1.

Introducing Philosophy

1.1. Meaning and Nature of Philosophy

 Philosophy comes from Greek words, “Philo” means love and “Sophia” means wisdom together love
of wisdom. The word philosophy was first used by the ancient Greek thinker Pythagoras (about 600
B.C.), who called himself philosophers. For Pythagoras philosopher means pursuers of wisdom.As a
love and pursuit of wisdom, Philosophy refers to the development of critical habits, the critical search
for truth, and the questioning of everything. Philosophy begins in wondering about what we
encounter or what appears to us and when we want to know. According to Aristotle, Philosophy
arises from the human ability to reflect on experience, to wonder and be curious about what happens
to us and to others. Philosophy seeks justification and based on reasonableness. Thus, Philosophy is a
rational and critical enterprise that tries to ask and answer fundamental questions using logical
reasoning and rational analysis and evaluation.
 Philosophy is therational attempt to formulate, understand, and answer fundamental questions.
Philosophy is the study of fundamental questions concerning matters such as existence, knowledge,
truth, beauty, law, justice, validity, mind, and language. Philosophy involves reason, rational
criticism, examination, and analysis to arrive at rationally defensible answers. It is a dynamic and
dialectical process with the ultimate goals of creating a more enlightened synthesis.
 Philosophy brings divergent and conflicting ideas together to distinguish the rational claims from
irrational or nonrationalclaims. An irrationalclaim is contraryto reason whereas nonrationalclaim
is a claim that is justified through an appeal to something different from reason like authority,
feeling, intuition, religious beliefs or mystical experience.

1.2. Salient Features of Philosophy

 Philosophy is different from other disciplines because it depends on critical analysis and rational
justification of fundamental questions. Philosophy has distinctive methods. These include:
 Analytic- analyses basic questions and assumptions to reach at the truth.
 Normative- apply principles to distinguish correct and incorrect human thinking and behavior.
 Critical – challenge traditionally accepted norms (standards) to get the truth.
 Synthetic- synthesizes our views in a coherent and systematic manner.
 Imaginative- explores and examines new ways of looking at problems and issues.
 Philosophy has salient features that help us to understand and distinguish it from other disciplines.
Thus, Philosophy is:
 A set of views or beliefs about life and the universe, which are often held uncritically.
 A process of reflecting on and criticizing our most deeply held conceptions and beliefs.
 A rational attempt to look at the world as a whole.
 The logical analysis of language and the clarification of the meaning of words and concepts.
 A group of perennial problems which Philosophers always have sought to solve.

1.3. Core Branches of Philosophy

 To answer the fundamental questions comprehensively, Philosophy classified in to different branches
of studies. These are:
1. Metaphysics is the study of the ultimatereality or existence. It explores Philosophical issues
beyond the physical world such as the meaning of life, the existence of God, the existence of free

