Logic Note @NoteHeroBot (Chapters 1-5)
Logic Note @NoteHeroBot (Chapters 1-5)
Logic Note @NoteHeroBot (Chapters 1-5)
E.g.
❑IF fail to fulfill the above ❑IF fail to fulfill the above
criteria=UNSOUND criteria=UNCOGENT
❑All SOUND arguments are VALID ❑All COGENT arguments are
arguments STRONG arguments
❑All INVALID arguments are ❑All WEAK arguments are
UNSOUND arguments UNCOGENT arguments
❑VALID argument can be ❑STRONG argument can be
UN/SOUND depending on the UN/COGENT depending on the
actual truth value of its statements actual truth value of its statements
THANK YOU!
Chapter two
Examples:
✓The first written constitution of Ethiopia was formulated in 1931.
However the first federal constitution is effected since 1995.
✓Death Penalty is the final, cruel and inhuman form of all
punishments where hapless prisoners are taken from their cells and
terribly slaughtered
❑Intentional and extensional meaning of terms
➢Terms made up of words - serve as a subject of a
statement
➢Terms includes:
✓proper names,
✓common names
✓ descriptive phrases
➢Words - symbols and the entity they symbolize-
meaning.
➢terms have two kind of meaning :
✓ Intensional meaning
✓Extensional meanings
❑ Intentional meaning of terms
➢ Attribute of the term being connoted
➢ subjective : vary from person to person.
➢ To avoid subjective meaning - conventional connotation
➢ can be expressed in terms of increasing and decreasing
intentions
▪ Increasing intention:
✓ each term in the series connotes more attribute
than the one preceding it.
Decreasing intention:
✓each term in the series connotes less attribute
than the one preceding it.
❑ Extensional [denotative] meaning of terms
➢ Refers to the members that the term denotes
➢ remains the same to all but
➢ may be changed with the passage of time – Empty
extension.
➢ can be expressed in terms of increasing /decreasing
extension.
▪ Increasing extension: each term in the series denotes
more members than the one preceding it
▪ Decreasing extension: each term in the series denotes
less members than the one preceding it
➢ Intentional meaning determines extensional meaning of
terms
❑ Types of definition and their purpose
1. Stipulative definitions
➢ Assign meaning for the first time
➢ Names are assigned arbitrarily &
➢ caused by new phenomena and developments
➢ Definition/statements doesn’t have truth value
➢ Purpose : simplifying complex expressions
➢ used to set up new secret codes
Examples:
- Logphobia” means fear of taking logic course.
- A male tiger + female lion =tigon
- Operation Barbarossa – Nazi invasion of USSR
- Operation sunset – Ethio-Eritrea war(1998)
2. Lexical definitions:
➢ It reports the meaning of the word actually exist in
dictionary
➢ Provides Dictionary meaning of terms
➢ Purpose: to avoid ambiguity
Examples:
3. Precise definition:
➢ Intended to reduce vagueness
➢ Definition should be appropriate and legitimate to the
context in which the term is employed
Examples
- High” means, in regard to the interest rates, at least two points
above the prime rate
- “Antique” means, at least 100 years old
4. Theoretical definition :
➢ Assign meaning to a word by suggesting theories
➢ theoretical definitions provide a way for further
experimental investigations
Example : ‘’Heat” means the energy associated with the random
motion of molecules
5. Persuasive definition
➢ Purpose: to engender a Un/favorable attitudes
➢ To influence attitude of reader/ listeners
➢ Use value laden[emotively charged] words
❑ Extensional definition techniques
1. Ostensive[demonstrative] technique
➢ Is the traditional way of defining terms
➢ Use pointing as a technique to define terms
➢ Is limited by time and space
2. Enumerative technique
➢ Assign meaning by naming members individually
➢ It can be partial or complete
3. Definition by subclass
➢ Assign meaning by naming the subclass of the class.
➢ it can be partial or complete
Example :Tree” means an Oak, Eucalyptus, olive, juniper
❑ Intentional definitional techniques
1. Synonyms definition
➢ The definiens is a synonym of the word being defined
➢ Single word is highly appropriate
Example :“Obese” Means fat
2. An etymological definition
➢ Assign meanings to a word by disclosing its ancestry
➢ enables us to get the historical details of the word
Example: “Virtue” is derived from Latin virtues- means strength.
