CHAPTER ONE

Basic Concepts of Logic (9 hrs)

Introduction

Logic is the study of the methods and principles used to distinguish good
(correct) from bad (incorrect) arguments. This chapter provides students with
some preliminary notions and guidelines about logic as a subject matter.
Moreover, the chapter deals with; the nature of arguments and their
components (premises and conclusion), deductive and inductive arguments,
validity, truth, soundness, strength, cogency, argument forms and proving
validity.

Objectives

 At the end of this Chapter, Students Will be able to:

-recognize the place and purposes of Logic within the system of

Knowledge,

-observe the main phases in the development of Logic,

-know the fundamental principles of thought to which logic relies,

-identify the main constituent elements in an argument,

-recognize passages that are arguments and non arguments,

-classify arguments into deductive and inductive, and

-use correctly the concepts valid/ invalid, sound/ unsound, strong/weak

and cogent/uncogent in evaluating arguments.

1
1.1 What is Logic?

 Definition and Purpose

Every one thinks, every one reasons, every one argues, and every one is
subjected to the reasoning and arguments of others. We are daily bombarded
with reasoning from many sources: books, speeches, radio, TV, newspapers,
employers, friends and family…. Some people think well, and argue well. Some
do not. The ability to think, reason and argue well is partly a matter of natural
gifts. But whatever our natural gifts, they can be refined and sharpened. And,
the study of logic is one of the best ways to refine one ’s natural ability to
reason and argue. Through the study of logic, one learns strategies for thinking
well, common errors in reasoning to avoid, and effective techniques for
evaluating arguments… (Layman, 2000:1).

As it has been underlined in the above passage, logic is a discipline of

philosophy which is basically concerned with the formulation of principles
which correct our reasoning processes. The principles formulated in logic are
guiding procedures so as to evaluate argument forms, which are the
fundamentals of the subject matter.

An argument, which is primary focus of logic in coming sections, is a group of

statements containing a conclusion that is affirmed on the bases of what are
called premises.

As it has been stated before, arguments are familiar in our day-to-day

communications and experiences with different parties in the sense that they
are available in text books, news papers, debates and in different modes of
communication among individuals or groups. Thus, logic is aimed at designing
methods and principles in order to evaluate arguments which can be
conducted by different parts of a given society.

2
Finally, the principles of logic enable us to develop our confidence in critically
and rationally evaluating others’ arguments and to construct our own
persuasive and logical forms of speech.

1.2 A Brief History of the Development of Logic

As to the history of logic, Aristotle (384–322 B.C.) is the first philosopher in

systematically constructing principles of correct reasoning. But this does not
mean that there were not arts and techniques of argumentation before
Aristotle. Among Aristotle’s time immemorial contributions for the
fundamentals of logic; the formulation of syllogistic logic, modal logic and
informal fallacies are some of most important ones.

Chrysippus (279- 2006 BC) is the one who developed propositional logic, after
the death of Aristotle. He initiated and developed contents of propositional logic
such formulations are preparatory insights for truth functional interpretation
of logical connectives and natural deduction.

In the medieval period, the works of Aristotle and Chrysippus were

reconstructed by Peter Abelard (1079-1142). And, Abelard made a distinction
between arguments, which are valid because of their form, and those, which
are valid because of their contents. Moreover, logicians such as William of
Sherwood (1200-1271), William of Ockham (1285-1349), Peter of Spain (1210-
1277) and others made immense contributions for the development of logic in
this historical period.

In the 17th and 18th centuries, logicians such as Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz
(1646-1716) other came up with sophisticated techniques and strategies of
logic. Particularly the works and approaches of Leibniz (Symbolic logic and
Calculus) were important in logically handling different forms of disputes
among different disciplines such as religion, politics, philosophy and others.
Thus, Leibniz is usually credited as the father of symbolic logic as he tried to
systematically symbolize logical languages.

3
The 19th century can be considered as a historical period as logic begun its
rapid development. For that matter, logicians as well as mathematicians such
as Augustus De Morgan (1806- 1871), George Boole (1815-1864), William
Stanley Jevons (1835-1882), John Venn (1834-1923) and John Stuart Mill
(1806-1873) contributed lots for this end. For example, Boole’s interspersions
of categorical propositions, Venn’s diagram method, and Mill ’s inductive
method are some of the most important works of the time.

Towards the end of the 19th century and throughout the 20th century, Modern
mathematical, symbolic, propositional and modal logic were developed. And
logic as well as its fundamental components becomes indispensable conceptual
backgrounds to different forms of communication technologies and scientific
innovations.

1.3 Fundamental Laws of Logic

It is clear that logic is an indispensable instrument to philosophizing in the

sense that to be acquainted with principles of logic enables anyone to deliver
logically coherent, consistent and rational arguments as well as any form of
speech to his/her audience/s. And, there are generally three principles or laws
of logic, which are crucial to our day-to-day thinking processes. These laws are
considered to be bases of our thought without which thinking logically is
impossible. In this connection E.D.L. Miller (1984, 28) says:

…It is important to see that if these principles are not accepted as true, then
nothing we think or say makes any sense, not even this very sentence. They
make our ideas and words and languages stand still, as it were, while we deal
with them. Try to imagine making any claim about anything if any one of these
principles did not hold. Go-ahead, try!

In any case, these principles are:

A. The Law of Non-contradiction- is the first law of thought, which

advocates the fundamental notion that nothing can both be and not be at

4
 the same time and in the same respect. Here, the phrase at the same time
in the same respect should be underlined that a statement cannot be
both true and false at the same time in the same respect. For example, a
blackboard may be white and not white at different times; however, it
can never be otherwise at the same time and in same situation.

 Can this rule answer to self-contradictory situations?

B. The Law of excluded Middle: is the second law of thought, which

propounds the principle that something either is or it is not. It states that
either something is X or it is not X, white or not white, black or not back,
etc…

 Can this rule answer to situations having other third alternative

than the two extremes?

C. The Law of identity: is the last law of thought, which states the notion
that something is what it is.

 How can this rule respond to those changing objects, situations, and
characters?

To sum up, the above three laws of thought are the most common and
conventional ones which are complementary with each other though there are
some challenges which question the validity of the above principles of thought.

1.4 Logic and Law

Laws, adopted by the legislative organ of a government or resulting from the

decisions of courts, are indispensable instruments of societies in governing
their behaviors as well as their relationships with their states. And, an
important distinction is usually drawn between criminal and civil laws.

In criminal law, the limits of permissible behavior are laid down, Crimes are
defined, and punishments may be specified. A crime is an offense against the

5
public order: the dispute in criminal proceedings is therefore between the state,
the accuser, and the defendant, the accused. Basically, a crime will involve
both a wrongful deed and wrongful intention or state of mind in the actor.

In civil law, standards for conduct are laid down for determining when one is
legally obligated to fulfill an earlier agreement (the law of ‘contracts ’), or for
determining when one is liable for an injury done as a result of alleged
negligence or other fault (the law of ‘torts’). A civil proceeding is usually a
dispute between private parties. The complaining party, or plaintiff, may allege
that a contract has been unfairly broken, that an injury to persons or to private
property has resulted from unauthorized or negligent conduct. The responding
party or the defendant may dispute the factual claims, or contend that his
conduct was justified by some other legal rule or seek to show that his conduct
resulted in no damage to the plaintiff. If damage is proved, and the conduct
was unlawful, the defendant’s good intentions will not normally be relevant. It
is not a criminal guilt that is at issue in the civil law, but liability.

In both criminal and civil laws, it is the principal function of a judicial system
to resolve dispute; a trial may be need to insure that the resolution is definitive
and fair. In this process, the principles of logic are heavily relied upon. Validity
and invalidity, the basic rules of deduction, remain fundamentally the same in
every field and do not change when applied in a legal context. But the central
role of argument in resolving legal controversies justifies special attention here
to the way logical principles apply in the world of law and the courts.

In thinking about the use of logic in the law, particularly in positive or formal
law, disputes may arise; however, the use of logic is critical in resolving those
disputes. In other words, in resolving disputes a legal system must apply some
principle, or rule, to a set of factual circumstances-eventually reaching some
judgment about guilt or liability. The facts themselves sometimes in dispute
and may need to be established. That is a primary function of trials and the
investigation that precede them. Then one party will claim that some specific
rule of law applies to the facts, while the opposing party will claim that this
6
rule does not apply, or that some other applicable rule takes precedence over
it. Each party presents arguments, in support of its position. Those arguments
purport to be logically correct; that is, the premises offered are claimed to
provide support, deductive or inductive, for the conclusion urged.

In any case, whatever intellectual problems of importance arise in the law, in

science or in everyday life good argument can strongly support, but can never
guarantee, correct solutions since the truth of every premise is open to
question. We reason inductively to establish the facts in problematic solutions.
From what we thus accepted as premises, we reason deductively to establish
and defend what follows form those premises. In all the study of logic, we aim
to identify, master, and use the methods and principles that distinguish good
reasoning from bad.

If the foundations upon which our reasoning is built are solid, and if we are
consistently attentive and accurate, nothing will guide us more securely or
more successfully in solving problems of every kind than the methods of logic
with which this module has been concerned.

1.5 The Nature of Arguments

1.5.1 Argument; Premises and conclusion

An argument, which is the primary focus of logic, is a group of statements,

which composes premise(s) and a conclusion. A premise (which can be one or
more than one) is a statement, which provides reason or support for the
conclusion. And, a conclusion (which is always one) of an argument is a
statement, which is claimed to be supported or implied. And, arguments which
the premises really supports the conclusion are good arguments and those
which are on the contrary are bad arguments. Here, logic sets methods,
principles and techniques, which enable us to differentiate good arguments
from bad ones.

7
As it has been stated before, the term ‘argument ’, unlike its ordinary meaning
as a mere verbal fight between or among different individuals, has a completely
different meaning. An argument is composed of statements, which have truth-
values and logically interconnected ideas as premises and conclusion. In other
words, an argument is composed of statements as premises and conclusion to
which they are evaluated either true or false as they are declarative sentences.
Here, sentences which contain questions, proposals, suggestions, commands,
exclamations and the like can not be considered as statements as they can not
have truth values.

In some cases, however, a statement can also be expressed in a form of

rhetorical questions. For instance, the premise of the following legal argument
is expressed in interrogative form.

If the criminal law forbids suicide, that is not an argument valid in the church;
and besides, the prohibition is ridiculous; for what penalty can frighten a person
who is not afraid of death itself?

It is now clear that an argument is composed of premises and a conclusion

that the latter is the statement that is claimed to follow from the former. Here
our central task is to distinguish premise(s) from the conclusion within an
argument. The first strategy to accomplish this task is by using indicator
words. This is to say that there are some typical conclusion indicator words
and some other premise indicator words. Thus, based on those premise and
conclusion indicator words, one can easily distinguish premises form the
conclusion. For that matter, some of the typical conclusion indicators are the
followings:-

- Thus - so - For this reason

- Wherefore - hence - it follows that
- Therefore - accordingly - as a result
- Consequently - it must be that - implies that…

8
Example: A Federal government usually possesses a constitution, which
guarantees power sharing between the federal/central government
and those regional/ local governments. This implies that
distribution of power is the silent feature of any federal
government.

The statement before the words ‘implies that’ is the premise and the statement
that follows/contains ‘implies that’ is the conclusion of the argument given
above.

And, some of the typical premise indicator words are the followings:
- Since - as indicated by
- Because - in that
- For - may be inferred from
- As - given that….

Example:-

The constitution of a state does not narrate details of laws as it simply gives
general guidelines which all other laws are in accordance with.

The statement before the word ‘as’ is the conclusion where as that of after ‘as’
is the premise of the above argument. The other important point that should be
underlined is that indicator words (Premise as well as conclusion indicators)
are not always guarantees to distinguish or show premise (s) from conclusion
of a given argument because of two important reasons:

a. There might be cases where there are not indicator words in

passages which contain argument.

b. Though they exist, they might have some other purposes

(explanation, illustration…) other than showing argumentation
accompanied by premises and conclusion.

9
As to the problem stated in (a) One can end up with successful solution by
responding to ant of the following questions:

 Which statement is claimed to follow from others?

 What is the arguer trying to arrive at /prove? Or

 What is the main point of the passage?

And, the answer to these questions points out to the conclusion of an

argument so that the rest will be its premise(s). This is to say that in the
absence of those indicator words, one should carefully appeal to the inferential
claim (reasoning process) that the claim (s) /evidence(s) which the statement (s)
hold (s) is/are considered to be premise(s) and the other statement that is to be
followed is the conclusion of a given argument. For example: the following
passage, which contains an argument, does not have any indicator word:

Example:
A politician who does not have the courage to political life is not destined to the
discipline. Mohammed does not have any courage to it. Mohammed is not
destined to political life.

And, when we look at the inferential relationships among the above three
statements of the passage, the statement “Mohammed is not destined to
political life” is the statement which is intended to be proved so that it is the
conclusion and the remaining two statements are premises of the above
argument.

In relation to the concept of argument, inference and proposition are the two
common notions. Inference is nothing but the reasoning process expressed by
an argument and that of a proposition means the information content or
meaning of statements, which compose an argument.

10
As to the problem stated in (b) that the existence of indicator words by
themselves cannot always guarantee the existence of premise(s) and conclusion
or an argument in a passage.

One can look the following two examples which both contain the indicator word
“ since” that it serves as time indicator in the first passage where as premise
indicator in the next passage (argument):-

 Ethiopia has a long history in constitutional traditions. And, since 1995

the country has guided by a federal constitution. (Here since is used as
time indicator and the passage in fact doesn’t contain an argument as
there is not any inferential claim in it).

 Since the 1995 constitution of Ethiopia includes fundamental human and

democratic rights of the people, it is relatively better than all constitutions
which had been formulated before. (Here since is used as a premise
indicator so that the passage contains inferential claim, which in turn
proves that it is an argument.

1.5.2 Recognizing Arguments

It has been partially clear that an argument is the primary focus of logic. But it
should also be underlined that all forms of speeches as well as passages do not
contain arguments. In short, any form of speech or passage is labeled as an
argument if and only if it fulfills the following two conditions:

a. A minimum of one statement must claim to provide reason or evidence,

b. There must be a claim that something is followed from the evidence.

As it has been stated before, premises refer to the statements claiming to

provide evidence, and conclusion refers to the statement that the evidence is
claimed to imply or support. Here the question is: Is it necessary for the
premises to be true? No, it is not mandatory that the premises provide actual
or genuine support to the conclusion or it is not necessary for the premises
11
actually support the conclusion. But the premises must claim to provide
evidences or reasons; and there must be a claim that the evidences or reasons
support or imply something. When we say the premises must claim to provide
evidence, it suggests that the reasons or evidence presented have not proved to
be true, but the assertion that it is true is there. As a result, the premises may
be either true or false. It may, therefore, be either factual evidence or not.

In any case the first condition stated in (a) expresses what is called factual
Claim which is not mandatory for a passage that contains an argument unlike
the second condition stated in (b), which is commonly called inferential Claim.
The inferential claim is to mean the claim that the passage expresses a
reasoning process that the passage expresses a reasoning process that
something supports or implies something.

Thus, the second precondition implies that the existence of an inferential claim
(the claim that a passage/speech contains or expresses reasoning process) is
mandatory to consider a given passage or speech as an argument- i.e.
something should be implied or followed from others in any argument. And,
such an inferential relationship of an argument can be expressed:-

a. Either explicitly through indicator (premise as well as conclusion

indicators) words as it has been witnessed before.

Example:

Expectant Mother should never use excessive alcoholic drinks and drugs
as these substances can endanger the development of the fetus.

Here the word “as” shows that there is a reasoning process being expressed in
the passage.

b. Implicitly through understanding the inferential relationship between

premises and the conclusion.

12
 Example:

Freedom of press is one of the most important of our constitutionally

guaranteed freedoms. Without it, other freedoms would be immediately
threatened. Furthermore, it provides the fulcrum for the development of new
freedoms.

There is an inferential relationship between the first and the other two
sentences. Of course, this relationship constitutes an implicit claim that
evidence supports something. So we are justified in calling this passage
argument. And, the first statement is the conclusion and the other two are
premises.

Moreover, the other alternative that enables us to differentiate passages, which

contain arguments from those which do not have, is through distinguishing
non-inferential passages/non argument forms with that of inferential
passages/ argument forms. Based on this guideline passages which contain
warnings, advices, a statement of belief, reports and the like lack inferential
claim that they are non-inferential passages. Thus, they are non-argument
forms as some of their details is to be disclosed in the following section.

Warnings: - are cautionary advices, which save someone from any bad or
dangerous incident or situation. And, such forms of speech are
non-arguments as they clearly lack inferential claim.

Example: Shut your mouth!

Pieces of advice are forms of expression, which contain counseling or

guidelines to someone to follow appropriate procedures,
actions, and choices.

Example:

I advice you to improve your behavior before you graduate.

13
Statements of Belief and Opinion are:- is forms of expression, which are
basically accompanied by somebody’s beliefs, thinking,
opinions as well as judgments on different events, or courses
of action. But these opinions or judgments might not be
supported through proofs or evidences rather than showing
individual’s perceptions on those events or courses of action.

Example:

In my opinion, abortion is a crime against humanity.

Loosely associated statements are: forms of expression accompanied by

various statements which are mainly concerned with the same
general theme, however, they are not logically connected or
they lack inferential claim so that they can not be considered
as arguments.

Example:

Anything that a doctor does which requires cutting or injecting is a

‘Procedure’. Anything that a doctor does which requires thinking or
counseling is a “cognitive services”. Procedures pay much better than
cognitive services.

Reports are sets of statements, which are basically there to convey or deliver
information about different events or incidents. Reporters or
journalists are basically destined to deliver information about
different incidents rather than arguing on them.

Example:

“The Islamic forces in Somalia led by ‘Alshebab’ groups declared war to liberate
Somalia from Ethiopian forces” Aljezira, 2008.

14
  But there is the case when reports about arguments are delivered. In
such case though the report itself is not an argument, the reported
passage can be interpreted as an argument since it is accompanied by
position, which is supported by evidences. However, the
passage/argument in the report is not performed by the author of the
report, but by those whom the author of the report is reporting.

Expository Passages (Elaborations):- are passages, which begin with topic

sentences or fundamental points. And, there are additional
sentences, which are primarily there to develop or elaborate
those topic sentences rather than to prove them.

Example:-

The speed of reading depends entirely upon the reader. He may read as slowly
or as rapidly as he can or wishes to read. If he does not understand something,
he may stop and read it, or go in search of elucidation before continuing.

But there are cases where expository passages can be counted as arguments
when those elaborating sentences, other than the topic sentence, are there not
only to develop topic sentence, but also to prove it.

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

issues or different subject matters. This is to say that when a
statement about a certain issue is accompanied by different
instances to exemplify it, it is considered as an illustration.

Example:

Mammals are vertebrate animals that nourish their young with milk. For
example, cats, horses, goats, monkeys, and humans are mammals.

However, there are passages, which give examples, can be interpreted as

arguments.

15
Example:

Water is an excellent solvent. It dissolves many minerals that do not readily

dissolve in other liquids. For example, salts do not dissolve in most common
solvent such as gasoline, kerosene, etc. But many salts dissolve readily in
water.

Here this example is intended to prove that water is an excellent solvent so that
it can be considered as an argument.

Thus, like expository passages, some illustrations are considered as arguments

if there is an inferential relationship or reasoning process among their
statements.

Conditional Statements:-

A sentence constructed through an ‘if … then…” statement is a conditional

statement. And, a statement that is following ‘then’ is called consequent and a
statement following ‘if’ is called an antecedent.

Conditional statements do not usually contain argument; rather they signify

the causal connection between the antecedent and the consequent as:

 If antecedent, then consequent.

 Consequent if antecedent.

Example:
If you study hard, you will score a good grade, or
You will score a good grade if you study hard.

However, it is not always the case that all conditional statements express only
causal connections in the sense that there are cases where conditional
statements are interpreted as arguments if the connection between the two is
as follows:

16
  A single conditional statement is not an argument.

 A conditional statement may serve as either the premise or the

conclusion or both of an argument.

 The inferential content of a conditional statement may be re-expressed

to form an argument.

Example:

If the earth’s magnetic field disappears, then the Vann Allen radiation belt
will be dissolved. The earth’s magnetic field is disappeared. Therefore, the
Van Allen radiation belt will be dissolved.

In this example, the conditional sentence served as the premise of an

argument. Thus, if the passage consists of conditional statements together with
some other statement (like the above example), then it may be an argument
depending on the presence of indicator words and an inferential relationship
between the premises and the conclusion.

Another important point is that conditional statements are useful in logic since
they express the relationship between sufficient and necessary conditions.
‘X’ is said to be a sufficient condition for ‘Y’ whenever the occurrence of ‘X ’ is all
that is needed for the occurrence of ‘Y’. For example, it is clear that a knife
could cause a scare to appear. When we put this in a conditional statement, it
is as “If you are stabbed by Knife, a scare will appear in your body ”. Or to put
this in terms of sufficient and necessary condition it can be presented as “being
stabbed by a knife is a sufficient condition for the occurrence of scare.”
However, being stabbed by a knife is not a necessary condition for the
occurrence of scare because many other things may cause scare.

‘X’ is said to be the necessary condition for ‘Y’ whenever ‘Y’ cannot occur
without the occurrence of ‘X’. For example, air is a necessary condition for life.

17
It is a necessary condition because one cannot think of life without air. But it is
not a sufficient condition since there are other necessary conditions.

An Explanation- Consists of statements or group of statements intended to

shed light on some phenomenon that is usually accepted
as a matter of fact.

Examples:

1. Azeb is sick because she ate too much.

2. The price of oil declined because of the international financial crisis.

In an explanation, there are two distinct components: The explanandum and

the explanans. The explanandum is the statement that describes the event or
phenomenon to be explained, and the explanans is a statement that does the
explaining. In the first example the explanandum is the statement “Azeb is
sick” and the explanans is “She ate too much”.

Explanations usually contain indicator words such as “because ” and others so

that they may be confused with arguments. This is precisely because while in
the explanation, the explanans are intended to show why something is the
case, where as in an argument the premises are intended to prove that
something is the case. In the above two examples, the arguers are intended to
explain the situations rather than proving them.

Exercise1.1

I. Define the Following terms:

-Logic -Conclusion - explanandum - Conditional

- Argument - Proposition - premise indicator statement
- Premise -truth value - Conclusion - - Consequent
-Antecedent - Inference indicator - Sufficient condition
-explanation -Explanans - Fundamental - Necessary condition

18
 laws of logic

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

1. An argument can have more than one conclusion.

2. All arguments must have more than one premise.

3. The words “therefore”, “So”, “since”, “thus”, “hence” are all conclusion
indicators.

4. Every statement has a truth value.

5. Some arguments are false.

6. Logic is the study of methods for evaluating whether the premises of an

argument adequately support its conclusion.

7. An argument is a set of statements, one of which, called the conclusion,

is affirmed on the bases of others, which are called the premises.

8. Aristotle is being usually credited as the father of logic.

9. Logic has at all nothing to do with the discipline of law.

10. Some passages can be correctly interpreted both as illustrations and as

arguments.

11. Some conditional statements can be expressed to form arguments.

12. Being an animal is a sufficient condition for being a tiger.

13. The presence of water is a necessary condition for plant life.

14. Any passage that contains an argument must contain a claim that
something is supported by evidences or reasons.

19
15. Passages, which contain premise or conclusion indicator words, are
always arguments.

1.5.3. Deductive and Inductive Arguments

Based on the kind of connection existed between the premises and the
conclusion, arguments can broadly be classified in to two; deductive and
inductive. And, the difference in the strength of the inferential claim or the
degree of strength of the reasoning process existed between the premises and
the conclusion matters most to arrive at such dichotomy between the above
two categories of arguments.

Deductive arguments are arguments, which their premises guarantee the

conclusion in the sense that if we assume that the premises are true, the
conclusion must be true. In other words, the connection between the premises
and the conclusion in any deductive argument is a matter of necessity or
certainty that the conclusion in a deductive argument cannot be otherwise
(false) if its premises are true.

Example – All human beings are mortal.

Kebede is a human being.
Therefore, Kebede is Mortal.
In this example, the premises support the conclusion with certainty so that the
conclusion is inferred with logical necessity from the evidences or premises.

On the other hand, inductive arguments are those, which their premises
simply suggest the conclusion that if we assume that the premises are true, the
conclusion will probably be true. This implies that there is a probable
connection between the premises and the conclusion of an inductive argument.
Thus, the inferential link between the premises and the conclusion of any
inductive argument is matter of likelihood or probability unlike that of any
deductive argument.

20
Example:-

The majority of Ethiopian University students are seriously concerned about

employment opportunity. Rahma is a University Student. Therefore, Rahma is
seriously concerned about employment opportunity.

The premise of the above argument is supporting the conclusion with the
degree of likelihood or probability that there is no relationship of logical
necessity between the premise and the conclusion.

There are cases where inductive arguments are understood, as arguments,

which reason from part to whole and deductive argument, are those, which
reason from whole to part. However, this kind of approach does not always
work. And, the following two examples show that the above definitions do not
always work.

Example 1:
Three is a prime number.
Five is a prime number.
Seven is a prime number.
Therefore, all odd numbers between two and eight are prime numbers.

 This is reasoning from particular to general, however the argument is

deductive.

Example 2:

All the last experiences in Ethiopian politics have shown that political
power is not secured through unconstitutional means. Therefore, Political
power in Ethiopia will be secured through similar strategy in the coming
years.

21
  This is an inductive argument since it seems to argue to forecast the
future based on past experiences.

In any case, the strength of the inferential connection between the premises
and the conclusion should be taken as an indispensable criterion to
differentiate or show the distinction between inductive and deductive
arguments.

To sum up there are three criteria, which are important to distinguish

inductive arguments from deductive arguments. These are:

A. The existence of indicator words such as necessarily, certainly,

absolutely, and definitely in arguments show that such arguments are
deductive. And the existence words such as likely, probably, unlikely,
plausibly in arguments shows that such arguments are inductive. But,
these deductive and inductive indicator words cannot always show the
distinction between the two argument forms so that it is mandatory to
appeal to other criteria.

B. The actual strength of the inferential link between the premises

and the conclusion of a given argument is another criterion to
distinguish deductive from an inductive argument. If the conclusion is
strictly or logically followed form the premises, the argument will be
deductive but if the conclusion is probably followed from the premises,
the argument is inductive.

C. Typical deductive and inductive argument forms

Deductive argument forms

 Mathematical argumentations are deductive argument forms since they

are accompanied by some arithmetic and geometric backgrounds. But this
does not mean that statistical argument forms are deductive since they

22
 are characterized by probabilistic or sampling procedures to arrive at a
conclusion.

Example:

The sum of two odd numbers is always even. Thus, the result of 3 and 9 is an
even number.

 An argument from definition is a deductive argument form since the

premises already define the truth of the conclusion.

Example: God is omniscient, it follows that He knows everything.

 A categorical syllogism is a deductive argument form. It is a syllogism

(an argument form having exactly two premises) in which each of its
statements usually begin with words: ‘all’, ‘no’ and ‘some.’

Example:

All X are Y.
All Y are Z .  This is a deductive argument form.
Therefore, all X are Z.

All animals are mammals.

All mammals are Living things.  This is the substitution instance
Therefore, all animals are of the above deductive
living things. argument form.

 A Hypothetical syllogism is a deductive argument, which is basically

accompanied by an “If…then…” or conditional statement.

Example: If X, then y.
If y, then Z.  This is a deductive argument form
23
 Therefore if X, then Z

The substitution instance of the above argument form is as follows:

If our body temperature is beyond the normal condition (37 OC), then we are not
in a normal state of mind. If we are not in normal state of mind, then we would
not cope up with any physical as well as mental challenges. Therefore, if our
body temperature is beyond the normal condition (37 OC), then we would not cope
up with any physical as well as mental challenges.

A Disjunctive Syllogism is a syllogism which is accompanied by statements

beginning through an “Either…or …” phrase and it is a deductive argument
form.

Example

Either x or y.
Not x .  This is a deductive argument form.
Therefore, y.

Its substitution instance is as follows:

Either Italy or Ethiopia won the military incident of Adwa. Italy did not
win the military incident of Adwa. Therefore, Ethiopia won the military
incident of Adwa.

Some Inductive argument forms

A Prediction is when somebody concludes about the future based on what was
or is happening before as well as now. This is an inductive argument in the
sense that it cannot show the future with certainty.

24
 Example:

It has been raining for the whole day of this week, this shows that it will
rain for the coming weak.

An inductive generalization is when some one bases his/her conclusion on

some particular instances, cases or samples.

Example:

There are 100 students who are taking the course; introduction to
logic. Among these students 10 of them were selected at random
and found to be intelligent. Therefore, this shows that all of these
students are intelligent.

An argument from authority, which some one argues based on the witness of
another person who lacks the experience, knowledge as well as ability, is an
inductive argument.

Example:-

According to Dr. Kebede, who is a medical doctor at Black Lion

hospital, Ethiopian economy is growing rapidly regardless of the
global crises of 2008/9. Therefore, Ethiopian economy is growing
fast as per the account of Dr. Kebede.

When knowledge about certain signs is attributed to certain situations to

which these signs symbolize, it will be an inductive argument. And, arguments
based on traffic signs; cautions of any marks and symbols usually contain
inductive argumentations.

An argument based on causation, instances of cause and effect (cause to

effect or effect to cause) which can never be known with absolute certainty, is
an inductive argumentation.

Example –

25
  Kebede is upset so that he is silent  cause to effect
 The meet is dry so that it had over cooked  effect to cause

Exercise 1.2

I. Define the Following terms:

- Deductive argument – argument from analogy

- Inductive argument – inductive generalization
- Argument based on Mathematics – Prediction
- Argument from definition - Causal inference
- Categorical syllogism - Disjunctive syllogism
- Hypothetical syllogism

II. Answer “ true “ or “ False” to the following statements.

1. Deductive argument always proceeds from the general to the particular.

2. Most arguments based on statistical reasoning are deductive.

3. The nature of the link between premises and conclusion may allow one
to determine whether an argument is inductive or deductive.

4. An argument that proceeds from the knowledge of the cause to the

knowledge of an effect is an inductive argument.

5. A geometrical proof is an example of an inductive argument.

6. Indicator words can be taken as one of those requirements so as to

distinguish inductive from deductive arguments.

III. Which of the following arguments are deductive? And which are
inductive?

26
 1. All Collies are dogs. Some animals are not dogs. So, some animals are not
collies.

2. Because triangle A is congruent with triangle B, and triangle A is isosceles,

it follows that triangle B is isosceles.

3. Cholesterol is endogenous with humans. Therefore, it is manufactured

inside the human body.

4. The interpretation of the law is the proper mandate of the court.

Constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges as the
fundamental law. It, therefore, belongs to them to ascertain its meaning,
as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative
body.

5. All planets are round. The earth is round. So, the earth is a planet.

1.5.4. Validity, Truth, Soundness, Strength and Cogency

Evaluating Arguments

As it has been underlined before, evaluating arguments based on fundamental

principles and guidelines is among the central tasks of critical and rational
scrutiny.

When we expose arguments to critical and rational scrutiny, we may witness

that the premises, which are claimed to support the conclusion, fail to support
the conclusion so that the information of premises becomes irrelevant or
inconsistent to the conclusion. Thus, arguments having this nature can be
evaluated as bad or illogical. On the contrary, if we witness an argument
having sufficient, genuine and precise evidences or premises to the conclusion,
then we can judge that the information of the premises are relevant, consistent
and conducive to the conclusion. And an argument that satisfies this
requirement can be evaluated as good or logical.

27
Therefore, as it has been underlined before, inferential claim is an
indispensable criteria to evaluate arguments that if the premises of a given
argument fail to logically support or imply the conclusion, the argument is bad
and if the case is on the contrary it will result in good argument. And the
primary task of this section is to evaluate arguments, particularly deductive
and inductive arguments. And, as it has been explained before, the relationship
between the premises and the conclusion of a deductive argument is a matter
of necessity where as that of an inductive argument is a matter of probability.
In any case, logicians employ different terminologies applicable so as to
evaluate deductive and inductive arguments separately. And, this section gives
us some detailed analysis and classifications of deductive and inductive
arguments using those technical terms employed by logicians, which in fact
can never violate the fundamental natures or characteristics of these two
arguments.

Evaluating Deductive Arguments

Validity and Invalidity

As an introductory insight, there are four technical terms employed so as to

evaluate deductive arguments; valid, invalid, sound and unsound. Initially a
deductive argument can be divided into two forms: Valid and invalid. And, a
valid deductive argument is an argument such that if the premises are
assumed to be true, the conclusion must be true (it is impossible for the
conclusion to be false). In other words, the logical connection between the
premises and the conclusion of a valid deductive argument is a matter of
strict necessity. If, on the other hand, the connection between the premises
and the conclusion of an argument is not a matter of strict necessity in the
sense that if the premises are assumed to be true, then there is a possibility for
the conclusion to be false, such a deductive argument is invalid.

Moreover, there is no argument, which is partially or almost valid (there is not

any third alternative other than valid and invalid arguments) that if the

28
conclusion is followed with strict necessity from premises, the argument is
valid; and if the case is on the opposite, the argument is invalid.

Validity and Truth

Another important point is that there is not any direct connection between
validity and truth, in the sense that, it is not mandatory to have either true or
false premises as well as conclusion so as to get a valid argument except an
argument with true premises and false conclusion which is always invalid.

Truth and falsity are attributes of individual propositions or statements,

which assert what really are the cases. When somebody asserts that Abay is
the largest river in Ethiopia, he/she asserts what really is the case, means
what is true. But if he/she asserts that the largest river in Ethiopia is
Wabishable, his/her assertion would not be in accord with the actual world,
therefore, it would be false. Thus, truth is the attribute of a proposition that
asserts what really is the case, what is true; however, validity and invalidity are
attributes of arguments. Just as the concept of validity does not apply to single
propositions, the concept of truth does not apply to arguments.

In other words, the fact that statements of an argument are all true may not
prove validity and the fact that all the statements of an argument are false do
not prevent the argument from being valid.

In any case, the following possible combinations of true and false premises in
both valid and invalid arguments:

I. Some Valid Arguments Contain all true Propositions-true premises and

true conclusion:-

Example: - All Mammals are animals.

- All cows are Mammals.
- Therefore, all cows are animals.
29
II. Some Valid arguments have all false propositions-false premises and
false conclusion:-

Example : All Sharks are birds.

All birds are politicians.
Therefore, all Sharks are Politicians.

Although the premises of the above argument are in fact false, the argument is
valid. If they were true, the conclusion would have to be true as well. It is
impossible for the conclusion to be false assuming that the premises are true.
Thus, the above argument is valid.

III. Some invalid arguments have true premises and true Conclusion:-

Example:-

All birds are animals.

All grizzly bears are animals.
Therefore, all grizzly bears are birds.

The above argument is invalid because the truth of the conclusion does not
follow the premises with strict necessity.

IV. Some invalid arguments contain all true premises have false
conclusion:-

Example:

All banks are financial institutions.

Ethiopian Insurance is a financial institution.
Therefore, Ethiopian Insurance is a bank.

The premises of the above argument are true; however, the conclusion is false.
Such an argument cannot be valid because it is impossible for the premises of
a valid argument to be true and its conclusion to be false.

V. Some Valid arguments have false premises and true conclusion.

30
 Example

All Asians are Africans.

All Ethiopians are Asians.
Therefore, all Ethiopians are Africans.

The conclusion of this argument is true; moreover, it may be validly inferred

form the two premises, both of which are plainly false.

VI. Some invalid arguments also have false premises and true Conclusion:-

Example:

All Mammals have wings.

All Whales have wings.
Therefore, all whales are mammals.

VII. Some invalid arguments contain all false propositions-false premises

and false conclusion:-

Example:

All Americans are Europeans.

All Ethiopians are Europeans.
Therefore, all Ethiopians are Americans.

In any case, as it has been underlined before, the above examples clearly
witness that there is no direct link between validity and truth in the sense that
the truth or falsity of the proposition or statement of an argument can never by
itself guarantee the validity or invalidity of that argument. In short the
following table will make the variety of possible combinations of validity and
truth clear:

Premise Conclusion Validity

T- - - - - - - - T- - - - - - - -- - - - - - - ?
T- - - - - - - - F- - - - - - - -- - - - - - - Invalid
F- - - - - - - - T- - - - - - - - - - - - -- - ?
31
 F- - - - - - - - F- - - - - - - - - - - - - - ?

Table 1.1

One can understand from the above table that the first, third, and fourth
combinations show that the argument can be either valid or invalid depending
primarily on whether the conclusion follows the premises with strict necessity
or not (regardless of the truth and falsity of the premises and conclusion).

Another important exception in any deductive logic is indicated in the above

table (in the second combination) which contains an argument of true
premises and false conclusion. And any argument with such an arrangement
is always invalid.

Validity and Soundness

A deductive argument can be considered as sound if and only if it is valid and

heaving all true premises. If one of these two conditions is violated, the
argument would rather be unsound.

Example:
All Mammals are animals.
All humans are mammals.
Therefore, all humans are animals.

The Conclusion of the above argument follows the premises with strict
necessity so that the argument is valid. In addition to this, its premises are all
true. Therefore, the above deductively valid argument is sound.

 Sound argument = a valid argument + all true premises

On the other hand, a deductively unsound argument falls into one of the
following three categories:

 Valid but at least one false premise.

32
  Invalid but all its premises are true.
 Invalid and at least one false premise.

Example:
All Animals are mammals.
All birds are animals.
Therefore, all birds are mammals.

Though the above argument is valid (because if we assume that the premises
are true, the conclusion would be necessary true), it is unsound because the
argument involves plainly false premises.

Evaluating Inductive Arguments

Strength and Weakness

As it has been underlined before, an inductive argument is the one in which its
premises are claimed to support the conclusion in such a way that if they are
assumed to be true, then based on this assumption it is only probable that the
conclusion is true. If the premises do in fact support the conclusion in this
way, such an inductive argument can be considered as strong. Therefore, a
strong argument is one such that it is unlikely, though possible, that its
conclusion is false while its premises are true. Or it is highly probable that if its
promises are true, then its conclusion is true in any inductively strong
argument. If the premises are true, its conclusion has a higher probability of
being true in any strong argument.

On the other hand, a weak inductive argument is one such that if the premises
are assumed true, then based on this assumption, it is not probable that the
conclusion is true. In other words, a weak inductive argument has this
essential feature: It is not likely that if its premises are true, then its
conclusion is true.

Example:

33
 There has been rainfall throughout Ethiopia for the last few days.
Therefore, probably it will be raining for the coming weak.

As it has been underlined before, validity does not admit of degree so that there
is no any such argument to be said more valid/ less valid, or less invalid or
more invalid. However, strength and weakness, unlike validity and invalidity,
admit of degree so that we can have either stronger or weaker when we
compare to other arguments. Moreover, like validity and invalidity, strength
and weakness are only indirectly related to truth and falsity. The central
question in determining strength and weakness of argument is not the truth
and falsity of premises and conclusion but whether the conclusion would
probably be true if the premises are assumed true. And, we can have the
following combinations so as to reveal the indirect relationship between
strength or weakness and truth or falsity:

I. A strong argument with true premises and a probably true conclusion

Example:
All previous American presidents were men. Therefore; probably the
next American president will be man.

II. A weak inductive argument with true premises and a probably true
conclusion.

Example:

A few American presidents were federalists. Therefore, probably the

next American president will be a man.

III. A weak indicative argument with true premise and a probably false
conclusion.

Example:

A few American presidents were federalists. Therefore, probably the

next American president will be a federalist.
34
IV. A strong inductive argument with false premises and a probably true
conclusion.

Example:

All Previous American presidents were television debates. Therefore, probably

the next American president will be a television debater.

V. A weak inductive argument with false premise and probably true

conclusion.

Example:

A few American presidents were libertarians. A few American presidents were

libertarians. Therefore, probably the next American president will be a
television debater.

VI. A strong inductive argument with false premise and a probably false
conclusion.

Example:-

All previous American presidents were women. Therefore, probably

the next American president will be a woman.

VII. A weak inductive argument with false promise and probably false
conclusion.

Example:-

A few American presidents were Libertarians. Therefore, probably the

next American president will be a Libertarian.

And the following table will make the Varity of Possible combination of strength
and truth clear:

35
 Premises Conclusion Strength
T. . . . . . . Prob. T. . . . . . . . . . . . .. . .?
Table 1.2
T. . . . . . . Prob. F. . . .. . . . . . . . . . . Weak
F. . . . . . . Prob. T. . . .. . . . . . . . . . . ?
F. . . . . . . Prob. F. . . . . . . . . . . .. . ?

Depending on whether the conclusion has a higher probability of following the

premises (regardless of the truth and falsity of premises and the conclusion),
the first, third and fourth combinations show that the argument can be either
strong or weak. This shows that strength, like validity, is only indirectly related
to truth and falsity.

However any inductive argument with true premises and probably false
conclusion is always weak, which is an exception of any inductive logic.

Strength and Cogency

An inductively cogent argument has two essential features: (a) it is strong

and (b) All its premises are true. If one of these two conditions is missed, the
argument would rather be un-cogent.

Thus, an inductively cogent argument = a strong argument + all true

premises.

Example: - Nearly all lemons that have been tasted were sour. Therefore, nearly
all lemons are sour.

This argument is not valid because the conclusion concerns are not merely the
lemons that have been tasted but lemons in general, including those that have
not been tasted. And, the premise does not rule out the possibility that a large
percentage of untested lemons are not sour. Nevertheless, it is unlikely that the
conclusion is false given that the promise is true. And, the premise is true so
that the argument is inductively cogent.