1
 will, the nature of mind, the fundamental principles of the universe, cause and effect relationship and
the possibility of life beyond death. Metaphysicians seek an irreducible foundation of reality or „first
principles‟ from which absolute knowledge or truth can be induced and deduced. Metaphysical
questions can be answered in four different ways. These are:
i) Cosmological questions: Attempts to answer fundamental questions concerning the Cosmos. Deals
with the study of theories about the origin, nature, and development of the universe as an orderly
system. Questions such as “How did the universe originate and develop? Did it come about by
accident or design? Does its existence have any purpose?”
ii) Theologicalquestions:Attempts to answer fundamental questions concerning the religious matters.
Questions such as “Is there a God? What are the attributes of God? If God is both all good and all
powerful, why does evil exist? If God exists, what is His relationship to human being‟s life?”
iii) Anthropological questions: Attempts to answer fundamental questions concerning the human
beings and deals with fundamental questions like: What is the relation between mind and body? What
is humanity‟s moral status? Are people born good, evil, or morally neutral? Do they have free will, or
are their thoughts and actions determined by their environment, inheritance, or a divine being? Does
each person have a soul? What are the roles of politics, education and social practices?
iv) Ontologicalquestions:Attempts to answer fundamental questions concerning the nature ofexistence
and deals with fundamental questions like: “Is basic reality found in matter or physical energy or is it
found in spirit or spiritual energy? “Is reality orderly and lawful in itself, or is it merely orderable by
the human mind? Is it fixed and stable, or is change its central feature? Is this reality friendly,
unfriendly, or neutral toward humanity?”
2. Epistemology is a theory of knowledge (sources, inquiry, transmission and utility).Epistemology is
the study of knowledge, identifying and developing criteria and methodologies for what we know
and why we know it. The most basic question that epistemology seeks to answer is, Can we ever
really know anything? How do we know when we don’t know something? What is the difference
between “belief” and “knowledge”? What is truth? What are the roles of reason and experience in
constructing knowledge and determining truth? Does truth evolve or is it unchanging? Can there be
different “truths” for different people?Epistemological questions can be answered in two ways.
i) Skepticism claims that people cannot acquire reliable knowledge and that any search for truth is
unsuccessful. Nothing is knowable. We are ignorant of existence of knowledge.
ii) Convictionismclaims that human beings can acquire knowledge from different sources.
Accordingly human knowledge can be obtained from:(i)Sense experience known as empiricism.
(ii) Reason known as rationalism. (iii) The direct apprehension of knowledge orimmediate sense
perception without conscious reasoning known as intuitionism. For Intuitionists we know or
believe something unconsciously without actual evidence for it. (iv)Belief or faith known as
revelation. Presupposes a transcendent supernatural reality and cannot be proved or disproved
empirically. (v)Experts or sanctified tradition known as authority.
3. Axiology is the study or theory of values. Axiology is the normative component of Philosophy that
deals with “How things ought to be?”Axiology attempts to answer fundamental questions of values
in different ways.
i) Aesthetics involves the study of beauty and art. Aesthetics explores the nature and purpose of art
in human affairs. Aesthetics establishes the standards of beauty.
ii) Moral Philosophy (Ethics) is the study of moral principles, values, codes, and rules, which may
be used as standards for determining what kind of human conduct/action is said to be good or
2
 bad, right or wrong. Based on how we decide what is moral or immoral, ethics can be grouped
into:Normative ethics, Metaethics (Non-normative ethics)andApplied Ethics.
A) Normative ethicsis ethical theory that depends on conventional norms or moral guidelines to
identify and judge morality and immorality. Normative ethics further categorized into:
1. Consequentialism or Teleological ethics: Suggests that the morality of an action depends on
the attainable consequences or results of action, decision, policy or behavior.
2. Deontological ethics: Suggests thatmorality based on duty or a matter of ought (moral
commitment) rather than result or the consequences.
3. Virtue theory: Is concerned with the role and character of the person to decide morality and
immorality. Concern of balanced and civic disposition.
B) Metaethics (Non-normative ethics) is ethical theory that determine moral and immoral by
analyzing the moral terms used in ethical discourse. It is concerned toinvestigating the meaning
of ethical terms, evaluation and verification of ethical statements as true or false.
C) Applied ethics: Establishespractical action guidingethical principles or standards to determine
morality or immorality. It is the practical problem-solving branch of Philosophy.
iii) Social and Political Philosophy is the Philosophical study of society and its institutions. It asks
“How should society be structured in order to allow and govern human flourishing?”
4. Logic is a study and analysis of arguments and the principles and methods of reasoning. It is also an
instrument of Philosophy because it is the method of Philosophizing.
1.4. Philosophy, Science and Religion
 While religion depends on beliefs and appeals to tradition and sacred authority, Philosophy appeals
to reason and seeks logical reasoning and based on evidence. But bothPhilosophy and religions are
world outlooks; they investigate the ultimate reality, immortality, human nature.
 Sciences study the specific (parts) problems of the world but Philosophy studies general problems.
 Sciences use methods such as laboratory experiment, mathematical calculations and measurements
for their study but Philosophy uses logical arguments (critical reasoning), dialogue, contemplation,
and discussion, criticism that has to be proved or disproved.

1.5. Importance of Learning Philosophy

The study of Philosophy help:
 To live examined life because “The unexamined life is not worth living”Socrates.
 To become creative and critical thinkerwith the ability of rational analysis of every problem.
 To have intellectual and behavioral independence: think, reflect, justify and evaluate ideas or views
coherently and systematically without personal or others influences.
 To construct intelligent knowledge and develop a well-rounded and balanced understanding.
 Not to be dogmatic but analyses and critically reflects on dogmatic doctrines.
 To liberate us from the prejudices of common sense, culture, custom and instinctive tendency.
 To become normative, tolerant, open-minded, systematically receptive and fully functioning person.
 To understand and explore a conceptualized and well-thought-out value systems in morality, art,
politics or everyday life of human beings.

3
 2. Logic
Everyone thinks. Everyone reasons. Everyone argues. And everyone is subjected to the reasoning and
arguing of others. Thinking logically requires the ability to analyze your own reasoning as well as the
reasoning of others. But, what is Logic? What are its basic principles? What do we mean when we say
“Logical, illogical, reasonable?”Finally, why we need to study Logic? Logic:
 Is the study of methods for understanding, analyzing and evaluating arguments.
 Establishes the rules of correct reasoning, clear understanding, and valid argumentation.
 Is the art and science of argument that help us to make our own argument in a well-mannered way,
well-conceived, well evidenced, well stated, and convincing enough and evaluate others arguments.
 Used to easily distinguish wrong reasoning from correct reasoning and be reasonable.
Aristotle first introduced logic as the basic instrument of Philosophizing and analysis and evaluation of
argument. He identified and established the three laws of logic by which he analyzed and distinguished
evidences. These are:
A) The Law of Non-contradictionis the first law of thought, which advocates the fundamental notion
that nothing can both be and not be at the same time and in the same respect. For example,a
statement cannot be both true and false at the same time in the same respect. Evidence cannot be
reasonable and unreasonable at the same time and in the same respect.
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 cannot be is and is not at the same time.
C) The Law of identity is the last law of thought, which states the notion that something is what it
is.For example, Student is identified as student but not as a farmer.