3. Operational definition
➢ gives meaning by setting experimental procedures
➢ It prescribes the operation to be performed
➢ bring abstract Concepts to the empirical reality
Example: A solution is “acid” if and only if litmus paper
turned red when dipped into it.
4. Definition by genus and difference
➢ To construct this definition
➢ identify the genus & specific difference
➢ Most effective of all intentional definitions
Examples:
Species Difference Genus
- “Ice” means frozen water.
- “Father” means a male head of the family
Thank you!
Chapter 4
Critical thinking
❑Meaning of Critical Thinking
❑Critical thinking can be defined as (refers to) :
➢ Involving or Exercising skilled judgment
➢ thinking clearly and intelligently
➢ Wide range of cognitive skills and intellectual dispositions
o Identify /classify
o Evaluate:
o Analyze:
o Understand:
o Synthesize:
o Criticize
➢ Critical thinking is to think
o Clearly:
o Actively:
o Persistent fairly:
o rationally:
o objectively:
o independently:
➢john Dewey:
o Critical thinking is active, persistent, careful consideration of issues/belief in
different grounds
➢For Robert Ennis:
o Critical thinking is reasonable, and reflective
thinking focusing on decide what you believe or to do
(decision making)
➢For Richard Paul:
ocritical thinking is model of thinking which
focus in reflecting on thoughts
- having ability of thinking about one’s
thinking and
- consciously aim to improve it.
❑Critical thinking helps us to:
➢ discovers & overcomes personal preconceptions or prejudice
➢ formulate & provide convincing reason and justifications to
➢ make reasonable/rational decision about what we believe /d
➢ impartially investigate data and facts not swayed by emotion
➢ arrive at well-reasoned, sound and justifiable conclusion
❑ Standards of CT
CT is normal and acceptable if it fulfills
the following standards
1. Clarity
2. Precision
3. Accuracy
4. Relevance
5. Consistency
6. Logical Correctness
7. Completeness
8. Fairness
1. Clarity
o Clear understanding of concepts
o Expression should free of vagueness and ambiguity
o CT strive both for clarity of language & thought
2. Precision
o being exact, accurate and careful
o reducing vague and obscures thoughts
o Provide precise answer to precise questions of life
3. Accuracy
o Having correct and genuine information
o CT value truth, accurate and timely information
o Every decision should be made based on true information
o If the input is false information, decision will not be sound
4. Relevance
o It’s an issue of connection
o focus on Significant ideas logical to the issue at hand
o focus should be given to the issue at hand
5. Consistency
o Quality of always behaving in the same way
o following same standards in decisions making
o There are two kinds of inconsistency that we should avoid
- Logical inconsistency
- Practical inconsistency:
6. Logical Correctness
o To think logically it reason correctly
o To draw well-founded conclusions from belief/information
o Conclusions should logically follow believes/ideas or evidence
7. Completeness
o deep and complete thinking to shallow and superficial thinking
8. Fairness
o Treat all relevant views alike
o thinking should be based on
✓ fair
✓ open mindedness,
✓ Impartiality and
o thinking should be free
✓ distortion,
✓ Biasedness
✓ Preconceptions,
✓ Inclinations,
✓ Personal interests
❑Principles of Good Argument
1.The Structural Principle
➢Use arguments that meet fundamental
structural requirement
➢valid form is the First requirement for
argument to be good (deductive)
• don’t use reason that contradict to each other (avoid invalid inference)
• conclusion should follow the premise with strict necessity
➢good argument:
o structurally good form(valid)-
o Premises must be compatible to each other (compatibility principle)
o conclusion should not contradict with the premises
(non contradiction principle)
2. The Relevance Principle
➢One who argues in favor or against a
position……?
o Set forth premise whose Truth provides evidence for the truth of the
conclusion
o Premise is relevant if its provides logical reason to the conclusion
o basic question
- Does the truth of the premise support the truth of the conclusion?
3. The Acceptability Principle
➢ Premise must provide evidence that can be accepted by a mature,
rational person
➢ If the reason has the capability to convince a rational person to accept
conclusion
Examples :
1. Mr. Kebde you have accused me of fraud and embezzlements.
You have to drop the charge you filed against me. You have to
remember that I am your ex-boss; I will torture both you and
your family members if you do not drop your case. Got it?
