Logic and critical thinking Lec-

ture Notes
By: Amon Bekele
©2023
 Chapter II
Basic Concepts of Logic

Lecture Note
CHAPTER OBJECTIVES:

•Understand the meaning and basic concepts of logic;

•Understand the meaning, components, and types of
arguments; and
•Recognize the major techniques of recognizing and
evaluating arguments.
Logic
•is a branch of philosophy that deals with arguments
•is the science that evaluates arguments
•aims at criticizing the arguments of others
and constructing arguments of our own
The Nature of Arguments
A) What is an Argument?
An argument, in logic, is a group of statements, one
or more of which (the premises) are claimed to
provide support for, or reasons to believe, one of the
others (the conclusion).
Logic…2.1. What is an argument?...
•The premises are statements that set forth the reas-
ons or evidence for the conclusion.
•The conclusion is the statement that the evidence is
claimed to support or imply.
E.g. 1. All human beings are flying objects.
Socrates is a human being.
Therefore, Socrates is a flying object.
2. Most Lions live in the jungle.
Worku is a lion.
Therefore, Worku lives in the jungle.
Logic…2.2. Components of Arguments
•A statement is a sentence that has a truth value
(which is either true or false).
•A proposition is the meaning or information content
of a statement. (we can interchangeably use it with a
statement)
Example: Cairo is in Ethiopia.
•An argument contains one or more premises and one
and only one conclusion.
•Premises and conclusions may be identified in
arguments from their indicators.
Logic… Components of Arguments…
A) Conclusion Indicators
Some conclusion Indicators: therefore, whence,
accordingly, we may conclude, as a result, so, thus,
hence, entails that, consequently, it follows that, we
may infer, implies that, for this reason, etc.
•B) Premise Indicators
Some premise indicators: Since, as indicated by,
because, for, in that, may be inferred from, as, given
that, seeing that, for the reason that, in as much as,
owing to etc.
Logic… 2.3. Recognizing Arguments
A passage contains an argument if it purports to prove
something
A passage which purports to prove something is only the
one that fulfils the following two claims:
Factual & Inferential Claim
1. Factual Claim: refers to the actual truth or falsity of the
statements. (This mainly refers to premises)
2. Inferential Claim: must be understood as the claim that
something follows from something or something implies
something. (This mainly refers to the logical relationship
between premises and the conclusion)
The inferential claim may be explicit or implicit.

Indicator Word
No Indicator Word
Logic… 2.3. Recognizing Arguments…
To decide whether a passage contains an argument,
we should look for two things:
1. Indicator words
2. The presence of inferential relationship between
the statements
Typical kinds of Non-arguments (3)
A. Passages lacking an inferential claim such as:
Warnings, Pieces of advice, Statements of beliefs or
opinions, Loosely associated statements, Report,
Expository passage, Illustration,
B. Conditional statements
C. Explanations: “explanans” and “explanandum”

Part does explain Part to be explained

Logic… 2.4. Classifications of Arguments
Based on the strengths of an argument’s inferential
Claim arguments are divided into A) deductive and
B) inductive
A) In deductive arguments the conclusion is claimed
to follow necessarily or absolutely from the premises
A deductive argument is an argument in which the
premises are claimed to support the conclusion in such
a way that if the premises are assumed to be true, it is
impossible for the conclusion to be false.
E.g. Lions are members of the horse family.
All members of the horse family are rational.
Therefore, lions are rational.
Logic… 2.4. Classifications of Arguments…
B) Inductive Argument: In these arguments the conclusion
is claimed to follow only probably from the premises.
It is an argument in which the premises are claimed to support
the conclusion in such a way that if the premises are assumed to
be true, then based on that assumption it is improbable that
the conclusion is false.
E.g. Lions and cats are closely related animals.
Lions are carnivores.
Therefore, cats are also carnivores.
1)Three Factors to decide arguments as deductive or inductive;
•Special indicator words A) Deductive indicators: necessarily,
certainly absolutely, definitely
B) Inductive indicators Probably, improbable, plausible, likely,
unlikely and reasonably to conclude
 Logic… 2.4. Classifications of Arguments…
2) The actual strength of inferential claim
Deductive—Law of necessity
Inductive—Law of Probability
3) Form of Arguments
I) Special Deductive Forms (5) II) Special Inductive Forms
(6)
1) Arguments based on Mathematics 1) Prediction
2) Argument from definition 2) Argument from Authority
3) Categorical Syllogism 3) Inductive Generalization
•(Contains words All, No, some) 4) Argument from Analogy
4) Hypothetical syllogism (if-then) 5) Argument based on Sign
6 ) Causal Inference
5) Disjunctive syllogism (either-or)
• Logic… 2.5. Evaluating of Arguments