2.1. Basic Concepts of Logic:Arguments, Premises, and Conclusions

Argument is a systematic collection of statements in which there is supporting and supported evidence
or reason at the same time. Argument is the logically arranged statements that involve claims- the
supporting claim (premises) and the supported or justified claim (conclusion). Premises are statements
that present/ purport/ provide reason or evidence for the formation of the conclusion whereas a
conclusion is a statement that justifies, proves, or verifies the presented/ purported /provided evidence.
 An argument is made up of one or more premises and only one conclusion. The premise is one or
more statement that set forth the reasons or evidence to believe whereas conclusion is a single
statement that justifies the given or provided evidence. The premises are claimed evidence and the
conclusion is the statement that is claimed to follow from the premises (claimed evidence).
Example: All human beings are mortal. (Premise1)
Socrates is human being. (Premise2)
As a result, Socrates is mortal. (Conclusion)
Statement is a declarative sentence that has identifiable truth value- true or false. There are sentences
that cannot be statement because of lack of identifiable truth-value.

Example: What is your name? (Question)

I think you are right. (Suggestion)
Let‟s work carefully. (Proposal)
Turn off your mobile phones. (Command)
Fantastic! (Exclamation)
4
 Based on the relationship hold together between the premises and conclusion, argument can be
classified in to two: good argument and bad argument.

Good argument Bad argument

 Conclusion is directly or correctly followed  Conclusion is indirectly or wrongly /poorly
from its premises. followed from its premises.
 The premises necessarily guarantee the  The premises indirectly or wrongly/poorly
reason to the formation of conclusion. guarantee reason for the conclusion.
 Strict relation between the provided  No strict relation between the provided
(claimed) and justified (implied) reason. (claimed) and justified (implied) reason.

Example:
Some states are comprised of a few nationalities. (Premise 1)
Ethiopia is a state. (Premise 2)
Therefore, Ethiopia is comprised of a few nationalities. (Conclusion)

The above argument is bad because the conclusion is wrongly/ poorly derived from premises.
 We can differentiate premises and conclusion using the process of reason (inference) or using
indicator words or phrases. That is critically analyzing which evidence set forth for the other or which
evidence supported by other. Indicator words are words or phrases that can provide clues in
identifying premises and conclusion. There are two indicator words: Premise indicators are words
or phrases that indicate that a premise will immediately follow whereas Conclusion indicators are
words or phrases that indicate that a conclusion will immediately follow.Some typical premise
indicators are:
since may be inferred from for inasmuch as
in that for the reason that as indicated by given that
seeing that because as owing to
Some typical conclusion indicators are:

therefore we may conclude it follows that for this reason

accordingly hence consequently implies that
entails that thus so we may infer
wherefore it must be that as a result
 In argument, a statement that comes immediately next to conclusion indicator is (by rearrangement)
always conclusion whereas one or more statement that come immediately next to premises indicator
is (by rearrangement) always premise of the argument. We follow the following logical principles.
i. Identifying the premises and the conclusion.
ii. Placing the premises first. (Order does not matter.)
iii. Placing the conclusion last.

Consider the following examples:

Disordered argument =Expectant mothers should never use recreational drugs, since the use of these
drugs can jeopardize the development of the fetus.
Normal argument= The use of recreational drugs can jeopardize the development of the fetus.

5
 Therefore, expectant mothers should never use recreational drugs.
Disordered argument=Students should avoid any form of cheating on exams because cheating on exams
is punishable by the Senate Legislation of the University.
Normal argument=Cheating on exams is punishable by the Senate Legislation of the University.
As a result, students should avoid any form of cheating on exams.
 Caution: Conclusion or premises indicators are used to identify premises or conclusion if and only
if the verbal communication or written passages qualify argumentation.

