1.

Lecture Note on Nature and Principle of logic

Thinking is a natural attribute of man and everyone can reason to an extent concerning certain things.
Aristotle as the first scholar to develop logic as an academic discipline says “man is a rational animal”,
thus logic deals with valid human reasoning. It is concerned with argument or discourse which can be
described as a series of statement consisting two parts namely premise(s) and conclusion. The premise(s)
is also known as reason or reasons for the conclusion, while the conclusion is the claim that is been
supported by the reasons.

As a science or art logic involves critical thinking which indicates rules and principles that guide human
reasoning. Logic literally, distinguishes good or bad argument through the reasoning. Logic
etymologically originated from the Greek word logike, meaning possessed of reason, intellectual,
dialectical or argumentative. Traditionally, logic also could be traced to the word Logos denoting an
expression of reason or orderliness in words, things and principle. Parmenides was the first ancient Greek
philosopher that developed some logical ideology, and these are the principle of identity and the principle
of non-contradiction. His logical construct of ‘what is, and what is not’ gives rise to the Aristotelian
conception of ‘Truth functional logic.

Logic defined

In philosophical terms, a comprehensive definition of logic, a tool for valid reasoning and
essential weapon for philosophical reflection may appear impossible. Logic enables philosophers to make
their arguments well stated, clear, well-articulated and persuasive over riding other people premises or
arguments. Aristotle traditionally, described logic as the scientific study of basic principles of human
thoughts and the laws that emphasize convincing thought processes and argument. This connotes valid
premises deduced from reasoning to substantiate an argument.

To corroborate Aristotle definition, Kahane (1968) further refers to logic as a rational effort to
differentiate between correct (valid) from incorrect (invalid) arguments. Rationality, in this definition,
that is devoid of prejudice or bias plays a vital role in debunking good from bad argument or discourse.
Substantiated by the view of Oke (1999) logic was further defined as the study of process, methods and
guidelines applied to appraise the potency of the evidential relation involving the premises (supporting
reasons) and conclusion (Claims) of an arguments. From the definition above logic can described as study
of correct reasoning that involved a particular way of thinking, especially reasonable ones that is based on
good judgment. Some terminologies such as reasoning and argumentation appears fundamental to the
above definitions, indicating that the study of logic is the study of correct and incorrect reasoning and
arguments and the science of reasoning.

Process of Logic

Logical processes in philosophical entails Simple apprehension, Judgment, Reasoning and Argument.

Simple Apprehension

Simple apprehension the process by which the mind initially conceives or forms a concept or idea about
something or issue without affirming or it. For instance, if I say “throw the ball” This is a simple
apprehension because I have not said anything about the ball. I have neither affirmed nor denied anything
about the ball. Some philosophers and logicians have denied the possibility of a simple apprehension.

Judgment

After the initially conception or formation of concept or idea by the mind about something or issue.
Judgment indicated the act by which the mind affirms or denies something or issue. Using the above
example, “throw the black ball For instance, if I say “look, that ship is big” then I have made a judgment
by affirming the “colour” of the ball and the bigness of the ship

Reasoning and Argument

As the third and last stage of any logical process reasoning and argument involves the process by which
the mind passes several judgments to a further judgment distinct from the preceding ones but implicitly
contained in them. Such “throw the black, big weak leather ball”, reasoning and argument has further
judge the ball, by examining the size (big) and leather quality (weak). Fundamentally, apart from simple
apprehension and judgment, logic
is strictly concerned with reasoning and argument.

Types of logic

Logic in the modern sense is wider because it deals with the basic operations of truth values this include
deductive, inductive sentential or propositional, syllogistic, modal, epistemic deontic and predicate.

Deductive logic

Deductive logic is the process of moving from the general to the specific, when the
conclusion follows from its premises with absolute necessity or certainty.
Here premises or assertion provide a conclusive evidence for the conclusion. It is an inferential reasoning
that follows necessarily from given premises. An inference is deductively valid if and only if the
premise(s) follows from the conclusion or if there is no reason for us to accept the premises as true and
reject the conclusion. In order words, the conclusion is derived from the premises or that the premise
provides adequate support for the conclusion to hold.