Based on the factual and inferential claims of the

arguments
• To evaluate an argument one has to answer the
following two questions:
1. Do premises support the conclusion? (Inferential
claim)
2. Are all the premises true? (Factual claim)
A) Evaluating Deductive Arguments
• Deductive arguments will be evaluated for:
1. Validity
2. Soundness
Logic… 2.5. Evaluating of Arguments…
1. Validity…”Valid” and “Invalid”
•Validity is about whether premises support the conclusion.
•There is no middle ground between valid and invalid argu-
ments.
A. Valid Deductive Argument
• It is the one in which the conclusion follows from the
premises with necessity or certainty.
•It is an argument such that if the premises are assumed
true, it is impossible for the conclusion to be false.
B. Invalid Deductive Argument
• It is an argument such that if the premises are assumed
true, it is possible for the conclusion to be false.
• Examples of valid and invalid deductive arguments:
1) Premise #1: All human beings are mortal.
Premise #2: Socrates is a human being.
Conclusion: Therefore, Socrates is mortal.
2) Premise #1: All human beings are Greek.
Premise #2: Socrates is a human being.
Conclusion: Therefore, Socrates is Greek.
3) Premise #1: All dogs are mammals.
Premise #2: Calvin is a mammal.
Conclusion: Therefore, Calvin is a dog.
4) Premise #1: All cats that scratch themselves have fleas.
Premise #2: Calvin has fleas.
Conclusion: Therefore, Calvin scratches himself.
• Logic… 2.5. Evaluating of Arguments…
2. Soundness…..A) Sound & B) Unsound
• A deductive argument is sound if and only if the
following two conditions are met: (i) it is valid and (ii) all
its premises are true.
The test for determining soundness has two steps: First
determine whether the argument is valid. If it is not valid
it cannot be sound because the concept of soundness
includes validity. If the argument is valid, then ask
if the premises are, in fact, true. If the premises are true
and the argument is valid, by definition the argument is
sound.
Logic… 2.5. Evaluating of Arguments…Inductive
Inductive arguments will be evaluated for
1. Strength & 2. Cogency
1. Strength: …“Strong” and “Weak”
•Strength of an inductive argument is determined by the degree of
probability in which the conclusion follows from the premises.
A. Strong Inductive Argument
•It is an argument such that if the premises are assumed true,
then, based on that assumption, it is probable that the
conclusion is true.
B. Weak Inductive Argument
•It is an argument such that if the premises are assumed true,
then, based on that assumption, it is not probable that the
conclusion is true.
• Examples of strong and weak inductive arguments:
1)The sun has been rising in the east for the past 10,000
years. Therefore, it will continue rising in the east
even in the future.
2) Few of the monkeys I have met so far have blue
teeth. Therefore, all monkeys have blue teeth.
3) Some Ethiopian leaders were kings. Therefore, the
next Ethiopian leader will be a king. .
4) All previous Ethiopian leaders were female. There-
fore, the next Ethiopian leader will be a female.
• Logic… 2.5. Evaluating of Arguments…
2. Cogency…..A) Cogent & B) Uncogent
• An inductive argument is cogent if and only if the
following two conditions are met: (i) it is a strong induc-
tive argument, (ii) all its premises are true,
Strength + All true premises = cogency.
• Logic… 2.5. Evaluating of Arguments…
A cogent argument is the inductive analogue of a
sound deductive argument and is what is meant by a
“good” inductive argument without qualification. The
conclusion of a cogent argument is supported by true
premises, so it follows that the conclusion of every
cogent argument is probably true.

End of Chapter Two

 Chapter III
Language: Meaning and Definition

Lecture Note
CHAPTER OBJECTIVES:

•Recognize the relationship between logic and lan-

guage.
•Identify the varieties of meaning of words.
•Appreciate the intensional and extensional meaning of
terms.
•Recognize the types, purposes, and techniques of def-
initions.
•Understand the purpose of using proper language in
arguments.
3.1. Varieties of Meaning
•There are several functions of language, for example: to
ask questions, tell jokes, tell stories, flirt with someone, tell
lies give directions, guess at answers, sing songs, form hy-
potheses, issue commands, launch verbal assaults, greet
someone, etc.
•For purposes of logic, the two most relevant functions of
language are: (1) to convey information and (2) to express
or evoke feelings. Consider, for example, the following two
statements:
1) The death penalty, which is legal in thirty-six states, has been carried out
most often in Georgia; however, since 1977 Texas holds the record for the
greatest number of executions.
2) The death penalty is a cruel and inhuman form of punishment in which
hapless prisoners are dragged from their cells and summarily slaughtered
only to satiate the bloodlust of a vengeful public.
3.1. Varieties of Meaning: Emotive and Cognitive
•Terminology that conveys information is said to have Cognitive
Meaning, and terminology that expresses or evokes feelings is
said to have Emotive Meaning.
•Note: a) Emotively charged statements usually have both cog-
nitive and emotive meaning. But since logic is concerned chiefly
with cognitive meaning, it is important that we be able to distin-
guish and disengage the cognitive meaning of such statements
from the emotive meaning.
• b) Part of the cognitive meaning of emotively charged
statements is a value claim. Such value claims are often the
most important part of the cognitive meaning of emotive state-
ments.
3.1. Varieties of Meaning: Disputes (2)
•Disputes can center on a confusion of cognitive meanings between
the disputants. Disputes that center on the meaning of a word are
called verbal disputes. And disputes that center on a matter of fact
are called factual disputes.
Consider the following examples;
BRENDA: I'm afraid that Smiley is guilty of arson. Last night he con-
fided to me that he was one who set fire on the old schoolhouse.
WARREN: No, you couldn't be more mistaken. In this country no one
is guilty until proven so in a court of law, and Smiley has not yet even
been accused of anything.
Q—What type of dispute is that? Give your reason?
KEITH: I know that Freddie stole a computer from the old school-
house. Barbara told me that she saw Freddie do it.
•PYLLIS: That's ridiculous! Freddie has never stolen anything in his
life. Barbara hate Freddie, and she is trying to pin the theft on him only
to shield her criminal boyfriend.
Q—What type of dispute is that? Give your reason?
3.2. The Intension and Extension of Terms
•A term, in logic, is a word or phrase that stands for a thing or a
class of things. Terms are words or an arrangement of words that
may serve as the grammatical subject of a statement.
•So, “cows,” “strawberries,” and “carpenters” and all terms.
•Specific kinds of terms include: proper names, common names,
and descriptive phrases. Here are some examples:
Proper Names Common Names Descriptive Phrases
Napoleon animal first president of the United States
Addis Ababa restitution author of Love Onto the Grave