2.2. Recognizing Arguments

Argument is when there is provided reasons (claimed evidences) and justified reason (claimed to follow
from the provided evidences) at the same time. Arguments are attributed as:
1) Having identifiable premises (at least one of the statements must claim to present reasons) and
conclusion ( a single statement that is claimed to follow from the presented reasons(premises);
2) There must be a claim (factual or inferential). Factual claim is actual evidence that can easily be
determined based on the facts whereas inferential claim is reasoning process that involves reasoning
rather than the actual existence facts. Inferential claim can be either explicit or implicit. An explicit
inferential claim is usually asserted by premise or conclusion indicator words. An implicit inferential
claim is a claim which can be recognized by reason or inference hold between the statements.
Example: The genetic modification of food is risky business. Genetic engineering can introduce
unintended changes into the DNA of the food-producing organism, and these changes can be toxic
to the consumer.
 Genetic engineering can introduce unintended changes into the DNA of the food-producing
organism.The Changes into the DNA of the food-producing organism can be toxic to the
consumer.Therefore, genetic modification of food is risky business.
 A passage that lacks identifiable premises and conclusion and lacks a claim to be proved is known as
simple noninferential passages. These include:
A) Warnings- a form of cautionary expression of a dangerous or detrimental situation.
B) Pieces of advice- recommending for useful action, decision or conduct.
C) Statements of belief or opinion- an expression about what someone happens to believe or think at a
certain time. They usually begin with words or phrases like we believe, you believe /think….
D) Loosely associated statements-are combination of statements that may be about the same general
subject, but they lack a claim that one of them is proved by the others.
E) Reports-Consists of a group of statements that convey information about some topic or event but no
claim that they support or imply anything to be proved.
F) An expository passage is a kind of discourse that begins with a topic sentence followed by one or
more sentences that develop the topic sentence only to expand or elaborate but not prove it.
G) An illustration providesexamples, rather than proves or supports the claim. It shows how something
is done or what something means but cannot justify why something is done. Illustrations are often
confused with arguments because many of them contain indicator words such as „„thus.‟‟
Example: Chemical elements, as well as compounds, can be represented by molecular formulas.
Thus, Oxygen is represented by “O2”, Water by “H2O”, and Sodium Chloride by “NaCl”.
 Illustrations that can purport reason and support to prove something can be arguments.
H) An explanation is a group of statements that purports to shed light on some event or phenomenon.It
tries to show whysomething is the case, not to prove thatit is the case.Explanation is composed of two
distinct components: the explanandum(the statement that describes the event or phenomenon to be
6
 explained)and explanans(is the statement or group of statements that do the explaining).Explanations
are not arguments because they cannot provide justification of why something is the case but can be
re-expressed to form argument.
Example:AmartayaSen won Nobel Prize because he discovered Social Choice theory.
 By adding inferences and rearrangement, explanation can be re-expressed to form argument.
Re-expressed as:AmartayaSen discovered Social Choice theory.
As a result, AmartayaSen won Nobel Prize.
 A difference between arguments and explanation is that arguments justify for the purported claim but
explanations merely show why of the purported claim using causes or facts to be
explained.Reasoning is used both in arguments and in explanations; the same indicator words may
appear both in arguments and in explanation.
I) A conditional statement is an „„if . . . then . . .‟‟ statement that expresses condition (necessary or
sufficient). A conditional statement is made up of two component statements:Antecedent(astatement
immediately following the „„if‟‟) and consequent(astatement following the „„then‟‟).
Examples: If Ethiopia is in the Horn of Africa, then Ethiopia is in the East Africa.
 Conditional statements are not arguments, because they fail to meet the criteria of purporting and
justifying evidence or reason or there is no claim at all. In a conditional statement, there is no
assertion that either the antecedent or the consequent is true. Rather, there is only the assertion that if
the antecedent is true, then so is the consequent.
 Regarding the relation between conditional statements and arguments;
 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 argument.
Example: Ethiopia is in the Horn of Africa.
Therefore, Ethiopia is in the East Africa.
 Conditional statements used to express the relationship between necessary and sufficient conditions.
Ais said to be a sufficient condition for Bwhenever the occurrence of Ais all that is needed for the
occurrence of B. For example, being a dog is a sufficient condition for being an animal. On the other
hand, Bis said to be a necessary condition for AwhenAcannot occur without the occurrence of B.
Eg:Being an animal is a necessary condition for being a dog. [There is no dog that is not animal.]
Being a dog is a sufficient condition for being an animal. [There is animal that is not a dog.]
 To clearly decide whether a passage contains an argument, you should look for three things:
i) indicator words such as “therefore,” “since,” “because,” and so on;
ii) an inferential relationship between the statements; and
iii) typical kinds of non-arguments.

2.3. Classification of Arguments: Deductive and Inductive

 Based on patterns of reasoning arguments can be divided into two groups:
A) A deductive argumentis when the conclusion is claimed to follow necessarily from the premises.
B) An inductive is when the conclusion is claimed to follow only probably from the premises.
 Deductive arguments are those that rest on necessaryreasoning, while inductive arguments are those
that rest on probabilisticreasoning.
 To make distinction between inductive and deductive arguments we can use the following rules:
1. The occurrence of specialindicator words- indicates the inductiveness (probably, improbably,
plausibly, implausibly, likely, unlikely) or deductiveness (necessarily, absolutely, certainly).
7
2. The actual strength of the inferential link between premises and conclusion that is if the conclusion
actually and necessarily does follow with strict necessity from the premises, the argument is clearly
deductive whereas if the conclusion does follow probably, the argument isinductive.
3. The form or style of argumentation(deductive orinductive) the arguer uses.

A) Deductive Argument Forms

1. An argument based on mathematics is an argument in which the conclusion depends on some purely
arithmetic or geometric measurement except statistical arguments.
Example:1.Eight is greater than four.
Four is greater than two.
Therefore, eight is greater than two.
Example: 2.Given that y2 + 3y= 28.
Therefore, it is necessary that y = 4.
2. An argument from definition is an argument in which the conclusion is claimed to depend upon the
definition of some word or phrase used in the premise or conclusion of the argument.
Example:1. Jalane is a cardiologist.
Therefore, Jalane is a doctor.
Example:2. Tesfaye is a father.
Therefore, Tesfaye is a male.
3. Syllogistic Arguments are made up of only two premises and a conclusion. They include:
i) A categorical syllogism is a syllogism in which each statement begins with one of the words
indicating categorical inclusion or exclusion “all,” “no,” or “some.”
Example: 1. All lions are animals.
All animals are living beings.
Therefore, all lions are living beings.
Example:2. Some Philosophers are Rationalists.
All Rationalists believe on Reason.
As a result, some Philosophers believe on Reason.
ii) A hypothetical syllogism is a syllogism having a conditional statement for one (mixed
hypothetical syllogism) or both (pure hypothetical syllogism) of its premises.
Example:1. If today is Wednesday, then tomorrow will be Thursday.
Today is Wednesday.
Therefore, tomorrow will be Thursday.
Example:2. If you study hard, then you will score a good grade.
If you score a good grade, then you will be graduated properly.
Therefore, if you study hard, then you will be graduated properly.
iii) A disjunctive syllogism (argument by elimination) is a syllogism having a disjunctive statement
(i.e., an “either... or...” statement) for one of its premises. Such arguments are made up of
exhaustively opposite alternatives. That is when one alternative is affirmed (included) the other is
denied or excluded.
Example: 1. Either Ethiopia is located in the East or West Africa.
Ethiopia is not located in the West Africa.
Therefore, Ethiopia is located in the East Africa.