Inductive Logic

Inductive logic occurs when premises do not lead to conclusion with certainty. Inductive logic is based on
probability. As the opposite of deductive logic, Inductive Logic process is such that the conclusion in any
discussion or premise is not supported in absolute term by the series of observations made. Inductive
logic is neither valid nor invalid; it is probable but not certain. It is a logical process where a reliable
generalization from observations is derived. Inductive logical evaluation requires us to define a reliable
generalization of some set of observations. To provide such definition it may take the form of
mathematical models of probability.

Syllogistic Logic.
 This is the traditional logic developed by Aristotle it centres on syllogistic arguments. Here major
premise is stated first followed by minor premise then conclusion, the two premises (major and minor) are
usually stated then finally followed with a conclusion.

Prepositional Logic.

Here logical relationship between two sentence issue and phenomenon is tested considering its truth-value
and validity. This form of logic is concerned with testing the truth-value validity of propositions through
logical rules and principles. For instance wife and husband, atom and compound or phrase and sentence.
.

Modal Logic

Modal logic focuses on necessity, possibility and impossibility about a phenomenon or sentence. This is
done by semantics modified by special verbs or modal particles. For
example, “We go to the games” and perhaps “We may go to the games” or We will go the games”. More
abstractly, we might say the modality affects the circumstances in which we take an assertion to be
satisfied.

Epistemic Logic

This is the logic of knowledge and belief. It focuses on propositional knowledge and provides insight into
the properties of individual knower which has provided a means to model complicated scenarios
involving groups of knower and has improved our understanding of the dynamics of inquiry. You need to
know that this form of logic has many applications in computer science and economics.
Deontic Logic

This type of logic directly involves topics of considerable practical significance such as morality, law,
social and business organizations (their norms, as well as their normative constitution), and security
system. It deals with obligation and permission.

Relevance of Logic

Logic as an indispensable sphere and process of life will enhance better decision in the life of teacher and
learners, because it is fundamentally based on evidence rather than personal assumption or preferences.
Essentially logic among others will also be relevant in following ways:

I. Logic will assists the students to improve their own power of cogent reasoning
II. Logic is used to express ideas clearly and to analyze arguments for correct
reasoning.
III. To assist students to be better, effective and efficient in life professions and career that will aid
realization of potentials
IV. Having a sound sense of logic gives students an edge over there counter-part and to be
courageous and confident
 V. Students are equipped through the knowledge of logic to be better at persuasion and
argumentation.
VI. Logic is needed by students to solve life problems without becoming angry, upset or stressed,
which can help to boost happiness, health and life expectancy.
VII.

2. Lecture Note on Deductive and inductive reasoning method

Reasoning as human intellectual property consists of drawing a conclusion from previously established
premises. Reasoning help us learn about the world solve issues and create a paradigm for man to live
comfortably. For instance, Imagine found yourself, wandering around and you came across a tree with
rich black fruit, you pick a piece of fruit; you ate it. Twenty minutes later you a terrible stomach upset.
You made a mental note that this tree's fruit is poisonous. A month later, you come across a tree of the
same species. This time, you know to avoid the fruit. "It's poisonous," you explain to the rest of your
group. This illustrates deductive and inductive reasoning drawing conclusions from the evidence around
us,

Deductive Reasoning

Deductive reasoning begins with a premise that is proven through observations.

Deductive reasoning as a basic form of valid reasoning which starts witha general statement or hypothesis
and examines the possibilities to reach a specific logic conclusion. Thus, it starts from the process of
reasoning that starts from general statements to reach a logical conclusion. It involves thinking from
general to specific. This method is sometimes also called the top-down approach. Syllogisms are a good
example to explain deductive reasoning. These use conditional statements to form a conclusion by joining
the hypothesis of one statement with the other. Another example is Hypothetical chains this involves
putting together a cause-effect or prediction statements about a specific event, to draw a conclusion.

