Chapter Two: Basic Concepts of Logic

Introduction: What is logic?

The term logic is derived from the Greek word "logos “which means reason, thought, principle,
law, etc... . Therefore, logic is the science of the rule of reasoning and the form in which it occurs.
Based on its ancestor word "logos" logic can be defined as follows.
Logic is the science of those principles, laws and methods Which the Mind of man in its
thinking must follow for the Accurate and secure treatment of truth.
Logic is the branch of philosophy that deals with correct reasoning. The object of the study of
logic is reasoning which is the reflection of the thinking power of human mind. Reasoning is a
process of reaching at a certain conclusion arising from given evidence.
Task and Purpose of Logic
The Primary task of logic is to set up criteria for distinguishing good arguments from bad ones.
The Objective of logic
The objective/aim of logic is to test, evaluate and analyze arguments of one's own and the
arguments of others.
The Concern of logic
The chief concern of logic is how some propositions (statements) is connected with other
propositions and thereby how the structure of arguments formed, the pattern of reasoning that lead
from premises to conclusion in arguments.

CHAPTER ONE
THE NATURE OF ARGUMENTS
What is argument?
The word argument is derived from the Latin word "arguo" which means "to make clear" and it
indicates that arguments presented over a certain topic helps to reach clear and accurate conviction
about something based on the evidence that would support it by classifying and avoiding confusing
expressions that hinders the mind to cognize the truth of the world.

Therefore, argument means arriving at a definite claim of collection over an issue or a subject based
on acceptable evidences, information or chain of reasons available at hand.
The real nature of argument lies upon statement, because the flow of reason in an argument from
the evidence to a conclusion is carried by sequence of statements. Hence, the building blocks of
arguments are statements.

Thus, an argument is that they are simply collection of, group of or set of statements. Some of
these statements serve as premises which purport to give reason to accept another statement that
serve as a conclusion.

What are statements? Statements are sentences used to assert or deny something and evaluate as
true or false. Statements are written or spoken sentences, so that something true or false is said. In
other words, statement is a sentence that is either true or false.
Examplses: Aluminum is attacked by hydrochloric acid.
Argentina is located in North America.

Page 1
The first statement is true, and the second statement is false. Truth and falsity are called the two
possible truth value of a statement. Thus, the truth value of the first statement is true, and the truth
value of the second statement is false.
All sentences are not statements, but all statements are sentences. Questions, proposals,
suggestions, commands and exclamations are usually cannot said to be true or false and so they are
not statements.
Examples: What is the atomic weight of carbon? (Question)
Let's go to the park today. (Proposal)
We suggest that you travel by bus. (Suggestion)
Leave the class room now! (Command)
Wow, what a save! (Exclamation)
 In all the above cases it is impossible to evaluate these sentences as true or false. Hence,
these sentences are not statements.
Although arguments are made up of statements, they are not themselves statements. Yet they are
constructed out of statements. The statement that makes up an argument is divided in to one or
more premises and only one conclusion.
Premises: Is the statement that set forth the reasons or evidence.
Conclusion: is the statement that the evidence is claimed to support or imply or it is the
statement that is claimed to follow from the premises.
Example: All crimes are violation of the law.
Theft is a crime
Therefore, theft is violation of the law.
 The first two statements are premises and the third statement is the conclusion. Moreover,
the claim that the premises support or imply the conclusion is indicated by the word
“therefore.” In this argument the premises really do support the conclusion and so the
argument is the good one. But consider the following argument.
Some crimes are misdemeanors.
Murder is a crime.
Therefore, murder is a misdemeanor.
 In this argument the premises do not support the conclusion, even though they are claimed
to, and so the argument is not a good one, but bad. One of the most important tasks in the
analysis of arguments is being able to distinguish premises from conclusion. There are two
possibilities of doing so.
A. Using indicator words.
B. Using inferential claim.
A. Using Indicator Words
Indicator words are words that provide some help or clue in identifying the conclusion of the
argument or the premise offered in support of the conclusion. Thus, there are two kinds of indicator
words: premise and conclusion indicator.
i. premise indicators
Accordingly, there are certain premise indicator words. These include, among other things, the
following:
For as indicated by for the reason that
As owing to may be inferred from
Page 2
 Because seeing that in as much as etc.
Since given that
Any statement following one of these indicators can usually be identified as a premise and the
statement that comes before them is the conclusion.
Example: Expectant mothers should never use recreational drugs, since the use of these drugs
can jeopardize the development of the fetus.
From this example the premise is “the use of these drugs can jeopardize the development of the
fetus”, and the conclusion is “expectant mothers should never use recreational drugs.”
One premise indicator not included in the above list is “for this reason.” This premise indicator is
special in that it comes immediately after the premise that it indicates. In other words, the premise is
the statement that occurs immediately before the word “for this reason.”
ii. Conclusion indicators
The following are certain conclusion indicator words:
 in consequence consequently therefore
 hence proves that thus
 as a result wherefore accordingly
 it follows that We may infer I conclude that
 implies that so
 Entails that as a result whence, etc.
The statement that comes before them are offered as a reason or premise, and statement following
them is a conclusion. Example: Since Tirunesh sat at the back of theatre hall, she could not hear the
performance clearly. Therefore, she could not write a proper review of the theatre.
B. Using Inferential Claim
There are cases in which arguments contain no indicator words. Hence, by studying the nature of
arguments (that serve as evidence or final assertions) we can identify the premise and the
conclusion in an argument.