Example:
o The Headship position in the department of accounting should be given to
Mr. Oumer Abdulla. Oumer has six hungry children to feed and his wife
desperately needs an operation to save her eyesight.
• Mr. Abebe has argued for increased funding for the disabled. But nobody should
listen to his argument. Mr. Abebe is a slob who cheats on his wife, beats his
wife, , and kids, and never pays his bills on time.
ii. Fallacy of ad hominem Circumstantial
➢ committed when an arguer discredits the argument of his opponent by
alluding the argument with certain circumstances that affect his
opponents
➢ easy to recognize because it always take this form: ‘Of course, Mr. X
argues this way; just look at the circumstances that affect him.’
Example:
• Haileselassie I of Ethiopia argued in the League of Nations that member states
should give hand to Ethiopia to expel the fascist Italy from the country. But the
member states should not listen to the king. Haileselassie I argue in this way
because he wants to resume his power once the Italian are expelled from
Ethiopia
• Ato Mohammed has just argued to replace the public school system with private
school system. But, of course, he argues that way. He has no kids, and he does
not want to pay any more taxes for public education.
iii. tu quoque (you too) fallacy
➢ second arguer attempts to make the first appear to be hypocritical or
arguing in bad fait
➢ This fallacy has the following form: ‘How dare you argue that I should stop
doing X; why you do (have done) X yourself ?’
➢ So, arguer(2nd ) discredits the argument of an opponent by claiming that
the idea he advance as false and contrary with what he has said or done
before
Example:
• Patient to a Doctor: Look Doctor, you cannot advise me to quit smoking
cigarette because you yourself is a smoker.
• How do you advise me to quit smoking while you yourself are smoking?
• Child to parent: Your argument that I should stop stealing candy from the
corner store is no good. just a week ago You told me you, too, stole candy when
you were a kid.
❑ Are all arguments against the person fallacious? They are not. There are
reasonable arguments against the person
5. Accident
➢ committed when a general rule is applied to a specific case it was not
intended to cover
Example:
o Freedom of speech is a constitutionally guaranteed right. Therefore, John Q.
Radical should not be arrested for his speech that incited riot last week.
o Property should be returned to its rightful owner. That drunken sailor who is
starting a fight with his opponents at the pool table lent you his 45-caliber
pistol, and now he wants it back. Therefore, you should return it to him
now.
6. Straw Man
➢ committed when an arguer distorts an opponent‘s argument for the
purpose of more easily attacking it.
➢ main features of straw man fallacy
▪ First, there are always two individuals discussing about
controversial issues: One(1 st arguer) of the arguers presents his
views about the issues and the other(2nd arguer) is a critic
▪ Second, the 2nd arguer does not rationally criticize the main
argument of the opponent Rather misrepresented ideas of original
argument.
▪ Third the 2nd person concludes by criticizing the misrepresented
idea
➢ When the fallacy of straw man occurs readers should keep in mind two
things.
– First, they have to try to identify the original argument, which is
misrepresented by the critic.
– Second, they should look for what gone wrong in the
misrepresentation of the argument.
Example:
• Mr. Belay believes that ethnic federalism has just destroyed the country and
thus it should be replaced by geographical federalism. But we should not accept
his proposal. Geographical federalism was the kind of state structure during
Derg and monarchical regime which suppress right of national nationalities
and peoples of Ethiopia.
• Mr. Goldberg has argued against prayer in the public schools. Obviously, Mr.
Gold-berg advocates atheism. But atheism is what they used to have in Russia.
Atheism leads to the suppression of all religions and the replacement of God
by an omnipotent state. Is that what we want for this country? I hardly think
so. Clearly Mr. Goldberg’s argument is nonsense.
7. Missing the point
➢ premise of an argument supports a conclusion which is different but
vaguely related to the correct one (cocnclusion)
➢ If one suspects that such fallacy is committed, he or she should identify
the correct conclusion, the conclusion that the premises logically imply
Examples
• The world is in the process of globalizing more than ever. The world economy is
becoming more and more interconnected. Multinational companies and supra national
institutions are taking power from local companies and national governments. The
livelihood of people is randomly affected by action and decision made on the other side
of the planet and this process benefits only the rich nations at the expense of the poor.
