyllogistic rules, Testing Validity.

The first part is concerned with the meaning and analysis of standard form of categorical
proposition. The second part exhibits how validity of a syllogism is tested by Venn
diagram. In additions, the third part precisely puts forward certain rules that all valid
syllogisms should fulfill. If also introduces the fallacies committed if at least one of these
rules is violated. On the other hand, the forth part deals about how the validity of
syllogisms which are not in standard form is valuated. The last part tries to discuss rules
and methods of evaluating syllogisms having more than two premises.

Objectives
Up on the completion of this unit, you will be able to:
 Determine the validity and invalidity of deductive arguments based on
the mere inspection of the arrangement of their terms of the syllogism by
consulting the varies rule (Standards).
 Identify the various formal fallacies-violations of the rules of syllogism
and to guard against such fallacious reasoning's

Lesson 6.1. Standard Form

Objectives:
Up on the completion of this unit, you will be able to:
 Define syllogism and construct syllogism of your own.
 Identify standard form categorical syllogism from those that are not in
standard form.
 Explain the role and place of terms in as well as the arrangement of both
premises and conclusion of a syllogism.

What is a Syllogism?

A syllogism is a two-premises deductive argument. Provisionally we shall defines a

categorical syllogism as a syllogism consisting of there categorical propositions ( two
 UNIT-6 CATEGORICAL SYLLOGISM

premises and one conclusion) and containing a total of three different terms, each of
which appears twice in distinct prepositions. Study the following example:
1) All Somalias are Muslims
Some Ethiopians are not Muslims
Therefore, some Ethiopians are not Somalias.
Notice how each of the three terms "Somalias" " Muslims," an "Ethiopians"
occurs exact twice exactly two different propositions.

The terms of a syllogism are given names depending on their position in the argument.
The major term is the predicate term of the conclusion, and the minor term is the subject
term of the conclusion. The middle term is the term that occurs in both of the premises
but not at all in the conclusion. Thus, for the above argument, the major terms
"Somalians", the minor term is "Ethiopians" , and the middle term is "Muslims".

Similarly, the premises of Categorical syllogism are given names. The major premise, by
definitions, is the one that contains the major term, and the minor premise is the one that
contains the minor term. Accordingly, the statements "All somalians are Muslims" and
"Some Ethiopians are not Muslims" are the major and minor premises respectively.
Moreover, a Categorical syllogism is said to be in standard form when the following
four conditions are met:
1. All three statements are standard form categorical propositions (A,
E, I or O)
2. The two occurrences of each term are identical.
3. Each term is used in the same sense throughout the argument
(having the same meaning)
4. The major premise is listed first, the minor premise second, and the
conclusion last.

Example (1) fulfilled all the above conditions, so it is in standard form but consider the
next example:
2) All people on the committee are local people
Some people on the committee are not students
Therefore, Some local people are not students.

Example (2) violate rules 1 and 4 for the conclusion is not standard form as well as the
order of the two premises is not proper. To put the syllogism into standard form obvert
the conclusion (to "some local people are not students") and reverse the order of the
premises.

Lesson 6.2 Venn Diagrams

Objectives
Up on the completion of this unit, you will be able to:
 Identify what separate area of the diagram represents.
 Techniques of diagramming syllogisms
 Explain how validity of a syllogism is tested using Venn diagram.
 UNIT-6 CATEGORICAL SYLLOGISM

Now that we know how to diagram the four relevant types of categorical proposition,
we can use Venn diagrams to evaluate validity of categorical syllogisms. Since there are
three terms in very syllogism, we need three overlapping circles for our diagram.

The circles should be drawn so that seven areas are clearly distinguishable with the
diagram. The second step is to label the circles, one for each term. Here to ensure
uniformity in our diagram, assign the lower left circle to the minor term, the lower right
circle to the major term, and the top circle to the middle term. The diagram of
Categorical syllogism , thus, has the following form:

M ( middle term)

S ( minor term) P ( major term)

The numerals (1 though 8 ) are not normally part of a Venn diagram, but they are added
here temporarily to enable us to refer to the separate areas of the diagram. Notice that
there are eight areas (counting the region outside the circles) . Each area represents a
possible relation ship we would be saying that at least one thing belongs to all three of
the sets or classes. If we shade an area , we would be saying that no object belong to all
three sets. If we place an "X" in area 8 , we would be

Saying that at least one thing is not a member of any of the three classes in question. If
we shade in a areas 2 and 3, we would be saying that nothing that belongs to the set
denoted by the middle term also belongs to the set denoted by the minor term , and
soon.