If the statement refers the main point or closing statement of the argument, then the statement is the
conclusion of the argument whereas if the statement is taken by the arguer as information, reason or
evidence to prove the main point of the argument (conclusion) then the statement is premise.

Example: Morally weak persons are not happy. Zinash, who is morally weak, is not happy
throughout her life.
Recognizing Arguments
Not all passages contain arguments. A passage contains an argument if it purports to prove
something; if it does not do so, it does not contain an argument. There are two conditions that must
be fulfilled for a passage to purport to prove something:
1. At least one of the statements must claim to present evidence or reasons.
2. There must be a claim that the alleged evidence or reasons supports or implies
Something, that is, a claim that something follows from the alleged evidence.
The first condition expresses factual claim and the second condition expresses what is called an
inferential claim. Moreover, inferential claims can be either implicit or explicit. An explicit
inferential claim is usually asserted by premise or conclusion indicator words (thus, since, because,

Page 3
hence, etc.), Where as an implicit inferential claim exists if there is an inferential relationship
between statements in a passage.
There are two conditions in deciding whether there is a claim that the evidence implies or supports
something:
1. Indicator words
2. The presence of an inferential relationship between the statements.

NON ARGUMENT EXPRESSIONS

There are several forms of non argument expressions, which lack inferential claims, reasoning or
logical claims. Some of the non argument expressions are the following.
i. Statements of Belief, Opinion, Warning and Advise
a. A statement of belief or opinion is an expression about what someone happens to believe
or think about something at a certain period of time.
Examples: - In my opinion, leadership in Africa is nowadays, changed from bad to worse.
- I believe that, in the near future, Ethiopian professional associations will get
leaders of their own choice.
b. A warning is a form of expression that intended to put someone on guard against a
dangerous or detrimental situation.
Example: Follow the route only! If not you will fall under enemy’s target.
C. A piece of advice is a form of expression that makes a recommendation about some
future decision or course of conduct.
Example: I advise you to stop chewing a chat. It hurts your health.
ii. Reports: it consists of a group of statements that convey information about some
situation or event. Journalists and other form of reports inform something about an event
but claim no conclusion.
Example: The riot in Addis Ababa, on June 11, 2005 caused the destruction of Property
and death of 26 persons – many of them youngsters.
iii. Explanations, Illustration and Expository passage
a. Expository passages are kinds of discourse that begins with a topic sentence followed by
one or more sentences that develop the topic sentence. So the attempt is not to prove the
topic sentence but to expand or elaborate it.
Example: There are three familiar states of matters: solid, liquid, and gas. Solid object
ordinarily maintain their shape and volume regardless of their location. A
liquid occupies definite volume, but assume the shape of the occupied
portion of its container. A gas maintains neither shape nor volume. It expands to
fill completely whatever container it is in it.
In this passage the topic sentence is stated first, and the remaining sentences merely develop and
flesh out this topic sentences.
b. Illustration is the form of explanation using instances and other demonstrations.
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”.