Ethiopian Parliment house books in my library

Awash Bank activity officers in the army

Robinson Crusoe person those who study hard
•Words that not stand for a thing or a class of things and cannot be the
grammatical subject of a statement are not terms.
•Examples: verbs, non-substantive adjectives, adverbs, prepositions,
conjunctions, and non-syntactic arrangements of words.
3.2. The Intension and Extension of Terms…
•Terms have two different, but related, kinds of meaning: exten-
sional meaning and intensional meaning. The extensional mean-
ing of a term is the object, or set of objects, that the term picks
out in the world.
•Synonyms for “extensional meaning” include: “extension,” refer-
ent, and “denotation.”
•The intensional meaning of a term is a description of the prop-
erties, qualities, and attributes that the term expresses.
•Philosopher means a person who is, critical, reasonable, logical,
and analytic and who questions the foundations of everything.
•Philosopher means such as Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Hegel,
Frederick Nietzsche and so forth.
3.2. The Intension and Extension of Terms…
•Some terms have no extensional meaning.
•The term “unicorn,” for example, doesn’t pick out or refer to an
object in the world because unicorns don’t exist. It has an empty
extension. Technically, the term “unicorn” picks out an empty set,
or null class. “Unicorn” does have an intension, or sense: a
white one-horned horse.
3.2. Increasing and decreasing intension and extension
Terms may be put in the order of increasing intension, increas-
ing extension, decreasing intension, and decreasing extension.
A series of terms is in the order of increasing intension when
each term in the series (except the first) connotes more attributes
than the one preceding it.
The order of decreasing intension is the reverse of that of in-
creasing intension.
A series of terms is in the order of increasing extension when
each term in the series (except the first) denotes a class having
more members than the class denoted by the term preceding it.
Decreasing extension is, of course, the reverse of this order.
3.2. Increasing and decreasing I&E….
Example: Increasing intension: Animal. Mammal, Feline, Tiger
Decreasing intension: Tiger, Feline, Mammal, Animal
Increasing extension: Tiger, Feline, Mammal, Animal
Decreasing extension: Animal. Mammal, Feline, Tiger
Exercise: A) College student B) Student C) Rediet
D) MMC Student E) Medical Student
NB:The order of increasing intension is usually the same as that
of decreasing extension.
•The order of decreasing intension is usually the same as that of
increasing extension.
•However, there are some exceptions.
Example: A) The current PM of Ethiopia with two eyes
B) The current PM of Ethiopia
C) The current PM of Ethiopia with two eyes, ears and legs
D) The current PM of Ethiopia with two eyes and ears
3.3. Definitions and their Purpose
•Definition refers a group of words that assigns a meaning to
some word or group of words. Accordingly, every definition con-
sists of two parts; the definiendum and the definiens.
•Definiendum:- is the the word or group of words that is sup-
posed to be defined.
•Definiens:- is the word or group of words that does the defining.
E.g. In the definition “philosophy” is a rational, critical enquiry in
to the underlining ideas of human thought, experience and con-
duct.” The term ‘philosophy’ is the definiendum, and everything
that comes after the word “is” is the definiens.
3.3. ….. Types of Definitions (5)
1)Stipulative Definition
•provides meaning to a new term for the first time. This may be done
through either creating a new word or giving a new meaning to an old
word.
•The purpose of a stipulative definition is usually to replace a complex
expression or an expression which one can’t be easily understand by a
simple expression.
•Beside this, stipulative definition has a further purpose of introducing
new or unfamiliar words.
Examples: 1. “Tigon” was taken to mean the offspring of a male tiger
and a female lion.
2. “Operation Barbarosa” means the name the Germans gave to the
invasion of Russia.
Since a stipulative definition is completely arbitrary assignment of a
meaning to a word for the first time, there can be no such a thing as
true or false stipulative definition.
3.3. ….. Types of Definitions (5)
2) Lexical Definition
•is used to report the meaning that a word already has in a lan-
guage.
•Dictionary definitions are all instances of lexical definitions.
•In contrast with a stipulative definition, a lexical definition may
be true or false.
•A good lexical definition will distinguish various shadings and
thereby guard against the possibility that two meanings will be
unconsciously jumbled together into one.
•A word is ambiguous when it can be interpreted as having two
or more clearly distinct meanings in a given context. Some words
that are subject to ambiguous usage are “light”, “bank”, “right”,
“race”.
3.3. ….. Types of Definitions (5)
3) Précising Definition
•the purpose of a precising definition is to reduce the vagueness
of a word (as to the applicability of the word to a specific situa-
tion).
•A word is vague if there are borderline cases such that it is im-
possible to tell whether the word applies to them or not.
•Words such as “fresh, “rich,” and “poor,” “Peace,” “Love,” and
“blind” are vague.
4) Theoretical Definition
•provides a theoretical picture or characterization of the entity or
entities denoted by the definiendum.
•it provides a way of viewing or conceiving these entities that
suggests deductive consequences, further investigation and
whatever else would be entailed by the acceptance of a theory
governing these entities (more than merely assigning a meaning
to a word).
3.3. ….. Types of Definitions (5)
Theoretical Definition…
E.g. In physics, “force” is defined as mass times acceleration (F =
ma).
•Other scientific examples include the scientific definitions of the
terms: “mass,” “temperature,” “space,” “time”, etc.
•Philosophical examples include definitions of words such as “jus-
tice,” “moral,” “immoral,” “knowledge,” etc.
5) Persuasive Definition
•the purpose of a persuasive definition is to cause a favorable or
unfavorable attitude toward what is denoted by the definiendum.
•this is accomplished by assigning an emotionally charged, or
value-laden meaning.
E.g. “Abortion” means the ruthless murdering of innocent human beings.
“Abortion” means a safe and established surgical procedure whereby a
woman is relieved of an unwanted burden.
3.4. Definitional Techniques (2/7)
The techniques used to produce the different kinds of defini-
tions in terms of intensional and extensional meanings