To determine whether a syllogism is valid, we proceed as follows. First, we diagram the

premises. Second, we look to see whether our diagram of the premises tells us that the
conclusion is true. If the content of the conclusion is contained, at lest implicitly, in the
premises, the argument is valid; otherwise it is invalid.

The use of Venn diagrams to evaluate syllogisms usually requires a little practice before
it can be done with facility. Perhaps the best way of presenting the technique is through
illustrative examples, but a few preliminary pointers are needed:
1. Marks (Shading or placing an "X") are entered only for the premises.
No marks are made for the conclusion.
2. I f the argument contains one universal premise, this premise must be
entered first in the diagram. If there are two universal premises, either one
can be done first.
3. When entering the information contained in a premise, one should
concentrate on the circles corresponding to the two terms in the statement.
While the third circle can not ignore altogether, it should be given only
minimal attention.
 UNIT-6 CATEGORICAL SYLLOGISM

4. When inspecting a completed diagram to see where it supports a

particular conclusion, one should remember that particular statements assert
two things.
5. When shading an area, one must be careful to shad all of the area in
question.
6. The area where an "X" goes is always initially divided in to parts.'
If one of these parts has already been shaded, the "X" goes in the unshaped part
Examples"

If one of the two parts is not shaded, then "X" goes on the line separating the two parts.
Examples:

Right

This means that "X" may be either (or both) of the two areas-but it is not known
which one.
7. An "X" should never be placed in such a way that it dangles outside of the
diagram and it should never be placed on the intersection of two lines.

wrong wrong

Let us now consider some examples:

1) No rocks are sentient things. Major term: rocks(R)

All animals are sentient things. Minor term: animals (A)
Therefore, no animals are rocks. Middle term: sentient things(S)
Let us diagram the first premise:
S
 UNIT-6 CATEGORICAL SYLLOGISM

A R

In diagramming the first premise we focus on the two circles representing rocks and
sentient things. We now diagram the second premise to complete by concentrating only
to circles representing animals and sentient things.
S

A R

The conclusion states that are the area where animals and rocks overlaps is empty.
Inspection of the diagram reveals that this area is indeed shaded, so the argument is
valid.

To enter the particular premise we concentrate our attention on the M and P circles. The
premise tells us to place an "X" in the area where the M and P circles overlap. Because art
of this area is shaded, we place the "X" in the remaining area.
M

S P

(2) Some P are M

All M are S
Some S are P
The conclusion states that there is an "X" in the area where the S and P circles overlap.
Inspection the diagram revels that there is indeed an "X" in this area, so the argument is
valid.

Activity 6.2.1.
Construct a valid syllogism having "tights", "mammals", and "animals" as major, middle
and minor terms respectively.

3) Some M are P
All S are M
Some S are P
M
 UNIT-6 CATEGORICAL SYLLOGISM

S P

We diagram the universal statement first. To diagram the particular premise, we see that
"X" could go in either 1 or area 2 . The premise do not contain more specific information
than that .We indicate this by putting an "X" on the line separating the two areas.

Now, for arguments to be valid, the premise must tell us that either area 3 or 1 contains
an object. But our diagram for the second premise declares that are 3 is empty. And our
diagram for the first premise does not assume us that area 1 contains an object it may or
it may not. The "X" straddles areas 1 and 2 , so the premise do not definitely say that the
"X" belongs in area "1" , nor do they say that the "X" belongs in area 2. Hence, the
argument is invalid.

4) Some P are not M

Some M are S
Some S are not P
M

S P

In this diagram no area have been shaded, so there are two possible areas for each of the
two "X" s. The "X" from the first premise goes on the line (arc of the S circle ) separating
areas 1 and 2, and the "X" from the second premise goes on the line (arc of the P circle)
separating areas a and b.
The conclusion states that there in an "X" in the S circle that is outside the P circle. We
have no certainty that the "X" from the first premise is inside the S circle, and while the
"X" from the second premise is inside the S circle, we have no certainty that it is outside
the P circle .Hence, the argument is invalid.