8
B) Inductive Argument Forms
1. A prediction is an argument that proceeds from our knowledge or evidence of the past relate to the
present reality to assert about the future.
Example:Addis Ababa University has been a leading Ethiopian University for many years.
Therefore, probably Addis Ababa University will be a leading University ten years from now.
2. An argument from analogy is an argument that depends on the existence of an analogy, or similarity,
between two things or phenomenon.
Example:Eritrea is similar in many ways to the Ethiopia.
Both countries share the same language, values and share a common border.
Therefore, the Eritrean flag looks lot like the Ethiopian flag.
3. A generalization is an argument that proceeds from the knowledge of a selected sample to some
claim about the whole group.
Example:Twenty persons observed in a sample of 500 smokers have cardiovascular disease.
Therefore, probably 500 smokers have cardiovascular disease.
4. An argument from authority is an argument that concludes something is true because a presumed
expert or authoritative witness has said that it is.
Example:Group of economists says that Ethiopian economy is increasing.
Therefore, Ethiopian economy is increasing.
5. An argument based on signs is an argument that proceeds from the knowledge of a sign to a claim
about the thing or situation that the sign symbolizes.
6. A causal inference is an argument that proceeds from knowledge of a cause to a claim about an
effect, or, conversely, from knowledge of an effect to a claim about a cause.

2.4. Validity, Truth, Soundness, Strength, Cogency

 Validity, invalidity, soundness and unsoundness are the characters of deductive argument whereas
strength, weakness, cogency and uncogency are qualities (characters) of inductive argument.
 A deductively valid argument is an argument in which it is impossible for the conclusion to be false
given that the premises are true. It is when the conclusion follows with strict necessity from the
premises.
Example:All aerobic exercises are calorie burners.
All calorie burners are weight reducers.
Thus, all aerobic exercises are weight reducers.
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.
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.

9
 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.
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.
Some Valid arguments have false premises and true conclusion.
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.
Some invalid arguments also have false premises and true Conclusion:-
Example:
All Mammals have wings.
All Whales have wings.
Therefore, all whales are mammals.
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.
 Adeductively invalid argument is a deductive argument is an argument in which it is possible for
the conclusion to be false given that the premises are true. It is when the conclusion does not follow
with strict necessity from the premises, even though it is claimed to.There is no middle ground
between valid and invalid. Thus, there are no arguments that are “almost” valid and “almost” invalid.
Argument is valid; if not, it is invalid.

A deductive argument can be considered as sound if and only if it is valid and having 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. 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.
 Invalid but all its premises are true.
 Invalid and at least one false premise.
10
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.
 A deductive argument that is valid and has all true premises is sound argument.
 A deductive argument that is valid or invalid and has at least one false premise is unsound
argument.
 A strong inductive argument is an inductive argument such that it is improbable that the premises
be true and the conclusion false.
 A strong argument with true premises and a probably true conclusion

Example: All previous Ethiopian presidents were men. Therefore; probably the next Ethiopian president
will be man.
A weak inductive argument with true premises and a probably true conclusion.
Example: A few Ethiopian presidents were men. Therefore, probably the next Ethiopian president will be
a man.
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.
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.
A weak inductive argument with false premise and probably true conclusion.
Example: A few American presidents were libertarians. Therefore, probably the next American president
will be a television debater.
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.
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.
 A weak inductive argument is an inductive argument such that the conclusion does not follow
probably from the premises, even though it is claimed to.
 A cogent argument is a strong inductive argument havingall true premises.
 Anuncogent argument is a weak inductive argument having one or more false premises, or both.
 A cogent argument is the inductive analogy of a sound deductive argument and is what is meant by
a „„good‟‟ inductive argument without qualification. Since the conclusion of a cogent argument is
genuinely supported by true premises, it follows that the conclusion of every cogent argument is
probably true.
Truth and falsity is the identifying attribute of premises or conclusion. There are four possibilities with
respect to the truth or falsity of the premises and conclusion of a given argument:
i) True premises and True conclusion,
ii) True premises and False conclusion,
iii) False premises and True conclusion, and
iv) False premises and False conclusion.