Page 4
 c. Explanation is a group of statements that purports to shed light on some event or
phenomenon. The event or phenomena in question is usually accepted as a matter of fact.
Example: Cows digest grass, while humans cannot, because their digestive
System Contain Enzymes not found in human.
Every explanation is composed of two distinct components – explanandum and explanans.
Explanandum: the thing or condition to be explained or supposed to be explained.
Explanans: all words used to explain or groups of words that does the explaining.
 Explanations are sometimes mistaken for arguments because they often contain the indicator
word “because”. Yet explanations are not arguments. Because in explanation the purpose of
the explanans is to shed light on, or to make sense of, the explanandum.
IV. Conditional Sentences
Conditional sentences are compound sentences of the form “if…..then….. “ Or “…..if…..”

Examples: - If the city bus comes by two minutes earlier, then I would have been
killed by the car accident occurring there.
-Do not expect “A” from this course if you do not study hard.
 The statement that occurs between the “if” and the “then” is called the antecedent and after
the “then” is called the consequent.
 In the first example, the antecedent is “the city bus comes by two minutes earlier” and the
consequent is “I would have been killed by the car accident occurring there.” In the second
example the antecedent is “you do not study hard”, and the consequent is “do not expect
“A” from this course.”
 Conditional statements are not arguments, because there is no claim that either the
antecedent or the consequent presents evidence. In other words, there is no assertion that
either the antecedent or the consequent is true. Thus, if I say; if it rains, then the picnic will
be cancelled, I am not asserting that the picnic will be cancelled, but I am only asserting that
if the first statement is true, the second statement will also be true.
 Note that a single conditional statement is not an argument. But a conditional statement
with other conditional statements or categorical statements can form an argument. An
argument formed by three conditional statements is called hypothetical syllogism.
 The inferential content of conditional statements can be re expressed to form an argument.
For example, the statement which says, if it rains , then the picnic will be cancelled could
be rewritten to form an argument, as follows:
It rains. Therefore, the picnic will be cancelled.
Example: If one state faces frequent war, then its economy would collapse.
If the state’s economy collapses, then political instability occurs.
Therefore, if the state faces frequent wars, then political instability occurs.
 The study of conditional statements is also important to express the necessary and sufficient
conditions between the antecedent and consequent. A condition “X” is necessary for
condition “Y” if whenever “X” does not occur, then “Y” does not occur. A condition “X” is
a sufficient condition for “Y” whenever “X” is needed for condition “Y”.
Example: If oxygen is not present, then there can be no fire.
 This means oxygen is a necessary condition for the occurrence of fire; that is, in the
absence of oxygen, fire cannot exist.
Page 5
Sufficient condition is the condition in the presence of which an event occurs or exists.
Example: If there is rain, then street being wet.
 Rain makes the streets wet, but it is not the only one. Streets can be wet even without the
presence of rain, like for example by leakage of pipe water.

DEDUCTIVE AND INDUCTIVE ARGUMENTS

Arguments are broadly classified as inductive or deductive based on how strongly the premise
claim to support the conclusion, or how strongly the conclusion is claimed to follow from the
premise.
A. Deductive arguments
A deductive argument is one in which the conclusion is certain based on the premise and the truth
of the premise guarantees the truth of the conclusion. In correctly formed deductive argument the
conclusion follows with logical necessity or certainty from the premises. Deductive reasoning,
therefore, holds to a very high standard of correctness. In other words, deductive argument is an
argument in which the premises are claimed to support the conclusion in such a way that if they are
assumed true, then it is impossible for the conclusion to be false.
Example: Elephants are bigger than lions, and whales are bigger than elephants.
Therefore, whales are bigger than lions.
Man is mortal. Socrates is a man. Therefore, Socrates is mortal.
 In the above deductive argument, the idea stated in the conclusion is already informed in
the premise, hence the premise provide support for the conclusion with absolute necessity.
Consequently, if the premise of the above argument is true it is impossible for conclusion
to be false.
How to identify deductive arguments
1. Using indicator words
 For sure Certainly
 Absolutely Definitely, etc.
2. Studying the actual strength of the link between premise and conclusion
If the conclusion actually does follow with strict necessity from the premises, the argument is
clearly deductive. In such an argument it is impossible for the premises to be true and the
conclusion false. On the other hand, if the conclusion does not follow with strict necessity but does
follow probably, it is usually best to consider the argument as inductive.
Examples:
All saleswomen are extroverts.
Elizabeth Taylor is a saleswoman.
Therefore, Elizabeth Taylor is an extrovert.