Note that when there is a doubt about where to put an "X" (when there are two possible
areas to put an "X") , here is the rule to follow: an "X" that can go in either of two areas
goes on the line separating the areas. In essence, an "X" on a line indicates that the "X"
belongs in one or the other of the two areas, may be both, but we don't know which.
When the time comes to see whether the diagram yields the conclusion, we look to see
whether there is an "X" entirely within the appropriate area. An "X" partly within the
appropriate area fails to establish the conclusion, and such argument is invalid.
 UNIT-6 CATEGORICAL SYLLOGISM

Lesson 6.3. Rules and Fallacies

Objectives
Up on the completion of this unit, you will be able to:
 Explain the rules of valid syllogisms with their justification
 Identify valid syllogism from the invalid one through the mere inspection
of the form of the argument.
 Identify the fallacy committed , if any, categorical syllogism

The diagram method of testing syllogisms for validity is intuitive, but there is a faster
method that makes use of there simple rules. These rules are based on two ideas, the
first of which has been mentioned already: affirmative and negative categorical
propositions. The other idea is that of distribution.

We can now state the rules of the syllogism. Syllogism is valid if and only if all of these
conditions are met:

Rule-1 A number of negative statements in the premises must be the same as the
number of negative statements in the conclusion.
Because the conclusion is one statement, this implies that no valid syllogism has two
negative, it commits the fallacy of exclusive premise.

In addition, this rule suggests that one negative statement is not allowed in Categorical
syllogism. A syllogism having exactly one negative statement is invalid. Thus, if the
premise alone is negative, it commits the fallacy of drawing an affirmative conclusion
form a negative premise; but if the only negative statement is the conclusion, the fallacy
committed will be drawing a negative conclusion from affirmative premises. All of the
following arguments are invalid and fallacies.
1) No birds are mammals
Some carts are not birds
Some cats are not mammals.
2) Some democrats are not Americans.
All democrats are persons that advocate popular sovereignty.
Some Americans are persons that advocate popular sovereignty.
3) All triangles are there-angled polygons.
All three-angled polygons are three-sided polygons.
Some three-sided polygons are not triangles.

The logic behind this rule is as follows. If "S" , "P", and "M" designate the minor major
and middle terms respectively, an affirmative conclusion always state that the S classes
is contained either wholly or partially in the P class. The only way that such a conclusion
can follow is when both premises are affirmative, But if, for example, the S class is
contained either wholly or partially in the M class, and the M class is separate either
wholly or partially from the P class, such a conclusion will never follow. Thus, the
affirmative conclusion can not be burden from negative premises.

Conversely, a negative conclusion asserts that the S class is separate either wholly or
partly from the P class. But if both premises are affirmative, they assert class inclusion
 UNIT-6 CATEGORICAL SYLLOGISM

rather than separation. Thus, a negative conclusion cannot be drawn from affirmative
premises.

Rule-2 The middle term must be distributed at least once.

In the previous unit we have seen that the subject term is distributed in an A
proposition, both terms in E-proposition, neither terms in I proposition, and the
predicate term in O proposition. Having this in mind, if the middle term of a syllogism
is not distributed in either of the premises, the argument is in valid and commits the
fallacy of undistributed middle.

Here is an Example:
All birds are animals.
All ostriches are animals
All ostriches are birds.

In this example the middle term is "animals" in both premises "animals" occurs as the
predicate term of A proposition and there fore it is undistributed. Thus, this syllogism
contains the fallacy undistributed middle and is invalid.

The logic behind this rule may be explained by recounting how the middle term
accomplishes its intended purpose, which is to provide a common ground between the
subjects and predicate terms of the conclusion. Let un designate the minor, major, and
middle terms by letters "S" "P" and "M", respectively, and let us suppose that M is
distribute in the major premise. Then, when the M class is related either in whole or in
part to S, S and P necessarily become related. Analogous reasoning prevails if we
suppose that M is distributed in the major premise. Then, when the M class related
either in whole or in part to S, Sand P necessarily become related. Analogous reasoning
prevails if we suppose that M is distributed in the minor premise. But if M is
undistributed in both premises, S and P may be related to different parts of the M class,
in which case there is no common ground for relating S and P.
Rule -3 any term that is distributed in the conclusion of the syllogism must be
distributed in its premises.

