Reasoning Skill (Introduction to Logic)

Short Notes
Petros Kibebew
Bahir Dar University
April, 2019
Chapter One: General Introduction
 Philosophy

Etymologically, the word ‘Philosophy’ comes

from two Greek words: ‘philo’ and ‘sophia’. Philo
means love, while Sophia means wisdom.
Therefore, “philosophia” means love of wisdom.
Working Definition of Philosophy: Philosophy is
an attempt to think rationally and critically about
the fundamental questions of life.
Major Branches of Philosophy
Metaphysics
 Epistemology
 Axiology
 Logic
 Metaphysics
 Metaphysics is the study of the nature of reality.
Metaphysical questions: what is reality? Is it one or many?
Can ultimate reality be grasped by the five senses, or is it
supernatural or transcendent?
What is the nature of human being? What is the origin of
the universe? What is God? What is death? Is there life after
death? What is a soul? and the like. Where did we come from
and why are we here? Are we the product of a Divine
Creation, or did we evolve through natural selection, or is
there another possible answer?
In general metaphysics addresses questions that science can’t
answer.
School of Thoughts under Metaphysics

These are: Idealism and Materialism.

 Idealism: is a metaphysical doctrine which affirms
idea as real. Idea precedes matter. Thus, it is idea that
is real and responsible for the existence of everything
including matter.

 Materialism: is a metaphysical doctrine that affirms

matter as real. It is matter that exists before the
existence of idea, and thus responsible for the
existence of everything including idea.
Epistemology
 Epistemology is the study of knowledge
Epistemological questions:- what is
knowledge? What does it mean “to know”?
How is knowledge acquired? What is the
difference between knowledge and belief? Is
there anything such as certain knowledge?
How do we know that we know? How do we
know that we don’t know? And so on.
 Epistemological School of Thoughts
There are three known school of thoughts, namely:
Empiricism, Rationalism and Skepticism.
 Empiricism: Affirms that knowledge is ‘posteriori’- knowledge
comes after experience. It is experience which is the source of
knowledge. For empiricists, every child at birth is ‘tabula rasa’-
a blank sheet (white paper). It is after experience that
everything is imprinted in that white paper.
 Rationalism: Affirms that knowledge is ‘priori’- knowledge is
innate or inborn; knowledge is before experience. According to
Plato, our soul knows everything before entering to this fleshly
body (prison). After she enters to this prison, she forgets
everything. Thus, the only major task for the soul on earth is
simply recollecting of the forgotten ideas.
 Skepticism: Knowledge is impossible.
Axiology
 Axiology: is the theory of values.
 Aesthetics deals with art, music and beauty.
 what is art, beauty, and music? What is the relationship
between art, reality and truth?
 Universalism Vs Relativism: Is there any objective
standards by which artistic works may be judged or is it
subjective and relative (like, is beauty in the eye of the
beholder? Or is it universal?) etc,
 Ethics is concerned with moral values, namely, value as
it applies to personal actions, decisions and relations. It
deals with what is right or wrong in human behavior
and conduct. It raises questions such as what is morally
good? What is right? What is morally bad/wrong?
What is moral/immoral/amoral?
Logic
What is LOGIC?
Logic is the study of the formulation of the principle of
correct reasoning.
 It is a tool which philosophers employ as they set about
to investigate these issues such as, reality, knowledge,
value, etc.
 It investigates, develops and systematizes principles and
methods that can be used to distinguish between correct
and incorrect reasoning.
 It formulates laws and principles to which thoughts
must conform in order to be valid.
 In short, logic is a science that evaluates arguments.
 Argument, statement, sentence

An Argument is a group of statements.