36
Exercises 1.3

I. Define the following terms:

- Valid argument - strong argument

- Invalid argument - weak argument
- Sound argument - cogent argument
- Unsound argument - uncogent argument

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

1. All valid arguments have at least one false premise.

2. A deductively sound argument can have a false conclusion.

3. Every deductively sound argument is valid.

4. If an argument has all true promises and a false conclusion, then it is

invalid.

5. Every valid argument has a true conclusion.

6. A cogent argument must be inductively strong.

7. Inductive arguments admit of varying degrees of strength and weakness.

8. If a deductive argument has true premises and a false conclusion, it is

necessarily invalid.

III. The following arguments are deductive. Distinguish those which are
valid, invalid, sound and unsound. And, explain why.

1. All mammals are animals. No reptiles are mammals. So, no reptiles are
animals.

37
 2. All women are married. Some executives are not married, so, some
executives are not women.

3. If Kebede was killed in an automobile accident, then Kebede is dead.

Hence, Kebede was not killed in automobile accident.

4. Either 2 plus 2 equal to 22 or Santa Claus is real. But 2 plus 2 does not
equal 22. Therefore, Santa Claus is real.

5. All birds are animals. No tree is a bird. Therefore, No tree is an animal.

IV. The following arguments are inductive. Distinguish those which are
strong, weak, and cogent. And, explain why?

1. One hundred percent of the frogs that have been dissected had hearts.
Therefore, 100 percent of the entire frog populations have hearts.

2. Computers are similar to humans in that both are capable of complex

calculations. Humans generally feel ashamed if they make a mistake.
Hence, computers generally feel ashamed if they make a mistake.

3. Ninety percent of the cars in the parking were vandalized and your car was
in the parking. Therefore, your car was vandalized.

4. Fifteen percent of the students at California State University are

Republicans. Michael is a student at California State University. Therefore,
Michael is a Republican.

5. War is similar to playing a game of chess. For instance, in both war and
chess, strategy is important. And in both war and chess, one should not
attack one’s opponent with lethal weapons. So, when a nation is losing a
war, it should not attack its opponent with lethal weapons.

38
1.6 Counter Example Method of Proving Validity

So far, we have seen that the truth of a deductive argument ’s inferential claim
can determine validity in the sense that if the inferential claim is true, and then
the conclusion follows with strict necessity from the premises so that the
argument is valid.

This section, however, introduces alternative approach so as to prove validity-

the concept of argument forms and how these arguments forms can be used to
establish that an argument is valid or invalid. In other words, this section
discloses on how its forms determine validity of an argument. For this purpose
we will consider the following series of examples as follows:

Argument 1 Argument 2
All oaks are trees. All adlers are bobkins.
All trees are plants. All bobkins are crockers.
Therefore, all oaks are plants. Therefore, all adlers are crockers.

 We can represent the above two different arguments in terms of content by

the following similar form. And, we should be consistent in substituting
terms with letters.

Form1.
All A are B.
All B are C.
Therefore, all A are C.

 A stands for Oaks in argument 1 and it represents Adlers in arguments 2.

 B stands for trees in argument 1 and it represents bobkins in argument 2.

 C stands for plants in argument 1 and it represents crockers in argument

2.
39
Argument (1) and its form are clearly valid. This is because of the fact that if all
members of A (Oaks) are members of class B (trees), and all members of class B
(trees) are members of class C (Plants) then all members of A (Oaks) are
members of C (plants).

And, as regards argument (2) though we cannot have any idea bout Adlers and
Bobkins or we might not have any idea whether the premises are true, the
argument is valid since it has the same form as argument (1). And, any
argument having form (1) has the following feature: its Conclusion cannot be
false while its premises are true. From this one can understand the nature of
validity in the sense that the validity of an argument is guaranteed by its form
and does not depend on its content (i.e., its specific subject matter).

On the Other hand, the followings are in valid arguments with their form:

Arguments 3 Arguments 4

All adlers are bobkins. - All Birds are animals.

All crockers are bobkins. - All dogs are animals.
Therefore, all adlers are Crockers. Therefore, all birds are dogs.

And, the above two arguments can have the following similar argument form
which is invalid:

Form 2.
All A are B.
All C are B.
Therefore, All A are C.

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

40
And, any argument that has the above argument form is always invalid. An
argument form is a pattern or structure of reasoning that substitutes terms.
And an argument that results from uniformly replacing letters in an argument
form with terms (or statement) is called a substitution instance of that form.
For example, we can consider the following argument form and produce its
substitution instance:

Some A are not B. A = Animals

All C are A. B = Mammals
Therefore, some C are not B. C = Dogs

We can prove that this form is invalid by producing a substitution instance

that has premises known to be true and a conclusion known to be false. For
that matter:

Some animals are not mammals. (True)

All dogs are animals. (True)
Therefore, some dogs are not mammals. (False)

A substitution instance with premises known to be true and a conclusion to be

false is called a Counterexample. A counterexample to an argument form is a

substitution instance whose premises are well-known truths and whose

conclusion is a well-known falsehood. And, a good counter example must have

the following features:

 It must have the correct form.

 Its premises must be true.
 Its conclusion must be false.

The counterexample method can only used to demonstrate the invalidity of any
invalid argument; however it cannot demonstrate the validity of any valid
argument. Thus, the argument must be known to be invalid first before this
41
method is applied. In any case, there are steps to be followed to apply
counterexample method:

Step 1. Beginning with an argument which is invalid,

Step 2. Representing this argument with forms,
Step 3.Constructing a substitution instance with true promises and false
conclusion.

Example:- Some employers are not social climbers. All presidents are
employees. Therefore, some Vice-Presidents are not social climbers.

This argument is invalid because the employees who are not social climbers
might not be vice-presidents. Thus, we can prove the invalidity of this
argument by constructing a substitution instance with all true premises and a
false conclusion. So we began by isolating the form of the argument:
Some A are not B.
All C are A.
Therefore, some C are not B.

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

A = Animals
B = Mammals
C = Dogs

Finally the substitution instance is:

Some animals are not mammals. (true)

All dogs are animals. (True)
Therefore, some dogs are not mammals. (false)

42
This substitution instance has true premises and false conclusion is therefore
invalid. And, since it has the same form with the original argument, it
constitutes proof that the original argument is invalid.

Exercise 1.4

Use the Counterexample method to prove the validity of the following

arguments

1. All galaxies are structures that contain black holes in the center. So all
galaxies are quasars since all quasars are structures that contain black
holes in the center.

2. No member of the African National Congress is a supporter of apartheid.

Consequently, no members of the African National Congress are
members of the labor party since no members of the labor party are
supports of apartheid.

3. If animal species are fixed and immutable, then evolution is a myth.

Therefore, evolution is not a myth, since animal species are not fixed and
immutable.

Chapter Summary

Logic is the study of principles of correct reasoning so as to evaluate

arguments. Arguments are groups of statements consisting of one or more
premises and only one conclusion. Premises can be distinguished from
conclusion either through the presence of indicator words ( “thus ”, “Since ”,
therefore” and etc.) or an inferential relation among statements. Moreover, it is
mandatory to distinguish arguments form non-arguments since all forms of
passages are not arguments. This can be accomplished by indicator words, the
presence of an inferential relation among statements, and typical kinds of non-
arguments.

43
Arguments can broadly be divided into two: Inductive and Deductive.
Deductive arguments are those in which the conclusion is claimed to follow
necessarily from the premises. On the other hand, inductive arguments are
those in which the conclusion is claimed to follow only probably from the
premises. To distinguish deductive arguments form inductive ones, using
indicator words, using the actual strength of the inferential relation among
statements, and typical deductive and inductive forms of argumentation.

As to the evaluation of deductive and inductive arguments, evaluating the link

between the premises and conclusion is a mandatory logical procedure. Thus,
deductive arguments, which their conclusion strictly follows from the premises,
are called valid and their contraries are invalid. And a deductive argument,
which is valid and having all true premises, are called sound. A deductive
argument having true premises and a false conclusion is always invalid, which
is the main exception in any deductive logic. Inductive arguments, which their
conclusions actually follow from the premises, are called strong, and those that
also have all true premises are considered as cogent.

The form of the argument the arguer uses can determine the validity of a
deductive argument. Any argument form having a substitution instance
with true premises and a false conclusion is an invalid form. And,
Counterexample method is an important approach so as to prove the
validity of a given argume

44
 Chapter two

Language: Meanings and Definitions (6hrs.)

Introduction

Language and its application is one of the fundamental areas of the study of
logic. For that matter this chapter focuses on meanings and definitions. As far
as its details is concerned; topics such as cognitive, directive and emotive
meanings, intension and extension of terms, definitions, Language and law and
their purposes, definitional techniques, and rules of lexical definitions will be
the main focuses of this chapter.

Objectives:

After the Completion of this chapter, students will be:

- aware of the impact of emotive language on arguments,

- capable of differentiating between verbal and factual disputes,

- able to see the difference between the intentional and extensional

meanings of terms,

- familiar with the various purposes of definitions, and

- use different definitional techniques.

2.1. Cognitive and Emotive Meanings

Ordinary Language serves various functions in our day-to-day lives. The

contemporary philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein thought the number of these
functions to be virtually unlimited. They are important to ask questions, to tell
lies, to form a hypothesis, to tell jocks, to sing songs, to issue commands…

To fit with our purpose, we select three of the main linguistic functions:

45
 1. To convey information

2. To express or evoke feelings.

3. Directive functions, which are exemplified through commands and

requests.

The following three statements show how language serves the above three
purposes respectively, which the first statement is intended to convey
information, the second one is to express or evoke feelings, and the third one
gives directive meaning.

Examples:

1. The first written constitution of Ethiopia was formulated is 1931; however the
first federal constitution is effected since 1995.

2. Death Penalty is the final, cruel and inhuman form of all punishments, which
hopeless prisoners are taken from their cells and terribly slaughtered.

3. Derive carefully please! Remember that if you negligently cause damage, you
will be thrown to jail.

The above statements employ their own distinct terminologies to accomplish

their respective functions. The first statement conveys cognitive meaning,
which uses terminologies such as ‘codified’, ‘first’ and ‘written’, whereas the
second statement contains emotive meaning and it employs terminologies like
‘Cruel’, ‘hopeless’, “terribly’ and ‘slaughtered’, and the third statement includes
words such as ‘Please’, ‘carefully’ and others to transmit command.

Emotively charged statements usually have both cognitive and emotive

meanings, however, it is logically advisable to distinguish the two and
emphasis should be given to the former since logic is mainly concerned with it.
This is primarily because of the fact that emotively charged sentences are
mainly accompanied by expressions of prejudices and feelings rather than

46
rational, justifiable and factual information about an event or the subject
concerned. Moreover, we cannot use emotively charged sentences in arguments
since the sentences cannot be evaluated as true or false.

It is not logical to argue that emotively charged statements have no cognitive

meanings; rather the cognitive meanings of emotively charged statements have
to do with value claims, which are important parts of cognitive meaning of
emotive statements. This will force readers or listeners to separate value claims
and cognitive meanings form emotive meanings so as to get the real meaning of
the argument proposed. And, it is important to separate value claims form
emotive meanings of emotively charged statements to secure the purpose of
logic. Here, the logical presumption is that value claims cannot stand by
themselves; rather they normally have evidences to support them. And,
emotively charged statements are usually familiar with disciplines such as;
military, advertising, politics and other related fields.

Finally, the directive function of language is common in the discipline of law, as

we will see in the last section of this chapter.

Exercise 2.1

I. Define the following terms:

- Cognitive Meaning

- Emotive meaning

II. Each of the following arguments involves the use of emotively loaded
languages. Disengage the covert assumption, from the emotive
languages. Finally, evaluate the reconstructed arguments as good or
bad.

1. Since the Chinese have a lousy record on human rights, to give china
“Most Favored Nation” Status is simply to give into injustice.

47
 2. The world is full of horror, cruelty, poverty and debilitating illness. In
short, we humans inhabit one gigantic disaster area. And yet, some
people believe that a loving God controls the universe. It just goes to
show: People believe what they want to believe regardless of the facts.

3. If you are against engineering, you are against progress. So, why don ’t
you just accept the fact that genetic engineering is here to say?

4. What is wrong with playing the lottery? Nothing!!! Playing the lottery
simply involves making a modest investment with the possibility of a
substantial return.

2.2. The Intension and Extension of Terms

It is clear that arguments and their logical status is the main topic of logic.
And, arguments are consisting of statements, which are composed of words
that have meanings are convoyed through definitions. Moreover, logic is highly
dependent on definitions to deliver specific meanings to terms.

Though words is general are primary units of ordinary languages, we in this

chapter, are not mainly concerned with them, rather with terms. A term is a
word or group of words, which can be used as the subject of a statement.
Proper names, common names and descriptive phrases can be considered
as terms. The followings are some of the examples, which are used as terms.

Proper names Common names Descriptive Phrases

- Kebede - house - pen under the tables

- South America - person - those who study hard
- Plant

On the other hand, verbs, adjectives, prepositions, conjunctions and the

like can not be considered as terms since they can not serve as subjects of
statement. For example, words such as; ‘however’, ‘argue fairly’, ‘controversial ’…
cannot be taken as terms. In short, to consider a word or a group of words as a
48
term or non-term, one should be aware whether or not it serves as the subject
of the statement. And one must distinguish when words are used from they
are mentioned. When words have been mentioned or quoted, they usually serve
as subjects so that they can be treated as terms.

Examples: 1. ‘Carefully’ is an eight-letter word.

2. We should derive carefully.

As far as the above two examples is concerned, the word “carefully ” is

mentioned in the first example so that it can be considered as a term where as
the word “carefully” is used as an adverb in the second example so that it can
never be considered as a term.

Words are symbols, which signify meanings. And, terms are made up of words
having two kinds of meanings: intensional and extensional. The intentional
meaning contains the attributes or qualities, which the term connotes where
as extensional meaning consists of members of the class that the term
denotes. And, extensional meaning is usually termed as extension or
denotation. Where as its intentional meaning is called intension or
connotation. For example, the intentional meaning of the terms ‘human being ’
contains attributes of being rational, social, and moral as well as political
animal and its extensional meaning consists of all human beings in the
universe.

Intentional definition is usually exposed to subjective application in the

sense that individuals’ positive or negative inclinations or attitudes towards the
subject to be defined restricts us form having similar connotative meaning
about it. For example, the following two meanings of the term abortion are as
follows:

1. Abortion is an act, which is illegal, immoral and inhuman and it clearly

violates the fundamental human rights of an infant baby.

49
 2. Abortion is an act, which is performed by responsible medical
professionals so as to save the endangered life of the mother.

Thus, one can understand two contradictory meanings given to the term
abortion. Thus, to get ride of such subjective or partial intentional meaning
of a term, conventional definition can be taken as an alternative.
Conventional definition refers to the attributes in that the things that are
denoted by the term are supposed to have in the minds of competent speakers
of the language in question.

With regard to denotative definition, it is the same from person to person:

however, it may change with the passage of time. Fore example, there is having
similar denotative definition from person to person to terms: “currently living
cat” and “cat”. However, there will be differences with different time in the
sense that the former denotes currently existing cats where as the latter
denotes all the past, present and future cats.

As to the relationship between intentional and extensional meanings of terms;

A. When we increase the intentional meaning of a term, we are

decreasing its extensional meaning and when we decrease the
intentional meaning of a term, we are increasing its extensional
meaning.

This implies that the intentional meaning of a term is conversely

or indirectly related with its extensional meaning.

Increasing intension /decreasing extension

Biology, Natural sciences, Sciences

Increasing extension/decreasing intension.

50
  When we say we are increasing extension, we are to mean that we are
denoting more classes or members than the preceding terms in a series.
And the converse is the case when we say we are decreasing extension.

 When we say we are increasing intension, we are to mean that we are to

be more specific or we are attributing more about the term than its
preceding and the converse is the case when we mean we are decreasing
intension.

B. Intensional definition of a given term usually determines its

extensional definition in the sense that when someone gives us clues
about the attributes or qualities of a given term, we can easily identify
the class or categories, which satisfy the above attributes. But,
extensional definition of a term cannot determine, but can suggest, its
intentional meaning. This rule becomes problematic when we apply it to
proper names. However, we can resolve this by giving some identifying
clues about the subject to be defined as it will be witnessed in the
following example.

Example ; Kebede, the person who lives in the next building.

 Another important point is about those terms having no extensional

meanings, which are technically called terms with empty extension.
These terms have no classes, members or categories which are included
in them. For example, words like ‘ Satan’ , ‘ Unicorn’, ‘ God’ and the like
are terms with empty extension since such entities do not have
extensional meanings.

Exercise 2.2

I. Determine which of the following words or groups of words are

terms and which are non-terms?

- Therefore - Thomas Jefferson

51
 - Wake up - graceful dancer
- Abortion - whatever

II. Define the following terms

- The intention of terms

- The extension of terms

III. Answer “ true” or “false” to the following statements

1. All words have an intentional meaning and an extensional manning.

2. The intentional meaning of a term consists of the attributes connoted by

the term.

3. Some terms have empty extension.

4. ‘Satan’ and ‘unicorn’ have the same extension.

5. The intention of a term determines the extension.

2.3. Definitions and Their Purposes

Philosophers such as Plato and his contemporaries perceive the purpose of

definitions as to understand the essential forms of the object to be defined.
However, as to the perception of most logicians, definitions are usually
destined to assign meaning to words or groups of words. Based on this
presumption, a definition is composed of two essential parts: Definiendum and
definiens. Definiendum is the word, which is supposed to be defined, and
definiens is a word or group of words, which does the defining. And there are
five different types of definitions categorized based on their respective
purposes. These are:

52
1. Stipulative Definition

Stipulative definition assigns meanings to words for the first time either
through coining new words or assigning new meanings to old words. The prime
function of stipulative definition is to substitute a more complex expression by
simpler one. And, it is often caused by some new phenomenon or development.
Moreover, it is used to set up secret codes in areas of military expression and
other related developments. Thus new creations as well as developments
demand new names so that stipulative definition may serve for this purpose.
Since stipulative definitions are completely arbitrary assignments of meanings
to words, they cannot have any truth-value so that they cannot be asserted as
“true” or “false”. And stipulative definitions cannot give any new information
about the subject to be defined; however, they may be more or less convenient
or appropriate than others.

Examples:

- “Logphobia” means fear of taking logic course.

- “Sexercise” means especially vigorous sexual activity .

2. Lexical Definition

Lexical definition is usually called dictionary definition since it is used to report

the meaning that the subject to be defined has in a language. Unlike
stipulation definition, lexical definition can be evaluated as true or false with
reference to the actual usage of the word. And, a good lexical definition should
avoid or resist ambiguous meanings.

Here it should be underlined that ambiguity and vagueness are two different
notions. A word is said to be vague if it lacks precision of application words
such as love, happiness, rich, normal… are vague since they are employed in
different situations so that they might have different meanings. On the other

53
hand, a word is said to be ambiguous when it contains two distinct meanings
in that particular situations. Words like ‘Sound’, ‘light ’, ‘right ’…are ambiguous
words.

Examples:

- “Belt” means (1) a trap worn around the waist; (2) a trip of land
- “Even” means (1) equal in size; (2) calm or tranquil; (3) divided by 2.
3. Précising Definition

A précising definition is primarily intended to reduce the vagueness of the

word. This helps us to reach a decision to the applicability of the word to a
specific situation. In areas where words are taken from ordinary usage and
applied to highly systematic field such as science, mathematics, law, medicine
and other related fields, they must be clearly stated through précising
definition. Moreover, précising definitions are different from stipulative
definitions since their assignments of meanings to words are not arbitrary.
And, the assignment of meaning in any précising definition should be
appropriate and legitimate to the context in which the term is applied.

Examples:

- “Antique” means, at least 100 years old.

- “High” means, in regard to the interest rates, at least two points alone the
prime rate.

4. Theoretical Definition

A theoretical definition gives a theoretical meaning to the word to be defined or

it provides a way of viewing the definiendum which in turn suggests deductive
consequences and further investigation on scientific experimentation. But this
does not mean that all theoretical definitions are associated with science,
rather many terms in philosophy such as substance, idea, God… have been
given theoretical definitions. Theoretical definitions, like stipulative definitions,

54
can never be evaluated as true or false; however, they can be considered as
more interesting or fruitful depending on the deductive consequences they
imply and the result of experiment they suggest.

Examples:

- “Atom” means indivisible unit of matter having perceptible qualities.

- “Sin” means an intentional violation of the law of God .
5. Persuasive Definition

A persuasive definition is characterized through assigning emotively charged

meaning to the definiendum as if it were having such meaning in the language
in which it is used. This would create positive or negative attitude toward the
subject to be defined. And, persuasive definitions are attributed to the
synthesis of stipulative, lexical, and theoretical definitions backed by emotional
appeals so as to impose a certain attitude up on audiences or readers. The
central objective of a percussive definition is to influence the attitude of the
readers or listeners, as it is an instrument of persuasion. Finally persuasive
definitions can be evaluated as true or false though it is not its primary
mission.

Examples:

- “Homeless person” means a helpless individual who has lost his

family and home as a result of life’s vicissitudes.

- “Doctor” means a person possessed of special God-like powers

to heal the sick.

Exercise 2.3

I. Answer “ true” or “ false” to the following statements:

1. The purpose of a persuasive definition is to influence attitudes.

55
 2. Theoretical definitions provide a theoretical characterization of the entity
or entities of the word being defined.

3. The meaning given to a word by a précising definition is completely

arbitrary.

4. A stipulative definition is either true or false.

5. The definiendum is the word or term that is supposed to be defined.

II. Determine whether the following definitions are stipulative, lexical,

précising, theoretical, or persuasive:

1. “Frog” means an amphibian having a frog for a male parent and a toad for
a female parent.

2. “Donkiphant” means a liberal Republican.

3. “Fence” means (1) to enclose a piece of land; (2) to sell stolen goods; (3) to
Swordplay.

4. “Petty theft” means larceny of property having a value of less than $ 400.

5. “Lawyer” means a person who is licensed to say anything in representing a

client.

6. Sun means that fiery object in the center of the universe around which
revolves all the planets and stars.

2.4. Definitional Techniques

There are various techniques, which are important to produce definitions. And,
one can employ the techniques so as to show how the two kinds of meaning
(intention and extension) are indicated or presented. For that matter, some
forms of extensional definitions are discussed first followed by various forms of
intentional meaning.

56
  Demonstrative (ostensive) Definition

Demonstrative definition as a form of extensional definition is the most

primitive form of all definitions. It is indicated through pointing towards the
subject to be defined. Demonstrative definitions may be either partial or
complete depending on whether all or only some of the members of the subject
to be defined are pointed out.

This definition is important for someone to communicate with a foreigner who

does not speak the language of the former. It is limited by time and space.
Moreover, sign languages to which they usually consist of gestures are those,
which this definition is supposed to be expressed.

Examples:

- “Tree” Means this and this  

- “House” Means this and this  

 Enumerative Definition

An enumerative definition is another form of extensional definition that assigns

meanings to the objects, which are supposed to be defined through naming
them individually or in groups. Like demonstrative definitions, enumerative
definitions may also be either partial or complete, which the latter is logically
preferable.

Examples:

- “Politician” means someone as Nelson Mandela, Barrack Obamma or

Robert Mugabe.
- “Planet” means like earth, Saturn and Neptune.

57
  A Definition by Subclass

A definition by subclass is another type of extensional definition to assign a

meaning to a term by naming the subclasses of the class denoted by the term
and it can be partial or complete like that of enumerative definition. And, a
complete definition by subclass is more preferable than that of the partial one.

Examples:

- “Fruit” means something such as an apple, peach, pear, or banana.

The above three types of extensional definitions are crucial techniques in

producing lexical and stipulative definitions. Moreover, extensional definitions
could also serve as techniques for theoretical and persuasive definitions.
Extensional definition, on the other hand, cannot serve as précising definition
since the purpose of précising definition is to clarify vague words and
vagueness is exclusively an issue of intentional meaning.

Here we can also forward different forms of intentional definitions as

follows:

 A Synonymous Definition

It is a kind of intentional definition that the definiens is a synonym of the word

being defined. If a single word is found having the same intentional meaning
with the word to be defined, synonymous definition is highly appropriate way of
assigning intentional meaning. But, the problem is on the difficulty of getting a
single word to satisfy this requirement.

Examples
- “Obese” Means fat
- “Skinny” means thin.
58
An Etymological Definition assigns meanings to a word through showing its
root, origin or ancestors in both its own language as well as other languages.
Most of the time, English words have ancestors in other language such as
Greek, Latin, French and others. This definition gives the word ’s original
meaning, which other meanings can be derived. It also enables us to get the
historical details of the word to be defined as well as other related words.

Examples

- “Virtue” is a word derived from the Latin virtues, which means strength.
- “Philosophy” is a word derived from the Greek philo, which mans love, and
Sophia, which means wisdom.

 An Operational Definition

It gives meaning to a word through setting experimental procedures, which will

be applied to it. It describes an operation to be performed. This kind of
definition is assigned to bring abstract concepts to the empirical reality. It
delivers only part of the intentional meaning of a term and this problem in
more serious when this definition is outside the framework of science.

Examples

- A knife is “Sharp” if it produces a thin scratch when very gently drawn over
one’s thumbnail.

- A liquid is “Viscous” if one feels resistance when drawing one ’s hand

through it.

 A Definition by Genus and Difference

It assigns a meaning to a term by identifying a genus term and one or more

difference words. It is more applicable and adequate definition than any other
intensional definitions. In logic, “genus” means a relatively larger class, as

59
‘Species” is a relatively smaller subclass of genus and “Specific difference ” is
the attribute that differentiate species from genus. To construct this definition,
we should first select or find the genus term and then identify the specific
difference. And this definition is the most effective of all intentional definitions
to produce stipulative, lexical, précising, theoretical and persuasive definitions.

Examples:

-“Triangle” means a three-sided plane figure.

- “Father” means a male person.

Exercise 2.4

I. Answer “ true” or “ false” to the following questions:

1. The species is a subclass of the genus.

2. Operational definitions typically convey the entire intentional meaning of

a word.

3. An intentional definition conveys the essential meaning of a term.

4. Most extensional definitions convey the precise intentional meaning of a

term.

5. In a synonymous definition the definens must be a single word.

II. Determine whether the followings are demonstrative definitions,

enumerative definitions, definitions by subclass, synonymous
definitions, etymological definitions, operational definitions, or
definitions by genus and difference.

1. “Magazine” means something such as Newsweek time, or Business Week.

60
 2. “Pricy” means expensive.

3. “Legal” means from the Latin Lex, which means law.

4. Spaghetti is “Cooked” if it is sticks to the ceiling.

2.5. Rules for Lexical Definitions

As it has been underlined before, lexical definition is important to report the

way a word is used in a language and it is the most frequently existed in a
dictionary definition. Thus, the followings are some of the rules and
requirements, which a lexical definition should satisfy:

Rule one - A lexical definition should be stated with proper grammar. That is a
mistaken grammar is one of the sources of errors in any lexical
definition.

Examples of Ungrammatical definitions

- “Drunk” means when a person consumes more alcohol than they should

- “Judge” means who decides if you go to jail or pay someone pays you or
your pay a fine or get of free.

Rule two: – A lexical definition should show the essential meaning of the word
being defined.

Examples of definitions that do not show the essential meanings of the

terms to be defined:

- “Water” means the kind of liquid that comes out of the faucet.
- “Man” means the animal that laughs.

Rule three – a lexical definition should be neither too narrow nor too broad so
as to maximize its precision. If it were too broad, it would include
too much and if it is too narrow, it would include little.

Examples of definition those are too narrow:

61
 - “Politician” means a man elected to fill a political office.
- “Musician” means a person who plays the violin.

Examples of definitions those are too broad:

- “Pencil” means a writing instrument.

- “Rice” means edible grain.

Rule four – A lexical definition should not be circular as circularity is a

definition, which creates unnecessary overlapping of meaning
that hinders the proper explanation of the word being defined.
But, there might be cases where some words are intrinsically
circular which is normal.

Examples of Circular definitions:

- “Cemetery Plot” means a plot in a cemetery.

- “Screw driver” means something that derives screws.

Rule Five - A lexical definition should not be negative when it can be

affirmative, however, if some words are intrinsically negative, it is
natural and appropriate.

Examples of negative definition:

- “Light” means the absence of darkness.

- “Disease” means the absence of health.

Rule Six – A lexical definition should not be expressed in figurative, obscure,

vague and ambiguous language.

Examples of Figurative definition

- “Cigarette” means a Coffin nail.

- “Love” means never having to say you are sorry.

62
 - “Politics” is the land of Liberty.

Examples of Obscure Definitions

- “Telephone” means a spherical membranous gas enclosure.
- “Tooth brush” means a setaceous dental particle desolator .

Rule Seven – A lexical definition should avoid affective expressions and

terminologies. Affective definitions are those definitions of
terms, which are there so as to produce value –laden meanings
and subjectivity up on the readers and listeners, which in turn
influences the attitudes these parties:

Rule Eight – A lexical definition should indicate the context to which the
definiens (defining terms) pertains. This in turn avoids the
problem of brood, narrow, vague and ambiguous definitions,

Examples for Definitions that fail to indicate the context of the

definienus.

- “Beat” means going against the wind

- “King” means to double up playing pieces.

Exercises 2.5

Which of the eight rules of lexical definitions are violated in the following
statements

1. “Bat” means if you want to hit the ball what you use to hit it with.

2. “Cat” means a furry animal that goes “meow”.

3. “Chardonnay” means white wine.

4. “Parent” means a woman who has children.

2.6. Language and Definition in Law

63
It has been said that there are three different uses of language; informative,
expressive, and directive. In the law, it is in rare cases that we use language to
express attitudes. Sometimes it is used merely to inform others, but most
commonly languages are used to direct conduct. Directive languages may take
the form of explicit commands or by explaining how something is to be done or
by giving notice of what is permitted so that they often have the direction of
conduct as their main function.

And, legal rules directing conduct need to be clear and unambiguous. In other
words, those who are subject to the law should access precise legal principles
(Constitution or any other law), which clearly show their rights as well as
duties so that they can claim their rights and discharge their responsibilities.
Thus, the languages used in laws should be at most precise so that they can
effectively secure their purpose.

The quest for precision sometimes results in the difficulty of languages

particularly in statues and formal contracts. That is when words and phrases
in a contracts and statues, for example, are vague and ambiguous; it will
subvert the destiny of law in realizing or delivering free, fair and impartial
justice to the party concerned.

Moreover, the need for precision also results in considerable attention being
given to definitions of the words used in laws and administrative rules.
Persuasive and theoretical definitions have little place in law. Stipulative
definitions may be introduced when a statue relies on special terms.

Therefore, précising definitions are the most widely employed of all definitions
in law. Words or phrases may have several meanings in the sense that some
have broader meanings others have narrower or more than one meaning so
that it needs to be resolved through précising definition.

Chapter Summary

64
The meanings of terms in a language can broadly be divided into three:
Cognitive meaning, emotive meaning and directive functions. Terminology that
conveys information is called cognitive meaning, terminology that evokes
feelings is considered to be emotive meaning and those which direct commands
are directive meanings. And, there are two ways in which cognitive meanings
can be defective: Vagueness and ambiguity. When we say the meaning of this
word is vague, we are to mean that there are borderline cases in which it is
impossible to tell if the word applies or does not apply. And, a word is
considered to be ambiguous if it can be interpreted as having two or more
clearly distinct meanings in a given context.

A term is a word or group of words, which can serve as the subject of a

statement. And there is intentional (connotative) and extensional (denotative)
meaning of terms. The intentional meaning of term contains the attributes or
qualities that the term connotes, and the extensional meaning consists of the
members of the class that the term denotes.

A definition is a group of words that assigns a meaning to a word or group of

words. There are two main parts of a definition: definiendum and definiens.
Definiendum is the word or group of words being defined and the definiens is
the word or group of words that does the defining. Because definition can serve
deferent purposes there are five different kinds of definitions with their own
distinctive purposes: stipulative definitions (assign a meaning to a word for the
first time), lexical definitions (report the meaning that a word already has
within a given linguistic community), précising definitions (reduce the
vagueness of a word), theoretical definitions (assigns theoretical
characterizations to words) and persuasive definitions (give a meaning to words
that evokes the feelings or emotions of the evidences). And, intentional and
extensional meanings of terms are important bases to produce the above
definitions.

Extensional definitions can be formulated or expressed in demonstrative

definitions, enumerative definitions; definitions by subclass. And, among
65
the intensional definitions, synonymous definitions, etymological
definitions, operational definitions and definitions by genus and
difference are the most important ones. Finally eight rules or
requirements have been stated so as to govern the construction of lexical
definit

Chapter Three

Informal Fallacies (8 hrs)

Introduction

A fallacy in general can be defined as an error in reasoning. Moreover, fallacies

can broadly be divided into two types, formal and informal. And, informal
fallacies, which are the main focuses of this chapter, can be categorized into
five groups considering some basic communality vested up on them. For that
matter, fallacies of relevance, fallacies of weak induction, fallacies of
presumption, fallacies of ambiguity, and fallacies of grammatical analogy are
the main groups, which will seriously be considered in this chapter. Finally,
the role of fallacies in the discipline of Law will be one of the areas of focus in
this chapter.

Objectives:

At the end of this chapter, students will be:

- Competent to see the difference between material evidence from various

types of emotional appeals;
- Able to distinguish between formal and informal fallacies;
- Capable of identifying/detecting informal fallacies;
- Skilled to avoid informal fallacies.

Some preparatory notions about fallacy in general

66
As it has been underlined in the previous chapters, the logical connection
between the premises and the conclusion is the central criterion to distinguish
good arguments form bad ones. And this chapter focuses on fallacy in general
and informal fallacies in particular which basically cause bad arguments.

Ordinarily speaking, fallacy can be understood as false or mistaken belief;

however, logic perceives it as a defect in the reasoning processes of arguments.
Thus, as logic dictates us, fallacy can broadly be understood as a defect or
mistake committed in arguments or processes of reasoning. To further
understand the notion of fallacy, it forces us to go back to the etymological
origin of the word. For that matter, the term fallacy comes from the Latin
“fallo”, “fallcia”, which signifies deception, trick or cheating. This implies that
fallacy is a defect of an argument which deceives or tricks the readers or
audiences since it makes an argument appear good, correct or logical, which in
fact is not. Thus, fallacies can logically be understood as mistakes in
reasoning; however, they do not easily be identified as such. In other words,
fallacies basically trick readers and listeners in to thinking that the argument
forwarded to them is logical or correct.

Fallacies are committed by writers or speaks unintentionally or intentionally so

as to manipulate the weakness of audiences in fulfilling their motives through
diverting or modifying the audiences’ attention or position without any
reasonable ground. And as it has been stated before, fallacies are logical
mistakes in arguments, which are deceptive as they make arguments seem
good arguments though they are bad in logical terms. And, they employ
emotive terminologies instead of logical evidences so as to influence audiences
in concealing logical mistakes in arguments.

Fallacies can broadly be classified into two types: formal and informal.
Though the focus of this chapter is on informal fallacies, it sounds logical to
raise some preparatory notions about both of these classifications. For that
matter formal fallacies are committed when the form or logical structure of

67
arguments are violated where as informal fallacies are committed when the
content of an argument is problematic.

Formal fallacies, which are committed because of structural defects of

arguments, involve an explicit use of an invalid deductive argument forms.
And, a deductive argument is invalid and fallacious formally usually because
the premises fail to support the conclusion with strict necessity or when the
premises of an argument are true and followed by a false conclusion. In other
words, through identifying the form or structure of invalid deductive
arguments, one can detect those formal fallacies. And, like informal fallacies,
formal fallacies may appear or resemble correct though they are not in reality.

Moreover, formal fallacies can further be classified in to two types: fallacies of

propositional argument and fallacies of syllogistic arguments. As to those
which are included in the first classification, one can find fallacies of; illicit
conversion, illicit contraposition, illicit contrary, illicit sub-alteration
and existensial fallacy. And, these categories will be discussed in the
chapter, which covers categorical proposition (Chapter 4). And, those, which
are included in the second classification, (fallacies of syllogistic arguments) are
fallacies such as: fallacies of categorical syllogism, fallacies of disjunctive
syllogism and fallacies of hypothetical syllogism. And the details of these
fallacies are included in the fourth and fifth chapters.

Informal fallacies, which are the focus of this chapter, are errors in reasoning
which are detected through examining the content of an argument, not
through detecting the form of an argument. And, informal fallacies may appear
in both deductive and inductive arguments.

Though there are very many informal fallacies, there is no absolute consensus
on how can they be classified. However, through considering some
communality among them, informal fallacies can be divided in to five groups:
Fallacies of relevance, fallacies of weak induction, fallacies of presumption,
fallacies of ambiguity and fallacies of grammatical analogy.

68
3.1 Fallacies of Relevance

When an argument is based on premises, which are not relevant to its

conclusion, and that therefore, cannot possibly establish its truth, fallacies of
relevance will be committed. In other words, those fallacies, which are included
under relevance, involve premises, which are logically irrelevant to the
conclusion, but for psychological reasons, they may seem relevant. In any
case, all fallacies of relevance commonly share the following basic features:

 The premises of an argument are logically irrelevant to the

conclusion of an argument; however, they are psychologically
relevant as they seem correct or persuasive.

 The connection between the premises and the conclusion is

emotional, not logical.

Thus, the task of distinguishing genuine and logical evidence from various
forms of emotional appeal is mandatory to identify those fallacies of relevance.
And, there are around eight fallacies under fallacy of relevance to which their
details are as follows:

1. Appeal to force or stick fallacy (Argumentum ad Baculum). To understand

fallacy of relevance, it sounds logical to go back to the etymological origin of
the word Baculum. The word Baculam is originated from Latin, which
means ‘Staff’, which is a symbol of power. And it basically implies that ad
beculum fallacy occurs whenever a conclusion is defended through
possessing physical or psychological threats to those who do not accept
it. In other words, logical evidences are replaced by implicit as well as
explicit threats or pressures on the audiences to make them accept the
arguer’s conclusion. Thus, an arguer will commit appeal to force fallacy
when,

S/he imposes her/his position through employing threats of force or any

psychological intimidation in its premises so as to make the audiences or

69
readers accept her/his conclusion. This is achieved through indicating that
some danger will be happen on those who do not accept the position. But,
those psychological as well as physical threats do not have any logical
relevance; threats that are emotional appeals with no logical foundation.

Examples:

a. Child to its Playmates: Arsenal is the best football club in the world, if
you don’t accept this, I am going to call my brother and he will through you
out!

b. Wife to husband: I deserve a weekend in Langano and if you don’t ’ agree

to take me there; I am going to pack up the kinds and leave.

Would you comment on the above two fallacious arguments

2. Appeal to Pity (Argumentum ad Misericordiam )

The word ‘Misericordiam’ is originally from Latin which literally means ‘a pitying
heart’ which in turn implies the request of someone to others so as to get
mercy, sympathy or any a kind of excuse. Thus an appeal to pity fallacy
basically occurs when an arguer tries to pose a conclusion by evoking pity from
the listeners or readers. In other words, the fallacy is committed when the
emotional appeal which raises the pity of the listeners or readers replace logical
evidences or justifications.

Examples:

a. an attorney to the judge; Members of the jury, I realize there is a good

deal of evidence that these two brothers killed their parents. But they are
now orphans. They have no one to take care of them. They must now face the

70
 cruel world afraid and alone. Surely they are not guilty of these heinous
crimes.

c. A Student to her professor; Professor Kebede, it would be wrong

for you to flunk me for cheating. I am a single mother, and to provide
for my two kids. I have to work three jobs. At the end of the day, I
am absolutely exhausted, and after I drag my weary body home. I
have neither the time nor the energy to study.

Would you comment on the above two fallacious arguments?

3. Appeal to the People (Argumentum ad Populum).

Naturally, every one of us wants to be accepted, loved, and esteemed by others.

However, the problem lies on how (is that through appealing to emotion or
through forwarding rational justifications or evidences) can we secure this
desire. And, argument ad populum, which appeals to emotion, is usually
employed by speakers and writers so as to get acceptance from others. This is
usually the case when propagandists and demagogues deliver their speech to
the crowds or public. In other words, these public figures usually commit
appeal to people fallacy since they forward premises with contents of emotive
and expressive languages and devices so as to raise the Mob mentality of the
crowds and make the crowds accept their side or conclusion. Such an effort in
an argument replaces the laborious task of presenting evidences and
justifications with some logically irrelevant appeals to emotion, which
ultimately results in the fallacy concerned.

The speeches of Adolph Hitler and Bonito Mussolini, for example, in the Second
World War were accompanied by emotional devices intended to raise the
enthusiasm, excitement, and anger of the German and Italian people. These
political figures or propagandists were effective in manipulating the emotional
support of their respective crowds in the name of patriotism on their fight

71
against the allies. Moreover, arguments ad populum are now to be found in
advertising industries in the sense that every attempt in the industry is made
to associate some products being advertised with things of which we can be
expected to approve strongly, or which excite us favorably.

Thus to understand appeal to people fallacy, there are two approaches: direct
and indirect approaches. The fallacy will be committed directly when the
arguer, addressing a large group of people through writing or speech, excites
the emotions and enthusiasm of the crowds so as to win acceptance or to raise
the mob mentality from them. As it has been stated before, political candidates
for election, military leaders and other public figures usually employ
propaganda so as to raise their subject and make them accept their
conclusion. In other words, these propagandists, in one way or another,
directly penetrate or manipulate the crowds’ consciousness with relentless
appeals to emotions of any kind.

Examples:

A. A leader of demonstration to his/her followers: “Fellow citizens! Today we

are threatened with the loss of our sacred to bear arms. A pack or gutless, liberal
politicians wants to outlaw the sale of handguns. But they won ’t get away with
it. The right to bear arms is guaranteed in the constitution! Our blessed fore
fathers created this right and bestowed it on all Americans. Protect the
constitution! Hear our cry! Down with the gutless Pinkos!”