Characteristics of Deductive Reasoning

• It generates necessary conclusions. If the premises of the arguments are true, the conclusion drawn
should be true.
• It puts together a general statement about a group and a statement establishing a
member of that group, and draws a conclusion about that member.

• It puts together a general prediction and a statement about a given situation, and draws a conclusion.

There are two patterns of deductive argument:

1. Syllogisms: This involves putting together a general statement about a group and a statement
establishing something as a member of that group, and draws a conclusion about that member.
This consists of a generalization about the group traits and characteristics about that group from
which conclusion is drawn he conclusion must be true if the premises are true
Here are some examples.
• All men are mortal. Socrates is a man. Therefore, Socrates is mortal.

2. Hypothetical chains: This involves putting together a cause-effect statement (predictions arrived
at through generation of ideas) and a statement about a specific event, to draw a conclusion about
that event.
a. the premises consist of a statement about a cause-effect relationship, another kind of
generalization that you would get through induction,

and a statement describing a specific situation;

b. the conclusion is usually a statement about that specific situation;

c. the conclusion must be true if the premises are true.

Here are some examples: If the window is open, the room will be cold. The room is warm. Therefore, the
window is not open.

Generally here are common examples of deductive reasoning are:

Major premise: All mammals have backbones. Minor premise: Humans are mammals.
Conclusion: Humans have backbones.

Major premise: All birds lay eggs. Minor premise: Pigeons are birds.
Conclusion: Pigeons lay eggs.

Major premise: All plants perform photosynthesis. Minor premise: A Mango is a plant.
Conclusion: A cactus performs photosynthesis.

Major premise: All grey hair men are grandfathers, Minor premise: Jide has grey hair. Minor
premise: Therefore, Jide is a grandfather.

Shadow is a dog, All dogs are mammals, therefore, Shadow is a mammal.

All dogs can bark, Skiddo is a dog, therefore, Skiddo can bark ".
 For deductive reasoning to be sound, the hypothesis or guess statement must be correct. It is assumed
that the statements, "All dogs can bark " and "a Skiddo is a dog" are true, then Skiddo can bark.
Therefore, the conclusion is logical and true. In deductive reasoning, if something is true of a class of
things in general, it is also true for all members of that class.

Inductive Reasoning

Inductive reasoning extracts a likely (but not certain) premise from specific and limited observations
from which conclusions are drawn.
Inductive reasoning as the process of reasoning in which it is believed that the premises of an
argument support the truth of conclusion, but they do not
ensure its truth. Therefore, inductive reasoning refers to
as a way of examining phenomena by using broad generalizations from specific observations.
Inductive reasoning is used to form hypotheses and theories.

Characteristic of Inductive Reasoning

Inductive reasoning is characterized by the following:

• It is usually based on observation. The premises of inductive arguments are usually bits of
evidence that we've gathered by observation, direct or indirect.
• Its conclusions are tentative generalizations about groups or relationships, or
predictions. Eating one bad fruit yields the conclusion that what is true for one fruit must be
true for the whole group of fruit. If one little green apple gives you stomachaches, you will
conclude that little green apples always give stomachaches. Often, these conclusions seem to
be proven facts. But because we're drawing conclusions based on what we do observe, we
don't necessarily know that we're getting the whole picture. You will see a good example of
this below (the turkey before Thanksgiving!) So inductive conclusions, however solid they
seem, do not necessarily follow the premises. Other conclusions are always possible (maybe
not reasonable, but possible).

For instance, let's say that you have a bag of coins; you pull three coins from the bag, and each coin is a
penny. Using inductive logic, you might then propose that all of the coins in the bag are pennies."Even
though all of the initial observations that each coin taken from the bag was a penny are correct, inductive
reasoning does not guarantee that the conclusion will be true.

For example, imagine there is a bag of pebbles. You put your hand inside it and take out a pebble. This
pebble turns out to be blue in color. You pull out a pebble again, and it’s also a blue pebble. The next
pebble you take out is also blue. Then, you come to the conclusion that all pebbles in this bag are blue in
color.