A statement is a sentence that is either
true or false (or) it is a sentence that has
truth values.
All sentences are not statements. Why?
All statements are sentences.
 Sentences Vs statements
Examples of sentences that are
statements: The following sentences are not statements:

 Cape Verde is located in West  What is the capital city of

Africa. ANRS? (question)
 Djibouti was colonized by  Let’s go to ura kidanemhiret.
France. (proposal)
 Barrack Obama is the first  I suggest that you have to wake
Afro-American president of up early in the morning.
USA. (suggestion)
 Turn off the light.
(command)
 Down with corruption!
(exclamation)
 Premises and Conclusion
The premises are the statements that set forth the reasons
or evidence,
The conclusion is the statement that the evidence is
claimed to support or imply. It is the statement that is
claimed to follow from the premises.
The statements that make up an argument are divided into
one or more premises and one and only one conclusion.
Example of an argument
All men are mortal. (P1)
Socrates is a man. (P2)
Therefore, Socrates is mortal. (C)
 How do we Identify Premises and Conclusion?
Conclusion Indicators:
 Therefore, wherefore,
accordingly, we may conclude,
entails that, hence, thus,
consequently, we may infer, it
must be that, whence, so, it
follows that, implies that, as a
result.
 A statement that follows one
of these indicators usually be
identified as the conclusion.
Premise indicators:
 Since, as indicated by,
because, for, in that, may be
inferred from, as, given that,
seeing that, for the reason
that, inasmuch as, owing to.
 Any statement following one
of these indicators can
usually be identified as a
premise.
 Typical kinds of Non-arguments.

Simple Noninferential
Passages
 A warning  Explanation : explanandum
 A piece of advice and explanans
 A statement of belief or  Explanandum is the
opinion statement that describes the
 Loosely associated event or phenomenon to be
statements explained
 A report  Explanans is the statement
 An expository passage
or group of statements that
purports to do the explaining.
 An illustration
 Conditional Statements
1. A single conditional statement is not an argument.
2. A conditional statement may serve as either the
premise or the conclusion (or both) of an argument.
3. The inferential content of a conditional statement may
be re-expressed to form an argument.
Example:-
If cigarette companies publish warning labels, then
smokers assume the risk of smoking.
Cigarette companies do publish warning labels.
Therefore, smokers assume the risk of smoking.
 Necessary and Sufficient conditions
Necessary conditions
 Necessary Condition: B is said
to be a necessary condition for
A whenever A cannot occur
without the occurrence of B.
 Example:- Being an animal is a
necessary condition for being a
dog.
Sufficient conditions
 Sufficient Condition: A is
said to be a sufficient condition
for B whenever the occurrence
of A is all that is needed for the
occurrence of B.
 Example, being a dog is a
sufficient condition for being
an animal.
 Deduction and Induction
A deductive argument
 the premises are claimed to
support the conclusion in
such a way that it is
impossible for the premises
to be true and the conclusion
false.
 the conclusion is claimed to
follow necessarily from the
premises.
 involve necessary reasoning,
An inductive argument
the premises are claimed to
support the conclusion in
such a way that it is
improbable that the premises
be true and the conclusion
false.
the conclusion is claimed to
follow only probably from
the premises.
involve probabilistic
reasoning.
 Examples:
Deductive Inductive

 The meerkat is closely related The meerkat is a member of

to the suricat. the mongoose family.
 The suricat thrives on beetle All members of the mongoose
larvae. family are carnivores.
 Therefore, probably the Therefore, it necessarily
meerkat thrives on beetle follows that the meerkat is a
larvae. carnivore.
Three factors that we use to distinct deductive and
inductive arguments
(1) the occurrence of special indicator
words,
(2) the actual strength of the inferential link
between premises and conclusion, and
(3) the character or form of argumentation
the arguer uses.
I/ The Occurrence of Special Indicator Words

Special Inductive Indicator Words Special Deductive Indicator Words

 Probably,  Necessarily,
 improbable,  definitely,
 plausible,  certainly, and
 implausible,  absolutely.
 likely,
 unlikely, and
 reasonable to conclude.
 II/ The Actual Strength of the Inferential Link between Premises and
Conclusion

Deductive
 If the conclusion 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.
Example:
 All saleswomen are extroverts.
Elizabeth Taylor is a saleswoman.
Therefore, Elizabeth Taylor is an
extrovert.
Inductive
 if the conclusion does not follow
with strict necessity but does
follow probably, it is usually best
to consider the argument inductive.
Example:
 The vast majority of saleswomen
are extroverts.
Elizabeth Taylor is a saleswoman.
Therefore, Elizabeth Taylor is an
extrovert.
 III/ The Character or Forms of Argumentation the Arguer Uses