B. A political leader who opposes federalism would propagate as: “Today the
prospect of creeping federalism threatens to rib each of us of our cherished way
of life. Government is invading every aspect of our lives. The feds want to tell us
what to think and how to speak. They want to tell us how to raise our kids and
run our schools. Enough of this mind control! Abolish the federal income tax.”

Would you comment on the above two fallacious arguments?

72
On the other hand, ad populum fallacy is committed indirectly in the sense
that the arguer directs his or her appeal not to the crowd as a whole
directly, rather to some aspects of their relationship to the crowd. And
this is also an illogical attempt to exploit the emotion of the people for same
private motives. This approach is usually common in advertising industry.
Most of the time, products are advertised in association with things, which
excite us favorably. Fore example, food items could be advertised with strength,
youth fullness and good health and New Mobile technologies or automobiles
could be advertised as beauty, dignity and, such advertisements have the
power to catch up the feeling of the audiences as buyers emotionally associate
themselves with the strength, dignity and health which are wrongly fulfilled by
the products. Thus commercial advertisements usually attempts to attract
customer’s emotional approval for the purpose of getting purchasers informing
that the products are ‘comfortable’, ‘best selling’; ‘delicate’, etc. These emotively
charged terminologies in advertisement industry make the customers not to
raise questions about the durability, quality, expiring date, etc …Thus reaching
a certain conclusion based on the premises of such advertisement is fallacious.
However there are three types of indirect approach to ad populum fallacy;
appeal to bandwagon, appeal to vanity and appeal to snobbery.

A. Appeal to Bandwagon emphasizes that the majority’s choice is the

correct one and urges the audiences to join them. In other words, if some
argue as you will be left behind or left out of the group/majority if you do
not use the product.

Example:

Sure, this is a very fantastic gum with lovely flavor. That is why the
majority of the people in Addis Ababa chew it than any other gums.

Would you comment on the above fallacious argument?

73
 B. Appeal to Vanity is committed when an arguer associates products with
celebrities and popular figures such as artists, athletes, footballers, etc.
and informs the audiences that if they buy the item they will also be
admired too.

Example:

You have got to see Serawit Fikre’s latest film immediately. It is breaking the
country’s film records in terms of audiences, and every one is talking about it.

Would you comment on the above fallacious argument?

C. Appeal to snobbery committed when an arguer propounds the position

that “if you want to be a member of the selected few you should use this
product” i.e.-products are usually associated with persons with high
social positions (Business man, Kings, queens, and princes).

Example:

Fiendship café, no doubt, is the best café in Addis Ababa. That is why
distinguished persons like Teddy Afro, Mulualam Tadesse... are always
there on weekends. Come and enjoy your weekends at Friendship café!!!

Would you comment on the above fallacious argument?

In any case, the common nature of both direct and indirect approaches holds
the position that “if you want to be accepted or included in the group loved or
esteemed…, you should accept X, Y, and Z as true.” Thus, the model of the
fallacy can shortly be stated as:

Because of the majority accepted it or because admired peoples are

using it, you should also accept it or you should also use it.

4. Argument against the person (Argumentum ad Hominem)

74
As to its etymological origin, the word ‘ad hominem’ is from Latin that means
“to the man” and this in turn implies that it is not the subject matter or the
idea rather it is the person who raises the idea who is being refuted. In other
words, instead of responding to the argument forwarded by Mister ‘X’, Mister ‘Y ’
tries to attack against Mister ‘X’ himself. Here, mister ‘Y ’ clearly commits
argument against the person fallacy. And there are three types of the fallacy of
ad hominem:

A. Fallacy of ad hominem Abusive

This is the fallacy committed when an arguer engages in direct personal

attacks or abuses against his opponent and makes them as grounds to reject
his claim. Thus, rejecting our opponent by directing our attack towards his
personality rather than the contents of his argument will result in the fallacy
concerned.

Example:

Ato Gebeyhu has argued for increased funding for the disabled. But
nobody should listen to his argument. Ato Gebeyhu is a Slob who cheats
on his wife, beats his wife, beats his kinds, and never pays his bills on
time.

Would you comment on the above fallacious argument?

B. Fallacy of ad hominem Circumstantial

This is the fallacy committed by an arguer who tries to discredit his opponent ’s
arguments by alluding to certain circumstances that affect them (his
opponents). In other words, this fallacy is not directed on attacking the person,
rather on the circumstance he belongs.

When someone argues that his opponents’ argument is false since they, in that
position or state of mind, could be expected to raise such claims or their
circumstances make it impossible for them to sincere or to tell the truth.

75
 Example:

Ato Mohammed has just argued that we replace the public school system
with private education. But of course he argues that way. He has no kids,
and he does not want to pay any more taxes for public education.

Would you comment on the above fallacious argument?

C. Fallacy of ad hominem tu quoque (you too).

The word “tu quoque” is originally form Latin which literally means ‘you too ’ or
‘you did it too’ which in turn implies that the arguer ’s action is not consistent
or it is contrary with what he argues for. Thus the fallacy is committed when
we argue that our opponent’s claim is false since his/her argument is contrary
with what he has said or done before.

Example:

Ato Gemechu has just given us reason why we should place more
emphasis on family values. But he has no business talking. Just a week
ago he got divorce.

Would you comment on the above fallacious argument?

5. Accident

This is the fallacy committed by an arguer who intends to wrongly apply

general rule to specific case that cannot cover the former. In other words, this
fallacy is committed when the general rule, principle or truth is wrongly applied
to particular instance or situation.

Example:

Children should obey their parents. Therefore, little Abush should

follow his alcoholic fathers orders to drop out of school and get a job.
Would you comment on the above fallacious argument?

76
6. Straw Man

This fallacy occurs when some one distorts his/her opponent ’s argument for
the purpose of more easily attacking or demolishing it. In other words,, when
someone distorts and substitutes the original version of his/her opponent ’s
argument by a deliberately weakened version and tries to attack the distorted
one, s/he commits straw man fallacy.

Example:

Dr. Kebede has just argued against affirmative action for women. It seems
what he is saying is that women should stay out of the work place
altogether. Just keep them barefoot and pregnant. That is what Dr.
Kebede wants. Well! I think we are all smart enough to reject his
argument.

Would you comment on the above fallacious argument?

7. Missing the point (Ignorantio Elenchi)

Missing the point illustrates a special form of irrelevance, which occurs when
the premise of an argument supports the concussion, which has nothing to do
with correct conclusion. In other words, when someone draws a conclusion,
which completely misses the point, s/he commits missing the point fallacy. In
any case the fallacy, which is represented by the Latin word, ignoratio elenchi,
which means ignorance of the proof, implies that the argument has a problem
of the logical implication of the premise.

Examples:

A. Haile Gebresilassie has won many cross country championships.

He is still dedicated, hard worker, disciplined, courageous and
determined to win marathon. Therefore, Ethiopians should save
their lives from HIV-AIDS.

77
 B. Wage earners cannot currently live on the minimum wage.
Therefore, the minimum wage should be abolished.

Would you comment on the above fallacious arguments?

8. Red Herring

Red herring fallacy will be committed when an arguer diverts the attention of
the listeners or readers by changing the original subject to some totally
different issue without the listeners or readers notifying it. In other words, this
fallacy is an attempt to divert the attention of audiences to a totally different
issue. The fallacy is some times called “Off the track ” fallacy since an arguer
who commits this fallacy ignores the topic under discussion and shifts the
attention of his audiences to another issue. All at a sudden, an arguer changes
the subject to a completely different idea and makes a conclusion upon this
changed idea. In any case the model for red herring fallacy is as follows:

An idea under discussion will be changed in to a totally different issue

and then the conclusion will be drawn based on this changed subject.

Example:

Ato Shiferaw, a senior official in water resource management, has argued

that clean water Act should never be weakened. But the point is that
water is one of the most common substances on earth. Over two-thirds of
our planet’s surface is covered with water, and massive amounts of frozen
water cover both poles. If the ice caps were ever to melt, ocean levels
would rise several feet. Obviously the official has been misinformed.

Would you comment on the above fallacious argument?

Exercise 3.1

78
The following passages/arguments exemplify fallacies of relevance. Name
or identify the type of fallacy and explain why. If no fallacy committed,
write no “ fallacy”.

1. Professor this paper merits at least a “B”. I stayed up throughout the night
working on it. And, if I do not get a “B”, I will be put on academic
probation. (Student to his professor)

2. I deserve a two-month vacation with pay, and if you don ’t agree to give it to
me, I am going to tell the sex harassment officer about that time you tried to
get me into bed. (Employee to her boss)

3. Ms. Lincoln, are you saying that President Bush made a moral error when
he decided to go to war with Iraq? I cannot believe my ears. That ’s not how
Americans feel. Not true Americans, any way. You are an American, aren ’t
you, Ms. Lincoln?

4. You should do whatever you can to back our Zone’s athletics team. This
team really has people of the zone behind it, if you do not support it, and
you will be a social outcast.

5. Ms. Azeb has argued for reduced expenditures for Medicare. But of course
she argues that way since she is rich and can afford to pay her own medical
bills. I wouldn’t trust her arguments.

6. It is wrong to betray a trust. Therefore, it would be wrong to report your

friend’s plan to blow up the local courthouse.

7. Dr, Anderson has argued that we dispense free hypodermic syringes to drug
users to cut dawn on the spread of AIDS. Apparently the good doctor
advocated drugs. Here we have more than a million addicts in this country,
and the doctor would like to see several more of them! No! No! No! This is
not a good idea.

79
 8. It’s always the unloaded gun that kills someone. Therefore, you should
always keep gun loaded.

3. 2 Fallacies of Weak induction

Those fallacies included in weak induction occur not because the premises are
logically irrelevant to the conclusion; rather it is because the connection
between the premises and conclusion is not strong enough. Those fallacies
under this category provide shared evidences to the conclusion. The evidences;
however, are not good to make any reasonable person believe the conclusion.
And, like those fallacies included in relevance, fallacies of weak induction
employ emotional grounds to support the conclusion. At any rate, fallacies of
weak induction are commonly characterized by an argument with:

 Its premises are not sufficient to arrive at the conclusion,

 Its premises probably support the conclusion and they are

accompanied by emotional appeals.

And, there are at least six fallacies included in weak induction with their
details as follows:

9. Appeal to unqualified authority (Argumentum ad Verecundiam )

It is customary that individuals need to get information; suggestion, comment,

opinion and advice form others so as to achieve a certain conclusion. However,
there are cases where those individuals who are entitled to deliver information
might not be trustworthy because:

 They lack the expertise in a certain profession,

 They might be biased or prejudiced,

 They might have the motive to lie or disseminate

“ misinformation”.
80
Thus, the fallacy of unqualified authority is committed when we attempt to
support our claim by:

 Citing the statement of another person who is not an authority in the

field of specialization.

 Referring the judgment of an authority that is likely to be biased.

 Referring a person who has the habit of telling lies or disseminating

wrong information.

Example:

Omer, who is a well-known astronomer, says that AIDS epidemic

is caused by a perverse alignment of the planets, and that there is
nothing anyone can do about it. Therefore, we can only conclude
that all of these efforts to find a cure for AIDS are a waste of time.

Would you comment on the above fallacious argument?

NB. What about arguments in the fields of politics, religion and

morality, which do not claim any authority?

10. Appeal to ignorance (Argumentum ad Ignorantiam)

This fallacy is committed when the lack to evidence or proof for something is
used to support the conclusion. In other words, when the premises of an
argument state that nothing has been proved in one way or other about
something and the conclusion then makes a definite assertion about that
thing. Thus, one’s ignorance, lack of evidence, knowledge or information about
something definitely supports the conclusion in appeal to ignorance fallacy. In
any case, ad ignorantiam fallacy will be committed when:

81
  Some one argues that something is the case (true) because no one
has proved to be false.

 Someone argues that something is not the case (false) because no

one has proved it to be true.

Example -

Nobody has ever proved the existence of ghosts. Therefore, we have

no alternative but to conclude that ghosts are mere figments of the
imagination.

Would you comment on the above fallacious argument?

However, there are exceptional cases where appeal to ignorance fallacy

will not be committed:

A. If qualified researchers or team of scientists investigate a certain

phenomenon within their range of expertise and found nothing about it,
it is at least an inductively strong argument though it is not a
deductively valid one.

B. There are also cases where there is not always necessary that
investigators have special qualifications. The kinds of qualifications
needed depended on the situation that the more ability to see and report
is sometimes sufficient.

Another important exception with appeal to ignorance is on legal

procedure, Legal procedures recognize that a defendant is innocent
unless prove guilty. Appeal to ignorance fallacy is correct in legal
procedure; however, when a judge pronounces a verdict of no guilty,
he/she is not claiming that the defendant did not commit the act as
charged. It is only claiming that the evidence is not weightily enough to
prove such a charge.

11. Hasty generalization (Converse Accident)

82
The fallacy of hasty generalization, which is the opposite of accident, is
committed when an arguer tries to generalize about a thing or an event
based on insufficient evidence; vary limited information and
unrepresentative samples about it. In other words, drawing a conclusion
or generalization based on unrepresentative or small evidence or
information will result in an argument with hasty generalization fallacy.
And the fallacy is usually committed by individuals who develop a
negative attitude or prejudice towards others’ belief, language, political
position, ethnic origin, color and others.

Example: A reporter in the local newspaper exaggerated her story just to

make it more exciting, and a reporter on the evening news got her facts
mixed up. The conclusion is apparent that you just cannot trust the news
media today. Would you comment on the above fallacious
argument?

However, the mere fact that a sample may be small does not necessarily
guarantee that the fallacy of converse accident occurs. Other factors sometimes
make the argument to be strong though its samples are small.

Example:

Ten Milligrams of Substance Z was fed to four mice, and within two minutes all
four went into shock and died. Probably substance Z, in this amount, is fatal to
the average mice.

In the above argument the fallacy of hasty generalization is not

committed, would you justify this?

12. False Cause

False cause fallacy occurs whenever the link between premises and conclusion
depends on some imagined causal connection that properly does not exist, an

83
attempt to suppose that ‘X’ causes ‘Y’ where as ‘X’ probably does not cause ‘Y ’
at all. In other words, the fallacy is committed when someone infers causal
explanations from premises, which cannot provide sufficient evidence to it.
And, the fallacy can further be divided in to three types:

A. Post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy

As a Latin phrase post hoc erogo propter hoc fallacy may be translated as “after
this, therefore on account of this.” And, the fallacy is shortly named as post
hoc fallacy and it is committed when we arrive at a certain conclusion by
claiming that one thing is the cause of another thing because it precedes in
time. A particular event ‘X’ is caused by event ‘Y ’ merely because ‘X ’ follows ‘Y ’
or ‘Y’ precedes ‘X’ chronologically.

Though chronological relationship is one of the indicators of causal

relationship, it can never be the only one as there are additional inputs such as
spatial relations, economic, political and social factors should be considered so
as to arrive at a definite assertion about the thing or event concerned. Thus,
drawing a certain conclusion only because of temporal precedence would not
be logically sufficient and it will result in post hoc fallacy to occur.

Post hoc fallacy usually occurs in cultural superstitions. Particularly, in our

cases when we encounter some accidental misfortunes, we usually associate
them with bad lucks. However, such kinds of assertion are not logically
convincing as they confuse consequences with temporal precedence.

Example:

Every time I take a shower, the telephone rings. Therefore, since I ’m dying to
talk to somebody right now, I should jump in the shower.

Would you comment on the above fallacious argument?

B. Non Causa pro causa fallacy

84
The Latin phrase non causa pro causa can be translated as ‘not the cause for
the cause’. The fallacy is committed when some one argues that something is
the cause of an effect when it is not in reality and confusion occurs between
cause and effect.

Example:

There are more churches in Ethiopia today than ever before and more HIV
victims ever before; so, to eliminate the epidemic we must abolish the
church.

Would you comment on the above fallacious argument?

C. Oversimplified cause fallacy

Oversimplified cause fallacy is committed when relevant causal antecedents of

an event are oversimplified by introducing factors insufficient to the account of
the effect. And, it will be committed when the roles of one or more of those
factors are deliberately or intentionally overemphasized at the expense of
others.

Example:

Why most students fail in logic is because teachers do not come to class
regularly.

Would you comment on the above fallacious argument?

13. Slippery Slope fallacy

Slippery slope fallacy is a Variety of false cause fallacies. In other words when
false cause fallacy (an argument that considers an event ‘X ’ is the cause of
event ‘Y’ simply because ‘X’ happens before ‘Y’) takes place in series of events or
actions, slippery slope fallacy will occur. If an arguer assumes that series of
events happen or follow one from the other as a result of the first cause in a
series, it will result in slippery slope fallacy. This is of the fact that because it is
85
logically mistaken for someone to consider a particular action or event (usually
the first one) in series of events causes for series of consequences. In other
words, considering the first event, action or cause responsible for all events or
actions in series of events or actions is not convincing.

Example:-

It is not a good idea to put your child in a day care center. Separation from
parents causes isolation and alienation soon the child becomes incapable
of relating to other children, and this inability to relate causes depression.
As the child gets older, the depression leads to psychosis. The final result
is either suicide or a life wasted in a mental institution.

Would you comment on the above fallacious argument?

14. Fallacy of Weak analogy

Fallacy of weak analogy is committed basically when the analogy or similarity

between two things or situations is not strong enough to support the
conclusion to be drawn. In other words, weak analogy fallacy will be committed
when the significant differences between two or more things compared are
ignored or when two contrasted things are considered alike only in
unimportant ways.

Example:

No one would buy a pair of shoes without trying them on. Why should anyone
be expected to get married without premarital sex?

Would you comment on the above fallacious argument?

86
However, there will be a strong or correct link between the premises and the
conclusion so that the argument is good or it is with no fallacy when properties
cited are relevant between two or more things and when the differences
between the objects have taken in to account.

3.3 Fallacies of Presumption

To presume means to take something for granted or to assume a given idea as

true or correct which in fact needs further proof, explanation or evidence. And,
the fallacy of presumption will be committed when the assumption given in the
premise is not supported by proof but the arguer maintains that it does not
need proof and s/he invites his/her audiences accept it as it is. Moreover, the
fallacy contains tricky and confusing expressions for the purpose of concealing
the wrong assumptions stated in the premise. In any case, fallacies of
presumption are usually characterized by:

 Drawing a conclusion from statements that they are

questionable.

 The conclusion or consequence of an unjustifiable assumption

and presumption with their details.

15. Begging the question (Petitio Principii)

Begging the question fallacy basically occurs when someone uses some form of
phraseology, which tends to conceal the questionably true character of a key
premise, and, if the audience is deceived into this argument as sound, when in
facts it many not be.

In any case, there are two requirements to be fulfilled for this fallacy to occur:

 The argument must be valid,

87
  Some form of phraseology must be used to conceal the
questionably true character of a key premise.

Moreover, though the kind of phraseology used differs from argument to

argument, it is inevitable for the conclusion to support the questionable
premise. One way of doing so is through formulating premise and conclusion
of an argument in two slightly different ways; however, they have essentially
the same meaning.

Example:

We can be certain that this photo is of Emperor Tewodros because the

person in the photo looks just like him.

Would you comment on the above fallacious argument?

Here, the premise and the conclusion mean the same thing so that they both
are true and valid as well. However, the logical question to be raised here is
whether the premise is true regardless of the context of the argument i.e. the
truth of the premise is unavoidably questionable. But, when the premise is
preceded by the conclusion, the alleged truth is strengthened; however such
strength is attributed to the psychological illusion that results from saying the
same thing in two slightly different ways. And, when a single proposition is
repeated in two slightly different ways without the repetition becoming obvious,
the suggested truth of the proposition is reinforced. And, begging the question
can be presented in chains of arguments. And, the final conclusion will be
stated or will be having the same meaning with that of the first premise. Thus,
begging the question is usually called circular reasoning that:

 The premise is restated in the conclusion in different phrases

or words in reality, or

 The premise is not essentially different from the conclusion.

88
And, circular argumentation as a fallacious reasoning is not explicitly detected
as it is presented in:
 Chain of intervening sentences,
 Ignoring entirely questionable idea in the premise.

16. Complex Question

One commits the fallacy of complex question when s/he asks two or more
questions in a way that makes it appear that only one question has been
asked. When we forward question to someone we make presuppositions of
answers within it. Asking questions to respondents to answer it genuinely
without being confused and tricked is not wrong. But, when the question is
complex and aimed only at trapping the respondent to acknowledge something
that he/she is not willing to tell, it becomes fallacious.

A Complex question is not an argument as such, but involves an implicit

argument and this becomes explicit when the response is added to the complex
question. Most complex questions are familiar devices to lawyers and judges
when examining defendants to admit crimes. To see how a complex question
can prejudge an issue in the form of a question, look in to the following
example:

Example: Have you stopped in involving such crimes?

Here, what the defendant can answer is either “Yes”, or “No”. And if he answers
“Yes”, so it implies that he has previously been involved in such crimes so that
he is guilty. And if he answers “No” it means he has continued in criminal
ways, and is guilty. Therefore, he would be trapped in both cases. Depending
on the answer given by the defendant the prosecuting attorney may therefore
establish arguments like:

a. “You are asked whether you give up your criminal ways. You answered,
‘Yes’. It follows that, you have previously been a criminal.”

89
 b. “You are asked whether you give up your criminal ways, you answered
‘No’. It follows that, you have previously continued involving in crimes ”

However, in both arguments the prosecuting attorney may establish are

fallacious precisely because no information is really being sought. The
questions are actually formulating hidden arguments in the complex questions.

17. False dichotomy

The fallacy of false dichotomy can be otherwise called as “false bifurcation ”,

“either… or”, or “false dilemma” fallacy. And this fallacy is committed when the
arguer insists that only two alternatives are possible in a given situation (when
in fact the alternatives presented are not exhaustive i.e. because more
alternatives are still possible). In other words, the fallacy of false dichotomy
occurs whenever one is faced with a very limited numbers of alternatives, and
when one attempts to bring a premature end to a debate by declaring a
dilemma when none exists. Other alternatives may be possible, or other
courses of action can be persuaded. Thus, one commits the fallacy of false
dilemma when he poses a restrictive set of undesirable alternatives when other
legitimate alternatives may be possible. And, the fallacious nature of false
dichotomy lies in the attempt by the arguer to delude the reader or listener into
thinking that the disjunctive premise presents jointly exhaustive alternatives,
and is therefore true by necessity.

Example:

Either we elect EPRDF, or the country’s fate will be worsened. The choice
should be obvious.

Would you comment on the above fallacious argument?

18. Suppressed Evidence

This is an inductive argument that overlooks an important piece of evidence

(premise) that if it were considered, the conclusion to be drawn would be very

90
different from the one drawn. In other words, this fallacy is committed when
the argument ignores some important evidence/s that outweigh/s the
presented evidence and entails a different conclusion. The evidence that is
suppressed must be so important that it outweighs the presented evidence,
and it must require a different conclusion than the one drawn. Usually
suppression is intentional as the arguer deliberately omits the key evidence
(premise) and instead emphasizes a certain point in order to hide the relevant
premise that would entail totally different point.

Example:

Addis Ababa University deserves to be one of the best Universities

in Africa as it has impressive buildings, beautiful gates, and an
attractive fountain.

Would you comment on the above fallacious argument?

Exercise 3.2

1. The great scientist, Albert Einstein said that God does not play dice with
the universe. Given this statement, it is clear that God exists.

2. People have been trying for centuries to produce conclusive evidence for
the existence of “Satan”, but no one has succeeded so far. We must
therefore conclude that “Satan” does not exist.

1. First year law students of Addis Ababa University are 150 in number.
Blood is taken from five students, and upon examination all five students
are found to have their blood type “A ”. Therefore, on the basis of this, I
conclude that all the rest students will also have the same blood type,
that is “A”.

2. After Ethiopia formulated its weapons law, the crime rate dropped.
Clearly, allowing people to carry weapons results in a reduction of crime.

91
 3. Dancing is the work of the devil! If we let young people listen and dance
to rock music. I tell you that sooner or later they will turn against their
parents, they will take to fornications and pornography, and they will
grow up to be prostitutes. No good can come from dancing. So I have
cancelled all future dances.

6. Roses are brightly colored flowers, and they make beautiful corsages. But
dandelions are also brightly colors. Therefore, dandelions should make
beautiful corsages.

3.4 Fallacies of ambiguity

Two fallacies arise from the occurrence of some form of ambiguity in either the
premise or the conclusion (or both). The fallacies of ambiguity include
Equivocation and Amphiboly

19. Equivocation

The fallacy of equivocation occurs when a word or phrase in a single argument

are used in two different senses or connotations which in turn leads to a
conclusion which is not supported by its premises. In other words, this fallacy
leads toward unintended conclusion by making a word or words to have two
different meanings in a single argument. Thus, when a single word in the
premise of an argument is used in two different contexts and when these two
contexts of a single word are wrongly assumed as one or similar in the
conclusion, the fallacy of equivocation will occur.

Example:

Some triangles are obtuse. Whatever is obtuse is ignorant. Therefore

same triangles are ignorant.

Would you comment on the above fallacious argument?

20. Amphiboly
92
The fallacy of amphiboly occurs when someone misinterprets a statement
which is ambiguous because of some structural defects and draws a
conclusion based on such misinterpretation. And, someone other than the
arguer usually asserts the original statement. Moreover, the structural defect is
usually a mistake in grammar, punctuation, a pronoun, an ambiguous
antecedent of a pronoun, careless arrangements of words and the like. Because
of these and other related defects, the statement may be interpreted or
understood in two distinct senses. The arguer usually selects the unintended
interpretation and draws a conclusion based up on it.

Example:

Beza said that she painted her picture hanging on the wall of her
bedroom. Obviously Beza is quite an acrobat.

Would you comment on the above fallacious argument?

Contracts and wills are areas where a case of amphiboly causes serious
problems or controversies. Ambiguous statements and alternative
interpretations would lead to different conclusions.

There are two important ways in which amphiboly differ from equivocation.
First, equivocation is always because of ambiguity of meaning of one or more
words; however, amphiboly involves structural defects in a statement. Another
important difference between the two is that amphiboly usually involves a
mistake committed by the arguer in interpreting an ambiguous statement
made by some one else, where as the ambiguity in equivocation is typically the
arguer’s own creation.

3.5 Fallacies of Grammatical Analogy

21. Composition

The erroneous transference of an attribute from parts of something onto the

whole as a base for the conclusion of an argument will lead to the fallacy of

93
composition to occur. In other words this fallacy would occur when attributes
of parts of a thing are wrongly applied or associated to the whole entity of a
thing. Thus, if an arguer argues as: what is true of each part of a whole is also
true of the whole or what is true of some parts of a whole is also true of the
whole, s/he commits fallacy of composition.

Example:

Each atom in this table is invisible to the naked eye. Therefore, the table is
invisible to the naked eye.

Would you comment on the above fallacious argument?

However, if there is a legitimate transference of an attribute from parts on to

the whole, fallacy of composition will never be occurred.

Example:-

Each atom in this piece of chalk has mass. Therefore, the piece of chalk
has mass.

22. Division

The fallacy of division is the exact opposite of composition. As composition goes

from parts to whole, division goes from whole to parts. The fallacy occurs when
the conclusion of an argument depends on the erroneous transference of an
attribute from a whole (a class) onto its parts (members). Thus, the fallacy of
composition is committed when an arguer argues that what is true of a whole
is also true of its parts or what is true of a whole is also true of some of its
parts.

Example

94
  Carbon monoxide is a poisonous gas. Therefore, its two components,
carbon and oxygen must be non poisonous.

Would you comment on the above fallacious argument?

However, such an illegitimate or erroneous transference of attribute from a

whole or class onto its parts or members is not always illegitimate or illogical.

Example:-

This piece of chalk has mass. Therefore, the atoms that compose
this piece of chalk have mass.

Exercise 3.3

Identify the fallacies of presumption, ambiguity, and grammatical analogy

committed by the following arguments. If no fallacy is committed, write
“ no fallacy”

1. The use of contraceptives is immoral because anything that violets nature

is immoral.

2. Dani, after we arrived at the party you spent most of your time talking to
the other gusts. Why don’t you like taking to me any more?

3. Either you lend me the money I need right now, or our friendship can ’t
continue.

4. Used car salesman to buyer: Mrs. Kebede, I have just the car you need.
This 1988 Chevrolet was recently traded in by a little old lady who kept it
in the garage most of the time. The odometer pads low mileage and the
engine were recently tuned up. If you buy this car, it will give you
trouble-free service for years.

95
 5. Dense objects tend to sink in water. But Abebe is incredibly dense. In
fact, he never made it out of grade school. Therefore, Abebe should stay
out or the water.

6. Azeb said that she saw a man walking a dog through her window. Clearly
that man should be charged with animal abuse.

7. Electrons and protons are electrically charged. Therefore, hydrogen,

which is composed exclusively of carbon and oxygen, is nonpoisonous.

8. Alcohol produces intoxication. Therefore, its three components, carbon,

hydrogen, and oxygen, should also produce intoxication.

3.6. Fallacies in Legal arguments

Almost all fallacies included in relevance, weak induction, presumption and

ambiguity are troublesome in law just like any other discipline which we seek
logical reasoning and judgments. Logical reasoning as well as judgment,
however, in law is seriously demanding more than any other discipline
according to many legal philosophers. And, what may turn to be mistakes in
reasoning in ordinary discourse may prone to be good arguments in law since
there might be special legal procedures imposed by the process. In any case,
we will select just a few fallacies (samples) so as to show their relationships
with the process of law.

Appeal to ignorance

It is clear that evidence of a certain kind or degree is essential to uphold a case

in the sense that its absence might properly lead to appeal to ignorance fallacy.
And, the absence of compelling proof to the contrary implies the innocence of
anyone charged with a crime. In other words, a prosecutor may be unable to
establish what criminal conviction requires. The requirements are; the accused
intended to do the wrongful act, or the accused acted with negligence,
96
recklessness or with some other state of mind essential to criminality. This
inability for the prosecutor may require the acquittal event of one whose deeds
appear superficially to violate the law. There is usually a positive burden up on
one party in a legal dispute to prove something; then the argument by the
opposing party based upon the absence of that proof is an appeal to ignorance.
Where such a burden of proof applies to this technique is not fallacious.

Appeal to Authority

Legal reasoning is usually depending up on authority in the sense that what

might ordinarily seem a fallacious appeal to authority may prove proper and
even compelling in law primarily because of the importance of stability in the
legal process. The substantive rules of law ought not to be constantly in flux,
and courts must be dependable in applying those rules consistently so as to
make citizens know their duties. Therefore, a rule which is resulting from case
law, form an authoritative interpretation of a statue by a higher court, governs
the lower courts and should be consistently applied. Thus, reference to the
decision or opinions of other courts become a maxim that plays a compelling
role in legal arguments. If this is not the case, citizens would be under a
difficult circumstance in knowing what is expected from them when they come
across with legal disputes and in discharging their responsibilities so as to
abide by the law.

Against the Person Fallacy

An argument ad hominem may be no fallacy in some legal circumstances.

Though judges often must decide what testimony is to be relied up on, which
witnesses are to be most trusted, it is usually the case that testimony and
evidence presented at trial may be in conflict. One party may seek to discredit
some witness who has given damaging test by exhibiting in consistencies in

97
that testimony or questioning the witness’s honesty or integrity or ignorance
about the issue at stake. Thus, impeachment through questioning and cross-
examination is natural in legal circumstances. Ad hominem argument was
predominantly used by Socrates in his trail at Athens in 399 B.C.
Cross–examining his accuser, Meletus, he elicited Meletus’s claims both that
Socrates worships new gods rather than those of the state, and Socrates is an
atheist. And Socrates responded:

Nobody will believe you, Meletus, and I am pretty sure that you do not believe
yourself… He (Meletus) certainly does appear to me to contradict himself in the
indictment as much as if he said that a society is guilty of not believing in the
gods, and yet of believing in them-but this is not like a person who is in earnest.

In any case, the above case of Socrates and other similar cases would show
that ad hominem arguments (abuse or circumstantial), may be powerful
attacks upon the case one is seeking to combat in court.

Appeal to Pity

If appeal to pity is employed to support the claim of innocence for one accused
of a crime, it is fallacious. However, if such an appeal is directed to the judge
after conviction, so as to win greater leniency in punishment, it is not
fallacious. The poverty or misery of the accused at the time of crime may have
no relevance in determining the severity of punishment to be meted out.

Appeal to force

Appeal to force is the argument of the lawmakers themselves to some

extent Laws ought to serve good public purposes and the fact that they
have been enacted by an authorized legislature imposes a heavy
obligation to obey them. But to insure general obedience punishment for
disobedience is threatened by the state. Such threats of force are useful
98
to the community since persons fearing the punishment that is
threatened may refrain from criminal acts or civilly wrongful acts to
which they would otherwise be tempted. That fear and its consequences
render the threat of punishment or damages deterrent; deterrence gives
“teeth” to the law, making it an effective force in directing conduct.

Chapter Summary

A fallacy is a mistake in an argument or defect in reasoning that makes a bad

argument appear good. Fallacies can be broadly divided into two: Formal or
informal. Formal fallacy can be identified through analyzing the form of an
argument. These fallacies affect only deductive arguments. On the other hand
an informal fallacy is a fallacy, which can be detected only by analyzing the
content of an argument. And informal fallacies can affect both deductive and
inductive arguments. Besides, informal fallacies can be categorized into four
broad groups: fallacies of relevance, fallacies of weak induction, fallacies of
presumption, and fallacies of grammatical analogy.

When the premises of an argument are logically irrelevant, but psychologically

relevant to the conclusion, fallacies of relevance will occur. And, appeal to force
(premises that threaten the observer), appeal to pity (premises that evoke pity
from the observer), appeal to people (creating mob mentality in a group of
observation), argument against the person (attacking the personality of the
opposing person himself rather than his argument), accident (misapplication of
general rule) Straw Man (distorting an opponent ’s arguments), Missing the
point (drawing a conclusion different from the one implied by the premises) and
Red Herring (diverting the attention of the audience to an entirely different
subject), are all included in fallacies of relevance.

Although the premises of an argument are possibly relevant to the conclusion,

they do not provide sufficient support for the conclusion so that fallacies of
weak induction occur.

99
And appeal to unqualified authority (when an arguer cites an authority who is
not qualified), appeal to ignorance (drawing a conclusion from premises that
give no positive evidence), hasty generalization (drawing a conclusion from un
representative samples), false cause (drawing a conclusion form minor causal
connection), slippery slope (drawing a conclusion based on a Chain reaction
that is unlikely to occur) and weak analogy (drawing a conclusion from an
analogy that is not close enough to support it) are all included in fallacies of
weak induction.

When the premises presume what they purport to prove, fallacies of

presumption occur. And, begging the question (when the arguer creates the
illusion that inadequate premises are adequate), Complex question (concealing
multiple questions in a single question), false dichotomy (using a disjunctive
statement so as to hide alternatives), and suppressed evidence (ignoring
important evidence that requires a different conclusion) are included in
fallacies of presumption.

When the conclusion of an argument depends on some forms of ambiguity,

fallacies of ambiguity will occur. Equivocation (when the conclusion depends
on a shift in meaning of a word or phrase) and amphiboly (when the conclusion
depends on the wrong interpretation of a syntactically ambiguous statement)
are considered as fallacies of ambiguity.

Finally, when a defective argument appears good owing to a grammatical

similarity to some argument that is not fallacious, fallacies of
grammatical analogy will occur. Composition (attribute is wrongly
transferred from parts to whole) and division (attribute is wrongly
transferred form whole to parts) are fallacies of grammatical analogy.

100
 Chapter Four

Categorical Propositions and Syllogisms (10 hrs)

Introduction

This chapter specifically deals with categorical propositions and categorical

syllogisms, which are the core elements of formal logic. The philosopher who
has earned the title, “the father of logic”, Aristotle, was famous in logic for his

101
great contribution, particularly in deduction. The Aristotelian study of
deduction focused on arguments, categorical syllogisms, containing only
propositions of a special kind called categorical propositions. So, we can
divide this chapter in to two major parts. In the first section, we will study the
very nature and characteristics of different forms and types of statements, and
other worth mentioning points. And, in the second section, the special kinds of
arguments that are made up of three categorical statements called categorical
syllogisms, and enthymemes and will be our points of discussion.

Objectives
After studying this chapter, students will be:
 able to define what a categorical proposition and syllogism are,
 aware of the existence of different types and forms of categorical
propositions and syllogisms,
 capable of explaining the quality and quantity of propositions, and the
distribution of terms of categorical propositions,
 aware of the difference between the modern and the traditional logicians
interpretation of universal propositions,
 familiar with valid rules of immediate inferences, and valid forms of
syllogistic arguments,
 capable of diagramming standard forms of categorical propositions and
syllogisms,
 use Venn diagram, the modern and traditional square of opposition and
other rules to test immediate inferences for validity,
 use the Venn diagram and rules of valid forms of syllogistic arguments
to determine the validity or invalidity of categorical syllogisms,
 able to translate ordinary language statements and arguments in to
standard categorical forms, and
 able to understand what enthymemes and sorties are.

4.1 Categorical Propositions: Structure, Type and Standard

Form
102
As it has been defined in the first chapter, a proposition or statement is a kind
of sentence, a declarative sentence that is capable of having a truth value, such
as being true or false. A categorical proposition, therefore, is a proposition
that relates two classes, categories, sets, or groups represented by terms. The
terms denoting the classes or categories being related are the subject and
predicate terms of the statement. And, categorical statements typically make
the assertion 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. In other
words, statements of this sort affirm or deny that some class “S ” is included in
some other class “P” in whole or in part.
Examples
1. Every one who is born on Monday has purple hair.
2. There is a philosopher that is a non-believer in Santa Claus.
3. To be revisited by the author.
4. Not all university educators are distinguished scholars.
All of the above sentences are categorical propositions. This is owing to the fact
that in each sentence two sets of things denoted by their subject and predicate
terms are related either in the form of inclusion or exclusion. We can call the
classes denoted by the subject and predicate terms, subject class and predicate
class respectively. The first statement asserts that all human creatures born on
Monday {subject class) are peoples with purple hair (predicate class). The
second example asserts that parts of the extension of the term philosopher
(subject class) are also the extension of another term non- believer men
(predicate class). The third example asserts that the entire class of wise
persons is excluded from the class of persons who are politically ideologue. The
last one asserts that parts of the class of university educators are excluded
from the class of distinguished scholars. The explanation of the above
statements entails that, in one way or another, a proposition will be taken as
categorical statement if it is an instance of any of the four kinds of categorical
propositions mentioned below. These are: categorical proposition:

103
 1. which asserts that the entire subject class is included in the predicate
class,
2. which asserts that part of the subject class is included in the predicate
class,
3. which asserts that the entire subject class is excluded from the predicate
class, and
4. Which asserts that part of the subject class is excluded from the predicate
class.
Though many statements are instances of either of the above four types of
categorical statements, they are said to be in standard form only if they have
fulfilled certain logical requirements. Hence, since clarity in meaning is one of
the requirements, a categorical proposition is said to be in standard form if and
only if it express either of the above relations with complete clarity. And, the
following four forms of categorical propositions are best taken as standard
forms of categorical propositions.
Let us represent the letters ‘S’ and ‘P’ as the subject term and predicate term
respectively, then
1. All S are P - The entire member of the S- class is included in the P-
class
2. Some S are P - At least one member of the S- class is included in the P-
class
3. No S are P - The entire member of the S- class is excluded from the P-
class
4. Some S are Not P - At least one member of the S- class is excluded from
the P-class
As we understand from the above models, standard forms of categorical
statements comprises of four component parts: quantifier, subject term,
copula and predicate term.
I. Quantifier
A quantifier is a word or a phrase that specifies or quantifies how much of the
‘S’- class (the subject term) is included in or excluded from the ‘P ’- class(the

104
predicate term). And, for our purpose, we may classify quantifiers as standard
and non-standard. Thus, quantifiers like “a”, “a few ”, “few ”, “at leas one ”,
“most”, “every”, “not every”, “every one”, “not all”, “any”, “any one”, “almost
all”…are called non-standard quantifiers as they are not in standard ones.
Only “All”, “some”, and “no”, are the standard quantifiers. And, we have to note
that some means at least one in logic.
Translating non-standard quantifier in to standard ones is one of the main
tasks or steps in translating ordinary language statements in to categorical
forms.
For instance, expressions like a, a few, few, most, at least one… and others that
are used to make a claim about one or more particular members of a class
should be replaced by “Some”.
II. Copula
The copula is a word or arrangement of words that links the subject term with
the predicate term. The various forms of the verb “to be ” as “is ”, “is not ”, “are, ”
“are not”, “will”, “won’t” are those that are usually employed. The only copulas
that are allowed in standard form categorical propositions are “are” and “are
not.”
Moreover, the subject and predicate terms are those that precede and proceed
the copula of the statement respectively.
Example: “Some university educators are not distinguished scholars. ” Here,
.The subject term is - “university educators,”
.The predicate term is - “distinguished scholars,”
.The quantifier and copula are- “some” and “are not,” respectively.
Hence, the arrangement of standard form categorical proposition is as follows:

Standard quantifier + subject term + copula (are or are not) + predicate

term.