Here are some examples of inductive reasoning:

Data: I see fireflies in my backyard every summer. Hypothesis: This summer, I will probably
see fireflies in my backyard.
Data: I tend to catch colds when people around me are sick. Hypothesis: Colds are infectious.
 Data: Every dog I meet is friendly. Hypothesis: Most dogs are usually friendly.

If every dog you meet is friendly, it is reasonable to form the hypothesis that most dogs are
usually friendly. This is an example of inductive reasoning.

Assignments

 All noble gases are stable. Helium is a noble gas, so helium is stable.

 Mango are trees, and all trees perform photosynthesis. Therefore, Mango perform photosynthesis.

 Red meat has iron in it, and beef is red meat. Therefore, beef has iron in it.

 Acute angles are less than 90 degrees. This angle is 40 degrees, so it must be an acute angle.

 All cats have a keen sense of smell. Fluffy is a cat, so Fluffy has a keen sense of smell.

 All birds have feathers. All robins are birds. Therefore, robins have feathers.

 It's dangerous to drive on icy streets. The streets are icy now, so it would be dangerous to drive on
the streets.

 All horses have manes. The Arabian is a horse; therefore, Arabians have manes.

 Elephants have cells in their bodies, and all cells have DNA. Therefore, elephants have DNA.

The main difference between deductive and inductive reasoning is that deductive reasoning involves
moving from general observations to specific conclusions, while inductive reasoning involves moving
from specific observations to general explanations. Deductive reasoning is the process of reasoning that
starts from general statements to reach a logical conclusion while inductive reasoning is the process of
reasoning that moves from specific observations to broader generalizations.

Difference between Deductive and Inductive Reasoning

Differences between deductive and inductive on a broader conceptual spectrum are classified into the
followings:

General and Specific

Deductive reasoning involves moving from general to specific while inductive reasoning involves moving
from specific to general.
Approach
While deductive reasoning involves a top-down approach, inductive reasoning involves a bottom-up
approach.

Validity
In deductive reasoning, the conclusion has to be true if the premises are true, but in inductive reasoning,
the truth of premises does not necessarily guarantee the truth of conclusions.

Usage
We typically use inductive reasoning in our daily lives since its fast and easy to use, but deductive
reasoning is comparatively more difficult as we need facts that are definitely true.

Conclusion
In brief, deductive reasoning and inductive reasoning are two opposite processes of reasoning. The main
difference between deductive and inductive reasoning is that deductive reasoning involves moving from
general observations to specific conclusions while inductive reasoning involves moving from specific
observations to general explanations. Therefore, deductive reasoning involves a top-down approach,
while inductive reasoning involves a bottom-up approach.

3. Lecture Note on Nature and Method of Discourse

Discourse as a foundation of university learning facilitates the use of critical thinking skills and promote
problem-solving ideas in society. As a formal way of thinking that language can be expressed, discourse
can classified using criteria such as discipline, function and the purpose it is serving. Historically, the first
use of this term was in the title of an article by the American linguist Z. Harris "Discourse analysis",
which was published in 1952. The full extent of the term "discourse" has become popular in linguistics in
approximately two decades. Classifying discourse base on discipline it reflects in academic discourse,
political discourse, religious discourse, medical discourse, entertainment discourses, legal discourse
indicating discourse multi-disciplinary nature. As agreement is an exception in philosophy, accepting the
ideas of someone who challenges your way of thinking is a contradiction in discourse. Philosophically,
discourse is made up of utterances having the property of coherence, systemic character, logicality,
reasonability and sensible.