The vast majority of saleswomen are extroverts.

Elizabeth Taylor is a saleswoman.
Therefore, Elizabeth Taylor is an extrovert.
In the first example, the conclusion follows with strict necessity from the premises. If we assume
that all saleswomen are extroverts and that Elizabeth Taylor is a sales women, then it is impossible
that Elizabeth Taylor not to be an extrovert. Thus we should interpret this argument as deductive. In
the second example, the conclusion does not follow from premises with strict necessity; it does
follow with some degree of probability. If we assume that premises are true, then based on this
Page 6
assumption it is improbable that the conclusion is false. Thus, it is best to interpret the second
argument as inductive.

3. The form or character of argumentation the arguer uses

Based on this criteria there are three forms of argumentation that are purely deductive. These
include arguments based on mathematics, arguments from definition, and syllogistic logic.
a. Argument Based on Mathematics
It is an argument in which the conclusion depends on some purely arithmetic or geometric
computation or measurement. Since all arguments in pure mathematics are deductive, we can
usually consider arguments that depend on mathematics to be deductive as well. A noteworthy
exception, however, is arguments that depend on statistics which is based on random sampling of
data gathering. Thus, it is impossible to arrive at absolutely certain conclusion based on premises of
statistical evidences. That is why statistical reasoning is categorized as inductive.
Example: Normal body temperature of a healthy person is 37oc. Tesfaye’s father
body temperature reached 42oc. Therefore; Tesfaye’s father health
Condition is not good.
b. Arguments from definition
If the argument’s premise is a fundamental word that needs definition and when the argument’s
conclusion is reached by defining the fundamental word in the premise, the argument is deductive.
Example: - God is omniscient. Hence, He knows everything.
- Abebe married a prostitute. Therefore, Abebe’s wife was engaged
in sexual intercourse for payment.
_ Abel is mendacious. Therefore, he tells lies.
Moreover, when the premise of an argument already defined the truth of conclusion, the argument
is said to be “from definition”.
Example: Since Easter is always on Sunday, it follows that the day after
Easter is Monday.
c. Syllogistic Arguments
Syllogistic arguments are deductive arguments having two premises and one conclusion. The
following are syllogistic arguments.
 Categorical syllogism is a syllogism formed by categorical propositions having quantifier
all, no and some.
Example: All medical doctors are graduates of medical school.
Some medical doctors are unethical persons.
Therefore, some unethical persons are graduates of medical school.
 Hypothetical syllogism is a deductive argument formed by or proceeds from conditional
sentence as a premise.
Example: If we eat variety food items, then we would be healthy.
If we are healthy, then we would be productive.
 Disjunctive syllogism is a syllogism having a disjunctive statement (i.e an “either…or…”
statements).
Example: Either breach of contract is a crime or it is not punishable by the state.
Breach of contract is not a crime.
Therefore, it is not punishable by the state.

Page 7
  In the above examples, the premise guarantees the acceptance of the conclusion, and
thereby, the conclusion contained information stated in the premise. Because, if one use
premises that is likely to be accepted and implicitly contains information stated in the
conclusion, the acceptance of the conclusion is guaranteed. Consequently, in a correctly
formed deductive argument it is impossible for the conclusion to be false and the
premise true. It means that, one could not accept the premise and deny the conclusion.