Nevertheless, in addition to the requirements mentioned above, clarity in

meaning is another requirement in a standard form of categorical proposition.
In other words, not all propositions with the above structure are in standard
105
form of categorical propositions because ambiguous statements can not be
considered as standard form of categorical proposition. For instance, the
statement “All employees are not eligible to enter the contest ” is ambiguous. It
may either be rendered as “some employees are not eligible to enter the
contest” or “no employees are eligible to enter the contest. ” Thus, We need to
translate such kinds of non-standard forms of categorical propositions in to
standard form with the possible degree of clarity.
Logicians have assigned letter names for the four standard of categorical
propositions, and this can be summarized as follows:

Statement Letter Name

All S are P A
No S are P E
Some S are P I
Some S are not P O
Table 4.1

The letter name for the first two statements “A ” and “I ” that affirms class
inclusion was taken from the Latin word “Affirmo” (I affirm), while that of the
last two statements “E” and “O” that denies class inclusion was presumed to
be taken from “nego”(I deny).and the first two vowels in the Latin words affirmo
and nego can easily be diagrammed as follows so as to represent A,E,I,O,
propositoins : n
universal A E
f
f g g
particular I O
r
m
o
Exercise 4.1

106
I. Identify the quantifier, subject term, copula and predicate term and also
the letter name of the following statements.
1. Some contracts are not voidable agreements.
2. No frivolous law skits are cases taken by honest lawyers.
3. Some convicts are innocent.
4. Not all jobs are rewarding.
5. All criminals are lawbreakers.
6. Some jazz singers are entertainers.
7. All flowers are fragrant.
II. Write a categorical proposition:
a. In which its quantifier is “some,” subject term is “fast foods, ” predicate
term is “low fat meals,”.
b. Which affirms class inclusion wholly
c. Whose symbolic representation / letter name is “O”.
d. That is a stylistic variant of the statement “If a shirt is made of paper,
then it is not washable”.

4.2 Quality, Quantity and Distribution

Quality and quantity are the attributes of categorical propositions, while
distribution is an attribute of terms (subject and predicate terms) of
propositions.
A. Quality
Quality refers to whether the subject class (set of things presented in the
subject term) is included in or excluded from the predicate class.
The quality of a categorical proposition is either affirmative or negative
depending on whether the proposition affirms or denies some class inclusion
(membership), whether partial or complete. If a proposition affirms some class
inclusion (membership), partially or wholly, it is said to be affirmative. On the

107
contrary, if it denies some class inclusion, partially or wholly, it is said to be
negative. Hence, “A” and “I” propositions that affirm class membership for the
entire and some part of the subject class are affirmative. While, those ( “E ” and
“O”) that deng some class inclusion, wholly and partially, respectively are
negative. The quality of standard forms of categorical propositions can be
determined by examining either the quantifier or the copula of the statement.
You can easily know the quality of the four standard forms of categorical
propositions by studying the following table.
Standard Form of Quality
Statements

All S are P Affirmative

No S are P Negative
Some S are P Affirmative
Some S are not P Negative
Table 4.2
B. Quantity
Quantity refers to how much of the subject class is included or excluded from
the predicate class. And, the quantity of a categorical proposition is either
universal or particular depending on whether the proposition makes a claim
about the entire or part of a class denoted by the subject term. So, it can be
determined by mere inspection of the amount of set of things stated in the
subject term, or simply by looking at the quantifier of the statement. “All ” and
“No” imply universal quantification while “some ” implies one or more particular
things. Accordingly, if a statement makes a claim about every members of a
class denoted by the subject term, its quantity is said to be universal where as
if a statement makes a claim about part of members of a class its quantity is
said to be particular. In both cases the claim that the statement makes may be
either affirming or denying class inclusion. Thus, “A ” and “E ” propositions are
universal, while “I” and “O” propositions are particular in quantity. Study the
following table .

108
 Standard Form Quantity
Statement
All S are P Universal
No S are P Universal
Some S are P Universal
Some S are not P Universal
Table 4.3
C. Distribution
Distribution, unlike quantity and quality, is not an attribute of categorical
propositions; rather it is an attribute of the terms (subject and predicate terms)
of statements. And, it refers to whether the statement distributes, or assigns an
attribute to every member of the class denoted by the term. So, the terms
(subject and predicate) of a statement may be distributed or undistributed.
And, a term is said to be distributed if and only if the statement makes any
claim about every member of the class denoted by the term. Other wise, it is
undistributed. Accordingly, both the subject and predicate terms of a
statement are said to be distributed if it asserts something about every thing
denoted by the terms. In other words, the subject term is distributed if the
statement assigns (distributes) an attribute to every member of the subject
class, other wise it is undistributed. The same is also true for the predicate
term. Let us now examine the terms of the four standard forms of categorical
propositions for distribution.

1. All S are P (Universal affirmative): A-statements assert that every

member of the S-class is inside the P-class. Since it makes a claim
about every S, the subject term is distributed.
However an A- statement (All S are P) does not make an assertion
about every P. So, its predicate term is undistributed.
2. No S are P (Universal Negative): E-propositions assert that every
member of the S- class is excluded from the P- class since the
proposition asserts that the S-class and P – class are excluded

109
 each other and exist independently. Thus, both its subject and
predicate terms are distributed.
3. Some S are P (Particular Affirmative): I-propositions assert that
at least one member of the S-class is a member of the P-class.
Since an I-statement makes a claim about one thing that is both S
and P, it makes no assertion about all S ’s and P ’s. Thus, both the
subject and predicate terms are undistributed.
4. Some S are not P (Particular Negative): O-statements assert that
there is at least one thing that is a member of the S-class, and the
same thing is out side the whole P-class since the statement
makes a claim that part of the S- class is out side the entire P-
class. The subject term is undistributed, while the predicate term
is distributed.
In summary, we can conclude that the quantity of standard form of
categorical proposition determines whether the subject term is
distributed, while the quality determines whether the predicate term
is distributed. Accordingly, the subject term of universal propositions
(A and E) is distributed, and the predicate term of Negative (E and O)
propositions are distributed. The following table will give us a
summary of the distribution of terms of standard forms of categorical
propositions.

Distribution
Subject Predicate
Statement
term term
All S are P Distributed Undistributed
No S are P Distributed Distributed
Some S are P Undistributed Undistributed
Some S are not P Undistributed Distributed Table 4.4

110
Finally, we can summarize the quality, quantity and distribution of
standard forms of categorical propositions as follows:
Distribution
Subject term Predicate
Statement Letter Quantity Quality
term
Name
All S are P A Universal Affirmative Distributed Undistributed
No S are P E Universal Negative Distributed Distributed
Some S are P I Particular Affirmative Undistributed Undistributed
Some S are O Particular Negative Undistributed Distributed
not P
Table 4.5

Exercise 4.2
I. Identify the following quantifiers as universal or particular;
a) Not all b) Not any c) Not every d) Most
e) Almost all f) Any g) Every h) Any
i) All j) Some

II. Identify the quality and quantity of the following statements, and
then state whether the subject and predicate terms are
distributed or undistributed.
1. No cockroaches are attractive bugs.
2. Some Acids are corrosive.
3. All men are knowledge seeking objects.
4. Some parliamentarians are not college graduates.
5. No Freudians are neurotic.
6. Some fair persons are good judges.
Iv. Change both the quality and quantity of the above statements
4.3 Venn Diagrams and the Squares of Opposition
A venn diagram is an arrangement of overlapping circles in which each circle
represents the class denoted by a term in a categorical proposition. It is useful
to represent the four standard forms of categorical propositions as it will be
disclosed in the coming sections. And, a square of opposition is nothing but a
111
figure/square that shows the necessary logical relations between the four
standard forms of categorical propositions.
Since modern and traditional logicians understand and interpret universal
propositions differently, there are two squares of opposition: Modern Squares of
opposition and traditional square of opposition, which depends on modern and
traditional logicians standpoints respectively. Before we study the two squares
of opposition, let us see the traditional and modern logician ’s interpretations of
the four standard forms of categorical propositions (A, E, I and O propositions).
4.3.1 The Two Interpretations of Categorical Propositions
Logicians of different times understood the four standard forms of categorical
propositions differently. Mainly, traditional (Aristotelian) and modern logicians
have disagreed on the meaning/interpretation of universal categorical
propositions. The question whether universal (“A” and “E”) propositions have
existential import, or whether they imply the existence of the things talked
about, is the cause for their disagreement. According to Aristotelian’ s
(traditional logicians) interpretation, universal (“A” and “E”) propositions have
existential import if at least one of the things talked about are existing things.
So, universal propositions will imply existence on the condition that at least
one thing of them actually exists /is alive, or if the subject term has no empty
extension.
However, according to modern logicians (Boolean’s) interpretation, universal
(“A” and “E”) propositions have no existential import. In other words, as to
Boolean’s interpretation, universals does not imply the existence of the things
talked about, regardless of any condition. i.e. Boolean logic is neutral about
existence. However, both standpoints (Aristotelian and Boolean) have accepted
and agreed that particular (“I” and “O”) propositions make a positive assertion
about existence. For both standpoints, the word “Some” means “at least one ”
and it implies existence. Logically, when one say “some ” like “some S are P ”,
this means there is at least one S…., i.e. it implies actual existence. Hence, for
both standpoints, particulars have existential import. Therefore, an important

112
and basic distinction between Aristotelian and Boolean logic lies in their
interpretation of universal “A” and “E” propositions.
See the following table
Interpretations
Aristotelians Boolean
Proposition
asserts no S are outside P, or all no member of S are

A: All S are P members of S class are included in outside P, or all members

the P class, and it is assumed that of the S class are included
members of the S class actually exist. in P class and it says
nothing about existence
Means no member of S class are Means All members of S
E: No S are P inside P class or All S are outside P. are outside P,. or no
Similarly, it can imply existence if member of S are inside P.
one of the things talked about is And like “A” proposition, it
alive. do not imply existence for
it says nothing about it.
For Both of them, this means at least one “S” is there that is also a
I: Some S are P “P” Hence, it implies existence.
O: Some S are Means, Reconsider the table. One column is missing, it seems for
not P both stands, at least there is one “S” and that “S” is out side “P ”.
The underlined words show that the propositions have existential
import.
Table 4.6

113
Examples

1. All black roses are lovely flowers. From both standpoints, this

proposition does not imply existence of black roses. For Booleans, just

because it is universal, and for Aristotelian because there is nothing called

black roses.

2. No Judges are lawyers. According to Booleans it does not imply

existence. But, for Aristotelians it does.

3. Some unicorns are tame animals. From both standpoints, some

means at least one is there. Thus, this proposition implies existence from

both standpoints.

4.3.2 Diagramming Categorical Propositions

The information content and our interpretation of the four standard forms of
categorical propositions can be represented in diagrams.
And, the first known diagram of categorical propositions is set by the 18 th C.
mathematician L. Euler. And, this diagram is called Euler diagram. However,
Euler’s diagram was found to be ineffective in testing arguments (immediate
inferences and syllogistic arguments) for validity. In any case, the followings
are Euler’s diagrams for the four standard form categorical propositions

E : No S are P

114
A: All S are P S S
P
P

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

P p
After the failure of Euler diagram, a new diagram was developed by the 19 th C
logician and mathematician named John Venn to represent the information
content of the four standard forms of categorical propositions. His diagram has
come to be known as Venn diagrams. Venn diagrams are also useful to test
the validity of formal arguments (immediate inferences and categorical
syllogisms). Now, let us consider how a proposition can be transferred in to a
Venn diagram.

First, a Venn diagram consists of two overlapping circles which represent the
terms (set of things denoted by the subject and predicate terms) of the
statement. Conventionally, the subject and predicate terms are represented by
the left- hand and right- hand circles respectively. For instance, if “S ” and “P ”
represents the subject and predicate terms respectively, then you will find four
areas of the diagram and each area represent different things as follows:

2 3 4
1

S P

According to the above diagram:

Area 1 represents things that are neither S nor P,
Area 2 represents things that are S, but not P,
Area 3 represents things that are both S and P, and

115
Area 4 represents things that are P, but not S.

To effectively represent the information contents of the four standard forms of

categorical propositions on Venn diagrams, we should first understand the very
claim that the statement makes from different standpoints (both Boolean and
Aristotelian). The second step that follows is inserting the information in a
Venn diagram using a certain kind of marks in a diagram through:
1) Shading an area. And the shaded area is understood as empty.
2) Placing an “x” in an area. (‘x’ represents that at least one thing exists in that
area). And, if no mark appears in an area, this represents that we have no
information about it. Moreover, the first mark, (shading an area) is used to
represent the contents of universal (A and E) propositions based on Boolean
standpoint. However, in Aristotelian standpoint, the diagram for universal
propositions can be modified slightly. Placing an “x” mark in an area is used to
represent the contents of particular (I and O) propositions.
The following Venn diagrams represent the four standard forms of categorical
propositions and they are actually based on Boolean standpoint.

A: All S are P (No S is outside P/all S are included in P.)

Asserts that nothing exists which is only S, so

area1 (only S, not P) is empty and should be shaded S P

E: No S are P. / All S are out side P. This Statement asserts that nothing is
common for both S and P (S and P are excluded each other). Thus, the
area that represents things that are both S and P is empty, and must be
shaded.

116
 S P

I: Some S are P. There is at least one member of S, and that thing is also a P.
There is one things that is both s and p, so we must place an “x” in area 3

S P

O: Some S are not P- there is at least one S and that S is not a P. This Means,
There is one thing that is only S. So, we must place an “x” in area
2 (that represents only S, not P)

S P

Moreover, as we have seen before, Aristotelian logic differs from Boolean

interpretation on the meaning/information of universal (A and E) propositions.
For that matter, according to Aristotelian’s interpretation, universal may imply
existence, if at least one thing actually exists. Thus, to show the conditional
existential import of universal propositions, Aristotelians interpretation made a
slight modification on the diagrams. The circled “x” represents conditional
existence. Thus, the diagram for “A” and “E” propositions based on Aristotelian
standpoint would be:
1. All S are P (“A” proposition): assert that No S are out side P, but there exist
“S” if one “S” actually exists.

S P

117
2. No S are P (“E” proposition): asserts that No S are inside P, but it implies

“S”’s existence if at least one S actually exist

S P

To read the contents of the diagrams for universal propositions drawn based on
Aristotelian logic, we need further information. We need to look at the
extension of the subject term of the proposition. If it has empty extension, the
circled “x” must not be interpreted as there is one thing in that area. But, if
one thing denoted by the subject term exists, the same mark must be read as
there is one thing in the area.
Examples
x
1. No atheist Pope’s are rational creatures.

A R

Since the subject term has no extension, the circled “x ” do not imply that one

thing is in the area 1.

2. All Marxists are liberals.

x

S P

The same diagram for proposition two is interpreted since there are Marxists,
the circled “x” will be read as there is one Marxist alive. Therefore, we have to
be careful about our perception/interpretation of the Venn diagram of
Universal propositions based on Aristotelians standpoint. Regarding
particulars, however, there is no difference between Aristotelian and Boolean
logic.

118
4.3.3 The Traditional (Aristotelian) Square of Opposition

It has been underlined that modern and traditional (Aristotelian) logician ’s

interpret and diagram universal propositions differently. Based on their
interpretations and diagrams of the four standard forms of categorical
propositions, both traditional and modern logicians have drawn relations,
partial or complete oppositions, between propositions. The summary of these
relations between the four propositions is presented in a square like figure,
called the square of opposition. Hence, the traditional square of opposition
is a square that shows the necessary logical relations between the four
standard forms of categorical propositions, based on Aristotelian standpoint.
The Aristotelian square of opposition has contained four logical relations
including contradictory, contrary, sub-contrary and subalternation. Now,
let us see what these relations express, and how they are formulated. And, we
have note that all relationships only work in corresponding statements (which
means two propositions having the same S and P terms.)
1. Contradictory
According to Aristotelian interpretation, two statements are said to be
contradictory if they are complete opposite of each other. Thus, “A ” and “O ”
and “E” and “I” propositions are contradictory. Corresponding contradictory
propositions are exact opposite of each other and they necessarily have
opposite truth values. If one of them is given true, the corresponding one must
be false. Contradictory is the relation between two statements that can not
both be true and can not both be false. Let us study whether “A ” and “O ” and
“E” and “I” statements are contradictory. To check this we can see and examine
the following.

First, if we take corresponding “A” and “O,” and “E” and “I ” statements in
actual case, both cannot be true, and both cannot be false. They are
contradictory and have opposite truth value.
Example

119
All Ethiopian Athletes are record scorers is actually false. Hence, the
correspondent “O” statement, “Some Ethiopian Athletes are not record
Scorers”, is actually true. The same is also true for “two corresponding “E ” and
“I” statements.
Second, we can check this by inspecting the quality and quantity of the
corresponding propositions, and the distribution of their terms. And,
propositions with contradictory relation have quality and quantity, and the
terms distribution that are in complete oppositions.
“A”- All S are P “O”- Some S aren’t P
Is universal in terms of quantity ≠ Particular
Affirmative in terms of quality ≠ Negative
Its “S”- term is distributed ≠ S- undistributed
Its “P”-term is undistributed ≠ P- distributed
E- Statement is universal, negative, and both its “S” and “P ”- terms are
distributed. On the contrary, I- Statement is particular, affirmative, and both
its “S” and “P”- terms are undistributed.

Lastly, we can see complete opposition that prevails between “A ” and “O, ” and
“E” and “I” propositions by examining their respective diagrams.

“A”- Proposition “O”- Proposition x

x
S P S P

The diagram for an A- proposition shows that the shaded area is empty, i.e.

nothing exists that is only S. While the diagram for the corresponding

“O” statement shows that the same area is not empty, there is at least one

thing in the area representing S.

“E”- asserts nothing exists in the overlapped area.

x

120
 S P

“I”- asserts there is at least one thing in the same area.

x
S P
In all contradictory propositions, the statements make an assertion that are
exact opposite of each other, and have opposite truth values. Thus,
If A is given true……………………..O- will be false
If A is given false……………………..O- will be true
If E is given true……………………….I will be false
If E is given false……………………I will be true. And the reverse is true.
Moreover, immediate inferences that depend on the correct application of
contradictory relation are valid. For instance.
1. All S are P
So, it is false that some S are not P
2. Some S are not P
So, It is false that All S are P. And, if we switch the premises and the
conclusion, the above inferences will be valid.

2. Contrary
If two corresponding statements can not both be true, but both may be false,
they are said to be contrary. In other words, of the corresponding contrary
propositions, at least one of them must be false. Unlike contradictory relation,
contrary relation expresses partial opposition. Corresponding “A ” and “E ”
statements have relation of this type.
Example
“All professors are highly educated people”- is actually true, but the
corresponding “E” statement, “No professors are highly educated people ” is

121
actually false. Therefore, we can see that, among two corresponding contrary
statements, if one of them is given true, the corresponding one will be false.
However, if one is given false, the corresponding statement will remain
undetermined (which means it may be either true or false.)

We can assume that the partial opposition in between contrary “A ” and “E ”

statements arise from their difference in quality and similarity in quantity.
Hence, if A is given true, E must be false
If A is given false, E has undetermined truth value (it can be true or false), and
the reverse is also true.

3. Sub contrary
If two corresponding statements can not both be false, while both may be true,
they are said to be sub contrary. This means ,among the sub contraries, at
least one of them must be true. Like contrary relation, sub contrary relation
expresses partial opposition. Hence, since the corresponding “I ” and “O ”
statements cannot both be false, traditional logicians consider them as having
sub contrary relation. For instance, the propositions: “some wars fought are
morally justifiable,” and “some wars fought are not morally justifiable, ” can not
both be false, at least one of them is true. If we assume the former true the
latter may be either true or false, but if the first statement is assumed false,
the latter one will necessarily be true. Thus, if “I ” statement is given false, “O ”
must be “true”, and if “I” statement is given true, “O ” may be either true or
false (undetermined truth value). And the reverse is also true.
The partial opposition (sub-contrary) between universal and particular
statements respectively arises from their similarity in quantity and difference in
quality and distribution of terms.

4. Subalternation

122
The last relation between the four standard forms of categorical propositions,
according to Aristotelian’s, is that affirmatives ( “A ” and “I ”) may imply each
other, and negatives (“E” and “O”) also imply each other. This bi-implicational
relation is called subalternation. Subalteration relation expresses if universals
are given true then the corresponding particulars will also be true. Thus, if “A ”
is given true; “I” must be true, and if “E” is true, “O ” must also be true. But if
the universal is false, then the corresponding particular is undetermined and
can be either true or false. On the other hand, if particulars are given true,
then the corresponding universals will be undetermined. (If I (O) is true, then A
(E) is undetermined). But, if the particular is false, then its corresponding
universal must also be false. Thus, if I (O) is false, then A (E) must be false. To
understand this relation, and to see how the subalterns implies each other, see
figure 4.1 And, this diagram shows that truth flows from universals to
particulars (A→I and E→O) through the downward arrow, while falsity flows
through the upward arrow (from I→A, and O→E).
Examples

1. “All cats are animals” is actually true, and “Some cats are animals” is also
true. However, if “Some cats are animals” is true, “All cats are animals ”
may be either true or false.
2. If “some spiders are eight- legged animals” is false, then “All spiders are
eight legged animal” is also false.

Hence, the traditional square of opposition is simply a diagram (or arrangement

of lines) where these four kinds of necessary or logical relations (partial or
Su T Su
complete
balt opposition) between the four F
standard forms
balt of corresponding
ern T ern
categorical propositions were represented. And itF can be diagrammed as
atio atio
n
follows. n
T
F
“A” Universals are contraries “E”
T (At least one is false)
F

T 123
F
 Contradictories (never have the
same truth value)

(at least one is true)

“I” Particulars are sub contraries “O”
Figure 4.1

Thus, logical determinations based on the traditional square of opposition can

be presented as follows:

Given Corresponding Statements

Statement
If A is given true E is false I is true O is false
If E is given true A is false I is false O is true
If I is given true A is undetermined E is false O is undetermined
If O is given true A is false I is undetermined E is undetermined
If A is given false E is undetermined I is undetermined O is true
If E is given false A is undetermined I is true O is undetermined
If I is given false A is false E is true O is true
If O is given false A is true I is true E is false
Table 4.7

4.3.4 The Modern Square of Opposition

The modern (Boolean) square of opposition is an arrangement of lines or
square like figure that shows the necessary or logical relations (only complete
oppositions ) between the four standard form of categorical propositions based
on modern logicians (Boolean) interpretation/standpoint. As we have discussed
before, as to Boolean’s interpretation, only particulars ( “I ” and “O ”) propositions

124
have existential import. Thus, according to Boolean ’s interpretation there is a
logical relation only between statements that make assertions that are exact
opposite of each other. As a result, modern logicians have endorsed the
diagonal relationship (contradictory) pictured in the traditional square of
opposition while denying the other three kinds of relations. In any case, let us
see why and how modern logicians affirm and deny the claims of Aristotelians
Regarding contradictory relation, since universal propositions do not have
existential import, if a proposition that is neutral about existence denies or
affirms entire class inclusion is true, there is no possibility for corresponding
statements that have existential import and affirm/deny some part of class
inclusion to be true. Thus, Aristotelians claim that if “A ” is true, “O ” must be
false, and if “E” is true, “I” must be false, and vice versa. However, as to
Booleans interpretation, “A” and “O” and “I” and “E” statements will be in
complete opposition only if we deny that universals have existential import.
Then, Booleans endorse contradictory relation, and use Aristotelians claim that
universals have existential import, on the condition that one of the things
talked about is alive, to disprove the incorrectness of Aristotelians conception
of universal propositions and the four relations.
First, if we claim that universals (“A” and “E”) have existential import, the
corresponding (“I’ and “O”) statements may not be their contradictory, or they
may not be in a complete opposition with the corresponding ( “I ” and “O ”)
propositions.
Example, “All unicorns are friendly animals” and “Some unicorns are not
friendly animals.” Now, for sure, unicorns don’t exist even from Aristotelian
stance. But, if we claim that statements have existential import, our claim is
false and both corresponding statements are false. Hence, to preserve
Aristotelian stance regarding contradiction, we must deny that “A ” and “E ”
propositions have existential import. And, this basic claim, according to
Boolean’s, has a series of implications.

125
The first implication is that universals ( “A ” and “E”) logically imply particular
(“I” and “O”) statements are false because universals don’t imply existence,
while particulars does. Therefore, A and I, and E and O are not subalterns. And
to understand this we can study the information contents of the diagram for
these statements:
A I E O
x x

S P S P S P S P

The second implication is that corresponding “I” and “O” statements aren ’t
sub contrary because, according to modern logicians particular statements
may both be false if the things talked about in the corresponding statements
cease to exist.
Example
“Some cats are animals.” “I’
“Some cats are not animals.” “O”
The above “I” and “O” statements assert that there is (exists) at least one cat
that is an animal or a non-animal respectively. They however, may be false,
if cats disappear.
The last implication is that corresponding “A” and “E” statements are not
contrary. This is because corresponding “A” and “E” statements can both be
true, and to show that modern logicians analyzed “A ” and “E ” statements as
involving conditionals.
Example
1. “All unicorns are animals” may be rewritten as:
“If any thing is a unicorn, then it is an animal.
2. No unicorns are animals may also be rewritten as:
“If any thing is a unicorn, then it is not an animal.”
These two statements, according to modern logicians interpretation, are not
contrary (at least one is false), because both are true assuming that there are

126
no unicorns. To understand this claim, first study the second claim that says
corresponding particular statements may both be false, if this is the case, the
corresponding universal “A” and “E” statements can both be true. This is
because, when “S” is empty “some S are P” and “Some S are not P ” can both be
false, and their respective contradictories “All S are P” and “ No S are P ” can
both be true. In any case, the following diagram shows the modern (Boolean)
square of opposition as:z

und “A” Logically undetermined “E” und

eter eter
mi min
ned ed

Contradictories (never have the

same truth value)

‘I” “O”
Logically undetermined
Figure 4.2
Table for logical determinations based on the modern square of opposition.

Given Statement Corresponding Statements

If A is given true I is undetermined, E is undetermine O is false
If E is given true d O is
If I is given true A is undetermined, I is false undetermined
If O is given true A is undistributed , E is false O is
If A is given false A is false, I is undetermined undetermined
If E is given false I is undetermined, E is E is undetermined
If I is given false undetermined O is true
If O is given false A is undetermined, E is true O is

127
 A is undetermined, I is true undetermined
A is true, I is undetermined O is
undetermined
E is undetermined
Table 4.8
4.3.5 Immediate Inferences and Formal Fallacies
As it has been underlined in chapter one, an argument/inference is a set of
statements that purports to prove each other. And, there are immediate
inferences that consist of two corresponding propositions, one is a premise and
the other is the conclusion. Such kinds of inferences that immediately proceed
from one standard form of categorical statement (as a premise) to other
corresponding proposition (conclusion) are called immediate inferences. The
validity of such kinds of inferences can be tested by using either of the
following two methods: using the two squares of opposition and the venn
diagram technique.

To test immediate inferences by using the squares of opposition (both modern

and traditional), we will use the following steps:
1. begin by assuming that the premise is true, then
2. enter the truth value of the premise in the square of opposition, and
then use the square to compute the truth value of the corresponding
proposition (the conclusion), and
3. see whether the conclusion is true or false in the square given that the
premise is true. If the square shows that the conclusion is true and assuming
the premise is true, then the argument is valid by definition, other wise it is
invalid.
N.B. when we test immediate inference, it has to be tested first based on
Boolean standpoint; if it is valid we don ’t need to proceed further. If it is
invalid, we should retest it based on Aristotelian standpoint.

Examples

128
 1. Some human beings are rational animals.
Therefore, it is false that no human beings are rational animals.
Let us test the above proposition based on the modern square of opposition:
1st we assume that “I” is true.
2nd if “I” is true, according to a modern square of proposition, then the
corresponding contradictory “E” statement must be false.
3rd, since the first conclusion claims that “E” is false, and that is what we get in
the square, the claim that “E” is false is true and the inference is valid. Since it
is valid regardless of whether the term denotes actually existing things, the
inference is called unconditionally valid.
After all, we can conclude that all inferences which are valid based on Boolean
logic are said to be unconditionally valid.
2. All students are addicted persons.
So, it is false that no students are addicted persons.
Based on Boolean stand point, if we assume that an “A ” statement is true, the
corresponding “E” statement has undetermined truth value, it means that it
may be either true or false. Thus, since there is a possibility for the conclusion
to be false given that the premise is true, then the inference is invalid, and
commits existential fallacy.
Let us retest it based on Aristotelian standpoint (by using the traditional
square of opposition). Based on Aristotelians, if an “A ” statement is given true,
a corresponding “E” statement must be false by contrary relation. Since that is
what the conclusion claims, the inference is valid. However, it is valid on the
condition that at least one student exists i.e. it is conditionally valid. If the
required condition is not meting, the inference is invalid and commits a formal
fallacy called existential fallacy. Existential fallacy, in Boolean logic, is a
formal fallacy that is committed whenever an inference is invalid merely
because the premise is interpreted as lacking existential import. And, this will
be the case if there is a universal proposition. From Aristotelian standpoint,

129
existential fallacy is committed when ever contrary, sub contrary and sub
alternative relations are used with propositions about things that do not exist.
Thus, from traditional logician’s standpoint, any inference from a univer sal
statement to any other corresponding statement, except its contradictory and
vice versa, is invalid and commits existential fallacy.
Examples
All S are P No S are P
So, Some S are P Hence, Some S are P and the like are invalid and commit
existential fallacy.
On the other hand, if an immediate inference depends on an illicit/incorrect
application of contrary, sub contrary, or subalternation relations, it is said to
be invalid and commit formal fallacies called illicit contrary, illicit
subcontrary, and illicit subalternation respectively. Some forms of these
fallacies are the following
Illicit Contrary Illicit Sub-Contrary
1. All S are P. 1. Some S are P
Hence, No s are P. So, It is false that some S are not P

2. It is false that All S are P. 2. Some S are not P

So, No S are P. So, It is false that s are P

3. It is false that No S are P 3. Some S are P

So, All S are P So, Some S are not P
4. No S are P 4.Some S are not p
So, All S are P So, Some S are P

Illicit Sub alternation

1. It is false that All S are P
So, Some S are P
2. Some S are not P

130
 So, No S are P
3. Some S are P
So, All S are P
4. It is false that no S are P
So, Some S are not P and the like.
The following inferences depend on the correct application of contrary and
subalterantion relations of the traditional square of oppositions. However, they
are about things that do not exist, the inferences then commit existential
fallacy so that they are invalid as:

1. All unicorns are friendly animals.

Hence, some unicorns are friendly animals.
2. It is false that some dinosaurs are dangerous animals.
Therefore, some dinosaurs are not dangerous animals.

Existential fallacy, therefore, from Aristotelians standpoint occurs whenever

contrary, sub-contrary and subalternation are used with propositions about
nonexistent things. So, immediate inferences that depend on contrary, sub
contrary and sub alternation are valid from Aristotelian standpoint on the
condition that the propositions are about existing things. Hence, they are only
conditionally valid.

4.3.6. The Venn Diagram Method

The other method that can be used to test inferences for validity is by using
Venn diagrams. This technique requires the following steps:
1. Draw the Venn diagram for both the premise and the conclusion.
2. Examine whether the information content of the diagram for the conclusion
is also contained in the diagram for the premises. If it does, then the
conclusion is based on certain grounds and is valid. Other wise, it is invalid.

131
When we test an inference by using Veen diagram, we should first test it by
using Boolean stand point. And, if it is valid, proceed no and further test is
needed. If this is not the case, we need to retest from Aristotelian standpoint.

Example
All S are P
Therefore, Some S are P

Diagram based on Boolean logic

Premise Conclusion
x

S P S P

The diagram of the conclusion shows that there is one thing in area 2 (that is

S and for things that are both “S” and “P”).But, the premise do not. Hence,

their inference is invalid based on Boolean logic.

Aristotelian
Premise x Conclusion x

S P S P

According to Aristotelians the information content of the diagram of the

conclusion may be contained in the premise diagram if the subject term of the
premise denotes actually existing things. Thus, it is conditionally valid.

Exercise 4.3
I. Draw Venn diagram for the following propositions from both Aristotelian
and Boolean standpoints.
A- Some angels are not mortal beings

132
 B- No citizens are residents.
C- All vampires are dangerous creatures
D- Some dinosaurs are carnivores animals.
II. Use the Venn diagram method and Both the Aristotelian and Boolean
square of opposition to test the following inferences for validity. If they
are invalid, identify the formal fallacy that the inferences have
contained.
1. No vampires are dangerous creatures.
Therefore, it is false that some vampires are dangerous creature.
2. Some philosophers are scientists.
So, it is false that some philosophers are not scientists.
3. It is false that all saints are martyrs.
So, no saints are martyrs.
4. Some soldiers are not officers.
Hence, no soldiers are officers.
5. It is false that some philosophers are idealists.
So, it is false that all philosophers are idealists.
6. All judges are lawyers.
Therefore, it is false that no judges are lawyers.
7. Some soldiers are officers.
Thus, all soldiers are officers.
8. Some African leaders are not corrupted persons.
So, some African leaders are corrupted persons.
9. All communists are fanatics.
So, some communists are not fanatics.
10. It is false that No horses are mules.
Hence, some horses are mules.
4.4 Further Immediate Inferences and Forma Formal Fallacies:
Conversion, Obversion and Contraposition

133
Many statements expressed in ordinary English contain negated terms that
may obscure the meaning of statements. However, they may be shown to be
equivalent to the simpler statement. To justify this equivalence, we need the
operation of conversion, obversion and contraposition
A. Conversion
Converting a statement can easily be performed by a single step. i.e. by
switching the subject and predicate terms (Interchange the place of terms.)
Thus, the following arrangements show the converse of the four standard forms
of categorical propositions with diagrams that show their respective
information content.

Original Statements Converse Diagram

Diagram All P are S

A- All S are P S P
No P are S
S P
E- No S are P S P
Some P are S
S P
x
I – some S are P S p
x Some P are
S P not S
O - Some S are not P x
x S P
S p
Table 4.9
If we examine the diagram for the E statement, 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 logically
equivalent, and the I statement and its converse are logically equivalent. Two
statements are said to be logically equivalent when they necessarily have the
same truth value. Thus, converting an E or I statement gives a new statement
that always has the same truth value(and the same meaning) as the given
statement.

134
On the other hand, the diagram for the A statement is not clearly not identical
to the diagram for its converse, and the diagram for the O statement is not
identical to the diagram for its converse. Also, the two pairs of diagrams are not
the exact opposite of each other, as is the case with contradictory statements.
This means that an A statement and its converse are logically unrelated as to
truth value, and an O statement and its converse are logically unrelated as to
truth value. In other words, converting A or O statement gives a new statement
whose truth value is logically undermined in relation to the given statement.
The converse of an A or O statements does have a truth value, of course, but
logic alone cannot tell us what it is.
Moreover, to check the validity of this inference, we should have to check
whether or not the truth value of the original statement is logically equivalent
with its respective converse. If it is equivalent, then the inference is valid. Other
wise it is invalid and will commit certain formal fallacy. The following examples
will help us to understand how to evaluate inferences that depend on
conversion. As we see from the above diagram, conversion works on “E ” and “I ”
statements because “E” and “I” statements have logically equivalent truth value
with their converse, and it is proved by drawing Venn diagram.
Examples No cats are dogs- is actually true

C D

E: No dogs are cats – is also true

C D

Therefore, we can validly infer from E and I statements to their respective

converse of the vice versa vise versa. A and I propositions, however, have

135
contradictory truth values so that the conversion of these statements is valid
and committed a formal fallacy called illicit conversion.
Example 1. All cats are animals. (Is actually true)
So, all animals are cats. (Is actually false)
2. Some animals are not cats. (Is actually true)
Some cats are not animals. (Is actually false)
Both inferences are invalid and commit illicit- conversion fallacy
B. Obversion
Obverting a statement requires two steps. These are :
1 change the quality of the statement (from Affirmative to negative, or vice
versa) without changing the quantity, and then
2. replace the predicate term with its term complement. Term-complement of a
term denotes the class complement (this is the class containing all things that
are not members of the class denoted by the term in question). Usually, a term
complement of a term is created by adding the prefix (non-) to the original
term. For example, the term complement of “horse” is “non horse ”, “wife ” is
“non wife”. The following diagram shows the obverse relationships of the four
standard forms of categorical syllogisms:
Original Statement Diagram Obverse Diagram
A No S are non P

A- All S are P S P
S P E All S are non P

E- No S are P S P
S P I- some S are non P
x
I – some S are P x S P
S P O Some S are non P

O - Some S are not P x

x
S P S P
Note that all the four standards of categorical statements have a logically
equivalent truth value with its obverse. To check this just simply obvert the

136
obverse of an original statement, the result will be the original statement itself.
This implies that every statement is identical with its obverse. So, no inference
that is based on obversion is invalid and commits a fallacy. There is no such a
fallacy as illicit obversion.
C. Contraposition
The contrapositive or contraposed form of a statement can be formed by the
following two steps:
1 switching the subject term with its predicate term, which means converse
the original statement, and
2. replace both the subject and predicate terms with their term complement.
Thus, the following diagram shows the contraposed form of the four
standard forms of categorical propositions in their respective diagram.

Orginal Statement Diagram Contrapositive Diagram

All non P are non S

A- All S are P S P
S P No non P are non S

E- No S are P S P
S P Some non P are
non S x
I – some S are P S p
x
S P
Some non P are not
O - Some S are not P non S x
x
S P S P
Table 4.11

The diagrams and the information content of statements and their

contrapositive show that contraposition only works on “A ” and “O ”
propositions. Thus, we can validly infer only from an “A ” and “O ” statements to
their contrapositives. While conversion does not work on “A ” and “O ”
statements, contraposition doesn’t work on “E” and “I” statements because “E ”

137
and “I” statements are not logically equivalent with their contrapositive and
don’t have identical truth values.
Hence, an inference from “E” and “I” statements to their contrapositives is
invalid, and commits a formal fallacy called illicit contraposition.
Instances of Valid contraposition
1. All Amharas are Ethiopians. (Is actually true)
Hence, all non Ethiopians are non Amharas. (Is also actually true)
2. Some Animals are not mammals. (Is actually true)
So, some non-Mammals are not non-Animals. (Is actually true)
Thus, these inferences are all valid. The following two inferences are invalid
and have committed illicit-contra position.
1. No dogs are cats. (Is actually true)
So, No non-cats are non-dogs. (Is actually false)

2. Some animals are non-cats. (Is actually true)

So, some cats are non-animals. (Is actually false)
Note that like those inferences that depend on the correct application of
contradictory relation, an immediate inference that depends on the correct
application of conversion, obversion and contraposition is unconditionally
valid.

Exercise 4.4
I) Write statements of the following kinds
1. The converse, obverse and contrapositive of :
a. All judges are lawyers.
b. Some chimpanzees are great orators.
c. No aborigines are cultured persons.
d. Some politicians are not liars.

II) Write an immediate inference which depends on:

138
 a. A universal negative statement and its contra positive.
b. A particular negative proposition and its obverse.
c. A universal affirmative statement and its converse
d. A particular affirmative statement and its converse
e. A particular negative proposition and its contra positive
III) Lastly, test the validity of your own immediate inference made in
part II by using Venn diagram. And, if it is invalid, identify the
fallacy committed.

4.5 Translating Ordinary Language Statements in to

Categorical Form
Though many of the ordinary language statements are non-standard forms of
categorical proposition, almost all of them can be translated in to standard
forms of categorical propositions, which are proposition with:
Standard quantifier + subject term + standard copula + predicate term
The rational behind translating ordinary language statements in to categorical
form are:
1. to make the operations and inferences pertinent to standard forms of
categorical propositions (as contrary, sub-contrary, conversion, obversion ….)
applicable to the non categorical forms.
2. they will be capable of having clear and precise meaning. And, to make the
translation possible, first try to understand the meaning of the given
statement, and then represent it in a new statement that has a standard
quantifier, subject term, copula and predicate term.

Most of the non-standard propositions are those that confined adjectives, non
standard verbs, adverbs and pronouns, unexpressed and non-standard
quantifier, “the only”, singular propositions, conditional sentences, exclusive
propositions, and exceptive propositions. Statements with the above

139
phraseologies lack either subject term, standard quantifier, copula or predicate
term that are conditions for a statement to be in standard form.

How to Translate Non-Standard Propositions Lacking:

I. Terms (Subject and Predicate Terms)
Terms without nouns (Adjectives or Adjectival phrases)
One form of categorical propositions that require translation in to standard
form is those that contain adjectives or adjectival phrases as predicates rather
than class or denotative terms. Such kinds of propositions can be translated in
to standard form by replacing the adjectival predication with a denotative term.
Note that adjectives may connote attributes and also they can be made
denotative only by adding nouns /pronouns to them.

Examples
1. No warships are available for active duty.
Translation: “No warships are available for active duty.”
2. Some mammals are wild.
Translation: “Some mammals are wild animals,”
3. All Ethiopian women are beautiful.
Translation: “All Ethiopian women are beauties,” or
“All Ethiopian women are beautiful creature.”
II. Lacking Standard Copulas
Non Standard Verbs
As we have seen before, the only copulas that are allowed in standard form
categorical propositions are the two forms of the verb “to be ” that are “are ” and
“aren’t” statements that incorporate other forms of the verb “to be ” like “is ”, “is
not”, “will”, “will not” and those with no copula must be translated in to
standard form as follows.
Examples:-

140
 1. Some law graduate students will not be judges
Translation: “Some law graduate students are persons who will not be
judges.”
2. Some dogs would rather bark than bite
Translation: “Some dogs are animals that would rather bark than bite.”
3. All doctors desire recognition
Translation: 1. All doctors are persons who have the desire of recognition
2. All doctors are desirers of recognition

III. Lacking Standard Quantifiers

A) Non Standard Quantifiers
In some ordinary language statements, the amount is indicated by symbols
other than the three standard quantifiers ( “All ”, “Some ”, and “No ”). Such words
or phrases include words like “every”, “any”, “a few”, “few”, “not every”, “not
any”, “any one”, and others. To translate such kinds of quantifiers in to one of
the standard quantifiers we have to first identify the meanings of the
statements, particularly about how much of the things are talked about in the
statement. In most cases, words like “every”, “every one”, “every thing ”, “any ”,
“any one”, and others that affirm for the entire class of the subject class can be
translated in to “All.” Others that deny class inclusion for the entire subject
class like “not any”, “not a single”, “none” are translated in to “No ”. And, all
expressions like “few”, “a few”, “a,” “almost all”, “most”, and the like that affirm
or deny class inclusion for some part of the subject class can be translated as
“Some”. However, be aware that there are ambiguous quantifiers like “not
every”, “not all”, “All...are not…”and the like that may be translated in to
“Some…aren’t…” or “No”.
Examples:
1. Not every one who votes is a democrat.
Translation: Some voters are not Democrats
2. Most Marxists are revolutionaries

141
 Translation: Some Marxists are revolutionaries
3. Few soldiers are heroes.
Translation: Some soldiers are heroes.
4. A bat is a mammal
Translation: All bats are mammals
5. Not all children are believers in Santa Claus.
Translation: Some children are not believers in Santa Claus.
B) Unexpressed Quantifiers
Statements in ordinary language have quantifiers that are implied but not
explicitly stated. In translating the implicitly stated quantifier of a statement in
to standard ones, one must be guided by the most probable meaning of the
statement.
Examples
1. Dogs are carnivores.
Translation: All dogs are carnivores.
2. A bat is not a bird
Translation: No bats are birds.
3. There are lions in the zoo
Translation: Some lions are animals in the zoo.
4. This animal is not a mammal
Translation: Some animals are not mammals
C) “ The Only”
Statements that began with the phrase “the only ’, are translated differently
from those beginning with “only”. The expression “the only” when it occurs at
the beginning of a statement can simply be replaced by “all ”, and the order of
terms is not reversed in the translation.
Examples
1. The only films shown at this theater are open flicks.
Translation: All films shown at this theater are open flicks.