3. Language and Logic

11
3.1. Uses of Language
 Language is an essential tool of our thought without which our thinking, reasoning and argumentation
are meaningless. That is, when we reason and argue we do it using our language. Languageuses to
understand and evaluate reasoning and arguments. However, to use language appropriately and know
its basic principles we need to reflect upon and analyze its use because language plays a central role
in shaping and giving meaning to our thought. We do this because we need to distinguish the correct
use or systematic, meaningful and logical uses of language from the illogical or inappropriate one.
Language plays a powerful role in directing our attention, communicating assumptions, and
aspirations, in framing various issues, to the interpretation and evaluation of arguments.
 Language can be used either emotively or cognitively in our communication or argumentations.
a) Cognitive use refers the informative function of language to report, describe, and convey
information in our thought or even assertion of our argument. Cognitive language has its specific,
critical, reasonable, logical principles that help us to make our communication and reasoning clear,
our argumentation well and our message meaningful and informative.
b) Emotive use is when language merely expresses or evokes feelings, attitudes, and emotions.
Emotive language uses are subjective and lack identified logical principles.
While reasoning, communicating or arguing we need to distinguish between the defective and correct
language uses. The two commonly known defects are vagueness and ambiguity.
a) A vague expression (meaning) is one that allows for borderline/ relative cases. For example, words
such as “love,” “happiness,” “peace,” “excessive,” “fresh,” “rich,” “poor,” “normal,” “conservative”
and “polluted” are vague. It is inexact meaning.
b) An ambiguous expression is one that can be interpreted as having more than one clearly distinct
meaning in a given context. For example, words such as “light,” “proper,” “critical,” “stress,” “mad,”
“inflate,” “chest,” “bank,” “sound,” and “race” can be used ambiguously.
 The difference between ambiguity and vagueness is that vague terminology allows for a relatively
continuous range of interpretations, whereas ambiguous terminology allows for multiple separate
interpretations. A vague expression creates a blur of meaning, whereas an ambiguous expression
mixes up otherwise clear meanings. However, many forms of expression are ambiguous in one
context and vague in another. In order to make our reasoning and thought meaningful, we need to
know and use logical and appropriate cognitive meaning.
 Both ambiguity and vagueness can be understood in the conflicting arguments commonly known as
disputes: verbal dispute (disagreement because of meaning of language) and factual dispute
(disagreement over facts).

3.2. The Intension and Extension of Terms

Wordsare the basic units of any ordinary language. Words are the combination of letters that can have
meaning or cannot. Words that have meaning or infer the meaning of other words can be terms. A term
is any word or arrangement of words that may serve as the subject of a statement. Terms consist of
proper names, common names, and descriptive phrases.

Proper names Common names Descriptive phrases

Medhanit Student Haramaya University Student
Ethiopia Country Horn of African country
Aristotle Philosopher Ancient Greek Philosopher

12
 Words that are not terms include verbs, nosubstantive adjectives, adverbs, prepositions, conjunctions,
and all nonsyntactic arrangements of words. Example: dictatorial, runs quickly, above and beyond,
and etc.
 In logic, words are usually considered to be symbols, and the entities they symbolize are usually
called meanings. Terms, being made up of words, are also symbols, but the meanings they symbolize
are of two kinds: intensional and extensional.
a) Intensional meaning consists of the qualities or attributes that the term connotes.
b) Extensional meaning consists of the members of the class that the term denotes.

 Terms may be put in the order of increasing intension, increasing extension, decreasing intension, and
decreasing extension. A series of terms is in the order of increasing intension when each term in the
series (except the first) connotes more attributes (more specific) than the one preceding it. The order
of decreasing intension is the reverse of that of increasing intension.
 A series of terms is in the order of increasing extension when each term in the series (except the
first) denotes a class having more members (class size gets larger)than the class denoted by the term
preceding it. Decreasing extension is, of course, the reverse of this order.
Examples: Increasing intension: animal, mammal, feline, tiger
Increasing extension: tiger, feline, mammal, animal
Decreasing intension: tiger, feline, mammal, animal
Decreasing extension: animal, mammal, feline, tiger
NB:The order of increasing intension is usually the same as that of decreasing extension but not always.
The order of decreasing intension is usually the same as that of increasing extension but not always.
There are words that have no extensional meanings but all words (terms) have intensional meanings.
Thus, terms can have empty extension but cannot have empty intension. For example, the word
“Being” has intensional meaning but has not extensional meaning. Therefore, it has empty extension.

3.3. Definitions and their Purposes

 In logic, definitions can be defined as a group of words that assigns meaning to some words or group
of words that symbolizes (or supposed to symbolize) the word or group of words to be defined. All
definitions have two component parts.
a) The definiendumis the symbol being defined- word to be defined.
b) The definiensis the symbol (or group of symbols) used to explain the meaning of the
definiendum. Definiens is a word or groups of words that do defining.Definiensis not the meaning
of the definiendum.Technically the definiendum should be put in quotation marks or italics, but
thisconvention is not always followed.