B. INDUCTIVE ARGUMENTS
An inductive argument is one in which the premise provide some evidence for the truth of the
conclusion. Therefore, the conclusion of an inductive argument does not follow with logical
necessity or certainty from the premise, even if all the premises are true. An inductive argument
claims merely that the truth of its premises make it likely or probable that its conclusion is also
true. In other words, an inductive argument is an argument in which the premises are claimed to
support the conclusion in such a way that if they are assumed true, then based on this assumption it
is probable that the conclusion is true.
An inductive argument is an argument, which makes the claim that the
Reasons, evidences or premises offered in support of the conclusion with
the force of likelihood or probability. That is, an inductive argument is one
whose conclusion is claimed to follow from its premises only with probability.
In contrast to deductive argument, the truth or acceptance of relevant premises in an inductive
argument does not force or guarantee the truth of its conclusion. Hence, the conclusion of any
inductive argument is probable based on the premise.

Inductive arguments, then meets greater or lesser degree of probability depending on the amount
of support that the premise supply to the conclusion. Hence, no inductive argument is either
absolutely perfect or entirely useless.
Example: Last year there was fair rainfall and good harvest in Ethiopia. This
Year too, there is fair rainfall. Therefore, probably next year there will be
good harvest in Ethiopia.
Polls show that 75 percent of republicans favor a school prayers amendment.
Yared is a republican. Therefore, Yared probably favors a school prayer
amendment.

HOW TO IDENTIFY INDUCTIVE ARGUMENTS

1. Using indicator words

If an argument consists of words such as probably, plausibly, likely, unlikely, reasonably, etc. the
argument is inductive.
2. Studying the actual strength of the link between premises and conclusion
If the conclusion of an argument does follow probably from the premises, the argument is clearly
deductive.
Example: The vast majority of sales women are extroverts.
Elizabeth Taylor is a sales woman.
Therefore, Elizabeth Taylor is an extrovert.
3. Searching the nature or form of the argument

Page 8
Inductive arguments are those arguments such that the content of the conclusion is in some way
intended to go beyond the content of the premises. The premises of such an argument typically deal
with some subject that is relatively familiar, and the conclusion then moves beyond this to a subject
that is less familiar.

If the conclusion follows from the premise based on probable assumption, or if the actual relation of
the premise and the conclusion is based on probability, and not with absolute necessity, the
argument is inductive. The following argument forms are inductive.
A. Argument based on prediction
Reaching conclusion about the future condition based on the past and present condition, would not
be certain, rather it is probable or likely to happen. Hence, the argument is inductive.

Example: The governments of Ethiopia were politicizing the education system of the country.
This condition entails that the prospect governments of Ethiopia will politicize the
education system of the country.
Most U.S presidents have been Catholics. Therefore, probably the next U.S presidents
will be Catholic.
Since the future cannot be known with absolute certainty, thus, when ever an argument makes a
prediction about the future, then one is usually justified in considering the argument as inductive.
Thus, the above two examples are purely inductive.
B. Inductive Generalization
An inductive generalization is an inductive argument that relies on characteristics of a sample
population to make a claim about the population as a whole. In other words, inductive
generalization is an argument that proceeds from the knowledge of a selected sample to a claim
about the whole group. Or it is an argument that used evidence about a limited number of people or
things of a certain type, the sample population, to make a claim about a large group of people or
things of that type, the population as a whole.
Example: There are 45 students in this class. I have evaluated the answer sheets
of 10 students and all of them scored above 85%. It implies that all
students of this class are smart.
C. Argument from Authority
It is an argument that concludes something is true because an expert or witness has said that it is.
Since the persons who provide the information have a better position, access to the required
evidence, or qualification, this inductive argument form is named as argument from authority.
Example: According to Ato Mesfin, who is an instructor in yared music school and researcher in
Ethiopian traditional music, the quality of traditional music has been declining in this
country. Therefore, based on the information of Ato Mesfin, the Ehiopian traditional usic
is really declining.