142
* When “the only” occurs in the middle of a statement, the statement must be
restructured so that it occurs at the beginning.
Example
Blood relatives are the only true friends.
Translation 1 “the only true friends are blood relatives.”
Translation 2 “All true friends are blood relatives.”
Statements involving “the only”, like those involving “only ”, about individuals,
can be translated by two statements.
Example:
The only African victory over colonial powers is the Adwa victory.
Translation1.The Adwa victory is Africans victory over their colonizers.
Trans.2 And, there is no other African victory over the colonizers
D) Exceptive Propositions
Propositions of the form “All except S are P”, and “All but S are P ” are exceptive
propositions. And, they must be translated not as single categorical
propositions but as conjoined categorical propositions. This is because
exceptive propositions make two assertions rather than one. Note that a
statement that contain the phrase “non except”, is exclusive (not exceptive)
statement.

Examples
1. All except employees are eligible.
Translation: No employees are eligible.
All non employees are eligible.
2. All but lawyers are dishonest.
Translation: No lawyers are dishonest.
All non lawyers are dishonest.
IV. Terms, Copulas and Quantifier
A) Singular propositions

143
A singular proposition is a proposition that makes an assertion about a specific
person, thing, place, or time. In other words, a singular proposition is a
proposition that makes a claim that a unit class, “S”, containing just ‘S ’ is
wholly included in or excluded from the class “P”. Thus, affirmative or negative
singular propositions can be translated in to universal affirmative (A) and
universal negative (E) propositions respectively. Singular propositions are
translated in to universals by means of a parameter, i.e. a phrase when
introduced in to a statement affects the form but not the meaning. Some
parameters that may be used to translate singular propositions are: persons
identical to, places identical to, things identical to, cases identical to, times
identical to and the like.
Examples
1. Socrates is a philosopher
Translation: All persons identical to Socrates are persons who are
philosophers.
2. This table is not antique.
Translation: No tables identical to this table are antiques
3. I am a student
Translations: All persons identical to me are persons who are students.

B) Adverbs and Pronouns

when a statement contains a special adverb such as “where”, “wherever ”, “any
where”, every where”, or “ no where”, or a temporal adverb like ” when ”,
“whenever”, “any time”, “always”, “usually”, or “never ”, it may be translated in
terms of “places,” or “things” respectively. And the following examples show
how to translate statements with spatiotemporal adverbs into standard forms
of categorical propositions.

Examples
1. Wherever I go I see poverty.

144
 Translation: All places I go are places where I see poverty.
2. Whoever testifies falsely will not be in heaven.
Translation: No persons who testify falsely are persons who will be in
heaven.
3. She reads what she finds interesting
Translations: All things she reads are books she finds interesting.
C) Conditional Statements
Conditional sentences can also be also translated in to standard forms of
categorical propositions that are universal in terms of their quantity. And the
following examples show how to translate conditional statements into standard
forms of categorical propositions.
Examples
1. If “x” is a mammal then it is not a bird.
Translations: No mammals are birds.

2. If a shirt is made of cotton, then it is washable.

Translations: All shirts made of cotton are washable entities.
Note
 When the word “if” occurs in the middle of the conditional statement,
i.e. when the “if” precedes and succeeds the antecedent and
consequent of a statement respectively, the statement must be
restructured in an “if…then…”form.
 If both the antecedent and consequent are negated, we can switch
places.
 Unless means “if not” or “if and only if.”

Examples
1. A judgment is fair if it is impartial.
“If…then…” form: “If a judgment is impartial, then it is fair.”
Translation: All impartial judgments are fair judgments.

145
 2. A policy is not fair if it is discriminatory.
If a policy is discriminatory, then it is not a fair policy.
No discriminatory policies are fair policies.
3. If a solution is not acidic, then it is not corrosive.
All corrosive solutions are acidic solutions.
4. A letter will not be delivered unless it is mailed.
All mailed letters are letters that will be delivered.
No unmailed letters are letters that will be delivered.
D) Exclusive Propositions
Categorical propositions involving words like “only ”, “none but ”, or “none
except”, and “no....except” are exclusive propositions because they generally
assert that the predicate applies exclusively to the subject named. Exclusive
propositions can be easily translated in to standard form categorical
propositions if it is phrased as a conditional statement. And, the occurrence of
“only”, “none but”,… at the beginning of a statement indicates a reversal in
order of the terms when the statement is translated in to categorical form. The
following examples show how to translate exclusive propositions into standard
forms of categorical propositions
Examples:
1. Only those who study will pass this course.
Translation: All students who will pass this course are those who
study.
2. None but citizens have the right to vote.
Translation: All those who have the right to vote are citizens.
If the statements following “only,” “none but,” is an individual, the statement
asserts two things.

Examples
1. Only Zarayacob is an Ethiopian philosopher.

146
 This proposition asserts: -
• All persons identical to Zarayacob are Ethiopian philosophers.
• All Ethiopian philosophers are persons identical to Zarayacob.
Finally, when “only”, and “none but”, occur in the middle of a statement, the
statement must first be restructured so that the term proceeded by “only ” or
“none but” occurs first.
2. He owns only blue-chip stocks.
Step one: “Only blue-chip stocks are stocks owned by him.”
Complete Translation: “All stocks owned by him are blue chip stocks.”
To sum up, to make a standard form of categorical propositions, and to
translate non-standard one in to standard/categorical form, one must use
nouns, common names, or descriptive phrases as subject and predicate terms,
and standard form quantifiers (All, Some and No) and copulas (Are, and Are
not).
Exercise 4.5
Translate the following statements in to standard form of categorical
propositions.
1. Not every worth meeting is worth having as a friend.
2. If it is not a real Havana, it is not a Rope.
3. Nothing is both safe and exciting.
4. Fasiledes castle is in Gondar.

4.6 Categorical Syllogisms: Standard Form, Mood and Figure

A syllogism is a deductive argument consisting of two premises and one
conclusion. So, a categorical syllogism is a syllogistic argument, where most of
them are formally deductive in nature and consist of exactly three categorical
propositions; two of which are premises and the other conclusion. However, not
all categorical syllogistic arguments are deductive, some of them are inductive
by their nature, and may involve probabilistic reasoning. Generally, three
categorical propositions consisting of three terms appearing twice in one of

147
them is said to be a categorical syllogism if they purport to prove each other.
And, to prove/disprove the truth of a claim, affirming or denying class
inclusion, that a categorical statement makes, we must use two other
statements in which one of them contain the subject term and the other the
predicate of the conclusion as their subject or predicate, and another third
term to establish a link between the subject and predicate of the conclusion.
Thus, every categorical syllogism consists of three different terms, each of
which appears twice in distinct propositions. These terms have their respective
names; the subject term of the conclusion is called the minor term. And, the
predicate terms of the conclusion is called the major term, and lastly these two
terms also appear in the premise and are connected by the middle term which
is the one that appears in each premises but does appear in the to be revisited
by the author conclusion.

Example
Most Ras Tafarians are alcoholic persons.
All alcoholic persons are bad persons.
So, Some Ras Tafarians are bad persons.
Logicall,y this syllogism involves probabilistic reasoning, hence it is an
induction. And, its major term is “bad persons ”, which is the predicate of the
conclusion. The minor term is “Ras Tafarians”, the subject term of the
conclusion. And, the middle term is “alcoholic persons”.
Moreover, the premises of a categorical syllogism are also given names. The
premise that contains the major term is called the major premise, and the
other premise containing the minor term is called the minor premise. Thus, in
the above argument the major premise is the second premise “all alcoholic
persons are bad persons”, where as the minor premise is the first statement i.e
“most Ras Tafarians are alcoholic persons.”

148
As categorical propositions, categorical syllogisms can be distinguished as
standard and non standard form of categorical syllogism. And, a categorical
syllogism is said to be in a standard form when:
1. all the three statements are standard form of categorical propositions.
2. no, terms are used ambiguously i.e, there is no change in the meaning of
the three terms that appear twice in different statements.
3. the major premise is listed first, the minor premise second and the
conclusion last.
Since the following syllogism does not fulfill the above conditions, it is not
standard form of categorical syllogism
Most Ras Tafarians are alcoholic persons.
All alcoholic persons are bad persons.
Hence, Some Ras Tafarians are bad persons.
For this argument to be standard form of categorical syllogism, first, the first
statement must be translated in to standard form of categorical proposition so
that it can be translated as “Some Ras Tafarians are alcoholic persons ”. Then
the premise containing the major term (predicate of conclusion-bad persons)
i.e. the major premise must be listed first i.e.
All alcoholic persons are bad persons.
Some Ras Tafarians are alcoholic persons .
Hence, Some Ras Tafarians are bad persons. This is a standard form of
categorical syllogism.
So, the structure of standard form of categorical syllogism is as follows:

1. Quantifier ________ Copula ________Must contain the predicate of

the conclusion (major term)
2. Quantifier _________ Copula _________ Must contain the minor term
(the
subject term of the conclusion.)
3. Quantifier _________ Copula _________ _ Conclusion

149
 Minor term (S) Major term (P)

The validity of a standard form of categorical syllogism may be determined

through mere inspection of the form of the syllogism. The form of a categorical
syllogism is a form that consists of its mood and figure i.e

Form = Mood + Figure

A. Mood: the mood of a categorical syllogism consists of the letter names of

the propositions that formulate it. For instance, the mood of the above
argument is “AII”. However, before determining the mood of a categorical
syllogism, one must first put it in to standard form.
And, we have to write, first the letter name for the major premise, second the
letter name for the minor premise and finally the letter name for the
conclusion.
B. Figure: Categorical syllogisms also differ in figure. And the figure of a
standard form of categorical syllogism is specified by the position of the middle
term. And, the middle term of a categorical syllogism may be used as the
subject and predicate of the major and minor premise respectively: as the
predicate of both the major and minor premise, as the subject of both the
major and minor premises, or as the predicate and subject of the major and
minor premises respectively. Therefore, there are four possible figures. And, if
we represent the subject of the conclusion (minor term) by “S ”, the predicate of
the conclusion (major term) by “P” and the middle term by “M ”, then the
syllogism can be figured as follows-
Figure -1- Figure – 2 Figure – 3 Fig– 4

___ M ____P ____P_____ M _____ M ___ P P M

M M M
____S____ M ____S_____ ____ ____ S ____ __S

____ S ___ P ____ S ___ P ____ S ___ P ___ S ___ P

150
So, a syllogism is said to be in figure-1 if the middle term serves as the subject
and predicate term of the major and minor premises respectively. And, it is
said to be in figure-2-when the middle term is used as the predicate of both the
major and minor premises. It is said to be in figure-3-if the same term is used
as the subject of both the major and minor premises. Finally it is said to be in
but not least figure-4-if the middle term serves as the predicate and subject of
the major and minor premises respectively.
For instance: the figure of the following syllogism is figure-1-
All alcoholic persons are bad persons All M are P
Some Ras Tafarians are alcoholic persons Some S are M
Hence, Some Ras Tafarians are bad persons Some S are P.
Thus, the form of the syllogism is Mood: “AII” + Figure 1- = AII-1
Since, there are four standard forms of categorical propositions, and three
standard form of categorical propositions in a syllogism. There are 64 possible
moods. And, since there are four different figures, there are 256 different forms
of standard form of categorical syllogisms. We can therefore study the following
table for that matter
Mood Figure Mood Figure Mood Figure Mood Figure
AAA 1,2,3,4 EAA 1,2,3,4 IAA 1,2,3,4 OAA 1,2,3,4
AAE  EAE  IAE  OAE 
AAI  EAI  IAI  OAI 
AAO  EAO  IAO  OAO 

AEA  EEA  IEA  OEA 
AEE  EEE  IEE  OEE 
AEI  EEI  IEI  OEI 
AEO  EEO  IEO  OEO 

151
 AIA  EIA  IIA  OIA 
AIE  EIE  IIE  OIE 
AII  EII  III  OII 
AIO  EIO  IIO  OIO 
AOA  EOA  IOA  OOA 
AOE  EOE  IOE  OOE 
AOI  EOI  IOI  OOI 
AOO  EOO  IOO  OOO 
Table 4.9
However among the above 256 forms of standard forms of categorical
syllogisms, logicians (traditional/Aristotelian ’s) claim that only 24 of them are
valid, 15- unconditionally valid and 9- conditionally valid. But, according to
modern logicians, only there are 15- unconditionally valid forms of standard
form of categorical syllogisms. Unconditionally valid syllogistic forms are those
that are valid from Boolean standpoint. In other words, they are valid
regardless of whether their terms denote actually existing thing.
Where as conditionally valid syllogistic forms are those that are valid based on
Aristotelian stand point on condition that a certain term (either the major,
minor or middle term) denotes actually existing thing.
Study the following tables which show conditionally and unconditionally valid
forms of syllogistic argument.
Unconditionally Valid forms

Figure- Figure-2 Figure-3 Figure-4

AAA EAE IAI AEE

EAE AEE AII IAI
AII EIO OAO EIO
EIO AOO EIO
Table 4.10
Conditionally Valid Forms

Figure-1 Figure- Figure-3 Figure-4 Required condition

2
AAI AEO AEO S-exists

152
 EAO EAO (minor term)
AAI EAO M- exists
EAO
AAI P- exists
Table 4.11

To test certain forms of syllogistic arguments for validity by using its form, we
have to consult the above two tables. If its form is an instance of the above
valid forms, found in the first table, then it is unconditionally valid. But, if its
form is an instance of the conditionally valid forms listed in the second table ,
we have to look at whether the critical term denotes existing things or not, if it
does the syllogism is valid from Aristotelian standpoint, if not it is invalid and
commits existential fallacy.
Example:
1 All gamblers are alcoholic persons
Some foot ball players are gambles
Therefore, some foot ball players are alcoholic persons.
The form is AII-1. And, a syllogism with this form is always unconditionally
valid, hence the syllogism is valid.

2. All judges are professional

No professional lawyers are dishonest persons,
So, some dishonest persons are not judges.
Its form is AEO-4. And, a syllogism with this form is invalid from Boolean
stand point. But, it may be conditionally valid on the condition that its minor
term denotes actually existing thing. Since professional lawyers actually exist
the inference is valid from Aristotelian logic.
Exercise 4.6
I. Determining whether the following syllogistic arguments are
standard form of categorical syllogism. If they are not, translate
them in to standard form, and then identify the major term, minor

153
 term, middle term, major premise, minor premise, mood, figure,
and then their form.
1. Whatever contains carbon monoxide is poisonous, and cigarette smoke
contains carbon monoxide. Thus, cigarette smoke is poisonous.
2. All acts that promote the general welfare are commanded by God. All acts
commanded by God are obligatory acts. And all acts that promote the
general welfare are obligatory acts.
3. All banks are edges of rivers. Some banks are financial institutions.
Thus, some financial institutions are edges of rivers.
4. All values that can be quantified are important values. No human
emotions are valves that can be quantified. Consequently, no human
emotions are important values.
5. All logic classes are extremely interesting. Hence, since some logic
classes are harder than average, some classes that are harder than
average are extremely interesting.
6. Some draft evaders are not conscientious objectors, and some
conscientious objectors are not Quakers. So some draft evaders are
Quakers.
7. Some lawyers are unethical. All rich tax evaders are unethical, and some
lawyers are rich tax evaders.
8. No lawyers are rich tax evaders. And, all rich tax evaders are unethical
persons. So, no unethical persons are lawyers.
9. All rich tax evaders are unethical persons. All merchants are rich tax
evaders. Accordingly, all merchants are unethical persons.
10. Some criminals are persons who deserve capital punishment. All
criminals are morally wicked persons. Hence, some morally wicked
persons are persons who deserve capital punishment.

II. Use the tables to determine whether the forms of the above
syllogistic arguments are valid.

154
4.7 Testing Syllogisms for Validity: Venn Diagram Method, and
Syllogistic Rules and Formal Fallacies
In the previous section, we have seen that of the 256 forms of standard forms
of categorical syllogism, only 15 of them are unconditionally valid and 9 forms
are conditionally valid from Aristotelian stand point on the condition that a
certain term denotes an actually existing thing. In this section, we will learn
about the two techniques of testing syllogisms for validity in which both
traditional and modern logicians have used to reach on their conclusion that
only 24 forms are valid. So, now we will first see the Venn diagram method
which is very important, and some five rules of valid forms of syllogic
arguments that are both useful to determine whether or not a standard form of
categorical syllogism is valid.
4.7.1The Venn Diagram Method
It has been stated that the four standard form of categorical propositions can
be represented in a Venn diagram. Moreover, diagramming categorical
propositions require two overlapping circles that will stand for the classes
denoted by the subject and predicate terms of the statement. We have also
seen how Venn diagrams can be used to determine the validity of immediate
inferences. Now, since it is standard form of categorical propositions that are
used to make syllogistic arguments, we will study how to represent the
information content of syllogistic arguments so that we can determine their
validity. To understand how to diagram categorical syllogism and use the Venn
diagram to determine the validity of the syllogism, it is important to remember
the following points:
1. Since categorical syllogisms, unlike categorical statements, have three
terms (major, minor and middle terms), diagramming categorical
syllogisms require three overlapping Venn circles.

155
 2. Then, conventionally the top circle will stand to the middle term, and the
lower left circle to the minor term, and the lower right circle to the major
term.
M S- Represents the minor term
1
P- Major term
2 3 4 8
5 M- Middle term
6 7
S P

3. Then, as you can see in the diagram we will find eight areas that

represent different things or possible relationships among the three

sets/classes. Thus,

Area-1 represents things that are M, but not S and P

Area-2 “ “ “ M and S, but not P

Area-3 “ “ “ all M, S, and P

Area-4 “ “ “ M and P, but not S

Area-5 “ “ “ S, but not M and P

Area-6 “ “ “ both S and P, but not M

Area-7 “ “ “ P, but not M and S

Area-8 “ “ “ neither S and M nor P

4. After drawing the diagram we need to transfer the information content of the
syllogism to the diagram, and then use it to determine its validity. To
accomplish this, we have to bear in mind the following important points
a- Marks (shading or placing an “x”) are entered only for the premises. No
marks are made for the conclusion. i.e, we should transfer the assertion
that only the premises make.

156
 b- If one of the premises is universal and the other particular, the universal
one must be entered first. If the premises are similar in terms of their
quantity, either of them can be done first.
c- While entering a statement in to the diagram we need to concentrate on
the circles, or areas that represent things that the statement talked
about.
d- When entering universal premises, we must be care ful to shade all of the
areas in question. And, regarding representing particular premises, the
area where an “x” goes is always initially divided in to two parts. If one of
them has already been shaded, we need to place the “x’ in the unshaded
part. If both parts of the area talked about are unshaded, the “x ” goes on
the line separating the two parts.
e- When inspecting a completed diagram to see whether it supports a
particular conclusion, we need to remember that particular statements
assert two things:
1. They imply existence (have existential import)
2. Affirm or deny partial class inclusion.
f- Finally, to determine the validity of the syllogism, we need to examine the
diagram as to whether it necessarily implies the truth of the conclusion.
If the diagram, without entering the conclusion, has contained the
information of the conclusion, then this means that the premise
necessarily implies the conclusion and the syllogism is valid, other wise
it is invalid.
Now, let us practically see the Ven diagram method in the following
example
1. All Gamblers are alcoholic persons.
Some football players are alcoholic persons.
, Some football players are gamblers.
The form is AII-2. And, we have to note that whenever we test syllogisms for
validity we should first test it based on Boolean stand point. If it is valid, don ’t

157
proceed further Since it is unconditionally valid. But, if it is invalid we need to
retest it based on Aristotelian logic. So, the Venn diagram to the above
syllogism based on Boolean stand points is as follows.

All G are A A

Some F are A 1x
2
, Some F are G F G

First, the conclusion asserts that there is an “x” in the area where the “F ” and
“G” circles overlap. And, careful examination of the diagram shows that there is
nothing which is only “G”, and “F” and “G” for all “G ” are “A ” And, it reveals
that there is an “x”, or one thing in the area where “A ” and “F ” overlap, and
this thing may be only “A” and “F” or “A”, “F” and “G.” Since there is a
possibility for the “x” to be only “A” and “F” the diagram does not necessarily
imply the truth of the conclusion. Thus, the syllogism is invalid. The above
argument is diagrammed and has tested for validity regardless of whether the
universal premise is recognized as having existential import because it does not
make difference. However, now we will shift to the Aristotelian standpoint,
where existential import can make a difference for validity. Hence, as I already
mentioned it above, when one test a syllogism for validity, he/she has to follow
these steps:

1st. Test the syllogism from Boolean standpoint. If the form is valid don ’t
proceed further. The syllogism is unconditionally valid.
2nd. If the syllogistic form is invalid from the Boolean standpoint and there is a
Venn circle that is completely shaded except for one area, adopt the
Aristotelian standpoint and enter a circled “x” in the unshaded part of the
circle. Then retest the form if it is conditionally valid, may be valid on the
condition that one thing denoted by the term represented by the circle actually
exist. If it does, the syllogism is said to be valid from Aristotelian standpoint.

158
Otherwise it is invalid and commits existential fallacy from Aristotelian
standpoint. Here we must remember that all conditionally valid forms,
syllogisms that are valid from Aristotelian standpoint, are invalid from Boolean
(modern logician’s) standpoint and commits existential fallacy from Boolean
standpoint. And these are arguments containing both universal premises, and
a particular conclusion. In both cases existential fallacy occurs when an
argument (particularly a categorical syllogism) is invalid merely because the
premise lacks existential import, while the conclusion has. And from Boolean
standpoint this happen when both premises are universal and the conclusion
is particular. All arguments with these arrangements are invalid, and commit
existential fallacy from Boolean standpoint. However in Aristotelians logic
syllogisms with this arrangement may be conditionally valid. They can be
invalid and commits existential fallacy, if the required condition is not fulfilled.
Now let us consider some more examples.
1. All persons interesting in foreign affairs are good citizens. Some voters are
not good citizens. Therefore some voters are not persons interesting in
foreign affairs. AOO-2

All P are G G

Some V are not G

x
Therefore, Some V are not P. V P

The conclusion states that there is at least one thing that is only a voter,
means there is an “x” that is inside the “V” circle, but out side the “P ” circle.
And inspection of the diagram reveals that thee is indeed an “x ” in this area so
the syllogistic argument is unconditionally valid.

2. No P are M EAO-4

159
 All M are S

Therefore, Some S are not P S P

The conclusion claims that there is an “X” that is inside the S-circle, but
outside the P-circle. But, the diagram for the premises drawn based on Boolean
standpoint does not contain the information content of the conclusion. Hence,
the syllogistic form is invalid form based on Boolean logic.
Let us reexamine it from Aristotelian stand point. And since the “M ” circle is
shaded except one of its parts, let us place a circled “x” in that area (area 2).
Then if there is something in area 2 (that represents things that are only “S ”
and “M” and not “P”) the assertion of the conclusion that there is one “S ” which
is not a “P”, can be true. Hence the syllogism is valid, from Aristotelian
standpoint, on the condition that one thing that is “M ” actually exist. If not it is
invalid and commits existential fallacy. M
2. No P are M
x
All M are S
AEO-4
Therefore, Some S are not P S P

3. Some P are not M OEO-4 M

No M are S

Therefore, Some S are not P. S 1 X2 P

The conclusion states that at least one “S” is outside “P” meaning there is an
“x” inside the “S” but outside the “P” circle however inspection of the diagram
don’t contain this information rather it reveals that nothing is known about
things that are only “S” and there is a possibility to the existence of one thing
that is both “S” and “P,” but not “M.” Hence, the syllogism is invalid from
Boolean standpoint, and it is also invalid from Aristotelian standpoint for there
is no a circle that is completely shaded except for one area. M
4. OAO-3 Some M are not P
X

160
 All M are S

Therefore, Some S are not P. S P

The conclusion states that at least one “S” that is not a “P, ” in other words

there is an “x” inside the “S” circle, but outside the “P” circle the diagram also

reveals that there is an “x” inside the “S” circle but outside the “P ” circle.

Hence, the syllogistic form is unconditionally valid.

5. AIO-1 M

All M are P
x
Some S are M

Therefore, Some S are not P. S P

The conclusion asserts that there is an “x” that is inside the “S ”- circle, but
outside the “P”- circle however inspection of the diagram reveals that the
opposite is true. Means there is an “x” that is common for all circles. So, the
syllogism is invalid

6- AAI-4 All Pare M M

All M are S

So, Some S are P. S P

The conclusion states that there is an “x” inside both the “S ” and “P ” circles.
But, the diagram based on Boolean standpoint does not contain this
information. Therefore, the syllogistic argument form is invalid from Boolean
standpoint. However since the “P” circle is completely shaded except for one
area. Let us examine the syllogism for conditional validity based on Aristotelian
standpoint by placing a circled “x in that area.”
M

161
 x

S P

Thus, if there is one thing that is inside the “M”, “S”, and “P” circles, the
conclusion that asserts there is one thing (or an “x”) inside both the “S” and “P”
circles can be true. But, this will be the case if the predicate term of the
conclusion (the major term) denotes an actually existing thing. If it does, it is
valid from Aristotelian stand point; if it doesn’t exist, the syllogism is invalid
and commits Existential fallacy.

4.7.2Syllogistic Rules and Formal Fallacies

There are about five rules of valid forms of syllogistic arguments that are drawn
and have been proved by using Venn Diagrams. If either of these rules is
broken the syllogism is invalid, and accordingly a specific formal fallacy will be
committed. Among these rules two of them depends on the concept of
distribution, the other two on the concept of quality and the other one on the
concept of quantity.
Rule 1: In a valid standard form argument of categorical syllogism, the middle
term must be distributed at least once. And, a syllogism that violates this rule
is said to commit a formal fallacy called undistributed middle.
The following forms are instances of argument forms committing undistributed
middle fallacy: AAA-2, AAE-2, AIA-2, AIA-4, AIE-2, AIE-4, OAA-1, IOA-3, IOA-
4 … and others.

All P are M
All S are M
Hence, No S are P. The middle term is undistributed in both premises;
so that the syllogism is invalid and commits undistributed middle fallacy.

Rule 2: In a valid standard from of categorical syllogism if a term is

distributed in the conclusion, then it must also be distributed in a premise. In

162
other words, if the predicate of the conclusion (the major term) is distributed in
the conclusion it must also be distributed in the major premise, and the same
is true for the minor term (the subject of the conclusion). If the major term is
only distributed in the conclusion not in the major promise, the syllogism is
invalid and committed a formal fallacy called illicit-major. However, if the
minor term is distributed in the conclusion, but not in the minor promise then
the syllogism commits the fallacy of illicit-minor.

Examples:
Syllogistic forms that commit illicit major are: AAE-1, AAE-3, AAO-1, AAO-3,
AIE-1, AIE-3, AEO-1, AEO-3, AIO-1, AIO-3, AOE-1 AoE-3, AOO-1, AOO-3, IAE-
1, 1, 2, 3, and 4, IAO-1, 2, 3, 4 and others.
Examples:
Standard form: 1- Some M are P 2. Some P are not M
All S are M All S are M
So, Some S are not P So, Some S are not P
Syllogistic forms that commit Illicit minor are: AAE-3, AAE-4, EAA-3, EAA-
4, EAE-3, EAE-4, OOE-1, OOE-2 and others.
Standard form: Some M are not P
Some S are not M
Hence, No S are P
To detect these two fallacies that occur when a syllogism have broken this rule,
one must always examine the conclusion first. If no term is distributed in the
conclusion, this rule can’t be violated.
Rule 3: No valid syllogism has two negative premises. If the quality of both the
major and minor premises is negative, the syllogism is invalid and commits the
fallacy of exclusive premises. Thus all standard forms of categorical syllogism
that consist of only “E” and “O” statements as premises are invalid and
commits the fallacy of exclusive premises.
Some instance of argument forms committing exclusive premise are:
Example: EEE-1,2,3,4; EEA-1,2,3,4 EOI-1,2,3,4….

163
Example: Standard form Some lawyers are not judges
No judges are dishonest
Therefore, Some lawyers are not dishonest.
Rule 4: A negative premise requires a negative conclusion, and a negative
conclusion requires negative premise. In other words any valid syllogism has
one negative premise only if it is has a negative conclusion. However, if a
syllogism has only one negative statement it is invalid. Thus if only the
conclusion is negative the syllogism is invalid and commits the fallacy of
drawing a negative conclusion from affirmative premises. And if only one of
the promises is negative, while the conclusion and the other premise is
affirmative then the syllogism is invalid and is said to commit a fallacy of
drawing an affirmative conclusion from a negative premise, For instance:
AIO-1, 2, 3, 4; AAE-1, 2, 3, 4; IIE-1, 2, 3, 4; IIO-1,2,3,4; AIE-1,2,3,4, and the
like are instances of drawing a negative conclusion from affirmative premises.
Example: Standard form: All M are P
Some M are S
So, Some S are not P

Drawing an affirmative conclusion from a negative premise instance forms:

EIA-1, 2, 3, 4; OII-1, 2 ,3, 4; AEI-1, 2, 3, 4; EAA-1, 2, 3, 4 and others.

Example: Standard form: All M are P

Some S are not M
So, Some S are P

Rule 5: No syllogism is valid from Boolean stand point, unlike Aristotlian

Stanh point, has two universal premises and a particular conclusion. If both
premises are universal and the conclusion particular the syllogism is invalid
from Boolean standpoint. This is because, according to Boolean stand point,
only particulars have existential import and such kind of conclusion can follow

164
only from at least a statements with existential import. Hence since universal
premises have no existential import; a syllogism, having existential import,
whose conclusion follow from such premises is invalid and commits
Existential fallacy.
If a syllogism violates only rule number five it may be valid from Aristotelian
standpoint on the condition that the term represent by the circle with one
unshaded area (the critical term) denotes at least one a actually existing thing.
But, according to Boolean, all standard forms of categorical syllogism with
universal premises and a particular conclusion is invalid and commit
existential fallacy. Instances of existential fallacy are:
AAI-1, 2, 3, 4; EAI-1, 2, 3, 4; EEI-1, 2, 3, 4; AEO-1, 2, 3, 4; EAO-1, 2, 3, 4; and
others are invalid and commits existential fallacy.
Examples: Standard form: No cats are dogs

All cats are mammals

Thus, Some mammals are dogs. C

No C are D

All C are M

So, Some M are D M D

The conclusion states that there is an “x” inside both the “M ” and “D ”circles.
But inspection of the diagram does not reveal this information. So the
syllogism is invalid. However, from Aristotelian standpoint, since the “C ” circle
has unshaded area then we may place a circled “x” in that area and the
syllogism is valid on the condion that the term represented by that area
denotes actually existing thing.
C
x

M D

165
Hence, since cats actually exist, the syllogism is valid from Aristotelian logic;
while it is invalid from Boolean logic.
Exercise 4.7
I. After translating in to Standard form test the following form of
syllogisms for validity by using the Venn diagram method from both
standpoints.
1) OAE-3 9. AEE-2
2) AAI-1 10. IOO-4
3) IIA- 4 11. EOO-1
4) IAI- 4 12. IEE-3
5) AOO-2 13. IAA-2
6) EIO-3 14. OOI-4
7) AAI- 4 15. EAO-3
8) AOE-2
II. Check whether or not the above syllogisms are the invalid ones. If they
violate one of the five rules of valid forms of syllogistic arguments, identify the
formal fallacies they contain.
III. Write a Standard form of categorical syllogism that:
A. Commits existential fallacy from Aristotelian standpoint
B. Is unconditionally valid and both its major premise and conclusion
assert that at least one of the things denoted by their subject terms
is out side the class denoted by their predicate terms.
4.8 Enthymemes and Sorites
An Enthymeme is an argument that is missing, or suppresses a premise or a
conclusion, but is capable of being expressed as a categorical syllogism. In
other words enthymemes are incompletely stated arguments. The arguer
expresses his argument enthymematically for different reasons. First of all, the
arguer may presume that the unstated proposition is a matter of common
knowledge. Secondly an argument will be rhetorically more powerful and
persuasive when stated enthymematically. Aristotle him self wrote that

166
“speeches that…rely on enthymemes excite the louder applause.” Needless to
say enthymemic arguments are invalid when the missed/suppressed or
presupposed information is left out of the argument.

When testing an enthymeme in argument, one must have its suppressed parts
taken in to account. Though any kind of argument can be expressed
enthymematically, we will learn about incompletely expressed syllogistic
arguments. And there are three types of enthymematically expressed
syllogisms are those whose major premise is not stated. The first order
enthymemes. A second order enthymeme is the one whose only the major
premise and the conclusion is stated while the minor premise being
suppressed. In third order enthymeme both premises are stated but the
conclusion is left unexpressed. Moreover, in order to identify what is missing
one must remember the following important points:
1. If the enthymeme contains premise indictor, what is missing is the
conclusion but when it contains conclusion indicator, what is missing is
the premise. Finally if there is a premise and a conclusion indicator on two
respective statements, what is missing is the premise.
2. If an enthymeme conations no indicator words then the missing
statement could be either a premise or a conclusion. If the given statements
are conjoined by words like “and,” “but” moreover,” or some other
conjunction, the missing statement is usually a conclusion. If not, the first
steamiest is usually the concussion, and the missing statement is a
premise. To check this, one can replace the conjunction by the word
“because.” If it makes sense the missing statement is a premise.
Example 1:
1. Socrates is a man, and Socrates is mortal.
The missing statement is a premise; specifically the major premise that is
“All men are mortal” is left out. And the argument can be arranged and
written as:

167
 All men are mortal
Socrates is a man
Therefore, Socrates is mortal.

To test the above syllogism for validity, the enthymeme has to be written as
a standard form categorical syllogism as:
All men are mortal
All persons identical to Socrates are men
So, All persons identical to Socrates are mortal
The form of the above categorical syllogism is AAA-1, and it is
unconditionally valid
M

P S

The conclusion states that the area that represents things that are only “S, ”
and “S” and “P” is shaded. The diagram also contains the information contents
of the conclusion; means the conclusion is necessarily implied by the premise.
So that the argument is valid.
Example: 2. Whenever interest rate rises the stock market declines and
interstarates are rising now.
The missing statement is the conclusion that thus “the stock market is
declining now.” To test the syllogism for validity the complete syllogistic
argument must be written as a standard form categorical syllogism as follows:
All times interest rate rise are times the stock market decline. All times
identical to now are time that interest rate rise. Therefore, all times identical to
now are times the stock market decline.
The form is AAA-1, and syllogism that is an instance of this form is
unconditionally valid as we have seen above.
B. Sorites:

168
The term sorites is derived from the Greek word “Soros, ” which means “heap ”
and pronounced as sorties the plural form is sorites. Sorites is a chain of
categorical syllogisms in which the intermediate conclusion have been left out.
Example:
1. All diplomats are tactful individuals.
Some government officials are diplomats.
All government officials are people in public life.
Hence, some people in public life are tactful individuals. This sorites has two
categorical syllogisms.
If the two syllogisms are valid, the sorites will be also valid. But if any of the
component syllogisms in a sorites is invalid the entire sorites is invalid. Let us
examine the above sorites:
All diplomats are tactful individuals Some government officials
are diplomats Syllogism 1

 Some government officials are tactful individuals

All government officials are people in public life Syllogism 2
 Some people in public life are tactful individuals.
Testing the sorties for validity requires testing component categorical
syllogisms. Thus, D
Syllogism-1 has the form AII-1
x

G T

The concussion states that there is an “x” inside both the “G ” and “D ” circles.
Inspection of the diagram also reveals that there is an “x ” inside all the three
circles. This means the conclusion is necessarily implied by the premises, and
the syllogism is valid.
Syllogism- 2 Some G are T

All G are P

169
 So, Some P are T. The form is IAI-3, it is unconditionally valid.

Let us examine it by using Venn diagram.

x
P T

Since the diagram implies the truth of the conclusion the syllogism is valid.
This is because the conclusion states that there is an “x ” inside both the “P ”
and “T” circles. Inspection of the diagram reveals that there is an “x ” inside all
the “P”, “T”, and “G” circles. And since the component syllogisms of the sorties
are both valid, we can conclude that the sorites as a whole is also valid.
1 None but writers are poets.
Only military officers are astronauts.
Whoever contributes a new magazine is a poet.
Nobody is both a military officer and a writer.
Thus, not one astronaut is a contributor to the new magazine.

To test the above sorites for validity, first let us standardize and rearrange the
order of the above categorical proposition as:

1. All poets are writers ………………….. All P are W

2. All astronauts are military officers …. All A are M
3. All persons who contributes to the new magazine are poets
…….. All C are P
4. No military officers are writers …………………No M are W
5. Therefore, no astronauts are persons who contribute to the new
magazine …No A are C.
There are three syllogisms that make the sorites. These are syllogism one
contains proposition “1”and “3”
1. All P are W Syllogism 1
3. All C are P

170
 So, All C are W
4. No M are W Syllogism 2
So, No M are C
2. All A are M Syllogism 3
No A are C
Let us test whether or not the above sorties are valid.
P
Syllogism-1 All P are W AAA-1 is unconditionally valid

All C are P

So, All C are W C W

The conclusion states that areas that represent things that are only “C ”, and

only “C” and “P” are shaded since all C’s are inside “W.” The diagram also

shows the same thing. Hence the syllogism is valid

Syllogism-2 All C are W W

No M are W

, No M are C M C

The form is AEE 2, and such kinds of syllogism are unconditionally valid, (see

table 4.10)

The conclusion states that the area where the “M”, circle and the “C ” circle
overlap is shaded. Inspection of the diagram reveals that the same area is in
fact shaded. This means the diagram necessarily imply the truth of the
conclusion. And, the syllogism is therefore valid.
Syllogism 3 – No M are C the form is EAE-1
All A are M

171
 , No A are C. And, a syllogism that is an instance of this form is
unconditionally valid (see table .4.10), Or study the following diagram).
M

A C

The conclusion states that the area where circle “A” and the “C” circle overlap
is shaded. Inspection of the diagram reveals that the same area is shaded.
Hence, the syllogism is valid. Consequently, for the three component syllogisms
of the sorties are valid, it follows that the sorties is valid.
Exercise 4.8
I. After identifying the missing statement (Premise or conclusion),
supply the missing statement and then rewrite the argument in
away that it makes sense.
1. If we employ economic sanctions, the poor will suffer. If we send in
troops, a lot of innocent people will be killed out right. Therefore, either
the poor will suffer or a lot of innocent poor people will be killed out
right.
2. Since the economy is in recession, the commercial bank of Ethiopia will
lower the interest rate.
3. Some Ethiopians are good athletes, and some Ethiopians are strong
people.
4. Either truth is relative to persons or it is objective. Now, if truth is
relative to persons, then the earth can be flat and round at the same
time. Therefore, truth is objective.
5. No honest men are crooks. It follows then that no businessmen are
honest.
II. Translate the following sorites in standard form. Then supply the
intermediate conclusion and test the sorites for validity with Venn
diagrams.

172
 1. No skiers are non athletic
Some nutritionists are skiers
No athletes are brawny
So, some nutritionists are not brawny
2. No Care D
All A are B
Some Care not B
So, Some D are not A
3. Some T are K
No K are N
Some C are Q
All T are C
So, Some Q are not N

Chapter Summary
Syllogistic logic deals with categorical propositions and syllogisms. Categorical
proposition is, as any kind of proposition that makes a claim that can be
evaluated as true or false, a statement that relates two classes, categories, sets
or groups. The four standard forms of categorical propositions have their own
letter names. Thus, universal affirmatives, universal negatives, particular
affirmatives and particular negatives are represented by “A”, “E”, “I”, and “O”
respectively. These propositions are interpreted in different senses by
traditional and modern standpoints. They try to establish logical relations
(contradictory, contrary, sub-contrary and subalternation) between these
statements based on their own interpretation. And these different senses of
interpretations of the information content of standard forms of categorical
propositions may be represented in a Venn diagram. If conversion, obversion
and contraposition operations were performed on the four propositions, we will
find new propositions. Immediate inferences may be established by using the
above four logical relations and operations like conversion. However, if the
inferences violate the rues of immediate inferences, it may commit one of the

173
following formal fallacies: illicit contrary, illicit sub-contrary, illicit
subalternation, illicit conversion, illicit obversion, and illicit contraposition.
Finally language statements may be translated in to standard forms of
categorical proposition by presenting them in a way they have subject term,
standard quantifier, copula and predicate term and express their meaning in
the same way.