13
 There are various kinds of definitions in logic. These include:
A) Stipulative definition
 Arbitrary assignment of a meaning to a word for the first time by either coining a new word or
giving a new meaning to an old word currently forgotten.
 Used to replace a more complex expression with a simpler one.
 Used in some new discoveries or inventions like to name crossbreds.
 Used to set up secret codes like in military operation.
 Cannot be evaluated as true or false because it is arbitrary or nominal definition.
Example: Let‟s use “grellow” to mean something is greenish-yellow.
Let‟s use “Jazzercise” to mean exercise done to jazz music.
Let‟s use “bromance” to mean a movie about the relationship of two men who have a very close friendship.
B) Lexical definition
 The direct reportive and dictionary meaning of what a word already has in the language.
 Standardized and conventional meaning.
 Can be evaluated as true or false because it reports the actual meaning of the term used.
 Used to eliminate ambiguity or to detect the ambiguously defined word.
Example: “Light” means (1) Something that makes things visible; (2) Electromagnetic radiation; (3)
Oflittleweight; (4) Having fewer calories than the standard product.
“Bank” means (1) The slope bordering a stream or river; (2) The inclination of an aircraft
during a turn; (3) An institution for receiving, lending, and safeguarding money.
“Poncho” means rain jacket.
C) Précising Definitions:
 Appropriate and legitimate for the context within which the term is to be employed.
 Used to make precise or reduce the vagueness of a word.
 Uses to clarify highly systematic contexts like Science, Mathematics, Medicine, or Law.
 Illustrates the applicability of the word to a specific situation.
Example:“Too hot” for purposes of judging the temperature of coffee means hotter than 180 degrees Fahrenheit.
“Tall” means anyone over 6 feet in height.
From a class syllabus: “Class participation” means attending class, listening attentively, answering and
asking questions, and participating in class discussions.
A “heavy smoker,” for purposes of this clinical trial, is anyone who smokes more than twenty-four
cigarettes per day.
“Beyond a reasonable doubt” means, for purposes of determining a defendant‟s guilt or innocence in a
court of law, a degree of certainty of 95 percent or higher.
 A precising definition differs from a stipulative definition in that stipulative definition involves a
purely arbitrary assignment of meaning, whereas the assignment of meaning in a precising definition
is not at all arbitrary.
D) Theoretical Definitions:
 Assigns a meaning to a word by suggesting a theory that gives a certain characterization to the
entities that the term denotes.
 Provides a meaning to a term that set the theoretical ground or used to be a proposal for
theoretically interpreting the phenomenon.
 They define the term in relation to each other‟s contextually unique characters entailing deductive
consequences of the outcome of the experiments they suggested.

14
Words like “substance,” “form,” “cause,” “change,” “idea,” “good,” “mind,” and “God,” have been given
theoretical definitions in philosophy.
Example: “Boiling” means bubbles of saturated vapor forming in the liquid phase of matter.
“Immoral act” means an act that fails to promote the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people.
E) Persuasive Definitions:
 Produces a favorable or unfavorable attitude toward what is denoted by the definiendum.
 Assigning an emotionally charged or value-laden meaning to a word.
 Used in certain approval and disapproval of the subject matter of the definiendum.
 Used in political propaganda and rhetoric speeches to influence the readers or listeners.
Example: 1. “Abortion” means the ruthless murdering of innocent children.
“Abortion” means a safe and established surgical procedure whereby a woman is relieved of an unwanted
burden.
2. Capital punishment means the state-sanctioned, vengeful murder of helpless prisoners.
Capital punishment means the infliction of appropriate punishment on vicious cowards who have no
regard for life.
3.“Lawyer” means dishonest and greedy practitioner of the law who will say anything to win a court case and
make money.
4. “Democrat” means those who want the government to steal money from a hard-working person to give it to a
lazy person.

3.3.Definitional Techniques
3.3.1. Extensional (Denotative) Definitions
An extensional definition assigns a meaning to a term by indicating the members of the class that the
definiendum denotes. There are three extensional techniques:
a) Demonstrative (ostensive) definitions assign meaning by pointing the members of the class either
partially or completely.
Example:“Tree” means that thing over there (while physically pointing at a tree).
“Car” means that thing over there (while physically pointing at a car).
b) Enumerative definitions assign a meaning to a term by naming the individual members of the
class either partially or completely the term denotes.
Example: “Philosopher” means person like Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Kant, and others.
“Religion” means Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, etc.
“Regional states of Ethiopia” means Oromia, Amhara, Tigray, Somali, Afar, etc.
c) Definition by subclass assigns a meaning to a term by naming subclasses/categories of the
general class denoted by the term either partially or completely.
Example: “Scientist” means group of people like Biologist, Chemist, and Botanist and so on.
“Mammal”means gorilla, horse, lion, whale, and so forth.
“Automobile” means Toyota, Hyundai, Ford, Chevrolet, etc.
“Living things” means plants and animals.

3.3.2. Intensional (Connotative) Definitions

Intensional definition is one that assigns a meaning to a word by indicating the qualities or attributes
that the word connotes. Four kinds of intensional definitions:
a) A synonymous definition is one in which the definiens is a single word that connotes the same
attributes as the definiendum. The definiens is a synonym of the word being defined.
Example: “Beautiful” means pretty.“Mad” means angry.