(3)Denotation Connotation (4)

1) Ostensive/Demonstration 1) Synonymous
2) Enumeration 2) Etymology
3) Sub-Class 3) Operational
4) Genus and Difference

End of Chapter Three

 Chapter IV
Basic Concepts of Critical Thinking

Lecture Note
Chapter Objectives:

•Understand the meaning and standards of critical thinking

•Appreciate the principles of good argument and critical thinking
•Understand the characteristics of critical thinking
•Identify the barriers of critical thinking
•Recognize the benefits of critical thinking

“Higher-order thinking”

Luther King Jr.—“The function of education is to teach one to

think intensively and to think critically”.
Meaning of Critical Thinking:
•can be defined as a wide range of cognitive skills and
intellectual dispositions needed to effectively identify,
analyze, and evaluate arguments and truth claims.
•is an attitude of being disposed to consider in a
thoughtful way the problems and subjects that come
within the range of one’s experience; knowledge of the
methods of logical enquiry and reasoning; and some
skill in applying those methods. (Edward Glaser)
•Is an active, persistent, and careful consideration of a
belief or supposed form of knowledge in the light of the
grounds, which support it and the further conclusions to
which it tends. (John Dewey)
•
Standards of Critical Thinking:
1) Clarity
by paying careful attention to language can we avoid such need-
less miscommunications and disappointments.
2) Precision
is a matter of being exact, accurate and careful. Most ideas are
vague and obscures though we think we have precise understand-
ing of them.
3) Accuracy
is about correct information. Critical thinking should care a lot
about genuine information.
4) Relevance
The question of relevance is a question of connections. When
there is a discussion or debate, it should focus on relevant ideas
and information.
Standards of Critical Thinking:…
5) Consistency
is about the quality of always behaving in the same way or of hav-
ing the same opinions or standards.
6) Logical Correctness
to think logically is to reason correctly; that is, to draw well-foun-
ded conclusions from the beliefs held.
7) Completeness
Presenting a complete idea on our issue(s)
8) Fairness
Critical thinking demands that our thinking be fair - that is, open
minded, impartial, and free of distorting biases and preconcep-
tions.
Codes of Intellectual Conduct for Effective Discussion
This involvers both principles of good argument and critical thinking
A)Principles of Good Argument
I. The Structural Principle (Form/ Inference)
•An argument that meets the fundamental structural requirements of a well-
formed argument….Deductive—Validity and Inductive—Strength
II. The Relevance Principle (Truth Claim)
•An argument for or against a position should set forth only reasons whose
truth provides some evidence for the truth of the conclusion. The premises of a
good argument must be relevant to the truth or merit of the conclusion.
III. The Acceptability and Sufficiency Principles
•An argument for or against a position should provide reasons that are likely to
be accepted by a mature, rational person and that meet standard criteria of ac-
ceptability.
IV. The Rebuttal Principle
•Since an argument is usually presented against the background that there is
another side to the issue, a good argument must meet that other side directly.
Codes of Intellectual Conduct for Effective Discussion…
B) Principles of Critical Thinking
I. The Fallibility Principle
•This principle requires that each participant in a discussion of a disputed issue
should be willing to accept the fact that he or she is fallible, which means that
one must acknowledge that one’s own initial view may not be the most defens-
ible position on the question.
II. The Truth Seeking Principle
•Each participant should be committed to the task of earnestly searching for the
truth or at least the most defensible position on the issue at stake.
III. The Clarity Principle
•CT requires that the formulations of all positions, defences, and attacks should
be free of any kind of linguistic confusion and clearly separated from other posi-
tions and issues.
IV. The Burden of Proof Principle
•If, and when, an opponent asks, the proponent should provide an argument for
that position.
V. The Principle of Charity—ethical requirement in good discussion
VI. The Suspension of Judgment Principle & VII. The Resolution Principle