In applying this rule, note that if no terms are distributed in the conclusion, this rule
cannot be violated. If the term distributed in the conclusion (either major, or minor, or
both) is also distributed in the premise, then the rule is not violated .But if the term
distributed in the conclusion is not distributed in the premise, the rule is violated and
the syllogism is invalid. In other words, if the predicate term of the conclusion is
distributed but not in the major premise, the result is the fallacy of illicit major; and if the
subject term of the conclusion is distributed but not in the minor premise, the result is
the fallacy of illicit minor.

Here are examples:

(1) Some christens are Catholics
No Muslims are Catholics illicit major
Some Muslims are not christens.

(2) No mercantilists are large landowners

 UNIT-6 CATEGORICAL SYLLOGISM

All mercantilist are creditors. illicit minor

No creditors are large landowners.

To see the logic behind this rule let us once again designate the minor, major, and
middle terms by letters "S", "P" and "M," respectively, and let us suppose that a certain
syllogism commits the fallacy of illicit major. The conclusion of syllogism then makes an
assertion about every member of the p class, but the major premise makes an assertion
about some members of the P class. Because the minor premise, by itself, say nothing at
all about the P class, the conclusion clearly contains information not contained in the
premises, and the syllogism is therefore invalid. Analogously, reasoning applies to the
fallacy of illicit minor.
As a result of the interaction of these three rules, it turns out that no valid syllogism can
have two particular premises. This result is convenient to keep in mind, because it
allows us to indemnify as invalid any standard form syllogism in which both premises
start with "some".

Note that, from Boolean standpoints when both premises of a syllogism are universal
statements and the conclusion is a particular statement, diagramming the premises
cannot possibly yield a diagram of the conclusion (because universal statements produce
only shading, and particular statements require an X to be read form the diagram), thus
such a syllogism is in valid.

Finally, the above discussion has shown that if a syllogism breaks any of the above rules,
then it cannot be valid. Thus, each of the rules is a necessary condition for validity.

Activity 6.3.1
Construct your own syllogism which is valid form Aristotelian standpoint but invalid
form Boolean standpoint.

Lesson 6. 4. Ordinary Language Arguments

Objectives
Up on the completion of this unit, you will be able to:
 Translate ordinary language argument using techniques developed in the
previous unit, in to standard form argument.
 Test the validity of the translated arguments.

Many arguments that are not standard form categorical syllogisms as written can be
translated into standard form syllogism. Such translation often utilized techniques
developed in the last lesson of unit-4. The goal , of course, is to produced and argument
consisting of three standard-form categorical propositions that contain a total of three
different terms, each of which occurs twice in distinct propositions. Once translated, the
argument can be tested by means of a Venn diagram rule of syllogisms.

Since the task of translating arguments into standard form syllogisms involves not only
conversing the component statements in to standard form but adjusting these statements
 UNIT-6 CATEGORICAL SYLLOGISM

one the another so that their terms occur in matched pairs, a certain amount of proactive
may be required before it can be done with facility. In reducing the terms to three
matched pairs it is often helpful to identify some factor through the strategic use of
parameters. For example, if all three statements are about people, the term "people" or
"people identical to" might be used; or if they are about times or places, the term "time"
or "times identical to" or the term "places" or "places identical to" might be used.
Here is an example:
Whenever people put off marriage until they are older, the divorce rate
decrease. Today, people are putting of marriage until they are older.
Therefore, the divorce rate is decreasing today.
The temporal adverbs "whenever" and "today" suggest that "times" should be used as
the common factor. Following this suggestion, we have:
All times people put off marriage until they are older are times the
divorce rate decreases. All present times are times people put off
marriage until they are older. Therefore, all present times are times
the divorce rate decreases.
This is a standard form categorical syllogism. Notice that each of the three terms is
matched with an exact duplicate in a different propositions.
To obtain such a match up, it is sometimes necessary to alter the meaning of the original
statement just slightly. Now if we adopt the convention
M= times people put off marriage until they are older
D= times the divorce rate decreases
P= present times.
The syllogism may be symbolized as follows:
All M are D
All P are M
All P are D

This is a valid syllogism. Here is another example:

McDonnel Douglas must be a manufacturer because it hires riveters, and any one
who hires riveters is a manufacturer.
For this argument the parameter “companies” suggest itself:
All companies identical to McDonnell Douglas are manufactures, because all
companies identical to McDonnell Douglas are companies that hire riveters, and
all companies that hire riveters are manufactures.
The first statement, of course, is the conclusion. When the syllogism is written in
standard form, it has, the same form with the previous syllogisms and is valid.