What should be done? The answer is obvious: poor nations should detach themselves
from the process.
• Crimes of theft and robbery have been increasing at an alarming rate lately. The
conclusion is obvious: we must reinstate the death penalty immediately.
8. Red Herring
➢ arguer diverts the attention of the L/R by changing the
original subject in to totally different issue
➢ arguer ignores the main topic and shifts the attention of
his audiences to another totally different issue
➢ Draws conclusion from the changed issue
➢ arguer mislead L/R using two different techniques
➢ change the subject to one that is subtly related to the original
subject
➢ change the subject to some flashy, eye-catching topic that
distract the attention of the L/R
procedure used to
train hunting dogs
Example:
✓ Environmentalists are continually harping about the
dangers of nuclear power. Unfortunately, electricity is
dangerous no matter where it comes from. Every year
hundreds of people are electrocuted by accident. Since most
of these accidents are caused by carelessness, they could be
avoided if people would just exercise greater caution.
Example
oThe quality of education in our grade schools
and high schools has been declining for years.
Clearly, our teachers just aren’t doing their job
these days.
13. Slippery Slope fallacy
➢ a variety of false cause fallacies
➢ event ‘X’ is the cause of event ‘Y’….. but it takes place in a
series of events or actions
➢ conclusion of an argument rests upon an alleged chain
reaction but not sufficient to think that the chain reaction
will actually happen
➢ The first event is taken as cause fall all the event to happen
in a series
Example:
B Immediate steps should be taken to outlaw pornography once
and for all. The continued manufacture and sale of
pornographic material will almost certainly lead to an
increase in sex-related crimes such as rape and incest. This in
turn will gradually erode the moral fabric of society and
result in an increase in crimes of all sorts. Eventually a
complete disintegration of law and order will occur, leading
in the end to the total collapse of civilization.
14. Fallacy of Weak Analogy
➢ arguer draws conclusion depending on insignificant similarities
of two or more things
➢ The similarity between two things is not strong enough to
support the conclusion
➢ The basic structure of the fallacy
» Entity A has attributes a, b, c and z
» Entity B has attributes a, b, c
» Therefore, entity B probably has attribute z.
Example:
2. Harper’s new car is bright blue, has leather upholstery, and gets excellent gas
mile age. Crowley’s new car is also bright blue and has leather upholstery.
Therefore, it probably gets excellent gas mileage, too.
➢But If some causal or systematic relation exists
between z and a, b, or c, the argument is strong-
commits no fallacy
Examples
o The flow of electricity through a wire is similar to the flow of water through
a pipe. Obviously, a large-diameter pipe will carry a greater flow of water
than a pipe of small diameter. Therefore, a large-diameter wire should carry
a greater flow of electricity than a small-diameter wire.
o The flow of electricity through a wire is similar to the flow of water through
a pipe. When water runs downhill through a pipe, the pressure at the bottom
of the hill is greater than it is at the top. Thus, when electricity flows
downhill through a wire, the voltage should be greater at the bottom of the
hill than at the top.
3.3 Fallacies of Presumption
➢ To presume means to take something for granted or
➢ to assume a given idea as true (while in fact not true)
➢ The assumption given in the premise is not supported by
proof but arguer invite the audiences to accept as it is.
➢ Arguer uses confusing expressions-to conceal the wrong
assumption
➢ Contains fallacies of:
➢ Begging the question
➢ Complex question
➢ False dichotomy
➢ Suppressed evidence
15. Begging the Question
➢ Arguer uses confusing phraseology
➢ Presumes that the premises provide adequate support for the
conclusion
➢ Arguer creates the illusion by stating the inadequate evidence as
adequate to the conclusion by
✓ Leaving out a key premise- nothing more is needed to establish the
conclusion
✓ Restating the premise as a conclusion - using different words
✓ Reasoning in a circle- not clear where it begins &ends
➢ Chxs:
▪ Has a valid form
▪ Contains phraseology that conceal faulty reasoning
➢ The actual source of support for the conclusion is not apparent
▪ Leaving out a key premise
Example: Murder is morally wrong. This being the case,
it
follows that abortion is morally wrong
▪ Restating the Premise as a Conclusion
Example: Capital punishment is justified for the crimes
of murder and kidnapping because it is quite legitimate
and appropriate that someone be put to death for
having committed such hateful and inhuman acts.