Characteristics of Critical Thinking & Uncritical Thinking
critical thinkers have a passionate drive for clarity, precision, ac-
curacy, and other critical thinking standards while uncritical
thinkers often think in ways that are unclear, imprecise, and inac-
curate.
critical thinkers are skilled at understanding, analysing, and
evaluating arguments and viewpoints whereas uncritical thinkers
often misunderstand or evaluate unfairly arguments and view-
points.
critical thinkers are intellectually honest with themselves, ac-
knowledging what they do not know and recognizing their limita-
tions while uncritical thinkers pretend they know more than they
do and ignore their limitations.
critical thinkers base their beliefs on facts and evidence rather
than on personal preferences or self-interests.
critical thinkers think independently whereas uncritical thinkers
tend to engage in “crowd-thinking” uncritically.
Characteristics of Critical Thinking & Uncritical Think-
ing….
critical thinkers pursue truth, are curious about a wide range of
issues and have the intellectual perseverance to pursue insights
or truths despite obstacles or difficulties whereas uncritical
thinkers are often relatively indifferent to truth and lack curiosity,
tend not to persevere when they encounter intellectual obstacles
or difficulties.
Barriers to Critical Thinking
1. Egocentrism
•selfish, self-absorbed people who view their interests, ideas, and val-
ues as superior to everyone else’s. Two common forms this are self-in-
terested thinking and the superiority bias.
2. Sociocentrism
•The second powerful barrier that paralyze the critical thinking ability of
most people including intellectuals is a group-centred thinking.
3. Unwarranted Assumptions and Stereotypes
•An assumption is something we take for granted - something we be-
lieve to be true without any proof or conclusive evidence.
4. Relativistic Thinking
•Relativism is the view that truth is a matter of opinion. There are two
popular forms of relativism: subjectivism and cultural relativism.
5. Wishful Thinking
• Wishful thinking refers to a state of believing something not because
you had good evidence for it but simply because you wished it were
true.
 Chapter V
Informal Fallacies

Lecture Note
Chapter Objectives:

•Define what a fallacy is

•Differentiate formal and informal fallacies
•Identify the defects of fallacious arguments
•Recognize the major categories and varieties of informal falla-
cies.
•Identify the particular fallacy committed in a certain argument.
• Fallacies in General
A) Meaning: What is a fallacy?
• A fallacy is a defect in an argument which consists in something
other than merely false premises.
• Fallacious reasoning does not result out of the mere occurrence
of false premises. It’s rather a mistake in the inference from the
premises of an argument to its conclusion.
B) Two Kinds of Fallacies: Fallacies are usually divided into two
groups: formal and informal.
I. Formal fallacies: a formal fallacy is an error in reasoning that
involves the explicit use of an invalid form. Formal fallacies occur
only in deductive arguments.
• Formal Fallacy…
The following categorical syllogism contains a formal fallacy:
All bullfights are grotesque rituals. All A are B.
All executions are grotesque rituals. All C are B.
Therefore, all bullfights are executions. Therefore, All A are C.

• By merely examining this form, one can see that it is invalid.

Here is an example of a formal fallacy that occurs in a
hypothetical syllogism:

If apes are intelligent, then apes can solve puzzles. If A, then B.

Apes can solve puzzles. B.
Therefore, apes are intelligent. Therefore, A
II. Informal Fallacy
•an informal fallacy is an error in reasoning that does not involve
the explicit use of an invalid form. Informal fallacies can only be
detected by examining the content of the argument.
Example: The Brooklyn Bridge is made of atoms.
Atoms are invisible.
Therefore, the Brooklyn Bridge is invisible.
•To detect this fallacy one must know something about bridges—
namely, that they are large visible objects, and even though their
atomic components are invisible, this does not mean that the
bridges themselves are invisible.
Example: All factories are plants. All plants are things that contain
chlorophyll. Therefore, all factories are things that contain
Chlorophyll.
Major Classifications of Informal Fallacies
•There are five (5) categories of Informal Fallacies;

A.Fallacies of Relevance (8)