A categorical syllogism is an argument with three categorical propositions and

has three terms (middle. Major and minor terms), each of which appears twice
in distinct propositions. The premises of standard form categorical propositions
have their own names. Thus the premise containing the major term (predicate
of the conclusion) is called major premise, while the one that contain the minor
term (subject of) the conclusion is called minor premise. Standard form
categorical syllogism is the one that both its premises and conclusion are
standard form categorical propositions, no term is used ambiguously or
vaguely, and its major premise listed first, minor premise second, and then the
conclusion. Standard form categorical syllogisms can be tested for validity by
merely examining their form, using the rules of valid forms of syllogistic
arguments, or Venn diagram technique. If a syllogism has invalid form or
violates either of the syllogistic rules it may commit either of the following
formal fallacies: undistributed middle, illicit major, illicit minor, exclusive
premise fallacy, drawing conclusion from unsupportive quality, or existential
fallacy. Enthymemes are arguments with missing statements (premise,
conclusion or both). But mostly it is syllogisms that can be expressed
enthymemetically for different reasons. Such kinds of enthymemes (including
quasi syllogisms) can be converted in to standard form categorical syllogism by
providing the missing statement. A sorites is an argument consisting of chain
of syllogisms in which the intermediate conclusions have been suppressed.

174
Determining the validity of a sorites requires testing all syllogisms that makes
it up after supplying the intermediate conclusions.

Chapter 5
Propositional Logic (9 hrs)
Introduction
In the previous chapters, we have learned about various techniques and
methods of testing arguments for validity as there are different kinds and
complex forms of arguments. The evaluation and analysis of arguments is often
made difficult by their length and complexity. To avoid these difficulties and to
evaluate arguments systematically, modern logicians have developed symbolic
language. Thus, since this chapter is devoted for studying propositional logic,
we will discuss about and thoroughly examine the nature and importance of
propositions in logic.

For this purpose we will see propositions by classifying them as simple and
compound propositions. And unlike syllogistic logic the fundamental elements
indivisible units in propositional logic are simple (atomic) sentences not terms.
In addition we will study the English expressions and the respective logical
operators (symbols) that are used to compound atomic sentences whose truth
value entirely depend on the truth or falsity of their component sentences and

175
the connectives. The chapter will discuss on what these sentence connectives
are to mean for the validity of arguments. Moreover, we will inspect the logical
relationships between statements being consistent, or inconsistent with one
another as well as their logical properties such as being tautologous,
contingent, and self contradictory. We will also consider some other techniques
of evaluating propositional arguments.
Objectives:
Thus, after studying this chapter students will be able to:
 understand the distinction between simple and compound propositions,
 know the nature of truth functional compounds,
 see the role of truth functional connectives,
 sketch and use truth tables to determine the truth value of compound
propositions and prove the validity of arguments,
 symbolize propositions and prove the validity of arguments,
 identify the different logical relationships between statements and logical
properties of compound propositions,
 familiar with valid and invalid forms of arguments,
 Use the different methods of evaluating arguments for validity, i.e. truth
tables (direct and indirect), conditional and indirect proof.
5.1 Simple and Compound Propositions
As indicated in the previous chapters, propositions are the basis of arguments,
and evaluating arguments is the very task of logic. Thus, the purpose of logic
can be achieved through deeper examination of propositions so as to have
detail insight of them. And propositional logic is part of symbolic logic that
studies ways of joining and modifying the entire propositions to form more
complicated statements as well as the logical relationships and properties that
are derived from those methods of combining or altering statements. In other
words, propositional logic deals with the relationships holding between
sentences (simple or compound), without dealing with the interior structure of
atomic sentences. Thus, unlike syllogistic logic the fundamental elements

176
/indivisible units in propositional logic are atomic sentences, not terms. Now
let us examine the difference between the statements in the following
arguments.
Example:
1. George W. Bush was president of the U.S.A. George W. Bush is a son of a
president of the U.S.A. Therefore, there is some one who was both a
president of the United States and a son of a president of the United States.
2. Teddy Afro is guilty of committing the crime that he has been suspected or
he is innocent. In fact Teddy is not guilty; hence he is innocent of having
committed a crime.
As we see in the above examples, the two arguments are consists of variety of
statements in which such statements can be divided in to two categories:
simple and compound propositions.
A simple statement or an atomic statement is one that does not contain any
other statement as a component. For instance, the second premise and the
conclusion of the second argument and the two premises of the first argument
are simple statements.
A compound statement however, is one that contains at least one simple
statement as a component. The first premise “Teddy Afro is guilty of
committing the crime that he has been suspected or he is innocent. ” And the
conclusion of the second argument, “There was some one who was both the
president of U.S.A and the son of the president of the U.S.A ” are instances of
compound statements. Compound statement is constructed from simple
sentences by means of sentential connectives. In talking about compound
statements we have to be aware of the following points:
 How the compound propositions are formed from atomic sentences by
means of sentence connectives.
 Not all compound propositions are consisting of simple sentences.
Example: it is not the case that the moon is made of blue cheese. This is
a compound proposition.

177
  How sentence operators and truth value of component propositions affect
the truth value of the compound proposition.
For further understanding of compound statements, let us examine the
following examples:
1. It is not the case that all laws are man made.
2. Iran raises the price of oil but Saudi Arabia does not raise the price of
oil.
3. Either we reduce the birth rate or soon there won’t be any room to sit
down.
4. If he has a good lawyer, he will be acquitted.
5. Alemu believes that Kalkidan is dishonest.
All the above sentences including the first and the last one are component of
atomic sentences, they contain a single component with the phrases “it is not
the case that” and “Alemu believes that” respectively. And it is these
expressions that make them compound. The only difference between these two
statements is that the former one is truth functional while the later one is not.
We will discuss about the issue of truth functionality later.

5.2 Sentence Connectives, Truth Functional Propositions and

Truth Table.
As far as sentential logic is concerned there are expressions like “it is not the
case that”, “but”, “and”, “not”, “it is false that”, “however”, “whenever”,
“because”, “or”, “either...or…”, “unless”, “if … then….”, “if”, “only if”, “on
condition that”, “if and only if”, “is a sufficient and necessary condition for ”,
“implies that”, “yet”, “although”, “on the other hand”, “still ”, and other similar
expressions are important to form compound sentences. And, in propositional
logic these English expressions can be translated in to either of the five major
logical operators/sentence connectives that we are supposed to discuss below.
Sentence connectives/propositional operators are non-verbal constant symbols
that are used to connect simple propositions, except negation. Most

178
importantly, these operators/sentence connectives are truth functional i.e. they
can determine the truth or falsity of compound sentences by using the truth
value of their component sentences. The five major logical operators that are
often used to translate the above expressions are. Tilde (~) or stroke (-), dot (•)
or ampersand (&), wedge, or the Veel (V), horse shoe () or implication (→), and
triplebar (≡) or bi-implication (↔). The following table clearly illustrates the
logical function of these operators that are used to translate different forms of
expressions.

Logical Name Logical function Used to translate

operators
~ , or - Tilde, or stroke Negation Not, it is not the case
that, it is false that,
•, or & Dot, or Conjunction But, and, also, more over,
ampersand however because, still, on
the other hand,
V Wedge/Veel Disjunction Or, either…… or …….,
, or ↔ Horse shoe, or Conditional/ If, if …then …., only if,
implication implication implies that, on condition
that, given that…
≡ Or ↔ Triple bar, or bi- Equivalences bi- If and only if, is a
implication conditional sufficient and necessary
condition for,

Table 5.1
However, the connectives or logical operators are used to translate the
respective English expressions does not mean that the expressions are
identical to operators. The difference is that the expressions like “and ”, “but ”,
“unless”, “only if”,…are often vague and their meaning may vary with context,

179
while the operators, or symbols capture only part of the logical meaning of the
expressions as they are used in sentential logic.
In propositional logic, atomic and compound propositions (truth functional,
complex, or any form of compound propositions) can be represented
symbolically. In doing this we will use any convenient upper case letters (A-Z)
to represent atomic sentences. And these are called constants. On the other
hand, lowercase letters like (p, q, r, s…) are used to represent statement
variables of compound propositions. Thus, symbolically (by using constants for
atomic statements, and logical operators that translate the English
expressions) the following five compound statements may be represented as
follows:

1. It is not the case that A ~A

2. I but not S I • ~S
3. B or ~R B v ~R
4. A if G G A
5. D if and only if P D ≡ P
Though the first statement is a compound proposition, since it is not truth
functional we can not symbolize it. There are also compound propositions like
the second and third statements that have contained more than one logical
operators. In such cases, we have to identify the main operator, (an operator in
a compound statement that governs the largest component(s) in the statement)
to determine the type of the statement. Thus, the main operators in the second

and tird statements mentioned above are (•) and (V) respectivesy.

The above five statements have also their own logical names. Thus, the

statement ~A is called a negation. The statement I • ~S is called a

conjunction or a conjunctive statement. The statements I and ~S are called
conjunctions. The third statement B V ~R is called a disjunction/a
disjunctive statement, and its components B and ~ R are called disjuncts. The
statement G  A is called a conditional sentence and it expresses the relation

180
of material implication and its component sentence G is called its
antecedent /or implicans. While the other sentence A is called consequent of
implicate. Finally, the last statement D ≡ P is called a bi-conditional
statement, and it expresses the relation of material equivalence. And, all the
sentences are named after the logical function of their respective connectives or
logical operators. We will see how to use the logical operators to translate
additional statements when we discuss about the five truths functional
propositions.

5.2.1 Truth functional Propositions and Truth Tables

In the previous section, it has been stated that logical operators are used to
translate expressions that are necessary and important to form compound
propositions. And it is only propositions compounded by using the logical
operators/truth functional connectives like negation (~,–), conjunction (·, &),
disjunction (V)…and the like in which their truth value can be determined by
the truth value of its component sentences that are called truth functional
compound propositions. The truth value of compound proposition expressed
in terms of one or more logical connective is said to be a function of the truth
values of its components. However, not all compound propositions are truth
functional. For example, in the previous examples, “Alemu believes that
Kalkidan is dishonest” is a compound sentences, but not truth functional. It is
compound because it contains the statement “Kalkidan is dishonest ”, and the
phrase “Alemu believes” as components. But the truth value of the statement
“Kalkidan is dishonest” does not determine the truth value of the compound
“Alemu believes that Kalkidan is dishonest”, because no truth functional
connective is contained. Moreover, it is possible only to present truth
functional compounds symbolically in terms of statement variable. As it is
mentioned before, statement variables are lower case letters (p, q, r, s …) that
can stand for any compound statement. But, atomic sentences can be
represented by constants, means caps letters (A-Z). And also statement

181
variables are used to construct statement forms. A statement form is an
arrangement of statement variables and operators such that the uniform
substitution of statements in place of the variables results in a statement.
There are five kinds of truth functional compound statements. These are:
negations, conjunctions, disjunctions, conditionals, and bi-conditionals.

1. Negation
Negation is one of those truth functional compound sentences which is formed
by using expression like “it is not the case that ”, “it is false that ”, as prefix, or
by inserting the word “not” in a simple statement. And, as we have seen in the
previous table, these expressions are logically represented by either of the
following logical operators, tilde (~) or stroke (-) operator.
Examples:
1. “It is not the case that all judges are dishonest ”, is a negation and if we use
the constant “J” to represent the atomic sentence “all judges are dishonest ”,
then the compound can be symbolized as. “~J”
2. “Saudi Arabia does not raise the price of Oil ”, can also be
represented/symbolized as: “~S”.
Thus, all compound statements in which their component sentences are
governed by the tilde (~), or stroke (–) operator are negations. All of the
following sentences are negations for that matter:
~H
~ (B H)
~ (AVB)
~ [(B≡H) · (C≡D)]
This instance also shows that all the other operators like conjunctions,
disjunctions, conditionals, or bi-conditionals can also be negated.

182
Most importantly negation is the denial of the original statement, and its truth
value (i.e. negation is the exact opposite of the original proposition). So,
negation does not connect anything in strict sense, rather it is a truth
functional connective that is important to determine the truth value of a
proposition produced by negating of a statement. It follows that the truth value
of the negation of any true statement is false and the negation of any false
statement is true. Thus, in the above examples if both “J ” and “S ” are actually
true, then “~ J” and “~ S” will be false. But if “J” and “S ” are fals e, their
respective negations “~J” and “~S” will be true. The truth function of such kind
of statements can be presented in truth tables by presenting all the possible
truth values of the original statement in the left hand side of the column of the
table and the truth values of its negation, in the right hand column of the
table. Thus, if p and ~p, the statement variables, stand for the above statement
forms, the truth table of negations can be presented as follows:
P ~P
T F
F T
Table 5.2
N.B A truth table is an arrangement of truth values that shows how the value
of a compound proposition depends on the truth values of its simple
components. The application of truth tables will be discussed in the coming
sections.
2. Conjunction
A conjunction or conjunctive statement is a truth functional compound
proposition that is formed by connecting two atomic sentences by using
expressions like “and”, “but”, “as well as”, “also”, “although ”, “yet ”, “however ”,
“on the other hand”, “still”, “despite the fact that ”, “moreover ”, “nevertheless”,
“both… and”, and other expressions in a logical sense that can be translated by
the dot (·) or ampersand (&) operators. And, the two simpler propositions

183
connected by the conjunctive connectors are called conjuncts. Usually it is
“and” that is used to conjoin conjuncts.
Examples
1. Aristotle is a Greek philosopher and Plato is a Greek philosopher.
Symbols. A·P
2. Iran raises the price of oil, but Saudi Arabia does not raise the price of
oil. I·~S
3. The food is good though its price is very expensive.
F·P
4. Yesterday you went to the post office because I called Zinabu at the
phone box. Y·Z
“And”, “but”, “though”, and “because”, are the sentential connectives of the
above four compound propositions in order. And, the sentences preceding and
succeeding the conjunctive connectors are their respective conjuncts. And, like
negations all complex compound sentences that contain the conjunctive
connectors (· or &) as their main operator are conjunctions. All of the following
sentences are conjunctions.
(E · ~ F)
[(GVH) ·K)]
[(L ≡ M) · (NVO)]
[(R T)] V (S U)] · [(W ≡ X) V (Y ≡ Z)]
However, words like and, but, yet… and other stylistic variants are truth
functional connectors when they are used in a logical sense. For instance, the
word “and” is ambiguous and sometimes has enumerative sense. The word
“and” is a truth functional connector only when it serves unambiguously to
determine the truth value of conjuncts.
Example:
“Aristotle and Plato are Greek philosophers. ” In this proposition the word “and ”
is used in an enumerative sense, and the statement is not truth functional
compound sentence. However, if we arrange it as “Aristotle is a Greek

184
philosopher and Plato is a Greek Philosopher” it will be truth functional
proposition, and the truth value of component sentences (conjuncts) and the
sentential connective can determine the truth value of the conjunction
compound sentence. Thus, if we represent the conjuncts by statement
variables (p and q) then the conjunction can be symbolized as (p · q) and the
possible truth values of the compound can be summarized in a truth table as
follows:

P q p·q
T T T
T F F
F T F
F F F
Table 5.3
The above truth table shows that a conjunction is true only when both or all of
its component sentences (conjuncts) are true and is false in all other cases.
Thus, the above conjunction “Aristotle is a Greek Philosopher and Plato is a
Greek philosopher” is true for both of its conjuncts are true. However, as we
have learned previously, conjunctions may be ambiguous. And, this problem
can be avoided by using symbols like brackets, braces and parentheses when
one symbolize such statements. As they are used in mathematics, brackets
[ ], braces { }, and parentheses ( ) can also be used to avoid or minimize
ambiguities in symbolic logic.
For instance, consider the following mathematical equation, 6 ÷3 x 5=10. Is
this expression true or false? As it stands the equation is both true and false
for it is ambiguous. To avoid ambiguity of such kind in mathematical
equations, we can use brackets and parentheses so that the expression will be
necessarily true if it is written as (6 ÷3) x5=10. Though mathematical and
logical usage of parentheses and brackets are not always the same, symbolic
representation of complex and large compound propositions as negated

185
conjunction, negated disjunction...is impossible in logic with out bracket and
parentheses.
Examples:
1 Diego Maradona never played for Man United, but Eric Kantona did. This
proposition can be represented as: ~D· E.
2. Diego Maradona never played for Man United, and Eric Kantona did not
either. ~ D · ~E
3. It is false that both Diego Maradona and Eric Kantona did play for man
United. ~ (D· E)
Thus, as you see from the above examples, ~ D·~E and ~ (D·E) are not logically
equivalent. And as the third example shows ambiguity of conjunction arises
when the conjunction refers about the same thing, person, and condition. And,
it should be known that a conjunction is not the same as a denial of its
conjuncts.

3. Disjunction
It is known that “or” and its stylistic variants as “either …or …”, “unless ”, are
expressions that are frequently used as disjunctive sentence connectives. And
the compound proposition that is formed by connecting two simple sentences
by the word “or”, or “either …or …” is called a disjunction or alternation. The
two component sentences connected to form a disjunction compound sentence
are called disjuncts or alternatives. Logicians call disjunctions, alternations
and their component sentences, disjuncts/alternates because such kind of
propositions usually provides a choice of the two given alternatives.
Disjunctions can also be formed by using expressions like “at least one of ”, or
“unless.” And, “or” and its stylistic variants are represented by the wedge or
Veel “V”, the symbol borrowed from the Latin word veel, meaning “or ”. And, in
Latin the veel has two meanings, “ either… or… , or both”, that is commonly
referred to as the inclusive or weak sense of the word “or.” and the strong or
exclusive sense of the word “or” i.e. “either … or… but not both.”

186
Examples:
1. Man.United will defeat arsenal or Liverpool. M. AVL
2. Either we reduce the birth rate or soon there will be new mouths to feed.
BVM
Both of the above sentences are disjunctions. But, if we carefully examine their
meaning, then we can observe that there are two different senses of the
sentence connective “or”. The first one is that the word “or ” can be used in a
strong or exclusive sense, in which the meaning is not “at least one ” is true,
but is “at least and at most one” is true. In the second example the word “or ” is
used in this sense of the word means the statement asserts that either of the
two claims is true, but both can not be. So, a disjunction is “exclusive ” or “non-
inclusive” when it asserts that either of the two choices excluding one of the
alternatives are true or will happen. Thus, exclusive disjunction will be true
only if one of the alternatives is true, and the other false. The other sense of the
word “or” is the “inclusive” or “weak” sense. And, in this sense the two
alternatives of the disjunction can both be true at the same time. Accordingly
in its weak sense “or” means “at least one is true ” and it also mean there is a
possibility for both to be true. The first statement from the above examples
“Man. United will defeat Arsenal or Liverpool” is an inclusive disjunction,
because here “or” means Man. United will defeat either Arsenal or Liverpool, or
both Arsenal and Liverpool.
Such kinds of propositions will be true in case one of or both disjuncts are
true. Hence an inclusive disjunction compound sentence is true if at least one
of its component sentences is true or both are true, and, is false only if both
the disjuncts are false. Let us see now how to symbolize the above two different
senses of disjunctions and draw truth tables.

1. “Man United will defeat Arsenal or Liverpool”. AvL variables: p v q

If Manchester defeat Arsenal, but not Liverpool, or vice versa the disjunction
will be true. And also, if Manchester defeats both Arsenal and Liver Pool, the

187
disjunction will be definitely true. And, the disjunction will be false when both
disjuncts are false. There fore, the truth table for inclusive week disjunctions is
as follows.
P Q PvQ
T T T
T F T
F T T
F F F
Table 5 .4
2. Either we reduce the birth rate or soon there will be new mouths to feed ”.
BVM pvq
This statement is “strong” or “Exclusive” disjunction. And in this case the
disjunction will be true only if one of the alternatives/disjuncts is false. If both
the alternatives have same truth value, true or false, the disjunction will be
false. Thus, the definition of the exclusive disjunction operator can be
summarized and tabled as follows.
P Q PvQ
T T F
T F T
F T T
F F F
Table 5.5
And since the strong exclusive disjunction p v q means both can not be true ~
(p · q). We can say that (p V q) also means p v q · ~ (p · q).
Logicians claims that truth table for the inclusive disjunction is preferable than
the exclusive one for the reason that the later does not guarantee the truth of
disjunction when the two disjuncts/alternates are true. Moreover, some times
it is difficult to identity whether the word “or ” has inclusive or exclusive sense
of usage. In such kinds of cases the rule of categorical logic says, all
ambiguous disjunctions has to be taken in an inclusive sense. The other point
to remember is that the word “unless” can be used in the place of “or ”, or as a

188
disjunctive sentence connective. For instance “unless we work hard, we will
remain in poverty”, has the same meaning as “either we work hard or we will
remain in poverty”, though this disjunction does not rule out that one to be
both a hard worker and poor at the same time. Thus, if the expression “unless ”
is not explicitly expressed in an exclusive sense, it should be considered as
having inclusive meaning.
Disjunctions can be denied or negated in the following two ways. One is that by
using words “neither … nor….” in place of “either ….or….” and the other is that
by using the phrases of negation like “it is not the case that ”, “it is false that ”,
as prefix of the disjunction.

Example-
The statement “either we reduce the birth rate, or soon there will be new
mounths to feed”. Can be negated as, it is false that B v M ~ (B v M) or, as
Neither B not M. ~ (B v M).
Furthermore, like other compounds there are complex disjunctions that may
contain other operators, with vel (v) as main operator.
For instance all of the following are disjunction
~PvQ
(R·S) v ~T
(U  W) v ~ (X · Y)
(K·M) v (~ N · ~ 0)
4. Conditionals (Material Implication)
Conditional sentences can also be known as implications, hypothetical or
implicative statements. A conditional sentence is a hypothetical sentence that
contains two atomic sentences as components, and asserts that if one of the
component sentence (the antecedent) is in any case true, the other
(the consequent) is true also. In other words conditional sentences are
compound propositions with two atomic sentences related one to another by
the words “if …then …”, or other equivalent words like “unless ”, “it provides

189
that”, “given that”, “only if”, “on the condition that ”, “implies that ”, “assuming
that”, “in case that”, “is sufficient for”, “is necessary for ”, and the like. These
expression can be represented symbolically by the horse shoe () or sometimes
symbol of implication (→). A conditional sentence is also called implication,
because one of the component propositions signifies the truth of the other.
These component sentences of a conditional proposition are called antecedent,
or implicans and consequent or implicate. And, if a conditional statement is
formed in an “if…then …” form, the statement following the “if”, is called the
antecedent, and the one following the “then”, is called the consequent. Mostly,
the general form of conditional statement is “if p then q ”, assuming that “p ” is
an antecedent and “q” the consequent. And symbolically it can be represented
as p  q, or p → q.
Example: “If Barrack Obama wins, then a democrat wins”, and if “B”
represents the statement following if and the “D” represents the one that
comes after then:
1. “If …then”- is the sentence connective,
2. “B”- is the antecedent,
3. “D”- is the consequent.
In addition to the sentential connective “if…then ….” that is used in standard
form of conditional sentences, there are many other ways of presenting
conditionals. For instance, the above statement can be written as:
 Democrat wins if Barrack Obama wins.
 So long as Barrack Obama wins, a democrat wins.
 Barrack Obama wins only if a democrat wins.
All the above sentences have the same antecedent and consequent, thus if we
use “B” to represent the antecedent, and “D” for the consequent, all of the
sentences can be represents as: B  D.
Furthermore, implication or conditional statement has more than one meaning.
Some of the different senses of expression of the “if … then …” sentences are:

190
1. The antecedent logically implies the consequent. Example: “if all cats are
dogs, and all dogs are horses, then all cats are horses. ” in this statement
D C, the implication is logical implication.
2. There are implications that are based on the definition of a term, in other
words there are definitional implications.
E.g. If an animal is unicorn, then it is one horned animal. AH
3. Implications can also be expressed in highly emotional expressions of
individuals under specified circumstances, or there are decisional
implications.
E.g. If state looses the home coming game, then I will eat my hat. S  E
4. Implications/conditional sentences express the implication of natural or
empirical realities, or there are causal implications.
E.g. If a solution changes a blue litmus paper to red, then the solution is
an acid. S  A
The above four conditional sentences asserts different types of implication
between antecedent and consequent. But, they are not completely different in
meaning. Thus, to avoid ambiguity of the different senses of the sentential
connective “if … then …” we can focus on the meaning shared by all conditional
sentences. And, for the conditional to be true the consequent need not be true
while the antecedent is false. In other words, if the antecedent is true and the
consequent is false in all the four senses of implications, the whole implication
or conditional sentence will be false. Any standard form conditional sentence “if
p then q” is known to be false when the conjunction p · ~q is known to be true.
Hence, for a conditional sentence to be true the conjunction p · ~q must be
false or ~ (p · ~ q) must be true. Since we have defined true conditional
statement (p q), as the negation of the conjunction of its antecedent with the
negation of its consequent, ~ (p · ~ q). Let us now proof this by means of a
truth table.
p q ~q p. ~ q ~ (p. ~ q) p q
T T F F T T

191
 T F T T F F
F T F F T T
F F T F T T
Table 5.6
As the above table shows, the sets of propositions in column (5), ~ (p · ~ q), and
(6), (p  q), are identical and have the same truth value. However, the assertion
~ (p · ~ q), which is included in the meaning of each of the various kinds of
implications considered, does not constitute the entire meaning of any of them.
Moreover, not all conditional sentences assert one of the four types of
implications discussed above. There is no real connection, whether logical;
definitional; or causal implications; obtained between antecedent and
consequent of some forms of conditional sentences.
Example:
“If Gebre Egziabher beats Kenenisa, then I am monkey’s uncle. ” Such kinds of
conditional propositions with no kind of implication assert that it is not the
case that the antecedent is true when the consequent is false. Thus, this kind
of conditionals is called material implications that can be symbolized by
horse shoe. And material implication () that is used to form any kind of
conditional proposition is used to determine the truth value of the conditional
proposition. And, a conditional proposition is false if the antecedent is true and
the consequent is false, otherwise it is true. For instance, if we take the
statements “if cats are mammals then cats are animals. ” It will be false; if in
fact cats are mammals but not animals. (If the antecedent is true and the
consequent is false). In other words, if both of the component sentences are
true or both false, and the consequent true given that the antecedent is false,
then the whole sentence is also true. We can Study the following truth table for
conditional sentences.
p q pq
T T T
T F F
F T T

192
 F F T
Table 5.7
In all cases where the horseshoe () or implications (→) serve as main operator
the proposition is conditional, hypothetical or implicative sentence. The
following are instances of conditional statements:
(~ Z  r)
(DE)  (AVC)
[R → (M · N)
The horseshoe () symbol is also used to translate statements phrased in terms
of sufficient conditions and necessary conditions. And an event ‘p’ is said to
be a sufficient condition for event ‘q’ when ever the occurrence of ‘p ’ is all that
is required for the occurrence of event ‘q’. Whereas event ‘p’ is said to be a
necessary condition for event ‘q’ whenever event ‘q’ can not occur with out the
occurrence of event ‘p’.
Example:
Being an ox is a sufficient condition to be a male, while being a male is a
necessary condition to be an ox. In the first sense in addition to being an “ox ”,
(being another thing like husband, son …) might make something a male, but
the first quality (being an ox) by itself is sufficient. However, for a thing to be an
ox it must be male. But, symbolically both can be represented as: O  M, or O
→ M.
5. Bi-conditionals (Material equivalence)
Two propositions are said to be bi-conditional or materially equivalent if they
have the same truth value. A bi-conditional or materially equivalent
proposition is, therefore, a compound proposition in which its component
sentences are connected by expressions like “if and only if”, “both sufficient
and necessary condition that”, which can be logically symbolized by using
triple bar (≡) or bi-implication (double arrows) (↔). Typically, bi-conditional
sentences assert that if two of its component statements have the same truth
value (if they jointly assert the same truth value) the compound proposition

193
would be true. Hence, if both components of a bi-conditional sentence have the
same truth value (either both true, or both false), the compound proposition of
the bi-conditional would be always true. And, bi-conditional is false when its
components have opposite truth values.
Example:
The car runs if and only if there is gas in its tank. If “C ” and “G ” stands for the
component statements that precede and succeed the expression “if and only if”
respectively, the compound proposition can be symbolized as: (C≡G), or (C↔G).
And, its possible truth values are as it is summarized in the table below by
using the statement variables as:

p q p≡ q
T T T
T F F
F T F
F F T
Table 5.8
More examples:
1. Tsegaye G/Medhin was a poet if and only if Teddy Afro was a singer.
T≡A
2. Barack Obama is the 48th U.S president if and only if George W. Bush was
the 47th U.S president. B≡G
3. Sibhat G/Egziabher wrote Othello if and only if Sisay Nigusu wrote
Sememen. S≡N

In the above statements, “T” and “A” are true, and “B” and “G” are false, and
“S” is false while “N” is true. Thus, the first two bi-conditionals whose
component sentences have the same truth value are true, where as the last one
composed of sentences with opposite truth values, is false. And, note that the
truth functional connective of the bi-conditional “if and only if ’ can be split up
in to two as “if”, and “only if” and a single bi-conditional proposition can be

194
expressed in to different conditional sentences. For instance, the above
statement can be stated as:
• The car runs if and only if there is gas in its tank.
Components: - 1. The car runs only if there is gas in its tank. CG
2. The car runs if there is gas in its tank. GC
By combining the above statements, we will get (CG) · (GC), which is just a
longer way of writing C≡G. And, we can check this by drawing a truth table for
C ≡ G, and (CG) · (GC).

C G CG GC (G C) · (GC) G≡C

T T T T T T
T F F T F F
F T T F F F
F F T T T T
Table 5.9
Moreover, like other truth functional compound sentences, all sentences
containing a triple bar or linguistic expressions that can be translated in to
material equivalence as the main operator are bi-conditionals. The followings
are instances of bi-conditionals:
H≡J
[(~K· P) ≡ [I V L)]
[K V (F  I) ≡ [L· (G V H)]
Exercise 5.1
I. Define the following terms
A. proposition G. Bi-conditionals
B. Atomic statement H. Conjuncts
C. Compound sentence I. Disjuncts
D. Conjunctions J. Implicans
E. Disjunctions K. Implicate
F. Conditionals L. Truth functional statement
II. After symbolizing the following truth functional propositions,
construct truth table for each one of them.

195
1. Gondar is not the capital of Ethiopia.
2. Barrack H. Obama and Osama Bin laden are well known figures.
3. Alabama restricts abortion rights only if Georgia and Mississippi do.
4. If chat is legalized, then its consumption may increase.
5. Ebola virus will become a major threat to humanity if and only if it becomes
airborne.
6. Either St. George or Ethiopia Buna wins, but not both.

5.3 Symbolizing Complex Compound Sentences

As it has been under4lined before uppercase letters (A, B, C ….Z) abbreviate
sentences and these letters are called constants. But when we make them in
statement form we have to use statement variables that are lowercase letters
(like p, q, r, s…) to replace the constants. Thus, we can symbolize any kinds of
complex compound sentences formed by using conjunction, negation,
disjunction, material implication and material equivalence. And we will
symbolize such sentences simply by following grammatical structure, replacing
the sentence connectives as “not”, “or”, “and”…by their respective logical
symbols as “”, “v”, “·” … and then the sentences by statement variables (p, q,
r…), or constants (A-Z).
When symbolically representing complex compound propositions, one must
bear in mind the following important guidelines:
1. We need to look for the main operator/connective that connects the largest
units of the sentence. In other words, we have to look for the connective with
the greatest scope or operator in a compound that governs the largest
component (s) in it.

Example:
Either Obama or McCain will win the 2008 U.S election, but Hillary Clinton will
not. In this sentence the main operator is “but ” that relates the disjunctive
sentence with a negation. Thus, it can be symbolized as:

196
(O V M) · H or, (p v q) · s
2. Care must be taken to determine the correct scope of negations in the
statement. In other words, we must determine how much of a sentence is
negated or denied- i.e. whether it is the whole compound proposition or part of
its component propositions that is/are denied.
Example:
1. If we do not control the money supply and the power of OPEC, we will not
control inflation.
 (M · O)  I, or (p · q)  r
2. It is not the case that both Alebachw Teka is generous and Sheik Alamoudin
is a politician (A · P)
Furthermore, arguments are also symbolized in the same way as we symbolize
statements. However, in symbolizing arguments, we must first identify the
premises and conclusion.
Example: Alemayehu will not both phone and write a letter. It is obvious that
he will not write a letter. Hence, he will phone.
Premises P1-  (T · W)
P2 - W
C- T
Finally, the argument can be symbolized as follows:
 (T · W)  (p · q)
W q
, T, or by using variables , p

Exercises:
Symbolize the following propositions and arguments by using the
indicated constants.
1. Nuclear catastrophe is inevitable just in case Russia and America don ’t
reduce their arsenals. (“N”- nuclear catastrophe is inevitable, “R ”- Russia
reduce its arsenals, “A”- America reduce its arsenals.)

197
 2. If America does not reduce its nuclear arsenal and the Russians do not
either, then nuclear catastrophe is inevitable. (Use the same symbols
given above.)
3. Either the Russians or Americans will reduce their nuclear arsenals or
there will be a nuclear catastrophe. (Use the same symbols.)
4. Either America reduces their nuclear arsenals, and Russia reduces their
nuclear arsenals, or nuclear catastrophe is inevitable. America and
Russia does not reduce their nuclear arsenals. Hence, nuclear
catastrophe is inevitable. (Use the above symbols.)
5. If America does not reduce its nuclear arsenal, then Russians do not
either. If Russians does not reduce its nuclear arsenal then Germans do
not either. (Use the previously given symbols, and replace “Germans
reduce their nuclear arsenal.” by “G”).

5.4 Truth Tables for Propositions and Arguments

A truth table gives the truth value of a compound proposition for every possible
truth value of its simple components. Thus, we can determine the truth value
of other complex compound propositions by using the truth tables of the five
truth functional compound propositions. The truth tables for the five truth
functional propositions (negation, conjunction, disjunction…) discussed before
can be summarized as follows:

Let us assume that “p” and “q” are the component sentences.

p q p q p·q pvq pq p≡q

T T F F T T T T
T F F T F T F F
F T T F F T T F
F F T T F F T T
Table 5.10

198
 To construct a truth table for propositions, or argument the first factor that
must be determined is the number of lines. This is because each line
represents one possible arrangement of truth values. And, the total number
of lines is equal to the number of possible combinations of truth values for
the simple propositions. Thus, if we represent propositions by “n ” and “L ”
designates number of lines, then L=2n. Thus, by means of this formula we
obtain the following table.
No. of different simple propositions (n) No. of lines in truth tables (L)

1 2
2 4
3 8
4 16
5 32
6 64
7 128
8 256
After determining the number of lines, we must enter all the possible truth
values for original atomic sentences and compute the remaining column until
we get the truth values of the compound proposition (i.e. the truth value lining
under the main operator).
Examples:
1. (SR) · (S · R)
Step one- Since the proposition has two simple components, the number of
lines in the truth tables is (2 2) = 4. We draw these lines beneath the proposition
as follows:

(SR) · (S · R)

Step two: Enter all the possible truth values for original atomic sentences
(SR) · (S · R)

199
 T T T T
T F T F
F T F T
F F F F

Step three: Compute the remaining columns until you got the truth values of
the compound, the truth value lining under the main operator. In this
proposition the main operator is conjunction (·).
3.1. (SR) · (S · R) 3.2. (SR) · (S · R)
T T T T FT T T T TF FT
T F F TT F T F F TT TF
F T T FFT FT T FF FT
F T F FTF FT F FF TF
Step four: lastly we can determine the truth value of the compound by using
the truth value of its components, means by using the truth values lining
under the horse shoe (), and the conjunction (dot) (·)
(S  R) · (S· R)
TTT F TFFT
TFF F TTTF
FTT F FFFT
FTF F FFTF
The truth values under the main operator (·) represents the entire compound
proposition. And inspection of the complete truth table shows that the
compound proposition is false in every possibilities.
Example 2. ( K  H) ≡  (HVK)

( K  H) ≡  (HVK)
FT T TFFTTT
FT T FFFFTT
TF T TFFTTF
TF T FF T F F F

Inspecting the above completed truth table shows that the compound is false in

all possibilities.

There is also another method for constructing a truth table that is faster for
certain compound propositions. To use this method, we would begin by

200
constructing columns for the simple propositions, and write them to the left of
the given proposition
Example: ( K  H) ≡  (HVK)
K H ( K  H) ≡  (HVK)
T T
T F
F T
F F
We then use the columns on the left to drive the truth values of the compound
propositions. First, we compute the truth value of (k), then the horseshoe, and
the disjunction (v) and then its negation, finally the triple bar
K H (KH) ≡  (HVK)

T T F TT F F T
T F F TF F F T
F T T TT F F T
F F T FF F T F

3. (C·D) E

C D E (C·D)  E

T FT T F T T
T FT F F T F
T TF T T T T
T TF F T F F
F FT T F T T
F FT F F T F
F TF T F T T
F TF F F T F

In addition to computing the truth values of compound propositions we can

also use truth tables to show the logical relationships between statements as
being consistent or inconsistent with one another, as well as the logical
properties of propositions as being: tautologous, contingent, and self

201
contradictory. In other words, truth tables can be used to sort compound
statements in to logically significant categories: tautology, contradictions, and
contingent statements.
A compound statement is said to be logically true or tautologous if it is true
regardless of the truth value of its components. In other words, when we
inspect the truth table for a compound proposition and found all column under
the main operator true, the proposition is called tautology or logically true
statement.
Example: 1 A  (BA) 2.  (P·P)

T T TTT T TFFT

T T FTT T FFFF

F T TFF

F T FTF

3. [(GH)·G)  H]

TTT TT T T
TFF FT T F
FTT FF T T
FTF FF T F
All the above sentences are tautologies, or logically true since their completed
truth tables show that there are no circumstances under which a compound
sentence is false. (It is true no matter what truth values are assigned to its
basic sentences), on the other hand, compound proposition is said to be
logically false or self-contradictory if it is false regardless of the truth values
of its components. A contradiction is false no matter what truth values are
assigned to its component basic sentences.

Example: 1 P · P 2. (AB)· (A· B)

T FFT TTT F TF FT
F FTF TFF F TT TF

202
 FTT F FF FT
FTF F FF TF

3. (pvq) ≡ (p· q)

TTT F FTFFT
TTF F FTFTF
FTT F TFFFT
FFF F TFTTF

Inspecting the above truth tables show that the compound sentence is false no
matter what truth values are assigned to its components. The arguments are
therefore self contradictory.
You might think about the above two categories of sentences, tautologies and
contradictions, that the former one is a wonderful type of sentence while the
later needs to be a voided. However, the fact is that both types of sentences
have no use in conveying genuine information for they do not make any
genuine assertions. They are important in propositional logic for reasons not
connected with ordinary conversational exchanges. For instance, we can use
the form/structure of these types of sentences, not their information content,
to determine the validity of arguments they make up. Thus, every arguments
whose conclusion is a tautology is valid. Regardless of the content of the
premises; and also any argument that has a contradiction among its premises
is a valid argument.
Not all sentences are either tautologies or self-contradictory. You have had
many examples of sentences that were true in some circumstances and false in
others. Such propositions are called contingent. The truth value of contingent
compound propositions varies, or is contingent, depending on the truth values
of its components.
Examples:
1. P V P 2. P≡Q
TTT TTT
FFF TFT
FFT
FFF

203
So, we can determine how the compound proposition should be classified as
tautologous, self contradictor, or contingent by merely inspecting the column of
truth values under the main operator. And these can be summarized as
follows:
Column under main operator Statement classification
All true……………………………………………………………. Tautologous.
All false…………………………………………………………… self contradictory.
At least one true, at least one false………………………….. contingent.
Truth table may also be used to determine how two compound propositions
having the same component propositions are related. And, there are four types
of relationships between compound propositions having the same components:
logical equivalence, contradiction, consistency and inconsistency.
Two propositions are said to be logically equivalent if they have the same truth
value on each line under their main operators. In other words truth functional
compound propositions are logically equivalent provided that the columns in
the truth table under their main operators are identical.
For example: The propositions KL and  Lk are logically equivalent.
K L L K
TTT FTT FT
TFF TFF FT
FTT FTT TF
FTF TFT TF

AB AvB
TTT FT T T
TFF FT F F
FTT TF T T
FTF TF T F

Inspection of all the truth table for the two propositions shows that the
columns under their respective main operators are identical so that they are
logically equivalent

204
Note that bi-conditional statement formed by joining logically equivalent
compound propositions by using a triple bar (≡) is tautologous.

Example: [(KL) ≡ (LK)] is tautologous.