Another example:
If a piece of evidence is trustworthy, then it should be admissible in court.
Polygraph tests are not trustworthy. Therefore, they should not be admissible in
court.
To translate this argument it is not necessary to use a single common factor:
All trustworthy pieces of evidence (T) are pieces of evidence that should be
admissible in court (A). No polygraph tests (P) are trustworthy pieces of
evidence. Therefore, no polygraph tests are pieces of evidence that should be
admissible in court.
 UNIT-6 CATEGORICAL SYLLOGISM

It may be symbolized as follows.

All T are A
All P are T
All P are A

The syllogism commits the fallacy of illicit major and is therefore invalid.

Activity 6.4.1
Supply the unstated premise, translate all the statements in to standard form and evaluate the
validity of the syllogism.
“Poultry business is not profitable in this country, because there are inadequate health services.”

Note that in ordinary spoken or written English there are arguments missing either a
premise or a conclusion, but can be expressible as a categorical syllogism. In such
occasions reader or listener is required to supply a missing statement and then to
translate the syllogism in to standard form so as to evaluate its validity. Here is an
example:
Venus completes its orbit in less time than the earth, because Venus is closer to
the sun.
Missing Premise: Any planet closer to the sun completes its orbit in less time than the
earth.

Translating this argument into categorical form, we have

All planets closer to the sun are planets that complete their orbit in less time than
the earth
All planets identical to Venus are planets closer to the sun.
All planets identical to Venus are planets that complete their orbit in less time
than the earth.
Thus, the syllogism is valid (and sound)

Lesson 6.5. Sorties

Objectives
Up on the completion of this unit, you will be able to:
 Describe standard form sorties and procedures of evaluating sorties.
 Discuss how to introduce intermediate conclusion of chains of arguments
(syllogism)
 Identify and prove valid sorites.

Sorties is derived form the Greek Word Soros, meaning, “ heap”. It is a chain of
categorical syllogisms in which the intermediate conclusion have been left out. In other
words, it is a chain of arguments in which the final conclusion is inferred form three or
more premises. Here is an example:
All A are B.
 UNIT-6 CATEGORICAL SYLLOGISM

All B are C.
All C are D.
Therefore, all A are D.

The first two premises validly imply the intermediate conclusion “All A are C”. If this
intermediate conclusion is then treated as a premise and put together with the third
premise, the final conclusion follows validly. The sorites is thus composed of two valid
categorical syllogisms and is therefore valid. The rule in evaluating a sorites is based on
the idea that the chain only as strong as its weakest link. If any of the component
syllogisms in a sorites is invalid, the entire sorites is invalid.

A sorites is in standard form when each of the component propositions is in standard

form, when each term occurs twice, when the predicate of the conclusion is in the first
premise, and when each successive premise has a term in common with the preceding
one. The sorites presented above, for example is in standard form.

The procedures to be followed in evaluating a sorites is:

1. Put the sorites into standard form
2. Introduce the intermediate conclusion, and
3. Test each component syllogism for validity.

If each component of syllogism is valid, the sorites is valid. But, if, at any designated
step in the procedure, no conclusion is validly drawn as, for example, if the first two
premises are negative or contain undistributed middle terms, then the sorites is invalid.
In addition, sometimes the operations of conversion, obversion, and contraposition must
be used to reduce then number of terms in a sorites.

Examples
1. No brittle things are ductile things ………………………………. No B are D
All superconductors are ceramics ………………………………… All S are C
All things that can be pulled into wires are ductile things………. All P are D
All ceramics are brittle things ……………………………………….. All C are B
No Superconductors are things that can be pulled into wires. No S are P

To put the sorites in to standard form, the premises must be arranged as:
All P are D
No B are D
All C are B
All S are C
No S are P
Then, introduce the intermediate premises, and use Venn diagrams to check the validity
of each intermediate conclusion.
All P are D No B are P No C are P
No B are D
All C are B
All S are C
No S are P
 UNIT-6 CATEGORICAL SYLLOGISM