Typical Deductive Forms of Argumentation Typical Inductive Forms of Argumentation

A) An argument based on mathematics

A) Prediction
B) An argument from definition
B) An argument from analogy
C) A categorical syllogism
D) A hypothetical syllogism
C) An inductive generalization
E) A disjunctive syllogism D) An argument from authority
E) An argument based on signs
F) A causal inference
 Typical Deductive Forms of Argumentation

A) An argument based on mathematics is an argument in

which the conclusion depends on some purely arithmetic or
geometric computation or measurement.

E.g. ∆ A ≡ ∆ B
∆ A is an Isosceles.
Therefore, ∆ B is an Isosceles

E.g. The area of a circle is π × r 2 . This circle has a r (radius) of

3. Therefore the area of the circle is π × 3 2 .
 Deductive Forms Contd.
B) An argument from definition is an argument in
which the conclusion is claimed to depend merely
upon the definition of some word or phrase used in
the premise or conclusion.
E.g. A bachelor is an unmarried man. Bob is a man,
and Bob is unmarried, so Bob is a bachelor.
E.g. Claudia is mendacious, it follows that she tells lies.
 Deductive Forms Contd.
C) A categorical syllogism is a syllogism in which each
statement begins with one of the words ‘‘all,’’ ‘‘no,’’ or
‘‘some.’’
E.g. Some philosophers were from Athens, and all people
from Athens enjoy olives. Therefore, some
philosophers enjoy olives.

E.g. All lasers are optical devices. Some lasers are surgical
instruments. Therefore, some optical devices are surgical
instruments.
 Deductive Forms Contd.
D) A hypothetical syllogism is a syllogism having a
conditional statement for one or both of its premises.

E.g. If I do not wake up, then I cannot go to work. If I

cannot go to work, then I will not get paid. Therefore,
if I do not wake up, then I will not get paid.
E.g. If quartz scratches glass, then quartz is harder than
glass. Quartz scratches glass. Therefore, quartz is harder
than glass.
 Deductive Forms Contd.
E) A disjunctive syllogism is a syllogism having a disjunctive
statement (i.e., an ‘‘either . . . or . . .’’ statement) for one of its
premises.

E.g. Either Logic is the most important course you will take in college
or I am the queen of England. I am not the queen of England;
therefore, Logic is the most important course you will take in
college.

E.g. 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.
Typical Inductive Forms of Argumentation

A) Prediction, the premises deal with some known event in

the present or past, and the conclusion moves beyond
this event to some event in the relative future.

E.g. The rainfall in Seattle has been more than 15 inches

every year for the past thirty years. Therefore, the
rainfall next year will probably be more than 15
inches.
 Inductive Forms contd.
B) An argument from analogy is an argument that depends
on the existence of an analogy, or similarity, between two
things or states of affairs.

E.g. Katie and Elizabeth are both from California,

taking Sociology and wearing flip-flops. I know Katie
is a vegetarian, so Elizabeth is probably a vegetarian
too.
 Inductive Forms contd.
C) An inductive generalization is an argument that
proceeds from the knowledge of a selected sample to
some claim about the whole group.

E.g. All the people I know who are members of the

Democratic party are in favor of campaign finance
reform. All members of the Democratic party are
likely to be in favor of campaign finance reform.
 Inductive Forms contd.
D) An argument from authority is an argument in which the
conclusion rests upon a statement made by some presumed
authority or witness.

E.g. According to the Greek philosopher Plato, there are two

worlds, one palpable that can be experienced through the
senses, and another world that can only be experienced with
thought and is known as the world of ideas.

E.g. The Pope told me that priests could turn bread and
wine into Jesus’ body and blood.  The Pope is not a liar. 
Therefore, priests really can do this.
 Inductive Forms contd.
E) An argument based on signs is an argument that
proceeds from the knowledge of a certain sign to a
knowledge of the thing or situation that the sign
symbolizes.
E.g. This historical marker says a famous civil war
battle happened here. It must have happened here.