[(KL) ≡ (LK)]
TTTT FTT FT
TFFT TFF FT
FTTT FTT TF
FTFT TFT TF
Moreover, if two compound propositions, having same component sentences,
have opposite truth values on each line under their main operators are said to
be contradictories.
Example: K L and K. L are contradictory
KL K·L
TTT T F FT
TFF T T TF
FTT FF FT
FTF FF TF

The propositions have opposite truth values on each line under their main
operators, thus they are contradictory.
On the other hand, if propositions are neither logically equivalent nor
contradictory they may be consistent or in consistent. Thus, two (or more)
propositions are consistent if there is at least one line on which both (or all) of
them turn out to be true, and they are inconsistent if there is no line on which
both (or all) of them turn out to be true. So, one can determine whether two
complex compound propositions are consistent or inconsistent by comparing
the truth values of the statements under their main operators.
Examples:

1. K v L K·L
TTT TTT
TTF TFF
FTT FFT
FFF FFF

205
Since on the first line of each truth table the column under the main operator
turns out true, the propositions are consistent.
2. K ≡L K · L
T TT T F FT
T FF T T TF
F FT F F FT
F TF F F TF

For there is no line in the columns under the main operators where the truth
values are both true, the above propositions are inconsistent. And, since there
is partial overlap, an inconsistent proposition may be either contradictory or
logically equivalent, pairs of propositions are usually classified in terms of
logical equivalence and contradictory relationship that are the stronger of these
relations.
Relations Columns under main operators
Stronger logically equivalent …………………….Same truth value on each line
relations Contradictory …………………………..Opposite truth value on each line

Weaker Consistent ………there is at least one line on which the truth values
relations are both true.
Inconsistent ……there is no line on which the truth values are both
true.
Exercise 5.3
I. Construct truth tables and use them to classify the following
symbolized statements as tautologous, self-contradictory, or
contingent
1. (MP) V (PM)
2. [(AY) B] Z
3. X  (YZ)
4. (A·P)  ( AVP)
5. [(FVE)·(GVH)] ≡ [(G·E) V (F·H)]
6. [(QP) · (QR)]·  (PVR)

206
 7. p [q > (pr)]
8. p v (qp)
9. {[p·(q v r)]  P}≡ q
10. (AB) · (B ·  A)
II determine whether the following pairs of symbolized statements are
logically equivalent, contradictory, consistent, or inconsistent by using
truth tables.
1. (p q), an d [(p v q) ≡ q]
2. pq, and p q
3. p · q, and (p v q)
4. Z· (C≡P), and C≡ (Z≡P)
5. G· (EVP), and (G·E) ·  (G·P)
5.4.1 Truth Tables for Arguments
It has been underlined in chapter one that logic is a science that deals with
techniques and methods of evaluating arguments. And, in propositional logic,
one can use truth tables to test propositional arguments for validity. And to
use truth table for this purpose, we have to know how to construct a truth
table to an agreement. And to construct a truth table for an argument we will
apply the following guidelines:

1. Symbolize the argument using letter to represent the simple propositions.

2. Write out the symbolized argument, placing a single slash between the
premises and a double slash between the last and the conclusion.
3. Draw a truth table for the symbolized argument as it were a proposition
broken in to parts, outlining the columns representing the premises and
conclusion.
4. Look for a line in which all of the premises are true and the conclusion is
false. If such a line exists, the argument is invalid, if not, it is valid.

207
Example:
If Alemu is 8 feet tall, then Alemu is over 7 feet tall. But it is not the case that
Alemu is over 7 feet tall. It follows that Alemu is not 8 feet tall.
Premise1- A  O
Premise 2- O
Conclusion-, A
Now let us construct a truth table for the above argument: AO / O//  A
A  O/  O // A
T T F F T T T
F F T T F F T
F T F F T T F
F T T T F F F
Inspection of the above truth table reveals that there is no line on which both
premises are true and the conclusion false. The argument therefore is valid.
The reason behind the claim that if no line exists on which the premises are
true and the conclusion false, the argument is valid is obvious and has to do
with the definition of valid and invalid arguments as discussed in the first
chapter. Thus, the following are rules for testing arguments by truth table:
 If there is no line on which all the premises are true and the
conclusion false, the argument is valid
 If there is at east one line on which all the premises are true and
the conclusion false, the argument is invalid.
These rules implies that if an argument have contradictory premises regardless
of what its conclusion may be, it is valid and also any argument having a
tautologous conclusion is valid regardless of what its premises may be.
However, in both cases the argument may not be sound.
Examples:
1. If Abebe works hard, he gets rich. But if Abebe does not work hard, he
enjoys life. Moreover, if Abebe does not get rich, then he does not enjoy
life. Hence, Abebe gets rich.

208
The symbolic representation of the above argument is as: SR / SE /
SE // R
S  R/ S  E / S   E //
R
T T T F T T T F T T F T T
T T T F T T F F T T T F T
T F F F T T T F T T F T F
T F F F T T F F T T T F F
F T T T F T T T F F F T T
F T T T F F F T F T T F T
F F F T F T T T F F F T F
F F F T F F F T F T T F F

There is no row in which the premises are true and the conclusion is false, the

above argument is therefore valid.

2. C≡ D / E v D // E  C

C ≡ D / E v  D /E  C
T T T T F F T T T T
T T T F F F T F T T
T F F T T T F T T T
T F F F T T F F T T
F F T T T F T T F F
F T F F F F T F T F
F T F T T T F T F F
F T F F T T F F T F

Inspection of the seventh line reveals that both of the premises are true and the
conclusion is false. The argument is therefore invalid.
Exercise 5.4
I. Determine whether the following arguments are valid or invalid by using
the truth tilde method. (Translate those that are not symbolized in to
their symbolic form)
1. The disparity between rich and poor is increasing. Therefore, political
control over economic equality will be achieved only if restructuring the

209
 economic system along socialist lines implies that political control over
economic equality will be achieved
2. Ethiopia is the poorest country in the world. Hence, either Ethiopia or
Zimbabwe is a poorest country in the world.
3. C≡D
E VD
, E V C
4. AVR 5. H (A B)
(N·  C) C  (H V B)
RC H C
CN , C V B
, AVC

5.4.2 Indirect Truth Tables

Using ordinary truth tables for evaluating an argument consisting of five, six or
more different propositions, it needs to construct a table having 32, 64 or more
lines, and becomes both time and space consuming. To avoid this problem
logicians introduce a short and easy method of testing the validity of
arguments, called the indirect truth table method. To construct an indirect
truth table for an argument:
1. we begin by assuming that the argument is invalid, i.e. assume that it is
possible for the premises to be true and the conclusion false,
2. After entering truth values (T) for the premises and (F) for the conclusion
beneath their main operators, then the truth values of separate
components may be derived.
3. If no contradiction is obtained in the process, i.e. if the premises are true
and the conclusion false, as originally assumed, the argument is invalid.
However, if the attempt to make the premises true and the conclusion
false necessarily leads to a contradiction, the argument is valid.

210
 Example:

1. A  ( B · C ) / CD// AD
TT TTT TTF TFF
There is a contradiction in the truth values assigned to the second premises
because TF is F. this shows that it is impossible for the premises to be true
and the conclusion false. Hence, the argument is valid.
2. A  (BVC) / B // DA
TF T FTT TF TFT
Since we get a perfectly consistent assignment of truth values that makes the
premises true and the conclusion false, the argument is therefore invalid.
3. AB/ BA/ AB // A·B
FTTT TTT TTFT TFFT
TFTF FTF FTTF FFTF
TFTT TTF FTFT FFFT
Since there is a contradiction in each line, the argument is valid. Thus, if there
is a possibility for the claim that the premise is true and conclusion false, then
the inference would be invalid.

Exercise 5.5
I. Use indirect truth tables to determine whether the following arguments
are valid or invalid.
1. GVH 2. (XY)· (WZ)
G XVW
, H YVZ
3. KVL 4. U  (V v W)
K (V·W)  U
L U

211
 5. GH
HI
 JG
I
J

5.5 Argument Forms and Formal Fallacies

An argument form is an arrangement of statement variables and operators;

such that the uniform replacement of the variables by statements results in an
argument.
Example:
1. p  q 2. p v .q.
p ~p
, q , q and the like are argument forms.
If we replace the statement variables in the above argument by statements, we
will find standard forms of argument with two broad categories: valid and in
valid. A valid argument form is any argument form that satisfies the truth
table test i.e. an argument form is valid when the truth table shows that there
is no which all the premises are true and the conclusion false. In other words,
no possible substitution instance of it has true premises and false conclusion
other wise the argument form is said to be invalid.
Thus, in the following discussion, we are going to see typical valid and invalid
argument forms. Note that invalid argument forms can have a valid argument
as a substitution instance. But, specific form of a valid argument must be a
valid argument form, and a valid argument form can have only valid arguments
as substitution instances. Now let us consider some of these argument forms.

212
A. Valid Argument Forms
In the first chapter we have learned about some forms of syllogisms such as
hypothetical, categorical and disjunctive syllogisms. And we have also seen
that the validity of such syllogisms can be determined through mere analysis of
their forms. Most of the valid argument forms that we are going discussed next
are the form or structure of syllogisms.

1. Modus Ponens (MP): (asserting mode) is a valid argument form of mixed

hypothetical syllogism that consists of a conditional premise, a second premise
that asserts the antecedent of the conditional premises and a conclusion that
asserts the consequent.
Example:
If an act is right when it is performed according to the law, then the action of
all lawyers is right and acceptable. An act is right when it is performed
according to the law. Hence, the action of all lawyers is right and acceptable.
The above argument is a substitution instance of modus ponens (MP), and it
can be symbolized as: p  q
p
, q
The truth table analysis of the above argument form and its substitution
instances can be summarized as follows:

p q p  q (premise p q
1) ( premise 2) ( Conclusion)
T T T T T
T F F T F
F T T F T
F F T F F

213
Inspection of the table shows that there is no row on which all the premises are
true (T) and the conclusion is false (F). Thus, the argument form is valid.
Moreover, the following symbolized arguments are instances of Modus Ponens
(MP),

p  ~q ( p·q) r (AVB)  ~ (C·D) K·L

p p.q AVB (K·L)  [(R  S)· (T  U)]
 , ~q r  , ~ (C·D)  , (R  S) · (T  U)

2. Modus Tollens (MT): (denying mode) is a valid argument form of mixed

hypothetical syllogism consisting of one conditional premise, a second premise
that denies the consequent of the conditional premise, and a conclusion that
denies the antecedent.
Modus Tollens (MT): p q
~q
 , ~p
Example
If all the rights and freedom guaranteed by constitution are formulated to be
exercised, then any regional state of Ethiopia can declare its own
independence. Regional states can not declare their independence. Hence, not
all rights and freedom guaranteed by the constitution are formulated to be
exercised.
R I
~I
 , ~R
The truth table of this form of argument can be constructed as follows:

p q (First premise) (second premise) (Conclusion)

p q ~q ~p
T T T F F
T F F T F
F T T F T

214
 F F T T T

Inspection of the above table shows that there is no line in which the premises
are true and the conclusion false. Hence, MT Form is a valid argument form.
These other arguments are all Modus Tollens (MT)
1. (DVF) K 2. ~T 3. ~ E  ~ (MVN)
~K [(HVK). (LVN)]  T ~ (MVN)
 , ~ (DVF)  , (HVK). (LVN)  ~~ G and others,

3. Disjuctive Syllogism (DS): A disjunctive syllogism is a valid form of

argument that precedes by the “Method of elimination.” i.e. it is an argument
form in which its validity arises from the fact that one of the premises presents
two alternatives and the other premise eliminates one of these alternatives,
leaving the other as the conclusion. Valid disjunctive syllogism (DS):
pvq pvq
~p ~q
, q , p
Whereas, in disjunctive syllogism when one premise presents two alternatives
and if one of the premise affirms one of the other alternatives then the
argument is invalid.
Invalid DS: p v q pvq pvq
p p q
, q  ~q  , ~p All are invalid forms
For a disjunctive syllogism to be valid, the premise must eliminate one of the
disjuncts presented in the disjunctive premise.
Example:
Either Fasile Castle is in Gondar, or Fasile Castle is in Nairobi. It is obvious
that Fasile Castle is not in Gondar. Thus, Fasile Castle is in Nairobi.
The form is: GVN
~G
, N

215
The truth table for the above disjunctive syllogism can be constructed as,

G N (First premise) (second premise) (Conclusion)

GVN ~G N
T T T F T
T F T F F
F T T T T
F F F T F

Inspection of the above table reveals that no line in the table has all true
premises and false conclusion that the argument is valid. The following
arguments are all instances of disjunctive syllogism (DS):
U V ~ (W·X) ~ (EVF) ~B V [(H  M) ·(S  T)]
~U (EVF) V (N  K) ~~B
 , ~ (W·X) , N K  (H  M) ·(S  T)

4. Pure Hypothetical Syllogism (HS):

A hypothetical syllogism (mixed or pure), may be valid or invalid. A pure
hypothetical syllogism can be formally valid when the consequent of the first
premise is identical to the antecedent of the second premise. Otherwise, it is
invalid. Thus, a valid pure Hypothetical syllogism has the following form:
p  q
q  r
, p  r

Example:
If Socrates was a human being, then Socrates was rational animal. If Socrates
was rational animal, then Socrates was intelligent creature. Thus, if so creates
was a human being then Socrates was an intelligent creature.
Symbols: HR
R  I
, H  I
The truth table for this pure hypothetical syllogism can be drawn as follows:

216
 H R I (premise one) (premise two) (conclusion)
H R R I H I
T T T T T T
T T F T F F
T F T F T T
T F F F T F
F T T T T T
F T F T F T
F F T T T T
F F F T T T

The above truth table shows that there is no possibility for all the premises to
be true and the conclusion false so that the argument is valid. The following
are all in stances of valid pure hypothetical syllogisms (HS):
1. A  (D·F) 2. ~M  (R  S) 3. (L  N)  [(SVT) ·K)]
(D·F)  ~H  ~M
(CVK) (C≡F)  (L  N)
, A  ~H  , (CVK)  (R S)  , (C≡F)  [(SVT) ·k]
Usually pure hypothetical syllogism will be invalid when the premises fail to
link together like a chain as:
Example: p  q p q
P  r r q
, q  r , p  r,
5. Constructive Dilemma (CD):
A constructive dilemma is a valid argument form that consists of a conjunctive
premise made up of two conditional statements, a disjunctive premise that
asserts the antecedent in the conjunctive premises, and a disjunctive
conclusion that asserts the consequents of the conjunctive premise. Thus,
Constructive dilemma (CD) is defined as follows:

(p  q) v (r  s)
pvr
 qvs
Example:

217
If we prosecute terrorists, then we risk retaliation by other terrorists, but if we
release them, then we encourage terrorism. We must either prosecute or
release suspected terrorists we either risk retaliation by other terrorists or we
encourage terrorism. The above argument is an instance of constructive
dilemma; the form is (P  R) · (T  E)
PVT
 , RVE
We can test this argument form by using indirect truth tables as the
direct one will be a bit longer and time consuming. Thus,
(P  R) . (T  E)/ P V T // RVE
F F T FTF FTF FFF
Since there is a contradiction in the truth value of the second premise
FVF=T then it is impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion
false. Hence, the argument is valid. So, any argument that is a
substitution instance of constructive dilemma is valid.
These are all instances of constructive dilemma:
1. ~MVN 2. [(K  T)  (A·B)] · [(H  P)  (A·C)]
(~M  S)· (N  ~T) (K  T) V (H  P)
 , SV~T  , (A.B) v (A.C)
6. Destructive dilemma (DD):
A destructive dilemma is a valid argument form that includes a conjunctive
premise made up of two conditional statements and a disjunctive premise that
denies the consequents of the conditional premise, and then the conclusion
denies the antecedents. Destructive dilemma is defined as:

( p  q) · (r  s)
~q v ~s
 , ~ p v ~r

218
Any argument that is a substitution instance of destructive dilemma is
valid. One can inspect the following indirect truth table so as to prove
this:
(p  q). ( r  s) /~q v ~s // ~p v ~r
TTT T TTT FT T FT F T F FT
Inspection of the above table shows that there is no possibility for the
premises to be true and the conclusion false. Hence, the arguments form;
destructive dilemma is valid.
B. Invalid Argument forms and Formal fallacies
1. Affirming the consequent: is an invalid argument form of mixed
hypothetical syllogism that consists of one conditional premise, a second
premise that asserts the consequent of the conditional and a conclusion that
asserts the antecedent.
Affirming the consequent (AC) has the following form:
p q
q
, p
Any argument that is a substitution instance of the above form is invalid and
commits a formal fallacy called affirming the consequent.
Example:
If I owned the gold in Shakiso, then I am rich. Obviously I am rich, hence I
owned the Gold in Shakiso. This argument is an instance of Affirming the
consequent (AC), and its form is:

G  R
R
, G

R Premise one Premise two Conclusion

G (G  R) R G
T T T T T

219
 T F F F T
F T T T F
F F T F F

Inspection of the above truth table shows that there is a line (the third line) in
which both the premises are true and the conclusion false. Hence, the
argument is invalid and, commits a formal fallacy of affirming the
consequent.
2. Denying the Antecedent (DA):
It is an invalid argument form that consists of a conditional premise, a second
premise that denies the antecedent of the conditional premise, and conclusion
then denies the consequent.
Denying Antecedent (DA): p  q
~p
 , ~q
And like AC., any argument that is a substitution instance of DA, is invalid and
Commits a formal fallacy of denying the antecedent.
Example:
If I owned the Gold in Shakiso, then I was rich. I do not own the Gold in
Shakiso Therefore, I am not rich.
G  R / G/  , ~R
( premise one) (premise two) (Conclusion)
G R G R ~G ~R
T T T F F
T F F F T
F T T T F
F F T T T

Similarly, the above truth table shows that there is a possibility for the
premises to be true and the conclusion false (see line 3). So, the argument is in
valid.
Note that, in addition to the above two invalid argument forms, as we have
seen disjunctive and pure hypothetical syllogisms may also be invalid.
The following forms are invalid:

220
1. p v q 2. p v q q
3. p
p p p r
, q  , ~q  , q  r….
The above sections on valid and invalid argument forms can be summarized as
follows:
• Any argument having one of the following forms is valid:
1. p  q Modus Ponens (MP) 2. p  q Modus Tollens (MT)
p ~q
, q  , ~p
3. p v q p v q Disjunctive syllogism 4. Pure Hypothetical syllogism (HS)
~p ~q (DS) p q
 , q or,  , p q r
, p  r
5. (p  q) · (r  s) – Constructive 6. (p  q) · (r  s) - Destructive
( p v r) dilemma (CD) ~q v ~s dilemma (DD)
, q v s  ~pv ~ r

 Any argument having either of the following forms is invalid and fallacious:
1. p  q -Affirming the 2. p  q Denying the antecedent
p consequent (AC) ~p (DA)
, p ~ q
And, in addition to these two typical invalid argument forms, there are others
with no special name,

3. pvq 4. pvq 5. p  q 6. p  q
p q r q p  r
, q , p , p  r , q  r, and the like.

Exercises
I. Define the following concepts.

221
 A. Argument form C. Denying the antecedent E. Destructive dilemma
B. Modus tollens F. Pure hypothetical syllogism
II. Identify the forms of the following symbolized arguments. And check
whether they are valid or invalid.

1. X 2. (A  ~D)· (~B  C) 3. P v ~S
X  ~E ~C v ~~D S
 ~E  ~A v ~~B P
4. M  Q 5. ~P  ~Q
~M ~~Q
 ~Q  ~~P

5.6 Natural Deduction: Rules of Implication and Rules

of Replacement
In the previous section we have learned as to how we construct and use truth
tables to evaluate arguments. Though truth table is thematically adequate to
test the validity of an argument, they are tiresome when applied to arguments
of propositional type involving numerous atomic sentences. In practice the
truth table method grows unwieldy as the number of component statements
increase. For this reason, logicians introduced another efficient method of
proofing validity called method of deduction.
The method of deduction is a method of establishing the validity of an extended
propositional type argument by deducing its conclusion from its premises by a
means of elementary arguments each of which is known to be valid. This
method of logical proof depends on a rule of inference. So, in this sub unit we
are going to see about eighteen (18) sets of rules of inference that can be used
in a system of natural deduction to prove the conclusion of an argument follow
from its premises. And, these rules or elementary valid argument forms can be
classified in to two: the rules of implication and the rules of replacement.

222
And the following two sections will gives us those rules of implication and
replacement respectively.

5.6.1 Rules of Implication/Implicational Rules of Inference

The first five implicational rules of inference were introduced as valid argument
forms in section 5.4. Here the remaining nine (9) rules of implication can be
summarized as follows:
1) Modus Ponens (MP): p q
p
q
2) Modus Tollens (MT): p q
~q
~p
3) Hypothetical Syllogism (HS): p  q
q r
p r
4) Disjunctive syllogism (DS): pvq
~p
q p q
5) Constructive Dilemma (CD): (p  q)·(r  s) r s
pvr pvr
q v s, OR qvs
6) Simplification (Simp): p.q p.q
 , p, and  , q
7) Conjunction (Conj): p
q
 , p.q
8) Absorption (Abs.): p  q
 , p  (q.p)
9) Addition (Add): p
 , pvq

The above nine implicational rules of inference correspond to elementary

argument forms whose validity is easily established by truth tables. With their
aid, formal proof of validity can be constructed for a wide range of complicated

223
arguments. For that matter, let us see the truth table of the argument that
corresponds to one of theses rules of inference:

p  q //p  (q · p)
TTT T T TTT
TFF T T FTT
FTT F T TFF
FTF FT FTF

Inspection of the above truth table shows that the conclusion is tautologuos,
and the argument is valid in such cases i.e. there is no line in which the
premise is true and the conclusion false. Now let us see some more examples
on the formal proofs of validity of complicated arguments.
Examples:
1. If Tamrat is an assassin, then either he should be put to death or he should
be given a life sentence. He should be put to death only if murderers deserve
death reality. He should be put to death if murderers forfeit their right to
liberty. Tamrat is an assassin, but murderers do not deserve death penalty.
There fore, murderers forfeit their right to liberty. (A: Tamrat is an assassin;
D: Tamrat should be put to death L: Tamrat should be given a life sentence;
M: murderers deserve death; F: murderers forfeit their right to liberty).
Using the scheme of constants provided, the above argument may be
symbolized as follows:
1. A  (DVL)
2. D  M
3. L  F
4. A· ~ M // , F
And, the proof may be completed as:
5. A 4, Simp.
6. DVL 1, 5, MP

224
7. MVF 6, 2, 3, CD
8. ~M 4, Simp.
9. F 7, 8, DS
N.B when we use the nine rules of inference so as to construct proof, we should
begin by attempting to find the conclusion in the premises. And if the
conclusion contains a letter that appears in the consequent of a conditional
statement in the premises, consider obtaining that letter via Modus Ponens:
1. A  B
2. CVA
3. A// , B
4. B 1, 3, MP.
 If the conclusion contains a negated letter and that appears in that
antecedent of a conditional statement in the premises, consider obtaining
the negated letter via Modus Tollens:

1. C B
2. A B
3. ~ B //~ A
4. ~A 2, 3, MT
 If the conclusion is a conditional statement, consider obtaining it Via
Hypothetical syllogism:

1. B  C
2. C A
3. A  B  A  C
4. A  C 1, 3, HS
 If the conclusion contains a letter that appears in disjunctive statement
in the premises, consider obtaining that letter Via disjunctive syllogism:
1. A B

225
 2. A V C
3. ~A //  C
4. C 2, 3, D.S
 If the conclusion contains a letter that appears in a conjunctive
statements in the premises, consider obtaining that letter Via
simplification:
1. A B
2. C.B
3. C  A / C
4. C 2, Simp.
If the conclusion is a conjunctive statement, consider obtaining it via
conjunction by first obtaining the conjuncts:
1. A  C
2. B
3. ~C //  B. ~C
4. B ~C 2, 3, Conj.
 If the conclusion is disjunctive statement, consider obtaining it Via
Constructive dilemma or addition:
1) 1. (A  B) ((  D)
2. B  C
3. AVC //  BVD
4. BVD 1, 3, CD
2) 1. AVC
2. B
3. C  D // BVD
4. BVD 2, Add.
 If the conclusion contains a letter not find in the premises, addition must
be used to obtain that letter:
1. AVC
2. B// BVD

226
 3. BVD 1, 3, Add.
Examples:
1)1. M·N
2. P  M
3. Q·R
4. (~P·Q)  S // , SVT
5. ~ M 1, Simp.
6. ~P 2, 5, MT
7. Q 3, Simp.
8. ~P·Q 6, 7, Conj
9. S 4, 8, MP
10. SVT 9, Add
2)1. C  R
2. (C·R)  B
3. (C  B)  ~S
4. SVM // , M
5. C  (C·R) 1, Abs
6. C  B 5, 2, HS
7. ~S 3, 6, MP
8. M 4, 7, D.S

Exercises:
I. Symbolize the following arguments. To do this you can create and
assign constants or statement variables for each atomic sentence in
the arguments. After symbolization construct formal proofs of validity
to show that the arguments are valid.
1. In spite of the fact that advocates of suicide and euthanasia often claim that
every right- including the right to life- can be waived, I think it's absurd to
suggest that every right can be waived. For if every right can be waived, and
then if I announce that I am waiving my right to liberty, you are morally

227
 permitted to enslave me. But it is not true that if I announce that I am
waiving my right to liberty, then you morally permitted to enslave me.
2. Either animals are mere mechanisms or they feel pain. If either animals feel
pain or they have souls, then they have a right not to be subjected to
needless pain and humans have a duty not to inflict needless pain on them.
It is not the case that animals are mere mechanisms. Therefore, animals
have a right not to be subjected to needless pain.
3. God's existence is either necessary or impossible; if it is not contingent.
God's existence is a matter of metaphysical luck if it is contingent. God's
existence is emphatically not a matter of metaphysical luck. God's existence
is not impossible if the concept of an omnipotent and perfectly good being is
coherent. The concept of an omnipotent and perfectly good being is
coherent. Therefore God’s existence is necessary
II. Construct formal proof of validity for each of the following symbolized
arguments. Use the nine implicational rule of inference.
1) 1. (EVF) ~ D 4) 1. W  X
2. SVD 2. (W · X)  Y
3. E/ S 3. (W · Y)  Z/ W  Z
2) 1. G 5) 1. (Dv E)  (G · H)
2. H / , (G·H) V I 2. G  ~D
3. D · F / M
3) 1. T  U 6) 1. (C  N)· E
2. V v ~U 2. D V (N  D)
3. ~V· ~ W / , ~ T 3 ~ D / ~ CVP
7) 1. ~V v W 8) 1. ~(S v R)
2. ~ V /  WvX 2. B  (S v R)
3. B v P
4. ~ Q v P / P · ~ Q

9) 1. B v ~C 10) 1. P·Q

228
 2. B  E 2. R /  P.R
3. ~~C /  E v~ B

III) In Each of the following formal proof of validity for the indicated
argument there are lines need to obtain the conclusion (last line) and
also supply the justification for both lines.
1) 1. I  J 2) 1. ~A
2. J  K 2. A v E
3. L  M 3. ______ _______
4. I v L/ K v M 4. ~A · E ______
5. ________ 1, 2, HS
6. (I  K) · (L M) _________
7. K v M ________

3) 1. E  (T  S) 4) 1. F  B
2. ~ (T  S) 2. ~D
3. ~RVE / ~R 3. (~D · G)  (B  S)
4. ~E _____ 4. G
5. ~R _____ 5. ~ S/ G · ~ F
5) 1. I  J 6. ________ 2, 4, Conj.
2. I v (~~K · ~~J) 7. B  S ________
3. L  ~K 8. _________ 1, 7, HS
4. ~ (I · J) /  ~L v ~J 9. _________ 5, 8, MT
5. ________ 1, Abs 10. G ·~F _______
6. ~I ________
7. _______ 2, 4, DS.
8. ~ ~K ________
9._______ 3, 8, MT
10 ~L v ~J ________

5.6.2 The Rules of Replacement or Rules of Equivalence

229
In the previous section we have learned about nine rules of inferences. And, as
we have already seen the previous nine rules of inference are implicational
(they work in one direction) i.e. inference is permitted from the premises to the
conclusion. For instance inference from “P” to “P v Q” is possible and valid, but
the reverse inference from “P v Q” to “P” is invalid. Hence, since there are many
valid truth functional arguments whose validity can not be proved using only
the nine rules of inference given so far, this section will introduce us additional
principles of inference called the rules of replacement. These rules of
replacement permit us to infer from any statement and the result of replacing
any component of the statement by any other statement can logically be
equivalent to the component replaced. And we have to note that these rules of
replacement to be discussed are stated in the form of logical equivalences. For
this purpose, a new symbol, called a double colon (::) will be used to indicate
logical equivalence which makes an assertion only about symbolized
statements, not about things. It expresses that either side of it have the same
truth value regardless of the truth value of their components. In other words,
statements or arguments are said to be logically equivalent if they validly imply
each other. And unlike the implicational rules which are one directional, all of
the equivalence rules are two directional. These rules of replacement are:

230
10. Double Negation (DN): This rule mainly formalizes the intuition that, any
statement form implies, and also is implied by. And the negation of its
denial implies each other and is logically equivalent. For example, “P ”, and
~~P are equivalent.

Double Negation (DN): P :: ~~P

11) Demorgan's Theorem (DM):

This rule delineates the logical relations of negated conjunctions and of
negated disjunctions.
DM: 1. ~ (p · q) :: ~p v ~q
2. ~ (p v q) :: ~p v ~q
Thus, "not both p and q" is logically equivalent to "Not p or not q", and
"Not either p or q" is logically equivalent to "Not p and not q". When
applying Demorgan’s rule (DM), one must keep in mind that it holds only
for conjunction and disjunctive statements (not for conditionals, or bi-
conditionals). DM may be summarized as: “when moving a tilde inside or
outside a set of parentheses, a dot switches with a wedge or veel (V) and a
wedge with a dot (·)”.

12. Commutativity (Com.):

Commutativity is another rule of replacement asserting that the truth
value of a conjunction or disjunction is unaffected by the order in which
the components are ordered. (i.e., the component statement may be
commuted, or switched for one another without affecting the truth value).
Commutativity (Com): 1. (p v q) :: (q v p)
2. (p · q ) :: (q · p)

231
13. Associativity (Assoc.): The rule of association states that the truth value
of a conjunctive or disjunctive statement is unaffected by the placement of
parentheses when the same operation is used throughout. i.e., the way in
which the component propositions are grouped, or associated with one
another, can be changed without affecting the truth value. Like
commutativity, the associativity rule applies only to conjunctive and
disjunctive statements.
Associativity (Assoc): 1. [[p v (q v r)] :: [(p v q) v r]]
2. [p · (q. r)] :: [(p · q) ·r]

14. Distribution (Dist): Like the above three rules of replacement, distribution
applies only to conjunctive and disjunctive statements. If a proposition is
conjoined to a disjunctive statement in parentheses or disjoined to a
conjunctive statement in parentheses, the rule of distribution allows us to
put that proposition together with each of the components inside the
parentheses, and also to go in the reverse direction. In other words, in the
first form of the rule, a statement is distributed through a disjunction and
in the second form through a conjunction. Unlike associativity and
commatativity, distribution works when a dot and a wedge appear together
in a statement.
Distribution (Dist):
1. [p v (q · r) :: [(p v q ) · (p v r)]
2. [p. (q v r) :: [(p · q ) v (p · r )]
15. Transpositions (Trans): This rule allows us to replace any conditional
proposition with another statement form (switch the antecedent and
consequent, and negate both). In other words, transposition rule holds
that a conditional proposition is logically equivalent with its contrapositive
or contraposed form of a conditional statement: one should switch the
antecedent and consequent, and negate both.
Transposition (Trans): (p  q) ::( ~q  ~p)

232
16. Material Implication (Impl.): This rule states that a horseshoe may be
replaced by a wedge sign if the left hand component is negated, and the
reverse replacement is allowed if a tilde is deleted from the left-hand
component.
Material implication (Impl.): (p  q) :: (~p v q)

17. Material equivalence (Equiv.): This rule has two formulations. First, a bi-
conditional or material equivalence is logically equivalent to the two
conditionals that formulate it. For instance, the proposition (p  q) can be
split in to two conditionals (p  q) · (q  p). The second formulation depends
on the two ways in which (p  q), a bi-conditional may be true. That is
when either both p and q are true, or false. Thus, (p  q) is logically
equivalent when p and q are either true or both false i.e. [(p. q) v (~p· ~q).
Material equivalence (Equiv):
1. (p  q) :: [(p  q)· [(q  p)].
2. (p  q) :: [(p· q) v (~p· ~ q)]
Thus, material equivalence comes in two forms. The first tell us that a bi-
conditional is logically equivalent to a conjunction of two conditionals. And, the
second form tells us that a bi-conditional is equivalent to a disjunction of two
conjunctions.

18. Exportation (EXP): The rule of exportation refers that, statements of the
form "If P and q then r" are logically equivalent to statements of the form
"If p, then if q, then r." Symbolically it can be written as follows:
Exportation (EXP):
[(p· q)  r] :: [p  (q  r)]

19. Tautology (Taut): The rule of tautology, also called redundancy allows us
to eliminate redundancy in disjunctions and conjunctions.

233
 Tautology (Taut):
p:: (p. p)
p:: (p v p)
N.B we can test propositional arguments using the combination of both logical
rules of inferences i.e. implication and replacement rules. Thus, the following
are important points to be considered.

 Conjunction, constructive dilemma and addition can be used to set

up Demorgan's theorem:
1). 1. ~A 2) 1. (A  ~ B)· (   ~D)
2. ~B 2. A V C
3. ~A· ~B 1, 2, conj 3. ~ (B· D) 1,2 CD
4. ~ (A v B) 3, DM 4. ~ (B· D) 3, DM
3) 1. ~A
2. ~A v ~B 1, Add
3. ~ (A· B) 2, DM
 Distribution can be used in two ways to set up disjunctive syllogism.
1) 1. (A V B)· (A V C) 2) 1. A· (B V C)
2. ~ A 2. ~ (A· B)
3. AV (B· C) 1, Dist 3. (A· B) V (A· C) 1, Dist
4. B· C 2, 3, DS 4. A· C 2, 3, DS

 Distribution can also be used in two ways to set up simplification.

1) 1. Av (B· C) 2) 1. (A· B) v (A· C)
2. (AvB) · (AvC) 1, Dist 2. A· (B v C) 1, Dist
3. Av B 2, Simp. 3. A 2, Simp.
 Note that when inspection of the premises does not reveal how the
conclusion should be derived, we have to consider the rules of
replacement to "deconstruct" the conclusion.

234
 Material implication can be used to setup hypothetical syllogism,
tautology and distribution.
1) 1. ~A v B 2) 1. A  ~ A
2. ~B v C 2. ~A v A 1, Impl
3. A  B 1, Impl. 3. ~A 2, Taut
4. B  C 2, Impl.
5. A  C 3, 4, HS
3) 1. A  (B· C)
2. ~Av (B· C) 1, Impl
3. (~Av B)· (~Av C)..... 2, Dist

 Exportation can be used to set up modus ponens, and modus tollens.

1) 1. (A· B)  C 2) 1. A  (B  C)
2. A 2. ~C
3. A  (B  C) 1, EXP. 3. (A· B)  C 1, EXP
4. B  C 2, 3, MP 4. ~ (A.B) 2,3, MT

 Addition can be used to set up material implication.

1. A
2. Av ~ B 1, Add.
3. ~Bv A 2, Comm
4. B  A 3, Impl.
 Transposition can be used to set up hypothetical syllogism and
constructive Dilemma;
1) 1. A  B 2) 1. (A  B)· (C  D)
2. ~C  ~B 2. ~BV ~ D
3. B  C 2, Trans 3. (~B  ~ A)· (C  D) 1, Trans
4. A  C 1, 3, HS 4. (~B  ~A)· (~D  ~C) 3, Trans
5. ~A v ~C 2, 4, CD
 Constructive dilemma can be used to set up tautology.

235
 1) 1. (A  C)· (B  C)
2. Av B
3. C v C 1, 2, CD
4. C 3, Taut.

Considering the above applications, let us now consider some examples on

how to use both the rules of equivalence or replacement and rules of
implication.

Examples: 1) 1. W  (L v F)
2. B
3. B  ~ L
4. ~ F / ~ W
5. ~ L 2, 3, MP
6. [W  (L v F) · [(L v F)  W)] 1, E
7. W  (Lv F) 6, Simp
8. ~L· ~F 5, 4, Conj
9. ~ (Lv F) 8, DM
10. ~ W 7, 9, MT
2) 1. (~N v E)  ~S / ~N  ~ S
2. ~ (~N v E) v ~S 1, Impl.
3. (~~N· ~ E) v ~S 2, DM
4. (N· ~E) v ~S 3, DN
5. ~S v (N· ~E) 4, Com.
6. (~S v N)· ((~S v ~E) 5, Dist.
7. ~S v N 6, Simpl.
8. S N 7, Impl.
9. ~N  ~S 8, Trans.
3) 1. C  D
2. C v D / D
3. ~~C v D 2, DN

236
 4. ~C D 3, Impl.
5. ~C  ~~D 4, DN
6. ~D  C 5, Trans.
7. ~D  D 1, 6, HS
8. ~ D v D 7, Impli.
9. D v D 8, DN
10. D 9, taut.
All of the above nineteen rules of inference (implication and replacement)
can therefore be summarized as follows:

I- Rules of Implication:
1 Modus Ponens (MP): p  q 2. Modus Tollens (MT):
p p q
q ~q
~ p
3. Hypothetical syllogism (HS): p  q 4. Disjunctive syllogism (DS):
q r pv q pvq
p r ~p ~q
 q, or,  p
5. Constructive dilemma (CD): 6. Simplification (Simp.):
(p  q)· (r  s) p. q p. q
Pvr  p, or, q
q v s
7. Conjunction (Conj.) : p 8. Absorption (Abs.): p  q
q  p  (q. p)
 p· q
9. Addition (Add.) p
 pvq

II. Rules of Replacement

10. Double Negation (DN): P :: ~~ p 11. Demorgans Theorems (DM):

237

12. Commutativity (Com.):
. (p v q) :: (q v p)
. (p · q) :: (q · p)
14. Distribution (Dist.):
. [p v (q· r)] :: [(p v q)· (p v r)]
. [p· (q v r)] :: [(p· q) v (p· r)]
16. Material Implication (Impl.):
(p  q) :: (~p v q)
18. Exportation (Exp):
[(p· q)  r] :: (p  (q  r)]
~ (p· q) :: ~p v ~q
~ (p v q) :: ~ p· ~q
13. Associativity (Assoc.):
. [p v (q v r)]:: [(p v q)v r]
. [p· (q· r)] :: [(p· q)· r]
15. Transposition (Trans.):
(p  q) :: (~q  ~p)
17. Material Equivalence (Equiv.)
. (p≡ q) :: [(p  q)· (q  p)
. (p≡ q) :: [( p· q) v (~p· ~q)]
19. Tautology (Taut):
p:: (p· p)
p:: (p v q)

Exercises:
I. Use the nineteen rules of inference to derive the conclusions of the
following symbolized arguments:
1. 1. (JVK)  ~L 2. 1. HVH
2. L / ~J 2. H ≡~J / ~S

3. 1. (D· E)V (~D· ~E) 4. 1. (M  N)· (O  P)

2. (H·J) (D≡E) 2. ~NV ~P
3. ~~HVJ /  J≡ ~ H 3.~(M· O)  Q /  Q

5. 1. (D  E)  (E  D) 6. 1. (SVT)  (S  ~T)
2. (D≡E)  ~ (G· ~H) 2. (S  ~T) (T  K)
3. E· G / G· H 3. SVT / SVK
II. In the following symbolized arguments, derive the line needed to
obtain the conclusion (last line), and supply justification.

238
1. 1. (D· E)  F 2. 1. J  (M  Q)
2. (D  F)  G / E  G 2. J· M / Q
3. (E· D)  F ________ 3. (J· M)  Q ______
4. ________ 3, EXP 4. ___________ _______
5. E  G _________

3. 1. A  B 4. 1. K  (A  F)
2. B  C 2. F /~ (K· A)
3. C  A 3. (K· A)  f ______
4. A  ~C/ ~A· ~C 4. _____________ ______
5. ________ 1, 2, HS
6. (A  C)· (C  A) ______ 5. 1. (MVN)  (O· P)
7. _________ 6, Equiv 2. ~O / ~M
8. (A· C) V (~A· ~C) _______ 3. ~OV ~P _______
9. __________ 4, Impl. 4. _______ 3, DM
10. ~ (A· C) _________ 5. ~ (MVN) _______
11. ~A· ~C _________ 6. _______ 5, DM
7. _______ ________

5.7 Methods of Proof: Conditional and Indirect Proofs

In this section we are going to learn about two additional methods, conditional
and indirect proofs. Beside the truth table analysis and method of natural
deduction, the conditional and indirect proofs are equally important in proving
validity and they are particularly useful to construct the proofs for many valid
arguments with conclusions that are difficult to derive by the conventional
method. For instance, we cannot proof the validity of the following simple valid
argument by using only our system of nineteen rules of inference.
H ~B /H (H· ~B)

239
A. Conditional Proof (CP)
To prove the validity of the above argument, we can begin by assuming that:
what would be the case if H were true. If we assume H to be true, clearly ~B (its
consequent) also would be true by Modus Ponens. So, if H were true, ~B would
also be true and thus (H· ~B) would be true by conjunction. We have therefore
shown that H (H· ~B), i.e. given the premise true, the antecedent of the
conditional conclusion leads logically to its consequent. Therefore, the
argument is valid. A proof of this kind is called a conditional proof.
In other words, conditional proof is a method for obtaining a line in a proof
sequences (either the conclusion or some intermediate line) that frequently
offers the advantage of being both shorter and simpler to use than the direct
method. So, the basic idea behind conditional proof (CP) is that we can prove a
conditional statement true by assuming that its antecedent is true, and by
showing that the consequent can be derived from this assumption. The
conditional proof is mainly reserved for obtaining lines in proof sequence that
are expressed in the form of conditional statement, and obviously any
argument with a conditional conclusion is an immediate candidate for
conditional proof.
Note that we have simply introduced a temporary assumption for the purpose
of proving that the conditional conclusion follows from the premise. And
generally, the method of conditional proof consists of assuming the antecedent
of the required conditional conclusion on one line, deriving the consequent on
a subsequent line, and then “discharging” this sequence of lines in a
conditional statement that exactly replicates the one that was supposed to be
obtained.
The formal proof of the previous example looks like this-
1. H ~B /H (H· ~B)
2. H Assumption for conditional proof (ACP)
3. ~B 1, 2, MP
4. (H· ~B) 2, 3, Conj.