D. Argument Based on Causation ( causal arguments )

Humans are a curious life form. Our very nature derives us to search for knowledge. One of the
most basic, most common, and most important kinds of knowledge we seek is knowledge of cause
and effect. We tend to look for causal connections when we are surprised (pleasantly or
unpleasantly) by what occurs. We tend to know the cause of what happened. A cause is that which
brings about a change, that which produces an effect.

Page 9
Causal argument underlies arguments that proceed from knowledge of a cause to knowledge of the
effect, or, conversely, from knowledge of an effect to knowledge of a cause. Since specific
instances of cause and effect cannot be known with absolute certainty, one might usually interpret
such arguments as inductive.
Example: The cloud is becoming darker and the thunder is roaming. So, let’s go home quickly.The
rainfall is inevitable.
E. Argument Based on Sign
An argument based on sign is that which proceeds from the knowledge of certain sign (such as
traffic signs, trademarks, cautionary marks and symbols) to a knowledge of the thing or situation
that the sign symbolizes.
Example: The package material says that “keep it far from children” .Therefore,
this package must consist some sort of medicine.
F. Argument based on analogy
Analogy is a comparison of things based on similarities those things share. Or analogies depend on
what is similar or the same in two or more cases. Argument based on analogy is an inductive
argument in which the conclusion rests up on the existence of analogy or similarity between or
among things or states of affairs in general. Example:
Yonathan is dark, handsome and has blue eyes. Henok is also dark and handsome. It follows that
probably Henok has blue eyes too.
In this example since the conclusion follows only probably from the premise then the argument is
best interpreted as inductive.

G. Statistical arguments
A statistical argument is an inductive argument that argues from a premise regarding a percentage
of a population to a conclusion about individual members of that population or some part of that
population.
Example: Ninety percent of college students are in favor of not having a cumulative final exam in
their introduction to logic class. Abraham is a college student. So, Abraham is in favor of not
having a cumulative final exam in his introduction to logic class.
 In all the above examples, the idea stated in the conclusion is not basically given in the
premise. Hence, there is no absolute guarantee to accept the conclusion based on the
evidences given in the premises.
 This does not mean that the premise is not fully claiming to support the conclusion. In
correctly formed inductive arguments, the premise claimed to support the conclusion, but
it is not the case that the conclusion is certain based on the ideas provided in the
premise. The conclusion of inductive arguments claimed to follow only probably from the
premises. Hence, in a good inductive argument, if the premise is true, it is improbable the
conclusion to be false.
The reason why the conclusion of inductive argument is probable (not certain) is because ample
information is not given to reach at reliable conclusion, and as a result the conclusion makes a
claim that goes beyond the evidence provided in the premises.

HOW TO EVALUATE DEDUCTIVE AND INDUCTIVE ARGUMENTS?

Evaluating arguments is not an easy task. The source of the problem in evaluating arguments is that
of the complex nature of the relation between the premise and the conclusion in arguments.
Page 10
In some arguments the premise supports the conclusion. When the premise support the conclusion
the premise becomes relevant to the conclusion. In this case,
 The premise and the conclusion become coherent to each other,
 The idea stated in the premise and conclusion becomes harmonious,
 The flow of idea from the premise to the conclusion become reasonable,
 The information given in the premise would be contained in the conclusion, hence, the
logical connection between the premise and conclusion becomes strong, and
 The inference (the reasoning process) becomes good; hence, unity of idea and homogeneity
of information would be created between the premise and the conclusion.
Those arguments having premises and conclusion coherent, relevant or harmonious to each other
are correct or good arguments. If irrelevance, incoherence, and disharmony occur between the
premise and the conclusion the argument becomes incorrect or bad.

When the argument becomes good no one would be troubled to accept the truth of the conclusion.
The reader or hearer of the arguer would say that “this person is reasonable or logical in presenting
his argument.” If the opponents of the arguer attempt to criticize him/her it would be difficult for
them to get loop holes in the argument.

In a good argument, the information given in the premise and the conclusion are tight and support
each other strongly. Therefore, a person who forms a good argument would be blameless, while a
person who forms bad argument would be easily exposed to criticism and becomes blameworthy.