Discourse: Meaning

Philosophical basis of discourse occurs people discuss and communicate about issues, topic and concepts
within philosophical context. The idea of discourse constitute the central idea of Michel Foucault
referring to historical continent social system that produces knowledge and meaning. Philosophically,
discourse is a process by which two or more people discuss and communicate verbally or non-verbally
about issue and concept in a pattern that is rational. To this end, Foucault described discourse as
organized knowledge that structure and constitute social progress through collective understanding of
conversational logic and acceptance of social fact. Hutchby and Wooffit (2002) discourse orderly
breakdown of the dialogue formed in everyday circumstances of human interaction backed up by
reasoning and logical basis. It is a method applied for investigating the structure, process sensibility of
social interaction between humans. Thus, discourse is consist of expressions having the property of
rationality. The terms and concepts used in a particular discourse lead to a unified whole contribute to the
theme, validity of the discourse. Tannen, Hamilton and Schiffrin (2015) observed discourses as a broad
conglomeration of linguistic and non-linguistic social practices and ideological assumptions that together
construct or reinforce power or identity among others. Discourse aim to analyze terminologies and
concepts work across the boundaries of utterances to form meaningful whole. Which justifies Rene
Descartes’ (1596-1650) attempt to explain discourse as a method of reasoning through even the most
difficult of problems and philosophical arguments. Descartes proposed four philosophical percepts of this
discourse in the bid to ascertain the true about issues. First everything should be subjected to doubts and
hasty and bias judgments should be avoided. Second, split every problem into smaller parts and merge up
issues with the same characteristics. After breaking down into components units, effort should be made at
the third step to commence with objects that were the most simple and easy to understand in order to
solve the simplest problems first. Finally, philosophers are expected to be thorough, by enumerating
reviewing the general process of discourse avoid omission before conclusion.

Forms of Discourse
Discourse as an aspect of daily lives occurs in multi-dimensional forms which can be reflected thus:

Solitary or Monologue Discourse

Traditionally, people engage in soliloquy talk to themselves either consciously or unconsciously. Some
ways through which monologue can manifest are somebody doing incantations at road junctions,
meditation, brainstorming or rehearsing a drama script. Occurrence of Monologues can be formal or
informal.

Dialogic Discourse
While solitary discourse is individualistic, dialogic is collective it occurs between two or more people,
formally or informally. This takes the instance of discourse between a supervisor and a supervisee,
between a doctor and a patient, a boss and an employee, a lecturer and a student and so on. Informal
dialogic discourse can occur between a mother and child, between two siblings, between two friends.

Functional Classification of Discourse

Persuasive Discourse
The purpose and focus of discussion or language is inherent to the targeted audience. When the content
has some convincing drives to lobby others towards accepting a view point such is labeled as persuasive
discourse. Political discourse falls under this classification. When people want to get others to do
something they use the language or any other convincing tool that will attract other sense of reasoning. As
affirmed by Wodak (1996), persuasive discourses have the ability to make people do things which they
ordinarily will not do. The manipulative arrangements of persuasive discourse patterned in a way that it
appeals primarily to the targets‘ emotions to move them to do something other would not have done. To
make people do your will in a persuasive discourse, effort must be made to project sincere, trustworthy,
honest and transparent impression towards the targeted audience.

Descriptive Discourse
Illustrating the difficult and hazardous process of travelling from Lagos to Abuja during the eve of 2023
presidential election in Nigeria an audience is an instance of descriptive discourse. This description
enable the reader to grasp the experience through sense of imagination. Apart from using words to
describe this process, visuals or other meaning making semiotic component can be used to generate this
feelings. These most times can pleasant or unpleasant

Expository Discourse
Literarily, the prefix ex in the term expository connote out‘ or away from Greek through Latin.
Expository discourse explains, analyzes and makes something clear for the reader in other to give
direction. Readers are informed and made to be aware of the topic of a discussion. Expository discourse
helps through its outcome to contribute to the existing body of knowledge. The essence is to create a
paradigm in the society. Most scholastic thesis and research falls under expository discourse.

Narrative Discourse
When real, fictional events or situations are related based on sequence of occurrence or in a chronological
order such is term as narrative discourse. Narrative discourse gives the sense of witnessing an action by
presenting what and how events happened. Fictional are literary works such as novels, dramas, stage
plays and folklores. While real life event, takes the forms of autobiography, biography, history or a
newspaper report.

Argumentative Discourse
When a discourse is backed up by convincing logical basis with the intension of upholding the true, such
connote argumentative discourse. To make the argument acceptable, evidences, cases or premises are
built to support ones argument. At times scholarly works can be argumentative, where the writer aims to
convince readers to accept a belief or opinion.