B.Fallacies of Weak Induction (6)
C.Fallacies of Presumption (4),
D.Ambiguity (2) and
E.Grammatical Analogy (2)
A. Fallacies of Relevance (8)
•Fallacies of relevance are fallacies where the conclusion does
not logically follow from the premises but the argument is
composed so that accepting the conclusion is psychologically
appealing.
•The argument has no logical force but it does have some
psychological force. In a good argument, the connection between
the premises and conclusion is logical. In an argument that com-
mits a fallacy of relevance, the connection is emotional.
1) Appeal to Force (Argumentum ad Baculum: “Appeal to the
Stick”): The fallacy of appeal to force occurs whenever an arguer
poses a conclusion to another person and tells that person either
implicitly or explicitly that some harm will come to him or her if he
or she does not accept the conclusion. The fallacy always involves
a threat by the arguer to the physical or psychological well-being
of the listener or reader.
A. Fallacies of Relevance …
•Obviously, such a threat is logically irrelevant to the subject mat-
ter of the conclusion, so any argument based on such a procedure
is fallacious. The ad baculum fallacy often occurs when children
argue with one another:
Example: Child to playmate: “Teletubbies” is the best show on TV;
and if you don’t believe it, I’m going to call my big brother over
here and he’s going to beat you up.
•But it occurs among adults as well:
Example: Secretary to boss: I deserve a raise in salary for the
coming year. After all, you know how friendly I am with your wife,
and I’m sure you wouldn’t want her to find out what’s been going
on between you and that sexpot client of yours.
2) Appeal to Pity (Argumentum ad Misericordiam)- The appeal to
pity fallacy occurs when an arguer attempts to support a conclu-
sion by merely evoking pity from the reader or listener.
A. Fallacies of Relevance …
• E.g. Professor Bekele, surely I deserve a B in logic. I
know that I have gotten Fs on all the tests, but if you give me an F
for my final grade, I will lose my scholarship. That will force me to
drop out of school, and my poor, aged parents, who yearn to see
me graduate, will be grief stricken for the rest of their lives.
 The appeal to pity is quite common and is often used by
students on their instructors at exam time and by lawyers on
behalf of their clients before judges and juries.
 Of course, some arguments that attempt to evoke sympathetic
feelings from the reader or listener are not fallacious. We
might call them “arguments from compassion”.
A. Fallacies of Relevance …
3) Appeal to the People (Argumentum ad Populum)
• This fallacy is an attempt to persuade someone by appealing
to his desire to be socially accepted or valued by others. Appeal to
the people uses these desires to get the reader or listener to
accept a conclusion. You want to be accepted/included-in-the-
group/loved/esteemed……Therefore, you should accept XYZ as
true. There are two approaches:
A. The direct approach occurs when an arguer, addressing a
large group of people, excites the emotions and enthusiasm of the
crowd to win acceptance for his or her conclusion.
B. In the indirect approach the arguer aims his or her appeal not
at the crowd as a whole but at one/more individuals sepa-
rately, focusing on some aspect of their relationship to the
crowd. It
includes such specific forms as the bandwagon argument, the
A. Fallacies of Relevance …
I. Bandwagon argument: this argument creates the impression
that you might be socially left behind or that everyone is engaged
in a certain activity and it appeals to our desire to want to join in
the latest trend.
Example: Practically everyone downloads music free of charge
from the Internet these days. Therefore, you should have no
qualms about doing this yourself.
II. Appeal to vanity: this argument often associates the product
with someone who is admired, pursued, or imitated, the idea
being that you, too, will be admired and pursued if you use it.
• Example: There’s no doubt that Anbessa shoes is the best
shoes available. Haile Gebresellasie prefers it to other brands.
III. Appeal to snobbery: this kind of argument appeals to our
desire to be on our near the top of the social hierarchy.
A. Fallacies of Relevance …
Example: 1. Of course you should drink Anbessa beer. Anbessa is
the drink of the courageous.
4) Argument Against the Person (Argumentum ad Hominem):
This fallacy involves attacking the arguer instead of providing a
rational critique of the person’s argument. Since this fallacy in-
volves one person attacking another, it requires two arguers.
One of the arguers advances, explicitly or implicitly, a certain
argument, and the other responds by directing his or her atten-
tion not to the first person’s argument but to the first person
himself. When this occurs, the second person is said to
commit an “argument against the person.”
A. Fallacies of Relevance …
The purpose of an ad hominem argument is to discredit another
person’s argument by placing its author in a bad light. The
argument against the person takes three forms: (i) the ad
hominem abusive, (ii) the ad hominem circumstantial, and
(iii) the tu quoque (you too).
i) The ad hominem abusive involves verbally abusing the
opponent.
Example: Before he died, poet Allen Ginsberg argued in favor of
legalizing pornography. But Ginsberg’s arguments are nothing but
trash. Ginsberg was a marijuana-smoking homosexual and a
thoroughgoing advocate of the drug culture.
A. Fallacies of Relevance …
ii) The ad hominem circumstantial attempts to discredit an
argument by presenting the arguer as predisposed to argue as he
does and, therefore, his argument should not be taken seriously.
Example: The Dalai Lama argues that China has no business
in Tibet and that the West should do something about it. But the
Dalai Lama just wants the Chinese to leave so he can return as a
leader. Naturally he argues this way. Therefore, we should