Note that, when you evaluate arguments, focus on the presence or absence of support, coherence,
harmony, relevance or strong connection between the premise and the conclusion and not the truth
and falsity of statements.

Truth and falsity is the nature of statements. Statements are either true or false because they are
assertions or declarative sentences, while arguments are concerned with reasoning.

In general all arguments can be evaluated as good or bad, correct or incorrect. But this is not
enough. There are other technical terms that would help us to evaluate deductive and inductive
arguments separately.

A. How to evaluate deductive arguments

Deductive argument can be evaluated as valid, invalid, sound and unsound.
A valid deductive argument – is an argument in which it is impossible for the conclusion to be
false given that the premises are true. In these arguments the conclusion follows with strict
necessity from the premises.
An invalid deductive argument – is a deductive argument in which it is possible for the
conclusion to be false given that the premises are true. In this argument 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. There are no arguments that are “almost”
valid and “almost” invalid. If the conclusion follows with strict necessity from the premises, the
argument is valid, if not, it is invalid.

Page 11
A deductive argument is always invalid when the premise is true and the conclusion is false. In all
other cases it is not the truth and falsity of the premise and conclusion that determines the validity
and invalidity of a deductive argument, but rather the strength of the inferential claim.

 A deductive argument can be valid or invalid irrespective of the truth or falsity of the
premise and the conclusion.
 The occurrence of false premises and false conclusion does not prevent an argument from
being valid, and the occurrence of true premises and true conclusion does not guarantee
validity.
A sound argument – is a deductive argument that is valid and has all true premises. Both
conditions must be met for an argument to be sound, and if either is missing the argument is
unsound. Thus, an unsound argument is a deductive argument that is invalid, has one or more
false premises or both. Because a valid argument is one such that it is impossible for the
premises to be true and the conclusion false, and because a sound argument does in fact have
true premises, it follows that every sound argument, by definition, will have a true conclusion as
well. Sound argument is the most perfect and acceptable deductive argument, or it is a good
deductive argument.
Sound argument = true premise +valid argument (taking in to account that the conclusion is
also true).

B. How to evaluate inductive arguments

Inductive arguments are evaluated as strong, weak, cogent and uncogent. An inductive
argument is one whose conclusion is claimed to follow from its premises only with probability.
Consequently, we evaluate the nature of reasoning in inductive arguments as strong or weak
depending on the premise’s strength or weakness in support of the conclusion irrespective of
the truth or falsity of the propositions.

A strong inductive argument – is an inductive argument in which it is improbable that the

conclusion be false, given that the premises are true. The conclusion does in fact follow
probably from the premises.

A weak inductive argument – is an inductive argument in which the conclusion does not
follow probably from the premises, even though it is claimed to.

 The procedure for testing the strength of inductive arguments runs parallel to the procedure
for deduction.
 Unlike the validity and invalidity of deductive arguments, the strength and weakness of
inductive arguments admit of degrees. To be considered strong, an inductive argument must
have a conclusion that is more probable than improbable. In other words, the likelihood that
the conclusion is true must be more than 50%, and as the probability increases, the argument
becomes stronger.

Examples: This barrel contains 100 apples. Three apples selected at random were
found to be ripe. Therefore, probably all 100 apples are ripe.
This barrel contains 100 apples. Eighty apples selected at random were
found to be ripe. Therefore, probably all 100 apples are ripe.
Page 12
  The first argument is weak and the second is strong. However, the first is not absolutely
weak nor the second absolutely strong. Both arguments would be strengthened or weakened
by the random selection of a larger or smaller sample.
A cogent argument – is an inductive argument that is strong and has all true premises. If either is
missing, the argument is uncogent. Thus, an uncogent argument is an inductive argument that is
weak, has one or more false premises, or both.
Cogent argument = strong argument +all true premises.
 There is a difference between sound and cogent arguments in regards to the true premise
requirement although one is the analogue of the other. In a sound argument it is only
necessary that the premise be true and nothing more. Given such premises and good
reasoning, a true conclusion is guaranteed. In cogent argument, on the other hand, the
premise must not only be true, but they must also not ignore some important piece of
evidence that entails a quite different conclusion.

Page 13