Transactional Discourse
The label transactional discourse can be used to label the kind of discourse that conveys messages in such
a way that the messages are easily understandable without any ambiguity or confusion. Instructions,
manuals, policies, doctors‘ prescription for patients all fall under this category. The essence is to guide
and instruct to eliminates misconceptions and ensure transparency.

Approaches of Discourse
Approaches are methods adopted in studying discourse, the approaches adopted by the three of the
leading scholars in CDA research: Norman Fairclough, Ruth Wodak and Teun van Dijk. These
approaches are known as the socio-cultural approach, the discourse-historical approach and the socio-
cognitive approach respectively. They are briefly discussed below.
Socio-cultural Approach
This is an approach to Critical Discourse analysis which was developed by Norman Fairclough for
studying discourse. This framework maps three separate forms of analysis onto one another: analysis of
social practice, analysis of text and analysis of discursive practice. It takes into consideration social and
cultural relations and structures that constitute the wider context of the social practices. The textual
analysis on the other hand, includes the description of linguistic characteristics of discourse this implies
choices and patterns in vocabulary (e.g. lexis/choice of words, figures), grammar (transitivity, modality
and theme), texture (cohesion). Finally, the discursive practice dimension is concerned with the analysis
of discursive strategies employed in the production, consumption and distribution of texts. In other words,
analysis of texts at this level is concerned with the ways texts are embedded within and relate to social
conditions of production and consumption.

Discourse-historical approach (DHA)

The discourse-historical approach to CDA is a form of critical study of discourse which was developed in
Vienna by Martin Reisigl and Ruth Wodak (2001). DHA mainly focuses on the systematic analysis of
context and its dialectical relationship to meaning-making. Proponents argue that discourse is always
historical, that is there is a diachronic and synchronic connection between discourse and other
communicative events which have happened in the past or currently taking place. Here social dynamics
are the basis of explaining the context under which discourse is produced. Language in discourse is a
product of inter textual relationships, inter discursivity, social variables and institutional frames which
relate to the situation and sociopolitical and historical antecedents.

Socio-cognitive approach
This is an approach to carrying out CDA was developed by Teun Van Dijk (1998, 2001). This approach
relates discourse structures to social structures via a complex socio-cognitive interface. Socio-cognitive
approach shows that many structures of discourse can only be adequately described in terms of notions of
cognition such as information, knowledge or beliefs of participants. Explicit links are made between
discourse, cognition and society. In practice, it involves the analysis of topics (or macrostructures), local
meanings (relating to phenomena such as word choice), context models and mental models (involving
knowledge, attitudes and ideologies) and the relationship between discourse and society. It deals with
communicative Common Ground and the shared social knowledge, as well as attitudes and ideologies of
language users as current participants and members of social groups.

Relevance of Discourse to Education

Teaching and learning due to its communicative nature is a form of discourse. Teachers engage in
discourse in the process of achieving instructional objectives through which learners are convinced to
learn and assimilate ideas skills knowledge and values. . Accepting the ideas of someone who challenges
your way of thinking and reasoning which is the essence of discourse. In good academic discourse,
definite features are obvious. These traits are required for students to facilitate communication
respectfully. Teachers must model and lead students during discourse into situations that will ensure
positive values as illustrated below:
(i) To enable Student chose problems and proffer with their own solutions and an explanation of how the
results were reached.

(ii) An emphasis on the importance of the right use of language and vocabulary in discourse. This is
relevant to real-world situations in which the wrong words could change the entire meaning of the
conversation and make it loose its genuine basis.

(iii) Strategically students are guided to produce evidences, premises and cases to support explanation or
arguments in order to substantiate or upheld the truth, when faced with opposing views that challenges
their way of thinking.

(iv) Discourse enhances cognitive maturity, enabling students become scholars, develop their own sets of
right and wrong when it comes to how to engage in discourse and constructively debunk certain
assumptions that are fallacy and can generate conflict.

(v) Discourse in education focuses on learning as a future-oriented concept, student may need the valid
information and knowledge of education to solve future societal problems. This means education through
discourse is to aid thinking not just memorization or remembering.