240
 5. H (H· ~B) 2-4 Conditional Proof (CP)

If we see the above formal conditional proof, the lines 2 through 4 are indented
to indicate their hypothetical character, i.e. to show that they all depend on the
assumption introduced in line 2 via ACP (assumption for conditional proof).
These lines shows that if we assume H (line 2), we can obtain (H· ~B) (line 4). In
the last line the conditional sequence is discharged in the conditional H (H·
~B), which simply reiterates the result of the conditional sequence. Hence, line
5 is not hypothetical and that is why it is written adjacent to the original
margin. Only one assumed premise is used in the above example, but any
number of assumptions can be introduced in to a proof, provided that everyone
is eventually discharged so that the conclusion of the argument depends only
on the given premises. And an assumption need not be the antecedent of the
conclusion. Any assumption may be made, again provided that it is eventually
discharged.

Examples:
1) 1. S (T A)
2. (T· A)  L /  S (T L)
3. S ACP
4. T A 1, 3, MP
5. T ACP
6. A 4, 5, MP
7. T· A 5, 6, Conj.
8. L 2, 7, MP
9. T L 5-8, CP (Conditional Proof)

241
 10. S (T L) 3-9 CP

2) 1. (B v A) C
2. A ~C
3. ~A B / B≡C
4. B ACP
5. B v A 4, Add
6. C 1, 5, MP
7. B C 4-6, CP
8. C ACP
9. ~~C 8, DN
10. ~A 2, 9, MT
11. B 3, 10, MP
12. C B 8-11, CP
13. (B C) · (C B) 7, 12, Conj
14. (B≡C) 13, Equiv
One important rule governing conditional proof is that after a conditional proof
sequence has been discharged, no line in the sequence may be used as a
reason for a subsequent line in the proof. Once the conditional sequence is
discharged, it is sealed off from the remaining part of the proof. The other
important point to be considered is that, every conditional proof must be
discharged. It is improper to end a proof on an indented line.

B. Indirect Proof
Indirect proof is a method similar to conditional proof that can be used on any
argument to derive either the conclusion or some intermediate line leading to
the conclusion. It consists of assuming the negation of the statement form to
be obtained, using this assumption to derive a contradiction, finally concluding
that the original assumption is false. This last step therefore, establishes the
truth of the statement form to be obtained.

242
Example:
1) 1. ~A (B· ~C)
2. B ~C  A
3. ~A AIP (assumption for indirect proof)
4. B· ~C 1, 3, MP
5. B 4, Simp
6. C 2, 5, MP
7. ~C 4, Simp
8. C· ~C 6, 7, Conj
9. A 3-8, IP
The indirect proof sequence (lines 3-8) begins by assuming the negation of the
conclusion. This assumption, which is tagged “AIP” (assumption for indirect
proof) leads to a contradiction in line 8. Since any assumption that leads a
contradiction is false, the indirect sequence is discharged (line 9) by asserting
the negation of the assumption made in line 3, this line is then tagged with the
designation “IP” (indirect proof) together with the numerals indicating the scope
of the indirect sequence from which it is obtained. And, when an indirect proof
sequence is discharged, no line in the sequence may be used as a justification
for a subsequent line in the proof.

Exercises
I. Construct proofs to show that the following symbolic valid arguments
by using the conditional proof (CP).
1. C /A (B C) 4. 1. P Q
2. BC/ (A B)  (A C) 2. P R / P (Q· R)
3. 1. ~L L 5. 1. ~P v (Q· ~R)/  (R v P) ~P
2. ~L≡ N / ~N

243
II. Construct proofs to show that the following symbolic valid arguments
by using the indirect proof (IP).
1. 1. ~E · ~F / E ≡ F
2. 1. P Q
2. ~P J
3. ~Q ~J/ Q
3. 1. ~A
2. (A v B) ≡ C
3. ~B / ~ (C · D)
4. 1. A B
2. C D
3. (B v D)  E
4. ~E / ~ (A v C)
5. 1. (A v B) (C ~D)
2. (D v E) (A · C) /~D

Chapter Summary
Propositional logic is a logic that deals with relationships holding between
sentences, atomic or compound, without dealing with the interior structure of
atomic sentences. So, the fundamental elements or units in propositional logic
are all sentences, not terms. Statements may contain any other sentences as
components. If they does contain, they are said to be compound propositions, if
not, simple/atomic sentences. Compound propositions are formed by
connecting atomic sentences by using logical operators like tilde, wedge, dot,
horseshoe and triple bar that can be used to translate expressions like not,
and, but, or,… that appears in symbolically written compounds like negations,
conjunctions, disjunctions, conditionals and bi-conditionals.

244
The truth value of the five compound propositions can easily be determined by
using the truth value of their components and the sentence connectives, and
such statements are said to be truth functional compound sentences. And the
truth functional meaning of the logical operators is defined in terms of truth
tables.
Truth tables can be used to classify compound statements as tautologous, self-
contradictory or contingent, and also to compare one with another. Not only
the truth value of complex compound propositions is determined by using the
truth table analysis, but also truth tables, direct or indirect, may be used to
test arguments for validity. Besides, once we have symbolized and determine
the form of an argument we can determine its validity through mere inspection
of its form.
Modus tollens, modus ponens, disjunctive syllogism, pure hypothetical
syllogism, destructive and constructive dilemmas are some of the valid
argument forms. Where as affirming the consequent and denying antecedent
are invalid argument forms. When the truth table method fails to determine the
validity of complex arguments of propositional type one may use the natural
deduction method. This method works by applying one or more rules of
inference to the premises and deriving the conclusion as the last line in a
sequence of lines. There are nineteen rules of inferences among which nine of
them are implicational rules of inference while the other ten are axioms of
replacement. So, we may test a propositional type argument by using the
combination of these logical rules of inference. Conditional and indirect proofs
are other methods of proving valid arguments with conclusions that are either
difficult or impossible to derive by the conventional method.

245
 Chapter Six

Inductive and Deductive Reasoning in Law (6 hrs)

Introduction

Inductive and deductive reasoning are complementary methods of thought in

different disciplines as well as in our day-to-day experiences. More specifically
this chapter discloses the relationships existed between these two methods of
reasoning and the discipline of law. For that matter, the method of enquiry in
law, analogical reasoning in legal arguments, Mill ’s methods of inductive

246
reasoning, hypothetical reasoning and statistical reasoning and finally the
basic ideals of deductive reasoning are the main topics of this chapter.

Objectives:

After Completing this chapter, Students will be able to:

 Familiar with some preliminary notions as well as forms of inductive and

deductive reasoning in general and their relationship with legal
reasoning.

 Know the relationship between different forms of inductive as well as

inductive reasoning.

 Acquaint with different methods of causal inferences in law.

 Aware of the scientific hypothesis and reasoning in law.

 Familiar with probability and statistical reasoning in law.

6.1 Inductive Reasoning in Law

Most reasoning in everyday life is accompanied by deductive and inductive

reasoning. However, unlike deductive reasoning, the logic of induction does not
offer absolute and harmonious system of ideas agreed upon by all logicians.
Most of the time people usually grapple with its real problems and responds to
them by combining those two methods of reasoning. That is we usually deal
with inductive reasoning, employ inductive conclusions as premises to
deductive arguments, and integrate deductive conclusions with inductive
results… This shows that the final result (success and failure) of people ’s
interaction on problems in general and that of any legal disputes in particular
is the combination of the two methods of reasoning.

247
In Law, the primary method of reasoning is inductive. First of all, facts should
be determined in trial court through causal argument, probability and other
forms of inductive reasoning. Thus, in courts, different agents should
distinctively treat the task of determining facts and the application of law to
those facts. Moreover, disputes in courts are usually not about laws, rather
about matters of fact, which there is a sharp disagreement. It is only after the
facts are determined can the legal rules be applied to these facts by the court.
Thus, determining the facts, putting them together and analyzing them are the
principal tasks when any case is tried in courts and such tasks are chiefly
characterized by inductive reasoning.

The Method of Inquiry in Law

Just like any other discipline, Law has its own distinct methods of inquiry so
as to solve problems around. For that matter, a problem is first identified,
preliminary hypotheses are proposed, facts are collected, an explanatory
hypothesis is formulated, consequences of the hypothesis to those facts
inferred and tasted and results are then applied in practice. In fact, in passing
through such inductive investigations, no one can get all evidence or achieve
absolute truth or certainty, however, One can achieve reliable solutions
through careful reasoning to those legal problems faced the society. Though
ways in which evidence is collected and applied are subject to special
restrictions of a system of justice for fairness and truth, the methods of enquiry
is not essentially different in law.

The jury or the judge, who are entitled with determining facts, usually
confronts several inconsistent accounts and explanations of a given set of
events. A mass of testimony and documents will be submitted. Attorneys will
present conflicting hypothesis about the consequence of evidence in opening
and closing argument. And, the task of selecting from those alternative
hypotheses offered by the parties so as to best explain the mass of evidence
and testimony is given to the triers of fact. However, in a courtroom, the above

248
inductive process is accompanied by restrictions upon what evidence may be
considered. According to the principles of the law of evidence, limiting the
submission of evidence by the disputing parties and carefully applying
principles designed so as to insure that the competing hypothesis may be
weighed fairly is the primary task of the judge. This is because of the fact that
a jury may be misled or confused by testimony or other evidence that is not
relevant to the issue at hand or evidence that is not fair to one of the parties
because of different reasons.

Another well-known, though controversial, rule of evidences excludes hearsay.

Hearsay is a testimony by a witness about some fact based on some other
person has said or written. Hearsay creates a problem for the triers because of
the fact that it rests on the trustfulness and competency of some third person
who is not present in court, from whom the witness has received his
information. Trustfulness and competency may not be tasted by cross-
examination so that hearsay may not be trustworthy evidence. Thus,
regardless of some exceptions to hearsay rule, the rule in effect usually
supports the other person to be permitted to come forward and testify on the
matter (allowing his direct testimony), rather than receiving the second hand
report.

In any case rules of evidence are designed to protect the integrity of legal
process. Some exclusion based on the need to avoid a failure by the jury to
evaluate evidence wisely others rest on human dignity and to deter police
misconduct. These rules may hinder the pursuit of truth so that there is
controversy on them. Establishing facts is the principal objective of a court.
Fairness in legal process is the highest value and its principles set limits within
which inductive process can proceed.

6.1.1 Analogical Reasoning in Legal Argument

249
Analogical reasoning is the most fundamental and most common of all rational
processes. And, analogical arguments are important so as to pass decisions
and judgments on disputed factual questions. Such arguments are built upon
premises in which one or more cases are shown like another case in question.
In one or more respect, the conclusion drawn is that the questionable case is
like others in some additional important respect. In any case, analogical
reasoning is the reasoning process, which is depending on a comparison of
instances. If the instances are sufficiently similar, the decision reached in the
end is usually a good one and the contrary will result in a bad decision. And, a
common argument from analogy has usually the following structure:

Entity A has attributes a, b, c and z.

Entity B has attributes a, b, c.
Therefore, entity B has attributes Z also.

If attributes a, b, c, are connected in some important way to Z, the argument is

strong where as if attributes a, b, c, are not so connected with Z the argument
is usually weak. Analogical arguments are closely related to generalizations
which the arguer usually begins with one or more instances and procedures to
draw a conclusion about all the members of a class. In an argument from
analogy, the items that are compared are usually called analogates. And, there
are some fundamental principles or guidelines which are useful to evaluate
arguments form analogy. These are:

 Similarities of qualities to be compared or analogies to be

compared should be meaningful and relevant.

 A number of similarities between entities or items are more

significant in number.

 The nature and degree of dis-analogies should be insignificant

and minimized.

250
If the above and other related requirements are fulfilled, we can achieve strong
analogical argument and the contrary will result in weak argument from
analogy. And, though the application is different, the above principles are
essential so as to evaluate the strength of legal arguments. More particularly,
analogical arguments are usually common in legal controversies over who
caused what.

In expert testimony, for example, the expert draws an analogy: an argument

based up on that analogy leads to the conclusion about causal connection,
which is aiming at resolving the conflict or despite at hand. Moreover, what is
known as ‘circumstantial evidence’ is similarly grounded upon analogical
argument.

Without formulating or asserting a causal law, we understand that certain

kinds of consequents often follow certain kinds of antecedents. Thus, causal
analogies are central in the inductive reasoning process. Moreover, analogical
arguments are occasionally used by judges in justifying the application of an
established rule or in defending a particular interpretation of some statute.
Finally, analogical argument and precedent cases are also intimately related.

To sum up, analogical reasoning has an immense contribution to legal

arguments. Analogical arguments are mainly aimed at conclusions of fact. The
fact in question may be the intention of legislators in enacting a statue or the
interpretation of a constitutional provision that is most likely to achieve the
main purpose of the provision. Such arguments, though they are abstracts, are
inductive since their premises support their conclusions with no certainty, but
with some degree of probability.

6.1.2 Causality, Mill’ s Methods of Induction and Legal

Reasoning.

251
Causal reasoning or connections play an important role in our effort so as to
control our day-to-day life.

The word ‘cause’ in its ordinary English language is ambiguous. However,

logicians adopt the languages of sufficient and necessary conditions so as to
clear up the ambiguity behind the meaning of the cause.

When we say that ‘X’ causes ‘Y’ in the sense of sufficient condition, it means
‘X’ is sufficient to cause ‘Y’; however, there are other factors other than ‘X ’,
which can really cause ‘Y’. For example, when we say that electrocution is the
cause of death, we mean ‘cause’ in the sense of sufficient condition. Though
electrocution is sufficient to produce death, there are also other methods,
which are equally effective, such as shooting, poisoning and others.

On the other hand, when we say that ‘X’ causes ‘Y ’ in the sense of necessary
condition, it means without ‘X’, y cannot occur, however; ‘X’ alone is not
sufficient. For example, when we say the presence of clouds is a cause of rain,
we mean ‘Cause’ in the sense of necessary condition. Without clouds, rain
cannot occur; however, clouds alone are not sufficient that certain
combinations of pressure and temperature are also required.

There are also cases where ‘cause’ can be understood in the sense of
necessary and sufficient condition at a time. When we say that ‘X’ causes
‘Y’; it means that there is nothing more and nothing less than ‘X ’ so as to cause
‘Y’. For example, for an increase in electric current through a resistive circuit,
nothing more and nothing less is required than an increase in voltage.
Therefore, the word ‘Cause’ can have one of the following three different
meanings:

1. Sufficient condition,
2. Necessary condition,
3. Sufficient and necessary conditions.

252
And, statements expressed in terms of sufficient and necessary conditions can
be translated as conditional statements:

 ‘X’ is a sufficient condition for ‘Y’ if ‘X’ occurs then ‘Y’ must occur.

 ‘X’ is a necessary condition for ‘Y’ if ‘Y’ occurs, then ‘X’ must occur.

These translations imply that if ‘X’ is a sufficient condition for ‘Y ’, then ‘Y ’ is a

necessary condition for ‘X’; conversely, if ‘X’ is a necessary condition for ‘Y ’,
then ‘Y’ is a sufficient condition for ‘x’. And through transposing rule of
conditional statements, one can derive the following pairs of statement:

- The absence of ‘X’ is a sufficient condition for the absence of ‘Y ’ if and

only if ‘Y’ is a sufficient condition for ‘X’.

- The absence of ‘X’ is a necessary condition for the absence of ‘Y ’ if and

only if ‘Y’ is a necessary condition for ‘X’.

Moreover, such concepts of causality are important in understanding and

applying Mill’s methods of induction.

In his system of logic, John Stuart Mill designed different methods of induction
so as to identify causal connections between events. These are; the method of
agreement, the method of difference, the joint method of agreement and
the method of concomitant variation. These methods function implicitly in
many of inductive inferences we make in our day-to-day experiences. In fact,
Mill did not distinguish the various senses of ‘Cause’ to which the methods
pertain. When ‘Cause’ in the sense of necessary condition is distinguished from
‘Cause’ in the sense of sufficient condition, the method of agreement breaks
dawn in to two methods: direct method of agreement and inverse method of
agreement. And combining these two methods will result in a third method, the
double method of agreement. In any case, the next sections will tell us some
central conceptual frame works of Mill’s methods of induction.

253
  Direct Method of Agreement

The direct method of agreement is a method, which is useful to identify a

causal connection between an effect and a necessary condition. The method is
composed of considering a single factor (cause) for a number of occurrences in
which the effect is also present. This single factor, which all occurrences agree,
is the cause.

Example:-

Five individuals become ill with hepatitis after eating Lunch at the same
restaurant. Inspectors from health department understood that while all
these people had eaten different foods, they had all had tomatoes in their
salad. Furthermore, this was the only food that all five had eaten. The
inspectors concluded that the disease had been transmitted by the
tomatoes.

The above example shows how a cause is presented as the sense of a necessary
condition. And, the conclusion follows only probably because of two reasons.
First of all, it is quite possible that some important condition was overlooked.
For example, the eating utensils were contaminated; the hepatitis might have
been transmitted through them and not through the tomatoes. Secondly, if
more than one of the foods had been contaminated, the disease might have
been through a combination of foods so that the tomatoes might not have been
involved. Thus, the strength of the above argument depends on the non-
occurrence of these two possibilities.

Moreover, the conclusion of the above argument applies only to those

concerned and not to everyone who ate in the restaurant. It (the conclusion)
does not say that all patrons who did not take tomatoes would not get
hepatitis. Thus, the conclusion basically says that the tomatoes are the most
possible factor; however, not the only source of disease for all those ate in the

254
restaurant. And, it does not say that any one who had eaten the tomatoes
would contract the disease.

 Inverse Method of Agreement

Inverse method of agreement, unlike direct method of agreement, which

identifies a connection between an effect and a sufficient condition consists of
recognizing some single factor, which is absent from a number of occurrences
in which the effect is also absent. And, the factor is taken as the cause of the
phenomenon.

Example:-

After conducting a study in the work force at a certain factory, industrial

engineers found that five workers performed their task with less efficiency
than others doing the same kind of work. A list was made of various
factors that were present and absent in the employment conditions of
these five employees. It was discovered that among eight likely
candidates, only one factor was missing for all five: participating in a
profit sharing program. The conclusion was therefore drawn that profit
sharing causes workers to be efficient.

With regard to the conclusion of this argument, it asserts that profit sharing is
a sufficient condition for efficiency i.e. if they (the employee) began to
participate in profit sharing; they would be expected to become efficient.

As to the direct method of agreement, we began by attempting to eliminate as

many of the possible conditions as the evidence allows ( ‘X ’ is not a necessary
condition for ‘Y’ if ‘X’ is absent when ‘Y’ is present). However, here we use the
rule for sufficient conditions; X is not a sufficient condition for ‘Y ’ if ‘X ’ is
present when ‘Y’ is absent.

255
In any case, the spirit of the conclusion in the above example of inverse method
is to mean that engineers should give per amount consideration to the factor of
profit sharing if they want to increase the efficiency of the five workers. But, the
conclusion does not state that profit sharing is the only thing that might work.
Profit sharing is identified as a sufficient, not a necessary condition. Thus,
other solutions such as higher pay or more frequent coffee breaks, may
accomplish the same purpose.

 Double Method of Agreement

The double method of agreement is resulted form the combination of the direct
method of agreement with the inverse method. And, this is a method, which is
mainly useful to identify causes, which are both necessary and sufficient
conditions and researchers usually use this method to determine the
effectiveness of drugs on groups of people and animals.

Example:-

Eight inhabitants of south pacific island contracted a rare form of plague.

Hearing about it, a doctor went to the island with a serum that was
thought to be cure. When the doctor arrived, only four of the infected
inhabitants would accept the serum; however, all eight had previously
been treated with various native remedies. After a short time, the four who
received the serum, but all eight had previously been treated with native
remedies. After a short time the four who received the serum recovered
while the other four did not. Among those who did not recover, every
native remedy had been given to at least one. The doctor concluded that
the serum was a cure for the disease.

The conclusion is warranted that the serum is the cause of the phenomenon in
the sense of necessary and sufficient conditions. And, this conclusion should
be interpreted as applying directly to the natives on the island and to hold for

256
others only through a subsequent indicative generalization. While it is highly
probable that the serum cured the natives on the island, it is somewhat less
probable that it would cure anyone having that disease. But, even as restricted
to the natives, the conclusion is at best probable.

 Method of Difference

The method of difference identifies a sufficient condition among the possible

candidates in specific occurrence. The method consists of finding one single
factor which is present in that specific occurrence but absent in a similar
occurrence in which the phenomenon is absent. This single factor is taken to
be the cause of the phenomenon.

The method of difference is sometimes called the laboratory method because it

is used by researchers to discover causal connections under carefully
controlled conditions.

Example:-

Two identical white mice in a controlled experiment were given identical

amounts of four different foods. In addition, one of the mice was fed a
certain drug. A short time later the mouse that was fed the drug became
nervous and agitated. The researchers concluded that the drug caused the
nervousness.

The conclusion of the above argument rests upon the supposition that the only
relevant differentiating factor between the two mice is drug. As with the
previous methods, the procedure depends upon the elimination of the other
factors as possible sufficient conditions. The method of difference differs from
the inverse method of agreement, which also identifies sufficient conditions, in
that the conclusion yielded by the method of difference is less general. In this
method, the conclusion applies directly only to the specific occurrence in which
the phenomenon is present, where as in the inverse method of agreement it

257
applies to all occurrences listed. However, the conclusion yielded by the
method of difference may often be extended to cover other occurrences as well.

As to the method of difference, the conclusion yielded is probabilistic. And, the

objective of the method of difference is to identify a sufficient condition among
those, which are present in a specific occurrence.

 Joint method of Agreement and Difference

The joint method results form combining the method of difference with the
direct method of agreement. Because the method of difference identifies a
sufficient condition that is present in one specific occurrence and that direct
method of agreement identifies a necessary condition, the joint method can be
used to identify a sufficient and necessary condition, which is present in one
specific occurrence.

The joint method is similar to the double method of agreement in that it

identifies conditions that are both necessary and sufficient condition. But, the
conclusion provided by the double method is more general in that it pertains
directly to all the occurrences listed. The joint method, like the method of
difference, yields a conclusion that pertains directly only to the one specific
occurrence.

The joint method differs from the method of difference in that it is sometimes
simpler to apply. The method of difference requires strict controls so as to
insure that the two occurrences are identical in every important respect except
one. In the joint method this need for strict control is relaxed in favor of
additional occurrences that identify the sufficient condition as also being
necessary. The conclusion yielded by the joint method is only probable because
a relevant condition may have been overlooked.

 Method of Residues

258
This method and the one, which follows, are used to identify a causal
connection between two conditions without regard for the specific kind of
connection. Both methods may be used to identify conditions which are
sufficient, necessary or both sufficient and necessary. The method of residues
consists of separating from a group of causal connected conditions and
phenomena those stands of caused connection that are already known, leaving
the required causal connection as the residue. The method of residue may be
presented as:

ABC Cause abc.

A Causes a.
B Causes b.
Therefore, C causes c.

When the facts that ‘A’ causes ‘a’ and ‘B’ causes ‘b’ are subtracted from the
compound causal connection, the fact that ‘C’ causes ‘c’ remains as a residue.
And some procedures, which appear to utilize the method of residues, come
closer to being deductive than inductive. To distinguish deductive from
inductive uses of the method of residues, one must take into account such
factors as the role of mathematics. If the conclusion depends on a purely
mathematical computation, the argument is probably best characterized as
deductive. If not, then it is probably inductive.

Method of Concomitant Variation

The method of concomitant variation identifies a causal connection between

two conditions by matching variations in one condition with variations in
another. According to one formulation, increases are matched with increases
and decreases with decreases. And plus and minus signs indicate increase and

259
decrease respectively. The formulation of this method may be diagramed as
follows:

A B C is Coincident with a b c.
A B + c are coincident with ab + c.
AB – C is coincident with ab – c.
Therefore, B is causally connected to b.

The second formulation of the method matches increases with decreases and
decreases with increases. It may be diagramed as follows:

A B C is coincident with a b c.
Ab + C are coincident with ab + c.
AB – C is coincident with ab – c.
Therefore, B is usually connected to b.

In both cases the conclusion asserts that either ‘B ’ causes ‘b’, ‘b’ causes ‘B ’ or
‘B’ and ‘b’ have a common cause. If ‘B’ happens before ‘b’, then, of course, the
second alternative is eliminated, and if ‘b’ happens before ‘B ’, then the first
alternative is eliminated.

The method of concomitant variation is useful when it is impossible for a

condition to be either wholly present or wholly absent, as was required for the
use of the first five methods. And, if it is employed correctly, the method of
concomitant variation can yield conclusions, which are highly probable.

6.1.3 Causation in Legal Reasoning

Relations of cause and effect play central roles in many legal controversies. To
be liable for another’s injury, one must have caused it. To be convicted of a
crime one must have acted in a way that caused certain unlawful outcomes. It

260
is not about causal laws that we are dealing with, rather particular causal
connections.

When a chain of causes leads to an event (e.g. an injury for which

compensation is sought) the elements in the causal chain closest to the injury,
the proximate causes are most likely to be assigned legal responsibility for the
outcome. Those whose actions are further back in the causal chain and who
therefore could not foresee the injurious result are much less likely to be held
responsible for it.

Legal responsibility may be traced not only to proximate acts in the causal
chain, but also to proximate omissions, failures to acts in accord with one ’s
legal duties. Acts of omission, like acts of commission, cannot ground
responsibility for injury, however, when the immediate cause of the damage,
even if preventable, could not reasonably have been anticipated.

Determining legal responsibility is always a matter of establishing the facts and

fitting those facts to established rules of conduct. In cases of alleged
negligence, if the defendants had no special duties of care, the rule of law will
commonly fix responsibility based upon what an “ordinary, reasonable, and
prudent” person may be expected to have done under the circumstances then
prevailing. If the interpretations of the rule is well established and clear, the
dispute in court is likely to center on the determination of the facts on a
particular case. If the facts are clear, the legal dispute is likely to center upon
the rule, or the interpretation of the rule, that ought to be applied to them.

The distinction between the sufficient and the necessary condition for an
outcome may also enter critically on determining legal responsibility. Even if a
person’s act or omission might have been the sufficient cause of injury to
another, it will not result in legal responsibility if the jury clearly would have
resulted form the actual prevailing conditions anyway.

261
When a cause is necessary for an event it is the “Sinequa non” of that event-a
Latin expression meaning “that without which not ”. The causal rule often
applied in Law is called “Sinequa non” rule-that a defendant’s conduct is not
the cause of an event if the event would have occurred without it. Plainly it is
necessary conditions that are of primary interest in legal arguments. Yet not all
necessary conditions yield legal responsibility either. Some acts may be no
more than part of the normally prevailing circumstances necessary for the
injurious outcome but not in them wrongful as when an injury results from the
presence of one who had normal duty to be where he was. And, in some
circumstances, two acts occur in bringing about an event in such a way that
either one of them, operating alone, would have been sufficient to cause the
harmful result; viewed as cause, neither may be necessary, and yet both may
be culpable.

Whether the defendant’s conduct was the cause of an event is a factual

question, which is commonly formulated as: Was that conduct both a material
element and a substantial factor in bringing that event about? The phrase
“Material element” is to designate the concepts of cause as “necessary
condition” while the phrase “substantial factor ” as “sufficient condition ”. How
ever, the ultimate determination of the cause must be argued in court, to be
decided by a jury or other trier of fact.

6.1.4 Hypothetical Reasoning

It is common to all forms of inductive reasoning that they proceed from the
known to the unknown. However, the available evidence usually does not
immediately suggests what lies ahead, beyond, beneath the surface. It is not
sufficient to provide the answer. And, to fill this gap, our creative imagination
supplements the evidence by suggesting possible approaches to the problem.
These possible approaches are hypotheses; the reasoning process used to
produce them is hypothetical reasoning, which is usually practical in our day-
to-day experience. In any case, our day to day practical experiences and cases

262
witness that evidence is not usually sufficient to indicate exactly what is going
on, what approach to take or what lies behind the scene, so hypotheses are
constructed to make sense of the situation and to direct future action.

Hypothetical reasoning is used most explicitly in philosophical and scientific

enquiry. Every scientific theory (such as Ptolemaic, Copernican, Darwin ’s
theories and others) can be viewed as a hypotheses for unifying and
rationalizing events in nature. All hypotheses of the above and other scientific
theories will make sense of the data of observation.

The problem for the scientists is that the underlying structure of nature is
hidden from view, and the data of observation by themselves are not sufficient
so as to reveal this structure. In response, the scientist constructs hypotheses
that provide ways of conceptualizing the data and that suggest specific
questions to be answered through the design of controlled experiments.

Every philosophical system can also be viewed as a grand hypothesis for

interpreting the content of experience. Plato’s theory of forms, Aristotle ’s theory
of substance, Leibniz’s monads, and others are all hypothesis aimed at
illuminating various aspects of experiences. Just as the structure of nature is
hidden from the scientist, the meaning of experience is hidden form the
philosopher, and ordinary common sense will not provide the answer. In
response, the philosopher constructs hypotheses, which can be used to shed
light on the content of experience and to provide suggestions for further
analysis.

The hypothetical method involves four basic stages in its application in any
discipline (philosophy or science…) or ordinary life:

1. Occurrence of a problem,
2. Formulating hypothesis,
3. Drawing implications form the hypothesis, and
4. Testing the implications.

263
And, a detective in solving crime may illustrate these four stages through the
procedure used.

Example:

Suppose that a woman has been murdered in her apartment. Initially everything
in the apartment is a potential Clue: the empty wine glasses in the sink, the
small container of Cocaine on the coffee table, the automobile key found on the
carpet, the strand of blonde hair removed from the couch, and so on. To
introduce an element of rationality into the situation, the detective formulates a
hypothesis-let us say the hypothesis that the key found on the carpet fits the
murderer’s car.

We can have many implications to be drawn form the above hypothesis. If we

assume that the key is the kind that fits only late- model Cadillac ’s; the
murdered drives late-modal Cadillac. And if we assume that the key is the only
one the murdered owns, the car may be parked nearly. Another implication is
that the murderer’s name may be on record at the local Cadillac dealership. To
test these implications, the detective conducts a search of the streets in the
vicinity and contacts the local Cadillac dealer for the names of recent buyers.

Moreover, the above example illustrates three additional points about

hypotheses as follows:

1. A hypothesis is not derived from the evidence to which it pertains but

rather is added to the evidence by the investigator. It is a free creation of
the mind used to structure the evidence and unveil the pattern that lies
beneath the surface.

2. A hypothesis directs the search for evidence without a hypothesis for

guidance, all facts are equally relevant.

264
 3. The proof of the hypotheses-concluding that a hypothesis is proven true
by the discovery that one of its implications is true amounts to the
fallacy of affirming the consequent which is invalid as:

If H, then I H stands for hypotheses

I I Stands for an implication
Therefore, H

There are two different kinds of hypotheses: empirical and theoretical. Empirical
hypotheses concern the production of something or the occurrence of some
event that can be observed. For example, when radium had finally been
obtained as a pure metal, it was something that could be seen directly.
Theoretical hypotheses, on the other hand, concern how something should be
conceptualized. When Galileo observed the water level rising in a suction
pump, for example, he conceived it as being sucked up by the vacuum. Thus,
hypotheses involved in the discovery of Neptune and radium are sometimes
called empirical hypotheses, and those relating to atmospheric pressure and
spontaneous generation are sometimes called theoretical hypotheses.

The distinction between empirical and theoretical hypotheses lies on the fact
that the formers are for all practical purposes proved when the thing or event
hypothesized is observed where as the later are never proved but are only
confirmed to varying degrees. And, the problem with the distinction between
empirical and theoretical hypotheses is that observation is theory-dependent.
Therefore, while the distinction between theoretical and empirical hypotheses is
useful, it is more a distinction in degree than in kind.

Finally there are at least four criteria for a given hypotheses to be

accepted tentatively. These are:

265
 a) A hypothesis is adequate to the extent that it fits the facts that are
intended to unify or explain.

b) A hypothesis is internally coherent to the extent that its component ideas

are rationally interconnected.

c) A hypothesis is externally consistent when it does not disagree with

other, well-confirmed hypotheses.

d) A hypothesis is fruitful to the extent that it suggests new ideas for future
analysis and confirmation.

6.1.5 Statistical Reasoning

All of us in our day-to-day experiences usually encounter arguments, which

are based on statistical evidence. Advertising industry, though it is not the only
source, is the major area where statistical arguments are entertained. And, to
evaluate statistical arguments, interpretation of those arguments, though it is
not always easy, is a mandatory task. Statements expressing averages and
percentages are often ambiguous and can mean any number of things,
depending on how the average or percentage is computed. Moreover, statistics
provide a highly convenient way for people to deceive one another. Thus, to
evaluate statistical arguments one should aware of ambiguities that occur in
the language and deceptions which are unusually there in them.

There are six prominent areas of statistical arguments where ambiguity and
deception are serious problems; in sampling, the meaning of “average, ” the
importance of dispersion in a sample, the use of graphs and pictograms, and
the use of percentages for the purpose of comparison. Thus, one should be
acquainted with these topics and some misuses, which occur around first so
that s/he can determine whether a conclusion follows probably from a set of
statistical promises.

266
Much of the statistical evidence presented in support of inductively drawn
conclusion is gathered from analyzing samples. When a sample is found to
posses a certain character, it is argued that the group as a whole possesses
that characteristic. The problem that arises with the use of samples has to do
with whether the sample is representative of the population. And, samples,
which are not representatives, are said to be biased. Depending on what the
population consists of, different consideration enters into determining whether
a sample is biased. These considerations include (1) Whether the samples
are randomly selected, (2) the size of the sample, and (3), psychological
factors. In statistics the word “average” is used in three different senses:
mean, median and mode. The mean value of a set of data is the arithmetical
average. It is computed by dividing the sum of the individual values by the
number of data in the set. The median of a set of data is the middle point when
the data are arranged in ascending order. It is the point at which there are an
equal number of data above and below. Finally the mode is the value that
occurs with the greatest frequency.

Another important point in statistical argumentation is dispersion. The

dispersion of a set of data refers to how spread out the data is in regard to
numerical value. In statistics, dispersion is expressed in terms of such
perimeters as range, variance and standard deviation. The range of a set of
data is the difference between the largest and the smallest values. The variance
and standard deviation, on the other hand, measure how far the data deviate
or vary from the mean value.

Groups provide a highly convenient and informative way to represent statistical

data, they are also susceptible to misuse and misinterpretation. And
percentages are also important in statistical arguments as they are important
to compare two or more situations or qualities, which in fact might be another
source of illusion.

267
6.1.6 Probability in Legal Arguments

As in all inductive reasoning, probability is thus a central concept of legal

reasoning. The truth of certain factual premises will be established with
deductive certainty; however, the facts upon which such reasoning is built
must first be established inductively, and therefore only with probability. The
degree of probability with which the facts can be established often becomes in
the law as in scientific inquiry the measure of success.

But the probability of simple factual events cannot in most circumstances be

expressed as a numerical fraction, and therefore the calculus of probability
cannot be readily applied in such cases. Given the testimony of several
conflicting witnesses it is probable that the accused is lying when he denies
having been present at the scene of the crime. But how probable? Except as an
indication of our subjective convictions in the matter, it would not be justifiable
to say that the probability of his lying is. How then can probability be rationally
used in law?

Although it may be arbitrary to assign a number to a given probability, it is

often possible to characterize the general degree of probability that the evidence
justifies. The rules of legal system will usually specify what degree of
probability will be needed to prove matters of different kinds. These are called
“ Standards of proof”. Thus, Different characterizations of the probability of
the alleged fact meet different standards or burdens. Three distinct standards
are very widely practiced.

In most cases in civil law the plaintiff and the defendant come to the court with
an equal presumption of correctness. Thus, in deciding matters of fact that
can be determined only with probability the jury needs to decide which of the
contesting parties’ claims is more likely to be true, that is, which is supported
by a preponderance of evidence.

268
In suits for damages under civil law the burden of proof is generally supposed
to rest upon the complaining party, the party seeking redress for injury. If the
jury finds that the evidence for the two sides is evenly balanced, therefore, the
plaintiffs burden must be sustained this burden, and the defendant will
normally win. But the evidence on either side need not be overwhelming;
plaintiff’s burden must be sustained by more than speculation or conjecture-
but it will be enough if the jury finds that the plaintiff introduced evidence from
which reasonable persons may conclude that it is probable that the injury
complained of was caused by the defendant that it was not.

At the other extreme, in criminal law the standard of proof is very high. The
mistaken conviction of the innocent is an injustice so terrible that every effort
must be made to avoid it. Therefore, an accused must be presumed innocent
until conclusively proved guilty. Conviction of crime requires that the accused
be found guilty “ beyond reasonable doubt”. This means that the probability
of guilt is so great that no reasonable person, after considering all the evidence,
would believe him innocent.

A third, intermediate standard is widely applied in circumstance of certain

kinds. Legal arguments often rely up on common presumptions, which serve as
accepted rules for drawing conclusions from established facts unless
disproved. Most such presumptions require more than a preponderance of
evidence, yet less than near certainty.

6.2 Deductive Reasoning in Law.

Determining the fact is fundamental in resolving a legal dispute. But, after the
facts have been established, the appropriate rule of law must be applied to
them by the court, and then some practical conclusion drawn. The legal rule,
carefully formulated, is the premise of a deductive argument. The statement of
the facts exhibiting their relation to that rule is a second premise. The
outcome of applying the rule to the facts will lead to judgment. If the defendant

269
in a civil suit is held liable, an appropriate remedy for the plaintiff (the person
injured) must then be awarded; if the accused is found guilty in a criminal trial
an appropriate punishment must then be imposed. The overall structure of the
central argument is clear in either case: it is a deductive argument of the court
as conclusion.

This deductive process often encounters further efforts, however. At trial, the
facts are established and the law applied to them. But there are many possible
grounds upon which the decision of the trial court may be appealed to higher
courts. The facts themselves, of which an account is given in the record of trial,
will not normally be the issue on appeal; appeals will usually concern the way
in which those facts had been found, or the rules that ought to be applied to
those facts. But deciding upon the rule that is correctly applied to a given set of
facts can be exceedingly difficult and controversial.

The appeal to a higher court is normally based on the claim that some rule has
been applied improperly, or that the wrong rule has been applied altogether.
The rule in question may be procedural or substantive.

Procedural rules are fundamental in law, because confidence in the entire

judicial system requires that the steps taken in reaching a decision were fair to
the contesting parties. They must have been given a full opportunity to present
their case, normally with the help of legal counsel. Claims must have been
dealt with by the proper authorities, in the proper way, using the proper
standards. The evidence heard must be relevant, and opportunity to examine it
must have been provided to all parties. Even the question of “Standing ”,
whether a complaining party has such a relation to the matter at issue that he
is entitled to bring the matter to the court may be critical to the proper use of
the judicial system, and intensively controversial. What may appear to laymen
to be “legal technicalities” are often important procedural questions, which
determine whether justice has been done. Long experience has shown that to

270
be just a legal system requires careful procedural distinctions and elaborate
procedural rules.

Most often it is the substance of the rule applied, rather than procedure that is
the issue before an appellate court. Not every possible factual circumstance
could be anticipated when the rules were written, and depending upon which
circumstances are emphasized, different rules may appear applicable. Or
different authorities (Courts or legislators) may have promulgated different and
conflicting rules that could be claimed to govern the matter at hand. And even
if the applicable rule is agreed upon, its language may be vague, some terms
within it maybe board, or ambiguous, commonly used in different ways.

In rejecting one interpretation of a rule in favor of another, the technique of

refutation by logical analogy is commonly used by judges. A disputed argument
may be shown to have the same form as another argument that is plainly
unsound.

In reaching decisions on substance, three steps in the processes of appellate,

courts may be distinguished; first, the court must decide which rule to apply;
second the court must state that rule with precision; and third, the court must
determine what result will flow from the correct application of the stated rule to
the facts of the case at hand. An appellate court must identify, and formulate,
and then correctly apply the rules of law.

Exercises:

1. What are the natures of inductive and deductive reasoning?

2. What are Mill’s methods of induction?

3. What are the natures of causal arguments and their relationships with legal
reasoning?

271
4. What are the natures of analogical reasoning and their relationships with
legal arguments?

5. What are the natures of statistical reasoning?

6. What are the natures of hypothetical reasoning?

7. What is the contribution of deductive reasoning to legal arguments?

Chapter Summary:

This chapter has formulated on inductive and deductive reasoning and their
applications to the discipline of law through giving considerable emphasis to
the former (Inductive reasoning). And, more particularly, inductive reasoning is
the reasoning process by which our every day life is accompanied. And, the
chapter has considered the following topical areas with their details, method of
enquiry in law, analogy and its application to law, causality and Mill ’s methods,
probability, statistical reasoning, hypothetical reasoning and finally the
concept of deductive reasoning and its application to the discipline of law.

Law has its own distinct methods of inquiry so as to solve the problems of the
society. Thus, a legal problem is first identified, hypotheses are proposed, facts
are collected, consequences of hypothesis are tested and results are then
applied in practice. In passing through these inductive investigations, no one
can achieve absolute certainty. In any case, farther concepts have been
entertained in the topic particularly in areas of law of evidence.

An analogy is an inductive argument, which rests on a similarity between two

things. And analogical reasoning has important contribution in the discipline of
law particularly on the analogy between precedent cases and the cases at
hand.

And there are three meanings of the concept ‘Cause’; necessary condition,
sufficient condition and finally necessary and sufficient condition. And, Mill ’s

272
methods are inductive techniques which allow us to identify causal
connections. Causality has its own considerable place in legal reasoning as it
has been underlined in the respective topic.

Probability and statistical arguments are based on sampling process and

statistical measurements respectively which are all inductive arguments.
Hypothetical reasoning also consists of inviting a hypothesis that illuminates
the situation, drawing implications from the hypothesis, and testing their
implications. Moreover, these reasoning processes have their own roles the
process of reasons in any legal system. Finally the chapter has addressed the
role of deductive reasoning particularly in areas of law.

273