D B C

B P C P S P

The first intermediate conclusion “ No B are P,” is drawn from the first two premises.
The second, “No C are P,” is drawn from the first intermediate conclusion and third
premise. And the third, which is identical to the last conclusion, is drawn from the
second intermediate conclusion and the fourth premise. Since all conclusions are drawn
validly (see the diagram), the sorites is valid.
2. All C are non D
All A are B
Some C are not B
Some D are not A

First translate the first premise in to standard form using obversion and then arrange the
premises in standard form sorites. The obverse of “ All C are non D” is “No C are D”. It
becomes
All A are B
Some C are not B
No C are D
Some D are not A

Here since there are two negative premises in the sorites, it is invalid.

Self-Test Exercise
Part -I : Use the diagram method to determine which of the following
syllogisms are valid and which are invalid.
1. All sound arguments are valid arguments.
Some valid arguments are not interesting arguments .
Some sound arguments are not interesting arguments.
2. All citizens are residents. So, since all voters are citizens, all voter must be
residents.
3. No AIDS victims are persons who pose and immediate threat to the lives of
others.
Some kindergarten children are AIDS victims.
Some kindergarten children are not persons who pose an immediate threat
to the lives of others.
4. Some dinosaurs are carnivores.
Some carnivores are meat eaters.
Some dinosaurs are meat eaters.
5. All kangaroos are marsupials
All marsupials are mammals.
All marsupials are mammals.
 UNIT-6 CATEGORICAL SYLLOGISM

Part-II Use: The rules of syllogisms to determine where whether the following
syllogisms are valid or invalid. For those that are invalid, name the fallacy fallacies
committed.
1. All A are B
All A are C
Therefore , all C are B
2. Some A are not B
Some B are c.
Therefore, some C are not A
3. Some cases of affirmative action are not measures justified by fast
discrimination.
No cases of affirmative action are illegal practices.
Some illegal practices are not measures justified by past discrimination.
4. All members of the class are registered students.
Some registered students are not people taking logic.
Some members of the class are not people taking logic.
5. All inside traders are persons subject to prosecution.
Some executives with privileged information are not persons subject to
prosecution.
Some executive with privilege information are inside traders.
Part -III Put the following arguments in standard form (you may use the obversion,
conversion, or contraposition or other operations to accomplish this); then
determine whether the arguments are valid or in valid.
1. No argument with false premises is sound, but some of then are valid. So some
unsound arguments must be valid
2. Only people who hold stock in the company may vote , so Mr, Thomas must
not hold any stock in the company, because I know he was not allowed to vote.
3. Every animal is sentient. And each sentient thing is a right-holder.
Hence, if any thing is an animal, then it is a right holder.
4. Not every act is free, since every cat foreknown by God is no free and some
acts are fore known by God.
5. Some college students purchase their term papers.
Any cheat is expelled from college.
No one will achieve his career goals who is expelled.
No one who purchases term papers is other that a cheat.
Some college students will not achieve their career goals.
 UNIT-6 CATEGORICAL SYLLOGISM

References

Copi, Irving M. and Carl, Cohen. I1991) Introduction to Logic. New York:
Macmillan Publishing Company.
Copi, Irving M. (1986) Informal Logic, New York: Macmillan Publishing Company.
________________________________ (2004) Introduction to Logic 11th ed. New Delhi:
Prentice Hall of India Prv. Ltd.
Damer, T.Edward (1995) Attacking faulty reasoning: a practical guide to fallacy- free
arguments. 3rd ed. Bermont: Wassworth publishing company.
Hurly, Patrick J. (1994). A Concise Introduction to Logic. 5th ed.
Balamarnt : Wadsworth Publishing Company.
Moore, Broke N. and Parker, Richard. (2001) Critical Thinking 6th Ed. London and
Toronto: Mayfield Publishing Company.
Miller, Ed.L. (1984) Questions that Matter: An Initiation to Philosophy. New York :
Mc Grew -Hill
Moore, Brooke N. and Parker, Richard. (1998) Critical Thinking. 5th ed. London and
Toronto : Mayfield Publishing company.
Stephen, C (2000) The Power of Logic. London and Toronto: Mayfield
Publishing Company.
Walelign Emiru. (2005) Freshman Logic. Addis Ababa: Commercial Printing
Enterprise.