(vi) When appropriately utilized education through discourse enhances independent learning that
facilitates discovery, innovative and collaborative learning. Teachers are passive and mentor students in
the teaching and learning process.

(vii) Through discourse learner are confident and are open-minds to academic discourse, promoting a
deeper grasp of the knowledge and satisfactory outcome making positive academic impact both inside
and outside of the classroom.
 4. Lecture Note on Techniques of Evaluating Argument: Validity and Soundness

Introduction

Philosophy is related to disapproval and argument by adducing series of reasons or premises given to
support a claim from which conclusion are drawn. Logically, effort is made to assess our claims whether
it’s good or bad. The logic of an argument is determined by considering the structure of the argument and
the truth in the evidence provided. For an argument to be valid or sound, assessment is needed to
ascertain the truth or fallacy of such argument. The essence of assessments in arguments helps to establish
the truth.

Argument Defined

Consciously, during discussion various related statements are made to support our claims so as to
convince or persuade others to believe or conform to our views. These related statements or propositions
providing support for claims made is called argument. An argument can be described as a chain of
reasoning in which conclusion is drawn. In philosophical context arguments are statements, known as
premises, that work together to support another claim, usually the conclusion. An argument is a connected
to series of propositions, some of which are called premises creating basis for conclusion. The premises
provide the reasons or evidence that supports the conclusion. This infer that combination of premise and
conclusion makes up an Argument. The essence of an argument is meant to persuade other people. Thus
when the premises are accepted as true the conclusion follows suit.

A sound argument is a logically valid argument in which all conclusions are drawn from truth not
falsehood or fallacy. Assertively, a good arguments in philosophical terms present a strong link between
the truth of the premises and the truth of the conclusion. Thus a good argument supports a rational
inference to the conclusion, a bad or fallacious argument supports no rational inference to the conclusion.
The essence of philosophy is postulated sound and valid argument. When arguing, it is necessary to avoid
fallacies since they will create some form of deception. Thus to uphold validity of an argument and
soundness some precaution should considered;

 Argument should relate to logic or make sense, fallacy makes it easy to undermine or fault
arguments and diminish the claims.
  Argument should appeal to accuracy and rational claims. Premises to support claims should be
truly insistence, consistence and reliable.
 Fallacy or False claims make our claims invalid, incoherent and irrational which is a waste or
futility of mental exercises.

Features of an Argument

There are three main features of an argument

 Consistency. An argument can be consistent in statements but remains invalid. Consistency

means that the premises present in a statement do not contradict. Consistency alone does not
equate to validity.
 Completeness. In any argument completeness refers to the feature that provides hints, allows
discovery, and helps get the statement in full.
 Opposing arguments. Lastly, a counterargument is acknowledging the points that contradict the
statement and asserting it. This counterargument is done by stating what the opposition may be
implying and presenting the pre-existing argument in the best possible way. A counterargument is
also a standard in argument showing views from different aspects of the premise.

Argument Evaluation: Validity and Soundness

Validity

Validity occurs when the conclusion of an argument is deduced follows completely from its
Premises. Invalidity however, is when conclusion is not deduced or does not follow completely from the
premises. In effect, an argument is valid if the truth of the premises logically guarantees the truth of the
conclusion. Assertively, an argument is valid if it has the proper form because, it is impossible for the
premises to be true and the conclusion nevertheless to be false. By inference, an argument is valid when,
If all of it’s premises were true, then the conclusion would also have to be true. In other words, a valid
argument refers to conclusion necessarily following from the premises. It is impossible for the conclusion
to be false if the premises are true.

Here’s an example of a valid argument:

A. All philosophy courses are courses that are super exciting.
B. All logic courses are philosophy courses.
C. Therefore, all logic courses are courses that are super exciting.

Note from the above, if (A) and (B) WERE true, then (C) would also have to be true.
Validity is not concerned about whether or not any of the premises are true in real sense. The indication is
that if the premises are true, then the conclusion must follow. So, validity centres of an argument, rather
than the contextual truth of an argument.