E.g. This sign says George Washington slept here.

George Washington must have slept here!
 Inductive Forms contd.
F) A causal inference 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.
E.g. It is raining, so the shoes I left in the yard are
probably wet.
E.g. There is honey in the beehive, so the bees likely
made the honey.
 Validity, Soundness/ Strength, Cogency
Deductive Argument
Valid deductive argument is an argument
such that it is impossible for the premises to
be true and the conclusion false. In these
arguments the conclusion follows with strict
necessity from the premises.
Invalid deductive argument is a deductive
argument such that it is possible for the
premises to be true and the conclusion false.
In invalid arguments the conclusion does
not follow with strict necessity from the
premises, even though it is claimed to.
A sound argument is a deductive argument
that is valid and has all true premises.
Inductive Argument
 Strong inductive argument is an
inductive argument such that it is
improbable that the premises be true
and the conclusion false. In such
arguments, the conclusion follows
probably from the premises.
 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 an inductive
argument that is strong and has all true
premises; if either condition is missing,
the argument is uncogent.
 Valid Invalid
True. All wines are beverages All wines are beverages.
premises Chardonnay is a wine. Chardonnay is a beverage
True Therefore, chardonnay is a Therefore, chardonnay is a
conclusion beverage. [sound] wine.. [unsound]
True All wines are beverages
premises None exist. Ginger ale is a beverage.
False Therefore, ginger ale is a
conclusion wine. [unsound]
False All wines are soft drinks. All wines are whiskeys.
premises Ginger ale is a wine. Chardonnay is a whiskey.
True Therefore, ginger ale is a Therefore, chardonnay is a
conclusion soft drink. [unsound] wine. [unsound]
False All wines are whiskeys. All wines are whiskeys.
premises Ginger ale is a wine. Ginger ale is a whiskey.
False Therefore, ginger ale is a Therefore, ginger ale is a
conclusion whiskey. [unsound] wine. [unsound]
Premises Conclusion Validity
T T ?

T F Invalid

F T ?

F F ?
 Strong Weak
True premise All previous U.S. presidents A few U.S. presidents were
Probably true were older than 40. lawyers.
conclusion Therefore, probably the next Therefore, probably the next
U.S. president will be older U.S. president will be older
than 40. than 40.
[cogent] [uncogent]
True premise None exist A few U.S. presidents were
Probably false unmarried.
conclusion Therefore, probably the
next U.S. president will be
unmarried.
[uncogent]
False premise All previous U.S. presidents A few U.S. presidents were
Probably true were TV debaters. dentists.
conclusion Therefore, probably the next U.S. Therefore, probably the next U.S.
president will be a TV debater. president will be a TV debater.
[uncogent] [uncogent]
False premise All previous U.S. presidents A few U.S. presidents were
Probably false died in offi ce. dentists.
conclusion Therefore, probably the next Therefore, probably the next
U.S. president will die in offi ce. U.S. president will be a dentist.
[uncogent] [uncogent]
Premises Conclusion Strength

T Prob T ?

T Prob F Weak

F Prob T ?

F Prob F ?
 Examples of Valid Deductive Argument
1. All actors are robots. 
Tom Cruise is an actor. 
Therefore, Tom Cruise is a robot.

2. If all dogs are mammals, then all dogs are reptiles.

All dogs are mammals.
Therefore, all dogs are reptiles.
 Examples of Invalid Deductive Argument
1. All actors are robots.
Tom Cruise is a robot. 
Therefore, Tom Cruise is an actor.

2. If all dogs are mammals, then all dogs are animals.

All dogs are animals.
Therefore, all dogs are mammals.
 Examples of Inductive Arguments

Weak
E.g. This barrel contains 100
apples.
Three apples selected at
random were found to be ripe.
Therefore, probably all 100
apples are ripe.
Strong
E.g. This barrel contains 100
apples.
Eighty apples selected at
random were found to be ripe.
Therefore, probably all 100
apples are ripe.