15
b) An etymological definition assigns a meaning to a word by disclosing the word‟s ancestry in both its
own language and other languages. Etymological definitions have special importance for at least two
reasons. The first is that the etymological definition of a word often conveys the word‟s root
meaning or seminal meaning from which all other associated meanings are derived. Unless one is
familiar with this root meaning, one often fails to place other meanings in their proper light or to
grasp the meaning of the word when it is used in its most proper sense. The second reason for the
importance of etymological definitions is that if one is familiar with the etymology of one English
word, one often has access to the meaning of an entire constellation of related words.
Example: “Theology” is formed from two Greek words theos, which means God,and logos, which means logic.
“Psychology” is formed from two Greek words psuche, which means soul or mind,and logos, which is logic.
c) An operational definition assigns a meaning to a word by specifying certain experimental
procedures that determine whether or not the word applies to a certain thing. Operational definitions
were invented for the purpose of tying down relatively abstract concepts to the solid ground of
empirical reality. Operational definitions cannot work outside the framework of science.
Example: “Weight” means the numbers that appear on a weighing scale when an object is placed on it.
“Air pressure” means the numbers that appear on a barometer after it is properly placed outside.
d) A definition by genus and difference assigns a meaning to a term by identifying a genus term and
one or more difference words that, when combined, convey the meaning of the term being defined.
In logic, „„genus‟‟ simply means a relatively larger class, and „„species‟‟ means a relatively smaller
subclass of the genus. The „„specific difference,‟‟ or „„difference,‟‟ for short, is the attribute or attributes
that distinguish the various species within a genus. Definition by genus and difference is the most
effective of the intensional definitions for producing the five kinds of definition (Stipulative, lexical,
précising, theoretical, and persuasive).
Example: “Humanbeing” means rational animal.
“Calf” means young cow.
“Bachelor” means unmarried man.
Correlation of Definitional Techniques with Types of Definitions
Can produce this type of definition
This techniques Stipulative Lexical Precising Theoretical Persuasive
Demonstrative Yes Yes No (unusual) (unusual)
Enumerative Yes Yes No (unusual) (unusual)
Subclass Yes Yes No (unusual) (unusual)
Synonymous No Yes No No No
Etymological Yes Yes No No No
Operational (limited) Yes Yes (unusual) (unusual)
Genus and Difference Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

3.4.Criteria for Lexical Definitions

The function of a lexical definition is to report the way a word is actually used in a language, lexical
definitions are the ones we most frequently encounter and are what most people mean when they speak of
the „„definition‟‟ of a word. Thus, all lexical definitions:
Rule 1: Lexical Definitions shouldconform to the Standards of Proper Grammar.
Examplesof definitions that are grammatically incorrectare as follows:
Vacation is when you don‟t have to go to work or school.
Furious means if you‟re angry at someone.
“Vacation” means a period during which activity is suspended from work or school.
16
 “Furious” means a condition of being very angry.
Rule 2: Lexical Definitions Should Convey the Essential Meaning of the Word Being Defined
Example:
Rule 3: Lexical definitions should be neither too broad nor too narrow.A definition is too broad if it
includes too much and is too narrow if itincludes too little.
Example: “Automobile” means a vehicle with four wheels would be too broad
“Sibling”” means a brotherwould be too narrow because it fails to include sisters.
Rule 4: Lexical Definitions Should Avoid Circularity
Example: “Gambler”means someone who gambles.
Rule 5: Lexical definitions should not be negative when it can be affirmative.
Example:
Rule 6: Lexical definitions should avoid figurative, obscure, vague, or ambiguous language
Example:
“Camel” means a ship of the desert.
“Democracy” means a kind of government where the people are in control.
Rule 7: Lexical definitions should avoid affective terminology
Example:
Rule 8: Lexical definitions should indicate the context to which the definiens pertains
Example:

Informal Fallacies

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.
Some preparatory notions about fallacy in general
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
17
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 logicalstructure of
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 invaliddeductive 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
argumentand 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
andexistential 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.
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 readers accept her/his conclusion. This is achieved through
18
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.
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 cruel world afraid and alone. Surely they are not guilty of these heinous
crimes.
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.
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 against the allies.
Moreover, arguments adpopulum 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 andindirect 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.

19
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.”
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 vanityandappeal 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?
A. 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 SerawitFikre’s latest film immediately. It is breaking the country’s film records in
terms of audiences, and everyone is talking about it.
Would you comment on the above fallacious argument?
B. 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:
Friendship café, no doubt, is the best café in Addis Ababa. That is why distinguished persons like Teddy
Afro, MulualamTadesse... are always there on weekends. Come and enjoy your weekends at Friendship
café!!
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.

20
4. Argument against the person (Argumentum ad Hominem)
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:
AtoGebeyhu has argued for increased funding for the disabled. But nobody should listen to his
argument. AtoGebeyhu is a Slob who cheats on his wife, beats his wife, beats his kinds, and never
pays his bills on time.
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.
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.
C. Fallacy of ad hominem tuquoque (you too).
The word “tuquoque” 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:
AtoGemechu 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.
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.
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.

21
7. Missing the point (IgnorantioElenchi)
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, ignoratioelenchi, 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.
B. Wage earners cannot currently live on the minimum wage. Therefore, the minimum
wage should be abolished.
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:
AtoShiferaw, 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.
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 andconclusion 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”.
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.

22
 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.

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, adignorantiam fallacy will be committed when:
 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.
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.
A. 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)
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.
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. Probablysubstance Z, in this amount, is fatal to the average mice.

23
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 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
B. Non Causa pro causa fallacy
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.
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.
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 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.

24
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?
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.
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 (PetitioPrincipii)
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,
 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.
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.
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.

25
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.”
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.
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 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.

26
 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.
20. Amphiboly
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.
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.
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 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.
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.

27
 Example
Carbon monoxide is a poisonous gas. Therefore, its two components, carbon and oxygen must be non
poisonous.
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.

28