Conversely, an argument is valid if it has the proper form. An argument can have the right form, but be
totally false, however. For example:
1. Scoppy is a dog.
2. All dogs are dangerous
3. Therefore, Scoppy is dangerous.

The argument just given is valid. But, premise 2 as well as the conclusion are both false. Notice however
that, If the premises were true, then the conclusion would also have to be true. This is all that is required
for validity. Contextually, a valid argument need not have true premises or a true conclusion.

Soundness

Soundness of an argument demands two criteria validity and true premises, thus sound argument has the
right form and it is true. If an argument is valid and its premises are true, then it is sound because the
conclusion of a sound argument must be true. An invalid argument is also unsound.
Looking back to our argument about Scoppy, we can see that it is valid, but not sound. It is not sound
because it does not have all true premises. Namely, “All dogs are dangerous ” is not true. So, the
argument about Scoppy is valid, but not sound. Here’s an example of an argument that is valid and sound:

1. All cow are mammals.

2. Bully is a cow.
3. Therefore, Bully is a mammal.

In this argument, if the premises are true, then the conclusion is necessarily true (so it is valid). As it turns
out, the premises are true (all cow are in fact mammals, and Bully is in fact a cow) so the conclusion must
also be true (so the argument is sound).

Measures for Evaluating an Argument.

Deductive arguments are the most common type of argument in philosophy, and for good reason.
Deductive arguments attempt to demonstrate that the conclusion follows necessarily from the premises.
As long as the premises of a good logical argument are true, the conclusion. This means that if the
premises are true, the truth of the conclusion is guaranteed. However the conclusion may not be true in
real sense but evidence in the premises may make it appear sensible. However if the evidences in the
premises are false, then the conclusion is not guaranteed. Logically, a good deductive arguments are both
valid and have true premises. A valid argument is an argument whose premises guarantee the truth of the
conclusion. That is, if the premises are true, then it is impossible for the conclusion to be false. A valid
argument whose premises are all true is called a sound argument. For instance

1. If it rained outside, then the streets will be wet.

2. It rained outside.
3. ∴ The streets are wet.

1. Either the world ended on December 12, 2012 or it continues today.

2. The world did not end on December 12, 2012.
3. ∴ The world continues today.

Hopefully, the above arguments present a close connection between the premises and conclusion. It
seems impossible to deny the conclusion while accepting that the premises are all true. This is what
makes them valid deductive arguments. To show what happens when similar arguments employ false
premises, consider the following examples:
 1. If Russia wins the 2018 FIFA World Cup, then Russia is the reigning FIFA world champion
[in 2019].
2. Russia won the 2018 FIFA World Cup.
3. ∴ Russia is the reigning FIFA world champion [in 2019].

1. Either snow is cold or snow is dry.

2. Snow is not cold.
3. ∴ Snow is dry.

Now let’s look at some invalid arguments. These are arguments that have the wrong structure or form.
Perhaps you have heard a playful argument like the following:

1. Grass is green.
2. Money is green.
3. ∴ Grass is money.

Here is another example of the same argument:

1. All tigers are kittens.

2. All lions are kittens..
3. ∴ All tigers are lions.

Invalidly, the two arguments has a false premise in forms and structures making it invalid due to false
conclusion. In the case of these arguments, the structure is good, but the evidence is bad.

Logical arguments are either valid or invalid because of the form or structure of the argument. They are
sound or unsound based on the form, plus the content. You might become familiar with some of the
common forms of arguments (many of them have names) and once you do, you will be able to tell when a
deductive argument is invalid.

When evaluating an argument, here are some things that you might consider:

 Who is making the argument?

 What gives them authority to make the argument?
 What evidence is given in support of the argument? Has this evidence been tested elsewhere?
Could alternative approaches have been used?
 Does the evidence upon which the argument is based come from a reliable and independent
source? How do you know? Who funded the research that produced the evidence?
 Are there alternative perspectives or counter-arguments? You should evaluate any counter-
arguments in just the same way.
 What are the implications of the argument, for example, for policy or for practice?