reject his arguments.
iii) The tu quoque (“you too”) involves presenting the opponent as
a hypocrite or as arguing in bad faith.
Example: Student to teacher: Your argument that we should
stop cheating in exams is not acceptable. I have heard that you
were a notorious cheater when you were a student.
A. Fallacies of Relevance …
Note that: if the person is being attacked for other reasons, not
simply to discredit the person’s argument, it is not necessarily a
case of the ad hominem fallacy. Personal comments can often be
relevant for legitimate reasons like: (i) when the conclusion of the
argument is about someone’s character, (ii) when something
about the person’s character is relevant to the argument, like
when determining whether someone is a credible witness.
Example: International terrorist Osama bin Laden planned the
destruction of the World Trade Center, killing thousands of
innocent people, and he supports terrorist causes all over the
world. Bin Laden is therefore a wicked and irresponsible person.
A. Fallacies of Relevance …
5) Accident: This fallacy involves applying a general rule to a case
that it was not intended to cover.
Example: Freedom of speech is a constitutionally guaranteed
right. Therefore, John Q. Radical should not be arrested for his
speech that incited the riot last week.
6) Straw Man: this fallacy occurs when the arguer attacks a mis-
representation of the opponent’s view.
An arguer distorts an opponent’s argument for the purpose of
more easily attacking it, and demolishes the distorted argu-
ment.
Example: Some people argue against prayer in the public schools.
Obviously these people advocate atheism. But atheism leads to the
suppression of all religious and moral values; it’s also the
replacement of God by an omnipotent state. Is that what we want
for this country? I hardly think so. Clearly the argument of these
A. Fallacies of Relevance …
7) Missing the Point (Ignoratio Elenchi meaning “ignorance of
the proof”): in this fallacy the arguer draws a conclusion different
from the one supported by the premises.
Example: Mary has been quarreling with her fiancée about the
details of their wedding. Thus it would be a good idea for her to
hire somebody to beat him up.
8) Red Herring: The red herring fallacy occurs when the arguer
presents a topic that is irrelevant to the original issue in order to
divert the attention of the people away from the original argument.
Example: Professor Conway complains of inadequate parking
on our campus. But did you know that last year Conway carried
on a torrid love affair with a member of the English Department?
The two used to meet every day for clandestine sex in the copier
room. Apparently they didn’t realize how much you can see
B. Fallacies of Weak Induction (6)
Fallacies of Weak Induction—these fallacies occur because the
connection between premises and conclusion is not strong
enough to support the conclusion. Unlike the fallacies of
relevance, the premises may provide some, insignificant, amount
of support for the conclusion but that support is far from sufficient.
9) Appeal to Unqualified Authority (Argumentum ad Verecundiam)
The appeal to unqualified authority fallacy is a variety of the ar-
gument from authority and occurs when the cited authority or
witness lacks credibility. There are two basic reasons an authority
may lack sufficient credibility. An authority must be: (1) in a
position to know what he is testifying about and (2) he must be
sincere and honest in what he is testifying about.
The person might lack competency by lacking the requisite
expertise, might not be able to properly, perceive, think, or recall.
He might lack the necessary sincerity because he is biased,
B. Fallacies of Weak Induction…
Example 1: Professor Glazebrooks's theory about the origin of the
Martian craters is undoubtedly true. Rudolph Orkin, the great
concert pianist, announced his support of the theory in this
morning's newspaper.
Example 2: David Duke, former Grand Wizard of the Ku Klux
Klan, has stated, “Jews are not good Americans. They have no
understanding of what America is.” On the basis of Duke’s author-
ity, we must therefore conclude that the Jews in this country are
un-American.
B. Fallacies of Weak Induction…
10) Appeal to Ignorance (Argumentum ad Ignorantiam)
This fallacy is committed when the premises of an argument state
that nothing has been proved one way or the other about some-
thing, and the conclusion then makes a definite assertion about
that thing.
Example : People have been trying for centuries to provide con-
clusive evidence for the claims of astrology, and no one has ever
succeeded. Therefore, we must conclude that astrology is a lot of
nonsense.
11) Hasty Generalization (Converse Accident)
A form of Inductive generalization which occurs when a sample is
not representative.
• Example : On Friday I took Virginia out to dinner. She told me
that if I wasn't interested in a serious relationship, I should forget
about dating her. On Saturday I took Margie to a film. When we
B. Fallacies of Weak Induction…
12) False Cause: occurs whenever the link between premises and
conclusion depends on some imagined causal connection that
probably does not exist.
There are three (3) major sub-types of false cause fallacies;
A)Post hoc ergo propter hoc (“after this, therefore on account of
this”). It presupposes that just because one event precedes
another event the first event causes the second.
Example : Every time that the cheerleaders have worn blue
ribbons in their hair, the basketball team has been defeated.
Therefore, to prevent defeats in the future, the cheerleaders
should get rid of those blue ribbons.
B) Non causa pro causa (“not the cause for the cause”). This
variety is committed when what is taken to be the cause of
something is not really the cause at all and the mistake is based
on something other than mere temporal succession.
B. Fallacies of Weak Induction…