▪ Reasoning in a circle.
16. Complex Question
➢Arguer asks a single question (that is really two or more)
and a single answer is then applied to both question
➢Oblige the L/R to acknowledge about something that he
or she doesn't want to acknowledge
Example:
- Have you stopped cheating on exams?
• You were asked whether you have stopped cheating on
exams. You answered ‘‘yes.’’ Therefore, it follows that
you have cheated in the past.
17. False Dichotomy
➢ Premise of an argument presents two alternatives as if they
are jointly exhaustive
➢ the arguer attempt to delude the reader or listener into
thinking that there is no third alternative
Examples:
• Either you buy only Ethiopian-made products or you don’t
deserve to be called a loyal Ethiopian.
Yesterday you bought new Chinese jeans.
Therefore, you don’t deserve to be called a loyal Ethiopian
18. Suppressed Evidence
➢arguer draws conclusion by ignoring the key premise that
outweighs the conclusion
➢it works by creating the presumption that the premises are
both true and complete when in fact they are not
➢ Common in advertisements/ads/
Example:
• The new RCA Digital Satellite System delivers sharp TV
reception from an 18-inch dish antenna, and it costs only $199.
Therefore, if we buy it, we can enjoy all the channels for a
relatively small one-time investment
3.4 Fallacies of Ambiguity
➢ conclusion of an argument depends on either
▪ a shift in meaning of an ambiguous word or
▪ wrong interpretation of an ambiguous statement
19. Equivocation
➢ conclusion depends on meaning of word which is used in
two different senses
Examples:
oSome triangles are obtuse. Whatever is obtuse is ignorant.
Therefore, some triangles are ignorant.
oAny law can be repealed by the legislative authority. But the
law of gravity is a law. Therefore, the law of gravity can be
repealed by the legislative authority.
20. Amphiboly
➢ arguer draw a conclusion depending on misinterpreted
statement
➢ The original statement- asserted by someone
➢ ambiguity usually arises from :
▪ a mistake in grammar , punctuation—a missing
comma, a dangling modifier
▪ an ambiguous antecedent of a pronoun etc.
➢ So the statement may be understood in two clearly
distinguishable ways.
examples:
oJohn told Henry that he had made a mistake. It follows
that
John has at least the courage to admit his own mistakes.
❑ Difference between Amphiboly & equivocation
➢ Equivocation – due to ambiguity in meaning of words but
➢ Amphiboly – due to ambiguity in a statement
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
➢ Equivocation –involves a mistake made by the arguer
when he constructs an argument
➢ Amphiboly – involves mistake made by the arguer in
interpreting an ambiguous statement made by someone
else
3.5 Fallacies of Grammatical Analogy
➢ are grammatically similar to other arguments that are
good in every respect
➢ It include fallacies of
▪ composition
▪ division
21. Composition
➢ conclusion depends on the erroneous transference of
attribute from parts to whole
Examples:
• Each atom in this piece of chalk is invisible. Therefore, the chalk
is invisible.
• Sodium and chlorine, the atomic components of salt, are both
deadly poisons. Therefore, salt is a deadly poison.
➢ But if the transference of attribute from part – whole is
legitimate - commits no fallacy
Example:
•Every atom in this piece of chalk has mass. Therefore, the piece of
chalk has mass.
22. Division
➢ conclusion depends on the erroneous transference of
attribute from whole to part
➢ An illegitimate transference of attribute from whole to
part
Examples:
• Salt is a nonpoisonous compound. Therefore, its component
elements, sodium and chlorine are nonpoisonous.
➢ But when the transference of attribute from the whole to
part is legitimate , it doesn’t commit fallacy
Example:
• This piece of chalk has a mass. Therefore, the atoms of
this piece of chalk has mass as well
❑ To distinguish composition & Hasty generalization ,
Examine the conclusion of the argument
➢ If the conclusion of an argument is a general
statement- hasty generalization
➢ If the conclusion of an argument is class statement-
composition
❑ To distinguish division & accident, examine the premise
of the argument.
➢ If the premises contain a general statement- Accident
➢ if the premise contain a class statement- Division
Thank You!