Example : New York City has the greatest number of churches of any
city in the US. It also has the highest crime rates in the US. So, to
decrease crime we must decrease the number of churches.
C) Oversimplied cause: this variety of the false cause fallacy occurs
when a multitude of causes is responsible for a certain effect, but the
arguer selects just one of these causes and represents it as if it were
the sole cause.
Example : Today, all of us can look forward to a longer life span than
our parents and grandparents. Obviously, we owe our thanks to the
millions of dedicated doctors who expend every effort to ensure our
health.
B. Fallacies of Weak Induction…
13) Slippery Slope Fallacy: occurs when the conclusion of an
argument rests upon an alleged chain reaction and there is not
sufficient reason to think that the chain reaction will actually exist.
Example : The secretaries have asked us to provide lounge areas
where they can spend their coffee breaks. This request will have
to be refused. If we give them lounge areas, next they'll be asking
for spas and swimming pools. Then it will be tennis courts, and
fitness centers. Before we know it expenditures for these facilities
will drive us into bankruptcy.
14) Weak Analogy: is committed when the analogy is not strong
enough to support the conclusion that is drawn.
• Example : When a car breaks down so often that repairs
• become pointless, the car is thrown on the junk heap. Similarly,
when a person becomes old and diseased, he or she should be
mercifully put to death.
C. Fallacies of Presumption (4)
Fallacies of presumption: Fallacies of presumption arise not be-
cause the premises are irrelevant to the conclusion or provide in-
sufficient reason for believing the conclusion but because the
premises presume what they purport to prove.
15) Begging the question (petitio principii “request for the source”):
A deductive valid argument committed whenever the arguer
creates the illusion that inadequate premises provide adequate
support for the conclusion.
This typically occurs in three ways: by leaving out a possibly false
key premise, by restating a possibly false premise as the
conclusion, or by reasoning in a circle.
Example 1: Murder is morally wrong. This being the case, it fol-
lows that abortion is morally wrong.
• Example 2: Capital punishment is justified for the crimes of
murdering and kidnapping because it is quite legitimate and
C. Fallacies of Presumption…
• Example 3: The Book of Mormon is true because it was
written by Joseph Smith. Joseph Smith wrote the truth because he
was divinely inspired. We know that Joseph Smith was divinely
inspired because the Book of Mormon says that he was, and the
Book of Mormon is true.
16) Complex question: It is committed when two (or more)
questions are asked in the guise of a single question and a single
answer is then given to these multiple questions.
Examples: Have you stopped drinking excessively?
Where did you hide the marijuana you were smoking?
17) False dichotomy ( “false bifurcation” or “either-or fallacy”):
It is committed when a disjunctive premise presents two false al-
ternatives as if they were jointly exhaustive, and the arguer then
eliminates the undesirable alternative, leaving the desirable one
as the conclusion. Such an argument is clearly valid, but since the
C. Fallacies of Presumption…
Example: Either you use Ultra Guard deodorant or you risk the
chance of perspiration odor. Surely you don’t want to risk the
chance of perspiration odor. Therefore, you will want to use Ultra
Guard deodorant.
18) Suppressed evidence: an inductive argument commits the
fallacy of suppressed evidence when it ignores some important
piece of evidence that outweighs the presented evidence thereby
entailing a very different conclusion.
Example: Most dogs are friendly and pose no threat to people
who pet them. Therefore, it would be safe to pet the little dog that
is approaching us now. (Ignoring the fact that the little dog is
excited and foaming at the mouth).
D. Fallacies of Ambiguity (2)
The fallacies of ambiguity arise from the occurrence of some form
of ambiguity in either the premises, the conclusion, or both
premises and conclusion. Recall that an expression is ambiguous
if it is susceptible to different interpretations in the same context.
19) Equivocation: The fallacy of equivocation occurs when the
conclusion of an argument depends on the fact that a word or
phrase is used, either explicitly or implicitly, in two different senses
in the argument.
Example 1: Everything that runs has feet. Abay river runs very
swiftly. Therefore, Abay river has feet.
20) Amphiboly: This occurs when the arguer misinterprets an
ambiguous statement and then draws a conclusion based on this
faulty interpretation.
D. Fallacies of Ambiguity (2)…
Example 1: John told Henry that he had made a mistake. It follows
that John has at least the courage to admit his own mistakes.
Example 2: W/ro Almaz stated in her will, “I leave my G+4 house
and my beloved dog to sara and Abel.” Therefore, we conclude
that Sara gets the house and Abel gets the lovely dog.
E. Fallacies of Grammatical Analogy (2)
The fallacies of grammatical analogy occur because they involve
fallacious arguments that are grammatically analogous to good
arguments in every respect. This similarity in linguistic structure
may mislead by making these fallacious arguments appear to be
good when they are not.
21) Composition: is committed when the conclusion of an
argument depends on the erroneous (Illegitimate) transference of
an attribute from the parts/members of something onto the
whole/class.
Example: Each player on this basketball team is an excellent
athlete. Therefore, the team as a whole is excellent.
22) Division: Attribute is erroneously transferred from whole to
parts.Example: Lions are rapidly disappearing from the Semien
mountains. Therefore, that lion is rapidly disappearing from the
Semien mountains.